The Knoxville Church Shooting: We've Been Here Before

Look up "sacrosanct" in the Oxford English Dictionary and you will find:

Of persons and things, esp. obligations, laws, etc.: Secured by a religious sanction from violation, infringement, or encroachment; inviolable, sacred.

As many of us were enjoying our Sunday afternoon this past weekend -- perhaps coming home from church, or grilling out in the back yard -- we heard reports that a gunman opened fire at a children's production of "Annie" inside a church in Knoxville, Tennessee.

"Sacrosanct" doesn't seem to mean what it used to. Many were saddened by the news, but few were surprised, because this is not a new event in America.

We've been here before.

In fact, CNN reported that this was the fourth shooting attack on a church in 15 months, the most recent being the Colorado church assault where a suicidal gunman was stopped by a former Minneapolis police officer who had been specifically tasked to be on the look-out for the shooter.

The accused gunman in Knoxville had a history of domestic violence and suicidal behavior, and had a protective order filed against him by his now ex-wife, back in March 2000.

One account reports that he once held a gun to his ex-wife's head after "drinking heavily." Apparently, he had also been charged with a DUI and refused to submit to a blood alcohol test.

If that isn't enough, reports further say that he was motivated by a "hatred" of the "liberal movement" and targeted a church that to him symbolized advocacy of civil rights for African-Americans and gays.

When I say that we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns in America, the accused Knoxville church shooter is exactly the kind of person I have in mind.

It seems this man couldn't even get a job, yet he was able to walk out of an Anderson County, Tennessee pawnshop with the shotgun he would use a month later to kill two people, wound six others, and expect to be killed by police intervention.

On the other hand, it is important for us to take notice of the fact that the gunman could fire just three times because the shotgun he used was limited to three shells before he was forced to re-load.

Unarmed parishioners had the chance to tackle him while he paused. As bad as the Knoxville shooting was, it could have been much worse.

If we don't have the laws to help keep firearms from a man like this, then clearly we are not doing enough in this country to keep dangerous weapons from dangerous people. Some say the answer is more private guns in church. But that simply accepts four church shootings in a year-and-a-half as "normal" in America.

We need to find ways to keep dangerous people from gaining easy access to firearms. There is much more we can do to protect our children and families and help prevent shootings that, if history is any guide, we can expect to happen again.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Leifrakur]

In the shooter"s disturbed mind, his act was likely self-defense " not of the body, but of the emotions. He was defending his "right" to hate with a readily available firearm. He hated the "liberal movement." And so he made a statement. First he wrote in on paper, and then he wrote it in hot metal at a church thought to be part of the "liberal movement." He simply couldn"t fully defend his "right" to hate without incurring human "collateral damage." That"s America today, folks. As the poet said (almost), The Moving Trigger finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on¦

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--last time I checked--your opponents usually define self defense as stopping an attack that puts the defender in what a reasonable person would consider an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury--or at least that is how I define it.

[muffinman2]

Yes Paul, we HAVE been here before. And every damned time, it was in a gun free zone.

Gee, do you think maybe the criminals aren't paying attention to the "no guns allowed" signs?

[1will]

Paul can claim that the reason why this latest church shooting was stopped is because of the gun and the shooter stopping to reload. This is not the reason.
This shooting spree was stopped because of the mindset of those attending the church. The men that tackled the shooter were willing to risk their lives to save the lives of others. In a brief couple of seconds they had to decide whether or not to cower, run or defend themselves and others. They stepped up and should be applauded. They are heroes. This term is generally overused but it truly applies to these men.
The shooting that Jeanne Assam stopped in Colorado also demonstrates the attitude that is necessary to stop these shootings. She was not a police officer or security guard. She was a member of the church and volunteered to help safeguard her fellow parishineers. She saved many lives. Her actions should be held up as an example to others. Instead the anti gun crowd glosses over this story.
In America today everyone believes in being a victim or having the government run their lives as if they were children. To many embracing victimhood or giving up all personal responsibility is preferable to making a stand. I hope that the next time a shooter attempts a killing spree in one of our many gun free zones there are men and women present like Jeanne Assam and the members of the Knoxville church

[1will]

Cho reloaded a couple of times during his Va Tech killing spree. Why did no one tackle him if all that is required is a pause to reload?

[benEzra]

More than a couple. The Virginia Tech shooter reloaded at least 11 times.

[Wilson333]

Paul,

Thank you for the wonderful article. The danger of letting guns and ammunitions so easily accessible is clear. The tragic consequence is repeating. It's time to stop this madness. Americans do not have to suffer from gun-nuts bellicose campaign. Reasonable gun laws save life, period.

I applaud Brady Campaign's tireless effort in this regard. Thank you for bringing the truth to the public.

[Thirdpower]

And what "truth" would that be? The one where a 3 shell semi-auto is MORE dangerous than a 6+ shell pump action? The one where the authorities failed to convict this person multiple times?

[benEzra]

Do you propose further restrictions on the guns that law-abiding adults with clean records and no mental health problems may own, or are you suggesting we actually try to find common ground on getting people like the UU shooter into NICS?

Unfortunately, these discussions usually degenerate into calls to ban more guns from the homes and safes of the NON-violent, which is NOT going to happen. Your cause would be a lot better off if you would focus your efforts on the criminal and violent, instead of squandering your political capital trying to ban the popular lawfully owned guns in America.

[MeanGreenMachine]

Poor Mental Health is America's problem. Address this and violence will diminish.

[vespasian1]

LOL. I don't think they realize that you are pulling their legs, Wilson.

On a bright note, this criminal is stil alive. This will provide another excellant opportunity for the antis to let another violent criminal out of jail early, as they are so fond of doing, while calling for more gun laws.

[Wilson333]

Thanks. I was a little worried for a while, there. I thought I'd fill in for 'you-know-who' in her absence.

[SamThornton]

It's always difficult to say with any confidence whether or not a particular book, movie, or TV show cause an individual's behavior. Among the arguments against, for example, are that the association of the behavior with a book is simply coincidence; all people who've read the same book don't behave the same way.

Adkisson (the shooter) may have acquired the books in question because he already held the same opinions. People often buy books that reflect their opinions.

It's more likely that Mr. Adkisson suffers from a psychiatric disorder that predisposed him to violence, regardless of what he came up with as what he thought was a reasonable explanation. He likely would have done the same thing if he thought he was going after space aliens. Would we censor all science fiction as a response? Of course not.

[MeanGreenMachine]

Repost:

Radio Broadcasters and Print Media incited murder and were convicted in Rwanda.

In 1994 nearly a million were butchered by hand with machetes.

Words persuade and those who use them for evil MUST be held accountable!

"Hassan Ngeze, the founder, editor and accountant for Kangura fled the country as the RPF took control. He was arrested in 1997 and charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for his involvement with Kangura, as well as for his supervision of massacres in his home province of Gisenyi. His trial, grouped with that of RTLM co-founders Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, was the first to establish that media organizations could be held responsible for inciting genocide since the 1946 conviction of Nazi publisher Julius Streicher. In 2003, Ngeze was sentenced to life imprisonment; Nahimana and Barayagwiza were also convicted."

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

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

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

[SamThornton]

Same argument applies. In Rwanda there was an existing hostility between Hutus and Tutsis that went back generations with many bloody conflicts before radio and TV existed in that country. The two groups were predisposed to butcher each other and probably still are. Another dissimilarity is that the actions of a deranged individual are hardly comparable to conflicts driven by well-established political rivalries, as was the case in Rawanda.

[MorgansRifles]

Paul:

What about Jeanne Assam who stopped mass shooter Matthew Murray at the New Life Church in Colorado last year. She was a private citizen working as an armed security guard for the church. When Murray came in and started shooting she responded by drawing her concealed handgun and shooting him. Without a doubt she save many lives.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

You always ignore one thing that has stopped mass shootings many times...an armed, trained civilian.

Michael

[MeanGreenMachine]

Events like this are statistically non-existent.

Most gun deaths in America are murders and suicides.

[MorgansRifles]

MGM:

Please define "statistically non-existent". But before you do, you might want to look at this
National Institue of Justice survey "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms." They quote a figure of 108,000 defensive gun uses each year. Some studies (like the one by Kleck and Gertz) found the number may be as high as 2.5 million each year.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

More often than not, the studies show that the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter the criminal.

Another example is Joel Myrick ran to his car to retrieve his .45 to stop Luke Woodham's shooting rampage in Pearl Mississippi.

The fact is that that people do use guns defensively and they do save lives. Also, while they may be "statistically non-existent" for you, I am willing to bet that they parishoners of the New Life Church in Colorado don't feel that way.

Michael

[Tao21Zen]

"Events like this are statistically non-existent.

Most gun deaths in America are murders and suicides."

You just admitted above that guns are used at least 108, 000 per year to save lives. This is 3 times the number of lives taken annually with a firearm.

[Fudgefase]

Shame if you're one of the statistics.....

[Zogtastic]

Umm... the Tennessee shooter was in the Army... I'd call *him* an "armed, trained civilian" too.

[MorgansRifles]

Zog:

So, what's your point? Are you saying that "armed, trained civilians" can't use firearms to stop crimes? Do you remember Luke Woodham and Pearl Mississippi? V. Principle Joel Myrick wen to his car to get his .45 and held Luke at gunpoint until the police arrived. Would you rather he have waited and let Luke continue to kill more students?

The statistics are out there. Check out the National Institute of Justice study below. Even they conclude that Defensive Gun Uses are about 108,000 per year. And, some studies (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) indicate they may be as high as 2.5 million per year.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

Michael

[TakeSake]

Do his actions fall under the category of terrorism?

[MeanGreenMachine]

Yes.

[Quaoar]

This wacko most likely would have found a way to possess a firearm no matter how many well-intentioned gun control laws were in place supposedly to prevent him from doing so.

[SeaBlood]

Why don't we continue to do what we've been doing. Let everybody have a gun. Actually it would be a very "green" thing. Our national carbon footprint would be beneficially reduced

[Sneaky]

I dunno, I'm more supportive of the justice system doing its job. The guy couldn't have (legally) bought the shotgun, then.

But the justice system is infallible, no?

[ladyshooter]

The perp should have been prosecuted for 'Assault With a Deadly Weapon' because of he threatened her with a shotgun to the head. However, the Justice System failed, again, like it has on many occasions. The obvious conclusion is he should have never been walking the streets. He had exhibited violent behavior, but the Justice system did nothing.

He under a restraining order (this time a well-deserved restraining order), because of the previous incident with the shotgun. However, the Justice System failed to enter that restraining order into the NCIS. If the order had been entered into the system, the perp would have not been able to purchase a gun through legal trade. Any firearms, which he was known to possess, would have been confiscated.

I do have an objection to the way, the Lautenberg Amendment was written. A vengeful spouse, can obtain a restraining order, when there was no just cause for a restraining order. There is no requirement for sworn testimony and a court hearing to verify the legitimacy of the request for the restraining order.

[Tao21Zen]

"Why don't we continue to do what we've been doing. Let everybody have a gun."

Why not compare outcomes from shooting incidents where this has been done to those where guns have been banned. (see below)

Shooting where victims are forcefully unarmed by "gun-free zone" laws:

- Virginia Tech, 32 killed (some students killed even had CCW permits)
- Columbine High School, 13 killed
- Lupy's Cafeteria massacre, 23 killed (again, citizens had guns in vehicles but CCW not allowed at time)

Shootings where would be legally armed confronted shooter:

- Appellation School of Law, 3 killed
- Pearl High School, 2 killed
- Salt Lake City Mall, 5 killed
- Colorado Church, 2 killed

Some would say these figures speak for themselves.

[kaveman1]

If you think "we let everyone have a gun" in this country, then you need to brush up on firearms law.

[oafishcad]

Just another Conservative who thinks violence is the solution. Nothing new here.

[Sneaky]

I can point out a few "liberals" in history who feel the same. Or are you suggesting this is indicative of all, or even most, conservatives?

[Liberal2]

What you conveniently gloss over is what "problem" the person was attempting to "solve". The recent shooter just hated "liberal thought." Your implied "liberals" wanted to end a brutal and illegal war. A difference as subtle as that slips right by you, doesn't it?

[MeanGreenMachine]

Yes!

[kaveman1]

Hmm, a conservative angry about the government cutting his food stamps???

Too funny.

I guess the entire congregation were libs, huh?

Got any evidence?

[MeanGreenMachine]

Every news channel in America.

[SnowflakesInHell]

You keep saying "we need to find ways to keep dangerous people from gaining easy access to firearms," but you said yourself he was the subject of a protection from abuse order, which makes him a person that is prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms under federal law. This was a law your organization supported because it would ostensibly "keep dangerous people from gaining easy access to firearms." Well, it didn't work. The dangerous person still managed to get one, despite the prohibition. That's what we've been saying. You keep advocating for more laws, they end up not working, so you advocate for even more laws.

At what point have we passed enough laws? When there's licensing and registration, and a psycho still manages to shoot up a church or a school, what then? We know the answer to that, because when it happened in Dunblane, the United Kingdom banned and confiscated all handguns. And you know what? The bad guys there still have guns, and are using them far more these days than they did before the ban.

[Sneaky]

Sounds like somebody screwed up, and it wasn't the pawn shop.

So how many shots did he fire? Anyone know? Killing 2 and hurting 6 others with THREE shots sounds... dubious, at best. Sounds like he reloaded successfully at least once to me.

[Thirdpower]

It was a three shot shotgun loaded w/ birdshot. When he stopped to reload, they tackled him.

[Sneaky]

It's been a while since I've done skeet shooting, but you're telling me he seriously only fired 3 times and hurt 8 people? Killing 2? With bird shot?

Color me skeptical. I don't think we have all of the facts.

[Tao21Zen]

"If that isn't enough, reports further say that he was motivated by a "hatred" of the "liberal movement" and targeted a church that to him symbolized advocacy of civil rights for African-Americans and gays."

So now the shear strong dislike for one's political views should be grounds for infringing on their constitutional rights? What about all the "impeach Bush" and "everything is Bushes fault people"? How about we deny their right to exercise their free speech because they are "motivated by hate", that's only fair, right Paul?

[ladyshooter]

I have observed pathological hatred emanating from both extreme ends of the political spectrum. We have religious fanatics, associated with the religious right, advocating lynching gays, lesbians, and the transgendered. We even have members of the clergy doing this.

Then, we have fanatics,on the far left, who believe that conservatives should be lynched, or that violent measures are justified to disrupt business.

Fanaticism is a very dangerous personality trait. Violence, oes not lead to cooperation need for solving problems.

[MeanGreenMachine]

Liberals don't go around shooting people they disagree with.

[Tao21Zen]

"Many were saddened by the news, but few were surprised, because this is not a new event in America."

Acts of violence are nothing new to the entire span of human history. However, you only want to acknowledge violence committed using firearms.

---

" the Colorado church assault where a suicidal gunman was stopped by a former Minneapolis police officer who had been specifically tasked to be on the look-out for the shooter."

I see you still can't support your side's agenda without incredible spin. The key word is "former" police officer. At the church she was nothing more than a private citizen. As for being "tasked" to provide security, this was an unpaid service she offered to them. Basically, she said that as a licensed CCW holder she would carry her firearm "just in case." And we all saw what happened when this licensed private citizen used her legally carried firearm to stop an armed attacker.

---

"One account reports that he once held a gun to his ex-wife's head after "drinking heavily." Apparently, he had also been charged with a DUI and refused to submit to a blood alcohol test."

Way to grasp at straws Paul. If he was convicted of holding a gun to someone's head (aggravated assault), he would have been a convicted felon and thus a prohibited purchaser. Laws to address this are already on the books. As for the DUI, where does DUI = "gun wielding killer"?