screen resolution of 800x600 or greater is recommended
profile pic   ChuBlogga!
Offended? Intrigued? Contact my manager.

    Here begins your journey into the mind of everybody's favorite asian, and I don't mean Jet Li.
What follows is the somewhat inane, mostly irrelevant, and self-important ramblings of a man on the brink of madness.
Welcome... to the Chu.

Monday, August 29, 2005
 Church Defense Doctrine    [L]

From Drudge today:

Texas Gunman Kills 4 in Church, Then Self
Aug 29 10:02 AM US/Eastern
SASH, Texas
A gunman killed four people at a rural church in a small north Texas town, then held off police in an nine-hour standoff before apparently killing himself, officials said Monday.

I'm sure the first thing a lot of you thought is, "what would it be like if that happened to us?"

Followed immediately by, "but that won't ever happen to us, so we don't need to worry about it."

Which is akin to saying, "I don't need to have auto insurance, because I never get into accidents."

But these attacks are nothing new.

6 months ago:
Police: Gunman kills 7 at church meeting
Saturday, March 12, 2005 Posted: 8:54 PM EST (0154 GMT)
(CNN) -- A gunman opened fire at a church meeting in a Wisconsin hotel Saturday afternoon, leaving seven people dead or dying before killing himself, police said.

2 years ago:
Three die in church shooting

ATLANTA (AP) - A woman opened fire at an Atlanta church before services yesterday morning, killing her mother and the minister before committing suicide.

6 years ago:
CHURCH SHOOTING
September 16, 1999
Seven people were killed Wednesday night when a 47-year-old Texas man opened fire during a prayer service for teen-agers at the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Tx.

The gunman, identified Thursday as Larry Gene Ashbrook of Fort Worth, shouted obscenities as he emptied three ammunition clips from a nine-millimeter, semi-automatic handgun at the gathered congregation.

Ashbrook, who authorities described as chronically unemployed and "very troubled," had six full magazines of ammunition left when he took his own life in a back pew at the church.

And by no means is this strictly an American phenomenon:
'Trained terrorists' behind Pakistan church slayings
October 28, 2001 Posted: 10:52 PM EST (0352 GMT)

BAHAWALPUR, Pakistan (CNN) -- Condemning Sunday's massacre of 16 Christian worshippers, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf blamed "trained terrorists" for the slaying and vowed justice would be served.

At least five others were critically injured in the attack when a group of bearded men on motorcycles opened fire on a morning church service in Bahawalpur in eastern Pakistan, officials said.
...
The church massacre was the worst ever attack on Pakistan's Christian minority.

The Reverend Jim Nuttle, a Catholic priest at the church where the shooting happened, said about 50 people were in the church when the attack began at the end of the first service at 0900 local time.

The men rode up on motorcycles and shot a police officer who was a church security guard, Nuttle said.

The men then stormed the church and began "shooting indiscriminately with automatic weapons," he said.

"They were in the church for a full five minutes," Nuttle said.

"They left as quickly as they came; they left a great deal of carnage in the church -- people dead, dying,"


Whenever I hear of a senseless massacre, like the church shootings above, or anywhere, in fact - I cannot help but wonder: What if somebody had been armed? What if they could've saved themselves?

But invariably, someone always responds, "Are you kidding? We don't want people with guns in church! What if they go crazy and start shooting?" The irony of their own words is lost on them. Barring putting up metal detectors on the doors and frisking every churchgoer that comes in the building, banning guns in the church means that the only ones with a gun will be the crazy ones, the disturbed, and the angry. Sane, law-abiding people follow the rules, and leave their weapons at home. The crazy ones waltz right on in. But you can't have a crazy test to determine eligibility - it's either all or nothing. And nothing is not a viable option. In the end, you just have to allow everybody, and hope that the sane people can take care of the crazy ones. (Note that I am not advocating for literally everybody - being armed is for legally-valid, mature people only).

Now every few years, I hear a particular anecdote making its rounds through the body: The story goes, a bunch of guys in ski masks with guns breaks into a church - they line everybody up against the wall, and say "Everybody who renounces Christianity will be allowed to leave unharmed - but if you are true believers, then you will be shot and killed." So a few people leave, but a good amount of the church ends up staying, and face the firing line. Then the leader of the masked men removes his mask, with tears in his eyes, and says something along the lines of "Thank you, we have been looking for brothers and sisters who truly believe that Jesus is Lord."

Which is the grandest, most monstrously retarded story I've ever heard.

First of all, any man who would do such a thing to a group of fellow believers is seriously deficient in common sense. If he wanted to find "true believers" then it would probably be best to follow the biblical example:
Matthew 7:15-20 (NLT)
20 Yes, the way to identify a tree or a person is by the kind of fruit that is produced.
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states a believer should prove another's faith by the sword.

Secondly, if this had happened to my church (or many other red-state churches), those gunmen, benign or not, would have been shot. It doesn't really matter what their intent was, or what the final outcome was, but only what was perceived by the crowd - because, speaking for myself, if I had the ability to do something, then I would've - regardless of the outcome to myself. And I am not alone in this.

Many of us who understand and accept the responsibilities of firearm usage tend to view themselves as protectors - not as heroes, though that may be the outcome - but as those who are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I am not talking about policemen, or firemen - but the banker, the chiropractor, the construction worker, the programmer, the engineer. Regular people who equate power with responsibility.

Joseph Farah gets it:
...
The [Wisconson] bloodbath is sure to evoke new cries for gun control in America. No doubt some so-called "Christians" will even embrace this draconian, freedom-destroying solution to random or planned violence in this country.

But let me tell you why this is exactly the wrong prescription.

There were about 50 to 60 people attending the service at the Church of the Living God that day.

All they could do was plead with the murderer to stop. All they could do was pray he would stop.

Ratzmann even dropped a magazine and reloaded another.

If just one other member of that congregation were carrying a gun, lives would have been saved.

And that's the real answer to this kind of murder and mayhem.

Oh, I know, some of you are saying to yourself: "Farah, are you suggesting packing heat at church?"

Yes, I'm advocating it.

I'm advocating that law-abiding people carry firearms wherever they go - especially in places where guns are thought to be unnecessary, especially in schools and other "gun-free zones," especially in the high-crime cities where guns have already been banned.

It's a matter of life and death.

The only person safe in a "gun-free zone" is the criminal, who doesn't care about such rules and regulations.

We see this over and over and over again: Gun control utopias, such as New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, and London, have the highest rates of violence and crime.

But what happens when the congregation is able to defend itself?

Farah continues:
The date was July 25, 1993. The place was South Africa. The event would become known as the St. James Massacre.

"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light," wrote Charl Van Wyk in his book, "Shooting Back." "Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air. An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory to pieces. We were being attacked! Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me. I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."

Van Wyk did what he had to do. He returned fire. He shot back. And he minimized the death toll, chasing some of the terrorists out of the church before they could empty their automatic weapons into more innocent victims in the congregation.

I would suggest to you that we are living in dangerous times in America, too.

The answer is not disarming.

The answer is arming.

That way, when the next inevitable attack comes - whether it is at a movie theater, a school, a church, a shopping mall, and no matter who the perpetrator is - there will be return fire.

That's called deterrent. That's called civil defense. That's called common sense.

You may be thinking, "Ohio has concealed carry now, so we should be fine, right?" But the answer is, "not quite." Current Ohio CCW law states that churches are no-CCW zones, unless the church administration specifically okays it - which is the exact opposite rule for everywhere else (CCW okay unless prohibited). As Farah mentioned above, even Christians can fall prey to fallacy of gun-control - which puts some Church-going CCWers into an interesting position: Do they obey the wishes of their church body, wrong as they may be, and leave themselves unarmed and defenseless; or do they ignore authority and carry regardless, refusing to be defenseless? I could likely argue myself in circles, but I will just give 2 quotes and 1 cliche:
Romans 7:1 "Now, dear brothers and sisters -- you who are familiar with the law -- don't you know that the law applies only to a person who is still living?"

Luke 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

(Some may say at this point that they would be forced to leave their protection to God - and I once again will bring up the auto insurance or seatbelt analogy. Also, the above scenarios have nothing personal to do with myself, other CCWers, or Apex - it is all conjecture, but one I believe is quite realistic.)



In the end, I believe it boils down to trust and responsibility.

The trust in the brothers and sisters that so arm themselves;
"whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one"

The duty and responsibility that comes from increased ability;
"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required"

The responsibility to maintain control of themselves at all times;
"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings."

The readiness of ability when needed;
"I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave"

The will to sacrifice themselves when necessary.
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Now that is a congregation that is ready for all attacks.

Labels: ,




They'll soon have to change it from "going postal", to "pastoral".

By Blogger BiggMikeDee, at 8/30/2005 09:55:00 AM      


This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger BiggMikeDee, at 8/30/2005 09:55:00 AM      


that's the first time I've ever heard that point of view. extremely interesting...

By Anonymous Phil Wing, at 8/30/2005 10:04:00 AM      


Next time I see you at church I'll be looking for an extra bulge in your pants.

By Blogger Scott, at 8/30/2005 12:16:00 PM      


Dude, stop looking at my pants.

By Blogger Chu, at 8/30/2005 12:21:00 PM      


Seriously confused by Scott's comment.

By Blogger BiggMikeDee, at 8/31/2005 10:36:00 AM      


I agree with this post completely.

By Blogger AlanDP, at 4/10/2006 06:24:00 PM      


^^^ speak up ^^^