Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Guns at church policy changed

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My experience at LDS Sunday meetings is that you walk into a lobby area where people are chatting and milling about and from there into the main chapel past a guy handing out programs. A shooter could begin in the lobby and then head into the chapel or wait until the chapel.

What's it like in a temple? Couldn't a shooter just take out the people checking recommends and then continue inside?

Temples generally will have a lobby area in the entrance which allows groups of people who are meeting  to gather and wait for the rest of their party to arrive. And, unlike most chapels, there is generally only a single point of egress from this lobby area into the temple proper. And that entry point is 'secured' by one or two people at all times. Could those individuals be taken out? Easily.

But then you run into another difference between a meetinghouse and a temple: once you get past the font desk, there isn't a single gathering place that has tons and tons of people present. It's going to be hit-and-miss based on how many people are in the temple that day. And those who are in the temple will be scattered throughout the building in smaller groups, located in separate rooms which are in many cases securable. 

Also, since you're dealing with a temple, you've got to take into consideration the possibility that you might end up with your face melted off a la Raiders of the Lost Ark. ;) 

 

59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Amulek appears to be consistent here, though I wonder if his talk about special temple guns is tongue-in-cheek..?

A bit, to be sure.

However, the thought did cross my mind (in what I hope wasn't a sacrilegious musing): what if a handgun was a required element of a temple rite, and how would that affect people's attitudes. 

That was part of the thought process that lead me down the road of thinking, well, if it were required and everyone needed to have one, what would that look like in practice. And thinking of my wife with a revolver on her ankle just made me smile a bit. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you explain how there isn't any comparison? I don't understand the recommend process as a deterrent. A mass murderer isn't going to respect the fact that he's not allowed in without a recommend. You mentioned identification security -- is there actual security in the temple?

You could say the same thing about airport security.  Because there is a screening process, and the barriers of a line, recommend checker and multiple walls before getting to any large group of people, undesirable actors get weeded out.  I suppose it’s possible for an armed person with bad intentions to enter.  Just not likely— especially compared to a chapel.

7 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Due to the two levels of Temple recommend interviews, and the identification security at the Temple entrance, I don’t see any comparison between Temple attendance versus a Church building open to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The mountains around El Paso are just the tiny leftover hills from New Mexico's mountains... (says the guy who lives on NM/Texas border).

Yeah I know and I like the mountains in New Mexico more than the mountains in Texas, even though technically I am a native Texan.

Oh and I like the mountains in Arizona more than I like the mountains in New Mexico.   l lived in Kingman Arizona for a few years, which is in a valley surrounded by mountains, and it was there that I saw purple mountains in majesty, and frequently too.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Due to the two levels of Temple recommend interviews, and the identification security at the Temple entrance, I don’t see any comparison between Temple attendance versus a Church building open to the public.  The risk should be next to nothing in the Temple.  However, the new policy still applies if the qualifier is “on church grounds.”

So @Meerkat, have you re-evaluated this position?  Do you now understand that killers don't care about temple recommend interviews, or elderly kind people sitting at desks with scanners?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 10:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

California has another way of handling it.

Give CCP's to virtually no one but LEOs.    The People's Republic of Cali makes you guys look like the Wild West.  ;)

So pretty much if you carry any firearm anywhere you go to jail unless you have it in a locked box and unloaded with the ammo stashed separately in another locked box.  And if you get stopped, you better be going hunting, in season, or to the range or coming home, or some other legal excuse for having a gun in a car, and it all better be out of the reach of any occupants. :)

No gun racks on pick-up trucks here!  :)

One of the reasons why, despite being a native-born Californian, I will never live there again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 10:29 PM, Amulek said:

Quite right. That is definitely a valid concern. I was going to mention that originally, but the comment I was responding to specified hitting the intended target, so I changed directions and brought up what might happen if you successfully hit your target yet the bullet has enough velocity to continue on and hit someone else as well. 

Depends on the agency, but "trained professional" is overselling it a bit in many circumstances. The firearms proficiency requirements for many agencies - including the FBI and CIA - are not terribly demanding. 

And there's a certain element of native skill or dexterity as well.  When I took my late wife out to the range and had her shoot some plastic water-filled pop bottles with my very cheap Chinese-made Tokarev chambered in 9mmP, she one-shotted nearly all of the bottles in her first run.  I was impressed!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 10:30 PM, mfbukowski said:

It's curious in California to visit a gun store.  In a store where guns are not sold- grocery stores, Walmart, etc.  people often may be rude and try to cut in front of you in line, complain about things to the clerks in loud voices, or go with 30 items to the "15 Items or Less" cashier etc.  You just stand in line and roll your eyes.

But in a gun store, everyone is perfectly polite, with "Yessir". "Nosir" etc and if they bump into you, apologies are profuse.  "No sir, go ahead, you were here first".

It's really fairly hilarious.  First of all, all the employees are armed and second of all, it is a good bet that many more in the store are carrying concealed even if it is illegally.

It makes a difference.  

As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So @Meerkat, have you re-evaluated this position?  Do you now understand that killers don't care about temple recommend interviews, or elderly kind people sitting at desks with scanners?

What they should be worried about is that panic switch under the desk and that if you press it armed guards can be there in seconds. There are some maintenance people who are also security guards.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And there's a certain element of native skill or dexterity as well.  When I took my late wife out to the range and had her shoot some plastic water-filled pop bottles with my very cheap Chinese-made Tokarev chambered in 9mmP, she one-shotted nearly all of the bottles in her first run.  I was impressed!

That's a 9x 18 like the Makarov, right?

I love my Mak. Best bang for the buck. ;)

The p 64 is even smaller.

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 10:35 PM, mapman said:

I grew up in a household that never owned any guns, and the only time I ever fired a gun was a couple of times at Scout camp, so people saying that they wouldn't go to church if they aren't allowed to carry seems downright bizarre to me. My first reaction to finding out some random member at church had a gun I would definitely feel less safe, and I don't think I'm the only one that would feel that way. My guess would be that some of you guys are dramatically overestimating the probability of being shot at by a criminal in church, and underestimating the chances of accidental injury by random brother who thinks he's in a Western movie or fantasizes about being a hero who kills a mass-murderer. This thread has been woefully devoid of facts, but maybe someone can provide some actual numbers on the probabilities.

There isn't any "dramatic overestimating" going on here.  I believe that every single person here who is a gun owner is absolutely certain that there is little danger at church if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into meetings.  

Most if not all of us would decline to visit a place where we knew there was a good chance that we would need to use our weapon.

The whole point of concealed carry is that you cannot predict when or if your weapon will ever become necessary.  There are millions of CCP holders in the US, and virtually none of them will ever have the need of their weapon.  It just doesn't happen.  Except that it does, but never when one expects, simply because if one expects, one does not go there!  Only idiots (or people whose job it is) will go where they know they stand in danger of deadly force.

So a concealed handgun is for the times of unexpected extreme danger, which are unpredictable.  And pretty much everyone knows this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What they should be worried about is that panic switch under the desk and that if you press it armed guards can be there in seconds. There are some maintenance people who are also security guards.

 

Whew, I was wondering if you were going to let it slip that there is a door in all temples that opens to some men in black suits who are highly proficient with laser pistols.  We wouldn't want everyone to know about that.  Or that if they did, they would soon forget.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What they should be worried about is that panic switch under the desk and that if you press it armed guards can be there in seconds. There are some maintenance people who are also security guards.

Temples have armed security?  I didn't know that.  I think it's a good idea.

Decades ago when I was sealed, I left some personal items in the temple and had to go back the next day to get them.  The front desk said "let me call security", and an ancient tall thin wisp of a man in a security uniform took me to his office and helped me look through his lost and found box.  He wasn't armed, and he looked like he would have had trouble holding a heavy gun.

Good to know that while they might have folks like that working a security staff position, there's also an armed position being staffed.

You wouldn't happen to have a source on that, would you?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 10:55 PM, mapman said:

I admit it isn't necessarily a completely rational response, but guns are things designed to kill and I feel uncomfortable around them when they aren't in controlled situations. I respect that you are a responsible gun owner, and hope that most people are, but the amount of accidental killings that happen makes me think not everyone is. I'm definitely in favor of better training for gun owners, but the church isn't responsible for making that happen.

Yeah, I used to feel that way, too.  In fact, standing near a police officer made me fearful.  There was the awful horrible gun strapped to his belt.

And then I joined the Army and found out that a gun is just a tool for special occasions.  And I became completely comfortable around them, and around people carrying them.

People fear the unknown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

every single person here who is a gun owner is absolutely certain that there is little danger at church if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into meetings.  

That's a comforting thought.  So even the kind of people who have guns are absolutely certain that there is little danger at church as long as they do not bring their guns to Church meetings.

I was wondering if maybe having weapons out in the open would make it a safer place, since any hostile shooter would be able to see that members were carrying guns and due to them being cowards at heart they would just rather leave then.

But, no, according to you, at least, Church meetings would be safer if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into Church meetings. Now we just need to do something about the people who might bring their guns even if they are not allowed to do it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 11:04 PM, CA Steve said:

Edited to add. I did like the suggestion a few pages back where the Bishop would select a few people approved to have a weapon in church. I have no problem with that either, but frankly I don't want to sit down in church next to Brother John "I have a Bomb shelter in my back yard" Anderson and have to worry about if he is carrying that Glock he is always bragging about.

I wish I had a bomb shelter in MY back yard!  Just for grins.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 11:12 PM, randy said:

Thank you..and I respect your feelings on this.  I can understand how not being around guns early on in life has contributed to your feeling uncomfortable around them, and see that as a natural consequence.  You are correct when you say there are accidental shootings etc. and it breaks your heart when you read about them, and the circumstances leading up to the accident,  and the common sense actions that could've prevented them.  Almost always, it can be boiled down to lack of training and understanding the firearm. Ex:  when you take the magazine out of the Semi-auto hangun...its unloaded.  WRONG!  There very well may be a round in the chamber and the gun can still fire without the magazine loaded.  So many people die each year because of that very thing.   

I realize this is a very sensitive subject, and one that most people have very very strong opinions on.  It's good to have this discussion though!

The first rule I taught my children when introducing them to firearms was: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. Even if you just unloaded it.

That being said, there are semi-automatic pistols with firing pin disconnects, that when you remove the magazine it goes into "safe" mode automatically.  But never trust the safety is another one of the rules.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/27/2019 at 1:26 AM, Calm said:

Did shootings go up with the previous announcement of discouragement?  I heard the same concerns that the announcement would draw a big target on our members.

An old friend of mine who used to hang out with people who were somewhat dubious told me one time that they talked about being sure to know who the Mormons in their area were, because if "the balloon went up" -- meaning that civilization was in disarray -- we would have food for the taking.  And they didn't mean trade or purchase.  

You don't think that "certain people" haven't noted this new announcement?  It might not make a difference now, but maybe in the future...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's a comforting thought.  So even the kind of people who have guns are absolutely certain that there is little danger at church as long as they do not bring their guns to Church meetings.

I was wondering if maybe having weapons out in the open would make it a safer place, since any hostile shooter would be able to see that members were carrying guns and due to them being cowards at heart they would just rather leave then.

But, no, according to you, at least, Church meetings would be safer if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into Church meetings. Now we just need to do something about the people who might bring their guns even if they are not allowed to do it.

 

Isn't what I said.

I said that NOBODY EXPECTS there to be danger at church, regardless of whether they are allowed to carry or not.  Because rational people do not go where they expect to be in danger, regardless of whether they are armed.

You haven't been reading the several posts I have made here on the subject, apparently.  I've been quite clear that I am on the complete opposite side of what you're saying here.  I have a CCP and (when I am in the US, at least) I do carry -- and I've done so at church, too.  But I still avoid places where I expect danger.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's a 9x 18 like the Makarov, right?

I love my Mak. Best bang for the buck. ;)

The p 64 is even smaller.

No, this was a Chinese copy of the Russian Tokarev TT-30 that was originally chambered for the proprietary 7.62x25 cartridge. Mine was rechambered to 9mm Parabellum.  It was actually a sweet-firing pistol that I wish I still had.  For all that it was rather cheap, it worked quite well.

450px-TT-33_2.JPG

I do have a Mak, and it is my preferred carry pistol.  Spot on reliability and accuracy, plus it doesn't kill your wrist to shoot it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Temples have armed security?  I didn't know that.  I think it's a good idea.

Decades ago when I was sealed, I left some personal items in the temple and had to go back the next day to get them.  The front desk said "let me call security", and an ancient tall thin wisp of a man in a security uniform took me to his office and helped me look through his lost and found box.  He wasn't armed, and he looked like he would have had trouble holding a heavy gun.

Good to know that while they might have folks like that working a security staff position, there's also an armed position being staffed.

You wouldn't happen to have a source on that, would you?

I think he's joking.

There is a panic button at the recommend desk, however.  I am an ordinance worker at the London temple, and there is a button (actually a pair of buttons that have to pressed simultaneously) that calls security.  I rather expect there would be no firearms involved, especially in the UK.  🙂 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So @Meerkat, have you re-evaluated this position?  Do you now understand that killers don't care about temple recommend interviews, or elderly kind people sitting at desks with scanners?

I understood that from the beginning and support the 2nd Amendment.  

This is what I said earlier about the new policy, and why I embrace it:

”My 2nd Amendment supporting son said he had a confirmation that the new policy was the right thing to do.  I also support the 2nd Amendment and had expressed disappointment in this new policy.

He referred to Helaman 5:12 "And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."

Will there be tragedies in the world, in and out of the Church due to mentally ill, or other people?  Yes, there will be.  Will there be accidents?  Of course.  Will planes crash and people still fly?  Probably.  The question is, are we led by a prophet?  If so, we raise our hand to sustain him in conference which means we sustain him when he and the brethren set policy.  Are our leaders fallible?  Sometimes.  Is this one of those times?  It really doesn't matter.  Maybe they know something we don't know.  Maybe the Lord has His reasons.  It may be a test of faith for some or many of us.  Regardless, I believe the Lord sustains Russell M. Nelson a prophet of the Lord, and we covenant to do the same.  

Sheri Dew, in her introduction to President Nelson's biography "Insight," referred to a time when Laman and Lemuel murmered against Nephi, threatening to kill him in 2 Nephi 5.  Nephi said "And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me."  That probably includes me, and most of you.

He went on to say "Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me.  And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words." 

Due to the home centered Church revelation, and the effects of teaching in the Savior's way, I believe Russell M. Nelson is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth.  Had I not that belief, I can see how it could be challenging to accept the new policy.  But I do believe these things, and that's why I accept the policy.

Edited by Meerkat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Isn't what I said.

I said that NOBODY EXPECTS there to be danger at church, regardless of whether they are allowed to carry or not.  Because rational people do not go where they expect to be in danger, regardless of whether they are armed.

You haven't been reading the several posts I have made here on the subject, apparently.  I've been quite clear that I am on the complete opposite side of what you're saying here.  I have a CCP and (when I am in the US, at least) I do carry -- and I've done so at church, too.  But I still avoid places where I expect danger.

Ah, I see I misapplied what you said, a little bit.  You said: "every single person here who is a gun owner is absolutely certain that there is little danger at church if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into meetings."

So it's only if NOBODY is allowed to carry a gun into meetings that you would be absolutely certain that there is little danger at church.

But for any meeting you would attend, for NOBODY to be allowed to carry a weapon into that meeting wouldn't that mean YOU would also not be allowed to carry a weapon into that meeting?

To make the meeting safe for everybody, nobody should carry a weapon into it.  So now we just need to do something about the people who would bring a weapon into a meeting even if they are not allowed to bring it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Whew, I was wondering if you were going to let it slip that there is a door in all temples that opens to some men in black suits who are highly proficient with laser pistols.  We wouldn't want everyone to know about that.  Or that if they did, they would soon forget.

Well then we just hit them with the Memory Eraser Ray and it's no problem.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you explain how there isn't any comparison? I don't understand the recommend process as a deterrent. A mass murderer isn't going to respect the fact that he's not allowed in without a recommend. You mentioned identification security -- is there actual security in the temple?

My experience at LDS Sunday meetings is that you walk into a lobby area where people are chatting and milling about and from there into the main chapel past a guy handing out programs. A shooter could begin in the lobby and then head into the chapel or wait until the chapel.

What's it like in a temple? Couldn't a shooter just take out the people checking recommends and then continue inside?

If the argument is we should carry guys at church because of safety, then that argument should apply equally to a temple. If temples are gun free zones, then all the arguments about how gun free zones are easy targets should apply equally to the temple and those arguing against the chapel gun ban policy should likewise be arguing against the temple gun ban policy.

@Amulek appears to be consistent here, though I wonder if his talk about special temple guns is tongue-in-cheek..?

I think what Meerkat means is that the “recommend” the member carries is barcoded and the person attending the temple is required to present the recommend at a desk to be scanned against a database of recommend holders in order to gain admission past the front foyer of the temple.

You are correct, however, in your observation that a would-be mass murderer is unlikely to let such a thing stop him. If there are typically armed security at a temple, I’m unaware of it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

No, this was a Chinese copy of the Russian Tokarev TT-30 that was originally chambered for the proprietary 7.62x25 cartridge. Mine was rechambered to 9mm Parabellum.  It was actually a sweet-firing pistol that I wish I still had.  For all that it was rather cheap, it worked quite well.

450px-TT-33_2.JPG

I do have a Mak, and it is my preferred carry pistol.  Spot on reliability and accuracy, plus it doesn't kill your wrist to shoot it.

7.62 x 25 sounds like an interesting caliber in itself.  The M-1 carbine is 30 caliber, essentially a 7.62X33 and in a long barrel, in the carbine in other words,  hits about like a .45 but you have rifle accuracy and control in rapid fire.

I know yours was re-chambered but maybe I will check out the Tokarev!  Sounds like the right balance between oomph and kick!

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...