Today, three people died in Colorado in shooting incidents at a church and mission.

DENVER (Reuters) - Three people were shot to death and six were wounded in Colorado on Sunday in two church-related shootings in the U.S. Christian heartland.

A gunman -- described by an eyewitness as dressed in black, wearing combat boots and holding an assault rifle and at least one handgun -- wounded four people when he opened fire in the parking lot of the vast New Life evangelical church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, after Sunday services, police said.

A New Life church security guard shot and killed the gunman before police arrived on the scene, Colorado Springs police chief Richard Myers told a news conference.

Police did not identify the gunman. There were about 7,000 people in the building when shooting erupted, a pastor said.

In an earlier incident, 70 miles away, a man who entered a Christian missionary training center in the Denver suburb of Arvada with a handgun killed two young missionaries and wounded two others shortly after midnight, police said.

The Arvada gunman, also dressed in dark clothing, fled on foot in the snow.

Police in the two cities said they were sharing information but declined to say whether they thought the attacks were related. There was no indication of motive in either case. link

Which fact is stranger about this story? That someone would kill people at a missionary training center or that a church has an armed security guard?

Last week, a teenage gunman walked into a shopping mall and killed eight people.

A man dressed in camouflage and armed with a rifle opened fire among holiday shoppers in an Omaha department store Wednesday, killing eight people, wounding at least five others and sending hundreds into terrified panic.

The 19-year-old shooter died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His body was found on the third floor of the Von Maur at Westroads Mall.

It was the deadliest shooting spree in Nebraska since Charles Starkweather's 1958 rampage.

Witnesses described the carefree sounds of holiday music suddenly punctuated by rapid gunfire shortly before 2 p.m.

They related horrific scenes: multiple people gunned down in the store's customer service department, others on a floor below shot as they were looking up an escalator toward the chaos.

"The shots wouldn't stop," said Von Maur shopper Carol Padon.

The shooter was identified as Robert A. Hawkins. Witnesses at the mall described the gunman as having a military-style haircut, wearing a camouflage vest and a black backpack and carrying a rifle. link 2


Worst shootings in modern U.S. history

• Blacksburg, Va.
April 16, 2007
33 dead, 20 wounded, Virginia Tech campus. Gunman killed himself

• Kileen, Texas
Oct. 16, 1991
24 dead, 20 wounded, Luby's Cafeteria. Gunman killed himself

• San Ysidro, Calif.
July 18, 1984
22 dead, 19 wounded, McDonald's Restaurant. Gunman killed by police

• Austin, Texas
Aug. 1, 1966
17 dead, 31 wounded, University of Texas Tower. Gunman killed himself

• Littleton, Colo.
April 20, 1991
15 dead, 23 wounded, Columbine High School. Two gunmen killed themselves

• Edmond, Okla.
Aug. 20, 1986
15 dead, 6 wounded, Edmond Post Office. Gunman killed himself.

• Atlanta
July 29, 1999
13 dead, 13 wounded, Atlanta brokerage offices. Gunman killed himself

• Jacksonville, Fla.
June 18, 1990
10 dead, 4 wounded, GMAC Office. Gunman killed himself

• Red Lake, Minn.
March 21, 2005
10 dead, Red Lake High School. Gunman killed himself

• Louisville, Ky.
Sept. 14, 1989
9 dead, 12 wounded, Standard Gravure Corp. Gunman killed himself

• San Francisco
July 1, 1993
9 dead, 6 wounded, Pettit & Martin Law Offices, San Francisco, Calif. Gunman killed himself

• Nickel Mines, Pa.
April 16, 2007
6 dead, Amish schoolhouse. Gunman killed himself.


Source: Violence Policy Center.
(Note: Death toll includes shooter or shooters.)

What I noticed was the response by many Americans after the Iowa shootings. Nothing. Even on there was no discussion of the shootings. Why it that? After Virginia Tech was the Iowa mall body count too small to merit our attention?

The question for debate:

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

The Columbine massacre occured in 1999, I think the trend is more obvious if you date them correctly. Perhaps you should also add cult murder-suicides like Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones. Not much to say really other than there are lots of crazies out there and readily available firearms for them to act out their insanities. A more interesting topic upon which to speculate might be whether the U.S. has more crazies per capita than other countries, or do other countries, like those theocratic ones, just recruit all their crazies into a single extremist religion?

I suspect the U.S. has as many crazies per capita as other countries, but we also have a greater pluralism of craziness, thereby diluting the number of fanatics in any one faction. Certainly you can't get fewer fanatics than a faction of one plying his intolerance with an assault rifle. We enjoy the blessings of fragmented nuttiness in the U.S. Be grateful.

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

Maybe. I asked my wife today what was up with all the shooting lately. They do seem to occur in multiples. Probably give someone the idea after someone else does it.

What's with all the camo clad gunmen?

I noticed that except for 66 in Austin the shooting really began in the early 80's.


Reagan's/Clinton's/Bush's? fault?
Spread of liberalism?
Rise of the Conservative Right and their attacks on government programs and the rise of the darwinist/elitist "only me myself and I" leanings of the GOP?
Our current media forms?HBO?
lack of respect for human life from society?
Is it more available guns?

or just that with a population of millions it's inevitable that the 1%ers who go off the deep end
are going to eventually choose the shooting spree idea?

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

Some Americans may be growing numb to shooting sprees. All of us aren't by any means.

There are ways to prevent some of these rampages, but someone is going to slip through regardless of what we do, I think. Even if the populace at large were to be forbidden to own guns, there would be someone who could acquire one, or it might be a person who uses a weapon as part of his/her job who snaps.

It is ironic how alienated some of us can be in a time when there are well over 6 billion of us inhabiting the planet. When we crave privacy, can it sometimes be because we don't possess the skills of socializing and coping with others in a peaceful manner, or we'd just as soon not bother with our fellow human beings?

Something (and choose what you'd like for this) is causing us to devalue the lives of others and making it easier to shed the moral constraints that have kept most of us from killing each other. Obviously the fact that it is illegal and a capital offense in some places to commit murder is not serving as an adequate deterrent.

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

Being "resigned to the probability that there is no way to prevent them" and being numb are not necessarily the same thing.

Let's put this into perspective. There are roughly 300,000,000 people in the United States. 1% is 3,000,000; 0.1% is 300,000; 0.01% is 30,000; 0.001% is 3,000.

In 2004, there were 11,624 homicides involving firearms. That was 0.004% of the population at the time... that is all gun related homicides... not just mass shootings. If NRA figures are correct, there were about 275,000,000 guns in the US at that time. 275,000,000 guns... 0.004% of the population killed by guns.

Obviously, there are things people can do to limit the number of shootings, but prevent them? I don't know how anyone would be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening. As the population increases, the probability that a person will be a nutjob willing to perform this type of act increases. This is a gross oversimplification, but, in 1970 there were roughly 200,000,000 people in the United States, the population has increased by 1/3 since then. Do the math.

The problem is that we pay too much attention to these acts. The media glorifies these killers. I believe that this type of act has become a way to be remembered for some people who are thinking of ending their life.

This doesn't mean I'm numb to these events; it means I try to be realistic about the probability of preventing these events from occurring.

11000 per 300M = 11/per 300,000 or 35 per million. However in the U.K we think 1.5 per million is an issue.
You are numb

I was just playing around with that site that entspeak shared and what I found interesting is the number of Violence-Related Non-Firearm Deaths was 21,483, nearly twice that of firearm deaths. Why aren't those highlighted in the news?

Never said they weren't an issue. I said that shooting sprees - which make up an even smaller portion of these numbers - are incredibly - nigh on impossible - difficult to prevent and that recognizing this fact doesn't make one numb.

What would you suggest be done to prevent this? We have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms (outdated, in my opinion - and that would be the subject of another thread - but it exists). If the number of deaths as a result of a shooting spree is such an incredibly, incredibly small number compared to the number of firearms out there, it would be difficult to justify banning firearms based on that data. The evidence is clear... guns don't kill people... some people kill people using guns. And the number of people who go on shooting sprees is miniscule in comparison to the number of people who own guns. So, the availability of guns aren't the problem. What is?

What we have come to be completely numb to is the carnage elsewhere in this country.

Hundreds of thousands die from bad air and water pollution

From your post I count 183 dead. Going back to 1986.

We lose an average of 770 people a WEEK on the roads and many times that number inured or crippled. How often do we discus this? Never.

The shooting sprees are as hard to prevent as any other irrational act in any society. The traffic deaths need more attention imo.

I meant to respond to this in my previous post.

I didn't want to write about these shootings, much less start a thread on them. I was heartsick about them and didn't really want to deal with the subject. I do not attribute this to numbness or to unconcern for a "small" body count, but to being tired of hearing about the sick killings and hearing the incredibly insensitive TV anchors asking the families of the victims how they "feel" about losing their loved ones or whether they "lost their faith". Sheesh.

God help me if I'm ever in a similar situation and some TV reporter asks me such stupid questions. I might just tell them what I think of them and their questions.


There is one big difference between traffic deaths and death by shooter--intentionality. Why does someone "go off" and decide to go on a spree killing innocent people?

Yes, traffic deaths are a reason for concern. But are you going to stop people from driving or traveling by car? Just what can be done to stop them, cutting the speed limit back to 55?

Every night the local news reports vehicular accidents involving injuries and/or fatalities. I do not believe that it reflects a lack of concern, do you?

I would assert that things are being done, mostly by automakers, to protect drivers from serious injuries. First there were seat belts, then seat belts with shoulder harnesses, then air bags, then air bags not only in the steering wheel and dashboards but also side air bags, etc. I believe that more has been done to reduce vehicular fatalities than has been done to prevent mass shootings by people who have become unhinged.

Well it was just reported in the news that the gunman of the church shootings in Colorodo was angry because he was kicked out of missionary training there. Also, the armed church guard who finally shot him "prayed for guidance" before pulling the trigger. And wasn't the evangelist Ted Haggard recently arrested for obtaining services from a male prostitute and smoking meth? Wait, I recall also hearing of some other evangelists (G.W.Biggs, Kent Hovind) being arrested for theft and tax evasion.

I guess these days, the Ten Commandments aren't quite what they used to be. "Religious conviction" has an entirely new meaning when I read the news now.

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

The problem with getting older is that there’s more to remember.

The first time I remember mass murder was when Charles Starkweather conducted his eleven victim rampage across Nebraska and into Wyoming in 1957.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather

The phenomenon of mass murder is always disturbing. That said, I have no idea how to stop or curtail these heartbreaking events.

I too have never forgotten the Starkweather killing rampage! To this day without consulting a thing I can still remember my mother reading the account of this ghastly rampage aloud from some publication of the time. I definitely am not numb to any of these occurrences. I think there are reasons why these horrible acts appear to be happening more than ever. Could the media coverage have anything to do with it? Do violent movies, games etc. have anything to do with it? Does lack of parent supervision have anything to do with it? Is the reason a compilation of the above named? I have no idea what the answer may be. But for some reason I will never forget that Carol Fugate did not get the same sentence that Charley Starkweather did, and even as a kid, I thought she was as guilty.

No offense intended, none at all, but what does a corrupt evangelist have to do with a man pulling out a gun, casually aiming at several innocent churchgoers, and playing to ever-so-scintillating sport of "let's shoot people"?

Religion does not make people into saints. In philosophy class, I vaguely remember my professer explaining to us that often, religion acts as an amplifier. It can only enhance that which is already presnt within ourselves; thus, a meth-addict will still be addicted to meth, televangelist or not.

The security guard killed this man. I believe that this is what security guards are supposed to do, when faced with a rampaging killer. He prayed, before shooting. Most of us would probably swear. Frankly, its his choice, as long as he did his job.

Actually, the shooter killed himself after the female volunteer security guard shot him: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316398,00.html*

It seems weird to me that a church would need to have armed security guards. Apparently the leaders recognize the high probability that there are some zealous people in this world who can become unglued.

Additionally, we don't know how many other hate-filled communications that church might have received as a consequence of their founder Ted Haggard's indiscretions.

I would agree that whatever is in a person tends to be enhanced or amplified by religious fervor. If this young man was one of the teens undergoing training for missionary work, he possessed a zeal. Further, a person who was zealous about his religion would tend to suffer a more serious disillusionment when one or more of his "heroes" fell off the pedestal in such a dramatic manner. It could cause someone to react angrily, for sure, but I'll draw the line there and say that for the vast majority of evangelical religious types murder would not be an option.

So I understand the cynicism expressed by metropolitical, although I would hasten to say that there are a lot of good and decent people who are evangelical Christians and who shouldn't be painted with the same broad brushstroke.

I am sure that there are a lot of soldiers in Iraq right now who pray before they pull the trigger. If a person who is a Christian takes up a gun in the performance of his/her job, it is reasonable for that person to expect that some day he or she is going to have to shoot somebody. For those who have issues with this, they should not be employed in a job where they have to carry a gun.

There are books filled with martyrs who did not act first or retaliate when shot with arrows or guns or pierced with spears. However, we are not all called to be martyrs for the faith, especially when it is our responsibility to defend others.

But it does seem that the message of peace has been getting lost lately.

*With apologies to my fellow liberals for using FOX news; it was the first link I found.

We know that nearly half the deaths are drunk drivers and we have increased penalties – but more needs to be done. The auto makers are helping with “stability control” (a must if you get a new car) – but the carnage is horrific. And what is not covered well is the “why” – some., as mentioned is DWI but much of it is just bad roads, signals etc. and this gets literally no coverage.

The shooters are a small group of deranged people who do irrational things and make big headlines – mush as the “man murders wife” stories we hear nearly every night.

I would challenge your assertion that bad roads, signals etc. get literally no coverage.

Just the other night 3 teenagers were killed when the driver (who lived, incidentally, but had no driver's license) pulled out in front of a semi. At school yesterday, my daughter was comforting a couple of students who were friends of the deceased teenagers. Road conditions weren't the greatest, but it was the fault of the driver. And the fact is that no matter how safely roads are engineered and how many hazardous conditions are eliminated, there will still be traffic accidents and deaths.

Traffic signals, railroad crossing signals and road hazards, unfortunately, have to be changed after tragedy strikes. But they are changed as the public pushes its officials.

But this is not the subject of the thread. The question is whether we are numb to the shootings of these people who go off the deep end and take out innocent people. I say we aren't, at least the people I know. If you believe that traffic accidents are more to be feared, fine. I doubt that it will stop you from driving and/or being a passenger in a car, though.

The day we all die of old age in our beds will never come. But violence will always be a cause for alarm when people don't die of natural causes but because someone intentionally killed another human being.

Hadn't thought of that angle, PE. It used to be that church was a sanctuary, now it's like the mall. The few occasions that I drive by that huge church on the northern side of Colorado Springs, a little voice always says, "That's wrong."

The young man who did this wanted to be famous. He advertised this on the Internet and left those tracks because bloggers archive the blogs. He built up a legal stash of weapons and a large quantity of ammunition over the course of about a year. Somebody notified the FBI. The FBI claims that they notified the CSPD, but what can you do when no crime has been committed? This all comes out a week or so after the rampage.

He also had conflicts with this particular church. He wasn't Christian enough, which I think is a major problem with what the evangelical types are doing. It has to do with judging, you know?

So I guess it wasn't that hard to track down. The solution in Colorado Springs is to allow security guards to carry more ammunition and semi-auto pistols that hold more rounds than a revolver. The caliber might go up from .38 and .357 too. More and bigger, and there's the whole philosophy.

I suppose the congregation will go out and get concealed-carry permits. For going to church, of course. Or just pack in revealed holsters, just like the Old West, dual Colt .45s with pearl grips and the Bible, silver spurs that jingle-jangle-jingle, an old paint, Stetson set back on leather vest by chinstrap, the rich smell of cow on everyone.

The difference between traffic deaths and deaths by shooting spree should be obvious. People expect, or should expect, to be in a very dangerous situation while driving. People don't expect danger at the mall while Christmas shopping or the mega-church while praising Jesus, but maybe that's going to change.

Think I'll avoid the occasional drive-by. Stray bullets, you know? Probably Kevlar-piercers too. I've never liked the mall. You can hardly get me into Wall*Mart.

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

No and yes.

I believe that most Americans, despite a certain amount of justified cynicism, are quite empathetic about the horrors which befall their fellow creatures. Despite their concern, I believe that most are aware that such tragedies cannot be prevented without living in a totalitarian society. There are sensible precautions* that can be taken to reduce them, of course, but they cannot be eliminated. We should keep in kind that they are still rare happenings; this is why they are news.

(*This is the real debate in cases like this. From what I have read about this particular case, the killer, no doubt already suffering from some form of mental illness, cracked because he was trapped in an ultra-strict culture which offered no escape from whatever it was that was torturing him.)

I mostly agree- you can't stop a "lone gunman" that is determined to die and wants to take a bunch of folks with them- that is why suicide bombers are usually so effective- there is no way short of killing them before they detonate the bomb to stop them, and they have the element of suprise.

With drunk driving deaths- I have no idea how to stop them. Alaska has one of the worst records in the US on this, while having the harshest penalties in the nation- first offence, mandatory 3 days in jail, take away your car, sell it to someone else.

3 DUIs is a felony, 5 years in jail and lose your license for life, and ruinous fines.

Still, just yesterday, a grandfather with his grandkids in the car was sentenced to 12 years in jail for killing a mom of three while driving drunk (did I mention he had his grandkids in the car? ) - so I have no idea what to do next with all that.

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

No, but I am becoming bored with people who celebrate the death of American soldiers with counters. If we're going to celebrate, why not include a counter for the number of terrorists killed, the number of automobile drivers killed, the number of hospital patients killed, or the number of unborn humans killed? When will the madness end?

Also, I think history provides the perfect guidance in answering your question. Have killing sprees ever been stopped in the history of man? How long has man existed? Well a very, very long time, right? Long enough to safely assume that there is no way to prevent them?

Wow. I would have never guessed thought this topic would be fuel for someone to ignite somebody's partisan grudge, but here we are.

When will the madness end? Why don't you ask your Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush that question? If the surge is such a success, why can't U.S. troops start coming home instead of being murdered by the very same Iraqi soldiers they're supposed to be handing this war off to?

If you're "bored" by the tally of American solders killed and wounded that I keep in my signature, there's a real easy solution: DON'T READ IT. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if you're bored, outraged, offended or annoyed by the counter.

If you think I callously "celebrate" the deaths of American soldiers by keeping count of the dead and wounded, you're far more cynical than I and I can't take someone that cynical seriously.

Your comparison of the deaths and wounds suffered by American soldiers to people killed in hospitals or automobile crashes is a profoundly ridiculous one. People who die in automobile crashes die in accidents. People who die in hospitals typically aren't murdered in the hospitals. If you can't figure out the difference between deaths in warfare and death by accidental and non-purposeful means, then there's nothing I can do to enlighten you.

As for comparing those killed in war with the number of unborn humans "killed," that sounds like a personal problem with abortion you need to work out for yourself.

Finally, you're welcome to keep your own running tally, TFI of the number of terrorists killed. Hopefully, you won't get any real terrorists confused with innocent Iraqi citizens killed by American soldiers.

Why don't you ask your Speaker of the House? When is she going to cut off funding for the war? How about getting real terrorists confused with the innocents they kill, Miss Partisanpants. Your comment on abortion implies you have no problem killing babies. Seems you have a problem confusing terrorists killing innocents with your friends at abortion central killing innocents (babies). BTW, notice how Hillary is a losing, I'm sleeping great. Have a nice day.

Are Americans becoming numb to shooting sprees and resigned to the probability there is no way to prevent them?

From my outsider's perspective, no, I think it's less that Americans are numb to such things but that they find them an acceptable price to pay for their freedom to keep & bear arms and - critically, their freedom not to pay through taxation for a mental healthcare system that might be able to protect against such things, and their freedom from the nosy neighbours and cheek-by-jowl family life that might provide the support networks to identify and (possibly) help people out of desperation or despair long before going to the mall and killing a load of strangers or - at best - acquaintances before killing yourself comes to seem like a good idea.

The trade-off isn't usually that explicit, and it's linked much less to a stand on Constitutional principle as it is to people's (often inaccurate) grasp of probability - it is unlikely to happen to me, therefore I won't waste any time worrying about it and I certainly won't support any payment of my money to do anything about it.

In many ways it's more like the way we all, in car-driving societies, accept the thousands of deaths (and consequent bereavements) and maimings (and subsequent blight on lives, be they permanent or temporary) that come about through the use of cars. Few of us want to give up our cars, or drive slowly and carefully in cars that'll crumple or wobble like Jell-O whenever they come into the slightest contact with pedestrians or other vehicles.

No - we'd all really prefer - give a fre choice and unlimited funds - to drive a big beastie with a half-ton, numpty-nine-cylindered power unit that will push us from nought to WHOA-daddy!! in a nanosecond. And 'cos we're safe in a nice big metal box (or at home with a full gun cabinet), we don't give much credence to those who want to cramp our style.

Put it this way, if most Americans were realy that worried by the regular outbreaks of these shootings, you'd have done something more to stop them.