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

It is a lot more realistic than the teacher doing nothing and getting killed. What is your solution that is not dreaming?

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.

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.

Yes. Almost without exception, a mass shooter ends offensive actions at the first sign of resistance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.