Zero at 200 Makes Me Smile!

It's the end of Summer and Fall is around the corner.  Many avid hunters are buying their hunting licenses and getting things ready.  Zeroing a rifle will commence at gun ranges all over this country. I will see it happen as I spend a lot of time at the range. For hunting, it’s pretty important. For defense, it’s just as important. Every hunter will have their favorite “zero” distance. If you hunt big game like Elk, you will probably want to zero at a greater distance than say, Texas deer or hogs. Everyone has their own ideas and you should find what suits you, your rifle, your caliber, and your bullet load. I haven’t hunted in several years and the older I get, the less I want to. I have nothing at all against hunting, I think it’s great sport and useful for wildlife management and just putting meat on the table. Many years ago I hunted with a 30-06. I took deer every year, would field dress it, haul it out, dress it, ¼ it, blah, blah, blah. I hate the processing part but I’m too cheap to pay someone to do it. We used to hunt dove every year, and Javalina too. Now days I think I’d like a .308 for hunting. Anyway, zero for hunting is different than zero for defense. Many people go by the old military standby of zeroing at 100 yards. But I learned that zero at 50 is the best defense zero because of several things. I’ll go through what I was taught by an Air Force special forces operator who I’ve known for years. I like the way he explained it to me.

This method is for open sights or red dot only, not scopes. And this is something I would use with a 5.56/.223 chambered weapon.
As I said above, 50 yards is the ideal zero for defense and here’s why. Shooting a deer is not the same as a man.
When you first sight in a rifle or new sights, set up your target at 25 yards. Sight for dead center bullseye. This way you will know if the rifle is at least on your target before you try it at a greater distance. If the rifle is way off, you’ll catch it here. Fire more than one shot to make sure there is a group on paper. As usual for any sight in, use a stand. Then when you’ve got it sighted at 25 yards bullseye, adjust the sights to 1 inch under the bullseye. Because the bullet has yet to cross the line of sight at a close 25, so 50 will be a little lower.
Then move the target out to 50 yards. You want this to be adjusted to dead center. Once you’ve done this you will be ready to engage a man size target at 250 yards. How can that be? Because of bullet drop (this is a 0.224 caliber, 55 grain .223 bullet). A .223 bullet will hit dead center at 50 yards, 1.4” high at 100 yards, 1.5” at 200 yards, and 7.2” low at 250 yards. So if you aim for center of mass, you will hit a man’s body from close quarters out to 250 yards.
Why not just zero at 100 yards? The bullet drop is similar at 100 yards but you get a significant drop at 250 or 300 yards. It would be in the dirt. The 50 yard dial in for that bullet clearly is the one to use at all those ranges as a defensive round ballistically speaking.
7.62x39 can use this method but past 200 yards the .30 caliber Russian round does not do very well because of bullet drop. The 5.45x39 is similar to the 5.56 so you can use this method with that round.
Zeroing a rifle is important and essential. Anyone who owns a rifle needs to know how to zero it. Experiment and find out if the above will work for you.
You can also experiment with your gun and a stand. This is also assuming your bullet of choice is the .223/5.56. Most battle rifles are chambered for this caliber but I know there are some 7.62x39 and .308 lovers out there. Lots of AK people out there. The different bullet will, of course, give you different ballistics. 100 yards may be in order for other calibers.

Zero at 50 is what I call it but it's really closer to zero at 200.  Some will debate this, and of coarse some will debate all of the above.  Some of you are extremely precise!  Precise is good enough for me.  I'm not a sniper and I'm not trying to get a 1,000 yard hit on steel.  That's OK for some of you and I admire it, I know it's just not for me.  Long distance shooting doesn't interest me at all.  But defending at 100 to 200 yards makes me warm and fuzzy inside. This makes the 50/200 zero ideal for rapid engagement across common engagement distances (0-200 yards), where speed, simplicity, and accountable hits matter more than fine-tuned precision.
I realize this is controversial at worst, and debatable at best.  There are many ways and even gizmos to help you sight in a rifle.  Find what works for you!

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Frequently Asked Questions About Mormons and Defense

 In looking at articles about members of the Church owning guns I found these frequently asked questions at the end of Nick Oetken’s article.  I thought they would be of interest.

Burn

 

From  The Gun Zone

https://thegunzone.com/

 

Do Mormons practice self-defense?

March 24, 2024 by Nick Oetken

 

(The term “Mormon” refers to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

 

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have an official stance on self-defense? No, the Church does not have a specific official stance that either prohibits or mandates self-defense. Individual members are encouraged to make decisions based on gospel principles, applicable laws, and personal circumstances.

Are Mormons pacifists? Generally, no. While Mormons value peace and strive to resolve conflicts peacefully, they are not strictly pacifists. They believe in defending themselves and their families when necessary.

Does the Church teach “turn the other cheek” in all situations? While “turning the other cheek” is a gospel principle, it is often interpreted as a call to forgiveness and non-retaliation, not necessarily a mandate to passively accept violence against oneself or others.

Is it against Mormon beliefs to own a firearm? No. The Church does not prohibit firearm ownership, but it encourages responsible gun ownership, including proper training, storage, and respect for local laws.

Are Mormons encouraged to seek revenge? No. Seeking revenge is strongly discouraged. The focus is on forgiveness and resolving conflicts peacefully, when possible.

What is the Mormon perspective on using deadly force for self-defense? Deadly force should only be used as a last resort when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to oneself or others.

Do Mormon missionaries practice self-defense? Mormon missionaries are generally instructed to avoid dangerous situations and prioritize their safety. They typically do not carry weapons or engage in physical self-defense, relying instead on prayer, communication, and seeking assistance from local authorities when needed.

Are Mormon families encouraged to prepare for emergencies? Yes. The Church encourages families to be prepared for various emergencies, including natural disasters and other potential threats. This preparedness often includes having emergency supplies and plans in place.

How do Mormon teachings about agency relate to self-defense? Personal agency allows Mormons to make informed decisions about their safety and the safety of their families. This includes the option to defend themselves when faced with a threat.

Do Mormon leaders provide specific guidance on self-defense techniques? No. Mormon leaders typically do not provide specific instructions on self-defense techniques. This is left to the individual member to decide based on their own circumstances.

Is it considered a sin for a Mormon to defend themselves? Defending oneself or others from imminent harm is not considered a sin, provided it is done responsibly, ethically, and in accordance with applicable laws.

How does the Mormon emphasis on family impact the view on self-defense? The emphasis on family often leads Mormons to feel a strong responsibility to protect their loved ones, which can justify the use of self-defense in certain situations.

Do Mormon scriptures provide examples of self-defense? While Mormon scriptures primarily emphasize peace and forgiveness, there are instances where individuals defended themselves or others from harm. These examples are often interpreted within the context of specific historical circumstances.

What are some non-physical forms of self-defense that Mormons might practice? Non-physical forms of self-defense include situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, creating a safe home environment, and seeking support from community resources.

Where can Mormons find more information about responsible self-defense practices? Mormons can consult local law enforcement agencies, self-defense instructors, and legal professionals to learn more about responsible self-defense practices in their area. They are also encouraged to pray for guidance and follow their conscience when making decisions about personal safety.

 

These questions cover a lot for members as well as those curious about our faith.

One last question that was not in the article:

Does Burn advocate for the average church member to learn defense and care for their congregations and families?   YES!! Yes he does!

Semper Paratus

Check 6

Burn

Reality of Stopping a Threat

 “You don’t need more than 10 rounds to stop a threat!”  I’ve heard this claim from many who have never trained for, nor been in, a firefight.  My only experience in a firefight was a combat situation which is different and similar.  I was in a fairly secure bunker with plenty of other shooters and a place to retreat to if things got too bad.  That place was full of ammo.  But even so, in one particular attack I ran out of ammo.  I can’t tell you how bad that feels.  I had more than one brother throw me mags.  I vowed to never be in that situation again. 

I also have a friend who had 3 thugs invade his home.  In the firefight that ensued he expended more than 50 rounds to neutralize and scare these threats away.  You can’t tell him he only needs 10 rounds!  He is extensively trained and considered an expert shot.

These examples are the exception, not the rule I would agree but how do you know your encounter will be a rule and not an exception?

Being a good shooter means you will be able to make a solid vital zone hit with most shots in a gunfight.  I can’t tell you how much of a lie this is!  Sometimes we categorize a “good” shooter as something that it’s not.  Standing and shooting a paper or steel target is not a firefight.  Even a run and gun competition is not the same as being shot at.  In a real firefight because of fear and adrenaline you don’t take as much time with each shot as you normally would.  There are some wasted rounds.  There is something called a “determined” attacker.  Regardless of how many rounds you pump into them, they refuse to back down.   

There is a famous example of Lance Thomas, a watchmaker in California who survived four shootouts in his shop between 1989 and 1991. In the second of these fights, Lance was attacked by three armed men. They started the fight by shooting Lance four times with a .25 ACP pistol. Lance returned fire with a Ruger Security-Six .357 magnum. He hit the first suspect with five out of six shots, dropping him. But the other two guys stuck around and kept shooting. Lance emptied two more revolvers before the fight was over, with a second suspect dead and the third retreating outside to a waiting getaway car.

In total, Lance connected with 11 of the 17 shots he fired in that fight. By most gunfight standards, that could be considered phenomenal accuracy. And yet, if he only had those first six shots, he would likely not have survived the encounter. Accuracy is often the deciding factor in these incidents, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that more than a handful of rounds will be necessary in addition to accurate shooting.

Shot placement is important but there is no substitute for having more ammo.  Facing multiple attackers or a determined attacker forces you to shoot better and have more ammo.  Either more ammo or additional guns.

 Lance Thomas had the foresight to place multiple revolvers within arm’s reach of his workbench. If, like most people, you only carry a single handgun, you’ll need to train to get maximum effectiveness out of each round.  

“It’ll only take one shot if you use magnum ammo”. Or a 45. Or 44. Fill in the blank with the caliber of your choice. Knowing that bad guys have an annoying habit of stubbornly shrugging off bullets from time to time, some people are convinced that the solution is not more bullets, but bigger ones.

We’ll set aside for a moment the fact that magnum loads and big bore calibers are more difficult to shoot quickly and accurately under stress. Let’s once again assume for the sake of argument that the hypothetical armed citizen always hits his intended target in a timely manner. Surely a handful of slugs from the mighty [insert your favorite caliber] will stop any miscreant, no matter how determined. Right?

In a shootout with a armed bank robber, Sergeant Timothy Gramins fired 33 rounds of .45 ACP over the course of 56 seconds. Even with no drugs or alcohol in his system, the suspect was able to keep firing at the officer after sustaining six hits to vital organs in addition to 8 non-vital hits. It wasn’t until Gramins fired a series of shots that struck the suspect’s head that he was taken out of the fight.

This type of situation is not typical of armed encounters involving private citizens, but for our purposes the moral of the story isn’t about the tactics used or overall number of shots fired, but the amount of damage the suspect was able to absorb. Half a dozen rounds from what is normally considered a “big caliber” hit some pretty important stuff inside this bad guy, but he was able to keep throwing bullets back at the cop.

If you read about enough shootings, you’ll find numerous odd examples of people taking rounds to the chest and face from all kinds of big bore handguns (as well as rifles, buckshot, and shotgun slugs) that don’t result in immediate incapacitation. It’s not that caliber is inconsequential, but bullets do weird and unpredictable things. And handgun bullets in particular can’t be counted on to do what you want them to do the first time, regardless of what number is etched on the headstamp.

When some anti-gunner comes at you with magazine minimums ask them if that is what they would want to deal with in a gunfight?  Limiting magazine round count will not stop mass shooters who usually plan.  How many stories have your heard about a mass shooter that was stopped and they found many rounds in his back pack or bag?  Even if you limit magazines that only means you have to buy more!

The reality of needing more magazines and ammo is there because you are not sure what you are going to go up against.  Larger capacities are what the criminals will have, laws or not.    Know that laws about magazine capacity are just knee-jerk ideas that only hurt the law abiding citizen.

Semper Paratus

Check 6

Burn

Am I Violent? Only my hairdresser knows for sure...

 Here we go again!  Some of you dear readers are a little miffed by some of my posts.  I can say that that is unfortunate.  I can also say that I don't really care.  I care about my readers.  I don't care about what others think of me though. This is my blog.  I write for therapy.  A few others have written here but it is mostly me Burning Bush.  I do not write to offend. Burning Bush is also my military callsign. Military call signs are a rite of passage for many who serve in the Armed Forces.  Call signs are unique names used to identify one another during radio communications.  Sometimes the call signs are random, and the moniker results from cobbling shortened names, abbreviations, and nicknames.  Sometimes a call sign reflects an unusual experience or embarrassing moment witnessed by those who decide call signs.  However, in some situations, call signs are assigned daily to positions and used during radio communications.  The personal call signs, which are nicknames, are used extensively in most military branches.  Typically, a person does not choose their military call signs.  I just had to go off on call signs though this post isn't just about call signs. The point I was trying to make as I went off on call signs was this blog is basically mine.  It is almost exclusively my opinion.  So I can see why someone might call me violent.  As I've explained before, this blog is not my life.  I've been the Elders Quorum President for the past year.  I've been married to the same wonderful girl for over 40 years.  I have many children, now all out of our house. We have 2 still at BYU-P finishing their schooling.  I have over 20 Grandchildren.  I have a dog, a cat, and chickens.  Occasionally goats.  I have a job at a federal facility although I'd like to retire in the next few years.  I have a life.  I don't shoot for a living.  I shoot a lot, but not usually daily.  I was in combat many years ago but have not been in a defensive altercation since.  I am not in the military but work for the military.  I know a lot of this is vague, but I try to keep it that way for privacy reasons. I'm just trying to put across that away from this blog I have a regular life.  Guns and shooting is a part of that life, but violence does not enter into my life very often.  If it does, I am prepared.  But it rarely does.  

Some members of the Church think violence is avoidable.  If you live outside the U.S., Canada, or parts of Europe you would be more familiar with violence.  In my military experience I did not see Europe or the Middle East.  My experience is South and Central America.  I've seen enough of other countries to know that many parts of the world are well acquainted with violence.  Yet some progmos out there happen to come across my little blog.  They have that lovely judgmental attitude that many progmos or exmos have.  They accuse me of being a monster that pushes others to become monsters.  They seem to despise those who would defend them.  They have never needed defense so they can't see the need for defenders.  That is OK.  I can understand that point of view.  But they will sing a different tune if someone invades their home.    

As I said in a similar post May 20th 2020... 

"I’ve been tied to several fringe LDS “organizations” because of my politics and my penchant toward violence. Well, let one of them say that to my face, I’ll fillet… wait maybe they’re right.

All of the above was said in jest. Someone or maybe several someones, have put me on the same page as so called “Mormon Militants.” Because of my hero Porter Rockwell (I have some other heroes, my Dad, Bruce R McConkie) and my love of guns I am now a part of #DezNat. I had never heard of Deseret Nation (They say it’s like “Red Sox Nation”) before being accused of being part of them. I’m not much for Twitter so I’m not surprised I didn’t completely understand #Twitterstake, antimo, exmo, or progmo. Now I’m up to speed. Back in June (June 18, 2019) I wrote an article about bringing back Danites. I guess that coupled with some of the other things I mentioned above put me on the fringe of “violent” members of the Church. Let me set a few things straight right here and now.

I do not think that violence should be our first, second, or third choice. But only in defense.

Because of my military experience I have a dark sense of humor that I try to keep in check.
I do not believe in breaking the law or Church policy. (Though I think I’ve broken both)
I do not belong to a militia.
I feel that doing evil in secret, including violence, is tantamount to a secret combination.
I sustain our Prophet and the Brethren as God’s mouthpiece.
I have strong personal feelings about homosexual and like behavior that I deem my private opinion. But I do not agree with ostracizing anyone and there is a place for everyone in this Church. Although, I do not believe doctrine should be, or will be, changed to make someone feel better.
I do believe that many ex-members of this Church are bent on destroying it. I am a defender of it!
I am too “in your face” and “close and engage” and am trying to keep that in check.
I am also not so dedicated to the internet that I would trade my blog for my membership. If I get out of hand and am asked to stop, I will. I am not a Kate Kelly or a Sam Young.
I am devoted to my family. God, Family, Country, in that order.
I suffer from PTSD but am dealing with it. It has never controlled me and it does not define me.
I took an oath to defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. I take that oath seriously.
I do not belong to a political party though I know I am Conservative.
I do not trust my government (I have been part of what I see them capable of) or the media (they lie, lie, lie!) But I have been in enough other countries to know that our government, while imperfect, is the best thing out there.
I also believe that happiness is zero at fifty."

Supplemental Reading:
• “Defenders of the Family Proclamation” -Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, April 2015.
• “A Defense and a Refuge” -President Boyd K. Packer, October 2006.
• “Yes, We Can and Will Win!” -Elder Ulisses Soares, April 2015
• “Where Do We Stand?” -Elder Mark E. Peterson, April 1980
 
Some of what I have said in other posts is echoed in JP Bellum’s explanation of what #DezNat is. So I guess I can see why I have been equated with the hashtag. Although I agree with some of this I am not affiliated with this hashtag or anything like unto it. I am also not a militant Mormon. Sometimes my aggressive attitude might be considered militant at times, but really, I’m a marshmallow with a 9mm. Label me what you will. I may seem aggressive but it’s nothing more than poking the bear. I won’t attack unless provoked. I believe in a strong defense. Then again, I also believe that the world and life is cruel and you can wring your hands in “wo is me” or you can “suck it up cupcake!” I prefer the latter. I also think that we can be kind but not a push over. Being firm is often mistaken for militant by people who have a hard time with hard things. Safe places are for those that get hurt at every turn. We create our own safe places. I call them “green zones”.
Maybe some movements, organizations, or hashtags may seem to agree with my politics or ideology, but I only belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am a citizen of this great country. I am a husband, a father, a grand-father, a father-in-law, a son, a veteran, and a priesthood holder. I do my best to live as a follower of Christ though I know I fall short."

As was said in other posts and the one quoted above, I am not a militant Mormon.  I'm militant from being in the military and working for them for over 35 years!  I am working on my tolerance and patience with others ideas and thinking.  I'm trying to follow the Savior.  As I said in the above post, "I am not on the fringe of the Church but smack dab in the middle of it!

Judge me as a you will I can take it!

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Holstering and Safety

 Negligent discharges happen often enough that you should be concerned when you handle your gun near your body. One of the most dangerous times is when you go to reholster your gun. This simple act is rarely talked about and often overlooked. Re-inserting the gun into a holster is a high-risk activity for many, but it doesn’t have to be. Avoid pain and disability, or worse, by doing it the right way, every time. Here are some pointers about equipment and behaviors to keep you free of unwanted holes, not to mention looking competent on the range.

In this article and in many shooting classes, the term “firing grip” means the “V” of your thumb and forefinger is as high as reasonably possible on the backstrap, the three non-trigger fingers are wrapped firmly around the grip, and your trigger finger is straight and planted against the frame.

1) Maintain a firing grip throughout the holstering process

Keep a firing grip until the gun is secured. Keep fingers where they belong.

Never loosen your grip as you reholster. This is essential discipline for not only safety but developing an automatic habit that will serve you in self-defense or competition when there’s other important stuff to think about.

2) Be sure the holster is clear of obstructions involving the holster itself

Be sure to clear outerwear material out of the way. Jacket zipper pulls are especially dangerous.

Some holsters have retention straps that tend to dangle over the opening. Some have trigger finger-operated retention devices that can, however rarely during rough use, collect snow or small sticks that protrude into the holster. There is nothing inherently wrong with either type, so long as you ensure that the opening and interior are clear before inserting your gun. Never use your muzzle to clear an obstruction, and never cross your support hand in front of the muzzle to clear the holster!

These types of holsters are good for practicing under low-stress conditions and for carrying or storing the gun in something that covers the trigger guard.

3) Be sure the holster is clear of potential wardrobe malfunctions

It’s best to tuck your shirt in tightly when wearing a holster outside the waistband. If not, or if you’re wearing a shirt that’s baggy, you risk pushing a fold of clothing or—heaven help you—a button into the holster. That can result in an unintentional discharge that chews up your leg.

Clearing baggy shirts from the holster area is best done by placing your support hand flat against your abdomen just in front of the holster, pressing against yourself as you draw that hand toward your midline. This will clear the holster opening while preventing the muzzling of your own hand.

Pull loose shirt material toward your midline with your support hand flat against your abdomen.

Outerwear, like an open jacket, is also of concern. Be especially careful if you’re wearing a jacket that has zipper pulls or a drawstring at your midline. These can get inside the trigger guard as you reholster, possibly offering no feeling of having to push harder to insert the gun before a round breaks and ruins your leg. If you must keep such a jacket on during practice, tighten the drawstring above holster level on your waist, and use the shirt-smoothing technique above.

If you feel resistance when holstering, STOP. Don’t insert the gun any further until you’ve inspected the cause.

3) Don’t use the muzzle to work the gun into a collapsible holster

Never reholster into a sheath that goes flat without first removing it. The muzzle is NOT a fishing tool…

My everyday carry holster is a Sticky brand. It works great for me, but one of its limitations is reholstering. Like several other soft-sided brands, its opening collapses flat when the gun is drawn. Flat as a pancake, in fact, when it’s in my pocket. The muzzle is not a fishing pole! Holsters that collapse upon drawing must be deliberately placed back on the gun—not vice versa. That means I have to remove the holster from my pocket and, using my support hand, lower it onto the muzzle from above. This way the muzzle never covers my non-gun hand or other body parts. It’s very little trouble since this is only necessary when I’m doing a chamber check or after firing.

4) Stand up first, reholster second

Avoid reholstering when not standing. It’s a great idea to practice firing from different positions once you’re safe and comfortable shooting from a standing position. It’s a big risk to reholster when prone, kneeling, sitting, and so on. Keep your muzzle in a safe direction with the gun in a firing grip in one or both hands as you rise. If you want to be proactive in your training, visually scan your environment as you come up to a standing position. But if you are not familiar with shooting from positions other than standing, concentrate on getting up and controlling your gun. Then go to the holster. Once you have gone to get up many times while controlling your muzzle, you can start scanning. Be sure of what you’re doing.

5) Take your time

Gunsite Academy has many sayings. One important one is “draw quickly, fire slowly, reholster reluctantly.” This was often followed by “there are no awards for speed reholstering.”

This simple investment of a couple extra seconds will protect your life and health.

Safety is often overlooked in many areas. Especially when you are experienced. The most experienced shooters are sometimes the most dangerous because of their familiarity with guns. It’s easy to get complacent and over-estimate your knowledge or skill. Taking a lot for granted with dangerous things can get you killed or at least injured. Stay vigilant.

Remember also the importance of inspecting and maintaining your holster. Wear and tear can cause a multitude of problems. Make sure what you carry is safe.

Semper Paratus
Check 6
Burn

Celebrating Annie Oakley

 Today the 13^th of August is Annie Oakley’s birthday.

She began trapping animals at age seven and shooting and hunting at eight—though some sources have her doing both by the time she was six—in order to put food on her family’s table.

By age 15, she had paid off her mother's mortgage with her earnings from hunting.

At 15, she defeated traveling marksman Frank E. Butler in a shooting contest, who later became her husband.

She adopted the stage name "Annie Oakley" after joining Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show in 1885.

Her shooting skills earned her the nickname "Little Sure Shot" from Chief Sitting Bull.

She could shoot a dime tossed in the air from 90 feet away.

 

Born Phoebe Ann Moses, Annie Oakley became a legendary sharpshooter and performer in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Known for her incredible marksmanship, she joined Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, captivating audiences with her shooting skills. Annie Oakley could hit targets while riding a horse, shoot dimes tossed in the air, and even split playing cards edge-on from a distance. Her talent wasn't just for show; she advocated for women's rights and taught over 15,000 women how to use firearms for self-defense. Despite facing numerous challenges, Annie Oakley left an indelible mark on American history, proving that skill and determination can break barriers.

We remember Annie and honor her on her birthday!

Semper Paratus

Check 6

Burn

The Church and Security Abroad and Domestic

I am a student of security.  My family say I am obsessed with it.  They listen as I drone on about home security, internet security, personal security, et al, ad nauseam¼  Yes, they are sometimes, understandably, annoyed with me.  But I have seen some of that obsessive behaviour pay off.  They are more careful, ergo, I continue.  Now how the heck is that of any interest to you?  I only bring up my “paranoia” to say that I keep track of some obscure data.  For instance, I have been (very unofficially) tracking acts of violence on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints property.  I also have been interested in anti-Mormon activities for many years.  On my mission I had the mission’s largest collection of anti-Mormon material.  I did not spend much time reading it or studying it (heaven knows it’s not very deep) but I was interested in what would make someone be “anti” anything.  I learned a lot from that “literature”.   So, between my crazy anti interest and my security obsession (that’s what happens when you get shot at!) I have had some interesting conclusions.

The following is snip from a NY Times Op-ed piece in 2012 when Mitt Romney was running for President of the United States.   

“Why We Fear Mormons” Op-ed in The New York Times

By J. SPENCER FLUHMANJUNE 3, 2012

“When a perceived oddity is backed by Mormon money or growing political clout, the left gets jumpy. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and HBO’s Bill Maher have resorted to caricature, stereotyping and hyperbole in their anti-Mormon attacks. Liberals were outraged by Mormon financing of Proposition 8, the 2008 ban on same-sex marriage in California. They scoff at Mormonism’s all-male priesthood and ask why church leaders have yet to fully repudiate the racist teachings of previous authorities.

For the right, Mormonism figures in even more complicated ways. The Mormon Road to respectability has often led, as it did for Mr. Romney, through Harvard Business School; pro-business Republicans have found ready friends among well-placed Mormons. But many rank-and-file evangelical Protestants call Mormonism a cult — as the pastor Robert Jeffress did last fall — or a “non-Christian religion.” Indeed, evangelical hatred has been the driving force behind national anti-Mormonism.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/anti-mormonism-past-and-present.html

Our religions opponents are generally light weights.  I’ve never put much stock in their rantings and ravings.  I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints my entire life.  There are those who think they are “experts” on our Church and our religion.  Studying something for X number of years, does not an expert make.  I am a gun instructor.  “Experts” in that field abound yet I feel you can always learn, and the term “expert” is very fluid.

In my study of those who study us, I’ve found there is usually an agenda in their interest.  There may be some who honestly want to learn about our religion from a scholarly point of view.  But most are trying to tear it down and some are even bent on destroying the Church.   As I’ve believed for many years, if the Church has any enemies, the worst would usually be ex-members.  Some of these are even, in my opinion, physical threats to the Church.

Actual acts of violence against the Church are considerably less common in the United States today than they were in the nineteenth century. However, one major event related to the persecution of the Church is the murders of two missionaries in La Paz, Bolivia in May of 1989 by a terrorist organization called the Zarate Willka Liberation Armed Forces. On May 28, 1989, in the streets of La Paz, Bolivia's cemetery district, two Anglo missionaries were cruelly assassinated. For the first time, Guerrillas deliberately stalked and struck at representatives of the Church.  This type of violence has increased.

Other events happened in the 1980s.  Anti-Mormon protestors stood outside the Denver temple and threw rocks, and a firebombing scare was also reported there. Another Bolivian terrorist group, the Tupac Guerrilla Army, claimed responsibility for two attacks against chapels. The Latauro Youth Movement in Chile conducted twenty-seven small-scale bombings against Mormon churches in 1992 as well. It has been reported that a total of one hundred and forty-nine individual attacks had been carried out against LDS targets in Latin America since 1983.  There have been 27 acts of violence on Church property in the United States from 1999 until 2018.  In 2018 there were 3 separate incidents.  I’m not an alarmist but my time in the military taught me to look for trends.  This violence is a trend.  Now I will be the first to recognize that these acts of violence are not the acts of someone persecuting the Church.  Most of them are acts by individuals targeting other individuals. 

 

This is from an article from Bloomberg Businessweek September 25, 2018

Turkey May Target Mormons Next After Case Against U.S. Pastor

By Marc Champion and Cagan Koc

“The indictment, filed in May, ties Brunson to three alleged coup attempts against Erdogan since 2013. Yet the sole evidence for the Brunson-Abney meetings at the center of the prosecution’s conspiracy argument consists of cell phone tower records showing that, on the days the planning allegedly occurred, the two men’s phones were in Alsancak. Given that both men lived there, that would have been true most days of the year. “We never met Brunson” or even knew of his existence until his 2016 arrest, says Abney, now 71 and on a Mormon mission in the U.S. Nor, says Abney, had he conspired in any way against Turkey. “We just wanted to help people,” he says, by bringing wheelchairs to the disabled, pomegranate trees to poor villagers, and computers to schools.

According to Abney, the main witness against Brunson is almost certainly a former LDS member whom the prosecution has code-named “Dua,” a word meaning “prayer,” to protect his identity. Some of the evidence Dua produced comes from the Abneys’ computer, according to Kenneth Abney, who says the laptop was taken for repair by an interpreter who was later expelled by the church for allegedly embezzling $10,000.

Dua makes some spectacular claims—for example, that an umbrella organization for Christian churches that’s led by Mormons but involves the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency controls the deployment of all U.S. Christian missionaries; that they identify each other in the field with a secret handshake, a curl of the middle fingers into the palm; that LDS members sent to infiltrate Turkish military high schools as language teachers all had a finger missing; that Mormons make up 40 percent of the U.S. military stationed overseas; and that evangelicals and Mormons are driven to Turkey by a common desire to bring about the end-of-days prophesies in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, by reuniting the Kurds—the lost 13th tribe of Israel.”

It's not interesting to me that the Church is targeted in Turkey, I think that is pretty typical for these days.  I think it will change soon though.  What is interesting to me is that an ex-member has fabricated a wild story of conspiracy.  Even in Turkey ex-members are the Church’s worst enemy.

Then enter Deseret Nation. (#DezNat)  This is the Twitter/X hash tag that represents what the users of the hashtag describes as:

DezNat participants have typically insisted that their sole purpose is to gather orthodox Latter-day Saints and defend the church against critics. Correspondingly, they see the term "alt-right" as inaccurate and even defamatory.

When this hashtag first appeared, I embraced it.  I thought of it as those trying to support the church and to defend it. I feel it has been exploited to mean other things lately.  I would not want to use it now because of some alt-right and violent ideas it has been associated with.  I think it would have been better if the creator actually started a movement and established standards with the movement.  By leaving it open to interpretation just about anything will be used to the extreme.

I do not like “secret” groups whatever their cause.  But I understand the need for secrecy because if you’re involved in something that others consider “radical”, your life can be eviscerated by the internet.  People have lost their jobs over tweets if you can believe it!  Free speech in this country is basically over.  I would like to belong to a group that defends the Church.  I would want to remain anonymous, but others would want to “expose” me, I’m sure.  Anonymity in this situation would be security related, not cowardice.  I try to remain anonymous on this blog, but like I’ve said before, it’s probably not that hard to figure out who I am.  But being a part of a group like that, with standards of behavior, would be a great opportunity I believe.  Defending the Church is what I have been advocating for many years. This does not include physically or verbally attacking any lifestyle, organization, or idea we would not agree with. 

 But unequivocally standing up for and defending it.  If need be it might be physically one day. 

Semper Paratus

Check 6

Burn