Editor’s Introductory Note: This guest article was selected by JWR. It was first published at the Sheepdog Church Security website. It is reposted with permission.
—
Let me start this article by saying that “I like the police”. No, that’s not strong enough – “I love the police”. On a couple of occasions, I worked as a consultant to help one of our local police departments and sheriffs’ departments work more efficiently together. I was extremely impressed with the professionalism of the officers on these projects. And, contrary to what the news would have you believe, these officers showed a high level of compassion for individuals in the community.
The Limitations of Police Response in Active Shooter Events
However, faith-based safety teams and houses of worship cannot depend on their local police department if there is an active shooter event. Police officers can’t be everywhere, all the time, immediately when you might need them. The issue is “time” – typically the police are not on-site when an active shooting event occurs.
I write this article after reviewing yet another set of proposed practices that houses of worship could use when faced with an active shooting event. In this specific case, the recommendations were based on the “Tree of Life Synagogue” attack. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the recommendations were incomplete and perhaps naive. The author of the article presented information following the typical run, hide, fight model. However, the author really wasn’t being proactive about the fight portion – fighting for your life and the lives of people you love.
I approach this from a slightly different perspective – most of the organizations I advise are Houses of Worship (often with schools as part of their organization). And, let me suggest that attitudes about defending schools and houses of worship are changing.
There is virtually no disagreement that approximately 98% of active shooter events occur in gun-free zones (nonpermissive environments). And, houses of worship, schools, and colleges and universities are (or often were) typically nonpermissive environments.
And there is no disagreement that churches are facing more and more attacks. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) points out that anti-Semitic incidents in the US have increased by 360% compared to last year (likely as a result of the Israeli-Hamas war). The Journal of the American College of Surgeons shows a 500% increase in school shooting deaths from 1972 to 2023. Further, anti-Christian attacks on churches have increased 800% over the last six years, according to the Family Research Council.
Challenges in Responding to Active Shooter Events
With this increase in hostility, many houses of worship struggle with an appropriate response to active shooter events. The issue for the houses of worship often involves struggling with the morality of self-defense (the use of firearms). And the missing element in this article is the use of firearms: arming members of the congregation, religious leaders, or staff for self-defense purposes.
However, what is also overlooked in this article is that attitudes are significantly changing. Directly below I will present information from both schools and houses of worship on how they plan to react to active shooters.
Evolving Policies and Practices
Currently, thirty-four states allow teachers or administrators to carry concealed firearms within the schools (kindergarten through high school). Some schools have gone so far as to purchase firearms for their teachers/administrators. Additionally, several states have established voluntary training programs for the teachers/administrators that will allow them to become qualified to carry firearms on their campuses.
Further, sixteen states allow each college or university to determine if individuals (including students, faculty, and administrators) can carry firearms. Again, this allows each individual institution to determine its own policy. Additionally, several states are in the process of establishing or expanding the rights of employees to carry guns in school settings.
Rising Support for Armed Security Teams
According to a research study by Lifeway Research (of 1,000 Protestant pastors), armed church members are becoming more common as part of their congregation’s security measures. In 2019, the study showed 45% of US Protestant pastors had armed security members as part of their security measures. By 2022, that number had risen to 54% of the congregations having armed church members as part of their security teams. This represents a 9% increase over a three-year period. Also, it is worth noting that now armed congregation members are the norm in Protestant churches.
Additionally, according to the same Lifeway Research study, fewer churches have a no-firearms policy in place. In 2019, 27% of the churches had a no-firearms policy. By 2022, that number had dropped to 21%.
Effectiveness of Armed Security in Active Shooter Events
Of course, the question is often raised about the effectiveness of armed individuals stopping an active shooter. John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, released data that shows that 35.7% of active shootings were stopped by armed citizens (data compiled from 2014 to 2021). Rob Morse of Buckeyefirearms.org has studied active shooter events where citizens were allowed to be armed and determined that ordinary citizens stopped the attackers almost 2/3 of the time.
Obviously, if an armed individual stops an active shooter (before the police arrive), the number of individuals killed or injured is greatly reduced. The issue of timing is critical during a mass shooting event. Even under the best of circumstances, the police (because of their response time) cannot match the response of an armed individual already on-site. Ed Monk’s research breaks down the average number of killed individuals for each minute of delayed response. Review of his research makes it blatantly clear that waiting for the police to respond will result in higher casualty numbers. Unfortunately, police need time to receive the call, to dispatch police officers, for police officers to arrive, and for police officers to find the shooter – and people are being killed while this occurs.
Conclusion
In summary, attitudes are changing on how best to defend houses of worship. I would suggest that articles about stopping or mitigating shootings in houses of worship (churches, synagogues, and mosques) include information about arming members of the congregation, religious leaders, and/or staff. This appears to be the most effective methodology to quickly stop active shooters and significantly reduce injuries and deaths.