Should churches change security in wake of recent events?

[dadtoagirl03]

I find it amusing that some many people demand gun control due to the gun related deaths. Gun related deaths average around 35,000 per year in the US. Take out the major gang centers Detroit, Chicago, LA and that number falls drastically.

Alcohol related deaths number around 90,000 per year in the US, but all I ever see is promotion of the use. Here on the DIS there are countless threads on drinking around the world, where can I buy alcohol on the way to disney. If we really care about citizens deaths lets tackle alcohol sales since it's not constitutionally protected and kills many more people. That will never happen even though it is the reason for double the numbers of deaths, not counting the toll it takes on families. We should be calling on Congress to tackle alcohol if we're concerned about our fellow citizens.

 

[dadtoagirl03]

Exactly! Not too many things at all that can kill that many ppl in minutes.

How about a truck mowing people down on the sidewalk? Bomb? Chemical attack?

 

[Geoff_M]

All the shootings have one thing in common, high capacity removable magazines, which have no legitimate purpose for the general public. Just a thought where we could start. California has tried to ban them all but a judge stepped in and removed the ban.

Yet consider that the Virginia Tech shooter managed to kill 32 people with only two handguns with standard capacity magazines. He fired hundreds of rounds and was able to reload multiple times during the killing spree.

 

[Magpie]

I guess that is equivalent to baby steps. I do agree though that there are things that can be done at the Federal level. In the case of Devin Kelley, based on his court martial and domestic violence problem his application should have been denied at the store, no doubt.
Having said that, I don't think he killed all those people because he had a gun. His access to that rifle didn't turn him into a murderer, it was just his chosen tool. I think if he was denied that purchase he still would have found another way to kill those people.

There are too many variables to say that for sure.

I agree completely that having a gun didn't turn him into a murderer. However, without the gun, would he have opened fire on a church service? Odds are, no. So, those specific people would not have died. Without a gun, he might have simply "settled" for killing his mother-in-law. Or his wife. Or his kids. Just another family annihilator, who'd barely make the news, outside of his local area.

But, then again, it's also conceivable he'd have tried to blow up the church with a bomb, reminiscent of the Bath School disaster of 1927, where the school treasurer set off explosives killing 38 young children.

It's hard to say. But, the presence of the gun is a significant variable. Remove the gun, and many different scenarios could have played out. And most of the "didn't have a gun" scenarios would have resulted in fewer deaths. Even trying to mow people down with a truck in the church parking lot would have been less effective.

So, I do wish he hadn't been able to get his hands on a gun. It may be impossible to know for sure, but I think it would have saved lives.

 

[LSUmiss]

How about a truck mowing people down on the sidewalk? Bomb? Chemical attack?

That’s 3 other things. I said not too many. Certainly not rocks like poster mentioned.

 

[Hikergirl]

No, but it is somewhat misleading. The state level laws only refer to private (non-dealer) sales done at gun shows. Federal law still demands that firearms dealers must perform background checks regardless of whether the sale is done in their store, or remotely at a gun show. The Texas shooter reportedly purchased the firearm at a dealer, so all Federal background check laws would have applied to the sale.

You are correct an FFL would have to do a background check no matter where they sold the firearm. I was speaking about private purchases. I went back and read and could have been more clear.

In this case it doesn't matter, he purchased from an FFL, and passed the background check.

 

[LYSE]

All the shootings have one thing in common, high capacity removable magazines, which have no legitimate purpose for the general public. Just a thought where we could start. California has tried to ban them all but a judge stepped in and removed the ban.

Columbine happened with what many gun people called the Feinstein special Hi-Point 995 9mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines ..so much for that 10 round limit.

Standard capacity magazines and beyond have plenty of lawful uses, primarily self defence ..but please tell those people during the LA riots and those defending them selves against groups of looters after a natural disaster that all they need is 10 rounds or some random number you pulled out of your back side.

 

[longboard55]

Yet consider that the Virginia Tech shooter managed to kill 32 people with only two handguns with standard capacity magazines. He fired hundreds of rounds and was able to reload multiple times during the killing spree.

and the vegas guy fired 1000 rounds in 10 minutes. So tell me, what is one reason a hunter, target shooter or someone with home protection needs a rifle capable of firing off 75 rounds without hesitation. There is none, these guns have one purpose, killing people.

 

[LYSE]

and the vegas guy fired 1000 rounds in 10 minutes. So tell me, what is one reason a hunter, target shooter or someone with home protection needs a rifle capable of firing off 75 rounds without hesitation. There is none, these guns have one purpose, killing people.

Competition shooting often utilizes magazines beyond 10 rounds, home defense against multiple attackers is rare but does happen + natural disasters as stated above.

 

[Hikergirl]

There are too many variables to say that for sure.

I agree completely that having a gun didn't turn him into a murderer. However, without the gun, would he have opened fire on a church service? Odds are, no. So, those specific people would not have died. Without a gun, he might have simply "settled" for killing his mother-in-law. Or his wife. Or his kids. Just another family annihilator, who'd barely make the news, outside of his local area.

But, then again, it's also conceivable he'd have tried to blow up the church with a bomb, reminiscent of the Bath School disaster of 1927, where the school treasurer set off explosives killing 38 young children.

It's hard to say. But, the presence of the gun is a significant variable. Remove the gun, and many different scenarios could have played out. And most of the "didn't have a gun" scenarios would have resulted in fewer deaths. Even trying to mow people down with a truck in the church parking lot would have been less effective.

So, I do wish he hadn't been able to get his hands on a gun. It may be impossible to know for sure, but I think it would have saved lives.

I don't disagree, but my point is that this wasn't just a gun issue, it was a crazy person issue.
An armed citizen (presumbly) stopped Kelley from killing more people. If this was just a gun issue, there was nothing stopping him from also opening fire on the people at the church.

People want SOMETHING done. You can do all the somethings with the guns you want, but unless you do something about the reasons people go on killing sprees, the killings won't stop.

 

[DopeyDame]

I find it amusing that some many people demand gun control due to the gun related deaths. Gun related deaths average around 35,000 per year in the US. Take out the major gang centers Detroit, Chicago, LA and that number falls drastically.

Alcohol related deaths number around 90,000 per year in the US, but all I ever see is promotion of the use. Here on the DIS there are countless threads on drinking around the world, where can I buy alcohol on the way to disney. If we really care about citizens deaths lets tackle alcohol sales since it's not constitutionally protected and kills many more people. That will never happen even though it is the reason for double the numbers of deaths, not counting the toll it takes on families. We should be calling on Congress to tackle alcohol if we're concerned about our fellow citizens.

There are a TON of policies and research around alcohol related deaths. Drunk driving enforcement has increased exponentially in the last few decades. Enforcement of underage drinking laws is strict and getting stricter, at least where I live. College campuses have programs upon programs upon programs to try and encourage safe alcohol use. Public health research into binge drinking and drinking and driving is ongoing and reasonably funded.

I've never heard of a college program about safe gun use. There probably should be. Public health research into gun deaths is non-existent. It shouldn't be.

 

[LSUmiss]

And what exactly do you mean by gun control?
In the US it isn't a simple don't allow guns, not sure if you realize that not being an American. I would love to hear what you think gun control entails.

I am American & own guns. What I mean by gun control is much stricter background checks (a person is too dangerous to fly, but can own a gun, what?!), no one needs high powered automatic weapons or things that turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones for protection or recreation. I just think ppl have dug their heels in as it being a political “side” & refuse to look at things logically sometimes. I have yet to have someone explain to me why these types of weapons shouldn’t be banned. Owning a tiger might be fun too, but it’s too dangerous to the general public so it’s prohibited for most ppl.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Public Health research, non-existant... well maybe...
But, the stats on gun deaths are out there.
As mentioned by one previous post, the huge percentage are crime and gang related.
Not accidental or terrorists-style attacks.

 

[LYSE]

I am American & own guns. What I mean by gun control is much stricter background checks (a person is too dangerous to fly, but can own a gun, what?!), no one needs high powered automatic weapons or things that turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones for protection or recreation. I just think ppl have dug their heels in as it being a political “side” & refuse to look at things logically sometimes. I have yet to have someone explain to me why these types of weapons shouldn’t be banned. Owning a tiger might be fun too, but it’s too dangerous to the general public so it’s prohibited for most ppl.

Since your an American and own guns you might want to re read the constitution.

Also since you own guns you might want to learn more about them since most AR15s are chambered in .223/5.56 which is not high powered at all compared to most rifles used by hunters.

 

[Hikergirl]

I am American & own guns. What I mean by gun control is much stricter background checks (a person is too dangerous to fly, but can own a gun, what?!), no one needs high powered automatic weapons or things that turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones for protection or recreation. I just think ppl have dug their heels in as it being a political “side” & refuse to look at things logically sometimes. I have yet to have someone explain to me why these types of weapons shouldn’t be banned. Owning a tiger might be fun too, but it’s too dangerous to the general public so it’s prohibited for most ppl.

I am also American and a gun owner too.
I am pro regulations and I agree with you.

I am always curious what people from other countries mean when they say we need gun control.

 

[LSUmiss]

I dont know what the solution would be, but gun control is only one small piece of a systemic puzzle.

If there were not access to guns, there would be other methods to terrorize people. Guns are one, easy tool.

Many truck attacks abroad and bomb explosions,etc. There are problems most anywhere.

Mental health is an area that more could be done.

As one citizen of the US, I do not have a lot to contribute to the solution, especially posting on a message board.

The mental health argument gets thrown out a lot. I’m a licensed mental health provider & I just don’t see how there is much else that can be done on that end. Mental health only helps IF the person is willing to seek help. Most of the time, even if the person was identified at risk, not much can be done if the person doesn’t want that help. You can’t lock someone up indefinitely if they MIGHT be dangerous. You can, however, limit their access to guns but that takes invasive background checks. Most of these perpetrators aren’t psychotic. They may have depression or other conditions, but they are choosing their actions & know right from wrong. They can choose to seek mental health services instead, but don’t. And sometimes the ppl aren’t identified as having potential mental health issues UNTIL they do something like this.

 

[longboard55]

Here is an example. I always thought the safety feature of a rifle was it was long, and could not be put under your coat. Then we introduce these assault weapons and next thing you know some guys brings in 30 to a hotel room and no one notices. Just looking for common sense laws that law abiding gun owners can live with and make sense.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Hmm I disagree with that. There's no doubt there is a discussion on guns that should occur but if we look at fatalities other methods can be used to have just as much and at time with more fatalities than guns. It doesn't make a discussion on guns no less valid but to dismiss other methods while saying guns kill with far more efficiency than cars (knives..yeah you have to be close to do that and that will likely lessen the number of fatalities though people have gone into crowds with hatchets for example)..at least to me they are different things we're talking about.

The reason the person in NYC killed 8 people was because he was using a rented Home Depot work truck. The person in Nice, France was using a 19 tonne cargo truck. You cannot even compare those two. Same as a person using a handgun vs an automatic assualt rifle.

This was the truck used in the Nice attack:
View attachment 281900

This was the Home Depot truck used in the NYC attack:
View attachment 281901

If the Renault Midlum (used in Nice) or the U.S. equivalent was used in the NYC attack the number of fatalities had the opportunity to be a lot higher than 8.

Now I could say the method in the U.S. for attacks is more common with guns than trucks that's for sure.

Just to comment on the "handgun vs automatic assault rifle". See, part of the issue with these discussions is the fact so few understand there is VERY little difference in these two weapons. 90+% of all handguns sold in the US are semiautomatic and use detachable magazines that permit rapid reloading - exactly like an assault-style rifle. Moreover, at close range, handgun rounds are just as effective. Our military special ops forces actually prefer handguns for close quarter missions (like the bin Laden raid).

The other thing is the power level of an "assault rifle" is about 1/3 the power level of the battle rifles our soldiers carried in WWI and WWII, and just as importantly, 1/3 the power level of the typical deer rifle.

And as long as the people who write gun-restriction legislation don't have the basic knowledge of the guns they're trying to regulate (and those they say we can keep), this will go nowhere.

 

[Geoff_M]

and the vegas guy fired 1000 rounds in 10 minutes. So tell me, what is one reason a hunter, target shooter or someone with home protection needs a rifle capable of firing off 75 rounds without hesitation. There is none, these guns have one purpose, killing people.

You are asking me to defend something that I did not say. The key component that allowed the Vegas shooter to get off so many rounds was a "bump stocK"... which I have no problem banning.

Here is my main point: If we are going to suggest a remedy under the guise of "doing something" after such a tragedy, it's best if it can be logically demonstrated that the proposed "solution" would actually present a real likelihood of preventing such future events. Sadly, this is rarely the case.

Here's another example of my point... Would you say that this gun's one purpose is to kill people?:

This is a Ruger Mini 14. It was the weapon used to commit the then largest modern single mass shooting in the World. In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik used one of these firearms to murder 69 people in Norway. But it's not a scary looking black plastic-stocked rifle. I've gone back and didn't find it listed as one of the firearms targeted in so-called "assault weapon" bans of the time... though ironically the black plastic-stocked version of it was found on one proposed "ban" list even though it is functionally the same weapon.

As for limiting the size of magazines, I don't presume that I can tell people how many rounds they need for self-defense before they have to reload. I do know that there have been cases where a single home owner has had to use a firearm to defend against multiple home invaders. Now add to that all of the examples that show that "high capacity" magazines are not a key component for there to be mass causalities.

 

[LSUmiss]

Since your an American and own guns you might want to re read the constitution.

Also since you own guns you might want to learn more about them since most AR15s are chambered in .223/5.56 which is not high powered at all compared to most rifles used by hunters.

Your first comment would become too political I’m sure to continue discuss... but I guess your implying that we should be allowed to have any guns b/c the constitution allows? So, you would think it’s ok to own machine guns that are currently banned?

I don’t need to learn about guns that I don’t see any use for. I still haven’t heard a valid use from anyone either. I only mentioned that I am American b/c the pp implied that the other poster shouldn’t have an opinion b/c he/she isn’t American. Well, I am & I do. I mentioned that I own guns b/c often it seems the arguments are from extremes on both sides: those that say no guns at all & those that say any gun for anyone at any cost. And what about the no fly list thing? Again, I think “gun control” hasn’t gotten so politicized they ppl don’t think logically sometimes, they just go with whatever “their side” tells them to.

And, I said high powered, but I guess I meant those with high magazine capacity that can do a lot of damage quickly.