Packing heat at church

[NeuroTypical]

In this instance, the person wielding the weapon was going to inflict harm anyway. He intended to go and inflict harm. Having pulled a gun on him would have ended in more bloodshed and violence.

Heh - or it might of ended in saving innocent life, or it might have ended in no shots being fired. What-iffing a scenario is a waste of time. None of us were there, and every situation is different.

Contrary to the beliefs of many, pulling out weapons doesn't solve problems. Very often, it creates more than it solves.

It is true that a firearm raises the stakes, makes things more complicated, and brings more serious consequenses. But the notion that pulling out weapons doesn't ever make anything better, is a totally false notion. I'd refer interested folks to John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Guns are used thousands of time every year in the US to deter or stop bad things from happening, without a shot ever being fired.

Yes, gun violence is a problem. Yes, accidental shootings are a problem. But the notion that guns don't solve problems, is totally false.

Essentially you're saying that because there were two incidents of violence in 468,000,000 church hours in one year that we should start carrying weapons to church to defend ourselves. When you look at the data in its entirety, you sound a bit ridiculous.

No, that's not what he's saying. Yes indeed it is a rediculous strawman though.

Wheats did not come here advocating "that we should start carrying weapons to church". He came here saying he does it, and is looking for a discussion.

[MarginOfError]

Wearing a seat belt, carrying a spare tire, and keeping food storage do not put anyone else in danger in any sense.

In addition, our leaders have not explicitly asked us to avoid wearing seat belts, stop carrying spare tires for our cars, or quit storing food.

Well, that's not entirely true. Although not codified in the CHI, I have it on good authority that we are encouraged not to wear our seat belts in church, carry spare tires in church, or store food in the meetinghouse.

Which just brings out the point that we are only talking about on Church property, and not commenting on in society at large.

[Wheats]

My gun has not put anyone in danger either. I wont comment furthet, I have been deemed unreasonable afterall

[Soulsearcher]

Heh - or it might of ended in saving innocent life, or it might have ended in no shots being fired. What-iffing a scenario is a waste of time. None of us were there, and every situation is different.

It is true that a firearm raises the stakes, makes things more complicated, and brings more serious consequenses. But the notion that pulling out weapons doesn't ever make anything better, is a totally false notion. I'd refer interested folks to John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Guns are used thousands of time every year in the US to deter or stop bad things from happening, without a shot ever being fired.

Yes, gun violence is a problem. Yes, accidental shootings are a problem. But no, the notion that guns don't solve problems, is totally false.

No, that's not what he's saying. Yes indeed it is a rediculous strawman though.

Wheats did not come here advocating "that we should start carrying weapons to church". He came here saying he does it, and is looking for a discussion.

Yet his argument is stating that he sees no problem with this practice. He's stated that he does not wish to follow the direction given by the church and can't see why others shouldn't have the same mindset. He's supporting members going against church direction. Now it might be that many agree with his point of view, and then we go back to the petition thread. if the stance of the church is clear is their room to debate while still being faithful or if the matter has been addressed is it left to follow and sustain the leadership or rebelling because of pride?

[Wheats]

In al seriousness, I appteciate the discussion wether I agree or not

[bytor2112]

Everyone is required to check their guns in with the Bishop or at least unload in his presence for inspection in our Ward.

[Gwen]

Wheats did not come here advocating "that we should start carrying weapons to church". He came here saying he does it, and is looking for a discussion.

and discussion is what he got.

He may not have known about the church policy against guns before but he does now. He knows exactly where to look so now he has a choice to make. Keep his mouth shut and pick and choose the policy he will follow or leave the gun at home for 3 hours a week. It's a pretty simple choice.

If he is an exception to the rule because he is in danger and has a restraining order out on someone then he needs to talk to the bishop and make sure they know he will have a gun and why.

[MarginOfError]

Heh - or it might of ended in saving innocent life, or it might have ended in no shots being fired. What-iffing a scenario is a waste of time. None of us were there, and every situation is different.

It is true that a firearm raises the stakes, makes things more complicated, and brings more serious consequenses. But the notion that pulling out weapons doesn't ever make anything better, is a totally false notion. I'd refer interested folks to John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Guns are used thousands of time every year in the US to deter or stop bad things from happening, without a shot ever being fired.

Yes, gun violence is a problem. Yes, accidental shootings are a problem. But the notion that guns don't solve problems, is totally false.

The book you cite is based on the premise that crime goes down if criminals fear that others might be carrying weapons. It's a premise I understand, and one that the data support. But it's still a characterization of data--that is, it represents the mean response.

What it doesn't do well is evaluate what happens in instances where the weapons are actually pulled. Once the weapons are out, the probability of violence sky rockets. If your interest is in minimizing risk, then your safest approach is to minimize the appearance of weapons. This means that even if a mugging were attempted on a person carrying a weapon, the situation is more likely to end without violence if the person doesn't pull his weapon than if he does.

Furthermore, the book you cite addresses whether crimes are prevented. It does not address the issue about whether it is safer to fight crime with citizen weaponry or with citizens reporting crime to police.

No, that's not what he's saying.

conceded

Yes indeed it is a rediculous strawman though.

and really what I was hoping to illustrate

Wheats did not come here advocating "that we should start carrying weapons to church". He came here saying he does it, and is looking for a discussion.

also conceded

[Soulsearcher]

I'm more worried about the ease with which it was said he now knows the policy and says it's ok as long as he doesn't tell anyone. If a policy is in place but it's ok to skirt it by just not fessing up if that sustaining the leaders is that not setting a dangerous precedent? Where does that stop?

[MarginOfError]

I'm more worried about the ease with which it was said he now knows the policy and says it's ok as long as he doesn't tell anyone. If a policy is in place but it's ok to skirt it by just not fessing up if that sustaining the leaders is that not setting a dangerous precedent? Where does that stop?

I think it's time we start a petition.

[MarginOfError]

I'm more worried about the ease with which it was said he now knows the policy and says it's ok as long as he doesn't tell anyone. If a policy is in place but it's ok to skirt it by just not fessing up if that sustaining the leaders is that not setting a dangerous precedent? Where does that stop?

Another issue worth considering, and I don't know the answer to this, but does a concealed weapons permit allow a person to carry their weapon onto private property against the owner's wishes?

If not, does a statement in the CHI qualify as notice of such wish?

[Gwen]

Another issue worth considering, and I don't know the answer to this, but does a concealed weapons permit allow a person to carry their weapon onto private property against the owner's wishes?

If not, does a statement in the CHI qualify as notice of such wish?

In the past when one had to specificly talk to the bishop to know what it said I would say no it does not.

However, it's online for all members now so if they question what the policy is on it then they can check. I would consider that "notice". All things have fine print and not reading it doesn't excuse you from abiding by it or the consequences if you don't.

But that's my uneducated assumption.

[NeuroTypical]

Once the weapons are out, the probability of violence sky rockets.

Where are you getting your data? I have a half-remembered statistic about the thousands of times per year Americans pull guns and a situation defuses itself. I also have a dozen or two first- or second-hand anecdotes. A buddy, driving at night on a dirt road, bunch of loud teenagers in a pickup truck showing bats and knives tried to force him off the road, he showed his .45, they turned three shades whiter and hit the brakes. Two stories from different states, guys filling cars up with gas, noticing they are being cased by multiple punks who then surround and start to approach - guys pull their firearms and yell 'back off!', everyone runs away. Stuff like that. There is a massive thread over on glocktalk.com, with thousands of people relaying anecdotes when they've employed their pistol and all the bad things stopped happening.

If your interest is in minimizing risk, then your safest approach is to minimize the appearance of weapons.

It depends on the situation. For most of us, not escalating an encounter is appropriate most of the time. If someone is intent on your blood, or your wife's body, or what have you - standing there and not doing anything won't be preventing bad things.

This means that even if a mugging were attempted on a person carrying a weapon, the situation is more likely to end without violence if the person doesn't pull his weapon than if he does.

I'm only guessing, but I think that notion is held by a majority of permit holders. I certainly plan to fork over my wallet to a mugger, leaving my gun in place. I don't carry to protect my wallet. I carry to protect my wife and children's lives.

[NeuroTypical]

Another issue worth considering, and I don't know the answer to this, but does a concealed weapons permit allow a person to carry their weapon onto private property against the owner's wishes?

It depends on what state you're in, but generally, you are correct. A right to carry does not trump someone else's private property rights.

Here in CO, it's legal to carry into private property, unless the business or whoever posts "no guns allowed" or some such. Here's how a hospital in Colorado Springs handles things:

Uneducated and uninformed folks assume no guns are allowed. Conceal carry permit holders can see they are within their rights to carry. Lawbreakers intent on mayhem ignore the law and the sign. Everyone is happy.

[MarginOfError]

It depends on the situation. For most of us, not escalating an encounter is appropriate most of the time. If someone is intent on your blood, or your wife's body, or what have you - standing there and not doing anything won't be preventing bad things.

And it's these situations for which I game my exception in an earlier post.

I'm only guessing, but I think that notion is held by a majority of permit holders. I certainly plan to fork over my wallet to a mugger, leaving my gun in place. I don't carry to protect my wallet. I carry to protect my wife and children's lives.

And the problem I have with the earlier implication of, "what about the copy repairman that was robbed int he building" is that Wheats was implying the person could have protected his wallet with the gun. That just seems like such a bad idea.

[Dravin]

It should be noted that as of Feb 8, 2011 ( Cite: Utah Department of Public Safety) carrying a firearm into a LDS Church in Utah is a violation of Utah Code 76-10-530.

Edit: For some reason I read Wheat's post as stating he's glad he's in Utah.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

Where are you getting your data?

Problem is, I don't think data exists on this question. I don't know that anyone has really researched it. Until someone does, or someone can find the data, at best we're looking at trying to resolve the debate with an incomplete characterization of reality.

On the other hand, I trust that the advice given by national organizations, including the FBI, to give up your property, not your life, is based on their years of experience and observation in these matters.

[Guest gopecon]

Maybe I'm going on a bit of a tangent, but is carrying onto private property an issue for the police to be concerned with? Outside of UT (where it's codified in law) if someone brings a gun into a church, is that an automatic violation of the law that would warrant the police being called, or would someone like the bishop need to confront someone with a weapon (an innocent carrier, not someone trying to cause trouble) and ask them to leave?

[Dravin]

if someone brings a gun into a church, is that an automatic violation of the law that would warrant the police being called,

It should be noted why it is illegal to carry a gun onto the Church's property in Utah is because they've done the legal equivalent of posting signage. It's not a case where gun + house of worship = always illegal.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

I trust that the advice given by national organizations, including the FBI, to give up your property, not your life, is based on their years of experience and observation in these matters.

When it comes to wallets and cars and whatnot, I'm pretty much in agreement unless there's a direct threat of serious bodily harm. Bad guys entering a private premisis or residence is another matter. Some states have a "duty to retreat" deal going - if it's possible to run away and abandon your property, you must. Other states have "castle doctrine" in place - if someone is illegally entering your premisis through stealth or violent means, you're good to assume they intend serious harm to innocent people inside, and you're good to employ deadly force to stop the threat.

[i live in Colorado - we got famous a few year's back for our "Make My Day" laws, extending castle doctrine to privately owned businesses. ]

My wife's Personal Protection class (offered through the NRA, by our local police) gave us good things to think about too. Deterrence (locks and lights, yelling "I'm armed - go away"), avoidance (situational awareness, backing down from a heated discussion), and evasion (running the heck the other way) - all of those things should also be thought about/practiced/planned-for at least as much as utilizing your weapon. Target shooting, dry firing, practicing safe drawing with a firearm is good and necessary if you're going to own one. Practicing looking up from your iPhone when wandering around and practicing not walking down that alley in the first place - even more good and necessary.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Traveler]

There is a story about J. Golden Kimball visiting St. George for a stake conference in the early 1900’s. He was told that deacons were bringing guns (pistols) to church in their back pockets. He was asked, because at the time he had great influence on the youth, if he would say something to change the practice. Apostle Kimball forgot about his promise until while giving his keynote address he noticed several young deacons sitting in front intent listening to his talk. He then addressed the youth directly something like this:

“I’ve been told that some of you deacons and other young men have been coming to church with guns in your back pockets. You should not ought to do that. Why that thing could accidently go off and you would blow your brains out!”

The Traveler

[Suzie]

MOE, since I don't have the Handbook and you posted this:

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

I am not trying to be picky but just checking the wording. Inappropriate isn't forbidden or illegal so my question is, can someone (despite this statement) carry a gun to Church without getting into trouble?

[Suzie]

But does someone who can't stand the thought of putting their gun down for three hours qualify as level-headed and responsible?

Depends what area the person lives MOE.

[skippy740]

At a regional priesthood leadership conference, one brother carried a firearm as part of the security detail for Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve. I'm sure there were others for that particular meeting.

I've never seen a firearm at any other sacrament meeting service... and I served my mission in Tennessee!

[beefche]

Psst! skippy! Do you know the meaning of conceal carry?