This message was self-deleted by its author

[cbayer]

This message was self-deleted by its author (cbayer) on Fri Aug 17, 2012, 12:17 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[MotherPetrie]

1. Guns don't belong ANYWHERE

[spin]

6. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. ...

I disagree. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

[Shadowflash]

2. Ha ha! Guns are awesome...

As long as they are somewhere else.


Gotta love that.

Kinda like; 'I think we should go to war but I'll get my deferments so 'I' don't have to go'.

[Chipper Chat]

3. Or "I'm against all abortions..........

.....unless my daughter needs one."

[Shadowflash]

5. Pretty much.

[Booster]

4. This laughable. It's the Republican chant "anyone else/anywhere else".

[spin]

7. I don't go to a church often ...

but when I do I carry my legally concealed handgun. It is legal to carry a concealed handgun in my state in a church if you have a carry permit.

[bongbong]

9. WOW!

You're scared in a CHURCH??

a million trillion times!

[eqfan592]

10. If you think the only reason somebody would carry is because they are scared...

...then the fail is very strong with you.

[cbayer]

12. So why would someone take a gun into church?

[bongbong]

13. Le'ts see your reasons

I'm all ears.

[eqfan592]

14. Since both you and cbayer are requesting basically the same thing, I'll just respond once.

It's not just about "carrying to a church" but carrying in general. The folks I know that carry a firearm do so for the same reason they keep a fire extinguisher in their home. You never know when you may have need of one. And as very recent history has shown us, churches are not immune to violent crime and the need for one to be able to effectively defend themselves can arise at any time.

Fear does not really play a factor for the folks I know who carry, tho I can't say some personal experience hasn't compelled somebody to carry out of fear of a repeat of said experience, it's just not a significant percentage of those who do carry (again, at least from my personal experience).

[cbayer]

15. I keep fire extinguishers on board because I fear fire.

And also because there is a very real threat of fire.

[eqfan592]

18. I guess that makes us different then.

I'm not afraid of a fire, but I keep an extinguisher around in the event I have to deal with one. And there is a very real threat of encountering a situation where you may have to defend yourself, which is why many keep a firearm on them.

EDIT: Mind you, I'm not meaning this as a slam on you (or anybody) who is afraid of fires. It's just that I'm not (in fact, I've always found them to be very fascinating).

[cbayer]

19. Having recently experienced a fire, which required use of a fire extinguisher, I can

assure you that I found it far from fascinating. Also, the intended use of a fire extinguisher is not to seriously injure or kill another person.

But, back to the article. If the vast majority of people say they don't want guns in their churches, should those that want to carry guns be able to overrule them?

I wouldn't let you on my boat with a gun and I wouldn't attend a church (or other organization) that permitted people to carry a concealed weapon.

[eqfan592]

21. Now I never said that churches should be forced to allow people to carry.

I'm very much in favor of private institutions being allowed to set whatever regulations they wish when it comes to the carrying of firearms.

As far as intended use, a firearm accelerates a projectile to high velocity. What the projectile is aimed at, and for what purpose, is up to the user.

[cbayer]

23. I really don't want this to turn into a thread more suited for the Gun Group, so I am

going to bow out of this.

[Starboard Tack]

20. How come you don't carry your fire extinguisher around with you?

Never know when there might be a fire to put out and you don't need a permit.

[eqfan592]

22. I keep one in my house and in my car.

I do not, however, carry one around with me as it is unlikely that I will spontaneously combust.

[Starboard Tack]

24. So why don't you do the same with your gun?

It is also very unlikely you will need it to defend yourself and even more unlikely that you could use your gun without hurting yourself or another.

[eqfan592]

25. "..even more unlikely that you could use your gun without hurting yourself or another."

Based on what evidence can you make such a claim?

And I'm far more likely to encounter a violent crime than I am to be set on fire while I'm out and about during my day to day activities.

Ya know what though, like cbayer said, this isn't exactly the correct forum for a discussion such as this, so it's probably best that we just leave it at that.

[Starboard Tack]

26. First I'll respond. Then, I'll see you on the dark side.

What evidence you ask. Well, it isn't a court of law, so evidence is irrelevant. Apparently, from your response, there is no need to carry a fire extinguisher because of your likelihood of being set on fire. This leads me to think that it's all about you, be it a gun, a fire extinguisher, whatever. You are obviously not a first responder, but a self responder. That explains a lot.
Secondly, handguns are terribly inefficient weapons in terms of accuracy. Their inaccuracy increases with distance and there security decreases with proximity. That's what I call a "lose lose" situation.

[eqfan592]

27. Umm, evidence is irrelevant?

Obviously this isn't a court of law, but if we are going to have a serious discussion, then evidence is very much relevant.

Secondly, no, I'm not a first responder, tho I don't know what a "self responder" is supposed to be, nor what it is supposed to explain.

Lastly, most handguns are more than acceptably accurate at the distances necessary for a self defense situation (any greater distance and one would have a hard time justifying it as self defense). As for it being a "lose lose situation," it's a much better situation than being completely unarmed in the first place. Some chance is better than no chance.

There are simply too many documented cases of people who carry legally defending themselves and others (and nowhere near as many of those same people who carry legally violating the law or harming others) for your position to be a defensible one. The anecdotal evidence AND the statistical evidence is against you.

[bongbong]

29. Response

There are simply too many documented cases of people who carry shooting other people in cold blooded murder.

> There are simply too many documented cases of people who carry legally defending themselves

As DU gun-relgionists like to say, "prove it!" And you'll have to quantify "too many". You've got some research to do. I'll need a very scientific explanation of your quantification of "too many", as well, with evidence. GET TO WORK!

[eqfan592]

30. Gun-religionists?

You're clearly not interested in a serious discussion, nor in any proof (which is amply available in the more-appropriate gun forum, both in the form of the various studies that have been conducted on the subject of defensive firearm usage and, more specifically, the multitude of documented CCW DGU cases).

And you'll note how I said "carry LEGALLY" yet you neglected to include that. That's because you likely know how low the numbers are on people who carry LEGALLY who actually commit any crimes, much less violent ones.

And lastly, as has been stated a couple of times now, this isn't the appropriate forum for any of this anyway. You are more than welcome to head over to the Gungeon for further discussion with those who wish to talk about this sort of thing.

[bongbong]

31. Faith

> You're clearly not interested in a serious discussion

You're clearly not interested in a serious discussion, if a name puts you off. Besides, I don't have any idea why you would be offended. Guns for gun-relgionists are a subject of worship.

If you don't have any proof and you want an "out" to escape, I understand. Gun-relgionists don't have proof. They have Faith.



> That's because you likely know how low the numbers are on people who carry LEGALLY

As the DU gun-relgionisots say, "prove it!"

[bongbong]

28. Logic impaired gun-relgionists

> The folks I know that carry a firearm do so for the same reason they keep a fire extinguisher in their home.

And a fire extinguisher is NOT like a gun in what way?

[spin]

16. It's very common for those who oppose concealed carry ...

to insinuate that those who do legally carry are "scared" and ridicule them.

I suppose to many who are unfamiliar with gun owners this might seem logical. However the charge is false. I know many ex-military and ex-police who carry firearms concealed. Let me assure you that they don't live in fear but only wish to be prepared as I do.

I don't wear a seat belt because I am afraid that I will be in an accident or because I might get a ticket. I wear it because I have been in an accident and wasn't wearing one. (This accident occurred in the early 60s and older Volkswagen Beetle I was a passenger in didn't have seat belts. I took out the windshield with my face but fortunately wasn't seriously injured although the Beetle was totaled. I learned a very valuable lesson then.)

I've always had fire extinguishers in my home but only had to use one once to put out a fire. I was damn glad I had it. However I am not terrified of a fire.

Churches are often gun free zones and as such attract people with mental issues who wish to kill a large number of others. Such shootings are fortunately rare but they do happen. I would remind you that this month on August 5, six people were shot and died in a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

Photos: Sikh temple shooting

Aug. 10, 2012

Six people were killed by white supremacist Wade Michael Page in a shooting rampage on Sunday, Aug. 5, 2012, at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek, Wis. Page killed five men and one woman, and injured two other men. Authorities say he ambushed the first police officer who responded, shooting him nine times, leaving him in critical condition. A second officer then shot Page in the stomach from about 75 feet away, and Page took his own life with a shot to the head.
http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/chi-sikh-temple-shooting-wisconsin-photos/

Because of the upward trend in church shootings, many churches are developing security measures.

After Recent Church Shootings, 'Armor Bearers' Become More Common
September 24, 2011 5:30 AM

On Sunday mornings, while members of the congregation at the Faith & Power Worship Center in Apopka close their eyes and bow their heads in prayer, one man keeps his head up, his eyes open.

He is Minister David Sepulveda. And he is armed.

***snip***

Sepulveda is the "armor bearer" of Senior Pastor Matthew Shaw. An armor bearer -- a Biblical reference to the one who carries the spear and shield of a warrior -- is traditionally the person in the church who assists the pastor in everything from adjusting the temperature in the sanctuary to picking up visitors at the airport to running interference for the minister.

But the armor bearer's duties also have, in recent years, come to include protecting the safety of the pastor. When a gunman burst into the Greater Faith Christian Church in Lakeland last Sunday and shot pastor William Boss and associate pastor Carl Stewart, the two men who subdued him were described as armor bearers.
http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2011/09/after-recent-church-shootings-armor-bearers-become-more-common.html

This article is also interesting:

Church Security in Light of Latest Shooting

The shooting at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin will once again present the question of whether churches need their own security. It is a good debate to have as crimes against churches including shooting have increased tenfold in recent years. The issue is not if your church will be the victim of some sort of crime, but when.

Crimes against our nation's churches are grossly under reported for several reasons. We want to feel secure while we worship God, and that should be the case. However, there should be a quiet element at play during your services. One that goes unnoticed by the majority of church members.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Church-Security-in-Light-of-Latest-Shooting&id=7216148

As is this one:

Sheriff: Concealed Weapon Saves Church From Man Armed With Shotgun
March 26, 2012 3:54 PM

BOILING SPRINGS, S.C. (AP) — A South Carolina sheriff is praising a man with a concealed weapons permit who helped disarm someone who kicked in the door of a church armed with a shotgun.

***snip***

Jesse Gates had already been to the Southside Freewill Baptist Church in Boiling Springs once Sunday morning, so the pastor’s grandson was keeping his eye on the parking lot when he saw Gates come back, this time taking a shotgun out of his trunk, Wright said.

“They locked the door and they were calling 911 at the time. He didn’t draw his weapon or make any move or action toward this gentleman until he kicked the door open and forced the issue,” Wright said.

After Gates kicked in the door, the pistol pointed at him distracted him enough that the pastor was able to grab the shotgun. Members of the church kept him down until deputies arrived, Wright said.
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/sheriff-concealed-weapon-saves-church-from-man-armed-with-shotgun/

[bongbong]

32. LOL

> However the charge is false. I know many ex-military and ex-police who carry firearms concealed.

That's some SERIOUS logic. First, your personal anecdote has no bearing, and further you have no proof of it. Secondly, your "logic" implies an automatic connection between those professions and bravery. Sorry, Charlie, as the gun-relgionists like to say, "prove it!".

And on your other Talking Point, how are seat belts different from guns? Think carefully here, it's a toughie.

[spin]

33. Interesting as most of your comments lack proof or statistics ...

and are merely your own personal opinion.

For example in one post you made you stated:

Well-regulated

Well-regulated was a well-known phrase to the writers of the Constitution. It meant, paraphrased, "trained like an army".

Not the millions of wacko gun-nuts buying dozens of guns and running around imagining they're Rambo.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021100540#post24

Your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase is your opinion as you didn't back it up with any references. Also your insinuation that millions of gun owners are "wacko" and are running around imagining they're Rambo" is also your opinion and you also present no links or statistics to back that view up. If you were correct we have seen thousands if not hundreds of thousands of incidents in our nation similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting.

"Shall issue" concealed carry has been legal in Florida since 1October 1, 1987. During that period of time Florida has issued 2,246,827 concealed weapons permits of which 963,512 are currently valid. Only 168 carry permits have been revoked in that 25 year period of time for a crime involving a firearm issued after the license was issued. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

The "stand your ground" law passed in Florida was passed into law in 2005. Because of the Travon Martin shooting, the Tampa Bay Times did some research and came up with a total of 118 cases in which the "stand your ground" law was used. The results are shown in this graph.

(source: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/)

My point is that if your assertion that a high percentage of those who carry view themselves as a "Rambo" type of individual was correct, surely we would have seen far more "stand your ground" cases in Florida since 2005. Perhaps several thousand if not ten thousand.

I have absolutely no problem with you expressing your opinion but when you criticize me for expressing my opinion and using my admittedly anecdotal stories, I will merely say that you should follow this advise.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones

[rrneck]

8. They're privately owned. They can do as they please. nt

[eqfan592]

11. This. nt

[cbayer]

34. Taking this down.

If anyone else wants to post it, be my guest, but I couldn't be less interested in being the OP of a thread that has rapidly devolved into something that belongs in the Gun Forum.

You can go home now, lol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-religious-groups-divided-on-gun-control-but-united-against-guns-in-churches/2012/08/15/ea15cc0c-e70c-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html