MarginOfError

This review of the study that produced the higher estimates does a pretty good job of describing methodological flaws in those estimates. It shows that the impact of 1% of respondents being misclassified would overestimate actual DGU by about 4 times. Misclassification of just 1.3% would bring the estimates down to the level reported at the low estimates. It also describes the pitfalls of rare events (or low probability events. In statistics, this means events with probability less than 5%, as the numerical properties of probability distributions tend to unravel at that point) Of particular interest Section IX of this article is a pretty interesting read, too. Next, I'll look into the study that produced the 55,000 to 80,000 incidents estimate to see what it tells us, as it seems to be the more realistic estimate.

So now it would be nice if you could explain why the expected settlements would be less under the firearms prohibition than without it. If, as you claim, we really are safer with firearms present, why does the organization expect to pay more when the firearms are permitted? No, the comparison doesn't still stand. Any defensive use of a firearm could have resulted in death had the firearm not been available; likewise, any defensive use of a firearm could have result in not death had the firearm not been available. And you haven't provided any estimate to how many of those prevented death. Also, the wikipedia article you cite references a number of articles (that I'm not willing to take the time to review right now), but I doubt those studies have a clear and consistent definition of defensive gun use. How many of those uses involve discharge? How many were just brandishing the weapon? How many are civilian? The statistics you cite are not well enough defined to justify the claims you are using them to support.

Point of order, the endpoints you present here are not comparable. You can't make a fair comparison to accidental gun deaths and defensive gun uses. Those are not similar populations of events, and you would either need to expand the accidents to include all instances of accidental gun use, or restrict the defensive population to defensive gun deaths. Also, I think you'd find that the statistics bear out that restricting access to firearms in locations like church buildings actually does reduce the risk of injury. Or at the very least, it reduces the expected value of settlements to the organization operating the facility. Say what you will about these kinds of policies, but the insurance industry is very good at probability and expected value. And it seems like they've determined that risk of firearm related injury is lower under the firearms prohibition.

Expect to hear more* shortly. Our stake president just conveyed direction to find a forum to teach our members about the new policy regarding firearms/weapons, and to point out the new, stronger language. * by "more" I mean, expect to hear the wording of the policy in your units. At the least, it is beginning to sound like this is being announced in all of the U.S.

And pulling from the next paragraph in your source The only way I can see the school being liable is if they had a knowledge that it would be targeted, or a reasonable expectation that it might. The question is at what risk profile does it become reasonable to expect it might be targeted? Ultimately, I'd have to guess that this would translate into a probability threshold, because fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and meteor strikes are all possible. When is a risk probable enough that the school should do something about it?

I don't think that works in your favor. Because between the early Christian martyrs, the Anti Nephi Lehis, the Nephites that protected them, and the modern day stories such as the one you cite, it seems that your Church teaches of a God that is arbitrary about who He protects and who He doesn't. So again, why do you think you have any expectation that physical safety should be encompassed in the prospect of salvation after death?

But what has the Church promised you in return for your adherence to it's precepts. Has it promised you physical safety and security? What is the connection between the physical safety of your family and salvation after death? What's more, we don't even have to go into modern scriptures to find examples of church members and leaders who lost their lives because they followed the requirements of their faith. If God and his church weren't willing to protect earlier leaders and believers, why should they be expected to do so now? What has changed?

The problem with suing a school (or a church) I would imagine is demonstrating negligence. To show negligence, I think you'd have to demonstrate that there was reason to believe the building was going to be the target of a shooting. Given how rare the events are, it's hard to claim that on any given school day (or any given worship service), that someone is going to come in and shoot up the place. On the other hand, if a school receives a threat that there is going to be a shooting, and then they do nothing about it, that presents a case for negligence. But without a reasonable expectation of a threat, I don't think you can win that case. (IANAL disclaimers apply)

I'm trying to imagine how the lawsuit would play out: Lawyer: person0, why do you feel that you are required to be at a church building that prohibits carrying lethal weapons? person0: The Church represents itself as the one true church on the face of the earth, and expects us to attempt to attend all meetings. Lawyer: Do you accept the premise that the Church is the one true church on the face of the earth? person0: I do. Lawyer: Do you accept the premise that the leaders of the Church convey the express will of God? person0: I do. Lawyer: Do you accept the premise that the prohibition of deadly weapons on Church owned property was the express will of God? And at this point, the trap is laid. If you answer yes, then the corollary is that any carnage that followed was the will of God, and the Church is absolved of responsibility. If you answer no, then you've indicated that, despite claiming that Church leaders convey the will of God, that you don't actually believe that. In which case, why are you risking the safety of yourself and your family by going to a location that is in peril due to known errancy of God's spokesmen? The only way I can see the Church becoming liable is if you can objectively demonstrate that it is the only True Church (TM). Good luck with that.

I apologize, my previous post was missing a quote in which you apparently were agreeing to my characterization of myself as a heathen for wearing a colored shirt.

From another conversation: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ So would that mean that anyone who wears their firearm to Church in contravention of this policy is a non-prophet following heathen? Asking for a friend.

Funny how when it comes to wearing a firearm at church, this seems so totally rational. But when it comes to wearing a colored shirt, it's completely rebellious.

I think the difference between a concert venue and a private residence would be something along the lines of "public accommodation"

I'd be interested in understanding why he thinks the children are in "real danger." I'll be extremely forthcoming right now and admit some things that some here may think are hypocritical. Several months ago, I very nearly purchased my first handgun and was preparing to carry it concealed at church. I was considering this because I, unfortunately, had ended up having to make a report to Child Protective Services against another member that attends church at my building. This particular member has some known anger management issues, and I was worried that there may be retaliation and I wasn't sure how that retaliation might manifest. At the time, I was aware that carrying firearms at church was discouraged, but I had a specific threat in mind and was willing to carry in order to guard myself against that threat. Fortunately, after some prayer and contemplation, I felt reassured that neither myself nor my family was going to face that kind of threat, and so I ended up not going through with that plan. But if I were to have to do that again, and felt that there was a credible need to defend myself, I might speak with the bishop about the potential threat, but this policy wouldn't stop me from carrying. So if there is a specific and credible threat to your family's safety, I think it's worth considering. But if there isn't a specific threat, maybe you can encourage him to conduct a rational and objective threat assessment for your church building.

Except that mass shootings are exceptionally rare, and mass shootings at churches even more so. I just spent a few minutes reviewing Mass Shootings in the United States in 2019 (on Wikipedia). I've read the news articles associated with the most recent 20 events (It seems the threshold for inclusion on this list is three casualties), and out of those 20, two of them occurred at gun free zones. In one of those, the shooting took place in a parking lot near a high school that was hosting a football jamboree. The article wasn't able to specify what the motivation for the shooting was, as suspects had not been apprehended. A linked story related to a shooting (with too few casualties to make the list) that occurred during the same events suggests that this may be related to arguments that broke out at the event. The other shooting took place at a bar after a patron was banned from the establishment. My understanding is that most states prohibit carrying firearms in establishments that serve alcohol (I hope those reasons are obvious). For the remaining 18 shootings, five of them took place at private residences; ten of them occurred in public; two took place at shopping centers (one a grocery store parking lot, the other a Circle K parking lot). Nine of them were confirmed domestic disputes, two involved gang violence, one involved alcohol, one involved drugs, and the remaining seven weren't clear on motivations (as suspects hadn't be apprehended), but nothing in these twenty incidents stood out to me as being someone looking for just any target. I suspect, with the exception of the drug related shooting, they were all targeting a specific person or group of people following some kind of dispute. In the summary article on Mass Shootings on Wikipedia (see here) there are seven shootings listed that occurred at a church. These involve one that was targeted; one that was targeted against the assailant's own church; three that were targeted against religion generally (ideological, the specific church was convenient); one targeted African Americans; and one was mostly random (the assailant chose the church because it was where his mother in law attended). Those seven are in a list of 229 "notable" shootings. Even if we take all seven of those events and consider them truly random, we have seven events in the span of 30 years. That is, seven churches out of, let's say 300,000 churches (according to this random article, that's how many Protestant churches there are). With that many churches, 52 Sundays per year, and a span of 30 years, that gives any particular church being struck by a random shooting on any Sunday an estimated probability of 0.000000015 (1.5 per one hundred million). Probabilistically speaking, it's hard to argue that carrying a firearm at church makes you safer at church.

And from Handbook 2 Section 21.2.4 That's about the strongest language I've ever seen in the handbooks. Ultimately, it doesn't strike me as much of a change at all. This new language just shifts the mechanism of enforcement from "you should know what we mean when we say it is 'inappropriate'" to, "we said no, and if you don't take it out of the building, we may call the police."

Meh. I tossed the judgments of others out the window yesterday and took time to buy a bunch of things at Lowe's, dig a couple holes, and conduct some light carpentry. I also recruited four members of the ward to help me do it all. Felt pretty good.

You left out dresses and white shirts....would you like to revise?

Seeing as I have had no problem up to this point telling any of my priesthood leaders where to park their ideas, I don't see why I'd be any more hesitant to do it with my son. And for the record, telling my leaders where to park their ideas has led to some of the most important and faith building discussions I've had. Likewise, some of the ward leaders I work with telling me where to park my ideas has led to some of the most profound moments of clarity that have opened the doors for all kinds of great revelation. Dissent and disagreement can be among the highest forms of loyalty.

Odd. My current mindset has probably done more to strengthen my faith in the Lord than anything else in my past. Prophets and apostles are in a tough spot, because they can't possibly speak to so many people and guide each of them on their unique path. So I get that they will speak in generalities. While a lot of the counsel they have given has proven useful to me, not all of it has. And that's going to vary a bit from person to person.

I find this one of the greatest fallacies we teach. I really do. It's tantamount to surrendering our agency. And when it takes its natural extension (which I've heard multiple times) that if we follow the prophet and the prophet is wrong (or whatever priesthood leader), then the fault lies on the prophet, it's outright heretical. I will not surrender my agency like that, nor will I displace the accountability for my decisions. And to be clear, I don't have a problem doing things that I don't understand. I'm just not prone to doing something that the Lord, as far as I can tell in my dialog with Him, just doesn't care about.

It's fascinating to me that my colored shirts and pants at church are so threatening to you. I'm comfortable in my standing with God on this matter. I'm more than happy to let you anguish over it though. Have fun with that.

This is willfully obtuse. This was a cut and dry case of one of God's children disassociating herself from the church because she felt she was being judged on a nose stud. I know it might seem hard to comprehend, but people's feelings matter. We can talk about "true conversion" and blah blah blah. But conversion is process. One that she had just started. And one she terminated because she felt socially outcast when her conversion had barely taken root. If we had seen her instead of a nose piercing, things might have turned out differently.

So you're saying I should stop praying for confirmation with respect to anything prophets say?

Yup. Perfectly clear. Grunt's spiritual experiences and interpretations are the gold standard by which MOE's should be judged. Glad we got that cleared up.