Common sense prevails.
I guess we know where the murderers are going next. Where better than a place
that a victim cannot defend himself. No wonder there are so many bodies at these
terrible tragedies; there was no one around who could stop these madmen by being
able to fire back.
I am absolutely against a shooter going into a church, a theater, a shopping
mall, a hospital, a school or anywhere a criminal with a bent for mass murder
and destruction can wreak havoc. Too bad they don't agree and will do it
anyway. To that end, we must be able to protect ourselves and others around us.
Another agenda-driven article put out by the MSM to shape public opinion.It's a stupid question to begin with. What truly matters isn't
whether law abiding citizens prefer allowing guns in certain locations. They
will obey the law regardless of the location--and the media knows this, or at
least should realize this.What matters is where killers want to
strike next. Restricting law abiding citizens doesn't reduce crime.
Who's going to put down the next killer?These are important
questions, but won't be addressed by the MSM because they want all citizens
I wonder if they polled any members of the Colorado Springs church where a
licensed concealed carry permit holder security person stopped a madman bent on
killing people?It is remarkable that religious people would feel
that a state passed ban on guns in churches will prevent killings, when the Ten
Commandments mandate "Thou shalt not kill" does not seem to stop
killers.Also, it would be interesting to see the actual poll
questions. Most people do not realize that subtle differences in wording of
questions or sequence they are asked in can be used to skew the results for or
against an issue.My conclusion is that this is a flawed poll,
conducted to drive an agenda.However, churches should have the right
to allow, or disallow weapons in their houses of worship, just as we do in Utah.
And, if any killings take place in the "victim disarmament zones" the
blame must rest with those imposing the bans.
"And, if any killings take place in the "victim disarmament zones"
the blame must rest with those imposing the bans." Really? Unless
you're not willing to only go to a church that allows you to pack heat,
it's your own fault? That 'turn the other cheek' thing is
worthless rhetoric? Nobody yet has asked the question...why does someone want to
go to a church and start killing people? Maybe we should start there. We've
got some problems, and apparently society, and religion, isn't addressing
them very well. It's not my fault if I want to go to a church, or anywhere
else, and expect not to get shot. To me, that's kind of one of the basics
our society should provide.
@ spudmanYes, lets give everyone a gun, then we're all safer.
@toosmartforyouWith that rhetoric, cops shouldn't carry guns.
Same goes for national defense. What wisdom!I guess you are too
smart for us.
And I'm assuming the wackos who would want to enter a church and massacre
everyone are among the poll dissenters.
We have proof that bans don't make a place safer: The theater in Aurora
banned guns. Was it safer? The school in Columbine banned guns. Was it safer?
Chicago bans guns. It's the deadliest city in the world per capita. Gun
bans make places attractive to criminals - less safe.
@ MapleDonI didn't say to not give anyone a gun, I said
"everyone." How many people have been shot this past month that were
innocent victims because some fool had a gun and thought the solution to
whatever issue they were facing was to open fire? Because some nut wasn't
evaluated properly in Colorado masses of people are going to take their weapons
into thaters now. Does that make YOU feel safer? (It doesn't affect me
because I don't waste my money on movies.)Let's let the
inmates continue to run the insane asylum, because the Constitution allowed for
a well-armed/regulated militia! We're all safer because of that posture.
After all, weapons cost lots of money (not to mention ammo) and we
couldn't quit making instruments of death for everyone to possess because
the producers wouldn't gain from that. And gun shows are big business,
too. Killing animals is too fun to abandon, as well. So keep it up......
Concealed is concealed....You'll thank me later.
It seems like churches ought to be able to decide whether or not they want to
ban guns. They don't need the government to force them to; they can set
their own rules for their private property.
In my opinion, this survey only shows an emotional poorly thought out result.
With the good guys armed (most of us), there is no problem at all, and they in
effect are protecting everyone else. The outflying crazies will not obey the
rules anyway, and this rule in effect, opens theie path to easy assaults on the
I think each house of worship is a special family unto itself, and therefore;
that special family should decide if they want a gun in the House they share
Personally, I'm not in to guns. That doesn't mean I am against them.
In a utopian society, we could probably get along with out them, but that
isn't the case here. As stated quite strongly here, if you outlaw a gun,
the law abiding citizens are without them, but the criminals, for what ever
reason, don't seem to obey laws. And I imagine if I were a criminal intent
on mayhem, I might reconsider if I knew someone could and would shoot back.Some say that the 2nd Amendment only offers weapons to the militia.
Well, in the 1700s, when the enemy was marching down your road, you suddenly
became a bonifide member of the militia. Already citizens are being stripped of
their rights to defend themselves. If a villain throws a punch at your face and
if you swing back, you can go to jail (they'll sort out the details later
in court).It would be wonderful if we didn't have to protect
ourselves. But that isn't the current reality. Until it is, we insist on
the right to defend ourselves.
Now explain it to me very carefully and very slowly. How will a law against
bringing a gun to church prevent a person who doesn't care about obeying
the law from bringing a gun to church?
Re: no fit in SG St.George, Utah"Common sense prevails."There is no issue here. Law abiding Utahn's don't carry firearms in
LDS Churches because that is the law. No need for paranoia. Very few
individuals with CCW permits would even want to.
All of the people who think they will become heros when a shooting takes place
are not thinking clearly. 21% of the police officers killed in the line of duty
are killed with their own gun. Lost from a holster, ripped from their hand, and
so forth. Trained police officers are better able to handle these violent
situations, and still, many of them lose their lives. Trying to shoot another
shooter in a crowded place is extremely difficult. The mixed up mentally that
thinks an armed citizen will come to rescue is nonsense. Those that see
themselves as heroic in these tragic events have been watching too much
television. 31,000 Americans are killed with a firearm each year in the United
States. Most are accidents and suicides. The readily available firearm is not
the solution - it is the problem.
Churches used to be the sanctuary that all respected, citizens, governments and
criminals. Under todays morals it is just another building. If you want to keep
guns or any other weapon out of churches you need an enhanced penalty for any
assault that happens in a place of worship, such as, mandatory capital
At the moment, there are no laws against concealed carry, and yet the shooting
still occur and there is no one with a gun to stop them. So I ask Spudman:
Where was the good samaritan with a gun to stop the Colorado theater shooter? I
ask the same question for all the other mass shootings that have occurred.
Unless we go back to the wild west and everyone straps on a gun, only then will
there be some defense. Otherwise, how many people are going to start carrying
guns, and how do you know who is law-abiding and who is not?With
that said, I have listened to the gun advocates (my parents included) ever since
I was young about how gun control would take away our freedom of owning guns.
That was a mere 40 years ago. Everyone I know who wants a gun can still get
one. Common sense gun control is an answer. When you look in a gun ad and see
AK-47-looking .22s, that's ridiculous. Just my opinion.
There are many instances where citizens defend themselves using a firearm. I
have witnessed it twice in my life and neither time was reported. All arguments
being equal or otherwise. we should err on the side of freedom. And freedom is
absolutely, the right to defend ourselves.
I doubt very much that this poll made it clear that the intent was to make it
seem like americans want a law written to make it illegal to carry a gun in
church, schools, then homes, then on the streets. The fear proposed by the poll
proves nothing in saving lives or preventing death and injury.People
and polls have developed some very convincing means of using fear as a weapon of
motivation to obstruct rights and liberties. Fear too is a weapon and we should
have laws preventing people from taking that to church.I feel sorry
for people who live and cower in fear all the time, it must be a horrible way of
life. And its why we have been given the right to live without fear by being
able to defend ourselves when we are confronted with bodily harm threatening
your life, regardless of where you are and what you are doing. Because of the
Bill of Rights I can walk among my peers on any street in America without fear.
I can trust my life and family in my neighbors hands in time of need if he has
faith in his rights.