Churchgoer Tries to Hide Gun After Accidentally Shooting It Mid-Prayer

[96firephoenix]

I don't know what is more disturbing, the events of the article or the uninformed comments. Why wouldn't one carry in church? 18 church shootings in 11 years (A comprehensive list)

My church was arsoned a couple years back while occupied. Reason No. 1 to carry at church.
My church is downtown and has a 20-space parking lot, but privileges at the Mall garage. Reason No. 2 to carry between the car and church.
My church does not have a school attached, therefor it is legal. Reason No. 3 for me to carry at church.
"whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. Matthew 22:36" I've leveled up from a sword. Reason No. 4 for me to carry at church.

Need I go on?

 

[Big Guy]

I carry a gun in church every Sunday, the only people that know , are my wife, and the pastor. I don't want to be the first church attack shooting victim in Indy. Most of our congregation are in their 70's and 80's, and they would be be like lambs being led to slaughter, mostly because they believe something like that could never happen in a church. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like the world is a dark place anymore, and you better be prepared to protect yourself and your family and loved ones if the need ever arrises.

 

[ModernGunner]

Bleh, pocket carry.

 

[Maximinus Thrax]

"Sigh" I can't carry in church. There's a school on the property

Sadly mine has a pre-school so carry is out for me as well.

Speak with your pastor (or whatever you call them) and ask about being granted written permission to carry.

Actually under Indiana law a pre-school and maybe a school (if it accepts no public funding) may be a ministry and not a school.

Hmmm, tell me more

I'm pretty sure it's still a school. Just because it's private doesn't change that fact. At my church we simply make it known that those who wish to carry need to speak with the pastor first (as the school administrator) so that they can cover the legal bases and grant proper permission.

 

[jbmayes2000]

cause stats tell the whole story?

while most folks are imagining some "Kill Bill" style church attack, w/ some gunman/men entering and robbing during service, don't forget there's going to/from the church, which includes parking lots. some services and activities are late at night, and many churches are not in good parts of town, lots of folks walk to their churches, take buses, etc. some church members may have duties that cause them to be there early or later than most folks, essentially there by themselves. maybe you have other places to be after service (I know I feel safer leaving it on me than screwing w/ it in the parking lot [because holster]). just because only a handful of dramatic in-service events have been identified, I wouldn't imagine that's the extent of nationwide crime which could involve a person having a need/desire to have a defensive tool w/ them while in the service.

get the calculator back out.

-rvb

I don't need a calculator to do basic math but I would still let you use all related incidents from the person leaving their house until they arrived back to their house from church and I bet it doesn't budge that % nearly as much as you think it does.

And if you take your statistics at face value, and then apply that logic to carry anywhere else one could conceivably go anywhere in public? How many people go to a movie theater? How many people go to Kroger? How many people go to Waffle House? How many people go to school? Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument is basically that it is inappropriate to carry anywhere in public.

Negligent discharges are exceedingly rare. Injuries from negligent discharges are even more rare. Being at a church does not represent a higher risk of negligent discharge as compared to being in any other, arbitrary place.

The only thing inappropriate in this incident is the apparent lack of a holster for the pocket-carried firearm.

I would probably say that I stand closer to the side of the bolded text than I do the other way but that's just my personal view. I cannot attest to those living in much bigger cities but the rural area that I am in just doesn't warrant carrying it around all day. I'm aware i'm not exempt from anything.

My church was arsoned a couple years back while occupied. Reason No. 1 to carry at church.
My church is downtown and has a 20-space parking lot, but privileges at the Mall garage. Reason No. 2 to carry between the car and church.
My church does not have a school attached, therefor it is legal. Reason No. 3 for me to carry at church.
"whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. Matthew 22:36" I've leveled up from a sword. Reason No. 4 for me to carry at church.

Need I go on?

I wasn't really asking for reasons to carry so I'm not sure how to answer your question.

EDIT: But #1 can explain to me why you think it's appropriate in your case. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[jamil]

Two words. Pocket. Holster.


They're cheap. Why not?

 

[lovemachine]

Speak with your pastor (or whatever you call them) and ask about being granted written permission to carry.





I'm pretty sure it's still a school. Just because it's private doesn't change that fact. At my church we simply make it known that those who wish to carry need to speak with the pastor first (as the school administrator) so that they can cover the legal bases and grant proper permission.

I have a feeling my priests at my church would say no. So, I'm not going to ask.

 

[Cemetery-man]

I have a feeling my priests at my church would say no. So, I'm not going to ask.

What he doesn't know won't hurt him, as long as it's legal carry. If the need ever arises to use your handgun, I'm sure the priest will be glad you had it.

 

[lovemachine]

What he doesn't know won't hurt him, as long as it's legal carry. If the need ever arises to use your handgun, I'm sure the priest will be glad you had it.

There's an elementary school across the parking lot. It wouldn't be legal.

 

[chipbennett]

I would probably say that I stand closer to the side of the bolded text than I do the other way but that's just my personal view. I cannot attest to those living in much bigger cities but the rural area that I am in just doesn't warrant carrying it around all day. I'm aware i'm not exempt from anything.

Yeah, if you're of the general opinion that it's not appropriate to carry in public at all, then we're definitely at an impasse.

You should read some of John Lott's research and statistical analysis.

 

[looney2ns]

Being in a rural area statistically does not make you much more safe then in a thriving metro.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Yeah, if you're of the general opinion that it's not appropriate to carry in public at all, then we're definitely at an impasse.

You should read some of John Lott's research and statistical analysis.

Definitely an impasse.

I do want to clarify that I don't hold any negative feelings to those who do. I'm just in that mindset of hoping they have taken the time to learn their weapon and train with it under stressful situations. To me, all guns deserve that kind of training because of the kind power they can yield. And if they haven't, then I don't really find it appropriate for them to be carrying it around all the time, it's more than likely going to end badly than it is good for someone with no training.

Being in a rural area statistically does not make you much more safe then in a thriving metro.

I was surprised to read that but because it's based on per capita, it makes sense!

 

[chipbennett]

Definitely an impasse.

I do want to clarify that I don't hold any negative feelings to those who do. I'm just in that mindset of hoping they have taken the time to learn their weapon and train with it under stressful situations. To me, all guns deserve that kind of training because of the kind power they can yield. And if they haven't, then I don't really find it appropriate for them to be carrying it around all the time, it's more than likely going to end badly than it is good for someone with no training.

Spoken straight out of the MDA playbook, and proven wrong over and over and over. The number of defensive gun uses annually is anywhere from several hundred thousand to over two million, depending on which estimate you believe. Even the more conservative number dwarfs the number of injuries due to accidental/negligent discharge.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Spoken straight out of the MDA playbook, and proven wrong over and over and over. The number of defensive gun uses annually is anywhere from several hundred thousand to over two million, depending on which estimate you believe. Even the more conservative number dwarfs the number of injuries due to accidental/negligent discharge.

You believe that someone that buys a gun and goes through absolutely no training poses no danger to others the moment he decides to use it?

 

[BE Mike]

You believe that someone that buys a gun and goes through absolutely no training poses no danger to others the moment he decides to use it?

Unless you just want to build your post count, you might want to get educated on some statistics before you make assumptions. I hope this helps: http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf

 

[MCgrease08]

Definitely an impasse.

I do want to clarify that I don't hold any negative feelings to those who do. I'm just in that mindset of hoping they have taken the time to learn their weapon and train with it under stressful situations. To me, all guns deserve that kind of training because of the kind power they can yield. And if they haven't, then I don't really find it appropriate for them to be carrying it around all the time, it's more than likely going to end badly than it is good for someone with no training.

Welcome to the forum. I do hope you're here with honest intentions and an open mind.

I will warn you that you're not going to find many here that agree with that stance, so if you are here to simply troll with anti-gun talking points, you probably won't gain much traction.

Hopefully that's not the case. If not, we'll eventually help you see the light.

 

[pudly]

You believe that someone that buys a gun and goes through absolutely no training poses no danger to others the moment he decides to use it?

At the moment, there are five states that have Constitutional Carry (and a sixth coming soon) which do not require any form of licensing or training to own and use firearms. Their experience indicates that although training is certainly desirable, criminal statutes against committing crimes with guns and civil suits against various forms of negligence keep your concern primarily theoretical.

You might also want to consider reading some from the following link to help debunk the gun-related lies that the mainstream media has convinced you are true over the years. The info contained there contains thousands of references to studies, government statististics, and other sources to debunk the lies. It is not based on emotion or theory.

Gun Facts - Debunking Gun Control Myths

 

[chipbennett]

You believe that someone that buys a gun and goes through absolutely no training poses no danger to others the moment he decides to use it?

First of all: you're arguing a straw man. Where are the hordes of people purchasing firearms and not getting any sort of training whatsoever?

Second: the amount of training required for safe handling of firearms requires nothing more than five minutes and 4 rules - which even showing up at a gun range is going to cover.

Third: statistics prove that no such danger is observable. There is no blood running in the streets from untrained rubes handling firearms. In fact, as new-firearm ownership skyrockets, injury due to negligent firearm discharge continues to decline, in number and rate.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Unless you just want to build your post count, you might want to get educated on some statistics before you make assumptions. I hope this helps: http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf

I appreciate the link but I belong to the NSSF and have seen the statistics.

Look, I'm not here to build my post count (isn't everyone doing that by responding?) and i'm not an anti-gunner as all of my posts have pretty much posted that. I haven't taken personal shots and I haven't gotten defensive. All I really said was, that in my personal view, there are appropriate and inappropriate times and just asked why those might disagree with that.

I think the fact that my join date is pretty new and that my personal beliefs don't marry up with the majority here, that some may have gone into defense mode. I assure you I'm not here to upset anyone.

Thanks for the majority of you who see I was just having a discussion!

EDIT: Since I can't PM until 50 posts I just wanted to tell chip,pudly,MCgrease and the rest who kept it civil and realized I'm not here spreading any anti-gun propoganda, thank you for the discussion but it's apparent that i'm giving off the wrong first impression.

 

[blue2golf]

I pocket carry my Ruger LC9 in an Uncle Mike's #3 pocket holster at Mass just like I legally do everywhere else I go, particularly when I serve as Usher. One of my potential duties is to deal with disruptive people and "protect the flock" so to speak. Pulling the gun would be an extreme last resort, of course, but I'm not going to the hospital from a knife slash, gun shot or skull fracture, etc...just because some parishioners may get offended by my gun at church.