Duncan Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Just now, Calm said: Since people issuing licenses cant predict what people will think and do in the future, I don't see how they could avoid on occasion handing out a permit to someone who later became mentally or emotionally incompetent to carry just as people with driver's licenses can end plowing through crowds to kill or like my grandma driving down the wrong side of the street. How long are these licenses good for? if mental capacity is an issue are the issuers qualified to make judgements on someone's mental health?
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Duncan said: is it possible to get a license for a gun or open carry license and then lose your mind, like that Roof kid? If I saw a guy with a gun and didn't look like law enforcement, i'd leave the area, I don't know his mental state but I can make a pretty good guess.......... to each their own I guess Roof was clearly nuts long beforehand.
MiserereNobis Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 5 hours ago, Wants2know said: People most definitely do conceal carry into church. This is open knowledge and encouraged by the leadership. Leadership (bishops?) really encourages people to bring their guns to church?
Duncan Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Just now, Stargazer said: Roof was clearly nuts long beforehand. how did he get a gun?!
MiserereNobis Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Duncan said: how did he get a gun?! It's America, Duncan. You Canucks wouldn't understand... Edited June 5, 2017 by MiserereNobis
Calm Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Leadership (bishops?) really encourages people to bring their guns to church? It is against Church policy, iirc, so if local leadership is encouraging people, they are going off book. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/no-firearms-in-latter-day-saint-houses-of-worship "SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has mailed a letter to its local leaders in Utah informing them that the Church "plans to invoke ... Utah law and give public notice that firearms are prohibited in the Church's houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and the Conference Center." This action implements the Church's position announced by the First Presidency in 1996 that churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world and that, consequently, lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, do not belong in houses of worship. The Church shares this belief with many other religions in Utah. The Church will register its position with the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation and provide notice in the newspaper, as required by the Utah law that allows religious organizations to prohibit concealed weapons from their premises. Once the actions of registering and providing public notice are completed, individuals with concealed-carry weapons permits will not be allowed to bring their firearms inside Latter-day Saint houses of worship. The Church's position and these announced actions apply only to houses of worship. The Church has not taken a position on legislation regarding guns in public schools or other public places." Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 "Firearms Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law." https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.2?lang=eng&_r=1#21.2.4
Duncan Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Just now, MiserereNobis said: It's America, Duncan. You Canucks wouldn't understand... we don't have these problems but others like being asked if I know a Julio Castaneda in BC to which I reply "naturally, he has a mutual friend named Beatrice Butterworth in South Carolina, you know her?" Edited June 5, 2017 by Duncan
MiserereNobis Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Calm said: It is against Church policy, iirc, so if local leadership is encouraging people, they are going off book. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/no-firearms-in-latter-day-saint-houses-of-worship "SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has mailed a letter to its local leaders in Utah informing them that the Church "plans to invoke ... Utah law and give public notice that firearms are prohibited in the Church's houses of worship, including temples, meetinghouses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and the Conference Center." This action implements the Church's position announced by the First Presidency in 1996 that churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world and that, consequently, lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, do not belong in houses of worship. The Church shares this belief with many other religions in Utah. The Church will register its position with the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation and provide notice in the newspaper, as required by the Utah law that allows religious organizations to prohibit concealed weapons from their premises. Once the actions of registering and providing public notice are completed, individuals with concealed-carry weapons permits will not be allowed to bring their firearms inside Latter-day Saint houses of worship. The Church's position and these announced actions apply only to houses of worship. The Church has not taken a position on legislation regarding guns in public schools or other public places." Thanks for the information. I wonder how many people were upset by this action by the LDS church (maybe the maker of that bullet container for blessing oil?)
Calm Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) edited for poor taste Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm
MiserereNobis Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Total tangent. I remember after 9/11 that Canada supplied the paw protectors for dogs searching ground zero. It was such a Canadian thing to do. I love our northern neighbors. A quick google search brought up this article. 2
Calm Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Total tangent. I remember after 9/11 that Canada supplied the paw protectors for dogs searching ground zero. It was such a Canadian thing to do. I love our northern neighbors. A quick google search brought up this article. When we found out the planes were all grounded in Calgary, we called to offer our home to stranded passengers. Even though it was just a short time after the announced need, they had already found housing for everyone and didn't need our assistance. Good people. Similar situation: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/gander.asp More details: http://nypost.com/2017/02/26/meet-the-canadians-who-opened-their-doors-to-stranded-travelers-after-911/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellow_Ribbon https://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/canada/9-11-day-planes-stood-still/ Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Duncan said: how did he get a gun?! Apparently he should have failed the required federal background check, but the system had a hiccup. The FBI Director (James Comey) said Roof: "was able to purchase the gun used in the attack only because of lapses in the FBI's background-check system"
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Duncan said: we don't have these problems but others like being asked if I know a Julio Castaneda in BC to which I reply "naturally, he has a mutual friend named Beatrice Butterworth in South Carolina, you know her?" I've gotten similar things when someone learns I'm LDS in Washington state, whereupon they ask me if I know so-and-so, who's a member in Seattle. 1
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: Thanks for the information. I wonder how many people were upset by this action by the LDS church (maybe the maker of that bullet container for blessing oil?) That was because Utah had newly enacted concealed carry legislation, and the matter was noteworthy. I guess nobody in the church leadership noticed that Washington state had a concealed carry law since at least 1935, and nobody seems to have taken any trouble to remind members in WA about this rule. I'm well aware that a number of members of my old ward had permits and regularly carried pistols -- including at church. And that is in addition to the law-enforcement types who were members of the ward.
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: "Firearms Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law." https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.2?lang=eng&_r=1#21.2.4 I don't suppose anyone has ever pointed out that disarming those who have no criminal intent does not prevent those who do have evil intent from being armed, nor from inflicting evil acts upon others. In effect, forbidding the carrying of weapons in a given place creates a free-fire zone for persons of evil intent. Dylan Roof was not dissuaded from carrying a weapon into a Bible study session by the notion that a place of worship is a haven "from the cares and concerns of the world".
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Duncan said: How long are these licenses good for? if mental capacity is an issue are the issuers qualified to make judgements on someone's mental health? In Washington state they are issued for 5 year periods (the same as drivers licenses). The issuers are not qualified to make mental health judgments -- and they don't. They rely upon adjudications of mental incapacity as entered into the system by qualified mental health professionals, as well as courts of law. Just for information, I checked into the figures for concealed carry licenses in my state of Washington, and the number of people with permits is apparently 359,342 as of 2016. This makes Washington the 8th highest in terms of the number of permits issued, and with a population of approximately 7.3 million, this means that 1 out of 20 people in the state may legally carry concealed pistols. I knew the number was high, but I didn't know it was that high. So, Duncan, if you're worried about people with guns suddenly going nuts, you probably better stay out of the state! For that matter, Utah is even "worse"! 1 out of every 7 people in the state of Utah has a concealed carry permit. I figured it would be high, but I didn't know it was that high! Figures obtained from StatisticsBrain and Wikipedia. Edited June 5, 2017 by Stargazer
MiserereNobis Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I don't suppose anyone has ever pointed out that disarming those who have no criminal intent does not prevent those who do have evil intent from being armed, nor from inflicting evil acts upon others. In effect, forbidding the carrying of weapons in a given place creates a free-fire zone for persons of evil intent. Dylan Roof was not dissuaded from carrying a weapon into a Bible study session by the notion that a place of worship is a haven "from the cares and concerns of the world". I don't want to speak to the reasons the first presidency gave those rules, but I will speak to why guns are not allowed in my diocese. The issue is not about what happens if there is an attack. The argument that guns should be allowed to stop someone from attacking has nothing to do with the reason why guns are not allowed at my local churches. The reason guns are not allowed is because our churches are a sacred place of peace to worship a God of peace. Weapons therefore are, as your first presidency pointed out, inappropriate for such a place. I think it is a beautiful policy, because it teaches us much, including the idea that the most sacred places are worthy of our own sacrifice. That worldly cares, i.e. cares for the body, are not as important as the supernatural ones. It reminds us of Jesus' passive acceptance of physical violence, in order to bring about the greatest spiritual good imaginable. It tells us that things of this world are not as important as the things of God. Edited June 5, 2017 by MiserereNobis 2
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said: I don't want to speak to the reasons the first presidency gave those rules, but I will speak to why guns are not allowed in my diocese. The issue is not about what happens if there is an attack. The argument that guns should be allowed to stop someone from attacking has nothing to do with the reason why guns are not allowed at my local churches. The reason guns are not allowed is because our churches are a sacred place of peace to worship a God of peace. Weapons therefore are, as your first presidency pointed out, inappropriate for such a place. I think it is a beautiful policy, because it teaches us much, including the idea that the most sacred places are worthy of our own sacrifice. That worldly cares, i.e. cares for the body, are not as important as the supernatural ones. It reminds us of Jesus' passive acceptance of physical violence, in order to bring about the greatest spiritual good imaginable. It tells us that things of this world are not as important of the things of God. 2 I do appreciate the reasons you give, and I'm certain that those are the exact reasons for the LDS church policy. In theory, I agree. What I wish is that there were NO reason for the carrying of weapons. Ever. But clearly, the Lord anticipated that there was a need for it, hence his advice to sell one's coat to buy a sword.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 5 hours ago, Calm said: Since people issuing licenses cant predict what people will think and do in the future, I don't see how they could avoid on occasion handing out a permit to someone who later became mentally or emotionally incompetent to carry just as people with driver's licenses can end plowing through crowds to kill or like my grandma driving down the wrong side of the street. You had to be judged mentally incompetent by mental health professionals before you could be declined a gun. That is no longer the case.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 The Church handbook of Instructions for firearms at church. SEE 21.2.4 Firearms Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.
Duncan Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: In Washington state they are issued for 5 year periods (the same as drivers licenses). The issuers are not qualified to make mental health judgments -- and they don't. They rely upon adjudications of mental incapacity as entered into the system by qualified mental health professionals, as well as courts of law. Just for information, I checked into the figures for concealed carry licenses in my state of Washington, and the number of people with permits is apparently 359,342 as of 2016. This makes Washington the 8th highest in terms of the number of permits issued, and with a population of approximately 7.3 million, this means that 1 out of 20 people in the state may legally carry concealed pistols. I knew the number was high, but I didn't know it was that high. So, Duncan, if you're worried about people with guns suddenly going nuts, you probably better stay out of the state! For that matter, Utah is even "worse"! 1 out of every 7 people in the state of Utah has a concealed carry permit. I figured it would be high, but I didn't know it was that high! Figures obtained from StatisticsBrain and Wikipedia. it's fine my worst mission comp. comes from Tacoma and the thought of accidentally running into him fills me with fear
Anijen Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: The issue is not about what happens if there is an attack. ...The reason guns are not allowed is because our churches are a sacred place of peace to worship a God of peace. Weapons therefore are... inappropriate for such a place. I think it is a beautiful policy, because it teaches us much, including the idea that the most sacred places are worthy of our own sacrifice. I agree with MiserereNobis's post above. I have edited it, that I might address the points relevant to my posting the following: I too, think it is a beautiful policy. Weapons nationwide (and internationally) in general are not allowed in places of worship, hospitals, schools, museums, Federal and State buildings. However, I ask all reading and is interested in this topic to consider that very issue of the one MiserereNobis did not discuss: What happens if there is an attack? Such a concept is not ridiculous to think that it will not happen. Not just a thug intent on robbing you on a public street, or perhaps in your home but just possibly in the above places I just mentioned, where it is not just a policy but illegal to carry in any of the above mentioned areas. My personal opinion is we should follow all the laws of our country including the policy of our church (it may be church policy, but in most states it is also the law). I have a Conceal Carry Permit, but frankly the laws make the conceal carry permit almost useless, most of my time is spent in federal or state buildings, schools, or at church. So my little small gun has been collecting dust locked in a safe at home. I am a law abiding citizen, I guarantee you I am no threat to anyone. But I have had death threats made against me (when I was spending much of my time as a full time intern, doing prosecutorial work for a local county attorney). Just google lone wolf, terrorist, crazed person attacks and you can find it has happened quite often and other normal thug attacks happen even more frequently (i.e. Chicago, has had 317 shooting victims just this year (2017) in the month of may alone (all were crime related, my source was Chicago police report). Under many International laws (such as the Hague Convention, UN Article 51, etc.) you cannot use civilians, religious buildings, as a shield. Once you do it becomes a target for the police or military (or individual) and then you can shoot or bomb that target. Once someone turns a peaceful object, person, or place as a shield then the place is turned into a target (the criminal is always a target). The blame will not go to the military, police, or lone citizen with a concealed weapon, the blame will fall squarely on the criminal or terrorist. My advice; follow our laws, follow or church policies and we should be okay, but I am saying crime does happen, if it does I would be praying for the safety of my family that someone nearby is armed because it wont be me (I will not carry where I am not allowed to). I'll never say never. The world would have to change far more for the worse. That is only when I will start to disobey laws that were once there to protect me and my family and friends.
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 You're far more likely to die from a lightening strike than by a Dylan Roof type character.
Duncan Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Just now, thesometimesaint said: You're far more likely to die from a lightening strike than by a Dylan Roof type character. tell that to him!
Recommended Posts