Guns at church policy changed

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know the particulars of your friend's situation, so maybe there was no other way. BUT it does strike me as at least a possibility that drawing a weapon on an intruder could escalate the situation to the point where lethal force is needed. I would imagine she felt a bit emboldened to confront the robber because she had the weapon. If she didn't have the weapon, maybe she would have hid or left the house etc. I know that's not always possible but not all robbers will be armed or even dangerous, even though they are breaking the law. The introduction of a gun to that situation may have made things worse.

Are there situations at church where the introduction of a weapon may escalate the drama to a point where lethal force is needed, when otherwise it wouldn't have been?

We've had some heated Elders Quorum discussions, but so far no one has pulled iron. On the other hand, a member of our quorum received real death threats from a crazy es-Mormon, and he carried his weapon at all times. I was more worried about that creep coming to the meetings to shoot the place up than my friend going wacko and taking out a couple of brothers.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Key words....when they find them. Usually after they've done their nasty work, no? I can't imagine they went through some sort of permit system before going out and doing whatever they do.

Right.  Those who break laws are bucking the system and that is why they are punished for breaking those laws.  After they break them. Which is why they are punished for breaking those laws, after they break them.

Until God gives us omniscience to see beforehand that someone will break a law later, before they have actually broken a law, there isn't much we can do about those who break laws until after they have chosen to break them.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Ahab

[Anijen]

15 minutes ago, randy said:

Actually, this is only half correct.   It is legal to carry inside a place of worship with the permission of the Church Leadership/Pastor.

Not in Nebraska (where I live) and according to Utah law you cannot either. See here. 

The following churches have notified the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI, see here)  of their intent to prohibit firearms in their “houses of worship” in Utah. Wasatch Presbyterian Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, those pastors and Bishops cannot give permission  independently from those church organizations.  

 

Quote

 

76-10-530.  Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty. 

(1)	A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Firearm Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:

 

After notice, means any communication (e.g. oral, written, recorded); personally communicated to, church organization, operator of the house of worship, owner, leesess, or person with lawful right of possession of a private residence, or by a person who has legal right to act for that person. Therefore, the announcement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is valid notice to its members.

[randy]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They hire law enforcement officials to shoot them in the act of committing those gun crimes, when they find them... regardless of their skin color.

Again...most of the concerns I read on this thread could be greatly reduced if the person who is choosing to carry would do so in a responsible way...which should certainly include follow on training.  You say "they hire LE to shoot them in the act of committing those gun crimes, when they find them".   This very very rarely happens.  Again, when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.  LE are just that.  They enforce the laws.  They're not hired to personally protect us, nor should we have any expectation that they should. That's "our" responsibility.

I think we all agree that anyone who accepts the responsibility to carry a weapon, should also be willing to put in the necessary time and effort to train and become confident and proficient in the proper use of it, again...that would include those mental exercise scenarios  that would reinforce "appropriate force" decisions, when to engage or not engage at all.   To responsibly carry means so much more than choosing the right gun, caliber and holster.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was very surprised at my reaction in our school-shooter event. I became fiercely protective of my students. Barbarian mode. After securing the doors and students, I scoured the room for weapons and came up with a steel snare drum stand. I stood next to the hall door and was determined to play home run derby if the bad guy tried to break the window to activate the crash bar and come into my room. I had no idea this fiddle playing nerd could react that way. 

When it gets personal like that things change. That kind of experience will change your life. Been there done that. When I lived in New York I got mugged by five knife-wielding punks.

It changed my life in regard to these kinds of topics.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, randy said:

However, with proper situational awareness, proper training, proficiency and mental discipline we can up our odds of prevailing.

And what these are is at this point unsettled. 

I would like actual research to be done sticking John Q Public into various training programs and then test with an established effective simulation to determine what best practices are. 

Is this likely to happen?  No, unfortunately.

At this point and time it sounds pretty trial and error from the way people talk about it, with people thinking something works or doesn’t when as far as I can tell we don’t have studies showing accidents likely caused, prevented, intentional shootings prevented, how many deaths and injuries associated that could make it more than educated guessing on danger. 

[randy]

5 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Not in Nebraska (where I live) and according to Utah law you cannot either. See here. 

The following churches have notified the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI, see here)  of their intent to prohibit firearms in their “houses of worship” in Utah. Wasatch Presbyterian Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, those pastors and Bishops cannot give permission  independently from those church organizations.  

 

After notice, means any communication (e.g. oral, written, recorded); personally communicated to, church organization, operator of the house of worship, owner, leesess, or person with lawful right of possession of a private residence, or by a person who has legal right to act for that person. Therefore, the announcement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is valid notice to its members.

Agreed.  That's why I mentioned "leadership".   But, there are many independent houses of worship in the country where local "permission" from the Pastor is all that's required.   But yes, generally speaking, I agree with you.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Even if you miss, you will distract the perp...

Especially if that miss results in someone screaming in agony as his insides explode or kids are yelling “mommy, mommy” while she bleeds out. 

Bullets have to go somewhere. Is there any reason to suppose a miss is going to hit wood rather than flesh in a crowd?

[Anijen]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s great for folks who obey the law and get permitted. How does Utah filter the real folks that are likely to commit gun crimes? Those are the ones I worry about.

I agree, those are the ones we should worry about. No state, including Utah has a filter for those likely to commit crimes. That would require some clairvoyance beyond their power. However, limiting those who can purchase firearms and limiting those who do not qualify for a CCP is the best thing any state can do right now. This, of course, does not stop a person from illegally obtaining a firearm and using it. The states with the most gun control laws have not been able to control the gun violence, simply because criminals do not obey the laws. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

 

Or even the more likely result you miss the guy completely and the bullet keeps on bulletting.

More bullets miss than hit even when trained professionals shoot. Why assume Mom and Dad and Nehor  are going to do better?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/25/shannon-watts/do-more-7-10-police-bullets-miss-their-mark-gun-co/

Edited August 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.  

It happens with police, why wouldn’t it happen with concealed carry?

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps we have reached a threshold of fearful members who should not be allowed near any firearm in the first place.

 

I do not understand your statement. Are you saying that the fearful members should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm in the first place? What if they are fearful due to a death threat, a stalker, a raging ex? Would not some training and a firearm assuage those fears? 

I have had many death threats given to me, by gang members, but that is because I had to interview them while they were incarcerated, and I helped put them in jail in the first place.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, randy said:

Again...most of the concerns I read on this thread could be greatly reduced if the person who is choosing to carry would do so in a responsible way...which should certainly include follow on training.  You say "they hire LE to shoot them in the act of committing those gun crimes, when they find them".   This very very rarely happens.  Again, when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.  LE are just that.  They enforce the laws.  They're not hired to personally protect us, nor should we have any expectation that they should. That's "our" responsibility.

Yes it is our responsibility to protect ourselves as much as we are able, and in this thread we are taking about protecting ourselves in a place where guns have been prohibited.  Which itself is a good policy, if everyone would just stick to the policy.  But now we suppose that some people may come with guns to places where guns have been prohibited.  We could go to such places with guns anyway regardless of the fact that guns have been prohibited in those places, just like violent people with guns may choose to do, too, but the best policy is to not go against policies that are intended to safeguard our protection.

 

1 minute ago, randy said:

I think we all agree that anyone who accepts the responsibility to carry a weapon, should also be willing to put in the necessary time and effort to train and become confident and proficient in the proper use of it, again...that would include those mental exercise scenarios  that would reinforce "appropriate force" decisions, when to engage or not engage at all.   To responsibly carry means so much more than choosing the right gun, caliber and holster.

Yes, but accepting and living by laws and policies means so much more than simply disregarding laws and policies, too, and I would rather find a solution that doesn't require people to disregard laws and policies intended to safeguard our protection.

Perhaps everyone should become a police officer to be able to carry a weapon in places where guns are prohibited, except for law enforcement officials?  Being efficient with a gun is good when people must use a gun for protection but not at the cost of disregarding laws and policies put in place for our protection.

[10THAmendment]

This uncomfortably feels like a public announcement to all mass shooters that they have an easy target at any crowded LDS chapel. 

Either I’m allowed to protect my family at church or we’re not going. 

[randy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what these are is at this point unsettled. 

I would like actual research to be done sticking John Q Public into various training programs and then test with an established effective simulation to determine what best practices are. 

Is this likely to happen?  No, unfortunately.

At this point and time it sounds pretty trial and error from the way people talk about it, with people thinking something works or doesn’t when as far as I can tell we don’t have studies showing accidents likely caused, prevented, intentional shootings prevented, how many deaths and injuries associated that could make it more than educated guessing on danger. 

I understand your sentiment here.  I do.  I suppose, at the end of the day, for me, is that I have taken the responsibility seriously. I believe that I have, along with millions of other responsible gun owners.. taken the proper training to allow me/us  to act and engage appropriately. I have seen, touched, smelled and heard..the immediate after effects of what gun violence can have on a person/family/community. So it follows then that I do not want any organization/government to limit my ability to protect myself or my family regardless of where I am (knowing of course there are legal exceptions to this desire).  That responsibility is mine, and mine alone.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Even if you miss, you will distract the perp, ...

Not so sure about that. I believe the El paso walmart shooter was wearing ears muffs designed to muffle/block sound. 

If I recall correctly several shooters wore body armor, so would even a hit distract the shooter? One example is the bank robbery where the robbers wore armor and where barley distracted by being shot at and getting hit - at least one just started walking down the sidewalk while shooting at all the police shooting at him.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't see reduction in accidental shootings by licensed carriers in chapels as a significant worry, but maybe some do. From my experience, it's crazy folks with an axe to grind who do the damage. It's hard to prevent them from hurting people.

 

Mine is the opposite, I know personally of deaths, injury, and destruction from guns being misused, only know of one murder, never met anyone involved in a mass shooting.

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, randy said:

That responsibility is mine, and mine alone.

But the consequences of you taking on that responsibility affect anyone around you if you shoot and likely their extended families and friends. 

[randy]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Especially if that miss results in someone screaming in agony as his insides explode or kids are yelling “mommy, mommy” while she bleeds out. 

Bullets have to go somewhere. Is there any reason to suppose a miss is going to hit wood rather than flesh in a crowd?

Again...training, training...training.  One of the first disciplines you learn when being trained is looking beyond your target.  If there are innocents behind the target, change your angle (drop to the ground to obtain an upward trajectory or take several steps to left or right).   A person who carries should run these various scenarios through their mind daily.  Its no different what we're taught in church about avoiding situations where we might be tempted, to have mentally worked through those situations and to know exactly what our response would be before it happens.  Same thing with these self-defense scenarios.  If a person works through the most common...they will find that things are not as cut and dried as perhaps they initially thought.  That gives them the opportunity work seriously ponder upon how they "hopefully" would respond.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

This uncomfortably feels like a public announcement to all mass shooters that they have an easy target at any crowded LDS chapel. 

What we're not telling them though is how many police officers we have as members who have guns and know how to use them. The target isn't as easy as some people may think!

 

6 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

Either I’m allowed to protect my family at church or we’re not going. 

Since I've got to die anyway one way or another I can't think of a better way to go than to go with my family who is there with me at my Church meetings.  The lawbreaking killer is the one who would be in big trouble.

[randy]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

But the consequences of you taking on that responsibility affect anyone around you if you shoot and likely their extended families and friends. 

Exactly!   That's why choosing to carry is such a serious decision, and why proper training is so crucial.   Again, there are no winners..all are losers, regardless if the good guy prevails.

[Anijen]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or even the more likely result you miss the guy completely and the bullet keeps on bulletting.

More bullets miss than hit even when trained professional shoot. Why assume Mom and Dad and Nehor  are going to do better?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/25/shannon-watts/do-more-7-10-police-bullets-miss-their-mark-gun-co/

Calm, you have legitimate concerns, and that is why training is crucial and it needs to be practiced often. I would recommend at the minimum once a year at the gun range, but better is once a month at the gun range.

Additionally, the type of bullet used can stop the "bulletting" (love that word bytheway). A full metal jacket from a rifle can go through quite a bit of stuff a little less from a handgun. Because of this law enforcement and most CCP holders will use a hollow-point bullet. Hollow point ammunition is made to mushroom out and thus stops in the first target it hits. Hollow point bullets are more deadly to the person it hits because this "mushrooming" will cause the bullet to twist, spin, change directions once it hits but it does not exit the body (usually), thus it does not exit, but does a lot of eternal damage.

Hollow Point

Full Metal Jacket

[randy]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

What we're not telling them though is how many police officers we have as members who have guns and know how to use them. The target isn't as easy as some people may think!

 

Since I've got to die anyway one way or another I can't think of a better way to go than to go with my family who is there with me at my Church meetings.  The lawbreaking killer is the one who would be in big trouble.

as you stare into the face your child who is bleeding out...and you remember that you saw the bad guy coming through the chapel doors with gun in hand and you had time to at least try to protect your family and friends.   

[mnn727]

I guarantee this will not be followed in my Ward.

[randy]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

Not so sure about that. I believe the El paso walmart shooter was wearing ears muffs designed to muffle/block sound. 

If I recall correctly several shooters wore body armor, so would even a hit distract the shooter? One example is the bank robbery where the robbers wore armor and where barley distracted by being shot at and getting hit - at least one just started walking down the sidewalk while shooting at all the police shooting at him.

True, but body armor doesn't extend below the waist.  At least you can still attempt to take the killer down and stop his advancement.