[knayrb]

Please keep in mind that this is totally my opinion. I am an active member of the LDS church and so are most of my relatives. I have sister-in-laws that have the "guns are evil" attitude and so I have made it clear to them that my guns are locked in one place and ammo in another. No one in my family knows that I have a bedroom gun locked in a safe place just in case. I will catch **** when that is found out I'm sure. My kids are all adults though and all have shot my guns before. My wife won't have anything to do with them. People for many reasons are scared and very uncomfortable around guns. I'm not making excuses for the fear nor am I ignoring it. I respect their fears even though I feel it is a lack of education and brainwashing of the liberal media.

Let's take that to church. You have a mother with little kids that has a fear of guns. All she hears on TV is that some little kid was killed by a gun and she hopes that it will never happen to her children. If this mother found out that someone was bringing a gun to church and the church allowed it then they may not attend. She sure wouldn't sit by that gun toting member. I have a sister-in-law that wouldn't come to my house if she knew I had a loaded handgun, even if locked in a safe. The church is trying to make it comfortable for the majority of people. Society has conditioned the masses to think that guns are killers and not protectors. Guns are equated with violence by most people and church should be a place of peace. Until society in general thinks that proper use of weapons actually creates a feeling of peace & security, you are going to have these policies.

 

[Guest]

Please keep in mind that this is totally my opinion. I am an active member of the LDS church and so are most of my relatives. I have sister-in-laws that have the "guns are evil" attitude and so I have made it clear to them that my guns are locked in one place and ammo in another. No one in my family knows that I have a bedroom gun locked in a safe place just in case. I will catch **** when that is found out I'm sure. My kids are all adults though and all have shot my guns before. My wife won't have anything to do with them. People for many reasons are scared and very uncomfortable around guns. I'm not making excuses for the fear nor am I ignoring it. I respect their fears even though I feel it is a lack of education and brainwashing of the liberal media.

Let's take that to church. You have a mother with little kids that has a fear of guns. All she hears on TV is that some little kid was killed by a gun and she hopes that it will never happen to her children. If this mother found out that someone was bringing a gun to church and the church allowed it then they may not attend. She sure wouldn't sit by that gun toting member. I have a sister-in-law that wouldn't come to my house if she knew I had a loaded handgun, even if locked in a safe. The church is trying to make it comfortable for the majority of people. Society has conditioned the masses to think that guns are killers and not protectors. Guns are equated with violence by most people and church should be a place of peace. Until society in general thinks that proper use of weapons actually creates a feeling of peace & security, you are going to have these policies.

Perhaps a relationship with a fellow parishioner who uses firearms to protect their family is a way in which we can begin to change the perception.

 

[GeneticsDave]

The church is trying to make it comfortable for the majority of people. Society has conditioned the masses to think that guns are killers and not protectors. Guns are equated with violence by most people and church should be a place of peace. Until society in general thinks that proper use of weapons actually creates a feeling of peace & security, you are going to have these policies.

Just because something makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Would you tell the young man entering the Chapel with leather studded clothes, proliferative body piercings and a fluorescent green Mohawk that he needs to leave and come back more appropriately dressed?

The reason why people feel uncomfortable around guns is because of their lack of education. Since when is it acceptable to pander to the uneducated and refuse God given rights?

 

[Paul]

PW, I'm just trying to figure out how you could UNINTENTIONALLLY carry concealed in church.

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Same as Walther, usually happens at young mens / scouts when I am in a hurry and I just plain forget I have it on. I usually feel a bit guilty when I remember I forgot to leave it in the truck, but I don't feel guilty enough to excuse myself and go put it in the truck. Most of the time, I remember to take the gun off and leave it in my vehicle (yeah, I know others don't like that idea either.)

I just personally feel because of the involvement of my church in this law I can't blatantly disregard the law. I may not agree, but I have chosen to honor my church by following the law that they successfully enacted. Many of the "break-the-law" agruments may hold merit and be legitimate arguments. I for one just can't convince myself to buy into those lines of thinking though.

Does anyone know if the LDS church has a published no gun policy for their buildings worldwide or anywhere outside of Utah?

-PW

 

[knayrb]

Just because something makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

People with a fear of guns shouldn't be forced to be around them. Fix the fear and then the policies will change.

Would you tell the young man entering the Chapel with leather studded clothes, proliferative body piercings and a fluorescent green Mohawk that he needs to leave and come back more appropriately dressed?

No, because people would think he is weird but not a threat. I like this example because this young man would probably not enter the church unless he wanted to make a statement. Most often, if he chose to attend, he would not come dressed like a freak-show. My neighbor across the street has a son who dresses like a punk rock freak-show. Once in a blue-moon he comes to church to hear his mom sing. He cleans up when he comes and actually looks pretty good. He and I are friends and when he comes over he isn't as "bad" as when he is with his friends.

The reason why people feel uncomfortable around guns is because of their lack of education. Since when is it acceptable to pander to the uneducated and refuse God given rights?

I agree that lack of TRUE knowledge is the major cause of gun fear. I don't feel that respecting that fear is pandering. The church does anything but pander to popular opinion.

 

[GeneticsDave]

People with a fear of guns shouldn't be forced to be around them. Fix the fear and then the policies will change.

But you are forcing a person to be unarmed and unprotected to "respect a fear." Why should we as respectable citizens and society pay any credence to fear. Our lives should not be lived in fear, we should not respect fear either. If someone is fearful regarding something (including a punk rock star, who may appear very hostile), they have the option of leaving, confronting or learning. We as armed citizens should be a resource and educate the un/mis-informed, but we should not give up our rights to appease an uneducated populous.

The church does anything but pander to popular opinion.

This statement is a direct contradiction of why you support the Church policy. If the Church holds this policy to make people feel safer at Church while denying God given and inalienable rights, then they are doing nothing but pandering to popular opinion. You can't have it both ways, either you adhere to what is right disregarding the consequences, or you sacrifice what is right to appease a group and fit in.

 

[Guest]

People with a fear of guns shouldn't be forced to be around them. Fix the fear and then the policies will change.

But you are forcing a person to be unarmed and unprotected to "respect a fear." Why should we as respectable citizens and society pay any credence to fear. Our lives should not be lived in fear, we should not respect fear either. If someone is fearful regarding something (including a punk rock star, who may appear very hostile), they have the option of leaving, confronting or learning. We as armed citizens should be a resource and educate the un/mis-informed, but we should not give up our rights to appease an uneducated populous.

The church does anything but pander to popular opinion.

This statement is a direct contradiction of why you support the Church policy. If the Church holds this policy to make people feel safer at Church while denying God given and inalienable rights, then they are doing nothing but pandering to popular opinion. You can't have it both ways, either you adhere to what is right disregarding the consequences, or you sacrifice what is right to appease a group and fit in.

Well said.

 

[knayrb]

I am having a tough time explaining my feelings on this and should have learned from the discussion on the fear of guns in society. People are getting my opinion wrong.

I'm not going to bring a gun to church. I did bring a gun to Temple Square a couple of weeks ago. I took the youth to see the lights and we had to park and walk a few blocks through a rough part of town. If I could have parked next to the entrance I would have left it in the car.

I have to trust that their policy was made with some thought & guidance and that it was best for the majority of their members. It's not a battle worth fighting in my opinion. If you don't like it then post an entry in the Boycott Section of this forum and see if there is a great reduction in the attendance at LDS Churches next month.

 

[Walther]

We usually do a youth conference on the ward level every year, and when I am involved I always have a shooting activity with it. I always inform the parents of this and let them know that they have the option of not allowing their kid to participate in that portion of the activity. I have yet to have one parent request to not have their child participate.

A few years ago on one of the activities I did a shooting activity where they all got to shoot muzzel loaders, shotguns and 22 rifles. Our Bishops wife was there and she has hated guns and hated that her husband hunted. Her father and brother was shot during a hunting trip, (not fatal but it was on pupose) when she was a little girl and didn't want anything to do with guns after that. While at the activity I had her oldest daughter shooting and I talked to her for awhile about guns and safety. I was able to get her, (the Bishops wife) to shoot my muzzel loader rifle and then one of my daughter's pistols. I was able to change her mind somewhat and now she is more comfortable around guns. The Bishop was pretty happy with me since he was never able to get her to do this. Education is a powerful and important thing.

I try to teach firearm safety and shooting skills to as many youth as I can.

 

[T-Man]

So, if somebody has a fear of guns, I can respect that. They also have to respect my fear of mass murder. Let's compromise. I won't tell them I have a gun, and I won't show it to them. What do they call that again? :idea: Concealed carry!

 

[knayrb]

OK. I slept on this last night and I think I know why I feel the LDS Church might have submitted the request to not conceal carry in their buildings. I tend to agree with their position because of the following reason. This is NOT their opinion but only mine.

When I got my permit I didn't know how easy it would be. I was expecting to attend a class, take a written test, physically show how to safely handle a gun, and certify at a firing range that I know what I'm doing. In Utah you can get a permit without ever even touching a gun or proving that you know which end goes bang. Going to a 4-hour class where you are lectured and not even have a test doesn't prove that you understand the instruction given. The Utah class that I attended had no hands-on training with a gun. The only thing BCI does is check to make sure you are not a bad guy. It is up to the individual citizen to get proficient at practicing safety and shooting responsibly. The Church doesn't know who is and isn't proficient in handling and concealing a gun.

I think if there was as actually certification where you had to prove you could safely handle a gun and a test to make sure you understood the laws as it pertains to a citizen, then the LDS Church might feel more comfortable letting guns as protection in their buildings.

I only want to pick up the raisins and cherrios off the floor and not the gun that a mother or father dropped out of the church bag. :shock:

Announcement from the pulpit: There is a Colt 1911 .45 ACP semi-automatic pistol that was found in the chapel last week. You can pick it up at the lost and found in the library.

 

[Walther]

knayrb wrote

Announcement from the pulpit: There is a Colt 1911 .45 ACP semi-automatic pistol that was found in the chapel last week. You can pick it up at the lost and found in the library.

That's funny right there :lol:

 

[tapehoser]

That's funny right there :lol:

Tell you what....

 

[Car Knocker]

I think if there was as actually certification where you had to prove you could safely handle a gun and a test to make sure you understood the laws as it pertains to a citizen, then the LDS Church might feel more comfortable letting guns as protection in their buildings.

Logical conclusion except that some states have no training requirement at all - just a background check - (indeed, some states don't even require a permit to CCW) and the Church hasn't seen fit to ban CCW in any state other than Utah.

 

[GeneticsDave]

@ knayrb

I understand your opinion, and I agree that there are many schools out there that under train their students. However, many schools do cover how to handle a firearm, be it live or dry practice, and some even have range time; all should teach you the dangers (4 rules) of a gun and which end is the business end - if they don't they should be reported to the BCI.

However, I doubt this is the reason why the Church has implemented this policy. There are many people with concealed permits who's training is on par with or exceeds that of law enforcement or military. People who train at centers such as Gun Sight, Front Sight, Black Water USA, Armor of New Hampshire, etc. Taking the class to obtain your permit is only the very beginning of your firearms training and this should be taught in class. I have a hard time seeing the Church implementing a policy that basically states that they don't trust their own membership.

To me, the policy seems to be one of liability. If the Church were to allow firearms, they then might be held liable for negligent discharges or other problems. The letter I received basically stated that the risk of a negligent discharge was greater than that of being assaulted while at Church. Now, personally I think that's a bunch of garbage and whoever is drafting/approving policy needs a bit more education on this topic, but ultimately policy is not mine to make. However, it is my responsibility to determine if that policy is in the best interest of myself and my family - which it is not. It is also for me to determine whether this policy is in tune with the Gospel and the teachings of the Church - it is not. It is because of these two violations that I refuse to accept poor policy and choose to argue policy and not doctrine.

 

[xmirage2kx]

When I got my permit I didn't know how easy it would be. I was expecting to attend a class, take a written test, physically show how to safely handle a gun, and certify at a firing range that I know what I'm doing.

I must have inadvertently picked a very good class. Had a class of about 15 people and we had to demonstrate proper handling on day 1 with one of the blue training guns before we even were allowed to bring the gun to class the 2nd day. On Day 2 we had to pass several different shooting courses including speed and accuracy from 1 yard to 60 yards. We also were taught weapon retention, clearing jams, and shoot/no shoot scenarios. Only about ½ the class even passed. On the other hand when it came to laws he was way out in left field. Guess you can’t win them all.

 

[knayrb]

I must have inadvertently picked a very good class. Had a class of about 15 people and we had to demonstrate proper handling on day 1 with one of the blue training guns before we even were allowed to bring the gun to class the 2nd day. On Day 2 we had to pass several different shooting courses including speed and accuracy from 1 yard to 60 yards. We also were taught weapon retention, clearing jams, and shoot/no shoot scenarios. Only about ½ the class even passed. On the other hand when it came to laws he was way out in left field. Guess you can’t win them all.

Now that's what I'm talking about! My class was 4 hours on 1 evening with 50 people crammed in the family room & kitchen of a large house. There was more emphasis on taking our pictures for the permit than there was for firearms training. Not one student touched a gun. Everyone passed and got the application signed. I sat in the back and asked probably 1/2 of the questions (I'm pretty bold most of the time). The instructor did know the laws pretty well though. There was cookies and punch afterwards while the pictures were being printed.

BTW - BCI has a survey on the CCW trainers and I gave my opinion there.

 

[HERMIT]

On the other hand you should not have to demonstate that you can outshoot a Navy Seal to get a permit. The Utah system allows a varity of different classes to cover a varity of differnt students. It is then left up to the student to choose a class that fits there needs. I like this system, I just hope that students are encouraged to get the class they need. All people should remember that the CCW class they just finished is just the first step in getting training.

 

[althor]

When I got my permit I didn't know how easy it would be. I was expecting to attend a class, take a written test, physically show how to safely handle a gun, and certify at a firing range that I know what I'm doing.

I must have inadvertently picked a very good class. Had a class of about 15 people and we had to demonstrate proper handling on day 1 with one of the blue training guns before we even were allowed to bring the gun to class the 2nd day. On Day 2 we had to pass several different shooting courses including speed and accuracy from 1 yard to 60 yards. We also were taught weapon retention, clearing jams, and shoot/no shoot scenarios. Only about ½ the class even passed. On the other hand when it came to laws he was way out in left field. Guess you can’t win them all.

So, did the students who didn't pass get their applications signed?

I actually prefer a class that sticks to the minimum requirements. If the state doesn't require something I want a class that doesn't either. Its just a formality. I would prefer to not be required to get a permit to do something that I feel I already have a right to do.

That being said, I think that people who elect to carry a firearm should make a real effort to be safe and proficient, and be held responsible for their actions.

 

[xmirage2kx]

I believe you shouldn't even need a permit, and if you don't know the law or how to handle your gun you should be charged with any crime you commit. Any crime committed with a gun should be charged as such and owning and carrying a gun should not be a crime in any form. So I don't have an issue with the sign and go permits to complete a requirement that shouldn't exist in the first place. I just think if you are going to teach a class then put some effort into it and Teach.