After the anti-Semitic attack in New York and the church shooting in Texas — on Saturday and Sunday, respectively — an argument has again been ignited over whether houses of worship should have armed security and armed congregants. The debate is oddly timed, to say the least. The attack in Texas was neutralized within seconds by an armed volunteer security guard named Jack Wilson. What is there to discuss? If he had not been there, many more would have died. He was, so they didn’t. The math seems pretty straightforward.
Of course, you could argue that if the heroic Wilson weren’t there, the assailant might have been taken down by one of the other armed worshippers who can be seen on video. Their presence deals another blow to standard anti-gun talking points. We’re often told that the “good guy with a gun” strategy is flawed because all of those gun-toting good guys would turn a mass shooting into a wild west gun fight with bullets flying everywhere. Now, even if this were true, isn’t it better to have bullets flying everywhere rather than bullets flying only in the direction of innocent bystanders? Nobody wants church to turn into a Gunfight at O.K. Corral, but I’d rather have that than another Massacre at Sutherland Springs.
.png)
.png)
