Just_A_Guy

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

Recommended Posts

Anyone else watching what's happening in the news?  Across the country, businesses are firmly (and unannouncedly) being ok with concealed carry.  Because this stresses out the wierdies, they're spinning it like this:Albertsons Companies joins supermarkets in changing guns policy 

Quote

"(Reuters) - Supermarket operator Albertsons Companies said on Saturday it would ask customers not to openly carry firearms at its stores, joining an array of retailers and store chains this week who changed their gun policy in light of several mass shootings in the United States.

"We want our stores to feel safe & welcoming for all, so we respectfully ask customers to not openly carry firearms in our stores unless they are authorized law enforcement officers," the company said in a tweet

 

Here are the gun policies for America's largest retailers
 

Quote

Retailers that request customers do not openly carry firearms
No. 1 Walmart 
No. 3 Kroger
No. 5 Walgreens
No. 7 CVS
No. 8 Target
No. 10 Albertsons Companies
No. 12 Royal Ahold Delhaize USA (Giant, Food Lion, Hannaford)
No. 20 H-E-B Grocery
No. 26 Starbucks

Retailers with no gun restrictions
No. 16 TJX Companies
No. 19 Macy’s
No. 17 Aldi

 

  

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say that everyone I have ever seen “open carry” have been people I don’t trust with a firearm. They seem to be people who are trying to make a statement or are just seeking a reaction. I am very on with that policy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen maybe half a dozen or more open carriers.  They've all seemed reasonable and mature.

That said, I've also seen dozens of news reports or youtube videos about open carriers.  They all seem like teenagers flaunting their new tattoo because mom "can't make me not have one".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've seen maybe half a dozen or more open carriers.  They've all seemed reasonable and mature.

That said, I've also seen dozens of news reports or youtube videos about open carriers.  They all seem like teenagers flaunting their new tattoo because mom "can't make me not have one".

I should have added the clarification that almost all the open carries I have seen have been in low income / ghetto parts of Louisville and Owensboro KY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 12:15 AM, without_you said:

It's not really a good thing to announce this over the internet. This is a perfect example of "Hey, we are sitting ducks", for the potential shooters. Think about it. We should have announced this only for the church goers, we should only announce this secretly among church members. Now, we are sitting ducks. I'm still bringing my smallest piece no matter what, to protect my own family and others of potential dangers anyway.

From reading this thread..what an eye-opener!..I suspect you will be okay if a shooting incident occurs. There will lots of guns in the cars in the parking lot. If your ward is anything like mine, sacrament service is characterized by a lot of coming and going. At least 2/3 of the congregation arrives late for service in my ward - understandable given the number of children. Half the congregation is outside the chapel at any one time. There are cellphones. I imagine that an active shooter would not last long after attacking your ward! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

From reading this thread..what an eye-opener!..I suspect you will be okay if a shooting incident occurs. There will lots of guns in the cars in the parking lot. If your ward is anything like mine, sacrament service is characterized by a lot of coming and going. At least 2/3 of the congregation arrives late for service in my ward - understandable given the number of children. Half the congregation is outside the chapel at any one time. There are cellphones. I imagine that an active shooter would not last long after attacking your ward! 

Well... I’ll just throw out the normal argument... by the time someone can run out to their car and return, a lot of damage has been done. And also, most people don’t have guns with them at all times. 

If a shooting incident happened, we would certainly NOT be ok, even if half the congregation has LMGs laid across their laps and fired with perfect aim. Someone will get hurt or die.

A natural question I have when it comes to mass shootings in populated places, what would be a faster and better way of stopping a gunman. Drawing your own gun, aiming and shooting him... or just the nearest person tackling him, or at least pushing the barrel of the gun skyward or wrestling t the man long enough for someone else to jump on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fether said:

Can I just say that everyone I have ever seen “open carry” have been people I don’t trust with a firearm. They seem to be people who are trying to make a statement or are just seeking a reaction. I am very on with that policy 

That’s been my experience as well—other than with law enforcement officers, of course.  There’s very much a “NOTICE ME!!!” component about most of the schlubs I see doing it that goes beyond their decision to carry a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s been my experience as well—other than with law enforcement officers, of course.  There’s very much a “NOTICE ME!!!” component about most of the schlubs I see doing it that goes beyond their decision to carry a gun.

Mine as well. They remind me of pit bull owners whose dogs have spiked collars and are named "Zeus" or "Rocky" or "Tyson". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fether said:

Can I just say that everyone I have ever seen “open carry” have been people I don’t trust with a firearm. They seem to be people who are trying to make a statement or are just seeking a reaction. I am very on with that policy 

I open carry sometimes, though it's not my preferred choice.  Even when I open carry, you probably wouldn't notice I'm carrying because I usually have something partially covering it.  I live on a homestead.  I work on the property often.  I have animals and predators.  I find open carry to be more comfortable when working.  If I run into town to get something, I'm not taking the time to swap holsters or guns because frankly, I don't care if someone does or doesn't like that I'm displaying a firearm.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I open carry sometimes, though it's not my preferred choice.  Even when I open carry, you probably wouldn't notice I'm carrying because I usually have something partially covering it.  I live on a homestead.  I work on the property often.  I have animals and predators.  I find open carry to be more comfortable when working.  If I run into town to get something, I'm not taking the time to swap holsters or guns because frankly, I don't care if someone does or doesn't like that I'm displaying a firearm.

Would it make you a target? If I'm a mass shooter and I see someone openly caring a gun, I'm going for them first. Not an argument, just asking. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Would it make you a target? If I'm a mass shooter and I see someone openly caring a gun, I'm going for them first. Not an argument, just asking. 

Sure.  That's why I don't typically open carry.  The element of surprise is good in any situation.  However, I also think the average every-day thug in rural New England would be deterred by an open carry gun.   Most violent crimes aren't mass shootings.  I'm more likely to cut someone off or inadvertently steal a parking space and get road raged.

  That being said, I'm also generally not on red alert for a mass shooting when I head to Blue Seal.  My odds of being caught in a mass shooting are pretty small unless I move to the hood or start selling smack.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 11:42 PM, mirkwood said:

I too do not care what non Americans think about gun ownership.  They have the wrong of it anyway.

Dear @mirkwood Serous series of questions.

If you do not feel comfortable answering the following I completely understand. If this is the case let’s not pursue the subject.

Am I correct in believing that you feel that it is in the interests of your community that a civilian nonpolice officer should own a handgun and to transport that handgun relatively freely eg to a grocery store? 

I acknowledge that you have the right to own a handgun  and to transport it freely but I am not asking about rights but rather if having this right gives a practical benefit to the community.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 11:10 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Bad guys intent on killing people have no shortage of gun-free zones from which to choose.  It's not like they're sitting around wishing to hear about one.

I know this is (the claim that the US is one of the safest if you took out Chicago and a few others) a popular meme floating around these years, but do you have a source?  Earlier in the thread, someone challenged it, but nobody has produced a source.  I'm not sure it's true at all.

It requires a bit of math from the sources I've gathered.  But here it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate  List shows US as #60 for lowest gun-related homicides (4.46/100,000 people).  Honduras is worst at #75 with a rate of 66.6/100,000.

NOTES:

  • Statistics gathered were not available for every year in every country.  So, some nations would vary position due to year.  But this is the most comprehensive list in one place that I could find. 
  • This list is only of "developed nations" (Notice many African, Middle Eastern, and far east nations are not there).
  • I'm only counting the homicides, not suicides or accidental deaths.  I hope you'll understand why.  I'm not getting into the debate on why that's correct.  It is.
  • See the graph below.  Notice the points of interest.  
    • Anything from #1 (Luxembourg) to #52 (Cyprus) is pretty low.  The slope is very flat.  
    • From #53 (Ukraine) to #66 (Phillipines) is a slightly steeper slope.  These nations are actually "OK" but could certainly use improvement).  
    • From #67 (Panama) to #74 (Eswatini -- I've never heard of this nation) is pretty bad.
    • #75 (Honduras) is in a class all by itself.
  • image.png.78aca2cc2ca2e49260ac152ef149b299.png
  •  
    • I don't understand how some countries like Canada, Montenegro, and Serbia can have more gun-related suicides than homicides.  That's weird.
  • So, considering the actual rates rather than ranking, along with many other factors, holding #60 in this list is not that bad.  It would be better if we were only 8 ranks lower.  But considering many other factors, we're not too bad.

Now we look at gun deaths in major cities: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/  We find that New Orleans actually has the most gun related deaths.  Calculating the total number of deaths and dividing by the population of the US as a whole, we're looking at about 7% to 8% range.  That is enough to move us one ranking to #59.  

Now, one more factor: Gang violence: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm  That means that if we remove gangs out of the statistic (much of it is drug related) then we drop all the way down to #54 or #55 depending on which statistic you're using. That puts us very near that slope change.  Considering how much other crap we have to deal with as well as the freedoms we enjoy that other nations do not, gun control of law abiding citizens doesn't really make sense.

No, removing the high crime / no-gun cities out of the statistics would not drop us to #52 or less (the golden line).  But it gets us awfully close.

All told, looking at actual meaningful numbers, we find that our gun-related deaths are already pretty low.  And the single most efficient method of combating gun violence is not putting more restrictions on law-abiding citizens, but by combating gang related activities.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fether said:

 just the nearest person tackling him, or at least pushing the barrel of the gun skyward or wrestling t the man long enough for someone else to jump on

Several now-dead heroes have tried that in various shootings.  A fair number of trained soldiers tried it at Fort Hood.  None succeeded. 

Edited by NightSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Am I correct in believing that you feel that it is in the interests of your community that a civilian nonpolice officer should own a handgun and to transport that handgun relatively freely eg to a grocery store? 

I'm fairly certain that a lot of us believe that, not just mirkwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Dear @mirkwood Serous series of questions.

If you do not feel comfortable answering the following I completely understand. If this is the case let’s not pursue the subject.

Am I correct in believing that you feel that it is in the interests of your community that a civilian nonpolice officer should own a handgun and to transport that handgun relatively freely eg to a grocery store? 

I acknowledge that you have the right to own a handgun  and to transport it freely but I am not asking about rights but rather if having this right gives a practical benefit to the community.

Thanks!

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Several now-dead heroes have tried that in various shootings.  A fair number of trained soldiers tried it at Fort Hood.  None succeeded. 

I don’t know the scenario of the gunman at fort hood. But when a gunman walks into a church, particularly the chapel, at any entry point there is a person only feet away. As oppose to fields, streets, stores or other open areas where the nearest person may be 100 feet away.

I get that it isn’t perfect option, but how different would the outcome be if everyone just ran/waited for someone with a gun to shoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NightSG said:

Several now-dead heroes have tried that in various shootings.  A fair number of trained soldiers tried it at Fort Hood.  None succeeded. 

Several heroes have also lived trying that. Sometimes, the only thing you can do is improvise the best you can with the situation at hand, with the one second you have to think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 3:29 PM, Fether said:

A natural question I have when it comes to mass shootings in populated places, what would be a faster and better way of stopping a gunman. Drawing your own gun, aiming and shooting him... or just the nearest person tackling him, or at least pushing the barrel of the gun skyward or wrestling t the man long enough for someone else to jump on

Did you get that wisdom from Joe Biden?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mores said:

Did you get that wisdom from Joe Biden?

 

I’m just brain storming honestly. I too am displeased with the new policy.

What I’m talking about is purely situational. I just ask how many rounds can a prepared assailant get off before an armed church member figures out what’s going on, targets the shooter, draws his weapon, aims to make sure not to hit anyone else, and fires. I would assume at least an entire clip if it is a hand gun. But if there was a man in the front row of the overflow that watching him come in, a quick tackle may he a better option. But that would require specific conditions.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fether said:

I’m just brain storming honestly. I too am displeased with the new policy.

What I’m talking about is purely situational. I just ask how many rounds can a prepared assailant get off before an armed church member figures out what’s going on, targets the shooter, draws his weapon, aims to make sure not to hit anyone else, and fires. I would assume at least an entire clip if it is a hand gun. But if there was a man in the front row of the overflow that watching him come in, a quick tackle may he a better option. But that would require specific conditions.

Depends on who is responding.  Most people who train can draw and engage long before a shooter gets off a magazine, unless they're just mag dumping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m just brain storming honestly. I too am displeased with the new policy.

What I’m talking about is purely situational. I just ask how many rounds can a prepared assailant get off before an armed church member figures out what’s going on, targets the shooter, draws his weapon, aims to make sure not to hit anyone else, and fires. I would assume at least an entire clip if it is a hand gun. But if there was a man in the front row of the overflow that watching him come in, a quick tackle may he a better option. But that would require specific conditions.

Depends on training and mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Depends on training and mindset.

Yeah.  I didn't mention mindset.  While I believe training can typically minimize mindset, you don't know how a person will react until they're looking through the sights at the life they're about to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now