Church gun policy announced

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Unfortunately, bad guys with guns don't care about our rights.  

And imagine if he'd had a machine gun, that's why I think they should be outlawed. 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And imagine if he'd had a machine gun, that's why I think they should be outlawed. 

They don't care about our laws either.

They are outlawed.  But so are drugs 🙄

All the more reason to protect yourself. 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unfortunately, bad guys with guns don't care about our rights.

I know a number of people who feel that good guys with guns don’t care about our rights as well.

I suspect a lot more people are emotionally troubled by presence of open or concealed carry guns than are shot by guns.  I know one that at times can’t leave the house because of that fear of how many guns are out there.

Again, I am not suggesting the solution is to ban guns, just pointing out it is much more complicated than just ensuring if a bad guy is around with guns, so is a good guy to shoot him  

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[longview]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is a good interview of the security guard who made the kill shot.  He does report that another security guard made the first shot and missed, the bullet going into the wall. 

Thank you.  Your link does indicate that Wilson was not certain if Richard White got off a shot.  Maybe forensics will establish all the particulars.  It was notable that Wilson held off shooting until he was able to get a clear line of fire.

The next thing will be to determine how he got his weapon(s).  Passing more stringent gun control laws will not solve the problem.  Criminals and the insane can simply obtain their guns through the black market.  Law abiding citizens will be more severely hampered but malcontents will have freer reign.  Chicago is a case in point:  it has the most onerous and restrictive gun laws in the country and also a very high rate of killings regardless, sometimes outstripping war zones in the Middle East.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know a number of people who feel that good guys with guns don’t care about our rights as well.

I suspect a lot more people are emotionally troubled by presence of open or concealed carry guns than are shot by guns.  I know one that at times can’t leave the house because of that fear of how many guns are out there.

Again, I am not suggesting the solution is to ban guns, just pointing out it is much more complicated than just ensuring if a bad guy is around with guns, so is a good guy to shoot him  

 

I would question whether a guy with a gun who doesn’t care about my rights, and who uses that gun to violate my rights, is a “good guy”.

I would feel more safe around a thousand good guys with guns then around one bad guy with a gun.  

I know that armed congregants won’t solve all problems and may create others, but all in all I think the benefit outweighs any risk.  Nor do I think it is the only solution, but it is one of many measures that could be taken.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would question whether a guy with a gun who doesn’t care about my rights, and who uses that gun to violate my rights, is a “good guy”.

I am just talking about people who choose to carry, not those who shoot.  There are those who believe they have a right to feel safe and guns being present in their environment isn’t safe in their view, whatever their intended purpose.

Quote

I would feel more safe around a thousand good guys with guns then around one bad guy with a gun.  

That is pretty clear, but if one doesn’t feel safe around guns period, the fact that there are a thousand guys carrying surrounding one is not reassuring even if convinced they are all good guys...because good can be coupled with stupid or clumsy or just have a bad day. 

Quote

I know that armed congregants won’t solve all problems and may create others, but all in all I think the benefit outweighs any risk.  Nor do I think it is the only solution, but it is one of many measures that could be taken.

I think how much benefit vs risks depends on how you frame the issue. 

Consider the percentage of people who likely have significant anxiety about guns present in society. Depending on where they live, they may have a very, very low probability of ever encountering a bad guy with a gun, but it is guaranteed that they are encountering someone with a gun every time they leave their home. The risk of them being shot is practically nil, the risk of them shutting down their lives due to extreme anxiety pretty high. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would question whether a guy with a gun who doesn’t care about my rights, and who uses that gun to violate my rights, is a “good guy”.

I would feel more safe around a thousand good guys with guns then around one bad guy with a gun.  

I know that armed congregants won’t solve all problems and may create others, but all in all I think the benefit outweighs any risk.  Nor do I think it is the only solution, but it is one of many measures that could be taken.

How do you think congregants' (individual and collectively) focus on Christ might be affected by the simple act of carrying a gun, given the number who would begin carrying without or despite the new policy vs. the number who would stop carrying in light of it? We can expect the world to continue to become more filled with violence, and we can hasten (or counter) the day. I'm thinking the new policy, at least for now, helps those who would otherwise overreact viscerally (and foolishly, and with less skill and propriety) to current events some room for exercising faith and focusing on Christ without going off half-cocked.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

They don't care about our laws either.

They are outlawed.  But so are drugs 🙄

All the more reason to protect yourself. 

 

Pogi, when I say machine guns, I'm talking about the legal ones like AK-47's. The ones that can take out a crowd.

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I know a number of people who feel that good guys with guns don’t care about our rights as well.

I suspect a lot more people are emotionally troubled by presence of open or concealed carry guns than are shot by guns.  I know one that at times can’t leave the house because of that fear of how many guns are out there.

Again, I am not suggesting the solution is to ban guns, just pointing out it is much more complicated than just ensuring if a bad guy is around with guns, so is a good guy to shoot him  

 

I just don't see the linkage between "good guys with guns" and the "rights" of others.  I have a definite right to protect myself and those I love, etc.,  but don't see how this interferes with anybody else's rights.

The range of phobias out there in the general population is probably almost infinite, both in terms of degree and type.  I, for one, can't be responsible and sensitive about all of someone's personal phobias and fears; especially when I'm doing nothing to directly interfere with the actual rights of these people.

You could flip your statement with my contention that I feel more secure and safe, knowing there are 'good guys' out there who open/conceal and carry.  I could claim that severely restricting their rights to do so, interferes with my 'right' to feel safe and secure.  But no, it doesn't.  However, it DOES interfere with my direct unalienable right to protect myself and those I love, etc.

You might suggest that these sensitive people you know attend a few gun shows.  This should help dampen their sensitivities.  Gun show crowds are the most polite group of people you will ever run into 😉  How could that be?

Edited December 31, 2019 by blarsen

[blarsen]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do you think congregants' (individual and collectively) focus on Christ might be affected by the simple act of carrying a gun, given the number who would begin carrying without or despite the new policy vs. the number who would stop carrying in light of it? We can expect the world to continue to become more filled with violence, and we can hasten (or counter) the day. I'm thinking the new policy, at least for now, helps those who would otherwise overreact viscerally (and foolishly, and with less skill and propriety) to current events some room for exercising faith and focusing on Christ without going off half-cocked.

I can see someone in a congregation being a bit upset by seeing a person with open carry, but can't imagine anyone being overly concerned about the possibility of the presence of people with permitted, concealed weaponry.  If they are, this suggests to me they are suffering from an overactive, fear-based imagination.

Unfortunately, violence IS generally increasing, despite what statistics you may throw out.  Ask those close to the murdered 'Mormon' kids and parents in the Juarez area about what they think of the Mexican government's proscription on their gun ownership .. . . . or those who were in the congregation of the recent tragedy in Texas.  The former group, undoubtedly remain appalled and feel defenseless at the Mexican ban on guns; the latter are overjoyed guns were present to stop the bad guy.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Pogi, when I say machine guns, I'm talking about the legal ones like AK-47's. The ones that can take out a crowd.

A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon.  An AK-47 is a semi automatic weapon, so it's not a machine gun.  But I get what you are saying. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, blarsen said:

The range of phobias out there in the general population is probably almost infinite, both in terms of degree and type.  I, for one, can't be responsible and sensitive about all of someone's personal phobias and fears; especially when I'm doing nothing to directly interfere with the actual rights of these people.

Of course almost everyone prioritized their own fears, just as you are doing when you carry because you fear the bad guys with guns.

At this time there may be no civil right in the US in many places to feel safer because guns aren't allowed in your environment, some would argue there is a moral right though.

I am currently undecided about the overall morality, there is also the morality of the immediate situation where there are guns present in the hands of many bad guys and relatively easily accessible as well.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

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. 

Large population areas such as New York City make it effectively impossible to own guns for self-defense.  Sure there are procedures for obtaining a license, but the difficulty level is so high as to make it nearly impossible, and that is intentional. Same applies in some other cities.

As to gun death rates, most such deaths are suicides.  The murder rate has actually gone down since the 1970s.  Most murders are with handguns.   https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ .   Rifles are seldom used in murders.  In fact, murder by stabbing/cutting is more common than murder with a rifle.

The rate of self-defense with a gun is impossible to calculate because such statistics are not kept by anyone, but 911 calls aplenty record such instances preventing home invasions, and there are many instances in which businesses have video of such encounters, and they can be watched on YouTube.  My question is:  Why would we want to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against murder?

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Gun show crowds are the most polite group of people you will ever run into 😉  How could that be?

Calmness (personal preparedness and confidence) invites the light of Christ, and the Spirit as the case may be, into all our interactions and strengthens us in addressing threats.

Similarly I think a "Home-based, Church-supported" approach would lean more toward the Church unit providing only the essentials of public worship and ordinances (a location and divine power), and leave more personal matters of self-preservation and self-protection to the individuals and families. The level of member protection and safety the Church unit is responsible for falls just short of the freedom of individuals to repent of bad intentions. Under the prohibition, we can always stay at home or attend as prompted by the Spirit, and likewise carry or leave our weapons at home.

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do you think congregants' (individual and collectively) focus on Christ might be affected by the simple act of carrying a gun, given the number who would begin carrying without or despite the new policy vs. the number who would stop carrying in light of it? 

We all seemed to thrive spiritually before the policy.   I would presume the majority would feel safer, allowing them to more attentively focus on Christ, knowing that good people were carrying guns in their ward.  I would. 

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We can expect the world to continue to become more filled with violence, and we can hasten (or counter) the day. I'm thinking the new policy, at least for now, helps those who would otherwise overreact viscerally (and foolishly, and with less skill and propriety) to current events some room for exercising faith and focusing on Christ without going off half-cocked.

I would argue that carrying guns is a greater counter to deadly violence in church than the current policy.  No would-be shooter will be entering the West Freeway Church of Christ ever again.  That is for sure.   I have heard of no reports of accidental or foolish incidents of guns prior to the policy. 

I wonder if this policy will be reconsidered if 30-40 brothers/sisters are murdered in a church.  I only wish that our headline could be similar to the one in Texas if, heaven forbid, that happens.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, blarsen said:

I can see someone in a congregation being a bit upset by seeing a person with open carry, but can't imagine anyone being overly concerned about the possibility of the presence of people with permitted, concealed weaponry.  If they are, this suggests to me they are suffering from an overactive, fear-based imagination.

Unfortunately, violence IS generally increasing, despite what statistics you may throw out.  Ask those close to the murdered 'Mormon' kids and parents in the Juarez area about what they think of the Mexican government's proscription on their gun ownership .. . . . or those who were in the congregation of the recent tragedy in Texas.  The former group, undoubtedly remain appalled and feel defenseless at the Mexican ban on guns; the latter are overjoyed guns were present to stop the bad guy.

I’m coming from the angle that compliance with the prohibition is a personal decision that, given the source, is to ideally be undertaken prayerfully in the case of internal debate. I think this goes far beyond grappling with what one thinks the Church “should” do.

I’m all for the position that violence is increasing, and like the prohibition, the 2nd Amendment is too much of an “eternal principle” to justify or condemn on the basis of how much violence there is around us (how much was there when the framers of the Constitution came up with it?). It is interesting to me when that which is inappropriate needs to be defined in terms of a prohibition which must be voluntarily complied with.

I think your Juarez-Texas comparison has more to do with honoring appropriate or natural rights than with violence, and with the voluntary nature of whether and when those rights are exercised than with violence.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

We all seemed to thrive spiritually before the policy.   I would presume the majority would feel safer, allowing them to more attentively focus on Christ, knowing that good people were carrying guns in their ward.  I would. 

I would argue that carrying guns is a greater counter to deadly violence in church than the current policy.  No would-be shooter will be entering the West Freeway Church of Christ ever again.  That is for sure.   I have heard of no reports of accidental or foolish incidents of guns prior to the policy. 

I wonder if this policy will be reconsidered if 30-40 brothers/sisters are murdered in a church.  I only wish that our headline could be similar to the one in Texas if, heaven forbid, that happens.

Yes, we did thrive before the policy, and when people gave little thought as to who or whether anyone was carrying or what was or wasn't appropriate. Policies can change and will be debated. 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

I think the policy meets the current need for reasons I stated earlier, and that both compliance and authentically-inspired exceptions will bring forth blessings. Otherwise we contribute to the problem, which as beneficiaries of the Gift of the Holy Ghost becomes an especially poignant decision.

I think a "Home-based, Church-supported" approach would lean more toward the Church unit providing only the essentials of public worship and ordinances (a location and divine power), and leave more personal matters of self-preservation and self-protection to the individuals and families according to the laws under which they live. The level of member protection and safety the Church unit is responsible for falls just short of the freedom of individuals to repent of bad intentions. Under the prohibition, we can always stay at home or attend as prompted by the Spirit, and likewise carry or leave our weapons at home.

[blarsen]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course almost everyone prioritized their own fears, just as you are doing when you carry because you fear the bad guys with guns.

At this time there may be no civil right in the US in many places to feel safer because guns aren't allowed in your environment, some would argue there is a moral right though.

I am currently undecided about the overall morality, there is also the morality of the immediate situation where there are guns present in the hands of many bad guys and relatively easily accessible as well.

No, self-defense is logical and based on natural law (tautological connection).  My desire to arm myself could be based entirely on my sense of responsibility or love toward my family.  Doesn't have to be fear-based, though certainly 'concern' is involved.  Your personal fears/phobias have no such requirement on my actions, especially if I have no direct awareness of them.  If I did learn of them, I would want to be polite toward you regarding any guns I might possess or be carrying.

I suspect you and I have very different experiences.  My experiences are such that I strongly believe that self-defense and protection using whatever weapon may be effective is entirely reasonable and logical.  Go back and read the quotes provided by Pogi from the early Brethren on this issue.  They are correct in their assessments..

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by blarsen

[JAHS]

I know of a few trained officers in my ward that carry to church and I am glad they do. As long as they keep it concealed there should not be a problem for all other members.
The problem comes if they should happen to show it to others while in church. I think it's not the fact that they have a gun that upsets people, but seeing it reminds them of the possibility
of the harm it could cause or that it might have to be used and that is what scares them and might disrupt their worship. 

[blarsen]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, we did thrive before the policy, and when people gave little thought as to who or whether anyone was carrying or what was or wasn't appropriate. Policies can change and will be debated. 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

I think the policy meets the current need for reasons I stated earlier, and that both compliance and authentically-inspired exceptions will bring forth blessings. Otherwise we contribute to the problem, which as beneficiaries of the Gift of the Holy Ghost becomes an especially poignant decision.

I think a "Home-based, Church-supported" approach would lean more toward the Church unit providing only the essentials of public worship and ordinances (a location and divine power), and leave more personal matters of self-preservation and self-protection to the individuals and families according to the laws under which they live. The level of member protection and safety the Church unit is responsible for falls just short of the freedom of individuals to repent of bad intentions. Under the prohibition, we can always stay at home or attend as prompted by the Spirit, and likewise carry or leave our weapons at home.

It's interesting that Pres. Nelson had a directly experience w/gun violence directed against him and his group while on a tour in Africa.  I believe he did have guards with him, but they may have been prevented from being armed under those circumstances.

Self-protection for individuals and families is indeed based in natural law and entirely reasonable.  The problem is, the Church seems to be be undermining that connection; and even though I may feel compelled, even by the Spirit, to go to Church armed, I'm going to be conflicted by my understanding that the Church currently forbids it.

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon.  An AK-47 is a semi automatic weapon, so it's not a machine gun.  But I get what you are saying. 

Last I remembered, AK-47s, AR-15s can be set to fully automatic when used in combat.  Their automatic governors are dismantled/rendered ineffective for these rifles sold in this country.

Edited December 31, 2019 by blarsen

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I am conflicted because the Conference Center has armed security, as I have been told to protect those on the stand, but we are told not to have weapons. In short, I will obey the Prophet, but as retired police, I know all too well the evil in the world, and living in an Atlanta suburb, where I served as an Atlanta Police Officer. I am aware not all Wards don’t have trained security, but our Ward has two retired officers. Largely rural areas don’t have the same kind of crimes, areas around ours, we have armed robbery’s and shooting as most urban areas do.  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I want neither.

We all want neither, we all hope and pray that nothing evil could happen, nor the need to for anyone to protect people in any place of worship. But, sadly we don’t live in such a world, as current events tell us. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

It's interesting that Pres. Nelson had a directly experience w/gun violence directed against him and his group while on a tour in Africa.  I believe he did have guards with him, but they may have been prevented from being armed under those circumstances.

Self-protection for individuals and families is indeed based in natural law and entirely reasonable.  The problem is, the Church seems to be be undermining that connection; and even though I may feel compelled, even by the Spirit, to go to Church armed, I'm going to be conflicted by my understanding that the Church currently forbids it.

I respect policies but they are malleable in application according to circumstances. From my experience, the Holy Ghost comforts us in these areas of seeming conflict. Eventually Nephi felt OK about killing Laban in that he learned and matured  from the experience (which may have contributed to his willingness to arm, train and marshal his people). The first generation of Anti-Nephi-Lehies buried their weapons for their lifetime. The Church isn't going to either extreme, and supports the rights and protections granted in all the countries in which she is established. I see supporting our right to bear arms and protect ourselves at home comes before public settings, gatherings and assemblies and because our government provides them, state and national protection. It makes sense to me that the Church is also keeping in mind the formula given  in D&C 98 (three testimonies, among other principles).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I am conflicted because the Conference Center has armed security, as I have been told to protect those on the stand, but we are told not to have weapons. In short, I will obey the Prophet, but as retired police, I know all too well the evil in the world, and living in an Atlanta suburb, where I served as an Atlanta Police Officer. I am aware not all Wards don’t have trained security, but our Ward has two retired officers. Largely rural areas don’t have the same kind of crimes, areas around ours, we have armed robbery’s and shooting as most urban areas do.  

The think such differences in practice and policy for the different venues may have to do with careful documentation and after-action review of experiences with violent attacks and with risk assessment, perhaps including local laws and insurance requirements.