Church shooting Charleston SC

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: Keith B, carlson1

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 10351
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#136

Post by jmra » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:51 am

TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?
Are we talking about Texas or other states? In Texas the only churches off limits are those that have taken action to strip you of your right to self defense. In other states like SC inaction on the part of the church prevents you from protecting yourself and others. I view the two very differently. I don't believe the churches in Texas that have posted 30.06 will change their mind unless it hits them in the pocket book (people stop going). I think you have a better chance in other states of conservative led churches taking action to allow members to carry.
That being said, when Arkansas passed a law allowing churches to decide to allow CC, the lawyers at my brothers church got involved and their policy actually became more restrictive than before the law passed. Previously the church allowed both full time and reserve officers to carry on church property. When the lawyers were done only full time officers were allowed to carry. So, a law intended to expand CC in churches in Arkansas may actually be doing the opposite.
Last edited by jmra on Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

Skiprr
Moderator
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 6458
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Outskirts of Houston

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#137

Post by Skiprr » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:53 am

Lubbock1911 wrote:The shooting is so sad. We need to pray for the family's loses. I am in favor of a law allowing LE to kill the shooter with the smoking gun on the spot.
I wholly agree that what should be, and should have been the sole focus of President Obama's message, are prayers for the fallen, for the families and community, and for healing.

Morality/legality aside, the difficulty with your second statement is that, unless law enforcement is already present at the time a mass shooter begins his psychotic rampage, most if not all LE departments have SOP that they do not rush into an active shooter situation. And this makes sense. If police arrive after a notification, they have no idea what is taking place inside a building. Even if they have an embedded 911 caller, it's likely that person has done everything he or she can to hide and be as inconspicuous as possible...which means they serve no tactical advantage as an informant. When the first responding LEOs arrive, they don't know whether it's a lone or multiple shooters involved; they don't know the layout of the building or premises; they don't know if a hostage situation exists whereby breaching an entry might exacerbate the situation and cause even more loss of life; and running in blind puts the officers' lives at risk.

As frustrating as it is to see this play out in active shooter situations like Virginia Tech, the Century movie theater in Aurora Colorado, Fort Hood, Columbine, and others, the fact is that a mass murderer in a gun-free, target-rich environment is not going to be stormed by law enforcement immediately upon their arrival. LEOs will respond as quickly as possible based on the situation and their operating procedures. In a large city that likely means the first responders calling for SWAT deployment, establishing a protective perimeter, obtaining information about the premises, and other measures.

This is where TexasCajun's point is well made. The head-in-the-sand liberal left always decry that only law enforcement and the military should have guns, that you and I--honest, law-abiding citizens who are licensed and probably have many hours of training and practice--should not be trusted to carry.

But the simple fact is that the LEO-to-population ratio in big cities is staggering, and the LEO-to-square-mile ratio in rural areas is equally daunting. If some psychopath wants to commit mass murder with a gun, a bomb, a chemical weapon, or even as we've just seen in Austria, with a motor vehicle, there is a very high probability that the target selected will not have significant, pre-existing police presence at the point of attack. In the U.S., the vast majority of these attacks occur in gun-free zones...in fact, going all the way back to the UT sniper in 1966, over 40% of mass shootings have taken place on school grounds alone.

We, and the media and politicians, can speculate all they want about what-ifs and could-have-beens. But the simple, inconvenient truth is that the best chance of stopping a mass shooting is for there to be a good guy with a gun standing there when it starts to unfold. There are multiple examples, but two involving churches are the 1993 incident in South Africa where terrorists attacked a congregation of 1,000 with grenades and automatic weapons. Several people were killed almost immediately, but Charl Van Wyk, sitting a few rows from the back, pulled his handgun and opened fire on the attackers, hitting one and interrupting their plan. They fled.

Another is the more recent 2007 New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs. A young, mentally unstable murderer went first to the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado, where he shot four people, killing two. Unimpeded and unchallenged, he then went to the New Life Church, a huge megachurch with over 10,000 members.

His clear intent was to kill as many people as possible, and he did shoot five, killing two, sisters Rachel and Stephanie Works, in the church's parking lot on his way inside. But before he could rack up the body count, he was met by a "good guy with a gun": church security volunteer Jeanne Assam, a concealed handgun license holder (Concealed Weapon Permit in Colorado). Assam shot and wounded the psychopath who, knowing his plan was thwarted and that he was done, turned his gun on himself.

That incident took place on a Sunday, December 9, when hundreds were exiting the church after an 11:00 a.m. service. Without legally-armed citizens at the church that day, there is no estimating what the death toll could have been. The pastor of New Life Church said that Assam shot Murray before he was more than 50 feet inside the building, and that Assam probably saved "over 100 lives."

In the Charleston tragedy, we've learned that the shooter was giving off clues the size of weather balloons for some time before he engaged. Nobody paid attention. Prevention is always best...in this case, his 21st birthday was only two months before the shooting, and his father gave him the gun he used for his birthday. Prevention doesn't start with the tool ultimately employed, it starts with parents, teachers, counselors, and mental health professionals.

But if an attack is launched, the only person who can respond quickly enough to effectively stop a committed, deranged mass murderer is the person already present. And that means firearms in the hands of honest, moral, willing, law-abiding citizens.
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 10351
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#138

Post by jmra » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:32 am

VIDEO: Should places of worship remain gun-free zones?
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At least two of these pastors get it.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member


philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 9475
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#139

Post by philip964 » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:53 am

Skiprr wrote: I wholly agree that what should be, and should have been the sole focus of President Obama's message, are prayers for the fallen, for the families and community, and for healing.
.
I totally agree.

What I still find interesting that after all these days the press still discusses gun control and the confederate flag but at the same time fails to mention, the drugs he was taking and the fact guns were illegal in that church.

People who get their news only from the T V will be forever clueless about these facts.
Last edited by philip964 on Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar

ShootDontTalk
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:56 pm
Location: Near Houston

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#140

Post by ShootDontTalk » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:55 am

jmra
I think a lot of people simply fail to understand that deterrence is not having a military firefight in the Sanctuary.

It is the unknown that someone inside might be armed as the Sanctuary is not a gun free zone, otherwise known as a hunting zone for psychopaths. And the presence of that unknown armed person would prevent the lunatic from doing anything significant save shooting himself. We all know that though.

Those who advocate a Christian should always be a doormat, are living in an imaginary world where there is no clear picture of what that doormat philosophy might entail in terms of human suffering - for others. There are things worse than death.

BTW...I give the good Rev. Dr. one thing. He acknowledged that if someone in the church were armed, the word would get around. What word? This isn't a good place to hunt.
"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk!
Eli Wallach on concealed carry while taking a bubble bath

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 10351
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#141

Post by jmra » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:13 am

ShootDontTalk wrote:jmra
I think a lot of people simply fail to understand that deterrence is not having a military firefight in the Sanctuary.

It is the unknown that someone inside might be armed as the Sanctuary is not a gun free zone, otherwise known as a hunting zone for psychopaths. And the presence of that unknown armed person would prevent the lunatic from doing anything significant save shooting himself. We all know that though.

Those who advocate a Christian should always be a doormat, are living in an imaginary world where there is no clear picture of what that doormat philosophy might entail in terms of human suffering - for others. There are things worse than death.

BTW...I give the good Rev. Dr. one thing. He acknowledged that if someone in the church were armed, the word would get around. What word? This isn't a good place to hunt.
:iagree:
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 11050
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#142

Post by Oldgringo » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:14 am

jmra wrote:
TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?
Are we talking about Texas or other states? In Texas the only churches off limits are those that have taken action to strip you of your right to self defense. In other states like SC inaction on the part of the church prevents you from protecting yourself and others. I view the two very differently. I don't believe the churches in Texas that have posted 30.06 will change their mind unless it hits them in the pocket book (people stop going). I think you have a better chance in other states of conservative led churches taking action to allow members to carry.
That being said, when Arkansas passed a law allowing churches to decide to allow CC, the lawyers at my brothers church got involved and their policy actually became more restrictive than before the law passed. Previously the church allowed both full time and reserve officers to carry on church property. When the lawyers were done only full time officers were allowed to carry. So, a law intended to expand CC in churches in Arkansas may actually be doing the opposite.
Hmmm? If you'll look into the by-laws (or whatever it may be called) of the United Methodist Church, guns are officially frowned upon and otherwise unwelcome in the services. I dunno' 'bout other denominations?

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 10351
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#143

Post by jmra » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:17 am

Oldgringo wrote:
jmra wrote:
TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?
Are we talking about Texas or other states? In Texas the only churches off limits are those that have taken action to strip you of your right to self defense. In other states like SC inaction on the part of the church prevents you from protecting yourself and others. I view the two very differently. I don't believe the churches in Texas that have posted 30.06 will change their mind unless it hits them in the pocket book (people stop going). I think you have a better chance in other states of conservative led churches taking action to allow members to carry.
That being said, when Arkansas passed a law allowing churches to decide to allow CC, the lawyers at my brothers church got involved and their policy actually became more restrictive than before the law passed. Previously the church allowed both full time and reserve officers to carry on church property. When the lawyers were done only full time officers were allowed to carry. So, a law intended to expand CC in churches in Arkansas may actually be doing the opposite.
Hmmm? If you'll look into the by-laws (or whatever it may be called) of the United Methodist Church, guns are officially frowned upon and otherwise unwelcome in the services. I dunno' 'bout other denominations?
The denomination I belong to has a statement of fundamental truths and the individual churches write their own bylaws. I assume each denomination is a little different.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 11050
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#144

Post by Oldgringo » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:26 am

Oldgringo wrote:
jmra wrote:
TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?
Are we talking about Texas or other states? In Texas the only churches off limits are those that have taken action to strip you of your right to self defense. In other states like SC inaction on the part of the church prevents you from protecting yourself and others. I view the two very differently. I don't believe the churches in Texas that have posted 30.06 will change their mind unless it hits them in the pocket book (people stop going). I think you have a better chance in other states of conservative led churches taking action to allow members to carry.
That being said, when Arkansas passed a law allowing churches to decide to allow CC, the lawyers at my brothers church got involved and their policy actually became more restrictive than before the law passed. Previously the church allowed both full time and reserve officers to carry on church property. When the lawyers were done only full time officers were allowed to carry. So, a law intended to expand CC in churches in Arkansas may actually be doing the opposite.
Hmmm? If you'll look into the by-laws (or whatever it may be called) of the United Methodist Church, guns are officially frowned upon and otherwise unwelcome in the services. I dunno' 'bout other denominations?
I dunno'? I wouldn't be surprised if regionality didn't come into play in the rule interpretations as well. What I do know is that I ain't gonna' dwell on it...one way or another.

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 18210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#145

Post by Keith B » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:48 pm

Oldgringo wrote:
Hmmm? If you'll look into the by-laws (or whatever it may be called) of the United Methodist Church, guns are officially frowned upon and otherwise unwelcome in the services. I dunno' 'bout other denominations?
The doctrine of the United Methodist Church does state this. However, it is not held strict by many individual churches. I know of several where the pastors do condone concealed carry by their members.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

CleverNickname
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#146

Post by CleverNickname » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:06 pm

Beiruty wrote:
rp_photo wrote:I just read that he had a pending Felony. Wouldn't that make it illegal for him to posess a gun?
Until his conviction he is an accused not a felon
It's illegal for someone accused of a felony to buy a gun, but not to keep ones they already have.

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 18210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#147

Post by Keith B » Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:13 pm

CleverNickname wrote:
Beiruty wrote:
rp_photo wrote:I just read that he had a pending Felony. Wouldn't that make it illegal for him to posess a gun?
Until his conviction he is an accused not a felon
It's illegal for someone accused of a felony to buy a gun, but not to keep ones they already have.
Unless they have been ordered to surrender their firearms.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4


philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 9475
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#148

Post by philip964 » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm

I thought maybe the NSA was reading all the websites in the world to find the possible terrorists.

That would have been good idea in this case.

And doesn't have any constitutional issues.

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#149

Post by VMI77 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:52 am

philip964 wrote:
Skiprr wrote: I wholly agree that what should be, and should have been the sole focus of President Obama's message, are prayers for the fallen, for the families and community, and for healing.
.
I totally agree.

What I still find interesting that after all these days the press still discusses gun control and the confederate flag but at the same time fails to mention, the drugs he was taking and the fact guns were illegal in that church.

People who get their news only from the T V will be forever clueless about these facts.
Not a mystery.....it's driven by two factors, the political agenda and money. You're never going to see the MSM take on the ramifications of prescription drug use because of the money. If illegal or non-prescription drugs are a factor you won't see them take it on because it doesn't serve the agenda.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Church shooting Charleston SC

#150

Post by VMI77 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:54 am

philip964 wrote:I thought maybe the NSA was reading all the websites in the world to find the possible terrorists.

That would have been good idea in this case.

And doesn't have any constitutional issues.

No, that's not what they're looking for....they're identifying internal political opposition. Either that or they keep revealing their incompetence.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”