Should churches change security in wake of recent events?

[TLSnell1981]

Don't let fear derived from these evil events reign in your heart. You don't want your children to be so afraid of all places they go. Bolster yourself fueled by your anger, with strength to soldier on. Be confident but, aware of your surroundings.

Yes..this!

 

[TLSnell1981]

This is a good idea, and pretty much our plan too. Iceland felt incredibly safe. Looking forward to using our tourist dollars more international locations in the future. Sure, bad stuff can happen anywhere, but if you look at the statistics, some places are clearly safer than others.

Not so much for babies with Down Syndrome.

 

[longboard55]

the issue is as a people, when tragedy strikes, we have a need to do something to make the next time better, but nothing better ever happens

 

[EveDallas]

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.

You go right ahead and live in fear and paranoia if that's what you need to do. I refuse to live my life that way.

 

[Southernmiss]

Thing is, many of the mass shootings in the US are by lone males as are acts in other countries.

How in the heck are you able to profile everyone in any country to prevent an incident? Sure, some plots have been foiled. But can all mass terrorism acts realistically be eliminated?

Is there any way to ensure complete safety?

I think not.

This is a multi layered, very complicated problem. More to do with a person's mental health.

The guy in Texas had his gun illegally. Was dishonorably discharged from the US Airforce. Had domestic abuse charges.

Gun laws did nothing to prevent him from getting a gun. It was illegally gotten.

I refuse to live under a rock in fear.

And yes, the discussion is happening by our lawmakers and others in positions of influence in the US.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

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 wonder if a law created to make it more difficult for criminals would have had the opposite affect? What if this neighbor didn't have a gun? What if the license was just to expensive? I live in a rural area and police response time is abysmal. This is why I and many other gun owners exist.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Not so much for babies with Down Syndrome.

They also have semi-active volcanoes there! Still safer though. And beautiful. But, we've been there now, so it's on to other places on the list. Maybe Bermuda next, not sure.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I love the logic that because we can't prevent this 100% of the time, we shouldn't try to prevent it at all. Or because no country is 100% safe, it's okay that we have this problem here.

But, that's what we as a country have decided is acceptable, so this is just how it's going to be. It will only get worse.

 

[Hikergirl]

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.

Yes as citizens we can do this, and we can also exercise our right to vote.


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.

Do you think all those shootings were done by "serious" gun owners? I assume you mean responsible gun owners, and if you do I think its obvious that they would want to promote and encourage 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?

I think most people would feel devastated if this happened in their town, regardless of the population.

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?

I'm not paranoid to go out, I accept that I am never 100% safe from harm and things beyond my control.

 

[Mizzoufan]

I love the logic that because we can't prevent this 100% of the time, we shouldn't try to prevent it at all. Or because no country is 100% safe, it's okay that we have this problem here.

But, that's what we as a country have decided is acceptable, so this is just how it's going to be. It will only get worse.

How do you get in the mind of crazy people to predict how they are to act to try to rationalize what they are going to do next or how to stop them. Fine ban guns then what? ban cars when they start using them as weapons heck ban box cutters that what the terrioist used to get control of the planes on 9/11. It's a hate/heart problem not a gun.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

How do you get in the mind of crazy people to predict how they are to act to try to rationalize what they are going to do next or how to stop them. Fine ban guns then what? ban cars when they start using them as weapons heck ban box cutters that what the terrioist used to get control of the planes on 9/11. It's a hate/heart problem not a gun.

Exactly!!! This is what I mean...there is absolutely nothing that can be done to make things any different, so just accept it and move on. This may be the lead story for today, but likely we will have moved on by tomorrow.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

How do you get in the mind of crazy people to predict how they are to act to try to rationalize what they are going to do next or how to stop them. Fine ban guns then what? ban cars when they start using them as weapons heck ban box cutters that what the terrioist used to get control of the planes on 9/11. It's a hate/heart problem not a gun.

Or simply barricade the doors and light the building on fire.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Definitely not. That's what I'm saying, if America is unwilling to take proactive measures, then I need to take whatever reactive or proactive measures I can take for my family, you know what I mean? I don't want to start hiding my family inside the house, but it seems like the risk is increasing to go to: school, church, Wal Mart, concerts, restaurants, and so on. It makes me sick to my stomach

Here is what I am doing.

Several of us here (my family) are going to buy a gun and learn how to shoot. I never shot a gun, EVER!!!

Also we are moving. We live in an area where I have to HEAR gunshots all the time. I have farms around me and they practice shooting all the time. It is worse now since hunting season is upon us.

As far as shopping, I do not plan on living in the city so my risk of being shot is pretty low. Just be vigilant.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

Katie... Yes, this is all just so upsetting and heartbreaking!!!!
My heart and thoughts and prayers go out to anyone and everyone affected by acts of violence.

In general, yes, I do feel that it is reasonable, or even recommended and oblegated, that any prospect of increased danger/risk be met with some increased concern and security/safety measures. If there are those who are not concerned with security at all, then that is how they feel... and you will not change that. I would question how they could justify that??? But, I wouldn't try to change other's feelings/viewpoints.

Some people want to take the wrong approach, thinking that this will increase security, when in all reality, it just won't.

I do think it seems that you are posting from a very emotional and distraught place.

You want somebody to 'do something'.
But, WHAT?????
It is true that there is no such thing as complete safety or freedom from evil.
Acknowledging this is not necessarily a cop-out or a justification. It is acknowledging a basic truth, and can be the beginning of a further understanding.

We ALL wish somebody could 'do something'.
IMHO, there is nothing that any person, any political party, or any amount of wishful thinking, can do to change the fact that that there is evil and mentally 'affected' individuals in this world.
And, the hatred and evil do not always come from the side/place/viewpoint that we think it will.

Perhaps you will feel better and more positive about 'doing something' if you, personally, try to do something.
Participate in a church meeting about how you can find options and ways to protect your congregation.
Organize a neighborhood or school-zone watch and safety initiative.
Things like this can make one feel more secure and empowered.

HUGS!

You can ban guns, but the people who are doing these shootings are mostly purchasing the guns illegally. Do people honestly think that if you pass a law banning guns, these people will go "oh, well I was gonna buy that .45 off of Bob, but since that law was passed banning .45s, I won't get it."??? No, they will just continue to go underground...buy those Russian AKs that seem to stream in along with the cocaine from other countries. Just like they do now.

Yes, and you won't find anywhere in the US that allows certifiably insane people to legally own firearms.

I just watched a show on Showtime called "Active Shooter"; the episode was on the Santa Monica college attack. The gunman in question was known to police as a danger; he had been in an institution for a year as a teen, and as an adult, the officer that met him as a teen stated he KNEW the guy was a danger. They just couldn't do anything because all those laws that were instituted to protect people with mental illnesses also prevent the police from preemptively putting those dangers away. The guy didn't buy a gun. He bought pieces of a gun, unfinished ones, and then drilled and finished them himself. Now, he only killed 5 people, two of whom were his relatives, but he wasn't allowed to do so with a purchased gun. There is no law about dangerous people buying pieces of guns, though.


IMHO, we are a crumbling country. I'm not sure we can fix what is wrong with us. We can't pull mentally ill people off the streets until they commit a crime (and then they are put into a system that says they can be fixed, so they escape punishment, get released, and are back on the streets). We can't stop the drugs and guns and other illegal goods streaming into our country. Heck, in my state, we have people leaving their guns UNSECURED in their UNLOCKED cars, and have them stolen on a regular basis...yet they still do so all the time. In several cases, they were police officers.

http://www.guns.com/2017/01/30/flor...gear-stolen-outside-of-apartment-as-he-slept/
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/35101116/gun-stolen-from-fort-myers-officers-off-duty-car
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-winter-park-cops-lose-guns-20150730-story.html

 

[LYSE]

I just watched a show on Showtime called "Active Shooter"; the episode was on the Santa Monica college attack. The gunman in question was known to police as a danger; he had been in an institution for a year as a teen, and as an adult, the officer that met him as a teen stated he KNEW the guy was a danger. They just couldn't do anything because all those laws that were instituted to protect people with mental illnesses also prevent the police from preemptively putting those dangers away. The guy didn't buy a gun. He bought pieces of a gun, unfinished ones, and then drilled and finished them himself. Now, he only killed 5 people, two of whom were his relatives, but he wasn't allowed to do so with a purchased gun. There is no law about dangerous people buying pieces of guns, though.

Yeah if it's unfinished then they are just buying pieces of metal, hard to regulate raw materials...the law is broken when the prohibited person finishes the gun.


Also, just as a reminder to everyone, crime and shootings are down not up, what's up is high profile cases covered by the media..we are all safer then we've ever been especially of you exclude gang violence in a few bad areas.

I also ask that you remember that we shouldn't do anything for the sole purpose of reducing mass casualty events that are statisctally a non issue, you wouldn't want to tighten laws up and cause an increase in other areas or simply limit others ability to defend ones self would you? We need to reduce overall violence.

Carry on (literally)

 

[Colleen27]

As far as metal detectors, my husband just told me that FL is a concealed carry state and that churches are not exempt - which means that they could not stop someone from bringing in a gun. So even putting up a metal detector wouldn't work. You would know who had guns but you wouldn't be allowed to stop them from coming in.

And that's the way the laws are trending in a lot of places. After Sandy Hook, with all the talk about arming teachers to "protect" against an active shooter situation, laws about gun-free zones started to change, not in favor of fewer guns but rather taking control away from organizations that DON'T want guns on their premises and making MORE places subject to open carry and concealed permit laws. Local school boards and public universities are being forced to allow guns that they don't want on their campuses, and there's been talk off and on of restricting the rights of private property holders to impose gun-free zones as well.

No talk, but an interesting and accurate graphic that suggests the mere presence of firearms is not the issue.

As others have posted, it is misleading at best... but just for the sake of comparison, here in the U.S. we have more privately owned guns than we do people.

T&Ps. Breaks my already heavy heart to hear this again and again.

As far as what to do: Retail/grocery is going towards more eCommerce. Schools are already going virtual. Movies are being released digitally within 90 days of theater release. Churches will go more virtual before any anything is done with gun control. Security unfortunately is too expensive for churches. Where virtual streaming of services will be more economical. Unfortunately, no amount of gun control will not stop a person's free will to do harm. We're already seeing it with vehicles.

That's a terrible "solution", since the mass shooter problem along with many of our other social issues of the moment can be ascribed in whole or in part to the isolating structure of our society. More isolation will just mean more problems. People are not meant to live as hermits.

Just to address the "No one's doing anything" comments.

On Friday, MA became the first state since the Las Vegas shootings to ban Bump Stocks. (They were already banned in CA.)

http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/11/03/gun-rights-group-veto-bump-stock-ban

Except that because we're a single nation with no border checkpoints between states, state and local level gun control is meaningless. Someone who wants to carry out a mass shooting in Boston just needs to make a drive up to New Hampshire for that bump stock he can't buy in Mass. Someone who wants a gun that violates Chicago's tight gun control laws just has to go a few minutes into a suburb to buy what he wants. Since there are no checkpoints, there's nothing to stop people from bringing prohibited items in - state and local bans are only effective in increasing penalties when someone is caught, which doesn't usually apply in mass shooting situations because the shooter is almost never apprehended alive.

You can ban guns, but the people who are doing these shootings are mostly purchasing the guns illegally. Do people honestly think that if you pass a law banning guns, these people will go "oh, well I was gonna buy that .45 off of Bob, but since that law was passed banning .45s, I won't get it."??? No, they will just continue to go underground...buy those Russian AKs that seem to stream in along with the cocaine from other countries. Just like they do now.

This is inaccurate on a couple of points. Most of the recent mass shooters did buy their guns legally. Vegas, Pulse, VA Tech - all legal purchases, all with at least one red flag that should have indicated a potential problem was unfolding. This guy owned his illegally, if the information we have so far is accurate, but there's a real possibility that the illegal aspect was 'failure to surrender' rather than an illegal purchase. That's not unusual, since surrendering previously-owned weapons after a conviction or event that renders gun ownership illegal is basically a voluntary process in most places.

And importing guns is a LOT harder than importing drugs. Drugs are compact, relatively easy to conceal in a number of ways, and not readily visible on x-ray or metal detector scans. Guns, on the other hand, are heavy, bulky, and far more easily detected. The vast majority of illegally owned guns in this country were originally purchased legally, then ended up on the black market via theft or resale.

 

[NFLDERS]

Thing is, many of the mass shootings in the US are by lone males as are acts in other countries.

How in the heck are you able to profile everyone in any country to prevent an incident? Sure, some plots have been foiled. But can all mass terrorism acts realistically be eliminated?

Is there any way to ensure complete safety?

I think not.

This is a multi layered, very complicated problem. More to do with a person's mental health.

The guy in Texas had his gun illegally. Was dishonorably discharged from the US Airforce. Had domestic abuse charges.

Gun laws did nothing to prevent him from getting a gun. It was illegally gotten.

I refuse to live under a rock in fear.

And yes, the discussion is happening by our lawmakers and others in positions of influence in the US.

One report stated he purchased the gun "Legally."

He checked the box as "No Criminal Record."

And, stated a different town as his place of residence.

His application form, deemed him as legal to purchase the rifle... sigh.

 

[jliehr]

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.

It takes more effort to get a drivers license and vehicle than it does to buy a gun.

 

[wonder whisper]

Your picture is an oversimplification of what is a vastly different situation in Switzerland, and according to the statistics I have found is not actually completely accurate. Not sure if we want to discuss why Switzerland's policies do/do not apply to America's situation in this thread or not. But a graphic with no factual information to support it doesn't help anyone come up with a solution to the current problems we are facing.

Have you ever lived in Switzerland?

I have and your stating what I shared is inaccurate is itself inacuurate. The only thing that is really vastly different there is a deep, embeded culture of personal responsibility that is unfortunately becoming absent here.

 

[wonder whisper]

New confirmed recent picture of the killer: According to CBS, this animal was court-martialed in 2012 for two counts of assault on his spouse and assault on their child, and received a bad conduct discharge and confinement for 12 months.

Tessa Kaylynn Loge, ex-wife of the shooter.

Danielle Lee Shields, present wife (now widow of) the shooter.