I know that's a tall order today because I'm 66 years old and that was a different time. Many of the male teachers today are pulling kids out from under desks to crawl under themselves. But there are a few candidates that I believe could pass muster if they aren't new to guns and have had some experience in the field where they wouldn't shoot more kids than perps and might not flinch and pull their shots under pressure. How about a few deer or hogs killed and field dressed under the belt so they will know what to expect when they shoot a perp and guts are on the wall. Shooting targets are much different than shooting people. You must make decisions quickly and have your mind made up before it happens.
I'm not against it, but there has to be more required than just a CCL and a written test. I can almost guarantee a problem with the teachers union. It will never be a judgment call, but a formula the school board or someone else will vote on. Then there is always the fact that most teachers are Dems. They will be hesitating to take a life because they don't like guns, never hunt, and are against the death penalty. Anyone can learn to shoot to pass a test, but having the commitment to do it is another thing. How many times have you heard of someone having the drop on a perp and they freeze to pull the trigger? The whole program would be fraught with trouble depending on the school district, the part of the country and the political leanings of the area. Then there is always the Chicago district where a 6ft 225lb 15 yo is beating the hell out of the French teacher and some guy loses it. I find if you don't have a BB Bat, Pepper spray, or a taser, you might pull a .40 Glock to fix the situation. I've never understood why ANY teacher is unarmed today. Rather than pull your Glock, wouldn't it be better with a 2x4 carved in wood shop or pepper spray?
On a cruise ship a man let his friends know that he brought his pistol in his luggage. This was long ago when this was actually possible on cruise ships. His friend’s wife was very upset with him, you see, she hated the idea of guns. However one night she ran to his room and woke him, get your gun she said, someone is in our room and he is beating my husband. The story ends happily, and her husband was not too badly hurt, but when she needed a weapon, who did she run to? This guy with the gun was well trained, back then we had a shooting range at our workplace. But he did not even have to use the gun, just showing it was enough to stop the fight and have the guy taken into ship’s custody.
As I have said on other postings, I am now a retired teacher but I would have taken the training only to be able to protect myself and students in the classroom. The worst thing I can imagine in a school shooting situation is to have the shooter enter my room and all I could do was throw my computer at him. Given a choice to be armed, — or to have the teacher in the next room armed— or to wait for the police and crawl under a desk, what would most teacher’s prefer? I bet that is not the question they asked.
Toppenish, WA, has some voluntarily-armed teachers. They train twice a month.
>>I have to admit I see problems with teachers being armed.<<
Persons who are fully trained in the use of guns and who are psychologically capable of confronting and killing armed assailants need to be on duty in all schools, no exceptions. Moreover, all schools should be redesigned to have only one accessible entrance, controlled by armed personnel and by metal detectors just as are virtually all court buildings in the country. Anyone, regardless of current or previous profession, who is both qualified and willing to perform this service to protect the students and school personnel in our country’s schools should be assigned to do so.