One simple fact of mass shootings remains that 92% of them happen at “gun free zones”. Naturally, whenever an incident happens instead of looking at this simple fact, people start talking about more gun bans and expanding the kind of areas which are the spree killer’s target of choice (areas where no one else is armed).
Suggesting that simple ending these free-fire zones for madmen (i.e. “gun free zones”) is met with the claim that having armed citizens will “simply make matters worse” (worse than a massacre?). Of course, FBI data has already dismissed that claim. The other claim is that teachers and staff (since schools usually figure prominently in these discussions) don’t have the training to defend their students with firearms. Florida, infamously, established a program requiring 132 hours of firearms instruction–several times the instruction required by police officers or trained military. Apparently, the folk establishing that program thing that teachers need the firearms training of super-elite special forces hostage rescue team operatives in order to defend themselves and their students with firearms.
This is utterly and completely ridiculous. Teachers armed to defend themselves and their students do not need to be SEALs or SWAT or even Air Force security specialists. Being armed for defense of self and others around you is a far simpler tactical problem.
They don’t have to go breaking into a room where the “bad guy” is, identify him out of a chaotic mix of the bad guy and the people he’s threatening. They don’t have to learn to do dynamic entry through a door, minimizing their own exposure in that vulnerable moment all while trying to find a bad guy whose location they don’t know, discriminate him from victims, get a clear shot, and pray they don’t make a mistake.
Armed teachers don’t have to do a dynamic entry. They don’t have to do any kind of entry. They’re already there. What armed teachers would do is give the _attacker_ all the problems that folk like SEALS, SWAT, HRT (Hostage Rescue Team), and others need all that training to deal with. The attacker is now the one who has to make the dynamic entry, identify and locate the “threat” that the armed defender represents, and do it before said defender–whose already in place and covering that entrance–can shoot him.
And he has to do it every. single. time. he makes an entry because he doesn’t know who is or is not armed. The mere possibility that someone might be armed means he has to take extra precautions every time he goes through a door. He has to assume every classroom he enters is “hot”. At the very least this slows him down and reduces the number of casualties before the police finally do show up. Best case the attacker runs into the armed teacher at the start and the only casualty is the attacker.
Actually, that’s not true. Best case is that they decide not to attack after all because they aren’t looking for a fight. They’re looking for sitting ducks.
All the teachers need in this situation is basic marksmanship sufficient to hit a torso sized target at a distance of 20-30 feet (from across the room, basically), Jeff Cooper’s four rules, and basic “when is it okay to shoot” training which amounts to reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury (which generally comes down to identifying expressed intent, ability, and opportunity to cause that harm). That’s it. Any basic CCW training course is more than adequate.
Simply let those who are properly licensed to carry do so and no more is really required.