Guns at church policy changed

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, randy said:

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.   

You're mistaken if you're thinking I would just be standing there looking at a child die while allowing the killer to get away.  If the killer got that close to me and my family I would stop that killer one way or another or I would be ready to die until I did.

 

[randy]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're mistaken if you're thinking I would just be standing there looking at a child die while allowing the killer to get away.  If the killer got that close to me and my family I would stop that killer one way or another or I would be ready to die until I did.

 

you wouldn't be standing there...you're sitting in the middle of pew in the center section with no where to go, with only seconds to react to what is happening.  I know in your heart you would want to protect your family, but if the one tool that could be reasonably be used to protect your family is taken away from you.....tell me exactly what you would attempt to do.

Also...the killer doesn't have to get "close".  Close is a relative term when it comes to ballistics.   Suffice it to say...the killer would only need to step inside the chapel a couple of feet.  My point is..like I mentioned before, in these situations...the cards are stacked in the bad guys favor.   Situational awareness can help, but since we're in the chapel, hopefully praying or in an attitude of prayer, the chances of us seeing and recognizing the threat is at best "minimal".  This is why I believe we should have some Brethren assigned in each Ward to protect the entrances.  Its sad that I even had to type that previous sentence, but that's where we're at...unfortunately.

Edited August 26, 2019 by randy

[Anijen]

Also note, there is a difference between prohibited and against the law. For example, in South Dakota it is legal to conceal carry in colleges (with a CCP), yet all the South Dakota colleges, that I know, have a prohibition against having firearms on campus. This means, if caught with a firearm on campus the person cannot go to jail because it is not illegal, but they could be suspended, expelled, or face other school administered discipline.

 

[Raingirl]

Coming from Orthodox Judaism, it was unusual/rare not to have multiple people carrying in synagogue, or anywhere else there was a group of Jews gathering.  On High Holy  days, there would also be a visible police presence outside the shul. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I guarantee this will not be followed in my Ward.

Guns or not there would be members going after anyone who would be shooting at them!

Picture it, if you can.  I know we have lots of members who are old but we also have enough young members to take that guy down even while the members were being shot at!

Pffft.  We are hardly an easy target.  We are not afraid of death, like some people!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I am aware that local leaders have been instructed to design unit/building safety plans that include active shooter protocols.

Are rank and file members being educated on these? Not where I live. 

[strappinglad]

When Pres Nelson visited my ward a while back, I wonder if his bodyguards carried guns. Where I live it is impossible to legally CC and coming across the border with one will send off all kinds of alarms. Maybe they got a special dispensation. The only time I have seen a hand gun in church is when a fully uniformed RCMP was there participating in a Memorial Day program.

We have had a couple of guys try shooting up the Parliament Building. The most recent was stopped/dropped by the Sergeant of Arms all by himself. Apparently he had access to a gun. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by strappinglad

[Stargazer]

1 hour 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.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always fun and sometimes rewarding, but situations of life and death are a bit more problematic.  Do you have experience with these kinds of things that permits you to assert that adding a gun can make things worse?  Can you produce a study that shows that pulling a gun on someone threatening you will make the situation worse?

Would you therefore suggest that police officers should therefore work unarmed, since they are emboldened if they have a gun and having a gun will make things worse?

My assertion is that most sane people when confronted with a lethal weapon will back down.  Wouldn't you?  Those who do not back down may not be sane, and thus one cannot trust that they can be predicted to the sane thing -- such leaving you the heck alone. If you wish more details, the perp in this case was moving toward her in attack mode, was already confronting her, well before she brought out her gun.  She was terrified, not emboldened.  

A slightly different event occurred in my own neighborhood in Washington state sometime back.  This happened in small single-story bungalow down the street from me.  The family was asleep sometime around 2 or 3 am when someone began beating with great force on their back door.  The person kept this up until he actually broke the door out of its frame and he entered the house.  By this time, the homeowner had called 911 and was informed that the police were on their way.  But the person had broken down the door before the police arrived.  The husband had armed himself with their shotgun he used for bird hunting, and his wife and child were cowering in the couple's bedroom behind one of those flimsy interior doors with a privacy lock.  The husband waited for the home invader at the doorway to the hall leading to the bedrooms.  The home invader saw the husband, with his shotgun,, and nevertheless moved purposely at him, ignoring entreaties to go away.  The husband unloaded both barrels into the man's chest, killing him instantly.  The police arrived few minutes later. 

Now for the Monday-morning quarterbacking. What would HJW have done, with no adrenaline, no time crunch, and no danger to self and family do in this man's place? 

Quote

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?

Of course. The universe is infinitely variable.  If someone comes into your sacrament meeting and marches up to the stand to push the current speaker off the podium and begins to preach his own sermon, the proper action on the presiding officer's part is to what?  

A. Pull out his own gun and shoot the creep.
B. Tackle the intruder and hold him down while someone hog ties him.
C. Ask the man to cease and desist, and if the man refuses, tell the congregation the meeting is dismissed, and everyone go home.
D. Ask everyone in the congregation to sit quietly and not do anything to bother the man.

The correct answers could be C or D.  

HOWEVER, what if the man asserts he is wearing an explosive vest and plans to set it off if his demands are not met? 

The obvious correct answer is D.  Until the situation changes in such a way that suggests a different course of action.

What if the man asserts that he has a gun that he hasn't yet displayed?

The correct answer is probably B.

What if the man actually pulls out a gun and makes it ready to be used?

I'd go with A, at a moment he's not looking.  But D until the opportunity arises, but before he takes a ready hostage (someone he holds with the gun pointed at her head).

Here's the problem with your question.  If an attacker is not armed, then lethal force may not be required in defense, and there's no reason to escalate to deadly force.  But not all attackers are weak, some are strong enough to break down exterior doors, and if the situation is emergent, a defender might not be able to be certain that the attacker is unarmed.  If an attacker is not deterred by the ready appearance of a lethal weapon in defense, he must be assumed to have lethal intent himself.  Because if he does not back down in the face of deadly force, he will take the weapon from the defender and use it himself against the defender.

Earlier in this thread I described a horrifying mass shooting, where a man killed 26 people in a church with a gun with no warning. The drama was already escalated.

What many people seem to want is to provide psychopaths with safe zones for their psychopathy, or at least that's what their policies can lead to.  I want the opposite.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

I just never hear of it. I do hear of people on scene stopping perps, however. 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, randy said:

you wouldn't be standing there...you're sitting in the middle of pew in the center section with no where to go, with only seconds to react to what is happening.  I know in your heart you would want to protect your family, but if the one tool that could be reasonably be used to protect your family is taken away from you.....tell me exactly what you would attempt to do.

Also...the killer doesn't have to get "close".  Close is a relative term when it comes to ballistics.   Suffice it to say...the killer would only need to step inside the chapel a couple of feet.  My point is..like I mentioned before, in these situations...the cards are stacked in the bad guys favor.   Situational awareness can help, but since we're in the chapel, hopefully praying or in an attitude of prayer, the chances of us seeing and recognizing the threat is at best "minimal".  This is why I believe we should have some Brethren assigned in each Ward to protect the entrances.  Its sad that I even had to type that previous sentence, but that's where we're at...unfortunately.

1. I always sit at the end of an aisle, never in the middle.

2. I know we have 2 doors in front and 2 doors near the back of the main area of our chapels.

3. I know the quickest and safest way to get to wherever the shooter is or would be, and I know I would not be going at him alone.

4. I know the guy with the gun would be stopped, fairly quickly, regardless of how many people he was able to shoot

5. I know I am a dead man, eventually, anyway, and I am not afraid of going on to the next level

 

[randy]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Guns or not there would be members going after anyone who would be shooting at them!

Picture it, if you can.  I know we have lots of members who are old but we also have enough young members to take that guy down even while the members were being shot at!

Pffft.  We are hardly an easy target.  We are not afraid of death, like some people!

This is TRUE!  But again...if the bad guy has a gun, and all we have is our desire to stop him...there will obviously be even more victims shot as they approach him.  Like the old saying goes..."don't bring a knife to a gun fight".  Chances are great that you will end up losing.

Now having said this, I do believe the Lord can protect us in these situations.  But, as we also know...bad people have their agency to do bad things to other good people, and the Lord respects their agency as well...and he will judge them accordingly.  That said, we also are taught the ole "he who is compelled in all things...."   The protection of my family, to the upmost of my ability is one of the most paramount responsibilities I have accepted in this life, and one that I will not abdicate to another.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

As I said, I have no problem with LEO who carry at church. I know we have some there every week. 3 of my neighbors are current or retired LEO and I am glad they live around me. The issue isn't a gun at church, it is the person carrying it.  And, by the way, two of my brothers are retired LEO. After listening to their stories about police work, I realized there are LEO out there who probably shouldn't have a gun in spite of their training.

 

Honestly everyone of us likes to think that in a situation where we were faced with imminent danger, we would be capable of defending ourselves better if we had a weapon. It's hard to consider that most of us may not react as coolly and capably in that kind of situation as we would like. We all want to be safer, so we share a common goal. The question is how that goal is best achieved. In my view, it is not furthered by increasing the accessibility to those very weapons that are part of the problem. 

Guns are not the problem. I can think of at least two men in my ward who, based on what I know of them, probably carry. And we’ve never had a problem. The bad guys are the problem. And they’ll bring their guns and wreak their havoc whether a policy is in place or not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Coming from Orthodox Judaism, it was unusual/rare not to have multiple people carrying in synagogue, or anywhere else there was a group of Jews gathering.  On High Holy  days, there would also be a visible police presence outside the shul. 

Something to bear in mind should we ever again face the oppression our ancestors endured. 

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Also note, there is a difference between prohibited and against the law. For example, in South Dakota it is legal to conceal carry in colleges (with a CCP), yet all the South Dakota colleges, that I know, have a prohibition against having firearms on campus. This means, if caught with a firearm on campus the person cannot go to jail because it is not illegal, but they could be suspended, expelled, or face other school administered discipline.

 

Here is the Utah law:

 

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: (a)transport a firearm into:

(i)a house of worship; or

 

(ii)a private residence; or

(b)while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:

(i)a house of worship; or

 

(ii)a private residence.

(2)Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by: (a)personal communication to the actor by:

(i)the church or organization operating the house of worship;

 

(ii)the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or

 

(iii)a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);

 

(b)posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;

 

(c)announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;

 

(d)publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or

(e)publication:

(i)in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state; and

 

(ii)as required in Section 45-1-101.

(3)A church or organization operating a house of worship and giving notice that firearms are prohibited may:

(a)revoke the notice, with or without supersedure, by giving further notice in any manner provided in Subsection (2); and

 

(b)provide or allow exceptions to the prohibition as the church or organization considers advisable.

(4)(a)

(i)Within 30 days of giving or revoking any notice pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e), a church or organization operating a house of worship shall notify the division on a form and in a manner as the division shall prescribe.

 

(ii)The division shall post on its website a list of the churches and organizations operating houses of worship who have given notice under Subsection (4)(a)(i).

 

(b)Any notice given pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e) shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first.

 

(5)Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.

 

(6)A violation of this section is an infraction.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter10/76-10-S530.html

The church, as I understand it, has complied with the provisions in section 2.

[randy]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

1. I always sit at the end of an aisle, never in the middle.

2. I know we have 2 doors in front and 2 doors near the back of the main area of our chapels.

3. I know the quickest and safest way to get to wherever the shooter is or would be, and I know I would not be going at him alone.

4. I know the guy with the gun would be stopped, fairly quickly, regardless of how many people he was able to shoot

5. I know I am a dead man, eventually, anyway, and I am not afraid of going on to the next level

 

Regarding #1..this is good.  Speaks to situational awareness.  I do this as well..in every public place I go.

#2....again, good.  Speaks to being aware

#3..."fairly quickly" again is a relative term. 60 seconds is "fairly quickly" but an eternity in actual gun fight.  I personally "do care" how many people would've been killed or wounded, if I had it within my ability to stop the killer.

#4...I understand this sentiment, however, I never want myself or my family/friends  to become victims.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, randy said:

This is TRUE!  But again...if the bad guy has a gun, and all we have is our desire to stop him...

No, we'll have more than just our desire to stop him.  We'll also have hymnals and chairs and lamps and whatever we can find to throw at him to knock that gun out of his hand and knock that guy onto the floor.  He wouldn't be standing for long.

Clearly you have no concept of a Mormon defending his family and other ward members, even without our guns.

 

Quote

there will obviously be even more victims shot as they approach him.  Like the old saying goes..."don't bring a knife to a gun fight".  Chances are great that you will end up losing.

Unless they start making our hymnals with soft covers those things will pack a pretty good punch by everyone who knows how to throw one.  And knives?  Yeah, I suppose if some people have one those would work pretty good too. 

What do you mean by "losing" ?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I think that is likely the prime mover. The end of the letter containing language expressly stating that 'this shall serve as notice...' or something to that effect. I imagine it will need to be re-read every so often - possibly more or less frequently depending on the jurisdiction.

 

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Anijen said:

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.

It was kind of a joke (but maybe not) referencing a remark President Nelson' made last year about the principle of God-given agency being expressed in communities passing laws that allow people who shouldn't have guns to have them, and that bad outcomes are not God's fault. I don't see that as a position on gun control, but just a statement of a fact of life along with a theological explanation for why bad things happen.

By "fearful" I mean those who are not exactly rational in their perceptions and who might have a hair trigger as a result.

I don't see skill, ownership and faith fueling concern over the prohibition of weapons on Church property. They way I've seen policies administered, I'm sure exceptions and local accommodations can be made by those with the keys of discernment. For example, when you say "gang members," do you mean brothers and sisters in your ward that you once crossed professionally? What do you recommend a ward member do who routinely receives death threats?

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Guns are not the problem. I can think of at least two men in my ward who, based on what I know of them, probably carry. And we’ve never had a problem. The bad guys are the problem. And they’ll bring their guns and wreak their havoc whether a policy is in place or not. 

We pretty much agree, except I think the potential for harm is greater when there are more guns present and you probably do not. And while I agree that "bad guys" are a problem, I also think that poorly trained and ill equipped good guys are a problem too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are rank and file members being educated on these? Not where I live. 

We are preparing them now, and members will be trained upon the plan's approval by the stake presidency (or higher as the case may be). It is a sensitive subject, for sure. On one level, a couple of members are assigned, possibly sitting with their families at the back of chapel, to keep an eye out without being obvious to the rest of the congregation. On another, preemptive measures can be taken by the greeters (often someone will leave if they know they have been identified or are being watched), or by having someone sit next to someone who seems to be behaving in sketchy manner.

Funny: a few years ago we stopped having assigned brethren serve as look-outs at RS, Primary and other activities because it came across as chauvinistic. Not that a sister couldn't perform this function, but no one ever stepped up after the men stopped doing it. The pendulum is settling into a common-sense position, I guess.

[6EQUJ5]

In my Ward, the Bishop has designated 3 specific members to carry concealed.  They are all former law enforcement and are meant to prevent exactly what @Scott Lloyd fears.

[Stargazer]

1 hour 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?

Yes, they do.  One has to weigh risk.  But if the shooter is shooting already, you don't have time to get out your astrological chart and consult whether the stars are properly aligned before taking action.  26 people in Texas, including an unborn child, died because a shooter had free reign, because nobody had taken the foresight to have a weapon on him or her (it was a place of peace, but the Devil didn't respect it).  Nobody wants the Shootout at the OK Corral, but if the shootout is happening already, and there's no place to hide, what do you do?  If you can limit the shooter to 12 victims, you do it.  If your shot unintentionally hits a non-perpetrator while saving 14 others, have you done wrong? 

No sane person wants any of this on their conscience, even if one kills only a perpetrator it is a tragedy. 

There are some who would rather suffer death than harm even a vile murderer.  I respect their choice, but I would not emulate them.

[randy]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, we'll have more than just our desire to stop him.  We'll also have hymnals and chairs and lamps and whatever we can find to throw at him to knock that gun out of his hand and knock that guy onto the floor.  He wouldn't be standing for long.

Clearly you have no concept of a Mormon defending his family and other ward members, even without our guns.

 

Unless they start making our hymnals with soft covers those things will pack a pretty good punch by everyone who knows how to throw one.  And knives?  Yeah, I suppose if some people have one those would work pretty good too. 

What do you mean by "losing" ?

You don't need to make this personal.  I understand where you're coming from.  

What I mean by "losing" is that any time someone has to draw their weapon in their defense, and especially if it results in a fatality,  they "lose" because of the emotional and physical trauma their body and spirit has been subjected to.  They lose because they will live with that sight, smell and memory of the attack  for the rest of their lives. Family members who witnessed the attack lose for the same reasons.  The family of the perp loses....they lost someone they loved.   There are never any winners....only losers in the sense I've described.  Even though we may prevail...we still lose.

As far as throwing things at the attacker who is armed....good luck with that. If those things are all that you had available..then yes, I say by all means have at it with gusto.  My point is that I should not be put in a position to have to throw books and lamps at an armed would be killer.       I say that sincerely.  No offense intended.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by randy

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

And who is going to stop them from carrying a pistol even if they don't have a CCP?  Nobody.  If they get stopped by law enforcement while doing something else, then the law will do something, but until then it's a nothing-burger.  I have known a few felons -- not surprisingly, they don't care about what the law says.  And they know they won't be issued with a CCP, so they don't apply.  It's pretty much only people who have no evil intent who apply for these permits.  

 

[randy]

17 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In my Ward, the Bishop has designated 3 specific members to carry concealed.  They are all former law enforcement and are meant to prevent exactly what @Scott Lloyd fears.

Although ultimately..I would still prefer to be able to carry myself,  I find this to be an acceptable and common sense compromise.