Guns at church?

[MoPag]

It wasn't really the fact that he had a gun. It's weird that he told Enoch about it just as he was leaving. That is just kind of creepy to me. Why tell him just as he's leaving. Like: "Surprise! Look what I was hiding the whole time I was in your house!"

If he thought Enoch would have cared, he should have either:

-not brought the gun
-asked Enoch if he was comfortable with him bringing a gun.
-not said anything about the gun at all

The fact that he told Enoch about the gun when he did seems like he knew in might bother Enoch, and he just wanted to be a turd and bother him.

But I wasn't there. Maybe I'm reading this all wrong

I have nothing against responsible gun owners.

[Jeffret]

Mass shootings are far from the principal causes of gun violence and death. They make bigger headlines, but are a significantly smaller number.

Having a gun provides very little protection in the case of a mass shooting. The reverse is actually more likely -- having a gun puts you at higher risk. One in five active shooter events are stopped by victims, but the vast majority of them do not use guns. Only in 3% of the cases does a potential victim or bystander successfully use a gun to stop the event. If anything, having a gun tends to make the person less likely to take other measures that are more effective. If they are actually able to get their gun out, they run a higher risk of getting shot as a target, a higher risk of shooting innocent bystanders, and a higher risk of getting shot at by law enforcement officers when they arrive.

Law enforcement officials undergo substantial training to help them respond well in these situations. And still, they frequently mess up. Most CCW holders have very little training. Some have lots of practice firing guns, but in almost all cases they're shooting at stationary targets with lots of warning that aren't firing back at them. Only a very few have actually trained in any sort of active shooter scenarios and few have completed the lengthy and repeated training necessary to be any good at it. Without that, the evidence shows that they're more likely to be a victim or a problem than to actually make a positive contribution.

ABC News report on simulation at stopping an active shooter

Daily Show report on stopping an active shooter

[alas]

WOW

WTF? Who does that? That is so crazy/creepy!

I don't mean to poke on either of you here, but when I read Enoch's story, I thought it sounded fairly normal....

.... maybe I'm just weird.

Or maybe just from the American West...

I am from the American West, and I think it is *strange* behavior. I grew up going hunting. My Dad have four rifles, and one handgun. My brothers were each given a rifle for their 12th birthday. So, guns are just a normal part of life. I would say that most people that I know own guns. On top of that, I spent 20 years as a military wife, with my husband having to pass his shooting tests and all.

What is weird is not the having guns; it is the showing off that you have guns. For example, I still live around people who hunt. I have relatives who wear tshirts that show deer, with the caption, "vegetables are not food, vegetables are what food eats." I constantly see gun stuff on my Facebook feed, either about gun rights, or gun collecting, or hunting.

So, what is weird is not having guns. What is weird is bragging or showing off that you have guns. It is like pulling down your britches to show you have underwear. It is like flashing---Trying to horrify women with the tremendous size of one's dick. There is an element of intimidation with bringing out your gun. Whether you are pulling out a concealed carry, or bring out your guns to disinterested house guests. NEVER have I had someone show me their guns without me asking to see them, or as part of a conversation. NEVER. You simply do not brag and show off in ways designed to intimidate others. It is like balling up your fist and sticking it in someone's face. You. Just. Don't. Do. That. It violates so many social rules. If you carry a concealed gun, it should stay concealed, until and unless you intend to use it.

[LaMachina]

I don't mean to poke on either of you here, but when I read Enoch's story, I thought it sounded fairly normal....

.... maybe I'm just weird.

Or maybe just from the American West...

I am from the American West, and I think it is *strange* behavior. I grew up going hunting. My Dad have four rifles, and one handgun. My brothers were each given a rifle for their 12th birthday. So, guns are just a normal part of life. I would say that most people that I know own guns. On top of that, I spent 20 years as a military wife, with my husband having to pass his shooting tests and all.

What is weird is not the having guns; it is the showing off that you have guns. For example, I still live around people who hunt. I have relatives who wear tshirts that show deer, with the caption, "vegetables are not food, vegetables are what food eats." I constantly see gun stuff on my Facebook feed, either about gun rights, or gun collecting, or hunting.

So, what is weird is not having guns. What is weird is bragging or showing off that you have guns. It is like pulling down your britches to show you have underwear. It is like flashing---Trying to horrify women with the tremendous size of one's dick. There is an element of intimidation with bringing out your gun. Whether you are pulling out a concealed carry, or bring out your guns to disinterested house guests. NEVER have I had someone show me their guns without me asking to see them, or as part of a conversation. NEVER. You simply do not brag and show off in ways designed to intimidate others. It is like balling up your fist and sticking it in someone's face. You. Just. Don't. Do. That. It violates so many social rules. If you carry a concealed gun, it should stay concealed, until and unless you intend to use it.

Good points.

I meant no offence with my mild dig but just meant to highlight what seems to be a real cultural divide. I too live in an area of the world where hunting is paramount. Personally I've never shot anything bigger than a goose but I've used guns plenty. Yet there is something immensely off-putting to me about having a weapon that's intended purpose is to kill a human being or many human beings. I hope it never becomes a normal feeling for me or my loved ones to feel that need.

But good points.

[moksha]

The Attorney General of Texas advised churchgoers to pack a gun on Sunday for safety.

Thankfully in Utah two churches annually publish their intent to forbid firearms: The LDS Church and the Jewish Congregation Kol Ami in Salt Lake City. By publishing this annual intent, firearms are illegal in church - even with gun carry permits.

Where guns are illegal, only criminals or on-duty police officers will be carrying guns to church. No exceptions for you Danites!

[wtfluff]

Does anyone here think that the issues that we are all aware of in the LDS church potentially make it a 'target' for a mass shooting? Am I more likely to be the victim of a mass shooting in sacrament meeting, or at the mall?

I have to agree with other folks. Odds are that you're a lot more likely to die in a car accident than in a mass shooting anywhere.

Are you going to stop driving?

[azflyer]

Does anyone here think that the issues that we are all aware of in the LDS church potentially make it a 'target' for a mass shooting? Am I more likely to be the victim of a mass shooting in sacrament meeting, or at the mall?

I have to agree with other folks. Odds are that you're a lot more likely to die in a car accident than in a mass shooting anywhere.

Are you going to stop driving?

This is a good point. When I learned to fly airplanes, I used these arguments to demonstrate to my family that flying was safe and that their fears were irrational and unfounded.

You and FiveFingerMneumonic made similar comments that my concerns are really fear based, and I believe that to be accurate. It's really incredible how we can let fear dictate our actions so much.

[Give It Time]

The Mormon Church prohibits firearms in their churches:
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... r=1#21.2.4

Should more parishioners carry guns in church? The Mormon church is one of two in Utah that say no to firearms

Yeah, the church has a zero tolerance policy on abuse, too.

[Red Ryder]

Statistically, you're more likely to get killed by someone texting while driving.

At a mormon church you're statistically more likely to get bored to death!

[wtfluff]

At a mormon church you're statistically more likely to get bored to death!

And... RR wins the thread... Again.

[moksha]

The Mormon church is one of two in Utah that say no to firearms[/url]

Yeah, the church has a zero tolerance policy on abuse, too.

Do you think many of the members will go rogue? Someone once said that the one thing Mormons love more than their church is their guns. I've suspected that the Church has been leery to put that choice to the test with the concealed gun permit crowd.

[Jeffret]

Do you think many of the members will go rogue? Someone once said that the one thing Mormons love more than their church is their guns. I've suspected that the Church has been leery to put that choice to the test with the concealed gun permit crowd.

I don't know how it's posted or made known in Utah. Otherwise, given that it's in the CHI, I'd guess hardly anybody knows about it. At least not believing members. NOMs and other members of the DAMU seem to know a lot more about church policy than believers do. I'd guess most don't know. Of those that do, those who care about guns will probably just ignore the church's wishes. Everybody ignores some of the church's demands. They just pick which ones to ignore. It would be easy for gun nuts to ignore this one.

It's not like they're going to institute an exclusion policy banning every gun owner from the church.

[moksha]

It's not like they're going to institute an exclusion policy banning every gun owner from the church.

There will be no Word of Wisdom prohibition against gun ownership, they just don't want guns brought to Church. I've seen people get quite irate at Church and it was probably a good thing they did not have a gun handy. Can you imagine a shooting over saving a row of seats in Sacrament Meeting?

Texans are really setting itself up if a significant number of them start toting their guns to church. Start rolling around and speaking in tongues and the bullets could fly accidentally.

It is a good thing for the LDS Church to prevent members in Central and Southern Utah from bringing their hunting and assault rifles with them to services.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I don't know how it's posted or made known in Utah. Otherwise, given that it's in the CHI, I'd guess hardly anybody knows about it. At least not believing members. NOMs and other members of the DAMU seem to know a lot more about church policy than believers do.

They post the notice on the Utah BCI website that holds all the information about concealed carry laws. This is also a topic that should be covered in Utah concealed carry classes. So its the gun owner who is responsible for knowing the law. Not necessarily the church's responsibility to teach members about state law.

https://bci.utah.gov/concealed-firearm/ ... -premises/

[moksha]

Maybe the Mormon Tabernacle Choir could help set the stage for the new wave of armed churchgoers by performing the songs of Guns N' Roses.

[shadow]

There will be no Word of Wisdom prohibition against gun ownership, they just don't want guns brought to Church. I've seen people get quite irate at Church and it was probably a good thing they did not have a gun handy. Can you imagine a shooting over saving a row of seats in Sacrament Meeting?

Yes. I can imagine.
Utah man sentenced to jail for seat-saving assault at a Mormon church

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Mass shootings are far from the principal causes of gun violence and death. They make bigger headlines, but are a significantly smaller number.

Having a gun provides very little protection in the case of a mass shooting. The reverse is actually more likely -- having a gun puts you at higher risk. One in five active shooter events are stopped by victims, but the vast majority of them do not use guns. Only in 3% of the cases does a potential victim or bystander successfully use a gun to stop the event. If anything, having a gun tends to make the person less likely to take other measures that are more effective. If they are actually able to get their gun out, they run a higher risk of getting shot as a target, a higher risk of shooting innocent bystanders, and a higher risk of getting shot at by law enforcement officers when they arrive.

Law enforcement officials undergo substantial training to help them respond well in these situations. And still, they frequently mess up. Most CCW holders have very little training. Some have lots of practice firing guns, but in almost all cases they're shooting at stationary targets with lots of warning that aren't firing back at them. Only a very few have actually trained in any sort of active shooter scenarios and few have completed the lengthy and repeated training necessary to be any good at it. Without that, the evidence shows that they're more likely to be a victim or a problem than to actually make a positive contribution.

ABC News report on simulation at stopping an active shooter

Daily Show report on stopping an active shooter

Here's an alternate view from experts who train police and first responders:
https://shar.es/1PMcO8

[Jeffret]

Here's an alternate view from experts who train police and first responders:
https://shar.es/1PMcO8

The statistics I referenced came from people who train police and first responders and wrote the report about the effectiveness of victim responses, including the use of deadly force. (Via "The Daily Show".) As the interviewee said, "I'm one of the co-authors of that report".

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Here's an alternate view from experts who train police and first responders:
https://shar.es/1PMcO8

The statistics I referenced came from people who train police and first responders and wrote the report about the effectiveness of victim responses, including the use of deadly force. (Via "The Daily Show".) As the interviewee said, "I'm one of the co-authors of that report".

So it brings up the point that nothing is definitive and both sides have an agenda and bias. For example the last 2 active shooter events cited (walmart and the church killing) seem to disprove the notion presented in the daily show thesis.

[Jeffret]

So it brings up the point that nothing is definitive and both sides have an agenda and bias. For example the last 2 active shooter events cited (walmart and the church killing) seem to disprove the notion presented in the daily show thesis.

"Disproved" is way too strong of a term. A couple of anecdotes, even if correct, don't establish proof.

It's true that the data aren't entirely clear. There are some cases where an armed victim or bystander has made a difference. But there are also many other cases where that hasn't been the case. We have to look at the sum of the data rather than just picking those that support our bias. And we have to look and the implications and the overall situation holistically.