Bernard Gui Posted December 31, 2019 Author Posted December 31, 2019 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Okay. 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? There are religious groups other than Jews that are targets. In our area Jehovah's Witnesses building have been targets for arsonists. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: With respect, I do not think we presently have justifiable cause for concern. I guess I misunderstand you. Are you saying we only need to be concerned if and when one of our congregations is attacked? 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Our Jewish brothers and sisters might disagree with you. Of course that was facetious. On the other hand, statistically speaking there are millions of school periods in America in which there are no shootings, and just a few in which there are shootings, so the chance of any particular classroom being targeted is very, very small. Does that justify a decision not to take precautions? I don't think so. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. Until something serious happens and then we get security conscious. Just talking to my SIL from Arkansas, his ward parking lots have also been prowled and he was conducting a sacrament meeting when a stranger dressed inappropriately and carrying a protest sign entered their meeting. In my opinion, it's just a matter of time before a tragedy happens in one of our churches. A friend's daughter was killed by her estranged husband in a church parking lot before meetings. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: "Heightened awareness?" Sure. We can agree on the words. But what do they mean? Should it be procedural, casual, what? 4 hours ago, smac97 said: But guns in Church? Metal detectors? Security guards? Pat-downs? No. All extreme measures for which I have never advocated. There are situations when concealed carry may be appropriate. Not every ward has the advantage of law enforcement members. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Honestly, it does not seem like a reasonable concern at present. As you wish. I choose to err on the side of prudence. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. Statistically speaking, no one should worry about sending their kids to school, but it has become a flaming issue, and schools do take security seriously regardless the statistics. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. I'm just asking for some reasonable preparation. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac I'm not really sure what we are disagreeing about.
Bernard Gui Posted December 31, 2019 Author Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: 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. From my experience, one does not know how he/she will react even with training when put in a real situation and the doodoo hits the fan. Frankly, I was very surprised at my reactions when I have been in threatening situations. I am a teacher who would be willing to be trained and armed in school. Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted December 31, 2019 Author Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, strappinglad said: 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 ) As far as I know, all schools, malls, clubs, theaters, etc., are gun free zones. They are the most likely to be targets for shooters. Who is liable when the shooting starts? Not the folks who made the laws or put up the signs. Folks who are caught in the zone are the ones who pay the heaviest price. Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
blarsen Posted December 31, 2019 Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, pogi said: 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. Exactly. Well put. The sense of personal liberty and responsibility to physically protect yourself and those you love, etc., seems to be on the wain with too many people in this country and in the Church. The book, Dial 911 and Die, kind of underscores the dangers of relying on the police to provide this kind of protection; coupled with the apparent reality that the police incur no liability if they fail to do so. Rabbi Zippel of the SLC Chabad group has it right when he simply says "~we are taking means to protect our congregants", w/out going into detail. I would personally like to hear this from the Church instead of effectively advertising our Wards/gatherings as gun free zones. Jews seem to be more realistic about these issues if the web site, JPFO.org (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms ownership) is any indication. For those of you who haven't see the live-feed video from the White Settlement church shooting, you can pick it up on Brighteon and probably Banned.video, since it was removed from YouTube. Horrible, but watching it should bring a sense of reality to bear regarding this issue. I could supply the link but suspect there may be some proscription against doing such things on this blog. Edited December 31, 2019 by blarsen 2
blarsen Posted December 31, 2019 Posted December 31, 2019 56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I am a teacher who would be willing to be trained and armed in school. This is the realistic solution to the potential problem, in my view . . . both for school and churches.
Bernard Gui Posted December 31, 2019 Author Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, blarsen said: Exactly. Well put. The sense of personal liberty and responsibility to physically protect yourself and those you love, etc., seems to be on the wain with too many people in this country and in the Church. The book, Dial 9/11 and Die, kind of underscores the dangers of relying on the police to provide this kind of protection; coupled with the apparent reality that the police incur no liability if they fail to do so. Rabbi Zippel of the SLC Chabad group has it right when he simply says "~we are taking means to protect our congregants", w/out going into detail. I would personally like to hear this from the Church instead of effectively advertising our Wards/gatherings as gun free zones. Jews seem to be more realistic about these issues if the web site, JPFO.com (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms ownership) is any indication. For those of you who haven't see the live-feed video from the White Settlement church shooting, you can pick it up on Brighteon and probably Banned.video, since it was removed from YouTube. Horrible, but watching it should bring a sense of reality to bear regarding this issue. I could supply the link but suspect there may be some proscription against doing such things on this blog. No one here is advocating extreme defensive or offensive measure be put in place in our churches. We bend over backwards to protect our schools in the face of a statistically slim chance that any one particular school will be victimized, so why not give even just a nod in the direction of safety in our LDS churches? We have had unsavory folks case our buildings in the day and hide out in our buildings here at night. We already provide security for early morning Seminary and special YW, RS, and Primary activities. Why not also consider a modicum of preparation for our Sunday meetings? Seems pretty reasonable to me. Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted December 31, 2019 Posted December 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: 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? Neither, actually.
Bernard Gui Posted December 31, 2019 Author Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: 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..... Well, this from Code Pink has changed my mind and I am no longer feeling nervous. Let’s here it for collective solidarity and unarmed community protection!....😉 Quote As an organization with numerous Jewish leaders and members, CODEPINK rejects the response being called for by some that synagogues and other places of worship should have armed security. It is only through education, collective solidarity and unarmed community protection that safety can be obtained. Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Calm Posted December 31, 2019 Posted December 31, 2019 1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Neither, actually. You don't think a potential shooter might be more attracted to a Latter-day Saint target after reading all the debate going on? Just curious, not saying the debate shouldn't go on based on a small chance of influence.
LoudmouthMormon Posted December 31, 2019 Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: You don't think a potential shooter might be more attracted to a Latter-day Saint target after reading all the debate going on? That is correct. If someone's going to go a-killing, they aren't going to go to social media to hear the scuttlebutt. If it's premeditated, they'll do their homework ahead of time. If it isn't, if it's an act of passion or serious enough mental illness, then it won't matter whether good guys are armed or not. Bad guys interested in gun free zones vs places where people are armed, already know where to find disarmed people. Edited December 31, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon 1
Recommended Posts