Church gun policy announced

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the policy meets the current need for reasons I stated earlier

I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't agree with this here. I don't believe that we would suffer spiritually if the policy was not in place.  I think many may suffer both physically and spiritually because of it eventually, to be honest.   

Quote

 

...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."

 

Heber C. Kimbal had no problem maintaining the spirit of revelation while he kept "100 shots on hand at all times", and encouraged all members to do the same.

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

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. 

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. 

I don't think we should live in a way that tries to accommodate everybody’s anxieties and psychological issues.  People have all sorts of weird fears, I don't want to say that I am not empathetic, but we can't realistically sacrifice our own actual constitutional rights to bear arms and to defend our families and personal safety to accommodate the psychological fears of others.  They may "believe" that they have a right to feel safe, but they are mistaken.  It goes both ways you know.  Some people don't feel safe when they are not armed.  Again, it is impossible to please both. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by pogi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Something to add, unless in Church I am rarely unarmed, and those with me feel safe. I think that the media drives much of the fear of guns, I own many, and got yet another for Christmas, as I am a collector. Not a single gun I own has ever harmed anyone, but have saved some. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

think that the media drives much of the fear of guns, I own many, and got yet another for Christmas, as I am a collector

I think the media drives much of the sire for guns as well.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't agree with this here. I don't believe that we would suffer spiritually if the policy was not in place.  I think many may suffer both physically and spiritually because of it eventually, to be honest.   

Heber C. Kimbal had no problem maintaining the spirit of revelation while he kept "100 shots on hand at all times", and encouraged all members to do the same.

I'm not sure where or how I conveyed that we would suffer spiritually without the policy. The reason I was referring to is that the new policy, at least for now, creates some space for those who would otherwise overreact viscerally (and foolishly, and with less skill and propriety) to current events to exercise faith and focus on Christ without going off half-cocked. The policy is fairly temporal (granted all things are spiritual, and the aim to create a reverent and spiritual as well as a physically safe environment). Protection and safety policies come out of the Presiding Bishopric for this reason, but our spirituality can be assessed and improved depending on how we respond to them.

And as you can see between Heber C. Kimball's pointer and the current policy, such things do change.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

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

I'm not sure how your question relates to mine, especially since I said I don't favor disarming the general populace.  Perhaps you could clarify.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think the media drives much of the sire for guns as well.

You edited out the facts that my guns have never harmed anyone, but protected others. Guns cannot harm anyone, unless used by the truly evil. At least, unless they are harming the truly evil. 
 

ETA: Or by those with no training, who should never get a carry permit. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Provoman already pointed out that one of the [major] reasons the Haun's Mill Massacre occurred is because people failed to heed the prophet's counsel.  As for Carthage, do you doubt the Lord's promise to Joseph in Doctrine and Covenants 122:9 (I don't think you do, I'm simply asking to spur discussion, and I would like to hear your thoughts)?

Quote

Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds [that is, the bounds of Joseph's enemies] are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.

Personally, I don't doubt the Lord's promise to Joseph (and I doubt you do, either).  I think Brother Joseph was a man of his time who accomplished his mission, and Brother Brigham, in turn, was a man of his time who accomplished his mission.  Do you doubt the Lord's assurance that "all flesh is in [His] hand"?  (See Doctrine & Covenants 61:6)?  

As for Cane Creek, that's a bit more complicated than simple straight-up religious persecution or anti-religious violence.  In no way am I excusing what happened to the Saints in the area, but polygyny complicated a lot of such matters.  Are you aware of whether Priesthood was invoked or whether angels specifically were called down in such instances, only to have the invocation fall on deaf ears or angels fail to descend?

[blarsen]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

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).

I can't disagree with this, but believe I'm still responsible for my safety and that of my family in public settings, as well as potentially being able to help  protect others in my vicinity in those settings, in sofar as possible.  The "three testimonies" rule simply doesn't apply in emergency situations where immediate action is demanded.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How did my thread title change? 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

Are you suggesting that we have a choice to bring a firearm to Church, even though Utah law prohibits it?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

Fully automatic weapons (a weapon that keeps firing when you hold down the trigger until you release it or the magazine is empty) are all but illegal already. They were very heavily regulated back in the 1930s during the Capone era. Then in the 1980s it became illegal to purchase new ones outside of a few arcane and rare cases. If you want a machine gun now it take about a year of background checks through the FBI and you have to find a seller and the cost is at least five figures (including several government fees) and you are getting a decades old weapon.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you suggesting that we have a choice to bring a firearm to Church, even though Utah law prohibits it?

You have the choice to break the law.  It is highly unlikely this law will get enforced unless something else is going on, imo...so people can now call the cops if there is someone acting suspiciously by saying "I think they may have a gun".

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

You have the choice to break the law.  It is highly unlikely this law will get enforced unless something else is going on, imo...so people can now call the cops if there is someone acting suspiciously by saying "I think they may have a gun".

So, at temple recommend interview time, what should be our reply to the question about dealing with others honestly?  What happens when we get caught with that concealed pistol?

[Calm]

You need to ask those willing to go that route.

[Peacefully]

This incident happened about four miles from my home and three miles from our chapel so it really did hit “close to home.” The person who killed the shooter was well-trained by all accounts and even owned a gun range for many years. I’m thankful he was the right person in the right place to handle the situation.

I have mixed emotions about not being allowed to conceal carry in our chapels. I don’t have a gun or license to carry, but I know many who do, and it doesn’t bother me if they conceal carry or even open carry. However, if our prophet says we should not carry in church then I think we should follow his counsel. The church belongs to everyone and we all have a right to feel safe, but where does my right to feel safe by carrying end and your right to feel safe because I am not carrying begin? It seems like a trained, armed security team may be the way to go. Sad that it has come to this.

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

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

Same way metal detectors and questioning/searching has worked for us for decades in airplanes and other places where we all agree that guns just don't belong. 

Imagine you're at the cineplex waiting to watch a movie. You notice a suspicious fellow wearing a wig, fake beard, sunglasses and a shotgun (he has an open-carry permit) poking out of his long coat seated next to you. There are two theaters screening the film. Theater A has a strict no-gun policy with metal detectors and security guards at the door to question anybody who might try to enter with a gun. No one can enter the theater without first removing their coats and any other suspicious items that might conceal their identity. Theater B has a guns-are-welcome policy, everyone is free to defend themselves in any way that they choose, and instead of a security team at the door, there are cameras installed in the theater to keep an eye on the suspicious types.

Which theater would a would-be shooter with a deathwish for himself most likely choose? Which theater would you choose?

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Same way metal detectors and questioning/searching has worked for us for decades in airplanes and other places where we all agree that guns just don't belong. 

Imagine you're at the cineplex waiting to watch a movie. You notice a suspicious fellow wearing a wig, fake beard, sunglasses and a shotgun (he has an open-carry permit) poking out of his long coat seated next to you. There are two theaters screening the film. Theater A has a strict no-gun policy with metal detectors and security guards at the door to question anybody who might try to enter with a gun. No one can enter the theater without first removing their coats and any other suspicious items that might conceal their identity. Theater B has a guns-are-welcome policy, everyone is free to defend themselves in any way that they choose, and instead of a security team at the door, there are cameras installed in the theater to keep an eye on the suspicious types.

Which theater would a would-be shooter with a deathwish for himself most likely choose? Which theater would you choose?

For a metal detector to be effective someone has to man it and to have a prayer of stopping a shooter that person, or ideally, more than one has to be armed and you would need a station to cover all entrances. It would be cost prohibitive for the Church especially if you cannot find anyone to volunteer to be the security. It would also require redesigning and renovating almost all of our chapels to get them down to one or two entry points.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

For a metal detector to be effective someone has to man it and to have a prayer of stopping a shooter that person, or ideally, more than one has to be armed and you would need a station to cover all entrances. It would be cost prohibitive for the Church especially if you cannot find anyone to volunteer to be the security. It would also require redesigning and renovating almost all of our chapels to get them down to one or two entry points.

With the media coverage this Texas shooting is getting there may be no other choice for the Church. Its either provide increased security at the door or reverse the no-gun policy. Banning guns without providing security is a controversy waiting to happen.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Same way metal detectors and questioning/searching has worked for us for decades in airplanes and other places where we all agree that guns just don't belong. 

Imagine you're at the cineplex waiting to watch a movie. You notice a suspicious fellow wearing a wig, fake beard, sunglasses and a shotgun (he has an open-carry permit) poking out of his long coat seated next to you. There are two theaters screening the film. Theater A has a strict no-gun policy with metal detectors and security guards at the door to question anybody who might try to enter with a gun. No one can enter the theater without first removing their coats and any other suspicious items that might conceal their identity. Theater B has a guns-are-welcome policy, everyone is free to defend themselves in any way that they choose, and instead of a security team at the door, there are cameras installed in the theater to keep an eye on the suspicious types.

Which theater would a would-be shooter with a deathwish for himself most likely choose? Which theater would you choose?

False choice.  A TSA style search screen would result in $100 tickets, making it impossible to own and operate a theater.  Might as well stay home and get it on Netflix.

In any case, criminals or terrorists seldom don fake beards, wigs, etc.  They can get a girlfriend to let them in an exit surreptitiously anyhow.  There are simply too many ways to escape notice.  The sheeple are just waiting in the dark to meet their destiny . . . 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False choice.  A TSA style search screen would result in $100 tickets, making it impossible to own and operate a theater.  Might as well stay home and get it on Netflix.

In any case, criminals or terrorists seldom don fake beards, wigs, etc.  They can get a girlfriend to let them in an exit surreptitiously anyhow.  There are simply too many ways to escape notice.  The sheeple are just waiting in the dark to meet their destiny . . . 

You're right. So I can see the reasoning behind the argument for guns in every space, except those spaces where the risks outweigh the costs. 

[ERMD]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fully automatic weapons (a weapon that keeps firing when you hold down the trigger until you release it or the magazine is empty) are all but illegal already. They were very heavily regulated back in the 1930s during the Capone era. Then in the 1980s it became illegal to purchase new ones outside of a few arcane and rare cases. If you want a machine gun now it take about a year of background checks through the FBI and you have to find a seller and the cost is at least five figures (including several government fees) and you are getting a decades old weapon.

ATF, not FBI.  😉

[ERMD]

I see the Church policy as more of an effort to limit liability than anything else.  Note no one asks/checks if anyone is carrying.

Google "Sutherland Springs shooting."  This happened 15 miles from where I work, and many victims were brought to my Emergency Department.  The chances of this happening in any one place are small, but the threat is real.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Same way metal detectors and questioning/searching has worked for us for decades in airplanes and other places where we all agree that guns just don't belong. 

The difference is that there are armed security guards at those locations.  Without armed security guards, metal detectors are pointless.

If a would-be shooter wanted to target an LDS chapel, a metal detector and greeters waiting to welcome/question him aren’t going to detract him in the slightest.  He isn’t going to choose the theater next door because of it.

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difference is that there are armed security guards at those locations.  Without armed security guards, metal detectors are pointless.

If a would-be shooter wanted to target an LDS chapel, a metal detector and greeters waiting to welcome/question him aren’t going to detract him in the slightest.  He isn’t going to choose the theater next door because of it.

Sorry, I'm lost as to what is being proposed. The Texas church had trained security guards in place to track suspicious characters. That's how this shooter was taken out so quickly. There were people tasked with that responsibility. Are you in favor of armed security volunteers in LDS churches?