Making Churches a Gun-Free Zone: Unbiblical and Dangerous Idea

This blog entry was started over a year ago. Some time in June of 2014. At this moment, I cannot remember what specifically inspired me to write this. I am sure it had something to do with a shooting in a church or school and other places looking at passing laws to forbid the lawful carrying of a firearm inside of a church. And, it's interesting to me… I had forgotten that I had started writing this paper/blog entry until a few days ago. Recently, though, a number of events, including the shooting the shooting in a church in South Carolina and, most recently, the shooting at a Marine recruiting station, brought gun control to the forefront of my mind.

While reviewing my blog entries, I saw that I had written one on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012 (Reflections on the Connecticut Shooting). It was a terrible incident where a young man stole a car and several weapons and proceeded to kill a number of people at the Sandy Hook school. And, without wasting much time, many people on the left were immediately screaming for more gun control. They screamed for more background checks, for stricter control on guns (pistols and rifles), for the banning of 'assault rifles,' etc. Though I was sickened by the senseless killing of the children at Sandy Hook, I was deeply offended and angered by the left calling for bans, control, etc.

When our Forefathers wrote the US Constitution, the added onto it the Bill of Rights, freedoms that all law abiding citizens were to have. The 2nd Amendment states thus: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Found here.) Why was this written? In the 1700's we were a British Colony. The government of England decided that they could do with us as they pleased, including taxing us heavily, allowing soldiers to search peoples' homes without cause, to arrest people if they pleased, and many other abuses. We eventually rebelled against England and, after many years of armed conflict, gained our independence. The Amendments was added to our Constitution to protect every person's individual rights. Those writing the Constitution, like George Washing, Thomas Jefferson, etc., had seen what tyranny was like. Therefore, they wanted to enable future generation to have protected freedoms.

Protected freedoms of practicing one's own faith, of being able to peacefully protest for or against something, etc. But, without the ability to actively resist tyranny, even from one's own government (local, state, national, or even a foreign power), none of the other Amendments really matter. As a whole, we have many good laws on the books, both locally and nationally, to protect the innocent while prosecuting the accused law breakers. However, law enforcement officers and judges can become corrupt, a criminal can be very intelligent and hide what he does from others, or law enforcement can be delayed in responding to an incident.

From my experiences as custody staff with the Nebraska Department of Corrections, I have seen depravity at its finest. So to speak… While I believe that people can change, and I have seen God do some awesome things in the lives of inmates, I also know that it is not always the case. There are some very evil people who are incarcerated in our prison system. They are people who would be more than willing to do a person great physical harm if they felt that it would benefit them enough. Many are very good at putting on a façade towards their family, lawyers, religious volunteers, etc. But, if one has to deal with them on a day-to-day basis, away from the public eye, one will sometimes observe a very different side of them.

We have law enforcement professionals, local, county, federal, etc., for a reason. Because of our sinful nature, we are inclined to act out on our sinful and selfish natures. Whether it is something self-destructive that causes harm to others, like drinking and driving, or whether it is something directly aimed at harming others, like assault or murder. I am thankful that we have such people that are willing to put their lives on the line to protect people from those that would want to do them harm. However, they are only human, can only be in one place at one time, and have to respond to when an emergency call is made.

And, that is why I am against these 'weapon free zones.' Unless a place, like a Federal Building, has an armed security force, you are jeopardizing the lives of others within the 'gun free zone.' From the time that a person makes a phone call to 911 (or hits a silent alarm), it can easily take several minutes for the dispatcher to inform those on duty where the emergency is, let alone for the law enforcement officers to actually get on scene. Sometimes it is less than 5 minutes, but it can easily be more. Having done many training scenarios in the Army and with the Department of Corrections, a lot can happen in one or two minutes, let alone 5 to 10 minutes.

The thing that many people either don't understand, or choose to ignore, is that most of those who choose to commit many of these great atrocities do so because they have a blatant disregard for laws. Although some crimes are committed “in the heat of the moment,” many are actually planned out. In fact, many who are serial killers or plan on doing major crimes do major planning before they commit their crimes. The take their time to choose when and where to commit it, as well as how they plan on escaping. The James Holmes, who was recently convicted in the mass murder of the people in the Colorado theater, did a lot of planning before he executed his attack. He choose a movie to do his killing spree in that had lots of action and gunfire so as to mask his shootings. He planned ahead with selecting his weapons and body armor (one article is found here). All of this points to a very evil and vindictive personality, who calculated what to do and when to do it.

Those of us in the military have two terms for targets, 'hard' and 'soft.' A hard target would be one that is fortified with various layers of defense. Although a maximum security prison is built more to keep inmates in, though keeping people who would want to break them out is an important aspect of their security, would be an excellent example of a 'hardened target.' Because of the layers of defense, it would be very difficult to get into a maximum security prison. It would also be just as difficult, if not even more so, to try and break out. Many banks and military bases are built with layers of defenses that overlap each other. These layers of defense keep unauthorized people out and those who are charged with protecting the facility safe.

On a personal level, a 'hard target' for common criminal include a number of different things. A few might be observant neighbors that watch out for each other, one or more dogs that can alert the occupants to something that isn't right, solid doors and well made locks, windows that are secured, landscaping that prevent people from hiding near doors or windows, etc. Each of these things would make it more difficult for a criminal to enter the premises and commit their crime. Except for those who are choosing to commit a violent home invasion, most criminals want to sneak in, commit their crime, and then escape without the occupants and/or police knowing that they were there.

A 'soft target' is one that either does not have any defenses or its defenses are marginal or can be easily be overcome through brute force, intimidation, or the like. A grade school without any armed security personnel and is a 'declared gun free zone' is an excellent example of a 'soft target.' If the sole purpose of an attack is to create as many casualties as possible, as quickly as possible, and with little or no risk to the person committing the crime, the school would be a prime target. Think about it… Each classroom probably has 20-40 kids with 1-4 teachers. After a couple of occupied rooms, such a criminal would have easily injured or killed a large number of people in less than 5 minutes, and is on the way out. Especially if none of the school staff were allowed to carry a firearm to protect themselves or the teachers that they were charge to care for and to teach.

As a Christian, I believe that God calls me to care for those around me. Whether it's my immediate family, friends and neighbors, the inmates that I watch over, or those in a foreign country that I am their guest of. God calls me to seek out His justice and to share His love with those around me. From my Presbyterian heritage, one of the things that has helped me in my faith journey is the Book of Confession. It is a collection of writings from various theologians over the centuries to help explain what Scripture says. One of those writings is the Larger Catechism. It is a very in depth explanation of what we Christians believe. One of the things that it covers in detail is the Ten Commandments. The 6th Commandment is “Thou shall not kill.” The thing is, the Hebrew word, ratsach(found here) means to murder. It infers premeditated, planned killing of innocent life. From 7.244 through 7.246, the Larger Catechism explains what this means. In a nutshell, not only am I to avoid causing harm or death to those who do not deserve it (the innocent), but I am also to protect them from others wanting to cause harm or death. It is not just a 'good idea,' it is a biblical mandate (7.246 especially)! (They are questions 134-136 in the Larger Catechism.)

I sincerely believe that if we were to remove the 'gun free zones' so that those who choose to carry in order to protect themselves and others, will greatly reduce crime. As I stated before, most criminals want to go someplace to commit a crime where there is low risk and high rewards. When a place declares itself a 'gun free zone,' they attract criminals. Criminals know that law abiding citizens believe in following the laws. Therefore, if they will either not carry their weapon into the 'gun free' establishment or avoid going it at all. That means the criminal has a much lower risk for committing their crime.

I also believe that if good, quality training were made more available for those who choose to carry, that would also help make our society safer. Every situation will be different, and no training, no matter how good, can cover all possible scenarios. However, any kind of good training that helps a person, during times of high stress, be able to negotiate criminals from the innocent, quickly determine if it is safe to engage a target, how to aim effectively in difficult situations, etc., is better than nothing.

In short, I believe it is a biblical mandate to serve and protect others. Because of my background in the military and corrections, I have a lot more training than others. I wish that those who also seek to take care of others, including using deadly force if it is absolutely necessary, should have access to good, quality training. Not only is it a biblical mandate, but I believe that our Forefathers protected our rights to defend ourselves via the 2nd Amendment. Any time innocent people are injured or killed, we should be angered about it. However, taking away the rights of the individual (in this case, their right to be armed) is not the answer. Creating more 'gun free zones' will only encourage more attacks. Taking away people's rights to protect themselves will create more victims. This is the thing that criminals want. Not just your 'average criminals,' though. Because of the rise of radical Islam, the more 'gun free zones' and the more anti-2nd Amendment laws you create, the victims you create. Such people, espeically terrorists, love 'soft targets.' If you believe that you are called to serve and protect, or especially to serve via creating laws, should you not enable people to protect themselves instead of creating more and more victims who cannot protect themselves from armed assailants?

Reflections on the Connecticut Shooting

I am sure that I am not the only one out there writing his or her reflections on the incredible act of violence that transpired at the elementary school in Connecticut Friday. Like so many people, I am contemplating how to understand what has transpired. Because of my background, how I have been contemplating such events is a real mixed baggage. If you are interested and willing, please continue reading as I list some of my thoughts. Just be warned, I tend to be upfront with my faith and beliefs, and at times very blunt.

First and foremost, this was a very evil act. To me, purposely going after people who are unable to defend themselves is something that should be very harshly punished. But, to me at least, why did he do it? How could a 20-year-old man consider doing something as cruel as going through a school? Being angry at one's parents, former teacher, etc., is one thing. Whether justifiable because of things in the past or not, one adult seeking to kill another adult is one thing. But, to go around and slaughter children?! That is something totally different. My faith informs me that all of us are imperfect and sinful beings. That is, our natures are corrupt since birth, seeking to gratify our felt desires. Through training, we can manage this to some extent, be we will always have this sinful nature. When we look around, we see some people who go to great lengths to disciple themselves so as to indulge their sinful desires less. But, we also see those who go out of their way to gratify them. Though many do not seek out ways so horrific as what happened on Friday, they still seek to gratify them.

For someone to choose to commit such a crime as shooting innocent children in a school, it seems that such a person would have had to harbor a very deep kind of bitterness for a very long time. In Ephesians 4:26, we read: "26 "Be angry, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath," There is something very important to take away from this passage, I believe. When we allow anger to continue to fester in our hearts, it turns to bitterness. As this bitterness grows, it pushes out things like love, forgiveness, compassion, etc. As these things are pushed aside, out of one's life, it becomes more and more easy to consider things like taking one's anger out on anyone who is available, to just lash out. All of us feel angry at some point of time. That is a natural, God given emotion. It tells us that something is wrong (or at least feels wrong) and that something needs to be done. So, feeling angry is not bad, in and of itself. It's what a person does in expressing and/or deal with that anger that is either constructive or destructive.

From what little I have read, two of the victims appear to be his parents. It makes me wonder what his parents had done to enrage him so much. Or, a more likely issue is, what made this young man interpret things in such a way as to become so bitter. In a recent Fox News article, I read that some are speculating that mental illness might have something to do with his rampage. While in college, I took several psychology courses. One of the things that I learned from that is that reasons are never totally clear. Though there can be many influences, it's rarely clear as to what is a 'definite why.' My experiences and training inform me that we all have three facets, the physical, the emotional/psychological, and the spiritual. All three facets are interrelated and what happens to one directly impacts the other two.

On Facebook, I have read many posts about how angry people are about the man's actions in Connecticut. Some people blame guns, some blame education, others are just angry. Many people are struggling with wondering the "why did he?!?!" Others are asking how we could have protected the children.

I've worked corrections and military law enforcement. I am definitely not alone in wishing I could have done something. Being what my background is, I know that I could have done something. But, I often wonder if it would have been good enough? That is not a question I can really answer. Because of how many state and/or local laws are written, if I am not a law enforcement officer then I would not have been able to legally carry a weapon onto school grounds. That means, if I had been nearby and had the means to respond, I wonder if it would have been something that I could have done legally? I know that there are many out there that agree with me in that, were I there and had the means to have use whatever force necessary to stop this young man, I should have. However, I know that there are many out there who take the position that anything that, because I am not a civilian law enforcement officer, any use of a weapon on school property would be considered breaking the law. That is, I would be just as guilty of using a weapon on school grounds as the man shooting the children, teachers, etc.

When such events as this happen, we all struggle with how to understand it. We all struggle with how it could have been prevented and how to prevent future things from happening. There are no easy answers. There are no easy solutions, either. There are some things that are better than others, though.  One of the things that I read in the above-mentioned article was that the car and guns used in the rampage were all stolen. The car, the rifle, and the pistols were all owned by his mother, Nancy Lanza. Whether or not the young man suffered from any mental illness, it is clear that he stole weapons from someone else to use in his crimes. So, trying to justify more weapons control/bans is unfounded. He didn't buy them, he stole them. So far I have not read if he used the weapons to kill his mother or if he killed her by other means and then obtained the rifle and pistols. And to me, it doesn't really matter.

Although I am a military police officer with the Nebraska National Guard that does not mean that I can carry a firearm onto school grounds, with or without a CCW (concealed carry weapons) permit. There are so many people and places that are anti-gun that for those who choose to go through the training and application process for a CCW, it's difficult to be legally able to use that training. To me, that's sad. It also angers me. Many of us not only have a passion to help and protect others, even if that is not our primary job in life but have the training and experience to do so.

I don't know about others, but I would be very, very angry if any person who choose to risk their own life to stop someone like this shooter and were they prosecuted as a criminal because they also brought a firearm onto a school. Unfortunately, heroes like that are victimized because, in order to stop someone from committing a crime, they had to break a law. Instead of thanking the person for doing so, they are put in jail. It doesn't make any sense to me. Which is worse, carrying a firearm onto school grounds to stop an active shooter or the actions of the shooter? What is really justifiable? Which is a greater evil? We have Good Samaritan laws to protect those who try to save the lives of others. Why don't we have similar laws to protect citizen who would be willing to risk their own lives to protect others in a shooting situation?

I've been deployed to Iraq many times. I've studied Scripture for years and prayerfully seek God's help in applying it to my life. I have worked with convicted felons in a state prison, having to deal with some people who genuinely do not care about others, but only want to gratify their own selfish, even perverted, desires. I have also worked military law enforcement. I have been on a use of force team on numerous occasions because an inmate refused to follow the rules and force was necessary to correct the situation. I have had to spontaneously use force on a few occasions in order to protect myself or someone else. I have sat at the bedside of someone who was so distraught with life that they tried to commit suicide and had not succeeded. I have talked with friends and family members of someone who had suffered serious injure or had died because of a bad decision that they had made or because of someone else had. In some ways, all of these experiences help me to personally deal with such events. But, only so much.

All in all, I still struggle with such events. I am angry with the person who did such things. I am angry that people want to punish law abiding citizens who have not committed crimes just because someone else has. I am angry that there are those who would want to punish a person who would be willing to do anything and everything they possible could to protect the innocent because of how they stopped a criminal. I am saddened that young children were murdered by someone who, for whatever reasons, took his anger and bitterness out on them. I also want to understand how such a thing happened or how to prevent such a thing from happening in the future.

Many ask how a loving God could allow such a thing to happen. I do not know why. But, I do know that God is in control. What happened was evil. But, I do know that God can bring blessings out of it.  I know that many people will be very angry with the statement that I just made. That is fine with me. Looking back at my life, I know that I have made many bad decisions. We all have. But, God has shown me grace and helped me to learn from such mistakes. I know that God has done that in other people's lives. I also know that God can bring good out of this situation, too. For me, the big question is, are we going to seek to punish others for the sins/mistakes of one person, or are we going to seek how God wants to show us His Grace? Are we going to be willing to accept what God wants to give us or teach us? I don't have the answer for that either. I just hope and pray that whatever God wants to do with this event in my life, that I will be obedient. I pray that you, the reader, will do so as well.

RC