Is it realistic to believe that a teacher could effectively defend against an active shooter, using an AR-15, armed with only a handgun?

LCpl Timothy McCain — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:47:32 -0500

After the shooting in Florida many people began to say arm the teachers. But they over look that a police officer was there. As a Marine I understand how difficult it is to close on and take an active shooter even with the best training and equipment. During the Dallas shooting 11 police officers was injured and another 6 was killed. Out of all the return fire none actually hit the suspect. Infact the suspect was killed by a remote control robot carrying an explosive. The reason why the suspect wasn't killed by a well aimed handgun shot is because of what we call the fog of war. When the shooting starts panic and confusion set in and the way we deal with it in the military is continually to train for those situations week in and week out. But without a third of the training people are expecting teachers to be able to identify the location of the shooter, know the movement of other armed teachers, know the movement of the innocent students and staff, close on the shooter and fire a well aimed shot without putting any students in further danger. Is that realistic?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2018 10:56 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:56:09 -0500

LCpl Timothy McCain Why not try it? The alternative is to let more students get killed. Not all teachers, but some, especially veterans could respond. The police officer will have to answer why he did not respond. If I was a teacher with a weapon, I would have no problem confronting this shooter. Keep in mind that most of these shooters are not professionals.

Response by SPC Joseph Wojcik made Feb 22 at 2018 10:59 PM

SPC Joseph Wojcik — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:47 -0500

The concept is that by arming teachers, or having visible security, you are creating a deterrent.
The deterrent hypothesis has some merit, I mean when is the last time someone tried to assault a gun show?

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Feb 22 at 2018 11:06 PM

LT Brad McInnis — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:06:10 -0500

I would like to believe that I would give it a try, it is better than doing nothing. And if I can save a few children in the process, so be it...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2018 11:14 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:14:13 -0500

Tired of seeing mental health, gun control, etc as the blame for the increased violence. Guns have almost always been a part of American culture. So what has changed from today to, let's say, 40 years ago? One answer. Us.
Our society, our families, our beliefs, our morality, our etc. Etc. We have changed. We are to blame. Stop throwing a false narrative or diagnosis on it.
We are the problem and always will be. The problem has just gotten worse.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Feb 22 at 2018 11:51 PM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:51:48 -0500

We're assuming the killer is as accurate as Chris Kyle. The alarm goes off and the doors close. The shooter knows that behind each door is an armed teacher. Armed with what? What level of training? Who knows? Might be a former vet teacher, might be a newbie college grad teacher. Hard to say.

America's only real holiday is Black Friday. Remember the two lady's choking each other in Macy's over a purse? How about the grown man that shot a college age kid over an X-box (or similar) in Walmart? You don't hear stories about that anymore do you? Why? Because from November 1st to February 1st, we enter a time period known as: "the holiday season." And during "the holiday season" stores are allowed to generously bend the rules, security wise. Mall cops are allowed to be armed, stores that don't normally have security, suddenly do, etc. Now think about your life and how you act. Has your teenage daughter EVER come home crying "OMG I LIKE SO COULDN'T SHOP AT THE MALL BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE GUNS KEPT DISTRACTING ME."

No. You've never heard that. Have you yourself ever come home "early" from a black Friday event because of "too much security?" No. You've never done that either. So the bottom line is that you, the American, have learned to...

LIVE WITH GUNS

during the time period from November to February. So here's an idea: extend the holiday period. Instead of November 1 to February 1, make it November 1 to October 31. Make it all year. Extra armed security everywhere. Snipers on the roofs at sporting/concert events. Metal detectors in theatres and libraries. More armed cops in schools. Now, note that in nations like England, France and Australia that have "successfully" (LOL) banned guns, crime has never truly gone away, has it? So yes, there will still be crime. But hopefully the crime will be like it was in Pearl, Mississippi where the young moron stood up, announced his intention to kill and the fully armed vice principle drew his .45 and took him out.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Feb 23 at 2018 12:28 AM

SN Greg Wright — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:28:26 -0500

I believe I could, with my minimal training. I make no claim to being a bad-ass. Zip zero zilch. But I am fairly certain I would engage in this instance, and protect my kids. If I can, why couldn't a teacher with training? But ok, say you're right, arming teachers is not the best course. Fine. Arm vets. Stick them in schools to walk the halls. 5 of them in a school like that would give pretty good coverage, and wouldn't strain anyone's budget.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 12:42 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:42:43 -0500

Teachers do not go into teaching to carry a weapon and kill student threats - outside Israel where many teachers have mandatory military training in their background. I would not expect teachers to do this job - nor would I want to see many teachers touch a weapon. How about also issuing them some decent body armor or ceramic chicken plate as well? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)\

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Feb 23 at 2018 6:37 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:37:52 -0500

Yes, it is realistic. In close quarters combat a rifle is not always an advantage. They have a longer turn radius, they can bump into things and make it harder to get on target etc. Their primary advantage is range which is somewhat nullified by being inside a building with lots of walls. With a semiautomatic handgun you can lay down a fair amount of fire and you can maneuver a little easier too.

Most of the school shooters are not trained in close quarters combat. Most of the more infamous school shootings (Columbine, Sandy Hook, now Parkland) were done by Students or someone pretty young and no real experience.

Your Dallas example, which was outdoors, and the cops that were killed were hit in the initial surprise attack by someone that had taken up a position that a rifle gave a very significant advantage to. That is not normally the case in school shootings.

You will have to accept the fact that in any live shooter incident there will be confusion, panic, chaos etc. I would still rather have a few teachers (who are willing and trained) to have access to a firearm to offer up a defense. The bottom line is that right now, for the shooter, there is almost nothing to stop him. Even the cop on campus in this case failed to do his job and was suspended (see my post if you have missed this part of the story).

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Feb 23 at 2018 6:57 AM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:57:16 -0500

Its very realistic that a teacher or some other armed individual could take down a single shooter using a handgun. School shooter and many others tend to get tunnel vision as they go about their evil. The are looking to kill and not paying very much attention to their surroundings other than looking for more targets and eventually looking for a police response. The chance that a shooter would be military trained are very slim. In many cases you could walk up behind a shooter and pop them in the head since they will be in tunnel vision mode. Even doing a mag dump at a shooter, KEEPING IN MIND COLLATERAL DAMAGE) can stop, distract or make a shooter think twice. It would help if the good guys was proficient with their weapon. The sheriff deputy that was the school resource office should have engaged the shooter and delay him at worst, killed him at best. We will never know if that man could have saved even one student because he never entered the school with his weapon which was more than the kids and teachers had as they ran, hid and suffered. Most civilians and even some military don't think about the shooter and how focused he must be and what his level of situational awareness is since he is most like riding an Adrenalin high as he focuses on the things in front of him. Anything is better than nothing in these situations.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Feb 23 at 2018 7:39 AM

Maj Marty Hogan — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:39:14 -0500

LTC Greg Henning your thoughts sir?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 8:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:32:17 -0500

The key topic right now is, schools are soft targets for this psycho's to hit, they don't have to worry about someone returning fire. They have a large group in mass, don't have to be a good shot, just point in the general direction and pull the trigger, and they become famous in their minds. If some sort of armed response could be directed at them, the ones who really don't want to die might think differently. If the shooter has a death wish someone is going to have to take him down, teacher, administration or security. Right now we need to do something to improve the security of schools. Some of these schools are just wide open, and it may be hard to lock them down. If they decide to arm some people they need training first and foremost.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Feb 23 at 2018 8:51 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:51:00 -0500

I do...at least they would have a better chance than throwing pencils and notebooks. They would be bringing a gun to a gun fight!!

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Feb 23 at 2018 8:55 AM

MSgt John McGowan — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:55:09 -0500

L CPL Timothy McCain — Something needs to give. We either hire or not, armed guards to protect our children. There was so many failures during this shooting. Next they going to say the gun was the bad guy. The gun only did what the shooter ask it to do. I would probably get my tail shot off but I would like to think I would do something.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 8:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:59:00 -0500

I think those without any knowledge of the AR-15, or firearms in general, overestimate its capability. It's cumbersome, conspicuous, and other legally obtainable firearms have more stopping power. I'm not sure giving teachers weapons is the "fix," but on its face it's better than having sitting ducks as targets. Very difficult answer to a difficult question.

Response by 1SG Marc Jensen made Feb 23 at 2018 9:08 AM

1SG Marc Jensen — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:08:49 -0500

Yes

Response by Susan Foster made Feb 23 at 2018 10:25 AM

Susan Foster — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:25:57 -0500

Certainly not an untrained teacher, but perhaps if they want to be. On the other hand, I'd rather find a process to prevent it in the first place (easier said than done). I saw this article this week, and it's from a veteran on this very subject. You all can say his experience is accurate much more than I can. https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/

I've been shot in combat. And as a veteran, I'm telling you: allowing teachers to be armed is an...

After the most recent school shooting, NC State Rep. Larry Pittman said he wanted to work with police to train teachers and allow them to carry weapons at school. As an Army veteran, I've been in close quarter combat and can tell you this is not the answer. It will only cause more death and destruction.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 10:29 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:29:09 -0500

Absolutely, Yes.
In addition to the deterrent value-- which is huge by itself-- active shooters are not 'good shots'-- especially the mentally disturbed children we see in school shootings. Not to belittle anyone's loss or pain, but this a**hole unloaded for 6 minutes in a crowded school hallway and ONLY 17 people were killed? That is 17 too many, but how many would it have been if the a**hole actually had a clue how to use a gun?

Taking on an automatic weapon with a handgun is wholly dependent upon 3 things: confidence, ability, and position.
Confidence-- you have to not crack under the 'fog of war'. Know your capability and rely on your training.
Ability-- You NEED to hit what you are aiming at. We do not need a bunch of bad-shots creating 'friendly fire'.
Position-- Get to where you can be effective before you make a move, or you just threw your life away and gave the shooter another gun. If I'm a teacher in a classroom, I'm not going to jump out in front of a shooter who has an automatic weapon and try to take him out with a pistol. I'm going to lie in wait with the front sight post chest-high on the door and wait until he opens it to get the first shot-off.
If he is in a hallway, I come up behind him and shoot him in the back (either from behind the door of a room he passed by or from around a corner). Active shooters do NOT cover their sixes.

Position being a key part of this-- the more armed 'good guys' there are the better. It increases the chances that at least one of you is going to be in an advantageous position at any given time which would minimize the potential loss of innocent life that would ensue while the 'good guy' maneuvered to get into a position to take a shot.

All that said: I've got a lifetime of military experience which started in the military police. I trust myself in this situation. I'm NOT suggesting that every teacher should try to gain the level of training and firearms experience necessary to be effective in these situations, but there are a lot of veterans, military retirees, former police officers, etc. who ALREADY HAVE the training and experience who are only lacking the authorization.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Feb 23 at 2018 10:38 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:38:30 -0500

The Dallas police faced a shooter from an unknown position, the situation in school shootings is that the shooter is in the same room or hallway, so the range advantage of a rifle doesn't offer a distinct advantage. While the focus in recent shootings have be AR's, handguns are still the most likely weapon and again, no range advantage. I would see no reason that a reasonably trained amateur couldn't be a real deterrent.
The other thing to consider is that mass murderers do not pick victims that can fight back.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 11:30 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:30:41 -0500

Seems to me it all depends on how the shooter goes about his shooting. At a distance, the shooter with a rifle might well have an advantage over the teacher with a pistol. Close in, the shooter is at a bit of a disadvantage with a rifle. Regardless, IMV in such a situation, something is one heck of a lot better than nothing. Chalkboard erasers aren't much of a weapon ... either in the offense or the defense ... though back in the day, teachers were known to use them effectively to awaken sleeping students.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Feb 23 at 2018 11:30 AM

CSM Richard StCyr — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:30:47 -0500

I believe someone who is trained and disciplined stands a good chance of defeating the types of attackers we see executing these mass school shootings.
The attackers are not counting on being exposed to counter fire and in the case of the disgruntled student shooters none of the reports I've read have identified them as having any training that would enable them to execute fire and maneuver if engaged. These cats are counting on reaping havoc on unarmed folks.
It takes training and discipline to throw rounds back and forth and I just don't see these folks being ready to go if confronted.
There are rounds that are made that will reduce the chances of folks being hit by rounds that miss the mark. I have an S&W Governor with a laser and one of the types of rounds is a .410 shell with a mix of frangible disks and pellets so If I have to hammer a home invader any rounds that miss the mark will not penetrate the walls of the house. Granted it's a hog but it's extremely accurate.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Feb 23 at 2018 12:05 PM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:05:26 -0500

Yes-A bullet if it hits in the right place regardless of if it's delivered by a rifle or a hand gun will kill or incapacitate the shooter. I will grant that in general rifles are more accurate than hand guns. One point I think you miss is that most of these mass shooters are basically cowards and the mere threat that they might get shot might be enough to stop them. I will also admit that I think it's very sad that we need to have armed guards in our schools but what other viable alternative do we have at this point?

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Feb 23 at 2018 12:29 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:29:34 -0500

Regardless of where one stands on guns in general, one thing needs to be clearly understood: Guns are not going to go away.

Setting aside the legal, historical and cultural aspects, one is left to contend with the simple truth that guns exist and will forever be present. Americans in general don't like being told what to do, and the passion of much of the gun owning American public leads me to believe that--if only on principle--many will simply never give them up. And the harder its pushed, the harder they'll push back.

There's no magic magnate that will suck up all guns in the US; and military or government officials scouring the countryside , kicking in doors to every household in the country looking for guns will never happen (and frankly would be a bloodbath if it did). Too many people are basing their opinions regarding what "should" be done on what they wish could be done, not based on the reality "on the ground". The reality is there's hundreds of millions of guns, and no amount of wishing will get them all or even most. Its time to deal with things as they are, even if you hate guns to the core of your being.

While one can find isolated incidents throughout history, mass shootings on the scale we have had in the last, oh say 25 years, was not really a thing in the workplace or schools. For those of you NOT of an age to have lived prior to this period of high-profile mass murder, you might not be able to understand that there was a time when no one worried about going to work and having a disgruntled employee blast away at everyone or that the picked-on kid will come to school to kill as many as he feels needs to feel his pain. You certainly will find it unimaginable that gun safety was ubiquitous in American schools then and that in many, generally rural, parts of the country it raised NO eyebrows when kids would bring their firearms to school to go hunting before or after class.

The guns have always been there. All kinds of guns. For every weapon an American Grunt carried into the field, there was a civilian counterpart. Something has changed in society; I'll let y'all fight over what that "something" is. But that's the reality. So in conclusion, if one wants to find solutions, start by accepting the reality.

Response by SSgt Nevin Kirkland made Feb 23 at 2018 1:19 PM

SSgt Nevin Kirkland — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:19:27 -0500

Schools are soft targets, I just don't see any reasonable, legitimate argument against arming teachers or putting multiple guards/officers in schools.

Your point about training and preparedness is well taken, and of course there's a risk that a less-trained person won't handle a crisis as well as they should. But that risk is much, much lower than the risks being taken by making it well known a school is a soft target in which an active shooter is unlikely to face any significant resistance. And besides, the most likely effect of arming teachers is deterrence, not a shootout between teachers and active shooter.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 2:08 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:08:04 -0500

Trigger to trigger, probably not. What an armed player (teachers, in this case) would provide in a potential active shooter scenario is a deterrent. All of these recent mass shootings happened in areas that were assumed to be gun-free zones. The shooter was not expecting anyone in the schools or the churches to be armed, and none of them wanted a shootout, only targets. If any of those cowards thought they would encounter return fire, none of them would have done it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 2:13 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:13:16 -0500

To put it simply, YES!

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Feb 23 at 2018 2:50 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:50:32 -0500

LCpl Timothy McCain - I like your train of thought here. Arming volunteer teachers is a good start to creating the "deterrence" factor that is desperately needed. The down side is that many teachers lack the experience to handle active shooter situations. Being trained is one thing; having the ability to put that training into action is another. It's just my own humble opinion but I think putting armed retired or former military members (3-5 or more based on school size) on roving patrol around the school campus would be more effective. That option has its own set of challenges but it's better than just standing around talking about the problem and getting nothing accomplished.

Response by LCpl Timothy McCain made Feb 23 at 2018 3:02 PM

LCpl Timothy McCain — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:02:21 -0500

I'm very happy to see the discussion that we are having. I'm a country boy who loves to hunt, but I don't think that I ever thought about something like what happened in Florida until Columbine. I grew up in the 80's and 90's during which the availability of certain weapons wasn't there. Because of the cost. I remember reading guns and ammo magazines seeing the M4, M203, and the M40 being excited to join the military, so I could get a chance to use these weapons. I knew that you could get a AR-15 but it was $1,500.00 to that was 1 mussel loader 1compound bow and a 30 ought 6. Today the same AR-15 is $300.00 and easier to get than a handgun. So here's what I think about giving teachers guns. I see too much that can go wrong. But I do agree with putting professional armed guards in the schools. But they would there to solely protect the school. Not to handle disciplinary issues. Also we got to stop cutting the education budget and expect them to be able protect our children when the time comes. We can restrict or ban semi auto weapons that uses .308, 7.56, 5.56, .223, and the 5.54. I a bolt action .308 when hunting, so I don't see why would anyone need a semi auto .308. We should ban all fully auto weapons and any modifications that can turn a semi auto to a full auto. And for the rest of the semi auto rifles and shotguns reduce the magazine size to five rounds. I think that no one should ever be allowed to carry any concealed weapons on school grounds. The only armed people on school grounds should be the one that are paid to be there.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Feb 23 at 2018 4:28 PM

MAJ James Woods — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:28:55 -0500

Thanks. Well said. Some folks want to believe it's a numbers game. How many armed administrators, educators, teachers, staffers would it take to pacify an armed active shooter with semi-automatic rifle? Like the deputy, we don't know who will panic, who will be calm and collective, who will hesitate, who will be accurate with their fire, who won't mistakenly shoot a hostage or bystander, who is willing to kill another human being? Human nature is unpredictable. Trained professionals hesitate, make bad judgments, or panic and I'm to assume an amateur with a gun is going to do a better job at protecting my kid. First time in combat, I didn't know how I'd react; four long deployments later, I was on automatic response. I want my kids' teachers to educate first, safeguard them in a crisis, put themselves between my kid and the threat; not run into the hallways chasing the threat down. If we do arm them then they should play defense not offense.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Feb 23 at 2018 6:07 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:07:39 -0500

Yes

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2018 6:28 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:28:03 -0500

I think statistically its been noted that the sooner a shooter is confronted, the more likely they are to kill themselves. Maybe someone in law enforcement can back me up on that..... not sure but if so, let the shooter take himself out sooner. Sad but, they stop killing then. So if a teacher is willing and able to confron a shooter, why on earth would I discourage that?

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Feb 23 at 2018 10:00 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:00:20 -0500

The suspect in the Dallas shooting was a Army Reserve Veteran of Afghanistan and even though he had rifle training he was being very selective with his targets (only shooting at Police) and in my view was not all that great with his aim. He was in a 3rd floor elevated position (parking garage) surrounded by concrete for protection from return fire.......almost an elevated bunker. Because of the echo when he fired it took Police a while to determine where he was located. Another point, a number of the BLM marchers had various assault rifles on them but didn't use them to suppress the shooter, they quickly handed their weapons over to Police because they were afraid the would turn on them as potential suspects.

Also, the Dallas Shooter was discharged from the USAR due to mental issues. Something about stealing his ex-girlfriends underwear in Afghanistan and hiding it. His former girlfriend reported him and he was on the next flight out of there it read like. USAR never reported to local police or even to his Parents they discharged him for mental reasons. He was living with his Parents at the time of the shooting and they were surprised to hear about events in Afghanistan for the first time from the press.

Texas Governor was on FOX News today and stated a lot of school districts in the state of Texas already allow teachers to be armed under the concealed carry law. So he stated it was nothing new for some Texas school districts. He stated not all Texas school districts allow it though. He said it has been allowed for several years so far.

Response by Maj John Bell made Feb 24 at 2018 12:55 AM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:55:58 -0500

I disagree with your analysis of the Dallas shooting. The fog of war made the location of the shooter difficult. Once the location of the shooter was known and he could be identified as the target, his retreat was cut off and he was isolated. It was his position, not the Fog of War that determined the best course of action to bring him down. The on-scene commander decided that a robot with an explosive charge made more sense than moving a police shooter into a firing position, while exchanging shots, at close combat distance.

The tactical situation for an armed intruder entering a school building is entirely different. It is closer to the tactical problem the police faced in Dallas, than the tactical situation the assailant faced. I believe the armed teachers should probably not be "riding to the sound of the guns." That is a task better left to the police who should have body armor and hopefully pyro-technics like flash bangs.

The armed teachers first responsibility is to make a decision to shelter in place with the students in his or her area of influence, or to evacuate. The armed teacher should then stick to that plan until it is complete, or no longer the best course of action.

If the shooter has closed on the teachers position and the threat is imminent, the armed teacher should seek a defensive firing position that affords concealment and/or cover plus observation of the shooter's approach. At this point the teacher would engage the shooter to either kill or delay, or take an ambush shot if feasible.

If the armed teacher's students are, as best as possible, sheltered in place, or evacuated; then the teacher can assess which of three courses of action seems best,

1) remain in place protecting the students in the immediate area
2) block the shooters pursuit of evacuees, or
3) move to an offensive posture and seek to locate, close with, and kill the armed intruder.

This substantially increases the difficulty of an armed assailant, hell bent on inflicting as many casualties as possible. Will this end school shootings...? No it will not. Will it reduce the number and severity of casualties...? I believe so, but we will never know regardless of what decision is made.

Response by PFC Sandra Wade made Feb 24 at 2018 1:06 AM

PFC Sandra Wade — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 01:06:31 -0500

After these horrific events I believe we all have the desire that an armed hero just happened to be there and shoots the shooter before he does so much harm. We are disheartened that person was not there. Just likes in the movies or stopping the terrorist on a train. I am not sure what would be the response time for a teacher, coach, principal in cases like this. As an aging former military, skydiver, What's in my mind is not what s in my body. Jumping off the ladder to drop and roll before I fall or using my martial arts training ( I don't conceal carry). Weapons training probably is not realistic. I am sadly no longer a bad ass in body. Only in mind. It's just heartbreaking that we are at this point. We have too figure this out.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Feb 24 at 2018 5:18 AM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 05:18:46 -0500

What to do about School Security - https://savinggraceatguantanamobay.com/2012/12/30/what-to-do-about-school-security-in-the-age-of-deranged-shooters/ From December 2012.

What to Do About School Security in the Age of Deranged Shooters

What’s more important than your family’s safety and security? And what is more important to you when your children are at school than their safety and security? So why is it we see more and better …

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Feb 24 at 2018 6:49 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 06:49:45 -0500

Depends on the size of the hand gun, me I wouldn't have anything smaller than a .44. Might have to shot through the door.

Response by SGT Thomas Mitchell made Feb 24 at 2018 11:30 AM

SGT Thomas Mitchell — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:30:51 -0500

The real scenario should be what are the risks to an armed teacher when law enforcement enter a school in an active shooter situation with little intel. I wouldn't want to be spotted holding on to a firearm in a crowded building with officers' adrenalin flowing.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2018 11:50 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:50:55 -0500

Probably a long shot. But, better than nothing. And, one well placed bullet would completely change the outcome.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Feb 24 at 2018 11:52 AM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:52:46 -0500

I have the privilege to live in a school district that has had armed staff members for the past four years. There are prominent signs posted at the entrances to the school grounds and at building entrances announcing that fact to one and all. My grandurchin has been a student there for three years. I attend school functions such as six week awards ceremonies, programs, lunch visits and vet visits regularly. We've had a number of sleepovers and parties here for her and her BFF's(Cows and horses and dogs, oh my!) The point is that I know the staff at the school and I know a lot of the kids at the school. I've never seen any evidence of guns in the school. No armed teachers prowling the halls. No suspicious bulges on the ankle, at the waist, in the armpit or any place else on any of the staff. And as for the traumatic impact of guns in school on the kids there, there's no evidence of that either. I've never heard a student mention that her teacher or the vice principal or the maintenance guy had a gun. Kids are not stupid or unaware; if guns were upsetting them they would know who had one, where it was and who had what kind of weapon. And they'd talk about it. They talk about everything. I've never heard a word about guns at school. From staff or students.

The policy of arming school staff here has had none of the negative effects the talking heads have been postulating. In actuality the policy has contributed to a happy, secure and effective school system.

Wouldn't surprise me any that those great big red and white signs announcing the policy may be the most effective part of the policy.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Feb 24 at 2018 12:17 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:17:17 -0500

More realistic than doing so without any gun. But sure, I agree. Give teachers AR-15s instead.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2018 12:47 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:47:59 -0500

I'd bet money the teachers who died shielding the children would have stepped up. Considering four trained officers didn't engage the enemy during an active shooter situation, what is the worst thing to happen? There is no perfect answer, but, at a minimum allow, the teachers the opportunity to step up. The alternative of doing nothing will just embolden the psychopaths hell bound on destruction.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 24 at 2018 2:41 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:41:28 -0500

From what I understand the kid was not shooting at long ranges 2. There were supposedly 3-4 deputies on the scene that chose their safety over the lives of the innocents. 3 Any return fire since the kid chose to escape might have convinced him to flee, or at least engage the teacher shooting than more innocents.

Response by MSG Charles Turner made Feb 24 at 2018 3:36 PM

MSG Charles Turner — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:36:07 -0500

Properly Trained, I have witnessed a 98 pound young woman put a Special Forces Sergeant down, wailing and OUT! Yes, and a school full of trained teachers, especially MOMS could put up more fight than most of us men would want to encounter! Never forget the Mother's instinct to Protect. Us fellas, just dont have that!

Response by CPO Lou Oliver made Feb 24 at 2018 3:43 PM

CPO Lou Oliver — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:43:23 -0500

First of all arming teachers is a defensive measure, it is not for the purpose of hunting down the shooter. Arming the teachers is to protect the students by covering to door into the classroom during an active shooter event. As for the Dallas shootings, the shooter was mostly taking long range shots, mostly well over 50 meters. At Camp Pendleton, I did learn that with practice, one could hit a soda can at 75 yards using the prone position, just like old gunny showed us, however pistols were not designed to go long range against rifles.

Response by PO3 Grant Skiles made Feb 24 at 2018 6:29 PM

PO3 Grant Skiles — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:29:13 -0500

They do in Israel. The difference is that every person in Israel must serve in the Armed Forces and a lifetime of reserves most of it inactive. They have been trained on how to shoot and how to react to violence quickly. Most teachers(being a former one myself) I would NEVER trust with a gun. They vote and support Democrats for a reason. They will not put their own life in danger. There are some who will and that is where we need to have those teachers located near any entry way so that they will and can operate quickly. There are many other ways that we can keep schools safe. Fits is a double door where both are locked and an individual has to swipe their ID to get in. This last shoot the former student would have never been able to get into the school due to not having an ID. Second is to have security at the doors whenever they are open and for all events. Parents and other guests will have to go through the double doors and get searched when they get inside the first set of doors. There is always a janitor on duty and having a few teachers certified to carry and be trained will never hurt a situation. Finally schools have threat, fire and emergency weather drills. We need our administrators and teachers to take these drills seriously. Most of them do it because they have. Then when they are needed to be used in real life they freeze up and people get hurt.

Response by LTC David Brown made Feb 24 at 2018 8:30 PM

LTC David Brown — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 20:30:32 -0500

I didn’t see any one talk about hardening schools to make it harder to even enter with a gun. A teacher with a gun should be the last resort. People entering our court houses empty pockets etc. Go through metal detectors etc.

Response by Sgt Joe Tessari made Feb 24 at 2018 9:44 PM

Sgt Joe Tessari — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 21:44:10 -0500

Everything you said id true Sir, but there is no panacea out there that will prevent another tragedy should a determined individual or group decide to attack again, however a comprehensive approach that includes "acceptable" school staff, including teachers, that want to carry is an appropriate start. Taking on a long rifle with a handgun isn't desirable in nearly any situation but is far better than not having a firearm at all. There are many former military and law enforcement members who teach as well as a few teachers with gun backgrounds that could carry if allowed. In close quarters like a classroom or hallway a pistol will at least give them a fighting chance.

Response by CW5 John M. made Feb 24 at 2018 9:49 PM

CW5 John M. — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 21:49:40 -0500

Would it be safer if we “locked up” all the good guys to forcibly separate them from the bad guys? That’s asinine. Well, how about confiscating all the guns from the good guys to “control” gun violence?

Response by Sgt Joe Tessari made Feb 24 at 2018 9:50 PM

Sgt Joe Tessari — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 21:50:37 -0500

Unfortunately here in California this is all a mute point. Our illustrious Governor recently singed legislation making it illegal for anyone but law enforcement to carry a firearm on school grounds even if a school superintendent wants someone to.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Feb 24 at 2018 10:30 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 22:30:43 -0500

Let's talk about the Elephant in the room: A SRO who did not do his job and confront the attacker! That was the first real issue here in FL, not that no teachers were armed. If the SRO had done his job and rushed to the sound of gunfire, as Police are supposed to do (like Military) we might not have lost 17 kids and coaches to gunfire. Instead, he stood outside and waited for backup. Even after backup arrived he was no help in identifying the shooter, his location, or anything else. He was fired for his lack of action, as well he should have been, but then we get into the whole teachers - armed teacher thing.

Yes, I do believe that having it known that there are armed teachers inside schools will provide deterrents to armed shootings. In case you have not noticed, most of these Shooters, are taken alive, they are trying to make a name for themselves, not "die for a cause." If they realize that their chance of survival is low, I feel they might not want to engage.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Feb 24 at 2018 10:53 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Sat, 24 Feb 2018 22:53:10 -0500

Good point.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Feb 25 at 2018 5:02 AM

SPC Brian Mason — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 05:02:22 -0500

It depends on the person. In my opinion, veterans like myself would gladly take up the job. We could work some side job while a duo is on roaming guard. Depending on the school size, count, etc., then at least 6 per school per day.
Don't think it's feasible? The last 2 colleges I attended and graduated from had security guards at best. NONE who were armed that I saw. First college had NO walls or gates.
Second didn't until my last 8 months until I graduated. ONLY because it's in the middle of a big city and the area around it tends to have gang activity. The week I was supposed to graduate a gang fight started and a stray bullet killed a student b/c they were so close to school property.
There are 3 schools within 1.5 miles of me. I could float between all three.

Response by CW5 Ivan Murdock made Feb 25 at 2018 7:59 AM

CW5 Ivan Murdock — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:59:39 -0500

I doubt that student would have come had he thought they were armed. There was an officer there but he failed to act. In close proximity both weapons are almost neutralized, the AR would be more accurate and allows for a standoff, inside a classroom the handgun that advantage would be neutralized. The AR15 could have been a shotgun, or Ruger - the ammunition doesn't know which weapon fires it. I don't think that arming teachers by mandate at all, like pilots on planes but the perpetrator doesn't know who is, just that they are. With Troops to teachers, there are very capable teachers who would be able to engage and assist. We need to harden our schools and stop feeding these kids pharmaceutical drugs that numb there ability to feel.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Feb 25 at 2018 9:49 AM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:49:08 -0500

In an earlier post i talked about the fact that the teachers in our school district are armed and the fact is publicized. Fortunately those are not the only measures in place to deal with armed intruders. Outside access to each campus is monitored from a central point and entry is by remote lock release for a limited number of entrances only. Playgrounds and outside activity areas are fenced and within the campus areas. Internally, building access within the perimeter is monitored by video. Intruder drills are conducted on a regular basis. Those drills concentrate on sheltering in place in either classrooms or designated spaces that offer protection(like those designated for tornado protection). School staff's role is to safeguard the kids in these areas, not to go hunting for the intruder. The object of the intruder plan is deterrence and interim protection until the sheriff shows up. Intruder hunting is a job reserved for law enforcement.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Feb 25 at 2018 10:12 AM

SFC Robert Walton — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:12:22 -0500

The reason these sicko's attack schools is they can do there bidding with out resistance. If you have several armed teachers staff one shooter can not fend them all off.

Response by 1SG Klayton W. Hayes made Feb 25 at 2018 10:19 AM

1SG Klayton W. Hayes — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:19:35 -0500

The concept is that a 4 member ACTIVE SHOOTER TEAM, who have received extensive training in this issue, closes on the shooter with the intent to eliminate them. Most shooters when confronted with aggressive response tactics most times shoot them self’s. If they choose to attempt to flee with their weapon, the team takes out the threat. BLUF: 4 well trained people with handguns and a aggressive response will eliminate the shooter!

Response by SSG Dale London made Feb 25 at 2018 1:45 PM

SSG Dale London — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:45:58 -0500

Three salient points here:
1 - We're not talking about just any teachers. We're talking about teachers with firearms experience, i.e. veterans, former police officers, etc -- and even then with special training.
2 - That police officer was actually a Broward County deputy -- and I use the term loosely, because that coward hid behind his car while the shooter rampaged and killed.
3 - It has happened before. In 1994, Dean Mellberg went on a rampage at the Fairchild AFB Hospital, killing 5 and wounding 22 others. He was stopped by an Air Police officer on bicycle patrol at 80 yards with an M92 pistol. Mellberg was carrying a MAK-90.
Conclusion: If properly trained and of suitable character, one person armed with a pistol can indeed stop an active shooter with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15 or otherwise. Throw two or three into a school and don't tell anybody who they are and you won't get very many active shooters either.

And what about those three guys on the train in France -- unarmed they took down a guy with an AK. You don't necessarily need a gun but you DO need balls!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2018 6:32 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:32:07 -0500

I can’t speak for elementary, middle, and high schools in a variety of locations and states, with the different social values and customs and outlooks therein. Though I’m both a middle school teacher and military officer, I’m not speaking on behalf of either of those institutions.

The schools I work in teach us to use ALiCE training. Alert, lockdown, counter, and evade though not necessarily in that order. Depending on where the shooter is will dictate response. I’m the only teacher in my school to drill my students, in each class, on what to do. I have items to blockade my door, to facilitate window escape, and to counter a shooter with. My room is right next to the outside door, and outside my window are the woods. I’m one of six veterans /reservists in a staff of 60.

If there’s an active shooter, the odds are I’m getting my students out of the window or the doors. If there’s a shooter on my hallway, he’s probably already hit other classrooms, so I have the warning and time to lockdown and prepare to counter. My kids are getting out of the window and I’m shoving my filing cabinet against the door, securing the door arm, and possibly handing my students who have no chance of getting it of the room in time items to throw, like canned foods from fundraisers.

A shooter would have to get past the lock, past the door arm measure, through the filing cabinet, while (assuming I have no chance to get through the window) im able to stand next to the door he’s about to breach.

I’d say my odds with a handgun are pretty good, even for a chaplain.

A local CWP instructor has offered districts in the upstate free training for teachers who want to carry a sidearm, IF the districts ok the teacher to carry.

Trained teachers willing to vounteer to both carry and be trained, on top of one veteran/reservist teacher on each hallway. Admittedly, that’s not covering a shooter in the media center, gym, or library. But with a handgun I’m not engaging the shooter, I’m protecting myself and my students.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Feb 26 at 2018 3:35 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:35:22 -0500

Yes, it's very realistic. Even if you miss the shooter, you're potentially distracting him from shooting at students and giving them time to get away. And we already know teachers have died placing their bodies between the student and shooters. If teachers are courageous enough to do that, I see no valid reason not to give them the means to protect themselves and take the shooter out. A gun in the hand with no training when lives are on the line is still better than no gun at all.

Response by SFC Christopher Taggart made Feb 26 at 2018 8:44 PM

SFC Christopher Taggart — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:44:55 -0500

"...Is that realistic?" nope.

Response by SP5 Geoffrey Vannerson made Feb 27 at 2018 3:33 PM

SP5 Geoffrey Vannerson — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:33:51 -0500

1 Round placed in the right place can bring down just about anything. If anything hits you at 2,500 ft per second your gonna drop. If you doubt this buy yourself a BB-gun or even better a pellet gun that has a travel rate of no less than 1000 ft per second and just for fun shoot yourself in the leg or shoulder with it. If you can withstand the first one keep doing it until you cant then double the effect. During basic training we were told strategic places to shoot at helicopters, tanks and other vehicles to disable them. Not to say how effective it may be but IF you stand the same chance by shooting at a person I will take that chance everyday of the week. A few weeks at a fire-arms range and I will put my money on a teacher who is in fear for his/her life and for the life of his/her students. HISTORY has a way of repeating itself. Once again in the not too distant future we will all be armed just like back in the early 1800's. The best deterrent is "peace through superior fire power." If it were my kids in there I would go after the "nut-job" with a spork if I have to......

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2018 12:44 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:44:24 -0500

In practice, active shooters fold pretty quickly when they are pressed back by response of force. Whether they kill themselves or die by gunfire, it’s that assertive response that halts the chaos. My concern is less, “Is a handgun adequate firepower,” and more “How soon can someone do SOMEthing,” in my opinion. Ballistically speaking, a handgun should suffice in all but the longest of corridors. The schools I grew up in didn’t seem like they had hallways longer than 50 meters, the doctrinal maximum effective range of the M9.

Response by SSG Neil Arnold made Mar 1 at 2018 2:21 AM

SSG Neil Arnold — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 02:21:01 -0500

No way not happen..

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 1 at 2018 11:29 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:29:23 -0500

Ever been shot at? when lead starts coming you way, even if not extremely close you focus on that- not shooting innocents and the fruitcake in FL was not bent on suicide.

Response by Maj Jesse Mendez made Mar 4 at 2018 8:22 AM

Maj Jesse Mendez — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 08:22:22 -0500

Effectiveness of armed teachers certainly cannot be as effective as it would be by personnel who train day for these scenarios. Although, an increase in school defense posture, in any manner, may deter the assailant, causing him to seek a softer target. Sometimes a simple security sign in front of your house deters the burglar.

Response by SGM Edward Sullivan made Mar 4 at 2018 8:54 AM

SGM Edward Sullivan — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 08:54:09 -0500

After a series of fatal school shootings by Arab terrorists the Israeli Government mandated that ALL teachers would be trained and armed. That was in 1994 and there have been two shootings at schools in Israel since, with ONLY the terrorists dying, by being shot by teachers!!!

Response by SSgt James Carter made Mar 4 at 2018 9:40 AM

SSgt James Carter — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 09:40:29 -0500

In every case (so far) of a school shooting, the shooter was not a well trained individual but was a "troubled" young man who may have had an initial target in mind but then turned on the mass. The Dallas shooting on the other hand was by a well trained, ex-mil rifleman who intentionally made himself a hard target.

So, is it realistic to believe a teacher could defend against an active shooter? Yes, IF the teacher has had minimal firearms training and IF the teacher isn't trying to be a hero.

Response by GySgt Charles O'Connell made Mar 4 at 2018 4:21 PM

GySgt Charles O'Connell — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 16:21:16 -0500

If having armed teachers in schools were to become a reality my guidance would be herd your charges to a secure area, barricade your entrance/exit. If the shooter appears, no hesitation, drop them. But don't, DON'T!! Leave your charges unprotected.

Response by SSgt Bruce Probert made Mar 5 at 2018 1:46 AM

SSgt Bruce Probert — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 01:46:13 -0500

I am an old marine and while this question really isn't easy to answer I will try. not all teachers are made equal and neither are the threats they face. There is a reason to think that the principle and her assistant a Sandy Hook would have been successful in stopping Adam Lanza had they been armed, they obviously had the courage. We just had several policemen fire 64 rounds at a subject in California without hitting the subject so let's not get too excited about training it has more to do with willingness to engage than being "Highly trained". We have good reason to believe bringing the threat under fire would cause the retreat of the threat and hopefully into the arriving police response. Depending on the teacher we would be more comfortable with the teacher as our defender than the police because the teacher has more combat experience. It would be amazing if any Cop were to win a gunfight with my late father so let's be a little circumspect about how this plays out. The hardening of the target through legitimate access control backed up by credible armed response is the foundation of school security, we must be understanding that the threats faced by our schools are not the same. Each threat has it's unique perimeters. We have 2 times a day when our kids are most at risk, when they are arriving and departing school We might consider additional police presence at these times. Domestic disputes are another especially when you have children being abducted by the non-custodial parent. Law enforcement needs to notify schools of these issues. It's hard to respond to a threat you aren't aware of. Security is only as good as the armed response to any threat. Any breach needs to be contained as quickly as possible, any securing of the perimeter and or awaiting backup when children are being shot at and killed is simply unacceptable. As far as the question of taking on a AR-15 with a pistol this shooter killed 17 wounded 14 well over 100 rounds fired not much of a shot I'd like my chances at ranges of 50 meters or less. Semper Fi

Response by Lt Col Lewis Williams made Mar 5 at 2018 1:46 PM

Lt Col Lewis Williams — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 13:46:12 -0500

In general an armed teacher might make a difference, but a shooter who more than likely expects to die won’t care about return fire. Let teachers teach and let’s hire armed security to be the deterrence.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Mar 7 at 2018 7:34 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 19:34:47 -0500

A lot more realistic than if they don't have a weapon. When my daughter was in junior high, the principal was a reserve Colonel who had been active, including Vietnam. I have no doubt that there was not one day my daughter was in that school, that she was not protected. No doubt either that the Colonel and his henchmen were armed. I was never told that, but I know the man, and saw concealed carry that slipped on more than one occasion on his henchmen. I doubt if someone not of my background would have spotted it, I was a deputy sheriff at the time. By henchmen, I mean at least one retired senior enlisted and several former enlisted. They were the custodial types.

When my daughter went to the senior high, I was a little more worried. Henhouse just waiting for a weasel. Victim disarmament zone.

My point? Give school security to retired military types. Make it a condition of hiring. Much better than walmart greeter....and that would solve your issue.

And, while choice of tools matters, especially past 50 yards, one is fighting the other person, not his attachments.

Oh, and by "henchmen", just in case a civilian reads this and doesn't understand, I mean the Commander's (in this case I guess the principal) most trusted subordinates, and that would be senior NCO's. I was a henchman, I am proud of he fact that I was a good one. Not to be confused with "minions" who are a lower class of henchmen. A good minion may become a henchman if he does it long enough and is good at it.

Response by Darlene Holt made Mar 8 at 2018 10:40 PM

Darlene Holt — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 22:40:18 -0500

Depends on many factors: How well trained and/or much of a marksmen is the teacher? The shooter? What kind of environment? Inside? Hallway? Classroom? Outside? (AR-15 is better for range but most hand guns are better in close quarters) What position are the students in? Can they get to/do they have cover? Is there a clear shot? What proximity to the shooter is the teacher? Is the shooter aware of the armed teacher? Is there a hostage situation? Etc. No two situations are exactly the same and it really is not such a simple question as too many factors have to be considered. There just isn't an easy answer.

Response by SPC Eric Brock made Mar 10 at 2018 4:13 AM

SPC Eric Brock — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:13:59 -0500

Or the could just end up shooting kids like the cops. How about we just put metal detectors in schools

Response by PO3 Phyllis Maynard made Mar 10 at 2018 9:27 AM

PO3 Phyllis Maynard — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:27:11 -0500

LCpl Timothy McCain I have posted similar questions. For me, the answer is no. I doubt if individuals went to college, attended teacher credentialing classes, attended state EOG update classes, attended classes to be guided on how to work with special needs students, crawl through Mount Everest high student loans to compete in a gunfight with a mad trigger happy assailant.

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made Mar 10 at 2018 6:44 PM

SSG Ray Elliott — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:44:13 -0500

Arming teachers with little to no training to do the job of a trained police officers who practices with a weapon regularly shouldn't be considered an option. It would be better to have metal detectors and armed and trained security at the doors to keep weapons out of the schools in the first place. Once a gunman gets in the building someone is going to die before he can be stopped. If he knows he can't get in the building to begin with he will be less likely to try.

Response by PV2 Robert Lind made Mar 10 at 2018 11:38 PM

PV2 Robert Lind — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:38:12 -0500

I am of the belief that guns in the hands of good guys at school would deter most from bringing guns to school. Part of the lure of shooting up a school is there is nobody to shoot back. Gun free zone you know.
Word on the street is the shooter in Florida used ten round mags in a Tavor not an AR15. My point being that his magazine changes had to happen quickly and precisely to maintain the rate of fire required to inflict such a high number of casualties in such a short time. If he was spot on and didn't fumble with the mag changes that would give the good guy 2-3 seconds to get off a shot and get back to cover. Considering most pistol shooting is done inside 25 yards, it is unlikely that your average school teacher could get close enough to get a shot off that would stop the shooter.

Response by CH (CPT)(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2018 8:14 AM

CH (CPT)(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:14:02 -0400

Think about the average firefight. It's mostly about sending led back the other way. The problem with school shootings (and other mass shootings) is they all happen in "gun free zones, which obviously the shooters ignore.) I would never say a teacher "has to" be armed. But I would certainly remove the gun free zones and give teachers the option to obtain, and use, a carry and conceal license.
Look at the teachers that died protecting their students. I would think most teachers would rather have the option of shooting back, even into the ceiling or wall, just to scare off active shooters instead of using their bodies as a shield.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Mar 11 at 2018 12:24 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:24:36 -0400

Sure. Nobody expects teachers (as opposed to cops) to "close on" and deal with an active shooter. The expectation of the teacher would be to hunker down, with students, and address the shooter only if the shooter made entry in to the space that teacher occupied. Doing so, the teacher would be a surprise to the shooter and get the drop on him or her. In close quarters, unless the bad guy was a trained/experienced CQB guy, the teacher with the handgun would not be disadvantaged.

Response by Frank Godek made Mar 11 at 2018 9:36 PM

Frank Godek — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 21:36:10 -0400

I'm not sure if the idea is for armed teacher to identify a shooter's location, close with him, and engage him. Rather, I think that it's more likely that, if the school goes into lockdown because of an active shooter and the shooter enters a classroom, and armed teacher might be able to shoot the shooter before harm can come to the students. In other words, it's more of a situation like an armed intruder entering your home rather than a tactical assault. Under those circumstances, yes, I think that a teacher with a decent handgun has a possibility of defending him or herself and the students against a shooter with an AR-15. The range is close enough for the pistol to be effective and the teacher is cornered and has nothing to lose by attempting to shoot the shooter.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Mar 13 at 2018 3:15 AM

MSgt J D McKee — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:15:16 -0400

This is a beautiful place to insert "smoke 'em if you got 'em", a beloved order from my drill sergeant in 1973, but here it would have a different and more poignant meaning....

Just had to say it.

And, to answer the direct question, it's more realistic than having them all make a big shootable target where a rifle bullet would go through multiple little bodies, and, worse, making them all stay right there where the fucking shooter is. Ok, small children don't need to be on the street alone, it's dangerous. But, DAMN, does no one understand that being on the street alone is better than being in a fucking school during a school shooting? Are you kidding me? Jump out the ground floor windows and run for the nearest McDonalds or something. Or wherever, but away.

If they all just run for it, maybe the fucking idiots who are doubtless making a cordon around the school and hiding behind their patrol cars waiting for someone to do something won't shoot at them on the way out. I said "shoot at them", and not "shoot them" if you noticed, most cops suck even worse than most military when it comes to shooting.

Does it sound like I blame the cops?? Hell yes, and I was one for 6 years. Right after Colombine. We got a new sheriff, and I had a 1500 kid school in my patrol area. I told the new sheriff that if similar happened at the school, I was going to go in the school and shoot the fucker who was killing the kids, and I would take no other orders, and if ranking deputies told me to do anything else, I wouldn't damage them so long as they didn't try to stop me. The new sheriff did what I hoped, and gave me orders right then to do just that. Didn't matter, really, I'd rather get fired than live with being a Colombine cop. Form a cordon, my fucking ass...shoot the shooter is your job, your oath, your only reason for being on the job.

Are the people doing the planning now even sane, or do they just have no ballistic experience? I suspect many of them are unfortunate sufferers of a mental illness which I choose to label as "Liberal Malaise". It looks like to me that if someone wanted to shoot up a school, they would WANT it on "lockdown", a meaningless virtue-signaling word that means "trust us, we are doing something".

What better could they ask for than for the teachers to sequester the targets into a great big ball for them to not be able to miss and where each bullet could penetrate multiple targets? Shit, I would tell my kid to run, far, and fast, over any teacher in the way, and come home. Or get the hell out of the victim disarmament zone any way possible.

Different topic, you mentioned the Texas shooter. My opinion of the Texas shooter is that the shooter was semi-skilled because of previous military service, and they are lucky they didn't have to handle an actual operator. Y'all know, or some of you do. Not putting myself in that class, but i have known some, and I guarantee there are some right here that would eat a whole city alive if they went off. Fortunately the type that is that capable is also the type who isn't that stupid.

So, did the cops in Texas not have actual weapons, but just handguns?

Response by SPC William Weedman made Mar 13 at 2018 2:37 PM

SPC William Weedman — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:37:12 -0400

I heard an interesting conversation on a radio station out of Louisville KY recently. The guest trains pilots to carry concealed in response to 9\11. He said he could easily adapt his training for teachers and staff. The teachers could be taught to defend the students in a classroom and the staff not having a class, could be taught to hunt the shooter. The prerequisite is the interested teacher or staff member must already be a licensed concealed carry permit holder, that way they understand the legal side and have some training with a weapon and generally know how to conceal their handgun without notice.

Response by Alan K. made Mar 13 at 2018 2:39 PM

Alan K. — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:39:00 -0400

I guess it depends on who is holding the handgun......It wouldn't hurt if it was an FN 5.7, just saying.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Mar 13 at 2018 7:44 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:44:30 -0400

If you are in a tank and exposed, and I shoot you with a snub nosed .38 Special will you not fall if your brains come out the other side? You can be the baddest PX commando out there, but no one has 360 degree vision.

Response by LtCol Dennis Ivan made Mar 14 at 2018 7:01 AM

LtCol Dennis Ivan — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:01:53 -0400

You are mixing skills and issues. The intent of arming teachers is not to have them conduct CQB to hunt down a shooter in an active scenario but be able to do exactly what you demonstrated shooters have done, ie defend a position.

As you stated one shooter was able to shoot 11 police officers and kill 6 more by bunkering. That is the intent of arming a teacher to have them defend / bunker their classrooms. Yes, I am sure there are people out there who think they should get into a gun fight, but you are right in a real scenario not only is that a bad idea for teachers who aren't prepared for it, it is highly unlikely they would be willing to do so. It is much more likely and practical that they would be able to defend their classroom full of children.
As a Marine you should know the most difficult and dangerous point in CQB is opening a door because the defender has nearly all the advantage, ie angle/position they are in to the door, understanding of the room and its arrangement, etc. This is the position arming teachers puts a shooter in, to have to make that door entry into an armed teacher.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2018 8:44 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:44:39 -0400

No. LCpl Timothy McCain

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 14 at 2018 10:26 AM

SSG Edward Tilton — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:26:07 -0400

Just another excuse to do nothing. Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, No Constitutional Amendment would be needed

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2018 10:31 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:31:00 -0400

Well, every situation will be different from others. A teacher armed with a pistol needn't leave his/her students necessarily to go hunt a shooter. The teacher may lie in wait for the shooter to arrive (again the situation will dictate methods used). Much also depends upon the skills of the armed teacher in making such a decision. What would YOU do? Were it that I was faced with the incident, I would much prefer to be armed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2018 10:33 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:33:45 -0400

Of course. I believe they come from the same species of mammal that soldier emerge from: homo sapien. Some might have little apptitude and talent and other may have it. Arm those capable. Keep the number of armed teachers private and make carry concealed and that fact alone could be a deterrent.

Response by LCDR Arthur Whittum made Mar 14 at 2018 11:02 AM

LCDR Arthur Whittum — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:02:55 -0400

As long as people don’t train the teachers properly, no. Whether training them all is practical or a good idea? Can’t say - not close enough to,problem to say.

Response by SSG William Jones made Mar 14 at 2018 11:07 AM

SSG William Jones — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:07:20 -0400

Clint could!!!

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Mar 14 at 2018 12:44 PM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:44:00 -0400

I don't think that it is reasonable that a teacher with a handgun will adequately defend against a long rifle that operates from a standoff position. However, when the shooter tries to make classroom-by-classroom warfare, the distance is significantly shorter and the shooter has to breach the closed door which impairs them, and brings them into the effective range of the handgun. Given the choice, I am all for giving those teachers every opportunity to defend themselves and their students. As a former police officer, there is no perfect scenario whether teacher or law enforcement. Just an old guys opinion...

Response by SSG Bill Thompson made Mar 14 at 2018 2:31 PM

SSG Bill Thompson — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:31:55 -0400

It's never been tried before so therefore no one knows the results until it is placed into action. "Do nothing and nothing gets done"

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Mar 14 at 2018 5:40 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:40:22 -0400

To answer your question YES, to defend no, to shoot the attacker in the head while he has tunnel vision yes.

Response by LTJG Richard Bruce made Mar 14 at 2018 10:04 PM

LTJG Richard Bruce — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 22:04:35 -0400

The type of weapon is irrelevant. The projectile is what hurts. Real life is not TV where a cowboy on a fast moving horse shoots an Indian at a good distance also moving on a fast horse. Besides range training, those who carry a sidearm must undergo judgement shooting exercises under stress. As others have said, it's the deterrence that will prevent most crime.

Response by PFC Patrick States made Mar 15 at 2018 4:19 PM

PFC Patrick States — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:19:55 -0400

There is no correct answer to this. Yes they could, if the circumstances are right. Are they fairly close, do they have an unobstructed view and a clear shot? Is the shooter looking at them? If the situation is wrong, they could make matters worse. Personally, I would prefer that they have the opportunity to effectively fight back as opposed to hiding under a desk and hope that the shooter doesn't find them before the police arrive and actually engage the shooter.

Response by SSG Antoinette Azevedo Toscano made Mar 15 at 2018 4:36 PM

SSG Antoinette Azevedo Toscano — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:36:57 -0400

LCpl Timothy McCain, great question. I agree, it will be nearly impossible for a teacher to stop an active shooter for all of the reasons that you mentioned and because we don't make decisions as quickly or as well as we think we do. Read Malcom Gladwell's book 'Blink' for more on how faulty we humans are at making good decisions quickly and under stressful circumstances.

Response by PO3 B Al Eisen made Mar 15 at 2018 11:53 PM

PO3 B Al Eisen — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:53:39 -0400

A better chance than without one. The hallway is a poor place to deal with this. You would have to make the killer come into the classroom. His movements would be limited by the doorframe. At that point, it would depend upon your angle to the shooter. In one school that I taught in, I would have let my students blaze it out. What Gun-Free Zone? We teachers were the only ones unarmed.

Response by SGT Chester Beedle made Mar 16 at 2018 2:41 AM

SGT Chester Beedle — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:41:27 -0400

Across a football field? Not likely, but possible. Inside a library or cafeteria? Very possible. As he enters a classroom through the door? Yeah, pretty easy.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Mar 16 at 2018 11:45 AM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:45:43 -0400

I think the putting armed teachers in the school is like increasing the odds in a lottery. If you have an armed teach in a room and the dirtbag shooter runs in and goes after a kid he does not like.... it would be good to improve the odds of having someone with a gun who is behind the dirt ball. Then he can take an easy shot. It is all about getting good guys in position.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Mar 16 at 2018 11:52 AM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:52:12 -0400

MSG Chuck Pewsey We talk about the over publication of these events...and guess what, you will see more copy cats will pick up the idea. SGT Private RallyPoint Member You are right about our evolution of the last 40 years, but also add that in minute everyone in USA knows about it. Tell me that does not give the broken family, low morality grown people into Copy Cats. Who wants to bet against me that their will be copy cats following this school shooting? (I live in Las Vegas, and only bet on positive wins, or I would be on welfare!)

Response by MSgt Walter Clack made Mar 16 at 2018 5:00 PM

MSgt Walter Clack — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:00:29 -0400

You make some very valid points that should certainly be considered. It would greatly depend on the training, experience, and dedication of the teacher/administrator/worker. Numerous individuals have put themselves between children and a shooter empty handed. Someone like that would most likely have the temperment to complete some basic training. I taught part-time after retiring and would have felt confident to carry concealed. There are many out there that are familiar enough with weapon use and strategy that they would at least distract the shooter and get him/her ducking instead of just killing. Again I stress if they are gonna put themselves in the line of fire at least let then have a fighting chance. Another very important consideration is that there are many people (teachers, administrators, workers) out there that really have no business ever touching a weapon let alone carrying one at a school.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2018 5:02 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:02:33 -0400

Personally, I don't say "Arm The Teachers." Ya know all those able-bodied veterans that are having trouble finding jobs? Here's a thought; arm them and allocate a budget from the State to pay them to guard the schools. They have the training, they have the tactical understanding of such scenarios (a refresher course with law enforcement and/or SWAT teams would also help), and this provides more jobs and capable personnel to re-enter the workforce. And let's be honest here; 99% of them will never fire a shot in defense of a school. However, they will still act as roving guards to protect and safeguard the future of this nation (i.e., our children). I agree that the teachers may not be the best choice, but I absolutely believe that vets are a great one. Not to mention, I think it may also help to enforce a more positive outlook on the military (we aren't always seen in the best light lately, thanks to leftist media), by having capable veterans being responsible for the safety and welfare of our children. Because then, quite literally, our own veterans would be safeguarding the future of the United States, both home and abroad. I think a lot of people have lost sight of that concept.

*Admin note* yes, mental health screenings and background checks would need to be mandated prior to hiring ANYONE to become an armed guard for a school full of children.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 16 at 2018 9:29 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:29:20 -0400

Get a Mini-gun

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Mar 17 at 2018 12:52 AM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 00:52:30 -0400

A pistol will kill you just as dead as a rifle. The AR-15 has a much greater range than a pistol, but that's really only a factor outside the maximum effective range of the pistol. Inside a school building, having a pistol is not a significant disadvantage.

Maj John Bell, Capt Jeff S., Cpl Private RallyPoint Member, SGT Jim Arnold, SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth, LT Brad McInnis, Sgt Randy Wilber, CW3 Harvey K., 1stSgt Glenn Brackin, SPC Robert Coventry, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, SGT Gregory Lawritson, SP5 Mark Kuzinski, PO3 John Wagner, TSgt David L., LCpl Mike Calhoun, SSG Ronald Bloodworth, SSG Dennis Grossmann, SGT Jamarl Jones

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Mar 17 at 2018 5:35 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:35:15 -0400

There was a so called police officer there, cowering like a scared rabbit.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 7:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 07:07:25 -0400

I don't think so. Not all though, there are plenty who would pick up that weapons and not be afraid to use it...I think that's my answer there, a lot of teachers may learn to shoot it but when it comes to actually pointing it a person, even in defense, they might be too afraid to pull that trigger when necessary.

Response by LTC Jeff Shearer made Mar 17 at 2018 8:09 AM

LTC Jeff Shearer — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:09:32 -0400

Tim I could not agree more about the fact that a pistol v an assault rife is a bit of a bear. However, it is very doable. Dont get me wrong I had much rather have a team of door kicking SF ninjas with M4s etc... However, I am going to be honest, if all I had was my 5 shot 2" smith concealed carry revolver I would head toward the fight. Yes this could be my last fight but what the fuck that is what I was put on earth to do. That sorry sack a cat shit is killing our kids got to go.

Now to address the obvious; you are way out gunned but that is why you have got to be trained. I am not saying that will keep you from getting killed but it will distract jackass from killing kids. I don't want to die, and promise those terrified kids do not want to die, if all I had was a pistol you are damn right I would go.

To address putting steel on target when bullets are wizzing by, its training, training, training. I agree is a sad day when we eve discuss teachers with guns, they are educators not killers. However, a part of them is a sheepdog, they protect those in trusted in their care. I don't have all the answers but I have some. One of the first things is we need to know why but we never need to openly discuss the shooter is bad because of society or his crazy mom or whatever. At that point in time he is a threat, aka a wolf, the immediate answer is to locate and stop the threat. That is done simply by killing the jackass. Tim I would much prefer a shotgun or M4 if was in that situation however, if all I had was my 2" 5 shot smith I would run to the fire. Yes i would be terrified but those are out kids.

Response by CW5 John M. made Mar 17 at 2018 8:31 AM

CW5 John M. — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:31:00 -0400

More realistic than if none of the good guys had anything to defend themselves with - other than “whimpers”..... If anything, it gives the shooter “pause”, perhaps to duck for cover, or - since so many are cowards - perhaps give them pause to consider going to a known “gun-free zone. It can buy time until the real serious help arrives.....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 10:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:22:02 -0400

NO, I have seen how security local forces walk around the schools and supposedly guard our educational facilities and it is done very unprofessional. I don't need to go into detail about what I am saying, just go to a local school in your area and make an assessment of what you are looking at as security operations is concerned.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Mar 17 at 2018 10:23 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:23:37 -0400

Yes, for two reasons.
1- In the past, all mass shooters either gave up or killed themselves when confronted with a armed individual. The fact the someone was shooting back at them totally ruins their game.
2-When the first cops arrive they will be armed with a handgun. While more and more average uniformed cops are beginning to carrying "patrol rifles" (usually a AR-15 type platform), most still are only armed with a handgun and a shotgun. But a handgun is still enough to stop the badguy (see #1).

However, in active shooting circumstances the key to winning is to have the proper mindset. Which is to be very aggressive and stop the threat right away. It requires John Wayne type of tactics which goes against normal police tactics. Teaching that mindset to teachers will be he tough part.

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Mar 17 at 2018 11:47 AM

Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:47:04 -0400

Only with the Grace of God.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 2:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:43:13 -0400

A lot depends upon the individual. One must be very selective when it comes to choosing whom to arm. It is one thing (and usually fairly easy) to train someone how to shoot well. It is another thing to find someone willing to kill another human being. Sometimes you can find someone willing to kill but they do not act on reflex, they stop to consider the situation first. Non-reflexive shooters are often killed by the assailent. Among the civilian population, most reflexive shooters are found in military veterans who have seen combat, the very self reliant individual, someone from the country or an area of low population density, someone from states south of Maryland, many NRA members, and from churches that stress self-reliance (e.g. LDS). Today's police officers regrettably are not as reliable in this area as they once were. Between all the critics that beset them and the "touchy-feely" requirements necessary to be hired, we are often unable to hire the best candidates. This is far from being every officer but there are many that are frankly "timid". NOTE for record, having been a police officer I realize that we are responsible for where every bullet stops and that criminals are not so encumbered. This is however not an excuse for inaction. Practice, practice, practice, until you can call your shots within a reasonable range for a handgun and shooting becomes instinctual. An examination of the behavior of the Broward Co. Deputy Sheriffs in the FL shootings recently will reveal gross timidity in action. Nevertheless a retired LEO or one who is making teaching their second career, are still a good bet. Remember that while killing the assailent is preferable (most being natural born cowards), most mass shooters only need to become afraid before they will seek self preservation. This is another reason why pursuit unto destruction (within reason) must be instinctual. These killers have plagued schools, theaters, malls, etc. for years. I used to only move about armed when deployed, now I do so everywhere. I am determined to protect myself, my loved ones, and those around me from these predators unto death. The teachers / administrators entrusted with this new responsibility must feel likewise.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 5:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:35:25 -0400

The shooter rounds the first corner in the hall and opens the door… in a second the shooter has a hole in him “center mass”. Yes. It’s not only realistic to believe a person with a handgun can fight at close quarters with someone with an AR-15, I would give 5 to 1 the person with the handgun will win.

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Mar 17 at 2018 8:35 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:35:22 -0400

The cop on site did nothing, he is on film. The police stood by and let it happen. One pistol could have made a difference. There are many acts of teachers saving students with their lives. A pistol would have given another option to just shielding someone with their body.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 8:43 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:43:58 -0400

Yes, it is, it definitely is. Two shots to center of mass. BUT, the question is will a fifteen-year Home Econ teacher respond to that shooting situation in the same way as a fifteen-year police officer? Pound for pound, skill for skill, experience for experience, I doubt it. BUT, that teacher is on site, and the cavalry may be several minutes away, and time is critically important. Anything to distract or deter a nut job shooter from popping more caps may save lives and/or delay his or her attack just long enough for the police to arrive and frag his or her completely worthless ass. And that is the what will serve the community the most, a dead shooter and as few the number of civilian casualties as possible.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 9:46 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 21:46:54 -0400

Yes, it is realistic.

Response by CDR Dan Cunningham made Mar 17 at 2018 10:51 PM

CDR Dan Cunningham — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:51:01 -0400

Rephrase the question: 'Is it realistic to believe that a homeowner could effectively defend against an intruder with an AR-15, armed only with a handgun?'
You betcha.

Response by MAJ Raymond Haynes made Mar 17 at 2018 11:16 PM

MAJ Raymond Haynes — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:16:23 -0400

I am still undecided about arming teachers to protect our schools. In all the confusion, it could turn into a wild west show with rounds going everywhere, possibly hitting innocent people and raising the casualty rate. Just to get out of the box for another idea, how about protecting schools similar to how the TSA protects airports. Regulated entry points, with screening equipment, and the ability to deny access by shuting the entrances down in an emergency

Response by SGT Aric Lier made Mar 17 at 2018 11:24 PM

SGT Aric Lier — Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:24:32 -0400

can I take down an assailant with an SR 22? damn right, pocket knife? I will try if forced too, the bigger question with all of the shootings , is why hasn't mental health come up, of the last 17 shooters all of them have been on medication ...... all the while the big pharma companies have given over 2.5 billion to congress while the NRA is around500 mil..... follow the money

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2018 12:55 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:55:57 -0400

Do you trust someone from personnel or finance to do it?

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Mar 18 at 2018 4:16 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:16:06 -0400

It is realistIc to believe that a potential shooter would find a softer target if they realized there was the potential for multiple armed defenders onsite.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2018 5:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:25:52 -0400

Let me give you the following option which will make this eminently clear.
You are forced to fight a violent man armed with an AR -15. Do you want to do so empty handed armed with a “gun free zone sign” or face him armed with a handgun? Pretty simple decision , right ?

Response by CH (LTC) Robert Leroe made Mar 18 at 2018 5:46 PM

CH (LTC) Robert Leroe — Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:46:42 -0400

If someone is firing back, the shooter may well leave the area. I think this is better than no one returning fire.

Response by SSG Steven Lemon made Mar 19 at 2018 4:23 AM

SSG Steven Lemon — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:23:22 -0400

I guess it is just as unrealistic to think that a teacher could effectively defend against an active shooter, using an AR-15, armed with nothing. Two of them tried that in Florida and they are dead.
Hunting aiin't so fun when the rabbit has a gun

Response by SPC Douglas Thompson made Mar 19 at 2018 9:48 AM

SPC Douglas Thompson — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:48:59 -0400

Whether or not a teacher could neutralize an active shooter is dependent on too many things for a simple answer. One thing I can think of as a deterrent is that if the shooter is similarly inexperienced he may be put off by rounds coming back in his direction. An armed response doesn't necessarily require a hard kill to be effective, a soft or mission kill saves lives too. Beyond that, it's too damn complicated for a simple yes or no answer.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2018 11:13 AM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:13:25 -0400

I'm not so much concerned with training ninja teachers. I am aware that it takes LOTS of training, frequently, to remain proficient enough to move towards and eliminate a bad guy. I also don't want another bloated federal agency to half-ass train armed security at schools. What I'd like to see is the lifting of the gun free zones. Just let citizens do what they can do everywhere else. Give them a chance. If a teacher has a concealed carry license, let them carry. Obviously with the understanding that A) it won't stop everything, B) there may be some complications, and C) It is a fast, simple semi-solution that requires no further tax dollars being spent. Standing by for return fire...

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2018 7:07 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:07:37 -0400

Well, it depends on the teacher.

Response by SFC Stephen Atchley made Mar 20 at 2018 9:43 AM

SFC Stephen Atchley — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:43:29 -0400

In the close confines of a school building? It is realistic to believe a person could engage a suspect armed with a rifle and prevail with a handgun. Can it be done without placing students or other people at risk? Probably not. Nor, can law enforcement enter a building under this scenario without placing innocents at risk.

Response by Amn William Schwartz made Mar 20 at 2018 12:13 PM

Amn William Schwartz — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:13:53 -0400

Yes. A properly trained teacher with a good handgun and within distance parameters could take out a bad guy with a scary AR. Just as long as there are not a big crowd of panicking people.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2018 12:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:26:28 -0400

The person being at the right time and the right place and a tool can win. The story of David and Goliath is real.

Response by GySgt Douglas Dare made Mar 20 at 2018 12:53 PM

GySgt Douglas Dare — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:53:43 -0400

I believe it is realistic to arm teachers to DEFEND students in place. I'm certified to carry concealed in Kansas. This license allows me to carry in many other States. I'm completing my Masters Degree in School Leadership and served 21 years on active duty in the Marine Corps. I've been certified to teach conceal carry in Kansas and was a Primary Marksmanship Instructor for years while on active duty. With all this training I still would not carry in school until I was Deputized. See teachers are certified in many different areas just like our police. The difference is in the arresting authority and training. Teachers should be allowed to train with police and after completing the training they should be Deputized. In training teachers should be taught what we teach in conceal carry classes. For example, Hold in Place. When I'm shopping in Wall Mart and I'm in the dairy section and someone in the automotive section starts shooting I cannot seek out the individual. I can look for an exit and or hold in place. I can defend my area. I'm NOT a police officer so I'm not authorized to locate close with the enemy. Not MY job! Same in a school. If I'm in school and I'm carrying a gun in the science wing of the school and a shooter opens up in the art wing. I should never move to the Art wing I should ensure my students in my area are safely removed from the building and then move into a position to defend those who cannot escape. The Art teachers or Administration that was in the area where the shooter is located can engage the shooter.

Response by SSgt James Tadlock made Mar 20 at 2018 4:26 PM

SSgt James Tadlock — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:26:32 -0400

I don't think that arming the teachers is the thing to do. It will become more dangerous and out of control. Although for me I will take something over nothing. I might get lucky.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2018 4:54 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:54:13 -0400

LCpl Timothy McCain,
After the recent Florida Parkland High School Active Shooter incident that killed 17, the Columbia County School District here outside Fort Gordon, GA. changed its policy on how teachers and students should react to an active shooter (more fight or flight, versus cower and hide) as well as the more stunning change; adding one armed teacher to each school in addition to the resource/sheriff officer. Now, granted each teacher will need to be trained and certified, but the goal here is not necessarily to take on an adversary armed with only a Glock GEN4 or something similar, but to act as a deterrent, because the shooter will not know, nor will the students know and even some teachers will not know who it is. In this instance I think it is definitely a plus. We already do this at all of the local churches. No one knows whom it is, but a Deacon, Elder, or other member is always designated and armed, whenever the church is open for a mass event. We started doing this not long after the Charleston, SC Church shooting. It in my humble pinion acts as s pretty strong deterrent.

Response by SSG Steven Lemon made Mar 20 at 2018 5:51 PM

SSG Steven Lemon — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:51:15 -0400

A teacher armed with a handgun against an AR-15 has a lot better chance of defending students than ten teachers armed with crying towels

Response by SP5 Billy Mullins made Mar 20 at 2018 7:42 PM

SP5 Billy Mullins — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:42:35 -0400

I believe they could and would with proper training. It is not for every teacher but for those who already gun enthusiast who practice and are willing to go through the necessary training I say why not. By all means I believe having former military and police in the hallways are part of the answer. At my church we have armed security and these are church members willing to do the training to protect our brothers and sisters should anyone come to do us harm. This begins with security on the outside and progresses to the inside and being able to lock down the sanctuary in an instance.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2018 10:03 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:03:47 -0400

Yes. It's called training. Confidence. Proficiency.

Same as we are expected to fight against an enemy dressed a a civilian. Practice and the necessity to survive.

Besides. 1 shooter (example) against 10-20 teachers.

Is the enemy, foreign or domestic, bombing police stations and Military posts and other facilities that have armed guards and plenty of ammo to fight back? Or are they bombing public locations with the possibility of someone having a weapon is extremely slim? If you increase the presence of defensive forces that should hopefully reduce the occurrence of such terrible and hostile acts.

Response by 2LT Ronald Reimer made Mar 21 at 2018 9:31 AM

2LT Ronald Reimer — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:31:30 -0400

Maybe or maybe not. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a teacher to offensively engage a shooter, however, I think that it would be better for them to be armed and possibly be able to defend themselves and the class if the shooter became an imminent threat, (let’s say that they were confined in a classroom where the shooter broke in), at least they might have a chance to neutralize the threat.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Mar 21 at 2018 9:50 AM

SPC Brian Mason — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:50:55 -0400

What does being a teacher have to do with it? Aside from taking and passing the CCWP class, he/she would have to be trained in its use and practice. Twice a year isn't enough to be effective for most people who've never fired a gun.
Part of this money that's supposed to be for educating and training teachers will include this. It's voluntary. Aside from hitting targets, they would have to know how to handle these situations.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2018 11:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:33:10 -0400

I believe that no teacher should ever have a gun on them, they are teachers and they get paid to teach. Lock the damn schools, post a packing guard at the doors and install metal detectors or something but don't have teachers carry. What if one day in class they get to the point where some kids are just driving them crazy and they have had it and decide to use that gun then on them kids, lets say a teacher is dealing with marital or financial issues and they go off in class and shoot up the place ? what are we going to do then ? Blame the kids ?? Blame the gun ?? Blame the teacher ?? Put roving guards, door guards, gun powder sniffing dogs in these schools, raise gun ownership age to 25 , a 21yr old to me is still not mature enough these days to carry a gun !! Their brains are still developing !! Lets invest in our children's safety but don't have teachers carry also.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Mar 21 at 2018 2:22 PM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:22:48 -0400

I think a misconception is that teachers are all civilians with no experience or training with firearms. On the contrary, many teachers are also Reserve and National Guard, former police, corrections or other LEO's, former FBI, CIA, security experts, sportsmen/women, hunters, etc., people with a background of familiarization in firearms. When New York passed an public access Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) law, requiring all public facilities, including schools, to carry AED's they did not also require training! The law said that during all school functions, before and after school, trained school personnel must be on the premises ready to perform CPR/AED rescue! What did we do? We offered FREE training and then reminded the school staff, teachers, administrators, secretaries, custodia,maintenance and grounds staff, that if they took the training and agreed to be available while on duty to assist in an emergency, they could also use the training with their own family and loved ones anywhere at any time. We got the volunteers, trained them, and then assigned them to response teams based on their most likely location during their working hours and then assigned other to be available during after school activities that weren't already covered by coaches, who by law must already be trained in First Aid, CPR/AED's. With school security you could do something similar. Ask for volunteers with a background in the use of firearms, train them in armed active shooter response, for free, and then group them in to QRF (Quick Reaction Force) teams. That's how a teacher might be useful in an active shooter response.

Response by SGT Dan Powers made Mar 21 at 2018 2:53 PM

SGT Dan Powers — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:53:47 -0400

The proposed arming of teachers was never suggested as blanket commission or as a command. Only those who undergo training and evaluation would be armed. They don't need complete police training (as was often stated as an objection) because that involves the understanding and implementation of a lot of national and local policies regarding due process and legal precedent, and a more subtle, graduated response is necessary in day-to-day policing. No understanding of due process is necessary in order to see some nut firing a weapon in the hallways of a school- especially a student known by many of them- and immediately engaging them Some level of tactical training would obviously be necessary. As for the safety officer present in Florida, you do realize that he did not respond as he was supposed to respond. In fact, it appears all the Sheriff's Deputies who responded that day acted in either a confused or cowardly manner.
The shooting in Dallas and in Las Vegas are not the same as the school shooting environments. In one case, the sniper had the advantage of virtual concealment through confusion, and a large area where he could have been firing from, requiring a time-consuming evaluation of the tactical situation. You can't 'run to the sound of the guns' if the sound is echoing off multiple buildings and objects in the are. In Vegas the fact that it was a large amount of shooting and into a large crowd, with the resultant confusion among thousands of people, which made it far more difficult to respond. The shooting in Dallas involved a sniper as well- but someone who had the additional advantages of cover and concealment and also a superior tactical overview of the situation. Everyday police are never on normal duty prepared for a sniper to engage them. Again, none of the comparisons between a sniping incident at medium to long range and a school shooting are valid. They are not comparable situations. The Dallas sniper came armed for his 'mission' and he came armed for a different mission than that of the police being targeted. Again the police disadvantage was not caused so much by the difference in the weapons themselves, but by the entire overall tactical situation. That scenario is also not applicable to these school shootings, where the shooters seem to wander the halls aimlessly seeking targets of opportunity.
In a more confined space where their movement is more random, like a school building, the long rifle does not give the shooter a specific advantage over a trained and competent opponent armed with a handgun. That is especially true if that opponent is devoted to his mission of protecting the innocent and has demonstrated competency with their firearm. Any teacher who has the opportunity and presence of mind to intentionally use their body as a shield would have the presence of mind necessary to engage the shooter if they were armed, and so far every school shooting had teachers who did that very thing. Accidental shooting of an innocent could, sadly, occur when engaging the shooter. However, that is still likely to result in a more desirable end to the situation than allowing a shooter to wander the hallways of a school unopposed. In some locales, it could be 15 or 20 minutes based on local police response times. The concept of arming some carefully selected teachers or other school staff should not be rejected on the basis of a potential difference in weaponry, or rejected on any basis given so far by those who object to it.

Response by Dominic Vasta made Mar 21 at 2018 3:49 PM

Dominic Vasta — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:49:35 -0400

I agree with you

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Mar 21 at 2018 10:32 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:32:36 -0400

First, we should put an active law enforcement officer in every school. That is the right way to protect our kids.
Second, we should put an appropriately trained and licensed school counselor in every school. This will minimize the mental problems that lead to kids becoming shooters.
Third, I am retired army with plenty of experience with a 9mm and an M16. I am currently a high school teacher. I have a concealed carry permit and I go to the range at least once a month. I am qualified to carry a weapon to protect my students and myself. Using a .40 cal., I can, and will if necessary, take out an untrained psychopath with an AR-15, no problem.

Response by Capt Christian D. Orr made Mar 22 at 2018 4:55 AM

Capt Christian D. Orr — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:55:24 -0400

There are plenty of examples of handgun-armed good guys taking out rifle-armed bad guys: The FBI Miami Firefight of 1986 (S&W M459 9mms and .357 Mag revolvers vs. a Ruger Mini-14), the 1989 Lozano Riots in Miami (Miami PD officer shot a sniper at 200 feet with his Glock 19), and the Fairchild AFB incident (USAF Security Police Senior Airman Andy Brown took down a MAK-90--wielding active shooter at 50+ yards with two hits out of four shots from his Beretta M9).

It doesn't matter if you're military, civilian law enforcement, or an armed private citizen; with the right equipment and right TRAINING AND MINDSET, you can win.

Response by Capt Bill Straw made Mar 22 at 2018 9:31 AM

Capt Bill Straw — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:31:13 -0400

Good points by you and SM... As an old guy VN vet, I've watched our culture change and sadly agree that not only is it a difficult situation in the active shooter confrontation (though I think my WW2 vet teachers would have been able to cope better than today) but the whole nature of our society is so changed that those who have the 'know how' and respect for guns have become far outnumbered by those who 'just don't get it'.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Mar 22 at 2018 12:15 PM

LTC John Shaw — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:15:30 -0400

LCpl Timothy McCain Yes, the personnel chosen should be prior military, police or people willing to train to this level as a volunteer. Having this deterrent is a factor and just because a 'teacher' = trained person has a weapon does not make the environment more or less dangerous.
There still must be training for how students, armed teachers who are trained and local police forces will all react together.
There should also be a federal government sponsored non-lethal weapon program to develop hand held non-lethal methods better than our current technology. We should be able to have better stun and capture weapons available that will not kill.

Response by Jose Cornejo made Mar 22 at 2018 1:14 PM

Jose Cornejo — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:14:18 -0400

Gun is just a tool, is the skills what makes the difference.

Response by SPC Steven Furbish made Mar 22 at 2018 5:11 PM

SPC Steven Furbish — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:11:40 -0400

It's a psychological deterrent as well as another physical barrier that a school shooter has to be concerned with, so I think it would be somewhat effective even if the teacher has only average skills. It's not an ideal solution, but it should be considered as an option for those willing to commit to the training. I retired from law enforcement after 32 years and I've seen civilians (including teachers) do some incredibly brave things and have known a few that could match qualify with handguns alongside the best cops I worked with.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2018 11:37 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 23:37:39 -0400

Yes.

Response by Andy Van Der Plaats made Mar 23 at 2018 5:35 AM

Andy Van Der Plaats — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:35:59 -0400

Our county just announced they'll be hiring 100 new officers so that they can place at least one in each school. While that may sound good, just keep in mind the sort of training they'll receive and then ask yourself how that would compare to a 'real world' situation where you have dozens of kids running an screaming in a crowed hallway and among them one person with an AR? paper targets and a few hours (if they're lucky) using FATs is NOT proper training for what these officers might face and you're telling me you want to arm teachers? Where did you get your education?

Response by LTC Ronald Stephens made Mar 23 at 2018 1:11 PM

LTC Ronald Stephens — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:11:57 -0400

A police officer in Maryland did. If the teacher trains regularly with the handgun he or she could. There are programs with many law enforcement training academies or headquarters that include what the Maricopa County, AZ sheriff's Department referred to as FATS (firearms training scenarios) or the video game for short. They reenact real events that took place across the country. A good trainer can branch the progress of the training event in several directions depending on the deputy's initial reaction and subsequent acts to the scenario. Its realistic as hell. We often exited the training session with a full sweat and the shakes. The training pistol is pneumatically operated and connected to the controlling computer to record the location of hits or misses, the pneumatic system makes the gun recoil realistically so the shooter has to reacquire his sight picture. It also gives the sound of the shot along with the recoil. Its so realistic that when an officer attends a session as part of regular firearms qualification, he is only allowed into the training studio with an empty holster and no backup weapon. I'm told that there was once an incident where the scenario included a stress magazine change and the deputy dropped the magazine. Went to his hideout and holes appeared in the video screen. I think if the selected school staff and or faculty attended sessions like that regularly they would be well qualified to carry in school.

Response by PO1 Scott Cottrell made Mar 23 at 2018 2:44 PM

PO1 Scott Cottrell — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:44:52 -0400

To answer you question: A hell of a lot better chance than an unarmed teacher.

Response by PO3 Michael James made Mar 23 at 2018 3:21 PM

PO3 Michael James — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:21:30 -0400

L.Cpl. McCain, Sir; Well said.. "Panic and Confusion" How TRUE... Respectfully, Semper fi.. MIke

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2018 1:30 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:30:54 -0400

I would take on a punk kid with an ar any day. If the teacher gets screened and goes through training then why not. I would much rather have a few good teachers with a gun then zero without out. Just like you said the fog of war and the tactical scenario is going to come into effect. That shooter has to worry about a gun coming for him at every turn. It’s not hard to get the drop on one person.

Response by SFC Glenn Cornett made Mar 24 at 2018 9:21 PM

SFC Glenn Cornett — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:21:54 -0400

Have seen the damage a S&W Judge with 3" double aught buck .410 shell can do to someone? No comparison, the shooter is down, no doubts! Stagger with .45 Long colt and you have a formidable self-defense/offensive weapon in the Judge!

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Mar 24 at 2018 10:37 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 22:37:58 -0400

As a last ditch, no other option, bad guy coming through my classroom door? Yep?

Nobody expects teachers to go out and hunt down the bad guy.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2018 11:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:30:30 -0400

The first thing it does is deterrence. Would an active shooter be more or less likely to attack a school knowing that many teachers may be armed, versus a "gun-free zone"? Secondly, it also gives students and staff at least a fighting chance.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Mar 25 at 2018 7:46 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 07:46:55 -0400

"Arm the Teachers" is a knee jerk reaction that is just as stupid as trying to ban weapons. Many teachers don't want to have anything to do with carrying a weapon and aren't mentally fit to carry one as far as having a mindset.
Hiring school resource officers is a better plan, as well as addressing disciplinary and mental issues.

Response by MSG David Densmore made Mar 25 at 2018 7:47 AM

MSG David Densmore — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 07:47:14 -0400

Less than 3% of ALL shootings are with a long gun, much less an AR15. How many school shooters have used an AR15, or semi automatic long gun (same thing without a model number) for that matter?

School shootings invariably are "danger close", with the shooter in the school, even in a hallway, easily within range of any semi-competent person armed with a pistol.

There has been NO proposal to arm ALL teachers or staff. For one thing, it's not needed. Another thing is that not all teachers would want to be armed, and that's OK, it's their right.

One problem with police tactics in these circumstances is the policy of the officer waiting for a back up, or the swat team. Once confronted, most of the school shooters commit suicide. If one of the deputies had entered the school and confronted the shooter, how many less would have died? I for one would have a difficult time living with myself if I sat outside hiding under the circumstances.

PV2 Case we're all military here, and know there's a cost. If the one child died and 16 (or more?) were saved, was it worth it? (I understand, not to the parents of the one.)

The reality is, 98% of all mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Why, because the victims can't defend themselves, are sitting ducks and easy to kill a large number. Just having armed staff in a school is going to dissuade some of these shooters.

Finally, I too an tired of the implement getting blamed instead of the person, and ultimately society. We don't (usually) blame cars for killing people, spoons for making people fat, or ban hammers for killing people. (More murders by hammers than rifles.) You want to take God out of schools and lives, deny absolute truth so that anything goes, promote violent video games to our children, and make sure to start them young, coddle our children/young people with no consequences, everybody gets the prize, eventually you're going to get what we have now. Our society, backed by the progressive movement created this, and they're not about to admit their agenda has failed this country.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, it's about self defense, both against bad people and tyrannical government. It's the first step of tyranny to take them away.

Response by SFC Thomas Nichols made Mar 25 at 2018 9:38 AM

SFC Thomas Nichols — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:38:27 -0400

Well, would you rather be in an "active shooter" scenario with your bare hands, or would you prefer to have a hand gun? Would have a weapon similar to that of the shooter be ideal? Sure, but is that realistic? Probably not. But your original question really misses the point, which is that a shooter is less likely to go to a place that he knows has armed resistance. Why do you think there are no mass killings in police stations? They don't walk around with AR-15s. Because the killer wants to get as many victims as possible before he is engaged and a gun-free zone like a school is the best place to do that.

Response by A1C Michael King made Mar 26 at 2018 1:39 AM

A1C Michael King — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:39:06 -0400

The framers of our Constitution, wishing only to persuade their fellow Americans to ratify the document, reluctantly guaranteed the several states the right to form and fund their own armies. The Second Amendment speaks to precisely that issue. It was never intended to arm individuals, just citizen militias. The recent decision by the SCOTUS to reinterpret that particular sentence as extending the privilege to individuals is particularly disturbing in light of these mass killings--by individuals armed with weapons designed for use by armies. People who have neither the training nor the reason to use these weapons as their creators intended are instead murdering their neighbors or obliterating wildlife indiscriminately.

I have to agree with Timothy's assessment of this situation. As a retired public school teacher, I shudder to think what sort of chaos would have ensued had one of my colleagues, untrained with any sort of weaponry, attempted to restore order with a firearm. As he pointed out, even trained police officers and soldiers make mistakes when exchanging fire with an armed force. They have training to fall back on when they don't know what to do. What has a civilian teacher, whose only military experience may consist of serving as a personnel specialist in an office, to fall back on in a crisis? Not a darn thing. Such a person is more likely to accidentally shoot a student than to stop a shooter who has infiltrated the campus. Rather than arm teachers, who already are called upon to do too much, we should place security personnel who have been trained in police officer standards and weaponry on school campuses. That way, the teachers can teach the students and the guards can keep the teachers and their students safe.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Mar 26 at 2018 11:26 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:26:01 -0400

I think you are spot on. While I dislike the concept of making schools into a fortress, the money would be better spent making it more difficult for an armed individual to get into a school in the first place. Metal detectors at entrances manned by the resource officers or trained personnel makes more sense than arming teachers. Sure money is an issue, already is here in Florida where school districts are already complaining the don't have funds to implement laws just enacted after Parkland. I'd rather have a tax increase to pay for metal detectors in all schools than arming the teachers in those schools however.

Response by Capt Sabrena Goldman made Mar 26 at 2018 10:40 PM

Capt Sabrena Goldman — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:40:17 -0400

Hitler had guns registered for Austrian’s safety. Then he banned the firearms for their safety. Then he invaded a defenseless country to occupy.

Response by Capt Sabrena Goldman made Mar 26 at 2018 10:43 PM

Capt Sabrena Goldman — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:43:41 -0400

Training for active shooter is a good thing but real drills needs to be a real excercise not just a training document

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Mar 26 at 2018 10:48 PM

SPC Brian Mason — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:48:47 -0400

It depends on how much firearm experience he/she has. Since this is elective then adding situational awareness and tactical movement training would and should be included. I learned the basics fairly quickly in Basic and got better during AIT and on.
These shooters target gun-free zones and places where unarmed security guards are employed. Get rid of those signs while placing some plain clothes armed guards, as well as trained teachers and these instances, will reduce. There has to be a few people (depending on school size) that are on guard. Not chilling in some security room looking at cameras. They could look like they're doing something else while roaming the grounds.
Money will have to be devoted to this if it's going to be effective. I know there is a large number of Veterans who would gladly take up this job, myself included.

Response by TSgt John Burres made Mar 27 at 2018 11:43 AM

TSgt John Burres — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:43:03 -0400

It only takes one well placed shot to stop a threat!

Response by Alan K. made Mar 27 at 2018 12:02 PM

Alan K. — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:02:10 -0400

Yup, you can do that....It only involves Training, Training, Training, Training and some more Training. It better be reflexive or your dead!

Response by CW3 Paul Fitch made Apr 3 at 2018 12:59 AM

CW3 Paul Fitch — Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:59:37 -0400

More to the point, is it realistic to believe that a teacher with no means of defense of any kind has any chance at all against an active murderer using any kind of weapon?

If teachers are armed, they will not be tasked with "hunting down" an active shooter, only with remaining in their classroom as a last defense against an intrusion by an active murderer. With proper training, and not very much of that even, a teacher who is mentally ready to protect her students at any cost will be able to bring effective fire on a murderer entering her classroom. Point at the door and press the trigger. Most people can hit a human target at 15 feet or less even under stressful conditions if the target is standing in a doorway.

Response by SPC George Osbun made Apr 5 at 2018 2:06 PM

SPC George Osbun — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 14:06:42 -0400

Just read the one common denominator between all the school shootings is that the shooters
were fatherless. Now there was a link between aggressive behavior in adolescent male elephants and not having a male bull role model in Africa because they were hunted. Same for humans. When their testosterone is out of control they need that male to put him in their place

Response by CPT Jay Andersen made Apr 7 at 2018 8:01 PM

CPT Jay Andersen — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:01:33 -0400

Of course. Two rounds Center mass fired from cover or concealment would do the trick.

Response by SrA James Cannon made Apr 13 at 2018 5:21 PM

SrA James Cannon — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:21:04 -0400

In my opinion yes. A handgun could potentially be used to defend oneself and others against someone armed with an AR-15. A person who has more training on their handgun than the perp with the AR-15 would increase their odds of winning a gun fight. Better knowledge of the layout of a school might also be a factor that could lean factors toward a teacher with a handgun. I say it is certainly a more even match than the schools that have placed peeble jars, marbles, or mini baseball bats as tool of defense. I would say that any of these tools is better than bare hands against an AR-15, but the proof that teachers need to be armed is in the fact that the schools are already providing some form of a weapon, i.e. bats, rocks, marbles. What is utterly laughable and ridiculous is that folks have such a huge anti-gun bias that they would rather a teacher attempt to use a bat, a rock, or a marble to protect kids against an AR-15 than a Glock or Sig pistol.

Response by SGT John P made Apr 16 at 2018 3:33 PM

SGT John P — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:33:10 -0400

Look you have people caring weapons guarding important people all over the world, why not our kids, they are more important than anything .If you are trained right you can take out the bad guys

Response by SSgt Clare May made Apr 20 at 2018 11:12 AM

SSgt Clare May — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:12:59 -0400

No LCpl... your exactly correct in your assessment. Fog of war, tunnel vision, training, mental state of the defender, the willing to go where others flee... You point out an obvious statement... Dallas, Texas, 6 LEO's are dead, 11 wounded... these were your first line defenders, the first responders to an active shooter and they got their asses handed to them by a deranged sub human shitbird well armed, with discipline garnered from the subhumans mental state.

These fallen officers in Dallas were a prime example why even when you train for deadly encounters, you can shoot all day long and not hit a damn thing. The stress alone by being shot at...by a so called fellow American on American soil. First hand I say this with some credible background... being a street cop is far different than being a soldier on the battle zone... In war you know who your after...anyone with a gun dressed in a different flag... Anyone in a place they are not supposed to be at... but on the streets here at home...?

The intruder is not a human anymore when it is an active shooter here in America... The human isn't an American any more, and worst of all... the suspect has civil rights. The suspect could be your next door neighbors kid who was bullied in 4th grade... a taxi driver who tripped over not getting a tip last week from the asshole drunk fare who spat on him/her or a gang banger wannabe who is making his name in the ranks of the Al Capone history...

We are at war with a mental health issue in America that requires government oversight... but as with all government programs...eventually it will reach an overprotective delima...and over reach its intended purpose... give the government an inch and they will take it...all.

Arming teachers is a face value move. Arming teachers is one step to preventative policing in the school yard...but teacher have a far different mental health state than police... They educate... Teachers... like police are now, more than ever, social engineers... Police answer the call that may have them take someones life. They know it when they get into this profession... Teachers however are not the type of mental capacity person that they might have to take a life to save a life...

The only educator that might be able to fit into the police syndrom social engineer are the sports coaches... or anyone that has a conservative view or instructional background...but today, most of the educational staff is a left-liberal mindset... conservatism instructional staff in the primary and secondary school systems...are long disappearing.

Instructional staff have a set standard of what to teach and follow a passive instructional course...raise a hand to a child on the playground or in the school room... Oh hell no... you slap that kid, your going to face a criminal charge of battery by the kid and the kids parents. Just think of the consequences if a teacher shoots a kid and that kid lives... or a kid grabs the gun from a distracted armed staff member and kills another...?

We get it. It is a difficult job. Stress is so bad that the staticians even put out the average age of a dead cop is now like age 54, two to 5 years out of retirement or something like that... Most of the teachers I had back in my day died at age 80-90.

Some instructional staff being armed is simply a choice to consider to bolster deterrence... but they must be trained and have retraining throughout the year as long as they are the designated "deterrers". It is... a means to put some other forms of a first responder on the ground.

One school resource officer for every 1,000 to 5,000 kids in one school isn't enough of a deterrence on its surface to deflect the concept that any attacker will alter their state of mind. There must be an equal amount of deterrence combined with mental health awareness and education. ...and an overbearing police presence in the school will (Notice I said "will" as in mandatory-not "can" as if permissible) lead to a forced educational system under an armed threat to educate.

Gun control is another issue... anyone posting threats to kill in the media, need to be held accountable for their actions, and all firearms removed permanently from their possession and subjected to unannounced home/office/residence of searches and seizures of any firearms found and an incarceration immediately following. Free speech can have limitations... and it can have repercussions, but they must be made known to those sub-human Americans who live around us.

The weapon is only the means. It has nothing to do with the mental state of the person pulling the trigger. Directly addressing the trigger puller...is the final resolution.

Every now and then... a Dallas or Las Vegas event happens and they happen because of the mental state of the trigger puller. Every mass shooting event over the last 40 years... can be directly tied to the trigger puller... and over the years...mental health continues to be ignored by the politicians and the ones with the purse strings needed to address the mental health issue in America.

And LCpl... this is only scratching the surface...and this response is of course...my humble opinion.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Apr 21 at 2018 6:40 PM

CPT Larry Hudson — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 18:40:40 -0400

If we can’t keep shooters out of schools, then armed and we’ll trained teachers are our best solutions. If law enforcement won’t confront then who will?

Response by CPT Stanley Kober made Apr 22 at 2018 11:46 AM

CPT Stanley Kober — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 11:46:27 -0400

If teachers are WELL-Trained like they are as teachers in their specific field, then, yes it is realistic. If they only get a once a year course, then it is very questionable. I give a course called "Civilian Response to an Active Shooter" in which I touch on schools and another one which is designed for schools. My experience is that nearly all school administrations do not want to "give up the command and control" function they have by directing their teachers what they have to do in the incident when they could be floors or buildings away from the teacher. That's similar to a Bn CO telling the line company CO in the field what to do next when he has no "eyes" or comm on the field situation. The same is found in the law enforcement environment.
In short, ALL teachers should be trained in what to do WHEN the intruder breaks down the locked and hopefully, barricaded door and attempts to kill the teacher and/or the children. That is what is called "Counter"...the intruder's life or the teacher's/children's lives are at stake. No holds barred then. Use whatever is at hand, river rocks, small bats, fie extinguishers, chairs, desks, staplers, etc. etc.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Apr 22 at 2018 3:16 PM

SSG Brian G. — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:16:46 -0400

Hard to really say. As the only deterrent to a situation, I would say no. But combined with controlled access and egress points, physical security measures such as metal detectors and and armed security, yes, it could work.

People, regardless of whether they have had next to no training or thousands of hours are going to react differently to the fog of war. There is a gun shot, the sound of a gun shot, a person runs by bloody or someone screams gun and there is a response in the body that is uncontrollable. Our adrenaline goes up, our pulse quickens and we become hyper aware, time seems to slow for some and speed up for others. This is what is known as a fight or flight response and we all have it to some degree. Simply going out onto a range and firing off a few rounds will not trigger it. Sure, that will trigger anticipation, even fear but not fight or flight.

Fight or flight and how the person handles it and is trained to handle it, determines how they will react in a hostile environment with an active shooter.

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made Apr 22 at 2018 7:10 PM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 19:10:57 -0400

Is it realistic to assume a teacher can just bring a weapon to a school without training? Is it realistic to assume teachers will all be forced to carry a weapon?
Any person with training in a hand gun and competent enough to know when and how to use it, stands a very good chance against an inexperienced shooter with a long gun, especially in close quarters like a school.

Response by SGT Kurt Bushre made Apr 23 at 2018 12:05 AM

SGT Kurt Bushre — Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:05:05 -0400

I say, if the "perp" is on the end of a weapon taking down innocents, he's as good as dead! End of story!

Response by MSG Ray Greenfield made Apr 26 at 2018 10:49 AM

MSG Ray Greenfield — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:49:31 -0400

Yes, you need to consider the psychology of the shooter. Most are pissed of D&D teen rejects that think it's going to be like a video game. If they even sniff that someone is hunting them back most are going to give up and either surrender or shoot themselves.

Response by MSG Ray Greenfield made Apr 26 at 2018 10:59 AM

MSG Ray Greenfield — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:59:16 -0400

To address the "I'm sick of the soft target talk camp" I don't believe any rational person wants to see "Fortress Amerika" that being said there is a difference between soft targets and "wide frikkin open here are the sheep for the slaughter targets" that IS what most smaller schools are. No guns in the government buildings, there are armed guards & metal detectors in those buildings. Hell my home town can only afford one custodian during the day to cover three campuses. Dude that's a lot of puke to clean up during Flu and Virus season. Much less be able to afford effective armed security. So tell me what you want to do. Leave the gate open? Many schools in this area have former military teaching. Most have teachers that also farm or are Agg teachers. let them be armed. I'm not saying to arm someone who has never handled a weapon before, it can be done responsibly.

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Apr 28 at 2018 11:22 AM

SPC Randy Torgerson — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:22:22 -0400

I think you are very misguided marine. You also fail to mention the million + lives saved ever year by ordinary armed citizens. A teacher with a gun is 10,000% better then a teacher without a gun. You said it yourself, police officers have a hard time with the "fog of war". But like millions of people every year who end up protecting their families, loved ones and themselves with a firearm, not all are successful so your right to a point. That point is, there is nothing that is 100% certain. But give the kids in school a better chance by having more good guys with a gun. Instead of just waiting for help to arrive minutes to late.... Which by the way are good guys with a gun!

Response by SSG Victor Barac made Apr 28 at 2018 12:17 PM

SSG Victor Barac — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:17:52 -0400

"Is that realistic?" My first response is no for many of the reasons you have stated. Being realistic of course, communications and fast-moving mass shooters make co-ordinated response nearly impossible on the street. Schools are different in that they are enclosed and could be monitored using technology for sound, audio, and live video feeds of moving threats. Computers are in every classroom. Using audio monitors, a scream or a gunshot can trigger a computer network to override all open applications in the classrooms and display an emergency screen presenting all the tactical details of the event to every computer in the building. Real-time monitors in classrooms give teachers informed options if they follow the first rule of a gunfight. That is to have a gun. Training and technology are much faster than 911 and the Police who will remain outdoors until help arrives. The same emergency network in the building can also be broadcast outside the building via wi-fi or dedicated police radio data networks providing for a much more rapid tactical response. Think of the possibilities using computer algorithms tied into this emergency network to broadcast and misdirect the intruder opening chances for coordinated responses and concentration of firepower, etc. "Realistic?" In today's world, everything seems unrealistic and surreal. We have been dealt this hand of cards and we have choices as to how we play them. An active shooter has called your bluff when he gets inside to start with. You must use every trick up your sleeve to win. We have the "Technology" and "Economy of Scale" given the number of schools in America would make it a bargain against one child's life. Think of the many 10's or 100's that could be saved over time. That seems like a realistic option that I have not seen on the table.

Response by Sgt Christopher Kemp made Apr 29 at 2018 11:25 PM

Sgt Christopher Kemp — Sun, 29 Apr 2018 23:25:56 -0400

Ladies and Gentleman,
As a combat veteran with tours in Iraq, and a 4 month stay in Northern Africa I would have to say no. However since I exited service and started work in the private sector as armed security I can say that I have seen a great many capable folks with very little experience and some training become very effective in protecting property and people. The key is mindset. Why are they doing what they are doing? They want to the feel it is their duty to preserve life. If any person is driven by a belief they can achieve this aim.

Response by Capt Michael Brown made Apr 30 at 2018 11:44 AM

Capt Michael Brown — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:44:54 -0400

Most active killer events happened in 'Gun Free Zones'. A predator chooses these areas because he does not expect resistance. Just the impression that he will be met with force is usually enough for him to change his mind (This happened in the Charleston SC church shooting). Bad guys like this usually do not have plan 'B', they just move on to an alternate target. Hardening these soft targets is the only sure way of protection. Legislation and politics have to be secondary to this. I believe that training willing teachers and hiring veterans is the key. People intent on a body count will choose the path of least resistance.

Response by SSG Todd McAllister made May 1 at 2018 11:35 AM

SSG Todd McAllister — Tue, 01 May 2018 11:35:55 -0400

One of the common denominators of these mass shootings is that they happen in "Gun Free" zones. The thought, by the shooter, that someone "might" shoot back is usually a deterrent. Growing up in Oregon, guns were a daily part of life, kids brought them to school to work on in shop or to show off to friends and go hunting after school. Should teachers be armed? Hard to say really, the better question is why should they have to be armed? Too many "victims" in this world, not enough responsibility for our own actions.

Response by SSG Michael Keohane made May 1 at 2018 11:55 AM

SSG Michael Keohane — Tue, 01 May 2018 11:55:30 -0400

I suggest that you consider the psychological profiles of these "active shooters" before doing any further commenting. These "active shooters" are not very proficient with weapons and their motives are not to kill or wound but to spread terror. They also want to control the situation and, if that control is threatened, they suicide. So, the mere presence of a teacher with a gun should be enough to make the "active shooter" suicide.

Response by SSG Rick LePage made May 2 at 2018 4:46 PM

SSG Rick LePage — Wed, 02 May 2018 16:46:24 -0400

I think you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions. The teachers are to protect their students, not seek out and close with the enemy. They are on defense not offense, when the shooter enters their sphere of influence they engage. The distance is short and they have the advantage.

In the response plans I've seen, none have them had the teachers go on offense and close with the shooter.

Response by Alexis Claycomb made May 3 at 2018 3:34 PM

Alexis Claycomb — Thu, 03 May 2018 15:34:50 -0400

No and they shouldn't have to. They do not even get paid enough to do the job they do now and people want them to be armed security, its ridicoulous. If your going to hire security then hire security, not to mention people who will actually confront the shooter unlike in florida.

Response by MSgt Wayne Owens made May 3 at 2018 9:02 PM

MSgt Wayne Owens — Thu, 03 May 2018 21:02:31 -0400

I think perhaps. Remember the shooter is firing at random, not taking any thought on aiming; just spraying bullets willy nilly. A teacher who has been trained properly could take a head shot from behind or to the side. This takes any flak jacket out of the picture. Perhaps the odds are not that great, but worth a try.

Response by CWO3 Bill Carter made May 4 at 2018 9:28 AM

CWO3 Bill Carter — Fri, 04 May 2018 09:28:47 -0400

Shot placement is the key. Granted, if a bad guy is armed with a rifle as opposed to a handgun, he may have an advantage in quantity of ammo and sight radius; but the key is "ordnance on target". I'd rather face a rifleman with a pistol than a yardstick! Also the "On scene" police officer in Florida did not attempt to confront the shooter! Apparently he was a member of the "ROAD" gang!

Response by SPC Christopher Trafnik made May 4 at 2018 9:32 AM

SPC Christopher Trafnik — Fri, 04 May 2018 09:32:15 -0400

I see Your point

Response by PO1 Tom Follis made May 5 at 2018 6:34 PM

PO1 Tom Follis — Sat, 05 May 2018 18:34:48 -0400

Agree with many previous comments. Yes, I think it’s possible and realistic that an armed teacher can stop a suspect with an AR-15. Given the opportunity, a prepared teacher with a hand gun can drop a bad guy quickly. I don’t even believe there is a law in the land that would convict a teacher for shooting a bad guy in the back. If the bad guy is carrying an AR-15, the threat is there. The objective is to save the lives of others. Is arming the teachers the answer? I don’t don’t. However, if it were me, I’d rather have the availability to shoot back rather than do nothing. I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Of course there’s going to be fear and panic. The only person that never showed fear or panic was Clint Eastwood. That’s not realistic. What has changed in this country,(agin), is “WE”. As a society, WE have created a MONSTER. I have been raised aroun guns since the age of 10. 21 years in the military handling guns and have been carrying a handgun on my 6 for 10 years. Never had a problem and hope I never do. I am, however, secure in the knowledge that I have the ability to return fire if needed. I would also recommend to ANY teacher in school they may be carrying during school to TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN. All the training in the world may not make you a winner but, the life you save, may be your own.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2018 10:42 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 May 2018 10:42:46 -0400

Here's an idea...take service members with an ETS date of 6 months or less. Send them to their HOR to work security at a public school. They finish out their contract at home. School gets well trained security. Tax payers save money.

Response by LCpl Michael Cappello made May 10 at 2018 11:07 PM

LCpl Michael Cappello — Thu, 10 May 2018 23:07:05 -0400

It is a guarantee that a rifle will beat a rock. An unarmed teacher certainly has less chance than an armed one. I would have to say that it would depend almost entirely upon the shooter and the teacher. Thank goodness these active shooters have zero training. I believe it more than possible for someone with training to take out someone with a semi automatic rifle. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. Just substitute weapon for rifle. A calm, deliberate, accurate individual armed with a decent sidearm should have a very decent chance to take out a shooter who is jacked up and skittish. Thus the old saying: the secret is to keep your wits while those around you are losing theirs.

Response by CDR William Seidenstein made May 14 at 2018 7:05 AM

CDR William Seidenstein — Mon, 14 May 2018 07:05:07 -0400

YES!

Response by SPC Trainer Karl Ford made May 15 at 2018 9:26 AM

SPC Trainer Karl Ford — Tue, 15 May 2018 09:26:08 -0400

Based on Past incidents I’m going to say yes! Past incidents that when the shooter saw a defender with a gun they ran off....some shooting them self. The question still remains WHICH teachers should be armed. Here in TX I know a majority of them are already licensed...cut in 3/4 of those that ACTUALLY go shoot on their off time. I’m for it but it needs to have strong guidelines

Response by PO1 Steven Bridge made May 15 at 2018 9:12 PM

PO1 Steven Bridge — Tue, 15 May 2018 21:12:52 -0400

I see any response to a given situation has to be looked at with 'ODDS of Success' (OOS) in mind.

Scenario 1: Hallway, well lit, 200' feet long. Threat at one end with AR-15, and teacher at the other end with 9 mm. ODDS OF SUCCESS (OOS): 2% on a very, very good day. OUTCOME: Gunman continues rampage, teacher down.

Scenario 2: Hallway, well lit, Threat (from above) 20' away from teacher (from above)... OOS: 30% on a pretty good day. OUTCOME: Both go down. Gunman stopped.

Scenario 3: Teacher in a classroom behind a heavy wooden door with 9 mm. Gunman kicking and shooting at the lock with his AR-15 breeches the classroom. Depending on the teacher.... OOS is pretty high. OUTCOME: Gunman down, Teacher OK.

Scenario 4 (most realistic) : Gunman with AR-15 in school with 20 teachers armed with 9 MM. OOS - pretty darned high. OUTCOME: Gunman DOWN, Teachers lose 1.

Scenario 5: Gunman with AR-15 ANYWHERE in the school, NO teachers ARMED. OOS: 0%. Mass Casualties. Status quo for America today.

Where is the logic?! WHY does Scenario 5 with the LEAST amount of OOS reflect the SOP in our country?!

Response by Ricky Summitt made May 18 at 2018 7:23 AM

Ricky Summitt — Fri, 18 May 2018 07:23:42 -0400

My opinion is that most teachers have no business playing security because I believe it will not work if actually called upon. If they really care about their students there will be hesitation when confronting a student and if you hesitate, you are dead. Also, if they do actually respond their teaching career is over. And then there is the potential for a teacher to be breaking up a fight and losing their sidearm to one of the hormonal students and that may not end well. If we really think we need security at schools then how about using trained professionals and not trained teachers who moonlight as security.

Adding a bit. I have been through the range of firearms classes (military, armed security, CCP) and the last two are not comparable to the first. I am not sure a teacher with a CCP is a good thing to rely on if the desire is to minimize colateral damage other than just a potential deterent.

Response by SGT Bob Walls made May 18 at 2018 7:37 PM

SGT Bob Walls — Fri, 18 May 2018 19:37:57 -0400

Asking teachers to be armed & take defensive handgun training is like asking your plumber to fix your car's transmission. It just does not really work unless the individual has past COMBAT military training and served in a MOS that constantly honed their skills to take on active shooters. There are so many retired cops and retired Soldiers & Marines that could fill the role of armed security protecting our most precious countries resource, Our children. This would not only make the schools safer, but would free up cops to do what they are supposed to be doing which is fighting crime. It all comes down to money. School districts would rather have one cop at the school then pay 2 or 3 armed security guards and save money. This is an absolute disgrace, considering so many have already died senselessly. Shame on all the politicians and school administrators for allowing this and face lawsuits rather than protect our kids. So the answer is it is not realistic. Put extreme pressure on the politicians and the school boards or keep filling body bags for the innocent children. Also, it is not a gun problem as much as it is a mental health epidemic, and you can blame doctors and big pharma for that. Many of these shooters all have one thing in common. They were either on or recently stopped taking psychotropic drugs prescribed by a doctor for depression or related mental issues.

Response by Jerry Rivas made May 18 at 2018 9:16 PM

Jerry Rivas — Fri, 18 May 2018 21:16:58 -0400

The teachers job would not be to seek out and engage the shooter....Rather to continue to stay in the classroom and use the pistol to protect the children if the need arises. Now a lot of former soldiers are teachers in local schools(near Ft. Bragg) and some of them are more than capable of engaging targets with a pistol....You don't have to go face to face....But you could ambush the bastard.

Response by SPC Cheryl Bottass made May 21 at 2018 3:07 PM

SPC Cheryl Bottass — Mon, 21 May 2018 15:07:05 -0400

She only has to hit him once

Response by SP5 Joel McDargh made May 21 at 2018 4:38 PM

SP5 Joel McDargh — Mon, 21 May 2018 16:38:36 -0400

Hell to the yes. With proper training and the element of surprise this is absolutely a possibility. The key word here is proper training. Know your firearm, know its limitations, know your own abilities, and pick a spot.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made May 26 at 2018 4:33 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Sat, 26 May 2018 16:33:07 -0400

Not much range inside and sniper nests are unsightly.

Response by SSgt Robert Prest made May 28 at 2018 9:27 PM

SSgt Robert Prest — Mon, 28 May 2018 21:27:29 -0400

Yes

Response by 1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr made Jun 1 at 2018 9:42 PM

1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 21:42:20 -0400

It is my belief that arming teachers is an indication of how far our countries morale fiber has fallen. Why arm the parties that are part of the problem. We all know that the teachers have their pets. That favoritism is shown when they deal with the well to do, the jocks, and the good looking. I can tell you from personal experience that this is true. When I was in high school I stood 4'6" and weighed 111 pounds. Plus I came from a poor family. While all those on the elite list tormented me daily the teachers turned a blind eye. Of course because of my size I became a target for the bullies. Most of whom were the school athletes. Again nobody saw anything even though it happened right in front of the teachers and school administrators. My father showed me a couple of things to help me defend myself. So guess what happened when I hurt of couple of the bullies for picking on me I'm the one who got expelled. From what I've read about these recent school shootings it sounds like the same atmosphere as I went through. It is also my feeling that we need to get the government and left wingers out of our schools. They allow people to go into the schools and teach that if the parents discipline their children it is abuse. So the parents get arrested for assault. There is a difference between discipline and abuse. However, you can't convince these left wing nuts of that. And then their comes the separation of church and state. Don't get me wrong I believe their should be a separation. However, raising our children without the parameters of right and wrong has led to most of the current problems in our schools. What happened to the days when the threat of going to the principals office was enough to strike terror in an elementary schools students. What happened to strict conformance to a dress a code. Most of the girls in our high schools dress like a bunch of street walkers or porn stars. And the boys well lets just say that I feel there is no hope for them. And last but not least is our courts. Oh, what a joke. The rulings concerning our youth is for the most part a joke. Why can't middle and high school age people be held responsible for their actions? This slapping their hands and slapping their hands just doesn't make sense. As a matter of fact they actually laugh at this so called punishment. Why can't the photos of these problem children be posted after their second offense. So everyone will know what kind of people they are. We all must remember that to reward bad behavior our government, courts, parents, school administrators and teachers, law enforcement personnel, and child protective services entities reward our youth only encourages them to do wrong.

Response by SSG James N. made Jun 5 at 2018 6:39 AM

SSG James N. — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 06:39:29 -0400

L/Cpl,
If you cannot go against a shooter with an AR using a 45, you have missed something in your training. Consider the MOUT environment of a school building. There are ways one person can hunt the hunter and win being on the inside to begin with. Now if a door does not lock, the teacher has the students in a corner protected, door comes open and AR draws up, BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM, Teacher is shooting well aimed shots becuase trained, practiced, and oh, damn, veteran of Fallujah.

Arming teachers is a band aid. Securing schools and looking hard at students, and former students to see if they fit a profile is what needs to be done.

Response by SSG Hank Ortega made Jun 8 at 2018 12:08 AM

SSG Hank Ortega — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:08:35 -0400

Simple answer: Fight with what you have, check the results. If a deranged kid shows up at a classroom door, and all the teacher has is a side arm, that's what he is going to fight with. NOT fighting is a sure lose, fighting at least has a chance. Not going to hunt him down, but going to set up an ambush and protect the students.
Further corrupt the mix, and give that handgun to a poorly trained inexperienced (non-combat experienced) left-leaning teacher, and it is a toss up as to whom is the weaker factor. Against a solid Infantry vet with a couple of tours, the assailant wouldn't stand a chance no matter what he brought to the door.

Response by 1SG Dale Cantrell made Jun 9 at 2018 1:09 PM

1SG Dale Cantrell — Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:09:00 -0400

Amy well trained armed person , can shoot straighter and hit center of mass , faster than a spray and pray shooter

Response by SSG Judy Segrest made Jun 10 at 2018 12:24 PM

SSG Judy Segrest — Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:24:30 -0400

In my opinion, NO. It is not realistic to believe that a teacher could effectively defend against an active shooter, using an AR-15, armed with only a handgun? I really don't know the solution to these horrific and fatal acts in our schools. However; I do think we need to tighten security with armed guards, cameras and metal detectors. If we studied these criminals like the rats they are we may find a connection, but it will not solve the problem.

Response by SPC John Waisman made Jun 11 at 2018 10:11 PM

SPC John Waisman — Mon, 11 Jun 2018 22:11:47 -0400

Training, training, and more training. The teachers in question would have to practice each active shooter scenario thousands and thousands of times before she or he became effective. This is what happens in martial arts or any other form of defense. It can't be learned in an hour. It requires muscle memory. Muscle memory takes a lot of repetition.

Obviously if the perp had an AR-15, distance would matter; were the defenders close or were they a hundred yards away? At 100 yards, the AR-15 would have the advantage. From 30 feet, not so much. Each scenario would be different. Again, training times thousands. Just give a teacher a pistol? Not a good idea. Can well trained people defend against these things? Remember Texas? A security guard took out two active shooters. Not every situation is going to work out perfectly. But in my humble view, the worst case would be for only the perp to be armed. We need to wake up. Bad guys with weapons and unarmed good guys spells disaster.

Response by SSG Wayne Wood made Jun 13 at 2018 10:10 PM

SSG Wayne Wood — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:10:46 -0400

As one who spent some eighteen years in the classroom after leaving the Army I believe the answer to the original question is arming teachers is a more realistic deterrent than having them and their students cower under their desks in a classroom listening to gunshots down the hall coming toward them and praying (or hoping lest someone be offended) the one Resource Officer in the school is doing his job if he isn't already dead or cowering somewhere in fear (as happened at Parkland).

I'm not saying a teacher should go "High Noon" and step out in the hallway, but if he or she is trained to take up a good protected position covering the door when the crazy busts through the door the element of surprise is on the teacher's side. Open up and fire until you hear the click. Six or how many rounds center of mass should do the trick. They might not kill the kook, but he's sure going to be the sickest guy in the ER. And who knows? It might just deter or stop further killing.

It used to frustrate the stew out of me when we'd get these safety briefings about what we were to do in the event of a shooting after Columbine. None of the stuff was pro-ative telling the poodles to roll over and expose their stomachs in hopes the wolf will stop.

No, I had many colleagues it would make me shudder to think of being armed. But there are at least a few in every school who would make a difference if given the chance.

Response by SSgt Russell Stevens made Jun 13 at 2018 11:02 PM

SSgt Russell Stevens — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:02:41 -0400

I think it's going to come down to training and experience. While I'm certain there are teachers who in fact are military veterans, it isn't the majority of teachers. I'm thinking most do not have the training or the experience necessary to use a handgun without inadvertently hitting the wrong target.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jun 14 at 2018 6:31 AM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:31:16 -0400

The last time the country as a whole had so many mass shootings was in the 10 years prior to the American Civil War. The lead cause was the issues that led to the Civil War.

Response by LTC John Bush made Jun 15 at 2018 9:11 AM

LTC John Bush — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:11:49 -0400

The armed teacher is a last ditch move that is simply better than nothing. We need a layered defense of our schools just like we have for our President. Passive measures such as screenings, limited entry points, good communications and lockdown procedures. Find and flag potential shooters, treat them, isolate them and limit their access to all sorts of weapons of all types. An armed person(s) is the last ditch effort after all else has failed. Preferably this person will be an extensively trained professional but if we can not afford it a good guy with a gun may be the best we can do. No matter how hard you train how thing will go the first time under fire is unknown but good training definitely increases the odds things will go in our favor.

Response by SN Jay Perry made Jun 16 at 2018 7:53 PM

SN Jay Perry — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 19:53:38 -0400

I am a child of the 60's/70's (born 63 in school till 81), most teachers in those days (especially male (a lot of whom were vets)) really could have frozen most school shooters in their tracks and just TOLD them to surrender the weapon(s). Can you imagine that grandmotherly teacher with the NORMAL respect given a teacher (back then) even putting up with someone with a weapon in her classroom/school? I am now the father of a teenager and it blows teachers minds (even teachers who are friends/neighbors/church members) when even though I have known them for years I refuse to refer to them by their first names when in their classroom/school situation. Teachers have EARNED that respect when I was a kid and CONTROLLED that school. That lack of respect is one of the reasons school shooters are doing this, less respect of the teachers, more "be their friends," teaching methods and this is coming back to haunt them. An extreme example would the death scene of Sgt. Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket," when he entered that head and started screaming that sent chills down my spine (I who had done USN boot-camp in the days of the 35 gallon flying shit-can (propelled by the Company Commander's well shined boot toe)) I know I sat a little taller and was definitely ready to receive whatever information R. Lee was putting out right there, but then I was not a psychotic individual (who had not been monitored).

Response by SSgt Gerald Davis Jr made Jun 18 at 2018 10:06 AM

SSgt Gerald Davis Jr — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:06:34 -0400

The police in Florida stayed outside of the building. Effectively they were not there. Dallas was a sniper situation. The police were just another target.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Jun 18 at 2018 8:46 PM

PO3 John Wagner — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:46:36 -0400

Exactly what does the shooters weapon of choice make to the ability of a teacher or any individual lawfully authorized to carry a weapon in a school as part of its defense make?
What difference? Why do you even use the term AR15? As if this is some magic button that a second amendment hater would use with talismanic reverence?
OH WAIT! It is a gun that an idiot who wouldn't know one end from another would mention ... in other words liberal sheep who think that "Can't we just all get along?" is profound.
I am surprised that a marine would have such an obviously flawed premise in a post.
Liberals talking guns reminds me of high school boys talking about the merits of a Ferrari as opposed to a Lamborghini.... in other words talking shit about subjects they have zero HANDS ON experience with.. and of course acting as if they believed each other because to point out their ignorance would expose the whole bunch...
I think it's an apt analogy for the loudest voices in the antigun movement, always has been always will be.
As an aside... when the shooter a few years ago at a Virginia? College rebaked total mayhem with a couple of blocks with high capacity magazines I don't recall hearing any general hue and cry for the banning of Glocks with high capacity magazines. (Gee. I wonder why?)
After a fashion handguns of that sort are far far deadlier than a point 223 AR.
A 9mm slug is going to do one hell of a lot more damage on the way through than that rifle bullet..
My opinion anyway.
Might as well ask a jackass question which makes just as much sense.
"Is it realistic to think a teach with a handgun could defend against an "active shooter" with a handgun?"
( is there another kind of shooter besides active?). A passive shooter?

Response by SPC Mitch Saret made Jun 20 at 2018 5:15 PM

SPC Mitch Saret — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:15:11 -0400

I believe it can be done, but precautions have to be taken. First, not every teacher needs to be armed. That would eliminate the need for being on the lookout for multiple friendlies. One per wing or hallway would be enough. Second, training has to occur, consistent, effective training. Third, the armed teachers have to be volunteers. This subject came up at a conference of teachers I was attending. Every single teacher was willing to protect their students. About a third were willing to carry. Being former military, I was one of the willing. There were several who also were, and many who were not. It's not a simple solution.

Response by TSgt Stephen Potter made Jun 27 at 2018 11:47 AM

TSgt Stephen Potter — Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:47:57 -0400

The question is why do teaches need to carry a gun? I feel that level headed teachers could and can get the job done IF properly trained. I personally know several teachers who have serviced. The 98 percent of those other teachers, I would not want them carrying a water gun!!! Plus, I have personally seen a teacher tried to pick an argument with a parent over the use of a bathroom, while was at school watch his daughter's volleyball practice. Teachers like this DO NOT need that power.
Because undisciplined kids will entice teacher draw on them or just plain take the gun away from the teacher and God forbid use it on the teacher and students.
It all starts at HOME. I send my kids to school fed, rested, well mannered and ready to learn. Trust me, I am not saying I'm perfect. They know that I expect them to BEHAVE. There are parents out there that do not believe its their responsibility to care, discipline and provide for there kids. I believe in helping out in the community and assisting the people in need. We live in a world that blames everybody else and it's not my fault, their whole philosophy is "what are you going to do about it or what can you do for me?" Schools are no longer Schools, they are day cares. Too many parents want the school teacher to discipline, teach their kids the right way. It longer about education.

Response by Jerry Rivas made Jul 2 at 2018 5:51 AM

Jerry Rivas — Mon, 02 Jul 2018 05:51:01 -0400

Yes....Yes it is.

Response by SPC Ken Sawyer made Jul 4 at 2018 9:08 AM

SPC Ken Sawyer — Wed, 04 Jul 2018 09:08:54 -0400

Why is it we say we entrust our children to the school but then are afraid of actually doing what’s needed. A teacher that’s properly trained is less effective than a cop that’s trained how so? If a trained person wearing a badge is good how is one without a banged bad? Are we to believe that only police can protect us? You do know that the USSC has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect us right? The police are great at investigating the crime but not so great at stopping a crime unless they happen to be on the scene at the time the crime is committed.

Response by PO1 J R Foster made Jul 4 at 2018 11:49 AM

PO1 J R Foster — Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:49:42 -0400

I think that having teachers that are willing to be armed AND go through at least some rudimentary training, would be a deterrent. Like others who have posted here, I think that the would be shooter not knowing where and when he might encounter armed resistance, would give him pause. I don’t think there is one perfect answer to this question, or to the dilemma of a nut-case with a gun, but there are lots of little things that could be done to help prevent more of these horrible incidents from happening. I’ll say one thing, this retiree would be happy to volunteer one day a week in a local school, to help keep it safe. I work four days one work week and three the next (12 hour days), so I could spare a day. Make teams of two to roam the halls. Control the access to the campus, much like the gates of a military base are controlled. Stopping or at least slowing down a shooter before they even get in a building would provide a buffer allowing the building to lock down.
These are sad times and I don’t believe there is one big answer for any of this, but I do believe that there are a lot of little things that can be done to mitigate the danger of this happening in our neighborhood schools.

Response by Maj Charles Porter made Jul 6 at 2018 10:56 AM

Maj Charles Porter — Fri, 06 Jul 2018 10:56:59 -0400

Yes,when the alternative is during in place.

Response by SFC Kenneth Baker made Jul 10 at 2018 1:27 PM

SFC Kenneth Baker — Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:27:00 -0400

I've been a teacher, and I can tell you that, if you are honest and caring with them, you become a role model and the students will form very strong bonds with you, and you with them. Now from what I gather from the school shootings I'm aware of, the shooter is usually a current or former student of the school he's attacking. That being the case, IMHO, it would be unrealistic to give a teacher a gun expecting them to shoot, possibly fatally, a teen of young adult who probably was or is a student at that teacher's school, and who may have been, or may currently be, a student in that teacher's classroom. In other words, that teacher wouldn't be shooting a stranger or an enemy. For me at least, it would be like shooting a member of my own family. I might be able to do it in the moment in order to possibly save many other young lives, but I would have to live with it for rest of my life.

Response by SSG Ryan Molton made Jul 10 at 2018 9:44 PM

SSG Ryan Molton — Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:44:21 -0400

It’s close quarters a handgun is just as effective

Response by PO2 Louis Fattrusso made Jul 11 at 2018 4:48 PM

PO2 Louis Fattrusso — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:48:37 -0400

If they are properly trained and skillful they could have the advantage of surprise. It’s better than being unarmed. I like the idea of veterans volunteering to protect schools.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 11 at 2018 7:32 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:32:17 -0400

Totally plausible...

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jul 11 at 2018 7:46 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:46:15 -0400

MAJ John Richards -
SPC Chris Benson -
PFC Sandra Wade -
LTC Private RallyPoint Member -
LCpl Timothy McCain -

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2018 9:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:10:26 -0400

Lots of replies here but I'll add my thoughts. The keyword is 'DEFEND.' The teacher's primary responsibility in an active shooter event is to protect the students. His first reaction should be to lock the doors, turn off the lights, stay put, and contact the police/authorities. The pistol should be a last resort option, such as when the active shooter is attempting to gain entry to the room they are sheltering in.
The teacher has no need to pretend he is Rambo and attempt to deal with the shooter. That isn't his job. Let the authorities/police do that.

Response by CAPT John Harman made Jul 15 at 2018 1:45 AM

CAPT John Harman — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 01:45:22 -0400

Yes. In many, if not most of these situations, the shooter offs himself when confronted by an armed opponent, usually the police. Heroic teachers often throw their lives away, vainly trying to prevent th eshooter from harming their students. At least even the odds a little...

Response by LCpl Domingo Ariza made Jul 17 at 2018 6:45 AM

LCpl Domingo Ariza — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 06:45:04 -0400

This is a slippery subject, however, as a parent if I have just one gun between my children and a lunatic with a weapon there is hope. It vexes me every day that people think that getting rid of weapons will solve problems. Can you imagine what would have become of this nation if we all thought weapons were bad and evil? there is an old saying "those with the most weapons win" now as far as teachers packing heat maybe that is far-fetched, however, there are a lot of unemployed vets that would happily walk a post for minimum wage just to feel needed and important again that have the ability to evert the fog of war and would gladly die to try to protect our most valuable asset. The thing that saddens me the most is our schools are resembling small correctional facilities. One final thought, I know it is scary to think about people walking around with guns ready to take one's life to protect the children in our schools, however, It is far scarier to imagine the fear of those children being slaughtered because we as a society have a hang up with guns.

Response by Sgt Cesario Briseno made Jul 18 at 2018 8:23 PM

Sgt Cesario Briseno — Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:23:09 -0400

A handgun vs AR15? Not good odds of survival for the hand gun. Unless the teacher is a combat veteran, then yes a fair chance, but still not good odds. These crazy murderers know when and where they are going to strike so the odds are in their favor. Extensive training is the issue here. Teachers get their LIcense to Carry and some instruction by the police. But it’s not continuous and most would not react well in a firefight. Panic and chaos sets in and the chances of accurate return fire is minimal at best. Hiring combat veterans armed with AR15’s is the best solution, with continuous training for that scenario. The next best solution is police with the same weapons and training. Arming teachers is one solution, not the best though, but better than nothing. Continuous training is the key here.

Response by Pt P made Jul 21 at 2018 4:46 PM

Pt P — Sat, 21 Jul 2018 16:46:43 -0400

After seeing the number of police officers and service members that have a negligent discharge I dont wont guns in untrained teachers hands and near my kids or my brothers kids. Simple.

A teacher and a 2lt are only two steps away from being different and we are trust our young officers sooo much.

I am tired of our service members watching TV and being brainwashed. Growing up in Texas, guns were for killing, thats it, at the end of day they get locked up away from children. Unless we are teaching our kids to kill something, they dont need guns 24x7, in Iraq yea bring guns to school, but an on base school were the last crime was a kid skipping class to try and impress a girl.

We need to refocus America!

Also stop with the name calling on here we are proud conservatives and progressives that americans wish they could be.

Response by LTC James McElreath made Jul 21 at 2018 9:45 PM

LTC James McElreath — Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:45:30 -0400

LCPL Tim McCain, You really hit the nail on the head so to speak. Why have even more guns available for a shooter. There were police present and like the Cpl said the police were there. One must forgive the officer did not just rush in without any intel. I guess that he had rushed in and was killed it would had been his fault as well! He was using his head in not going in right away!! Who says that the teachers should carry guns anyway! I know having worked special duty in two local school systems that they too can be a group of nut cases! Hire retired cops!
I saved the best for last! Lets blame the AR-15's as the culprit! These anti gun people blame the AR even when not used!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2018 6:59 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:59:30 -0400

Does the AR somehow protect the shooter against bullets from a handgun? There is absolutely no reason to believe that a teacher who does even minimal practice couldn't shoot an assailant, no matter what he's carrying. It's not like we would be arming them just with knives or rape whistles.

Response by Cpl Geoff Smith made Jul 22 at 2018 10:17 AM

Cpl Geoff Smith — Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:17:51 -0400

NO!

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Jul 22 at 2018 4:58 PM

SFC Ernest Thurston — Sun, 22 Jul 2018 16:58:31 -0400

I don't know if the trainng that is given to armed teachers includes offensive closing in on the shooter. But if you have an armed teacher in a classroom when the shooter comes in, that teacher has the oporitunity to stop the shooter there instead of hiding behind a desk and hoping he doesn't take out 30 students.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2018 7:53 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 19:53:10 -0400

If a potential bad guy knows there are teachers in the school that are possibly armed, it may give them pause to commit the act there. The "Gun Free Zones" are the problem.

Response by SPC Henry Francis made Jul 29 at 2018 11:32 PM

SPC Henry Francis — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 23:32:28 -0400

It gives them a much better chance than being unarmed would.
It is not possible to predict which weapon a murderer will choose. It is possible to predict that the majority of would be murderers will choose NOT to attempt their murders in a school where the teachers are armed. A combined force of armed and trained teachers in multiple locations raise the very real probability in the culprit’s mind that s/he might die before s/he can kill anyone.
They will not have the advantage of facing down a pistol with their AR-15 in a hall cleared for a showdown. The perp will have to breach every classroom door with an armed person on the other side who is ready for them. That’s not near as easy as shooting unarmed terrified people.

Response by PO3 Mike Binning made Jul 30 at 2018 12:07 AM

PO3 Mike Binning — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:07:20 -0400

No it is not one bit realistic to be honest. The same holds true with so many folks now a days with the Conceal-Carry debate rearing its ugly head also. People have know idea that damage that cannot be taken back once that triggered is pulled.

Response by LCpl Darrell McGraw made Jul 30 at 2018 4:33 PM

LCpl Darrell McGraw — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:33:21 -0400

No way. I will just make for a killing zone for the classroom. Once the shooting starts everyone inside that classroom will automatically become collateral damage.

Response by PO2 Rob Rundquist made Aug 5 at 2018 6:12 PM

PO2 Rob Rundquist — Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:12:20 -0400

Yes, if they are trained

Response by PO1 Richard Norton made Aug 8 at 2018 12:25 PM

PO1 Richard Norton — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 12:25:34 -0400

No is the simple answer, that said they will fair a lot better with a hand gun that they would without a gun at all.

Response by COL John Exnicios made Aug 13 at 2018 8:54 AM

COL John Exnicios — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:54:46 -0400

An armed and trained teacher, willing to serve in this capacity could defend much more effectively than the same unarmed teacher. There is also the issue of deterrence, armed teachers could deter shooters from selecting the somewhat protected schools.

Response by TSgt Sandra V. made Aug 13 at 2018 9:04 AM

TSgt Sandra V. — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:04:06 -0400

I do believe that just having an armed person or persons in a school, and advertising that fact, may be the first-line deterrent. In my opinion, any "gun-free" zone is a big yellow GO sign for criminals and those wishing to do harm.

Response by SPC Douglas Bolton made Aug 13 at 2018 8:53 PM

SPC Douglas Bolton — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:53:33 -0400

LCpl Timothy McCain I am a retired teacher, and can assure you I would be able to put down shooter. I had an expert badge at the range, and know my weapon well. Just need to surprise him/her and put a bullet in their heart.

Response by SFC Harry H. made Aug 15 at 2018 3:36 PM

SFC Harry H. — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:36:51 -0400

My buddy who was on our police dept decided he had enough of being a policeman. He finished school and became a teacher. What better person to have a gun at that time. I know several school teachers that are also prior service or still in the National Guard. There are also avid shooters and gun enthusiasts as well. Although the pistol at a long rifle battle is a disadvantage. At least there is hope, and hopefully the rifle shooter is less accurate.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 16 at 2018 3:42 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:42:07 -0400

As students are beginning to return to schools since it is August, the answer is even a slingshot or a broom can adequately defend against an active shooter no matter the weapon, the issue is all based on the training and resolved of the defender.
Now to Orr, why the down vote, the question is a valid question?

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Aug 16 at 2018 7:04 PM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 19:04:14 -0400

I was a School Director in our local public district for 16 years. We had the majority of the systems described by Capt Schwebach in place, including features that forced visitors to take a circuitous route to gain entry. With all that, I opined to the board that I could gain entry and slaughter at least a couple of dozen staff or students easily. We had approximately 250 teachers and administrators. Of those, the number of vets was about 10-15%, spread fairly evenly throughout the five buildings. I never talked with one of them who was not willing to act as defensive force in their school. I lost the argument to some progressive members of the board who felt teachers being armed was dangerous. As of today, our security consists of the same systems.
I can assure you that even when the defender is strapped into a seat, a pistol can prevail over individuals armed with an automatic AK-47 at a range less than 30 feet.

Response by LCDR Robert S. made Aug 17 at 2018 11:51 AM

LCDR Robert S. — Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:51:06 -0400

The answer to your initial question is that it's more realistic to believe that a teacher armed with a handgun could defend against an attacker with an AR-15 than it is to believe that an unarmed teacher could defend against an attacker with an AR-15. Experts can spend hours arguing over whether the rifle or the handgun has a tactical advantage inside a building, and how big that advantage might be. But no one will argue that the guy with the AR-15 doesn't have a huge tactical advantage over an unarmed person.

Another important thing to keep in mind in this discussion is that the attackers are almost never highly trained. So this isn't an amateur (teacher) vs. expert (attacker), it's amateur vs. amateur. And the attacker isn't finding a position to defend himself against an assault, he's going looking for people to kill. Because he expects all those people to be unarmed, the teacher is going to have a huge surprise advantage when the attacker comes through the door expecting either an empty room, or a room full of cowering kids. Would the teacher in that situation always win? Of course not. But if one of my own children is in the room the attacker is walking into, I would prefer the teacher to be armed rather than unarmed.

Of course, what's often ignored in this discussion is that school shootings are extremely rare. So in analyzing the situation, we need to weigh the benefit of having armed teachers in the event of an attack with the possible hazard of accidental shootings the rest of the time. But shootings are pretty rare in the rest of life too. Given that armed teachers aren't likely to have LESS training than the average concealed carrier, and accidental shootings by concealed carriers are also pretty rare, I wouldn't find myself worrying if I heard that my children's schools announced that they were going to allow teachers to be armed.

Response by PO2 John Driskill made Aug 19 at 2018 12:18 PM

PO2 John Driskill — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:18:43 -0400

When I was a police officer many years ago, I and others took as many firearms training classes as we could. An interesting class I took was taught by Houston Police Dept. on using cover while firing a handgun. Teachers would need training in tactics to confront a shooter and how to reload a handgun under fire. Just dragging them out to the range to fire 50 rounds at a paper target doesn't cut it. Put them in a fun house to find out what it's like under stress and running.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2018 10:51 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 22:51:47 -0400

I happen to a retired teacher and I say “Not likely”. There are a number of variables to consider of course but the expectation of a teacher putting down a crazy guy who has every advantage imaginable is ridiculous. I have a CCW permit and feel like I am way better than average with my piece but would carry and draw only as a last resort. The proponents for arming teachers are grossly oversimplifying this situation. Teachers teach, trained security people or uniformed officers are what are needed to use deadly force.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2018 7:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:51:16 -0400

it is more realistic, than believing a teacher without a firearm, could effectively defend against an armed assailant.

Response by SPC Travis Grizzard made Aug 25 at 2018 3:57 AM

SPC Travis Grizzard — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 03:57:26 -0400

What do you mean, "close in on and take an active shooter"? Arming teachers is defensive. I don't think the teachers would have any difficulty identifying the location of an active shooter standing in the doorway of their classroom.

Tell me, if you are tasked to defend a classroom full of children against an active shooter, carrying any rifle, which would you prefer to use;?
A. You body to block as many bullets as possible before you're dead, and your students are defenceless
B. A handgun to shoot back with

Response by SPC Mike Davis made Aug 25 at 2018 9:01 AM

SPC Mike Davis — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:01:33 -0400

Difficult question to answer in a few words as there is no perfect answer for nothing works perfectly. Safe rooms are a very good idea and I believe very good for protection. But, everyone has to get there to take advantage of what it offers. While in the process of doing that an armed teacher who has been taught situational awareness and is armed is far better than someone with no training and a sharp pencil. But then armed is not necessarily an accurate answer if say the teacher has a .22 cal pistol. Better than a sharp pencil but will (in all likelihood) not stop a bad guy unless perfectly placed shots. So a teacher would need training in ballistics and handgun stopping power. Than range and actual combat training with said chosen weapon. Thus, a teacher would need to undertake a short training program in firearms use in a panic situation. Which should lead to a successful evacuation of students to a safe room. I carry a .44 special revolver loaded with 200 gr hard cast wadcutter rounds. The round traves at 1000 fps and has 1200 pounds of energy. It kicks like a .44 mag and it is not a very accurate round without several hours on the range. But, if it hits an animal or a human just about anywhere on their body they are going down and with the damage it does to blood vessels and bones. Survival is out of the question. Fight is over. Such an attitude to the recent threats to our children, society and family is the one and only attitude that should be accepted. Any other answer or policy is nothing short of surrender to the bad guys.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2018 2:41 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 14:41:08 -0400

I do believe it is possible. Let’s say all teachers are armed. If the students are all in a classroom with brick walls, then the shooter has to come in through a choke point. This means the shooter has to find the teacher, but the teacher knows where the shooter will be.
However, the threat of armed teachers will also pose a more deadly risk to shooters and will decrease the likelihood of that school being targeted.

Response by SSG Israel Galvan made Aug 25 at 2018 7:07 PM

SSG Israel Galvan — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 19:07:49 -0400

Totally Ludacris idea - it is hard enough to train a law enforcement officer in "shoot or not shoot" scenario - let alone involve a teacher with students - that will never get the full training a law enforcement officer gets - police officers make mistakes under pressure - you can't expect a teacher to protect a student in those type of scenarios. You would have to train both the teacher and students in all facets of weapons and cover/concealment etc., for the teacher to be able to protect his/her students. In essence the teacher and students would have to train together and be on the same page.

Response by CPT John Ferrie made Aug 31 at 2018 2:40 PM

CPT John Ferrie — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:40:44 -0400

Let each school district decide.

Response by Kathlean Keesler made Sep 2 at 2018 9:35 AM

Kathlean Keesler — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 09:35:51 -0400

Thank you for sharing this.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Sep 5 at 2018 11:53 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 23:53:55 -0400

I am a retired Officer with boo koo years of training with weapons and I still train & "qualify" a minimum of 4 times a year with M1A, AR-15, .40 cal. pistol , and 9mm pistol. I am also a teacher. I am well qualified to defend my students. Lets be clear, I repeat, defend my students, I would not "clear the building" with my .40, but if an active shooter comes in my room he is a dead man. 2 to the body and 2 to the head.

Response by MSgt Thomas Benedict made Sep 7 at 2018 1:29 AM

MSgt Thomas Benedict — Fri, 07 Sep 2018 01:29:25 -0400

Being a retired Military Veteran and a retired teacher, I believe that a well trained teacher can close and take on a shooter, however I don't recommend that approach. However, I feel that a teacher can be armed and in a defensive mode to protect his classroom and/or students within his proximity. I would also recommend the use of "bean bag" ammo that we carried as aircrew members. They would not penetrate a classroom wall whereas a ball type ammo would and also lessen the chances of severe injury or death of a person in a stray shot.

Response by LCpl James Lockwood made Sep 8 at 2018 9:25 AM

LCpl James Lockwood — Sat, 08 Sep 2018 09:25:56 -0400

Yes. A well aimed shot is right.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 10 at 2018 5:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:06:13 -0400

The best defense is not to allow gunmen into the soft belly of the school.

Response by Brad Miller made Sep 10 at 2018 5:33 PM

Brad Miller — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:33:11 -0400

All else being equal, I'd put money on the rifle -- BUT -- there are a lot of other factors to consider: does the teacher have advantages of cover and surprise? Who is more proficient? Who is calmer? In the end -- better a handgun than a roll of duct tape and a hammer!

Response by PO1 Robert George made Sep 10 at 2018 7:44 PM

PO1 Robert George — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:44:08 -0400

possible, yes. realistic, no. training they would need would be prohibitive. the reason cops miss so many shots is cuz they train on a static range. not in a 'real life' situation. not a lot of forces can afford a 'scenario' type range.

Response by SSgt Daniel Lang made Sep 11 at 2018 1:06 PM

SSgt Daniel Lang — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:06:28 -0400

Yes if they are trained. It's been done before
https://kdminer.com/news/2018/jul/05/kingman-police-officers-armed-robbery-shooting-ide/

Kingman Police officers in armed robbery shooting identified

KINGMAN – Police officers involved in the shooting of a suspect in the armed robbery of a Dollar General store Sunday have been identified as Mike Morris and Adam Simonsen, Mohave County Sheriff’s Office reported Thursday.Morris, a three-year veteran of Kingman Police Department, was the first officer to arrive at the store at 3665 E. Andy Devine Ave. at 9:49 p.m. on a report of an armed robbery in progress.He was coming to a stop at Sunshine...

Response by SrA Alvin Cook made Sep 11 at 2018 3:23 PM

SrA Alvin Cook — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:23:04 -0400

Most teachers are Untrained in the art and skills of weaponry. Bad idea in my personal opinion to entrust firearms to teachers even with training. Hell they cannot even get enough supplies to TEACH ! Who is going to pay for this. TRAINED PROFESSIONALS ONLY should be armed on school campus.

Response by TSgt Edward Graczyk made Sep 12 at 2018 2:46 AM

TSgt Edward Graczyk — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 02:46:09 -0400

Is it so much about closing and eliminating the threat or the fact that the active shooter may very well avoid the school altogether knowing armed resistance is on site. Furthermore, armed staff would be the barrier behind closed doors, limiting access and entry. Smaller window of breach coming through a door with any weapon, allowing teacher(s) to focus on a doorway and aiming for center of mass. In the instance of hunting an active shooter, I would rather have the hand gun in the confines of classrooms and hallways/stairwellsThe shooter may have volume and capacity on his side, while the teacher has better knowledge of his surroundings, defense points and areas to better ambush an assailant

Response by SGT Thomas Bentley made Sep 13 at 2018 4:42 PM

SGT Thomas Bentley — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:42:17 -0400

First of all family. Second of all family. Then god, and country. The family is not what it once was and with the less emphasis on family, values degrade with that. Parents now a days don't want their "little kiddo" to think badly of them even for a moment. And most now rely on the school system to give their kids values. And none of them are teaching the value of human life. When I was in high school we used our wit and then our if we had to our physical aggression to solve issues. No one ever thought about bringing a gun to school unless it was hunting season.

Response by SFC Jimmy Sellers made Sep 21 at 2018 2:48 PM

SFC Jimmy Sellers — Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:48:57 -0400

Look at it this way. Is it realistic for a soldier to go on a combat mission against enemy armed with AK’s, with only a pistol?
I believe that the way to end, or at least decrease, school shootings, and mass shootings in general is to be realistic about what they actually are; they are suicides that involve the suicidal individual wishing to gain noteraity for killing his or her self. No one has ever committed a mass shooting and gotten away with it. It always ends with the shooter dying or being captured after running out of ammo or changing their mind about dying. But the initial intent of the shooting is always suicide. We figure how to make unbalanced individuals want to live, we figure how to stop mass shootings without having to change or restrict the right to bear arms.

Response by SPC Les Darbison made Sep 24 at 2018 1:00 AM

SPC Les Darbison — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 01:00:18 -0400

We have teachers, coaches, and factuality that have sacrificed there lives to save students. All like that have the right to be armed an to gain the ability to defend them selves and those in harms way.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2018 12:50 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:50:54 -0400

I'm confident that a teacher armed with a pistol is more effective against an active shooter with an AR-15 than a teacher armed with a stapler...

Response by Sgt Thomas Proctor made Oct 3 at 2018 9:57 PM

Sgt Thomas Proctor — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:57:25 -0400

Who said or made the decision that they would only be armed with a hand gun. In Israel school teachers carry Uzzies.

Response by Cpl Geoff Smith made Oct 6 at 2018 2:44 PM

Cpl Geoff Smith — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:44:15 -0400

No, teachers don't have the time or inclination to dor the proper training constantly to achier this taskve the proper situational awareness required for this task

Response by SPC Roy Martin made Oct 9 at 2018 1:50 PM

SPC Roy Martin — Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:50:34 -0400

I don't think arming teachers is way to protect our kids. I think teachers would hesitate before pulling the trigger on a student. I would prefer we develop a professional trained force to protect our kids and schools. BTW - what happened to hardening the schools?

Response by CPT Philip Bailey made Oct 13 at 2018 7:47 AM

CPT Philip Bailey — Sat, 13 Oct 2018 07:47:54 -0400

Myth one: AR15s are THE weapon used in school shootings. They are not. Two examples are Virginia Tech, the worst school shooting, used handguns; and the most resent in New Mexico where a shot gun was used.

Response by COL Jon Lopey made Oct 17 at 2018 9:27 PM

COL Jon Lopey — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:27:54 -0400

LCPL McCain: You pose a very interesting question that has been debated in our nation for a long time, especially in view of the many active-shooter incidents we've seen in recent years. I have been in law enforcement for over 40-years. Although this is not an easy answer I support the premise that a properly trained, qualified, and willing teacher armed with a concealed firearm is one answer to this problem. Between Jan - Dec 2017, 28 incidents of mass attacks occurred in the U.S. involving the death of three or more persons, this included 31 different sites (businesses = 13; open spaces = 9, schools = 4, transportation = 3, and churches = 2). 82% of the attacks involved firearms but knives and vehicles were also used. 50% of these attacks were over within five minutes; 29% lasted 15 minutes or more and 21% were 5 - 15 minutes in duration. 2/3 of the assailants had mental health issues and 54% had a history of illicit drug use and or substance abuse. Why the statistics? I believe that a person that is properly screened, trained, and willing to use deadly force (sometimes a question mark) with a concealed weapon is likely to be in a position to protect themselves and others in a school or other setting. Law enforcement officers are not always able to respond to these incidents prior their termination or conclusion and at least an armed citizen such as a teacher or other employee has the chance of doing something that can save lives, especially when kids are involved. The fact is most assailants will not be expecting a teacher or administrator to be armed and an armed school employee has at least a chance to fight back and stop the threat before yielding to evil and getting shot and killed; moreover, that same man or woman can save the lives of the kids and fellow co-workers so vulnerable to these cowardly and often devastating attacks. Our school superintendent allowed teachers to be armed (they had to get a CCW permit signed by me as the sheriff after undergoing a psychological evaluation by a clinician). Only well-qualified and able candidates were afforded the privilege. California legislators, in their infinite wisdom, later passed a law taking away the discretion of administrators to allow concealed carry. There are schools in my county that could take my deputies a considerable amount of time within which to respond and attack the threat. We should, under the right circumstances, arm teachers or other school employees to stop the active shooter should they seek havoc and death in their respective school or business. The only exception should be if adequate security is provided by armed law enforcement or security. Thanks - I could say more but I've probably said enough. Thank you, COL L

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2018 12:22 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 00:22:42 -0400

Yes if properly trained by people who have trained special forces, police emergency services, Ect

Response by Capt George Kent Brashear made Oct 28 at 2018 11:18 PM

Capt George Kent Brashear — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 23:18:31 -0400

Here's my simplistic answer: If a shooter came into my home with an AR-15, I'd rather have my pistol on me than locked away in the gun safe. But still, I'd be terrified.

As to in a school, Any chance of taking the shooter out by an armed teacher is still a chance.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Nov 2 at 2018 4:56 PM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Fri, 02 Nov 2018 16:56:47 -0400

Well, not having a teacher, or anyone for that matter, armed and able to respond, has proven itself to be 100% ineffective against an armed aggressor. Also, as the case of the Aurora CO theater shooter demonstrates (There were upwards of five theaters showing the Batman movie that were closer to his residence. They differed from the one he chose, in that they allowed CCW permit holders to be armed on their premises.), people bent on mayhem prefer easy targets. What we don't hear about in the mainstream media, is the events where an armed person thwarts one of these attacks. Furthermore, establishments that deny the carrying of weapons, refuse to establish and maintain adequate screening protocols to prevent armed individuals from entering. As history demonstrates, making a law, or posting a sign, is highly inadequate.
So, would allowing trained teachers to be armed in schools be effective? Maybe. Possibly better than the status quo. A stupid plan that works, isn't stupid.

Response by TSgt Tommy Amparano made Nov 5 at 2018 6:14 PM

TSgt Tommy Amparano — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 18:14:02 -0500

Realistic? Depends on how much practice they have at the range. Also how effective they are under stress. Also depends on if they can get a clean shot with no kid or teacher behind a gunman. Also, if the back drop is brick vs. sheet rock. I would rather schools invest in heavy duty classroom doors that can't be easily penetrated or knocked down, but I don't see school having the money in this day and age for $4,500+ doors in every classroom. So, when it comes down to it, it is better to have something than nothing to protect yourself and kids if a madman gets into your school.

Response by SGT Kyle Bickley made Nov 8 at 2018 1:27 PM

SGT Kyle Bickley — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 13:27:32 -0500

Yes, depending on the training you've had, and the weapon of choice you are carrying. However if they are x military and trained in combat tactics the advantage goes to the rifleman!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2018 2:36 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 14:36:48 -0500

It gives the students and teachers a hell of a lot better chance to be armed than to not be regardless of what they are up against....

Response by MSG Don Burt made Nov 11 at 2018 12:10 PM

MSG Don Burt — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 12:10:58 -0500

Look at this way...by not having any protection is a definite view of many
deaths ahead....being protected with “just a hand gun” is a major view of
waking up the next day and saying thank YOU LORD!
My saying is: “I’d rather have it (handgun) with me and not having to use it, than not having it with me and needing it.” I read that somewhere before I got my Concealed Carry Permit and it stuck with me and makes good sense to me.
So, a teacher trained, and having a handgun close by ‘will’ save the lives of some if not all of his/her students and themselves.

Response by PV2 Stephen Walker made Nov 13 at 2018 9:03 PM

PV2 Stephen Walker — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 21:03:24 -0500

With the right training, it is conceivable that a teacher can defend him/herself against a shooter. It's not the rifle being defended against. It's the shooter.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2018 6:52 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 06:52:17 -0500

YES it is realistic to believe that an armed teacher could effectively defend against an active shooter; even in a handgun vs rifle scenario. However, you need to stop confusing your Marine mission (close with and destroy), with what a teacher should/could do (lock down, shelter in place, defend the door). I think sending a teacher to offensively hunt down and seek a fire fight with an active shooter is a bad idea.

Teachers should be taught to corral their students, lock down their room, barricade the door, take cover and be prepared to repel hostile invaders with whatever improvised weapons are at hand (throw hard objects, hit with clubs/table leg, stab with pencil, etc). Adding a firearm as a strictly defensive tool to discourage, delay, and defend against an active shooter from gaining access into the classroom and the shooters unchallenged ability to target students at will is a good idea.

The properly trained teacher simply has a more effective tool to help them defend the door from the bad guy gaining access to the room. Plus, let's remember that some teachers are prior active military (Troops to Teacher program), current military reservists and current reserve police officers, reserve deputies, or members of sheriff's posse. The teacher is not to take the role of a SWAT team member; just defend the door.

As a Marine, when you close with and destroy an enemy, is it easier to attack when your target is armed or unarmed? Are you claiming an active shooter would be unaffected if a teacher hiding behind a desk barricaded inside a locked classroom was able to shoot a round through the door a shooter was trying to kick open? At the very least, the shooter would have to expend additional time and ammo to breach the classroom; time and ammo that could not be used to simply kill kids unchallenged. Maybe that round through the door also goes through the bad guy; instantly ending the assault, motivates shooter suicide, creates a wound that at least slows the attack and reduces the unfettered carnage, or simply leads the shooter to decide to run away.

What's that gun control motto?? "If it saves only one life, it is worth it" Well if arming a qualified teacher and training the teacher to defend the door, "saves only one life".....

YES it is entirely realistic to believe that an armed teacher could effectively defend against an active shooter.

Response by SGT Ernest Huerta made Nov 21 at 2018 1:53 PM

SGT Ernest Huerta — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:53:32 -0500

Part of a teachers duties/responsibilities are to protect the children in their class and the school. No one expects a teacher to be responsible for ALL STUDENTS but they must be prepared for any dangers in their immediate vicinity. This may be limited to SOUNDING AN ALARM, SHOUTING A WARNING. GETTING CHILDREN PREPARED TO EVACUATE, LOCKING CLASSROOM DOORS ,TURNING OFF LIGHTS, MOVING TOWARDS THE INSIDE WALL (same side as door), maintaining a low profile to avoid being seen) and whatever else the situation may require. *Doing SOMETHING is better than doing nothing and waiting for Devine Intervention!

* Fall, 1958, Chicago, IL.-OUR LADY OF THE ANGELS ELEMENTREY SCHOOL FIRE. 2 stories, no sprinklers, no alarms, etc. (not required by city at time) Some students on 2nd floor were lowered as far as possible out windows, by their Nuns, then dropped. At least TWO classrooms of students were found dead and huddled in a corner with their Nuns. They had been praying.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2018 1:55 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:55:18 -0500

At the ranges we’re talking about in school shootings it is absolutely reasonable and in fact, a pistol has many advantages in just handling characteristics alone. Could Ms. Suzy with minimal trading be much of a counter? Probably not but just like a terrorist, she only has to get lucky once.

Response by SSG Steven Pike made Nov 24 at 2018 9:11 PM

SSG Steven Pike — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:11:19 -0500

If the teacher were a retired police officer or veteran, yes. It is quite reasonable. If the teacher were trained to fire a handgun, it is possible. An accurate shot is what is required. Most mass shooters are not proficient with weapons and rely on the fact they are armed and no one else is. The Parkland shooter was not confronted and he should have been at many stages. The local, state and federal government all failed well before and during the shooting, even though they all knew iin advance this person was a threat. In the end, if no one can eliminate the shooter, it is death.

Response by CPT Phil Bronner made Nov 25 at 2018 2:05 PM

CPT Phil Bronner — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:05:07 -0500

The reason the suspect wasn't killed by a "well aimed" handgun shot is that the suspect was out of effective range of a handgun, in a position with cover AND concealment. When I first started in Law Enforcement...we trained from 50 yards in....about 2 years later....we trained from 25 yards in..and it's been that way ever since. And the emphasis has been from 3-10 yards! On many departments, AR-15s are replacing shotguns as the 1st backup weapon (If shotguns are carried they're in the trunk!).
In a school situation, IF a trained teacher is not in the 1st classroom hit, they can prepare, fire from a barricaded position, and at a range substantially (usually) less than 15 yards. Pistols rule in confined areas.
The alternative is to line the children up like targets on a range, and stand in front of them. We shouldn't be treating our children as penned sheep!

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Nov 25 at 2018 2:20 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 14:20:20 -0500

No offense to cops but given the amount of actual marksmanship training they get, I wouldn't bet against a teacher for being able to hit targets as well as they do.

Problem remains is that schools remain an attractive target for psychos & terrorists b/c they have little anticipation of running into armed or any real sort of resistance. Law enforcement utterly failed in the Florida school shooting at almost every level inc the response of the cop posted there. Allowing teachers the option of being armed at least gives someone a chance on the spot to fight back, doing nothing but demanding confiscation of whatever is the evil guns of the day is simply using a problem to gain a political objective.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2018 9:20 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 21:20:25 -0500

I was actually in the Navy Yard as that shooting happened. Got out not even a second before the total lockdown. I left that job as a contractor and went to work for a school system. I believe it's fair to say that in the event of an active shooter, most civilians are going to melt. They have not had the conditioning that service members have. Even then it's not everyone's favorite feeling. Then you add kids into the mix. These children don't have the fortitude to understand the gravity of the situation, let alone be able to carry out a perfectly planned out evacuation of the building. It will be a hot mess. Many still become very unsettled at the sound of the building's fire alarm. I think it's highly unlikely that you will be able to find a teacher that will be able to be as smooth as ice and be able to do one shot one kill as the common mindset seems to suggest that they would. (but if they could do that, why do we not have them?) I think most teachers would melt too, gun or no gun. Unless the teachers themselves have had the conditioning given by the services, my belief that giving them weapons is counter productive. It would add to the chaos that is already ensuing. The recoil of a weapon would knock a bunch of them over, even a handgun.
However, systems already exist and have existed for a long time in the commercial world that could harden these soft targets to the point where the shooter can shoot his weapon all day or he runs out of ammo whichever comes first as soon as he can be isolated quickly. There are devices that secure doors that work on electromagnetics and surveillance cameras. A lot of corporate places would consider such a system and many already have such a system in place.
The big argument is going to come down to money. Bottom line. No one in the educational world is going to want to spend the money to ensure that these systems are in place to keep kids safe. We struggle with class size and buses all kinds of other things that yes they need attention but The truth with it is that the electromagnetic door system system would pay for itself if it saves one life. Yes these soft targets can be hardened, but no one wants to spend the money to do it. They are wanting to come up with all kinds of other ways that dance around the issue at hand . They have to sit down and examine their priorities and make some decisions on just how much it's really worth to them. I think the key here is to put a system like this in place so it keeps everyone safe including the teacher and they don't have to carry a weapon. Let the police carry the weapons and the teachers carry the red pens.
Can this be done? I think so. Will this be done? I highly doubt it. Just my thought on it

Regards,

Response by SSgt Scott Taylor made Nov 29 at 2018 11:48 AM

SSgt Scott Taylor — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:48:49 -0500

To answer the question at hand. The person with the handgun actually has the upper hand. The element of surprise. The shooter once they fire the first round, has lost that advantage, but others in building who have a weapon, now have the tactical advantage, as they are concealed and have a full magazine, or cylinder of ammo, as well as the fact that they can have time to plan while concealed.

Response by MAJ David Atkinson made Nov 30 at 2018 3:35 PM

MAJ David Atkinson — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:35:07 -0500

Absolutely. I don’t care what you are using, getting shot with a 9mm will stop you. Of course they would need training and practice.

Response by SGT Raymond Turse made Dec 2 at 2018 12:48 PM

SGT Raymond Turse — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 12:48:06 -0500

I would not arm just teachers there has to be trained defenders not all schools are the same the real problem is that the shooters gained entry as a ex Phyiscal security MP it seems that is the common thread. All all soldiers who have ever stood guard mount understand the purpose of having a secured facility civilians and teachers alike don’t understand that. They are trained to teach not to be secure. It even starts with the architect the person that builds the building is only paid to build the building not to make it a defense a defensive position so that even being said you’re making a school a prison and All they really have to do is make the entryways a lot more tougher to get in the lower sets of the windows raise them up another 2 feet make them a little smaller but let a little more light in not bullets the thing is if an active shooter is outside of the building All he has to just shoot in a window he’s made his point about how hard to defend a building the problem is to not to gain entry you have to make making entryways not accessible use the ground floor structure defensely if he can’t see in he has to change tactics . The greaters or for monitor’s who man my school ‘s entry ways are retired moms totally untrained personal you buzz a person in Not Good. a recipe for disaster. no metal detector. No vehicle defending deturant. What I am trying to say is arming teachers is not the solution make it harder for intruder’s to gain entry.

Response by SGT Benjamin Anderson made Dec 2 at 2018 7:32 PM

SGT Benjamin Anderson — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 19:32:30 -0500

Not realistic. Most people will panic at the sound of gyunfire..which will only worsen the situation, and any viable response to the situation. As I recall..another shooting with a scholl resourse officer on-duty..the officer was 'relunctant to actually engage the shooter..refusing to enter the school, even after back-up had arrived on the sceen.

Response by CWO4 Jim Doran made Dec 5 at 2018 11:38 AM

CWO4 Jim Doran — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:38:29 -0500

Lot of variables. How many teachers are Army * Marine Combat Arms vets? What kind of training, if any, does the rifle armed asshole have? Handguns are always easier to handle in doors than rifles are. Which one do you want to shoot around a corner?

Response by PO1 Mac MacIntyre made Dec 5 at 2018 9:32 PM

PO1 Mac MacIntyre — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 21:32:51 -0500

You assume every shooter has an AR15. You are also assuming every teacher has never held a handgun, and has no idea how to use a firearm. The arming of teachers was mentioned and was never going to be mandatory, but voluntary, AFTER training.

Response by CPL Peter King made Dec 6 at 2018 12:08 PM

CPL Peter King — Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:08:25 -0500

Absolutely not. In fact I believe an armed teacher is more of a liability. And they could be identified as a target themselves.

Question #1, Could they respond correctly, and engage the target?
Question #2, What if the target is a six year old kid? Could they use lethal force?
Question #3, Could they even use deadly force?

After seeing 30 years of “The troubles” in Northern Ireland these questioned must be answered before you even see a weapon.

During the Iranian embassy siege the SAS engaged anyone carrying a weapon.

Response by 1LT James May made Dec 10 at 2018 5:01 PM

1LT James May — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:01:28 -0500

A school shooter is coming to the teacher not the other way around. Most of these shooters have shown themselves to be cowards. They either surrender or shoot themselves when confronted with someone who can return fire. It is very realistic for a teacher to take a defensive position and be able to end an active shooter. Civilians shoot more people than do cops and they do it while not making as many mistaken shootings.

Response by MSG Lonnie Averkamp made Dec 11 at 2018 4:01 PM

MSG Lonnie Averkamp — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:01:36 -0500

Being shot at and seeing a clump of dirt fly up next to you is one of the scariest situations that a person can experience. Your (my) immediate response it to assess your armament, defenses, and choose your course of action. If you have NO weapon, your course of action is highly limited, and your ability to gain any control is virtually nil. I carried a handgun as a law enforcement officer for 22 years. It is the firearm that you take, when you do NOT intend to be in a gunfight. It is not the best option, but it beats the snot out of teeth & fingernails.

Response by MSG Lonnie Averkamp made Dec 11 at 2018 5:57 PM

MSG Lonnie Averkamp — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:57:45 -0500

Those who raise fears of the Police shooting teachers are insulting the intelligence of the First Responders. Look at ANY photograph of the offenders in these incidents and compare them to a picture of a Faculty Member. I am Chief of Security at our Church. Those authorized to carry a firearm at the Church are required to carry (and display around their neck, when needed) a fluorescent Identification Card. A copy of this card is on file with the local Police and Sheriff's Departments. This is in addition to them attending a training course given by our local Police Department, qualifying on their firearms, and participating in a Laser Scenario Deadly Force Training Course. Additionally, they are taught that they do not have a duty to neutralize the Threat (as Law Enforcement does), they have a responsibility to protect Innocent Lives - there is a difference. Using emotion and fear to paralyze a person from action is an old tactic used by those who cannot stand up to a logical argument.

Response by SP6 Peter Kreutzfeldt made Dec 14 at 2018 2:43 PM

SP6 Peter Kreutzfeldt — Fri, 14 Dec 2018 14:43:02 -0500

way to many criminals walking around looking to make a point or name for them selves. Ever noticed how in the old days very few horse thieves stole a second hors

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Dec 16 at 2018 6:59 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:59:26 -0500

No corporal but they DO NOT allow anyone with PTSD to hang around schools in makeshift OPs,so it's the BEST IDEA we have...other than reverting to JSOC grads only ,as school instructors.
I suggest the application of FATHERS WITH SPINES instead.

Response by SrA Fred Callihan made Dec 17 at 2018 10:33 AM

SrA Fred Callihan — Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:33:31 -0500

Absolutely....

Response by CPT Daniel Shapiro made Dec 19 at 2018 12:38 PM

CPT Daniel Shapiro — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:38:44 -0500

They are not training teachers to be soldiers. The intent is not to have team of teachers hunting down the perp.

The point is to have trained teachers with weapons around the school to do something if the opportunity presents itself, and if nothing else, provide deterrent force so that any potential active shooters will not know who is a threat and who is not. That in itself will slow them down, if nothing else.

The reason everyone shooters pick schools is for the horror effect, and because it's like shooting fish in a barrel

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2018 11:51 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Dec 2018 11:51:10 -0500

This question is silly and illogical. The answers to any possible question on this train of thought are not even debatable.

Is it realistic that a person could stop a murdering shooter with a handgun? Yes.

Is it more likely than doing it with their bare hands? Yes.

Is it more likely that the teacher will accidentally friendly fire on students more often than the murdering shooter will? No it isn't.

Equal or greater force is the only way to stop someone with the intent and means to kill. You might as well be sitting here arguing that our infantrymen need to go into firefights with baseball bats.

Response by SPC Lee Sweningson made Dec 26 at 2018 8:40 AM

SPC Lee Sweningson — Wed, 26 Dec 2018 08:40:39 -0500

any armed response is better than cowering in a corner and waiting to be executed. Every day there are thousands of civilians who use weapons to defend themselves successfully. No one knows how they might react in a live fire situation until they are in it and that includes military. In combat I've seen men who I thought would be cool under fire freeze up and men I thought were the weak ones turned out to be good under fire and an asset. One guy in particular who was always the tough talker actually deserted when we got orders to go to Iraq and was last found hiding out with greenpeace.

Furthermore, some teachers are veterans so don't discount their training. Lastly, after leaving the army I worked in code enforcement and was around police a lot. They don't train nearly as much as some civilians. My neighbor is a United pilot AND a competitive long distance shooter. I would give him a MUCH better chance of taking out a bad guy than any regular soldier with no combat experience OR any cop. Contrary to what you see on TV, regular cops don't actually train that much which is why they had a bit of difficulty in taking down the guy in Dallas.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2018 12:21 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Dec 2018 00:21:42 -0500

The big issue is deterrence. Schools are a soft target where normally only the School Resource Officer (SRO) is armed. If teachers are allowed (not mandated) to be armed, the school becomes less of a soft objective. How often do mass shootings happen where ther is the possibility that someone there will be armed? (Hint: not very often.) As a teacher and a veteran, I would gladly be armed while I teach. I predict that I would probably never have to unholster my weapon, simply because it is there and visible. (No, I wouldn't wear it on my hip.) When the word gets around that some of the teachers (the well qualified and approved ones) are armed, the opportunists will choose another venue.
I truly don't like my chances of taking on a shooter who has an AK-47 or AR-15 while I am only armed with a 9mm pistol. I do like those odds a lot better than me taking on someone armed with and AK-47 or AR-15 while I am armed with a textbook, shoe, fire extinguisher, or desk.

Response by SGT Xenophon Garcia made Dec 27 at 2018 1:08 PM

SGT Xenophon Garcia — Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:08:57 -0500

I should hope the ROTC instructor should be able to do it.

Response by CW3 Dan Mackey made Dec 27 at 2018 9:37 PM

CW3 Dan Mackey — Thu, 27 Dec 2018 21:37:28 -0500

Only one in ten will shoot to kill when the chips are down

Response by MAJ Steve Daugherty made Dec 29 at 2018 3:07 PM

MAJ Steve Daugherty — Sat, 29 Dec 2018 15:07:55 -0500

I believe the objective is not to make teachers armed hunters but to give them the means to defend their classroom should need arise. That takes less training than going toward the threat and could be effective in surprising an armed antagonist breaking into a classroom.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2018 3:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Dec 2018 15:51:23 -0500

Yes sir it is realistic a teacher can defend no matter what type of gun is used. The two factors that decides who live or die, is who has the jump and the fastest trigger pull. What people are getting confused about is, the gun is only used to defend the classroom just in case that active shooter decides to enter. You have to understand teachers don't have the extensive training like law enforcement and some military personnel have to go on the offensive and engage....... Their primary job is to shelter in a classroom or other safe area and defend if need be......

Response by Sgt Frank Staples made Jan 1 at 2019 10:11 PM

Sgt Frank Staples — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 22:11:52 -0500

My opinion is that if teachers wish to be armed then they should be allowed to. Would you want to go against an AR15? No and I wouldn't either...but the alternative is to be shot with no option but to cower or hide and hope that the shooter doesn't pick your room. After the theater shooting in Colorado there were some crazy liberals who were spouting that if a citizen had been armed then he might have shot someone by accident....the option is to be shot like fish in a barrel. I'll take some chance orver no chance any day!!

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2019 3:21 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Jan 2019 15:21:31 -0500

I don’t know how realistic it is, but just the thought of going up against an armed teacher might be enough of a deterrent to maybe prevent the attack altogether.

Response by TSgt Greg Echols made Jan 5 at 2019 7:18 PM

TSgt Greg Echols — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 19:18:40 -0500

Arming teachers is a great idea, and they should get a special pay bump and paid recurring training for taking on this extra duty. Teachers have the home turf so they know where all the hallways and exits are. Teachers can be trained to work as a team to move students to safety while defending the retreat. People may complain about having a school with armed teachers as they want their kids to always live in a world of puppies and unicorns but this is just not reality. Personal defense cannot be outsourced, the courts re-confirmed this with the latest FL shooting. The job of the police is not to defend you, but to just take evidence after they mop your bloody unarmed body off the floor.

Look at Israel, if I remember correctly they have armed teachers and it works well.

Response by SSG Joseph Dowell made Jan 9 at 2019 10:21 AM

SSG Joseph Dowell — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 10:21:15 -0500

At ranges greater than 50 meters (the average effective range of a pistol and what you described in your post) it is true that pistols will have little effect (though there is one handgun I have fired in the past that has an effective range similar to a rifle). However, in a school shooting situation, it is more of a close quarter combat situation. In this situation the increased distance of the rifle (Long gun) is mitigated by narrow passages and many doors and corners that a smaller weapon are not affected by. This is one of the main reasons the military moved from the "fixed stock" of the M-16 to the collapsable stock of the M-3, it provided more maneuverability in close quarters while maintaining the range needed for open field combat.

I have posted in another thread, that a good response to the increased violence (other than returning prayer to school, and deregulating firearm sales) is to have a discharge option for every service member to receive a Federal concealed carry permit with the same carry privileges as most Federal Law enforcement officers. This would be a Force multiplier for any local law enforcement agency and provide quicker response times to active shooters (in most cases).

Response by COL Jon Lopey made Jan 9 at 2019 10:05 PM

COL Jon Lopey — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:05:32 -0500

LCPL: You bring up some valid points. As a retired military officer (and former Marine), I share your concerns; however, a well-trained, motivated, and caring teacher or member of a school staff can save lives by deploying a firearm to stop an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. If my kids or grandkids were in a school where an armed assailant is murdering innocents, I would prefer a teacher or staff member that is armed at least attempt to stop the threat. Most active shooter incidents are over in less than 5-minutes, which means even the most fully staffed and aggressive police agency may not arrive on time to take appropriate action to save lives. Thank you for your commentary on a very important topic that is getting more important as these deadly encounters increase in number and magnitude. Semper Fi! COL L

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2019 5:32 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:32:12 -0500

Why not? In a close quarters combat situation, the accuracy of the rifle is negated by the proximity to the target. In a classroom you might be a max of 50 feet from your target. In a hallway your odds go down with a handgun, but a trained shooter should be able to do just fine.

Response by SGT Jody Beach made Jan 22 at 2019 8:52 AM

SGT Jody Beach — Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:52:03 -0500

Hard to say. I agree on the training and perhaps it should be mandatory for teachers to take tactical training. I mean after all we have Muslim terrorist groups training on our own land. And did Osama Bin Laden not say he was going to take us in to a war like we have never seen.... Is this not coming to be fact.

Response by Cpl Daniel Bowman made Jan 30 at 2019 6:46 PM

Cpl Daniel Bowman — Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:46:09 -0500

Many of the shooters go where someone is not likely to shoot back- "gun free zones". Just knowing that someone might shoot back quickly will discourage many shooters. You only see in the news where the mass shootings are happening in a gun free zone. You don't see in the news the times an armed person took them down. It happens but the media does not to tell us that. Every teacher does not need to carry, but the ones that do would be trained on the use and be given a chance to defend themselves.

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Feb 3 at 2019 12:22 PM

SFC Terry Murphy — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 12:22:21 -0500

I really don't believe an armed teacher would necessarily leave their classroom and make an assault on an active shooter. They would be much more effective getting as many kids into a room and using their firearms to prevent the shooter from getting to the children.

Response by SrA Scott Harris made Feb 17 at 2019 3:33 PM

SrA Scott Harris — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:33:09 -0500

If you're holding an AR-15 and someone repeatedly shoots you with a handgun, how would you feel?

Response by SFC James Welch made Feb 22 at 2019 8:23 AM

SFC James Welch — Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:23:14 -0500

Always depends on the ability of the person pulling the trigger!

Response by SFC Michael Peterson made Feb 22 at 2019 4:18 PM

SFC Michael Peterson — Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:18:13 -0500

I don't believe that the idea of arming teachers was aimed at having the teachers leaving their rooms and hunting the shooter. The intent was, to have the teachers and students hunker down in the classrooms, behind a barricade of bookcases and tables etcetera, and wait for the shooter at attempt to enter the room. Room clearing is challenging for a team of trained individuals so, I believe that a teacher with a minimal amount of training could, from an improvised barricade, successfully defend against an untrained individual intent on shooting up a school.

Response by SFC Charles Hough made Feb 26 at 2019 1:14 PM

SFC Charles Hough — Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:14:23 -0500

I agree teachers won’t have the required training and possibly not the mentality needed; veterans may be a choice but the truth is....it’s our society. There were guns, bullies, not everyone got a trophy when I was growing up! There were boundaries and morals....if you violated them; mom and dad smacked the stupid out of you!!!! Instead of gun control and making parents afraid to discipline their kids; why don’t we just bring that discipline back. I don’t believe we need to beat our kids but a belt across their bottom or a swift pop in the mouth when they are disrespectful never hurt anyone.

Response by PO2 Greg Behnke made Mar 8 at 2019 3:27 PM

PO2 Greg Behnke — Fri, 08 Mar 2019 15:27:26 -0500

Some, but not all, teachers will be deadly pistol marksman. That alone is a significant deterrent to an individual that has specifically chosen to target the most vulnerable among us.

Response by CWO4 Charles Moulis made Mar 8 at 2019 4:27 PM

CWO4 Charles Moulis — Fri, 08 Mar 2019 16:27:19 -0500

It must have some impact on the sick mind of a mass shooter. You haven’t heard of one trying to shoot up a school with armed teachers and staff.

Response by Cynthia Starks made Mar 13 at 2019 2:35 PM

Cynthia Starks — Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:35:04 -0400

I totally agree with you. I don't think it is realistic, or even desirable, for teachers to be armed and think they can take out an active shooter. I believe many school systems have implemented policies which include not letting anyone in without proper ID; going through metal detectors, having an officer on scene, etc. I suspect these policies would work if well-implemented. And finally, I do think most of the problem rests with a changed society - our children are constantly bombarded with violent and evil images, video games, ,etc. and our morality is not what it used to be. Having said all that, it is true nonetheless that societies with fewer guns have fewer murders. No easy answers here.

Response by SPC Vonnie Jones made Mar 17 at 2019 1:11 PM

SPC Vonnie Jones — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 13:11:49 -0400

Teacher have to much to do. I wouldn't want then to have the extra burden of a gun. A hand gun vs a ar15? It only takes one round in the right place to kill someone, however just because you have a hand gun doesn't mean you have the confidence to aim correctly at the right time, suppose you aim and its a child you hit?, a parent wont understand if it is their child. Also don't think every educator is mentally sound, give one a hand gun on a bad day!, lets leave security to the people trained for it and let our educators educate

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Mar 18 at 2019 3:49 PM

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:49:05 -0400

A BIG missing link in the active school shooter lexicon is the fact that nearly ALL active shooter perps have been on some kind of psychotropic "medication" prior to or during the commission of their acts of violence. With that said, YES! It is possible to disable an active shooter without a weapon if one is properly trained and one has a PLAN. Here is one example: Illinois school where teacher took down gunman recently trained for active shooters https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teacher-school-took-down-gunman-recently-trained-active-shooters/

In training, we break it down to either a "long gun" or a "handgun." Mostly because this is the question the 9-1-1 dispatcher will ask the caller. We train the educators in the language of law enforcement, and do NOT recommend having armed school staff other than trained and licensed security personnel due to the danger of friendly fire during an incident on school grounds.

Also, when it comes down to it, in close quarters, a handgun is a lot easier to manage than a long gun!

Hooah!

Illinois school where teacher took down gunman recently trained for active shooters

Angela McQueen grabbed the shooter's arm and subdued him after he opened fire in the school's cafeteria

Response by SFC Mark Klaers made Mar 21 at 2019 3:04 PM

SFC Mark Klaers — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:04:12 -0400

It's certainly more of a chance than chalk board erasers now isn't it?

Response by LTC John Bush made Mar 22 at 2019 6:25 PM

LTC John Bush — Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:25:28 -0400

Society has changed. Take a look at the studies SLA Marshall did on soldiers using their weapons in combat and current results. The Army is very happy soldiers are willing to use their weapon but no one bothered to spend the time and money to find out why. As a young officer in the early 60s, I was drilled the most important thing was to get my soldiers to use their weapons. Vietnam no problem. why? Answers like better training, train fire, less recoil from the M16 total BS. My first engagement was with soldiers that never had AIT, armed with M14 and were part of the SECDEF 100K program to bring in people that failed the Army mental tests. They fought period. As far as a teacher with a handgun it is a crap shoot mostly based on who has the steadiest nerves and best training., select a killing zone, stay still and let the shooter reveal himself.

Response by PO2 Harold Hoffman made Mar 28 at 2019 3:23 PM

PO2 Harold Hoffman — Thu, 28 Mar 2019 15:23:35 -0400

Well, isn't a small chance better than "NO CHANCE?" AND would this creep have entered the school knowing the staff was armed? How many times have shooters cut and ran at the first sign of resistance? One of the New Zealand gunman took off at the sight of an armed worshiper! And this punk at Stoneman Douglasm there is no evidence that he ever even practiced with that weapon, and could easily caused the weapon to jam while reloading under pressure! In close quarters, with cover, it is much easier to aim a hand gun than a rifle! I'LL TAKE MY CHANCES!

Response by CW3 Dan Mackey made Apr 1 at 2019 12:40 AM

CW3 Dan Mackey — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:40:48 -0400

Still gives them a better chance than their stapler!!!

Response by PFC Gerald Bailey made Apr 3 at 2019 2:45 PM

PFC Gerald Bailey — Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:45:14 -0400

NO!

Response by SGT Daniel Myers made Apr 7 at 2019 9:30 PM

SGT Daniel Myers — Sun, 07 Apr 2019 21:30:08 -0400

At any school across America right now, you can trained groups of former military veterans willing to take on this job of protecting our Nation's children for free.

Additionally, we have throughout the U.S., many very highly qualified, skilled and trained paramilitary organizations that would also be willing to do the job for nothing.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman who I know personally and highly respect, has suggested we copy the Israeli method for teaching our teachers just what is suggested here.

I guarantee you in Israel the children don't live like the snowflakes in America. In Israel, there is no such thing as a "safe zone".

All the teachers are armed with sidearms and the children are greeted outside by teachers carrying automatic weapons, and to everyone, it's just another day.

That's why I agree with Grossman, our schools are soft targets with many casualties.

Does anyone seriously think that sign posted on the door about no weapons allowed is going to stop a bad guy?

My gun permit doesn't allow me to carry in schools but will allow an off duty or retired officer to.

Here's the problem with that. It's a statistical fact that year after year, the typical gun owner who does carry concealed, puts 10 times more rounds down range than your average law enforcement officer. That same citizen is also heavily involved in scenario based training.

So, yes, I see those signs, but I ignore them, just like the bad guys would. If I'm concealed, no harm, no foul.

If an active shooter pops up, my military training demands I run towards the danger and neutralize the threat.

At worst, I die. If I live, my gun gets confiscated for 6 months and I pay a fine. But know this, I'm going to keep that sob focused on me as long as I can while children are escaping.

I hope he brought ammo for the long haul though, because even carrying a pistol, I do like a lot of mags.....

Response by PO1 Bill Adams made Apr 8 at 2019 9:24 AM

PO1 Bill Adams — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:24:06 -0400

A Glock would be far more effective than throwing a dry board eraser at the shooter.
With a pistol, they have a chance, without they don't.

(Would I be dating myself if I admit, I almost wrote "chalkboard" ?)

I'm not for forcing anyone to carry a gun. I am very much for allowing someone to have an effective defensive tool at hand. The right to self defense is one of the most basic Natural Rights.

I also find myself thinking, "The OP has a Video Game attitude. He thinks that having the biggest gun automatically makes him the winner in a gun fight. Like in a video game."

Response by MSgt Mike Fleming made Apr 8 at 2019 9:55 AM

MSgt Mike Fleming — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:55:58 -0400

With proper training it can be done. This has been done successfully in the recent past in Texas at a cartoon event "draw Muhammad" as a tribute for Paris newpaper attacks.
2 people with AKs tried to attack and were taken out by an off duty police officer who only had a pistol. Generally the people that attempt these thing are not well trained and good tactics may prevail. I'm not saying go head to head with someone using a rifle, I'd rather have a rifle, but cover and concealment would help a great deal. You just may be able to deter the individual or halt progress until more help arrives, or even win the day. Don't get me wrong, in a situation like this...I want a rifle.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/draw-muhammad-shooting-who-was-behind-cartoon-contest-n353081

'Draw Muhammad' Shooting: Who was Behind Cartoon Contest?

Texas police shot dead two gunmen who opened fire outside of a "Draw Muhammad" contest organized in the town of Garland on Sunday. Here's a look at what we know about the incident.

Response by 1SG Tom Carter made Apr 18 at 2019 12:02 PM

1SG Tom Carter — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:02:23 -0400

You have 2 different issues.
In Florida, yes there was a police officer there, but he hid outside. He did not enter, he did not try to identify or engage with the target.
In Dallas, you had a shooter with a rifle with good cover and concealment. A pistol is not normally a long range weapon, most barrels are too short for that kind of accuracy, so a pistol was very unlikely to hit a target covered by concrete and only exposing a small target.

Neither of those point really have much to do with the idea of an armed teacher. The idea of an armed teacher is not to go hunt down the shooter, but to be able to protect he's students if the shooter enters their classroom or other area they might be located. Hunting down the shooter was the police officers job, who instead chose to stay outside and do nothing.

An example could be a shooter enters their classroom and starts to shoot. The teacher can see and identify the target and is within the effective range of a pistol they might have. I feel this would be better than only trying to be a human shield to their students.
Another example could be a teacher in the hallway trying to usher students to safety and the shooter enters the hallway shooting. Again, the teacher can identify the shooter. Same choice, try to be a human shield, or engage the identified target.

Do both of these incident have risk of collateral damage? Yes, but the option of sitting there allowing yourself and your student to be shot guarantees that damage.

Response by SGT Virgil Pritchett made Apr 20 at 2019 3:34 PM

SGT Virgil Pritchett — Sat, 20 Apr 2019 15:34:24 -0400

They are the first respond, they do what they can to protect our children. I say give them a weapon so they dont have to shield our kids with just there bodies.

Response by Michael Enderle made Apr 21 at 2019 11:45 PM

Michael Enderle — Sun, 21 Apr 2019 23:45:12 -0400

So what's the alternative? If a teacher volunteers to be armed how are the odd any worse? An armed teacher is more of a deterrent than an unarmed teacher (though politically less useful than an unarmed teacher who died shielding her students). So do you want useful corpses or resourceful armed teachers.

Response by CPT Alfred Smiley made May 3 at 2019 7:48 PM

CPT Alfred Smiley — Fri, 03 May 2019 19:48:03 -0400

Not without intensive training. I wouldn't even trust veterans to be able to neutralize a shooter in a classroom full of kids without accidentally hitting one unless they had intensive training and regular refresher courses.

Response by Sgt Steve Williams made May 19 at 2019 8:34 PM

Sgt Steve Williams — Sun, 19 May 2019 20:34:29 -0400

I am tired of the comments that equate teachers having a gun with issuing a gun to any and all teachers. This is a dishonest attempt to make us believe we will simply issue a gun to all teachers - whether they want one or have any idea what to do with it.

Of course it is realistic to expect a trained and determined teacher to make a difference. Shot placement counts. It is impossible to dispute that a trained teacher with a gun wouldn't have made a difference in almost every mass school shooting. A hit with a handgun trumps a miss with a rifle...every time.

Response by SPC Donn Sinclair made May 20 at 2019 6:18 AM

SPC Donn Sinclair — Mon, 20 May 2019 06:18:13 -0400

Said it for many years, probably elsewhere in this forum. Arming teachers isn't the answer. There are thousands of Iraq/Afghan vets out there, highly trained, still young and in good physical shape. I'll wager these people would jump at the chance to protect our students. Of course the vetting process would have to be stringent, but IMHO, that would be a better, more effective deterrent. A helluva lot more than "No Gun Zone" signs. Let teachers teach. Leave security to those who know how.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2019 11:20 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 May 2019 11:20:54 -0400

Answers in this forum are going to be an echo chamber. Most of us served, a lot of us have already been in combat and have that experience of that chaos. The reality of the fact is that a regular civilian cannot be trained to reasonable standards nor maintain that standard. In most states (I say most because some states have abysmal educational systems) teachers are already spending "off hours" doing work, they also have to attend "annual training" for continued education points. Let's also not mention that psychologically teachers are in a "nurture" frame of mind. I would hate to see the mental damage done to someone that flips from "nurture" to "protector" and actually kills a student that they formerly took care of.

The simple fact of the matter is that the training does not exist. Police are a reactive force that trains on what to do once upon arriving at an active shooter scenario. The military has CQB training but that doesnt' meet the realistic issue of dozens of kids running around while trying to spot the one with a gun.

I would be more inclined to say security measures need to be implemented (like they have in NY) to deny access in the first place, but then ensure SROs are going through specialized training. Systems are already being developed to lock down key areas in a school to trap a shooter, other systems can bombard a hallway with various gasses that render anyone in that zone unconscious (including bystanders).

Long story short, no...arming teachers is not the answer.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made May 20 at 2019 10:24 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Mon, 20 May 2019 22:24:14 -0400

The answer to that question is very situationally variable..a fancy way of saying "It depends.."
I would ordinarily always want a long gun to fight someone who is also armed with a long gun. But if you are in confined terrain or inside a building with many rooms, hallways, closets, etc., then sometimes a pistol is a more flexible choice. A semi-auto pistol with a good sized magazine or a bull-pup model shotgun with a shorter barrel than the normal shotgun would seem a good choice. Now, could a teacher use a handgun to defend a classroom against an active shooter armed with a long gun? Maybe, but there are many factors to consider. Does the teacher have any warning? Can the teacher or students lock their classroom door to impede or delay the shooter's entry? Does the classroom have a door with a window and locking mechanisms that can withstand gunfire? And perhaps most important, does the teacher have sufficient skill and determination? Does he or she go to the range to maintain shooting skills? Many teachers I've met are politically progressive/liberal and don't want anything to do with guns, in fact many of them want to take guns away from ordinary people. I'd suggest hiring armed forces veterans with marksmanship skills and good background checks to supplement security at schools rather than trying to arm teachers, most of whom have no firearms training and many of whom don't believe in using firearms for self defense.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made May 22 at 2019 7:41 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Wed, 22 May 2019 19:41:11 -0400

If you and I can be properly trained to handle a firearm, if millions of PD officers who did not militarily serve can be trained, if even more millions of American citizens can be trained to properly carry and use firearms, then I see NO reason a teacher can't be.

There are good people that end up defending themselves, others and their homes EVERY SINGLE DAY with a firearm AND who are forced to shoot someone in that process... And guess what? They do it even though they have NO experience at all with combat or police work..

So why would you think it any different for a teacher? It is not. And for teachers to carry IN a school, they are required to get actual training before they are allowed to do so.. MUCH more than your standard every day home owner or CCW civilian.

Response by SPC Rostyslaw Caryk made May 23 at 2019 8:48 AM

SPC Rostyslaw Caryk — Thu, 23 May 2019 08:48:35 -0400

A real question that swe really don't know the answer to at this time. However, there is an ancillary question: Does arming teachers, and thus increasing the number of guns in society the answer? Since we have lots of shootings that occur without any "visible" mental illness, how do we screen teachers? I am not a teachers, but have in-laws who are, and they tell me about teachers in their schools who are very stressed out for lots of reasons, and kids push them pretty hard. That's not a good situation to put guns into play. Teachers, then church goers, then firefighters, then bus drivers, then... Look at other countries. We have a gun problem that can't be solved by more guns. Period.

Response by LCDR James Stossel made May 23 at 2019 1:58 PM

LCDR James Stossel — Thu, 23 May 2019 13:58:17 -0400

Yes, they can. People are learning to fight back. Did you see the most recent incident where a single individual took down the shooter with the AR without using any weapon? Training that focuses on key factors is important no matter how minimal it is. Concentrating exclusively on the mechanics of using a weapon is a mistake - an individual can pick that up on their own with time and location to practice. More focus needs to be on preparing yourself for action. You are right that initially EVERYONE has a primal reaction to an attack. If you are in the immediate vicinity of the shooter, don't bother with your weapon during this stage, just scream and attack. If not, use this stage to find cover for a few seconds to collect and calm yourself, draw your weapon, assess the situation (e.g., am I within range), put your brain in combat mode, and take careful aim. Forcing the shooter to take cover can be as good as hitting them if it saves lives and buys time for others to escape or join the fight. A teacher firing into the ceiling might be just as good as firing at the intruder - shifting them into fumble-mode. Every weapon has to be reloaded.

Response by CPT Harvey Plemmons made May 24 at 2019 11:16 AM

CPT Harvey Plemmons — Fri, 24 May 2019 11:16:20 -0400

If the schools had trained teachers and service personnel then just maybe these idiots would think twice before trying to shoot up a school because they will not know who is armed and who is not. Just the thought that this area IS NOT A GUN FREE zone I believe will make some not to attempt to try and shoot and try to cause harm

Response by SGT John Martin made May 26 at 2019 9:52 PM

SGT John Martin — Sun, 26 May 2019 21:52:00 -0400

Some teachers are vets. Owning an AR15 doesn't mean you will be able to handle it when that andreline dump kicks in. Better than throwing books.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made May 27 at 2019 12:34 AM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Mon, 27 May 2019 00:34:52 -0400

Yers a police officer was there who did not follow SOP or do his job, instead remaining outside the building while an unarmed civilian went in. In the most recent incident, two unarmed students rushed the gunmen causing them to drop their guns and run. Face it, in most cases when the shooter has been confronted with an armed defender, they have retreated. Yes, they do not have the level of training we get in the military, but most of the shooters have even less.
The fact is it works in Israel, they have not had a school shooting since they armed their teachers.

Response by MSG Devaun Morris made May 27 at 2019 9:01 AM

MSG Devaun Morris — Mon, 27 May 2019 09:01:03 -0400

Yes, it's realistic with the right training, conditions, and willingness. With that being said, it's one thing having a gun for protection, but it's a whole nother thing to point the business end of a gun towards someone and pulling the trigger, knowing you can take a life.

Response by PO1 Richard Norton made May 30 at 2019 3:25 PM

PO1 Richard Norton — Thu, 30 May 2019 15:25:38 -0400

It would depend on the teacher training and the element of surprise. Generally the teacher is out guns in this situation, but isn't it better to have the hand gun and have a chance than not have one and have no chance.

Response by SPC Todd Carrico made Jun 2 at 2019 12:13 PM

SPC Todd Carrico — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 12:13:54 -0400

There are plenty of examples of teachers, coaches, administrators standing between gunmen and students, just soaking up bullets. They should be able to shoot back. With anything. How many of these perps would even try this crap, knowing they would most likely meet armed resistance? Not a lone guard, but normal looking teachers and adults?

Being defenseless is not working...

Response by SSgt Ray Fussell made Jun 3 at 2019 11:07 PM

SSgt Ray Fussell — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:07:40 -0400

I ‘s better to have a weapon in the hands of the teachers than doing nothing. I cannot follow your points on this subject of not having someone in place save just one life. One man’s fears are the same as another. The perpetrators will fear if they face another shooting back. Cowards will move to the path of least resistance. Military train to so long hard to overcome the enemy with more power than the other guy. Civilians practice preventing or deterring the cowardly perpetrators over the children.

Response by SGT Juan Robledo made Jun 5 at 2019 7:32 PM

SGT Juan Robledo — Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:32:02 -0400

I hope they are expert in firing that hand gun, hope it's a Glock or equivalent, and put the pert down

Response by SSG Michael Kennedy made Jun 7 at 2019 6:01 PM

SSG Michael Kennedy — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 18:01:21 -0400

I think any teacher who wants to should be allowed to carry a weapon. I know nobody would have Even considered attacking my old high school. Then again we were a special case - I went to an all male Catholic military school in South Georgia. We had our own armory, almost all our teachers were vets (including 11 of the 15 priests), and my homeroom was the rifle range! (My homeroom teacher was a recently retired combat medic MSG) That's not even mentioning the technically illegal firearms we had in our vehicles in the parking lot!

Response by CW4 Eric Clayton made Jun 8 at 2019 9:36 AM

CW4 Eric Clayton — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 09:36:42 -0400

Not at all realistic. Here’s why: A teacher’s primary responsibility is to educate children, period. Of course a child educated only in school is an uneducated child (George Santayana). The parents bare the greatest responsibility for their children’s behavior.

Can an armed teacher make a difference? Definitely. However, there are many variables associated with “making a difference.” One being the level of training, competence, ability of a teacher. Prior service teachers may have a better chance in such a scenario. If the shooter was a former student, they will know the layout and schedule of the school. Also they have the element of surprise. If the shooter is tactically sound, expect the worst. Add that to the chaos of students running, ducking for cover and the mass confusion of an active shooter, the staff would have a very difficult time neutralizing a shooter. Can it be done? Yes but don’t expect the best results. Expect casualties both physical and emotional.

Response by CWO3 Bryan Luciani made Jun 8 at 2019 12:08 PM

CWO3 Bryan Luciani — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 12:08:32 -0400

Your scenario makes it hard to disagree. Armed teachers might deter someone with a mental health problem from undertaking a crime spree. I really do believe that. Today's very liberal education system will never allow that and it's to the detriment of our kids. If the bullets are flying, and I'm a teacher, let's hope I have a gun instead of a ruler, because I'm about to die trying to protect any kid in danger.

Response by MSG O'Connor Pat made Jun 8 at 2019 1:01 PM

MSG O'Connor Pat — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:01:05 -0400

Absolutely not! I do believe that an active shooter needs to be engaged and put down as soon as possible, but not by the teacher. A more viable plan is to harden the classroom by being able to lock a substantial classroom door to prevent the shooter from freely moving from child to child. After 911 the response was not to arm flight attendants, but to prevent access to the cockpit by hardening the door and preventing a bigger tragedy from occurring if the terrorist were to gain control of the plane. Active shooter drills should be performed in schools and police should regularly practice in schools within their assigned areas; we train as we fight! Being a career infantryman I have seen professional soldiers injured during live fire training and combat, accidental discharges clearing weapons, and just plain stupidity by soldiers who train for a living. I don't want anyone with only a few hours of training and not years of continuous, realistic training anywhere near a school full of children with a gun. A teacher should teach and not try to engage an armed opponent in a classroom or hallway full of children; get as many children locked away from the shooting while law enforcement aggressively confronts the shooter and rolls him up.

Response by SFC Erin Barnett made Jun 8 at 2019 1:08 PM

SFC Erin Barnett — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:08:44 -0400

1st, I think you would be surprised to learn how many teachers a veterans or already have a concealed carry permit. To answer you question directly, I don’t think many would run out to track down the shooter, but they could absolutely protect their classroom if the shooter tried to come through the door.

Response by SGM Charles Twardzicki made Jun 8 at 2019 11:12 PM

SGM Charles Twardzicki — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 23:12:19 -0400

Before I retired from teaching and after 27 years as a 12B, I believe that I could have been a deterrent if the aggressor did not enter my room first. Most school shooters haven't seemed concerned about a quick response from the next room. The issue is would I have given any consideration to the shooter to surrender? I believe the answer is no! Evil does not respect laws, so when combating evil, we can't win if we do.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Jun 9 at 2019 11:28 AM

LCpl Cody Collins — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:28:23 -0400

I think will you for getting is that scenario most likely will never happen because criminals are cowards. If the average criminal knows and understands they he will be immediately confronted with an equal amount of firepower or resistance they would not even attempt to rob or cause mayhem in that particular building or area.
It's more a psychological defense than an offense. I'm all for arming teachers in the classroom because it will serve a 2 fold purpose. It will serve notice to the unruly students in the schools that always seemed to make YouTube videos of them fighting and physically assaulting teachers that will come to a screeching halt. And to when they leave school and they go tell their criminal friends at the teacher who their ass with the butt of a 9 mm, their criminal friends will go look for something else to do, like get a job !

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jun 9 at 2019 11:29 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:29:55 -0400

I was a teacher. As retired army, with boo-koo weapons training and frequent sustainment training on the range, I would have successfully defended my students if I had too. But, it was not my plan to close with and kill the enemy. My plan was to stay in my room and defend my students if needed. I am certain that I could fire 2 or 3 well placed rounds into the shooter if he came thru my door. There are too many unknown and uncontrollable factors, as you stated above, to close with and destroy the enemy. Just one possible problem is the police might mistake me for the active shooter. So, if say, 25% of the teachers are voluntarily armed, and it is known that some teachers are armed, and nobody knows which teachers are armed, then I suggest that it is safe to say that school is safe from an attack. Even a crazy person will seek out another target. And like the old saying, I don't have to run faster than the bear, I only have to run faster than you.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2019 1:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 13:00:22 -0400

A handgun beats an eraser any day …

Response by SFC Charles McVey Sr. made Jun 9 at 2019 1:25 PM

SFC Charles McVey Sr. — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 13:25:55 -0400

The only person who ever out shot me on the range was a female, so can they learn to shot and do so accurately, YES they can. Second we had a short 5'1" 2LT female officer at Fort Sam Houston at one time, she had pulled aa as I reached down civilian who was traveling through post, pre 9/11, for speeding. She approached the car and asked him for his Drivers License, Registration and proof of Insurance, he looked at her and immediately got mouthy, not a good idea. When she told him to step out of his car he started to laugh at her, she reached through his window and proceed to pull him out the drivers side window and put him face first on the ground with her knew centered on his spine and all 130 pounds of her weight and been dropped on his spine, he was not moving. She saw me roll up and motioned for me to come on over. I had been sitting back about 80 feet as per dispatch instructions. I exited my vehicle reached around behind me to my hand cuffs and as I reach down to cuff him two SAPD Units also rolled up and out came two of the biggest female Police Officers I had ever seen. he was wrapped and tagged put in the 2LT's unit and escorted to the PMO. Do I think any teacher can handle such a situation yes I do, what most do not understand those teachers who undertake this responsibility also undergo continuous training to meet the state standards and retain qualification. We have two School Districts here in CO that have armed teachers and no-one but certain members of the County Board know who they are. They undergo emergency response training for three months during Summer Break at one of the Police Academy's in state.

Response by Dudley Sharp made Jun 9 at 2019 3:01 PM

Dudley Sharp — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 15:01:06 -0400

lcpl:

Thank you for your service.

Is it much more realistic to believe that

1) a well trained, armed school employee could effectively defend against an active shooter, using an AR-15

than it is that

2) an un trained, unarmed school employee could effectively defend against an active shooter, using an AR-15

I am not a gun guy, but a weapons trained friend of mine stated "When seconds matter, the police will be there in minutes."

It could, hardly, be more true or more simple.

Response by Sgt Peter Schlesiona made Jun 10 at 2019 10:29 AM

Sgt Peter Schlesiona — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:29:56 -0400

As opposed to what? Throwing erasers or magic markers at the shooter? If the teacher is protecting her/his classroom, no confrontation is necessary unless the shooter comes to the door of that room - in which case a pistol can be very effective. If the teacher goes out to confront the shooter, the shooter may, at the very least, get pinned down until more help can arrive. I don’t, of course, believe the teacher should do something foolish, but keeping the shooter from moving around freely (from a relatively safe position) could save many lives.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2019 1:58 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:58:38 -0400

You forget that you are going up against a Coward and a bully who does not have any training, they expect to gun down fleeing or cowering people who are terrified of a gun. The teacher would not be expected to hunt down the shooter only to guard their door. In all these shootings how many people died after the shooter was faced with ANYONE with a gun. The last shooter was stopped by Young man who stood up to him refusing to let him go even after he had been shot, think what he could have done if he had been allowed to carry a gun to defend himself.
You must remember that these news cowards are only after publicity to get their name out. They need to be put down and hard. And their name never listed except on their grave stone.
A gun is a tool nothing more nothing less. Its how the PERSON uses it that counts.

Response by SP5 Jodi Harbroe made Jun 10 at 2019 4:04 PM

SP5 Jodi Harbroe — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:04:45 -0400

Anything is 'possible' and even realistic but perhaps not so probable.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2019 4:42 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:42:35 -0400

I had not previously given any thought to many of the informed points you brought up. No, I guess it doesn't seem realistic that your average teacher could "close on" an active shooter. Still, if I were the teacher, I'd rather at least have even a small chance at saving the lives of my students, and myself by being armed with a handgun. No, I wouldn't go "hunting" for a gunfight, but best believe I'd be crouched beside that classroom door with gun aimed up at the shooter's crotch.

Response by LTC Ray Morris made Jun 10 at 2019 8:17 PM

LTC Ray Morris — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 20:17:24 -0400

Not going to discuss "gun control" or the ethics of arming teachers, here, because that wasn't the question. Just answering the question with one of my own. If you were a teacher and you knew someone was coming through that door with a firearm and you were the only thing standing between him and your children, would you rather have a .45 semiautomatic in your hand - or the paperweight on your desk?

Response by MAJ Rj M made Jun 11 at 2019 2:05 PM

MAJ Rj M — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:05:29 -0400

I have a two part response: Has anyone read the play, or seen the movie "A Man For All Seasons"? This play was written by Robert Bolt and is about St. Thomas Moore and how he "defied" Henry VIII during his divorce and marriage to Anne Boleynne. It was written as part of the great mass of popular literature in the middle to late 1950s as a "growing unrest" began to take the country. Bolt uses the play to speak to challanging the status quo to enforce change, but he speaks to doing it responsibly. In one scene, Wil Roper and St Thomas have a discussion on striking down law to get a the devil (its Wil Roper's unbounded zeal for change that initially causes St. Thomas to withhold permission for him to marry his daughter). Anyway, in this conversation which talks about society and need for order, Wil says he would strike down every law to get at the devil. And St Thomas turns to him and says "And, when you have struck down every law in the land, and the devil turns round and comes for you, WHAT THEN? Yes I give the devil benefit of law for mine own protection" In other words...all our societal values, mores, laws, etc are designed to protect people.

For the last 50-60 years we've been slowly buffeted by images that the middle class sucks, mainstream america sucks, we're no better than anyone else. We have to be all inclusive, we have to be PC...forced tolerance...Colin Kapernik and his bullshit...Mike Vic and his bullshit. the Stop Snitchin Bullshit ( Personally I would love to see Atlanta 1978 return 1000 fold and at a police conference the cops wear those shirts because those kiddie lives dont' matter) Let people live, and tolerance and diversity (tolerance and diversity as a concept means well but if you study its philosophical background it essentially means that all points of view are equally valid. Well then, if all points of view are equally valid, why should I change my position since I'm as equal to you), and slogans such as By Any Means Necessary. Slowly, the majority of our societal boundaries have been stripped away because they obstruct some person or group "expressing" themselves. For example: Lets block people from getting to church because the philosophy of the church doesn't include gays, lets smack anti-abortion protestors because they're offensive, lets riot because we're unhappy someone was declared not guilty; lets block traffic to protest police accidently killing an idiot for illegally selling cigarettes. This is seen as ok or "projected" as seen as OK. The problem you run into is that each generation re-interprets what they see in light of their own. So its only going to be a matter of time before someone decides to start resorting to violence as a first response to a perceived injustice versus as a last resort.

Thus you see an increase in violence as the pressure of forced tolerance couple with the discarding of social mores. Violence went downhill in this country over a 100 year period, and is escalating again. Unfortunately with all the BS we see today, the message is being interpreted---my feelings have been hurt, I must retaliate--and yes, this includes using knives, axes, and firearms. Ironically until the Nevada shooting, the most massive casuality occurrence happened in the 1920's and the perp used dynamite...and you'll notice the media says "in the modern era"---in other words, the last year or two. No focus is placed on the killings on the inner cities as its not politically correct enough or supports a narrative-----for example, the DC shooter 20 years ago was black. Law and Order SVU did an episode on this and made them White. Recent shootings were by minorities and registered democrats....no coverage.

The violence has always been there---always will. we've opened Pandora's box---actually anyone who is liberal has the blood on their hands.

With regards to the second point. There are far too many variables to really give an accurate answer. I'm really concerned that people are hung up on the frigging AR-15. What if it was an M-1, or how about a Henry Repeater, or Winchester 73---all of which can do alot more damage, or, a .45? Statistically, the shooter would most likely have little training, and the school official may or may not have more. Hell, even being ex-military may or may not help. My job was to close with and destroy the enemy by maneuver, shock, and firepower. (Which is a good reason for Posse Commitatus (sp)) The best preparation would be to explain the concepts of Avoid, Deny, Defend aka the Univ of Texas ( see youtube perhaps the best 15 minute summary of this) and utilize the school officials in a manner to assist in the evacuation of students and protection as they evacuate.

Response by LCDR Bruce Cooley made Jun 11 at 2019 2:09 PM

LCDR Bruce Cooley — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:09:07 -0400

Good point. I think the better question is.....will the ability of a teacher to be armed force would be shooters to look somewhere else? Bad guys set on doing bad things are almost impossible to stop as they are almost always not looking to survive the incident. However, most 'bad guys' are looking to live past the incident....so like a mugger, they're not going to attack someone who is armed, but a defenseless person/persons. In the examples you sited, the perp's were almost certainly on a suicide mission....and just wanted to take people with them. I do not know if that is always the case, but would be interested in your opinion.

Response by PO3 Adam Stoflet made Jun 11 at 2019 4:08 PM

PO3 Adam Stoflet — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:08:37 -0400

I agree with you, it is not realistic to expect teachers to combat shooters. You need lots of training and experience to do it effectively. In my opinion Teachers need to stay locked down in their classrooms and keep track of their students as a person of authority and a reliable point of contact because regrettably the shooter is often a student or someone in that age group. Having a teacher state that a shooter is not there in a coded form is safer and more secure having students and could have precious time in getting to the real threat.

Response by CPT Keith Whitter made Jun 12 at 2019 10:47 AM

CPT Keith Whitter — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:47:50 -0400

The problem is definitely not the weapons. Man has been killing man for eons; rocks, sticks, knives, swords, etc... There is a direct link between psychiatric drugging and these shootings. I recall that every school shooter since before Columbine was in the hands of a psychiatrist and had at some point been on various "medications". Many of these "medications" were designed for adults and then prescribed to children - side effects unknown. I agree that our changes in the moral code and family institution have led us to a greater frequency of these type of events, but what is the real reason. I believe the root cause is the lack of purpose for the people, the lack of stability in the family and lessening of religious beliefs in society. The solution is purpose, production, and discipline. If an individual has a purpose in life aimed at the greater good and productively seeks out the actions to make that purpose reality they will instil self-discipline into themselves and others around them.

Response by SFC Sam Fidler made Jun 12 at 2019 12:28 PM

SFC Sam Fidler — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:28:30 -0400

Yes. Almost without exception, a mass shooter ends offensive actions at the first sign of resistance.

Response by PO1 Gery Bastiani made Jun 12 at 2019 1:16 PM

PO1 Gery Bastiani — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:16:27 -0400

depends on the level of knowledge they have with a firearm, me I work for the county school maintenance department and some teachers I wouldn't trust with a spit ball let alone with a firearm. me if was allowed I'd carry one of my .45's.

Response by SFC John Fourquet made Jun 12 at 2019 4:00 PM

SFC John Fourquet — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:00:54 -0400

In a school shooting situation an armed teacher with minimal training is better than an unarmed teacher. We are not asking teachers to search the school and find the shooter. We are asking them to defend their students and class room. Armed teachers are not the first line of defense, but they are the last line of defense before the police arrive.

Response by Sgt Charles Welling made Jun 12 at 2019 4:06 PM

Sgt Charles Welling — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:06:05 -0400

It is a lot more realistic than the teacher doing nothing and getting killed. What is your solution that is not dreaming?

Response by SFC Edwin Fulk made Jun 13 at 2019 1:20 AM

SFC Edwin Fulk — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:20:19 -0400

I taught school after 24 years in the US Army. My opinion for what it is worth is not many teachers could be trained quickly enough to be a person responsible for removing the threat. My church made the decision to arm certain persons to carry weapons. There was a local police officer invited to the meeting. I asked him if he had ever taken a human life. He answered no. I then asked him if he could and he replied "I don'f know." I then asked the members designated to carry a weapon the same questions. A few of the designated immediately replied, "I am out of here." I then turned to the Pastor and board members and asked the same questions. You could have heard a pin drop in the church. The Pastor asked me if I thought I could take a human life. I replied that I had taken many human lives while serving in Vietnam. He and the local policeman both asked me to explain what happens to the person that takes a life. I looked at every person in the meeting and replied, "You don't want to know." I think teachers would have the same reaction as the church members.

Response by SPC Xiao Fu made Jun 13 at 2019 3:21 AM

SPC Xiao Fu — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:21:50 -0400

The question itself is unrealistic. So many belief systems among so many people. So many factors to consider. This question is just another invitation to an argument.

Response by SSG(P) Jeffrey Elwood made Jun 13 at 2019 8:42 AM

SSG(P) Jeffrey Elwood — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:42:48 -0400

There are sheep, wolves and sheepdogs...what are you?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2019 8:50 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:50:16 -0400

Why army teachers ? Just hiring more security In the schools

Response by SGT Wayne Grant made Jun 13 at 2019 9:20 AM

SGT Wayne Grant — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:20:36 -0400

http://www.mvsecss-inc.org

Military Veterans Security Enforcement

Military Veterans Security Jobs

Response by PO2 Larry Sherrill made Jun 13 at 2019 9:51 AM

PO2 Larry Sherrill — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:51:44 -0400

Wee said sir.

Response by SSG William Zopff III made Jun 13 at 2019 4:34 PM

SSG William Zopff III — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:34:22 -0400

Most of the Active Shooters in recent past have had little combat type experience or training. So a teacher with a hand gun, and a minimum amount of defense training could be the shield all the soft targets need in a school building.
We as a society, like many previous commenters have stated, are to blame for the violence we are experiencing. We have fundamental changed our moral compass as a nation. The left leaning politics and segment of our society that is avoiding accountability, in search of freedom from perceived religious persecution (all while those that would question their behavior have become more tolerant); in order to achieve that freedom they have to remove personal rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Our society has more men and women that were raised not by their parents, but by sitters or daycare. With less emotional attachments and declining membership in churches, we have generations of tolerance, that let gray area offenses slip by without accountability. Willing to pencil whip required reporting, and a loss of productivity due to a reduced work ethic. Our society is slipping as we speak!

Response by Jerry Rivas made Jun 14 at 2019 6:09 AM

Jerry Rivas — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:09:10 -0400

the cop was a pussy. Let the teachers decide. Better to die fighting, than to die cowering and begging. Fight back. Most teachers would fight to protect the kids.

Response by Cpl John Henninegr made Jun 14 at 2019 1:23 PM

Cpl John Henninegr — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:23:19 -0400

It's better than fingernails and harsh language. And these teachers aren't going to be hunting the active shooter. They'll be in lockdown and defending their students with that handgun.

Response by TSgt Tommy Amparano made Jun 14 at 2019 5:07 PM

TSgt Tommy Amparano — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 17:07:30 -0400

Realistic? Not really. Better than nothing? Absolutely. A shooter is more than likely going to head to the path of least resistance. Even a cap gun might make a shooter look elsewhere.

Response by SGT Richard McArthur made Jun 14 at 2019 10:36 PM

SGT Richard McArthur — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:36:37 -0400

Realistic; but not a certain thing. The hope is that the murderer will not expect armed resistance and would in effect be setting himself up for a hit by the defender.

Response by Cpl Alfred McCabe made Jun 15 at 2019 10:28 AM

Cpl Alfred McCabe — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:28:19 -0400

The active shooter does not want to be shot either, one shot in his direction should send him running. There are no positive statements in these situations just better chances.

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made Jun 15 at 2019 8:23 PM

SFC Brian Gillum — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 20:23:57 -0400

Of course it’s realistic. It will require training in CQB and tactical shooting under stressful conditions. And not just one course, but a regular training regimen.

This is close quarters shooting. The active shooter, unless highly familiar with a) their weapons system and b) the school have only the advantage of a high volume of fire that can travel long distances. The teacher has the advantage of being in the defensive, having a chance to set up wherever they feel they have the best line of sight while maintaining the best concealment and cover.

Response by GySgt Thomas Vick made Jun 16 at 2019 9:57 AM

GySgt Thomas Vick — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 09:57:34 -0400

If the teacher was trained properly yes. The other answer is that we have changed, we no longer teach our children about guns at a early age, or about how dangerous they are, and the consequences of miss using these weapons. Wake up America you've gone to soft.

Response by CW3 Paul Fitch made Jun 16 at 2019 10:44 AM

CW3 Paul Fitch — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:44:27 -0400

Absolutely! Teachers wouldn't be out "hunting" the shooter, they would be secured in their classroom. Your example of the Dallas event is different than the scene when a teacher has huddled her students into the safest corner of the classroom and is aiming at a doorway. Most anybody with PROPER TRAINING can hit a man sized target standing in a doorway. Further, most of the gutless cowards who do these kinds of things will wet themselves and run if confronted by return fire. Why do you think they choose "Gun Free Zones" in the first place?

Look at how many teachers have sacrificed their own lives to confront a murderer UNARMED! Do I think that armed they would stop the event. Damn right I do!

Response by Sgt Robert Gardner made Jun 16 at 2019 12:26 PM

Sgt Robert Gardner — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:26:19 -0400

With proper training and a safe space for the students a teacher could, if he/she was lucky, ambush the shooter. As far as an actual shootout is concerned a hand gun against an AR is a losing proposition without a massive amount of luck.

Response by SPC David Young Sr made Jun 16 at 2019 4:48 PM

SPC David Young Sr — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 16:48:31 -0400

Yes if they have the courage to respond

Response by SFC Larry Jones made Jun 16 at 2019 8:48 PM

SFC Larry Jones — Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:48:09 -0400

The police officer at the Florida school ran away. He has now been prosecuted for doing so. Dallas is not a fair comparison. That shooter was on an upper floor in a building shooting at police on the street. All it takes is one well placed shot to stop a bad guy, so yes, a teacher who has been properly trained could stop a shooter.

Response by SFC Carlos Cruz made Jun 17 at 2019 10:13 AM

SFC Carlos Cruz — Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:13:57 -0400

Let be realistic, AR-15 is just another weapon & Florida should being stop. Plus they where n’t Prepare to encounter this even. Dallas was a total different scenario yet once again officer n’ t able to hit target

Response by SSG Melvin Nulph made Jun 18 at 2019 9:02 AM

SSG Melvin Nulph — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:02:58 -0400

Any time you have a person that loves their job, you can bet your third point of contact he or she will do whatever it takes to protect anyone within their sector, with the training to do so. Teachers have my respect, it’s a job I can not do with the way life has changed me and my thinking. I do believe they could do better from the inside protecting their students once trained than a law enforcement officer coming into the building blind from a known entrance. It’s all about the training and response time. Just my opinion

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 18 at 2019 10:12 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:12:36 -0400

I think it's more than realistic, particularly if one considers the possibility that perhaps there could be a dozen teachers with handguns. That's only on the back end. On the front end one has to understand that shooters target schools because schools are soft targets. Take away the perception of schools as a soft target, and it's easy to imagine there will be fewer incidents in the first place.
Great question, thank you for posing.

Response by SFC David Pope, MBA made Jun 24 at 2019 12:34 PM

SFC David Pope, MBA — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:34:59 -0400

In most cases of active shooter, it is someone who is not trained. I have seen cases were a proposed shooter was disarmed and detained without a single shot fired. Police do this all the time, but it never gets reported. In the case of arming teachers, they are not just having a teacher shoot at a target for ten minutes and then say it's okay for you to carry a gun in your classroom. They have to attend a pretty intensive course, and pass it. Several of the teachers in Utah that are part of the program are former military and or police, and have had previous training, as well as the new course taught by police. We cannot predict who will have grace under fire, or who will panic. I have seen the most seasoned NCO freeze, and watched a young PFC take charge while under fire crossing a bridge. This was in a training scenario and not even in real combat. Many people mistake the purpose of having teachers be armed. It isn't as much to take on an active shooter, as it is to deter an active shooter from coming to that school, knowing the teachers are armed and trained.

Response by SSG Tom Pike made Jun 26 at 2019 8:12 PM

SSG Tom Pike — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:12:55 -0400

Historically speaking when active shooters have been confronted by a good guy with a gun, be it a cop or a armed citizen, they generally kill themselves.

And it's not the "Fog of War" that kept the Dallas shooter from being killed by the cops, cops are generally very bad shots, most only qualify a couple times a year and don't practice in between. I've seen plenty of cops show up at IPSC and USPSA matches, they do much worse than the average competitor until they start practicing.

I'd much rather have an armed teacher, that knows the school, knows the kids and employees, and practices often with their weapon respond to a school shooter than the average cop.

Response by SPC Frank Shiffer made Jun 28 at 2019 10:13 AM

SPC Frank Shiffer — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:13:13 -0400

Yes

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2019 3:44 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 15:44:35 -0400

Of course you can take out someone with an AR15 with a pistol. The main advantage of a 'long' gun is range. Range is taken out of the equation inside a school. Also, you can shoot a semi-auto pistol as fast as he can shoot his AR. Does he have a power advantage? Yes. But shooting is more about mindset than the weapon. There are numerous examples of soldiers using pistols to defend themselves. Think 'We were soldiers once, and young'. The SGM killed many a VC with is .45.
One cops/soldiers opinion. But yes, you can take on an AR15 with a pistol.

Response by SSG Wayne Wood made Jul 1 at 2019 11:24 AM

SSG Wayne Wood — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:24:18 -0400

I had been teaching about ten years when Columbine happened. It changed education forever. It literally sucked much of the joy out of the environment and replaced it with fear.

As a medically discharged veteran who did some twenty years in the classroom before finally having to retire again I always felt frustration that the only thing my administration told us to do in the case of a shooter was to cower in our classrooms and hope (can't tell us to pray) that the shooter didn't come after US.

I had combat experience in my time and am trained in the use of firearms. Still, there's no way I would go out and do a "Gunsmoke" style showdown with a nut armed with a SEMI-automatic rifle. However, I (and any properly trained teacher) could be waiting and when the jerk came into our room, catch the guy by surprise and save some lives. I might even have been pro-active, knowing my school and, like most vets, already scoped out some good spots, have been able to take the guy down by surprise before he got to far. More lives saved.

I know there are veterans and even folks who grew up with firearms in the classrooms. Most of us vets know what to do and might have proven we could do it; even non-veteran teachers could be given instruction. Time and again we read (if we care to look for them - as has already been said the media hates these stories) where a bad "guy" with a gun gets stopped by a good "guy" with a gun.

It's a sad state of affairs we've come to this, to be sure; but if we are going to raise our kids in a moral vacuum where we don't teach them "Do unto others" or "Thou shalt not murder" we reap what we sow.

No, there's no way I would arm EVERY teacher - but a few who are qualified or can be qualified - might save lives and the knowledge they are there might be a deterrent to the whack-jobs who pick the most helpless "soft" targets they can find to go on their sprees. Particularly if they don't know exactly which teachers are armed.

Response by Sgt John Williams made Jul 5 at 2019 12:05 PM

Sgt John Williams — Fri, 05 Jul 2019 12:05:30 -0400

I believe it isn't just a training issue. The reason these people pick places like schools is because they know there isn't a gun allowed. Now arming teachers and administrators is a form of deterrent. Also, I believe the few seconds or even minutes that the shooter can be distracted defending themselves from anyone is time for professionals to get to the scene and assist with eliminating the shooter.

Response by SPC Steven Nihipali made Jul 7 at 2019 12:52 AM

SPC Steven Nihipali — Sun, 07 Jul 2019 00:52:24 -0400

I'm shocked this is even a topic of discussion... if you've gone to a combat zone, you have to be proficient in at least the M4 platform and accurate out to 300 meters (in the Army at least). Accuracy was never a thing taught to soldiers, it's always cover fire and then call in an air strike or close air support with an A10. Firefights with active shooters only happen when they're the ones with advantage., because they know they're the ONLY ones with the gun. IF and humongous if a veteran or LEO was to draw on the shooter, the shooting would stop and turn towards the guy with a gun. It's all simple psychology, take out the guy who might harm me/you first. We, like veterans, who may or may not have ever fired your rifle in combat, still understand that the threat exists while still A) moving or B) breathing... so what do we do? shoot until both are neutralized. IF that's 2-3 mags dumped, fine... we thought it needed to happen. When I was deployed, Battalion Comm told us it took 7 round of our M4's to kill a single guy. My brother confirmed this as he was in Iraq 04-05, Najaf and Falluja.

Active shooters, don't communicate nor do they use hand signs. We do. Shoot move and communicate... that's who and what we are. As a mixed branch team, we'll train, constantly and always have our own SOP's that work even for the DV who can't run or has mobility issues.

Response by Cpl Andrew Tucker made Jul 8 at 2019 11:20 AM

Cpl Andrew Tucker — Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:20:19 -0400

Granted I live in the south, but I have lived all over this great nation, so my response may be colored by that: I believe that a good many teachers (coaches, mostly, but to include JROTC instructors) would be able to handle themselves as well as supporting the SRO in the course of his/her duties. Good many of my teachers growing up were either hunters or former military. And, again, growing up in the South, we teach our women how to shoot as well. No, that's not a chauvinisitc statement, but a statement of growing up in a partially chivalrous society. A good many of these teachers are also mothers, and the way I've trained women over the years to shoot as well as I can (7 times USMC expert rifle and pistol) is to put a picture of their child in the "arms" of a B-Modified type target. You'd be surprised how well motherly instinct kicks in when I do that and just how well these women shoot.

Response by Monty Leverett made Jul 8 at 2019 3:58 PM

Monty Leverett — Mon, 08 Jul 2019 15:58:26 -0400

LCpl, the officer on site at Parkland refused to enter, totally removing that variable until the officer who defied orders on scene did enter. The AR is a semi-automatic, as are most pistols, and personally, the mere question of "is someone inside armed," to me, has proven to be a deterrent to many would be shooters. Why would they choose to attack any location where those inside may be armed? Parkland and Sandy Hook were "gun free zones," advertising that the people inside were unable to do more than hide. Given the choice, as a teacher, I would rather be able to put myself between harm and my students, and act in a way I know can deter or stop someone intent on harming my students. A "random teacher just given a gun" is not what is being suggested, as no one is saying "just hand them guns," but rather, allowing them to choose to be evaluated, to receive training, and to continue to receive said training, means they are prepared more than most, and until a world exists where no one, no one at all, has the idea to harm others, I prefer to have the option to act than the command to hide.

Response by Sgt Todd Gantter made Jul 10 at 2019 2:08 PM

Sgt Todd Gantter — Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:08:06 -0400

I think that entirely depends on the teacher. I had a couple of teachers that were prior military growing up, and my son had a prior service Marine as a history teacher in high school. I think that these teachers would be well suited for such cases (especially if they happened to be infantry trained), and may even be better suited than many of the police that would be responding to the situation. Just my two cents.

Response by PO2 Sam Martinez made Jul 11 at 2019 7:52 AM

PO2 Sam Martinez — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:52:24 -0400

The life of children outweighs the right to ban assault weapons except for military or law enforcement. Only fools believe arming untrained teachers is a solution. Training Costs would be through the roof compared with cutting profits of manufacturers.

Response by CPT Philip Bailey made Jul 11 at 2019 8:41 AM

CPT Philip Bailey — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:41:54 -0400

1) Most school shootings are with hand guns.
2) Choosing to go unarmed is a garrantee more deaths.
3) In Florida, the police decided to stay out of harm's way, increasing the death toll.
4) Would-be shooters will have one more complication.
Where is the downside?

Response by SGT Andrew Howard made Jul 11 at 2019 10:42 AM

SGT Andrew Howard — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:42:27 -0400

Effectiveness aside, it is immoral to deprive them of the ability to even try. Also, you mention dallas, but that is a completely different scenario, they were shot from a range farther than the effective range of their weapons, a problem not likely experienced in most schools. You mention the coward of Broward that refused to go in, but cowards happen, it's the law of averages. The more people are armed and willing, the less likely that cowardice of the primary defender will have such devastating effect

Response by PO2 Nils L. Wirstrom made Jul 11 at 2019 6:03 PM

PO2 Nils L. Wirstrom — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:03:21 -0400

I think you missed the point, LCpl. The teacher armed with the handgun is not supposed to search out the shooter but to defend the students in his/her class. After the first shot is heard, the school goes into lockdown and the armed teacher positions his/her students defensively in the classroom, barricades the door and positions himself/herself so has to recognize the person entering the room as the shooter and fire until the shooter is neutralized. I think that is realistic. Semper Fi

Response by SPC Terry Pitman made Jul 12 at 2019 12:02 AM

SPC Terry Pitman — Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:02:29 -0400

Very well stated!!!! As both a veteran of the U.S. Army and a high school science teacher, I have made this argument many times. I get the usual rebuttal of if a bad guy knows there is a good guy with a gun nothing will take place --- well we know that this statement is untrue because the police WHERE THERE and it still took place!!!!

We live in a crazy world where people do unpredictable things that never happened 40 years ago --- maybe we should look at the family unit for answers! I don't know --- we just need to protect your children from these horrors!!!!!

Response by SGT Corry Keller made Jul 12 at 2019 2:10 PM

SGT Corry Keller — Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:10:02 -0400

Just like the rest of the population, there are great ones, good ones and bad ones. Lumping all teachers together in this case is a mistake. If they have a choice to arm themselves, some of them will choose to carry. Like they prepare for their lessons, they can choose to train at various levels. Some will go to the range once in a while and just plink at a paper target and call that good enough. Others, like me, will join a gun club that has expert instructors and a simulator bay and train on move and shoot tactics inside buildings. They will go often and train hard because their own life and the lives of the students may depend on them. Is it an unfair fight putting a pistol up against a rifle? Yes. It is more unfair to force the teacher to take on an active shooter with nothing but a room full of books. You might find that your "active shooter" isn't any better trained or determined that Joe average citizen. If he meets sudden, armed resistance, the panic and fear might be his.

Response by SSG William Hull made Jul 12 at 2019 4:38 PM

SSG William Hull — Fri, 12 Jul 2019 16:38:05 -0400

I don't believe in arming teachers as an effective determent. At best an armed teacher might stay in the classroom and address anyone trying to enter the room. Even SWAT enter as a team wearing full body armor. train on an on going basis. How can anyone expect a lone armed teacher, with minimal training, in a high stress situation to go out to seek and engage a violent gunman?

Response by MGySgt Rick Tyrrell made Jul 13 at 2019 7:38 AM

MGySgt Rick Tyrrell — Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:38:29 -0400

Anybody can obtain training to protect themselves. So yes it is possible!

Response by SFC Richard White made Jul 13 at 2019 12:54 PM

SFC Richard White — Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:54:16 -0400

I love the crazy comments that always follow these types of questions.
Plain and Simple a teacher is NOT going to be going trying to engage an active shooter in the halls or any where else. That is not the point of arming teachers. The purpose of arming the teacher is to protect their classroom and only their classroom. The door is locked and blocked but if said shooter some how makes it thru that door THEN & ONLY THEN is the armed teacher going to engage the shooter. The local law enforcement is going to be the ones trying to hunt down the shooter on school ground. It is the same as a person who carries and is say at the mall. You are going to protect yourself and family not go try to be Rambo and take out the shooter.

Response by LCpl Theron Hardin made Jul 13 at 2019 3:33 PM

LCpl Theron Hardin — Sat, 13 Jul 2019 15:33:58 -0400

As a vet, training helps but reality changes everything on the first shot.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Jul 14 at 2019 8:56 AM

GySgt William Hardy — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:56:35 -0400

Depends on the school and their teachers. In my case, myself and the teacher in the next room were both former active duty and serving in the Army National Guard. Yes, we could have been effective. Down the street at the elementary school, no! Not a single one of them had gun experience and because they worked with the ankle biters, they were to passive to take aggressive steps.

Secondly, have you checked to find out what the procedures are at your local school in the event of an armed intruder? The policy at our school was to place all the students in the corner adjacent to the door where an intruder would have the hardest time shooting at students. While the students were directed to that corner of the room, the teacher would lock the doors and those rooms with small window the teacher would cover the window and turn out the lights.

Even in schools where teachers are armed, the normal policy is to "do not engage" but rather to protect the students under your supervision. Using what I said above, the kids are behind the teacher and the teacher uses deadly force only if a shooter were to enter the room. There are procedures in place where certain things like code words are used so the teacher knows who is at the door.

So, to answer your question, yes it is feasible. Like anything else, you must practice and drill those procedures into the teachers just like you do in the military or police.

Response by CPT Don Kemp made Jul 14 at 2019 9:28 AM

CPT Don Kemp — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 09:28:39 -0400

Answer this question and you will have your answer: Why do most shootings happen in gun-free zones?
Laws disarm law-abiding citizens. Criminals go where victims are not likely to be armed.

Response by Cpl Geoff Smith made Jul 14 at 2019 1:39 PM

Cpl Geoff Smith — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:39:50 -0400

NO!

Response by SSG Craig Newton made Jul 14 at 2019 3:15 PM

SSG Craig Newton — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 15:15:43 -0400

In a word, no.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Jul 14 at 2019 6:07 PM

SSG Jason Neumann — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:07:29 -0400

I believe that in a perfect world yes someone armed with a handgun could take out some one with an AR. Now I do think a 50 meter or 100 meter shot is expected, but in a close quarters scenario, yes it could possibly happen. However now you have to look at the shoot/don’t shoot scenarios. People might be moving around in panic. There might be a hostage , could that teacher take a well aimed shot? Perhaps. But then again if the intruder wasn’t firing at them, would their anxiety and “fog of war” take place to overcome a well placed shot? With all the training , sometimes it might take experience with a well trained individual to react in a positive manner to take out an armed suspect or suspects.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2019 6:32 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:32:47 -0400

Negative

Response by GySgt Keith Rininger made Jul 15 at 2019 8:09 AM

GySgt Keith Rininger — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:09:30 -0400

LCpl Mcain, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, most teachers would be concerned with their classrooms and students in them, not searching the halls for a shooter.
being properly trained would be a requirement in my opinion and knowing your classroom. Most only have 1 entry and exit, and no interior windows, so I would give a well trained teacher with a semi automatic handgun a very good chance. Police would still respond and the students and staff
would have a better chance to survive. My oldest daughter is a 9 year military veteran and a high school teacher...and she is an expert shot. Semper Fi Marine

KER GySgt USMC Ret.

Response by CPT Jim Kotva made Jul 15 at 2019 8:45 AM

CPT Jim Kotva — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:45:31 -0400

Well written Mr. McCain taking someone out is not as easy as people think it really is. Also that teacher is more than likely scared out of his/her mind and shaking which does not help much neither

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 15 at 2019 10:46 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:46:34 -0400

Yes. You don't have to kill the shooter. You just have to suppress or deter the shooter. The shooter's fantasies don't involve being shot at. That said, an AR or AK type weapon will penetrate about anything you can put in front of you for cover. The reciprocal is definitely not true. And - anyone you see with a rifle you need to act as if they have body armor. Which your pistol ammo will not likely penetrate.

Security guard who stopped shooter credits God

"Investigators tried to track the gunman through fresh snow with the help of dogs, but lost his trail in a heavily walked area, Deputy Chief Gary Creager of Arvada police said.

About 12 hours later, police say, Murray showed up at New Life Church as a service was letting out.

Police said Monday he had an assault rifle and two handguns, and may have had as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

He fired on a family who were in or near their car. Two sisters, identified by police as Rachael Works, 16, and Stephanie Works, 18, were killed, and their father, David Works, 51, was also shot and is hospitalized in fair condition with two gunshot wounds. Murray then entered the church, police say, where Assam was one of several volunteer security guards on duty.

"I saw him coming through the doors," she told reporters on Monday. "I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it."

Police said they were still investigating whether Assam's weapon killed Murray, or whether he might have died of a self-inflicted gunshot.

Assam extended her sympathy to the families of the victims "and of the gunman -- and I mean that very sincerely."

Phil Abeyta, who identified himself as Murray's uncle, appeared at another news conference and read a statement from the family asking for forgiveness.

"Our family cannot express the magnitude of our grief for the victims and families of this tragedy," he said. "On behalf of our family and our son, we ask for forgiveness. We cannot understand why this has happened."

Abeyta appeared with spokesmen from the Youth With A Mission center, who confirmed that Murray had been part of a training program five years ago.

Peter Warren, director of Youth With A Mission, said Murray did not go on the mission he was training for in 2002 because managers thought that "issues relating to his health made it unsafe for him to do so."

But a man who served at the center with Murray told CNN Monday that Murray was kicked out of the mission program for strange behavior. Video Watch more about Matthew Murray's background »

A source -- a long-time member of New Life Church -- said Murray had a falling out with Youth With A Mission after working with the organization a couple of years ago. The source said Murray sent antagonistic and threatening correspondence afterward.

Earlier Monday, Boyd said the gunman was unknown to parishioners there.

"He simply showed up on our property yesterday with a gun, with the intention of hurting people, and he did," Boyd said.

Boyd said the megachurch instituted security precautions after the shootings at the Denver area mission center.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/

Security guard who stopped shooter credits God - CNN.com

"It seemed like it was me, the gunman, and God," said Jeanne Assam, describing her feelings as she confronted a man who charged into her Colorado Springs church Sunday firing a weapon.

Response by SSG Kevin O'Connell made Jul 15 at 2019 2:05 PM

SSG Kevin O'Connell — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:05:50 -0400

What's the maximum effective range of a pistol as opposed to a rifle? That is why the return fire in Dallas did not hit the target. Now think about the maximum engagement distances expected inside a building. The rifle's only advantage now is ammo capacity, so, yes, somebody and with a pistol can be expected to have at least a decent chance of taking out somebody with a rifle in those circumstances, though I would still prefer a short barreled shotgun. An immediate response to an active shooter is always a better option than giving him time to shoot and reload at will unimpeded.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Jul 16 at 2019 10:50 AM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Tue, 16 Jul 2019 10:50:01 -0400

I'd rather a slim chance than no chance. I was in a corporate office being instructed by visiting 'workplace violence' lecturer who spent a half hour telling people how to hide and 15 minutes telling people how, as a last resort, to throw staplers, coffee mugs and telephones at an armed intruder. I'd rather put my life in the hands of a novice with a 9mm than a panic stricken victim throwing a stapler.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jul 16 at 2019 7:38 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:38:17 -0400

Depends on the teacher. When I was growing up I had a few teachers that were Marines and had served in the Pacific in WW II. I would have put Mr. Hubkah up against a guy with an AR-15 armed with a yard stick. If the teacher could approach or get line of sight without the shooter knowing why couldn't he cap the punk in the back of the head?

Response by PO2 Doug Wampler made Jul 16 at 2019 9:49 PM

PO2 Doug Wampler — Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:49:06 -0400

I believe that one trained teacher armed with a handgun can defend his class room from a shooter no matter that the shooter is armed with, excluding an RPG. I would not expect teachers to take the offense against the shooter but to maintain a defense in their assigned area, i.e. the classroom and defend if attached. The offense would be by the trained police/SWAT teams that respond.

Response by CPL Joseph Elinger made Jul 17 at 2019 12:59 PM

CPL Joseph Elinger — Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:59:27 -0400

Recon & clear the area.
1 shooter or more?
Position(s).
Your cover, stealth,& visibility.
Firing to hit vs firing to make an enemy
1) identify location
or
2) waste ammo??
Possibility to coordinate & relay recon info for additional / subsequent support of self & / or the mission.
Timing !

Response by Kathy Shingleton made Jul 17 at 2019 11:29 PM

Kathy Shingleton — Wed, 17 Jul 2019 23:29:46 -0400

One thing that has changed is the fact that back when I was in high school students were aloud to have rifles in their car's For hunting. and disagreements were settled with fists. we were also taught respect at home. I believe if enough teachers were aloud to carry and trained on how to shoot. Yes they could make a difference. But they have to be willing. I still say let Veteran's protect our children! They are willing and trained. Most that I know would be happy to do it for free because their oath has no expiration date.

Response by PO2 Jerry Van Ness made Jul 18 at 2019 6:07 PM

PO2 Jerry Van Ness — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:07:26 -0400

If a teacher is trained in using firearms, volunteers to have access to a gun in the school, then it seems to me that we are overlooking an obvious defensive alternative. No one is saying to mandate or coerce anyone to carry a weapon. My only reservation is how to insure the responsible nature of the teachers in question. I think they would have to volunteer to undergo some psychiatric evaluation to determine their stability and responsible nature and some formal proof of firearm training. I would think the school system could fund such evaluations in order to add a degree of safety to the schools.

If I were a teacher, I would certainly elect to be allowed to have access to a firearm in my class room. As I said, determining the responsible nature of the individual teacher would be the most difficult and sensitive element in implementing such a program - maybe a complete show stopper.

Response by PO1 Todd McMillin made Jul 18 at 2019 7:53 PM

PO1 Todd McMillin — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:53:35 -0400

First off we can thank the Neoliberals for part of this problem by creating more "future criminals" by removing gun safety courses from schools since the Error of Reagan. Adding more cops who are pushing kids into the school to prison pipeline because of idiotic infractions that decades ago were pointless. And removing educators and counselors who help students learn vs being angry and aggressive assholes. As I mentioned elsewhere putting more guns in school has solved nothing the Parkland Shooting was a prime example with cowardly Deputy Sheriff running away while local cops went after the shooter. Only a fraction of armed teachers have saved lives because of dumb luck vs bothering to prevent dangerous students with mental health issues from being allowed in polite society.

Honestly,if someone is dumb enough to arm teachers I'm waiting for the fallout of a White Student being killed by a Non-White Teacher or worse a White Teacher shooting a Non-White Student for felling threatened because of being a closet racist prick. Seriously, more guns in school isn't the answer common sense is by bring back gun safety, better educational funds vs dumbing down students with bullshit Religious based anti-Science education with no value to the real world. As well as providing students with mental health care and alternatives like meditation or mediations to resolve conflicts without violence (diplomacy).

Response by MSG Pedro Soto made Jul 20 at 2019 7:44 AM

MSG Pedro Soto — Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:44:16 -0400

Hello brothers and sisters in arms. I am a School Security Officer for my school district, along with my military training I received the best active shooter training the county can provide. Our training is guided toward identification of the threat, find the threat and eliminate the threat. I will protect the children, staff and any other innocent by slander at all cost. I agree that the educators job is just that to concentrate on educating the children. Arming them may create more chaos during a threat. As a retired senior nco I am a firm believer in task assestment, by taking preventive steps and not giving those that wishes us harm the opportunity to do so, we can do our part. Most active shooters are copy cats and they are cowards, they seek vulnerability, they prayed on the innocent. When confronted, they either give up or kill themselves. My presence in my school will deter those seeking to harm my children. "Not on my watch".

Response by PO3 Rod Arnold made Jul 21 at 2019 11:28 PM

PO3 Rod Arnold — Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:28:27 -0400

I'm assuming the shooter with the AR type weapon is inside the school and the teacher has been trained on using the weapon he or she carries. Than yes it is definitely realistic for the teacher to take out the AR shooter.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2019 5:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:43:28 -0400

Armed teachers should stay in their locked down classrooms to protect the students there. Unless the shooter(s) attack between classes when students are in the hallways, no armed administrators or teachers should be out hunting the shooters. Arming of teachers and admin personnel should be for defensive action from behind locked or barricaded classrooms and offices. The whole point of arming school personnel is to keep the kids and themselves in a safe and secure defendable location until Police can respond. Their weapons should only be deployed if shooters breached their positions and became an immediate threat.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2019 5:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:43:59 -0400

Response by Capt John Schubert made Jul 24 at 2019 5:42 PM

Capt John Schubert — Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:42:57 -0400

Two different tools. An AR in most builds is for distances (exceptions of course for an AR 15 built as a pistol,like mine) however a handgun is distances associated with close quarters. If the gunman has high ground with a line of sight exceeding 50 feet unimpaired, the teacher with a sidearm should shelter in place and not engage an Active Shooter. However if this inside, short lines of sight, then the teacher has more mobility and a slight advantage assuming their shooting skills are similar (or lucky... sometimes its better to be lucky than good).

Response by PO1 George Toft made Aug 6 at 2019 12:29 AM

PO1 George Toft — Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:29:45 -0400

In a face-to-face confrontation, no. But there are several things a proficient handgunner has over some shitbag with an AR-15:
1. Surprise. Shitbag can't see through walls, and you will be able to judge the location of the shooter by observing the reactions of the victims. He can't determine your location until you pop a cap in his ass.
2. Terrain. Many (most) active shooter incidents are in enclosed spaces. This negates the primary advantage of a rifle as a medium range weapon. Indoors presents lots of concealment.
3. Training. I did say "proficient" handgunner. I went through Gunsite Academy earlier this year with two teachers (one from Oklahoma, one from Texas). Instructors told us at the end of day 3 that we were better than most SWAT Officers.
4. More training. Some teachers are former military, who have received weeks/months/years of intense combat training that shitbag didn't get. It is highly unlikely that the shitbag has military or tactical training (I'm referring to the real thing, not watching Rambo on DVD). He won't know how to properly clear a room, and thanks to Hollywood, he'll do it wrong, which give you the advantage. Since he doesn't have advanced tactical knowledge, he's operating at a disadvantage.
5. Still more training. More schools and local police departments are training for Active Shooter scenarios. Not enough in my opinion, but it's changing. Look at two of the last three mass shootings (as of 08/05/19) - police responded within 2 minutes (30 seconds in Dayton) to neutralize the threat. The El Paso Walmart incident took longer. Police response times and efficacy are improving every year.
6. Attitude. Teachers are [presumed] intelligent people. If they've chosen to take the training and chosen to carry a weapon to defend the children, I certainly hope they have the attitude to engage with no holds barred, with pure naked aggression, to win the fight, and that they've analyzed their decision and have the heart to unleash their inner beast.

Response by LtCol Dennis Ivan made Aug 6 at 2019 6:33 PM

LtCol Dennis Ivan — Tue, 06 Aug 2019 18:33:55 -0400

Yes. Simple demonstration. Go play with sim rounds and make an entry into room with your AR. The defender has the advantage of positioning and knowledge of the room.
Thats why urban warfare is horribly costly for attacking armies. Ask any of your infantry friends who have SNCOs from Fallujah how nerve racking being the first one in the door is.

Response by MSG Robert Greco made Aug 15 at 2019 4:54 PM

MSG Robert Greco — Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:54:21 -0400

With training, yes. One example.

SGT Alvin York captured a large number of Germans Soldiers singled handed with just his M1911. Then there were the Machinegun nest he silenced.....

Response by SPC Ron Salsbury made Aug 17 at 2019 12:06 AM

SPC Ron Salsbury — Sat, 17 Aug 2019 00:06:16 -0400

Politic's has a great deal to do with this narrative as well as the Media, we have destroyed the Nuclear family with social justice and welfare programs that no one is responsible for their actions, dads no longer care for their families and protect their children. The Department of Education has left young men behind in the education gap regardless of race since the early sixties and never looked back; common core curriculum is total B.S. and does little to educate or children about anything but an agenda of political change. We need real men to step up to the plate and teach real American values to our children today; start with the Ten Commandments handed down to us by God, yes I said God. They are the basis of a free and great society equal to all, and if anyone is offended by this statement, that is a shame, because God gives us the right to be free, defend ourselves and families, stand up to Tyranny, and help those in need. I have yet to see one Politician, or Teachers Union provide squat, so if our Government, and Teachers cannot provide for he rule of law and safety, educate our children to treat one another with respect, then I challenge each and everyone of you, my brothers and sisters in arms to take up the cause and educate the kids. Maybe it does take a Village to turn this mess around!!

Response by MSgt James Wickman made Aug 21 at 2019 5:35 PM

MSgt James Wickman — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:35:53 -0400

The training the teachers receive has nothing to do with an offensive move on an active shooter, no closing on the shooter and firing a well aimed shot without putting anyone else in danger, more barricade and protect. So in answer to your original question, is it possible, yes.

Response by CWO4 Miles Weaver made Sep 3 at 2019 6:40 PM

CWO4 Miles Weaver — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 18:40:45 -0400

What is realistic is that anyone who is familiar with a pistol has a better chance of stopping a shooter than an unarmed person would. Hiding in your room, when someone walks in firing a rifle, you do not have to worry about other armed teachers or police officers, you do your best to take out the threat. Without the pistol, you are reduced to throwing books, using a fire extinguisher, or just cowering in the corner. So, yes it is realistic, IF you want to improve your child's chances of surviving an active shooter incident.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2019 10:09 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:09:44 -0400

In over a year at Camp Leatherneck with 100% of the personnel being armed, there wasn't a single person shot within the camp, which was drastically safer than where I live now in DC, where guns are prohibited.

Some say it's the increased availability of guns, but since everyone had weapons in Leatherneck, and guns were allowed at school in my parents generation, I don't think it's that.

Some say this is because we were all trained, but most of us had only actually fired the weapon during a single 4-hour qualification, so I don't think it's that.

Some say this was because we were all subject to the UCMJ, but when increased penalties for gun crimes are suggested, my neighboring city dwellers cry "racism," so I don't think it's that.

Some say that military members have a higher standard of morality, but then decry the "rape culture" of the military, so I don't think it's that.

Some say it's the lack of police enforcement, but during my time in DC and my time at Leatherneck, I have never seen any enforcement of any rule or law by police, so I don't think it's that.

So the question still remains: in a society where guns are legally available to a smaller percentage of the population than almost any time in history, what is driving this increase in shootings?

Response by LTC Ken Connolly made Sep 22 at 2019 10:00 PM

LTC Ken Connolly — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:00:59 -0400

Area security is more than giving someone a sidearm, even if the person is a skilled marksman. I can only imagine what it would be like, if I never was trained to fight in the condition where it is dark or little light, had no idea who the shooter or shooters are, where they are, and a bunch of people running around screaming, knocking things over, etc. and not sure my weapon will fire, because I haven't fired it or cleaned it in over 6 mos. Having teachers carry sidearms is a foolish security measure.

Response by MSG Lonnie Averkamp made Sep 30 at 2019 1:44 PM

MSG Lonnie Averkamp — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:44:34 -0400

Our Church has a Laser Firearms Training Simulator. We use it, not only for our Safety Personnel, but also in a 1 1/2 Day Firearms Safety Course for Ladies and for State Certification. Two weeks after taking our training, one of the ladies said that, shortly after her husband left the house in the country, someone walked up to the door and tried the door knob. She suspected that it was a local Meth User, looking for something to pawn.

She said that she was scared, but not in a panic. She went to the gun safe, obtained a pistol, retreated to a defendable position of safety, and called her husband. She said that, without the Scenario Training that she had gone through, she would have had no "S.O.P." to adapt to the situation.

So what I am saying is that by having SELECTIVELY Armed Staff in Schools, it will make them much harder targets. Throwing guns to teachers without training makes as much sense as throwing M-4's at untrained Recruits and putting them into Combat.

But look back at the early days of Israel. "Palestine" had been under the authority of Great Britain, and so prohibited private firearms ownership, much like Britain. When Israel was first formed, they continued that tradition. In the 1950's and 1960's, the busses and sidewalk cafés of Israel were constant targets for AK-carrying terrorists. Israel changed from keeping the citizens without arms to allowing a sizeable percentage to own and carry concealed weapons.

It took about three incidents of terrorists becoming well ventilated, to immediately reduce the cowardly attacks on formerly unarmed victims. I recall a report of about 4 terrorists attacking a sidewalk café, and they found that they had placed themselves into an L-Shaped Ambush. The lone surviving terrorist said, "We didn't know that they were going to have guns...……………"

Response by Cpl Jeffrey Koons made Oct 1 at 2019 12:37 AM

Cpl Jeffrey Koons — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:37:54 -0400

After serving in the Marines I got out, used the GI Bill to get my degree in special education. I am currently a teacher and I without hesitation can say that I would not trust a single teacher in my building with a weapon of any kind. Today’s culture is crazy. Teachers are treated worse than a private that didn’t shave before inspection. Administration, parents and kids treat teachers like crap. Teachers are assaulted every single day in my building. If they had a handgun, I would have no doubt that a student would wrestle it away from the teacher and use it in them. Arming teachers is a horrible idea.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Oct 3 at 2019 9:58 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 21:58:16 -0400

I know you don't want to hear this, but the best answer is "It depends..." How skillful is the shooter? How skillful is the defender? How many shooters, and how many defenders? What is the geometry of the tactical situation? Is the shooter in a long hallway with long lines of sight which favor a long gun? Or is the shooter in a part of the school with shorter lines of sight, in or around classrooms? That might favor a handgun. Can the classrooms be locked securely? How good are the school's warning systems? How many teachers or guards are there? Lots of factors. It's difficult to have a running gunfight around several hundred students/citizens without putting non-combatants at risk.

Response by Carole Brickey made Oct 6 at 2019 4:07 AM

Carole Brickey — Sun, 06 Oct 2019 04:07:54 -0400

My Daughter is Substitute teacher, she is allowed to carry her gun in the classroom, with restrictions. She has to have a valid concealed carry permit, proof of training in usage of the gun every school year, she is never to mention she has a gun in the classroom to students or faculty. I cannot remember all the restrictions that she told me, these are just a few of the restrictions. There are other faculty members that also carry. I asked my daughter what would she do if the shooter was a student. She said she would do everything to prevent having to shoot a armed student, but if there was no another option,she said she was prepared to shoot a student who was armed and shooting, to protect the lives of the other students in the class room. My husband taught all our children how to shoot a gun, to have respect for a gun, all at very young ages. He taught them that a gun was not a toy. As I see them now as adults, and how they handle their guns. My husband did a good job in teaching them.
He taught them all very well.

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Oct 11 at 2019 1:55 PM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:55:18 -0400

I suspect that there are more than enough teachers who are ex-military who are capable of engaging a shooter. In Dallas, most of the ranges were to far away to effectively engage the shooter plus not knowing exactly where he was until he was cornered. The bomb-bot was used to avoid more police casualties because of the building layout.

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Oct 14 at 2019 11:15 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:15:55 -0400

If that's the case we should train the teachers in hand to hand combat. Doesn't that sound ridiculous Maybe a Teacher should have a Masters degree in Marksmanship and Hand to hand combat. What are security guards for, maybe they should have a degree in teaching? Maybe we should have a security guard at every entrance searching every student for anything considered to be a weapon. What is the answer. This is something that should be taken up by our federal government, instead letting the NRA. dictate our policies. And certain politicians sticking their head in the sand so they don,t hear or see nothing. Semper Fi.

Response by CPO Gary Moeller made Oct 17 at 2019 1:27 AM

CPO Gary Moeller — Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:27:08 -0400

The real problem is for the shooter to know who is armed and who isn't. It takes just one to get the drop on the bad guy.

Response by CPT Brad Wilson made Oct 20 at 2019 4:57 PM

CPT Brad Wilson — Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:57:20 -0400

If the armed teachers are expected to find and engage the shooter then I agree it will do more harm than good but if the intent is for the teachers to get in the classroom and guard the door then I think it’s better than guarding the door unarmed

Response by CPO Robert Turner made Oct 31 at 2019 4:46 PM

CPO Robert Turner — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:46:02 -0400

I agree with SGT Zack Madren, our society has changed. But this does not answer McCain's question. I agree with McCain that it is not realistic to expect teachers to handle this kind of destructive situation. Training for this type of confrontation is intense and takes a lot of fortitude to confront a killer with an AR15. What the hell, why are these weapons of mass destruction even available in a society where in the words of the SGT, "Our families, our beliefs our moral standing has gotten worse," ; and to the point of this kind of mass murder we in society are experiencing?

Response by SFC Regina Boyd made Nov 1 at 2019 1:29 PM

SFC Regina Boyd — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:29:19 -0400

No. A teacher is employed to teach, not carry a handgun to school. Our society, in general, has changed. There was a famous Pogo cartoon that said, "I have met the enemy. The enemy is me." As a society, we have created this problem, which is now exacerbated because we are exposed to the media 24 hours a day. How do we change this? Where I grew up, all the neighbors on my street knew each other. Today, I don't know my neighbor across the street. How do we change this?

Response by Sgt R Scott made Nov 1 at 2019 6:48 PM

Sgt R Scott — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:48:06 -0400

There’s a difference, like you said, in defending against an active shooter and seeking out the bad guy. Yes, in close quarters a room can be easily protected by a handgun. I would believe in most cases, a teacher would do what’s necessary to protect the children.

Response by SPC Chris Williams made Nov 4 at 2019 9:41 PM

SPC Chris Williams — Mon, 04 Nov 2019 21:41:26 -0500

I dont expect a teacher to hunt down an active shooter. But I would expect them to lock the door and try to secure the children in a closet or back of classroom. Then as last defense be last chance effort to save children.

Response by SGT Thomas Seward made Nov 10 at 2019 1:48 PM

SGT Thomas Seward — Sun, 10 Nov 2019 13:48:06 -0500

Yes, without a doubt!
The situation would be all close contact and a pistol is the preferred weapon!
Also, I’m no world class shooter, but I do practice on bowling balls at various distances out to 50yards with pistols!
So do my dad, my son, daughter-in-law, wife, daughter, and granddaughter! They don’t hit with every shot, but it’s great training!

Response by PO2 Jerry Van Ness made Nov 19 at 2019 10:37 AM

PO2 Jerry Van Ness — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:37:42 -0500

All teachers are not trained, nor do they desire to be armed. However, if they are armed, trained, and choose to carry, why not let them use their own judgement as to whether to engage? Of course there is the risk of an accident, but I think the vast majority of the time that the outcome would be enhanced by having a teacher, or anyone, attempting stop the shooter.

If your child were be threatened, wouldn't you choose to have someone, anyone, trying to stop the threat? I believe that we have the right to carry, and with that right comes responsibilities. I feel safer knowing that people have the right to carry assuming they meet certain training criteria and are mentally stable. Only the person at the scene of an incident can decide that he/she is in a position to confront an AR-15 with a pistol or even a ball bat. I would accept the small possibility of an accidental shooting vs. no resistance at all to a potential shooter. Admittedly there are probably very few situations where confronting an AR-15 wielding bad guy with a pistol is advisable or responsible.

Response by Sgt Cullen Smith made Nov 21 at 2019 11:13 AM

Sgt Cullen Smith — Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:13:51 -0500

I think teachers could handle it if trained in a defensive manner. In other words do not train them to seek out the shooter or close on the shooter (that is the job of military and police). Train them to ambush the shooter from a defensive position. The key word here is Training. Most schools barely require their teachers to go to remedial training to "teach" so training them with the proper use of weapons and defensive tactics would be the problem.

Response by PO1 Mike Wallace made Dec 7 at 2019 11:53 AM

PO1 Mike Wallace — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 11:53:45 -0500

I guess I am not seeing the downside of the idea. If the decision to proceed is based strictly on whether it might or might not work then the wrong criteria is being used.
While the gun toting teacher might make themselves a target for the shooter aren't they already? If you and I are armed teachers at a school while the shooter is shooting at me I hope you are taking a clear shot!

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Dec 8 at 2019 10:48 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Sun, 08 Dec 2019 22:48:49 -0500

Yep ! Especially if your Marine Corps trained. I've been out of the Marine Corps for 30 years and I was put to that very test last year. My nephew was getting married and his future wife's Family lives on 64 acre farm. This was an interracial marriage, her family were avid gun owners and hunters. My city slicker family was ( I Thought ) democratic anti- gun knuckleheads. I wouldn't give them a water gun, much less a real one. I say this because they all hated me when I came home from The Marine Corps with a few guns. My dad everyone no one wanted the guns in their house. Well to my surprise here in 2018, We all go out to his fiancee's house to go shooting I will silently praying that my family would shoot themselves in the foot. I brought allow my ruger P89, 15 and 1 in the chamber. I figure I will show my nephews future family that at least one of us knew what we were doing. When my brother and his sons in my cousins pulled up in their truck. I almost had a heart attack. All Of a sudden my family were the biggest gun collectors That I've ever seen ! They had modify AR fifteens they had Sig Sur 9 mm 40 calibers, They had Colt 45 calibers , Colt compact 45 and I think a Benelli shot gun. But all eyes were on me when I stepped up to the target, They wanted to see how a marine would react and how good I can keep my concentration my eye on the target when under fire. So as I readied myself and began to fire. One of my future inlaws, crept up behind me and unloaded a 30 round clip, to see if i would poop my pants. When i didn't flinch in the slightest, they gave me the thumbs up and walked away. I earned all their respect from that day forward. So yes, one can successfully defend against an idiot with a ar-15, you have to have to maintain a solid mentality under pressure.

Response by Lt Col Richard Neel made Dec 17 at 2019 9:37 AM

Lt Col Richard Neel — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:37:22 -0500

It may or may not be realistic as it depends on the individual's training and on the situation, however I think it would be better, if a teacher finds himself/herself barricaded in a classroom with a maniac roaming somewhere in the school, for that teacher to have a firearm rather than a bucket full of rocks to throw! Even if they stay barricaded in the classroom for the entire event, I would rather see that teacher armed.

Response by AB Edward Mondini made Dec 24 at 2019 2:00 PM

AB Edward Mondini — Tue, 24 Dec 2019 14:00:21 -0500

The Israeli commando raid (Operation Yonatan) on a French plane full of Israeli & foreign citizens held captive at Entebbe airport in Entebbe, Uganda on July 4, 1976 is a perfect reply to your question. Study it.

Response by CPL Michael Moore made Dec 25 at 2019 1:06 PM

CPL Michael Moore — Wed, 25 Dec 2019 13:06:32 -0500

Been said before the reason this occurs is because we have already surrendered to much of our freedom to our government.
They now decide how we discipline our kids and how our kids are educated. That needs to change we need less government control of individual rights.
There are between 20-28 million highly trained , armed and motivated veterans.
That could be paid or volunteer at our schools till we get the government back in its box. I guarantee the number of incidents at schools would diminish.
And bad guys would find another soft target.

Response by PO3 Mike Hayden made Dec 28 at 2019 3:28 PM

PO3 Mike Hayden — Sat, 28 Dec 2019 15:28:13 -0500

That particular cop got fired for running away as far as I know. If I am wrong I apologize(nothing against police officers). The thing is our teachers should have a choice. If they choose to carry they should be afforded the training to use the weapon properly in coordination with LEO's, and it would be likely that more than 1 educator would have a weapon and the training to stop a shooter. Would I take a someone trained and armed with a handgun against the majority of individuals sporting a so call assault rifle? Hell Yes, because those educator's have a steak in the game. I would bet money that more than one educator would step up, in every school, so you then end up with a team of trained professionals against a derranged individual. I would love to be able to send my child to that school. It would also show our children another reason for our second amendment rights, so they can learn that guns are just tools and it is better that good people stand up to use those tools than have them be taken away and our children left to die

Response by CPT Charles Reddick made Dec 30 at 2019 10:08 PM

CPT Charles Reddick — Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:08:20 -0500

Amazing how well people think LEOs are trained. Average officer only receives basic firearms training and only shoot on qualifacation day. New officers training may say the officer gets 40 to 80 hours but you have to remember that is how long the class is. A good part of this is waiting for other people to shoot.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2020 5:05 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:05:14 -0500

Hand guns are better suited for CQB in a building than long guns. Just because you have one type of weapon that is for a specific use, doesnt mean it works well inside a room.
Plus, the reason a teacher having a gun works to deter these horrible events is that it is a DETERRENT because you know someone has a gun, but not where they are, and it is a tactical disadvantage to the shooter. As we have had proven many times, shooters stay away from targets that have a higher likelihood of resistance.

Response by SP5 Lonnie Kennedy made Jan 16 at 2020 5:32 PM

SP5 Lonnie Kennedy — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:32:15 -0500

I’d you were a student of that teacher, would you rather your teacher be armed with a ruler?

Response by 1LT Brian Tychonski made Jan 16 at 2020 8:05 PM

1LT Brian Tychonski — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 20:05:18 -0500

The answer to your question is yes, if the teacher is properly trained. It's been working in Israel since the early 1970s. The PLO terrorists were attacking schools (aka soft targets) with AKs (the fully automatic kind) and hand grenades. The Israeli government put out a call for volunteers among the teachers who would be willing to be trained and to carry a handgun. The terrorist attacks on schools stopped when the terrorists were ending up dead with only minimal destruction caused.

Here's a sad truth about today's law enforcement agencies. They often spend more time training the officers about how to avoid being sued than training them on how to avoid being killed. I offered to train one guy who wanted to join the NYPD on use of a handgun. His response was that he didn't like guns and the NYPD would teach him all that he needed to know. Does that sound like an individual that you would want covering your six? Look at the idiot in Cleveland that killed Tamir Rice. He was dismissed from another department because he had a panic attack on the pistol range because he was do afraid of firearms.

Response by CPT Arch Nissel made Jan 25 at 2020 12:33 AM

CPT Arch Nissel — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:33:42 -0500

First off remember I am now a FAG (Former Action Guy) with 45+ years of carrying a gun due to bad people with 25+ years as a LEO State and Federal. Most of the school shootings have been done by amateurs, not pipe hitters. ANY resistance to them may have made a MASSIVE difference. For them to have take gunfire regardless of how inaccurate would have possibly saved many lives.

Response by SFC Pamela Williams made Jan 25 at 2020 8:46 PM

SFC Pamela Williams — Sat, 25 Jan 2020 20:46:19 -0500

We are the blame for the way people think about these school shooting. 40 years ago people cared about each other and more compassion. Today they don't care who gets hurt no morality left in the world. Something has to give. People help make this world better.

Response by FN Jim Martin made Jan 27 at 2020 7:20 PM

FN Jim Martin — Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:20:36 -0500

study what the Israeilies have done to harden schools by arming and training teachers.

Response by LCpl Larry Morgan made Jan 31 at 2020 11:42 AM

LCpl Larry Morgan — Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:42:44 -0500

My feelings/thoughts on this question is nobody truly knows because each situation is different. However, taking down an active shooter is not the same as taking down a trained Marine/soldier in combat, I believe in a school shooting, a teacher armed is better than not being armed. Any chance to defend yourself is better than no chance and the knowledge that teachers/staff are armed will reduce the chance of a "active shooter" taking place in the first place.

Response by Michael Mick made Feb 1 at 2020 9:53 PM

Michael Mick — Sat, 01 Feb 2020 21:53:12 -0500

Regardless, better than being unarmed. When properly trained, one of the foremost lessons learned is to be aware of downrange. Not every teacher is interested, and if not, I would not want them to be. However, I would not be surprised that the most capable are in places where least likely to be called upon, as such communities tend to be more gun-friendly and thus more attuned to knowing how to handle firearms.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Feb 2 at 2020 11:21 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Sun, 02 Feb 2020 23:21:06 -0500

Yes, there was a police officer on scene. One who failed to do his job and respond according to protocol, remaining outside while allowing an unarmed civilian to enter. Why? I don't suppose we'll ever know for a certainty. One thing that we can be sure of is a good guy has a heck of a lot better chance of stopping a bad guy with a gun if he has one too.

Response by SSG Michael Kennedy made Feb 6 at 2020 1:17 PM

SSG Michael Kennedy — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 13:17:45 -0500

I believe just the threat of return fire from armed teachers and staff would serve as a deterrent to most school/church shooters. Not all of course, you will always have kamikazes, but most. Or do it like we did (&still do) at the high school where I went (Benedictine Military School), an all male Catholic military school. Most of our teachers, including the priests, were combat vets. We had an armory and my homeroom was actually the rifle range! God, Guns, and Guts- Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Response by SPC Heath Hansen made Feb 7 at 2020 2:30 AM

SPC Heath Hansen — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 02:30:26 -0500

Is it realistic to believe that a teacher could defend against an active shooter, using an AR-15, with their bare hands???

I rest my case.

Response by SFC Robert Falco made Feb 9 at 2020 2:29 PM

SFC Robert Falco — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 14:29:34 -0500

If the teacher was in an open field any more than about 20 meters from the shooter, the teacher would probably be toast however, most school shootings take place indoors using a semiauto (as very few people are licensed for or have access to full auto) the teacher with some training has a better than even chance of taking down the shooter using a long gun.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Feb 10 at 2020 6:11 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:11:21 -0500

The same assumptions you make for the defender (the teacher) often apply to the attacker.

Few of these creatures that like to attack schools do so in the anticipation of meeting actual armed resistance b/c the government tells EVERYONE there will none w/signs, chest thumping media releases, and repeated policy. Knowing that there is likely none, he plans accordingly.

Adding armed teachers adds to the factors such would have to think about b4 making an attack. We've seen many of these people just want publicity and not death, that's why the majority attack the unarmed, soft targets. Any wild cards that can be added into the situation might save lives, an armed teacher or twelve improves the odds of preventing such an attack or maybe mitigating it.

Moreover, if teachers want to try to defend the kids, why should we just keep saying no? Is that accomplishing anything?

Response by Sgt Dan Catlin made Feb 13 at 2020 8:57 PM

Sgt Dan Catlin — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:57:19 -0500

Absolutely! Engagement in a school building is typically at very short range, and a pistol is easier to maneuver in a building than a rifle. If the teacher is willing to train to work in close quarters and crowded conditions, and is qualified as a good combat pistol shooter, then they can be very effective! And those who want to go the extra mile and train in fire and maneuver could do even more to take out a threat. At the very least an armed teacher could control the "fatal funnels" that exist in any school- doorways, halls, stalls, etc. That can be done with a minimum of training. We need to get away from all this hand wringing hysteria the media tries to induce. Americans have been taking care of business since we got here. I don't see why this is even a question.

Response by CPT Don Kemp made Feb 21 at 2020 3:34 PM

CPT Don Kemp — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:34:30 -0500

I get your question about the effectiveness of a civilian, who may only have minimal training, in engaging an armed intruder. Hold that for a moment.
Do you think an armed intruder is more, or less, likely to enter a building knowing there are multiple armed opponents he will encounter in the commission of a crime? I’d suggest removing the “Gun Free Zone” is act as a deterrent. And yes, an armed teacher would be more effective at stopping the assailant than an unarmed teacher.

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 20 at 2020 2:53 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:53:52 -0400

I think arming teachers is more about making a soft as a less appealing target for school shooters. there are schools that do allow their teachers to carry. I tried looking for information as to if it has been effecting - however I have not seen any news on TV about any school shooting in Texas.

https://www.caller.com/story/news/education/texas/2018/06/14/texas-school-districts-allow-teachers-staff-carry-guns-schools/670653002/

In Texas, these school districts allow teachers, staff to carry guns in schools

More Texas school districts are allowing teachers and staff to carry guns in schools in the wake of mass shootings. Here's what you need to know.

Response by SSG Paul Headlee made Mar 22 at 2021 3:03 PM

SSG Paul Headlee — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:03:15 -0400

Knowledge of tactics; having a plan; rehearsing that plan; having a team and utilizing teamwork; motivation and skill. Who has more? Who put in the effort? Who can generate more combat power in a shorter time? I wouldn't bet money on one or two db's with AR-15s and a grudge against a properly prepared teacher with a handgun. On the other hand, a person with a bachelor's degree, teaching certificate and a gun locked in his desk drawer with a magazine in his pocket might not survive.

Response by CPT Keith Celebrezze made Mar 22 at 2021 11:12 PM

CPT Keith Celebrezze — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 23:12:54 -0400

No.