Church gun policy announced

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Unlike the Conference Center, our Wards and Stake Buildings do not have metal detectors. After 9/11, Churches, among other places were classified as “soft targets”. Churches and Synagogues have been targeted more and more. Two such instances over this last weekend, have cost many to feel unsafe. The recent, undated policy was picked up by many newspapers, and news services, advertising to those who wish to harm, and kill, making our Chapels, advertised “soft targets”. As a retired law-enforcement Officer, I know better than many the serious dangers of letting the truly evil, know we will always be unarmed. 
 

I always pray for God’s protection, but often God calls on us to help and protect ourselves. In light of this weekend’s violence, what is to be done, and where will those who care nothing for God’s laws, strike next? 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Unlike the Conference Center, our Wards and Stake Buildings do not have metal detectors. After 9/11, Churches, among other places were classified as “soft targets”. Churches and Synagogues have been targeted more and more. Two such instances over this last weekend, have cost many to feel unsafe. The recent, undated policy was picked up by many newspapers, and news services, advertising to those who wish to harm, and kill, making our Chapels, advertised “soft targets”. As a retired law-enforcement Officer, I know better than many the serious dangers of letting the truly evil, know we will always be unarmed. 
 

I always pray for God’s protection, but often God calls on us to help and protect ourselves. In light of this weekend’s violence, what is to be done, and where will those who care nothing for God’s laws, strike next? 

I'm glad those congregants had weapons, I can't imagine if the gunman had not been shot, how many would have died. I wonder if this will make it so members can now carry in the church buildings.

[MustardSeed]

I agree 

[rockpond]

I’m hopeful that those with the training and concealed carry permits will continue to being their weapons to church.  I think the policy discouraging it was a mistake. 

[Rajah Manchou]

This isn't a simple case of congregants with guns taking out the bad guy with guns. The church had a volunteer team with guns tasked to work security. 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/family-hails-church-shooting-victim-as-true-hero-was-member-of-armed-security-team/2283857/

They had already identified the shooter as suspicious and they were positioned around him in case he tried anything.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't necessarily support disarming private citizens, and I do support the Second Amendment.  However, here's the problem with the "the-only-thing-that-can-stop-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun" scenario: It's difficult, if not impossible, in the heat of the moment, for law enforcement to tell the difference: The only thing officers can see is at least two guys with guns; they can't tell that, actually, one of those guys is the "good guy" and one of those guys is the "bad guy." 

Reminds me of the time a Sergeant from my dad's agency, in plain clothes, decided to respond to a bank robbery outside of his jurisdiction (or perhaps he simply happened upon it; I'm not sure).  Officers from the agency with jurisdiction see him, armed, and all they know is that someone is committing an armed robbery to which they're responding.  Of course, they don't know that he's not their suspect.  Meantime, he's standing there attempting to explain, "I'm Sergeant So-and-so from such-and-such P.D.," while officers from the other agency are yelling, "We don't care who you are!  You better drop your weapon and get on the floor!"

In any event, righteous, Priesthood-holding brethren have a "trump card" that gun toting maniacs don't: They can call on legions of angels to rain fire and brimstone down on their oppressors and on their puny guns.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't necessarily support disarming private citizens, and I do support the Second Amendment.  However, here's the problem with the "the-only-thing-that-can-stop-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun" scenario: It's difficult, if not impossible, in the heat of the moment, for law enforcement to tell the difference:

Not to mention the risks of everyone in a room full of people (some armed) deciding at once to start shooting at whatever they think is suspicious. Many will miss their target.

Even in this incident the security guard positioned directly behind the shooter took the first shot, and missed. Luckily the bullet didn't hit anybody else, but it did give the shooter time to turn around and shoot the good guy.

Worth asking, in this case would the better solution have been to question the suspicious looking guy wearing a wig, fake beard and a long coat concealing a shotgun the moment he was spotted. Maybe ask him to step through a metal detector?

Instead the security team surrounded him and trained their cameras on him, just waiting for the moment a guy wearing a wig and a fake beard to church might pull something out of his coat.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Not to mention the risks of everyone in a room full of people (some armed) deciding at once to start shooting at whatever they think is suspicious. Many will miss their target.

Even in this incident the security guard positioned directly behind the shooter took the first shot, and missed. Luckily the bullet didn't hit anybody else, but it did give the shooter time to turn around and shoot the good guy.

Worth asking, in this case would the better solution have been to question the suspicious looking guy wearing a wig, fake beard and a long coat concealing a shotgun the moment he was spotted. Maybe ask him to step through a metal detector?

Instead the security team surrounded him and trained their cameras on him, just waiting for the moment a guy wearing a wig and a fake beard to church might pull something out of his coat.

 

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't necessarily support disarming private citizens, and I do support the Second Amendment.  However, here's the problem with the "the-only-thing-that-can-stop-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun" scenario: It's difficult, if not impossible, in the heat of the moment, for law enforcement to tell the difference: The only thing officers can see is at least two guys with guns; they can't tell that, actually, one of those guys is the "good guy" and one of those guys is the "bad guy." 

Reminds me of the time a Sergeant from my dad's agency, in plain clothes, decided to respond to a bank robbery outside of his jurisdiction (or perhaps he simply happened upon it; I'm not sure).  Officers from the agency with jurisdiction see him, armed, and all they know is that someone is committing an armed robbery to which they're responding.  Of course, they don't know that he's not their suspect.  Meantime, he's standing there attempting to explain, "I'm Sergeant So-and-so from such-and-such P.D.," while officers from the other agency are yelling, "We don't care who you are!  You better drop your weapon and get on the floor!"

In any event, righteous, Priesthood-holding brethren have a "trump card" that gun toting maniacs don't: They can call on legions of angels to rain fire and brimstone down on their oppressors and on their puny guns.

Good points here, it's a tough thing to call. 

[Rajah Manchou]

I just wonder why they would let a guy that they suspected to be a shooter to even enter the church full of people.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m hopeful that those with the training and concealed carry permits will continue to being their weapons to church.  I think the policy discouraging it was a mistake. 

I am very trained and have a conceal carry permit, but I am “halt between two opinions”, to quote the Book of Joshua. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In any event, righteous, Priesthood-holding brethren have a "trump card" that gun toting maniacs don't: They can call on legions of angels to rain fire and brimstone down on their oppressors and on their puny guns.

Not even a Prophet or Apostle, could call down angels in the spit seconds that a few round could be fired, via semi-automatic weapon could fire them. This is why, any event at the Conference Center, has metal detectors at each public entrance. Also why security is facing the congregation, at all times to protect everyone on the stand. Also guns are not puny, no matter the gun. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

23 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Not to mention the risks of everyone in a room full of people (some armed) deciding at once to start shooting at whatever they think is suspicious. Many will miss their target.

Even in this incident the security guard positioned directly behind the shooter took the first shot, and missed. Luckily the bullet didn't hit anybody else, but it did give the shooter time to turn around and shoot the good guy.

Worth asking, in this case would the better solution have been to question the suspicious looking guy wearing a wig, fake beard and a long coat concealing a shotgun the moment he was spotted. Maybe ask him to step through a metal detector?

Instead the security team surrounded him and trained their cameras on him, just waiting for the moment a guy wearing a wig and a fake beard to church might pull something out of his coat.

What of the risks to countless numbers, if the gunman has a free pass, to keep firing? 

[Rajah Manchou]

3 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

What of the risks to countless numbers, if the gunman has a free pass, to keep firing? 

Dunno, my opinion is a combination of all the possible prevention measures is the best solution. An armed security team alone is not enough to prevent all scenarios. Metal detectors are not enough. Stopping suspicious characters at the door is not enough.

But also allowing all who enter the door to carry weapons is not going to solve the problem.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Unlike the Conference Center, our Wards and Stake Buildings do not have metal detectors. After 9/11, Churches, among other places were classified as “soft targets”. Churches and Synagogues have been targeted more and more. Two such instances over this last weekend, have cost many to feel unsafe. The recent, undated policy was picked up by many newspapers, and news services, advertising to those who wish to harm, and kill, making our Chapels, advertised “soft targets”. As a retired law-enforcement Officer, I know better than many the serious dangers of letting the truly evil, know we will always be unarmed. 
 

I always pray for God’s protection, but often God calls on us to help and protect ourselves. In light of this weekend’s violence, what is to be done, and where will those who care nothing for God’s laws, strike next? 

Here’s a great solution from Code Pink...

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. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This isn't a simple case of congregants with guns taking out the bad guy with guns. The church had a volunteer team with guns tasked to work security. 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/family-hails-church-shooting-victim-as-true-hero-was-member-of-armed-security-team/2283857/

They had already identified the shooter as suspicious and they were positioned around him in case he tried anything.

He tried something and had a modicum of success.

[Bernard Gui]

Arnold Friberg’s solution...no guns. Just swords.....

Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

....and bows and arrows.....and spears....

Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

And lots of a gauntlets. All the males appear to be wearing them. Gauntlets will keep LDS churches safe!  

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And lots of a gauntlets. All the males appear to be wearing them. Gauntlets will keep LDS churches safe!  

Yes, and I think it’s the loincloths that will finish the ensemble. Seriously, I want that manpurse.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[longview]

44 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Even in this incident the security guard positioned directly behind the shooter took the first shot, and missed. Luckily the bullet didn't hit anybody else, but it did give the shooter time to turn around and shoot the good guy.

I am curious as to your source for the number of counter fire shots.  This ABC News report says only one was made and it was a kill shot in the head:

"Jack Wilson, a 71-year-old former reserve deputy sheriff, took out the shotgun-wielding suspect with a single shot to the head during services at the West Freeway Church of Christ in the Fort Worth suburb of White Settlement, police and witnesses said."

"Kinnunen's sister, Amy Kinnunen, confirmed to ABC News on Monday that her brother was the gunman. She said he allegedly committed the double slaying at the church on the 10th anniversary of the suicide of their brother, Joel Kinnunen."

"Wilson said that in the chaos that broke out when the shooting started, he drew his handgun and paused to prevent shooting people standing in his line of fire."

"I only fired one round. It was the only shot I had, which was a head shot," Wilson said. "In my classes, I teach not to take head shots, but that was the only shot I had that was a clear shot and I was comfortable with taking the shot because of my training and my practice."

"Wilson said the church decided to create an armed volunteer security team about 1 1/2 years ago when the congregation moved into its new sanctuary, where Sunday's shooting occurred. The church leaders felt they needed extra protection after five homicides occurred within two miles of the church in 2018 and two homicides happened close to the church earlier this year."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story?id=67982047

[CA Steve]

In a recent shooting at a So Cal H.S., there was a security guard and three off duty armed LEO close enough to all hear the shooting. All responded as quickly as possible and yet in the 10-20 seconds it took them to get on scene the shooter still managed to kill two, wound two others and then take his own life. Having armed trained people onsite will not always prevent tragedy or even minimize it.  I am in favor of highly trained licensed people carrying guns in locations where there is a reasonable expectation of need as there seemed to be in this current shooting. I am not in favor of the average Joe deciding he needs to carry a concealed weapon thinking he is going to prevent a tragedy somewhere somehow.

Edited December 31, 2019 by CA Steve

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

In a recent shooting at a So Cal H.S., there was a security guard and three off duty armed LEO close enough to all hear the shooting. All responded as quickly as possible and yet in the 10-20 seconds it took them to get on scene the shooter still managed to kill two, wound two others and then take his own life. Having armed trained people onsite will not always prevent tragedy or even minimize it.  I am in favor of highly trained licensed people carrying guns in locations where there is a reasonable expectation of need as there seemed to be in this current shooting. I am not in favor of the average Joe deciding he needs to carry a concealed weapon thinking he is going to prevent a tragedy somewhere somehow.

Average Joes have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones, too. If they are responsible gun owners they will get training and practice.

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Not even a Prophet or Apostle, could call down angels in the spit seconds that a few round could be fired, via semi-automatic weapon could fire them. This is why, any event at the Conference Center, has metal detectors at each public entrance. Also why security is facing the congregation, at all times to protect everyone on the stand. Also guns are not puny, no matter the gun. 

I do think, to borrow and slightly alter an old adage, "The Lord protects those who protect themselves" with, e.g., metal detectors.  And I'm not suggesting that, if it's someone's time, a Priesthood holder would be able to thwart the Lord's will by calling down angels to protect someone whose time has come, but why are you, as a righteous, faithful, Priesthood holder, discounting the ability of that power to protect someone whose time has not come?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Average Joes have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones, too. If they are responsible gun owners they will get training and practice.

Some people believe that right to protect means not having guns in places where they don't need to be.  I suspect no one would say someone should be forced to accept a gun in their home.

In shared spaces, whose interpretation of that right trumps the other is what is essentially being debated imo.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some people believe that right to protect means not having guns in places where they don't need to be.  I suspect no one would say someone should be forced to accept a gun in their home.

In shared spaces, whose interpretation of that right trumps the other is what is essentially being debated imo.

Indeed. And some would say they have a right to protect themselves at all times when no other protections are provided. It’s a puzzlement.