Just_A_Guy

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

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2019 at 5:07 PM, dprh said:

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

The People of Ammon also made a covenant that they would never take up arms against their fellow men again.  I never intend to make a covenant like this.  I will defend my family or loved ones if I must even unto bloodshed.  Killing in self defense is an extreme but it is not against the commandments of God nor is it a sin.

Share this post


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

I have been surprised how much attention this has been getting, I would feel very uncomfortable knowing that people were carrying weapons in the congregation. 

The perspective of needing a firearm is so foreign to me and I lived on an army base with armed patrols and car inspections looking for explosives due to the threat of terrorism from Ireland (with terrorist attacks an unfortunate almost common occurrence).

 

Get used to it sadly.  As the Second Coming of the LORD gets closer war will be poured out upon all nations according to my understanding of the LORD's word.  Men's hearts will grow cold and many shall hate one another.  But he that remains steadfast and endures to the end will be saved in the kingdom of God.

Edited by Still_Small_Voice

Share this post


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

  @mirkwood is probably more up on Utah gun laws than I am; but I think Utah requires that a “no guns” policy at a house of worship has to be clearly posted at the entrance(s).

 

I believe that is correct, but is a law I have never had to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KScience said:

In the UK we do have gun crime (although knife crime is a wider issue) and terrorist attacks to contend with but we don't have the same public desire to be carrying firearms. I know that the gun/no guns issue is huge in the US but have very little understanding of the need to always be carrying. I would like to understand the mindset more.

If more law abiding, peaceful citizens had guns, there would be much less violent crime all together.  Knife crime would drop drastically, gun crime would increase by a small percentage, overall violent crime would drop substantially, because people would be using their guns to protect themselves and/or to ward of criminals.  In the US, including suicides, there are around 35k fatal and 75k non-fatal instances of gun crime each year; compare that to between a minimum of 500k and max of more than 3 million instances of defensive use of a firearm (these statistics were determined via a study by the federal government).  Even going with the lowest number, It is preferable to have ~110 gun crimes as opposed to ~600k instances of violent crime.

Share this post


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

I stole this from a poster named Amulek at another website:

Quote

Say, for example, you are a public school teacher, and the city prohibits employees from carrying guns at work. If you were a teacher who brought a gun to school and then became involved in a shooting, someone might have a cause of action against you personally for personal injury, wrongful death, emotional damages, punitive damages or more, but the entity they really would want to go after - the one with the deep pockets - is your employer: the city. 

However, the city would turn around and say, not so fast. We have an official policy prohibiting our employees from carrying firearms. When Leeroy Jenkins over here decided to violate our policies he did so as an individual actor and his actions were his own - he was not acting as an agent on our behalf, so we should not be held liable for his behavior. 

I suspect that is what the church is trying to do with their policy: avoid the potential for institutional liability in the event that something goes wrong. So, when the church's risk-management (and possibly insurance) teams look at the chance of there being a mass shooting in a church building as opposed to the likelihood of their being a negligent discharge, the smart decision is to hedge your bets against the most likely outcome. 

 

At first I considered this an excellent point, and then I shared it with my former bishop who brought up the following:

Quote

Not an attorney but I did sleep in a motel 6 once! This argument would never hold up I'm court because the Bishop did not enforce the policy. What documentation will be provided to the court to support the Bishop who asked , for example, every week to quit carrying?

I think he makes a very valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KScience said:

I have been surprised how much attention this has been getting, I would feel very uncomfortable knowing that people were carrying weapons in the congregation. 

The perspective of needing a firearm is so foreign to me and I lived on an army base with armed patrols and car inspections looking for explosives due to the threat of terrorism from Ireland (with terrorist attacks an unfortunate almost common occurrence).

In the UK we do have gun crime (although knife crime is a wider issue) and terrorist attacks to contend with but we don't have the same public desire to be carrying firearms. I know that the gun/no guns issue is huge in the US but have very little understanding of the need to always be carrying. I would like to understand the mindset more.

The mindset is simple.  The USA culture was brought about by frontiersmen claiming a piece of land and defending their claim that eventually led to the Revolution against Britain and the drafting of the US Constitution as frontiersmen found they could not rely on the protection of the crown all the while continuing to pay exorbitant taxes.  In contrast, Canadian culture was brought about by Frontiersmen claiming a piece of land but went completely against US sentiment of independence from the crown.  Rather, they preferred the reliance on the British army for their protection happy to pay for the privilege with their taxes.  Canada did not become independent from Britain until the 1900's and by that time the "anything American is not good for Canada" culture has been set.  So the American rugged independence and self-reliance from governance became something Canadians avoid until today.

Anyway, part of this American culture of independence and self-reliance from governance is the idea that "we do not rely on the government to protect our rights, our property, and ourselves".  The firearm - which was a staple in frontier lands as they protect their lands from raiders, human and animals both - became the weapon that eventually liberated the Americans from the British as the Americans were able to call upon all men who brought their own firearms to scale forts and get more weapons out of the British army.  So, the firearm became, not only a weapon of the everyday man, but a symbol of self-reliance and mistrust of government.

So, in modern society, the idea remains - if you deprive me of liberty, I do not intend to wait for the police or the military to save me, I can save my own self.  Something like Syria being invaded by ISIS is going to be difficult to pull off in the USA because the ISIS enemy is not the American military or police.  The ISIS enemy will be every single household in any state in the USA.  ISIS is better off invading Canada.  Now, if ISIS would have a hard time invading US households, how much more for your regular street thug or black bear or...

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who releases the handbook.

For those who think that this is a bad policy, do you think the Handbook is from God or Man?

Serious question.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


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

I believe it is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who releases the handbook.

For those who think that this is a bad policy, do you think the Handbook is from God or Man?

Serious question.

Oh, I don't necessarily think it's bad policy.  But the Handbook is absolutely from Man, seeking to do God's will.  It's not scripture, it is not comprised of words breathed from the mouths of prophets who are saying "thus saith the LORD - guns are prohibited in church".  New scripture like that gets revealed over the pulpit at General Conference and submitted for a sustaining vote.  

I don't usually struggle between stuff our church leaders say, and my own opinions about how to do right.  The last fifty times they were in conflict, the obvious answer was for me to bend and change.  This one is slightly less obvious.  I mean, I really, REALLY think I'm right this time.  So I'm struggling.

Share this post


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

Oh, I don't necessarily think it's bad policy.  But the Handbook is absolutely from Man, seeking to do God's will.  It's not scripture, it is not comprised of words breathed from the mouths of prophets who are saying "thus saith the LORD - guns are prohibited in church".  New scripture like that gets revealed over the pulpit at General Conference and submitted for a sustaining vote.  

I don't usually struggle between stuff our church leaders say, and my own opinions about how to do right.  The last fifty times they were in conflict, the obvious answer was for me to bend and change.  This one is slightly less obvious.  I mean, I really, REALLY think I'm right this time.  So I'm struggling.

I pray on it and look at the consequences of each choice, both short and long term, the likelihood of those consequences, then decide whether to sustain and Prophet or not, accepting whatever consequences that may come as a result.

I can't think of a time I've chosen not to follow the Prophet, but I've only been a member for 613 days, so what do I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, person0 said:

If more law abiding, peaceful citizens had guns, there would be much less violent crime all together.  Knife crime would drop drastically, gun crime would increase by a small percentage, overall violent crime would drop substantially, because people would be using their guns to protect themselves and/or to ward of criminals.  In the US, including suicides, there are around 35k fatal and 75k non-fatal instances of gun crime each year; compare that to between a minimum of 500k and max of more than 3 million instances of defensive use of a firearm (these statistics were determined via a study by the federal government).  Even going with the lowest number, It is preferable to have ~110 gun crimes as opposed to ~600k instances of violent crime.

There are lots of comments on this post about people feeling the need to protect themselves and their families. Do you anticipate dealing with violent crime on a regular basis?

The general feeling in the UK is that there is infrequent violent crime, so there is no need to carry guns.  It is safe to walk the streets, even as a woman on my own I have walked through central London late at night. There is a concern with rising knife crime in some cities, and how we can target the youth involved in this but it is not an everyday occurrence; indeed most people would not know anyone involved in violent crime. And I worked in inner city schools and areas of deprivation for 15 years before changing career.

My gut feeling and a little research shows that the UK has FAR lower violent crime than the US

image.png.6f929adaaebeea73edd1c53f2e7f2b52.png

 UNODC homicide rate:

image.png.88ec49005237cf77f556ba1d28a4482e.png

Interesting analysis here:  Discussing the different reporting methodologies, differences in definitions of crimes and affect of estimated under reporting of crimes

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

image.png.ab525bef33720b966d825c8d1b7d3e20.png

image.png.21eb149598f7294fb75fb2d697d62535.png

Just want to point out that I am not against using firearms. I shoot and hunt and own a Browning 12 Bore. However the difference between owning a shotgun and a handgun; let alone carrying one in public are culturally vast.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Just want to point out that I am not against using firearms. I shoot and hunt and own a Browning 12 Bore. However the difference between owning a shotgun and a handgun; let alone carrying one in public are culturally vast.

 

 

Personally, I don't particularly care if other cultures want to carry a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KScience's post be like

Image result for comparing apples to oranges

 

Just about every time the US is compared to the UK in this issue, the invalid comparison is an invalid attempt to support the notion that "In order to lower the US violent crime rate, we just have to change our laws to match the UK".  And that's invalid, because, again, you're comparing apples to oranges. 

(Hoping KScience takes this in the lighthearted manner it's meant)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grunt said:

Personally, I don't particularly care if other cultures want to carry a firearm.

Just didnt want anyone to think I am anti firearms as that would bias my comments.  I am just curious about what drives the reactions to the changes in the handbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grunt said:

Personally, I don't particularly care if other cultures want to carry a firearm.

Just didn't want anyone to think I am anti firearms as that would bias my comments.  I am just curious about what drives the reactions to the changes in the handbook

Share this post


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

KScience's post be like

Image result for comparing apples to oranges

 

Just about every time the US is compared to the UK in this issue, the invalid comparison is an invalid attempt to support the notion that "In order to lower the US violent crime rate, we just have to change our laws to match the UK".  And that's invalid, because, again, you're comparing apples to oranges. 

(Hoping KScience takes this in the lighthearted manner it's meant)

I totally agree that its apples and oranges.   I have no desire to see the US disarmed, makes no difference to me as I don't live there, but it does put me off visiting my pals.  Its understanding why it's apples an oranges that interests me

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KScience said:

Just didnt want anyone to think I am anti firearms as that would bias my comments.  I am just curious about what drives the reactions to the changes in the handbook

Mostly that, and this is pure speculation, people who generally carry a firearm (and I'm one of them) don't like being told what to do when it doesn't make sense to us.  Further, it appears that a strong case could be made that we should carry firearms using Church history and the Book of Mormon.  Firearms owners also generally view firearms as a tool, they they differ in what they believe the use of that tool is/should be.  Many, myself included, view it as a means of protection from both people and predators. Would you find it odd if the Church prohibited the use of cars on Church property?  

 

Just now, KScience said:

I totally agree that its apples and oranges.   I have no desire to see the US disarmed, makes no difference to me as I don't live there, but it does put me off visiting my pals.  Its understanding why it's apples an oranges that interests me

 

See, I don't understand why it should put you off visiting your pals?  Do you think you have a real chance of getting shot here?  Do your pals live in depressed urban areas and deal with drugs and other crime regularly?  Are they gang members?  Do they have domestic issues at home?  

If the answer to those questions is "no", then you aren't very likely to get shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grunt said:

Mostly that, and this is pure speculation, people who generally carry a firearm (and I'm one of them) don't like being told what to do when it doesn't make sense to us.  Further, it appears that a strong case could be made that we should carry firearms using Church history and the Book of Mormon.  Firearms owners also generally view firearms as a tool, they they differ in what they believe the use of that tool is/should be.  Many, myself included, view it as a means of protection from both people and predators. Would you find it odd if the Church prohibited the use of cars on Church property?   

See I get the "don't tell me what to do" attitude.

I would be fine with no cars on church property (little eco-warrior moment here ) and would assume there was a good reason for it

Share this post


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

Mostly that, and this is pure speculation, people who generally carry a firearm (and I'm one of them) don't like being told what to do when it doesn't make sense to us.  Further, it appears that a strong case could be made that we should carry firearms using Church history and the Book of Mormon.  Firearms owners also generally view firearms as a tool, they they differ in what they believe the use of that tool is/should be.  Many, myself included, view it as a means of protection from both people and predators. Would you find it odd if the Church prohibited the use of cars on Church property?   

See I get the "don't tell me what to do" attitude.

I would be fine with no cars on church property (little eco-warrior moment here ) and would assume there was a good reason for it

 

The arguments for carrying concealed weapons have come across a little startling.  I have no doubt that visiting my friends in Montanna in a sleepy little town in the middle of nowhere would be fine. However my friend in Washington D.C. (they live in a "nice" area) and my best friend in San Francisco live in much more urban areas, and I would be uncertain without talking to them first.  

Had to chuckle at the mental image of any of them being gang members.

"Do you think you have a real chance of getting shot here?  Do your pals live in depressed urban areas and deal with drugs and other crime regularly?  Are they gang members?  Do they have domestic issues at home?  "

So do you only need to carry as you have these friends too? ;) 

Edited by KScience

Share this post


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

I totally agree that its apples and oranges.   I have no desire to see the US disarmed, makes no difference to me as I don't live there, but it does put me off visiting my pals.  Its understanding why it's apples an oranges that interests me

 

Why would it do that?  Does it put you off that your pals in the US call it a trunk and not a boot?  Does it put you off that they eat grits instead of black pudding for breakfast?  Or that they can down 64 ounces of soda at the theater and still go for the free refill? 

Or is it that you have this strange idea that your pals will kill you with their guns... or that their guns are going to jump off the table on its own and kill you?

Apples and Oranges - the difference is CULTURAL.  You culturally look at firearms as something to be used to kill you - Americans look at firearms as just another tool in their shed.  You know, like a car... so when you hear that there are more people killed by cars than firearms, you don't get this feeling that you should ban cars... because it's just another useful tool in your garage.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Why would it do that?  Does it put you off that your pals in the US call it a trunk and not a boot?  Does it put you off that they eat grits instead of black pudding for breakfast?  Or is it that you have this strange idea that your pals will kill you with their guns... or that their guns are going to jump off the table on its own and kill you?

I am put off that so many people consider just day to day living requires a firearm to feel safe.

 

I have plenty of examples of language mix ups and we tease each other about using "English"  but at least we can all agree on dismissing the metric system and measure distance and speeds in miles

 

Edited by KScience

Share this post


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

Oh, I don't necessarily think it's bad policy.  But the Handbook is absolutely from Man, seeking to do God's will.  It's not scripture, it is not comprised of words breathed from the mouths of prophets who are saying "thus saith the LORD - guns are prohibited in church".  New scripture like that gets revealed over the pulpit at General Conference and submitted for a sustaining vote.  

I don't usually struggle between stuff our church leaders say, and my own opinions about how to do right.  The last fifty times they were in conflict, the obvious answer was for me to bend and change.  This one is slightly less obvious.  I mean, I really, REALLY think I'm right this time.  So I'm struggling.

 

27 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I pray on it and look at the consequences of each choice, both short and long term, the likelihood of those consequences, then decide whether to sustain and Prophet or not, accepting whatever consequences that may come as a result.

I can't think of a time I've chosen not to follow the Prophet, but I've only been a member for 613 days, so what do I know.

Funny how when it comes to wearing a firearm at church, this seems so totally rational. But when it comes to wearing a colored shirt, it's completely rebellious. :D

Share this post


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

 

Funny how when it comes to wearing a firearm at church, this seems so totally rational. But when it comes to wearing a colored shirt, it's completely rebellious. :D

I don't get the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KScience said:

I am put off that so many people consider just day to day living requires a firearm to feel safe.

This is elitist.  We don't need firearms to feel safe.  We simply don't want anybody telling us we can't have something that makes us feel safe among other things because some moron used his thing to kill people.  It's like somebody telling you to cut off your genitals because somebody else used his genitals to rape somebody.

By the way... we have a caseful of different kinds of firearms.  They're not there just to make us "feel safe".  They're there because it has many uses - from carnival plinking to boar hunting and everything in between.  My 15-year-old is in a Marksman Tournament.  He has zero intention of going to the military or police or anything of the sort where his profession would require a firearm to be used against people.  Of course, we wouldn't hesitate to take it out of the case if some nutjob would think they can threaten to kill my children.

P.S. I edited my post that you responded to.  I added an answer to your apples and oranges question.

Edited by anatess2

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