Citizen Kills Killer
Thank goodness that someone besides the killer had a gun.
Later, at New Life Church, a gunman wearing a trench coat and carrying a high-powered rifle opened fire in the parking lot and later walked into the church as a service was letting out.
Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot Murray, who was found with a rifle and two handguns, police said.
Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused.
“It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God,” she said at a news conference.
The pastor credited her with preventing more bloodshed.
“There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives.”
Yes, thank goodness a well trained person had a gun and not an average citizen. Her training as a police officer was very beneficial, because she knew how to assess the situation and react accordingly. The same thing could not be said about average Joe citizen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 0849 hrs
Not at all true Kris. All permit holders receive training. Also most are regular shooters. It does no good to carry a firearm unless you are skilled in its use. The major point here is not that she was a former police officer but that the citizens of Colorado (and 47 other states) are trusted by their government to carry lethal force to defend themselves and others. In Wisconsin, Jim Doyle has decided that the citizens of our state can’t be trusted. He says we “don’t need” that capability here. Think about this event next time you are sitting in church and knowing that you are completely helpless should a similar event occur here. The blood of many innocent victims is already on Doyle’s hands for refusing to allow citizens to protect themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 0941 hrs
I have never owned a gun or been privy to any gun training. But do they give the kind of crisis training that police cadets receive? That decision-making capability when chaos and gunfire surrounds them? My feeling is that gun permit training deals with the safe operation, cleaning, and safe and accurate discharge of your weapon. If this is true, then Kris is absolutely right.
Posted by Mike on December 11, 2007 at 1010 hrs
Gunman Posted Anti-Christian Rants
Investigators were reportedly looking for answers in several rants Murray is believed to have posted on a Web site for people who have left evangelical religious groups. The most recent post was Sunday morning in the hours between his attacks in Arvada and Colorado Springs, according to KUSA-TV in Denver, which first reported on the writings.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gunman-posted-anti-christian-rants/20071210152609990001
I guess he was just exercising Freedom of Speech - no need to give it a second thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1017 hrs
She did better than McKown at the Tacoma Mall shoot.
Shoot first, talk second.
MCKown had the drop on that Emo retard in Tacoma, and then verbally confronted him instead of shooting. Took a round from an SKS and was paralyzed as a result.
As for this “Police trained” crap ... generally, cops are not as good at shooting than most civilian CCW holders, as it is just a job requirement, and not something they do for sport ... but they are trained to shoot immediately at threats.
When we mere peasants do the same, the victim-disarmament crowd starts handwringing ....
Posted by Kristopher on December 11, 2007 at 1109 hrs
As for this “Police trained” crap ... generally, cops are not as good at shooting than most civilian CCW holders, as it is just a job requirement, and not something they do for sport
What he said. I’ve known some police officers, one of whom left the academy - where he presumably got a lot of crisis training and was instructed on how to use his firearm - and then worked for a week with a defective pistol.
It wasn’t until AFTER he faced down a bad guy (who turned out to be an innocent bystander) in an alley that he discovered his pistol was broken.
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1126 hrs
It is a sad state of affairs that we are thankful that there were other armed people around. A sane society would say, “how on earth did a lunatic get his hands on a dangerous weapon”.
It is good that there was an armed guard there. It is tragic that they needed one. If we had a sane gun culture one would not be needed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1142 hrs
If only we could all just hug each other and get along.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1157 hrs
A sane society would say, “how on earth did a lunatic get his hands on a dangerous weapon”.
A sane society could just as well say “how on earth did a lunatic get his hands on a dangerous controlled substance”. Prohibition does not work - it never has and never will.
That classic western, Shane, got it right:
A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an ax, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it.
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1208 hrs
Colorado (and 47 other states) are trusted by their government to carry lethal force to defend themselves and others.
So what good did it do? Did a private citizen blow away little Johnny Shootemup? Nope. It was a trained, armed security guard. The kind of person you can find right here in Wisconsin—no concealed carry law required.
Someone is really missing the point here. This case isn’t an example of why we should have concealed carry. In fact, one might say it’s a case that indicates it doesn’t really do anything for public safety.
Posted by scott on December 11, 2007 at 1211 hrs
I am not advocating prohibition. I advocate restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people (mandated trigger locks and sales prohibitions against people that have been labeled dangerous by psychiatric professionals).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1217 hrs
I don’t have enough evidence to make a decision on whether to support conceal and carry or not. Where are the statistics demonstrating that citizens carrying guns make people more or less safe?
The libertarian in me says we should allow people to carry their personal property with them as long as they don’t pose a danger to others.
Does anyone know where this kid got his guns? If he did not own the guns someone should be feeling a little guilty about allowing their dangerous weapons to be used in a terrible crime. All guns should be secured with trigger locks when not in use.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1225 hrs
I am not advocating prohibition.
Okay.
I advocate restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people (mandated trigger locks and sales prohibitions against people that have been labeled dangerous by psychiatric professionals).
Sounds like a nice plan but .. your program won’t keep dangerous people from acquiring firearms.
Look - I’m not a rabid about the issue, but I am, at the bottom, a pragmatic guy. You gotta go with what works and damn the ideology and wishful thinking.
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1226 hrs
Wow a kid that came from an influential family that snapped and shot up a lot of people…
If we only had some warning to this… If ONLY he would have typed some threats or perceived threats on a webblog or via email…
If only that site would have given out his IP and the cops made an arrest to investigate…
I’m sure there are many families affected by this tragedy that would have welcomed that sort of “invasion of privacy” that the liberals on this site have pushed for in Mr. Bus’s case..
IF onlyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1226 hrs
Look - I’m not a rabid about the issue, but I am, at the bottom, a pragmatic guy. You gotta go with what works and damn the ideology and wishful thinking.
Anyone that is not a pragmatist is an ideologic fool in my book.
What works? I am all for doing whatever works. Up to this point whatever we have been doing is clearly not working. Conceal and carry might reduce the amount of life lost in some instances, but it won’t prevent things like this from happening.All I am saying is that it should be illegal to own a gun without a trigger lock. If your gun is stolen and able to be used in a crime because it is not secured with a trigger lock you should be charged with reckless endangerment. A competent engineering firm should be able to design a trigger lock that would render the trigger unusable if the lock is broken off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1251 hrs
I’m sorry, Bob, did someone refuse to give up information about this guy to authorities? Did some liberal stand up and say “no!” when that information was sought?
Christ, does everything have to be the fault of liberals?
You gotta go with what works and damn the ideology and wishful thinking.Unfortunately ideology and wishful thinking are about all their is to the entire gun debate—both sides.
I don’t have enough evidence to make a decision on whether to support conceal and carry or not.
I maintain that there simply isn’t enough reliable evidence to support either side. I suspect that the evidence doesn’t exist not because for lack of looking, but because it’s simply not there to be found.
By the way. Do any CC supporters want to explain again why this case is an example of why we should have CC here in Wisconsin? And do any CC naysayers want to explain why this case is an example of why we should not have CC here in Wisconsin?
In fact, does anyone want to make any rational argument about why this case is relevant to anything at all, except maybe better intervention for the mentally ill?
Posted by scott on December 11, 2007 at 1253 hrs
3rd way… So what if the same perp that steals your gun ALSO steals your key to the trigger lock… Ya you heard me, sometimes perps steal more than just guns… Sometimes they steal keys.
Wow hopefully when your fantastical law is passed they lock up all of the gun owners who are victimized by criminals who know to steal the KEYS as well as the locked gun.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1256 hrs
Back to that competent engineering firm I am looking for. Maybe the trigger lock also requires a teather that has to be bolted to a surface where ever the gun is stored. There are also biometric and combination locks. Use some imagination Bob.
Not being able to acknowledge that we have a gun problem in this country that could partially be solved by more requirements on securing weapons reveals you as an ideological drone. I don’t think any part of the constitution can be construed as being prohibitive of laws requiring securing the guns we own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1317 hrs
I do acknowledge that we have a gun problem.. The problem is too many criminals have them. NOT that law abiding citizens have them… Attempting to pass legislation to punish law abiding citizens is stupid.
Many young kids have been killed in the last week involving car accidents. Do we lock the parents of the kids up because they provided the vehicle? We all know more young lives are lost every year as a result of MVC’s… many many many more.. Perhaps we should pass legislation to prevent this from happening…. Maybe we should tether the cars to a bench… IDIOT
MY point is that every time someone commits a crime with a gun the response from some is to criminalize the gun… As if criminals will not be able to get guns anymore… give me a break.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1332 hrs
SCOTT: I never said EVERYTHING in this world is the fault of liberals. I am simply pointing out that sometimes people snap and shoot up a place. Sometimes the people that snap have family and friends that would swear up and down they never thought this could/would happen. And sometimes these phisical threats are foretold by the perps through emails/blogs ect…
When MR BUSS made his comment/threat (as percieved by his OWN peers). The police and the blog owner did the right thing by investigating MR BUSS. MR BUSS may just be a stupid deludid liberal who was trying to discredit conservatives. OR he could have been a psycho gun toting madman that was giving us one chance to stop him before he started shooting.
MR Buss should look at the world around him and understand that making comments/threats like he did are NO JOKE…
THAT is my point…
And when people are critical of the police or of this blog moderator for doing the right thing it makes me sick.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1337 hrs
You acknowledge that there are too many guns in criminals hands. How did they get there? Is there nothing that can be done to stop some criminals from acquiring firearms?
Americans are maimed and killed in motor vehicles at ridiculous rates. We have accepted this as part of the trade off for having cars, but we have also required that you wear a seatbelt when in your car and thousands of lives are saved every year. Buckling a seatbelt is a slight nuisance but we have decided that it should be mandated. Requiring that your gun be locked is a slight nuisance, but it would save lives.
Requiring trigger locks is not a panacea, but it is something that would help.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1350 hrs
And I have never advocated against having trigger locks. But pushing further and CHARGING inocent people when their guns are stolen and later used in a crime is ALSO not the answer.
Too often in our society we punish the good for the actions of the bad.
Why is it that in one of the few states that do not have conceiled carry laws in place still has a problem with criminials with guns. hmmm i wonder. Is it that regardless of what laws are on the books criminals will continue to aquire and use guns against the good guys…
And in summation my analogy using cars was to point out that charging the parents of the kids with a crime when the kids drive unsafely is also not the answer but is not unlike the law you suggested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1411 hrs
So what good did it do? Did a private citizen blow away little Johnny Shootemup? Nope. It was a trained, armed security guard. The kind of person you can find right here in Wisconsin—no concealed carry law required.
That is not completely true, Scott. Read the entire story. You are correct in saying she has been trained (and is a former cop if it really makes a difference), but she is also a church member. She wasn’t part of a hired security detail, she was a volunteer, along with several other church members that had CCW permits.
If she did the same thing in Wisconsin, she could conceivably be charged with a crime for CCW (granted it would be unlikely).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1418 hrs
The problem with this debate is that one side feels it is right and so does the other. The real answer is somewhere in the middle. I won’t be so arrogant as to assume that I have the answer, but I am fairly sure that allowing more guns to be carried around is not the answer. At least not without an extensive amount of training. Just to go hunting my son had to go through an extensive training. I thought it was extensive for a teenager. 18 hours of class time and 6 hours of field experience. He is much better for the experience, but it would be inadequate for me or anyone else that wanted to competently carry a side arm and possibly wield it with deadly force.
For the record I am not against CC, but I am against the idea of Joe citizen being able to carry without some really good training.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1422 hrs
Maybe charging people with reckless endangerment is overreaching, but what good is a mandate if there is no consequence for not following it?
The seatbelt analogy is apt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1427 hrs
Is there nothing that can be done to stop some criminals from acquiring firearms?
Not a thing.
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1429 hrs
Brian - You think we can build an elevator to space, but don’t think that mandatory locks would keep a gun out of the hands of at least one criminal? That one extra line of defensive would help have some effect. The effect might not be huge, but there would be one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1442 hrs
uhmm a seatbelt law that gives a ticket for non compliance is no where near the same as charging someone with a felony if a criminal steals there gun and uses it for no good.
So your analogy is not apt. not apt at allPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1447 hrs
I conceded that a felony might be overreaching and stated that the situation was more analogous to seatbelt laws (and their fines). I am making this policy up as I go along, give me a little wiggle room here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1458 hrs
The problem doesn’t begin or end with guns. The solution has nothing to do with guns. Leathal weapons will always be available to the bad guys, they are easy to find/make. So until the larger sociological problems are fixed [if ever or possable in a 300 million+ population] I for one am damn glad that there are good guys carrying also.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1459 hrs
Ok 3rd I will cut you some slack on that. The problem is that there is no easy solution to why criminals do what they do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1511 hrs
Brian - You think we can build an elevator to space
There is no scientific reason why a space elevator won’t work. However there might be any number of political, technical or economic reasons why building one is impractical. LiftPort was founded with the idea that it would be worthwhile to define those problems and see what it would take to overcome them.
That said the problems are not at all the same; comparing a space elevator to gun control is like comparing apples to dump trucks.
but don’t think that mandatory locks would keep a gun out of the hands of at least one criminal?
That wasn’t what you said. You wrote
Is there nothing that can be done to stop some criminals from acquiring firearms?
And no, there isn’t. Some criminals - a poorly defined group but we’ll run with it - will find a way to do whatever it is they want to do. People are like that.
At any rate you earlier wrote that
I advocate restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people (mandated trigger locks and sales prohibitions against people that have been labeled dangerous by psychiatric professionals).
People who are labeled dangerous by head bangers are not criminals.
That one extra line of defensive would help have some effect. The effect might not be huge, but there would be one.
Ah, but what are the costs of your program? Are they worth it?
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1524 hrs
when people are critical of the police or of this blog moderator for doing the right thing it makes me sick.
So in other words, you’re complaining about something that has nothing to do with this discussion. I mean, who was “critical” of Owen? Was someone? I don’t know, I didn’t even follow that whole ruckus. My advice to you is to take a deep breath and stick to the subject at hand.
The problem with this debate is that one side feels it is right and so does the other. The real answer is somewhere in the middle.
The real problem with this debate is that one side feels the answer is cold spaghetti and the other says it’s shoddy brick masonry—neither one of them have a damned thing to do with the problem.
She wasn’t part of a hired security detail, she was a volunteer, along with several other church members that had CCW permits.
Sure, I see your point. But if you’re trying to suggest that this woman and her gun is basically the same as someone who just happened by, well I’m not buying it. She wasn’t shopping. She wasn’t worshipping. She wasn’t out getting some exercise or to meet her boyfriend. She was there to provide security. Whether she was hired or volunteered, she had a uniform on and she was there for that purpose and no other. Where were the grandmothers, boy scouts and businessmen with their CC weapons? Nowhere to be found, it seems. So while I think you have a half a point, you cannot say that she makes a good poster child for CC.
And Bob, chill yourself out and don’t be such an asshole.Posted by scott on December 11, 2007 at 1538 hrs
Where were the grandmothers, boy scouts and businessmen with their CC weapons? Nowhere to be found, it seems. So while I think you have a half a point, you cannot say that she makes a good poster child for CC.
You still miss the point, Scott! She was an ordinary citizen. Same as that grandmother, scout or businessman. I think she’s the perfect poster-child! Plus, she’s nice to look at anyway…
Here in PRWisconsin, could I, acting as a volunteer security guard, legally carry a concealed weapon? We both know the answer to that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1548 hrs
Brian - Good luck with your elevator. Seriously, that is very cool
I mentioned your elevator because I assumed someone in your line of work would be open to a technological solution to our problem. The point I was trying to make is that we have a serious problem with gun violence, and it seems probable that a simple technology can make a dent in the amount of damage that is done by people that are using guns without their owners permission.
The costs of implementing the law are paid solely by the people that have purchased guns. Beyond monetary costs gun owners would only be sacrificing convenience. I think public safety should always be put ahead of personal convenience.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1551 hrs
Seriously, that is very cool
Thanks! It may never go anywhere but .. it could. At least when all is said and done we’ll know more than when we started.
I mentioned your elevator because I assumed someone in your line of work would be open to a technological solution to our problem.
My line of work is ‘IT’, but I appreciate your point. But having worked around engineers, and having done a modest amount of work in my field ... I’m wary of a technical hacks. They’re cool and useful but limited.
Limited? Sure - if the problem you’re trying to solve is not technical, then the hack is only going to work until people solve the puzzle and find a way around your hack.
This issues is, I think, one you’re going to have to hack using social means, not technical.
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1621 hrs
Just curious: How many people commenting here have been the victim of gun violence? The heroic fantasies about gunning down thugs mostly go out the window when you’ve actually been through it. The first and only time I was robbed at gunpoint, I was grabbed from behind and there was someone holding each of my arms so that I couldn’t move. I never even heard them coming up behind me. Even if I’d had a gun I wouldn’t have been able to reach for it. I’d have just added another gun to the equation, and not on my side.
This was a pretty common NYC experience in the pre-Giuliani days; most of us have our “robbed at gunpoint” stories, and few of us think being strapped would have made us any safer.
Not saying more guns or less guns is the answer. I really don’t know, although the idea of living in a city of 8 million guns seems crazy. Just saying that experience will make you look at this stuff differently.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2007 at 1651 hrs
Just curious: How many people commenting here have been the victim of gun violence?
I was shot at once but that was in the service. The event was as sudden and unexpected as your description of being robbed. It was, in a word ‘un-fun’.
The heroic fantasies about gunning down thugs mostly go out the window when you’ve actually been through it.
That’s not me; any fascination with firearms and any connected fantasies went right out the window when I was 19.
Posted by Brian on December 11, 2007 at 1701 hrs
Its sad how so many people in Wisconsin have such an irrational and uneducated knowledge of guns and gun laws.
Perhaps not all that unexpected given that our our closest neighbor to the south is as communist when it comes to the right to protect yourself with a firearm as wisconsin is.
In almost EVERY other state hundreds of thousands of people walk around carrying concealled weapons legally every day…
But people here in Wisconsin just “can’t imagine how more guns could keep us safer”
The statistics have been regurgitated on this blog over and over. Never made a difference before. People who want to fear guns don’t care about facts.
For anyone who REALLY wants to know the data is ALL out there. It all comes down to the same reality…
There is not a SINGLE law that will affect the behavior of criminals.
Why does someone who’s willing to shoot up a church or a school care about guns laws???? They are willing to MURDER people? But a gun law would prevent them from having or getting a gun? Get real…
To anyone who thinks making guns illegal would mean less of them on the streets I don’t see any shortage of marijuana or other illegal substances.
But somehow giving the law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves is a bad idea. Please…
With all the states that allow concealled carry, all the MILLIONS of concealled carry permit holders in this country (of which I am one of them) SURELY there must be a plethora of news stories and documentation of all the ‘mistakes’ made by these law abiding citizens using their firearms to ‘take matters in their own hands’
I challenge you conjecture filled anti-gun people who think that the default logic is “more guns must be bad” to provide SOMETHING beyond your own misconceptions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2007 at 1346 hrs
xxpilot,
do you carry a gun everyday and why do you so? i would really like to know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2007 at 1704 hrs
Kris,
No, I can’t… I live in Wisconsin, and although 29 states honor my concealled carry permit, Wisconsin does not.
When I travel I do carry. I carry in case I ever need it.
I never have, but there’s always a first time.
I also carry a fire extinguisher in my truck. I’ve never needed that either, but I keep one there just in case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2007 at 1034 hrs
As for specifically why I carry…
I carry because I know that criminals do bad things.
I have 2 eyes and I watch the news. I know that criminals walk into malls in middle america and shoot and kill people.
I know that criminals walk into universities and shoot and kill people.
I know that innocent people here in Milwaukee walking home from a restaurant at 2 am have been attacked and killed.
I know that innocent people here in Milwaukee have been driving down North Ave. in the middle of the day on a bright and shinny sunny June day and been pulled from their vehicles and viciously beaten.
Places where I travel that respect the right of people to protect themselves with a firearm… I’ll never be a victim there. I will defend myself.
I’ve never had to, but if need be I will.
Same reason I carry that stupid fire extinguisher around in my truck ALL the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2007 at 1056 hrs
I feel less safe now that I know you’re carrying.
Posted by scott on December 13, 2007 at 2019 hrs
I feel less safe now that I know you’re carrying.
Scott, I have to be honest… Your feelings matter less to me than my sister’s friend’s dog’s breeder’s horoscope…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2007 at 1313 hrs
Well this thread is becoming a who’s-who list of people who should be kept away from firearms, small children, and all sharp pointy things.
Posted by scott on December 14, 2007 at 1447 hrs
Well this thread is becoming a who’s-who list of people who should be kept away from firearms, small children, and all sharp pointy things.
... and keyboards
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2007 at 1508 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134029
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 03:59 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 05:05 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).