“In the year and a half since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, as America has struggled to find the answer to its epidemic of school shootings, some districts have decided that teachers are the ultimate first responders and need to learn to shoot back,” kansascity.com reports. “Four Missouri school districts recently sent staffers to this hilltop range for five days of firearms training. The instructors, all current law enforcement officers, refer to the teachers’ ‘unique situation’— essentially close-quarters combat while youngsters scream and run about.” I don’t know what all they teach the teachers but here are three lesson I’ve learned from interviews, training and the TTAG school shooting simulation . . .

1. Communication is key

On one hand, armed teachers should hide, stay quiet and ambush the bad guy(s). On the other hand, an armed teacher should take control of the situation, coordinate non-combatants, marshal available resources and attack [see below]. Regardless of the tactics employed, the overall strategy remains the same: enable responding police officers.

I’m not saying armed teachers should necessarily wait for the good guys. They should eliminate the threat(s) if they can. But the cops are coming. They have rifles, teammates with rifles, bullet resistant outerwear, communications and (one hopes) better training. The more information the cops have about the number of threats and their location the better. In that sense, a cell phone could be a hell of a lot more important than a firearm.

Communication with students, other teachers and (especially) other armed teachers is also key. Armed teachers should have a plan. They should share that plan with others, so that everyone has a good idea of what you, the armed teacher, is going to do. [Note: I reject the idea that the identity of armed teachers should be kept secret, but that’s the subject of another article.] Implement that active shooter response plan using direct, unmistakable orders.

At the same time, armed teachers should understand that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. When the plan changes they need to let people know. Again, in no uncertain terms. Mindful that the more stress-based firearms training they receive – in an actual school environment – the better their ability to think under pressure.

2. Shooting an active shooter isn’t that difficult – if you’re not out in the hallways hunting the killer or killers

Teachers protecting students inside a classroom have an enormous strategic advantage over spree killers/terrorists: the funnel of death. That’s the military and law enforcement term for doorways. Makes perfect sense. It’s a constrained space that perfectly frames a target in terms of both time and space.

In our school shooting sim, even the least experienced shooter had no problem landing shots on target when they had even the slightest warning that a bad guy might be coming through the door. I repeat: every single one of our teachers landed shots on the terrorist target in this scenario, regardless of how the bad guy entered the room. (In the case above, using a student for a human shield.)

No “getting off the X.” No shooting around innocents. Assume a defensive position and wait. Done.

3. Shooting an active shooter is hugely difficult – if you’re not in a classroom assuming a defensive position

The SIG SAUER Active Shooter course was a humbling experience. We learned that a handgun is a lousy long-distance weapon – especially against a rifle. Or a bomb. Or multiple attackers. We learned that schools are a horrific combat environment; they’re warrens of corridors, doors and hiding places. Not to mention screaming students and the possibility – make that virtual certainty – of cops mistaking armed good guys for armed bad guys and shooting them dead.

Bottom line: when you’re outgunned and/or out-manned with a cross hair painted on your chest, speed, surprise and violence of action are the order of the day. Run up to the bad guy or guys and shoot them dead? Good luck with that. But yes. The closer an armed teacher gets to the killer(s), the less accuracy they need. (Contact shot? Absolutely. Head shot? If you can.) If a teacher’s caught out of the classroom, getting off the X and into the fight and/or providing cover for retreating students is just about all they’ve got.

I support armed teachers

I also support armed teacher training. But a lot of what teachers learn in these anti-active shooter training courses is simple common sense. Training is nowhere near as important as making sure there’s a good guy with a gun ready to defend otherwise defenseless students. The more armed good guys in schools the better. Including parents.

53 Responses to Three Things Armed Teachers Need to Know About Shooting Spree Killers

  1. Don’t forget brutality. In case of more than one shooter, being a monster (kneeshots, neckshots, etc.) can scare off the others.

    Luckily multiple shooters are rare.

    Rest off the advice is gold – don’t play hero by hunting down the shooter, secure your area and hope the other teachers do so too.

    • knee shots and neck shots? really? if somebody is that accurate, just shoot them in the head.

      scare off the other attackers? You’re expecting somebody engaged in the process of attacking children to behave in a reasonable manner.

      • If I am outnumbered then I will try to get away (through stealth) and be as brutal as possible (if I am spotted), that is, make the enemy suffer (preferably loudly) so as to dissuade their buddies.

        Rarely applies though, mainly because people are rarely alone and have backup (5-0). Still, good to know.

  2. “Shooting an active shooter is hugely difficult – if you’re not in a classroom assuming a defensive position” Unfortunately this is exactly what one supposed expert in my area is planning on teaching at a local school district. In his words “arm the principal, coach, and some other key staff and have them converge on the active shooter”. Expertise is a great thing. Supposed expertise, not so much.

    • That’s not right. A teacher should not be taught that they HAVE to go on the offensive against possibly superior firepower.

      • Cops are trained to enter the school immediately – which the Sandy Hook cops most decidedly did not do – go straight to the shooter/shooters and eliminate the threat.

        That’s fine, for them. Don’t forget: a cop entering a school is likely to be carrying a long gun – which is an enormous advantage that an armed teacher does not have (more’s the pity).

        For armed teachers, it’s a matter of assessing the situation and deciding on the best course of action. Sometimes they should choose defense (e.g. maybe when they hear sirens but not gunfire). Sometimes offense (e.g., maybe when the shooting begins). And sometimes the situation will choose them.

        • Perhaps teachers should keep body armor in the classroom with the word TEACHER on it. Or at least a vest of some sort.

        • I understand that is the new DOCTRINE. However will it happen or with Officer Smedley wait until he has at least one, two, ten buddies? I’ll bet generally will not enter the front door until has at least one friendly civilian and all other doors are “covered”. In much of America will not happen for at least minutes.

          The cop will be better trained? The local/regional “SWAT” team perhaps. How many roun per year does the average cop fire. At something other than short range paper targets? Not much or most of America.

          So success is NOT a couple armed teachers marching to the sound of the “cannon” and then making a combat sweep of the hallways? Should be most/all teachers are armed and in defensive position inside their classroom. A logical plan and works for me but going to be a HUGE sell..
          1.) libtard moms etc – Plan requires LOTS of nasty guns in school. Idea of a couple guns in school results in massive wetting. Would widespread issue of handguns be a bigger/”worse” project??
          2.) libtard teacher guild – see above
          3.) libtard teachers – see above

          A few armed teachers is a fail under your plan. The “shooter” “wins” every time he enters an undefended classroom (which will be most of the time). Chose door #1-9 and he wins, chose door #10 an loose is not a percentage for success.
          OR going to REQUIRE teachers to arm? (works for me/drive out the pansies). And provide for regular close quarters live fire training? Ranges, instructors, weapons, ammunition? This might conflict with time for CommonCore, sex ed/school abortions, social engineering, global warming indoctrination and MichelleObuma crappy lunchtime.

        • As a practical matter, the more guns present in a school the better. Weapons training for teachers is essential, but so is identifying those teachers with military or police backgrounds and encouraging them to be armed at school. School districts have more vets working for them than many people might expect. It doesn’t matter if you’re a history teacher, a building custodian, or principal, if you had house-to-house combat experience in Iraq you have a rather obvious advantage when a bad guy shows up. Because of their vulnerability schools are prime targets for terrorists and so, sadly, I think it’s only a matter of time before before schools become the targets of multiple armed attackers. When or if that happens, having a half-dozen armed and trained people on campus could mean the difference between life or death.

        • True story. A few years ago, my school admin. issued a warning that an armed man was threatening a student on our campus. As soon as word went out, I noticed that 4 of our criminal justice profs left their offices and headed toward the location of the trouble. Although our school has the ubiquitous and absurd “gun-free zone” signs the CJ guys, being peace officers, came to school armed. Counting the campus cops, within seconds of the warning there were 8 trained, armed, people converging on the location of the bad buy. Fortunately, the ‘threat” turned out to be some loon making empty threats. But the lesson to me was clear: the more guns in the hands of the good guys on campus, the better. It’s worth mentioning that, although nothing was ever said about it, despite the gun-free rules in addition to the CJ profs there were several faculty members who regularly came to school armed.

    • John,

      There are two huge advantages to attacking the spree killer:
      (1) Something like 80% of spree killers immediately kill themselves at the first sign of armed resistance.
      (2) A spree killer that chooses to NOT immediately kill his/herself is under attack and can no longer saunter casually from room to room executing victims like fish in a barrel. Rather, the spree killer must either defend themselves or ignore the counter attack and promptly die anyways from unopposed return fire.

      Either way, both scenarios absolutely guarantee fewer casualties.

      • “….can no longer saunter casually from room to room executing victims …” I think this is a hugely over-looked point that you’ve made. The act of turning a free-for-all execution into a firefight is a major game changer, that will almost certainly save lives.

        • You are one hundred percent correct.

          Anti-gunners, however, will prate endlessly about people dying in the crossfire.

    • sad part is, at least in my high school in the mid 90s we had at least 4 (that I knew of) guys that were Vietnam vets. all I can think of is, if they were armed while on school property and teaching, any group of bad guys would have stood NO chance against them. 2 were army and 2 were marines. all saw extensive combat and all had that same manner about them… nicest guys in the world but you could tell they still knew how to flip that switch.

    • There’s 300 million plus people in this country and how many shootings? Do the math.
      The most important thing is that the fact that schools have been “gunfree” zones is a big part of what attracted the crazies to target them in the first place. Just the knowledge that a school has some armed defenders would discourage almost all of these shooters and cause them to pick some other undefended targets. And that is really the goal.
      You don’t have to outrun the bear, just your other friend the bear is also chasing.

  3. Interesting training… so the yellow sashes the teachers are deploying are like “TEACHER” / warning sashes so police won’t shoot them?

  4. For me, the first deterrent is simply the knowledge that an armed response is present. This will, in itself, greatly lessen the chance any of these teachers will ever have to shoot it out.

    That said, I think there needs to be two different responses. If the teachers are armed, they should be taught to gather their students away from the door, and cover that door. Period. They must also be taught that they don’t shoot anything that comes through the door-it might be a panicked 10 year old. As said, this is absolutely the best way for them to protect their students.

    The other response needs to be trained administrators, or others who don’t have classroom assignments. Their task would be to confront the threat if possible. Every school in our district has solid cinderblock walls on all four classroom sides, so the chance of a stray shot hurting a child is pretty remote. Their training should definitely include active shooter training and response, and they must be able to coordinate with LEO’s responding.

    If a teacher is unable to return to their classroom, they become part of the administrator responding directly to the threat.

  5. It takes copious amounts of training , with continual refreshing, to counter or change basic human wiring. In lieu of that, using what comes natural and even just recognizing it, can be “A” way to deal with such a situation under consideration. I like super simple. It applies to the trained, the untrained. My rules are super simple. Just a little different from RF. But with a clear difference in emphasis.

    rule 1. As Uncle Joe said, “march to the sound of guns”. Use your senses to detect the general location of the trouble. Visual and auditory clues are key. What do you see? What do you hear? Where are people/kids running FROM? Do you hear gunshots, explosions? Simple response. Move TOWARD it.

    rule 2. Make contact. Try (more on this in a moment in rule 4) to position yourself so as to be in contact with the bad guy. There is NO WAY to train for every hallway or classroom in every school. Every service area, every parking lot, every stairway over all time. So this translates as, do what at the moment you see is wise to do to make contact.

    rule 3. Dance the dance. If you have moved to within close proximity to the bad guy, there are an infinite number of things that you might do. To the best of your ability and training do what you think best at the moment. Yell, scream, lie that you are Superman and Batman is coming, shoot to kill, shoot to wound. But most of all DO SOMETHING ! (see Sand Peebles with Steve McQueen for more on that). The reality is that you are now the person drawing the attention of the bad guy for some period of time. This is going to probably prevent the bad guy from killing others during this time.

    rule 4. In every situation in life there will be second guessers. You WILL be criticized for ANY and ALL actions you take. F’K em. They weren’t there . You were. Double F’K em. If in fact you end up dead, well nothing matters. If you live, then you will have to live with your decisions. But you will know that you did SOMETHING. So “trying” is quite meaningful in my world.

  6. Great post. In the main I believe most school shooters are cowards looking for the softest of targets. Any resistance is better than none…oh yeah +1 Mediocrates. Head shots are good.

  7. I’m a teacher. I get my CCW tomorrow. Given the chance to carry at work, I would, but I doubt I will get that chance. Every time an ill-informed but well-intentioned anti says “No mass shooter has been stopped by an armed citizen!” I remind them ALL have been. We call them cops. The bad guy either caps himself when they show, or they cap him. A credible resistance arrives, the shooter is done. Credible resistance doesn’t mean COP, it means ANYBODY WITH A GUN THAT KNOWS HOW TO USE IT EFFECTIVELY!

  8. While I very much agree that teachers, like anyone else, must be free to carry arms for self defense, maybe a better alternative to armed teachers and “guards” in “public schools” is to stop gathering hundreds or thousands of helpless potential victims into these tactical nightmare environments. And having “cops” train teachers to shoot is also somehow not at all encouraging.

    There are many much better alternatives to government indoctrination camps. The risk of an actual shooter is a much smaller problem than the unavoidable fact that government “education” is dedicated to the eradication of critical thinking and individual liberty.

    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/7a.htm
    Educator John Taylor Gatto in The Underground History of American Education describes Prussian thinking at the time:

    The Prussian mind, which carried the day, held a clear idea of what centralized schooling should deliver: 1) Obedient soldiers to the army; 2) Obedient workers for mines, factories, and farms; 3) Well-subordinated civil servants, trained in their function; 4) Well-subordinated clerks for industry; 5) Citizens who thought alike on most issues; 6) National uniformity in thought, word, and deed.

    • MamaLiberty,

      There is certainly a lot of truth in your comment. Realize there are no “free lunches” in life. The current school model is optimized for efficiency. As such it is vulnerable to many bad influences, whether those influences are indoctrination or a spree killer.

      In all honesty I personally do not see any good solutions. Home schooling is incredibly expensive because it greatly limits the activity and possible business/work options for one spouse. Of course public schooling is prone to spree killers and indoctrination.

      I wish there were a simple answer.

      • “The current school model is optimized for efficiency. “

        No it’s not. Not at all.

        It’s optimized to ‘institutionalize’ children into a very specific societal segment..

        The initial wave (late 1800’s) was designed to teach kids to be good factory workers…to follow the bell, never question authority, do what they are told when they are told to do it, etc.

        The second wave, which I think began sometime around the 1930’s (but perhaps a touch later) moved the push to following advertising. Business leaders realized children had tremendous influence over buying decisions in the household (not directly, but via a certain power exerted). Schools have since followed a similar model of “do as you are told” ESPECIALLY if it is from the TV, radio, magazines, etc with regard to toys, fashion and other trends.

        As she said…read some of Gatto’s research and that of similar workers.

        Public “education” in this country is a myth. The institution has NEVER, since its inception, served the role of “education.”

        “Home schooling is incredibly expensive because it greatly limits the activity and possible business/work options for one spouse. “

        Another myth…for a number of reasons. For one, this is only a “limit” if one defines your ‘work’ as a higher priority than the raising of your children.

        A stay-at-home spouse (which can also be work-at-home) wins a LOT of cost-benefit analysis if looked at objectively and not through the lens of what has been sold as “normal” and “desirable.”

      • “I wish there were a simple answer.”

        Oh, there are “simple answers.” Just kiss your child good-bye and put him/her on the bus to “school.” Never question “authority,” don’t make waves, buy war bonds….

        Every individual is personally responsible for their own life and safety, and that of their legitimate dependents. That’s hard work, generally, and requires a lifetime commitment – pretty much to doing a lot of things the hard way. You want simple… just submit, comply, turn your eyes away…

        Home schooling, UN-schooling and so forth are excellent alternatives to government “school,” but not the only ones by any means. The key is to get government OUT of our business completely, OUT of our schools, hospitals, beauty salons, and the many thousands of other things they’ve decided to control, “for our own good” – like guns, for instance.

        In that case, parents could get together and form any number of mutually agreeable and practical alternatives, employing tutors or bringing in grandmothers to teach what they know best. Cooperatives and private schools today groan under a weight of foolish and counter educational burdens that would make Atlas scream.

        So that’s really the solution… Atlas must shrug… Parents must stop believing that government has any legitimate authority over their children’s education – or anything else.

        • Don’t get me wrong: I am not a huge proponent of public schooling. Maybe the particular schools that I attended were stellar compared to most.

          The trouble with your approach of just biting the bullet and home schooling is that it is quite literally impossible, financially speaking, for many people. If only one spouse works and makes $40,000 per year before taxes, that isn’t enough money to survive in many locations. And even if that is enough money to survive, it isn’t enough money to save for retirement.

          Along the same lines, if one spouse then works two jobs to earn enough money for retirement, they will be absent from the family and that is bad for the family as well. Or if both spouses work but work split shifts, then the spouses never see each other and that is bad for the family.

          Of course the ideal situation is that only one spouse earns enough money to provide for their family and retirement and home schooling. Unfortunately, not everyone falls under that category.

          If the family does not have the financial resources to home school, then shop for a “good” school district and relocate. Like I said, I think I lucked out. (I ended up here after all actively advocating for our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.)

        • We can all come up with plenty of “practical” sounding excuses for not doing things we know to be necessary. But where there is a will, there is a way. And each person has to choose for themselves, of course.

          I know a family, personally, who have home schooled their two sons in spite of the fact that they are both working insane long hours and not getting paid all that much. They happen to spend a lot of time on the road going between consulting jobs and chose to take their children with them. The schooling continues while they travel, in the motel rooms, and everywhere they go – sometimes all together, and often separately.

          Not ideal? They decided that their sons and liberty were more important than their convenience. They’ve all worked hard for a long time, and the oldest is starting college now… on line at home, and on the road. He’s joined his parent’s business and is already earning his own living while he studies. Oh, he’s just 16. The 14 year old is catching up fast.

        • “home schooling is that it is quite literally impossible, financially speaking, for many people. “

          The example you gave of $40k a year is weak. A few years back, I read the estimates were something like $85k for the second working spouse to earn just to hit the break-even point…for a host of reasons. The analysis (done in a financial setting, not a ‘pro-homeschool’ setting) was very thorough.

          The bottom line is that (a) everything is not about money, (b) it takes far less to survive on than most appreciate, (c) second earnings don’t contribute NEAR as much as is popularly thought and (d) compared to tuition at a private school, the second spouse not working balances the sheet very heavily.

          Again, it’s about priorities. Claiming the “need” for the second spouse to work outside the home is convenient, but in objective analysis it fails in the vast majority of Middle Class cases.

          The only family situation where the finances of homeschooling are really hard to square is single parent families.

    • “. . . And having “cops” train teachers to shoot is also somehow not at all encouraging.”

      Really? And why not? if you have cops, i.e., professionals who know what they’re doing, instead of “cops” train teachers to shoot and defend their students you’ve just given them a chance or chances they wouldn’t have when if the Bad Thing happens. I admit that I find the idea of armed teachers, whose roles are the antithesis of warriors, a little unsettling. But I find the thought of another deranged or dedicated killer bent on shooting kids even more disturbing. Let’s face it, schools are inviting targets and innocent children make perfect victims. Protecting them demands that we set aside our preconceptions about who should (cops) and who shouldn’t (teachers) have weapons. That issue is something that’s been pretty much decided for us, I think.

  9. Point #2 is the entire game. Unless you are dealing with a SPECOPS guy or trained terrorist you should most certainly wait in ambush. The attacker is there because he believes there are no armed defenders present so he is not expecting fire when he come through a doorway. Most likely he will just come crashing through the door which gives you the opportunity to fill the doorway with lead.

  10. Lets not forget these shooters are almost always suicidal and will turn their gun on themselves at the first sign of confrontation. If a teacher shoots and misses the target, it’s EXTREMELY likely the shooter will take his own life as soon as he hears a shot or even sees a gun.

  11. Armed teachers. Yes. Armed parents. Yes. Armed everybody. Yes. Eliminate GFSZ “murder zones.”

    I’m sure many schools could get enough parents to commit to rotating security duty that each individual would have no more than once a month commitment after initial training.

    Even better, as I live in a rural area with maybe 1 or 2 LEOs available, have the cops get cell numbers of every armed person within a few miles of the school. If a shooting happens, text them to come armed and fast. Redneck hunters for the win.

  12. Communication is key but mindset is critical. My issue with armed teachers is that they, typically, do not have the warrior mindset. Sure they might be armed but would they resort to lethal force?

    • I think the idea is to only arm those that have indications that they could, in fact, do the job if needed. The approach is not necessarily to arm EVERY teacher.

  13. The bottom line is that an “active shooter” in a school is a sh1tty situation and innocent blood is likely to be shed. Teachers, staff and the administrators should be trained to minimize the loss of children, whatever it takes. Fight, flee — anything but freezing up and becoming an easy target.

    But what they should be trained to do depends on a lot of things, including most importantly whether there is an armed SRO at the school. As we have seen in recent cases, the SRO was able to defeat the shooter very quickly.

    The cops can’t get there fast enough no matter how hard they try. But if there’s a cop or trained armed security in the school, he or she can do the job fast and keep losses to the minimum.

  14. I’ve done force on force training before. I had an M9 with a section who had M16s and a SAW gunner against a squad with M16s. Let’s just say I was totally outgunned with my weapon due to range. Luckily I had the SAW gunner running around next to me to keep them occupied. A pistol vs a rifle is a crappy situation to be in.

  15. There’s no mystery here. What we are seeing are weak-minded individuals acting the part of miners’ canaries showing us that the system is failing the individual. The founding fathers set us up with a republic to address just that, yet the Congress saw fit to ignore that wisdom and, instead, after blowing their financial wad to the Rothschilds, then attempted to sell its citizens out like cattle when it started a corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Washington DC with the Act of 1871.

    Had that treasonous Congress (not much different than the one we have today) actually been working in our best interests, as they had sworn an oath to do, they would have preserved our unique although limited individual sovereign status, which would have much further in empowering the citizens to be a part of the system.

    Now, the system has outgrown even itself. It is like a cancer that knows no bounds and ready to completely devour its own host if just to stay in power for one more day, with absolutely no regard for the individuals it had been feeding off for almost 150 years. While we talk of arming teachers, that might put a Band-Aid on the wound, but it doesn’t even begin to address what caused the wound in the first place. What we REALLY need to do is STOP disenfranchising the members of our own population and help educate them in order for them to be more participatory instead of emulating the parasitic model of the government itself.

    It isn’t the FORM of government that is the problem; only that our government had been hijacked long ago and replaced with a self-serving political mafia, so when they come back to accuse anyone of being a domestic terrorist or an anarchist, just because we disagree with their abuse, bear in mind that they were the ones whole stole it from us and continue to perpetuate the abuse.

  16. Active Shooters noted for planning their attacks well in advance, for the most part they choose ‘gun free zones’
    the mere presence of healed Good Guys I as important s knowing how to deploy the firearm

  17. So if I’m in my classroom and hear gunfire outside of my classroom, I should take up a defensive position and wait for the killer to step in front of my classroom door?

    That seems a lot like the tactics of the police – wait outside for backup while shots are being fired inside a school.

    Maybe if I take up a defensive position behind my desk while aiming at the doorway, then the killer will wipe out a few other teachers’ classes and I’ll remain safe and sound. Then the news media can say, “Mass murderer armed with assault weapon kills X students while armed civilian/teacher cowers in classroom.”

    No, I don’t think so. I hope that’s not the way I would react. I haven’t been tested so maybe I’d try to climb inside of my desk and hide, but I hope not. I hope I would go out “hunting the killer or killers.”

    Likewise, I would hope that a lone officer in the parking lot would quickly call in backup, but then immediately enter the school to attempt to stop the murder. Even if the cop gets himself killed, it might delay the killer, or frighten him off, or send him the signal that the cops had arrived and it’s time to blow his own brains out. If an officer could not bring himself to do that, regardless of any official policy, then, in my opinion, he should find another line of work.

  18. This response is directed to all the parents on this thread. And I agree with MamaLiberty and JR. I would like to offer an alternative. The best defense is not being where the bad guys are attacking, i.e., a gun free zone. The govt. indoctrination centers, otherwise known as public schools, cannot and will not protect your children. Send them to private school that takes security seriously or better yet, home school. Not only will they be better protected, they will actually learn what they should without all the distractions and govt. agendas. You won’t have to debrief them every day as to why the things they are being taught are anti-family, anti-American, and anti-Christian. They won’t be programmed to be worker bees and can learn how to be an entrepreneur instead like most of the Founding Fathers. At home you can have whatever security you deem appropriate and can involve your more mature children in the solution as well. Instead of their last moments being forced to cower in a classroom with no exits or try to fight without firearms, why not teach them to shoot and, if necessary, defend the home?
    And if you must send your children to a GFSZ the Israelis have already shown us how to deal with terrorists. At Israeli schools there are armed patrols conducted by grandfathers and the older boys. On field trips the adults that are with the children are armed. Here is a reference: http://www.killology.com/schoolattack.htm.
    Until we adopt this approach the govt. will continue to sacrifice our children on the altar of political correctness. How many school shootings will occur before this happens?

    Cordially,

    David

  19. Everytime I think about school shootings I can’t help but recall the heroic act of Liviu Librescu, a professor at Virginia Tech who was killed trying to protect his students. Professor Librescu was an Israeli Holocaust survivor who, trying to protect his students, held a classroom door closed and was shot and killed by Cho Seung-Hu. Librescu was a man who’d faced a kind of death none of us can ever fully imagine and, I’m sure, he fully knew the risk he was taking holding that door. But still he did it. If only he or someone like him had been armed at Virginia Tech, things would have been very different.

  20. Start with the sign ” Gun free zone. Staff is armed. They will used deadly force.” Have a couple of staffed trained and armed.

    However.

    Sadly, there are 124,000 schools in the US, open some 180 days per year. That’s 22,320,000 school days. Using the bloomberg minions, “74 school shootings” AND applying it to just one year, that’s one shooting every 300,000 school days.

    Sadly the number of AD, dropped guns, lost guns etc. Are likely to be more dangerous.

  21. The correct military term is the “fatal funnel” not the “funnel of death” and its not a doorway. A fatal funnel is a hallway or long narrow path where an armed enemy can easily kill u. jus thought Id point that out. Good article though

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *