How Do Church Members Become Extremists?

[Dario_M]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

So was I.  I finally cracked under the pressure.  Now I'm here.

The secret of being succesfull in our LDS church community is not getting yourself involved into to much pressure. Just do the thinks only when you're ready for it and on your own speed and thinks will be fine. 

[Malc]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

The secret of being succesfull in our LDS church community is not getting yourself involved into to much pressure. Just do the thinks only when you're ready for it and on your own speed and thinks will be fine. 

I agree, though it can be a hard lesson to learn.

When I was a newish member I fully accepted that callings were not to be refused for any "selfish" reason, and so I spent almost all of my free time on church-related activities.

I knew a young woman who was in high school, and had callings in her branch that were interfering with her school work (or vice versa). Someone (not me!!) gave her a blessing to the effect that she should build the kingdom of god first, and that the lord would make sure that she didn't have a problem at school. She totally bombed exams that she would have passed with a little study. Then she failed one of the "2nd chance" exams. She was fortunate that she still got the college program she wanted, so thought that maybe that was the fulfillment of the blessing. I'm  not so sure. (Oh me of little faith, right?)

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, MorningStar said:

I was a part of a discussion yesterday about Craig Robertson and how that whole thing happened. Please do not turn this into a gun debate. 

I weighed in as a member of the church and there were quite a few questions for me. Is there a teaching in our church that causes people to turn out like him? Why was he a "church leader?" There was talk of him open carrying at church. Seriously?! I have no proof of that, but I assured them that that would be frowned upon even if legal. Should the bishop have gone over to talk to him about his online threats? Why didn't he? 

I had quite a few things to say. I explained that being a "ward clerk" isn't really a leadership position and that almost every adult member has a calling. I said, "I guarantee he was the ward crazy who hijacked lessons and they didn't know what to do with him. They certainly wouldn't want him teaching kids or even adults or probably even voicing his opinions in class, so ward clerk was probably the best way to keep him away from people." I'm not saying ward clerks are a bunch of weirdos. Sometimes it's a great place to put weirdos though. 

I said the bishop probably did talk to him. I imagine the stake president talked to him too. These types of people are just so sure that they're right in their opinions. I asked, "If the FBI didn't even get him to listen during their prior visit, why would he listen to the bishop?" I also explained that bishops aren't professionals and shouldn't have to try to talk sense into unhinged people. Imagine what those unhinged people would do if they were called in for a disciplinary council for their online behavior. Is it worth the risk? 

I had an experience years ago where multiple friends were concerned about the online rantings of a pervert/moron we were dealing with. I had unfollowed him on Facebook because it was just too painful to watch. At that point, I had only remained "friends" with him to watch for signs of him going postal. I am friends with his daughter and had no idea what he was like. Long story, but she ended up telling me she moved out of state to get away from him and was totally humiliated by his online behavior. He wouldn't listen to anyone and his parents apologized to the entire family about him turning out that way and anything they may have done to cause it. I unfollowed when he ranted that his parents wouldn't respond to him. His daughter told me he was a grown man who should know better by now, but chooses not to. 

Anyway, he was writing all sorts of threatening things about a former president and other politicians in Facebook groups that he didn't realize were public and I realized I needed to contact the FBI. I think I got a call from the Secret Service by the next day and the FBI a couple days later. They were surprised that I knew the guy and it wasn't just some anonymous person I was reporting. They both paid him a visit together and it certainly freaked him out. He was contrite and said multiple friends had told him to stop saying those things. Nothing happened to him and the agent explained that I would be shocked by the number of threats they had to respond to and they had to use their time to deal with the people who "double down." Those are the true threats. Craig Robertson doubled down. 

The agent did still have concerns about the man I reported being a danger and told me if he showed up where he wasn't supposed to, I should call the police immediately and give them his number. He would explain everything. 

I don't think the church creates extremists. I think people with paranoid personalities zero in on certain aspects of the gospel, culture, history, etc. My husband and I were once asked to briefly housesit during a funeral many years ago and we were confused. We were new members of the ward and they wanted to find someone who wasn't attending the funeral. Turns out they were afraid they would be robbed during the funeral. Judging by their video collection, the husband was obsessed with Waco. And he also apparently had an arsenal. 

When the church teaches to build food storage, these types of people hear, "And we should buy a ton of guns to protect our food!" 

When the church talks about the order to exterminate the saints in Missouri, these types of people hear, "And we should buy a ton of guns in case it happens again!"

Oh, I definitely don't think it's church. that's like saying you need strawberry ice cream to make a sundae. It just changes the flavor to the extremism. I think there's several things that actually make extremism difficult to maintain in the church nowadays. Which is why a lot of extreme folks often don't stay active in the main body after a while (though they may still ID as Mormon). There views become too dissonant with the average Latter-day Saint.

I think it comes down to a few things:

1.) needing to feel powerful, especially if you feel powerless. In this case, that's what guns did for him and do for a lot of people. He may not be able to get Biden out of office but he could build up a fantasy where he could make a difference via bullets. Anyone can pick up a gun and hit target. So it gives a lot of people who feel small a means to feel disproportionately powerful. Even if that power is a fiction and they're more likely to be harmed than empowered by their source. 

2.) Assuming ones positions are absolutely right and finding sources of validation for it. Emphasis on absolutely right. Everyone to some degree thinks they're right on some things. But when that rightness becomes super rigid we assume our position is the only way things can be true or good. This can become validated by finding people who think like you or having few people close to you actively conflict with your assumptions. The rise of online communities makes that a lot easier to find. You can find a community for anything. 

3) having minimal connection/dehumanizing/demonizing groups of people considered to be in enemy camps or other groups. I know his family said he was a great dude. But that's likely the family that could sympathize or ignore/dismiss his political views. There's likely several others that had distanced themselves from him for ages. This ironically increases his ability to dehumanize/demonize opposing political groups. There's no one to conflict with his assumptions 

4) feeling threatened by changes in the larger society. Sometimes that threat is real, sometimes its not, and sometimes it's real but the focus on what's causing it/how to fix it is way off. 

** having personality or mental disorders, personal failings etc might get you there faster, but I think that's often a way to ignore how easy it is for someone "normal" to slip into extremism. I've met weirdos with extremely views and I've met fairly "average joes" who once I get them talking it becomes apparent they're also pretty extreme in one area or another. 

 

17 hours ago, MorningStar said:

The message from our last General Conference to be peacekeepers is also being heavily emphasized. I think the church realizes we have too many members with serious issues who don't embrace the gospel fully. I would love to hear your thoughts. What kinds of people have you dealt with in your wards and how did you all handle them? 

Honestly, I can't think of one where I can easily point out the one weirdo who collected large clusters of extreme views and behaviors. They're usually someone who hold one or two kinks in the system rather than massive system failures. I find just giving a different view on the same topic can do a world of good. To see that one doesn't have to view or engage with something in one way starts shifting the system and culture. This is a silly example. I mentioned once when we were talking about the sabbath that there's different ways we all might enjoy the sabbath. I mentioned that I liked watch nature docs and I remember someone (s?) Being obviously surprised that someone may like watching shows for Sunday (following #2 with rigid thoughts patterns). I explained why and it made sense within a worshipful angle and that shock dissipated. It wouldn't seem much, but I changed the assumptions by giving a different perspective based within their value system. That build mental flexibility. And mental flexibility slows extreme interpretations from maintaining footholds. 

I find that extreme reactions to extreme positions doesn't change views. It may be necessary for safety, but it doesn't usually change anything. Craig Robertson was met with a more extreme response to his sickening views. It was likely warranted for safety's sake, but he went down to the very end assuming he was on the right side of things, a self-made martyr for truth and (far) right. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited August 12 by BlueDreams

[MustardSeed]

Sitting with clients on the far left and right (who can’t even ever get through a therapy hour without touting political issue points as if I care to hear them) I find that the experience of powerlessness is a theme.  Extremism creates the safe triangle as a discussion point to avoid a deeper void.  
 

Related, IMO, zealousness in church is created by primary level thinking that was never introduced to nuance. 

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, manol said:

Once I was in a ward that had a guy who might have been described as the "ward gun nut". And yes I recall him having been ward clerk at one time! But he also cycled through a bunch of other callings, like elder's quorum president and counselor in the bishopric. I was one of perhaps two or three ward members who knew that he regularly carried concealed at church.

The way I “handled” the situation was, I ratted him out to a stake high councilman who happened to be my home teaching companion. The high councilman approved; arguably there were extenuating circumstances.

I recall this incident:  I was friends with a young couple in our ward who got home-invaded and held a gunpoint while their house was robbed, during which one of the home invaders said he was going to kill their young son because he was crying. The mother bolted past their guns and got to her son's bedroom first and managed to quiet him down. As the home invaders left they were talking about the items they were going to come back for, so the couple felt there was still a threat. Anyway the ward gun nut immediately armed them and helped them make a few changes, which may have helped them feel a little less insecure. Fortunately we never found out whether the gun nut's actions actually did make them any safer.

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

18 hours ago, MorningStar said:

I had quite a few things to say. I explained that being a "ward clerk" isn't really a leadership position and that almost every adult member has a calling. I said, "I guarantee he was the ward crazy who hijacked lessons and they didn't know what to do with him. They certainly wouldn't want him teaching kids or even adults or probably even voicing his opinions in class, so ward clerk was probably the best way to keep him away from people." I'm not saying ward clerks are a bunch of weirdos. Sometimes it's a great place to put weirdos though.  

In case you need more evidence to support this theory I am a ward clerk.

It's becoming a party.  Both I, and my borderline sovereign citizen buddy I've talked about on other threads, were ward clerks.  

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

I agree, though it can be a hard lesson to learn.

When I was a newish member I fully accepted that callings were not to be refused for any "selfish" reason, and so I spent almost all of my free time on church-related activities.

I knew a young woman who was in high school, and had callings in her branch that were interfering with her school work (or vice versa). Someone (not me!!) gave her a blessing to the effect that she should build the kingdom of god first, and that the lord would make sure that she didn't have a problem at school. She totally bombed exams that she would have passed with a little study. Then she failed one of the "2nd chance" exams. She was fortunate that she still got the college program she wanted, so thought that maybe that was the fulfillment of the blessing. I'm  not so sure. (Oh me of little faith, right?)

Exactly.  And uhm... in my ward people don't put "that much" pressure on the members. (Here in my ward the pressure goes more into the direction of getting the endowment and melchizedeck priesthood, wich several people in my ward allready have asked me to do so) That what you describe is perhaps a little extreme. That your friend need to spend more time in church then her study on high school and her exams. And that somebody really promised her that in the end everything will be allright if she does that and she will get blessings for that.   

Edited August 12 by Dario_M

[LoudmouthMormon]

I appreciate and support the desire to not make this thread a gun debate.  I have no argument to present, and I will not debate guns on this thread, but would like to present some random interesting things.  It's my hope folks will find them interesting, but not provoke anyone into a gun debate.  The only point I'd like to illustrate, is you can't automatically jump from "he's armed" to "he's a dangerous threat".  

 

- A few years back, a sister in my Colorado ward mentioned she was going to get her conceal carry permit, and was asking if any other sisters wanted to go through the steps with her.  None of the sisters took her up on her offer, but it was because a large number of them already had theirs.  

 

- We had an Elder's Quorum outing where we all went shooting on someone's backyard range.  A dozen dudes and more than a dozen scary black rifles worried a neighbor, and we got the cops called on us.  We all stopped shooting and everyone (except me) immediately threw our hands in the air, and then lined up with our drivers' licenses without being asked.  The more senior cop stopped the younger cop from taking our IDs, spoke to us briefly about firearm safety, got us to change the angle we were shooting at, and went away.  We went back to shooting.

 

- Back in Utah, I had a bishop who talked about his conceal carry permit, mentioning that he sometimes carried to church.  In total, I probably have spoken personally with well over 100 permit-carrying saints.  Maybe 25% of them have carried at church.

 

- In 2018, I ran this poll on what used to be lds.net:

 

 

Edited August 12 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I appreciate and support the desire to not make this thread a gun debate.  I have no argument to present, and I will not debate guns on this thread, but would like to present some random interesting things.  It's my hope folks will find them interesting, but not provoke anyone into a gun debate.  The only point I'd like to illustrate, is you can't automatically jump from "he's armed" to "he's a dangerous threat".  

 

- A few years back, a sister in my Colorado ward mentioned she was going to get her conceal carry permit, and was asking if any other sisters wanted to go through the steps with her.  None of the sisters took her up on her offer, but it was because a large number of them already had theirs.  

 

- We had an Elder's Quorum outing where we all went shooting on someone's backyard range.  A dozen dudes and more than a dozen scary black rifles worried a neighbor, and we got the cops called on us.  We all stopped shooting and everyone (except me) immediately threw our hands in the air, and then lined up with our drivers' licenses without being asked.  The more senior cop stopped the younger cop from taking our IDs, spoke to us briefly about firearm safety, got us to change the angle we were shooting at, and went away.  We went back to shooting.

 

- Back in Utah, I had a bishop who talked about his conceal carry permit, mentioning that he sometimes carried to church.  In total, I probably have spoken personally with well over 100 permit-carrying saints.  Maybe 25% of them have carried at church.

 

- In 2018, I ran this poll on what used to be lds.net:

 

 

In my experience, it's not people who carry guns that are the concern (especially concealed carry), it's the people who brag about it or make sure it's in your face, that are often nearer the extremist side of the isle.

Most concealed carriers conceal for a reason. They don't want anyone to know they have a gun.

[Calm]

I am with bluebell.  I would add those who express eagerness to go out and help save someone with a focus on using guns to do it rather than just waiting to see what is needed while being prepared for many things, including guns if that’s a possibility. 
 

It is when guns become front and center that I see an issue.  A gun is a tool. People would think you a little strange if frequently in conversation not with other tool enthusiasts you went off on all the attributes of your new power saw and what you were going to do with it.  Sure some is expected when it’s new, but once the novelty wears off, so should the obsession.

I don’t jump from he’s armed to asking if he is crazy.  I start out at wondering are they crazy (or violent or vicious) and then get worried if I find out he’s also armed.

Edited August 12 by Calm

[Chum]

Chunks of my life were lived with some fairly dodgy conclusions in play. Certainly, some of my potential didn't merit nurturing.  And yet I have had a variety of callings. Should I have had? 

Weighing everything before, it truly isn't clear.  The rules and principles we use to evaluate people for positions, they mostly suck at their job.

I think a better picture comes in retrospect.

Realizing that the price of growth gets paid by everyone around: On balance, I think I was a good investment. What I learned made me a better member of pretty much everything.

Past that and independently...  I think that having people (consistently) in rotating positions of responsibility/leadership is not only valuable; I resolutely believe it is critical to society. I think young people absolutely need these experiences. I think that not-young people had better have them. I strongly suspect some societal challenges we're facing can be better addressed, if this was everyone's typical norm.

When I ask myself should Deznat guy have had a calling of responsibility, the above is what I factor into the equation. The NO bar is super high. Even assuming the worst for him, I'm not inclined to say he shouldn't have had a calling.

Edited August 12 by Chum

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, MorningStar said:

When the church talks about the order to exterminate the saints in Missouri, these types of people hear, "And we should buy a ton of guns in case it happens again!"

I have long been interested in the Missouri conflict. I think there is a very important fact about the "order to exterminate the saints in Missouri" that is often left out by church accounts. I would simply bring it to your attention since you used it as an example.

Gov Bogg's "extermination" order was given in late-October 1838 just months after First counselor in the Presidency of the LDS church, Sidney Rigdon delivered his 4th of July sermon in Far West, Missouri. It was given in front of a crowd and the full text was published in writing for all to read. I quote from the version in the Joseph Smith Papers: "

"We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives.

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed."

So, in a published 4th of July sermon the second highest authority in the LDS church first used the term extermination or exterminate twice in a sermon to an LDS crowd. Read the inflammatory language in just this one portion of a much longer sermon. Rigdon declared the conflict to be a "war of extermination." He threatened to follow the "mob" till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to "exterminate" us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed."

Might this sermon have been considered by the people of Missouri an extermination order issued by the second-highest authority in the LDS church and one who often was known to have spoken for Joseph Smith? Boggs simply turned Rigdon's public sermon given a few months earlier around on the Saints using Rigdon's own words. Remember also that the Boggs' Order was given on the 27th of October, just three days after a Mormon militia attacked a legal Missouri militia camped south of a river between two counties. They mutilated a captured militia man on the way back to Far West. Three days after the order, the massacre at Hawn's mill occurred. It has never been decided for sure whether those who attacked the probably Mennonite settlement where Mormons had taken shelter knew of Bogg's order or not.

It was a complex time, most likely with plenty of fanatics fanned by the flames of hyperbole all around. Jacob Hawn himself left Missouri for Oregon where he founded mills and Mennonite settlements in that new pioneering venture.  Fanatics blossom in the absence of facts. Thanks for reading this brief account.

 

[Chum]

20 hours ago, MorningStar said:

There was talk of him open carrying at church.

In case this wasn't addressed, the General Handbook clearly prohibits carry inside the building, excepting on-duty LEO. My memory is that it qualifies the latter bit with a recognition that employment may mandate carry. The vibe I get is is that guns aren't welcome in worship places but the Church understands that a brief, temporary allowance may sometimes be needed.

[InCognitus]

45 minutes ago, Chum said:

In case this wasn't addressed, the General Handbook clearly prohibits carry inside the building, excepting on-duty LEO.

I was just going to post the same thing and saw your comment.  It's here:  Care and Use of Meetinghouses 35.5.5:

"35.5.5 Firearms and Weapons  Firearms and other lethal weapons are not allowed on Church property. This includes concealed weapons. This does not apply to current law enforcement officers."

Edit:  There is also a special training for church security and it reiterates the policy:

Quote

Church Policy on Carrying Firearms at Church Meetings
“Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. With the exception of current law enforcement officers, carrying lethal weapons on Church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited” (Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops, 8.4.5, ChurchofJesusChrist.org; see also Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.2.4, ChurchofJesusChrist.org).  

It’s important to recognize the critical dichotomy here: maintain church as a haven, but be prepared from a security standpoint.

We were fortunate to have a special duty police officer as a counselor in the bishopric in our ward at the time I had to deal with this.  He did NOT carry a weapon at church, but I had great respect for his training.

Edited August 12 by InCognitus

[Chum]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

  The only point I'd like to illustrate, is you can't automatically jump from "he's armed" to "he's a dangerous threat".  

I don't think this is jump folks are making.

I think the jump goes this way:  He's showcasing his arsenal along with his intense desire to see head shots in people he doesn't like.

[Chum]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Related, IMO, zealousness in church is created by primary level thinking that was never introduced to nuance. 

I really don't think the Church either seeds or nurtures the extremest mindset. In most of the rural US, the Church is at most a tiny presence and extremist nationalism abounds.

Besides, Church leaders have spoken out against nationalism, knowing where it can lead. They just don't seem to be making much headway. I imagine they find that distressing.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

I really don't think the Church either seeds or nurtures the extremest mindset. In most of the rural US, the Church is at most a tiny presence and extremist nationalism abounds.

Besides, Church leaders have spoken out against nationalism, knowing where it can lead. They just don't seem to be making much headway. I imagine they find that distressing.

I don’t believe the church fosters extreme thinking either.  But I do believe (opinion only) that churches create an environment that allows for black and white thought, and extremists can thrive in those environments. 

[Chum]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe the church fosters extreme thinking either.  But I do believe (opinion only) that churches create an environment that allows for black and white thought, and extremists can thrive in those environments. 

Historically, I think you're overwhelmingly right. However, I see an increase of nuanced instruction. It hints that better thinking youth will eventually replace polarized members.

[MorningStar]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have long been interested in the Missouri conflict. I think there is a very important fact about the "order to exterminate the saints in Missouri" that is often left out by church accounts. I would simply bring it to your attention since you used it as an example.

Gov Bogg's "extermination" order was given in late-October 1838 just months after First counselor in the Presidency of the LDS church, Sidney Rigdon delivered his 4th of July sermon in Far West, Missouri. It was given in front of a crowd and the full text was published in writing for all to read. I quote from the version in the Joseph Smith Papers: "

"We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives.

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed."

So, in a published 4th of July sermon the second highest authority in the LDS church first used the term extermination or exterminate twice in a sermon to an LDS crowd. Read the inflammatory language in just this one portion of a much longer sermon. Rigdon declared the conflict to be a "war of extermination." He threatened to follow the "mob" till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to "exterminate" us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed."

Might this sermon have been considered by the people of Missouri an extermination order issued by the second-highest authority in the LDS church and one who often was known to have spoken for Joseph Smith? Boggs simply turned Rigdon's public sermon given a few months earlier around on the Saints using Rigdon's own words. Remember also that the Boggs' Order was given on the 27th of October, just three days after a Mormon militia attacked a legal Missouri militia camped south of a river between two counties. They mutilated a captured militia man on the way back to Far West. Three days after the order, the massacre at Hawn's mill occurred. It has never been decided for sure whether those who attacked the probably Mennonite settlement where Mormons had taken shelter knew of Bogg's order or not.

It was a complex time, most likely with plenty of fanatics fanned by the flames of hyperbole all around. Jacob Hawn himself left Missouri for Oregon where he founded mills and Mennonite settlements in that new pioneering venture.  Fanatics blossom in the absence of facts. Thanks for reading this brief account.

 

Thanks for the info! 

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I am with bluebell.  I would add those who express eagerness to go out and help save someone with a focus on using guns to do it rather than just waiting to see what is needed while being prepared for many things, including guns if that’s a possibility

This thought nudges me in a potentially better direction. What responsibility do we have to our *eren who are lost in the wilderness of extremism and nationalist thinking?

[Chum]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

Thanks for the info! 

@Navidad has the biggest brain I've ever seen. He should leave it to Science. Because leaving it to Religion would be weird.

[Malc]

As a non-American, I've spent a fair bit of time in the US, and have been through most of the contiguous states apart from some of the New England states.

In exactly one place I've had someone brandish their concealed sidearm, apparently to discourage me from inconveniencing him and his buddies - they were between me and some shirts I wanted to look at, and he didn't want to move a foot or so to let me past.

That place was DI in St George, UT.

btw, he was successful in discouraging me from looking at the shirts.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

think there is a very important fact about the "order to exterminate the saints in Missouri" that is often left out by church accounts.

Just an fyi, I don’t know about official mentions in speeches and manuals, etc, but typically when the extermination order comes up in conversation around me the last 25 years or so, more context than used to be is added generally, including Rigdon’s sermons mentioned as upping the tension and contributing to the violence. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Chum said:

@Navidad has the biggest brain I've ever seen. He should leave it to Science. Because leaving it to Religion would be weird.

We're all better having him post and we grow brain cells back!

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, Malc said:

As a non-American, I've spent a fair bit of time in the US, and have been through most of the contiguous states apart from some of the New England states.

In exactly one place I've had someone brandish their concealed sidearm, apparently to discourage me from inconveniencing him and his buddies - they were between me and some shirts I wanted to look at, and he didn't want to move a foot or so to let me past.

That place was DI in St George, UT.

btw, he was successful in discouraging me from looking at the shirts.

Polygamists perhaps? I see them in the DI's in St. George. Maybe you're invading their turf.