jump to navigation

Man shot and killed at Lubbock parish, even though Diocese announced gun ban February 8, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
trackback

It is unclear at this time whether the Diocese of Lubbock has followed through on its promise to ban the open or concealed carry of guns from all Church premises. At issue is whether the required signs have been installed. However, the intent has been made plain since late last  year.  And as has occurred in so many other “gun free zones,” they almost seem a magnet to violence.  A man was shot and killed outside a Lubbock church last night:

A man was taken to University Medical Center following a shooting at a Lubbock church Sunday evening. Just after 8:30 pm – about 2 and-a-half hours after the shooting – police said the victim died.

The shooting occurred at the Saint Elizabeth’s Catholic University Parish, located at 2316 Broadway Street, early Sunday evening.

Witnesses said they heard a gun shot when they were exiting Sunday night mass.

Lubbock Police immediately responded and Orestes Garza, 51, was taken to UMC where he later died.

Garza is known as ‘West’ by many in the community. He was a musician performing at the Mean Women Grill and The Cactus Theater.

“Genuinely loved by everyone that met him and his dynamite performing skills and human being that he was will radiate through the Cactus Theater and the Lubbock community for many years to come,” said Dustin Garrett, a friend and co-worker at the Cactus Theater.

Late Sunday evening, Levelland Police apprehended the suspect involved in the fatal shooting. Levelland Police Dispatch said the suspect is in custody at the Hockley County Jail. The name of the suspect has not been confirmed yet. [He has now. Se llama Pete Garcia]

It sounds passing strange to say, but fortunately, this was a focused attack and not a crazed gunman seeking to kill as many as possible.  This individual apparently had some long-standing beef with the deceased and committed a heinous, evil act.

There are two general approaches to acts of grave evil of this kind.  One is to enact laws and ordinances that restrict the rights of individuals to defend themselves, hoping against hope that the law of averages will work in one’s favor and an attack will not materialize.  Inherent in this mode of thinking is that people are generally irresponsible and need to be closely monitored and directed in what not to do.  Thus, they should be denied the ability to protect themselves.

The other view is that law-abiding people are responsible individuals possessed of rights from their Creator, one of the chief of which is the ability to protect themselves when under attack or threat of attack.  It is possible had such an individual been present Sunday night, Pete Garcia might have been stopped and Orestes Garza still alive.  At the very least, we can see, yet again, how totally ineffective such bans are against individuals bent on committing grave felonies.

I’ll pray for the repose of the soul of Orestes Garza, and for an end to reflexive imposition of bad policies that do nothing to prevent gun violence, and may even help perpetrate it.

BTW, a reader had an interesting idea.  One reason why dioceses decide overwhelmingly to ban guns is because it is much cheaper, liability-wise, for them to do so.  That’s because there is generally little or no penalty, in terms of monetary liability, if an attack occurs on a premise with a gun ban.  But that may be changing.  There is a law under consideration in Tennessee that would hold entities that enact such bans liable for any injuries or deaths due to malice that occur on premises covered by a ban.  Individuals who would have been otherwise armed could thus so for damages.

It remains to be seen how effective this would be at overturning gun bans in private locales. Such would at least help tilt the cost calculations – which tend to dominate this kind of decision-making – back in favor of law-abiding armed citizens.

Comments

1. Anna - February 8, 2016

Garza was a good man. He coordinated music for all of our programs. He will truly be missed by everyone in our diocese.

Jacob - February 9, 2016

Sorry for your loss. It’s so sad when Satan convinces people to commit these horrific acts.

Orestes Garza, requiescat in pace.

2. Frank - February 8, 2016

As a retired attorney who formerly worked for a large Dallas-based employer, I can tell you that the Tennessee law you mentioned would gain wide support if it also includes a liability shield for entities that do not ban CC on their premises. You are exactly right that employers and others view such matters in this context, because tort liability risks and liability insurance costs both have gotten absurdly high. The law should also protect individuals who act responsibly in self defense or the defense of others from being held liable for injuries to any perpetrators or bystanders. Of course, the trial lawyers will squeal like pigs being neutered at such a proposal, but the NRA and, I suspect, most insurers would support it. Those are two very powerful lobbies.

Tantumblogo - February 8, 2016

Yes, forgot to include that important part. Dangit.

3. c matt - February 8, 2016

I agree with you that these no gun zones are useless, but don’t see how anyone carrying, open or concealed, could have prevented this. What is shows is that gun bans have zero effect.

Tantumblogo - February 8, 2016

This shooting took a bit of time to develop. There is a possibility, though likely a quite low one, that if someone else present was armed, the shooter could have been stopped. There was a confrontation between the man and the shooter, then a foot chase, and finally the man was shot. So there was perhaps a small window for intervention.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: