Defending oneself (or others) in a holy place

[Tez3]

I never said it didn't. I just said I was shocked at how many carry guns and how feel they need to carry them to church. I didn't say anything about shootings not happening here or anywhere for that matter. That's something you put into my mouth. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.
You asked where those particular people in that clip got their guns and I answered you because I happened to know with being involved in that particular issue. If it had been a shooting somewhere else in the UK I wouldn't have known. You got sarcastic not I.

 

[KP.]

Which leads us back to my point, shootings happen everywhere, not just in the "Wild West" US.

True, but unless one lives in a place far removed from first world countries, the chance of being shot everywhere else is significantly lower.

Of course, to be fair, in the USA unless you're living in an urban ghetto, the chance of being shot is pretty darn small too. The level of paranoia that leads suburbanites in the USA to go out and get guns and then carry them everywhere would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I own several weapons. I have a couple of hunting rifles, and I keep a pistol as part of a survival kit in the locked tool locker on my truck -- precisely in case I find myself stranded somewhere and needing to hunt for food or defend myself (I travel into bear and moose country well away from heavily populated areas frequently enough that I think thats' reasonable - though I maybe just as paranoid and not know it).

 

[KenpoTex]

Of course, to be fair, in the USA unless you're living in an urban ghetto, the chance of being shot is pretty darn small too. The level of paranoia that leads suburbanites in the USA to go out and get guns and then carry them everywhere would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I agree Tex.

In my nice up standing community I grew up in kids had guns for fear.
There were young adults who had them at the bar or in their car. And I am nto talking about anything legal either.

But then my experience could be limited or special.

 

[thardey]

It's not paranoia - I can only speak for myself, but I was raised with the "sheepdog" mentality. My Grandfather was a cop, and from early on, I was taught that if you have the ability to protect others, it is your responsibility to train yourself to be able to protect others. He taught that to my Dad, and they both taught it to me.

It was many years before I felt that I was mature enough to protect others by carrying a gun, but eventually, that early teaching grew with me, and I stepped into the resposibility that was mine.

It is different in different places throughout the world, but I was taught that part of the justice system in the U.S. is that private citizens, who are able, are responsible for doing what they can to protect other citizens. It is difficult in third-party cases, where you don't know either party, but we are supposed to be connected with our friends, neighbors, and families, so that we are able to protect each other. That is why it is more likely to find non-paranoid people carrying guns in stable, peaceful, suburban areas where there are such things as block parties, neighborhood watch groups, and neighborhoods that actually become communities.

It's not that I strap on a gun when I go to church, because I expect something to happen there. I take a gun everywhere I am legally allowed to (which is a lot). That's not expecting to ever be involved in a shootout in the streets, but that is part of my responsibility as a U.S. citizen.

We have fire alarms in our house, that's not considered paranoia -- we have airbags and seatbelts in our cars -- we have nearly-useless security in our airports -- I have a car that automatically locks the doors for me when I start driving -- I have health insurance, home insurance, car insurance -- dead-bolt locks -- a fire hydrant right in front of my house, I don't set out to utilize any of this stuff, but I'm glad it's there. Nearly all of it in an inconvenience of some sort, but none of that smacks of paranoia?

Even on this board we have hundreds of people who have devoted thousands of hours to studying some sort of self-defense. I have put in my hours, too. But I know that all of that training only gives me a snowball's chance in hell against an armed opponent. Odds are extremely high that any attacker I face will be armed with a knife. It's part of the culture where I live. I don't want to face him empty handed, or with another knife, I want to face him with my pistol, pulled from surprise out of hiding, and take his knife away. I have a knife in my possession that came from my Grandfather who took it from a mugger in exactly that way. My Father was robbed by a man with a gun at his house (fortunately the guy dropped it in the dark) when I was an infant (suburbia, BTW). Why is the time considered for training with a pistol (which is just plain fun, anyway) or the time it takes to drop my pistol into my pocket holster (taking less time than finding my car keys, or making sure I have my wallet) considered paranoid?

Is it simply because guns are scary, so only scary people must have them?

Tez, I'm sorry for all of the continued mis-understanding about England's "Disarmament". For those who haven't read Tez's dozen other threads trying to edumucate us Yanks, Shotguns are very common in England, in people's homes. And, as most of us know, it's hard to beat a shotgun for home defense. Just because pistols are highly regulated doesn't mean that all firearms are taboo.

 

[KP.]

Is it simply because guns are scary, so only scary people must have them?

No, it's more because the whole reasoning behind guns for self-defense is rather flawed.

If more guns means less crime, then we should be the most crime-free nation on the planet, but we aren't even close.

Most of those "scary people" get their weapons off of a black-market trade where a large number of the firearms traded are stolen.

Few of the people who carry (let alone own) handguns obtain adequate training or put in the hours necessary to be able to handle a weapon properly. I've known people who have weapons in their home for "self-defense" and when I've asked them if they want to go to the range with me, they've admitted to never having been and not even knowing where a range is.

The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I bet some people in these congragations probably wish they'd been carrying.

He said a brief search found the following shootings, before last weekend's attacks:

• August 12, 2007: A lone gunman, Eiken Elam Saimon, opened fire in a Missouri Micronesian church, killing a pastor and two other churchgoers.
• May 20, 2007: A standoff between police and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a Moscow, Idaho, Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one police officer.
• Although not at a church building, the Oct. 2, 2006, attack in Lancaster County, Pa., by a gunman who killed five girls and then himself at an Amish school targeted a religious site.
• May 21, 2006: Louisiana. Four were killed by a man at Jesus Christ Church.
• Feb. 26, 2006: Michigan. Two people were killed at Zion Hope Missionary Baptist Church by a man who reportedly went to the church looking for his girlfriend. He later killed himself.
• April 9, 2005: A 27-year-old airman died after being shot at a church in College Park, Ga., where he had once worked as a security guard.
• March 12, 2005: A man walked into the services of the Living Church of God in Milwaukee and open fired immediately, killing seven people.
• Oct. 5, 2003: A woman opened fire in Turner Monumental AME church in Kirkwood, east of Atlanta, killing the pastor and two others.
• Sept. 16, 1999: Seven young people were killed when a man opened fire during a prayer service for teen-agers at the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

Whole article here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59219

 

[jks9199]

No, it's more because the whole reasoning behind guns for self-defense is rather flawed.

If more guns means less crime, then we should be the most crime-free nation on the planet, but we aren't even close.

Most of those "scary people" get their weapons off of a black-market trade where a large number of the firearms traded are stolen.

Few of the people who carry (let alone own) handguns obtain adequate training or put in the hours necessary to be able to handle a weapon properly. I've known people who have weapons in their home for "self-defense" and when I've asked them if they want to go to the range with me, they've admitted to never having been and not even knowing where a range is.

The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.

You're making some really big assumptions -- and they're pretty off topic, as well. If folks would like to explore that topic some more, I'm opening a new thread for that purpose.

OK... Thread created HERE.

 

[elder999]

No, it's more because the whole reasoning behind guns for self-defense is rather flawed.

If more guns means less crime, then we should be the most crime-free nation on the planet, but we aren't even close.

That's not "the whole" reasoning behind having guns for self defense.

Not even sure if it's "reasoning" at all, no matter how true.

The reasoning behind having a firearm for self defense is that it's for self-defense. It's a force multiplier, a tool that increases the likelihood of a successful outcome where force is required.

Few of the people who carry (let alone own) handguns obtain adequate training or put in the hours necessary to be able to handle a weapon properly. I've known people who have weapons in their home for "self-defense" and when I've asked them if they want to go to the range with me, they've admitted to never having been and not even knowing where a range is.

Most of the people who carry (and I'm talking CCW) are required to have training to do so-this is true in most jurisdictions. While "open carry" is usually another story, with no training required where it's permitted, I think the assumption that "people who carry handguns don't obtain adequate training" isn't supportable by any quantifiable data or evidence other than anecdotal-you could have said something to the effect of Few of the people I know who carry...., but that's not what you said.

The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.

The majority of the people who legally own guns in this country pose no threat to society whatsoever. The threat they might pose to themselves is another matter....

I'll say it again, the reasoning behind having a gun for self-defense is as a force mutliplier.

Just like martial arts skills, though, you can't reasonably expect to be able to defend yourself with one by reading a book, watching a video,or simply by having attained "some" skill and not practicing.

(Those are some interesting assertions from someone who claims to carry a .45 for self defense, BTW)

 

[KenpoTex]

The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.

While I don't know how you can possibly do so, I would REALLY like to see you try to support that statement with some sort of factual data.

 

[Brian King]

KP wrote

"I lived in a Catholic monastery for a few years after the first Gulf War. An amazingly large number of the monks were veterans, usually from the higher end of the training spectrum.

I can assure you that there wasn't one of them who would condone that answer.

They would rather die than resort to violence against another person ever again. The example and message of the many martyrs over the centuries, to them, is an example to emulate, not one to sacrifice for personal gain.

If a Church's message is peace and "turning the other cheek," and you enter that place with the willingness and intent to simply ignore that message, then frankly, you do not hold to that faith and do the community a disservice by remaining a member there.”

in reply to this post
Originally Posted by jks9199

Let me address this a little differently. I generally carry a firearm. Including to church. And I know the places in the church that provide cover versus concealment. I've planned how I'd respond in the event of someone posing a threat to the congretation during Mass, up to and including lethal force.

I was searching for a church to attend and call mine a couple of years ago so was attending different churches to see what the congregation was like, what was the church leadership like and do they teach biblically from the bible. I would show up early and talk to people. One conversation I had at one of the churches I was thinking of attending went thus. I introduced myself to a gentleman and after shaking hands told him this was my first visit to his church. He seemed pleased and welcoming so I asked some questions. Where are the bathrooms located, is there a back door, how is the parking and traffic, how long had he been attending the church, is it crowed, are their other programs as well as the service yada yada. After awhile to keep the conversation flowing I asked him if he caught the game on TV? He puffed up with pride and got that tone of voice. You know that one tone that some use when they are talking themselves up while talking others down. He said “Brotha, weeee do not have a television in our home. Weeee live in a Godly home. Aww I really dislike self righteousness almost as much as hypocrites. I can understand the many valid reasons to not watch TV but his pride and self righteousness was obvious and ugly. No one is perfect especially me, so I filed the conversation to put down in my search notes and settled in to listen to and participate in the service. The preacher was commenting on loving the sinner and hating the sin "as it is found in the bible"…oh well, on to the next church hopefully the next would actually read and teach from the bible. I did finally find two churches that I now attend. Both churches are filled with men and women many of which are veterans of military service, and many of them armed with both the word and a firearm. More than that is that both churches realize that we are all sinners and we are welcomed there not told that our being there is some kind of disservice.



Back to the OP

“What if you were some place where a fight is breaking out...or about to break out. And, due to the circumstances...you really really do not want to hurt the people involved. Maybe you are at a house of worship of your own, or maybe you are at a family gathering that goes sour.”

At both of my churches I can not imagine violence breaking out amongst the congregation (On the other hand I can see protestors or other sufferers bringing their violence into the service). If something ever did start up amongst the congregations a simple quietly stated word or two and a soft touch would settle it.

A family gathering could be a different kettle of fish entirely. There are some subjects that are not discussed as the family is a family of fighters though most are getting older and have settled down. We have iron workers that have been in the union forever and we have carpenters that have no use for unions for example. If talk turns to unions there could easily be blood on the floor and a dotted eye in the morning. If a fight broke out there, depending on who is fighting save the china and let them go. Not a big deal. It usually went to first blood and never results in hard feelings. There are other family members that can be mean and violent. If those are in the beginning stages of fight then distraction, changing the subject/focus and physical intervention might be called for.

“you really really do not want to hurt the people involved”

I thought that this is interesting and it is something that people who practice martial arts and/or may face or be confronted by violence need to come to terms with. The wanting to hurt somebody is dangerous, but the willingness to harm somebody if necessary is healthy. Honesty in your motivation is essential I believe.

Which brings me to

“How would you approach defending yourself (or someone else) against someone that you really don't want to hurt?”

Conflict is conflict. I try to resolve all conflict I am involved with by doing the least harm as possible, location and participants have little to do with it. Intent and motivation has much more to do with it.



Thanks for the thread Carol

Regards
Brian King