Guns at church policy changed

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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!

Never fired a 7.62x25 but I understand that it's rather a hot round (it's a bottlenecked cartridge btw).  You might find it hard to get ahold of a TT-30 because of the import ban that was imposed on firearms during the Clinton administration, which limited supplies (and hence raised availability and prices).  

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

Sacramento, Jemez, and Sangre de Cristo trump anything in Arizona, IMO. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Garden Girl]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

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

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

GG

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

Now you're making me go back to re-read what I wrote, because that isn't at all what I am saying.  And I don't get it.  I mean, how you restate what you think I'm saying makes no sense at all.

I'm trying to say that regardless of whether I have a gun on me or not, I won't deliberately place myself or my family into danger.  I won't enter a place that I believe might be dangerous, regardless of whether I am armed.  If I carry, it is because I cannot know in advance that a place which seems safe will, in extremity, become unsafe.  

And if I thought that a church meeting was going to be dangerous, I would prefer not to be there, irrespective of whether I was armed. Do you get it, yet?

You wrote:

"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."

See the italicized part just above, that you attribute to me?  I never wrote anything like that.  This is not what I said -- you got it bass-ackwards.  You're either not reading what I wrote, or you are being a troll.  If I were to write a sentence that was 100% contrary to what you attribute to me, in red, THEN you would have gotten to something I agree with.

I suggest that you go back a few pages and start reading a few of my other posts in this thread.  None of it resembles what you're trying to attribute to me.  I'm a dadgummed gun nut, Moby's Bane, and I would never ever say what you're saying I said.  And I am highly annoyed with you.  R E A D   W H A T   I   W R O T E.  Not every other word of what I wrote.  Jeeze.

Quote

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?

Yes, that is what that would mean. Bullseye.

Quote

To make the meeting safe for everybody, nobody should carry a weapon into it. 

Exactly how gun grabbers think.  You hit that nail on the head.  Except to make a meeting safe for everybody, nobody should be allowed into it.  It should be an empty room.  There are no dangerous weapons -- only dangerous people.

Quote

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.

No sh*t, Sherlock.  

Have you finally understood where I'm coming from?

Edited August 30, 2019 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Now you're making me go back to re-read what I wrote, because that isn't at all what I am saying.  And I don't get it.  I mean, how you restate what you think I'm saying makes no sense at all.

I'm trying to say that regardless of whether I have a gun on me or not, I won't deliberately place myself or my family into danger.  I won't enter a place that I believe might be dangerous, regardless of whether I am armed.  If I carry, it is because I cannot know in advance that a place which seems safe will, in extremity, become unsafe.  

And if I thought that a church meeting was going to be dangerous, I would prefer not to be there, irrespective of whether I was armed. Do you get it, yet?

You wrote:

"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."

See the italicized part just above, that you attribute to me?  I never wrote anything like that.  This is not what I said -- you got it bass-ackwards.  You're either not reading what I wrote, or you are being a troll.  If I were to write a sentence that was 100% contrary to what you attribute to me, in red, THEN you would have gotten to something I agree with.

I suggest that you go back a few pages and start reading a few of my other posts in this thread.  None of it resembles what you're trying to attribute to me.  I'm a dadgummed gun nut, Moby's Bane, and I would never ever say what you're saying I said.  And I am highly annoyed with you.  R E A D   W H A T   I   W R O T E.  Not every other word of what I wrote.  Jeeze.

Yes, that is what that would mean. Bullseye.

Exactly how gun grabbers think.  You hit that nail on the head.  Except to make a meeting safe for everybody, nobody should be allowed into it.  It should be an empty room.  There are no dangerous weapons -- only dangerous people.

No sh*t, Sherlock.  

Have you finally understood where I'm coming from?

So get some TSA scanners in the foyer.

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

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

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

GG

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So get some TSA scanners in the foyer.

Are you in league with him, or something?

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.  

@Ahab, I believe this is where I went wrong.  It says what I meant, but it was rather poorly phrased.  I'm trying to say that gun owners aren't really worried about the ban at church, because we're not a bunch of paranoids.  Because the person I was replying to had suggested that the gun owners are worried about mass shootings.

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

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

Regrettably, many accidental gun deaths occur at each end of the spectrum, both on the the ignorant / fearful side as well as the over-familiar / cavalier side. If you're going to handle a firearm you need to learn how to do so safely at all times, without exception. 

 

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Now you're making me go back to re-read what I wrote, because that isn't at all what I am saying.  And I don't get it.  I mean, how you restate what you think I'm saying makes no sense at all.

I'm trying to say that regardless of whether I have a gun on me or not, I won't deliberately place myself or my family into danger.  I won't enter a place that I believe might be dangerous, regardless of whether I am armed.  If I carry, it is because I cannot know in advance that a place which seems safe will, in extremity, become unsafe.  

And if I thought that a church meeting was going to be dangerous, I would prefer not to be there, irrespective of whether I was armed. Do you get it, yet?

You wrote:

"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."

See the italicized part just above, that you attribute to me?  I never wrote anything like that.  This is not what I said -- you got it bass-ackwards.  You're either not reading what I wrote, or you are being a troll.  If I were to write a sentence that was 100% contrary to what you attribute to me, in red, THEN you would have gotten to something I agree with.

I suggest that you go back a few pages and start reading a few of my other posts in this thread.  None of it resembles what you're trying to attribute to me.  I'm a dadgummed gun nut, Moby's Bane, and I would never ever say what you're saying I said.  And I am highly annoyed with you.  R E A D   W H A T   I   W R O T E.  Not every other word of what I wrote.  Jeeze.

Yes, that is what that would mean. Bullseye.

Exactly how gun grabbers think.  You hit that nail on the head.  Except to make a meeting safe for everybody, nobody should be allowed into it.  It should be an empty room.  There are no dangerous weapons -- only dangerous people.

No sh*t, Sherlock.  

Have you finally understood where I'm coming from?

Jeepers.  It seems you were upset when you wrote this post.  I hope you have relaxed a bit by now.

At worst all I did was misunderstand you when 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.

I then wrote that you had said:

"Church meetings would be safer if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into Church meetings.

Do you really not see how I could reasonably understand that to be what you were actually saying?  You said "little danger" and I said "safer" and I said "Church meetings" when you said "at church...into meetings" but it still means pretty much the same thing, in English.

I then said.

Now we just need to do something about the people who might bring their guns even if they are not allowed to do it.

I hope you don't ever carry a gun when you are angry at someone who simply misunderstood what you said!

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Ahab

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Correct, but far less likely to succeed than in a chapel.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

@Ahab, I believe this is where I went wrong.  It says what I meant, but it was rather poorly phrased.  I'm trying to say that gun owners aren't really worried about the ban at church, because we're not a bunch of paranoids.  Because the person I was replying to had suggested that the gun owners are worried about mass shootings.

I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not you think people should carry guns into church meetings, whether members of the Church or not.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Jeepers.  It seems you were upset when you wrote this post.  I hope you have relaxed a bit by now.

I have, yes.  Thanks for your concern.  I was getting a little exasperated.  I've gone back and found where I went wrong and what triggered you.  I won't correct it this far down the path, but let it stand as a warning to everyone who thinks they have just written something that is clear and easy to understand!  Re-read it several times, and only then send it out into the void.

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

At worst all I did was misunderstand you when 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.

I then wrote that you had said:

"Church meetings would be safer if nobody is allowed to carry a gun into Church meetings.

Yes, I remember that.  

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you really not see how I could reasonably understand that to be what you were actually saying?  You said "little danger" and I said "safer" and I said "Church meetings" when you said "at church...into meetings" but it still means pretty much the same thing, in English.

Yes, I get it.  I went back and found the problem, as I said.  I am feeling rather sheepish at the moment.  It's not the first time.

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I then said.

Now we just need to do something about the people who might bring their guns even if they are not allowed to do it.

I hope you don't ever carry a gun when you are angry at someone who simply misunderstood what you said!

I wasn't angry.  At most, I was exasperated.  

I'm actually quite even-tempered, even when talking politics with numbskulls.  I'll let you guess who the numbskulls are.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not sure how that relates to whether or not you think people should carry guns into church meetings, whether members of the Church or not.

And I'm not sure if I should try to explain it any further. I may just dig myself deeper into the hole if I try.

Here's what I think: people who are legally entitled to carry concealed pistols should be permitted to carry them anywhere the law says they may carry them.  Members and non-members.  And I guess this will be one of those times that I disagree with a church policy.

Given that I am currently living in the UK, where N O B O D Y is legally allowed to so much as own a pistol, let alone carry it, it won't affect me much.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Stargazer

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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

If you would call that man in that story Garden Girl told you "dangerous" then I think any of us could qualify as a "dangerous" person.  All it takes is one moment of "inattention and bad judgement".for a terrible tragedy to happen.

I would rather be killed than kill someone accidentally, or even intentionally in most circumstances I am ever likely to be in.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If you would call that man in that story Garden Girl told you "dangerous" then I think any of us could qualify as a "dangerous" person.  All it takes is one moment of "inattention and bad judgement".for a terrible tragedy to happen.

That's spot on.  In fact, we are all dangerous at one time or another.  Nobody's without fault in this regard.  Whether driving a car, handling firearms, swimming in the ocean, or sitting in front of our computer screen typing balderdash.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would rather be killed than kill someone accidentally, or even intentionally in most circumstances I am ever likely to be in.

And I agree with you completely.  The key word there is "likely".  There are unlikely circumstances that we all hope never ever occur.

The story @Garden Girl told gave me chills.  

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Regrettably, many accidental gun deaths occur at each end of the spectrum, both on the the ignorant / fearful side as well as the over-familiar / cavalier side. If you're going to handle a firearm you need to learn how to do so safely at all times, without exception. 

 

Fortunately, the number of fatal gun accidents is very low down in the list of accidental fatalities from any cause.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

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

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

Edited August 30, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Now you're making me go back to re-read what I wrote, because that isn't at all what I am saying.  And I don't get it.  I mean, how you restate what you think I'm saying makes no sense at all.

I'm trying to say that regardless of whether I have a gun on me or not, I won't deliberately place myself or my family into danger.  I won't enter a place that I believe might be dangerous, regardless of whether I am armed.  If I carry, it is because I cannot know in advance that a place which seems safe will, in extremity, become unsafe.  

And if I thought that a church meeting was going to be dangerous, I would prefer not to be there, irrespective of whether I was armed. Do you get it, yet?

You wrote:

"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."

See the italicized part just above, that you attribute to me?  I never wrote anything like that.  This is not what I said -- you got it bass-ackwards.  You're either not reading what I wrote, or you are being a troll.  If I were to write a sentence that was 100% contrary to what you attribute to me, in red, THEN you would have gotten to something I agree with.

I suggest that you go back a few pages and start reading a few of my other posts in this thread.  None of it resembles what you're trying to attribute to me.  I'm a dadgummed gun nut, Moby's Bane, and I would never ever say what you're saying I said.  And I am highly annoyed with you.  R E A D   W H A T   I   W R O T E.  Not every other word of what I wrote.  Jeeze.

Yes, that is what that would mean. Bullseye.

Exactly how gun grabbers think.  You hit that nail on the head.  Except to make a meeting safe for everybody, nobody should be allowed into it.  It should be an empty room.  There are no dangerous weapons -- only dangerous people.

No sh*t, Sherlock.  

Have you finally understood where I'm coming from?

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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

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

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

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

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 You're dethpicable, Scott.  No, wait, I meant that wath a dethpicable dethwiption of the thate of California!  It'th not that dehtpicable everywhere in the larger citith of that thate, Thott!

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

People fear the unknown.

Or know them too well in traumatic situations (an uncle who blew his brains out 'while cleaning his gun', terminally ill).

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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...

There is a huge difference between food storage in homes or church buildings for the coming zombie apocalypse and worship meetings in the here and now in our chapels where the rules say don't even keep crackers in the nursery closet to avoid pests, iirc.

I suspect if disaster hits and food gets short and gangs start roam, the First Presidency will either waive the requirement or it will just be ignored as obselete.  And there will be plenty of members with their hunting rifles and open carrying by then so that if the gangs start approaching our meetings where we have gathered to share our food storage and toilet paper and shelter  in all those white tents (why we have to have white tents according to all those NDEs, does anyone know?), they will get enough warning shots to know they were mistaken.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Fortunately, the number of fatal gun accidents is very low down in the list of accidental fatalities from any cause.

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