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

Thank you for sharing this.

Let each school district decide.

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.

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.

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.

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

it is more realistic, than believing a teacher without a firearm, could effectively defend against an armed assailant.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

NO!

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!