Guns at church policy changed

[randy]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The issue of "concealed carry" at church is just a matter of "the practical "here and now" point of view" though, so maybe you could understand why the Church is establishing that policy from the practical "here and now" point of view.  To reduce insurance costs and liability, which are 2 of the reasons, and to just give people more peace of mind knowing that nobody in the building should be carrying concealed weapons other than law enforcement officers.

 You may be fine with the idea that anybody walking in could be coming in with a concealed weapon and maybe a permit for it if they have obeyed the law up to that point, even people you do not know, but I would rather nobody come in with a gun, even if they are permitted.

 

It should probably be noted at this point....that people in your Ward have been carrying concealed ...and you never knew it.  That's the point.   Even with the new policy in place....some will continue to carry concealed at Church and you will continue to never know, at least  right up until that time they could be saving your life or others.    As far as "peace of mind" at Church...there could very well be more members in the "I feel more safe knowing there are responsible and well trained gunowners carrying at Church" camp that what you may realize.   You will also never know if someone is carrying illegally at Church.   So not sure how that will play into your sense of "peace of mind".

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Has anyone heard of the idea of seeking forgiveness after the event instead of seeking permission before? 

Again, if you save a life by doing something "prohibited" what will be the consequences?

 

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

[randy]

10 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I have a concealed carry permit but leave my weapon home (a beautiful little S&W 38-special)... I've mentioned here previously that we have 3 police officers, including the chief of police, in my ward who attend Sac Mtg in full uniform with weapons, take Sacrament and then leave.  Also, the former chief of police who does carry at all times, and teaches the gun safety class at the local community college.  Lately I've been thinking about carrying, but guess that plan is moot... I'm a good shot and comfortable with my weapon, and after recent news events had considered carrying, but... no.  Not now.

from the beach on a beautiful fall-feeling day... GG

Understood.  At least you have "some protection" at Church.  It's unfortunate that the former Chief of Police will be unable now to carry and be in a position to protect the lives of others. 

[randy]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

I'm pretty sure that saving lives is not the same thing as selling your soul to increase your wealth or stature in the world.

[Ahab]

Just now, randy said:

It should probably be noted at this point....that people in your Ward have been carrying concealed ...and you never knew it.  That's the point.   Even with the new policy in place....some will continue to carry concealed at Church and you will continue to never know, at least  right up until that time they could be saving your life or others.    As far as "peace of mind" at Church...there could very well be more members in the "I feel more safe knowing there are responsible and well trained gunowners carrying at Church" camp that what you may realize.   You will also never know if someone is carrying illegally at Church.   So not sure how that will play into your sense of "peace of mind".

I'm at peace in my mind either way because I am ready to die if that were to happen, which it will, at some point.  I was just talking about what I would prefer.  That people not bring any weapons to Church meetings, permitted or not.

Otherwise, heck, why conceal anything?  Why make it a concealed weapon, or a concealed permit?  Why not just have everyone wear a holster, either the more modern kind that is hidden in by a jacket or on their hips like in the days of the old western "cowboy" towns?

Can't a person with a concealed weapon permit also get a permit to carry a weapon that is not concealed?  Why hide them if you got them?  Some of them are apparently beautiful little things, with pearl handles and nickel plating and such.

Why not just show it off to everybody?  And fire  a few up in the air when you feel giddy?

[randy]

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Unless leaders have some specific reason to suspect an attack, how can they be liable for failing to prevent it? 

I'm sorry, but I don't think the church has any more of a duty to protect its members from a mass shooting than a McDonald's has to protect their employees / customers from the same. 

 

My feeling is that they took on that duty, when they took action to prevent me from fulfilling that duty.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, randy said:

I'm pretty sure that saving lives is not the same thing as selling your soul to increase your wealth or stature in the world.

You'll notice the smiley face at the end.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, randy said:

To be clear,  I understand and empathize with the sentiment expressed in the policy change.  I get it.   But, short of locking the meetinghouse doors after a certain time... protections of some sort need to be in place to protect the members.

I thought this meant exactly what it says- it says nothing about locking during meetings.  Of course you do not lock the doors during meetings.  I could not even have imagined that this is what was being said.   Who would do that?  I fail to see how locking the doors during meetings would stop someone from shooting a gun if the doors were locked or not.

Yes after 9 or 10 pm - at a "certain time"- the doors should be locked and any activities continuing past those times should end.

It has been my experience that folks in Utah commonly do not lock the doors of their homes, and I thought this meant that meetinghouse doors also would be left unlocked and that locking them "after a certain time" like in the evening would be a change in what is happening now.

I am very conscious of ambiguity wherever it is found.  It is often the source of great philosophical errors and I have unfortunately been trained to find logical errors most of which come from ambiguous language which can easily be misconstrued.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[randy]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm at peace in my mind either way because I am ready to die if that were to happen, which it will, at some point.  I was just talking about what I would prefer.  That people not bring any weapons to Church meetings, permitted or not.

Otherwise, heck, why conceal anything?  Why make it a concealed weapon, or a concealed permit?  Why not just have everyone wear a holster, either the more modern kind that is hidden in by a jacket or on their hips like in the days of the old western "cowboy" towns?

Can't a person with a concealed weapon permit also get a permit to carry a weapon that is not concealed?  Why hide them if you got them?  Some of them are apparently beautiful little things, with pearl handles and nickel plating and such.

Why not just show it off to everybody?  And fire  a few up in the air when you feel giddy?

You bring up an excellent point.  Criminals by nature are cowards.  They prey on the weak and seek weak and unprotected targets of opportunity.  If you were a criminal and you pull into a QT type of store intent on robbing it, but you notice a police car there...are you going to go ahead and go in and attempt to rob it?  Probably not.  The cop car was a visual deterrent.  If the LEO was in an unmarked vehicle....and you (the bad guy) went in and while scoping the place out noticed the uniformed officer chatting with a clerk.  Would you still attempt the crime? probably not.  Why?  Visual deterrent..LEO.     Same could be said for people who choose to open carry.  Again, criminals are cowards by nature.  They come in and see someone openly carrying....they have to ask themselves...is this guy off duty LEO, former Military, former Navy Seal?  or a barely trained chucklehead who barely knows a revolver from a Semi-Auto.    The point is...visual deterrents have shown that they deter crime.  There have been many interviews of inmates who have stated clearly how, who and where they choose their victims.  RARELY does a criminal actually choose to engage a potential victim who they already know is armed.  Why...because they're cowards at heart.  They choose the weak and unprotected

This cavalier and dismissive attitude of those who have irrational fears of their fellow citizens who choose to exercise their rights...is what contributes to this problem.

In many states...you do NOT need a permit to carry openly,  only concealed.  In my home state of Missouri...you do not need a permit to carry openly or concealed.   But, common sense is what is needed in these times we live in.  It really does go a long way!.

[randy]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You'll notice the smiley face at the end.

DOH!   Duly noted!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You DON'T lock the doors after a certain time?  That's a calling in itself to check and lock the building on a rotating basis.

We have homeless folks breaking in to sleep in buildings that are locked.  Local kids get in to play basketball at midnight, or have a buddy who watched a careless or trusting leader enter his code on the lock pad.

It's a different world I guess.

I think he meant keeping the doors locked during the meeting block or other event. That is, you unlock them until 10 minutes or so after start time, then lock them again. 

[Amulek]

14 minutes ago, randy said:

My feeling is that they took on that duty, when they took action to prevent me from fulfilling that duty.

Only they didn't prevent you from fulfilling that duty and then force you to be there. Church participation is completely voluntary.

So, by giving you notice, you voluntarily forfeit the right to complain about this the moment you walk into the building of your own accord. 

 

[randy]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought this meant exactly what it says- it says nothing about locking during meetings.  Of course you do not lock the doors during meetings.  I could not even have imagined that this is what was being said.   Who would do that?  I fail to see how locking the doors during meetings would stop someone from shooting a gun if the doors were locked or not.

Yes after 9 or 10 pm - at a "certain time"- the doors should be locked and any activities continuing past those times should end.

It has been my experience that folks in Utah commonly do not lock the doors of their homes, and I thought this meant that meetinghouse doors also would be left unlocked and that locking them "after a certain time" like in the evening would be a change in what is happening now.

I am very conscious of ambiguity wherever it is found.  It is often the source of great philosophical errors and I have unfortunately been trained to find logical errors most of which come from ambiguous language which can easily be misconstrued.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It appears we misunderstood each other.  It sounded as if perhaps you guys did lock your doors.   So we're in agreement, doors should not be locked.  However, having said that...IF they WERE locked, at least the bad guy would have to shoot the glass out to gain access.  That in and of itself would buy a little time.

Edited August 27, 2019 by randy

[Garden Girl]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm envisioning you as a sweet little old lady who lives somewhere near the beach in the Pacific Northwest, which is where I happen to live too.  The Pacific Northwest, I mean.  I remember you saying something about how you live near the beach and how you are kinda old now.

Anyway, it is a nice little vision I have as I envision you this way.  A sweet little old lady who has what she calls a beautiful little S&W 38-special, who also happens to pack a pretty good understanding of the gospel, as I know it.

Impressive!

Hello Ahab... you gave me a chuckle... Years ago my husband taught me to shoot as his job took him away for days at a time, leaving me alone.  We both enjoyed target practice, and he drummed safety into me.  Now here I am, 79 years old, widowed for 21 years, living alone on the beautiful central Oregon coast 1/2 block to the beach (I walk to the end of my street down some steps onto the sand).  When I sit in my garden, I can sometimes hear the ocean... A few years ago I served as an ordinance worker for six years in the Portland temple.  Every Friday morning I'd get up early and drive the 80 miles into Portland, through some rural/forested areas, and particularly through a dedicated winding 2 lane 10-mile stretch of forest that could be frightening coming home in the dark... So that's when I bought my weapon and started carrying...  and I continue though no longer an ordinance worker...  

GG 

[randy]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he meant keeping the doors locked during the meeting block or other event. That is, you unlock them until 10 minutes or so after start time, then lock them again. 

Correct...that is what I meant.

[randy]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Only they didn't prevent you from fulfilling that duty and then force you to be there. Church participation is completely voluntary.

So, by giving you notice, you voluntarily forfeit the right to complain about this the moment you walk into the building of your own accord. 

 

Correct.  Therein lies the difficulty and the frustration.   However, as far as Church attendance is concerned...technically speaking it is voluntary,   but is it ...really?? 

Edited August 27, 2019 by randy

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he meant keeping the doors locked during the meeting block or other event. That is, you unlock them until 10 minutes or so after start time, then lock them again. 

Yes you are apparently right while I was taking the words literally.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, randy said:

It appears we misunderstood each other.  It sounded as if perhaps you guys did lock your doors.   So we're in agreement, doors should not be locked.  However, having said that...IF they WERE locked, at least the bad guy would have to shoot the glass out to gain access.  That in and of itself would be a little time.

See- here we go again!! 

We don't have glass in our doors - did you mean windows, like the ones in the walls as opposed to windows in the doors?  

Seriously- sorry but that is how my mind works.  Just an illustration of my philosophical word affliction. 

 

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Can't a person with a concealed weapon permit also get a permit to carry a weapon that is not concealed? 

Depends on the jurisdiction. Google "open carry by state" if you are genuinely interested in seeing how different places handle things. 

 

Quote

Why hide them if you got them?

This is largely a social shift that has taken place over the years.

Back in the olden days - and I'm talking about actual olden days here, not the kind that my teenage daughter thinks I grew up in - it was considered very bad form to conceal a weapon. Only thieves and brigands would be so cowardly as to hide the fact that they had a pistol or other weapon.

Over time, however, as people began to transition from more rural to more metropolitan living situations, it became less and less necessary for one to carry a gun and people became acclimated to not seeing them. So much so that now, when we see somebody openly carrying a handgun, people tend to assume that there might be something wrong with that person. 

Funny how things can completely switch like that over time. Maybe the pendulum will eventually swing back the other direction, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Most of the folks I know who are interested in carrying regularly are perfectly content to carry concealed. They aren't terribly interested in trying to make a political statement or change public perception about gun owners. They just want to do what they think is right and be left alone.

 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, randy said:

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he meant keeping the doors locked during the meeting block or other event. That is, you unlock them until 10 minutes or so after start time, then lock them again. 

Correct...that is what I meant.

Perhaps a little more safe, but not very practical. People come a lot later than 10 minutes late. You would have to have someone assigned to be at the door who knows who all the members of the ward are to let them in.
And even then there could be visitors or members from other wards visiting that you don't know coming late. 
I think I like the don't ask, don't tell idea of just knowing that there is most likely a trained ward member carrying, who can do whatever might need to be done as needed.
Other than that, stuff happens that we sometimes have no control over nor can we prevent.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The issue of "concealed carry" at church is just a matter of "the practical "here and now" point of view" though, so maybe you could understand why the Church is establishing that policy from the practical "here and now" point of view.  To reduce insurance costs and liability, which are 2 of the reasons, and to just give people more peace of mind knowing that nobody in the building should be carrying concealed weapons other than law enforcement officers.

 You may be fine with the idea that anybody walking in could be coming in with a concealed weapon and maybe a permit for it if they have obeyed the law up to that point, even people you do not know, but I would rather nobody come in with a gun, even if they are permitted.

 

How about a happy medium in which a few qualified individuals are allowed to carry the firearm? That equalizes things somewhat with the bad guy(s) so we are not totally sitting ducks. 

[randy]

YES!  This is all I'm asking and hoping for.  A common sense compromise.

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, randy said:

My feeling is that they took on that duty, when they took action to prevent me from fulfilling that duty.

At least in principle. Like the pastor said, protect the flock. There are measures in place for fire and accident prevention at church, why not this? 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought this meant exactly what it says- it says nothing about locking during meetings.  Of course you do not lock the doors during meetings.  I could not even have imagined that this is what was being said.   Who would do that?  I fail to see how locking the doors during meetings would stop someone from shooting a gun if the doors were locked or not.

Yes after 9 or 10 pm - at a "certain time"- the doors should be locked and any activities continuing past those times should end.

It has been my experience that folks in Utah commonly do not lock the doors of their homes, and I thought this meant that meetinghouse doors also would be left unlocked and that locking them "after a certain time" like in the evening would be a change in what is happening now.

I am very conscious of ambiguity wherever it is found.  It is often the source of great philosophical errors and I have unfortunately been trained to find logical errors most of which come from ambiguous language which can easily be misconstrued.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

When was the last time you were in Utah? We do lock our doors. 

Maybe you have us confused with North Carolina. 

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, randy said:

You bring up an excellent point.  Criminals by nature are cowards.  They prey on the weak and seek weak and unprotected targets of opportunity.  If you were a criminal and you pull into a QT type of store intent on robbing it, but you notice a police car there...are you going to go ahead and go in and attempt to rob it?  Probably not.  The cop car was a visual deterrent.  If the LEO was in an unmarked vehicle....and you (the bad guy) went in and while scoping the place out noticed the uniformed officer chatting with a clerk.  Would you still attempt the crime? probably not.  Why?  Visual deterrent..LEO.     Same could be said for people who choose to open carry.  Again, criminals are cowards by nature.  They come in and see someone openly carrying....they have to ask themselves...is this guy off duty LEO, former Military, former Navy Seal?  or a barely trained chucklehead who barely knows a revolver from a Semi-Auto.    The point is...visual deterrents have shown that they deter crime.  There have been many interviews of inmates who have stated clearly how, who and where they choose their victims.  RARELY does a criminal actually choose to engage a potential victim who they already know is armed.  Why...because they're cowards at heart.  They choose the weak and unprotected

This cavalier and dismissive attitude of those who have irrational fears of their fellow citizens who choose to exercise their rights...is what contributes to this problem.

In many states...you do NOT need a permit to carry openly,  only concealed.  In my home state of Missouri...you do not need a permit to carry openly or concealed.   But, common sense is what is needed in these times we live in.  It really does go a long way!.

So how would you feel if you walked into a store and someone you didn't know was openly carrying a weapon and he wasn't in a law enforcement uniform?

Or how would you feel if you were in a Sacrament meeting and someone walked in openly carrying a weapon?

He might have a permit for it, or he might not, and who knows what he would do with that gun until he did something with it.

If no permit is needed to openly carry a gun, and everyone can do that as a matter of law in their land, would you just automatically be okay with everyone openly carrying a gun?

Well, you know, you probably would because you would probably be carrying your own gun just in case you felt like you needed to use it, but if I walked into a store and someone was openly carrying a weapon I would likely turn around and walk out!