No Guns in Sacrament Meeting—We Mean It This Time!!!

[Just_A_Guy]

Via the Salt Lake Tribune.  

[MarginOfError]

And from Handbook 2 Section 21.2.4

Quote

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, the carrying of lethal weapons on Church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited.

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."

[Guest MormonGator]

That's nice of them, but the inherent flaw in this is that a mass shooter doesn't obey the rules. So....

[JohnsonJones]

From what I understand in the US, most shootings occur in places where bringing a gun is denied.  Thus, it seems the easiest way to invite a shooter to shoot people in your area is to make it a no-gun area.

However, the HB is the HB.

[Grunt]

I'm really glad they took the guess work out of it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with MG that from a secular standpoint—the policy isn’t the one I’d prefer.

But, like Grunt, I’m glad to have the clarity.  

[dprh]

The Anti-Nephi-Lehites actually buried their weapons.  Just food for thought.  

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, dprh said:

The Anti-Nephi-Lehites actually buried their weapons.  Just food for thought.  

Terrible example of a pacifistic view point.

The Book of Mormon is full of stories of valiant and faithful followers of Christ who were willing to fight to protect themselves. There are some Church members who try to twist the covenant made by the People of Ammon into a defense of pacifism and eventual victimization by evil men. Prominent LDS author Orson Scott Card responded to an email he received on this topic. In part Brother Card had this to say, "You're missing the point. The people (Nephite and Ammonite) were being attacked. The Ammonites, bound by their oath, did not lift a hand to defend themselves. But the Nephites, being compassionate, went to war, not because they had a "warlike culture" (that was the Lamanites and rebel Nephites) but because they could not bear to see a righteous people suffering the slaughter of war. "To stand idly by while murderers commit murder, when protecting their victims is within your power, is not "pacifism," it's either cowardice or arrogance. My righteousness is worth more than your life, such pacifists say."

Here is the link to OSC's article: http://www.nauvoo.com/response.html

 

The Anti Nephi Lehi's were a group of people who had been cold blooded murderers prior to their conversion. As a symbol of their conversion, they buried their weapons and said they would never take them up again. They decided to take those weapons up again to help in the war. Helaman stopped them because they had made a covenant with God, not because they were going to fight. They kept the covenant they made. Instead, they sent their sons to war, along with the rest of the Nephites. Last time I checked, there was a prophet. If they were all supposed to be pacifists and lay down and die, the prophet would have so instructed them. He did not. He went to war with the rest of them.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by mirkwood

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

The Anti Nephi Lehi's were a group of people who had been cold blooded murderers prior to their conversion. As a symbol of their conversion, they buried their weapons and said they would never take them up again. They decided to take those weapons up again to help in the war. Helaman stopped them because they had made a covenant with God, not because they were going to fight. They kept the covenant they made. Instead, they sent their sons to war, along with the rest of the Nephites. Last time I checked, there was a prophet. If they were all supposed to be pacifists and lay down and die, the prophet would have so instructed them. He did not. He went to war with the rest of them.

^^This^^

Reread it several times. It bears repeating. Those who think the Anti-Nephi-Lehis are supposed to be our role models need to factor in the murderous lifestyle and impulses of these Lamanites before their conversion. As I've said before, surely the repentance of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis stands as one of the greatest miracles in all of scripture.

[carlimac]

So we just hope we have a few cops in our wards. Can they carry at church if they are off duty? 

We have several secret service agents in our ward. I certainly hope they are carrying when they are in attendance!!

Edited August 27, 2019 by carlimac

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Can they carry at church if they are off duty? 

 

Yes

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Can they carry at church if they are off duty?

Yes

Says the off-duty cop.

[MarginOfError]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's nice of them, but the inherent flaw in this is that a mass shooter doesn't obey the rules. So....

 

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

From what I understand in the US, most shootings occur in places where bringing a gun is denied.  Thus, it seems the easiest way to invite a shooter to shoot people in your area is to make it a no-gun area.

However, the HB is the HB.

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.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

 

Except that mass shootings are exceptionally rare, and mass shootings at churches even more so.

Thinking that carrying a firearm is only for mass shootings is like thinking that having a year's supply of food is only for famine.

[mirkwood]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Says the off-duty cop.

That was the question.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

That was the question.

They can't force you not to carry, right? It's your job. 

[dprh]

14 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Terrible example of a pacifistic view point.

The Book of Mormon is full of stories of valiant and faithful followers of Christ who were willing to fight to protect themselves. There are some Church members who try to twist the covenant made by the People of Ammon into a defense of pacifism and eventual victimization by evil men. Prominent LDS author Orson Scott Card responded to an email he received on this topic. In part Brother Card had this to say, "You're missing the point. The people (Nephite and Ammonite) were being attacked. The Ammonites, bound by their oath, did not lift a hand to defend themselves. But the Nephites, being compassionate, went to war, not because they had a "warlike culture" (that was the Lamanites and rebel Nephites) but because they could not bear to see a righteous people suffering the slaughter of war. "To stand idly by while murderers commit murder, when protecting their victims is within your power, is not "pacifism," it's either cowardice or arrogance. My righteousness is worth more than your life, such pacifists say."

Here is the link to OSC's article: http://www.nauvoo.com/response.html

 

The Anti Nephi Lehi's were a group of people who had been cold blooded murderers prior to their conversion. As a symbol of their conversion, they buried their weapons and said they would never take them up again. They decided to take those weapons up again to help in the war. Helaman stopped them because they had made a covenant with God, not because they were going to fight. They kept the covenant they made. Instead, they sent their sons to war, along with the rest of the Nephites. Last time I checked, there was a prophet. If they were all supposed to be pacifists and lay down and die, the prophet would have so instructed them. He did not. He went to war with the rest of them.

 

I am really bad at expressing my thoughts in coherent sentences.  It's a terrible weakness when participating in forums.

What I was trying to do was make a comparison of leaving weapons at home during church services can be viewed similarly to the ANL's covenant.  I'm not calling for all members to bury their guns.  Just that by following the prophets counsel, we can be blessed.

[Grunt]

57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

They can't force you not to carry, right? It's your job. 

Does an off-duty police officer have the right to enter private property armed if not on police business and the property owner forbids firearms?  That's probably a state-specific question?

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

They can't force you not to carry, right? It's your job. 

Correct.  

[mirkwood]

24 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Does an off-duty police officer have the right to enter private property armed if not on police business and the property owner forbids firearms?  That's probably a state-specific question?

HR 218 allows me to carry anywhere nation wide except inside Federal buildings.

As for private property restrictions, I personally think that is open for debate, based on HR218 and state law that lets us carry.  However, I am not aware of anyone making an issue when asked to leave.  There are some concert venues that have denied armed off duty police entrance while carrying.  I don't think they can, but I would rather go see the concert/event then get into a pissing contest over it.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

HR 218 allows me to carry anywhere nation wide except inside Federal buildings.

As for private property restrictions, I personally think that is open for debate, based on HR218 and state law that lets us carry.  However, I am not aware of anyone making an issue when asked to leave.  There are some concert venues that have denied armed off duty police entrance while carrying.  I don't think they can, but I would rather go see the concert/event then get into a pissing contest over it.

Thanks.  I would assume, even if you have the right to carry, you can be trespassed, right?  I mean, you can't just walk into my home if you need to use the restroom, can you?

[MarginOfError]

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

[Grunt]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

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

Good point.  I would think that would only be relevant up to the time when someone was asked to leave, no?

[dprh]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Good point.  I would think that would only be relevant up to the time when someone was asked to leave, no?

I wish I knew @mirkwood well enough to give him a friendly jab about how often he's asked to leave  

[Grunt]

Just now, dprh said:

I wish I knew @mirkwood well enough to give him a friendly jab about how often he's asked to leave  

I jab him now and then and don't know him at all.  He had the opportunity to arrest me last year and didn't take it.