Shooting/attack on Michigan LDS Church

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It could be that the guards were armed but it was not obvious.

For example...

I once had a lunch where I ended up sitting at a table with three female detectives.

They were all wearing 'business suits' and one was teased/criticised for not 'wearing' her firearm.
(The others were assuming that she had it concealed in a bag.)

She laughed and moved her jacket, revealing the standard police automatic.
(In a 'shoulder holster' on her left hand side.)

She then started handing out business cards for the tailor, that had tailored the jacket to hide the firearm.

The other two were quite impressed with the result.

It was a bit of an experience for me.

The three women were young, intelligent, witty, well dressed, obviously healthy and physically fit.

I've never felt safer in my life.

(Even though they made the standard 'joke' that I'd heard many times before: "If the ◊◊◊◊ does down, we're hiding behind you.")

But how would that have helped protect you if some random stranger had pulled out an automatic weapon and started shooting into the restaurant?

 

[Norman Alexander]

And sometimes …
Some years ago, in a farmer market in a small French town, I met an American lady who looked both lost and shocked to see food stalls next to clothing stalls, especially the underwear stalls she was trying to hide from the eyes of her 5 years old daughter. She told me she was looking forward to return to the US in the next few months, where her two teenager boys had been left with their grandparents, and how she didn't feel safe in our socialist country where she wasn't allowed to carry guns, bla, bla bla.
I met her again some months later, and she very enthusiastically told me they were staying for two years more, her boys were in the local high school, where she had discovered there was no metal detector or armed guard at the entrance, because she had discovered that school shootings were not a thing in France, and how she felt really safe and free, and how universal healthcare was logical and convenient, and …

Quel surprise...

 

[Norman Alexander]

I agree that the main thread connecting all these shooters is mental health issues, but the right wing culture that fetishizes guns and mainstreams conspiracy theories they predominantly come from cannot be ignored as a relevant factor.

Mental health issues exist, certainly, some of them very serious. But every other country also has people with mental health issues to deal with, probably no more or less than the USA. But most other countries don't allow people with serious mental health issues unfettered, no-questions-asked access to personal mass-killing machines. They...ahem...control that access to minimise any negative outcomes. Just like they might with motor vehicles, or chainsaws, or other potentially dangerous equipment.

 

[arthwollipot]

But how would that have helped protect you if some random stranger had pulled out an automatic weapon and started shooting into the restaurant?

It wouldn't. Even they could only react after the shooter had started firing, which with an automatic weapon could already have killed several people, including those detectives.

But they probably wouldn't be using an automatic weapon. This isn't Chicago in the 1930s. The weapon would be semiautomatic, which means that they might be able to kill only three or four people before someone is able to react and shoot back.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The "concealed carry" argument is that if you don't know whether people are armed, you might be deterred from attacking them. The shooter in the Michigan case could show up to a Mormon church building and know with almost perfect certainty that no one there would be armed. This would be the case whether the shooter's weapon were concealed or not. But if the assailant couldn't know whether any of the congregation were concealing a weapon, he couldn't be sure whether his attack would succeed.

The instant the concealed-carry guy pulls out his gun, he isn't concealed-carry guy any more. He's a visible target, probably the first target, of some armed lunatic who already has his finger on the trigger and is shooting. Pop pop pop! No more Mr. concealed-carry good-guy-with-a-gun.

Same as when the police show up at these events. They are looking for people with guns in their hands because they will obviously be "the bad guys". Concealed-carry guy, assuming he is still not dead, is now "a bad guy", whether he likes it or not. Now his existence and innocence depends on how gung-ho and trigger-happy the cops are...

 

[Andy_Ross]

deleted

 

[Andy_Ross]

It wouldn't. Even they could only react after the shooter had started firing, which with an automatic weapon could already have killed several people, including those detectives.

But they probably wouldn't be using an automatic weapon. This isn't Chicago in the 1930s. The weapon would be semiautomatic, which means that they might be able to kill only three or four people before someone is able to react and shoot back.

unless they have a bump stock or two way trigger or one of the other aids to rapid fire, can just pull the standard trigger very quickly.

 

[catsmate]

Yes. They only allow Roman Catholics (and one or two other closely linked denominations) to take communion. They may regard the others as Christian, but not fully proper ones.

TRue, but non-catholics are still considered Christians.
Wrt communion, only catholics "in the proper state of grace" may take communion, and non-catholic christians may receive it with the permission of the diocesan bishop, or by the authority of the celebrant in certain circumstances. Even protestants....

 

[catsmate]

Officially the Mormon church has a no-weapons policy for its meeting places, as do many churches. A number of Mormons have gone onto social media saying they now intend to ignore that policy in the wake of the Michigan shooting.

That'll end well....

 

[JayUtah]

The problem I've always had with that line of thinking is that the shooter generally doesn't really care. They, usually, intend on dying at the end of it. They don't WANT to stick around. So even if they take 1 or 2 people out, that's all good with them. Even a well-armed and trained "good guy" would need to wrap his head around the situation before taking him out.

The problem of how to stop or deter a would-be suicide assailant is a chronic issue in security. Charlie Kirk's assassin evidently had a getaway plan. He expected to live, and eventually turned himself in. That's because it was a targeted crime. In contrast, someone like the Michigan shooter simply wants to cause as much death and destruction as possible before he is killed or captured. And if that person has little regard for his own safety, all deterrents—including the concealed-carry concept—are fundamentally useless.

Then you run into the problem of, what if there's two good guys with a gun? Then they both shoot at each other while the bad guy is still mowing people down.

Indeed, that's my biggest problem. Tactical response is an art that must be trained for.

I mentioned this before. In one shooting incident in my city several years ago, an off-duty cop nearby confronted the shooter within minutes. However, the initial report made to 911 was that there were two shooters. This led to frantic efforts to find the "other" shooter even after the first (and only) assailant had been shot and killed by uniformed police.

Then there was the unfortunate shooting we talked about at the No Kings march in my city. Against all wisdom and policy, the march organizers allowed armed civilian "peacekeepers" to participate. One opened fire on a person who had just begun to carry a rifle at the low-ready position. Despite the target being only 29 feet away, and the shooter being a self-proclaimed open-carry fanatic, he was a lousy shot and missed his target with several rounds. An innocent bystander 100 feet away was the only one who died. The lesson is that even someone with a guardian-angel gun fetish can completely suck at an armed tactical response. If you have panicky, inexperienced people taking matters into their own hands, the result may be worse.

It could be that the guards were armed but it was not obvious.

I'm quite certain, at least these days. I raise the question only because I have some evidence to the contrary. I mentioned that there hasn't been a mass-casualty event in Mormonism since the 1800s, but that's not correct. There was a mass shooting back in the 1990s in which an unarmed security guard at the Mormon genealogy library was killed. It went unnoticed outside Utah because it happened the same week as the Columbine High School shooting.

I'm quite sure that it's possible for Mormon security guards in business suits to be suitably armed.

There is also the model of having more heavily armed guards kept out of sight. If you visit Disneyland in Anaheim you've seen the polite security officers in campaign hats and white shirts. They look incapable of handling anything more dangerous than a jaywalker. However the rumors of the so-called Mickey Marines are true. I've seen them myself, when I was in the park after hours with a friend who worked there. They wear black uniforms and body armor and carry prominently displayed sidearms. And they just suddenly appear from hidden doorways, in this case to do a sweep of the park. I'm quite confident that if anything went down at Disneyland, an armed response could materialize in seconds.

 

[novaphile]

But how would that have helped protect you if some random stranger had pulled out an automatic weapon and started shooting into the restaurant?

I pity the fool, that tries to shoot up the annual 'detectives lunch' ...



The nearest ten people would have mobbed him, put him in ten pairs of handcuffs, hung him from a chandelier, and then gone back to having lunch.

(Without any shots being fired. This is Adelaide, after all.)

 

[arthwollipot]

The nearest ten people would have mobbed him, put him in ten pairs of handcuffs, hung him from a chandelier, and then gone back to having lunch.

But not after he had put bullets into a couple of people first.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I pity the fool, that tries to shoot up the annual 'detectives lunch' ...



The nearest ten people would have mobbed him, put him in ten pairs of handcuffs, hung him from a chandelier, and then gone back to having lunch.

(Without any shots being fired. This is Adelaide, after all.)

You really believe that?

People who are chatting with colleagues/friends in a social setting with no reason to be wary are suddenly THAT alert when a random stranger opens a door and turns out not to bring the next round of drinks but rather opens fire indiscriminately?

I personally suspect that by the time their brains switch from 'when will the food come, this speech is so boring' to 'we're under fire' several people are already dead.
Sure, maybe trained cops will react slightly faster than people unused to firearms, but is that happens before or after the magazine of a (semi) automatic weapon is empty?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It could be that the guards were armed but it was not obvious.

For example...

I once had a lunch where I ended up sitting at a table with three female detectives.

They were all wearing 'business suits' and one was teased/criticised for not 'wearing' her firearm.
(The others were assuming that she had it concealed in a bag.)

She laughed and moved her jacket, revealing the standard police automatic.
(In a 'shoulder holster' on her left hand side.)

She then started handing out business cards for the tailor, that had tailored the jacket to hide the firearm.

The other two were quite impressed with the result.

It was a bit of an experience for me.

The three women were young, intelligent, witty, well dressed, obviously healthy and physically fit.

I've never felt safer in my life.

(Even though they made the standard 'joke' that I'd heard many times before: "If the ◊◊◊◊ does down, we're hiding behind you.")

Nothing to fear from popcorn throwers certainly, that is one group that concealed firearms are great at taking out. OF course you have to expect the odd execution of a black person for daring to think the second amendment applies to them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Indeed, that's my biggest problem. Tactical response is an art that must be trained for.

Demanding people get training before they carry a gun is the kind of gun grabbing behavior we don't tolerate in the US anymore. Guns are simple and intuitive and don't require training.

 

[JayUtah]

Demanding people get training before they carry a gun is the kind of gun grabbing behavior we don't tolerate in the US anymore. Guns are simple and intuitive and don't require training.

Yep, point-and-click interface. Just click around until you get the hang of it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And sometimes …
Some years ago, in a farmer market in a small French town, I met an American lady who looked both lost and shocked to see food stalls next to clothing stalls, especially the underwear stalls she was trying to hide from the eyes of her 5 years old daughter. She told me she was looking forward to return to the US in the next few months, where her two teenager boys had been left with their grandparents, and how she didn't feel safe in our socialist country where she wasn't allowed to carry guns, bla, bla bla.
I met her again some months later, and she very enthusiastically told me they were staying for two years more, her boys were in the local high school, where she had discovered there was no metal detector or armed guard at the entrance, because she had discovered that school shootings were not a thing in France, and how she felt really safe and free, and how universal healthcare was logical and convenient, and …

The communist propaganda machine always gets them in the end