Gun Rights / Gun Control And The Church'S View.

[Saints Alive]

I'm just curious if there are any statements from church leaders about gun rights / gun control or is this one of those issues that the church chooses to remain neutral in?

(please keep this as apolitical as possible)

[Duncan]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54913284-180/apostle-lds-oaks-conference.html.csp

Elder Dallin H.Oaks says stock up on food not ammo

[Garden Girl]

http://www.sltrib.co...erence.html.csp

Elder Dallin H.Oaks says stock up on food not ammo

I've done both... I bought a 38 Smith & Wesson revolver... small but powerful. Took a gun safety class, got a permit, and occasionally go target practicing with my former bishop/chief of police and his wife. He continues to instruct me on how to use and care for my weapon to the point I'm comfortable. (My husband was the one who taught me to use a gun to begin with and who took me out to practice). I can't tell you how much better I feel, as a widow living alone, knowing I have my weapon and how to use it safely. I hope the Church never comes out against gun ownership... I won't give mine up...

GG

[Duncan]

I'm sure the Church would just leave it to whatever the laws of the land are and just leave it at that

[ERMD]

No concealed carry in chapels unless you're law enforcement.

[DavidB]

All things in wisdom and order. Nothing against the Gospel in protecting yourself and your family, infact, IIRC the Doctrine & Covenants instructs the protection of ones family. Also, what kind of steward would let things be ravished and wasted?

[Calm]

Perhaps this can provide some insights:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1997/09/somebodys-going-to-get-hurt?lang=eng

Edited December 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Saints Alive]

Perhaps this can provide some insights:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1997/09/somebodys-going-to-get-hurt?lang=eng

not without reading into it more than I'm sure the author intended.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm just curious if there are any statements from church leaders about gun rights / gun control or is this one of those issues that the church chooses to remain neutral in?

(please keep this as apolitical as possible)

Don't think they should enter into it, members and non-members alike will do as they see fit.

[Saints Alive]

Don't think they should enter into it, members and non-members alike will do as they see fit.

From a global perspective it would be hard for them to say anything other than don't own guns or obey the laws of the land since so many governments have stricter laws than the US

[treeface]

http://www.sltrib.co...erence.html.csp

Elder Dallin H.Oaks says stock up on food not ammo

Brigham told the Mormons heading out west to bring a gun and ammunition. Of course that was a different era.

No concealed carry in chapels unless you're law enforcement.

I know of a ward where a local nutcase with a grudge would call up from time to time and say that he was going to come to church and kill Mormons. As a result a member of that ward's bishopric carried concealed to church regularly, and had been advised to do so by a member of the stake high council. Whether this was alarmist personal opinion run amok or an inspired exception to the rule, I don't know.

[Garden Girl]

No concealed carry in chapels unless you're law enforcement.

I do know that... and other rules in general...

GG

[bdouglas]

Have there been any examples in the news, or maybe not in the news, where someone who was armed succeeded in protecting himself or his family from someone (or someones) who was intent on inflicting harm, or even taking life? I ask this sincerely, because almost every day in the news I read about accidents: the father who mistakes his stepson for an intruder and shoots him dead; a young man who, during a drinking party, shoots and kills his brother; armed community watch volunteers who collide one dark night when tensions are running high, with the result one is paralyzed and in a wheelchair and the other in prison; etc., etc. I could go on and on. A while ago I was talking with a friend about this, and I mentioned these examples, also cited statistics about the number of accidental gun deaths in the U.S., and my friend replied:

"But what about the heroic rescues? The armed good guys who take down armed bad guys?"

And I said, "I have never heard of such instances. Are there such instances?"

He said he didn't know but said he expected there were. But I think if there were the NRA would make a big deal of such instances. We would also hear about them on the news, especially the more conservative news outlets. But I have never heard of any such instances. Are there any?

(I repeat, I am sincere in my question. I'm not asking a loaded question, in fact I own a gun myself, but it is a shotgun that I use once every five years or so for dove hunting.)

Edited December 22, 2012 by bdouglas

[treeface]

Have there been any examples in the news, or maybe not in the news, where someone who was armed succeeded in protecting himself or his family from someone (or someones) who was intent on inflicting harm, or even taking life?

"But what about the heroic rescues? The armed good guys who take down armed bad guys?"

And I said, "I have never heard of such instances. Are there such instances?"

The NRA collects such incidents that appear in the news media: http://www.nraila.or...ed-citizen.aspx

What does not show up is the number of times an "armed citizen" deters an attack, which of course is not newsworthy. However such numbers can be estimated by research.

Back in the 1980's I did an indepth analysis of available statistics, drawing from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and other scholarly sources. Here is what I found:

Your gun is 19 times more likely to kill you or a family member than it is to kill an attacker.

And, your gun is 27 times more likely to prevent a violent crime against you or a loved one than it is to accidentally kill you or a family member.

Yes, both arguments can be made from the same set of data!

The first claim includes suicides as well as homicides on the one hand, and only counts self defense that results in the death of the attacker on the other.

The second claim is based on research done by a criminology professor whose name I've forgotten, and then leaves out suicides and homicides against family members.

So good judgment is required when deciding whether or not gun ownership (which should include taking the time to become safe and proficient) is a wise choice. Do you have at-risk (depressed, violent, unstable) family members? And realistically, how likely is it that are you or your family will be subject to a violent criminal attack?

I used to live in a place where violent crime was fairly common, and my cost-benefit analysis came down on the side of firearms ownership. That paid off several times.

Edited December 22, 2012 by treeface

[bdouglas]

I'm just curious if there are any statements from church leaders about gun rights / gun control or is this one of those issues that the church chooses to remain neutral in?

(please keep this as apolitical as possible)

My last post was probably a little off topic. Sorry. But to reply specifically to the above....

It is well know that Jos. Smith was armed in Liberty Jail, and discharged his pistol (I think he stuck it outside the door and fired) in an attempt to defend himself. But it also interesting to me that, all during the early history of the church while Jos. Smith was alive, and then later during the tenure of Brigham Young when the saints were threatened by Johnston's Army in 1957--it has always been interesting that during these times the saints, led by first by JS and then BY, would get right up to the point where it looked like there would be violence, or they would defend themselves with violence, and then they would back off. We see this during the Zion's Camp episode, also in 1857 with Johnston's army.

On the other hand, when violence has been used, on the part of the saints, it has ended disastrously: the saints destruction of their enemies printing press, which was an offensive strike, ended with the murder of JS (this is not to say that the one thing led directly to the other but it was certainly a factor); and then of course there is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, another offensive strike by the saints, or an attempt to defend themselves from a perceived threat with violence (without the blessing of BY, in fact he counseled strongly against the operation but unfortunately his word arrived after the massacre had already taken place).

I guess it's obvious where my sympathies lie in this debate, but I am sure there are times when violence has to be met by violence. And when such times arise, you don't want to be caught unarmed when your enemy is armed to the teeth. But on the other hand Pres. Kimball said in his speech "The False Gods We Worship" that if we are righteous the Lord will fight our battles for us.

[treeface]

On the other hand, when violence has been used, on the part of the saints, it has ended disastrously:

Not all the time; only when their actions weren't justified. Look up Orrin Porter Rockwell's single-handed defense of Sheriff John Backenstos against a large armed mob on horseback. Or the battle of Crooked River. Or the defense of Nauvoo (which was unsuccessful, but they were justified in trying to defend themselves).

Regarding President Kimball's statement, do you think the Lord would have protected the saints if they had handed over their guns to their enemies, perhaps in exchange for a promise of peace? I don't think so. Look up Haun's Mill.

Edited December 22, 2012 by treeface

[bdouglas]

Not all the time; only when their actions weren't justified. Look up Orrin Porter Rockwell's single-handed defense of Sheriff John Backenstos against a large armed mob on horseback. Or the battle of Crooked River. Or the defense of Nauvoo (which was unsuccessful, but they were justified in trying to defend themselves).

Regarding President Kimball's statement, do you think the Lord would have protected the saints if they had handed over their guns to their enemies, perhaps in exchange for a promise of peace? I don't think so. Look up Haun's Mill.

I probably wasn't very clear about what I meant exactly. Anybody is justified in defending himself--or any group is justified in defending itself from another group if need be. The key word here for me is "defense". The examples I cited were both "offensive", pre-emptive. Every group needs a Porter Rockwell or Lyman Johnson or a David Petraeus. Just be sure that if you are going to take the life of another human being, or require someone else to do so, you are doing for so purely defensive reasons. I don't think there is any such thing as a "good war". War is always evil--an evil of last resort. In other words you do it when there is absolutely nothing else you can do. In the case of the Nephites, they usually, if not always, had to go to war because they'd been wicked.

In the context of his speech, what Pres. Kimball meant, I think, is arms build-up, arming ourselves to the teeth, either as a nation, a group, or individually is not ultimately going to help us if we are unrighteous. As for me personally ... you can call it quaint, quixotic or even stupid, but yes, I do think that if I, personally, live righteously the Lord will fight my battles. I will never, no matter how bad things get, own weapons who sole purpose is to take the life of another human being, even in self-defense. This is my personal preference, my personal faith, and I do not expect anyone else to adhere to it; in other words I would never preach it as something others should do.

However...it is interesting to me to note that Elder Oaks said we should not be storing guns and ammo but food and supplies.

[bdouglas]

Following is the Pres. Kimball quote as summarized by Hugh Nibley in his essay "We Will Still Weep For Zion" (I include full quote but have bolded relevant part):

If we ask what improvement has been made up to the present, there is no better standard to judge by than that given by President Spencer W. Kimball in a solemn and inspired message to the church on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the nation. The address gives us a picture of the Church, the nation, and indeed the world that is a miracle of clarity and condensation, placing the physician's finger with unerring accuracy on the really important issues. First, by way of introduction, a general observation: "When I review the performance of this people in comparison with what is expected, I am appalled and frightened." Not a particularly cheerful or even optimistic message. What is it that so frightens and appalls the prophet? Three things in particular:

1. The abuse of the environment: "When I . . . fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, . . . I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. . . . The Brethren constantly cry out against . . . pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings. . . . That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me."

2. The pursuit of personal affluence: "Carnal man has tended to transfer his trust in God to material things. . . . When men have fallen under the power of Satan and lost the faith, they have put in its place a hope in the 'arm of flesh' and in 'gods of silver, and gold, of brass,' . . . that is, in idols. . . . Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishing, automobiles and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life."

3. Trust in military security: "We commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching. . . . What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? . . . We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the 'arm of flesh,' for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, 'I will not spare any that remain in Babylon' [D&C 64:24]."

And how did the Saints, who never tire of saying, "The Prophet! The Prophet! We have a prophet!" receive his words? As might be expected, reaction has ranged from careful indifference to embarrassed silence and instant deep freeze. As to the three things against which they were warned, it can be shown with cruel documentation that Utah leads the nation, at least through its representatives, in outspoken contempt for the environment, unabashed reverence for wealth, and ardent advocacy of military expansion.

[Duncan]

Have there been any examples in the news, or maybe not in the news, where someone who was armed succeeded in protecting himself or his family from someone (or someones) who was intent on inflicting harm, or even taking life? I ask this sincerely, because almost every day in the news I read about accidents: the father who mistakes his stepson for an intruder and shoots him dead; a young man who, during a drinking party, shoots and kills his brother; armed community watch volunteers who collide one dark night when tensions are running high, with the result one is paralyzed and in a wheelchair and the other in prison; etc., etc. I could go on and on. A while ago I was talking with a friend about this, and I mentioned these examples, also cited statistics about the number of accidental gun deaths in the U.S., and my friend replied:

"But what about the heroic rescues? The armed good guys who take down armed bad guys?"

And I said, "I have never heard of such instances. Are there such instances?"

He said he didn't know but said he expected there were. But I think if there were the NRA would make a big deal of such instances. We would also hear about them on the news, especially the more conservative news outlets. But I have never heard of any such instances. Are there any?

(I repeat, I am sincere in my question. I'm not asking a loaded question, in fact I own a gun myself, but it is a shotgun that I use once every five years or so for dove hunting.)

I am sure it happens but heck if anyone wants to gets involved in flipping shootout with someone! can you imagine if everyone was armed in that Colorado theatre firing away? it would be a war added to a disaster-i'd say just call the Police and let them deal with it-guns make me SO nervous!!! I live in a different country where gun laws are strict, which is why here we hardly ever have any massacres-I think... the last one was in 1989

[Saints Alive]

I live in a different country where gun laws are strict, which is why here we hardly ever have any massacres-I think... the last one was in 1989

I grew up around guns and handled them in the military so I'm not afraid of them anymore than my car or a pocket knife. I am afraid of some of the people who handle them. I don't own a gun, but thats only because I cant really justify buying one cost wise at this point in time, maybe one day. It is interesting though that all theses mass shootings happen where guns are banned (to law abiding citizens anyway), Schools, theaters, malls, College campuses (even in Canada), basically anywhere a nutcase can find a large anonymous crowd.

As far as trusting in God for protection, I don't think that means beat our weapons to plowshares. I think it means "walk softly, and carry a big stick" or trust in god but prepare for yourself. I mean if we wanted to we could forget about food storage and trust God to drop manna if we really needed it right?

[oremites]

Have there been any examples in the news, or maybe not in the news, where someone who was armed succeeded in protecting himself or his family from someone (or someones) who was intent on inflicting harm, or even taking life?

The benefits of having a gun won't be newsworthy 99% of the time. Criminals are interested in defenseless victims, not a shootout. If they see you have a gun, or think you have a gun, they'll move on to someone else.

[oremites]

I am sure it happens but heck if anyone wants to gets involved in flipping shootout with someone! can you imagine if everyone was armed in that Colorado theatre firing away? it would be a war added to a disaster-i'd say just call the Police and let them deal with it-guns make me SO nervous!!! I live in a different country where gun laws are strict, which is why here we hardly ever have any massacres-I think... the last one was in 1989

If everyone in the Colorado theatre had been armed, there wouldn't have been a shootout because the shooter wouldn't have gone in there in the first place. The people who commit these massacres are cowards who purposely choose groups they know are defenseless.

Why didn't the Connecticut shooter keep killing children? Because the police (someone with a gun) showed up. Was there a shootout then? No because as soon as someone who could defend himself showed up, the shooter killed himself.

Where I grew up, guns were plentiful and the idea of someone going into a kindergarden class and shooting kids was unthinkable. It's easy to blame guns for this but there's something else going on here. If we make guns the scapegoat, we won't be looking for the real underlying problem.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm neither a pro-gun nut nor an anti-gun nut. But I am against the nut behind the trigger.

ALWAYS obey all the laws governing gun possession and use wherever you live. Learn how to properly maintain, safely store, effectively use, and practice target acquisition on a regular basis. ALWAYS remember firearms are deadly weapons. Life is not a movie set. We don't get to call "cut" and all the actors get up and walk away after the scene. Death is final. Never pick one up if you don't intend to use it, and don't use it unless you intend to kill. Be prepared to accept full legal, emotional, financial, and moral responsibility for the use of that gun.

As to keeping a gun as part of your food storage plans. Forget about it unless you live in a very rural area(and most of us live in cities). Anything larger than a rabbit, or chicken takes considerable skill and resources to properly dress, and preserve.

[Duncan]

I grew up around guns and handled them in the military so I'm not afraid of them anymore than my car or a pocket knife. I am afraid of some of the people who handle them. I don't own a gun, but thats only because I cant really justify buying one cost wise at this point in time, maybe one day. It is interesting though that all theses mass shootings happen where guns are banned (to law abiding citizens anyway), Schools, theaters, malls, College campuses (even in Canada), basically anywhere a nutcase can find a large anonymous crowd.

As far as trusting in God for protection, I don't think that means beat our weapons to plowshares. I think it means "walk softly, and carry a big stick" or trust in god but prepare for yourself. I mean if we wanted to we could forget about food storage and trust God to drop manna if we really needed it right?

School massacres typically happen in smalller towns and not in big cities-City massacres happen elsewhere I say ban guns altogether, take them out of the unstable person's and stable person's hands. I know it's unrealistic. Canada is strict in gun laws and the enforcement thereof and because of recent events, even more so

[Duncan]

If everyone in the Colorado theatre had been armed, there wouldn't have been a shootout because the shooter wouldn't have gone in there in the first place. The people who commit these massacres are cowards who purposely choose groups they know are defenseless.

Why didn't the Connecticut shooter keep killing children? Because the police (someone with a gun) showed up. Was there a shootout then? No because as soon as someone who could defend himself showed up, the shooter killed himself.

Where I grew up, guns were plentiful and the idea of someone going into a kindergarden class and shooting kids was unthinkable. It's easy to blame guns for this but there's something else going on here. If we make guns the scapegoat, we won't be looking for the real underlying problem.

How would anyone know what the shooter was thinking? Do you think giving them guns will support the underlying cause? not to brag but Canada here hasn't had a massacre of any major kind since about 1989. We aren't a gun culture country, we don't think the average citizen needs military style weapons at all.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Duncan