Copyright Salt Lake Tribune
After a deadly attack on a Michigan meetinghouse, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued safety guidelines, reaffirming that ensuring worshippers feel “welcome and safe in sacred spaces” remains a top priority. Included on the list to local lay leaders was following “the guidance of the Spirit” in implementing “established policies,” which bars firearms on church property, save those carried by law enforcement. In the wake of the Sept. 28 tragedy, conservative pockets of social media erupted with criticism from self-identified members arguing that this policy made worshippers more vulnerable to attack. If church officials heard that feedback, they sidestepped it in the Oct. 9 communication issued by the Church Security Department. The document encourages readers to regularly review the Church Security Resources page on the Utah-based faith’s site. Those resources include a handout with instructions to run and hide if possible in the case of an active shooter, and to fight back only as a last resort — standard advice within the security community. Points provided in the latest letter include: • Follow the guidance of the Spirit as you implement established policies and procedures. • Be aware of your surroundings. If you notice anything unusual, notify law enforcement. • Only unlock necessary entrance doors and clearly communicate which doors are unlocked to attendees. • Stay with another person or in a group and walk together to the parking lot following activities. • Build working relationships with emergency response personnel. • Have emergency response procedures in place that include active shooter training. Not all are satisfied by these suggestions. That includes Jan Durham, a member from Virginia, who has launched an online petition urging church leaders to reconsider their position and permit “responsible, law-abiding” members to carry guns to worship services and church activities. The response, she said, has been modest, with just 92 signatures as of Oct. 21. In the petition, Durham criticizes the “run, hide and fight” guidance, calling it “increasingly viewed by security experts as outdated.” However, the FBI currently lists this three-step approach on its website under the section “Active Shooter Safety Resources.” Nonetheless, Durham writes: “Congregants deserve access to effective means of protection.” After all, church meeting times are listed online and unfamiliar faces are welcome at services. Since the Michigan attack, the fact that members are restricted from carrying weapons onto church grounds has been well publicized. Not all members, though, agree that more guns will equate to greater safety. Becca Jones Wilson, a member who lives in Flint, Michigan, not far from where the attack took place, said she feared tragic accidents from armed, untrained members, plus greater confusion for police responding to emergency situations. “When things are very scary — and they feel very scary here now, we have to be extra careful,” she said, to avoid “knee-jerk reactions” that are more about “soothing fears” than increasing security. Multiple studies performed by a range of research institutes, from Stanford to Johns Hopkins universities, have demonstrated a correlation between greater gun access and greater gun deaths. An exception is a 2020 paper by a University of Chicago researcher indicating no relationship one way or another. Neither has research upheld the popular “good guy with a gun” theory positing that communities are safest when noncriminals are armed, according to research by Stanford University’s John Donohue. The economist and law professor has been researching crime and guns since 1986. Over and over what he has found is that “bringing guns for self-defense is often counterproductive.” People tend to misplace their firearm, leaving it in a bathroom or not realizing when it falls from a pocket. A loose gun, especially in an environment where children run loose through the hallways, is a “concern.” Tellingly, he said, schools that permit teachers to carry invariably see their insurance rates increase. “That’s not to say that in any one particular case things might turn out well,” he conceded. “But there does seem to be this general trade-off on balance” that the fewer guns present, the better for everyone.
