# Defending oneself (or others) in a holy place



## Carol (Nov 14, 2008)

Recently I heard of a community of faith that was crushed by the loss of its generally well-regarded young leader, who moved on to take a position in another state.The community is now looking for the right person to be its new leader.  The search process has not been going all that well...and one of the last group discussions about the future of the community resulted in heated tempers and two people practically coming to blows. 

So...a question I'd like to throw out to everyone, regardless of style or ability...

What if you were some place where a fight is breaking out...or about to break out.  And, due to the circumstances...you really really do not want to hurt the people involved.  Maybe you are at a house of worship of your own, or maybe you are at a family gathering that goes sour.  

How would you approach defending yourself (or someone else) against someone that you really don't want to hurt?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Nov 14, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Recently I heard of a community of faith that was crushed by the loss of its generally well-regarded young leader, who moved on to take a position in another state.The community is now looking for the right person to be its new leader.  The search process has not been going all that well...and one of the last group discussions about the future of the community resulted in heated tempers and two people practically coming to blows.
> 
> So...a question I'd like to throw out to everyone, regardless of style or ability...
> 
> ...


very good topic. 

That is a hard decision that would need to be made. There are ways to subdue someone with little or no physical harm ie: chokes, hold, etc...

If it came down to having to defend them and hurt them thats a decision or action I believe no one wants to ever have, but what its one of those things that is a double-edged sword. If by hurt one of the people keeps them from hashing it out and hurting more than each other than thats what I would do.

B


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Nov 14, 2008)

That's what I use judo and jujutsu for. Not everything requires an injurious or fatal response. Pull the guy to the floor and sit on him until he decides to calm down.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 14, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> That's what I use judo and jujutsu for. Not everything requires an injurious or fatal response. Pull the guy to the floor and sit on him until he decides to calm down.


 
Beat me to it.

The example I use in class when we train for this is called (to my son's consternation) "Drunk Uncle John," that guy you really don't want to hurt, but might just have to try to subdue-and that's how we train it: an _attempt_ to subdue, becuse, naturally, if anyone's going to get hurt, it shouldn't be you.


----------



## Drac (Nov 14, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> That's what I use judo and jujutsu for. Not everything requires an injurious or fatal response. Pull the guy to the floor and sit on him until he decides to calm down.


 


elder999 said:


> Beat me to it.
> 
> The example I use in class when we train for this is called (to my son's consternation) "Drunk Uncle John," that guy you really don't want to hurt, but might just have to try to subdue-and that's how we train it: an _attempt_ to subdue, becuse, naturally, if anyone's going to get hurt, it shouldn't be you.


 

Great answers..Well said guys...


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 14, 2008)

Let me address this a little differently.  I generally carry a firearm.  Including to church.  And I know the places in the church that provide cover versus concealment.  I've planned how I'd respond in the event of someone posing a threat to the congretation during Mass, up to and including lethal force.

There have very simply been too many attacks in churches to consider them safe havens.  And that's before we get into some of the places of worship that are likely to be targets, like Islamic mosques.

If two members of a congregation or other group are having such a heated discussion that it's about to come to blows -- my first step is to try to separate them, and move them outside the meeting area.  Ideally peaceably (the stunt used by Patrick Swayze's character Dalton in *Roadhouse* is great; "let's go outside!" then don't follow as they leave) -- but if not, with force.  Often, all it takes is grabbing an arm, and leadng one of the parties to the door.  

One note:  if it's come to violence, don't go halfway.  I've known more people to get their noses broken or worse trying to break up a fight...  If you're going in -- you're IN IT.


----------



## Drac (Nov 14, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Let me address this a little differently. I generally carry a firearm. Including to church. And I know the places in the church that provide cover versus concealment. I've planned how I'd respond in the event of someone posing a threat to the congretation during Mass, up to and including lethal force.
> 
> There have very simply been too many attacks in churches to consider them safe havens. And that's before we get into some of the places of worship that are likely to be targets, like Islamic mosques.


 
I know a couple of coppers up here that do the same thing or the same reasons.



jks9199 said:


> If two members of a congregation or other group are having such a heated discussion that it's about to come to blows -- my first step is to try to separate them, and move them outside the meeting area. Ideally peaceably (the stunt used by Patrick Swayze's character Dalton in *Roadhouse* is great; "let's go outside!" then don't follow as they leave) -- but if not, with force. Often, all it takes is grabbing an arm, and leadng one of the parties to the door.
> 
> One note: if it's come to violence, don't go halfway. I've known more people to get their noses broken or worse trying to break up a fight... If you're going in -- you're IN IT.


 
I've seen that happen many times to people trying to be the peacemaker..


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 14, 2008)

Not being in that situation with all the other variables that can pop up around something like this I can honestly say I do not know. 

I would like to believe that I would do my best to disengage if things were getting to heated to avoid it all together based on the given places this is happening.

Or I would like to believe that I would use taiji (the yields and blend thing) to avoid as much injury as possible and hopefully tire them out. 

But to be honest I really do not know since I am not in that situation.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Nov 14, 2008)

I have been in situations like this before.

I personally use blending,body alignment,Chokes,takedown and holding type moves.

Any art that has holding technqiues are ideal in this situation.

Even a simple clinch and maybe a knee strike might be enough to end the confrontation. The less force the better but when it comes to self defense You got to do what you got to do.


----------



## Nolerama (Nov 14, 2008)

Word-jitsu is the greatest defense (for me) in those situations... But like previous posters, if the situation became violent, I'd have to seek a dominant position.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 14, 2008)

I am sorry but if the need to defend myslef comes up I will do so in the most effective way I can under the circumstances. I really do not care where I am I will protect myslef and my family.  If others do not like it they can be victums if they choose


----------



## allenjp (Nov 14, 2008)

Double leg takedown, kesa gatame.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 14, 2008)

For me it's going to depend on who's involved. If it's two other congregants I'll usually enlist the aid of another person BEFORE the fight to diffuse the situation. If they're already fighting, I'll just let them duke it out, then offer them both martial arts lessons at the end.

If it's another congregant and ME, well, "A gentle answer turneth away wrath." If I can't diffuse the situation verbally (and let's be honest, that will be 99% of the time) then I'll get them into a situation where they can't move and have to think, then calm them down.



But if it's some random person coming into the Church with a weapon, and intentand I'm in a position to do something... one or both of us are already in a good place for a funeral anyway.



Honestly, this is speculative. I've never had to fight in church, nor have I ever had to break up a fight in church. The third situation HAS happened in the not-too-distant past, but never _to me_ or my congregation. There's no way I can say for sure, and I hope to God I'm never in a position to have to make such a decision.


----------



## grydth (Nov 14, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> I am sorry but if the need to defend myslef comes up I will do so in the most effective way I can under the circumstances. I really do not care where I am I will protect myslef and my family.  If others do not like it they can be victums if they choose



I have to agree... when others choose to disgrace a holy place by turning a 'religious' turf war into a fist fight, they won't get any extra slack or chances to hurt my family. I am not thinking this group, or the battling monks of Jerusalem in another recent thread, have much to offer in the spiritual guidance department.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 14, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> What if you were some place where a fight is breaking out...or about to break out. And, due to the circumstances...you really really do not want to hurt the people involved. Maybe you are at a house of worship of your own, or maybe you are at a family gathering that goes sour.
> 
> How would you approach defending yourself (or someone else) against someone that you really don't want to hurt?


 
I'd give the same response. Of course I tend to behave myself in church and expect everyone to be that way, but I'd treat it no different. As for not wanting to hurt the other person, in or out of church I do not wish to hurt anyone. If I need to use force, I'll use it, but it's not something I seek out, inside or outside the church.

Deaf


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Recently I heard of a community of faith that was crushed by the loss of its generally well-regarded young leader, who moved on to take a position in another state.The community is now looking for the right person to be its new leader. The search process has not been going all that well...and one of the last group discussions about the future of the community resulted in heated tempers and two people practically coming to blows.
> 
> So...a question I'd like to throw out to everyone, regardless of style or ability...
> 
> ...


 

How would I defend myself. This all depends upon the situation.

I know holds and locks have been mentioned. But if the hold requires pain to make it compliant then it may not work, as I have seen people on drugs and so angry they just do not feel the pain until they come down. 

Yet, given that information I would do what I had to. If contact ot physical contact is required. I make it painful. There are ways to make it painful without breaking or permanently hurting them. This gets their attention. Once you have their attention, usually they no longer what to hurt someone else, but might one to hurt you. Even in reflex. So here I use control techniques to make sure they go where I want them to go, and convince them to not want to continue with there path.

I also verbally tell others to call for help if it is serious. Not hey someone call 911. I will say Joe, call 911 NOW! this gets one person broken from the crowd to  move and get help. If I have someone to back me up I can also give directions there as well. 


If it a situation for cover versus concelment as others have mentioned I try to protect myself first as if I am injured I have no chance to help others. But given that sometimes you might be the point person not by choice and if you can keep their attention it gives others the chance to get away or to safety. One (* only me *) is better than 10 or 20 being injured.


----------



## Kacey (Nov 15, 2008)

If the situation has not yet come to violence, and I am involved, then I find sitting quietly with my head down and doing nothing is often effective (works great at school on 7th graders, too) - often rubbing my temples or pinching the bridge of my nose like I have a headache (at school, I mean - using TKD on the middle school students is rather heavily forbidden).

Should the situation appear likely to escalate past verbal, and I am the only other person there, I would leave if at all possible.  If there are other people present, my reaction would be dependent on who, how many, who was involved, etc.  I can't really cover enough possibilities to give good parameters.

The thing is - this is my reaction regardless of location.


----------



## Carol (Nov 15, 2008)

What....the school won't let you do TKD on middle schoolers Kacey?   What is this world coming to?  :lol2:


----------



## Kacey (Nov 16, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> What....the school won't let you do TKD on middle schoolers Kacey?   What is this world coming to?  :lol2:



Yeah, I know... darned laws against corporal punishment... really sucks, doesn't it?  :idunno:


----------



## morph4me (Nov 16, 2008)

If I have to defend myself or others, it doesn't matter where I am. Location is only relevant inasmuch as it provides cover and concealment, limits movement, or offers weapons of opportunity.


----------



## SamT (Nov 16, 2008)

As my instructor taught me:

"Only go as far as you need to go to control the situation." Most of the time, just a joint lock is enough to get someone under control. Under more serious circumstances, dropping them to the ground tends to get them pulled back into reality.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2008)

I realize we're all martial artists, but doesn't anyone use discussion anymore?


----------



## Jdokan (Nov 17, 2008)

kill'em all & let GOD sort it out....


----------



## geezer (Nov 17, 2008)

Jdokan said:


> kill'em all & let GOD sort it out....


 
How incredibly appropriate for this thread. 

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." 

These words, roughly translated as "Kill them all. God will know his own" were attributed to the Legate of Pope Innocent III, Arnaud Amaury, also known as the "Butcher of Beziers". Charged with the task of  eliminating the Albigensian herecy in Occitan in 1209, (SE France) he cornered a few hundred suspects in the good Catholic city of Beziers. When the city-folk wouldn't or couldn't surrender the accused, he is said to have uttered these noble and inspiring words, ordering the murder of every man, woman and child in the town... a total population estimated at 20,000. A huge number took refuge in the city's cathedral where they were burned alive. The rest were hunted down like vermin and their bodies were playfully dragged through the streets behind horses. 

A great way to respect life in a holy place, eh? You got any other cute mottos? How about some good Nazi slogans? "Work will make you free". That was over the gate of Auschwitz, I believe.


----------



## nitflegal (Nov 17, 2008)

I guess I don't understand the distinction between a place of worship and anywhere else or through the use of minimum of technique.  I would think the goal of a martial artist is to use the minimum force necessary to halt the situation.  Assess the situation and threat potential of the participants, defuse the situation with words if possible while making sure that you and yours are protected, escalate to the minimum force needed to control the situation until safety is acheived, and respond as appropriate to changes in the situation/environment.  I don't care if it's a banger or uncle John, if I can defuse with words or minimal physical restraint, I will.  In the same vein, if the banger or Uncle John are trying to hurt/kill me or a loved one, they will end up hurt or killed.  The only differences will be the damage I'll allow myself to accept (not a big differnce there, honestly) and the regret I feel at the end.

I believe God would want me to protect the innocent, in His house more than anywhere else.

Matt


----------



## morph4me (Nov 17, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> I realize we're all martial artists, but doesn't anyone use discussion anymore?


 
Good point, I just assume that we're being asked about a situation where discussion is no longer an option.


----------



## KP. (Nov 20, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Let me address this a little differently.  I generally carry a firearm.  Including to church.  And I know the places in the church that provide cover versus concealment.  I've planned how I'd respond in the event of someone posing a threat to the congretation during Mass, up to and including lethal force.




I lived in a Catholic monastery for a few years after the first Gulf War. An amazingly large number of the monks were veterans, usually from the higher end of the training spectrum.

I can assure you that there wasn't one of them who would condone that answer. 

They would rather die than resort to violence against another person ever again.  The example and message of the many martyrs over the centuries, to them, is an example to emulate, not one to sacrifice for personal gain.

If a Church's message is peace and "turning the other cheek," and you enter that place with the willingness and intent to simply ignore that message, then frankly, you do not hold to that faith and do the community a disservice by remaining a member there.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 20, 2008)

KP. said:


> I lived in a Catholic monastery for a few years after the first Gulf War. An amazingly large number of the monks were veterans, usually from the higher end of the training spectrum.
> 
> I can assure you that there wasn't one of them who would condone that answer.
> 
> ...


 
As opposed to doing the community a service and becoming a victim along with those who can't or won't protect themselves? Martyrdom is not for everyone, and if that's called for by any church, temple or any other institution I wouldn't belong there anyway.


----------



## KP. (Nov 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> As opposed to doing the community a service . . .



jks9199  used the word "mass," so I assume he's Catholic. In the Catholic faith, the Bishop is the ultimate authority over the parishes within the diocese. 

Pretend you're in his shoes.

Now, go ask the Bishop if he wants you carry your weapon into his Church. 

When he tells you "No," are you going to continue to do so? Against the direct, expressed wishes of the person who has both spiritual and physical authority over the community and building? 

And he will tell you "No." 

Will you continue to insist you're performing a service by disobeying your spiritual elder?


----------



## morph4me (Nov 20, 2008)

KP. said:


> jks9199 used the word "mass," so I assume he's Catholic. In the Catholic faith, the Bishop is the ultimate authority over the parishes within the diocese.
> 
> Pretend you're in his shoes.
> 
> ...


 
jks9199 is a  LEO and in some jurisdictions LEO's are required to be armed, even when off duty, I can't speak for him but it may be a job requirement for him, is he supposed to stop going to mass or quit his job?

I don't ask anyone's permission to defend myself or my family, nor will I. The bishop may not be around to protect someone who needs it, and I wouldn't want to bother him with the spiritual matter of presiding at a funeral.  I wouldn't say disobeying a spirtual elder is performing a service any more than I would say  





> If a Church's message is peace and "turning the other cheek," and you enter that place with the willingness and intent to simply ignore that message, then frankly, you do not hold to that faith and do the community a disservice by remaining a member there.



We are all entitled to believe and worship as our heart dictates and our sensibilities allow, that's the only point that I was trying to make.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> jks9199 is a  LEO and in some jurisdictions LEO's are required to be armed, even when off duty, I can't speak for him but it may be a job requirement for him, is he supposed to stop going to mass or quit his job?
> 
> I don't ask anyone's permission to defend myself or my family, nor will I. The bishop may not be around to protect someone who needs it, and I wouldn't want to bother him with the spiritual matter of presiding at a funeral.  I wouldn't say disobeying a spirtual elder is performing a service any more than I would say
> 
> We are all entitled to believe and worship as our heart dictates and our sensibilities allow, that's the only point that I was trying to make.


I'm not required or urged by GOs to be armed where I attend church; I don't live in the jurisdiction that employs me.  I have attended Mass with uniformed officers; should they secure their weapon before Mass starts?

There is a vast difference between being prepared to take action (including having already developed more than one plan for how I can do so) and looking for an opportunity.  I hope and pray that I never fire my weapon outside of the range -- not even to put down a critter.  But I have been entrusted with the authority to carry a firearm and to act.  Were someone to enter the church intent on harming another, and I'm present, am I supposed to simply watch, and suggest that the victim "turn the other cheek?"  Or, perhaps, am I there because I have the ability to prevent that harm?  The Church and Scripture both recognize that there is a time and a place for defense of self or others (or why do you train in martial arts?  Should you be willing to submit to a beating and turn the other cheek?); even Christ himself forcibly threw the money lenders from the temple, right?  But note that I did not ever imply that my ONLY action would be to draw dawn and shoot someone.  Depending on the exact circumstances, that is ONE action I might take.  In slightly different circumstances, I may simply quietly dial 911, and update the dispatcher on what's happening.  In yet another -- I may do nothing at all, or I may simply tackle the person.  In the scenario posited by the original poster, I suppose I haven't been clear.  My first effort would be to try to calm the situation down, or get the most worked up people out of the room (whether it's a conference room or a chapel or other santuary is immaterial), and only if other alternatives didn't work would I resort to using force.  Even then, I would only use the minimum force necessary.

What this really is getting at is a fundamental difference in a cop's mindset from much of the public; it's the difference that Dave Grossman describes as being a "sheepdog."  Another way to think of it is a "what when" mentality; instead of saying "what if" something bad happens, cops learn to think "what do I do WHEN it happens".  It's our job to think about the bad things that can happen, and to be prepared for them.  We have to think about the unthinkable... because when it happens, it's our job to run towards it.  Just like sparring and kata are part of preparing to fight, thinking and planning is part of preparing for these sorts of situations.


----------



## KP. (Nov 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> jks9199 is a  LEO and in some jurisdictions LEO's are required to be armed, even when off duty, I can't speak for him but it may be a job requirement for him, is he supposed to stop going to mass or quit his job?



He may be in a position where he needs to determine whom he serves and what he believes.



> I don't ask anyone's permission to defend myself or my family, nor will I.



That's fine. But in a large number of cases, being contemptuous of one's spiritual elders and tradition, as well as possibly committing trespass by ignoring expressed wishes, is a good sign that a person isn't really a member of the community in the first place -- so why be there at all?




> The bishop may not be around to protect someone who needs it,



Perhaps extolling his flock to abandon violence and to live the faith they profess is being far more protective than endorsing violence.



> and I wouldn't want to bother him with the spiritual matter of presiding at a funeral.



And perhaps it would be his privilege to do so.



> We are all entitled to believe and worship as our heart dictates and our sensibilities allow, that's the only point that I was trying to make.



Certainly. But if one chooses to be a member of a spiritual community without any intent of living by the communities precepts, then one is precisely not worshiping as their heart dictates.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

This woman did a good job. She did *her* job, when a gunman showed up at the church where she was a security guard, and she shot him.

 If jks1999 carries a firearm into church, and no one knows except his family and God, then it's between him and God. Not him and what the _church_ says, not him and his bishop, and not him, his bishop and anyone else posting here-it's between him and God. 

While the answers of law-enforcement should be welcome here, they're obviously going to be different. Don't think that's what the OP meant, anyway.


----------



## KP. (Nov 20, 2008)

elder999 said:


> If jks1999 carries a firearm into church, and no one knows except his family and God, then it's between him and God. Not him and what the _church_ says, not him and his bishop, and not him, his bishop and anyone else posting here-it's between him and God.



In the Catholic church (and again I'm making an assumption based on jks1999's use of the work 'mass') it is very much between him and his Bishop in several ways.

The ecclesial office, headed by the Bishop, owns the property. If nothing else, it may well be an act of trespass.

Under canon law, to the extent that the Bishop deems his instruction to be a spiritual matter, it is the church member's duty to respond appropriately.

As a spiritual matter, Catholic theology does not allow for the faithful to merely ignore spiritual commands.

Now, in less formally codified religious structures, "between him and God" may well be true. Catholic theology however clearly makes the Bishop the arbiter of that relationship.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

KP. said:


> In the Catholic church (and again I'm making an assumption based on jks1999's use of the work 'mass')


 
Episcopalians, Greek and Russian Orthodox, and the Ethiopian Coptic Church also call the eucharist "mass."



KP. said:


> it is very much between him and his Bishop in several ways
> 
> 
> The ecclesial office, headed by the Bishop, owns the property. If nothing else, it may well be an act of trespass.


 
Not if they haven't said as much,haven't posted a sign, and _don't know that he's carrying._



KP. said:


> Under canon law, to the extent that the Bishop deems his instruction to be a spiritual matter, it is the church member's duty to respond appropriately.


 
Not if he hasn't received the instruction, and the bishop _doesn't know he's carrying_



KP. said:


> As a spiritual matter, Catholic theology does not allow for the faithful to merely ignore spiritual commands.


 
Not if he hasn't received that command, and the bishop _doesn't know he's carrying_



KP. said:


> Now, in less formally codified religious structures, "between him and God" may well be true. Catholic theology however clearly makes the Bishop the arbiter of that relationship.


 
Not if the bishop _doesn't know he's carrying_

Pretty certain there's nothing _specific_ in Catholic doctrine about carrying any weapon-including firearms-into church. Heck, swords have been carried into the churches since Constantine. :lfao:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 20, 2008)

That's kind of a trick question......

I don't want to hurt anybody. 

If I use self-defense it's because I feel threatened and the only consideration environment brings to the situation are things like: where's the nearest exit, is there anything nearby I can use as a weapon, and things like that that always apply. 

Other than that, place has little else to do with it. I'm going to do whatever is necessary to defend myself.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 20, 2008)

All I can say about the Catholic Church and packing heat is this. Here in Texas I know of no bishop nor priest to prohibit carrying in church. There is no 30.06 signs anywhere (which would be needed as the state law is kind of clear on this, even for churches as they have to give 'effective notice'.)

And even more, the bishop would find out real quick how fast donations would go down if they pulled such a stunt here.

And yes, I pack heat in church (and also yes, I'm Catholic and we do give quite a bit to the church in $$$.)

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2008)

geezer said:


> How incredibly appropriate for this thread.
> 
> "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
> 
> ...


 

The saying 'kill them all and let G-d sort them out' is actually a well known saying. it's not a saying made up by Jdokan who I imagine probably knows it's origins as do you and I. 

It's a saying well known among US military personnel who've been seen wearing Tshirts with the slogan on, surprising at least one British Army padre in Afghanistan. It's been heard alot in Iraq and Afghanistan when american soldiers have been involved in engagements. 

The quote is only attributed to Amaury, no sources at the time quote him as saying this. The first time the quote is attributed to him is decades later by the German Cistercian monk Cesar d'Heisterbach in his Dialogus Miraculorum.


----------



## KP. (Nov 20, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Not if the bishop _doesn't know he's carrying_



Not necessarily true. if the Bishop has issued any sort of formal pronouncement, letter, or sermon on the topic, then he has been told.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

KP. said:


> Not necessarily true. if the Bishop has issued any sort of formal pronouncement, letter, or sermon on the topic, then he has been told.


 

Yeah, but you said to _ask_ him, on some _assumption_ of what the bishop _might_ say.

Fact is, there is no formal doctrine in the Catholic church for bearing arms within church.

Fact also is, several diocese and other authorities are examining the utility of having armed people in church, in light of events like those I posted in Colorado Springs. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than few Catholic _priests_ weren't going armed, in light of some of the more sordid history of some of their membership-had a Catholic priest killed around this way, allegedly for something like that a few years back.....

Fact is, if he hasn't been told, and he hasn't asked, and he isn't telling, then it's _between him and God,_ like I said..


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2008)

You can't get people into church much here let alone with guns.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 20, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, but you said to _ask_ him, on some _assumption_ of what the bishop _might_ say.
> 
> Fact is, there is no formal doctrine in the Catholic church for bearing arms within church.
> 
> ...


Actually, I know one priest who DOES have a CCW.  Whether he carries during Mass -- or ever -- is his business, but I do know that he obtained a CCW.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 20, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, I know one priest who DOES have a CCW. Whether he carries during Mass -- or ever -- is his business, but I do know that he obtained a CCW.


 
I'm guessing he isn't the type to turn the other cheek.


----------



## Carol (Nov 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I'm guessing he isn't the type to turn the other cheek.



He may be fine with turning th other cheek, but may not be willing to do so with the heart, lungs or other vital organs


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I'm guessing he isn't the type to turn the other cheek.


 

Sure he is...._three times,_ maybe...but no more.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 21, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, I know one priest who DOES have a CCW. Whether he carries during Mass -- or ever -- is his business, but I do know that he obtained a CCW.


 I know of several ministers (various denominations) that have CCWs and are armed while they're delivering the sermon...

As to the original topic of the thread...

If I or someone who I feel the need to protect are threatened, I will use whatever level of force is necessary to neutralize the threat.  This could be anything from verbal tactics, to restraint/control techniques, to deadly force depending on the circumstances.

The degree/amount of damage that the assailant/bad-guy/whatever will suffer is going to depend on _his_ actions and whether or not he's willing to be reasonable.


----------



## thardey (Nov 21, 2008)

My pastor specifically asked me to carry my gun in church. We also have many off-duty police officers who attend, and they all are encouraged to carry.

It's not a matter of martyrdom, it's a matter of protecting people from the lone madman who decides it's his job to punish innocent people for his own hurts and insecurities.

If it became (God Forbid) illegal in the US to go to church other than a "State-sponsored" religion, then we're looking at martyrdom, and different steps are needed. In the US, true martyrdom is virtually impossible.

Many of the people we are taught to look up to in the Bible, (while being fully aware of their mistakes) used violent actions to defend "the sheep" from predators.


----------



## BanannaSmoothie (Nov 21, 2008)

wow, you guys are pretty cool.  i'm a bit of an asshat.  i would just knock out both guys, toss them out in the parking lot and let them settle it there.  

my dad is a fan of what he calls coconut complience exersize.  he has used it with great success on his farm with snot nosed politicians kids looking for summer work.    

grab the 2 bickering yentas by the backs of their heads, knock the 2 forheads together with some balls behind it, let them both fall to the floor dazed and confused.  ask if they still want to fight.  if the answer is yes, they both get fired and are free to fight all day long.

but, im a bit of a no nonsense butthole with it comes to stuff like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

I must admit to being quite shocked really, it sounds as if the Wild West is still alive and kicking. I never imagined people would take guns to church nor that they would need to. Lost for words......


----------



## Kreth (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I must admit to being quite shocked really, it sounds as if the Wild West is still alive and kicking. I never imagined people would take guns to church nor that they would need to. Lost for words......


Ahem.


----------



## girlbug2 (Nov 21, 2008)

*There is no such thing as a safe haven.* Violence can and does happen in church just as in any other place.

I would defend myself and my family the same in church as anywhere else.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 21, 2008)

girlbug2 said:


> *There is no such thing as a safe haven.* .


 

Not quite true. There is one absolutely safe place on Earth.......

,,,,,_the grave_.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 21, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Not quite true. There is one absolutely safe place on Earth.......
> 
> ,,,,,_the grave_.


Unless you fall victim to a necrophiliac. :lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Ahem.


 
That's a church hall not a church, two different things here and it was after a karate lesson there. A church hall isn't a sacred or sanctified place, it's a community centre used for karate, scouts, whist drives etc.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I must admit to being quite shocked really, it sounds as if the Wild West is still alive and kicking. I never imagined people would take guns to church nor that they would need to. Lost for words......



I think sometimes what we read situations that are foreign to ourselves we perceive them to be a lot different then they really are.  99% of the time you would never know who carries and who doesn't.  Its not like everyone saddles up in church and exposes their guns for everyone to see.  I think you have just as much of a chance of needing your gun in church as you would anywhere else.  The need to defend yourself or a loved one is not lessened by the presence of a cross or a picture of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> That's a church hall not a church, two different things here and it was after a karate lesson there. A church hall isn't a sacred or sanctified place, it's a community centre used for karate, scouts, whist drives etc.


That wasn't my point. I just took a random article I found when googling "uk church shooting" and pasted a link. To be honest, I didn't do more than skim the article. My point was that shootings can and do happen everywhere, even in a country that has disarmed its citizens. However do those pesky criminals get guns?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

Kreth said:


> That wasn't my point. I just took a random article I found when googling "uk church shooting" and pasted a link. To be honest, I didn't do more than skim the article. My point was that shootings can and do happen everywhere, even in a country that has disarmed its citizens. However do those pesky criminals get guns?


 
We haven't disarmed our citizens, a great many British people have weapons, legally and I can tell you exactly where those people in Liverpool got those guns from. They came from NORAID, the American supporters of the IRA . Those supporters raised money to arm the IRA, guns were bought in America and then smuggled in for the Provos use, whose commanders then gave them to the ASUs in Liverpool, where there was traditional strong support for the Provos. With the decommissioning of the IRA these weapons were sold on to criminals or kept by former ASU members who then engaged in criminal activities.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> We haven't disarmed our citizens, a great many British people have weapons, legally and I can tell you exactly where those people in Liverpool got those guns from. They came from NORAID, the American supporters of the IRA . Those supporters raised money to arm the IRA, guns were bought in America and then smuggled in for the Provos use, whose commanders then gave them to the ASUs in Liverpool, where there was traditional strong support for the Provos. With the decommissioning of the IRA these weapons were sold on to criminals or kept by former ASU members who then engaged in criminal activities.


And there we have it. The US is to blame for all gun crime, world-wide. ****ing cowboys.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2008)

Kreth said:


> And there we have it. The US is to blame for all gun crime, world-wide. ****ing cowboys.


 
No, there is a specific group who are responsible for a certain amount of guns being available in the UK. To say otherwise is to put words into my mouth. These people fundraised in all sort of homely ways to raise money for weapons and explosives which killed  many of my friends and colleagues including my fiance. They raised the money which paid for this lot.........


http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/major_killings.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_City_Centre_bombing


----------



## Kreth (Nov 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> No, there is a specific group who are responsible for a certain amount of guns being available in the UK. To say otherwise is to put words into my mouth. These people fundraised in all sort of homely ways to raise money for weapons and explosives which killed  many of my friends and colleagues including my fiance. They raised the money which paid for this lot.........


Which leads us back to my point, shootings happen everywhere, not just in the "Wild West" US.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2008)

I never said it didn't. I just said I was shocked at how many carry guns and how feel they need to carry them to church. I didn't say anything about shootings not happening here or anywhere for that matter. That's something you put into my mouth. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.
You asked where those particular people in that clip got their guns and I answered you because I happened to know with being involved in that particular issue. If it had been a shooting somewhere else in the UK I wouldn't have known. You got sarcastic not I.


----------



## KP. (Nov 22, 2008)

Kreth said:


> Which leads us back to my point, shootings happen everywhere, not just in the "Wild West" US.



True, but unless one lives in a place far removed from first world countries, the chance of being shot everywhere else is significantly lower. 

Of course, to be fair, in the USA unless you're living in an urban ghetto, the chance of being shot is pretty darn small too. The level of paranoia that leads suburbanites in the USA to go out and get guns and then carry them everywhere would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I own several weapons. I have a couple of hunting rifles, and I keep a pistol as part of a survival kit in the locked tool locker on my truck -- precisely in case I find myself stranded somewhere and needing to hunt for food or defend myself (I travel into bear and moose country well away from heavily populated areas frequently enough that I think thats' reasonable - though I maybe just as paranoid and not know it).


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 22, 2008)

KP. said:


> Of course, to be fair, in the USA unless you're living in an urban ghetto, the chance of being shot is pretty darn small too. *The level of paranoia that leads suburbanites in the USA to go out and get guns and then carry them everywhere would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.*


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


>


 


I agree Tex.

In my nice up standing community I grew up in kids had guns for fear. 
There were young adults who had them at the bar or in their car. And I am nto talking about anything legal either. 

But then my experience could be limited or special.


----------



## thardey (Nov 25, 2008)

It's not paranoia - I can only speak for myself, but I was raised with the "sheepdog" mentality. My Grandfather was a cop, and from early on, I was taught that if you have the ability to protect others, it is your responsibility to train yourself to be able to protect others. He taught that to my Dad, and they both taught it to me.

It was many years before I felt that I was mature enough to protect others by carrying a gun, but eventually, that early teaching grew with me, and I stepped into the resposibility that was mine.

It is different in different places throughout the world, but I was taught that part of the justice system in the U.S. is that private citizens, who are able, are responsible for doing what they can to protect other citizens. It is difficult in third-party cases, where you don't know either party, but we are supposed to be connected with our friends, neighbors, and families, so that we are able to protect each other. That is why it is more likely to find non-paranoid people carrying guns in stable, peaceful, suburban areas where there are such things as block parties, neighborhood watch groups, and neighborhoods that actually become communities.

It's not that I strap on a gun when I go to church, because I expect something to happen there. I take a gun everywhere I am legally allowed to (which is a lot). That's not expecting to ever be involved in a shootout in the streets, but that is part of my responsibility as a U.S. citizen. 

We have fire alarms in our house, that's not considered paranoia -- we have airbags and seatbelts in our cars -- we have nearly-useless security in our airports -- I have a car that automatically locks the doors for me when I start driving -- I have health insurance, home insurance, car insurance -- dead-bolt locks -- a fire hydrant right in front of my house, I don't set out to utilize any of this stuff, but I'm glad it's there. Nearly all of it in an inconvenience of some sort, but none of that smacks of paranoia?

Even on this board we have hundreds of people who have devoted thousands of hours to studying some sort of self-defense. I have put in my hours, too. But I know that all of that training only gives me a snowball's chance in hell against an armed opponent. Odds are extremely high that any attacker I face will be armed with a knife. It's part of the culture where I live. I don't want to face him empty handed, or with another knife, I want to face him with my pistol, pulled from surprise out of hiding, and take his knife away. I have a knife in my possession that came from my Grandfather who took it from a mugger in exactly that way. My Father was robbed by a man with a gun _at his house_ (fortunately the guy dropped it in the dark) when I was an infant (suburbia, BTW). Why is the time considered for training with a pistol (which is just plain fun, anyway) or the time it takes to drop my pistol into my pocket holster (taking less time than finding my car keys, or making sure I have my wallet) considered paranoid?

Is it simply because guns are scary, so only scary people must have them? 

Tez, I'm sorry for all of the continued mis-understanding about England's "Disarmament". For those who haven't read Tez's dozen other threads trying to edumucate us Yanks, Shotguns are very common in England, in people's homes. And, as most of us know, it's hard to beat a shotgun for home defense. Just because pistols are highly regulated doesn't mean that all firearms are taboo.


----------



## KP. (Nov 25, 2008)

thardey said:


> Is it simply because guns are scary, so only scary people must have them?




No, it's more because the whole reasoning behind guns for self-defense is rather flawed.

If more guns means less crime, then we should be the most crime-free nation on the planet, but we aren't even close.

Most of those "scary people" get their weapons off of a black-market trade where a large number of the firearms traded are stolen. 

Few of the people who carry (let alone own) handguns obtain adequate training or put in the hours necessary to be able to handle a weapon properly. I've known people who have weapons in their home for "self-defense" and when I've asked them if they want to go to the range with me, they've admitted to never having been and not even knowing where a range is.

The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 25, 2008)

I bet some people in these congragations probably wish they'd been carrying. 



> He said a brief search found the following shootings, before last weekend's attacks:
> 
> August 12, 2007: A lone gunman, Eiken Elam Saimon, opened fire in a Missouri Micronesian church, killing a pastor and two other churchgoers.
> May 20, 2007: A standoff between police and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a Moscow, Idaho, Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one police officer.
> ...


 
Whole article here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59219


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2008)

KP. said:


> No, it's more because the whole reasoning behind guns for self-defense is rather flawed.
> 
> If more guns means less crime, then we should be the most crime-free nation on the planet, but we aren't even close.
> 
> ...


You're making some really big assumptions -- and they're pretty off topic, as well.  If folks would like to explore that topic some more, I'm opening a new thread for that purpose.

OK... Thread created HERE.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 25, 2008)

KP. said:


> No, it's more because the whole reasoning behind guns for self-defense is rather flawed.
> 
> If more guns means less crime, then we should be the most crime-free nation on the planet, but we aren't even close.


 
That's not "the whole" reasoning behind having guns for self defense.

Not even sure if it's "reasoning" at all, no matter how true.

The reasoning behind having a firearm for self defense is _that it's for self-defense._ It's a force multiplier, a tool that increases the likelihood of a successful outcome where force is required.





KP. said:


> Few of the people who carry (let alone own) handguns obtain adequate training or put in the hours necessary to be able to handle a weapon properly. I've known people who have weapons in their home for "self-defense" and when I've asked them if they want to go to the range with me, they've admitted to never having been and not even knowing where a range is.


 
Most of the people who carry (and I'm talking CCW) are _required_ to have training to do so-this is true in most jurisdictions. While "open carry" is usually another story, with no training required where it's permitted, I think the assumption that "people who carry handguns don't obtain adequate training" isn't supportable by any quantifiable data or evidence other than anecdotal-you _could_ have said something to the effect of _Few of the people *I know* who carry...._, but that's not what you said. 





KP. said:


> The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.


 
The majority of the people who legally own guns in this country pose no threat to society whatsoever. The threat they might pose to themselves is another matter....

I'll say it again, the reasoning behind having a gun for self-defense is as a force mutliplier.

Just like martial arts skills, though, you can't reasonably expect to be able to defend yourself with one  by reading a book, watching a video,or simply by having attained "some" skill and not practicing.

(Those are some interesting assertions from someone who claims to carry a .45 for self defense, BTW)


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 25, 2008)

KP. said:


> The majority of people who own weapons in this country who are not military or LEO's pose more of a danger to society than a help.



While I don't know how you can possibly do so, I would REALLY like to see you _try_ to support that statement with some sort of factual data.


----------



## Brian King (Nov 27, 2008)

*KP wrote*


> "I lived in a Catholic monastery for a few years after the first Gulf War. An amazingly large number of the monks were veterans, usually from the higher end of the training spectrum.
> 
> I can assure you that there wasn't one of them who would condone that answer.
> 
> ...


 
in reply to this post
Originally Posted by *jks9199* 
_



Let me address this a little differently. I generally carry a firearm. Including to church. And I know the places in the church that provide cover versus concealment. I've planned how I'd respond in the event of someone posing a threat to the congretation during Mass, up to and including lethal force.

Click to expand...

_

I was searching for a church to attend and call mine a couple of years ago so was attending different churches to see what the congregation was like, what was the church leadership like and do they teach biblically from the bible. I would show up early and talk to people. One conversation I had at one of the churches I was thinking of attending went thus. I introduced myself to a gentleman and after shaking hands told him this was my first visit to his church. He seemed pleased and welcoming so I asked some questions. Where are the bathrooms located, is there a back door, how is the parking and traffic, how long had he been attending the church, is it crowed, are their other programs as well as the service yada yada. After awhile to keep the conversation flowing I asked him if he caught the game on TV? He puffed up with pride and got that tone of voice. You know that one tone that some use when they are talking themselves up while talking others down. He said Brotha, weeee do not have a television in our home. Weeee live in a Godly home. Aww I really dislike self righteousness almost as much as hypocrites. I can understand the many valid reasons to not watch TV but his pride and self righteousness was obvious and ugly. No one is perfect especially me, so I filed the conversation to put down in my search notes and settled in to listen to and participate in the service. The preacher was commenting on loving the sinner and hating the sin "as it is found in the bible"oh well, on to the next church hopefully the next would actually read and teach from the bible. I did finally find two churches that I now attend. Both churches are filled with men and women many of which are veterans of military service, and many of them armed with both the word and a firearm. More than that is that both churches realize that we are all sinners and we are welcomed there not told that our being there is some kind of disservice. 



*Back to the OP*



> What if you were some place where a fight is breaking out...or about to break out. And, due to the circumstances...you really really do not want to hurt the people involved. Maybe you are at a house of worship of your own, or maybe you are at a family gathering that goes sour.


 
At both of my churches I can not imagine violence breaking out amongst the congregation (On the other hand I can see protestors or other sufferers bringing their violence into the service). If something ever did start up amongst the congregations a simple quietly stated word or two and a soft touch would settle it. 

A family gathering could be a different kettle of fish entirely. There are some subjects that are not discussed as the family is a family of fighters though most are getting older and have settled down. We have iron workers that have been in the union forever and we have carpenters that have no use for unions for example. If talk turns to unions there could easily be blood on the floor and a dotted eye in the morning. If a fight broke out there, depending on who is fighting save the china and let them go. Not a big deal. It usually went to first blood and never results in hard feelings. There are other family members that can be mean and violent. If those are in the beginning stages of fight then distraction, changing the subject/focus and physical intervention might be called for. 




> you really really do not want to hurt the people involved


 
I thought that this is interesting and it is something that people who practice martial arts and/or may face or be confronted by violence need to come to terms with. The wanting to hurt somebody is dangerous, but the willingness to harm somebody if necessary is healthy. Honesty in your motivation is essential I believe. 

Which brings me to 




> How would you approach defending yourself (or someone else) against someone that you really don't want to hurt?


 
Conflict is conflict. I try to resolve all conflict I am involved with by doing the least harm as possible, location and participants have little to do with it. Intent and motivation has much more to do with it. 



Thanks for the thread Carol

Regards
Brian King


----------

