Henry, I don't actually think you're a confused moron. I was caught up in the emotion of the moment, I suppose, and not personalizing those who are confused. However, I'd still say you're confused if you don't think Jeanne Assam saved dozens of lives considering she stopped a gunman armed with hundreds of rounds of ammo bent on adding to his list of four kills. Just how did her act breed more violence? If you can give an example, I will recant. If you don't make that claim, you don't fall into the category I criticized, but if you make that claim while being unable to give an example, I have a good case that you're confused.
Thanks for dropping by the site. You're always welcome, confused or not. I'm often confused myself!
Hi,
I was going to respond earlier but good intentions do not get things done. This morning I woke up without a voice so I have a day at home and a bit of time between work issues.
The security guard's actions may have saved lives in this incident, but they also underwrite the notion that violence is effective. Her violent action terminated another's violent action, but the solution still endorses the notion of violence as a legitimate way to settle differences. There is no advance beyond the notion of violence as a solution and as such the action perpetuates the very kind of violence it was intended to end. In this sense this violence does indeed lead to more violence.
It has been said that until we are willing to pay the same price for peace that others are willing to pay for war, we will continue to have war. People are willing to give their lives for war, and until we are willing to die for peace we will continue to have war. What is peace worth? I recognize that this situation is not identical with what we generally call war, but there are parallels.
I am not suggesting that non-violence is a simple solution. It will often be more complicated, but that should not count against it. A marriage without children is in many ways less complicated, but that does not make it better. However, I do want to disturb the notion that whipping out a gun and shooting someone is a simple solution. That notion seems to me to be a copout that follows a whole list of other copouts that fostered the development of this violent situation in the first place.
Henry, I'm not eager to see guns in churches, and would be uncomfortable to think of guns in my church. However, I can just as easily say that violence led to less violence in this case, and every law enforcement official there would agree with me. In the future, other killers may think twice, and therefore it may perpetuate less violence down the road. How does your argument overcome that line of reasoning?
In any case, just who should have been willing to "pay the price for peace" at New Life? Are you willing to say it would have been better for dozens, maybe hundreds, to have been shot to death to make some sort of statement for peace? You can assert that the guard's gunplay was a copout, but what is your practical solution to the situation of a killer with 1,000 rounds of ammo coming into the sanctuary? This is my state and killings happened on my wife's school's property. We're beyond the hypothetical here. What would have been a better way to handle the situation? It's time for practical specific solutions, not vague assertions that there are no simple solutions. Since you're critical of how it was handled, what should have been done differently? WWHD?
This confused moron would like to extend condolences to all people impacted by this violence. Part of my confusion stems from the notion that God could have stopped all of this violence and sinfulness, but for reasons we cannot understand, chose not to do so. Then He sends His Son to die for our sins, and we are supposed to be eternally grateful to Him for providing a remedy for things He could have prevented, had He chosen to do so. So maybe schizophrenia is a divine trait, and now I don't feel so bad being a confused moron.
Dear God, Pour your healing into the lives of your dear children. We do need it so.