Church shooting stopped by 2nd Amendment....

[Aprhys]

The hypocrisy from leadership in this matter is disappointing.

Well... since the church is self insured (up to a point) it has to say something preemtorilyso as to ward off huge payouts when an occasion does happen in an LDS Ward building.

You can bet the larcenous lawyers will be going after the deep pockets of the church and place blame and Responsability for an incident.

Better for the church to say “no guns” except for (trained) law enforcement. Because otherwise the top leadership would be dragged into some kind of lawsuit when an attorney for an innocent bystander gets shot and killed by a white hat member trying to take down the bad guy.

That’s what would likely happen.

Besides I think none of the current twelve have served in the military...??

If this is true, all it tells me is that our leaders care more about their bank account than their members.

I am surprised that you ever thought that this wasnt the truth. You are a number on a screen with a dollar amount next to it. If you dont make the cut then the rules dont apply to you. You get to pay for the leaders high living lifestyle with personal security but dont get the priviledge of protecting yourself and your loved ones. You get the honor of being a martyr for your beliefs. I am so close to leaving this nonsense behind and taking my family with me.

[nightlight]

The hypocrisy from leadership in this matter is disappointing.

Well... since the church is self insured (up to a point) it has to say something preemtorilyso as to ward off huge payouts when an occasion does happen in an LDS Ward building.

You can bet the larcenous lawyers will be going after the deep pockets of the church and place blame and Responsability for an incident.

Better for the church to say “no guns” except for (trained) law enforcement. Because otherwise the top leadership would be dragged into some kind of lawsuit when an attorney for an innocent bystander gets shot and killed by a white hat member trying to take down the bad guy.

That’s what would likely happen.

Besides I think none of the current twelve have served in the military...??

*gag*

Not the money bro......anything but the gold!!!!


*gag *

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also

[Joel]

A criminal is sad

[David13]

A criminal is sad

Of course he's sad. He wanted more people killed.
dc

[Joel]

Jack Wilson describes the seconds before he shot a gunman Sunday morning at West Freeway Church of Christ near Fort Worth.

[h_p]

Donation site for Tony Wallace, who was the second victim, if anyone feels moved to help out: https://www.mealtrain.com/trains/y24q2y

And an interview with his daughter, the one who was seen in the video crying and running back to him: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/da ... d-n1108501

[Joel]

[Joel]

[larsenb]

See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9823&p=990144#p990144 for original 'live-feed' of the shooting which was removed from YouTube. Horrible, but this is the type of thing we may be up against.

[Lizzy60]

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is recommending that all churches in TX create a team of church members who are well-trained and willing to defend their congregations against murderous intruders. There are already many who have done this. The more that do, the less likely a killer will target a church, if he perceives the odds are against him.

The LDS church is upside-down on this issue. The safest thing is to encourage wards to have well-trained guards and publicize that we have them in every Ward. Instead, we have put out the word that no one in our congregations should be armed.

[David13]

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is recommending that all churches in TX create a team of church members who are well-trained and willing to defend their congregations against murderous intruders. There are already many who have done this. The more that do, the less likely a killer will target a church, if he perceives the odds are against him.

The LDS church is upside-down on this issue. The safest thing is to encourage wards to have well-trained guards and publicize that we have them in every Ward. Instead, we have put out the word that no one in our congregations should be armed.

We just simply have some foolish management in our church Lizzy, no other way to put it.
dc

[mudflap]

Police:

Don’t take the law into your own hands

Also police:

We’re not bodyguards

Ok, Schizo's. And not all police, mind you- just the ones that say these things. but seriously- what "law" are they referencing? Is there a law anywhere against defending fellow church-goers from a mass murderer? well, maybe in our church, but that's not a *law* now, is it?

[David13]

Police:

Don’t take the law into your own hands

Also police:

We’re not bodyguards

Ok, Schizo's. And not all police, mind you- just the ones that say these things. but seriously- what "law" are they referencing? Is there a law anywhere against defending fellow church-goers from a mass murderer? well, maybe in our church, but that's not a *law* now, is it?

It is stated explicitly in California law, and there have been many court cases that have ruled that the police have no duty to protect you.

So when you see the LAPD cars which say, or have written or printed on the side, to serve and protect, that's just window dressing. Not the actual product of their work.
dc

[mudflap]

Police:

Don’t take the law into your own hands

Also police:

We’re not bodyguards

Ok, Schizo's. And not all police, mind you- just the ones that say these things. but seriously- what "law" are they referencing? Is there a law anywhere against defending fellow church-goers from a mass murderer? well, maybe in our church, but that's not a *law* now, is it?

It is stated explicitly in California law, and there have been many court cases that have ruled that the police have no duty to protect you.

So when you see the LAPD cars which say, or have written or printed on the side, to serve and protect, that's just window dressing. Not the actual product of their work.
dc

yes, I had that argument with an officer- I was a student teacher, and I broke up a fight between a bully and another student- I pinned the bully to the wall while waiting for security. Lots of cell phones appeared and the students accused me of "attacking" the bully. The police informed me that there were several death threats against me. They advised me that the kids knew where I lived. I said to the officer, "so, are you guys going to step up patrols in my neighborhood?"

He laughed, "No, we're not bodyguards."

"But it says right on your vehicle, 'Serve and protect'"?

No response- "have a nice day, sir."

They must get that a lot. Makes me think they are living a lie.

so, yeah, I respect *some* of what they do, but I think they wouldn't be so hated if they acted more like firefighters and stayed in their station until called.

And take that ridiculous sticker off your car.

[mudflap]

Later, when I was a teacher (the worst job I ever had- think: "gun free zone"), I overheard a discussion about fighting. I was working in an inner city school- the worst one in the district. Finally, a student asked me, "Mr. *****, do you know how to fight?"

Me: "no, I don't know how to fight....."

students <sighs of disappointment>

"...I only know how to kill."

"Oooooo!"

no one dared challenge me after that.

[LDSAnon]

I'm troubled by the Church policy. I'm a CCW permit holder. There are restrictions on where I can carry: no schools, post offices, courthouses, federal facilities, military bases, places that serve alcohol as their primary business, etc. Legally, I can carry at Church, but if someone in charge knew I was armed and asked me to leave the premises, I would have to comply or face charges of criminal trespassing. Therein lies the legal ambiguity.

If someone were to attack my ward congregation in the same manner as the attack this weekend, and I defended by shooting the perpetrator, what would be the ramifications? Would the Church sue me? Would it excommunicate me?

That's the problem I face.I have the choice not to go to a bar or a military base. Going there is my option. If summoned to a court, I don't have the choice. Attending Church meetings is like being summoned to court. The orthodox practice requires attendance at sacrament meetings. We're taught it is a commandment. In other words, it's not my option. My eternal welfare depends on it. Therefore, not carrying in Church requires me to set aside my personal protection to attend. If I go to a courthouse, there are armed guards. If I go to a military base, there are armed guards. I give up my right to defend myself and rely on others to protect me. The Church needs to see it in that light. If they require me to give up my right to self-defense, then it shoulders the burden of protecting me when I am on the premises. The fact that it does not bothers me. I obey the policy out of the desire to comply with Church directives, but I don't like it.

[Lizzy60]

I'm troubled by the Church policy. I'm a CCW permit holder. There are restrictions on where I can carry: no schools, post offices, courthouses, federal facilities, military bases, places that serve alcohol as their primary business, etc. Legally, I can carry at Church, but if someone in charge knew I was armed and asked me to leave the premises, I would have to comply or face charges of criminal trespassing. Therein lies the legal ambiguity.

If someone were to attack my ward congregation in the same manner as the attack this weekend, and I defended by shooting the perpetrator, what would be the ramifications? Would the Church sue me? Would it excommunicate me?

That's the problem I face.I have the choice not to go to a bar or a military base. Going there is my option. If summoned to a court, I don't have the choice. Attending Church meetings is like being summoned to court. The orthodox practice requires attendance at sacrament meetings. We're taught it is a commandment. In other words, it's not my option. My eternal welfare depends on it. Therefore, not carrying in Church requires me to set aside my personal protection to attend. If I go to a courthouse, there are armed guards. If I go to a military base, there are armed guards. I give up my right to defend myself and rely on others to protect me. The Church needs to see it in that light. If they require me to give up my right to self-defense, then it shoulders the burden of protecting me when I am on the premises. The fact that it does not bothers me. I obey the policy out of the desire to comply with Church directives, but I don't like it.

You seem to be choosing to obey the Church policy out of fear of being sued or excommunicated if you acted to stop a murderous intruder. I sincerely hope you don't live to regret that decision. The ONLY way you'd be sued or excommunicated is in the event you were trying to stop a mass killing event. If nothing ever happens, no one ever needs to know that you have a concealed weapon. It seems you are saying that it's preferable for members of your congregation to be in danger, and even get murdered, than for you to risk a lawsuit or excommunication.

My husband is well-trained, and an excellent marksman. He ALWAYS carries at Church meetings.

This Church policy is not only stupid and dangerous, but it's unconstitutional. You know, that pesky Constitution that was inspired by God so that there was a free country in which to restore His Church.

[Lizzy60]

I listened to part of this man's interview on Coast to Coast last night. He has some amazing facts about how the presence of a firearm saves lives every day, and without firing a single shot. His name is Mark Walters, and he has a radio show.

https://www.ammoland.com/author/markwal ... z69hvyNXZx

Disarming good people, just for church or permanently, is very dangerous.

[ajax]

This Church policy is not only stupid and dangerous, but it's unconstitutional. You know, that pesky Constitution that was inspired by God so that there was a free country in which to restore His Church.

Stupid and dangerous, perhaps. Unconstitutional? No. Only Federal Gov't policies/laws can be considered unconstitutional, not the policies of private associations.

[Lizzy60]

This Church policy is not only stupid and dangerous, but it's unconstitutional. You know, that pesky Constitution that was inspired by God so that there was a free country in which to restore His Church.

Stupid and dangerous, perhaps. Unconstitutional? No. Only Federal Gov't policies/laws can be considered unconstitutional, not the policies of private associations.

Gotcha. Make that anti-Constitutional.

[Art Vandelay]

This Church policy is not only stupid and dangerous, but it's unconstitutional. You know, that pesky Constitution that was inspired by God so that there was a free country in which to restore His Church.

Stupid and dangerous, perhaps. Unconstitutional? No. Only Federal Gov't policies/laws can be considered unconstitutional, not the policies of private associations.

Gotcha. Make that anti-Constitutional.

It isn't even anti-Constitutional. It's private property so the church can decide if guns are allowed or not. They have that Constitutional right. Its' anti-Constitutional to try to force a private property owner to do something contrary to their rights. That said, I think it's a silly rule to not allow cc. I've never carried in church and hadn't ever planned to but I still think it's a dumb idea to ban guns but I also don't think the church really cares if someone cc's or not. If it's concealed then who knows if one is carrying anyway? It's probably just a legality that a think-tank full of pencil pushers thought was needed.

[Juliet]

I hate to say it, but in this situation, the typical gun control rhetoric backfired.

Here is the article I wrote on this issue, please correct me if my facts are not correct:

When Texas was making it legal for people to use conceal carry permits in churches, Joe Biden made a statement complaining that allowing people to use guns in church buildings is completely irrational.

On Sunday, Dec 29, 2019, there was a shooting inside a Texas church. Two good men, each having a gun, became heroes and saved many lives. They killed the shooter so the event did not become a massacre.

Events like this usually allow people to cry for more gun control so that that these mass shooting events stop. But in this case, the ability to use such rhetoric has backfired. It was because more people had a gun in the area that many lives were saved.

Of course, the argument can be made that if gun control laws were stricter, neither the bad guy or the good guy could have a gun and then no one would have died.

But, is this a factual argument?

It was worth trudging up to the attic and pulling out my copy of Glenn Beck's certified autographed copy of "Arguing with Idiots" to make sure I have my facts straight.

While I can't copy the whole chapter on gun control statistics, what I can do is just give one excerpt of this book.

"After the 1996 'Dunblane Massacre,' in which a man shot and killed 16 children and their teacher at a primary school, England instituted a handgun ban.

Remember the English Declaration of Rights...restrains only [the] queen--Parliament can do whatever they want and...they wanted to take guns away. So, in 1997, they did. Over a decade later, the results are in: the ban is a disaster. From 1998 through 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340 percent" (emphasis added).

So here is a factual statistic where the experiment was applied. Removing the people's right to a handgun resulted in more deaths by handgun over the following years.

I think I am sticking with Minister Britt Farmer who said, “We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse...I’m thankful our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.”

READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/news/9854-pastor ... themselves
© Neon Nettle

David Leppard, "Ministers 'Covered Up' Gun Crime," London Times August 26, 2007, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime ... 328368.ece.

Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Idiots", Mercury Radio Arts Inc. 2009, p. 44,53

"Handgun Crime 'Up' Despite Ban," news.bbc.co.uk, July 16, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm.

[h_p]

That's the problem I face.I have the choice not to go to a bar or a military base. Going there is my option. If summoned to a court, I don't have the choice. Attending Church meetings is like being summoned to court. The orthodox practice requires attendance at sacrament meetings. We're taught it is a commandment. In other words, it's not my option. My eternal welfare depends on it. Therefore, not carrying in Church requires me to set aside my personal protection to attend. If I go to a courthouse, there are armed guards. If I go to a military base, there are armed guards. I give up my right to defend myself and rely on others to protect me. The Church needs to see it in that light. If they require me to give up my right to self-defense, then it shoulders the burden of protecting me when I am on the premises. The fact that it does not bothers me. I obey the policy out of the desire to comply with Church directives, but I don't like it.

I'm still carrying at church--it's legal where I live to ignore the letter they read in sacrament meeting asking us not to. I've decided that if my gun is ever discovered, and they ask me to leave, that's the last time they'll ever see me.

[Lizzy60]

This is the tragic story of the woman who fought for conceal-carry in TX, and is still lobbying for fewer restrictions. Her experience shows the result of being "obedient" and leaving her handgun in her car while she had lunch with her parents. She was trained in using a handgun, she was hiding under a table with her purse, with a clear shot at the gunman, and her gun was in her car, not her purse. She watched as the gunman killed her parents, and more than 20 other souls.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/09 ... n-control/

[Chip]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church ... s-minister

We've had members work hard to twist the arm of the bishop for money. They can become indignant when they don't get their way. This guy was such a case.

I kind of expect a quiet policy reversal on concealed carry soon from the church. Their rule is unreasonable and probably the result of listening to their lawyers.