Monday, December 10, 2007

Minimizing Losses

If they paid attention to the lectures and read the material, anyone that has taken a microeconomics course knows the concept of minimizing loss, as a common practice in business. When profit cannot be realized, this must become the focus if the business is to remain solvent and prosperous.

Shift this thinking toward the recent shooting at New Life Church, the Colorado congregation that was attacked by (yet another) deranged gunman, armed to the hilt for a little personal war, with people that likely had nothing to do with the cause of the gunman's unhappiness. Then, contrast what might have happened vs. what did, in fact, happen. It is there you will see the value of what having a gun for protection, really means in this day and age.

Meet Jeanne Assam, the lady that in all likelihood saved hundreds of lives in that church Sunday.

Many that are predisposed to being adverse to the licensing and carrying of firearms as well as those that have a tendency to be critical of the Christian faith, will likely be villifying this woman as the days wear on. But, when you do the math and count the heads, be sure you consider the caskets that may have been used in the next few days, in the Greater Denver area.

If this woman had not had that weapon, if she had not been trained to use it, and if she had not been willing to use it, the death toll could/would have been much higher and grief would have been more abundant. As it stands now, only a few were shot before she could neutralize the threat.

This is something every anti-gun advocate cannot deny, if they have any critical thinking skills.

4 comments:

A.C. McCloud said...

It sounds funny to say thank God she was armed, but thank God she was armed.

LASunsett said...

AC,

Yes it sounds funny to phrase it that way. I am sure God isn't too happy that this happened, but understands the need to protect innocents that were, at this time, virtually defenseless.

Mustang said...

I believe Ms. Assam did the correct thing under the circumstances, and she deserves the title heroine. Whether she saved “hundreds of lives” could be a reach, but she did save some and in the process, justice was served and taxpayers saved the expense of trial and incarceration. The incident raises a number of questions, and I believe that true to form, government bureaucrats will allow them to go unanswered. First, why didn’t the police look into the “hate mail” sent to the Youth Mission organization? If Murray was as disturbed as this article suggests, why didn’t his “deeply religious” father have him evaluated and treated? Of course, it is always possible that Murray detested his father, and that part of that hate transferred to Christians — religious families can be dysfunctional, too. The point being, four people may be alive today had responsible individuals, parents as well as government officials, taken appropriate preventative action with respect to this shooter. They did not, and because they did not, they are partly to blame for what happened — and this failure should be getting more attention.

I am sure God isn't too happy could be an understatement. I do not believe that God allows such things to happen, or that he prevents them from happening — no more than he prevents innocent Iraqis from being destroyed by IEDs. The extent to which God interferes in human events is a worthwhile discussion, but based on what we know of these events, there does not seem to be a miraculous intervention. If we later find that Ms. Assam does not normally arm herself as a security officer, but on this particular day did decide to carry a weapon, then perhaps we can debate such a theory.

LASunsett said...

//They did not, and because they did not, they are partly to blame for what happened — and this failure should be getting more attention.//

Right you are, my friend. For every cause there is an effect and behind every effect is a cause. One cannot always help how a kid turns out. But if there are signs that the kid could do something dangerous like this, it is the responsibility of the parents that have access to this information to intervene.