Is that because someone actually had a gun and defended themself and others?

"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."

Boyd said Assam's actions saved the lives of 50 to 100 people.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

As much shit you guys give the 2nd when it doesnt work, you dont mention it when it does. How come?

12/11/2007 9:31:19 AM

Quote :

"Two of the parishioners killed in the shooting were identified Monday as sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16. Their father, David Works, 51, suffered two gunshot wounds -- one to the abdomen and one to the groin -- and was listed in fair condition on Monday. They were shot in the parking lot as they were getting into their van."

Thats some tough shit right there. Father gets shot himself, but it's the daughters he loses.

I think it's only a small minority here (like 2-4 regulars) that are against the 2nd?

12/11/2007 9:36:27 AM

guns are good...

12/11/2007 9:41:39 AM

^Im not sure its guns, but people that are the problem.

You need to be able to defend yourself. I personally dont have a gun, but I might need one since Joe_ is after me.

12/11/2007 9:43:50 AM

it seems like these are happening every other day now. starting to get paranoid as to whether some freak is gonna start shooting up one of my classes.

12/11/2007 9:55:09 AM

I always get a warm feeling in my heart when someone wastes a fucking criminal. Keep it up USA.

btw why was that women packing heat at church anyway??

Quote :

"Im not sure its guns Nooses, but people that are the problem."

tell that to the African American Community here at NCSU that has made this huge fuss over a fucking peice of TP

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 10:00 AM. Reason : aa]

12/11/2007 9:59:15 AM

she was a security guard. She wasn't just some random woman who happened to have a gun in her hip pocket.

12/11/2007 10:03:49 AM

I have not gone to very many churches with security guards. Was this one of those cult churches.

12/11/2007 10:11:38 AM

Hur, why are you changing my quote on guns to nooses?

I think she did a great job and saved lives.

12/11/2007 10:16:22 AM

I think she did too

12/11/2007 10:18:41 AM

Quote :

"she was a security guard. She wasn't just some random woman who happened to have a gun in her hip pocket."

yeah, but this particular security guard at a 7000 member megachurch says that "the holy spirit" guided her. So technically, anyone with a gun probably would have done just as well. You know, I doubt any innocent civilians would have been shot if a housewife or pastor was the one wielding the gun.

the holy spirit - helping security guards shoot down gunmen after (not before) they kill teenagers since 2000 B.C.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : m]

12/11/2007 10:19:54 AM

The lord himself guided the blackwater 1337 personal as they wasted a bunch of iraqi civilians.

I still find it creepy that the church has ARMED security guards.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 10:38 AM. Reason : a]

12/11/2007 10:23:05 AM

so anyway, getting back to the original question....

eyedrb - the reason this isn't getting major press is because this was a case of a woman doing her job. Just like if a mall or bank security guard shot an intruder while on patrol, there's no reason it would necessarily make national news. Nobody is arguing that certain people in certain jobs should not be allowed to carry a weapon, if their job depends on it.

12/11/2007 10:59:46 AM

^good point lion. I agree.

12/11/2007 11:17:51 AM

how in the world are any of you saying this 'isn't in the major press' ?

the VERY FIRST news article if you do a google news search for church shooting

http://news.google.com/news?q=church+shooting

is this one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/11/wcolorado111.xml

Quote :

"A security guard believed to have shot dead a gunman in a US evangelical church has credited the Holy Spirit with keeping her hands steady enough to shoot."

12/11/2007 11:34:05 AM

You people need to read the article....

She was a member of the church. All of the security guards at the church are volunteers, not hired guards.

The armed part was in response to a shooting at another church.

What's unusual about having security at a 7,000 person event?

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : for HUR]

12/11/2007 11:39:22 AM

I do not usually see Sister Emily packing heat when I go to Sunday mass with grandma and mom.

Sounds like this church was more of a cult then a innocent Christian house of worship.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 11:41:23 AM

An elder at our church is a sergeant in the Cary PD. Very humble and approachable. But, he's always in uniform and packing heat when he comes to church. If he wasn't in uniform you'd think he was just some old dude with glasses.

12/11/2007 12:12:45 PM

Yeah, she was a security guard who was deployed because of the earlier YWAM shooting. Since the killer had escaped the night before, the church decided to bring in a few security personnel just in case (I believe that YWAM had a small office at this particular church, so its not an unreasonable precaution).

12/11/2007 12:21:05 PM

I'm gonna have to start packing on Sundays.

12/11/2007 1:52:25 PM

Quote :

"Matthew Murray, the man who police say shot and killed four people at two separate locations in Colorado on Sunday, died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the coroner's office said Tuesday."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/colorado.shootings/index.html


So much for that theory!

12/11/2007 7:24:14 PM

Bitch wounded him and he turned one of his pistols on himself.

12/11/2007 7:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like this church was more of a cult then a innocent Christian house of worship."

You should go work for a mainstream news agency.

Shitty lines like that are what pundits are made of.

12/11/2007 7:51:48 PM

Here's another one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22207840/

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : ]

12/12/2007 12:10:37 AM

i would think this is a perfect story for crazed national coverage
"A brave woman hero shooting a killer to save people"
this is the kind of story the media dreams of

12/12/2007 12:26:54 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb - the reason this isn't getting major press is because this was a case of a woman doing her job."

please. This part of the story isn't getting press because it is vindication of what 2nd amendment people have been saying all along: that if regular citizens were allowed to have weapons, then these kinds of things would be stopped with far less people being killed. It's pretty fucking obvious that this guy intended to take out more than 2 people, given that he had a backpack full of ammo.

The only bad part about this is that the guy wasted himself, allowing idiots to say "see, her gun didn't do any good..." Saying that is absolutely asinine, because the guy had thousands of rounds of ammo. You'll notice that in all of these shootings, the guy wastes himself at the end. Why? Cause he's a fucking coward. And the only reason these cowards can go out and pull these rampages is because they know that likely no one else will be packing heat. In this case, though, someone else was packing heat, so the cowardice of the shooter showed itself. The circumstances that he thought gave him power turned out not to be true, so he killed himself. It didn't matter that it was a security guard or a police officer. It could have been granny with a peacemaker. And that is why the press won't cover this aspect, because they know that this vindicates peope who say that armed citizens would stop these things.

Now, some people might say "why not have more security guards?" I say "why?" Why add more security guards and have to pay for their services when an ordinary, unpaid citizen can accomplish the exact same thing? Plus, the citizen has far more incentive to stop the events, since more than likely there are people around him that he doesn't want to get harmed...

So yeah, don't play this off as "oh, it's different cause she was a security guard doing her job..." If DNL had been there with a pellet gun, it would have had the same result, cause the kind of people who do these things generally are cowards.

12/12/2007 6:53:31 AM

they interviewed her on the news yesterday. I watched it in the morning and I live in new york.

so this did make national news.

she was talking about how the holy spirit took over her body and allowed her to dish out an ass whuppin.

I really dont understand the 2nd amendment argument. She had a gun because the church allowed her have a gun inside the church to protect the people inside. its not like she was carrying a gun for shits and giggles inside a church.

12/12/2007 8:27:11 AM

Quote :

"I really dont understand the 2nd amendment argument. She had a gun because the church allowed her have a gun inside the church to protect the people inside."

yes. in response to Aaron ^^ - like i said before, this is no different than a bank, mall, or stadium guard, who are all authorized to carry guns and there is not 2nd Amendment hub-bub about it, had seen someone come into their bank/mall/stadium carrying rifles and handguns and he took him out.

This woman was a former Minneapolis police officer and was actively patrolling the church as a security guard, specifically in response to shootings at other churches. It's not like Sister Mary Catherine pulled a gun from under her habit and unloaded on this guy.

Furthermore, not much of the 2nd Amendment argument, that I'm aware of, specifically concerns concealed weapon permits anyway, which is what this particular incident would be about if had been a regular church-goer who stopped this guy instead of a guard. Most of the 2nd Amendment fight is against selling assault guns to the public and on better maintaining and controlling who gets guns and where they go.

12/12/2007 9:24:24 AM

Quote :

"so this did make national news."

Yeah it seems like it made most major news outlets. What's eyedrb whining about then? Oh noes the national news media took a day to pick up a local story!

12/12/2007 9:55:37 AM

What CULTS Churches do you know of that have armed security guards patrolling them .


but hell yeah though even if it is some funked out Jim Jones community at least that woman showed how gun ownership can help take the fight back to them. With more responses like this, the Texas shotgun deal, and the guy running into the theif w/ the truck will finally show criminals that their line of work is hazardous. A 20% chance of getting caught and goign to the butt hutt may not deter someone but having to worry about grandpa pulling his shotgun out is a good deterrent.

12/12/2007 10:21:19 AM

^ Perhaps churches with 6000 people start to get concerned about security after a rash of shootings in the news? Like the article said, maybe?

12/12/2007 10:25:32 AM

Quote :

"Most of the 2nd Amendment fight is against selling assault guns "

Open your eyes. Gun-control proponents want, at their core, to disarm the public. They want only the gov't to possess firearms.

Are you arguing that just because she was an ex-cop, just because she was a volunteer guard, it was OK for HER to carry a gun that day...but no one else?

When spree-killers pick their venue, do you think they take into account the probability that no one else there will be armed? They want the most amount of people and the least amount of weapons. They seem to prefer schools, shopping malls, churches, trains etc.

When's the last time you heard of a shooting spree killer attacking an NRA convention?

12/12/2007 10:43:51 AM

^I agree.

No way this guy planned on someone being able to stop him for awhile.

If people want to make it harder to get guns, by background checks, tests, etc. I think thats a good idea.

However, disarming the public usually leads to increase in crimes as the ones who follow the law are unable to defend themselves agasint those that have no intention of following the law, esp gun control laws. It just gives them more power.

12/12/2007 11:02:37 AM

^^ Should I be allowed to carry my AK47 around the mall.

12/12/2007 11:29:20 AM

I love it when people hyperbolize the views of others. I'm a second amendment liberal and am for gun control. I do not know of anyone who is against private ownership of guns. So, hyperbolize away.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 11:43:54 AM

^^ Are you planning on going on a rampage and shooting everyone?

12/12/2007 11:45:12 AM

why do you need to carry a gun everywhere you go?

12/12/2007 11:50:19 AM

why would anyone ever need a gun in church

12/12/2007 11:52:48 AM

^ foo real

^^^ depending on how drunk i get; or if i get pissed off at someone taking the last talking Elmo. j/k

nahh i support 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just do not think our founding fathers intended this to be applied to fully automatic assault rifles. maybe one day i can add a M2 .50 Browning machine gun to the roof of my car.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 12:03 PM. Reason : l]

12/12/2007 11:59:39 AM

^^I have no idea.

12/12/2007 12:00:23 PM

Quote :

"Open your eyes. Gun-control proponents want, at their core, to disarm the public. They want only the gov't to possess firearms."

i don't think this is true. Maybe some or many do, but I think many "gun-control proponents" just want reasonable restrictions placed on the distribution and owning of firearms. I agree with nutsmackr - i don't have a problem at all with private gun ownership. But i think it is totally reasonable and necessary to restrict the types of guns that are sold to the public (e.g. assault rifles), who they are sold to (e.g. convicted violent criminals), and how they are used (e.g. not everybody can carry their own guns in a holster).

Quote :

"Are you arguing that just because she was an ex-cop, just because she was a volunteer guard, it was OK for HER to carry a gun that day...but no one else?"

no, not at all. There are generally two types of people who can and do carry guns in public.
1) those who's job permits and relies on it, like police and some guards
2) those who have passed whatever background checks and tests necessary to carry a concealed weapon
This woman happens to fit into both of these categories in that 1) she was acting as a guard, 2) she is a former cop, presumably with firearm training, and 3) she presumably obtained a concealed weapon permit. I think all these factors make it clear that she was well within her right to be walking around church with a gun.


I don't see what the 2nd Amendment conflict is here. Out of a congregation of 6000, there are presumably hundreds or thousands of people who would qualify to obtain a concealed weapons permit and could go buy a handgun if they wanted. As the law stands now, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. So why don't they?
Even eyedrb says that he thinks it's fine to make more restrictive background checks and tests to buy guns and presumably get concealed weapon permits. Where all of the recent church and mall shootings happened, people could have been legally carrying guns with them, but judging from the outcomes, either nobody was, or if they were, nobody acted on the situation, except for this one circumstance where this woman was.

"Pro-gun" people or "2nd amendment advocates" or whatever you want to call them make it sound like "as soon as all these damned restrictions are removed, everyone will be carrying guns and we'll be a lot safer for it." We're already there! Almost any law-abiding citizen who is willing to go through the background checks and training is able to walk around with a gun if they want. And yet, the vast majority of people don't, I guess because they just don't want to or don't want to go through the trouble. Seriously - what do you want? Would you prefer that pistols are just handed out to everyone as people file in and out of churches, malls and stadiums? That way, everyone will have a gun, leading to this ultimate utopia where no one will attack those places because they know they'll be killed?

12/12/2007 12:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Almost any law-abiding citizen who is willing to go through the background checks and training is able to walk around with a gun if they want. And yet, the vast majority of people don't, I guess because they just don't want to or don't want to go through the trouble."

Except in government buildings, schools, places where alcohol is served, places that you pay admission to enter, public gatherings (like parades), financial institutions, places of emergency and places otherwise marked (malls come to mind). And you also can't be carrying to the terror of the people.

What most people want is a relaxing of such restrictions. If you're going to give out concealed carry permits (or carry permits of any sort) then make that permit actually mean something. As it stands right now, you can carry essentially on public roads and your own home. Why go through the trouble of a $100+ permit, fingerprinting and registration to exercise what should already be your right?

12/12/2007 1:10:09 PM

To prevent any random gangster from packing heat w/o any kind of consequence if they are found in say....... a bank.

I do not have a problem with the woman having a gun. I just find it odd she was "on patrol" carrying a gun during church service.

"Hey kids put on your shit and tie and get ready for church. Johnny did you grab your bible. I got the tithe. Honey don't forget your 9mm!!!"

12/12/2007 1:29:40 PM

I believe in this case they asked her to be prepared because of the shootings 12 hrs earlier.

12/12/2007 2:32:22 PM

Quote :

"I do not have a problem with the woman having a gun. I just find it odd she was "on patrol" carrying a gun during church service."

Again, I think you missed what people have been saying earlier. There was a shooting just twelve hours prior at a local Christian organization that the church had ties with, and the gunman hadn't been captured. The church decided to have a few security guards as a precaution. I don't think what they did was unreasonable given the circumstances.

12/12/2007 2:37:33 PM

Quote :

"If people want to make it harder to get guns, by background checks, tests, etc. I think thats a good idea."

And why is that? All you end up doing is preventing law-abiding citizens from getting guns. This situation here is a perfect example of how private citizens are leaps and bounds more effective at stopping these kinds of shenanigans.

Quote :

"Maybe some or many do, but I think many "gun-control proponents" just want reasonable restrictions placed on the distribution and owning of firearms. I agree with nutsmackr - i don't have a problem at all with private gun ownership. But i think it is totally reasonable and necessary to restrict the types of guns that are sold to the public (e.g. assault rifles), who they are sold to (e.g. convicted violent criminals), and how they are used (e.g. not everybody can carry their own guns in a holster). "

What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't make sense to you? By definition, any "reasonable restrictions," especially the ones you proposed, are infringements upon the right.

Quote :

""Pro-gun" people or "2nd amendment advocates" or whatever you want to call them make it sound like "as soon as all these damned restrictions are removed, everyone will be carrying guns and we'll be a lot safer for it." We're already there! Almost any law-abiding citizen who is willing to go through the background checks and training is able to walk around with a gun if they want."

Hardly. Part of the argument of "2nd amendment advocates" is that the restrictions on gun ownership are significant enough to deter people from seeking to own guns. I think is a very valid argument.

Quote :

"To prevent any random gangster from packing heat w/o any kind of consequence if they are found in say....... a bank."

So, now the law that says "you can't carry here" is going to persuade the gangster not to carry a gun in the bank? riiiiiiiiight.

12/12/2007 5:55:49 PM

So i can mount a

Quote :

"M2 .50 Browning machine gun to the roof of my car"

right??

I support 2nd amendment rights and being able to purchase guns but according to you their should be no regulation or any kind of restriction.

In case you are not to familiar w/ the M2



those rednecks woulda looked pretty bad ass rolling through the Jena 6 rallies w/ one of these mounted in the back of their F150's

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : l]

12/12/2007 6:11:44 PM

burro, I dont think anyone would disagree with some form of tests or background checks before someone is given the priviledge of owning a potentially life ending equipment. I would hope everyone is for at least them having to have classes to be taught how to properly use it and care for it, to prevent any accidental deaths. We do this for autos. Sure there are people who drive without licenses, and they face charges. Why argue against it for guns? It seems reasonable that one show basic knowledge of the gun and laws and a background check to make sure you dont have 5 priors for robbery before you leave the gun show. Its common sense

I also find it hard to justify assualt weapons and what someone would need with them legallly.

12/12/2007 6:13:22 PM

Quote :

"And why is that? All you end up doing is preventing law-abiding citizens from getting guns."

what part of that process would prevent a law-abiding citizen from getting a gun?

12/12/2007 6:13:48 PM

Quote :

"burro, I dont think anyone would disagree with some form of tests or background checks before someone is given the priviledge of owning a potentially life ending equipment."

i think burro does disagree with this. It sounds to me like he would just rather open up the floodgates for anyone to get any gun they want. I suppose the rational being: criminals will get the guns they want one way or another. so why not allow others to get any gun they want too, to defend themselves against the criminals.

12/12/2007 6:16:00 PM