Guns at church policy changed

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't a good idea to put that out to the nation that we're gun free, awful. 

I don’t think the church released this  in an official way to the press but once the story was out...it spread. Plus, legally, in many states, the church has to publicly announce this policy or have signs. So, there was no way it would not be a ‘news’ story.

My officer friend said those carrying a weapon would only be in trouble legally if they were asked to leave and did not. It would be considered trespassing.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

So, I did a google search and this new policy was publicized nationally through numerous news outlets. I must say, our chapels being advertised as gun free zones is not making me feel safer. 

Since, in Utah, there has been a definite uptick in arson fires at LDS chapels this year, I’m not sure the publicity around this policy change is in the best interest of safety. There are people who are unstable or just don’t like us.

I’m grateful I have two official leo’s In my ward but I don’t think all wards are that fortunate.

 

I think you might be surprised how many do have them. There are several in my California ward. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/27/2019 at 10:35 AM, mfbukowski said:

If guns are prohibited the church is thereby by rejecting liability for accidents Etc.

Guns should not be there under any circumstance. Period.

They are making the strongest possible point that guns should not be there.

The earlier terminology was that guns were "inappropriate", a much softer term.

It is my opinion that the new terminology makes their rejection of liability stronger.

That's just my opinion though and I am not a lawyer.

 

So if I am killed or injured in an area where I was prohibited from carrying a defensive weapon, the banning entity bears no responsibility. Doesn’t seem fair to me. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think you might be surprised how many do have them. There are several in my California ward. 

Lucky you. We have one or two maybe in our stake. 

[Meerkat]

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.

[Calm]

I found these stats that show chance of dying in a mass shooting in the US (a little over 11,000) much higher than I thought, but still lower than a gun death by self injury (need to find this number) or accidental shooting (about 1 in 8300)

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3

I agree these odds shift dramatically when significant training and safety responsibility is applied. It is a shame the stats don’t show the circumstances attached to each so that influence can be shown. I am going to keep looking to see if I can find useful info on this.  Also to see if there is info separating out mass shootings (4 or more iirc) at churches as well as just gun assaults (3 or less deaths or just injuries) at churches.

I suspect that accidental shootings at churches aren’t statistically higher than intentional ones, but my question would be if the chances of death or injury either bring increased or lowered are high enough to offset other consequences besides the one we usually associate with it.  For example, what if a significant number people stop attending church out of fear of being shot if guns are allowed/disallowed?  This could have a greater overall impact on people than the likely few actual deaths (percentagewise) since it is known that better mental and physical health is associated with church involvement.  In a convoluted chain of influences, what if out of fear of gun violence the individual that stays away is one who is borderline depressive and church involvement helped them stay on the positive side.  With it removed, this individual becomes more likely to be ill or depressed or even suicidal.  While impossible to measure, I speculate (given I have a daughter who often avoids theaters and other places due to potential shootings) there are many more people with severe anxiety who will avoid church either because of gun bannings or knowing there are guns present than there will be killed at church by gun violence unless something dramatically changes (organized terrorism targeting churches, for example).

I think there should be studies done on this to determine best approach involving not only what actually happens, but how beliefs about what can happen affects people.  Imo, it is quite possible this is one of the things that church  leaders did in coming to this decision (asking people if they would be more or less likely to go to church if they knew guns were banned/conceal carried was allowed) and why they went with a global ban (though likely unenforceable) rather than saying follow your local laws.

——

I think given the much higher rate of death from suicide using guns than mass shootings, there should still be great concern as I don’t see how training or gun safes would alter this (need to check though). It seems primarily affected by whether or not a gun is available.  Therefore probably the question that becomes important here is does the rate of suicides go down when guns are not available.  Even if mass shooting deaths went up with greater gun control, this could be offset by fewer deaths from gun self violence (assuming they don’t just find alternative means).

Just another complication to consider in a very complicated subject.

Aside:  let me just say I keep finding things that make me think our lawmakers can’t sink any lower and then I find something else:

”The study attributed this lack of research to a 1996 bill that barred scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from researching gun violence. In 2018, President Donald Trump signed a bill that allowed the US government to fund gun-violence research again as long as it did not promote gun control.”

So one of the reasons this area has so much confusion over causes, etc is because apparently our lawmakers don’t want to have actual data because it might undermine their emotional claims.  Of all the insanity....

https://www.businessinsider.com/things-linked-to-more-gun-violence-science-2019-8

exploring this site now:  https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Edited August 29, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So if I am killed or injured in an area where I was prohibited from carrying a defensive weapon, the banning entity bears no responsibility. Doesn’t seem fair to me. 

Well I agree.

Note that what I wrote in this post was simply my understanding of the church's position. I was not advocating what I wrote, I was explaining their position as I understood it.

[Amulek]

54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So if I am killed or injured in an area where I was prohibited from carrying a defensive weapon, the banning entity bears no responsibility. Doesn’t seem fair to me. 

If you were injured by a shark while swimming in an area which prohibited swimming due to sharks, do you think the banning entity should bear responsibility for that? 

I know that's not a perfect analogy, but it's close.

By providing notice to you that guns are prohibited on church property, you take the risk upon yourself when you decide step foot on that property.

Understandably, that is a frustrating situation to be in because, even though church membership and attendance is technically voluntary, as a faithful Latter-day Saint you are going to be attending church regardless of whatever policy happens to be in place. 

Maybe it's time for our quorums to start back up with the old whistling and whittling brigade.  

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

So if I am killed or injured in an area where I was prohibited from carrying a defensive weapon, the banning entity bears no responsibility. Doesn’t seem fair to me. 

Legally speaking, correct, if someone brought a weapon to Church and shot somebody with it, the Church would bear no responsibility for that person who shot that person.  So any lawsuit someone might want to bring up against the Church for that person who was shot would then be a private matter, rather than an act the Church, as an organization, would be responsible for.  

Spiritually, though, whatever is right would prevail, with God making sure that justice was done, either then or eventually.

Mainly it's just a way for the Church to avoid legal responsibility for the acts of it's members since the Church legal reps could then say something like, "No, your honor, that shooter acted against how we told him to act so he wasn't acting on our authority when he brought that weapon into the building."

Edited August 29, 2019 by Ahab

[Calm]

Stats on church shootings...even with higher death rate from mass shootings than I expected, shootings at church were in line with what I thought.

https://factsandtrends.net/2018/05/21/how-likely-are-u-s-church-shootings/

Quote

The Washington Post lists 220 school shootings—59 of which involved at least one fatality—since the Columbine attack on April 20, 1999.

During the same time period, there have been 18 fatal church shootings. The deadliest was the 2017 shooting at First Baptist Sutherland Springs in Texas, with 26 deaths including an unborn child.

There are years where no church shootings take place. (These do not include nonChristian faiths...there may be other variables I am missing, going to try to find stats for faith based properties)

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

An interesting discussion on the problem of finding relevant stats:

https://www.ravemobilesafety.com/blog/are-church-massacres-in-the-united-states-on-the-rise

Quote

On 13th June 2019, sixty-two year old Arthur Edigin fatally shot his wife and critically injured his thirty-one year old daughter at the Christ the Redeemer Catholic Church in Cypress, Texas, before taking his own life in a nearby hotel. Due to the way in which most organizations record church shootings, this tragic incident will rarely appear in any database; yet, according to one source, domestic violence is the second most common reason for deadly force incidents at places of worship in the United States.

In 2017, church security expert Carl Chinn compiled a database of deadly force incidents at faith-based organization in the United States - a deadly force incident being defined as any attack, suicide, suspicious death, or deadly force intervention. His database started in 1999 and covered 1,705 incidents in which 617 victims died (not including suicide victims or shooters killed in action), and an analysis of Chinn's database reveals a selection of motivations....

Robbery is the highest cause of deadly force incidents (gun or otherwise), then domestic violence at about 2/3 of that, followed by personal conflict and then mental illness at half robbery.  Religious bias is a little over 5%, gangs or drug involvement about 10%.

Given our churches are not known for having valuables or money around, that probably drops our rates significantly.  My memory says most incidents I have heard of in our buildings are domestic violence with personal conflict usually relating to family issues.

I think however given the problem with finding useful stats, I will stop here for now.  Maybe later tonight if I can't sleep.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Calm

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Aside:  let me just say I keep finding things that make me think our lawmakers can’t sink any lower and then I find something else:

”The study attributed this lack of research to a 1996 bill that barred scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from researching gun violence. In 2018, President Donald Trump signed a bill that allowed the US government to fund gun-violence research again as long as it did not promote gun control.”

So one of the reasons this area has so much confusion over causes, etc is because apparently our lawmakers don’t want to have actual data because it might undermine their emotional claims.  Of all the insanity....

Technically, the amendment (whose name I think the filter will block) restricting research only applies to the CDC. The National Institutes of Health, the Justice Department, and various private organizations have been conducting this research unimpeded for years. 

 

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

An interesting discussion on the problem of finding relevant stats:

You will find this a common issue in this area. Lack of uniform reporting methods, involvement of disparate agencies, incomplete information, etc. all make gathering comprehensive data very difficult.

 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Technically, the amendment (whose name I think the filter will block) restricting research only applies to the CDC. The National Institutes of Health, the Justice Department, and various private organizations have been conducting this research unimpeded for years. 

 

Good, but seems like the CDC would have been a very useful source.  Hopefully the recent change will remove that barrier.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/****ey_Amendment  

lol it did ban it, but the link still works!  D i c k e y for those who want to look it up as I am too lazy to go tinyurl to bypass the censor

And if I understand this study correctly that includes all federal projects, the amendment had a massive effect:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514

Quote

Compared with other leading causes of death, gun violence was associated with less funding and fewer publications than predicted based on mortality rate (Figure 1). Gun violence had 1.6% of the funding predicted ($1.4 billion predicted, $22 million observed) and had 4.5% of the volume of publications predicted (38 897 predicted, 1738 observed) from the regression analyses. Gun violence killed about as many individuals as sepsis. However, funding for gun violence research was about 0.7% of that for sepsis and publication volume about 4%. In relation to mortality rates, gun violence research was the least-researched cause of death and the second-least funded cause of death after falls (Figure 2).

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Calm

[glockster22]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

An interesting discussion on the problem of finding relevant stats:

https://www.ravemobilesafety.com/blog/are-church-massacres-in-the-united-states-on-the-rise

Robbery is the highest cause of deadly force incidents (gun or otherwise), then domestic violence at about 2/3 of that, followed by personal conflict and then mental illness at half robbery.  Religious bias is a little over 5%, gangs or drug involvement about 10%.

Given our churches are not known for having valuables or money around, that probably drops our rates significantly.  My memory says most incidents I have heard of in our buildings are domestic violence with personal conflict usually relating to family issues.

I think however given the problem with finding useful stats, I will stop here for now.  Maybe later tonight if I can't sleep.

Finding relevant stats is difficult... take this example that being context to a purposely biased article...https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-cnn-school-shootings-stat-is-seriously-flawed

Wikipedia's also suspect. 

The reality is there is no silver bullet or law save absolute totalitarianism that would bring an end to gun violence. And all rights would have been restricted at that point. 

Fully 60% of gun fatalities are from suicide. The vast majority of the rest take place in urban centerswhere any attempt to fix the problem would result in cries of racism... aaaaand result in those affected being robbed of their rights...

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/28/2019 at 4:32 PM, Ahab said:

I like the mountains around El Paso

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).

[MiserereNobis]

This has been an interesting thread to read. One thing I think deserves some more discussion.

@Scott Lloyd and @Garden Girl had a brief discussion about carrying concealed in temples (basically Scott asked her if she did and she said she left it in the car, but it was asked in such a way that made me think it was surprising that she had a gun in the temple -- please clarify if I misread you, Scott).

Does this policy change apply to temples also or have weapons always been banned in them?

For those who are against this policy change and those who argue in favor of carrying concealed at church (such as @randy, @glockster22), should LDS also carry concealed in temples? Or do they already?

I think bringing temples into the discussion might be interesting since they are, as far as I see, the holiest locations in LDS-dom (I so wanted to write Mormondom... what's the alternative word?). I just want to see if carrying weapons into the holy of holies is acceptable by those who want to have weapons in regular Sunday church meetings. If so, why, and if not, why the discrepancy?

[Calm]

You probably couldn’t conceal carry (meaning people could see through fabric or outlines would be obvious) once you change into all white, often drapey temple clothes, which means you would be leaving guns in relatively easy to break into lockers unless temples start having lock boxes in dressing rooms. Just practically speaking different than chapels. 

I am interested in how people would feel emotionally about it if possible. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

You probably couldn’t conceal carry (meaning people could see through fabric or outlines would be obvious) once you change into all white, often drapey temple clothes, which means you would be leaving guns in relatively easy to break into lockers unless temples start having lock boxes in dressing rooms. Just practically speaking different than chapels. 

I am interested in how people would feel emotionally about it if possible. 

My question is for those who advocate guns at Sunday church meetings, but I'm going to use your post to get there. So I'm not really asking you this but of course feel free to respond.

If the purpose is to protect against shooters and conceal carry wouldn't quite work with what is worn in temples, why not open carry? Isn't there a similar risk in temples of being shot as at a Sunday church meeting?

Should weapons be present during the highest religious rituals? If not, why are weapons incongruous with sacred ritual? If so, why not carry in temples? Where is the line drawn between temple ritual and Sunday ritual?

And like Calm, I am also interested in people's emotional responses, too.

Oh, I should probably say that, like @3DOP, I attend a traditional Catholic parish, which means that I'm pretty certain that there are many concealed weapons during mass. I know for sure our schola director (the man in charge of the chanting) carries.

[Calm]

There are security people at temples, but I don't know if they are armed.  Someone could walk in with a small suitcase and no one would think of it (because we bring our own temple )clothing so they could get into the bowels so to speak, but at least some doors could be electronically locked down I am guessing to isolate shooters to certain areas.  Not sure how it would work in a small temple though as never been in one.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This has been an interesting thread to read. One thing I think deserves some more discussion.

@Scott Lloyd and @Garden Girl had a brief discussion about carrying concealed in temples (basically Scott asked her if she did and she said she left it in the car, but it was asked in such a way that made me think it was surprising that she had a gun in the temple -- please clarify if I misread you, Scott).

Does this policy change apply to temples also or have weapons always been banned in them?

For those who are against this policy change and those who argue in favor of carrying concealed at church (such as @randy, @glockster22), should LDS also carry concealed in temples? Or do they already?

I think bringing temples into the discussion might be interesting since they are, as far as I see, the holiest locations in LDS-dom (I so wanted to write Mormondom... what's the alternative word?). I just want to see if carrying weapons into the holy of holies is acceptable by those who want to have weapons in regular Sunday church meetings. If so, why, and if not, why the discrepancy?

You have raised some very solid points. I want to say that the two circumstances are different, but I confess that I’m hard pressed to come up with a material way in which they are different. 

Honesty compels me to acknowledge that your post has caused me to rethink my position. 

I was going to say that you are correct in your understanding that in our church, the temple is the most sacred of all sacred spaces, and because of that, we are not allowed to carry smartphones through the temple, and that if smartphones are disallowed, surely guns should be. However, even smartphones are allowed in the entrance foyer and also in the recorder’s office (for printing out forms with names of deceased relatives for vicarious ordinances). 

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If the purpose is to protect against shooters and conceal carry wouldn't quite work with what is worn in temples, why not open carry? Isn't there a similar risk in temples of being shot as at a Sunday church meeting?

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.”

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Mainly it's just a way for the Church to avoid legal responsibility for the acts of it's members since the Church legal reps could then say something like, "No, your honor, that shooter acted against how we told him to act so he wasn't acting on our authority when he brought that weapon into the building."

I think Ahab May be on to something here.  By and large, American Church members are pro 2nd Amendment.  We are generally a more “pro Prophet” Church though.  The Brethren are also conscientious about doing what they can to protect the good name of the Church, hence the “no gun” rule.  

I think the risk of attack in a chapel setting is quite low because, even without weapons, members are generally “True Believers” who would run toward the attacker and lay down their lives to protect other congregants.

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I am interested in how people would feel emotionally about it if possible. 

Until the new rule came out, the question never crossed my mind in forty five years.  Not once.  We felt secure and peaceful in all church buildings and settings.

Being consistent in a worldwide Church may be another reason.  I don’t like it, but am okay with it.

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

You probably couldn’t conceal carry (meaning people could see through fabric or outlines would be obvious) once you change into all white, often drapey temple clothes, which means you would be leaving guns in relatively easy to break into lockers unless temples start having lock boxes in dressing rooms. Just practically speaking different than chapels. 

For temple attendees, sure - especially those planning on doing work in the baptistery - but male temple workers who wear jackets all day could likely carry concealed without anyone noticing (though I can't imagine any actually do).

 

Quote

I am interested in how people would feel emotionally about it if possible. 

So, honestly, my first thought was, 'How cool would it be if the distribution center started carrying temple-approved sidearms!'

I imagine they would all be silver with pearl inlays - that way they could match the buttons on those Wrangler dress shirts all the old guys in Idaho wear. And you could start having RS activity nights devoted to making your own white leather ankle holsters. It would be awesome.  

As to how I would feel emotionally, probably pretty indifferent. In my mind, guns are just objects. They aren't inherently good or bad - they're just things, and I've brought lots of 'things' into the temple over the years - pocket knives, cell phones, etc. - and I've never really given it a second thought. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

6 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.”

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..?