M14 Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
As I understand the new law, it allows teachers to carry firearms after 24 hours of training. Reportedly, they previously needed to go through the complete law enforcement training regime in order to be armed.

I firmly believe that training is critical but there are obvious trade offs when it comes to determining the minimum training requirements. More is better but if the requirements are too extensive few teachers will even bother getting trained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
Arming teachers is a complex issue. Some tend to trivialize what is required. Firstly, there needs to be a screening process. Not everyone is suited for the responsibility associated with using deadly force. Many individuals do not possess the right mindset. There also needs to be good training requirements. Shooting an armed assailant in a school environment is not as simple as shooting a target on the square range. Both good judgment and good marksmanship skills are required. If an innocent student is killed or injured by an armed teacher, there will be hell to pay. Being aware of what is around your target and beyond takes on a new meaning in a school environment.

While I favor allowing teachers to be armed but I also believe it is a complex issue. I do not believe armed teachers are a substitute for a school security officer. They are only an additional layer of defense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
I generally agree, but what we see with mass shootings and what pro gun people have known for a while is that when you outsource safety to hired help, you cannot expect the same level of investment as when you leave it to those who are defending themselves.

While TX police may try to ‘strategize’ for an hour, a parent of a kid under attack or a teacher under fire would recognize that time is of the essence when your life is on the line.
While anyone in direct danger is highly motivated, they aren't always effective. To be an effective gunfighter requires the correct mindset and good proficiency. A good professional should have the correct mindset to go into harms way so they should possess more than enough motivation to fight.

As for the debacle in TX, the failings were far more complicated than a lack of motivation. Firstly, there was a total lack of command and control. The individual who supposedly was the on-scene commander apparently didn't see himself as being in charge. However, it appears he made decisions which effected the law enforcement response. That is mind boggling and certainly leads to ineffectiveness. There was also a lack of essential support equipment. The on-scene commander didn't have a set of keys and didn't have a radio. Makes one wonder what kind of training they supposedly had. The need for keys should have been obvious during practice runs. Someone in a command position deciding not to carry a radio because the antenna banged into things while he was moving is beyond my ability to comprehend. I guess he never heard about shoot, move and COMMUNICATE.

I would use the TX debacle as a learning experience. I would not use it as an indictment of all law enforcement personnel. The CBP team performed well once they were given the opportunity to perform the assault. The on-scene commander was a disgrace and I would go so far as to suggest that he was grossly negligent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
I'm afraid that it takes more than an armed teacher to stop a suicidal/homicidal mass shooter armed with an AR-15 type weapon and anywhere from 30 to 210 rounds of ammo in a school building. In reality, it takes a heavily armed 6-man SWAT team with ballistic shields, proper tactical weapons that are not typically concealable, and a ton of specialized training to really neutralize a suicidal/homicidal mass shooter like what see here in the USA. I think we have 97k public schools, so multiple that by 6 and and that's 600k full-time SWAT police for just public schools, along with need to train as a team every month or two to keep the their skills up - preferably at the specific school that is funding their protection.

Hence, even if we raised local taxes to pay for such a force, I don't think we can effectively harden our schools with such a massive police/SWAT force. Not sure how kids and parents would feel seeing 6 people decked out in full tactical gear at the entry points. It's more effective (and cheaper) to do a couple of character/reference checks for young males buying their first firearm that trying to train teachers and create a police state for public schools...Once they have the firearms, ammo, and homicidal/suicidal intent, its basically too late. My 2cts.
View attachment 482628
RG, you are correct that responding to an active shooter is best performed by a SWAT team. However, I prefer to meet the threat through effective perimeter security. I consider having to assault an active shooter within a school building to be the last resort. It still needs to be an option but it shouldn't be the first option.

Schools need effective perimeter security and the school in Uvalde was an example of a school with poor perimeter security. The killer entered through a secondary door that was left open and there wasn't a security officer even within the school at the time. There needs to be only one entrance and it needs to be covered by an armed officer. All secondary emergency doors need to be electronically monitored so, if they are opened, there is an alarm sounded.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top