Guns at church policy changed

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, but accidents don’t kill twenty people.

But accidents may kill one or two and twenty of them match one mass murderer.

We don't hear about near misses for accidents and may not even hear about many accidents that injured or killed people.  However, I assume such things must get reported to SL.

I do think this would be a good topic for them to explain the decision in detail given the position on guns so many members have in the US.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would go with assigning a couple of  highly trained to be present at the usual meetings, but I can so see other individuals who really, really shouldn't carry taking that as justification to conceal carry even with the rules.  Limiting it to LEOs may avoid that.

I cannot imagine this decision was made without a lot of thought and research into incidents and best preventive practices.

Hopefully, someone who really really shouldn't carry will not be able to get a concealed license to do so.  

[randy]

With respect to "incidents" at Church such as negligent discharges etc,  again, it's a matter of training and proficiency.  I acknowledge the fact that anyone can go to their local gun store, purchase a weapon and then obtain a concealed carry license with the required minimal training reguired.  Then, never visit a gun range again to obtain the necessary follow on training to become confident and proficient in its use.  This includes the necessary mental discipline training.  The fact is, every time someone straps on a weapon they are reaffirming each time that given a particular situation....they are willing and capable of killing another human being.  To carry a weapon brings with it an extremely high level of accountability and responsibility.   When I was younger I drove a Coroners ambulance, and during that time I was able to see first hand the results of gun violence in the "raw".   To carry a gun is not something to be romanticized or glorified.

[Stargazer]

40 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I agree with this policy. I am totally fine with LEO carrying weapons in a church environment, but the reality is that I would not be comfortable knowing that any adult in my ward, should he or she so choose, could also bring a weapon to church. I don't know about everyone else, but there are a few members I know who I absolutely would not  trust to carry a weapon. It would not surprise me if others thought the same of me. In my opinion, the answer to gun violence does not lie in arming more people.

Do you live in Utah?  Given your screen name, I'd guess California, so maybe not.  But let's go with Utah for a second.  I checked statistics last year, and if you divide the number of concealed carry permits in Utah into the population of Utah, you get a very interesting figure.  One out of every seven residents of Utah have concealed carry permits.  And that does not factor in those who are not old enough to apply for such a permit.  So it is more than one out of seven adults.  Unless my math was completely off-kilter -- but I was surprised at the result and rechecked my data to be sure.

So, this means that when you are out and about in the state of Utah, there is the chance that out of every seven adults you see on the street, one has a legally-carried gun with them.  And how many of those people you would not trust to carry a weapon have such a permit and are carrying one at any given time?  Are you scared to leave your home yet, if you live in Utah?  Or scared to visit Utah?

There was a horrible event that happened in Sutherland Springs, Texas in 2017. A man shot and killed 26 people and injured 20 more during a church service (not LDS).  Apparently nobody in the church was armed.  As he was leaving he was shot twice by a man who lived across the street from the church -- but even though he was hit twice by the bystander's assault rifle (AR-15), he was able to get into his vehicle and drive away. But the bystander commandeered a truck driven by a neighbor and the two men chased the perp, calling 911 to direct police to the chase, and followed him until his injuries caused him to crash. His pursuers held watch over the crash site until the police arrived -- but the perp had by this time committed suicide.

I do not know if the church at Sutherland Springs had a policy that prohibited the carrying of weapons in the church.  Put yourself into their position for a moment.  What would you be thinking if you were in the congregation while this horrendous mass murder was taking place?  "I am sure glad that the policy prohibits guns here", or "I hope a church member is breaking the policy that prohibits guns here"?

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I assume then you would be quite comfortable with me sitting next to your family in a crowded sacrament meeting and leaving the decision of when to use a gun and how, up to me, correct? Is that the kind of church meeting you want to attend? A few weeks ago at a gun range I did hit the target occasionally.

 

Given that there is no enforcement of the policy, the decision of when to use a gun or how is still left completely in the hands of the person sitting next to you (and that's true for any venue or place you go, whether church or not or whether it's legal to have a gun there or not).  

But I do get what you are saying.  There is no position that anyone can take on the issue that does not leave them at risk of some kind.  Reasonable people disagree on which risk is worse, and I don't think that will ever end.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you suppose there are never any mass shootings at gun shows?

 Is that a serious question?

I've heard people say similar things about Texas, but guess what? Mass shootings happen in Texas too. Conceal/carry isn't a perfect deterrent.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121219011257AAd34C6

 

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Then there is the issue of the average member accidentally firing the gun in a place where there is a lot of people close together.  I tend to agree with this policy, although I am OK with trained off-duty police officers carrying and most likely there is at least one in every congregation in the church (There are several in my ward). 
Not sure though if this policy also includes off-duty police officers?

I totally agree. I don't think a policy could prohibit law enforcement officers (on or off duty) from carrying their weapon.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would go with assigning a couple of  highly trained to be present at the usual meetings, but I can so see other individuals who really, really shouldn't carry taking that as justification to conceal carry even with the rules.  Limiting it to LEOs may avoid that.

I cannot imagine this decision was made without a lot of thought and research into incidents and best preventive practices.

I wonder if the risk of legal liability on the part of the Church is a reason for the policy. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

But accidents may kill one or two and twenty of them match one mass murderer.

We don't hear about near misses for accidents and may not even hear about many accidents that injured or killed people.  However, I assume such things must get reported to SL.

I do think this would be a good topic for them to explain the decision in detail given the position on guns so many members have in the US.

I would think that the accidental discharge of a firearm at church would be a newsworthy enough event that we would hear about it, especially if someone was injured or killed in the incident. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

Then there is the issue of the average member accidentally firing the gun in a place where there is a lot of people close together.

And if it is nonmilitary or law enforcement trained moms and dads conceal carrying and their kids are screaming...are they likely to make safe decisions?

Edited August 27, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 Is that a serious question?

I've heard people say similar things about Texas, but guess what? Mass shootings happen in Texas too. Conceal/carry isn't a perfect deterrent.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121219011257AAd34C6

 

 

Oh yes, it’s a serious question. Why do you suppose the perps don’t pick gun shows as the settings for their killing sprees?

And as a corollary, why do the perps pick “gun-free” zones for the most part? 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally get that sentiment and I have really mixed emotions about this. A highly trained individual might make me feel safer but I happen to know a few of the members who conceal/carry at our building every week and it doesn't make me feel any safer. Not every situation is equal, nor is every person with a weapon.

For example, if a wacko comes in and just starts shooting up the place, I would hope someone is carrying to take him down, even recognizing a possible risk for collateral damage because I would suppose any possible collateral damage would still be less than a free-firing gunman.

But what would happen if someone isn't shooting, yet still being threatening in some way?  How could a conceal/carry gunman exacerbate the tension and actually lead towards greater violence? Or what if the risk of collateral damage would be greater than the person making the threats. I definitely don't know the answer but I do know there are people with weapons at church I would not want taking matters into their own hands. I wouldn't trust their skill or their decision making.

ETA- I suspect that this new policy is a result of a cost/benefit analysis of conceal/carry at church. I'm guessing the leaders have decided there is less threat to the random gunman coming into a building, than the threat of average members carrying weapons at church on a regular basis.

I agree with all of the above.

Here's my additional thoughts:

1. I get the church leadership feels the need for a policy so that people don't open carry in church which would make some (many? most?) feel uncomfortable.
2. Many of the people I know who have concealed carry licenses will not be deterred by this policy.  So, from my perspective, that's a good thing.
3. Having this policy seems like an announcement that our churches are gun free zones.  Even though it may not be true, I'm not a fan of proclaiming such.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully, someone who really really shouldn't carry will not be able to get a concealed license to do so.  

What kinds of tests exist to weed out people who have a hard time taking in a situation under fire and making effective decisions on risks, etc? (Serious question)

People may be very good shots, may know all the rules and plan to abide by them...but how can anyone predict how they will act in a crisis until it happens?

Edited August 26, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, randy said:

With respect to "incidents" at Church such as negligent discharges etc,  again, it's a matter of training and proficiency.  I acknowledge the fact that anyone can go to their local gun store, purchase a weapon and then obtain a concealed carry license with the required minimal training reguired.  Then, never visit a gun range again to obtain the necessary follow on training to become confident and proficient in its use.  This includes the necessary mental discipline training.  The fact is, every time someone straps on a weapon they are reaffirming each time that given a particular situation....they are willing and capable of killing another human being.  To carry a weapon brings with it an extremely high level of accountability and responsibility.   When I was younger I drove a Coroners ambulance, and during that time I was able to see first hand the results of gun violence in the "raw".   To carry a gun is not something to be romanticized or glorified.

No, it's not, and it is a serious responsibility to choose to carry a gun.  But it's one of those things that correspond to the saying, "It's better to have something and not need it, than to need something and not have it."

As for training, it's interesting that some states mandate considerable training and testing to get a CCP, and some nothing at all.  My state of residence is Washington, and was somewhat of a leader in licensing concealed pistol carriers -- all the way back in the 1950s I believe.  It requires only that you have a clean criminal record (which includes adjudication for mental illness). One out of every 20 residents of Washington holds a CCP.  And how much trouble has this lack of training requirement caused?  None at all.  

I've held a Washington state CCP license for about 20 years, and I've never found myself in a situation where I needed to use it.  But the wife of an acquaintance of mine who lived in Portland, Oregon (another state that requires very little training for a CCP) was forced to shoot a man who was burglarizing their home, killing him.  He kept coming for her even after she had pulled her pistol and warned him off, even as she was pointing it at him.  It was judged a righteous shooting by the law, but she was very traumatized by what she had to do.  Under the circumstances what is there to do?  If you have displayed your firearm, and the perp keeps coming anyway, he's going to take it from you and probably kill you with it.  You can't trust that he won't.  It turned out that this particular guy was a career criminal, who had just gotten out of prison three weeks before.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh yes, it’s a serious question. Why do you suppose the perps don’t pick gun shows as the locales for their killing sprees?

Predators will likely continue to pick high emotion for publicity/low risks targets, but as more conceal and carry, they are likely to just adapt...move from the more 'personal' touch to the harder to locate...a situation where you don't want a lot of conceal carry individuals firing into directions they think the shot is coming from.

Wasn't it more common to hear about sniper shootings in the past?  Seems like most shooters are highly influenced by what others have done.

[randy]

Bottom line for me is this....Iam responsible for my personal protection and that of my loved ones.  LE are just that....Law Enforcement.  They are not our personal bodyguards.  Rare is the crime where the Police are within seconds of being able to actually engage the perp.  The FBI has put out stats of the typical "gunfight".  Its the rule of "3", average of 3 rounds fired, from an average of 3' within an average of 3 seconds.   So lets face it...the bad guy has all the cards stacked in his favor.  However, with proper situational awareness, proper training, proficiency and mental discipline we can up our odds of prevailing.  I use the word "prevailing" because there are never any "winners".  Everyone loses in those situations.    But I at least want to go down fighting for my family.

 

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I winder if the risk of legal liability on the part of the Church is a reason for the policy. 

I think that the reason for the policy is as is stated in the policy "Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world."  The idea of weapons being carried at church seems incompatible with that statement. 

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I assume then you would be quite comfortable with me sitting next to your family in a crowded sacrament meeting and leaving the decision of when to use a gun and how, up to me, correct? Is that the kind of church meeting you want to attend? A few weeks ago at a gun range I did hit the target occasionally.

 

Even if you miss, you will distract the perp, hopefully long enough for someone with guts to jump him.  It's better than cowering behind a pew wondering if he's going to get you next

So, maybe you better go out and get some training, right? 🙂 

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

32 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Then there is the issue of the average member accidentally firing the gun in a place where there is a lot of people close together.  I tend to agree with this policy, although I am OK with trained off-duty police officers carrying and most likely there is at least one in every congregation in the church (There are several in my ward). 
Not sure though if this policy also includes off-duty police officers?

And if it is nonmilitary or law enforcement trained moms and dads conceal carrying and their kids are screaming...are they likely to make safe decisions?

Right. Having a permit to carry a concealed weapon only means that you have passed the requirement for obtaining such and that you know how to shoot the weapon. Law enforcement people have also had extensive training on when to use it and when not to use it.  They have been trained on various situations that might occur and what the best thing to do is for each type of situation.  

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So you shoot a shooter and save lives, what will the church do to you for doing something "prohibited"?

Deny legal liability for your actions if your bullet passes through the shooter and injures (or kills) someone else. 

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

What kinds of tests exist to weed out people who have a hard time taking in a situation under fire and making effective decisions on risks, etc?

People may be very good shots, may know all the rules and plan to abide by them...but how can anyone predict how they will act in a crisis until it happens?

It's hard to imagine anyone without training (such as police receive) responding well in a high pressure situation.  

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if it is nonmilitary or law enforcement trained moms and dads conceal carrying and their kids are screaming...are they likely to make safe decisions?

I wonder how often it happens that a concealed-weapon carrier accidentally kills bystanders while trying to take down a mass shooter. I’m curious, because I never hear of it occurring.  

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  I'm really not a fan of this.  If I were someone with a concealed carry license, I think I'd be likely to ignore the church policy.

In practice, this is likely what will happen. Those who conceal carry all the time will likely just continue to do so.

When we were talking about the letter in bishopric meeting yesterday, our bishop indicated that he was quite confident that brother so-and-so would always have a gun somewhere regardless of the policy.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I winder if the risk of legal liability on the part of the Church is a reason for the policy. 

Are you suggesting that leaders may have instituted the policy as a way to save money, even though it could possibly put people at greater risk?

Sounds cynical. I thought cynicism was the job of the critic  

(I'm teasing a little but I mean no offense)

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

What kinds of tests exist to weed out people who have a hard time taking in a situation under fire and making effective decisions on risks, etc?

People may be very good shots, may know all the rules and plan to abide by them...but how can anyone predict how they will act in a crisis until it happens?

So what’s the greater risk: that a shooter unhindered will slay more people than he otherwise would had there been armed individuals present or that an inexperienced gun carrier on the scene might accidentally kill someone else while trying to stop the shooter? Again, I never hear reports of the latter. I do of the former, quite often. 

[Ahab]

In most wards I have been a member of there was at least 1 police officer who was a member of that ward and that is without me knowing the occupation of every member of the ward.  So maybe other members were police officers and I just didn't know it.

And with all that has gone on in this world I would be surprised if they didn't have their guns near them somewhere, perhaps locked up outside in their cars.

At any rate I highly encourage proselyting to police officers to try to get more of them in our wards now!