Posted on Feb 22, 2018
LCpl Timothy McCain
116K
2.16K
1.04K
320
319
1
1a746bd2
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?
Avatar feed
Responses: 489
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
1stSgt Eugene Harless
0
0
0
"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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Plans Officer (S5)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Glenn Cornett
0
0
0
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!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Michael James
0
0
0
L.Cpl. McCain, Sir; Well said.. "Panic and Confusion" How TRUE... Respectfully, Semper fi.. MIke
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Andy Van Der Plaats
0
0
0
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?
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Military Police
0
0
0
Yes.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Steven Furbish
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Andy Van Der Plaats
Andy Van Der Plaats
>1 y
Locks are barriers against honest law abiding people, not against someone intent on killing people. Most schools already have locks and limited avenues of access, but that hasn't stopped anyone so far.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Jose Cornejo
0
0
0
Gun is just a tool, is the skills what makes the difference.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC John Shaw
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Bill Straw
0
0
0
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'.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Matthew Arnold
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Dominic Vasta
0
0
0
I agree with you
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Dan Powers
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Montgomery Granger
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Motor Transport Operator
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SFC Motor Transport Operator
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
If a person never experienced bullets zipping by , they gonna freak and god knows how they gonna react. Bullet is a bullet and if its in close quarters, caliber don't matter.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Brian Mason
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
2LT Ronald Reimer
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG(P) Dock Manager
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SP5 Billy Mullins
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

How are you connected to the military?
  • Active Duty
  • Active Reserve / National Guard
  • Pre-Commission
  • Veteran / Retired
  • Civilian Supporter