I would not bet my life or the life of the kids that the shooter will just end himself when confronted. It is a real possibility that there will be an exchange of gunfire. I would "hope" they know how to use their sidearms but "hoping" is a waste of time. Therein lies the false sense of security I was talking about. "A bunch of untrained, armed, teachers makes up safer." Until it doesn't!!! Until someone calls their bluff, then what? Look, I don't think anyone here is asking for weeks of training. But what the hell is wrong with making sure the teachers know how to handle, aim, and hit what they are aiming at? Nothing major. I would propose that if a teacher takes on the responsibility to carry in school, defending against a school shooter, that they attend an active shooter class. Why in the hell is that controversial? You think that the people taking responsibility for protecting kids against active shooters would need some idea what to expect in that situation? Active shooters are very different than anything most people prepare for.Havent several of these school shooters offed themselves because they were confronted by someone with a gun?
I would like to think that a "teacher", someone that teaches people how to use and do things, would take upon themselves to know how to use a tool they wish to use.
Anyways, a school with armed teachers becomes less of an easy target regardless of training or not and regardless of whether anyone is actually armed. In the shooters eyes it becomes a harder target because they are allowed to carry.
It is also VERY possible that a completely untrained teacher (or custodian, counselor, parent, lunch lady, or principal ....) is NOT!. It is VERY possible that a completely untrained teacher is MORE dangerous than an unarmed one. .
It is also VERY possible that a completely untrained teacher (or custodian, counselor, parent, lunch lady, or principal ....) is NOT!
I think that is the least of their worries. I think potential ND's are more likely.during an active shooter situation, one of the faculty shoots one of the innocent.
I'm not taking that bet.It is also VERY possible that a completely untrained teacher (or custodian, counselor, parent, lunch lady, or principal ....) is NOT!
NYPD are not highly trained in firearms, who told you that lie? So NO training is better than some. GotchaIt's also possible, as news accounts have shown, that "highly trained", competent, individuals can be quite dangerous, firing into crowds of bystanders at suspects.
NYPD are not highly trained in firearms, who told you that lie? So NO training is better than some. Gotcha
And how would the untrained respond?Reckless behavior by experts with firearms is not confined to NYC.
And how would the untrained respond?
Ah, you have a more optimistic view, that's ok. I tend to be more pessimistic, which is strange considering I'm quite the optimist in my personal life. I just don't see a school board going from NO firearms to allowing everyone. It isn't realistic, small steps seems more likely. Anything is possible I suppose.As free people, acting in their best interests and coming to the aid of those in need?
As free people, acting in their best interests and coming to the aid of those in need?
It's also possible, as news accounts have shown, that "highly trained", competent, individuals can be quite dangerous, firing into crowds of bystanders at suspects.
And you cant do that if you have firearms training????
The incidents I assume you're talking about are examples of individuals who are SUPPOSED to be trained - but are not. NYPD and Chicago PD street officers are notoriously undertrained for their positions when it comes to firearms.