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

[MCgrease08]

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.

I don't think you're giving the wrong impression. You are clearly are well spoken and have put thought into your posts and opinions. I think most everyone here will respect that. I know I do.

The one thing I love about this forum is that no matter how much members may disagree, for the most part discussion are kept civil and respectful.

In the past there have been some that clearly joined to try and tick people of and get a reaction. I think part of it is them hoping someone will say something disrespectful so they can say, "see look how crazy those gun nuts are."

Most members here don't take the bait, because they are truly good people.

Back on topic, you'll be hard pressed to find people here who think training is a bad idea, or haven't sought it out on there own. But few think it should be mandatory or a prerequisite for self-defense.

As for the frequency of carrying a gun, it's not the odds, it's the stakes. I carry everywhere I legally can. All the time. Because I just can't predict when or where I might need to protect myself or family.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I don't think you're giving the wrong impression. You are clearly are well spoken and have put thought into your posts and opinions. I think most everyone here will respect that. I know I do.

The one thing I love about this forum is that no matter how much members may disagree, for the most part discussion are kept civil and respectful.

Exactly this. You'll find some wildly varying views (especially with respect to politics and religion), but people are at Indiana Gun Owners forum because we all share a concern for our second amendment-protected rights, and for law-abiding people being able to defend themselves. Discourse tends to be pretty civil.

Back on topic, you'll be hard pressed to find people here who think training is a bad idea, or haven't sought it out on there own. But few think it should be mandatory or a prerequisite for self-defense.

As for the frequency of carrying a gun, it's not the odds, it's the stakes. I carry everywhere I legally can. All the time. Because I just can't predict when or where I might need to protect myself or family.

Indeed. I've have been a staunch supporter of second amendment-protected rights my entire life, but I never started carrying until I had children. Something "clicked" for me when I became a parent, when self-defense wasn't simply a matter of impact to my own life. Even though I know where I'm going after this life, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure my girls don't grow up without a father.

 

[looney2ns]

Just like you can not predict when you will trip over a crack in a sidewalk and break an arm, you can't predict when you may need a gun.

 

[jbmayes2000]

I appreciate the understanding guys!

I guess the reality is, specifically to this case, I think to myself, is it appropriate for this person to be carrying? Is this a one time lapse in judgement or has something like this been following this guy around because he hasn't had the proper safety training or training in general to understand the dos and do nots of carrying a handgun?

And THAT'S where my underlying argument for training comes out. We train (hardly) to drive a vehicle, we train to be better at work..I understand anyone can use a hammer but a good carpenter i'm sure has put in the time on how to use one much more efficiently than me. So why when it comes to guns would people not be an advocate for training? And yes, I don't think there is actually a statistic that shows how many gun owners take training so this gets very much in to hypothetical but some people won't even tender the option..

 

[printcraft]

And now a reading from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and DUCK!

 

[JettaKnight]

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?

You should probably carry a fire extinguisher too.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I appreciate the understanding guys!

I guess the reality is, specifically to this case, I think to myself, is it appropriate for this person to be carrying? Is this a one time lapse in judgement or has something like this been following this guy around because he hasn't had the proper safety training or training in general to understand the dos and do nots of carrying a handgun?

And THAT'S where my underlying argument for training comes out. We train (hardly) to drive a vehicle, we train to be better at work..I understand anyone can use a hammer but a good carpenter i'm sure has put in the time on how to use one much more efficiently than me. So why when it comes to guns would people not be an advocate for training? And yes, I don't think there is actually a statistic that shows how many gun owners take training so this gets very much in to hypothetical but some people won't even tender the option..

I'd be interested in any statistics one would have on AD/ND incidents in states that have Constitutional Carry vs states that grant permission. I don't think there would be any correlation, but hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[chipbennett]

I appreciate the understanding guys!

I guess the reality is, specifically to this case, I think to myself, is it appropriate for this person to be carrying? Is this a one time lapse in judgement or has something like this been following this guy around because he hasn't had the proper safety training or training in general to understand the dos and do nots of carrying a handgun?

And THAT'S where my underlying argument for training comes out. We train (hardly) to drive a vehicle, we train to be better at work..I understand anyone can use a hammer but a good carpenter i'm sure has put in the time on how to use one much more efficiently than me. So why when it comes to guns would people not be an advocate for training? And yes, I don't think there is actually a statistic that shows how many gun owners take training so this gets very much in to hypothetical but some people won't even tender the option..

I don't think you'll find many people - if any at all - at INGO who would not agree that training is beneficial. The disconnect is tying a requirement for training to the exercise of a natural right - or for judging the appropriateness of the exercise of a natural right on training. It would be akin to saying, "It's not appropriate for him to be voting; he hasn't studied the issues," or, "It's not appropriate for him to be blogging; he hasn't been trained in journalism."

In a free society, we should focus less on the prerequisites to exercising natural rights, and focus more on holding people accountable for the manner in which they use - or misuse - those rights.

 

[jbmayes2000]

I don't think you'll find many people - if any at all - at INGO who would not agree that training is beneficial. The disconnect is tying a requirement for training to the exercise of a natural right - or for judging the appropriateness of the exercise of a natural right on training. It would be akin to saying, "It's not appropriate for him to be voting; he hasn't studied the issues," or, "It's not appropriate for him to be blogging; he hasn't been trained in journalism."

In a free society, we should focus less on the prerequisites to exercising natural rights, and focus more on holding people accountable for the manner in which they use - or misuse - those rights.

Great points. I would argue that collective misinformed votes actually has way more potential for bad than anything else but on a physical level you couldn't potentially kill someone with a vote or a blog. I won't go so far as to say it needs to be a requirement (although I really do think one could make good arguments for it) but I'd love to see it encouraged more.

I'm not saying I've done a survey but just in general talks with people who are uncomfortable with people carrying, I'll ask them if they have a problem with a police officer or an ex military person carrying and it's usually a "not really". I truthfully think that if people trained more and the community was made more aware of what kind of training their fellow citizens are getting that tensions between the two worlds would ease amongst those that sort of sit on the fence with this issue (which i think is really the majority of people but the only news coverage is usually only on one extreme or both). And i'm aware that some people take the approach that "It's a law, they can get over it" but I don't see the harm in trying anything that could help (that isn't infringing on the actually 2nd amendment).

 

[pudly]

I guess the reality is, specifically to this case, I think to myself, is it appropriate for this person to be carrying? Is this a one time lapse in judgement or has something like this been following this guy around because he hasn't had the proper safety training or training in general to understand the dos and do nots of carrying a handgun?

And THAT'S where my underlying argument for training comes out. We train (hardly) to drive a vehicle, we train to be better at work..I understand anyone can use a hammer but a good carpenter i'm sure has put in the time on how to use one much more efficiently than me. So why when it comes to guns would people not be an advocate for training? And yes, I don't think there is actually a statistic that shows how many gun owners take training so this gets very much in to hypothetical but some people won't even tender the option..

Firearms training takes many forms.

• Informal training with friends/family.
• Paid formal training
• Military/police training.
• Online/video training.

Each of these have plusses and minuses. Many of us have used multiple forms of training. Responsible gun owners want to understand how to use their firearms appropriately, effectively and safely. Please don't say that people here aren't advocates for training. That statement is simply false. They just aren't advocates for requiring training.

That said, self-defense using firearms is a natural and constitutionally-protected right, not a privilege. Requiring formal training means that you will push the cost of firearms ownership up and making it more onerous on the poor who frequently are the most in need of the tools of self-defense. If you want to require training, how do you intend to insure that everyone can get it? Should it be required in school or if the person is beyond school years, should it be offered without charge to the public? Please be aware that those states that are most anti-gun frequently have the most onerous/expensive training requirements. That is not a coincidence as it reduces peoples ability to exercise their right. When pushing for training, be sure to offer a solution for how to pay for it.

 

[chipbennett]

Great points. I would argue that collective misinformed votes actually has way more potential for bad than anything else but on a physical level you couldn't potentially kill someone with a vote or a blog. I won't go so far as to say it needs to be a requirement (although I really do think one could make good arguments for it) but I'd love to see it encouraged more.

I am fundamentally opposed to requiring training for the exercise of a natural right - especially a right that is constitutionally protected against any government infringement.

I'm not saying I've done a survey but just in general talks with people who are uncomfortable with people carrying, I'll ask them if they have a problem with a police officer or an ex military person carrying and it's usually a "not really". I truthfully think that if people trained more and the community was made more aware of what kind of training their fellow citizens are getting that tensions between the two worlds would ease amongst those that sort of sit on the fence with this issue (which i think is really the majority of people but the only news coverage is usually only on one extreme or both). And i'm aware that some people take the approach that "It's a law, they can get over it" but I don't see the harm in trying anything that could help (that isn't infringing on the actually 2nd amendment).

Perception is not reality. Non-LEO civilians commit far fewer crimes than LEO, and are as safe as - if not safer than - LEO with handling of firearms.

I also don't see how a "majority" of people could even possibly be sitting on the fence. There are (approximately) 240 million adults in the US, of which, 100 million are law-abiding gun owners. That's about 40% of the adult population that are law-abiding gun owners. 40-50% of US households have guns. That gives a clear plurality of adults who are actively exercising their second amendment-protected rights - and doesn't include those who support those rights, but who do not actively exercise them.

 

[pudly]

Perception is not reality. Non-LEO civilians commit far fewer crimes than LEO, and are as safe as - if not safer than - LEO with handling of firearms.

Correction- Licensed firearm owners have a lower crime rate than LEOs. Otherwise, you are spot on.

 

[chipbennett]

Correction- Licensed firearm owners have a lower crime rate than LEOs. Otherwise, you are spot on.

I think that, as you've stated it, we have ample statistical evidence to support the claim. I *believe* that the increase in Constitutional Carry states will bear out the same statistical evidence, once it's available.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Firearms training takes many forms.

• Informal training with friends/family.
• Paid formal training
• Military/police training.
• Online/video training.

Each of these have plusses and minuses. Many of us have used multiple forms of training. Responsible gun owners want to understand how to use their firearms appropriately, effectively and safely. Please don't say that people here aren't advocates for training. That statement is simply false. They just aren't advocates for requiring training.

I apologize. I think I may have over generalized!

That said, self-defense using firearms is a natural and constitutionally-protected right, not a privilege. Requiring formal training means that you will push the cost of firearms ownership up and making it more onerous on the poor who frequently are the most in need of the tools of self-defense. If you want to require training, how do you intend to insure that everyone can get it? Should it be required in school or if the person is beyond school years, should it be offered without charge to the public? Please be aware that those states that are most anti-gun frequently have the most onerous/expensive training requirements. That is not a coincidence as it reduces peoples ability to exercise their right. When pushing for training, be sure to offer a solution for how to pay for it.

I think these are a lot of the right questions that could be discussed but I think Congress and law makers aren't nearly at this point of conversation. Which is unfortunate because if two strangers can have this conversation on a forum; how do people that are paid to discuss these issues never come close to this?

I am fundamentally opposed to requiring training for the exercise of a natural right - especially a right that is constitutionally protected against any government infringement.

Perception is not reality. Non-LEO civilians commit far fewer crimes than LEO, and are as safe as - if not safer than - LEO with handling of firearms.

I also don't see how a "majority" of people could even possibly be sitting on the fence. There are (approximately) 240 million adults in the US, of which, 100 million are law-abiding gun owners. That's about 40% of the adult population that are law-abiding gun owners. 40-50% of US households have guns. That gives a clear plurality of adults who are actively exercising their second amendment-protected rights - and doesn't include those who support those rights, but who do not actively exercise them.

Maybe they aren't sitting on the fence but surely there is a group of gun owners and non gun owners that aren't taking a super strong stance either way.

Speaking to the perception is not reality, I whole-heartedly agree that perceptions are not reality. But there is also a reality that people's perception of things are what can end up making policies, whether it's the reality or not. So saying that, are you ever concerned that the perception of the second amendment could get such a bad rap(whether or not it truly deserved it) that regardless of the stats, a policy could be put in place to change it? I say that because it is in fact only an amendment and it, like other amendments, can be altered.

 

[Redhorse]

It's people like that that really make us look bad. The vast majority of us are safe...then there's this guy.

 

[chipbennett]

Speaking to the perception is not reality, I whole-heartedly agree that perceptions are not reality. But there is also a reality that people's perception of things are what can end up making policies, whether it's the reality or not. So saying that, are you ever concerned that the perception of the second amendment could get such a bad rap(whether or not it truly deserved it) that regardless of the stats, a policy could be put in place to change it? I say that because it is in fact only an amendment and it, like other amendments, can be altered.

Oh, certainly. Consider that the right to bear arms was all but completely infringed for the better part of the 20th century. But as for a constitutional amendment? I'm reasonably confident that would be a non-starter. The NRA is the single, largest grass-roots organization in the country, with 5 million dues-paying members. Not only is that a lot of political clout on the Hill, but also, it represents a far larger voting bloc.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, of course; but I do think that the "perception" of those who actively exercise their second amendment-protected rights is overblown.

 

[JettaKnight]

I am fundamentally opposed to requiring training for the exercise of a natural right - especially a right that is constitutionally protected against any government infringement.

Indeed.

I'm in favor of it being part of school. Replace square dancing or something. Put it on the ISTEP test.

 

[GIJEW]

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.



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.



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.

Your position on calculating the odds in order to determine if it's appropriate to be armed, sounds like a bureaucrat or politician wanting to know why we NEED our rights. If the odds were high, many of us here would be thinking about carrying a shotgun or rifle with the handgun as backup. Like others have said, having a fire extinguisher, smoke detectors, or using one's seatbelt, is because the possibility exists and we have a right and responsibility to address that. Calculating the odds is fine, but it's not the standard of appropriateness.

 

[jbmayes2000]

Your position on calculating the odds in order to determine if it's appropriate to be armed, sounds like a bureaucrat or politician wanting to know why we NEED our rights. If the odds were high, many of us here would be thinking about carrying a shotgun or rifle with the handgun as backup. Like others have said, having a fire extinguisher, smoke detectors, or using one's seatbelt, is because the possibility exists and we have a right and responsibility to address that. Calculating the odds is fine, but it's not the standard of appropriateness.

I have a hard time lumping a handgun in with a smoker detector as it's sole purpose is to send an alarm out warning you of a fire and the other, when used, is most likely going to kill someone.

But I think most people follow your line of thinking in that the odds don't matter, as long as there is risk, it's getting carried. Which is hard for me to really come up with a counterpoint because how people weigh their odds of staying alive by carrying is subjective. Calculating odds of risk is appropriate anywhere, it's just how strongly you view correlation is where you get different standards of appropriateness.

 

[jamil]

I have a hard time lumping a handgun in with a smoker detector as it's sole purpose is to send an alarm out warning you of a fire and the other, when used, is most likely going to kill someone.

But I think most people follow your line of thinking in that the odds don't matter, as long as there is risk, it's getting carried. Which is hard for me to really come up with a counterpoint because how people weigh their odds of staying alive by carrying is subjective. Calculating odds of risk is appropriate anywhere, it's just how strongly you view correlation is where you get different standards of appropriateness.

Odds and risks are up to the individual to evaluate. It is wise to think about and account for such things. Certainly laws limiting a constitutional right should never be determined by statistics.