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

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely....

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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!

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.

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.