Our View - Wednesday

Action, not reaction

New Life security an example to follow

There’s no other way to say it: This past weekend’s shootings at New Life Church and Youth With a Mission were tragedies. Four innocent young people were killed and several others were wounded. Many families have been shattered. Our prayers are with those families and their friends as the deal with these events.

We don’t pretend to have the answer to prevent this kind of tragedy, but it can be instructional to look at what shootings of this nature have in common: they took place in places where shooters expect to find unarmed victims. At New Life, that expectation turned out to be a fatal mistake for the gunman; he was stopped by an armed member of the congregation. That’s the lesson that should be taken from this event.

A quick study of mass shootings in the United States reveals the same common element: Schools, malls, offices and churches are usually gun-free zones. Many people are comforted by that knowledge. Bad actors bent on killing a large number of innocent people see those areas as killing fields where there is little danger to themselves. They’re free to unleash their violence, secure in the knowledge they’ll be able to do a lot of damage before anyone arrives on the scene to stop them. Most times, it seems they’ve already decided on suicide and either kill themselves when police start arriving on the scene or continue shooting until shot by police or armed citizens. On Sunday, Jeanne Assam stopped the killing and likely saved many lives.

It’s becoming a sad fact of modern life that Americans must encounter armed guards as they go about their business. It’s not that crime rates are up, it’s the possibility of random violence that concerns people. And although readers are finding out that many churches have guards and armed members, it’s not something we associate with worship services.

Schools and churches are especially vulnerable to violent attacks for a few reasons. They are meeting places, therefore providing gunmen a large number of potential targets in a confined space. Most of the folks gathered are not expecting an attack and are not trained to deal with such an event. And deranged assailants are fairly sure their targets will be unable to fight back.

There’s no workable solution to concentrating people in confined spaces at school and church; having students or worshippers together is their reason for being. The second problem can be addressed with planning and training. At New Life, worshippers were evacuated to safe locations on the campus until the threat was neutralized. But that still leaves those unable to move quickly at the mercy of persistent attackers. Unarmed victims are an easier problem to address. New Life and several other churches in the area have armed security guards or congregants who are licensed to carry concealed weapons and have the training needed to deal with armed threats. Other churches would be wise to follow their example.

Many churches are designed with the doors in the back, with worshippers facing away from them, unable to identify any threat until it is too late. Having armed members of the congregation on alert to watch for problems can go a long way toward neutralizing those threats before they become a danger to others.

Are there risks to having armed worshippers returning a gunman’s fire? Of course there are. Organizations would have to weigh the risks against the danger of an unhindered attack and decide how they want to proceed.

At the risk of sounding cavalier about the loss of life, some people believe violence is not the answer to violence, but many times it is the only effective response to those bent on killing. In past shooting sprees, many people speculated on whether so many would have been killed if there had been an armed person on the scene who could have stopped the attack. In those cases it was just so much hot air because there are so many variables that can affect the outcome. On Sunday, Jeanne Assam showed the value of being able to respond effectively. She was the hero of the day and deserves all the accolades coming her way. She’s also an example of a good plan and good training having a positive effect on our society.

Too many so-called farmers grow pork

The Senate began debate Monday on a farm bill that missed an historic opportunity to reform and at least trim somewhat a program that has become an entitlement for affluent, large farm operators. President Bush has threatened to veto it in its present form.

The most constructive step, for the country and for taxpayers, of course, would be to eliminate the program of subsidies for some crops entirely. The system was begun during the Great Depression, designed as a temporary program to get farmers through some tough times and get back on their feet again. More than 70 years later its major effect is to make food prices higher (which affects poor people most acutely) and shift money from taxpayers to corporate agribusiness.

In its current form the bill would add subsidies for fruit, nut and vegetable farming, which have prospered up until now without subsidies.

Several reforms will be offered as amendments this week. Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., would allow payments only to those making less than $250,000 a year and are actively involved in agriculture, rather than absentee owners. Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., would replace subsidies with a crop-insurance program that would be funded by farmers during prosperous years so money would be available during lean years.

Either of these proposals would be an improvement over the present system. If neither of these reforms passes, Bush should break out his veto pen. A vote is expected before the holiday recess.