Should Armed Teachers Be Required to Have Extra Training? Question of the Day:

TTAG school shooter simulation

Yesterday, I posted a video from Trevor Noah where he shot down the idea that violent video games cause violence. Copy that. At the end of the video (below), he points out that Florida’s School Marshall program requires 144 hours of training, a background check and drug testing for teachers who wish to tool-up in defense of innocent life. Here’s the relevant bit . . .

Trevor’s point: if all those pre-requisites are desirable for armed teachers, why not all armed Americans? Before you answer that (something about “shall not be infringed”), consider this . . .

After Newtown, TTAG ran a school shooting simulation. We were trying to find out if an average gun guy or gal could mount an effective defense against a spree killer. The answer? Yes. Yes they can. Click here for the anecdotal data. And check out our video:

It is my considered opinion that active shooter training for teachers is an excellent idea. But making it mandatory violates common sense. It’s a significant barrier to entry for armed teachers and everyone else.

The more armed law-abiding Americans in or around schools — teachers, parents, administrators, staff — the better. Sure training [somewhat] quells the anxiety of firearms fearful fence straddlers. But it’s unnecessary and counter-productive.

Your take?




  1. avatar strych9 says:

    You’re never going to convince your average American to let teachers carry with no training and quite frankly even talking about that puts you out on the lunatic fringe. A general rule is that when reaching for big things you accept right off the bat that at 90% of your goal reached you consider that a victory. First, you’re unlikely to get 100% and if you do it will probably have side effects you didn’t anticipate and don’t want (loony lefty teacher shoots kids to make political point about guns or something).

    Realistically your basic NRA pistol course is probably enough but also probably isn’t enough politically speaking. So, double that and make it free for teachers who “want to go the extra mile” and I’d say at 16 hours you’ve probably got it covered.

    I’d have to do the research but if you can get to the point that you’re somewhere more than what most police go through each year most of the arguments against the program will be easily deflected. At that point you’ve got teachers well enough trained to do the job pretty reliably and you have enough training to negate most of the political arguments against the program.

    There’s what right, there’s what’s reasonable and then there’s what is actually possible. You want as much of #1 and #2 as you can get while satisfying #3.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I agree with the political thrust of commentators in this segment of the thread.

      Thinking strategically, we are best-off if whatever gun-control there is remains concentrated at the State level. So long as we can maintain that tradition, the Anti’s have to fight us State-by-State. Realistically, they are never going to take some States such as Alaska. Therefore, this approach makes for a strategically strong long-term defense.

      To maintain this strategy I advocate conscious and forthright denial of certainty of the exact metes and bounds of gun control that constitutes “infringement”. To illustrate, PA is Shall-Issue with no training requirement. The license fee is 1.09 cents per day. I can honestly claim to be “uncertain” that a tax of 1.09 cents per day on my fundamental right-to-bear-arms is too heavy a burden for me and my fellow Pencil-tuckians to bear.

      Tactically, then, we remain at liberty to petition for redress-of-grevience that the fees charged by NYC, DC, IL are “too high”; so high that, in fact, they look much like the “poll taxes” that were made to be unConstitutional. We might not succeed in actually getting these jurisdictions to lower their fees – ever. Nevertheless, we can raise public consciousness about the issue and that helps the cause.

      Relatively speaking, compelling the last 8 – 10 States to go Shall-Issue (from Won’t-Issue) is far more important tactically than fees, training requirements or testing/qualification. For the sake of argument, kindly suppose that this transition from Won’t-Issue to Shall-Issue really IS the RIGHT tactical target. (I don’t assert it really is, merely that it’s a likely choice of issues.) If so, then we really ought to concentrate on consolidating this win.

      Since the DC Circuit in the Wrenn decision found that the “average” citizen has a right-to-bear arms and that license-to-carry can NOT be withheld, this is ground for which we have solid support. It is quite likely that with another Trump/Pence appointment to SCOTUS that a new decision will be made establishing an incontestable right-to-bear. That would be BIG; as big as was Heller and McDonald.

      As long as there remains doubt that the States may/may-NOT prescribe training, the skeptical voter will cope with a right-to-bear-arms regulated by States prescribing their own training regimens. We do NOT LOVE this result; but it is merely an interim step.

      What we should see is an expansion of the bi-lateral Reciprocity scheme. E.g., NY and NJ will bi-laterally accept one-another’s permits. DC and MD will bi-laterally accept one another’s permits. Thereupon, residents of DE or VA will need to get only one additional non-resident permit to accommodate their routine needs to carry across State lines. A BIG improvement albeit short of National-Reciprocity.

      Once we reach Shall-Issue nationally and bi-lateral reciprocity that incorporates virtually every State in a pool of 2 or 3 States, National-Reciprocity will be ripe. There will STILL be a race-to-the-bottom issue to overcome. We have a good way of addressing this issue.

      We can point-out that Congress has the explicit power to provide for the discipline of the militia; and that the States are to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. “All we have to do” is get Congress to prescribe a floor for an “adequate” level of training. Thereupon, the States will be compelled to provide “universal” militia training. The People will – promptly – avail themselves of official training whereupon Congress can “organize” the militia by providing National-Reciprocity for anyone bearing his State militia enrollment card.

      The outcome of this proposal is apt to be that Congress simply passes National-Reciprocity over the objections of the race-to-the-bottom complaints. Congress’s alternative would be to implement the proposal which would force Blue States to provide militia training in public schools – which would be just delightful as far as we are concerned.

      If we want to make progress we have to plan strategically and tactically to move toward our goal in attainable steps. We can’t expect to adopt – nationwide – Michigan school carry in one bold stroke. Blue States and their Congress-critters are simply not going to accept any parent open-carrying in their children’s schools. We are much better off advocating for “thorough” training of armed school staffs as “common-sense”.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I agree with this particularly where you said “So long as we can maintain that tradition, the Anti’s have to fight us State-by-State.”

        Forcing them to divide their attention and their resources is never a bad idea. We might not win every confrontation, in fact we surely won’t, but we can limit their ability to win by doing this and limit the damage they do where they do win. On top of that where the damage is contained we can use that as an example when things go wrong (Morbid I know but that’s how real life works. This is kinda like triage, nasty but necessary).

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ““All we have to do” is get Congress to prescribe a floor for an “adequate” level of training. Thereupon, the States will be compelled to provide “universal” militia training”

        I think I like that idea.

        That cuts off at the knees of the Leftists claiming out-of-state visitors will have inferior levels of training.

        How do we kick it upstairs, so to speak?

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      You might not be able to “convince the average person” but we there have been teachers carrying without extra training in Utah for 22 years. There have been no public school shootings (I do not include suicides that do not harm any other person or unrelated events in parking lots) The only “oops” was one teacher who negligently shot the toilet in a bathroom in 2014. The 39 year old female teacher was ordered to compleate a gun safety course and pay $709 in court supervison fees. Sounds like she should have taken a defensive pistol case on her own to learn how to administratively handle pistols in potty first.

  2. avatar Bersa Bob says:

    I vote yes. Covers their ass when SHTF.

  3. avatar Mercury says:

    Teachers already recieve several hours of mandatory active shooter training, it just currently consists of “lock the door, kill the lights, put your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye.” Simply changing that to “how to stop an active shooter with a minimal risk of collateral damage” for the armed, and “how to reduce your risk of becoming collateral damage” for the unarmed, would be a huge improvement on what they’re already being forced to waste time on. Those hypothetical courses might actually save a life.

  4. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    I debated this a little with Strych9 before and while I believe that there really isn’t much required to get a teacher up to snuff in order to lock down and defend their classroom. Strych was right on one thing, Mr. and Mrs. America will not accept an untrained unvetted teacher tooling up and going about the classroom armed. Now I’m not saying it’s right and I’m not saying it’s wrong merely that they will not accept it and that given the option they will ALWAYS err on the side of caution in order to “protect” little Susie and little Johnny. Now there are parts of this that should be put in place for teachers everywhere (drug testing) and parts that I’d like to see before making a judgment (training content). I think any training given should include both static lane live fire and force on force training. I feel the accuracy requirements should be no more than what we expect from the police and the military training. Finally, the training itself should come at no cost to the teacher so long as they provide their own equipment and supplies minus the force on force training aids and that certification should include a bonus commensurate with the increased responsibility the teacher agrees to take on willingly. Also I’d like to see something similar to the Army’s Combat Life Saver course added to the voluntary training teachers could opt for. Might as well have a few trained and equipped to help aid the wounded if we’re gonna try to tool em up as well.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      As I said to you before: I don’t really like the idea of mandatory training because, as you pointed out, it can and probably will be abused in anti-gun states where they will make the requirements so high that no one can meet them. That’s an unfortunate reality but one we have to accept and deal with over time.

      The problem is mainly political reality (politics being the art of the possible). That reality is that you’re going to have to have some level of training that Mr. and Mrs. America will tolerate as “being acceptable”. That is to say that they perceive that the armed teacher meets at least two criteria: 1) They don’t raise the risk to the children in question and 2) they are proficient enough that they can, at least in theory, counter the mass shooter.

      Again, an NRA basic pistol course would probably get you what you want in reality but it probably won’t convince Mr. and Mrs. America in the realm of political reality. Part of that is due to media BS, part of that is people’s overly-cautious approach to children and part of that is just the current political atmosphere, call it the current zeitgeist if you like. Either way there is going to be a gap between perception and reality when/if you start this off. You have to make some concessions to get the ball rolling. That will, properly managed, close the perception gap and you can move closer and closer to a “better” solution over time as people become more comfortable with it.

      I mean, how many people do you suppose actually know that Utah has had armed teachers for 20+ years and that 0 children have been shot by one of those armed teachers? Pretty much none. That’s reality. We need to start with political reality and let people see what actually happens so that political reality and actual reality become much closer to each other. As the two come together political reality starts to jive with actual reality and we really start to get what we want/need because the “conversation” isn’t driven by irrational fear on the other side. Experience inoculates against irrational fear but you have to start getting people that experience rather than letting the fear prevent them from getting the experience.

      The medical stuff should be mandatory for teachers and staff and also be part of a high school health class for the students.

      1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

        Great points and I did cede a bit to training. Usually Army BRM training is a week of live fire on the range IIRC might’ve been 2 weeks total but it’s been 13 years since Basic so forgive me if I’m wrong here. I don’t know how long pistol training is but I could back a week long training course covering the basics of weapons familiarization, use, malfunctions clearing, weapons maintenance, with heavy emphasis on marksmanship and situational use (i.e. what you’re doing with the gun while in lockdown). Anything past that such as the CLS type class or a tactical response class is just icing on the cake. Still I’d like to see it provided at no charge using the local Sheriff, local PD, or local National Guard’s facilities and trainers. Teachers will need to provide the gun, holster, ammo, weapon cleaning supplies, PPE, and other incidentals in order to keep the bar for entry low enough that teachers can afford to take the class during the summer and I’d like to see that raise given too.

        Realistically though I suspect we’ll see a training and financial requirement set far above the means and ability of the average nonPOTG teacher still paying back student loan debt and surviving on spaghetti o’s.

        1. avatar Marty says:

          I’ve mentioned it before, but the Front Sight Training Facility has once again offered their 4 day handgun training course free of charge to all teachers. I just read that Dr. Piazza, the founder of the facility has written to Trump with offer. It’s a great class that offers the legalities of CCW as well as a hell of a lot of on the range time. They have already taught thousands of teachers.

        2. avatar strych9 says:


          Very valid.

          One thing I would point out however is that I suspect, though I cannot prove, that were you to see a relaxation in Federal and State laws to allow for armed teachers that wish to step up and do this I think you would see a lot of training facilities that would offer classes well beyond “basic” training. Further I suspect that many would do so for free or for a very significantly reduced price. Some of them would see it as an advertising opportunity while others would see it as an opportunity to do the public a service under the banner of “civic duty”.

          There is more than one way to skin a cat and POTG continually show themselves to be creative when it comes to feline fur removal.

        3. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          Yes it is expected that gun friendly businesses and organizations would probably discount the training if not provide it free of charge or set up some sort of assistance program for the teachers that wish to take the training. However, in order to maximize the numbers who volunteer I think we should heavily incentivize the training; offer them a full paycheck for taking the training in the summer or give them full reimbursement, let the write off the expenses incurred for the class on their taxes and possibly pay them travel for going to and from. This can only help us get what we want and provide a bigger experience pool.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Full reimbursement, paid for in full, tax credits… whatever works!

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          Jam packing 20hr of content into 144hr. 144hr = 36 evenings @4hr ea = 2 evenings/week for 5 MONTHS. What moron thinks that works? That is MORE hours that it takes to become an EMT!!

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I’d rather they not try for one size fits all. I am fine with hoplophopes sending there kids to schools where security is handled their way. Of course, POTG should have a different option. This country really f’d up when they put schools in the hands of the government. If I had children I would be more than extremely reluctant to send them to a public school to be exposed to savages and progressive indoctrination.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Good points. I don’t like the idea of “one size fits all none” either and I’m not really advocating for that.

          I’m simply pointing out that in a lot of cases you’re going to have to go “above and beyond” for training when you start this out because that’s what’s going to get the majority of Americans on board. You’ll never get everyone to be comfortable with armed teachers but you can, doing it right and selling it right get enough people on board that it becomes a reality in numerous parts of the country.

          Once that happens and schools don’t turn into the OK Corral more and more people in more and more places will become comfortable enough with the idea that the policy can spread.

      3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        The 144 hrs. of training sounds like a lot but I am not versed on this so maybe it’s the norm. I do agree that some places will make the requirements onerous to discourage participation.

  5. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    The few teachers and admin people who would volunteer to carry a gun at school would most likely already have a good number of hours of training of one sort or another. Newbies are hardly likely to volunteer for this, at least at first.

    As to the length of training taken (or required), It should include a commitment to frequent personal practice. That is the component I’ve found missing from almost every gun class.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Never assume a government employee has more firearms training than the average civilian.
      The average criminal has far more formal and monthly training than the average police officer.

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    It only takes 600 or so hours to become a cop and most of that is classroom crap. What are they asking of these school marshals that justifies 144 hours of training? Even if they expect them to form up and clear the building and render TWC aid that’s an absurd number of hours.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      That 144 hour training requirement is nothing more than a way to ENSURE THAT NO ONE GOES THROUGH THE TRAINING.

      And why would government do that? If we have an adequate number of armed volunteers (whether staff or otherwise) at schools, then we no longer need cops at schools and government cannot justify ever larger police headcounts and budgets.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Exactly why we should leave each State to set its own training standards. Hawaii can set the standard at 2 lifetimes of training; I don’t care. TX can set it at 1 hour of plinking; I don’t care.
        Texas teachers will arm-up a lot faster than Hawaii’s teachers. If, as a consequence, the per capita shoot-outs in Texas schools is lower than those experienced by Hawaii, then our competing laboratory of States will have achieved progress.
        The worst outcome of all would be a Federal freeze on teachers carrying guns in public schools because there is no national consensus on how high the barrier should be set to prevent any volunteers to carry arms.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “That 144 hour training requirement is nothing more than a way to ENSURE THAT NO ONE GOES THROUGH THE TRAINING.”

        Pretty much true. Compare it to martial arts training (just for funzies). People usually do an hour or two a day in terms of martial arts classes. If you assume they’re super dedicated they go 5x a week. Assume they go 5x a week for an hour. 144 hours is then 28.8 weeks of classes or 7.2 months. Take it to two hours a day 5x a week and it’s 3.6 months.

        Or assume 12 hour classes on Saturdays. That’s 12 Saturdays, or three months. Yeah, that’s a bar designed to prevent people from getting the cert. Nothing more.

        1. avatar TweetyRex says:

          Let me explain reality to you. No government like armed peons. The ones that count on POTG for support pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but really wish we would just quit bothering them. They will pass an armed teacher act, just like they passed an armed flight crew act, but make it so cumbersome that almost no one can qualify. After a few years they’ll shut it down due to low participation. The failure of the program won’t be their fault, and somehow we’ll get the blame.

  7. avatar Maxi says:

    “Should Armed Teachers Be Required to Have Extra Training?”
    By whom tho, that is the real question!
    By another stupid law? Hopefully not, because sooner or later nobody will be qualified enough for them fudds and thus gun free zones are back.
    Buy by their employment contract, with mandated but also employer-payed training classes? Great.
    Well, at least in private schools. Govt schools are crap anyways and it might end up like the law described above…

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Please stop with the government schools are crap. All schools are only as good as the parents who send the kids there. Parents who care enough to send kids to a private school are much better than typical. But I will let you in on something, when parents care even public schools are damn good.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Please stop with the government schools are crap. Why? Wife has taught in lots of schools and Lutheran schools are much better.
        Comparisons in Fort Wayne have come up with the same conclusions.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Are your Lutheran Schools opened to all for free. One of the worse idea’s I ever heard was that the government should provide vouchers for private schools. Lets see how fast that they go into the toilet once everyone is admitted. Look at “charter schools”. Big surprise, they are not any better. You know what are better than even most private schools, magnet schools that have a competitive entrance process.

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          One of the worse idea’s I ever heard was that the government should provide vouchers for private schools. Lets see how fast that they go into the toilet once everyone is admitted.
          Indiana has private school voucher programs. Anyone can go.

        3. avatar binder says:

          Indiana has private school voucher programs. Anyone can go. BULL. You have to be going to a F-Rated school. Scholarships partial and are limited by income. The private schools that do participate have to apply, so it is their choice if they wan’t to take on the kids. The program accounts for 3% of students. Public schools still account for 90% And given all that, I bet you that most of the parents who actually go threw the hurdles of getting the kids into the program, would be the type who would actually make sure they get their kids into a good school anyway.

  8. avatar Imayeti says:

    I vote yes. Best that all the players meet at least once to help avoid error if they’re needed. Another meeting if there’s any changes, threats, or post action debriefing.

  9. avatar J says:

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. The petition web site has a lot of pro-2nd Amendment petitions that need people to view and sign if possible. Look at these and decide which to sign. There are too many to link here.

    A lot of anti-2nd Amendment petitions are post there also.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Thanks for the information, went to site and signed then all. We need more signatures !

  10. avatar ironicatbest says:

    If I had children in school I’d like to know that the armed teacher had some training in self defense. To what extent is another matter. Then again this subject should not even be up for debate as anyone should be able to be armed. These gun free zones should be eliminated and leave it up to the individual to chose. Government and laws that infringe on choices are more under “their” thumb restrictions. It’s sad that our society has come to the point of arming teachers

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      That 144 hours of training goes way, WAY, WAY beyond self-defense. The simple explanation lies in the name of the program itself “Florida school MARSHAL program.

      We don’t need teachers to be marshals. We just need staff and parents who can defend themselves. Ensuring that staff and parents will not “spray and pray” into a crowd is all that is necessary.

      Requiring teachers to get “marshal” training is like requiring a first-aide volunteer to get military medic training. Those levels of training are totally unnecessary — especially when professional responders (both police and paramedics) should typically be on site within 10 minutes of an event.

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        “We don’t need teachers to be marshals. We just need staff and parents who can defend themselves”

        Well, no. We want staff who can defend the kids, there is a difference. Parents can do whatever they want, they’re not applicable.

  11. avatar Texican says:

    Schools have become a “Stupid place.” Remove your children from them and home school them! The life you save may be your child’s! If my kids were still young enough to be in school, I would. And, yes, I have home schooled. How many home schools have there been a mass shooting at? I’m thinking a big fat zero. By the time any teachers get tooled up there will probably be another shooting. Why wait to see if it’s your child’s unlucky day?

    1. avatar B-Rad says:

      You’re kid is much more likely to trip and fall and die at home than be shot at school.

      This is as bad as the libtard BS.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        I’m pretty sure the trip and fall rate is the same whether at school or at home. The mass murder rate is considerably lower at home.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Actually, I don’t think that’s true, well technically since there isn’t a mass to shoot at the house its kind of true, but superfluous, its hard to kill 17 at home, unless your a practicing polygamous.

          Since 2010, 159 have been shot and killed in school, 248 have merely been wounded, and those include suicides. In 1997 787 kids where killed by firearms in the home by a family member, 1790 killed by all methods, by a family member. So assuming just 500 as an average per year for 8 years, that’s roughly 4k, as much as 6k, dead, some more were less than deaded.

          So, under nothing I can find supports your belief that less kids are killed in the home.

        2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          But those kids killed at home are largely not homeschoolers — kids who go to school are getting killed at home as well. To make an accurate comparison, you’d have to find a way to extract out the deaths of, specifically, homeschoolers.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      In principle, I agree with you whole-heartedly; but for reasons other than school safety.

      The “difficulty” is that the economics of our schooling system makes this prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of parents.

      Mercifully, the probability that “my” kid will be shot-up in a school shooting is minuscule for EVERY parent in the country. There are lots of other risks that are much higher, but this one is not compelling on a probabilistic basis.

      Trying to persuade a parent to home-school to avoid the risk of a school-shooting is like trying to persuade a parent to transport his child in a horse-and-buggy rather than a commercial airline. The economics and probability just don’t make the argument persuasive.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    Training armed teachers and other school personnel to combat a school shooter is an excellent idea.

    First, it should make armed school personnel more effective. Having a gun is just the beginning. Knowing how to use it is critical. Understanding effective tactics is also a big deal. Knowing how to team with other armed personnel to interdict the shooter(s) and evacuate students is even more so. There’s a lot to learn. Freelancing isn’t going to cut it.

    Second, issuing some form of certification to the armed personnel may overcome the objections of the average drooling dimwit of a soccer mom, who has the IQ of a sea turtle and whose tender mercies are precisely what’s turning little Johnny into either a simpering beta male or a raging school shooter.

    Finally, if done right, it will work.

    1. avatar Timmy the Sea Turtle says:

      Ralph, as a sea turtle, I’m greatly offended by your remark.

  13. avatar SurfGW says:

    Legal or not, school administrators will NEVER let teachers carry weapons. Teachers must focus on teaching; any extra time they have for training is better spent in after school programs or things benefiting students, not training for a remote possibility. Teachers are evaluated on standardized test performance, not shooting skills.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      This absolutist assertion is nonsense and self-defeating.

      The overwhelming majority of administrators and teachers will resist the innovation with their every breath. Nevertheless, there will be – and already are – some administrators and teachers who will buck the resistors. We simply need to get/keep the governments out-of-the-way. Especially the Federal government; next each State government. Let one and then another school or school-district take initiative however it decides to do that.

      The more reoccurrences of school shootings the more schools/districts will hop on the bandwagon. The wagon will really get rolling when an armed teacher makes a positive contribution to arresting an incident and the MSM is compelled to report on it.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “The overwhelming majority of administrators and teachers will resist the innovation with their every breath.”

        Unless that innovation comes with loads of money attached to it…

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Which Florida threw $400mill at.

  14. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Government employees known as police officers miss all the time and hit innocent people. The teachers need formal training and need to practice regularly.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Yeah, more shooting less classroom. And more outdoor shoot and scoot ranges/training. Here in NorKY, its basically the indoor range, and the state park, where the pistol range is only open on the weekend, and its always reserved for competition, which I have no desire to be in, with my old ass, and eyes, finishing last.

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Those government employees are trained. And they have a higher rate of hitting innocents than private citizens. The training doesn’t seem to be a magic wand.

      All humans have a fundemental right to self-defense. No infringements.

  15. avatar John Thayer says:

    If you want to carry a gun you should be trained like you would be to vote, post your opinions on the Internet or practice a religion.
    Imagine what would happen if any untrained fool could broadcast his dangerous thoughts to potentially millions of people with a cheap phone purchased without any background check whatsoever.

  16. avatar Rich Gun Guy says:

    All of the arguments about arming teachers focus on whether a teacher can effectively defend against an armed threat. The focus on this issue misses the bigger point that simply having armed teachers in schools will deter anyone from attempting a school shooting in the first place.

  17. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    I may get flamed for this, but what the heck /:-):

    While I’m not opposed to arming teachers, I’m not convinced that is the best approach in most cases. It certainly would be better than nothing and in some locations it might be considerably better even than that, but it seems to me that teachers generally have quite a bit on their plates already.

    It makes more sense to me to have dedicated security on campuses to work in cooperation with teachers on security matters. Some should be proficient in the use of firearms of course, but more than that they should be dedicated to securing facilities on an ongoing basis with all that entails.

    I’m sure that like me, many here have firearms for home defense and/or carry one for self defense but I am also sure that you have locks on your doors and windows and maybe security lights and cameras, etc and that you do many other things to increase your odds of being secure when in public places. The firearm and the training in using it are important of course but it is also the LAST thing you ever want to have to use.

    By dedicating resources to security of schools, we could likely focus more on stopping threats in other ways so that the likelihood of having to use deadly force to stop someone is diminished.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Two issues with your idea here.

      1) Cost. You’re talking about hiring more people while schools are “overburdened” to the point that they’re no longer teaching cursive writing. That’s going to be problematic. (I’m not going to get into how the “overburdened” argument is total bullshit.)

      2) I question the value of such school security. In my experience most school security, police officer or not, is comprised of people who are dumb as a box of rocks and this may be a huge insult to boxes of rocks.

      For example, the first HS I attended had a place across the street where the smokers hung out. It was referred to as “cancer corner”. The school didn’t like it so they took the door that was in that portion of the school (directly across the street from said corner) and they locked it. The next day one of the smokers super glued a nickle into the door’s mechanism so that the door closed but the latch never engaged. It took the school over a year to figure this out and another six months to figure out how to fix it. Even though this was unknown to school and security officials most students knew of the defeated door within a few days and laughed about it.

      Their “security” was defeated in less than 24 hours and it took them more than 18 months to counter this! That’s the kind of people who will generally end up in charge of this kind of security. I’ll take a teacher with a 9mm over that kind of weapon’s grade stupid.

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        I see your point on the competency issue but I have a question: How come none of the teachers discovered that the door was broken?

        Anyone can be incompetent but my concern is that assuming the people that you hire aren’t stupid, the odds of finding an unlocked or broken door should be higher for someone dedicated to securing the facities than for someone who is dedicated to teaching English.

        As to costs, well, we generally don’t have teachers clean the facilities at most schools. We hire janitors. In reality, we could probably save some money by just assigning those tasks teachers on a rotational basis but I don’t think the savings would be justified. I think a similar and even more powerful argument can be made for having dedicated security personnel than even for having dedicated janitors.

    2. avatar binder says:

      Dedicated Security is a good idea. But the problem is that they are never going to be fully utilized, so what kind of people are you going to get filling those roles. I trust a SRO who works a high-school on Chicago’s west side to protect my kids more than some SRO from a sleepy small town, but no way in hell am I going to send my kids to a school that needs a good SRO. Also, who many SRO’s do you need to deal with a gunman. One on one, is not my idea of a good solution.

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        I think in most cases they would be fully utilized if you give the individual schools authority to control staffing levels based on need, the type of school, the facility layout, number of students etc.

  18. avatar anarchyst says:

    True “courage under fire” is a concept that is sadly lacking in today’s society. Most people live their lives out as decent human beings without coming into contact with those who would do them harm, and as such, have no idea of what it is like to have to act “on principle”, and do things “out of the ordinary” that serve to preserve innocent life, even at the expense of the courageous.

    “Courage under fire” is an interesting concept that most people do not understand, and is not limited to military actions, but occurs in everyday life. Most people who exhibit courage under fire are ordinary, mild-mannered, non-violent individuals who have been propelled (actually thrust) into a situation that requires immediate action. Examples include Medal of Honor recipients, those exposed to combat, and yes, those civilians who give their lives to protect our children in our abominable and misguided “gun free zones” called “schools”.

    Let’s look at comparisons between our military and veterans who DO exhibit “courage under fire” as a matter of course, and our civilian (but “quasi-military”) “law enforcement” (who should exhibit the same characteristics but, in general, do not), but have become more and more removed from this concept of “courage under fire”. You see, in today’s “law enforcement” community, “officer safety” is paramount. Most ordinary line officers will wait for a SWAT team, even on routine assignments, where even the SWAT teams exhibits a degree of caution that results in innocent lives being lost. It appears that the only time police and SWAT teams act with impunity is when they KNOW that they are relatively safe, as in their invasions on individual residences. In today’s “law enforcement” community, “making it to retirement” is the goal. When it comes to police officers, putting one’s life in peril “for the greater good” is absolutely “out of the question”. Unlike our military and veterans, today’s “law enforcement” runs away from gunfire or “waits it out”. Not good.

    A good examples of this is the latest school mass shooting in which the well-equipped police and SWAT teams SAT ON THEIR HANDS while the carnage was taking place. It most certainly appears that “courage under fire” is an unknown concept in American “law enforcement”. We are being told that this concept of “waiting to act” was abandoned after Columbine, but one can easily see that this is not the case, with the latest blatant example being the most recent school mass shooting, where “law enforcement” hesitated to act.

    Of course, “law enforcement” has an “out”. The Supreme Court has ruled that police officers HAVE NO DUTY to protect individual citizens–only “society-at-large”.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Individuals who exhibit courage under Fire are no braver than others but exhibit the ability to focus in stressful situations. The book “On Killing” explains it well. That is why bootcamp focuses on causing stress and making recruits perform tasks under high levels of stress. Someone calm under fire can take immediate aggressive action which will result in neutralizing or delaying a threat and can improvise weapons if they are not armed.
      Question is: do we put teachers through a boot camp and only select the ones who can focus?

  19. avatar binder says:

    ALL Americans should be trained. A well regulated = trained and equipped. You don’t have to have a gun, but you should damn well be trained.
    Why in the world are we not getting goverment sponsored shooing clubs, discounted AR-15. CMP should be selling M-16 and M-4s with semi lowers along with M-9s and M1911s. And Trump should revisit the whole M-14 semi auto conversion ban with the CMP.
    So yes teachers should be trained. It will make them more effective in protecting the kids. They should also be trained in CPR and basic first aid.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh I’m cool with armed security. They had it at my kids HS. And I saw one take a young thug violently down. It’s just that they had an armed cop(s)at Parkland and they were COWARDS. I am not even weighing in on arming teachers-HOME SCHOOL if you can…

    1. avatar binder says:

      According to a 2016 estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $131,340. Can you say rich and fat. There is NO way a SRO in that school is going to be like a Chicago West Side SRO.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        My kids school was in southern Cook county-hardly the westside Binder. Quit shiiling for public school’s. Praytell where is yours? Kenilworth?!? Glenbrook North? A coward cop is a coward cop…

        1. avatar binder says:

          I’m not shilling for public school. I just think it is funny how people complain about them, but they are always a reflection on how much the community cares about them. FYI I grew up in Rogers Park, but we moved to Main East for high school because my parents cared about my education, and as soon as my brother graduated they moved right back. I was public until 5th grade, went to Archdiocese for middle school (Was a much better school than the Lutheran and I could, but I was into the Lutheran Reformation, so religion class was interesting)
          The is NO way I would send my kid to New Trier. I know people from Kenilworth and that school has issues. I also have friends with a high school kid in Maywood. I trust those SROs way more than my John Hersey ones, but I’m not planning on moving anytime soon. And I live where I do for the schools. If they were not good I would move. And my parents were the same way. And before you say, well my job or income, I know all about dispersed section 8 growing up.

          As for the SRO. Well, like I said, that is not the kind of post that prevents complacency. I wonder how much training they ever did to deal with situations like that. You will be surprised how will training overcomes “cowardice”

        2. avatar Rick says:

          86% of all kids in school, go to public schools, 10% go to private schools, 3% are home schooled. Only about 82% of the of the school population are local to a private school, and the average price per year of a private school was $13,030 in 2014.

          Look at the math, there is always going to be a vast majority of kids going to public schools, especially with costs in mind. Also home schooling is expensive too, a spouse must opt out of the work force, its a full time job.

          So all the hooy about “just home school your kid” is stupid, its not reality for 97% of America, and is not measurably safer anyway. You’re just as likely to say “move to where the schools are better” because that’s easy to do too. You know, move from Chicago to Margaret Stoneman Douglas district, its a very good school, very ritzy area.

          What problem are you trying to solve, education standards or safety. Random shit happens, randomly, good neighborhood, bad. Tragic dry by, tragic school shooting, tragic…

          You don’t run a country by things that are barely a statistical blips. Exactly like grabbing all the ARs, or shotguns, or Highpoints.

        3. avatar binder says:

          But you CAN “move to where the schools are better”. I’m not in a ritzy neighborhood. And to be honest with you I can get a low rent apartment and still be in a extremely good school district, like I said section 8 growing up. And I know Catholic School hurt us in terms of income, and there were a few classmates than were way worse off than us financially.

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    It is my considered opinion that active shooter training for teachers is an excellent idea.
    But making it mandatory violates common sense.
    Agree, as it can be used to suppress the armed teacher program.
    It’s a significant barrier to entry for armed teachers and everyone else.
    Agree, it can be used to that effect.

  22. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Soooo, according to the black liberals….are the armed white teachers supposed to shoot black students?

  23. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

    Yes, paid for by the state .gov. As employees of the school system they will be liable for everything they do and the school system will be liable for their actions should they ever need to use their gun in a self defense situation. In case of any lawsuit brought against the school system (let’s say a stray round hits an innocent bystander) they and the school system will need to be protected legally. It should be as close to a zero sum cost for the teacher.

  24. avatar gp says:

    Yes armed teachers should receive regular training, especially shoot-while-moving and weapon retention.

  25. avatar Gregolas says:

    The FASTER program in Ohio has trained over a thousand teachers and admins since 2014. There are 2,000 waiting to be trained. they are trained to take out the bad guy and provide gunshot trauma first aid in 26 hours. Their 26 hours puts them ABOVE the required state standards for cops. School districts in 77 of Ohio’s 88 counties are on board.
    This 144-hour garbage is an attempt to discourage teachers and admins from getting trained. FASTER teaches finding the bad guy in teams, killing him, and then getting first aid to the wounded ASAP.. See,
    FASTER is paid for entirely by donations.

  26. avatar TommyJay says:

    The required school staff firearm training in Indiana (I think) is 40 hrs. initial, plus 25 hrs. per year. Now the 40 hrs. seems a little high to me, but the 25 hrs/yr. seems exceptionally high.

    So I did a search, and the NY State Trooper requirement is 90 hrs. initial, plus a 5 hr. training session every 6 months.

    I think both the 144 hrs. initial, or a 25 hrs/yr are designed to defeat the effort.

  27. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    No. they have a fundamental human right to self-defense.

  28. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    There is a problem with this idea….. The NRA provides suitable training but since they are the subject of much ire how can you require training but then deny the source of the training as bad?

    I know to the anti-rights crowd this is feature not bug.

  29. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Yea, I’d like to see teachers get some training, not just in self-defense, but also in first responder issues, such as bleeding control, trauma assessment, etc.

  30. avatar John in Ohio says:

    No. Shall not be infringed. 😉

    They can seek extra training if they want extra training; just like anyone else. Let’s not make it more complicated than it really is.

    1. avatar RogueVal says:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Fixed it for you.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        You need to do more research. 😉

  31. avatar J says:

    Why suggest the use of handguns for teachers to use for school defense when ARs are more effective and easier to train on and shoot more accurately than handguns. Have it locked up and hidden in a wall safe with a bio-metric scanner to allow quick access to it. These wall safes are easily installed these days and are hidden quit good. I guess it is easier to say give a teacher a hand gun than an AR in this current climate of anti-2nd Amendment bashing.

  32. avatar Martin says:

    No. Okay, I guess we’re supposed to provide more eloquent answers, so here goes.

    I’m a teacher, I concealed carry, I live in Czech Republic. We’ve got no gun-free zones in schools, anyone with a concealed-carry license can walk into a school armed (those without a license can walk in too, but that’s a different debate). And there have been zero school shootings here in the last 25+ years, with no extra training for teachers or any other random civilians.

    Now, I don’t spend nearly as much time training as true gun enthusiasts. I spend less time training than I’d like to. But I still spend more time training than average line police officers do, and nobody’s calling for them to be disarmed when they enter a school, so I don’t see why school staff should be the ones to go through extra training.

    And 144 hours? That’s more than a month of five-days-a-week training even if you train six hours a day. I’m not military, so I’ll ask. How many hours of actual firearms training do new recruits receive before their first combat deployment? Because I’m not sure the number meets those 144 hours, and we’re talking about people who are *expected* to get into firefights. Or could it be that maybe most of those 144 hours of training are not spent on firearms training?

    Oh, and why stop with the teachers? Bus drivers often have lots of kids around, we should mandate firearms training for bus drivers too? McDonalds’ clerks too? Life guards? Pediatricians? Florists?

    But all the other arguments fade away when you get down to the basics. Is carrying the gun a right, or a privilege? I’d say it is a right, one which should be limited to as little government regulation as is sensible. I’m not too fond of privately-owned nukes, or of drug addicts walking around armed, but there is a line where too much firearms regulation is too much.

  33. avatar NEPAdam says:

    I watched a 60 minutes piece on gun control last week. There was a staff member, principal I believe, that awkwardly racked the slide of her pistol with the barrel pointed at her stomach. When someone like her without training unsafely handles a firearm, ND’s, and injures or kills a student or fellow staff member. The excrement will hit the fan. Trained or not, people will call for laws against armed defense of schools. Train and reduce the possibility of this happening.

  34. avatar Terclinger says:

    Trevor Noah blows jihadis. Trevor Noah is the example of why talk show hosts should be registered.

  35. avatar Terclinger says:

    Enforce the GD laws. If laws had been enforced Cruz would have been in a jail, loony bin, denied access to purchase or guns taken.

    Sheriff Scott Israel and the school district are at least 50 % responsible for those deaths.

  36. avatar Joe R. says:




    Don’t let those MFs dictate statute or Reg.

  37. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Obviously a “new person with a gun” should have training on how to handle and shoot.

    I think shoot-no shoot training would be a very good idea. I have never seen this in the average training classes for new shooters nor concealed classes. It would be good for everyone.

  38. avatar neiowa says:

    Required training should be exactly the same as that of the local popo. Including donut time. In most cases I’d bet that is less than 100rd and 20hr. Extra credit for “how to remove corrosion/mold from the piece you have not maintained”.

  39. avatar TweetyRex says:

    How come my posts never show up? Was it something I said?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Did you include URL link? I was having that trouble with a comment that contained JPFO genocide link. I would click “POST COMMENT” and the post would disappear like it had submitted but it was nowhere to be found. I didn’t even get a subscribe email. My best guess was that the URL was being rejected as spam.

      I emailed TTAG to inquire as to why a JPFO information link was being rejected as spam but nobody bothered to reply back…

      RF, MATT, ?? — Is the JPFO genocide link being rejected as spam? If so, why?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I did finally get a response to my second email. Apparently, it is WordPress learning. There was no mention or offer of fixing it. I guess it will be fixed when some sacred cow links are banned.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email