Should churches change security in wake of recent events?

[MillauFr]

I'm sure they do, but since I'm not a mind reader I have no idea if that is what the pp meant.

Agreed. These Disboards are great but they do sometime lead to misinterpretation.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Sadly you’re right. I don’t own guns, not my thing. And normally I’m of the opinion, you do you. But that is just out of control. Has been out of control. And I will say, it’s not just guns. It’s also the mindset. And I don’t know how to change that.

You're right. And I didn't mean to sound flippant. Not in the least.
3 people from our province were shot in LV. One killed and 2 wounded. There have been radio ads for a fundraiser they are doing for the more seriously wounded lady.
It just seems so cyclical. It happens. People are like OMG and talk about it for a day or two and then stop until the next one.
LV to me was HUGE! 500 people shot. 500! That's freaking insane. But even here the LV thread died out in less than a week. Sure there has been a handful of posts on it in the last couple weeks but not much.

I was reading comments on our local media about today's tragedy and most people were basically saying things along the lines of - "starting to lose sympathy. They could do something but won't give up the guns." That's horrible! Absolutely horrible. But's it's coming such an everyday story out of the USA that we are starting to get numb to it.

It is a mindset. It's mental health. It's so many factors.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I agree with the distracted driving thing completely - but I suppose that's off topic.

Yes, the repeat offenders is a real problem, which is why I think it really correlates to the arguments about gun control. We don't throw our hands up and say, well there's nothing to be done about repeat offenders, after all it's their right to drink and it wouldn't work to make them stop anyways. No, we try to find ways to get them to stop being repeat offenders, both through treatment programs that addresses their problem, and through penalities like taking away their license etc. Some places do a better job than others, but pretty much everywhere is trying. Yet with gun control, we refuse to even try because "it's their right to own a gun and it wouldn't work anyways".

I agree with the majority of what you are saying for sure. As for the gun control and trying..honestly I think that goes back to my comment about 50 states, etc. There's common ground for sure in all 50 states but there's also differences.

It's a state law now in my state that every public college (I believe it's public and only colleges from what I remember) has to allow open carry (which doesn't need a permit nor lessons) guns on campus unless they file for exemption and can prove they will implement security measures (like metal detectors on every entrance to every school building on campus for example which is a logistic and financial issue). That type of state law won't work everywhere and the mentality of even thinking about that won't work everywhere and while there is opposition towards the new law it is a law at this time. And that's not an attempt to get political (as I've tried to stay more general due to not wanting to stray into the political realm) just to showcase an example. To me it's just important to understand that not everywhere in the U.S. has the same base resolution to the issue due to multiple complexities.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I see plenty of commentary by Americans when something like this happens in other nations. This is a worldwide problem even if it does feel like it happens way more often in the U.S. There are many factors to consider and personally I want to hear all opinions.

My heart goes out to this little community. How awful for them.

I like to hear opinions too. I don't like to hear "my country or this other country does this better than yours..and why is that oh it's because of x,y,z"(that happens from people from the u.s. too so it's not just a non-american type talk). Rather than create an open dialogue of sharing of ideas it becomes us vs them talk and that ends up nowhere in the grand scheme of talking. Besides as a base level recognizing that countries have differences in a multitude of ways is quite an important aspect. Ignoring that aspect means you're missing part of the equation.

 

[CdnCarrie]

The crime numbers are generally mentioned per capita, and Iceland's crime rate is extremely low. There's also population density and Iceland is near the bottom. However, so is Canada's, but that's more a matter of a few people living in extremely cold areas.

What the heck does weather have to do with anything?

Exactly. Many of us hate the fact that our government seems to turn a blind eye to gun violence. But having a bunch of non-Americans smugly stating that this country is unsafe when we are reeling from a tragedy DOES NOT HELP.

No one is being smug. If I came across like that I apologize. But remember that its not just Americans getting shot in these occurrences. 3 people from my province were shot in LV. One of the little girls killed in Sandy Hook lived in my city up until a year before she was murdered.

 

[bcla]

What the heck does weather have to do with anything?

Tangential. But the population density of Canada is skewed by the fact that the vast majority of people live in the southern part because it's not as cold.

If you're going to look at crime statistics, it's skewed towards the urban populations where people live.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I like to hear opinions too. I don't like to hear "my country or this other country does this better than yours..and why is that oh it's because of x,y,z"(that happens from people from the u.s. too so it's not just a non-american type talk). Rather than create an open dialogue of sharing of ideas it becomes us vs them talk and that ends up nowhere in the grand scheme of talking. Besides as a base level recognizing that countries have differences in a multitude of ways is quite an important aspect. Ignoring that aspect means you're missing part of the equation.

BUT would it hurt to look at countries with no or very little mass shootings and just discuss with them how they prevent them? Just open the dialogue and admit that maybe somewhere like Australia for example may have some good ideas that could be implemented in both the USA and Canada. If it doesn't work at least you tried something and you keep finding other solutions to look at. Of course there is no one size fits all methodology that will work for all countries but it may be an starting point.
Has there been any of that down in the federal USA government? Or is there any sort of national committee looking at solutions? Or is it all state by state?
Just curious.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

BUT would it hurt to look at countries with no or very little mass shootings and just discuss with them how they prevent them? Just open the dialogue and admit that maybe somewhere like Australia for example may have some good ideas that could be implemented in both the USA and Canada. If it doesn't work at least you tried something and you keep finding other solutions to look at. Of course there is no one size fits all methodology that will work for all countries but it may be an starting point.
Has there been any of that down in the federal USA government? Or is there any sort of national committee looking at solutions? Or is it all state by state?
Just curious.

Each state is fiercely independent. It is extremely complex to try to change things on a national level.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

^ Oh, and that's on a good day. Right now, in case you haven't noticed, things are very polarized, to say the least. Nobody is getting along.

 

[Pamlur]

I am not going one way or the other on the gun thing, but wanted to insert that in the last few days there was a terroristic slaughter in NYC that involved a vehicle.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I am not going one way or the other on the gun thing, but wanted to insert that in the last few days there was a terroristic slaughter in NYC that involved a vehicle.

Yes

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You're right. And I didn't mean to sound flippant. Not in the least.
3 people from our province were shot in LV. One killed and 2 wounded. There have been radio ads for a fundraiser they are doing for the more seriously wounded lady.
It just seems so cyclical. It happens. People are like OMG and talk about it for a day or two and then stop until the next one.
LV to me was HUGE! 500 people shot. 500! That's freaking insane. But even here the LV thread died out in less than a week. Sure there has been a handful of posts on it in the last couple weeks but not much.

I was reading comments on our local media about today's tragedy and most people were basically saying things along the lines of - "starting to lose sympathy. They could do something but won't give up the guns." That's horrible! Absolutely horrible. But's it's coming such an everyday story out of the USA that we are starting to get numb to it.

It is a mindset. It's mental health. It's so many factors.

BUT would it hurt to look at countries with no or very little mass shootings and just discuss with them how they prevent them? Just open the dialogue and admit that maybe somewhere like Australia for example may have some good ideas that could be implemented in both the USA and Canada. If it doesn't work at least you tried something and you keep finding other solutions to look at. Of course there is no one size fits all methodology that will work for all countries but it may be an starting point.
Has there been any of that down in the federal USA government? Or is there any sort of national committee looking at solutions? Or is it all state by state?
Just curious.

__________________________________________
I mentioned on that thread though it just happens with so many different things. Like I said on that thread Harvey was talked about until Irma came along and Harvey was much less talked about and then Maria came along and Irma was much less talked about, now we have the NYC attack and now we have the church shooting..my local news isn't talking about the NYC attack and hasn't for a few days. They are however talking about the church shooting and will likely talk about that non-stop for the next few days.

And to tell you the truth it's not that it's an everyday thing so we're becoming numb to it. It happens with many different types of events. As far as an everyday thing. There is no legal definition of mass shooting. That's huge to keep in mind. Our federal government used at least in the past that at least four victims must be killed. However, a broader definition is that at least four victims must be injured (rather than having been killed) and then you have other definitions.

There have been instances where claims of mass shootings daily or nearly daily have been used..and yet the definition......

Recently a political leader said there had been 273 mass shootings in 2017 (one for each day of the year); the political leader was using the definition of at least four victims killed or injured plus the political leader was counting in incidents that occurred due to gang shootings or home invasion robberies. And that's just one instance where saying something to the effect of one shooting each day can be misconstrued; that same type of talk was said last year I believe, etc. Now sure gang shootings and home invasion robberies are not something that should be ignored by any means but they are not necessarily the same when you are speaking about 'stopping mass shootings in America'.

As far as looking towards Australia for example...see that's part of why I made my comment. In order to even begin to look at other countries you have to look at your own country and in this case it's the U.S. You can't just say "well ___ country seems to have it down wonder why". I personally think that's going in reverse. You would need to look at why there is such strong passionate feelings towards gun rights and why certain states have what could be perceived as more open gun rights and other states have tighter gun rights, you would need to look at things such as funding and other resources as well for policing of any laws each state may have, you would need to look at the make up of the citizens in each state and yes political aspect does come into play for certain aspects, etc. To start by looking at other countries and using them as a template is to me ignoring the complexity that is the U.S. It's not that I don't think you can look to other countries because you should and that can be valuable in look for ways you hadn't thought of (sorta like 2 heads are better than one type thoughtprocess) but to me that's not a starting point but an ending point.

*apologies for the long post*

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I am reading that the shooter was dishonorably discharged from the armed services, and as such, could not legally possess firearms.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

If true, doesn't it indicate a law was in place, but was broken?

 

[katie01]

I am reading that the shooter was dishonorably discharged from the armed services, and as such, could not legally possess firearms.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

If true, doesn't it indicate a law was in place, but was broken?

Could be. I have been wondering about the case of the truck used as a weapon in NYC. I was curious if the terrorists in that incident used a truck because they couldn't obtain guns? Or some other reason? It's hard to believe terrorists couldn't obtain guns illegally, but it does make me wonder the rationale for using a truck.

 

[CdnCarrie]

__________________________________________
I mentioned on that thread though it just happens with so many different things. Like I said on that thread Harvey was talked about until Irma came along and Harvey was much less talked about and then Maria came along and Irma was much less talked about, now we have the NYC attack and now we have the church shooting..my local news isn't talking about the NYC attack and hasn't for a few days. They are however talking about the church shooting and will likely talk about that non-stop for the next few days.

And to tell you the truth it's not that it's an everyday thing so we're becoming numb to it. It happens with many different types of events. As far as an everyday thing. There is no legal definition of mass shooting. That's huge to keep in mind. Our federal government used at least in the past that at least four victims must be killed. However, a broader definition is that at least four victims must be injured (rather than having been killed) and then you have other definitions.

There have been instances where claims of mass shootings daily or nearly daily have been used..and yet the definition......

Recently a political leader said there had been 273 mass shootings in 2017 (one for each day of the year); the political leader was using the definition of at least four victims killed or injured plus the political leader was counting in incidents that occurred due to gang shootings or home invasion robberies. And that's just one instance where saying something to the effect of one shooting each day can be misconstrued; that same type of talk was said last year I believe, etc. Now sure gang shootings and home invasion robberies are not something that should be ignored by any means but they are not necessarily the same when you are speaking about 'stopping mass shootings in America'.

As far as looking towards Australia for example...see that's part of why I made my comment. In order to even begin to look at other countries you have to look at your own country and in this case it's the U.S. You can't just say "well ___ country seems to have it down wonder why". I personally think that's going in reverse. You would need to look at why there is such strong passionate feelings towards gun rights and why certain states have what could be perceived as more open gun rights and other states have tighter gun rights, you would need to look at things such as funding and other resources as well for policing of any laws each state may have, you would need to look at the make up of the citizens in each state and yes political aspect does come into play for certain aspects, etc. To start by looking at other countries and using them as a template is to me ignoring the complexity that is the U.S. It's not that I don't think you can look to other countries because you should and that can be valuable in look for ways you hadn't thought of (sorta like 2 heads are better than one type thoughtprocess) but to me that's not a starting point but an ending point.

*apologies for the long post*

Some very thoughtful insights.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

And interestingly enough, what is also being reported is that a neighbor to the church was the one who stopped the shooter with a shotgun, by shooting him in the neck, which caused the shooter to take off in his car. Undoubtedly some lives were saved because of that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Could be. I have been wondering about the case of the truck used as a weapon in NYC. I was curious if the terrorists in that incident used a truck because they couldn't obtain guns? Or some other reason? It's hard to believe terrorists couldn't obtain guns illegally, but it does make me wonder the rationale for using a truck.

I think you are right in that it's hard to believe terriorists couldn't obtain guns illegaly but I did a bit of looking into and wiki (yes yes it is wiki after all lol) says that the U.S. FBI says "Vehicle ramming offers terrorists with limited access to explosives or weapons an opportunity to conduct a homeland attack with minimal prior training or experience."

But I will say vehicles have been used in other parts of the world long before they occurred here in the U.S. Part of me also thinks that someone who has those awful intentions may be thinking exactly how they want to do their damage for lack of a better word and actively chooses a vehicle. There's no doubt about it vehicle-ramming can cause large casualties and injuries.

 

[katie01]

And interestingly enough, what is also being reported is that a neighbor to the church was the one who stopped the shooter with a shotgun, by shooting him in the neck, which caused the shooter to take off in his car. Undoubtedly some lives were saved because of that.

I think you are right in that it's hard to believe terriorists couldn't obtain guns illegaly but I did a bit of looking into and wiki (yes yes it is wiki after all lol) says that the U.S. FBI says "Vehicle ramming offers terrorists with limited access to explosives or weapons an opportunity to conduct a homeland attack with minimal prior training or experience."

But I will say vehicles have been used in other parts of the world long before they occurred here in the U.S. Part of me also thinks that someone who has those awful intentions may be thinking exactly how they want to do their damage for lack of a better word and actively chooses a vehicle. There's no doubt about it vehicle-ramming can cause large casualties and injuries.

Interesting, in both cases. And this is why I feel conflicted, it's obvious there is no perfect solution. I agree that guns in the hands of the "right" people can save lives. But it also seems that gun laws can in some instances save lives or prevent people from obtaining them who only intend to do harm (and I do see how they can still accomplish their evil deeds by other means, but I still feel my odds of survival are better in looking out for out of control trucks vs trying to flee from bullets). I think it's good to look at things from all angles, and as a PP said, I wish all sides could find some middle ground where we could find things we agree on, and steps we could take to at least *try* to minimalist the carnage. I do think some changes have been made, but I believe we can still do more. I know it's a very complex issue with lots of factors involved as to why these shootings keep happening.

 

[yoopermom]

And interestingly enough, what is also being reported is that a neighbor to the church was the one who stopped the shooter with a shotgun, by shooting him in the neck, which caused the shooter to take off in his car. Undoubtedly some lives were saved because of that.

I am not surprised, since this happened in TX, which is a very pro-gun state. If it were to happen in many rural areas, something similar would probably occur, because many of the people in our area have carry conceal permits and weapons in the home that they are well trained and willing to use. I hope and pray to never have to find out, of course.

Terri

 

[AquamarineSteph]

At first, I couldn’t think of a way to post this without making it political, because guns ARE a political issue in the United States. The laws vary wildly from one state to the next, from enforcement of tough sales restrictions in some states to open carry in others to no background checks required at shows in still others. That’s the reality of where we are.


But I finally thought of what I hope is acceptable.


First of all, if you - as a US citizen - want to see change, you have the ability to call/write/email your local, state and Federal elected lawmakers. It’s one of the great privileges of our country. We can let them know what we’re thinking. As a citizen, you already have that power.


Second, the right to do something also carries with it a responsibility. Right now we’re at 307 shootings this year, nationwide, per an ABC report http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass...over-270-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-2017 ) which does not sound too responsible. I’d think that serious gun owners would want a dialogue which encourages and promotes responsible ownership and handling.


And third - Sutherland Springs - that poor town in Texas. Their population is tiny. If you add up the number of people shot and killed in that one church today, that’s roughly what? 10% of the entire town? I’m trying to think how I’d feel if 10% of my town were in there same situation?


And finally - to stay on topic - if you aren’t already paranoid about going into a public place like a church, a school, a movie theatre, shopping mall, etc., etc., etc. then you should be. This discussion thread alone proves that. So many people accept the ‘that’s just how it is’ way of thinking when this only happens on a weekly basis in the US. It doesn’t happen every day, every week around the world. Just here. Maybe - just maybe - that indicates that there are alternatives which don’t include buying Kevlar or putting metal detectors at every door.


I mean, seriously, who wants to leave that legacy of fear and terror to the next generation?