He Tried to Shoot up a Synagogue, but the Synagogue was Prepared

[The Nehor]

Sometimes shooters want to say something first or head to the stand for a better view. Suddenly my idea to put a trap door behind the pulpit controlled by the bishop that drops you into a tank of sharks if your testimony gets irrelevant has other beneficial uses.

[Dan McClellan]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Are you aware of situations where licensed gun owners have been involved in dangerous situations in LDS church meetings and events?

Well, there are no states where you need a license to own a gun, so there wouldn't be many such cases, but there are some where legal owners of guns were involved in dangerous situations in Latter-day Saint meetinghouses. A shooting that killed one man and injured another during a service in a meetinghouse in Nevada just last year was carried out by a man who legally owned the firearm he used. In fact, the guy ran for the state legislature in 2014, campaigning on loosening federal gun laws. In Provo last year, a man legally carrying a gun accidentally set it off, but no one was hurt. 

Quote

Schools are also gun free zones. Statistically there is very little danger our neighborhood school will be attacked, but school officials nationwide are taking serious steps to protect children and teachers. Are they overreacting?

No, school officials aren't overreacting, but over the last decade our country has had about one-and-a-half school shootings per month, with many more instances that came short because someone was prevented. There are a number of socio-cultural dynamics associated with those shootings, though, that are absent from church settings. 

Quote

 

My grandchildren in LA experienced the extreme hatred of certain elements when they held signs opposing gay marriage.

 

I don't see at which of my comments this was directed or to which it is particularly relevant, unless you're trying to suggest angry reactions against protesting gay marriage broadly reflects anti-Christian sentiment. If that's the case, I don't even remotely agree. 

Quote

Other than banning firearms in the church buildings, what other steps are we taking?

 Well, the ban is actually on all lethal weapons, not just firearms, but because we're at pretty low risk of shootings, I don't really see what other steps are necessary. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Well, there are no states where you need a license to own a gun, so there wouldn't be many such cases, but there are some where legal owners of guns were involved in dangerous situations in Latter-day Saint meetinghouses. A shooting that killed one man and injured another during a service in a meetinghouse in Nevada just last year was carried out by a man who legally owned the firearm he used. In fact, the guy ran for the state legislature in 2014, campaigning on loosening federal gun laws. In Provo last year, a man legally carrying a gun accidentally set it off, but no one was hurt. 

No, school officials aren't overreacting, but over the last decade our country has had about one-and-a-half school shootings per month, with many more instances that came short because someone was prevented. There are a number of socio-cultural dynamics associated with those shootings, though, that are absent from church settings. 

I don't see at which of my comments this was directed or to which it is particularly relevant, unless you're trying to suggest angry reactions against protesting gay marriage broadly reflects anti-Christian sentiment. If that's the case, I don't even remotely agree. 

 Well, the ban is actually on all lethal weapons, not just firearms, but because we're at pretty low risk of shootings, I don't really see what other steps are necessary. 

All states have concealed carry laws and licenses for owners, which is what
I am referring to. There might be a very few folks who show up with openly carried weapons, but most would be licensed carriers. The LDS policy, as I understand it, is aimed primarily at them.

Does that include pocket knives?

The angry protestors in LA were taking it out on children. Does it matter if they were Christian or not? Do you think the opposition to LDS (and others) in these and related issues is ebbing?

School shootings are rare, but officials are not overreacting with armed security guards, hardened building, and regular drills but. But since LDS-member shooting incidents are extremely rare, we need not worry. I can understand that, but I think we would be prudent to take reasonable  precautions. Given the shootings in gun free zones, it’s not clear that gun-free zones are the most effective protections. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/8/2019 at 12:18 PM, The Nehor said:

Most LDS church attacks I know of were perpetrated by members. Coming up with a plan means the attacker can know the plan if they care at all to find out. Some wouldn’t bother, some might.

No comprendo. That is true of any plan. A school or office plan can easily be overcome even without knowing what the plan is. Does that mean nothing can or should be done? 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Dan McClellan]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

All states have concealed carry laws and licenses for owners, which is what
I am referring to. There might be a very few folks who show up with openly carried weapons, but most would be licensed carriers. The LDS policy, as I understand it, is aimed primarily at them.

There are laws about permits in all states, but some allow permitless concealed carry. Most states allow open carrying without a permit or license of any kind. 

Quote

Does that include pocket knives?

Don't know. 

Quote

The angry protestors in LA were taking it out on children. Does it matter if they were Christian or not? Do you think the opposition to LDS (and others) in these and related issues is ebbing?

If you're not suggesting angry reactions to protesting gay marriage indicate broader anti-Christian sentiment, I don't understand the relevance to this conversation.  

Quote

School shootings are rare, but officials are not overreacting with armed security guards, hardened building, and regular drills but.

There is armed security at a number of schools, they're building new schools with features designed to deter active shooters, and many children have regular active shooter drills. 

Quote

But since LDS-member shooting incidents are extremely rare, we need not worry. I can understand that, but I think we would be prudent to take reasonable  precautions. Given the shootings in gun free zones, it’s not clear that gun-free zones are the most effective protections. 

Around 70% of mass shootings occur in private residences. The notion that gun-free zones are particularly susceptible to attacks because they are gun-free zones is objectively false. It's just rhetorical nonsense the NRA pushes.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

There are laws about permits in all states, but some allow permitless concealed carry. Most states allow open carrying without a permit or license of any kind. 

Indeed, but it is not that simple. There are restrictions.  

Quote

As of November 1, 2019, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (residents only), Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota (residents only; concealed carry only), Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (residents only) do not require a permit to carry a loaded concealed firearm for any person of age who is not prohibited from owning a firearm. Permitless carry in Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming is applicable to residents only; nonresidents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in these states. All aforementioned jurisdictions do not require a permit to openly carry either except for North Dakota and certain localities in Missouri.

Quote

Don't know. 

Neither do I. 

Quote

If you're not suggesting angry reactions to protesting gay marriage indicate broader anti-Christian sentiment, I don't understand the relevance to this conversation.  

I am suggesting that violence against  Church members may come from sources other than some broader anti-Christian sentiment. That was demonstrated in LA. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Who knows? But we should at least be aware.

Quote

There is armed security at a number of schools, they're building new schools with features designed to deter active shooters, and many children have regular active shooter drills. 

Indeed. I am a school teacher who has been in a real active shooter situation. It is a rare occurrence, but school are taking drastic steps to protect children and teachers. 

Violence against churches, including LDS, is very rare, but against certain groups, Jews and in our are Jehovah's Witnesses is increasing. We don't have to be alarmists or go to extremes to put some safety protocols in place.

Quote

Around 70% of mass shootings occur in private residences. The notion that gun-free zones are particularly susceptible to attacks because they are gun-free zones is objectively false. It's just rhetorical nonsense the NRA pushes.

We're not talking about shooting Mormons in their homes. I gave an example of a threat made on a family in my ward that could possibly involved an attack at church. Some common sense preparation is all I am asking for.

Common sense would suggest someone bent on mass murder would choose a gun-free location over an armed location. Debating about the NRA is not the subject of this thread.

 

Back to the topic, in your opinion is there anything you would suggest the Church do to protect its members from potential harm other than ban weapons in church buildings, or is something that should not concern us? 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/8/2019 at 3:24 PM, The Nehor said:

Sometimes shooters want to say something first or head to the stand for a better view. Suddenly my idea to put a trap door behind the pulpit controlled by the bishop that drops you into a tank of sharks if your testimony gets irrelevant has other beneficial uses.

Yeah. I thought it was pretty silly until I was in two such situations, one at school and one at church.

[Calm]

I do not generally go to “common sense” when thinking of how a potential mass murderer is reasoning out his plan.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I do not generally go to “common sense” when thinking of how a potential mass murderer is reasoning out his plan.

This is also true.

[LoudmouthMormon]

When it comes to gun laws and law-abiding good folk, we've got two basic kinds of people.  Those who put a premium on feeling safe, and those who put a premium on being able to defend themselves.   Like any substantial demographic, you can find fools and smarties, mature and immature people in each group. 

A significant portion of the first group are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the realities, partly because every new thing they learn about it causes anxiety, worry, even fear.  The notion of someone sitting next to them armed in church makes them feel the opposite of safe.

Although I'm a member of the 2nd group, I must admit:  There are enough idiots and immature folk in the 2nd group, to warrant such feelings. 

Here in Colorado, where I think over 10% of the citizenry are permitted, we've got a good compromise.  Many of our govt offices, private businesses, even hospitals, display a sign that says something to the tune of:

Quote

ABSOLUTELY NO OPEN DISPLAY OF FIREARMS ALLOWED IN THIS BUILDING

[In the bottom of the sign, in very small print, is the section of the relevant state or local code that allows concealed carry.  The words "conceal carry" or "permit" do not appear anywhere on the sign.]

In case you didn't know, 20-30 years of study have demonstrated pretty conclusively that permit holders have lower rates of negligent discharge, accidents, and violent crime. 

This way, the ignorant people who want to feel safe have a comforting sign, and the permit holders get to be able to defend themselves.  And the ignorant members of the 2nd group just look at the sign and go "aww man, da man is out to get me", and leave their gun in their glove box to get stolen.

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

permit holders have lower rates of negligent discharge, accidents, and violent crime. 

Lower rates than who?  Somehow I doubt they are lower than those who don't own any guns.

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed, but it is not that simple. There are restrictions.  

Of course there are restrictions. There are not licenses, though, and that's what I was initially responding to. This tangent isn't relevant to the discussion, though.

Quote

 

Neither do I. 

I am suggesting that violence against  Church members may come from sources other than some broader anti-Christian sentiment. That was demonstrated in LA. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Who knows? But we should at least be aware.

 

You didn't mention actual violence, and any such violence wouldn't have been the result of being a member of the Church, it would have been the result of participating in a protest that someone who couldn't control themselves really didn't like. 

Quote

Indeed. I am a school teacher who has been in a real active shooter situation. It is a rare occurrence, but school are taking drastic steps to protect children and teachers. 

I wish the same could be said about legislators, but they have money and ideology to worry about.

Quote

 

Violence against churches, including LDS, is very rare, but against certain groups, Jews and in our are Jehovah's Witnesses is increasing. We don't have to be alarmists or go to extremes to put some safety protocols in place.

We're not talking about shooting Mormons in their homes. I gave an example of a threat made on a family in my ward that could possibly involved an attack at church. Some common sense preparation is all I am asking for.

Common sense would suggest someone bent on mass murder would choose a gun-free location over an armed location. Debating about the NRA is not the subject of this thread.

 

The problem is that "common sense" is almost always a proxy for "what I assume," and particularly when it directly contradicts the data. No evidence exists that mass shooters target a location because it is "gun-free." No mass shooter has ever said that's why they chose a location. Mass shooter are almost always targeting individual people or specific groups of people wherever they can find them. As I pointed out, the majority of the time, that's a private residence, but other times, it's in public. It's about locating people they want to locate, not about the presence of guns. 

Having a gun in a household increases the chances that someone in the household will be shot by a gun. Carrying a gun increases the chances that the person carrying the gun will be shot by a gun. It's simply a fact, repeatedly and consistently demonstrated over literally decades of research, that the presence of a gun makes a person less safe, not more safe. This is why the Church took the common sense preparation it did and prohibited carrying guns in meetinghouses. 

Quote

Back to the topic, in your opinion is there anything you would suggest the Church do to protect its members from potential harm other than ban weapons in church buildings, or is something that should not concern us? 

Banning weapons is the best thing they could do to protect members from potential harm. 

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

In case you didn't know, 20-30 years of study have demonstrated pretty conclusively that permit holders have lower rates of negligent discharge, accidents, and violent crime. 

Would you mind citing this research? I'm curious what the degrees of separation from Lott or Kleck are.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Lower rates than who?  Somehow I doubt they are lower than those who don't own any guns.

Good question.  It depends on the study.   Lower rates than non-permit holders - sometimes even when you lump both gun-owners and non-gun-owners into the other category.  Like this:

 

 

Note that we're comparing permit holders to "adults", whether these adults own guns or not.    Because yeah, lots of felons can't own guns, but commit violent crimes with them anyway.  And lots of people who commit suicide do it with a gun they don't own.

Audacious claim that makes good food for thought, isn't it @Calm?

Edited November 10, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[LoudmouthMormon]

10 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Would you mind citing this research? I'm curious what the degrees of separation from Lott or Kleck are.

Yeah, much of it comes from Lott's website, which links to many different small local or state studies.  

[Dan McClellan]

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, much of it comes from Lott's website, which links to many different small local or state studies.  

I figured. It can be entirely disregarded, then. John Lott is a disgraced former researcher who has been repeatedly demonstrated to manipulate and invent data. He even used a sock puppet to go online and talk up his findings and defend his methodologies in public. He had to create his own organization and website just to host his research because he cannot be published anymore. 

As an example of how worthless his research is, above you share a graph showing that concealed carry permit holders die by suicide at a lower rate than all adults. It comes from this page, and there's absolutely no context, data, or references at all. The graph also directly contradicts all the other research. For instance, the research shared here shows that in 2007 and 2008, suicide rates for concealed carry permit holders was 17.6 and 15.3, respectively, while the overall suicide rate was 11.3 and 11.7. Lott purports to be giving data through to 2017, but the newest report out of Michigan shows has the overall suicide rate jumping from the 11–12 of 2007–2008 to around 13.73 in 2018. If you look at the last roughly 20 years of overall suicide rates, too (see image), you don't ever get anywhere close to the rate Lott shows. You get data much closer to what he suggests is permit-holder suicide rates. The other thing is that overall suicide rates mask the big difference between firearm-related suicide and non-firearm-related suicide. Permit holders have much easier access to a firearm, and so the problem is higher rates of firearm-related suicide. Lott is just inventing data and manipulating whatever data he's not inventing. John Lott's findings can be confidently disregarded, no matter where they appear. 

[Dan McClellan]

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Good question.  It depends on the study.   Lower rates than non-permit holders - sometimes even when you lump both gun-owners and non-gun-owners into the other category.  Like this:

 

 

Note that we're comparing permit holders to "adults", whether these adults own guns or not.    Because yeah, lots of felons can't own guns, but commit violent crimes with them anyway.  And lots of people who commit suicide do it with a gun they don't own.

Audacious claim that makes good food for thought, isn't it @Calm?

This isn't a study, it's a graph. You say it depends on the study, but can you point to a single study actually published in an academic setting that supports your claim here?

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

John Lott is a disgraced former researcher who has been repeatedly demonstrated to manipulate and invent data. He even used a sock puppet to go online and talk up his findings and defend his methodologies in public. He had to create his own organization and website just to host his research because he cannot be published anymore. 
...
Lott is just inventing data and manipulating whatever data he's not inventing. John Lott's findings can be confidently disregarded, no matter where they appear. 

The character assassination of one side to the other in this debate always amazes me.  It's almost as bad as our current political climate.  I appreciate your point-by-point refutation of that graph (which I agree doesn't substantiate my claim), but dang - "He's a lying liar who lies and makes stuff up all the time and you can always safely ignore the liar cuz he's a liar and nobody likes him and he also is creepy on social media" - whenever I hear something like that, it's an automatic red flag that I'm dealing with someone who has their own blinding bias.   Similar to what I do when someone tells me about the evil lying lazy fraud Joseph Smith, I get more interested in what people are saying after encountering a response like yours, not less.

I've been searching my archives for the two large studies I was thinking of when I posted, I can't find them.  (Neither was a Lott product if memory serves.)

Here's a Lott study.

Quote

So how law-abiding are police? With about 685,464 full-time police officers in the U.S. from 2005 to 2007, we find that there were about 103 crimes per hundred thousand officers. For the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher -- 3,813 per hundred thousand people.

Perhaps police crimes are underreported due to leniency from fellow officers, but the vast crime gap between police and the general populace is really undeniable.

Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than police. Between October 1, 1987 and June 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,999 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies.9 This is an annual revocation rate of 12.8 permits per 100,000. In 2013 (the last year for which data is available), 158 permit holders were convicted of a felony or misdemeanor – a conviction rate of 22.3 per 100,000.10 Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers.

Footnote #10 is a dead link.    Footnote #9 is a live link to updated Florida government data - between 1987 and 2019, 4.4 million licenses issued, 15.4k revocations, or 0.35%.  Or 350 revocations per 100,000 permit holders.    Comparing that to a quick wikipedia scan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate), out of 96 results, around 79 have higher violent crime rates, with 23 results topping 1000 per 100k.   

Florida has 6 entries.  Adding the permit holders to the mix, here are the results:

City                  Total Violent Crime
Hialeah             198.52
Permit holders  350
Tampa                464.41
Jacksonville       631.32
St. Petersburg     698.49
Miami                 720.94
Orlando               744.06

(And I'm being charitable here, mixing in all revoked permits as if they were crimes.  I think you can lose your permit for things less serious than a crime.)

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

Lott has admitted to the sock puppet deception and there appears to be unresolved questions about his work.  Also misrepresented his work as a victim's writing (with her permission though she states she felt pressured by him):

https://www.buzzfeed.com/madisonpauly/why-taylor-woolrich-wanted-a-gun#.slQmJ481w

Given he was willing to deceive for a little benefit (the sock puppet) as well as getting published by Fox News makes me much more cautious in believing he lost hard copies of his work in a move, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Edited November 11, 2019 by Calm

[Dan McClellan]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The character assassination of one side to the other in this debate always amazes me.  It's almost as bad as our current political climate.  I appreciate your point-by-point refutation of that graph (which I agree doesn't substantiate my claim), but dang - "He's a lying liar who lies and makes stuff up all the time and you can always safely ignore the liar cuz he's a liar and nobody likes him and he also is creepy on social media" - whenever I hear something like that, it's an automatic red flag that I'm dealing with someone who has their own blinding bias.   Similar to what I do when someone tells me about the evil lying lazy fraud Joseph Smith, I get more interested in what people are saying after encountering a response like yours, not less.

I normally avoid ad hominem like the plague, but rarely does one stumble across deception and dishonesty on the level of a John Lott. There is a reason he is not allowed to publish in the field anymore. His findings consistently contradict the entire rest of the field, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it is because he falsifies and manipulates the data, and for that reason, anything from Lott is immediately disregarded. If you cannot find data to support your claims outside of Lott's own unpublishable screeds, maybe you should ask yourself why. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

11 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

If you cannot find data to support your claims outside of Lott's own unpublishable screeds, maybe you should ask yourself why. 

Hello?  *taptaptap* is this thing on?

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Footnote #9 is a live link to updated Florida government data - between 1987 and 2019, 4.4 million licenses issued, 15.4k revocations, or 0.35%.  Or 350 revocations per 100,000 permit holders.    Comparing that to a quick wikipedia scan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate), out of 96 results, around 79 have higher violent crime rates, with 23 results topping 1000 per 100k.   

Florida has 6 entries.  Adding the permit holders to the mix, here are the results:

City                  Total Violent Crime
Hialeah             198.52
Permit holders  350
Tampa                464.41
Jacksonville       631.32
St. Petersburg     698.49
Miami                 720.94
Orlando               744.06

(And I'm being charitable here, mixing in all revoked permits as if they were crimes.  I think you can lose your permit for things less serious than a crime.)

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Dan McClellan]

12 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hello?  *taptaptap* is this thing on?

Just updating the numbers on one of Lott's fallacies with a quick scan of Wikipedia doesn't really address the problems. 

[Ahab]

On 11/7/2019 at 4:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

5. Since Church members cannot bring defensive weapons into the church building, what steps are being taken to increase security for them?

Well, we do offer a very generous life after death benefit.  Best in the universe, or so I am told.  All we have to do is pay a tithe of our financial increase every year and try to be as good as we can be, repenting when we mess up on something.

It really can't get any better than this.

[Scott Lloyd]

For at least as long as I have been alive, the Church has taught the membership to have a supply of food lasting one or two years. Statistically speaking, how many members have ended up having to live off their food storage. Yet last I heard, the counsel was still in place. 
 

It’s about personal and family preparedness. 

[The Nehor]

On 11/11/2019 at 10:36 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

The character assassination of one side to the other in this debate always amazes me.  It's almost as bad as our current political climate.  I appreciate your point-by-point refutation of that graph (which I agree doesn't substantiate my claim), but dang - "He's a lying liar who lies and makes stuff up all the time and you can always safely ignore the liar cuz he's a liar and nobody likes him and he also is creepy on social media" - whenever I hear something like that, it's an automatic red flag that I'm dealing with someone who has their own blinding bias.   Similar to what I do when someone tells me about the evil lying lazy fraud Joseph Smith, I get more interested in what people are saying after encountering a response like yours, not less.

If someone is willing to lie to you and it has been shown that they deliberately lie you do not have to give them the benefit of any doubt n the future. It is especially pathetic to whine about it on the liar’s behalf. Assuming the other side is wrong because they say a liar is a liar seems like a convenient way to moralize and side with a liar in spite of the lies. You are still trying to use the data of a proven liar even when you admit it is a lie. Stop being part of the problem.

I hate this post truth era where for some reason even false statements somehow have value in debate when we should be throwing liars out of polite society and pelting them with mudballs if they try to spread their filth. The Book of Mormon may have had it right in criminalizing lying.