Church gun policy announced

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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?

Didn’t work at Carthage, Haun’s Mill, or Cane Creek.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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? 

Many schools, churches, and synagogues are designated "gun free zones."  So, yes, it seems safe for madmen to target them.  However, you may have noticed that Sunday (yesterday), in a church near Ft Worth, a guy opened fire with a shotgun.  Fortunately, an armed and well-trained security team was able to shoot the man and prevent a larger casualty figure (2 dead).  The Attorney General of Texas praised that church for being prepared.  In Texas, a concealed carry license holder can carry a firearm in any church.  This is prohibited in Utah.

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, longview said:

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:

From the article I linked above:

When Kinnunen stood up and pulled out a shotgun, White stood and drew his weapon, Wilson said.

"Wilson said the gunman, identified Monday as Keith Kinnunen, had drawn the attention of the security team when he first entered the church because he was wearing a long coat, fake wig and a fake beard. Wilson said White went to sit behind Kinnunen and that the church's A/V team trained a camera on him to keep a closer eye on him.

Richard did get his gun out of the holster, he was, I think, able to get a shot off but it ended up going into the wall. The shooter had turned, shot him and then shot Tony [Wallace], and then started to turn to go to the front of the auditorium," Wilson recalled.

This is being presented  as a clear example of why guns should be allowed in places of worship, but I'm not convinced. The lives of those two security team members might have been saved without any shots fired, had someone simply asked the guy wearing sunglasses and a long coat why he was wearing a fake beard to church. Instead they let the guy go in and sit amongst hundreds of people and surrounded him with armed security as a prevention, which saved the lives of many but cost the lives of two security guards.

[The Nehor]

4 hours 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. 

But an armed congregant can take out the attacker in a split second and is faster than the angels of God? I do not buy either one.

[Bernard Gui]

35 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

From the article I linked above:

When Kinnunen stood up and pulled out a shotgun, White stood and drew his weapon, Wilson said.

"Wilson said the gunman, identified Monday as Keith Kinnunen, had drawn the attention of the security team when he first entered the church because he was wearing a long coat, fake wig and a fake beard. Wilson said White went to sit behind Kinnunen and that the church's A/V team trained a camera on him to keep a closer eye on him.

Richard did get his gun out of the holster, he was, I think, able to get a shot off but it ended up going into the wall. The shooter had turned, shot him and then shot Tony [Wallace], and then started to turn to go to the front of the auditorium," Wilson recalled.

This is being presented  as a clear example of why guns should be allowed in places of worship, but I'm not convinced. The lives of those two security team members might have been saved without any shots fired, had someone simply asked the guy wearing sunglasses and a long coat why he was wearing a fake beard to church. Instead they let the guy go in and sit amongst hundreds of people and surrounded him with armed security as a prevention, which saved the lives of many but cost the lives of two security guards.

Hindsight is perfect, isn’t it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But an armed congregant can take out the attacker in a split second and is faster than the angels of God? I do not buy either one.

In Texas it took 5 seconds for the man. Angels showed up later.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

From the article I linked above:

When Kinnunen stood up and pulled out a shotgun, White stood and drew his weapon, Wilson said.

"Wilson said the gunman, identified Monday as Keith Kinnunen, had drawn the attention of the security team when he first entered the church because he was wearing a long coat, fake wig and a fake beard. Wilson said White went to sit behind Kinnunen and that the church's A/V team trained a camera on him to keep a closer eye on him.

Richard did get his gun out of the holster, he was, I think, able to get a shot off but it ended up going into the wall. The shooter had turned, shot him and then shot Tony [Wallace], and then started to turn to go to the front of the auditorium," Wilson recalled.

This is being presented  as a clear example of why guns should be allowed in places of worship, but I'm not convinced. The lives of those two security team members might have been saved without any shots fired, had someone simply asked the guy wearing sunglasses and a long coat why he was wearing a fake beard to church. Instead they let the guy go in and sit amongst hundreds of people and surrounded him with armed security as a prevention, which saved the lives of many but cost the lives of two security guards.

Hindsight is 20/20.  In real life, one seldom has such advance warning.  In fact, most events don't follow that unusual sequence.  In fact, most shooting crimes have no warning at all, and are often perpetrated by normal-looking people, usually someone you know or who is a relative.

Without police or a security team already on scene before the shooting, the likelihood is a lot of people dead.  You need to ask:  Do we want a lot of dead people, or do we want armed security at church?

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hindsight is 20/20.  In real life, one seldom has such advance warning.  In fact, most events don't follow that unusual sequence.  In fact, most shooting crimes have no warning at all, and are often perpetrated by normal-looking people, usually someone you know or who is a relative.

Without police or a security team already on scene before the shooting, the likelihood is a lot of people dead.  You need to ask:  Do we want a lot of dead people, or do we want armed security at church?

I want neither.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hindsight is perfect, isn’t it.

I figured that'd be the response.

Everyone is guessing that if those congregants didn't have guns there would have been a lot more people killed. Maybe true. But still, two people were killed, and nobody seems to be asking the more obvious question why a guy wearing a wig and sunglasses with a fake beard was allowed to carry a shotgun into a church.

So looking back on this shooting, in hindsight, what would you propose to prevent the loss of life that did happen. 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In real life, one seldom has such advance warning. 

My point is that advanced warning will become much more difficult once everyone carrying guns (even shotguns) into church has become a normal thing. Its much easier to see the red flags when everyone (except perhaps the trained security) is required to check their weapons at the door.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

......................................................

Everyone is guessing that if those congregants didn't have guns there would have been a lot more people killed. Maybe true. But still, two people were killed, and nobody seems to be asking the more obvious question why a guy wearing a wig and sunglasses with a fake beard was allowed to carry a shotgun into a church.

So looking back on this shooting, in hindsight, what would you propose to prevent the loss of life that did happen. 

In church and synagogue shootings without security the loss of life has been high.  We don't need to guess about it.

Police regularly go through active shooter drills to prevent loss of life.  However, perfect preparation is not possible.  In law enforcement, as well as in ordinary life, events can quickly get out of hand, even when scenarios are well thought out beforehand.  All we can do is the best we can.

I recall once decades ago in the downtown of a big city a candidate with Secret Service protection got up on a stand and spoke to the crowd.  Then he jumped down into the thick of the crowd and began shaking hands.  I saw the direction he was headed, so got in a good position to have a short word with him -- which worked out just fine.  However, I noticed the Secret Service quickly working the crowd.  They moved quickly before the candidate, lightly frisking people without anyone actually realizing it.  They even frisked me.  They were very professional about it.  Would have made great pickpockets.  

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My point is that advanced warning will become much more difficult once everyone carrying guns (even shotguns) into church has become a normal thing. Its much easier to see the red flags when everyone (except perhaps the trained security) is required to check their weapons at the door.

In Utah, no one can carry at church, except active and retired law enforcement.  No security team will ordinarily be present.  Only states like Texas might have a security team, and those team members will certainly know all the parishioners.  In many states, it is not possible to legally own a gun of any kind, even for home defense.

Stable, law-abiding citizens have never been the real problem.  Only terrorists and the mentally unstable pose a risk.

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In many states, it is not possible to legally own a gun of any kind, even for home defense.

There is no state in this country where it is "not possible to legally own a gun of any kind," and in the majority of states, you can legally arrange to purchase an AR-15 out of the trunk of someone's car without showing any ID of any kind. There are ways to mitigate our wildly disproportionate firearm mortality rate, and a grand total of zero of them involve making guns easier to access. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

and a grand total of zero of them involve making guns easier to access. 

Not zero.

I am sure the congregants in Texas were grateful that guns for good guys were easy to access too. 

Banning guns in church or making them illegal only disarms the good guys and gives greater power to the bad guys.

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[CV75]

12 hours 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? 

Policies can change. But I think more importantly, President Nelson recently said:

"...in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.

"My beloved brothers and sisters, I plead with you to increase your spiritual capacity to receive revelation. ...Choose to do the spiritual work required to enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost and hear the voice of the Spirit more frequently and more clearly."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives?lang=eng

[provoman]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Didn’t work at Carthage, Haun’s Mill, or Cane Creek.

It is my understanding that the Prophet counseled those not to go to Haun's Mill. 

[pogi]

14 hours 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." 

This is very true, but if good guys are armed, the incident will likely be over long before law enforcement arrives.  This incident in Texas was over in 6 seconds!  Average police response time is anywhere from 5 to 12 minutes, depending on where you live.  If 2 people were killed in 6 seconds, imagine how many lives would have been lost in 5-12 minutes waiting for police!  I'd say it is worth the risk.  Granted it ended quickly because there was a security team who had previously identified him as suspicious, but regular congregants had identified him as suspicious too.  If they were armed, I am sure they would have kept an eye on him the whole time.  I would have! The bad guy will usually be down before law enforcement arrives in situations like this though.  He is a sitting duck when he doesn't know who is armed and who isn't. 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

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

This halting might be considered to be a stupor of thought, or an openness to the promptings of the Spirit at all times and all places ("if the Lord be God, follow him"). Preparedness is typically associated with the latter.

Edited December 31, 2019 by CV75

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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?

Just curious, what good would a metal detector be if everyone else is unarmed?

What good would questioning the guy be if everyone else is unarmed?

Anyway, I think most mass shootings don't have concealed weapons, they just walk in guns blazing.  Metal detectors and unarmed security guard standing by to ask him questions ain't gonna help.  

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

15 hours ago, longview said:

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:

Here is a good interview of the security guard who made the kill shot. 

"Richard actually got his gun out of the holster according to the videos that I've seen and I think he got a shot off as he was being hit but it went into the wall," Wilson said. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/church-shooting-texas-jack-wilson-man-who-killed-gunman-speaks-out-today-2019-12-30/

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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?

I asked the same question of Rajah - how is a metal detector going to protect anyone if everyone inside is unarmed?

I like this quote from Brigham Young:

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.)

And this one:

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

And this from Joseph Smith:

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.)

And this from Heber C. Kimball:

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)

I posted these in another thread, but I think they are good for everyone to read and consider here. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

What good would questioning the guy be if everyone else is unarmed

If close to him and aware with multiple people, it might be possible to grab and restrain him if he starts pulling out a gun. 

A metal detector is likely to cause hesitation just because it gives a warning plus I would assume it would be manned which means someone looking for warning signs and prepared to act within close distance. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

It is my understanding that the Prophet counseled those not to go to Haun's Mill. 
 

Perhaps. It didn’t turn out well for them.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

If close to him and aware with multiple people, it might be possible to grab and restrain him if he starts pulling out a gun. 

It's possible it could have worked in this unusual scenario, but probably not most.  I wouldn't feel confident with that approach.  Most active shooters are not blatantly suspicious like this guy was, and most don't give an opportunity to question or get near them, they just walk in with guns blazing.  

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Some people believe that right to protect means not having guns in places where they don't need to be.

Unfortunately, bad guys with guns don't care about our rights.  A policy that prohibits guns from entering a church isn't going to detract a would-be shooter.  Making guns illegal wont work either.  Metal detectors won't work.  Nothing short of pure self-defense, fighting for your own life is what congregants have to rely on for at least 5 to 12 minutes as they wait for police to arrive.  

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi