Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
How often are people checked on their ability to carry or own a gun?
I ve read many threads about guns but I don’t think I ever read about this particular question,
I am a foreigner btw
 
graciew said:
Isn’t it heavy for you to carry around all day ?
Well…I mean I am done already with all I carry in my handbag…can’t imagine adding a gun.And finding it!
Click to expand...
One, I don’t carry a large purse, nor is it loaded down with a ton of stuff.

Two, I don’t carry in my purse. 😁

Three, my fully loaded weapon weighs about a pound.
 
Thanks.I didn’t know.
Edited: now I remember that there isn t a registry so yes, there can t be a renewal exam or sth…
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
Sorry if it was confusing. By saying, “responsible people don’t do that,” you’re implying that the gun carriers are in that category of responsible people —this dismissing @TheLittleLady’s concern.

I’m saying it’s a big assumption to think they are all responsible people and that her concerns are not unwarranted.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see.

The vast majority of people are responsible enough to not get violently reactive to loud noises. Gun owners in the US are no exception.
 
I don’t want to get into that one about HR honestly. I had forgotten there wasn’t a registry .
I just travel periodically there now.
Thanks for the answer
 
Last edited:
When you purchase a weapkn, you have to fill out paperwork.

After that, there are circumstances that could have your weapon removed from your custody. For example,if you are charged with a crime.
 
Those who openly carry become priority targets. If an attacker were to decide to shoot people at a gathering where guns were prohibited to all but law enforcement, the obvious first target is any present LEO. After that it’s open season.

However if concealed carry is allowed in the venue then the attacker has no idea who to shoot or how much armed resistance he’s likely to meet. Thus it’s considered a deterrent to an attacker.

Though I have no statistic, it does seem most of these incidents take place where guns are prohibited except to law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
This kind of comment makes me shake my head. It’s obvious that you haven’t bothered to undertake the most basic study so that you might know what it is you’re talkng about.
Click to expand...
Spare us the condescension. I asked you whether the judges had failed to agree because u did not know and you seemed likely to know. :roll_eyes:
 
Rau said:
Spare us the condescension. I asked you whether the judges had failed to agree because u did not know…
Click to expand...
I did know, because I had bothered to actually read the relevant documents. You didn’t, because you hadn’t. If you don’t like to be reminded of your obligation to know what you’re talking about before spouting hyperbolic rubbish about “anti-missile shields” or an imagined claim to the “right to possess whatever weapon I deem appropriate”, then there’s a simple solution to that.
Rau said:
Further, I contend that a policy of providing for widespread and easy availability of guns does more harm than good
Click to expand...
Although what is commonly reported of the relevant data would have you believe that that’s true, the data itself says the exact opposite. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens = less crime.


However, this has gotten far afield of what seems to me to be the core question, which is “does a Bishop have the legitimate authority to bar the faithful from participating in the sacramental life of the Church unless they give up a natural right?”
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
However, this has gotten far afield of what seems to me to be the core question, which is “does a Bishop have the legitimate authority to bar the faithful from participating in the sacramental life of the Church unless they give up a natural right?”
Click to expand...
The premise is faulty. Self defence is a natural right. Arming oneself with one’s weapons of choice in church - in case something might happen - is not.
 
Last edited:
Well, say one doesn’t take the gun into surgery for example…and we don’t blame the hospital unreasonable.
There are things not allowed in certain places. Sounds reasonable to set a limit if necessary.
For example for certain ministries, one cannot carry almost anything , no cel phone, no purse, almost nothing. And we accept it.
The Court House,we are screened also…
I mean , one has a right but also a duty towards other people in different places, respecting set boundaries.
Sounds reasonable to expect certain limits , neophyte. And not only about guns, and not only in US.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
which is “does a Bishop have the legitimate authority to bar the faithful from participating in the sacramental life of the Church unless they give up a natural right?”
Click to expand...
While defense is a natural right, the possession of a specific weapon is not. The bishop is not depriving anyone of a natural right by disallowing guns on church property.
 
Rau said:
But wide and easy availability of guns in US society might not be having that effect.
Click to expand...
Again, I suggest that you study the data, which overwhelmingly shows that it is. More guns in thr hands of law-abiding citizens = less crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top