Preventing a shooting in an LDS meeting

[Ironhold]

mostly trusting God.. I do know that the prophet does have a security team but there is no checking at the door. I don't know how armed the security is.

It's my understanding that the church goes out of its way to scout whatever former / retired protective service members (police, military, FBI, et cetra) it can locate. This way, SLC knows that whoever they have has already been trained by the best and are ready for anything. 

[Leah]

I listened to law enforcement today talking about how the response to these kinds of shootings has changed since Columbine.

 

At that time, the approach was for law enforcement to wait outside for specialized teams, etc.  The approach/training now is entry into the building as quickly as possible by whichever law enforcement personnel arrive first, to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible, thereby reducing the number of casualties.

 

From my understanding, this is exactly the approach that was used yesterday, and two officers were able to neutralize the shooter within 11 minutes of arrival on the scene.  I have no doubt that that did indeed reduce the death toll.

 

That helps to illustrate why I have no opposition to trained citizens, be they active law enforcement or private citizens, carrying in most places.  I feel it would increase the chances of neutralizing the shooter faster than waiting for armed "official" personnel to arrive from elsewhere, and again reducing the number of casualties.

[Ironhold]

I have a secret hope and suspicion that there are some guys in my ward that concealed carry.

In my part of Texas, it's a non-issue if somebody has a utility knife or even a small tactical knife (4 inches is the maximum blade length under state law) that is used for utilitarian purposes. We've got so many hunters, farmers, skilled trades workers, and the like that knives are just like watches or belt buckles. Unless there's a prohibition against weapons of any stripe or someone is being an idiot with what they've got, nobody really cares. 

 

What's more, I live in Copperas Cove. Ft. Hood is right next to us, and Gatesville (the county seat) is home to numerous prisons. This means that we have a lot of off-duty military service members and prison guards out and about. We've also got more than a few street gangs, and I have reason to believe that there may or may not be a few violently psychotic knife nuts afoot who are just looking for an excuse. 

 

Suffice to say that anyone who seriously thinks about trying anything is going to die in the process if they aren't intercepted first. 

[Ironhold]

The point of gun free zones it to keep irrational idiots from shooting someone because of an offense (argument). That and people who think they can handle a gun and shoot themselves in the bathroom, by accident. I'm all for gun free zones, as a deterent to idiots. Everyone knows they won't stop a mad gunman and that response to a mad gunman will not be a barrage of gun fire. The bet is that we are at threat more by idiots than mad gunmen. And with over 300,000 American gun deaths in the last 10 years, I would agree.

The best way to stop idiots is proper training and monitoring. 

 

For example, here in Texas you have to attend state-sanctioned classes if you wish to legally concealed-carry a weapon; IIRC, the training includes  a mandatory marksmanship demonstration.

[David13]

Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely nothing heroic about risking your life just by showing up at work. Because, you know, paycheck. 

There have been cops in my family.  But I don't think any of them would have identified themselves as "heroes".

There are honest cops.  You may have heard them say, after some action that saved someone, "I'm no hero, I was just doing my job.

However, far too many of them get caught up in the hero worship agenda that goes on today.  And I think there is a need to counter that pure, unadulterated, unquestioning hero worship.

Is this country in such bad shape that if someone does their job, they have to be hailed and adulated as a "hero" and given awards and prizes and appear on tv, as if a "celebrity"?

The ordinary citizen who does the same thing FOR NO PAYCHECK, WITHOUT INSURANCE, OR IMMUNITY, gets far less or no such reward in too many cases.

Leah points out a rather good idea.  How "heroic" is it for the cops to wait outside for "specialized" teams?  While people die??

I risk my life in this world just walking down the street.  Because in most places someone like me cannot carry a gun to protect themselves.  A cop can.

Cops and firemen are not drafted.  They make a conscious decision to do that job.  And in many cases, particularly with unlimited and unquestioned overtime, benefits, pension, 20 and you are out, etc., are extremely well compensated.

So I think we need to be a little more realistic.  And follow Leah's recommendation.

dc

[Ironhold]

There are lots of problem for a world where violence is an option.  Many think guns are a direct reflection of the problem – This is not necessarily true.  Explosive devices – or if you will; bombs – are far more lethal and much less discriminating and far more likely to harm the innocent or untended with collateral damages.   

 

It takes a week to legally get a gun... if you pass a background check and have your other paperwork in order.

 

You can legally get a bomb just by going to the local grocery store. 

 

Seriously. 

 

As Mythbusters demonstrated in an episode, even something as innocent as non-dairy creamer powder can be turned into a devastating display under the appropriate circumstances. 

[Guest]

Is "hero worship" a 2015 buzzword, or is it just lds.net?

[Ironhold]

Is "hero worship" a 2015 buzzword, or is it just lds.net?

I've seen it in a few different places. 

[askandanswer]

I sometimes see the argument in defence of gun ownership that more good people holding and using guns would lessen the number of casualties when bad people do things with guns because the good guys can shoot the bad guys straight away instead of having to wait for the police to show up and do the shooting. Has this theory ever been empirically tested in a manner that would produce sufficiently reliable results as to inform the policy-making process? Could it even be tested or do we just have to rely on a bunch of anecdotes? If the validity of this argument cannot be tested, I think it would be prudent to exercise some caution when trying to draw conclusions from it.  

[Still_Small_Voice]

According to these numbers the United States is number one in civilian firearm ownership in the world but beats the murder rate of 110 other nations.  Take a look:

 

https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/number-one-bullet

 

I think some nations feel morally superior to the United States because their murders are committed by the killers using knifes, clubs or sharp, pointy sticks rather than by guns.  Murder is murder despite if it is done with firearms, a rock or whatever weapon is available to the killer.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I was just thinking as I read this thread, some people are afraid of guns because of possible accidental shootings, as has been mentioned.  But I'm reminded that life is precarious...after all look how many people are killed or maimed in car accidents and we don't ban cars.  I realize that cars are created as transportation, and some might argue that guns are created with one intent - to kill - but it could also be said that guns are created to protect.  For example, you might take a gun into the woods with no intent to use it, unless your life is threatened by a bear.  Or you may be a concealed weapon carrier who carries a gun with only the intention to defend and protect.

 

 I'm Liberal in a lot of my ideas, but not about guns.  I don't carry a gun, but I did work in prison once and trained with and carried a gun (on perimeter not inside.)   I think that familiarity helps my comfort level around guns.  When I grew up we had driver's ed training in school, what if we had gun training in schools...ha ha, I realize that would never happen...I'm just saying if guns weren't so unfamiliar to some people maybe they wouldn't be so afraid of the idea of good guys carrying them.  It reminds me of this Morgan Spurlock show where he took people with opposing views and put them together for a month (very interesting show).  In one episode, there was a girl who was completely against guns, but had never actually seen one up close or handled one.  They took her to live with a family in Montana who were huge gun enthusiasts for a week(?).  She learned a lot.  I don't think she did a 180 on her views about gun control, but I think she certainly relaxed a bit.

Edited October 3, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[askandanswer]

 When I grew up we had driver's ed training in school, what if we had gun training in schools...ha ha, I realize that would never happen...

 

From one of the two biggest selling newspapers in the Australian state of New South Wales, 4 years ago. At that time, with only elected two representatives, the Shooters and Fishers Party held the balance of power in the Upper House of the Legislative Assembly, so they got pretty much whatever they asked of the government.

 

THE Shooters and Fishers Party has won the support of the O'Farrell Government to increase shooting as a sport in schools.

The gun control lobby and even some in the Coalition see the minor party's long-held ambition to get more guns into the hands of children as the price the government must pay for the support of Shooters MPs, Robert Borsak and Robert Brown. It relies on the pair to get its legislation through a hostile upper house.

At the top of their wish list is the relaxation of the tight system for registering firearms and an end to the ban on hunting in national parks. But the Shooters also want to remove red tape so NSW's 650 public and independent high schools are free to choose shooting as a sport. 

Under pressure to deliver something for the Shooters, the Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, has opened the door.Only a handful of schools, mainly in country areas, teach children to shoot. Some Sydney private schools have their own rifle ranges.

''We are open to finding ways to support those schools that wish to offer shooting as part of their sports curriculum,'' his spokeswoman said.

 

Mr Brown (one of the two elected representatives) said: ''We've said time and again that they [the government] have the mandate to run the state. We're not going to stand in their way unless they screw around with our constituents: shooters, fisherman, hunters, four-wheel-drivers.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-guns-in-schools-20110716-1hj5q.html#ixzz3nUse08aX 

 

The full article is at http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-guns-in-schools-20110716-1hj5q.html

 

 

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 

THE Shooters and Fishers Party has won the support of the O'Farrell Government to increase shooting as a sport in schools.

The gun control lobby and even some in the Coalition see the minor party's long-held ambition to get more guns into the hands of children as the price the government must pay for the support of Shooters MPs, Robert Borsak and Robert Brown. It relies on the pair to get its legislation through a hostile upper house. . . .

 

''We are open to finding ways to support those schools that wish to offer shooting as part of their sports curriculum,'' his spokeswoman said.

 

Mr Brown (one of the two elected representatives) said: ''We've said time and again that they [the government] have the mandate to run the state. We're not going to stand in their way unless they screw around with our constituents: shooters, fisherman, hunters, four-wheel-drivers.''

 

 

Wow, that is absolutely fascinating to me.  I thought everyone would call me crazy for even suggesting it.  Did it happen?

[askandanswer]

No. Sorry, I should have looked further before posting the above. This article was in the same newspaper the very next day. 

 

THE Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, yesterday ruled out supporting changes to gun laws in NSW and said the state government would not consider introducing shooting as a sport into the school curriculum.

This was despite the Shooters and Fishers Party saying they had received an indication from the state government that it would largely support their firearms bill, which includes allowing shooting as a sport in NSW schools.

The Shooters MP Robert Borsak said he had not discussed the bill with the government since parliament rose for the winter break, but the government had shown a ''generalised level of support'' when they had talks several weeks ago.

Mr Gallacher yesterday maintained there had been no discussion with the sports and education ministers about the introduction of shooting to the school curriculums and there would be no changes to the laws.

Several private schools offer shooting as a sport, but Mr Gallacher said the government ''has no plans to change the current arrangements for sports shooting in schools''.

He said the Shooters Party had lobbied the government for changes to gun laws but he said it was not something the government supported. ''The Shooters party have always pushed this,'' he told Sky News yesterday.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/shooting-out-as-school-sport-option-20110717-1hk9b.html#ixzz3nVWIzPT1 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

No. Sorry, I should have looked further before posting the above. This article was in the same newspaper the very next day. 

 

 

 

No worries, I still find it interesting that it was even proposed. 

[David13]

I sometimes see the argument in defence of gun ownership that more good people holding and using guns would lessen the number of casualties when bad people do things with guns because the good guys can shoot the bad guys straight away instead of having to wait for the police to show up and do the shooting. Has this theory ever been empirically tested in a manner that would produce sufficiently reliable results as to inform the policy-making process? Could it even be tested or do we just have to rely on a bunch of anecdotes? If the validity of this argument cannot be tested, I think it would be prudent to exercise some caution when trying to draw conclusions from it.  

It's tested on a daily basis and indeed is true.

However, you will never hear a word about it on the mainstream media as it does not fit their agenda.  There are many other sources for the information.

dc

 

I had a discussion with a missionary sister Ryan from Australia yesterday.  She said her ward is a 2 hour (traveling) radius.

Edited October 3, 2015 by David13

[askandanswer]

Yes, some of the country wards are like that. It would take about an hour to drive from the western boundary of my ward to the eastern boundary, but 99% of the ward population lives within a 15 minute radius.

[mirkwood]

Do I dectect and iota ( or a half gallon) of bias based on personal experience (or work experience)?

Around Los Angeles the cops have a 100% US AGAINST THEM (any non cop) attitude.  Which is not the way it should be.

If a citizen saves me with a gun, it's heroic.  If a cop does, does he not get a paycheck?  Is he not doing his job?  I cannot define 'hero' as a guy who does his job.

Not that i wouldn't appreciate it.

dc

 

No, but I definitely see one in you.

[pam]

 I cannot define 'hero' as a guy who does his job.

 

 

Then I guess you don't see our military as heroes either.  They were only doing their job as well that they signed up for.

[kapikui]

Is it true that the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of gun violence than the rest of the developed world? 

The problem with this question is the term "gun violence".  It automatically assumes that violence, even deadly violence, that comes from something other than a gun is somehow OK.   When guns access is restricted, those wanting to commit crime either get guns anyway, or use something other than guns.   In one mythbusters episode, they toured a supermax prison as part of investigating a myth about whether or not a convict could manufacture a makeshift crossbow in prison.  They were shown a small exhibit of makeshift weapons made in the prison.  One such weapon was a 9mm small machine gun made from plumbing parts. Indeed you can get about 90 percent of the supplies needed to manufacture an M3 small machine gun as used in WWII (replaced the Thompson SMG not because it was better but because it was less than 1/10th the cost), at Home Depot, more if you're willing to forego the accuracy of a rifled barrel. 

 

While yes it is true that there is more gun violence in the U.S. than in most other countries, it is not true that there is more violent crime in general in the U.S.  It is also true that the cities in the U.S. with the strictest gun control are the ones with the most gun violence.  I can't remember the exact numbers, but if you removed the top 4 cities with the strictest gun control in the U.S. from the figures, the U.S. drops about to about 100th in overall violence. 

[kapikui]

I listened to law enforcement today talking about how the response to these kinds of shootings has changed since Columbine.

 

At that time, the approach was for law enforcement to wait outside for specialized teams, etc.  The approach/training now is entry into the building as quickly as possible by whichever law enforcement personnel arrive first, to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible, thereby reducing the number of casualties.

 

From my understanding, this is exactly the approach that was used yesterday, and two officers were able to neutralize the shooter within 11 minutes of arrival on the scene.  I have no doubt that that did indeed reduce the death toll.

 

That helps to illustrate why I have no opposition to trained citizens, be they active law enforcement or private citizens, carrying in most places.  I feel it would increase the chances of neutralizing the shooter faster than waiting for armed "official" personnel to arrive from elsewhere, and again reducing the number of casualties.

Come to think of it, this is the first time I can remember (I may have missed some) that the mass shooter did not shoot himself almost immediately on encountering armed resistance. 

[kapikui]

It takes a week to legally get a gun... if you pass a background check and have your other paperwork in order.

 

Since when?  I've purchased all of my guns legally.  If you live in a free state and have a concealed weapons license, you can go in fill out the form 4473, show your permit and they don't even need to make a phone call. I think the longest time I ever spent purchasing a gun was my SKS, that took a couple or three hours, but that included wandering around the gun show for an extended period of time. 

 

Of course I live in Idaho, I can (and have) legally purchase a gun at a yard sale. 

[Guest]

Well, I suppose you're right if your underlying assumption is that policy discussions should entail only what we want in the here-and-now, without considering our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity as well as ourselves.  But frankly, I doubt you'd want to have such a short-sighted discussion. 

...

Ah, but I don't have an underlying assumption in asking my question. I tried to put out as specific a question as I could, and the only one so far who seems to have attempted to address my question directly was carlimac in post #43 who provided a link to a graphic. While the graphic doesn't answer my question in terms of comparing the U.S. to other developed countries, it does in my mind lend legitimacy to inquiring about the U.S. as a whole rather than taking some cities out of the question, or limiting the question only to some cities as others on this thread have suggested I ought to do.

We are not the inevitable pinnacle of social, technological, or political history, any more than Ozymandias was.  The liberty, democracy, safety, and prosperity we enjoy did not spring into existence like Athena, fully formed.  They are the result of specific historical events and continuing social tensions, which can be destroyed just as they were created.  I maintain that widespread ownership of arms by the citizenry, is one of those tensions that maintains the status quo.  Without it, the society is easy pickings for the next demagogue who can (appear to) win an election.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the evolution of our freedoms, etc. I just think it is outside the scope of my question. My reason for limiting the scope of comparison to recent history up until now was only out of my desire to compare apples to apples. Suppose, someone provided me with factual data that said the U.S. and Country X have nearly the same numbers of violence with guns, but much more than Countries Y and Z. At that point I might have been prone to ask another question such as, "What factors might explain the similarities between U.S. and X; and the differences between U.S. & X and Y & Z?"

Out of curiosity--why do you say this?  Are first-worlders more inherently virtuous or less prone to totalitarianism?

 

Again, I say this only because I'm curious about comparing developed nations. My question was only about statistical facts, if there are really any available. Like most questions, the answers (if I get them) usually lead to more questions, but I often prefer to choose follow-up questions based on answers rather than assumptions that I perceive be based upon other agendas. In hindsight maybe I should have made my question more detailed and asked whether we can even agree on the names of developed nations.

[Guest]

Right there is your problem.  It's not "THE ENTIRE US", it's a certain very small segment of the population, and we SHOULD NOT take those cities out of the discussion.  In fact, those cities and those cities ONLY should be the discussion because that's where the problem is.  Not with the "ENTIRE US."

...

But again, and importantly, it's NOT THE GUN.  It's the guy (or rarely gal) who pulls the trigger.

dc

Post # 43 seems to contradict your point of view. But, of course, I can't yet speak to the reliability of the database.

The agenda, in case you missed it, is to IGNORE that segment of the population as if they are EXPECTED to be violent and uncivilized and deal drugs etc etc etc.

I don't have an agenda. I wasn't particularly interested in anybody else's agenda when I asked my question.

But again, and importantly, it's NOT THE GUN.  It's the guy (or rarely gal) who pulls the trigger.

 

dc

 

Forgive me, but I think that while the viewpoint behind this statement is based on truth, it isn't relevant to what I want to know. I have nothing against guns as inanimate objects if that's truly what you're saying. I support the right to keep and bear arms. I'm under no illusion that would make me doubt that people pull the triggers.

[Guest]

Why limit it to Guns?...  Violence is violence...  Gun, knives, clubs, fists... are just tools for the expression of violence.  It seems very disingenuous to me to try to point to less gun violence in some other country unless you can also point to less violence in total as well...  Otherwise you have simply shifted the problem not eliminated it .

Wy limit it to guns? For only one reason: it's what I'm curious to know. I'm happy to learn about knife violence, club violence, fist violence, etc. But if you hold a gun to my head (pun intended) I'll change my question and ask, "Does the U.S. have a disproportionate amount of violence compared to other developed nations?" It's an entirely different topic, and it's unrelated to this thread. But if you would like to discuss it, I'm interested, and I'll promise not to tell you that you're asking the wrong question as some have suggested I am doing.