Guns at church policy changed

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you can abide the gosh-awful state and municipal government, rampant homelessness and piles of used hypodermic needles and human waste on the streets of the larger cities. 

There are other ways to die besides by guns.

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Gotta give credit where it’s due. This is a clever rejoinder. 

Why?  I was going off at him because he reacted understandably to my terribly worded post!  Open laptop, insert hamfisted keyboarding.  <-- That's "Open mouth; insert foot" in computerese.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

A sad tragedy I was personally aware of... and one of the reasons I never liked the models that had clips... so when I purchased my weapon I chose a revolver (Smith & Wesson 38-special) where you can actually see the bullets in the cylinder...

When I worked as Admin Asst to the Dir of the Univ Library at San Fran State Univ,  one of my co-workers (faculty) was married to a man whose job often took him away from home... so over her objections (she disliked guns) he bought a pistol that had a clip.  It was Christmas Eve and he, his wife and 13 year old step-daughter were opening presents... his wife's was the pistol.  She expressed her fears and said she really didn't want it... but he insisted it was safe as long as she took proper safety measures, and he would teach her how to use it.   He loaded the clip into the gun... and then disengaged the clip, telling her it was now unloaded and safe... but he FORGOT the bullet that was left in the chamber when he unloaded the clip.  He said... See, it's not loaded, and safe now...  and aimed it across the room and fired... the bullet in the chamber fired and hit her daughter in the head, killing her instantly.  He was so distraught at what happened he fell on his knees in front of her, crying, saying how sorry he was, and begging her to kill him... she ran into the kitchen and he followed her, still saying... Kill me...  She ran from him, and he turned the gun on himself, fired, killing himself instantly.   This couple was very active on campus and this stunned the campus community greatly...

GG

 

This is the saddest thing I've ever heard and one of the reasons I hate guns in my home. Too often the owners are killed or their gun kills accidently.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Here's another rule: If you are forced to shoot someone; aim for the largest target which would be the chest. None of this shoot them in the leg or arm stuff. You might miss them and you might hit someone else behind them or they will still shoot you.

 

There's a practical reason for this beyond the one you give.  If you shoot to wound (e.g. leg or arm) then the prosecutor is going to tell the jury that this means you didn't really fear for your life, and had no reason to shoot in the first place.

And if you shoot for center mass and you're loaded with ball ammo (full metal jacket), you will probably still overpenetrate and endanger anyone behind the target.  So, always load hollowpoints for self-defense; they will take the target down faster and lessen the danger to others.  I know this sounds bloody-minded, but this topic is deadly serious, and in all possible respects.

 

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Still higher apparently than death from mass shootings, though not from gun assault.

That's because despite the media trumpeting mass shootings, they aren't as common as some people think.

And be careful how you understand the numbers in respect of "gun assault".  The vast majority of those are suicides.  It just sounds better to lump suicides in with actual crimes; fits the desired narrative better in the media's eyes.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is the saddest thing I've ever heard and one of the reasons I hate guns in my home. Too often the owners are killed or their gun kills accidently.

Yes, all too often. 

The same could be said if motor vehicles, though. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Exactly.  And that is a horrifying story -- one that every person who thinks of owning a gun should have told to him or her.

But you can't always tell if a revolver's cylinder is empty, either. Some models have shrouded cylinders.

Rule #1.  All guns are always loaded.  It is still loaded, even if you just unloaded it.
Rule #2. Never point a gun at anything unless you are willing to destroy it.
Rule #3. Keep your finger off the trigger, even if you think the gun is unloaded, until you are ready to fire.

Different people have different versions of these rules, and additional ones besides. But those are mine. 

Rule #0 is very basic: if you are sloppy about following rules, NEVER pick up a gun.

I will add one thing here. If one thinks that guns are dangerous, one might say that, but in reality there are no dangerous things. There are only dangerous people.  If you drive on the Freeway in the United States, you will recognize that instantly.  I've come closer to death while driving a car than I ever have come handling firearms.  Mainly from my own inattention and bad judgement, but sometimes from that of others.

Rule #4 for me.....Always check what or who is behind your target. 

I agree with the car statement. 

[Calm]

Another one?

https://www.deseret.com/2019/8/31/20842691/police-multiple-gunshot-victims-from-texas-shootings

[Scott Lloyd]

When I am confronted with a mass shooter, be it at church, at the temple, at school or at a movie theater, I will follow a run-hide-fight strategy. That is, get away if I can, hide if possible, but if I can’t evade the perp, defend myself in any way I can. I can see myself risking my life to do what it takes to neutralize the shooter rather than meekly submitting to him harming or killing me or others. 

[Calm]

I suspect I will simply freeze if by myself if how I respond in just verbal face to face confrontation is any indication.  Don't know how I will react if others are involved.

[neohillbilly]

I guess I'm late to this discussion. I wasn't always a gun rights advocate. For example, when my local school district board voted to have armed officers in schools during the Columbine era, I was outraged. I felt that if they wanted schools to be gun-free, that should mean zero guns, including the officers. I made my feelings emphatically known to at least a couple of the board members. 

Oh how naive I was. 

Then in 2008 I found myself living just a couple blocks from a mass shooting, where a gunman walked into a city council meeting and after first killing the only armed person in the room, a police officer, he has a "target rich environment", with a room full of people who could not offer an effective defense. I lived just down the street and was home doing my taxes, when I realized a helicopter had been hovering over the skylight above my head for an unusually long time and decided to check the news. 

In the days after, I kept thinking of all those terrified people, unable to defend themselves against this madman with a gun. I decided to look at the "gun issue" from both sides with an open mind. It didn't take long for me to conclude the gun rights side had solid logic and facts to back up their positions, while the gun control folks operated mainly based on emotion. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but not by much. 

Yes I will respect the prophet's counsel on this, but I'll also have to make it a matter of prayer to have comfort over this. Quite a bit of prayer. I'm tired of hearing about defenseless people being mowed down. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, neohillbilly said:

I guess I'm late to this discussion. I wasn't always a gun rights advocate. For example, when my local school district board voted to have armed officers in schools during the Columbine era, I was outraged. I felt that if they wanted schools to be gun-free, that should mean zero guns, including the officers. I made my feelings emphatically known to at least a couple of the board members. 

Oh how naive I was. 

Then in 2008 I found myself living just a couple blocks from a mass shooting, where a gunman walked into a city council meeting and after first killing the only armed person in the room, a police officer, he has a "target rich environment", with a room full of people who could not offer an effective defense. I lived just down the street and was home doing my taxes, when I realized a helicopter had been hovering over the skylight above my head for an unusually long time and decided to check the news. 

In the days after, I kept thinking of all those terrified people, unable to defend themselves against this madman with a gun. I decided to look at the "gun issue" from both sides with an open mind. It didn't take long for me to conclude the gun rights side had solid logic and facts to back up their positions, while the gun control folks operated mainly based on emotion. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but not by much. 

Yes I will respect the prophet's counsel on this, but I'll also have to make it a matter of prayer to have comfort over this. Quite a bit of prayer. I'm tired of hearing about defenseless people being mowed down. 

Virtual "like" point.

And welcome to the board.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I am confronted with a mass shooter, be it at church, at the temple, at school or at a movie theater, I will follow a run-hide-fight strategy. That is, get away if I can, hide if possible, but if I can’t evade the perp, defend myself in any way I can. I can see myself risking my life to do what it takes to neutralize the shooter rather than meekly submitting to him harming or killing me or others. 

Without going into detail about my source, I'll say that I'm reasonably confident the above run-hide-fight approach has the approval of Church leaders. That is to say, I didn't come up with it on my own, although it strikes me as eminently sensible.

In determining in advance  how we will behave in the unthinkable event of a mass-shooter situation, we would do well to look to the Prophet Joseph Smith as a model. When attacked and cornered by a bloodthirsty mob, he did what he could, however ineffectually, to defend himself and his friends. He didn't submit meekly to them. 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

On 8/31/2019 at 12:32 AM, Calm said:

California is one of the least riskiest places to live in the US for death by gun violence according to this, so perhaps that caution is paying off.

https://www.deseret.com/2017/10/3/20620712/this-map-shows-where-americans-are-most-likely-to-be-killed-by-gun-violence

Interesting. Still, I have a suspicion that there may be aspects of how the numbers are presented which hide certain things. If I find some time I'll check it out.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Stargazer

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Interesting. Still, I have a suspicion that there may be aspects of how the numbers are presented which hide certain things. If I find some time I'll check it out.

A quick look at a map of suicide rates indicates that California has some of the lowest, if not the lowest in the US.  That would drop deaths by gun violence significantly since a late part of that is suicide.  Otoh, California appears to have the most mass shooting deaths, but since it has 12 percent of the population of the US that might be why.

Utah is the 12th lowest for death by gun for children and youth, suicide being the majority of those.  California otoh appears to be 12th from the top and the vast majority of those homicide.

https://jjie.org/2014/08/26/at-least-28000-children-and-teens-were-killed-by-guns-over-an-11-year-period/

This compares states on ownership, deaths, types of deaths, and stringency of gun laws:

https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

Edited September 1, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, neohillbilly said:

I guess I'm late to this discussion. I wasn't always a gun rights advocate. For example, when my local school district board voted to have armed officers in schools during the Columbine era, I was outraged. I felt that if they wanted schools to be gun-free, that should mean zero guns, including the officers. I made my feelings emphatically known to at least a couple of the board members. 

Oh how naive I was. 

Then in 2008 I found myself living just a couple blocks from a mass shooting, where a gunman walked into a city council meeting and after first killing the only armed person in the room, a police officer, he has a "target rich environment", with a room full of people who could not offer an effective defense. I lived just down the street and was home doing my taxes, when I realized a helicopter had been hovering over the skylight above my head for an unusually long time and decided to check the news. 

In the days after, I kept thinking of all those terrified people, unable to defend themselves against this madman with a gun. I decided to look at the "gun issue" from both sides with an open mind. It didn't take long for me to conclude the gun rights side had solid logic and facts to back up their positions, while the gun control folks operated mainly based on emotion. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but not by much. 

Yes I will respect the prophet's counsel on this, but I'll also have to make it a matter of prayer to have comfort over this. Quite a bit of prayer. I'm tired of hearing about defenseless people being mowed down. 

It is an emotional issue. That’s what makes it difficult to deal with. I would guess most people have not experienced the helpless feeling of being unable to defend oneself or loved ones in the face of an armed attack. Now that is an emotion one never forgets. 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll say that I'm reasonably confident the above run-hide-fight approach has the approval of Church leaders. That is to say, I didn't come up with it on my own, although it strikes me as eminently sensible.

It is eminently sensible. In fact, we went through active shooter training at our office last week, and this was one of the videos that was used: Run, Hide, Fight. It's short and to the point (<5 mins). It's the sort of basic training / information awareness that everyone should be apprised of.

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Run/Hide/Fight is a great methodology.  It's easy to learn, and easy to remember in the middle of an adrenalin dump panic if something is happening.  The more you think through various situations in everyday life, and which one would apply, the less scary it is when you hear a gunshot go off.

We raised our kids with something similar: We think about 80 ways to run away, 17 ways to hide, and 3 ways to fight back.  In that order.

I've legally carried for decades.  If something ever happens in my vicinity, you bet I'll be following this methodology.  They don't pay me to run towards the danger, and I'll only do so if my loved ones need me to.  If I can help others without putting myself in danger, I'll do so.  I can't support my family if I'm dead.  Afterwords, as people are reviewing the footage of the incident, they'll see a little trail of smoke - that's where I beat cheeks away from the danger as fast as possible.  I went home to hug my family and clean my gun.

If you want to be a hero, your local police academy is always hiring.  Armed security, firefighters, military, those are good places to go if you're interested in ever doing any of this stuff for reals.  I'm just an old fat guy, who practices in case my daily walk of staying away from trouble ever doesn't work.

Edited September 1, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[mfbukowski]

On 8/30/2019 at 2:30 PM, Stargazer said:

Are you in league with him, or something?

Exaggeration to the absurd. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Exaggeration to the absurd. 

Of course!  Maximum absurdity is maximum fun!  

Well, I was being a twit, unknowingly, so ... my bad.

[neohillbilly]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is an emotional issue. That’s what makes it difficult to deal with. I would guess most people have not experienced the helpless feeling of being unable to defend oneself or loved ones in the face of an armed attack. Now that is an emotion one never forgets. 

I won't deny that to some extent, but at the time of the mass shooting I mentioned I wasn't exactly a gun rights supporter. When the local school board, in the district where my kids were attending, voted to have armed security in the schools, I was outraged. This was back when Columbine happened. I felt strongly that if they wanted schools to be gun-free, they should be exactly that, including the officers. I let my feelings be known, emphatically, to a couple of the board members. 

Oh how naive I was. 

After the mass shooting I decided to sit down and take a look at the gun issue from both sides, with an open mind. It didn't take long for me to see, very clearly, that the gun rights side of the argument was based on logic and facts, while the gun control crowd leaned HARD on emotion. And that after each mass shooting when there was a push to pass a new gun control law invariably it was a knee-jerk response to "do something" with a law that wouldn't have stopped the shooting. Shortly after that I signed up for a ccw class. 

While yes, emotions are part of it, I now view it as basic common sense like carrying a fire extinguisher in the car. It's no problem to have one and not need it, but you'll be in big trouble if you need one and don't have it. Odds are I won't need either the gun or the extinguisher, but I sure as heck want them both around "just in case." 

I should also add, with my physical health and age I'll be a sitting duck if it comes down to "run, hide, fight." 

[10THAmendment]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I am confronted with a mass shooter, be it at church, at the temple, at school or at a movie theater, I will follow a run-hide-fight strategy. That is, get away if I can, hide if possible, but if I can’t evade the perp, defend myself in any way I can. I can see myself risking my life to do what it takes to neutralize the shooter rather than meekly submitting to him harming or killing me or others. 

When it comes time to fight I would prefer to return fire. Unfortunately that’s not a possibility at church anymore. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, neohillbilly said:

I won't deny that to some extent, but at the time of the mass shooting I mentioned I wasn't exactly a gun rights supporter. When the local school board, in the district where my kids were attending, voted to have armed security in the schools, I was outraged. This was back when Columbine happened. I felt strongly that if they wanted schools to be gun-free, they should be exactly that, including the officers. I let my feelings be known, emphatically, to a couple of the board members. 

Oh how naive I was. 

After the mass shooting I decided to sit down and take a look at the gun issue from both sides, with an open mind. It didn't take long for me to see, very clearly, that the gun rights side of the argument was based on logic and facts, while the gun control crowd leaned HARD on emotion. And that after each mass shooting when there was a push to pass a new gun control law invariably it was a knee-jerk response to "do something" with a law that wouldn't have stopped the shooting. Shortly after that I signed up for a ccw class. 

While yes, emotions are part of it, I now view it as basic common sense like carrying a fire extinguisher in the car. It's no problem to have one and not need it, but you'll be in big trouble if you need one and don't have it. Odds are I won't need either the gun or the extinguisher, but I sure as heck want them both around "just in case." 

I should also add, with my physical health and age I'll be a sitting duck if it comes down to "run, hide, fight." 

As I described earlier, I was in a lockdown situation in the high school where I taught. We had the “shelter in place” policy of the time and no defensive weapon allowed in the classrooms. I understand better what the term “sitting ducks” means as  my 65  students and I were sitting ducks. I hate that feeling!

I was very surprised at my reaction which was that after securing them in closets and practice rooms (which actually made them more vulnerable) I determined to defend them by any means possible, which ended up with me standing next to the hall door with a steel snare drum stand and intending to do severe bodily harm to anyone who tried to come into our room. I am much more sympathetic to having armed and trained personnel in schools. After that experience, I put my weapon in my car,  but was not allowed to have it in the school. Policy be damned, if possible I wouldn’t be defenseless like that again. 

At one junior high where I taught we had armed policemen in the halls because drug dealers would come in to collect debts from kids who bought their wares. 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

When it comes time to fight I would prefer to return fire. Unfortunately that’s not a possibility at church anymore. 

So, say the unspeakable happened, and someone started shooting up a sacrament meeting.  Then imagine that a member of the congregation takes down the perp with his own gun that he brought into church against policy.  What are they going to do?  Excommunicate him?

It's a toothless policy.  It's "eyewash" -- meaning that it looks good, but accomplishes zip.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Stargazer

[randy]

Again...as tragic as the story that GG told is....it always comes back to training...training...training!   The best safety we have on any weapon "should" be the safety located between our ears.   As I've mentioned early on in this thread,  I will support this policy until such time as I'm convinced the Church/Local leaders have NOT taken positive and common sense steps in order to protect us at Church,  like those proposed earlier by Scott.  That's all I'm asking for. Common sense steps.  When I reach that point, I will reconsider my position in light of my primary responsibility to protect my family.

Edited September 1, 2019 by randy