Or may not.
One fights with the weapons he has. I would prefer a firearm. At the ranges within a school room (5 to 15 yards) a handgun is adequate against an AR. The longer sight radius of a rifle gives it an advantage both in aiming precision and energy at range, advantages which are negated in the confines of a classroom.
A man armed with an AR patrolling the halls could take out the shooter well before he reached the confines of the classroom, now couldn't he? If the doors and walls of the classrooms were fortified and locked, and the halls patrolled with men armed with rifles, well now...
Some pepper sprays such as Cold Steel’s Inferno (a targetable foam) can be effective at 5 yards (15 feet). It may be enough to disable the shooter. Even misting pepper sprays can be used as an area denial agent. These tools give defenders options.
Sounds to me like you are willing to risk your treasure and the treasure of others for can and may, but I'm not.
A readily available solution which will not cost the state one penny nor need a heavy handed bureaucracy to adminstrate it, is the armed citizen. It’s available tomorrow, if the law would allow it.
Great! I'm all for it, but it's not enough, and I'm not worried about states or their pennies. Security can be provided by the private sector, the schools and those who pay tuition. As far as government schools go...parents are going to need to determine what's imortant...free brainwashing or safe children.
We already know what's important to government, and that's dead children.
Finally your insulting comments are uncalled for. Do you have any defensive firearm training? I have 20 years of private firearms training— defensive handgun, social shotgun, tactical carbine, precision rifle, street survival, tactics and techniques. I’ve trained with both military and police and know what the more conscientious members are capable of (those who endeavor to go above and beyond what the rank and file are satisfied with). I know that mere citizens are equally capable.
You really don't seem that knowledgeable to me. I mean, no offense, Mr. Expert, but why allow the shooter to reach the confines of the classroom when you could have taken him out long before he ever got there? If your only defense are at the treasure itself, then the infiltrator must actually arrive at the treasure before he encounters any defense, and that would be a last line of defense by definition, now wouldn't it?
Furthermore, my insulting comments are absolutely called for, because your solutions are half assed.
You have no skin in the game—you have no children. Your “efforting to defend and protect the treasure of others” is presumptuous and ill-informed.
That's right, I don't, so what? It seems to me that I'm prepared to defend what I don't have better than you are prepared to defend what you do have. But hey, knock yourself out, big dog. You've got all the training and knowledge, so go guard them. Why are you wasting your time talking to me?
Do you have any experience? Or training? Or is it limited to video games?
You really don't seem that knowledgeable to me. I mean, no offense, Mr. Expert, but why allow the shooter to reach the confines of the classroom when you could have taken him out long before he ever got there? If your only defense are at the treasure itself, then the infiltrator must actually arrive at the treasure before he encounters any defense, and that would be a last line of defense by definition, now wouldn't it?
I don't make the faulty assumption that a security officer will be anywhere near the shooter or even be able to engage him when he first enters the school/facility. A number of recent after-action assessments reveal this. There are some notable exceptions where private individuals who are in proximity respond and reduce the killing.
The irony of this last case is that Ft. Hood policy is to disarm the enlisted, making this army base a gun free zone, perfect for a terrorist like Hasan. Armed security was able to stop him, but only after many were killed. Had Ft. Had Hood personnel NOT been disarmed, Hasan would have met return fire much earlier. It might (yes MIGHT) have discouraged him from even undertaking this mayhem. I am pushing for NOT disarming the ENLISTED, that includes teachers, administraters, anyone who will be the FIRST RESPONDERS. They have a strategic advantage due to their numbers and their proximity to the intended targets.
Of course I use language such as may and might because there are no certainties in these scenarios, only likelihoods. But we can learn from trends. Here's one analysis of trends which has a significant bearing on this discussion. The only public policy which has impacted mass public shootings favorably is liberalized concealed carry: Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws.
In the classroom I have yet to encounter the disrespect and proud ignorance I find on the forums. The apparent anonymity seems to afford some the luxury of insult. (The term "half ass" is extremely insulting. I cut you some slack, because your word choice suggests you may not be a native English speaker). I have given you several opportunities to flash your credentials and aire your knowledgeable background and experience. You have opinions. But you clearly have not adequately analyzed the various scenarios. Nor do you have any training (you haven't volunteered this knowledge) in hostage rescue, street survival, multiple target engagement, close quarter combat or any scenario that might begin to forge some understanding of the complex process known as combat.
I encourage you to read the Lott/Landis paper. If you do not own a firearm, I would encourage to get one and take defensive handgun training. (As one of my training partners would say "You don't know what you don't know.").