Search

Jeanne Assam of Colorado Springs is a hero. Though I bet she wouldn’t think of herself that way.

Earlier that morning, Matthew Murray had killed two people at a missionary training school he once attended.

And he had just killed two teenage sisters and wounded their father and two others at Colorado Springs’ New Life Church before volunteer guard Jeanne Assam shot him dead.

The church’s pastor says that may have saved up to 100 lives.

When asked by a reporter if she felt like a hero, Assam said, “I wasn’t just going to wait for him to do further damage.”

Assam described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his rifle.

“There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away, “I will never forget the gunshots. They were so loud.”

“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.

That might be my favorite quote ever. Doesn’t sound even a little bit like a “self-defense fetish” to me.

There were 7000 people at the church at the time. Murray was carrying more than 1000 rounds of ammunition. Think about what would have happened if Assam had not acted quickly and decisively.

________

In the wake of the Virginia Tech killing spree and again after the Omaha Westroads Mall shooting — many people speculated “What if someone had gun? What if someone was carrying a concealed weapon?”

I think what happened at the Colorado Springs church is exactly what would have happened: innocent lives would have likely been saved.

Gun control and laws that take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens are not the answer — in fact, they are a big part of the problem.

Citizens who are registered and licensed to carry firearms — whether they be concealed or open carry — should be allowed to carry their weapons any and everywhere they go with very few exceptions.

Though I’m having a hard time coming up with exceptions — perhaps where liquor and alcohol is served. But the bar owners and possibly employees should still be allowed to carry.

Right now, homicidal criminals know that places like the mall and school campuses are nice targets, since they are gun free zones. They know they can inflict maximum casualties since there won’t be anybody there to shoot back.

Let’s change that.

I think it’s time to start writing our representatives, state Senators, city councils, mayors and governors — let’s end “gun free zones” where only the ill-intentioned will be carrying guns. Let’s change the laws so that law-abiding citizens can protect and defend themselves, their families, and their communities — regardless of where they happen to be within the city.

________

OTHERS

Lots of discussion over at Memeorandum

18 Responses to “Jeanne Assam — The Case for Concealed Carry Laws”

I totally agree that she doesn’t sound like she has a ’self-defense fetish’- she sounds like the trained former police officer acting as a security guard that she is. To extrapolate from this incident to think that any joe on the street could stop a man with 1000 rounds of ammunition seems like a fantasy though.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, as a University student, and from my own (what I consider to be about average) extracurricular activities: allowing college students to carry guns on campuses = bad fucking idea.

College students drink. A lot. They do drugs. A lot. Even when we aren’t under the influence of either we tend to make rash decisions and not think through our actions. Hell, most college students fall between the ages of 17-23.

Is a drunk 19 year old really the kind of person you want toting a loaded pistol on a college campus?

Citizens who are registered and licensed to carry firearms — whether they be concealed or open carry — should be allowed to carry their weapons any and everywhere they go with very few exceptions.

Though I’m having a hard time coming up with exceptions — perhaps where liquor and alcohol is served. But the bar owners and possibly employees should still be allowed to carry.

I disagree. It should be illegal to consume alcohol while armed, (or be armed while under the influence, depending upon how you look at it), but why should I be precluded from providing for my self defense while participating in a bar pool league or eating at a restaurant that serves alcohol?

The only legitimate place I can think of to ban firearms is in the secure areas of jails and prisons.

I totally agree that she doesn’t sound like she has a ’self-defense fetish’- she sounds like the trained former police officer acting as a security guard that she is. To extrapolate from this incident to think that any joe on the street could stop a man with 1000 rounds of ammunition seems like a fantasy though.

I would agree that a portion of her calm and rational reaction stemmed from her past police training, but that is not prima facia evidence that “any joe on the street” would not be able to stop the attack. They may not do so quite as calmly or effectively, but they would be better than 1,000 rounds being fired into an unarmed congregation of innocents.

By the way…the quantity of rounds that the perp had on him is irrelevant to a defender engaging him. The firearm in use can only hold a limited number of those rounds at a time. 30 rounds or 1,000 rounds matters little…regardless of the defender’s level of training.

Is a drunk 19 year old really the kind of person you want toting a loaded pistol on a college campus?

Sophistry.

No one is talking about “arming” teenagers who can’t control their (illegal) alcohol consumption. The discussion revolves around ALLOWING (not requiring) concealed carry permit holders who already own guns, are qualified and licensed and carry in other locales, to carry on campus just like they can anywhere else.

This means that they are at least 21 years old.

This also means that they cannot be drunk as being under the influence while armed is illegal in every state of which I’m aware. If they are willing to break the law…what would stop them from just carrying regardless of campus policy???

Such a policy only disarms people who are prone to following the rules. That means that the only people being disarmed are the very ones from which you have nothing to fear.

Is a drunk 19 year old really the kind of person you want toting a loaded pistol on a college campus?

John — the problem is that there is nothing preventing that same drunk 19-year old college kid from carrying that gun now. Sure it’s illegal. But when has that ever stopped a person bent on breaking the law?

Except in my scenario, when that drunk 19-year old decided to break out his gun to start mowing down classmates — two or three other not-drunk students would pull out their weapons and end it there.

I’m sure we could expect the suicide rate to soar far above the existing homicide rate if firearms became more accessible on college campuses.

any joe on the street could stop a man with 1000 rounds of ammunition seems like a fantasy though.

That’s not fantasy at all. Think about how many men and women are veterans of the military. Think about how many men and women have grown up in hunting families, learning how to aim and shoot their weapons.

Did you read the first person account of an “average joe” at the Omaha mall — he said that he had a clear side shot of the shooter from about 40 yards away. And that if he had had a gun, he would have been able to shoot him dead.

Just an average guy who owns and knows how to shoot his firearm — but didn’t have it on him at the mall because it was a “gun free zone”.

His only training? Some time spent on a shooting range with his .40 S&W (great choice).

Robbie:

It’s already there, but laws do at least DISCOURAGE people from committing certain acts (even though others go ahead and do whatever they want anyways).

And a 21 year old can be just as irresponsible with a firearm (or alcohol) as a 19 year old.

“Except in my scenario, when that drunk 19-year old decided to break out his gun to start mowing down classmates — two or three other not-drunk students would pull out their weapons and end it there.”

Or you could have NO students with guns, just a thought.

I understand where you’re coming from but I think you need to look real hard at your proposal and ask if it’s going to make the problem better or worse.

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that if we expanded concealed handgun laws, that alongside all the responsible gun owners who carry them to feel safe, scores and scores of morons would start carrying their firearms just for the chance to flash their piece once somebody started “talking shit”.

Again, speaking as a college student, it’s a very violent place filled with substance abuse and rash decisions. Throwing in firearms to the mix is asking for trouble.

So, do have a precedent of a heavily armed society with a low murder rate? I’m sure the online pro-gun lit has some example- but perhaps you know off hand.

The common thread between both Preston and John’s arguments is that they rely on personal prejudices and conjecture.

The facts simply don’t support their opinions.

Utah has allowed concealed carry on campus by CCW holders since the Fall 2006 semester. Additionally, Colorado State University and Blue Ridge Community College allow concealed carry on their campuses. The fact is that those policies simply have not resulted in increases in violence, accidents, crime or suicide. The argument that those policies would do so is simply not based upon reality.

Sailor-

I think you have it all wrong. I have absolutely no prejudice against guns. I fired my share of guns growing up.

However, I do have a prejudice against people dying. So I’m open to whatever policy reduces murders and suicides- if you convince me that concealed handguns is going to prevent these deaths, bravo.

On the contrary, I have a strong suspicion that you believe that gun ownership is in itself good and would support this policy even if it resulted in more firearm deaths. Feel free to prove me wrong…

Sailor:

I too, will have to defend myself: I’m not pro-gun control at all. I grew up with a father who was an avid hunter and kept no less than three shotguns under his bed at any time. I like to go target shooting when I can.

I’m not out to take away anybody’s right to own (or carry, in certain instances) a gun. I just don’t want some asshole blowing my head off because he’s having a bad day. Again, I’ll speak from personal experience.

My roommate Ajai is Indian-American. His freshman year, he was having a cigarette outside his dorm with a friend when two soused up fratboys wandered by and began hurling racial epithets his way. Things quickly escalated, and there was a brief scuffle, but ultimately nobody got hurt.

So imagine that situation if either of the two fellows, or Ajai, had been carrying a loaded pistol. No thanks.

I didn’t specify what your prejudices were, only that you were allowing them…whether they be against guns in general, concealed carry by citizens, or “people dying”…to cloud your judgment. You are making assumptions based upon those prejudices rather than forming opinions based upon verifiable facts.

I’m afraid that your prejudice against “people dying” is destined to cause you a lifetime of angst. Regardless of the media reporting that this or that precaution will reduce your chances of death, the last time I checked the human mortality rate alarmingly approaches 100%.

The suicide part of your purported “openness to policy” is specious. Firearms policies have not been demonstrated to affect overall suicide rates, persons intending to commit suicide simply select another mechanism. Therefore, firearms policies are irrelevant with regard to suicide rates.

As far as policies that reduce murders…that is self-evident. The vast majority of perpetrators and victims of murder have prior records of violent crime. Put violent criminals in prison and keep them there. Murders would be reduced by up to 80% (well…except for, perhaps, murders perpetrated in prison). No need to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens at all and a dramatic reduction of not only murder, but ALL violent crime can be realized.

I find it especially interesting that, in denying that you base your conclusions on prejudices and conjecture, you employ obvious prejudice and conjecture in formulating your “suspicion” about my beliefs.

When did I claim that anyone is anti-gun? I only said that you allow your prejudices to color your judgments.

This is evidenced by your insistence that concealed carry on campus would be a bad thing without demonstrating a shred of evidence to back up that claim other than your own conjecture about what would result.

I’m not out to take away anybody’s right to own (or carry, in certain instances) a gun. I just don’t want some asshole blowing my head off because he’s having a bad day.

I don’t want someone blowing MY head off because he’s having a bad day either…that’s why I prefer to be armed myself just in case he tries. You’re telling me how many out of control, drunk, violent people there are on campus and, in the same breath, telling me that I don’t need to provide for my self defense there? What sense does that make?

So imagine that situation if either of the two fellows, or Ajai, had been carrying a loaded pistol. No thanks.

And you know that neither of the other two fellows were armed by what means? Did you wand them? Pat them down? Ask politely?

What if one of them HAD been armed and had used that weapon? Your roommate would have defended himself in what way…a stern reminder that guns aren’t allowed on campus?

And would the two epithet hurlers have been so quick to indulge their insulting proclivities had they known that your roommate may have been legally armed?

In any case, any possible alternative outcomes to that little anecdote are nothing more than speculation and conjecture.

I repeat. The fallacious nature of the hysterical “blood in the streets” arguments are borne out unequivocally by the schools that allow concealed carry with no detrimental effect. These hypothetical shootouts in the streets (dorms, classrooms etc) are the same arguments that were used in opposition to shall issue concealed carry in the first place and, no matter how many times they prove to be groundless, are trotted out inevitably any time the subject comes up. The fact is that concealed carry permit holders are the SINGLE most law abiding cross section of society in America bar none…even more-so than members of law enforcement. Allowing those who carry safely and responsibly elsewhere to do so on a college campus is not going to instantly transform those otherwise law abiding, contributing members of society into murdering lunatics.

Oops, sorry, that last one was me too…directed toward John. I posted it in a hurry and neglected to put my info in the blocks.

I would say the case for Concealed Handgun Licenses has been made, with forty of the fifty states having adopted them, most are “shall issue licenses.” I think the case has been made for banning “gun free” zones.

I think the case has been made for banning “gun free” zones.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’d argue this point further if there was ever a doubt in my mind that gun-free zones would ever, ever go away, but they’re not going to, so eh, whatever.

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.