Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said “I don’t think that the answer to this problem is solved by having our synagogues, mosques, and churches filled with armed guards.”
Now, armed congregants…
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said “I don’t think that the answer to this problem is solved by having our synagogues, mosques, and churches filled with armed guards.”
Now, armed congregants…
Having carried for years in the past I know that responsible people who are armed within a crowd, who otherwise are unknown to an assailant, can be the greatest deterrent to an event such as what happened in Pittsburgh Saturday. If any individual who is contemplating a violent act upon an unsuspecting congregation knew that it was highly likely that some people present are in fact, ARMED, they would be less inclined to conduct their attack
What the public, the left mostly, does not understand is that a person carrying a sidearm is the same as anyone else in a crowd. In fact, the crowd is safer for their being there. Responsible armed citizens are a tacit bulwark against acts of violence. The people on the left who are against the legal carry of firearms are around people who do so all the time and yet, they have no idea that they are around these people. They suffer no risk in these situations and actually benefit from the implied safety that having a armed individual provides by their presence.
The left considers any firearm dangerous even the ones held by law enforcement and private citizens. This exaggeration defies logic. In almost all cases, it is some deranged lunatic who is more likely to be aligned with the left’s agenda who shoots at a crowd of innocent and unsuspecting people.
If the media stopped aggrandizing every mass shooting in an effort to exploit the deaths of innocents for their political agenda, I believe most of these events would stop happening. I am quite convinced that the promise of notoriety that these events garner for the shooter is the motivating factor for many of them.
I’ve been thinking about this the past few days…
I wonder if churches and synagogues could develop a program to train interested, trusted, congregants in defensive firearm use and maintain a small arsenal on-site.
I’m not sure the legalities – I am sure it would vary from state-to-state. But the armed congregant would, possibly, not need a carry permit. They would not have to transport a weapon. When they arrive for services they go to a common safe or individual locker and get out the weapon – put it back before going home.
I’m sure there would be insurance/liability hassles but many congregations would be up for the challenge.
Just making known the fact that your congregation had such a program would be a powerful deterrent.
They might be able to, but it will be a tough fight against all the forces arrayed against people being trained with firearms, much less having access to them.
Certainly having congregants who are independently armed and with CC permits (if required) is the simplest solution. But some states/cities make it very difficult.The advantage of having an on-site armory is that the firearms never leave private property. Some states will try to insert themselves anyway but it would be more difficult to uphold any restraints in court. Also – politicians would think twice about trying to block religious groups attempting to defend themselves.
I have to wonder what regulations exist for shooting ranges. They probably store guns there and you can bet dollars to donuts there will be calls to regulate and zone any place of worship in the same fashion.
Pingback: Promoted Comment: Pittsburgh and Concealed Carry – IMAO