Just_A_Guy

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

Recommended Posts

On 10/22/2019 at 9:24 AM, MarginOfError said:

I'll be completely blunt in stating that I do not believe this is an "inspired" policy (even though its one I agree with). You'll have a very hard time convincing me that this policy isn't about insurance. Honestly, I don't see why that should be a problem.

It is not about insurance and cannot be about insurance.  The Church is self insured.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


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

Most of the others had a lot of people right under their line of fire.  Hard to blame them for hesitating; too much risk someone's going to panic and bolt just as you pull the trigger.  The one who fired wasn't in a much better situation, but did appear to have a better line and some well-earned confidence in his marksmanship under pressure.

The older woman ushering folks out with one hand while holding a large frame pistol in the other is proof it's Texas.  Those giant granny purses got a lot more useful when CHL laws came into effect.

All of this ended well, this time - mostly because the assailant was mental and had no clue.  If the time comes then such attacks are well organized by a terrorist group; the chance of mistakes from friendly fire from the congregation will go up significantly.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is not about insurance and cannot be about insurance.  The Church is self insured.

IOW, the Church is entirely on the hook.  You been taking lessons from Snopes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

All of this ended well, this time - mostly because the assailant was mental and had no clue.  If the time comes then such attacks are well organized by a terrorist group; the chance of mistakes from friendly fire from the congregation will go up significantly.

And?

That's like saying seat belts are useless because your car might just be flattened by an 18 wheeler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2019 at 9:07 PM, mirkwood said:

I will carry for the rest of my life.

My great grandfather carried into his 90's.  Like you his profession was in law - he was a US martial.   For me - I no longer carry but that could change is the spirit directed otherwise.  I understand and support you.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

My great grandfather carried into his 90's.  Like you his profession was in law - he was a US martial.

My great-grandfather was a US marital, but he ended up going to Mexico with his two wives.

Share this post


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

All of this ended well, this time - mostly because the assailant was mental and had no clue.

Two dead innocent people is an odd thing to describe as “All of this ended well”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
8 hours ago, Vort said:

My great-grandfather was a US marital, but he ended up going to Mexico with his two wives.

That was quite art-ful of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
On 10/22/2019 at 10:24 AM, MarginOfError said:

"those who live by the sword perish by the sword" can be interpreted in light of when it was said--Jesus needed to be put on trial, and fighting their way out was going to thwart God's plan. His instruction could just as well be interpreted as a caution that those who follow power and strength will be consumed by power and strength.

This is a very insightful statement.  It really just says that the will of God is to be followed at all times.

There are times to fight, and times to surrender.  Which is best will depend on God's plan that we don't always know at the moment.  But when we've been given certain instructions, that it should be clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh... this has potential to be one of those "Personal Revelation contrary to Church teaching moments"

The church stance on its members having guns in church is very clear.  And I expect many to follow it.  I also expect there will be a few who will not.  Some of those who will not will be people just being contrary, but there will be a group of those who feel that God wants them to carry in church.  And I am OK with that.

Share this post


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

All of this ended well, this time - mostly because the assailant was mental and had no clue.  If the time comes then such attacks are well organized by a terrorist group; the chance of mistakes from friendly fire from the congregation will go up significantly.

 

The Traveler

 Friendly fire incidents aren't that common nor are they typically lethal in self-defense instances.

Share this post


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

And?

That's like saying seat belts are useless because your car might just be flattened by an 18 wheeler.

One aspect of life I find interesting is the tendency to solve what appear to be today's problems with yesterday's solutions.  Sometime ago I read a little article that changing or modifying  medication can bring about violent tendencies in individuals with certain mental disabilities.  But I will be blunt in asking why there are no records of marijuana or opioid (or both) use in populations that are medicated with mental issues?    Such mental challenges would fit the pattern of the "loan wolf" assassin suffering paranoia. 

If drugs contribute to the problem - we have two problems.  Increasing those that carry may seem to solve one problem (of which I am not sure is the best solution) being a loan wolf assassin but it appears to me that it will exacerbate the other which is the organized cartels as per the historical opiate war of China.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


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

Two dead innocent people is an odd thing to describe as “All of this ended well”.

 

Compared to what other options?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Traveler said:
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Two dead innocent people is an odd thing to describe as “All of this ended well”.

Compared to what other options?

I'm big on not second-guessing others in violent encounters.  I'm not finding fault or saying someone should have done this or that differently or better.  I'm certainly not saying I could have done a better job than the guy who made a 12-15 yard headshot and stopped further killing.

I am just saying that "all of this ended well" is a really poor choice of words, when describing a violent encounter that left two innocent people dead.  You can say "It went as well as we could hope for", or "Obviously the death toll would have been higher if the responding good guys had taken longer or had been less-well-trained".

Just don't say "all of this ended well".  2 sets of friends/families would obviously disagree. 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one expert's list of all the factors relevant to the shooting, and links to various sources diving in to each one.  Y'all could spend a full week reading up on all the stuff there is to understand and think about with this event.

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/factors-relevant-to-church-shootings/#more-191218

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One aspect of life I find interesting is the tendency to solve what appear to be today's problems with yesterday's solutions.  Sometime ago I read a little article that changing or modifying  medication can bring about violent tendencies in individuals with certain mental disabilities.  But I will be blunt in asking why there are no records of marijuana or opioid (or both) use in populations that are medicated with mental issues?    Such mental challenges would fit the pattern of the "loan wolf" assassin suffering paranoia. 

If drugs contribute to the problem - we have two problems.  Increasing those that carry may seem to solve one problem (of which I am not sure is the best solution) being a loan wolf assassin but it appears to me that it will exacerbate the other which is the organized cartels as per the historical opiate war of China.

 

The Traveler

 

Perhaps if I take a different approach - I am not sure that everyone that wants to - ought to carry.  I observed this while in the army.  It may seem strange but there are some that do not have the mentality to carry and are a threat when things get exciting - but it is impossible to tell them.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


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

I'm big on not second-guessing others in violent encounters.  I'm not finding fault or saying someone should have done this or that differently or better.  I'm certainly not saying I could have done a better job than the guy who made a 12-15 yard headshot and stopped further killing.

I am just saying that "all of this ended well" is a really poor choice of words, when describing a violent encounter that left two innocent people dead.  You can say "It went as well as we could hope for", or "Obviously the death toll would have been higher if the responding good guys had taken longer or had been less-well-trained".

Just don't say "all of this ended well".  2 sets of friends/families would obviously disagree. 

Sorry - I should have said that under the circumstances the outcome was likely the best possible.

One of the very interesting tidbits I learned in the army is that most killed or injured in combat during a firefight are from friendly fire.   The only way to mitigate this problem is with training and superior control over the combat theater.  Superior control over the combat theater includes communication and coordination with all those "On your side" but is not inclusive to this.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skimmed through most of the posts in this thread, if this was already mentioned, I apologize.
Each Ward & Stake Council should have received training on Meetinghouse Security Guidelines.
Inside of this training is an active shooter response. The actual full training document is not for general distribution, but it does say "the information it contains may be shared as appropriate".

FYI: Those of you on Stake or Ward Councils can/should ask for this training if you have not received it.

When it comes to an active shooter, the response is first "Run" and/or "Hide". If running and/or hiding are not options, as a last resort (bold by me) "use anything available as a weapon, and fight to incapacitate the person". It also says "if others are present, organize to defend yourselves and to attack the assailant".

Perhaps this little bit of information that may be helpful to someone.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gomezaddams51

I bought a cane that is specially made for self defense.  It will break cinder blocks.  I never leave home without it.  I also carry a at least one knife on me.  Not the best solution but better than nothing.  Our ward has set up security patrols that cover the parking lot.  Not sure what those patrolling would do if there was a shooter out there.

Share this post


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

I skimmed through most of the posts in this thread, if this was already mentioned, I apologize.
Each Ward & Stake Council should have received training on Meetinghouse Security Guidelines.
Inside of this training is an active shooter response. The actual full training document is not for general distribution, but it does say "the information it contains may be shared as appropriate".

FYI: Those of you on Stake or Ward Councils can/should ask for this training if you have not received it.

When it comes to an active shooter, the response is first "Run" and/or "Hide". If running and/or hiding are not options, as a last resort (bold by me) "use anything available as a weapon, and fight to incapacitate the person". It also says "if others are present, organize to defend yourselves and to attack the assailant".

Perhaps this little bit of information that may be helpful to someone.

Yeah.  It's been mentioned and harrumphed over when the Church advices to use anything available as a weapon and fight to incapacitate the person... after they just told us not to bring the weapon we are trained to use and carry everywhere else to incapacitate a person.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah.  It's been mentioned and harrumphed over when the Church advices to use anything available as a weapon and fight to incapacitate the person... after they just told us not to bring the weapon we are trained to use and carry everywhere else to incapacitate a person.

I have been obedient to this policy, but I'm nowhere near convinced that it is right, nor that it was the direct result of revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

When it comes to an active shooter, the response is first "Run" and/or "Hide". If running and/or hiding are not options, as a last resort (bold by me) "use anything available as a weapon, and fight to incapacitate the person". It also says "if others are present, organize to defend yourselves and to attack the assailant".

Perhaps this little bit of information that may be helpful to someone.

Absolutely, thinking through 'what if' scenarios is critical, should one actually happen.  And "Run/Hide/Fight" is excellent advice to just about everybody.  The more you learn about deadly events in public, the more you see people frozen in shock or standing there with looks of concern on their faces.  Complacency is deadly in such situations.  Inability to bust out of your complacency and do something (run/hide/fight, in that order), basically makes you comatose.

In the current church shooting video making the rounds, it's interesting to see a chapel full of people and how they react.  A mixture of people escaping, people just sitting there, people leaning forward to "help" but having no clue what action to take. 

The way I put it to my kids since they were 8 years old: "We learn 80 ways to not be there in the first place, 10 ways to run the heck the other way, 8 ways to hide, and 2 ways to fight back."

When I picture myself in such a situation, armed or not, the video will show two little dust trails early on, and the back part of one shoe.  That's where my wife and I each grabbed a kid and ran the crap the other way.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have been obedient to this policy, but I'm nowhere near convinced that it is right, nor that it was the direct result of revelation.

Why wouldn't it be?  The leaders of the church are the ones that train us how to receive revelation for our stewardship.  The process is exactly the same for theirs.  To imply that it is not would be to imply a certain hypocrisy and failure of the church leadership.

Instead the church is giving the general instruction to masses. There are a whole lot more members of the church that are totally unqualified to carry. (I'm one of them).

As a general instruction to the masses it makes perfect sense.  The only real problem is when people declare that a personal revelation given for a limited circumstance can not in anyway even appear to contradict a more general revelation given by the leaders.  This scriptures show this is not true.  It is just an area we need to be very careful about navigating.  We want to be sure we are clearly following the Lord and we want to be careful about sharing it so that we do not encourage others into rebellion when they do not have there own revelation

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive

Joseph Smith, HC 6:605. - source: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

When I picture myself in such a situation, armed or not, the video will show two little dust trails early on, and the back part of one shoe.  That's where my wife and I each grabbed a kid and ran the crap the other way.

Hah - Nice! 🤞

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