Bad Advice Cat

If you examine many active shooting incidents then you'll find that the majority doesn't end in firefights. Why? Is it because with the first shot coming from the police it's no longer fun for them? Yes, but this piece isn't about having greater police presence, although that is ideal.

In committing their unspeakable crime, Mass shooters often are the moment of living out their fantasy of revenge like what they see in violent movies and/or video games [as every murder is entertaining, and every kill are points awarded (Operant and Classical Conditioning)].

But why don't they seek firefights with the police? I think certainly they have that desire to engage in a thrilling gun fight, but while there is a rewarding feeling of killing, the desire to die is just not as satisfactory. Vengeance remains the chief motivation for these shooters

So what happens when they're suddenly meet with armed resistance? Whatever fantasy they're living in suddenly ends with the prospect and reality of their death. Until the police arrives, mass shooters have a 2-3 minute window. Nevertheless, it doesn't take 2-3 minutes to gun down 12-30 people in a crowded room.

That is why I believe in ARMING TEACHERS and an ARMED CITIZENRY. School shooters to terrorists generally are bent on revenge so the last place they will seek are not hard but soft targets.

Hard targets are police stations, governmental buildings, and military bases; such shooters cannot hope to gain a desirable body count when their targets can just as easily kill them. Instead, they look for soft-targets such as schools, malls, and places of worship where generally the people are not armed.

And increasing police presence is not the answer as it is impossible to graduate more and ore officers without sacrificing training in the field, range, and classroom. As it is, the average LEO must virtually master everything pertaining to their occupation from being versed in the law to being a psychology. Not just mastery in weapons handling, tactics, and ground-fighting.

So on top of spending every waking minute of every waking hour preparing for lessons, grading, managing parents, managing discipline, and raising school standards, we're to spend 10 hours a week on the gun range and safeguarding a lethal weapon in a school of teenagers who are a constant safety liability?

That's not going to happened. We're college educated professionals, not soldiers; drilling us on shooting to the point where we'd safely disable the correct target in a crisis situation is going to be an impossible task. At best, you might make progress with those of us who used to be soldiers themselves.

Besides which, if you have the money for that, then where the hell is our budget for text books???

OK... how do you know that 10 hours a week must be spent at the range? Did you know that the average infantrymen doesn't go to the range every week, nor do they spend that many hours on the range?

How much time should a teacher spend on the gun range every week to be trained to a safe standard?

Crisis situations are intense. Police never stop drilling and simulating shootout situations. Soldiers take YEARS to learn how to keep their head in a combat situation. We're school teachers. We're college graduates who spent our lifetime studying theories of learning. How long is it going to take us to learn how to take control of that situation?

The average time LEO spends on the range is 15 hours a... year. Do you really think they spend that much time on the range? Only the highest tier unit trains that much

Yes, they train constantly to be at their best but that amount of range time is indicative of other matters they must train for and attend, not the least of which patrolling all day and almost every day. The job of the infantrymen seemed to be more simple. After all, they don't have to train as medics, remember every law, etc and yet it is not unusual to meet one who hadn't gone to the range to re-qualify in a year.

Now with you as a teacher, I don't know what training you would undergo, but you can take an NRA class for a day. Just two days, in a year. You are given a manual, and it has all the rules for gun safety and handling (all of which are easy to learn and remember). After which you can spend 2-3 hours a month on the range, applying every rule in shooting and safety (and in your free time, at home, can do what's called "Dry-Firing". Applying the fundamentals of marksmanship with an empty chambered gun. All safety rules apply, including Ammunition to always be stored in the other room).

Furthermore, I don't believe you're expected to train to either levels as your duty as a teacher, is first and foremost, to protect your students. That means staying, as a Shepherd, with your flock, until the danger passes (in this case, an All-Clear announcement). If in the classroom, you just have your students behind you, and guard the door (after the door is barricaded). If they're on the playground, you shepherd them out.

What you're not supposed to do, is to leave your flock to hunt for the wolf when there might be others about, yes? Let the Police do their job.

"Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?" By Dave Grossi Jun 23 2011 PoliceOne
https://www.policeone.com/police-training/articles/3738401-Police-firearms-training-How-often-should-you-be-shooting/

2-3 hours per month is at most 36 hours per year. I'll tell you right now, nobody is going to be happy with this plan if the gun training program is that short.

The police are not going to be happy getting shot at by a teacher who has never been in this situation before.

Parents will not be happy knowing that their children are around people with guns who spend less than half an hour per week on training.

People in the armed forces with considerable expertise have spoken at length at how much training this is going to require to run safely. They are not going to be happy that their advice is being dismissed because you think we can do this with half an hour a week.

And teachers are not going to be happy having this thing on their schedule. We're already stretched out thin as it is.

This isn't going to happen.

I've forgot to mention, tactical training.

With that said, no one will be happy, ever, simply because of the firearm being present. Basically, that's what you're saying as also you're imagining all kinds of what-if's when you yourself have not gone through training yet, let alone, handled a firearm.

Who said I've never handled a firearm before?

And BTW, you don't even know the military. All you're doing right now is presuming the worst because you're letting your fear of guns influence your judgment.

The one thing I agree with you on, is the factor of stress. Fear makes one irrational; as the heart rate rises, mental clarity decreases, so training is always important and yet if the many What-Ifs are correct, then why would Israel continue to arm their teachers and have armed escorts?

They don't.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx (among many, many other sources)

I'm not presuming anything. I read a lot, and that includes things written by military service members.

So do I. Where I got my information from is from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman; he is the top trainer of Law Enforcement and Special Operations in America.

I also have read from Soldiers and Marines as well.