You forgot(as do most people replying as you have done) the two factors that make the difference:
Police departments have SWAT teams - multiple men with ballistic body armor, steel helmets, years of tactical training, and usually military experience - so that they can put down an active shooter with a minimum risk that one or more of them will be killed, paralyzed, or spend the rest of his life with a colostomy bag. And even with all of their advantages, one of the above can still happen.
We’re to believe that the average teacher, someone whose job is to go to a school every day and stand in front of a classroom of kids, not to do traffic stops, knock on doors of crack houses, tackle armed robbers, and all the other shit that police officers do that builds the situational awareness and reflexes necessary to deal with physical threats, even leaving aside the SWAT scenarios - we’re to believe that this teacher can get the drop on a shooter who has the element of surprise, possibly a semi-automatic rifle with 30-round magazines, and the desire to pop off as many rounds as possible inside a room…a room that would be reverberating with the deafening noise of each round fired by the shooter, which alone would be enough to shock this hypothetical teacher into a flood of adrenaline, which amounts to a psychotropic drug that requires specific training to be able to stay calm under its effects?
The possibility is SO remote.
I am not against concealed carry. A concealed handgun can, and does, save your life under certain circumstances. It can be an invaluable tool for deterring a robbery or stopping someone who can physically overpower you. But in this mass shooting scenario, it is just not going to cut it for the average person, which includes the majority of teachers.
Are we to believe that the police or SWAT will be able to do anything but respond after the fact? It isn’t the police aren’t doing a good job, it’s the fact that by the time they receive the call and arrive it’s usually over.
A teacher with a weapon very well might not be able to stop a shooter, however a weapon does give them a fighting chance. Can you tell me that the current hiding and hoping the shooter doesn’t see you or having a teacher use nothing more than their body as a self sacrificing shield is preferable to giving them a real chance?
Not to mention it’s been the case in some shooting instances that the shooter is a coward and crumbles at the first sign of armed resistance.
Teachers armed are no different than those of us who conceal carry. We have a fighting chance. I know full well that the weapon I carry might not save me. But I also know that without it I stand a zero chance of surviving if an armed attacker is looking to do me harm. I’d rather go down fighting than curled up in a fetal position begging for my life.
Really, those are your only options?
Did you see where Bone cited several instances of shooting incidents in schools that were stopped by unarmed teachers?
Are you so dependent on your gun, that it is the only method of defense that you have? That if you don’t have it, then your only option is to curl up in the fetal position and beg for your life?
If that’s the problem, that if we truly feel utterly powerless and defenseless if we don’t have a gun, then it really is an addictive behavior, rather than a rational one.
I’m not even saying that teachers who have a CCW and want to carry on the job should be universally prohibited from doing so; I just don’t think it’s going to make a difference.
Against a murderer who is armed, yes I’m saying that the best option is to be armed yourself. What do you suggest, talking nicely, boxing him, standing sideways so you make a smaller target?
There is no addictive behavior here. Just rational acceptance that when faced with an attacker with a weapon, if you’re not armed, chances are overwhelming that you will lose.
Also, you seem to refer to the police a lot. There are many law enforcement officers that fully support teachers being armed. Here is a link to my Sheriff and btw, he encourages every citizen in Polk County to conceal carry, because he understands there are limits to what the police can do.
I’m assuming that you also think a man of his experience is wrong.as well?
I do think it’ll make a difference. There will be a much larger number of firearm incidents in schools as the teacher loses control of the weapon, makes mistakes with the weapon, or uses the weapon inappropriately.
Read Bone’s cites about how teachers stopped armed people without using a weapon of their own.
There is addictive behavior in allowing the object to have so much power over you that you feel weak and defenseless without it.
Do I? I didn’t realize that I referred to the police all that much.
He’s not the first Sheriff to think that having more guns in schools is a great idea, but even he wants to bring in retired law enforcement and military, rather than arming the faculty.
Yes. Having experience as a sheriff does not mean that one has any experience in dealing with guns in schools.
Wow, that’s a whole lot of assumption on your part.
Are you willing to rely on that. If this is such an assured way of stopping school shootings why didn’t it work with this one? You are assuming all psychotic killers are just willing to lady form their weapons.
[QUOTE]
There is addictive behavior in allowing the object to have so much power over you that you feel weak and defenseless without it. [/ QUOTE]
I really don’t know where you’re coming up with this? I assure you I’m not weak and can handle myself just fine in a fist fight. However, I know that criminals rarely fight fair and often use knives and guns against victims. I also know that no matter how skilled one might be, the chances of coming out on top using your hands against a firearm are very low. I think you’ve seen too many movies.
So, what you’re saying then is law enforcement is not qualified to come up with a solution to this problem? The very people we trust to keep us safe? Yet somehow yippy have an opinion on the matter but I don’t see anywhere that you have experience dealing with guns in schools.
You know, I wear a seatbelt in my car for an accident that might never happen. I keep fire extinguishers in my home for a fire that may never happen. I pay for insurance though I may never use it. None of these things make me addicted or weak. I carry a firearm for the sane reasons as I do the things. Because if the situation arises that I need it, nothing else will do.
I get it, you don’t like firearms. I’ve no problem with that. You protect your family the way you see fit and ill protect mine the way i see fit. But do me a favor, if God forbid your are ever the victim of a violent crime and your Steven Sagal fighting skills aren’t successful don’t pick up the phone and call men with guns to save you.
No, I’m saying that law enforcement is essentially abdicating any semblance of credibility, when its solution is, "Well guys, you’re just going to have to arm yourselves and fend off the criminals.
That’s quite some assumptions on your part. I have no problem with firearms. I just don’t see firearms in schools as being a net benefit. I am not referencing Seagal movies, I am referencing what people have done in real life.
And should I find myself being the victim of a violent crime, I will protect myself best I am able, with the tools I have at hand, including a gun if that is the most available and practical, as well as calling upon the law enforcement that I support with my taxes to assist me as they are able.
Screening is the background check for prior criminal behavior. The training in active shooter scenarios would quickly weed out those who couldn’t handle the crisis situation.
I know a bunch of teachers. They are all incredibly dedicated to their students. I believe it is a reasonable assumption that most of them would be willing to do this.
The bottom line is that there is a problem. This is one of the best immediate solutions to the problem. Think of it kinda like an EMT rolling up on a car wreck. I’m not interested in patching up the cuts, I’m interested in stopping the bleeding from the chest injury and making sure that the patient will make it to the hospital. First things first. Let the hospital handle the long-term stuff.
That’s where we are now. Handle first things first. Make it so that shooters can’t get to students without meeting massive armed resistance. THEN address the long-term issue of identifying mental whackjobs and keeping them from harming others.
Actually, there’s quite a bit of evidence that if you have guns in your home, removing them increases your family’s safety.
Actually, most of the evidence that draws those conclusions is pretty bad. I have a thought to start a series of threads that focuses on each study individually. Maybe when the fervor dies down.
I’ll be there when you do. 
Cite?
I’ve been away from this thread for a few days–found out I have cancer–but I’ve read all the comments since I last posted. I have over 25 years’ experience in a high school classroom. My old district is seriously considering arming teachers. I’ve given this a lot of thought–my classroom was the first one inside the main entrance–and have talked to school cops, including one who’s a sniper. I’m not anti-gun. If carrying a gun would save students, I’d have done so in a heartbeat. But anyone who thinks arming teachers would be an effective means of stopping school shooters has been watching too many movies.
Hollywood version: Shooter enters classroom, pauses for a second to look menacing, raises his AR 15, and starts shooting. The teacher, Liam Neeson, pulls his Glock from its concealed holster in his waistband and calmly fires, killing shooter immediately.
Reality: Let’s say I’ve met the requirements my district has for voluntarily armed teachers: a CCW permit, psych testing (but just to determine how I do under stress), and 20 hours’ training, total. I’m teaching sophomores.
“So the Declaration of Indepen–” BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM (etc.)
The shooter, armed with an AR 15, sprays my students with bullets within seconds. Some die, some are injured, all are screaming. Despite my minimal training and complete shock, I react relatively quickly, so it only takes 10 seconds for my brain to take in the fact my students are down and someone’s shooting them. It then takes me 3 more seconds to combat denial, the next mental phase in this kind of crisis. I fumble (Shock makes us awkward.) the Glock out of the hidden holster at my waistband. As I do so, some of my students remember bits of the Violent Intruder drills we’ve done and start throwing shoes at the shooter. Others clamber onto the counter to access the window. Still others run up to me, the person who’s to keep them safe. Every kid who’s still alive is screaming.
Cops tell me those distractions make it highly unlikely I’ll hit the shooter when I fire–IF I fire. If the shooter is a teen, I may unconsciously hesitate. After all, my primary responsibility is to protect kids. As I lift the Glock, 14 seconds have passed since the first round fired, and at least 13 of my students are down. I fire and miss. The shooter turns toward me, and I fire again, hitting a student who’s run into the line of fire. The shooter fires again, and I go down.
It has now been 20 seconds since the first shot. The death toll is 10 dead, including me, and 10 injured. And that’s if the shooter doesn’t use a bump stock.
The cop who was a sniper told me it’s incredibly difficult to shoot with any accuracy in those conditions even if you’re not in shock and are a cop with hundreds of hours of training.
Almost all the teachers in my district are hunters and gun owners. The overwhelming majority refuse to be armed in a classroom. We’d do anything to save kids, but this just won’t work.
Sure. Let’s see if the U.S. can go a month without a mass-shooting and then things will be calm enough to study the impact of guns in the home.
I look forward to discussing the issue in 2031.
Would you be willing to have this discussion during the next inevitable fervor, or do we have to wait until there are no fervors? If it is the latter, then you might have a problem.
19-year-old “children”? :rolleyes:
Out of all that, that’s the part you want to argue about?