This is why teachers need to arm themselves

[HereWeGoAgain]

the cop is ordering the suspect to pull his hand, and whatever object he my be clutching out of his pockets immediately. Such as holding his cellphone, or his wallet as he pulls his hands from his pocket.

We all know what happens then.

Reasonable is to keep his hands where they can't do any harm.

I see you ignored my post about how a gun can shoot through a jacket pocket.

 

[Woodznutz]

I'm pretty sure they aren't speaking for "most" churches.

The point is that many churches have armed security and many more are considering it. It's up to each church to craft their own security measures.

 

[Woodznutz]

At least a paintball gun loaded with pepper balls and a can of mace.

Or an AR-15. Fight fire with fire.

 

[postman]

And all of that deciding, weighing, and comparing against standards has to be done in a matter of seconds, even if a suspect could snatch a gun out of his belt and fire within milliseconds?

That's why I said a reasonable order is if the guy has his hands in his pocket, to keep them in his pockets. And if he has his hands out of his pockets not to reach into his pockets.

Basically to keep his hands where they are. So he can't reach for a weapon, or draw a weapon.

 

[postman]

I see you ignored my post about how a gun can shoot through a jacket pocket.

Not without the person twisting, to raise the barrel up. Which would be contrary to an order to stand still and keep his hands in his pockets.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You don't know how everyone is going to react in any given situation .

Are you Mr. Wizard or something?

RW is a regular Nostradumbass.

Teachers need to be permitted to carry a firearm but it's a real bad idea to force someone to be armed. It's an important distinction.

I have not seen anyone actually suggest that.

 

[JGalt]

the cop is ordering the suspect to pull his hand, and whatever object he my be clutching out of his pockets immediately. Such as holding his cellphone, or his wallet as he pulls his hands from his pocket.

We all know what happens then.

Reasonable is to keep his hands where they can't do any harm.

Stupidity on the subject's part. You never bring your hands out of your pocket with anything in them. Leave whatever's in your packet there and show you hands.

 

[kyzr]

Trained police officers with body armor, ballistic shields, high powered rifles refused to act
In your fantasy you expect teachers will

Those trained officers did as directed.
Self-defense is a much better mechanism, no fantasy involved.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Or an AR-15. Fight fire with fire.

That would be my preference but I'm talking about the teachers that dont want to use a real firearm.
They should at least have something to protect the kids in their care.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not without the person twisting, to raise the barrel up. Which would be contrary to an order to stand still and keep his hands in his pockets.

Why would they need to twist?
That makes no sense at all.

 

[Unkotare]

Those trained officers did as directed.
Self-defense is a much better mechanism, no fantasy involved.

??????

 

[Rigby5]

Trained police officers with body armor, ballistic shields, high powered rifles refused to act

In your fantasy you expect teachers will

That is silly.
The cops were afraid that if they charged in, they could cause hostages to be killed in retribution.
The teachers have the advantage of already being IN the classroom, so then would be on the defensive, which is not only much safer, but also would prevent there from ever being hostages.
Teachers do not have to kill, just scare any intruders away.
And what you say makes no sense at all, because if we followed your strategy, we would never resist any criminals at all. Just hand over what ever they want.
Clearly police just are not nearly as motivated as parents, teachers, or anyone who cares.

 

[Rigby5]

Flat tires while not as common as they once were are still quite common and even then manufacturers are doing away with spare tires.




I do NOT care if you carry. I just want nothing to do with a church with armed guards at the door. Do you frisk strangers or members that might have been acting odd? If not how do armed guards stop anything? Anyone that wanted to shoot up your church would simply conceal carry.

Obviously the point of having visible armed guards is that they would scare any would be attackers away, because they would know there would be return fire if they started shooting.
You do not have to frisk.
It is the visible deterrent that you need only.

 

[pknopp]

I guess it depends on whether you're a pussy or not.
Guns dont intimidate me in the least.

It's not about you.

 

[pknopp]

You realize this is kind of a fucked up way of thinking, right? Most people think just the opposite.

no, most people do not go to a church with armed guards at the door.

 

[kaz]

Scary sounding church. Sheesh. I fully support one's right to carry but armed guards at the doors? I'll attend elsewhere.

Bad precedent for Democrats like you rooting for big body counts, huh?

 

[pknopp]

So you're gunophobic.

So you're gunophobic.

I'm not paranoid. You haven't even explained the reasoning. I asked you if they frisked people they didn't recognize but you didn't answer. If not, what is the point?

 

[kaz]

cno, most people do not go to a church with armed guards at the door.

The irony is that the reason we need armed guards is your constantly disarming victims driving up shooting counts. If shooters knew that there were people shooting back at churches and schools, they'd stop targeting them. Or as you put it for you and shooters, lose lose. But for America and normal Americans who want people not to die in shootings, it's win win

 

[pknopp]

Whats an illegal command?

Here’s What You Need to Know About Elijah McClain’s Death

 

[kaz]

Nowhere near enough times for me to be paranoid to that level over it.

For you in the end it's about body counts, the higher the more you love it