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

1) Most school shootings are with hand guns.
2) Choosing to go unarmed is a garrantee more deaths.
3) In Florida, the police decided to stay out of harm's way, increasing the death toll.
4) Would-be shooters will have one more complication.
Where is the downside?

The life of children outweighs the right to ban assault weapons except for military or law enforcement. Only fools believe arming untrained teachers is a solution. Training Costs would be through the roof compared with cutting profits of manufacturers.

I think that entirely depends on the teacher. I had a couple of teachers that were prior military growing up, and my son had a prior service Marine as a history teacher in high school. I think that these teachers would be well suited for such cases (especially if they happened to be infantry trained), and may even be better suited than many of the police that would be responding to the situation. Just my two cents.

LCpl, the officer on site at Parkland refused to enter, totally removing that variable until the officer who defied orders on scene did enter. The AR is a semi-automatic, as are most pistols, and personally, the mere question of "is someone inside armed," to me, has proven to be a deterrent to many would be shooters. Why would they choose to attack any location where those inside may be armed? Parkland and Sandy Hook were "gun free zones," advertising that the people inside were unable to do more than hide. Given the choice, as a teacher, I would rather be able to put myself between harm and my students, and act in a way I know can deter or stop someone intent on harming my students. A "random teacher just given a gun" is not what is being suggested, as no one is saying "just hand them guns," but rather, allowing them to choose to be evaluated, to receive training, and to continue to receive said training, means they are prepared more than most, and until a world exists where no one, no one at all, has the idea to harm others, I prefer to have the option to act than the command to hide.

I'm shocked this is even a topic of discussion... if you've gone to a combat zone, you have to be proficient in at least the M4 platform and accurate out to 300 meters (in the Army at least). Accuracy was never a thing taught to soldiers, it's always cover fire and then call in an air strike or close air support with an A10. Firefights with active shooters only happen when they're the ones with advantage., because they know they're the ONLY ones with the gun. IF and humongous if a veteran or LEO was to draw on the shooter, the shooting would stop and turn towards the guy with a gun. It's all simple psychology, take out the guy who might harm me/you first. We, like veterans, who may or may not have ever fired your rifle in combat, still understand that the threat exists while still A) moving or B) breathing... so what do we do? shoot until both are neutralized. IF that's 2-3 mags dumped, fine... we thought it needed to happen. When I was deployed, Battalion Comm told us it took 7 round of our M4's to kill a single guy. My brother confirmed this as he was in Iraq 04-05, Najaf and Falluja.

Active shooters, don't communicate nor do they use hand signs. We do. Shoot move and communicate... that's who and what we are. As a mixed branch team, we'll train, constantly and always have our own SOP's that work even for the DV who can't run or has mobility issues.

I believe it isn't just a training issue. The reason these people pick places like schools is because they know there isn't a gun allowed. Now arming teachers and administrators is a form of deterrent. Also, I believe the few seconds or even minutes that the shooter can be distracted defending themselves from anyone is time for professionals to get to the scene and assist with eliminating the shooter.

I had been teaching about ten years when Columbine happened. It changed education forever. It literally sucked much of the joy out of the environment and replaced it with fear.

As a medically discharged veteran who did some twenty years in the classroom before finally having to retire again I always felt frustration that the only thing my administration told us to do in the case of a shooter was to cower in our classrooms and hope (can't tell us to pray) that the shooter didn't come after US.

I had combat experience in my time and am trained in the use of firearms. Still, there's no way I would go out and do a "Gunsmoke" style showdown with a nut armed with a SEMI-automatic rifle. However, I (and any properly trained teacher) could be waiting and when the jerk came into our room, catch the guy by surprise and save some lives. I might even have been pro-active, knowing my school and, like most vets, already scoped out some good spots, have been able to take the guy down by surprise before he got to far. More lives saved.

I know there are veterans and even folks who grew up with firearms in the classrooms. Most of us vets know what to do and might have proven we could do it; even non-veteran teachers could be given instruction. Time and again we read (if we care to look for them - as has already been said the media hates these stories) where a bad "guy" with a gun gets stopped by a good "guy" with a gun.

It's a sad state of affairs we've come to this, to be sure; but if we are going to raise our kids in a moral vacuum where we don't teach them "Do unto others" or "Thou shalt not murder" we reap what we sow.

No, there's no way I would arm EVERY teacher - but a few who are qualified or can be qualified - might save lives and the knowledge they are there might be a deterrent to the whack-jobs who pick the most helpless "soft" targets they can find to go on their sprees. Particularly if they don't know exactly which teachers are armed.

Yes

Historically speaking when active shooters have been confronted by a good guy with a gun, be it a cop or a armed citizen, they generally kill themselves.

And it's not the "Fog of War" that kept the Dallas shooter from being killed by the cops, cops are generally very bad shots, most only qualify a couple times a year and don't practice in between. I've seen plenty of cops show up at IPSC and USPSA matches, they do much worse than the average competitor until they start practicing.

I'd much rather have an armed teacher, that knows the school, knows the kids and employees, and practices often with their weapon respond to a school shooter than the average cop.

In most cases of active shooter, it is someone who is not trained. I have seen cases were a proposed shooter was disarmed and detained without a single shot fired. Police do this all the time, but it never gets reported. In the case of arming teachers, they are not just having a teacher shoot at a target for ten minutes and then say it's okay for you to carry a gun in your classroom. They have to attend a pretty intensive course, and pass it. Several of the teachers in Utah that are part of the program are former military and or police, and have had previous training, as well as the new course taught by police. We cannot predict who will have grace under fire, or who will panic. I have seen the most seasoned NCO freeze, and watched a young PFC take charge while under fire crossing a bridge. This was in a training scenario and not even in real combat. Many people mistake the purpose of having teachers be armed. It isn't as much to take on an active shooter, as it is to deter an active shooter from coming to that school, knowing the teachers are armed and trained.