Why would you not carry a gun in Church?

[Trunk Monkey]

I noticed a poster in another thread today that commented that a handgun didn’t seem like something one would expect to find in a church. I found the statement rather odd because I am unaware of any magic (outside of Highlander) that stops violence on church grounds.

I'd like to hear other opinions

[RevStPatrick]

1. Yeah!!! 'Cause that's EXACTLY what Jesus would want!!!

[gejohnston]

2. What if your church is an oak grove?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_of_oak_and_mistletoe

I'm guessing the bottom one is owned by a Catholic grandmother?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Then Jesus asked them,

"When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
(Luke 22:35-36)

[bad sofa king]

14. personally, when I think of Jesus, I like to think of him as a gun toting bad ass

that smites evil with his arsenal of holy avenging firearms. Then, when he smites your ass, he says something witty like "I just made you holy" or "amen to that".

[lob1]

27. Jesus was the first one to say "I'll be back!"

[spin]

16. The sword was the handgun of its day ...

Sword of Saint Peter



The Sword of Saint Peter (Polish: Miecz świętego Piotra) is allegedly the sword with which the Apostle Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant at the time of Jesus' arrest in Gethsemane.

The sword is wide-tipped, similar in shape to a dussack or machete. It currently resides in the Poznań Archdiocesan Museum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Saint_Peter

Admittedly this is a huge weapon. I suspect Peter carried a smaller more concealable weapon such as a Roman Gladius.



Irregardless a sword is a very lethal close range weapon and in skilled hands it can be far more lethal than a handgun.

I personally do not believe that Jesus opposed the use of weapons for legitimate self defense.

[Euromutt]

18. People used to carry weapons to church all the time

The idea that it's somehow inappropriate to bring a weapon into a house of worship is a comparatively recent development. The Puritans brought their guns to church in the event of bandits, Indians or--near the coast--pirates arriving during the service. Admittedly, bandit/Indian/pirate raids are no longer a common occurrence, but I'm not aware of any theological principle against bearing weapons to a house of worship.

[upaloopa]

48. God gave us the common sense to know that gun nuttery is just that, gun nuttery.

[Euromutt]

122. I'm an atheist, that argument doesn't work on me

And isn't it remarkably convenient how your god supposedly dislikes the same things you do?

But even assuming you're right, how come carrying a weapon in a church was fine for the better part of 2,000 years and now suddenly it's deeply wrong? I don't have a dog in this fight, since I very rarely set foot in a church anyway, but precisely because I'm not invested, I am very simply curious as to what's so special about churches now, as opposed to in the past.

[BlueStreak]

78. If God calls on you to shoot somebody, you'd better come prepared

[Loudly]

3. Will you never be satisfied until everyone is carrying everywhere?

What motivates you to promote such a society?

I find THAT odd.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Peacemaker.

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

There's a reason that nickname was given to the .45 Colt's 1873 Single Action Army.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God - Matt, 5: 9

[upaloopa]

49. What a fucking stretch. The single action army was invented in the 1800's. Today it is called

a single action pistol. I had one and it didn't bring any peace, it just laid there. Also calling gun violence peace is really a stretch.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. 1873 to be percise.

Next year will be the 150th anniversary of an iconic pistol. I think I read somewhere that Colt is going to reissue the gun, albiet with some modern improvements for safety.

My wife has used her guns to prevent her from being attacked and mugged on two occasions a few years ago. Merely having the gun (S & W 642) and the obvious resolve to use it, caused the would be attacker to turn tail and run, each time. I would say that her gun brought peace.

[holdencaufield]

21. "An armed society ...

... is a polite society." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Politeness is a good thing, is it not?

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Among the most polite societies in the world

are "unarmed" Japan and "unarmed" New Zealand, while some of the most "impolite" societies in the world (Somalia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Colombia) are heavily armed.

[holdencaufield]

28. Having lived in Japan ...

... for several years. I can assure that it is NOT a polite society (except superficially). Like every society, they have their customs and social rituals, but they frequently treat each other very impolitely, particularly in anonymous situations like public transport.

As for New Zealand, I lived over 10 years in Australia, I have visited New Zealand on several occasions for work and pleasure. Neither society is completely unarmed, there are many avid hunters and shooters in both countries, nor are they any more polite than say your average American.

As for Somalia and the rest -- I assure you, those who are unarmed are VERY polite to those who are armed.

[Art_from_Ark]

31. As one who is currently living in Japan,

for most of my adult life in fact, I can assure you that it IS a polite society, certainly compared with most other countries, and certainly compared with its neighbors. Maybe the Japanese aren't 100% polite when it comes to riding crowded commuter trains in some cases, but they're as polite as can be expected given the crowdedness of some of the trains.

As for Somalia and the rest, geez, any unarmed person is going to be polite to a gun-toting asshole-- but how many gun-toting assholes are polite to unarmed people, or to each other?

[holdencaufield]

34. I believe that was Heinlein's point ...

... if EVERYONE is armed (or potentially armed) the impulse to inflict abuse (either verbal or physical) is superseded by the impulse not to get shot.

Which is one of the reasons that the "Wild West" wasn't nearly as "wild" a legend portrays it. For example, at the famous "OK Corral" shootout -- only three person were killed. That wouldn't even register as a newsworthy event in present day Washington DC or Chicago.

I'm not advocating universal carry but I am also against restricting any law-abiding citizen from his right to self-defence granted under the US Constitution.

[Art_from_Ark]

36. Gee, would I rather have Japan be a country where almost no one has a gun,

or would I rather it be a country where everyone has a gun?

Considering that the annual number of gun deaths in Japan, with a population of 126 million, is extremely low (less than 50), I prefer to keep the current gun controls in place.

[holdencaufield]

39. You're free to choose ...

... of course. Somehow we'll muddle through without you.

I, however, chose to live where my personal freedoms aren't infringed (or are infringed as little as possible).

[Art_from_Ark]

118. "Personal freedoms"

What a crock. At this point in time, Japan probably has more personal freedoms than the US. Owning a gun has very little to do with personal freedoms.

[Glaug-Eldare]

119. Freedom to own child pornography and get corn on your pizza

[holdencaufield]

120. Mmmmmmm.... corn

[upaloopa]

50. Simple logic tells us, the more people have guns, the more guns will be used, not thew other way

around. Of course logic gets in the way of gun nuttery.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Without guns the strong are free to prey upon the weak.

A gun gave my wife (A small, frail senior citizen) the ability to make a young street thug turn and run away when he was about to attack her. Would you be happier if she had been disarmed by you and had become another crime statistic?

[hack89]

60. So why has gun violence declined to historic lows as gun ownership has skyrocketed?

your logic is easily disproved by 30 years of history.

[bongbong]

115. Tsk tsk tsk

You keep posting this falsehood - lie - even after I (and many others) have told you it's a lie.

Go ahead and alert on my post. It won't stop me from calling you out on your lie every time you make it.

[hack89]

117. By every measure there are few shootings and fewer deaths / injuries

so you can tsk tks tks all you want - doesn't change those basic facts. Does it matter what the cause is?

[bongbong]

123. LOADS of laughs

> Does it matter what the cause is?

[hack89]

124. So you agree that there are fewer shootings, injuries and deaths?

because you have never shown otherwise.

[bongbong]

125. Learn a little logic

> So you agree that there are fewer shootings, injuries and deaths?

And it has nothing to do with the proliferation of guns. The only possible connection you can make is that more guns = more death, but other factors kept the shootings, injuries, and deaths down.

I'm extrapolating that more guns = more death since every other civilized country has much fewer murders (unless you put America into the "savage" class of countries, a move the lax gun laws here would merit). It's not a 100% guaranteed causation, although I can posit a number of statistical correlations that would lead to it.

Sigh. I've explained this to you about a million times. NRA indoctrination has eliminated any chance of logic controlling your thought process.

[hack89]

126. Very simple question - afraid to give an honest answer?

I know it is not because of more guns - I have consistently said that.

Our murder rate continues to decline - we have cut deaths due to murder and manslaughter in half. How does that fit into your extrapolation? Seems to undermine if in fact more guns contribute to higher murder rates.

Those are the simple facts that why gun control is a dead issue in America. No one is buying your lies and moral panic.

[bongbong]

127. Read!

> How does that fit into your extrapolation?

I explained it quite well in my post. Maybe you should read my entire post before responding to it.

> that why gun control is a dead issue in America. No one is buying your lies and moral panic.

Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is the thuggish nature of the NRA and the way they threaten politicians.

[hack89]

128. So how does your "logic" explain fewer shootings, injuries and deaths?

it is not even reduced rates - we are talking about declines in absolute numbers. You just said that was impossible.

[MercutioATC]

129. Give it up!

Years ago, I used to post in the 9/11 Forum here at DU.

I once had somebody there tell me that the registrations of the two planes that crashed into WTC 1 and WTC 2 had never been cancelled and that this was PROOF that those planes never crashed and were still flying.

After multiple posts back and forth, I called the FAA and verified that planes do not automatically have their registrations when they are no longer in service, the owner must send in a form. Sometimes, those forms aren't sent in.

I provided the phone number I had called so the poster could verify the information. Their response? They said that it didn't matter, if the plane still had a valid registration it must not have crashed, which was proof of a conspiracy.

Some people are so far into their own little worlds that the only logic that makes sense to them is their own warped sense of how the world works. They cannot be reasoned with.

[hack89]

130. Those were the days

9/11 Forum is what brought me to DU in the first place. That was a fun place for many years.

[MercutioATC]

131. They were!

The Dungeon is really boring now...

[bongbong]

132. Waste of time

> You just said that was impossible.

Where? I never said that. Your inability to understand my post is obvious.

If you can show me where I said that, I'll continue this. Otherwise, continuing with you will be a waste of time.

[hack89]

133. How does your extrapolation explain fewer shootings, injuries and deaths?

I'm extrapolating that more guns = more death

Where is the "more death"?

Very simple question - why are you avoiding it?

[PavePusher]

86. And I'm sure you have the stats to prove your claim....

and you'll present them any minute now.

Right?

[spayneuter]

105. Simple logic almost never is.

..........

[Jenoch]

135. The only time

nuclear weapons were used was when there were only two of them on the entire planet. So your logic is not completely logical.

[Clames]

32. That's the truth.

Find Germans to be much more polite than the Japanese in terms of meeting as complete strangers.

[Art_from_Ark]

33. How many Japanese have you actually met?

Few, I would imagine.

[Clames]

80. About as many as one can in a small rural town there.

My cousin had been teaching English there for years and he made sure I wasn't too stereotypically American. I bet what you imagine and what is reality differ by quite a bit.

[ellisonz]

136. Art_From_Ark lives in Japan.

You might want to read the previous posts above where he notes that or check his profile before you insult him: "I bet what you imagine and what is reality differ by quite a bit."

[Pholus]

51. Really, cause the guys who luv their guns near me are complete arrogant jackasses.

Can you make them move to a different society please?

Or is the point I'm supposed to shoot them?

[holdencaufield]

53. The point being ...

... people are inclined to be more polite and not call each other "arrogant jackasses" if they're speaking with a person they suspect could be armed.

Perhaps if you were more civil in your discourse, people might be inclined to be more sensitive of your delicate sensibilities.

[Pholus]

54. Must be nice that you're on the side of the angels always.

So I take it you require a gun so that nobody dares lip off to you.

Control issues, check!

[holdencaufield]

57. People only tend to "lip off" ...

... in forums like this when they are guaranteed anonymity and no chance of a remunerative butt-whoppin'

In the circle I travel, people are, for the most part, civil and polite, at least to my face.

[Pholus]

63. Ah yes. See you make my point for me.

I'm sure I"d stand in awe of you if we met face-to-face since you might "whop" me one in the butt otherwise. LOL!

Care to further demonstrate that you have control issues? Look bud, I've seen plenty of guys who talk like you do. Let's get one thing straight -- I don't respect you any more because of that gun you're waving around. The way you're talking just underscores that you have nothin to add but that it's your way or the gun. Same threats as every petty thug in history. You should be real proud....

Now I've went many rounds with people here in the gungeon. There are a lot of responsible gun owners here. We actually tend to come to common ground when we talk.

Then again, they're not that excited about people treating them differently when they're packing.

You seem to be. Please seek help before I get to read about you in the news.

[holdencaufield]

64. Your powers of insight are truly awesome.

I hope and pray you only use them for good.

[Pholus]

65. As I fervently hope you use your strapped on respect-getter.

At least my powers only leave your ego bruised. Have a good day, and actually I do mean that.

[holdencaufield]

66. I remain -- unbruised

[Clames]

81. Yeah, that much smug self-centeredness doesn't bruise as much as suffocates.

Have to really hold your breath around that much BS...

[Pholus]

100. I might actually have taken you seriously

but then I read your posting history. Sorry, I have a bias against people who are uni-dimensional. I'm working on it, but let's face it they're real downers at parties.

[holdencaufield]

101. I'm trying to imagine ...

... the shame and humiliation one must feel by having Pholus not take you seriously. I truly commiserate for you Clames and I suggest you just try to get through it one day at a time.

Might I suggest a combination of pills, whiskey and self-help tapes to get you over this terrible setback in life?

[Pholus]

106. Wow, you posted about THREE things this time.

Anyway, that's one more than your usual. Congrats on the personal growth there, bud.

I like to think I helped....

[Clames]

116. Bwahahaha....

...you should apologize for almost making me spit out some of this home brewed IPA. But I don't kid myself...

[Pholus]

99. I would expect no different.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. Actually, it is the LEGALLY armed person who becomes extra polite.

Because we are armed we bear an extra responsibility before the law for preventing a situation from escalating. About two years ago I was in an unwanted confrontation that appearred to me to have a serious possibility of escalting to violence. I was armed. I made an excuse and left.

Self-defense law requires that I not have any part in escalating a situation to violence.

[Pholus]

97. As usual, you're much better than the locals.

And the entire point was that YMMV when it comes to gun owners and politeness.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. Texas statistics do not agree with you.

If some yahoo is using his Concealed handgun License to threaten, intimidate or bully someone into being polite to them they are violating the law and in addition to whatever else the law may do, they can lose their license. Both Texas and Florida annually publish the data on licenses that are revoked for cause and very few have been pulled. There is no reason to believe that the Texas/Florida experience is any different in other shall-issue states. Individuals who are legally armed rarely cause any problems. As the data shows, we go out of our way to avoid problems.

[Pholus]

139. Wow, I guess you're right. Your data proves my local assholes simply don't exist.

How could I have been so blind! ALL gun owners are simply superior beings who are superior solely because they have obtained guns. I guess the obvious conclusion is that guns are simply a part of social evolution and that to get a CCW (which takes about four hours of classes according to the local ads I've seen) makes you suddenly without flaws.

Since your data shows no exception to your conclusion I guess we can all breath easier. My neighbor is not a borderline drunk with control issues who likes to constantly remind all the rest of us that he has guns, he's... I dunno, what... a performance artist with hyper realistic props or something? It obviously can't be that he's someone with problems cause if he had them he wouldn't be able to carry since the brotherhood apparently is really good at weeding these guys out.

Now thinking about your statistic, one hypothesis about a low revocation rate is that it is simply hard to remove a CCW from an unworthy due to the way the system is designed... hmmmmm...... seems I am not the only person who got that particular visit from Captain Obvious:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=us

[GreenStormCloud]

140. Lay off the lies.

No where did I say that wall gun owners are without flaw. For you to accuse me of saying that is a lie on your part. Is your position so weak that you need to lie to shore it up? Take a look at the conviction data. It shows that there are some convictions of CHL holders, but that they are rare. Having a CHL does not immunize one from prosecution. That I would post the link to the statistics site shows that I am well aware that some of us do commit crimes, but that it is very few that do.

The link you posted is to a newspaper report of a few incidents. A few ancedotes is not data. I provided you with complete data.

Geting a CHL takes more than a few hours of class. There are a few things that you left out. One has to have an FBI background investigation done, be fingerprinted and photographed, pass a text on written material, and pass a live-fire competency test. (BTW - On the live fire I scored 250 points out of 250 possible.)

I was civil to you, and you responded with hyperbole and sarcasm. That is pretty common in these discussions. We who are pro-RKBA post facts and statistics, then when you side gets backed into a corner, you lash out.

[Pholus]

147. Your usage of your data is flawed as is your assertion.

"As the data shows, we go out of our way to avoid problems."

You pushed two buttons there, so sorry.

First you were talking about who with the apparently non-inclusive "we" there? Certainly not my neighbor. That guy is constantly talking about fixing things he sees as problems. Fortunately, he does seem to be all talk but we're really not that sure.

Second, as an avid consumer of data I do get offended when it is pushed past reasonable interpretation or used incorrectly.

You completely mischaracterize the NYTIMES article. I think the main point is that after an examination of public records -- which is hard to do you see for several reasons -- you find that " of the roughly 250,000 North Carolinians with concealed carry permits, more than 2,400 of them had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes. "

YOu don't cite your data but Lott claims a 0.008 PERCENT revocation rate in Florida for all causes. I saw another study that said 0.2% in Texas for the same -- is THAT the one you're talking about? Compared to a 1% incarceration rate nationwide, NC seems to have a 1% rate of people walking around with CCW who probably shouldn't. But I will be generous at first and restrict the discussion to the 200 NC CCW holders who had weapon-related felonies but still had their permits.

So 0.08% of CCW holders in NC are violent felons who still have their guns. How does that compare to the two numbers?

Assuming that NC and Florida have similar populations, Lott's numbers imply that only 1 in 100 people who should have a revocation do.

Assuming that Texas and NC have similar populations, the 0.2% revocation rate imply that there is up to a 30% failure rate to revoke.

Now Lott is an axe-grinding idiot, so the Texas numbers are probably more believable but there seems to be a evidence that the system has major problems.

Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, the 0.2% rate was revocations FOR CAUSE. Compare that to a 1% rate of people having permits that probably shouldn't and I see a broken system in which 4 out of 5 offences do not lead to revocation -- not evidence for proof of character. But I'm a downer about these things.

Finally, I've had an FBI background check. No skin off my butt, less paperwork than going to a new doctor's office. Ditto on the fingerprint/photgraph. I've seen what passes for the written test -- frankly the four hours of class is probably 3.5 hours too much. Finally, I shoot 250 rounds easily in a couple hours. Yup, I joined your club a few months back. Wasn't hard.

The process to get a CCW permit has zero rigor. Describing it in full detail (including the form numbers) is pretty much like me describing every single step of what I did in the bathroom this morning excruciatingly. Sure I can draw the story out and make it sound TERRIBLY complicated, but in the end it really only took 10 minutes and most of it was a process governed by biology and not the strength of my character.

[gejohnston]

149. I fail to see the logic

Compared to a 1% incarceration rate nationwide, NC seems to have a 1% rate of people walking around with CCW who probably shouldn't. But I will be generous at first and restrict the discussion to the 200 NC CCW holders who had weapon-related felonies but still had their permits.

If someone is convicted of a felony, they are in jail and barred under federal law from possessing any firearm. Even if the licensing agency is not notified to to revoke it, the permit will expire before the guy gets out of jail.

[GreenStormCloud]

151. Thank you for a return to civility.

I will respond to the rest of your post later.

[GreenStormCloud]

153. The process has enough rigor to weed out most of the undesirables.

One again, thank you for a return to civility.

I will instantly admit that some few undesirables do get through, but very few.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Generally, a person who would use his gun to bully and intimidate others will have already displayed such behavior and will have gotten into trouble with the law. The FBI background investigation searches to see how a person has behaved. How long it takes you to fill out the form is immaterial. It is a test of how you have lived your life so far.

Further, only a small percentage of Texas CHLers are still young enough that they are testosterone driven. The percentage of first-time CHLs issued rises with age until it peaks at age 52. The greatest concentration of CHLs is among senior citizens (As defined by AARP, 50+ years of age). By then maturity and decreasing testosterone have calmed a lot of men down. The women, such as my wife who get them, are generally much calmer to begin with.

The group of those who apply for CCW is going to be self-selecting. People who know that they can't pass aren't going to bother trying in the first place.

Money also plays a signifigant part. A CHL and gun isn't cheap. People who have serious anger problems have a tendency to make really bad life decisions that badly damage their ability to make money. Fighting, drinking, wife beating, and hell-raising is expensive, even if you don't end up in jail. Such people tend not to have the money for a CHL. (Yes, there will be exceptions.)

I don't trust the NYT when it comes to guns. I have seen them push and anti-gun agenda using distortions and outright lies before. In those cases they were writing about some area of guns that I was already knowledgable about or had access the data, so I do know that the NYT lied. Therefore, since I can't check the NC data for myself, I consider anything they have to say as being suspect.

The Texas data shows that CHLers have a much lower conviction rate that the general public. I assure you that having a CHL isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. That lower conviction rate is because far fewer of us commit crimes, especially violent crimes.

[Trunk Monkey]

74. I openly carry a fire arm at work

You'd be amazed how many people go off on me.

[Pholus]

98. Then you are probably the kind of guy they can trust.

That speaks well of you!

[Trunk Monkey]

107. Actually it's because I'm a security guard and most folks treat us like furniture NT

[Pholus]

111. That SUCKS!

Dude, I'm sorry... I do always try to give a smile and make sure my ID is out purely for the reason that the guards have enough going on and don't need my particular brand o' crap. Thanks for doing the job though!

[MotherPetrie]

4. Snort

You are really afraid to go anywhere without your little gun, aren't you?

[gejohnston]

9. Personally, I look at it this way

I don't carry and I don't go to church, doesn't matter. That said, if the situation changes where it would be a wise thing to start carrying (which I do a very good job of avoiding) then I would carry everywhere because the possibility will still exist until the reason is in jail.

[Trunk Monkey]

15. Actually I mostly carry because I am required to do so as a condition of employment

Outside of work I go see it like a seat belt; you either always wear one or you never wear one.

[DWC]

17. I am not afraid to drive my car without my seatbelt on

but I would consider it foolish of me to do it.

I am not afraid to go anywhere without my defensive firearm but I would consider it foolish of me to do it as well.

Semper Fi,

[holdencaufield]

22. Does that ever work?

Do you find being insulting and condescending an effective way to bring people to your way of thought?

Personally, I find the opposite to be true.

[Skittles]

30. they are truly pathetic

scared little fuckwits

[krawhitham]

95. Results of Jury Service

At Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

they are truly pathetic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68864

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:03 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Are we talking about christians or gun owners here? If you change the subject to which the statement was referring there would be instant outrage everywhere! Hide it!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: alert abuse imho
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: over the top language, but not directed against anyone on DU
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: meh

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ellisonz]

137. The majority of DU is against the gun cult. n/t

[eqfan592]

143. ellisonz: lowering the bar for the level of discourse for thousands and thousands of posts. (nt)

[ellisonz]

146. What you don't like facts? n/t

[eqfan592]

150. I have no problem with facts.

But when they are mixed with unnecessary and insulting bullshit, then I think that's lowering the level of discourse.

[ellisonz]

152. Do I need to link to the many anti-gun poll results from GD? n/t

[eqfan592]

144. Hmmm...

[rDigital]

6. I'd say that church is definitely one of those places that you would want to carry.

A large soft target, sitting ducks? No way, I'd be willfully disarmed in that situation.

[DWC]

7. It ia a free, personal choice whatever the reason

For me, when in public, concealed means concealed. Only I know whether I am am carrying a firearm or not and only I know the color of my underwear. Including when I am in church or anywhere else where I can carry a firearm and wear my briefs legally.

Semper Fi,

[ManiacJoe]

8. Excellent reasoning since churches are frequent targets of the bad guys.

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

[rDigital]

19. ....and just who are these so-called "bag-guys"?

[Glaug-Eldare]

23. Well, you know bag ladies? Kinda like that... n/t

[OriginalGeek]

25. The bag guys

are the ones with the plates that come by at least once per service to take your money.

[ManiacJoe]

79. That one I like!

Fixed the typo.....

[Glaug-Eldare]

10. What's it even matter?

If somebody who isn't prohibited from carrying a gun into a church wants to, let it be between them and the church. If the church wants to prohibit carry, that's their right. If they don't, that's their right, too. Whether somebody is legally carrying in a church is as significant a question to me as whether they prefer red or green apples. It's not a threat to public safety if they do, and it's not a 2A violation if they can't.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. I do carry a gun in church.

And I know several others that do. My church offers Concealed Hangun License classes.

[ileus]

12. In VA you're not supposed to carry in church "without good and sufficient reason"

Lucky for me I consider my family and my person "good and sufficient reason"...

[GreenStormCloud]

20. We sometimes have open carry at church.

We have members who are Western re-enactors who sometimes attend in costume and do a show when we have a rodeo after church.
Yes, we have a rodeo arena in back of the church. Of course, their guns are loaded with blanks.

The members who carry concealed are loaded with real ammo.

[MercutioATC]

24. Because it makes Baby Jesus cry?

Well, you asked...

[Skittles]

29. can't we get a break from you paranoid assholes anywhere???

[Glaug-Eldare]

35. Nope. That's the point.

There should be as few places as possible where there isn't the possibility of a "paranoid asshole" being ready and able to apply force to stop a deadly threat. There's nothing immoral or sacrilegious about a congregation possessing the tools to defend themselves in the unlikely event they need to do so. Same as me wearing my Leatherman when I'm not on a ship -- most days it never comes out of the pouch, but when it does, I'm sure glad to have it.

[holdencaufield]

43. Pray ... tell us how you REALLY feel

[Trunk Monkey]

44. No one made you come to this group, no one is forcing you to participate. NT

[holdencaufield]

45. 81,000 posts ...

... and he still has yet to learn to be civil.

The mind truly boggles.

[Trunk Monkey]

70. Yes but we're just gun owners (clearly RW gun nut trolls) you know "those people"

and are therefore unworthy of being treated like human beings

[Glaug-Eldare]

75. I definitely don't mean to provoke,

but I hope you understand my meaning. Gun-free zones don't prevent gun violence (they disarm and repel the "good guys&quot , and there's no right not to encounter people who live differently than you do. Treating lawful carriers as a group to be segregated and excluded from "normal" people makes no more sense than segregating and excluding Catholics or people wearing jorts.

That said, there's no reason why a private entity like a church shouldn't be able to impose their own gun policy on visitors if they choose to do so.

[Union Scribe]

59. The jury system does not work.

At Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:08 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

can't we get a break from you paranoid assholes anywhere???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68863

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

It's fine to disagree with the OP, I do, but calling them a paranoid asshole isn't the way to do it.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:18 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's a little rude, but not overly so.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Just "paranoid" I'd let stand. But "paranoid asshole" is a personal attack.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "Asshole" is benign compared to what I call the gungeon denizens.

[PavePusher]

88. Juror #6 is apparently a vile fucktard.

Whodathunkit...

[Trunk Monkey]

92. I skimmed right over that. I don't waste my time alerting in this group. NT

[spayneuter]

103. Sure, you can move to Jamaica where guns are prohibited/banned to citizens. You might want to

take along a supply of body armour because the country is awash in gun/drug crime with innocent people regularly murdered by thugs who don't much care about the "ban".

[pnwmom]

37. With regard to Christian churches, Jesus said, if someone hits you, turn the other cheek --

so they can hit that one, too.

He didn't say, "shoot 'em up."

I find it odd that a Christian wouldn't understand that Jesus's message was of non-violence -- even if his followers so often fail to heed it.

[Glaug-Eldare]

38. Loving your enemy doesn't mean surrendering

I really can't buy the assertion that Jesus wanted his followers to surrender at the first sign of adversity. Forgiving an insult or a blow is very different from refusing to defend yourself or your neighbors from deadly attacks. Vengeance and defense are two very different animals.

[holdencaufield]

40. Of course if ...

... as they say, Jesus was Jewish. I'm sure he would be fully aware of the biblical injunctions, “nor shall you stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.” (Parsha Kedoshim) or to "save a person who is being pursued even if it is necessary to kill the pursuer.” (Parsha Ki Teitzei)

Just sayin'

[pnwmom]

73. He was most likely aware of those injunctions, but he never repeated anything

like them in the New Testament. And he often offered injunctions that ran COUNTER to those in the Jewish scripture.

"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41

"You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt. 5.21-22

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy; But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those whose persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Mt. 5.43-46

Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly." Lk. 6.27-28

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Most people don't understand that passage.

The blow being talked about is a challenge slap, not an actual attack. By turning the other cheek the slapped person is showing that he has no interest in a fight but has the strength to fight if he wanted to. It is somewhat like a black belt MMA fighter walking away from a fight. It is often better to absorb a small loss that to get into a conflict that escalates and counter-escalates until someone is seriously injured or dead.

Jesus did not advocate total pacifism as he tolerated some of the disciples being armed with swords.

[pnwmom]

108. You're not saying he would advocate people wearing guns to church, would you?

[gejohnston]

109. I think he would be too busy thumping on the

money changers, charlatans, false prophets, and politicians dropping his name trying to get elected to care if someone showed up with a pistol.
Then there are the plush corporate offices of the various sects.

[GreenStormCloud]

110. He would not object to some doing it.

Furthermore, Jesus' instruction about turning the other cheek and about lawsuits were about personal attacks, not about random violence by criminals. Don't seek revenge as the other person will then seek to retaliate and the cycle of violence will grow. Let it go. But random violence by criminals is to be resisted, not only for self-defense but because the violent criminal will seek another victim after you, and another, and so on.

None of you anti-gun people seem to realize the difference between self-defense (Both legal and moral) and revenge, vigilantism, and murder. (Illegal and immoral)

The statistics (Even VPC's grossly inflated statistics) well prove that the guns of a CCWer are rarely a threat to someone who isn't attacking the CCWer.

[pnwmom]

113. I obviously read a different translation of the Bible than you did. n/t

[gejohnston]

114. it pays to look at the historical and cultural context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

[Trunk Monkey]

121. Do you think Jesus didn't know that Peter was armed on the way to the garden?

while we're on that topic Peter wasn't trying to cut off Malchus' ear he was aiming for the head (IOW he was trying to kill him) and missed.

[spayneuter]

104. Would that be the same Jesus who said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" in Matthew 10:34

Just wondering...

[still_one]

41. If guns were banned in churches then only criminals would have guns in churches /nt

[upaloopa]

47. Maybe people in church don't want to sit next to someone so damned paranoid they have to carry

a gun everywhere they go, I would like a law that says that if you carry a gun into a church or movie theater you have to state that openly so people can get the hell away from you.

I find it strange that you put your self and your fetish for guns ahead of the wants of others. Your complete lack of understanding is disturbing.

[holdencaufield]

52. You're making a leap ..

... and a pejorative leap at that, equating exercising your rights under the Constitution with paranoia. The mental condition at question here isn't paranoia, it's hoplophobia.

Carrying a weapon legally, particularly concealed, in no way impinges on the rights and sensibilities of others any more than driving a car safely would do. No one demands that drivers must vacate the road whenever pedestrians are present -- drivers and walkers share the thoroughfare equally.

Are you a person who believe that all motorcars must be proceeded by someone with a lantern declaring -- "Warning! Here comes a motorcar!"

[2pooped2pop]

55. I'm for people being able to own a gun

However, I don't know how to prevent assholes from dropping their gun and killing me while I eat my breakfast at a restaurant.

How the hell do you stop the assholes who don't or won't control their firearms? At what point does assholes right to carry it trump my right to not get shot accidentally?

Without going into any mass killing situations, just teabagger kind of stupid. How do I protect myself from them? Wear armor? Shoot them before they have time to drop their gun?

Seriously, some people are adult and know how to carry, conceal and use a firearm. Some are just cowboys with a six shooter. Is there no line to be drawn at all?

[holdencaufield]

61. I'm curious ...

... how you draw that line?

IQ Test?

How do you tell what someone is likely to do in the future? We take the same chance when we give a driver's license to a teenager... we hope they will be mature enough to drive responsibly and not endanger themselves or the lives of others.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. You chances of gettin struck by lightning are greater than of being illegally killed by a CCWer.

You aren't truly afraid of being shot by a CCWer. You simply want to control others and make them conform to your idea of proper behavior. You want others to be good victims in the face of violent crime. Those of us who carry choose not to be victims but instead will fight back.

[2pooped2pop]

82. no actually I am afraid of them

If I were in a restaurant and I saw anyone come in with a weapon, I would leave.

So please don't tell me what I am or am not afraid of and what I want to do.

I am starting to think that I would definitely not want to be where you are if you are carrying a weapon because you think you are able to tell me what I think and what I want. It's a bad sign.

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Why would you fear me?

Yes, I do observe people and determine what they are likely like, what they likely want, and lots of other fairly accurate guesses about them. We all do that all the time. It is called "reading people" and is a highly prized interpersonal skill. Since you want laws to control other people's behavior, when that behavior represents no harm to you, then my read is that you are a controller.

However it may be that you are poorly informed about LEGAL concealed carry. The State of Texas, Department of Public Safety, maintains and publishes, online, a year database Concealed Handgun License statistics. Here is the link for conviction of violent crimes data, comparing CHL holders to the general public. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm You will notice that convictions for CHL holders for violent crimes are rare and for most of the crimes we have zero convictions. There is no reason to think that Texas' experience is signifigantly different than any other state with similar laws. We are extremely safe to be around, and there is the possibility that if violent crime comes calling on you while we are there that we might save you. It has happened before and been posted about here, that a legally armed citizen stopped a violent felony in progress. In fact, there have been several mass shootings that were stopped by a CCWer.

The person that you should fear is the person who carries ILLEGALLY. He is a lawbreaker.

Many who are against guns do not distinguish between those legally armed and those illegally armed. We are not the same. Any laws that you pass will only disarm the legal carriers as the illegal ones are already breaking the law by carrying. They will merely continue to break the law just as they did before. You would have rendered me defenseless against violent crime and have done nothing to improve your own safety.

[Glaug-Eldare]

85. I hope you'd pay first!

You've got the right to avoid anybody you please, but it seems pretty unreasonable to me to be afraid of somebody because they possess a gun. If they were intending to do harm, why would they let everybody see it before they acted? I suppose the likelihood of an armed person being a bad guy depends on whether your state permits carry or not, but in gun-liberal states, the good guys (i.e., no criminal intent) with guns dwarf the bad guys with guns.

[2pooped2pop]

87. I remember many years ago

as a teenager, going through applications at a fast food place. Many could not fill it out properly.

Average mentality is not as high as you think. In other words, though we have a lot of very intelligent educated people, we have a shit load of idiots right here in this country.

I can't think of a single bagger that I think should be walking around with a gun.


Heaven help me if it's a bar.

I knew a man many years ago who had an open carry license. Mistakes are made, even with good half way intelligent people. When you add in idiots, I don't like the odds.

I know there have not been that many accidental shootings of strangers, but I expect it to rise.

[PavePusher]

89. What state was that in?

I can't think of any that have an "open carry licence".

Please tell us what the actual odds are of getting shot by a legal carrier.

Aslo, did the open carrier actually do anything dangerous or indicating untrustworthyness? I'm guessing not, or you would have reported it....

[GreenStormCloud]

68. The permitting system takes care of drawing that line for you.

In all but four states a permit is required to carry concealed. To get that permit one must have a clean police record, an FBI background check, be fingerprinted and photographed, take a class (tested) and pass a live fire proficiency test with a pistol. National statistics show that people who pass that process very, very rarely misuse their gun.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

[2pooped2pop]

83. that makes me a bit more comfortable

thanks for the info.

[jeepnstein]

69. I've encountered quite a few people...

who come to the church during a time of great personal distress. Usually this revolves around money. And they think money is available at the church. Some of them are quite desperate. We welcome people like this and help as best we can but some of them are not exactly in the best state of mind when they walk through the door.

One fellow in particular stands out. He was angry, broke, and scared. Seeing as how he had been out of prison about 48 hours at that point he hadn't made the adjustment to "normal" life yet. We spoke for a while and then I gave him a lift to a relative who lived some distance away. During the trip he mentioned to me that he had it in his mind to rob us if we didn't help since everyone knows church people are easy marks. His ultimate goal was to go back to prison anyway so he really didn't care one way or the other.

Monsters are real. They look just like the rest of us.

[ileus]

71. I used to attend a church "on the beaten path"

we'd get people in all the time from the street. People take advantage of Christians natural forgiving and giving nature.

[Trunk Monkey]

72. I don’t think I asked my church question as clearly as I might have, so I’d like to rephrase it.

I don’t think I asked my church question as clearly as I might have, so I’d like to rephrase it.

First, I am assuming that you are legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in your state and that firearms are not prohibited on church property by either state law or the governing body of your given denomination.

So my question is: If you normally carry a concealed firearm why would you choose to make an exception for going to church.

Is there a reason why a church should be exempted from the list of places you would normally carry a firearm.

[ileus]

77. My life isn't less meaningful to me at church

so why would I not carry there?


Of course I feel the same for all the buildings I venture into, especially those my tax dollars go to build and maintain...however.com some feel that I have no rights in those buildings. Odd.....

[Kolesar]

76. File that one under:"blind attribution"

"I heard some people saying."
are you happy with the flame war you started?

[Trunk Monkey]

91. It seems to me that it's mostly the pro gun control crowd that is doing the flaming. NT

[4th law of robotics]

90. It's a misconception that anti-gun types have

and probably an area where they will never see eye to eye with those who favor the constitution.

They see gun-carriers as people out looking for trouble. So carrying a gun in church means you want to shoot up a church. That *is* pretty messed up.

They do not and cannot see it as a means of self-defense. So you want to be able to defend yourself regardless of where you are.

It's like seeing someone putting up smoke detectors and assuming they are an arsonist. It really can't be reasoned with.

[Kolesar]

93. Your second paragraph is a pure conjecture on your part

Come back from Fantasyland soon, ok?

[4th law of robotics]

94. Not really

I've seen/heard anti-gunners talk about their stances quite a bit.

The assumptions they make are generally that someone who is carrying a gun is looking to use it for fun (and they will generally throw in some less than complimentary references to their genitals at this point).

[AtheistCrusader]

96. I have few reasons to enter a church but

say attending weddings or somesuch...

I would probably opt not to carry, not because it's some sort of hallowed ground (it isn't, it's just private property) but because I tend to respect the wishes of property owners, and as far as I can tell, most churches discourage the carrying of weapons on their property.

[tularetom]

102. Because I no longer waste my time going to church

[jody]

112. "Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!" (Valentine Blacker) nt

[ellisonz]

138. I hope you don't shower without your gun...

...dangerous criminals are lurking!



You people are severely confused...

[GreenStormCloud]

141. Attacks in the shower have happened, and not just in that movie.

About a year ago we posted a news report about a woman who was attacked by a rapist with a knife while she was in the shower. She allowed him to force into the bedroom where she grabbed one of two guns that were in the bedroom, and emptied it into him. Would you have been happier if she had been unarmed?

[holdencaufield]

142. If she'd have been packing ...

... Marion Crane would be alive today.

[ellisonz]

145. Do you need me to cite cases in which guns left unsecured in the home...

....were accidentally discharged by children? Or heck, how about that case earlier this year where the "guys" were playing with their guns in church in the side room and they shot that women in the head. Would I be happier if you gun owners were more responsible?

[gejohnston]

148. given the rarity of such cases

I would say we are far more responsible than you imagine. If it is rare or unusual, it gets the news. That is why a ND in a church is news, while a gang hit in a major city won't be mentioned.

[GreenStormCloud]

154. The CDC has a web page where that can be looked up.

About 50 children a year are accidently shot & killed. A child is commonly defined as a human below the age of puberty, for statistical purposes, 12 or under.

To claim the highest number and general more interest in gun control the VPC & other anti-gun organizations have used age 24 as the cut-off for being a child.

Since there are about 20 million children in the country, the raw odds of any child suffering that kind of tradegy is about one in a million.

[DWC]

155. This is why

I carry every where I legally can including church.

http://shootingbackbook.com/

Semper Fi,

[aikoaiko]

156. State lawmakers have no business telling churches their members can't CCW on church property.

Assuming, of course, that a particular state's laws allow people to CCW on other forms of private property.

I am perfectly fine with the governance bodies of churches deciding for themselves whether or not to allow CCW.