David Hertz suggests that if one of the congregants in the Colleyville synagogue had had a gun or other weapon on their person, the hostage situation could have been resolved much sooner (“The Lessons That [Certain] Jews Won’t Learn,” January 27, 2022). While it is possible to imagine a scenario in which an armed congregant gets off the perfect shot at the perfect moment to neutralize a threat, it is also quite easy to imagine situations where a less-than-perfect intervention ends up causing many casualties. There is, after all, a reason that police do not simply rush into hostage situations with weapons blazing. The quickest resolution need not be the most favorable.

Every synagogue should soberly evaluate its security needs, and may choose to incorporate armed security as a part of a security plan, but I would hope that no individual shul member would take it upon themselves to bring a deadly weapon into shul. This would pose a far more immediate risk to shul security than the remote possibility of an event like that in Colleyville.

Security plans should address contingencies in which a dangerous individual gains entrance to the shul, but we should recognize that the options available in such scenarios are far inferior to the options available when a dangerous individual is prevented from entering the shul in the first place. “Stop the shooter” is the goal, as Hertz says, but the focus should be on stopping the shooter before they can enter the shul, ideally by projecting a security presence outside the building that deters that individual from initiating an attack, and prevents them from accessing the building should they still attempt to do so.

David Fass

Teaneck