Lessons from Colorado

NickImage

For the third time the state of Colorado has witnessed a murderer run amok. The first occasion took place in 1999 at Columbine High School. The second occurred in 2007 at the offices of Youth With A Mission in Arvada and in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The most recent, and the bloodiest, has just taken place in the Century 16 Theater in Aurora. Given these episodes and others like them, certain lessons are worth pointing out.

The first is that human suffering is real. The mayhem within the theater was only the beginning of the anguish that will result from one individual’s sinful choices. The pain of this event will scar many people for many years. Individuals who were not touched by the bullets were nevertheless touched by the trauma. The victims include loved ones who were not even in the theater but whose lives will never be the same because of the terror that was let loose. In the face of such suffering, no feeling person can remain unmoved. Our hearts go out to those whose lives have been ended or forever altered by this crime. Our souls yearn for the appearance of the One who will bring true and lasting peace and righteousness to the earth.

The second lesson is that evil is real. The murderer has already been characterized by many as a psychopath, but even psychosis does not have to result in this kind of slaughter. An individual made a choice to unleash horror. He did not accomplish this deed in a moment. He had a bright mind, he planned carefully, and he acted in ways that were calculated to bring maximum hurt to people who had never harmed him. Whether or not some pathology was involved, this act was vicious and malevolent. The right word for this man and his deed is evil. In a fallen world, the existence of evil must be taken into account. Christians should allow no naïve utopianism to stand unchallenged. Evil is alive and well on planet earth.

Third, governments cannot stop the sort of evil that occurred at Century 16. They have only a limited ability to defend their citizens from this kind of violence. Officers of the law despair of being able to stop such crimes. Commenting on this kind of event—random shootings perpetrated by lone gunmen—former FBI agent Peter Ahern said, “There’s no way you can prevent it. There’s absolutely no way.”

In a sense, Ahern is too pessimistic. There are ways to strongly tilt the odds against another mass shooting. For example, the government could outlaw public gatherings of more than three people. Or it could release squads of police officers to conduct random searches in homes and on the streets, arresting anyone whom they suspect might commit a crime. Such measures, however, are so draconian that they would actually produce greater harm than good. The liberties that citizens would surrender are far more important than the risk of being caught in a random shooting.

Fourth, when governments cannot protect their citizens, it becomes prudent and even necessary for citizens to attend to their own protection. People have no obligation to permit themselves to be struck down by predators and evil men. On the contrary, they have a right to defend their lives, limbs, and property. They also have a duty (when it is within their power) to defend the innocent.

Fifth, sometimes the restraint of violence calls for violence. The cliché that violence always begets violence is an affectation of navel-gazing mystics and the Woodstock generation. Sometimes violence, when it is rightly administered, brings an end to violence. Sometimes the just exercise of violence is the only way to end unjust violence. Sometimes peace is achieved through strength. No qualitative difference exists between calling on someone else (such as the police) to exert force in one’s behalf and exerting force for one’s self. If they were consistent, people who object to using violence against violence would never call for the police when they were being assaulted.

Incidentally, the allowance of violence in the exercise of justice is one of the principal differences between Baptists and Anabaptists. This is not the time to revisit the arguments (though they should be reviewed, perhaps in a future essay), but Baptists have believed that Scripture supports the right of just authorities to wage war and to execute certain criminals. Together with other Christians they have also believed that, under most circumstances, Scripture allows for the use of deadly force in the defense of one’s self and the lives of others. Baptists have been willing to serve as magistrates, to fight in just wars, and to take (predatory) life in the defense of (innocent) life.

Sixth, if the defense of life is ever a right—let alone a duty—then any law that deprives people of the necessary means of defense is an unjust law. It is a law that moral people may disregard. When a government forbids the means of self-defense (as distinct from state defense, which requires weapons of war), then it is overstepping its licit authority. From a biblical point of view, it may and often should be safely disobeyed.

Seventh, one of the worst ways of exposing people to violence is to herd them into zones in which they are publicly labeled as defenseless victims. This is precisely what happened at the Century 16 Theater. The state of Colorado allows its citizens to carry the means of defense, but both Century 16 and its parent company, Cinemark Century Theaters, disallow it. The predator (a bright guy from all accounts) did not plan to shoot up a police station. He planned his assault for a location filled with disarmed, defenseless victims. If the Century 16 Theater had permitted the necessary means of defense, the result would have been much the same as if the shooting had occurred in a police station. The death toll could have remained as low as two: the first victim and the perpetrator. Century 16 and Cinemark bear part of the responsibility for this catastrophe.

To understand this point, one need only consider the disparity between Colorado’s three recent shooting sprees. The Columbine shooting and the Cinemark shooting both occurred in disarmed-victim zones, and in each episode the death toll was staggering. The other shooting spree (the one that began at YWAM and ended at New Life Church), however, was cut short when a church lady, Jean Assam, applied the necessary means of defense to the shooter. This is the spree that fewer people remember, probably because it hardly began before it ended.

Some have suggested that a believer should willingly exchange his life for the life of an assailant. They reason that the believer, if killed, goes straight to heaven, but if the assailant is killed he loses every opportunity for salvation. This theory may work when the believer is entering an assailant’s territory and no other good is being risked (e.g., Jim Eliot and Nate Saint refusing to fire upon the Aucas).

Imagine the chaos that would result if every Christian police officer tried to live (which is to say, die) by this theory. No, the theory is terribly myopic, in part because it takes no account of further harm that the assailant will do, both to believers and unbelievers. Granted, application of the means of self defense within the Century 16 Theater may have ended the assailant’s opportunity for salvation. Not being able to apply that means, however, ended the opportunities of many more people. Given a choice, it would be better to see the perpetrator being carried out and a dozen others granted the chance to repent.

Two Went up into the Temple to Pray
Richard Crashaw (c. 1613–1649)

Two went to pray? O rather say
One went to brag, th’ other to pray:

One stands up close and treads on high,
Where th’ other dares not send his eye.

One nearer to God’s altar trod,
The other to the altar’s God.

Discussion

Permits are no longer required for conceal carry in AZ, but I am planning to take the local course through the police dept. anyway. Friends who have taken it here have found it very helpful, including in regards to the questions JD raises.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

One point that is often overlooked in these kinds of situations is the fact (and I think Kevin’s article pointed this out) that any gun-free zone like a school, theater or church which prohibits carrying a firearm is a natural target for this kind of criminal. Whether a granny with a .357 magnum in her purse would have been able to put this guy down is irrelevant. He had no fear of taking fire, at least for a good while until police showed up, since the policies of the theater nearly guaranteed that he’d be the only one inside with a weapon.

Instead, if he’d had a reasonable suspicion that he might have faced an armed response from his targets, it might have caused him to alter his plan. As someone already said, he didn’t shoot up the Aurora Police Department, he shot up a bunch of unarmed and unsuspecting citizens.

Whether it is the law or company policy which prevents a citizen from defending himself and those around him, it is unjust and ought to be ignored.

[pvawter] Whether it is the law or company policy which prevents a citizen from defending himself and those around him, it is unjust and ought to be ignored.
Are you really prepared to argue that gun laws should be ignored by Christians, or was this a little hyperbole?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[JD Miller]

There seems to be a consensus that the right to carry is a good idea, though some valid cautions have been raised. With that in mind, does anyone have any recommendations for specific training programs, videos, or articles that should be read or viewed to help those that carry do so in a safer manner? Further, do you understand the possible legal ramifications of discharging a gun in public even if you are authorized to legally carry it? I strongly encourage people to carry, I just want them to think it through first. I can see how easy it would be to just go out take the class, get the permit and start carrying simply as a reaction to what has happened recently. I personally hope there are some guys who do think it through and make a commitment to safety and responsibility and to defending the defenseless. My big questions is, “as a pastor, what impact would my use of a gun to stop a crime have on my ministry?” I think that answer will be different depending on the region you live in and what the attitude toward guns is in that area, but I also believe it is a question that must prayerfully be contemplated.

JD, You raise a series of good questions. There’s a lot of training out there. The best training for civilians of course is costly. Almost every local gun range will offer courses or put you in touch with someone offering special courses on self-defense and the related laws. Three very simple things you can do: shoot thousands of rounds and be very familiar with the weapon you’ll carry. That makes it an extension of your body and more second nature. Second, test yourself by doing calisthenics during your shooting session. For instance, do 20 jumping jacks & 20 pushups as fast as you can, then stand up and shoot 10-12 rounds for speed & accuracy. The elevated heart rate and breathing will be similar to what can be experienced during a chaotic situation. Third, learn to shoot from covered positions and different body positions. Most people shoot at a range, or outdoors standing up and with no practice firing from behind objects. It’s completely different to be kneeling, prone, or leaning out from a wall or other object. It’s not super difficult, but like anything requires some practice.

Lastly as to your question about impact on ministry..that’s a good one. If you use deadly force to stop a crime that results in death. You will be under investigation for homicide. It may be completely justifiable, but you’ll still need costly legal protection. Even in your home, there are some basic rules that apply to self-defense in most states. You should also be aware of the stance of your local law enforcement and district attorney toward citizens and deadly force. Some DA’s will seek to prosecute you to score political points. It’s a very serious issue.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Are you really prepared to argue that gun laws should be ignored by Christians, or was this a little hyperbole?

In case you missed it the OP made the same (somewhat astonishing) assertion.

When a government forbids the means of self-defense … then it is overstepping its licit authority. From a biblical point of view, it may and often should be safely disobeyed.

There are laws in the United States that prohibit the use of force to prevent a type of murder that has been legal since the early 1970’s. Can/should those laws also be safely disobeyed?

The issue being discussed here is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And this is an important discussion to be held.

But since this (as well as A Nick in Time) is ostensibly a “Christian” site, one that acknowledges the difference between a world-view focussed on temporal, earthly, physical, “self,” matters, and a world-view that is Godly in the 2 Cor. 5:16-17 sense, focussed on the eternal (2 Cor. 4:17), heavenly (Phil 3:20), spiritual (2 Cor. 4:16), and “others” (I Cor. 13:13), I think it reasonable to expect to find a biblically-oriented discussion of the issues raised. I AM NOT DISPUTING Dr. Bauder’s essay or ANY of the comments already posted. I am NOT a pacifist, but I do recognize that to be equipped to “carry” would require more time and effort then my calling and mission would allow; and so I gladly place myself under the protection of those human beings to whom God has gifted, and delegated that authority and mission “to serve and protect.”

I submitted Dr. Bauder’s essay to a local police officer whose police-training (both physical, mental, and emotional) I respect, and whose Godly world-view I profoundly appreciate, and who is becoming more and more the focus of his life (i.e. I am seeing more and more of the Lord Jesus in him [Eph. 4:13-16] ). His overwhelming response was that he agreed in principle with all but one of Dr. Bauder’s points. His thoughts on the application of his principles were very similar to what has already been posted.

His disagreement was with Dr. Bauder’s point six. He responds: “Disagree (as it is written). I Peter 2:13-17. The law does not forbid anyone from protecting the innocent (abortion laws aside), but it may forbid the carrying of some TOOLS that are HELPFUL in doing that “duty” or enforcing that “right.” Note: I think these laws (“gun-free zones”) are stupid and near-sighted, but that does not give me the right to break them. I can be in submission to the law (‘EVERY ordinance’, no wiggle room there) and God, as well as avoid being a victim, by simply applying some common sense. If I carry a firearm, and certain places don’t allow me to do that (aka- “disarmed victim zones” as the author brilliantly points out), then don’t go there. God has given me no license to disobey civil law simply so I can go take in a movie.”

He does understand that the use of “human ordinance” in I Peter 2 to mean “law” may be a matter of interpretation, but he believes it is at least a valid application of “anthropine ktisei”.

But his main objection was to the absence of any appeal to recognizable biblical principles in the argument; to the clear presentation of a Godly world-view. After all, we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and the basis of judgment will not be the U.S. Constitution.

What is the role of God’s sovereignty in such a case? Where’s the dividing line between our submission to ‘Man’ and ‘God’ in this case (Acts 4:19)? Upon what Word of God (and he’s not looking for proof-texts!) does the ‘right to bear arms’ for personal protection rest? What does it mean to our thinking that “…If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17)? Is Abraham Kuyper correct in stating: “No single piece of our mental world is to be sealed off from the rest; and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’ ”?

Perhaps we should look at the description of Goliath in 2Sam17:5-7 “….he had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale armor..he also had bronze shin guards on his legs…his shield carrier also walked before him.” v40 “and with his (David’s) sling in his hand, he approached the Philistine.” Was David prepared?(v40-stick,stones,sling).Was he skilled in the use of his weapon?(v34-35). Did David’s weapons or skill defeat Goliath? We all know the answer to that!

gpinto