Distance shooting is a necessary task to sharpen.

[TunnelRat]

I'm not sure being an odd duck is enough to warrant assault from the perspective of the law. If you don't care about being charged certainly the world is your oyster. But my guess is people will find out.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[shurshot]

"You can go hands on whenever you wish. Being an odd duck in church (like this dude) is VERY ample reason."

Wrong. What you are suggesting is considered Assault in most states.

Lots of lost souls and "odd ducks" attend Church seeking peace, guidance and acceptance. Many are harmless, suffer from mental health issues and could benefit from a smile and a handshake. Golden rule holds true.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'm saying "hands on" means your hand on your gun but not visible. That is not assault and yes you can do it whenever you wish. I have frequently done so with pocket carry when I feel hinky. Odd ducks like this guy make me feel hinky. That is what I mean.

EDIT: And as I said, no one is the wiser. Except you. Remember the fastest draw is one with your hand on the gun.

[TunnelRat]

Hands on is often used to mean going hands on with the assailant or suspect, i.e. using physical force. I haven't heard it used to mean preemptively putting a hand on a firearm. But fair enough.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry, I was not clear. I thought that is what peterg7 meant.

[FireForged]

What is he likely to do if challenged, or if told he can't enter? My guess is that he would just pull out the shotgun and start shooting. So now, instead of a couple of shotgun blasts aimed at specific individuals with a wall as the backdrop, you have a shooter blasting away at targets of opportunity and the security team engaging in a crossfire with a crowd of people as the backdrop. Tat IMHO is a recipe for disaster.

I stand with conventional wisdom in regards to the methodology of protection, security and similar endeavors. In spite of the risk and danger associated with efforts to mitigate danger sooner rather than later, I think its a little better than the alternative. Everyone gets to decide what is best for them. I wish them all the best.

I'm saying "hands on" means your hand on your gun but not visible.

I have never heard the term used in that way. Within this context, "Hands on" is a near universal term referring to the application of physical force. In a non-combative context, "hands on" can simply mean performing a manual dexterous task personally. Putting your hand on your gun, griping your gun..or whatever, is simply a ready condition.

I disagree. I think there are ways to approach folks at the ready and interview them for lunacy.

Absolutely.. its probably done a million times a day in some corner of the nation.

[peterg7]

Nope it’s getting physical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tennessee Gentleman]

No need to get physical if you're armed. Just stay quietly out of his line of sight and have your gun ready. All squirrels should receive such treatment. I think they gave him too much leeway. Even the parishioners were spooked by him.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by FireForged

I have never heard the term used in that way.

Now you have.

[FireForged]

Now you have

Yes.. and although I appreciate it. I do not believe I will be adding it to my personal glossary of terms. I suspect that a few of us were initially confused ( I know I was) but I do understand the meaning now.

[TunnelRat]

When I initially read "challenge" I didn't think of it in the context of an interview. Absolutely interviews are performed all the time, and not just by law enforcement. In that context I understand the point better (and challenge is used with that meaning so it's not out of left field, it's more a lack of imagination on my part).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[shurshot]

My bad Tennessee, I thought you meant physically / going "hands on". I see what you mean now. I was picturing you grabbing "Odd Ducks" and physically throwing them out of the Church without justification. . Glad we cleared that up! LOL!!

Yes, in a very discreet manner, without causing alarm to others... getting a grip on one's weapon ASAP in a POTENTIALLY bad situation is a good idea. You are indeed correct.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'm waaay too old to be grabbing anyone. Hence I carry.

[JohnKSa]

For what it's worth, it does look like Wilson puts his hand on his gun as soon as the shotgun becomes visible. However, he doesn't actually begin to pull the gun out until the first shot is fired.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

For what it's worth, it does look like Wilson puts his hand on his gun as soon as the shotgun becomes visible.

Too little too late IMHO. We know from testimony that the security team as well as a non security team parishioner had Id'ed the man as a squirrel well before he drew and were watching him.

Lesson here I think is get close to squirrel, out of his LOS with hand on gun BEFORE he draws. Draw when he does and shoot him where he ain't looking. Might not have saved the Elder but that would have been one less death. I think the lesson is if something strikes you as hinky be ready to act ASAP. Also, inform congregation to point out weirdos who enter the area to security.

Watching the first guy who was shot with that agonizingly slow draw from I think two cover garments was horrible. I wish he wasn't gone but I think we can learn from it.

[Mainah]

Too little too late IMHO. We know from testimony that the security team as well as a non security team parishioner had Id'ed the man as a squirrel well before he drew and were watching him.

That's what I can't get over. An unarmed usher was the first line of defense against someone who was identified as a threat while a security team was in place. This is all MMQB, and a whole new way to approach worship.

Maybe the lesson is that if you have church security start with the ushers. I'm a preacher's son, and that isn't easy to write. I wish things were different, but they aren't.

[Aguila Blanca]

A good friend of mine has been asked by the senior pastor at his church to help set up a security program. The security team so far includes an active state police officer, yet the church isn't even to the point of acknowledging that they should consider armed parishioners being present during services. They have definitely said that they DON'T want any sort of communication devices (like the earbuds the Secret Service people wear) because they don't want people to see them and know that there's security.

Apparently the head-in-the-sand, "It can't happen here" mentality runs strong among clergy.

[JohnKSa]

I can see a pastor or church leadership wanting to keep security very low profile. I think a big part of it is not wanting any distractions from the main purpose of church.

Also, there are a lot of people that become concerned about the presence of security. It makes them think about things they do not want to think about.

One couple I know was in the habit of leaving their rear-entry garage open. Not unlocked, but actually open. This gave anyone who wanted it, access to their garage which contained tools sufficient to easily open the door from the garage into the house. Or, a good place to hide until one of them came out into the garage for some reason. When I casually mentioned it would be a good idea to close the garage for security reasons, they became irate. They were angry at me for making them think about security--as if merely doing so made them less safe. It was kind of a revelation to me. I think about such things and it makes me feel more secure because even if I decide not to take actions in response to the possible security issues I see, I now am aware of them which is a big step in and of itself. But others don't see it that way.

Anyway, I think the bottom line is that church has a purpose (whether you agree with it or not) and the people in attendance don't need to be thinking about the details of the climate control system, the security provisions, how much water the church uses, or the source of the communion crackers. Those should all be handled in such a way as to allow the attendees to focus on what they're there for.

IMO, church security should be like the Secret Service tries to be--present, prepared and engaged but as low-key as possible until they are needed. Unfortunately, I think that most of the time the only things achieved are the "present" and "low-key" parts.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by John KSa

Anyway, I think the bottom line is that church has a purpose (whether you agree with it or not) and the people in attendance don't need to be thinking about the details of the climate control system, the security provisions, how much water the church uses, or the source of the communion crackers. Those should all be handled in such a way as to allow the attendees to focus on what they're there for.

The congregation shouldn't have to concern themselves with the details of such mundane matters, but the people who run the church (the clergy, and whatever form of church government the denomination practices) certainly should.

Case in point: I attended Christmas Eve service with the friend I mentioned and his family. Being "that guy," I immediately noticed that the two side exit doors at the front of the sanctuary discharge outdoors onto grass. These exits are both handicapped exits, and grass is not an acceptable walking surface for accessible routes. Worse, they don't clear the "walkways" from those doors to the paved driveway when it snows.

Worse yet, on Christmas Eve, when the church was filled to capacity (about 350 people), on one side at the front they had placed four large chairs, which reduced the access to the exit by about 75%. On the opposite side, they had placed two tables, which likewise reduced the exit access width by at least 50% and probably closer to 75%.

That's just stupid. It's a result of the "It can't/won't happen here" mentality. Fire exits are for fires, and we won't have a fire here. (Never mind that we're going to be burning candles.) We don't need to worry about handicapped exits because we don't have handicapped people here. (My friend's son is in a wheelchair and is incapable of self-preservation in any sort of an emergency.)

If the governing body of the church doesn't want the parishioners to worry about mundane details, that's all well and good. It doesn't give the governing body license to ignore those things, it creates a responsibility for them to ensure that those things are taken care of properly without having to bother the parishioners.

[J.G. Terry]

Starting with small targets puts marksman at twenty five yards at a disadvantage. It may be more productive to use a B-27 or similar target. The eight ring will become larger with practice. Spending some time shooting at twenty-five yards will certainly not hurt the marksmanship situation at 3 to 10 yards. Shooting errors with jump out at 25 yards I found this to be my situation. From reading the post I need to work on my speed.

Also, I need to pick a handgun that is concealable with the longest sight radius. This feature may come in very handy one day. As to cartridges, here it is mandatory to plunk test for my rounds. One the of twenty-rounds flunked the plunk test in my 10mm LW barrel. I really need to work on the speed. Getting five shots off in ten seconds does not get it.


If I were a shooter it would become apparent that he/she could command the field with a long gun at 25 yards or more.

What not to do: At one prime target progressive church nearby has had a shooting . Two dead. Shooter was tackled by church members. The prime target local progressive church here refused to talk to retired LEO. That retired officer was in a rotating security team elsewhere concerning safety. Go figure.The LEO's church had a minority congregation. The local progressive church stationed aged board of director members at the locked glass doors. This was to allow late comers to enter the chapel. The congregation is militantly anti-gun. Being in a progressive church does not give the unarmed moral authority do deal proactively with an active shooter. The incident elsewhere was a fluke.

[USNRet93]

Also, there are a lot of people that become concerned about the presence of security. It makes them think about things they do not want to think about.

In this day and age, I think that's NUTZ..I once took my 6and 8YO grand daugters to a 'horton hears a who' play..big auditorium filled with grade school kids and parents/grand parents..it had uniformed armed security..about 3 of them..I went up and thanked one for being there.

If done properly, church goers don't NEED to think about armed security. Just like having a CCWP..'most' don't know anything about it..unless the SHTF...

ah, I see this was brought up above 3-4 times..gotta
ReadTheFargingPosts..

[J.G. Terry]

Progressive Church: After awhile, I was told, that the security was really all about power and control from church leaders. Several suggestions were made concerning medical first aide etc. with same negative results. Some years earlier there was a vote to make the place gun free. Some of the progressive congregation promised to leave the church if becoming a gun free zone. The vote was no gun free.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Mainah

This is all MMQB, and a whole new way to approach worship.

Hence the useful purpose of the thread. I used to work very closely with the USSS a few years back and most all of their procedures were based on incidents that they learned from. When Mary Jane Moore tried to kill Gerald Ford I believe the door to the limo was either locked or not able to be opened fast. So the USSS changed their procedures and equipment accordingly.

As to the presence of security. Low profile is quite possible. However, correct me if I wrong but wasn't Mr. Wilson carrying openly on what looked like a police style belt rig? Maybe I saw incorrectly.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

We’ve discussed pocket carry in the past and how that can let you shave major time off a draw by letting you unobtrusively get a master grip on your pistol. Assuming enough distance or intervening barriers to stop or slow a physical attack, this would be a scenario where pocket carry would be great. You could have your pistol in your hand watching the strange ranger without ever alarming him or your fellow parishioners.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

We’ve discussed pocket carry in the past and how that can let you shave major time off a draw by letting you unobtrusively get a master grip on your pistol. Assuming enough distance or intervening barriers to stop or slow a physical attack, this would be a scenario where pocket carry would be great. You could have your pistol in your hand watching the strange ranger without ever alarming him or your fellow parishioners.

Assuming the pocket in question allows you to do this while seated. Certainly there are pockets that do, I'm just pointing that out.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk