Church gun policy announced

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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?

No, I’m suggesting that if some congregants are armed, it would save more lives then a metal detector or unarmed greeters/questioners (your proposition).  I think that would be a huge waste of money.  I am simply proposing that the policy be removed and allow congregants the liberty of a fighting chance to defend themselves before police arrive.

Edited January 1, 2020 by pogi

[Dan McClellan]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

The difficulty level is not high. There is an application for a handgun license or a rifle/shotgun permit, and then there's an interview and a background check. What is a lot more difficult is getting a concealed carry permit. These things make it more difficult than it is in places like Texas and Utah, where I can get online and have someone ship me a used AR-15 in the mail without ever showing any ID of any kind whatsoever, but this is the reason that New York state has the third-lowest firearm mortality rate in the entire country. 

Quote

As to gun death rates, most such deaths are suicides. 

And access to a firearm is one of the strongest predictors of both attempted and completed suicide. Firearm suicides are no less a gun violence problem than firearm homicides and accidental deaths.

Quote

The murder rate has actually gone down since the 1970s. 

It went down into the 80s and then spiked in the 90s and has gone down since (thanks largely to the implementation of more firearm legislation following the Brady Bill) until 2014, at which point it has started spiking again. The firearm homicide rate has been increasing each year since 2014, and the firearm suicide rate has been steadily climbing for over a decade. 

Quote

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.

That's correct. That's why handguns are harder to get than rifles in the states that have effective legislation. 

Quote

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. 

And even with all those methods for tracking DGUs, owning a gun still statistically puts one at greater risk. It is far safer in the United States not to own a gun.

Quote

My question is:  Why would we want to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against murder?

We don't want to prevent that. What we want to prevent is people who shouldn't have access to guns having access to guns. The easier it is to access a gun, the higher the firearm mortality rate. That's simply a fact. We can make it so law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves can effectively do do while also making it so people who shouldn't have guns have a more difficult time accessing them.

My question is: why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, blarsen said:

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.

Absolutely. I am pointing to what I see as some of the rationale for the policy as it currently stands. I think of President Faust's talk reflecting the Savior's attitude about this sort of thing: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/04/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng , as well as the sense of covenant sacrifice and consecration we have in relation to the Church and neighbors in addition to our more personal relationships, an extreme example being Alma 14:8-15.

[CV75]

11 hours 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?

Naturally we always have a choice, and I will grant that sometimes the Spirit might prompt someone to "transgress the law," but that certainly isn't my default position. My go-to is to  respect the policy and obey the law,  expecting that I am properly informed, guided and strengthened by the numerous spiritual principles I've referred to in earlier responses.

[BlueDreams]

This is something i’ll never fully understand. It likely doesn’t help that i have a husband who’s not from this country where gun culture is just not a thing really. And likewise, school/church/name-your-civic center shootings aren’t a thing. The conversation and justifications always sound culturally circular. 
- we need a gun to protect ourselves from guns

—> why don’t you start regulating who gets a gun through licensing practices and enforced laws and work to get rid of guns most likely to be publically dangerous

- but that’s infringing on my gun rights and then we wouldn’t have as many guns and who would stop the bad guy

—> umm, law enforcement and hopefully policies and legal blocks that keep bad guys from guns. 


- but 2nd ammendment! And who will protect us from the government (like said police officers that somehow also are strong venerated in the same breath as saying we need to fight them if things go south) 

—> you mean the one that talks about a WELL REGULATED militia? That one? How does a bazillion guns to whoever’s got the cash sound like well regulated? 
 

- well we have laws and they don’t work so the best answer is a gun for all

- ...or working to make them universal and enforced and adding a licensing procedure and mandatory training....you know regulations. 

etc

where the conclusion must always be guns are good or safe, then there tends to be some weird dissonance when they’re obviously not or there may be serious consequences to having them at the level we do. And it becomes self-fulfilling: we need guns because it’s our right to have them. We have guns because we need them to protect us from others who have gun. The only realistic answer to a gun violence problem is more guns thrown at it. 
 

On the church end i’m glad for the policy. Logistically, to make it safe in an international church with millions of members and thousands of ideas of what proper training involves and a place running with curious children, it’s bound to be a liability over time.

Of course this is biased since guns do not make me feel particularly safe. I don’t want one in my home ever. I’ve shot them in activities, understand them enough to do so but i also see  the risks far outweighing the potential benefit. I still remember the first time I thought in therapy that the person i was seeing shouldnt have a gun...that they were a potential danger to themselves or others...but because they’d purchased them legally and there’s minimal known avenues to remove access, it was up to them to regulate themselves. I would prefer a massive change in culture that doesn’t  assume the answer to violence must be more violence. 
 

this story to me as an example of a potential benefit  to having guns in church still falls short to me. 2 people are still dead, one trained guard misfired and could have harmed a parishioner, they could have chosen other safety avenues such as stopping him at the door to check for weapons or calling the cops at the first sign something was wrong. And well before then there could have been means and ways to stop or reduce the likelihood this man even had a gun in the first place. There are so many other avenues that could be in place to reduce violence and protect lives that aren’t explored when the answer is reduced to “good guys with gun stops bad guy with gun.” Without looking at them and really reckoning with our culture that extols guns as a right and a protection, we’re proverbially shooting ourselves in the foot when it really comes to protecting human life. 
 

with luv,

BD 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

They could focus on providing security for high risk areas at this point.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/gun-violence-shooting-map-data/

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

I would like to see studies done on the best solutions for both short and long term benefits.  There may be a cost to a long term solution in the short term, but if the long term is found to be the best solution gun deaths of non perpetrators (and hopefully perpetrators) in our lifetimes, living with a higher short term increase seems rational to me.

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This is something i’ll never fully understand. It likely doesn’t help that i have a husband who’s not from this country where gun culture is just not a thing really. And likewise, school/church/name-your-civic center shootings aren’t a thing. The conversation and justifications always sound culturally circular. 
- we need a gun to protect ourselves from guns

—> why don’t you start regulating who gets a gun through licensing practices and enforced laws and work to get rid of guns most likely to be publically dangerous

- but that’s infringing on my gun rights and then we wouldn’t have as many guns and who would stop the bad guy

—> umm, law enforcement and hopefully policies and legal blocks that keep bad guys from guns. 


- but 2nd ammendment! And who will protect us from the government (like said police officers that somehow also are strong venerated in the same breath as saying we need to fight them if things go south) 

—> you mean the one that talks about a WELL REGULATED militia? That one? How does a bazillion guns to whoever’s got the cash sound like well regulated? 
 

- well we have laws and they don’t work so the best answer is a gun for all

- ...or working to make them universal and enforced and adding a licensing procedure and mandatory training....you know regulations. 

etc

where the conclusion must always be guns are good or safe, then there tends to be some weird dissonance when they’re obviously not or there may be serious consequences to having them at the level we do. And it becomes self-fulfilling: we need guns because it’s our right to have them. We have guns because we need them to protect us from others who have gun. The only realistic answer to a gun violence problem is more guns thrown at it. 
 

On the church end i’m glad for the policy. Logistically, to make it safe in an international church with millions of members and thousands of ideas of what proper training involves and a place running with curious children, it’s bound to be a liability over time.

Of course this is biased since guns do not make me feel particularly safe. I don’t want one in my home ever. I’ve shot them in activities, understand them enough to do so but i also see  the risks far outweighing the potential benefit. I still remember the first time I thought in therapy that the person i was seeing shouldnt have a gun...that they were a potential danger to themselves or others...but because they’d purchased them legally and there’s minimal known avenues to remove access, it was up to them to regulate themselves. I would prefer a massive change in culture that doesn’t  assume the answer to violence must be more violence. 
 

this story to me as an example of a potential benefit  to having guns in church still falls short to me. 2 people are still dead, one trained guard misfired and could have harmed a parishioner, they could have chosen other safety avenues such as stopping him at the door to check for weapons or calling the cops at the first sign something was wrong. And well before then there could have been means and ways to stop or reduce the likelihood this man even had a gun in the first place. There are so many other avenues that could be in place to reduce violence and protect lives that aren’t explored when the answer is reduced to “good guys with gun stops bad guy with gun.” Without looking at them and really reckoning with our culture that extols guns as a right and a protection, we’re proverbially shooting ourselves in the foot when it really comes to protecting human life. 
 

with luv,

BD 

 

This!!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It’s good to know that ark steadying is allowed on conservative issues like guns and immigration. 

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

 . . .  It is far safer in the United States not to own a gun . . . .

 . . . .My question is: why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?

Statistically, that may be indicated.  On a personal basis, however, I think if you chose to be gunless and experienced an episode where you could have prevented harm and/or injury to you or your loved one if you had been armed, you would be less inclined toward being gunless.

One of the statistics that is ignored in this debate are the relatively high numbers of incidents where a firearm saved someone or prevented a dangerous attack in the first place.

Regarding your last question, its not that gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people "who shouldn't have [access] to guns", it's more an aversion to letting the State control this process and decide who shouldn't have access.    We tend to be anti-statist, liberty loving folk with this regard, and often point to where governments have thoroughly abused these kinds of powers, resulting in millions of deaths.

We tend to love the idea that government is aware of the high number of guns in this country, and generally doesn't like it, nor do other countries:  ref. the recent statement from China speaking out against the high gun ownership in this country.  We make note how the many and myriad left-leaning Statists are doing everything they can to ban all guns, and have also noticed how the first anti-gun legislation is often the first foot-in-the-door to this process.

All of this would be less of an issue if we had a very culturally cohesive society with strong, healthy universal mores, but we don't. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by blarsen

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, blarsen said:

One of the statistics that is ignored in this debate are the relatively high numbers of incidents where a firearm saved someone or prevented a dangerous attack in the first place.

Compare that to the pain of a possible death averted if only there wasn't an easily accessible firearm in the house when someone was suicidal.

Are more lives saved by having a firearm than taken in suicide and accidental shootings?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

Edited January 1, 2020 by Calm

[longview]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s good to know that ark steadying is allowed on conservative issues like guns and immigration. 

Captain Moroni demonstrated tremendous wisdom and persuasion in fortifying defenses and overcoming the nasty totalitarians (internal threats, aka King Men) and resisting Lamanite thieves/slavers (marauders and invaders).  Teaching the principles of self reliance and careful preparation.  Those things are NOT to be equated with "ark steadying."  You are just being trite.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

No, I’m suggesting that if some congregants are armed, it would save more lives then a metal detector or unarmed greeters/questioners (your proposition).  I think that would be a huge waste of money.  I am simply proposing that the policy be removed and allow congregants the liberty of a fighting chance to defend themselves before police arrive.

They still have that liberty with the policy in place. The policy has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment in the USA or the laws of any particular jurisdiction, and certainly it is not intended to supersede them. If someone would rather not attend Church because he cannot carry a weapon onto the premises, or would rather carry one into the chapel anyway, that is between him and the Lord. The policy itself is currently determined by those responsible for our congregations to provide the best general balance between safety and public worship.

Edited January 1, 2020 by CV75

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Compare that to the pain of a possible death averted if only there wasn't an easily accessible firearm in the house when someone was suicidal.

Are more lives saved by having a firearm than taken in suicide and accidental shootings?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

Really tough to compare different tragedies, even in a semi-quantitative sense.  And there is a lot of controversy regarding the various statistics involved.

People bent on suicide have a lot of different options, but protecting oneself at a distance normally devolves toward guns.  Guns are called the great equalizer for a reason.  One group that particularly loves them for self defense are women who have suffered rape.

And i don't think a statistic exists that even attempts to gauge how many people would or would not commit suicide if they couldn't find access to a gun.

[BlueDreams]

46 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Really tough to compare different tragedies, even in a semi-quantitative sense.  And there is a lot of controversy regarding the various statistics involved.

People bent on suicide have a lot of different options, but protecting oneself at a distance normally devolves toward guns.  Guns are called the great equalizer for a reason.  One group that particularly loves them for self defense are women who have suffered rape.

And i don't think a statistic exists that even attempts to gauge how many people would or would not commit suicide if they couldn't find access to a gun.

There’s actually quite a few. I’ve seen a number of them presented in therapy related concerns, new articles, etc. Gun access likely wouldn’t effect attempts...as in people would likely still attempt and the reasons for attempting are tied more to socioeconomic and cultural pressures and issues. Rather the amount of attempts that are lethal would likely drop, leaving more time for people to seek mental help or general support. 
 

Also related to the defense argument is two articles that i found: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
 

the last one specifically points to several articles that go against the idea in general of it being an effective safety measure among law-abiding citizens AND that it helps in sexual assault. I get that for some women it may bring an emotional sense of security, but the facts don’t lend credence that it does much. I kinda get why too. I’ve had so many cases of sexual assualt in my office...most that come by are between intimate partners, relatives, or acquaintances in unexpected moments (dates, medical visits, at home with said partner, asleep, schools, etc)and in ways that often fuel denial and freezing responses in the moment. Another good chunk happen while they’re younger, younger than most people would willing give anyone a gun to carry on their person. In short even if they owned a gun, it was unlikely to be present or usable when the assualts happened

 

with luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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)?

An interesting comment in the Wikipedia article....

Quote

Shortly before the massacre, anti-Mormon raiders confiscated guns and weapons from Mormon settlers and immigrants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre#cite_note-cdm16795.contentdm.oclc.org-9

Apparently it may have been a "gun free" zone.

Also, there appears to be some confusion over the instructions....from the same article....

Quote

After the massacre, Philo Dibble stated that "Brother Joseph had sent word by Hawn, who owned the mill, to inform the brethren who were living there to leave and come to Far West, but Mr. Hawn did not deliver the message."

David Lewis relates "Although we had been counseled by Joseph the Prophet to leave the mill and go to Far West, but being deceived by the messenger we sent him for council, we understood it not, for our messenger said to Joseph what shall we do that is at the mill, Joseph said gather up all of you and come to Far West. "What?" said the messenger, whose name was Jacob Hawn, the owner of mill, "leave the mill and let it be burnt down? We think we can maintain it." "If you maintain it" said Joseph, "you will do well do as you please." The messenger returned and said if we thought we could maintain the mill it was Joseph's council for us to do it, if we thought not, to come to Far West and we thought from the way the thing was represented it would be like cowards to leave and not try to maintain it, and as they agreed to be at peace we thought to gather up our houses would be useless, for we did not know that it was Joseph's decided council for us to do so . . ."^[29]

It appears that Hawn had received Joseph Smith's direction to relocate to Far West but did not convey this direction to any of the others at Hawn's Mill.^[30] Of the matter, Smith recorded, "Up to this day God had given me wisdom to save the people who took counsel. None had ever been killed who abode by my counsel." Then he recorded that innocent lives could have been saved at Hawn's Mill had his counsel been received and followed.

In any case, I don't believe God would punish the folks at Haun's Mill in that way. They didn't deserve what they were given.

Quote

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)?  

In context, I think that verse is talking about specific elders traveling on dangerous waters....."...he that is faithful among you shall not perish by the waters." Well, we weren't allowed to swim on my mission. In the San Blas Islands near Panama, the elders had to be transported between islands and the mainland by canoe and barge. There is a mission legend that occasionally a canoe might tip a bit accidentally throwing the occupants in the water. During one such event, an elder allegedly shouted to his companion who had somehow exited the canoe, "Don't stroke, elder!"  

Quote

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?

In this case, two Mormon boys shot back at the mob, killing the mob leader David Hinson before they were killed themselves. Two missionaries were killed, and the boy's mother was severely wounded. Many more fled, including two other missionaries, but could have died. My great-grandfather James H. DePriest was branch president at Cane Creek. Because of the rising persecution, he and his family had left for the LDS colonies in Colorado shortly before the massacre. We believe 2 of his brothers and their families may have been there. There isn't a complete record of what was spoken in the shooting. It all happened very fast. Some say there were miraculous savings of lives and circumstances that prevented more members being killed and other missionaries from being there and being killed.

Three things contributed to the massacre: 1. The false rumor that Mormon elders were abducting women and girls and sending them to their harems in Utah. 2. The success the elders had had in the Cane Creek community. About 75 members, IIRC. 3. The "Red Hot Address" that was a "fake news" story published by the Salt Lake Tribune had been republished in the Southern states, but the retraction was not. It may have been the direct cause of the mob action.

Quote

The Red-Hot Address

Early in 1884, a Utah newspaper known for its anti-Mormon editorial bias published a letter. The newspaper claimed it was sermon given by a Mormon Bishop by the name of West and delivered in Juab, Utah. The sermon, called the Red Hot Address, was inflammatory and called for violence against those not of the Mormon faith

When the Red Hot Address came out in the papers, it kick started the already simmering anti‑Mormon sentiment. At Cane Creek, Tennessee, Parson Vandiver figured prominently in the spreading of this inflammatory “Mormon” sermon. He reprinted copies at his own expense. The sermon was easily proven a fabrication. When shown the evidence the Utah paper that originally published the letter agreed. They printed a retraction but added a caveat that although this particular sermon was a fraud, the sentiments expressed in it were an accurate representation of older Mormon teachings.

In Lewis County, Tennessee, Parson Vandiver, continued passing around copies even after being sent a letter by Elder Gibbs with the proof that the sermon was a fraud.

Below is the address and a letter written by George Teasdale refuting it. I'm still looking for the retraction.

A Red-Hot Address
(From the Salt Lake Tribune.)
Stenographical report of Bishop West's harangue in the Juab school-house,
Sunday, March 9th, 1884.
Reported by Tobias Tobey for the Salt Lake Tribune.

Juab, Utah, March 9th.
It is time, my brothers and sisters, that we ceased this cowardly silence and humble submission to the rulings and machinations of the devil and his fiery imps at the capitol of this God-forsaken Gentile government; and it is time for us to fling their defiance and scurrilous domination back in their faces. We are the elect of Christ, and the day of judgment is at hand, and it's our turn then if it isn't now, which I say it is. When Gabriel sounds his trumpet on that awful day, the Gentile hellhounds will find the Saints of God have got all the front seats reserved, and that they can't find standing room for themselves in the gallery. The cause is flourishing in the Juab Stake of Zion, and many souls are being daily rescued from the flames of heathenism. If I had my way not a house would be left standing which sheltered a knavish Gentile. They are eyesores in the sight of the Lord and His vengeance is sure to come. They persecute His Saints and He has commanded them to destroy their persecutors. He has commanded the Saints to rid the earth of the sin-besmudged heretic. He has revealed unto us the foundation of the Gentile Church that it is the devil. (II Nephi ch. 4, verse xx.) Hell is filled with the scurrilous Gentiles and the floors of hell are paved with the skulls of apostates. He who kills a Gentile rids the earth of a serpent and adds a star to his own crown. The Saints are gathering together from sea to sea and they will rise in their awful might and fall upon the enemies of Zion. Let the tabernacles resound with joyful voices for the fulfillment of the prophecies of Moroni are at hand. The minions of the devil are set loose in our midst by the crime soaked politicians who rule our land. The shades of the sainted martyr Smith call aloud for vengeance at the hands of his followers. The blood of the Gentile persecutors shall be spilled on their own thresholds to appease the anger of our prophet. Tune the lyre and beat the cymbals; for our revenge is now at hand. We will wipe out the scum of the Washington blood suckers and the high priest of the devil who assumes to rule in our very midst shall be cut off with a sharp instrument. The thieving Murray issues orders to the Saints of God, and defies everyone but the devil, who is his sponsor. His head will be placed upon the walls of our city and his entrails scattered throughout the street of Zion that every Gentile adventurer may behold and take a care that we are left to pursue our road to Paradise unmolested. Our strength is greater than the world believes and our will is powerful and undaunted by heretic menaces. The Lord is our shepherd and we cannot fail. The red man is our firm ally and he thirsts for the blood of the enemy of Zion. We are powerful and unassailable in our mountain home and we will roll the massive boulders of destruction down from the mountain tops upon the heads of the unregenerate. Our secret places are stored with crafty explosives with which we will surely destroy the strongholds of the government of Satan. Our young men are drilling for the conflict, and pure wives and daughters are making themselves ready to minister to our wants, and the day is close at hand. Let the Gentile leeches and poltroons beware and win our forbearance, if yet they may. The Lord is sorely angered at our persecutors, and He has said to our counselors in a vision that He will deliver our enemy into our hands as He delivered Laban into the hands of Nephi. He will visit the earth, through us, with a worse destruction than He did in the days of the flood, and the ungodly will bite the dust with rage, and their blood will flow in the streets of Zion even as much as the waters in the day of Noah. Behold, I declare unto you, all ye Saints who revere the memory of the Prophets that you must begin to gird up your loins and whet your knives. Let the religious fervor of the Saints who are dead and gone recur to your weaker spirits and fire you with the zeal of the destroying angels. Eli Murray is the Cain of our generation. He hates our people and he "works for our destruction that he may win for himself a reputation of valor among the ungodly. He is a damned scoundrel, and a pestiferous leper. He is the polluted scum of corruption. He reeks with ungodliness, and he is rotten with heresy. I command every true disciple of Christ to watch out for this damned Yankee interloper, and ye know that there is protection enough for you in Zion if ye kill the whole Gentile race. Last night, as I lay in my bed thinking over the affairs of the Church, and possessed of a strange restlessness, and praying the while for inspiration from the Most High, that I might see the way more clearly to a sure release of my brethren from bondage, behold a great and glorious light suddenly filled my apartment with a glow brighter than the sun. I was at first afraid, and inclined strongly to leap from my bed and flee. But of a sudden I heard a voice which caused my heart to beat with tumultuous joy, for it was that of Joseph Smith. I gazed at him earnestly, expecting and hanging on the words which should perchance fall from his lips, and I beheld that his garments were of a dazzling whiteness, and that his skin was of a dazzling and heavenly whiteness, save the blood-red spots and livid wounds where the bullets of the cursed Gentiles had entered his sainted body, and which were now visible to their eternal damnation, as were the marks of the nails which pierced the hands and feet of Christ. Joseph spoke to me in a voice of wondrous sweetness blended with strains of the direst severity when he spoke of the fate in store for those Saints who neglected what he should now command them. Joseph bade me to cast my eyes about and behold the presence in the midst of the Saints of an emissary of the devil. It was the will of the Most High that this man should be removed, and if other emissaries were chosen to fill his place, even as many as were so chosen should be similarly dealt with. If allowed to remain in our midst, the sin would be on our heads, for it was the command of the Most High God of Abraham and Isaac. It lay in our power to be our own rulers, and our cowardice was the cause of sore distress to the departed Saints who had left us a kingdom. Eli H. Murray was possessed of a devil, and had only the outward semblance of a man. He should and must be trod upon until his bowels gushed out in the streets. The incarnate fiend lurked invisibly behind his hellish disciple, and was intent upon the destruction of Zion. The time was short, and vigorous and immediate action premptory. The curses of eternal damnation awaited those who failed in this holy mission. The work must not stop at the destruction of one of these hell-hounds, these Erebus-like pestilences in the folds of the anointed, but must extend even to the farthermost corners of the earth, until every heretic out of hell was sent home, and the Latter-day Saints were rulers of the land. Much more the beloved Joseph said to me which I am commanded not to reveal unto you until you prove the sincerity of your faith and love for the prosperity of Zion from what has already been revealed. The direst plagues shall be immediately visited upon you and your children if these divine commands go unheeded. I call upon you who sit there trembling in your seats to beware, and to rise in your strength and win your crown. Let every Saint in Zion be present at the meeting in this building on Sunday next at this hour, and I will discourse further upon these matters which I have, for wise reasons, kept from you during the day up to this minute. The Lord bless you. Amen.


The Foul Libel Refuted
NEPHI, JUAB Co., TJ. T.
March 18, 1884.
Editor Deseret News:
Please pardon me for referring to a sheet published in your city, called the "Salt Lake Tribune," although I do not presume that it is sustained by any respectable person in this Territory where it has so unenviable a reputation; still it may be sent abroad and fall into the hands of some simple-minded persons who might perhaps be deluded into the impression that it was a truthful sheet, or reliable authority. Not that I think for a moment that any sane person would be so woefully deceived. I wish to refer to a manufactured sensational piece in the issue of Sunday the 16th inst. that has been called to my attention, headed a "Red-Hot Address;" also a short editorial on the subject in which the truthful (?) editor states it had been "forwarded by a friend. " O, tempore! O, mores! It purports to be a "stenographical report of Bishop West's harangue in the Juab schoolhouse, Sunday March 9, 1884, reported by 'Tobias Tobey' for the Salt Lake Tribune." Then follows an address which charity would suggest had been written by an insane person or worse, the offspring of a dreadfully corrupt heart, a miserable disgrace to the genus homo, worthy only to rise to "shame' and everlasting contempt."
Now, the facts are these: It is all a gross fabrication, Juab is a small town occupied by hotel and boarding house keepers, a store or two and the railroad hands; there is a small branch of the Church, presided over by Elder James Wilson, who is very much respected, but no bishop. On the Sunday referred to there had been a wash-out and all the hands were busy, so that there was no meeting held on that day; and as far as the "Bishop West" is concerned, there is no such bishop there or in the "Mormon" Church, and who "Tobias Tobey" is no one knows.
I have been requested to inform you of these facts, and kindly request that you will waive any feeling of dislike you may have to, in any way, refer to the existence of such a sheet, for the sake of our young Elders on missions, who might perchance meet with this shockingly vile fabrication.
Very Respectfully,
GEORGE TEASDALE.

[The paper printed a retraction. I have reproduced it here.]

 

https://amateurmormonhistorian.blogspot.com/2009/04/red-hot-address.html

This fellow is an expert on the Cane Creek Massacre. I have communicated with him several times. 

Interestingly, I recently received a "We Found and Ancestor" message from FamilySearch.org. It was for a man named Billy (?) Hinson. He is a descendent of the mob leader David Hinson, so I am related to the man who led a mob against my great-grandfather's family and was killed in mob action in the Cane Creek Massacre! Who would guess!

The Cane Creek Massacre is one of the most interesting but least known events in Church history. It included BH Roberts dressing as a hobo and taking a wagon and mule to Cane Creek to gather the murdered missionaries' bodies in order to send them back home to Utah. He had received communications from the mob that if he tried to retrieve them, they would kill him too. The mobsters patrolled the area around searching for missionaries. Unknown men were stopped on roads and trails and their shirts would be ripped open to see if they were wearing temple garments, so many elders removed their garments and hid them. One elder in the mission heard rumors of the massacre and left his companion to go to Cane Creek to verify the rumors. He disguised himself as a transient field worker, but was found out when some mobsters observed his brand new boots and soft hands. Somehow he talked his way out and was able to get to Cane Creek and confirmed the story.
 

After the massacre, all of the Cane Creek Saints left for the Manassa/Sanford/Ephraim/Richfield/San Luis colonies in Southern Colorado, where my mother was born. That's why she had a Tennessee accent. There is still a DePriest road in Cane Creek.

It would make an incredible movie!

The Cane Creek story is one reason I am concerned about Church security. Of course, mobs aren't going to storm our chapels and kill us, but we have a history, and such things happen around us. I think prudence is a good course.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

We have been having regular public shootings in this country for some time now. The idea that this one will change anything is silly to me.  Nothing else has changed in reaction to shootings (even things with overwhelming public support) so why should this? It is not a controversy either.

8 hours ago, ERMD said:

ATF, not FBI.  😉

Sort of. The FBI runs the check but the ATF enforces it (and is supposed to retrieve weapons sold in error). The database for normal firearm checks was a joint venture by the ATF and the FBI but the FBI is in charge of it. In the case of automatic weapons the forms you submit are to the ATF but the FBI runs the checks though I believe in this specific case the ATF also does have to grant approval. I guess we are both right since the two overlap through the whole process.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

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

That's correct. That's why handguns are harder to get than rifles in the states that have effective legislation. 

And even with all those methods for tracking DGUs, owning a gun still statistically puts one at greater risk. It is far safer in the United States not to own a gun.

Your logic would seem to indicate that we should disarm the police, but that is obviously not the solution.

5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

We don't want to prevent that. What we want to prevent is people who shouldn't have access to guns having access to guns. The easier it is to access a gun, the higher the firearm mortality rate. That's simply a fact. We can make it so law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves can effectively do do while also making it so people who shouldn't have guns have a more difficult time accessing them.

My question is: why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?

Part of the problem in my view is that we have absolutists on both sides who never consider reality:  Either ban all guns or allow the floodgates to be opened with no rules.  The corrupt NRA has never been interested in negotiating reasonable rules.  On the other hand, the Brady bunch wants to ban everything -- largely for the reasons you enunciate here.  Instead of effectively keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and the mentally unstable, the first reaction is to deny intelligent, responsible, and well-trained citizens from owning and carrying firearms.

Utah law makes it possible for any idiot to own and carry a firearm.  No real training is required.  I come from an extensive military and law enforcement background where safety and repeated training are paramount, not to mention discipline.  Most of the problems you mention could be handled well by implementing better vetting and training.  We also need to go back to the day when the mentally ill were housed in mental hospitals.  Instead, we house them in expensive prisons -- after they commit horrendous crimes.  Like it or not, Dan, we live in a country with a Second Amendment.  That is a huge impediment to just writing any old law that seems O.K. at the moment.  We need experts to sit down and come up with rational laws which don't deny fundamental rights.  I don't see much willingness by either Left or Right to do that.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

No, I’m suggesting that if some congregants are armed, it would save more lives then a metal detector or unarmed greeters/questioners (your proposition).  I think that would be a huge waste of money.  I am simply proposing that the policy be removed and allow congregants the liberty of a fighting chance to defend themselves before police arrive.

Oh, I'm not proposing unarmed greeters. I feel the best solution is like the one used by the church in Texas: armed security at the door, and if there's budget, maybe some metal detectors to wave over the coats of those who look suspicious, for example, a man wearing a fake beard and sunglasses into church.

I've no problem with guns in church, but I'm not sure it should be a free-for-all as it has been proposed in this thread. If everybody is allowed to pack a gun into church then the would-be-shooter with a wig and a long coat has done nothing wrong by carrying a shotgun into the chapel. That seems extremely dangerous to me.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

We have been having regular public shootings in this country for some time now. The idea that this one will change anything is silly to me.  Nothing else has changed in reaction to shootings (even things with overwhelming public support) so why should this? It is not a controversy either.

This is the first shooting that I know of that was halted by a volunteer church security team that was appointed following a law in Texas that permitted guns in church. There have been many calls for other states to put similar laws in place and I'd guess that many churches will be following their example.

You're probably right that nothing in our churches will change. 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is the first shooting that I know of that was halted by a volunteer church security team that was appointed following a law in Texas that permitted guns in church. There have been many calls for other states to put similar laws in place and I'd guess that many churches will be following their example.

You're probably right that nothing in our churches will change. 

This to me would be a wonderful idea!

[strappinglad]

I just read that the shooter in Texas was known to the congregation and had been helped with food and clothing before several times. Seems he was upset because they wouldn't give him cash. If true it is another case of no good turn goes unpunished. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The difficulty level is not high. There is an application for a handgun license or a rifle/shotgun permit, and then there's an interview and a background check. What is a lot more difficult is getting a concealed carry permit. These things make it more difficult than it is in places like Texas and Utah, where I can get online and have someone ship me a used AR-15 in the mail without ever showing any ID of any kind whatsoever, but this is the reason that New York state has the third-lowest firearm mortality rate in the entire country. 

Are you sure of that? Have you done it? 

Laws and regulations regarding sending guns by mail:

Quote

https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4_009.htm

http://americanshootingjournal.com/a-ups-drivers-suggestions-for-shipping-firearms/

 

This is incorrect, then.........?

Quote

US federal law requires that all guns purchased online must be shipped only to a holder of a Federal Firearms License.

 

Guns bought online are never shipped to the consumers home, but instead, to a federally licensed gun shop. Selling guns online also requires a FFL-both parties must be licensed appropriately, in order for a transaction to occur. After purchase the online gun retailer will ship the firearm to the local gun dealer, where the consumer will pick it up in person.

 

At the time of pickup, the gun retailer will treat the transaction like one made in a store. Background checks, additional fees, and waiting periods will be administered according to the state’s particular gun laws. There are no shortcuts when buying or selling guns online. All of the appropriate steps are followed in accordance to state laws for a transaction to occur. https://gun.laws.com/purchasing-guns/online-purchasing

Quote

Buying a firearm on the internet requires that you have it shipped to a licensed dealer and requires that the receiving dealer have you fill out the appropriate paperwork (Form 4473) and wait the required waiting period for your jurisdiction. Individuals can ship firearms to licensed dealers ONLY. This should not be a problem as there are more than 80,000 licensed dealers in the United States. Under no circumstances can an individual legally ship a firearm directly to another individual. ....

https://www.buymilsurp.com/page.html?chapter=0&id=4

Form 4473...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

Quote

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a form promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the United States Department of Justice that is filled in when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder (such as a gun shop).^[1]

The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, and a short affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. It contains make, model, or serial number on page three of the six page form. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison^[2] in addition to fines, even if the transaction is denied by the NICS. Prosecutions are rare in the absence of another felony committed with the gun purchased.^{[citation needed]} Of 556,496 denied transactions between FY 2008 and FY 2015, federal prosecutors prosecuted an average of under 32 cases per year, including 24 in FY 2013, 15 in FY 2014 and 20 in FY 2015.^[3][4]

The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into a required "bound-book" called an "Acquisition and Disposition Log.^[5] A dealer must keep this on file at least 20 years, and is required to surrender the log to the ATF upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of, the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five-day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473. Some states (such as California, Colorado, and New Jersey) require individual sellers to sell through dealers.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your logic would seem to indicate that we should disarm the police, but that is obviously not the solution.

Absolutely not, because the stats indicate what they precisely because irresponsible people with no training or experience can very easily access firearms and drag the numbers down. People with formal training and experience are far less likely to be the ones to be killed by a gun, but because we don't require that kind of thing to access guns, it is statistically less safe to own a gun.

Quote

Part of the problem in my view is that we have absolutists on both sides who never consider reality:  Either ban all guns or allow the floodgates to be opened with no rules. 

There are very, very few people advocating for a total ban on guns. In fact, I have never witnessed someone honestly do it. The number of people who think the 2A means there can be no mitigation of their ability to carry any firearms they want is astonishingly high. 

Quote

The corrupt NRA has never been interested in negotiating reasonable rules. 

Agreed.

Quote

On the other hand, the Brady bunch wants to ban everything -- largely for the reasons you enunciate here. 

I don't know of anyone doing that.

Quote

Instead of effectively keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and the mentally unstable, the first reaction is to deny intelligent, responsible, and well-trained citizens from owning and carrying firearms.

Again, I don't see anyone seriously advocating for that kind of legislation.

Quote

Utah law makes it possible for any idiot to own and carry a firearm.  No real training is required.  I come from an extensive military and law enforcement background where safety and repeated training are paramount, not to mention discipline.  Most of the problems you mention could be handled well by implementing better vetting and training. 

Agreed.

Quote

We also need to go back to the day when the mentally ill were housed in mental hospitals. 

I would disagree here, but mental illness is also not a strong predictor of firearm violence. It is largely a scapegoat these days.

Quote

Instead, we house them in expensive prisons -- after they commit horrendous crimes.  Like it or not, Dan, we live in a country with a Second Amendment.  That is a huge impediment to just writing any old law that seems O.K. at the moment.  We need experts to sit down and come up with rational laws which don't deny fundamental rights.  I don't see much willingness by either Left or Right to do that.

There are actually lots of people doing this. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to identify any national group with any degree of support advocating for any legislation that is a clear violation of the 2A, even in light of the ludicrously ungrammatical reading of the Heller decision. The situation in New York and the even more stringent requirements in places like Hawaii have consistently stood up to the scrutiny of the courts. 

[Bob Crockett]

9 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The difficulty level is not high. There is an application for a handgun license or a rifle/shotgun permit, and then there's an interview and a background check. What is a lot more difficult is getting a concealed carry permit. These things make it more difficult than it is in places like Texas and Utah, where I can get online and have someone ship me a used AR-15 in the mail without ever showing any ID of any kind whatsoever, but this is the reason that New York state has the third-lowest firearm mortality rate in the entire country. 

And access to a firearm is one of the strongest predictors of both attempted and completed suicide. Firearm suicides are no less a gun violence problem than firearm homicides and accidental deaths.

It went down into the 80s and then spiked in the 90s and has gone down since (thanks largely to the implementation of more firearm legislation following the Brady Bill) until 2014, at which point it has started spiking again. The firearm homicide rate has been increasing each year since 2014, and the firearm suicide rate has been steadily climbing for over a decade. 

That's correct. That's why handguns are harder to get than rifles in the states that have effective legislation. 

And even with all those methods for tracking DGUs, owning a gun still statistically puts one at greater risk. It is far safer in the United States not to own a gun.

We don't want to prevent that. What we want to prevent is people who shouldn't have access to guns having access to guns. The easier it is to access a gun, the higher the firearm mortality rate. That's simply a fact. We can make it so law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves can effectively do do while also making it so people who shouldn't have guns have a more difficult time accessing them.

My question is: why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?

Excellent post!!!  I add my libertarian two cents.  Why on earth do we have legislation (the Second Amendment) favoring the gun industry?  The gun industry should be on equal footing with knife and chainsaw makers.   Let tort law put pressure on the gun makers.

[Dan McClellan]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you sure of that? Have you done it? 

No. I don't want to do it. But I know the laws very, very well.

Quote

Laws and regulations regarding sending guns by mail:

None of those laws prohibit mailing a used AR-15 from a private seller to a non-FFL buyer, provided it ships in-state. 

Quote

This is incorrect, then.........?

It's not incorrect. 

Quote

US federal law requires that all guns purchased online must be shipped only to a holder of a Federal Firearms License.

This only applies to guns purchased from FFLs. 

Quote

Guns bought online are never shipped to the consumers home, but instead, to a federally licensed gun shop. Selling guns online also requires a FFL-both parties must be licensed appropriately, in order for a transaction to occur. After purchase the online gun retailer will ship the firearm to the local gun dealer, where the consumer will pick it up in person.

At the time of pickup, the gun retailer will treat the transaction like one made in a store. Background checks, additional fees, and waiting periods will be administered according to the state’s particular gun laws. There are no shortcuts when buying or selling guns online. All of the appropriate steps are followed in accordance to state laws for a transaction to occur. https://gun.laws.com/purchasing-guns/online-purchasing

Buying a firearm on the internet requires that you have it shipped to a licensed dealer and requires that the receiving dealer have you fill out the appropriate paperwork (Form 4473) and wait the required waiting period for your jurisdiction. Individuals can ship firearms to licensed dealers ONLY. This should not be a problem as there are more than 80,000 licensed dealers in the United States. Under no circumstances can an individual legally ship a firearm directly to another individual. ....

https://www.buymilsurp.com/page.html?chapter=0&id=4

Form 4473...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a form promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the United States Department of Justice that is filled in when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder (such as a gun shop).^[1]

The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, and a short affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. It contains make, model, or serial number on page three of the six page form. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison^[2] in addition to fines, even if the transaction is denied by the NICS. Prosecutions are rare in the absence of another felony committed with the gun purchased.^{[citation needed]} Of 556,496 denied transactions between FY 2008 and FY 2015, federal prosecutors prosecuted an average of under 32 cases per year, including 24 in FY 2013, 15 in FY 2014 and 20 in FY 2015.^[3][4]

The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into a required "bound-book" called an "Acquisition and Disposition Log.^[5] A dealer must keep this on file at least 20 years, and is required to surrender the log to the ATF upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of, the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five-day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473. Some states (such as California, Colorado, and New Jersey) require individual sellers to sell through dealers.

None of this is relevant. A private seller in a state like Utah that have not closed the private sale loophole may ship a used AR-15 to a buyer provided it ships in-state. All the rules you cited apply only to purchases from an FFL and shipment across state lines. Any claims that internet purchases must always ship to an FFL are simply false. There is no such federal law, and very few states have enacted any such laws. The internet is the wild west of gun sales. There are barely any regulations, and especially not in states like Utah. From the ATF's own website:

Quote

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

For federal law on online gun sales, see the following:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/interstate-and-online-gun-sales/

Quote

 

FEDERAL LAW ON ONLINE GUN SALES

Federal law does not treat online gun sales differently from other gun sales—these sales are simply governed by the same laws governing other firearm transfers, including laws regarding interstate and “private party” gun sales. The applicable rules for an online gun sale therefore depend primarily on (1) whether the firearm is being shipped across state lines and (2) whether state and federal law require a background check for that gun sale.

 

If you think I'm wrong, by all means, point to the federal regulation governing online gun sales.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Dan McClellan