glockster22 Posted December 29, 2019 Posted December 29, 2019 https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/active-threat-reported-at-white-settlement-church-records-show/287-afa9b2ee-2e58-4e02-b838-1d327b463848?__twitter_impression=true It would seem that both church security and a number of the members were very prepared. None of the "wild west" predictions happened of member shooting one another or arriving police shooting armed members. This exemplifies everything wrong with the church's policy. No rules against arms in church actually stop this toute of thing. Someone else with a gun does.
LoudmouthMormon Posted December 29, 2019 Posted December 29, 2019 (edited) The raw video of this event is sobering, because that church's setup is not dissimilar to our own meetinghouses. To see a shooting in a familiar setting is jarring, to say the least. It's also really interesting to see 3-4 people draw on the bad guy, but only the ex-FBI security guard actually fires back. Maybe John Lott will say something about it, so everyone can call him a liar, and we can go back to complacency. Edited December 29, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon 4
Stargazer Posted December 29, 2019 Posted December 29, 2019 1 hour ago, glockster22 said: https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/active-threat-reported-at-white-settlement-church-records-show/287-afa9b2ee-2e58-4e02-b838-1d327b463848?__twitter_impression=true It would seem that both church security and a number of the members were very prepared. None of the "wild west" predictions happened of member shooting one another or arriving police shooting armed members. This exemplifies everything wrong with the church's policy. No rules against arms in church actually stop this toute of thing. Someone else with a gun does. Of course the rule against guns in church will stop this kind of thing! That's what rules are for!
Stargazer Posted December 29, 2019 Posted December 29, 2019 21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: The raw video of this event is sobering, because that church's setup is not dissimilar to our own meetinghouses. To see a shooting in a familiar setting is jarring, to say the least. It's also really interesting to see 3-4 people draw on the bad guy, but only the ex-FBI security guard actually fires back. Maybe John Lott will say something about it, so everyone can call him a liar, and we can go back to complacency. The security guard may have been the only one with a clear shot. Have you seen the video? I haven't.
provoman Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 16 hours ago, Stargazer said: The security guard may have been the only one with a clear shot. Have you seen the video? I haven't. It appears all major US news agencies have the video on youtube. One reports indicated that the "security" were members of the congregation that volunteered. Three shots fired, two by assailant and one by "security team". It appears the first person shot was a member of the security team as you can see the person reaching behind their waist - presumably for a concealed weapon. Third shot is from security detail which was the only apparent on with a clear shot. One report is that whole event was 6 seconds long. 1
pogi Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 19 hours ago, glockster22 said: https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/active-threat-reported-at-white-settlement-church-records-show/287-afa9b2ee-2e58-4e02-b838-1d327b463848?__twitter_impression=true It would seem that both church security and a number of the members were very prepared. None of the "wild west" predictions happened of member shooting one another or arriving police shooting armed members. This exemplifies everything wrong with the church's policy. No rules against arms in church actually stop this toute of thing. Someone else with a gun does. I agree. What a success story this was! Dozens of lives were spared because a few were prepared. This video may have the church second guessing their policy. If, heaven forbid, a mass shooting occurred in a Latter-day Saint chapel and dozens die, I think the policy would come under some pretty heavy heat - especially after witnessing how many lives were saved in this video. But given the following position of many prophets, I have a hard time with this policy: Quote Here is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive. (Joseph Smith, HC 6:605.) Quote It is also for your salvation to equip yourselves. … Now, I will tell you, I have about a hundred shots on hand all the time…Let us be ready, guns cocked; none of your half-cocked. (Heber C. Kimball -JD 5:164-165) Quote We must be so prepared that they dare not come to us in a hostile manner without being assured they will meet a vigorous resistance, and ten to one they will meet their grave… (Brigham Young - JD 1:171-172 ) I don't think a would-be mass shooter will ever attempt to shoot up the West Freeway Church of Christ ever again... That guy walked into the WRONG chapel! I can't believe how many guns were pulled. Some were security, but others were general parishioners - Only in Texas! Quote But God said he will fight our battles for us” is the cry of some. Brigham Young explained though that for God to fight our battles for us, we have a work to perform, We all believe that the Lord will fight our battles; but how? Will He do it while we are unconcerned and make no effort whatever for our own safety when an enemy is upon us? If we make no efforts to guard our towns, our houses, our cities, our wives and children, will the Lord guard them for us? He will not; but if we pursue the opposite course and arrive to help Him to accomplish His designs, then will He fight our battles. We are baptized for the remission of sins; but it would be quite as reasonable to expect remission of sins without baptism, as to expect the Lord to fight our battles without our taking every precaution to be prepared to defend ourselves. The Lord requires us to be quite as willing to fight our own battles as to have Him fight them for us. If we are not ready for an enemy when he comes upon us, we have not lived up to the requirements of Him who guides the ship of Zion, or who dictates the affairs of his kingdom. (Brigham Young, JD 11:131.) Unfortunately, with how frequent and common these shootings have become, I fear it is only a matter of time before many of our brothers and sisters will be killed and murdered in similar style. I only wish that our story could be similar to the West Freeway Church of Christ story. I personally don't carry or even own a gun, but I would feel safer in a church where I knew other members did. Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi 3
LoudmouthMormon Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 The snarky side of the internet brings us this little treasure:
smac97 Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 1. Is this just an issue for Jewish or Muslim congregations and Christians in other countries? As compared to the Church? It seems so. The Church as over 30,000 congregations, which meet around 1.5 million times each year (30,000 congregations X 50 Sunday Services). How many of those 1.5 million meetings have involved an "active shooter" scenario in 2019? Any? In 2018 there was the one guy in Nevada. Any others? Is the risk significant for us? It seems not. On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 2. Is it reasonable to trust that the Church is somehow immune from such attacks? Totally immune? No. But is there a substantial and apparent and immediate risk of "such attacks"? No. On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 3. Can Latter-day Saints have legitimate concerns about the safety of their meetings? Statistically speaking, not really. On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 4. If a Latter-day Saint expresses such concerns, is it a proper response to say he/she is faithless and/or a gun nut? No. We should be kind to each other. On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 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? Are such steps reasonably necessary? On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 6. Can we depend on local law enforcement to respond in time to prevent casualties? Not really. As the old saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 7. Should we wait until attacks occur before we address security measures? Again, are "security measures" reasonably necessary? On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 8. Are forming human chains around victimized congregations and candlelight vigils in memory of the deceased sufficient 9or "Christian") responses to attacks? I don't know what this means. On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 9. Is it insulting to victimized Jews, Muslims, and Christians in America and other countries for a Latter-day Saint to be concerned about his/her church? I don't see how. On 11/7/2019 at 5:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: 10. Is it reasonable to say this can never happen to an LDS congregation, so why worry about it? I don't think anyone is saying that. Thanks, -Smac 2
bsjkki Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Is the risk significant for us? It seems not. Most shootings don't happen where they have happened before. Church shootings do happen and I think we need to be prepared for that. I am concerned because of the amount of vitriol towards the church I see online. The people leaving, that I have seen, are really angry at the church and while, I don't think any I know would be a 'shooter,' it only takes one very unstable person. With the uptick in arson fires and even the crazy temple guy, I don't like the church's new policy and think it is not right. They have not provided any added security to counter the weapons ban. Plus, the weapons ban, some speculated, was due to Texas's policy of allowing people to be armed in churches. That turned out to be a very good thing in this case. This instance would have been far worse without armed parishioners taking action. Most shootings, are much less deadly when heroes take action to protect others. Recently, in my area one hero student died as they rushed the shooter and stopped him. I am lucky to have a few LEO's in my ward but what about those wards who have none. They are sitting ducks. We have no security in our buildings. 4
Bernard Gui Posted December 30, 2019 Author Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, smac97 said: As compared to the Church? It seems so. The Church as over 30,000 congregations, which meet around 1.5 million times each year (30,000 congregations X 50 Sunday Services). How many of those 1.5 million meetings have involved an "active shooter" scenario in 2019? Any? In 2018 there was the one guy in Nevada. Any others? Is the risk significant for us? It seems not. At the present time, maybe not. Totally immune? No. Partially immune? Not immune? Who can say? But is there a substantial and apparent and immediate risk of "such attacks"? No. Immediate becomes such when it happens. Statistically speaking, not really. Statistically speaking, there is not much risk of any gathering being attacked unless it is a party in some areas of Chicago. No. We should be kind to each other. Amen to that. Are such steps reasonably necessary? In my opinion, yes, there are reasonable and prudent things that can be done. For example, discussion of (if not actual practice of ) defensive measures such as those we do in school. Not really. As the old saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." I’m old. I like old sayings. Again, are "security measures" reasonably necessary? In my opinion, yes. For example, there were bad guys who were prowling our church parking lot and breaking into cars. Once they knew which vehicle belonged to the bishop, so they waited until meetings started, broke into his truck, stole his registration, got his address and burglarized his home. For several months after those incidents, brethren provided security during meetings. At our stake conferences we always have brethren assigned to provide parking lot security during meetings. Brethren also provide security at early-morning Seminary, RS, YE, and Primary events. Once while locking up the building at night my companion and I flushed out a guy hiding in the women’s restroom. I don't know what this means. It mean that after mass murders there are beautiful prayers, candlelight services, flowers, and memorials for the dead, but heightened awareness for the living isn’t a Christ-like response? I don't see how. Which was in response to those who criticized LDS members advocating for security at our churches when it is other religions that have actually suffered more. I don't think anyone is saying that. Then you agree it is a reasonable concern? What, if any, would be reasonable steps we could take, or is there simply no reason for concern? Thanks, -Smac This one rising from the dust of past discussion? Still, thank you for the thoughtful response. We make schools gun-free zones, but then we take reasonable precautions against the possibility that they become killing-zones. It seems unreasonable to make churches gun-free zones but then fail to prepare against tragedy. Edited December 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui 3
smac97 Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Most shootings don't happen where they have happened before. Church shootings do happen and I think we need to be prepared for that. Hence the Church's recent instruction to members. To be candid, I would have preferred a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about guns. The news coverage pertaining to the Church's prohibition was disconcerting. However, this is a judgment call. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I am concerned because of the amount of vitriol towards the church I see online. Which, to date, has not culminated in gun violence at church meetings. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: The people leaving, that I have seen, are really angry at the church and while, I don't think any I know would be a 'shooter,' it only takes one very unstable person. I dunno. In a given year, the Church runs about 1.5 million Sunday services worldwide. In comparison, there is about 1 death for every 3 million flights every year. And yet nobody says "it only takes one plane crash..." We still air travel a lot because, statisically speaking, it's a very safe mode of travel. Statistically speaking, attending church meetings is also a very safe thing to do. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: With the uptick in arson fires and even the crazy temple guy, I don't like the church's new policy and think it is not right. Yes, those are understandably upsetting. I'm not sure they warrant much remedial policy change in the Church, thought. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: They have not provided any added security to counter the weapons ban. Plus, the weapons ban, some speculated, was due to Texas's policy of allowing people to be armed in churches. That turned out to be a very good thing in this case. Yes, that's true. 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: This instance would have been far worse without armed parishioners taking action. Most shootings, are much less deadly when heroes take action to protect others. Recently, in my area one hero student died as they rushed the shooter and stopped him. I am lucky to have a few LEO's in my ward but what about those wards who have none. They are sitting ducks. We have no security in our buildings. I'm just not persuaded that "active shooter" scenarios are a statistically significant event in our services. Thanks, -Smac 1
Bernard Gui Posted December 30, 2019 Author Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Which, to date, has not culminated in gun violence at church meetings. Which, to me, is not a reason for complacency. Quote Hence the Church's recent instruction to members. And here it is almost January. Edited December 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
pogi Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Which, to me, is not a reason for complacency. Exactly! Imagine if the West Freeway Church of Christ had a policy against guns because "to date" there has not been any gun violence at church meetings. The news would have been much, much more devastating then it already was. 2
Garden Girl Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 When I was an ordinance worker in the Portland, OR temple (every Friday for six years), I was nervous with the assignment to stand in the foyer/waiting room/atrium. I felt vulnerable to any crazy who wanted to enter and start shooting... GG 1
bsjkki Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: To be candid, I would have preferred a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about guns. The news coverage pertaining to the Church's prohibition was disconcerting. However, this is a judgment call. I liked the wording of the old policy better and due to the prohibition and its publicity, I think our buildings are more vulnerable now then before the new policy. The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is the way to go. In reality, most people that I know that carry CC, just ignored the change. If they are asked to leave, they will, but don't plan on not bringing their weapon to church. Edited December 30, 2019 by bsjkki
smac97 Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: As compared to the Church? It seems so. The Church as over 30,000 congregations, which meet around 1.5 million times each year (30,000 congregations X 50 Sunday Services). How many of those 1.5 million meetings have involved an "active shooter" scenario in 2019? Any? In 2018 there was the one guy in Nevada. Any others? Is the risk significant for us? It seems not. At the present time. Okay. 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Totally immune? No. Partially immune? Not immune? Who can say? But is there a substantial and apparent and immediate risk of "such attacks"? No. Immediate becomes such when it happens. With respect, I disagree. "Immediate becomes such" when we have justifiable cause for concern. Jews in New York presently have justifiable cause for concern: Everybody Knows: As the leading targets of hate crimes, Jews are routinely being attacked in the streets of New York City. So why is no one acting like it’s a big deal? Jews Under Attack Deserve Better Than Selective Outrage: If you’re not willing to confront the diversity of anti-Semitism, you’re just not being serious. We Can No Longer Ignore The Attacks On Jews In New York “Deadly Exchange”- It’s time to speak out against anti-Zionists who seek to turn Blacks against Jews How liberals are allowing anti-Semitism to flourish Jews Are Going Underground: A month of terrible anti-Semitic attacks culminated with a stabbing yesterday of multiple people at a Hanukkah celebration at a rabbi’s home in Monsey, New York. Identity Politics Enables Anti-Semitic Violence. Enough: How much more Jewish blood must be spilled before ending the violence against Jews becomes an end inherently worth pursuing? With respect, I do not think we presently have justifiable cause for concern. 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Statistically speaking, not really. Statistically speaking, there is not much risk of any gathering being attacked unless it is a party in some areas of Chicago. Our Jewish brothers and sisters might disagree with you. 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Again, are "security measures" reasonably necessary? In my opinion, yes. For example, there were bad guys who were prowling our church parking lot and breaking into cars. Once they knew which vehicle belonged to the bishop, so they waited until meetings started, broke into his truck, stole his registration, got his address and burglarized his home. For several months after those incidents, brethren provided security during meetings. At our stake conferences we always have brethren assigned to provide parking lot security during meetings. Brethrenalso provide brethren for security at early-morning Seminary, RS, YE, and Primary events. once while locking up the building at night my companion and I flushed out a guy hiding in the women’s restroom. This is sensible at the local level. I'm just not persuaded that the 30,000 other congregations need to take comparable security measures in response to what happened in your ward. 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I don't know what this means. It mean that after mass murders there are beautiful prayers, candlelight services, flowers, and memorials for the dead, but heightened awareness for the living isn’t an like response? "Heightened awareness?" Sure. But guns in Church? Metal detectors? Security guards? Pat-downs? No. 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I don't think anyone is saying that. Then you agree it is a reasonable concern? What, if any, would be reasonable steps we could take, or is there simply no reason for concern? Honestly, it does not seem like a reasonable concern at present. Last night I put my daughter on a plane to visit cousins in Colorado. Should I have had a "reasonable concern" that the plane would crash and burn? Statistically speaking, no, not really. 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: This one rising from the dust of past discussion? Still, thank you for the thoughtful response Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm just not persuaded that "active shooter" scenarios are a statistically significant event in our services. I agree. But it was an even less statistically significant event for the West Freeway Church of Christ. Not likely to die in a mass shooting event anywhere, let alone a church, but when they do happen, wouldn't it be nice if you or someone next to you was armed? Why actively restrict protection from those who desire it? I occasionally see patients who request certain vaccines for their specific itinerary where there really is no statistically significant risk for the disease and is not therefore recommended. I always inform the patient that the risk is extremely negligible, and no vaccine is without potential side effect either, but if it will help them sleep better at night and help them to put themselves at ease and enjoy their vacation, then I don't refuse them the vaccine. I simply don't see the need for a restriction and I pray they don't come to regret the policy as it could back-fire (no pun intended) some day. Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi 3
smac97 Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree. But it was an even less statistically significant event for the West Freeway Church of Christ. Not likely to die in a mass shooting event anywhere, let alone a church, but when they do happen, wouldn't it be nice if you or someone next to you was armed? Why actively restrict protection from those who desire it? Perhaps one concern is that people will take weapons into Church without being properly trained or competent to handle them. It's understandable to focus on the risk of "active shooter" scenarios. But what about the risk of negligent discharge of a firearm? 7 minutes ago, pogi said: I occasionally see patients who request certain vaccines for their specific itinerary where there really is no statistically significant risk for the disease and is not therefore recommended. Administering a vaccine poses no risk to anyone else. Carrying a firearm does. 7 minutes ago, pogi said: I simply don't see the need for a restriction and I pray they don't come to regret the policy as it could back-fire (no pun intended) some day. I understand your position, and largely agree with it. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: Perhaps one concern is that people will take weapons into Church without being properly trained or competent to handle them. It's understandable to focus on the risk of "active shooter" scenarios. But what about the risk of negligent discharge of a firearm? In regards to weapons accidentally killing people in church, I think the same arguments that you use below could be equally applied. Just replace "active shooter" for "accidental death by fire arm at church". When the risk for either is extremely low, I would say error on the side of liberty. I think the quotes I posted above should be considered by the brethren in regard to this policy. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: As compared to the Church? It seems so. The Church as over 30,000 congregations, which meet around 1.5 million times each year (30,000 congregations X 50 Sunday Services). How many of those 1.5 million meetings have involved an "active shooter" scenario in 2019? Any? In 2018 there was the one guy in Nevada. Any others? Is the risk significant for us? It seems not. Totally immune? No. But is there a substantial and apparent and immediate risk of "such attacks"? No. Statistically speaking, not really. No. We should be kind to each other. Are such steps reasonably necessary? Not really. As the old saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." Again, are "security measures" reasonably necessary? I don't know what this means. I don't see how. I don't think anyone is saying that. Thanks, -Smac
provoman Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: Perhaps one concern is that people will take weapons into Church without being properly trained or competent to handle them. It's understandable to focus on the risk of "active shooter" scenarios. But what about the risk of negligent discharge of a firearm? Proper training would be a difficult standard to apply Nation wide or even world wide. In the video, it appears to me that each person on the volunteer security team was sitting with their back directly against a wall - I wonder if that was part of their training. I think the concern over accidents is real. I know a few people who have accidentally discharged and wounded themself. I also think of the sad story from Utah where the two people on separate neighborhood watch and got into a shootout with each other. 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, smac97 said: Perhaps one concern is that people will take weapons into Church without being properly trained or competent to handle them. It's a valid concern. I'm in my 3rd decade of being an armchair 2nd amendment enthusiast. I've had my CCP for a quarter of a century, and legally traveled with it across at least 4 states. I'm in my 2nd year of actually having enough relevant enough training/practice to consider myself useful in a situation with a killer who needs to be stopped. I went to a 4 day defensive handgun course offered by Nevada's Firearms Training Institute. I never knew how much stuff I didn't know. Very grateful for the training, and the training I've done since then. You know how there are some things you can just do without ever thinking about it? Like driving or typing on a keyboard? You think that effortless skillset might degrade a little if you only did those things like once or twice a year? Folks who carry would do well to take a good, hard look at their skillset and expertise. You don't rise to the occasion, you fall back on your training. Just ask the 2nd guy shot in the video. He was either going for a cell phone or his CC weapon. Just ask the other guy in the video who draws, like, a really, really long time after the 6 seconds of shooting was all over. Edited December 30, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon 1
Stargazer Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 2 hours ago, bsjkki said: I liked the wording of the old policy better and due to the prohibition and its publicity, I think our buildings are more vulnerable now then before the new policy. The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is the way to go. In reality, most people that I know that carry CC, just ignored the change. If they are asked to leave, they will, but don't plan on not bringing their weapon to church. When Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a law allowing lawful gun owners to carry guns into places of worship, one of the presidential candidates slammed Abbott and the law. “It's just absolutely irrational,” he said. “It's totally irrational." I wonder if this candidate feels like reconsidering his position? Nah, of course not. I do hope the LDS Church reconsiders its position -- at least for the US and other countries where citizen carry of firearms is permitted. 4
strappinglad Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 The quotes from Joseph and Brigham need to be considered in light of the times when mobs roamed the area and even the US army was moving against us. The shooter in this instance used a shotgun which , from the CCTV , seemed shortened. It would carry about 5 rounds ,so many people might have been injured depending on the type of shell used. At some point he would have to reload and hopefully the " let's roll " boys would have had a chance to stop him, armed or not. Either way, a much worse scenario was averted by armed response. I agree with smac97 about the statistical probabilities. Where would the law come down if a person was injured or killed in a church where the policy was no guns allowed? Where would it come down if someone was injured or killed in a church where guns are allowed? Would the LDS Church be held liable in either case or just one or none ? ( I'm talking injury or death from gun action of course ) 2
Calm Posted December 30, 2019 Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: The snarky side of the internet brings us this little treasure: So by publicizing the church’s policy by posting about it all over the Internet, whose mind is more likely to be changed...church leadership on policy or a shooter now being informed that a Mormon church is full of easy targets as demonstrated by the nervousness of its members? Hmmm..... Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm 1
Bernard Gui Posted December 30, 2019 Author Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Garden Girl said: When I was an ordinance worker in the Portland, OR temple (every Friday for six years), I was nervous with the assignment to stand in the foyer/waiting room/atrium. I felt vulnerable to any crazy who wanted to enter and start shooting... GG When I taught junior high orchestra on our cafeteria/stage, ours was the first class a shooter would encounter upon entering our building. Not much protection by closing curtains. When I brought it up to the admin, their response.....run for the nearest classroom! 1. 65 students wall-to-wall on a stage with their instruments and one exit down a ramp??? 2. The nearest classrooms were yards away from the stage. 3. Instructions to classroom teachers were to lock their doors upon hearing the alarm and not opening them for any reason until the all-clear was sounded. Either way, the orchestra was a sacrificial lamb. My solution.....don't make the orchestra meet on the stage. Not an acceptable solution, I was told. Imagine 150 people running out of the chapel trying to find an empty classroom to hide in without ever practicing or having some sort of orderly plan. And if there is another ward already in the building, that makes 300 people trying to find a place to hide. Having been in a shooter situation, this makes no sense to me. Hiding my kids in closets and practice rooms only made the field more target rich had a shooter come into the room. When the chaos hits, the best plans blow in the wind. Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui 2
Recommended Posts