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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. LCpl Timothy McCain

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?