Knowing that teachers in a school are armed might deter a would be mass murder shooter, but administratively and legally, there would be more to arming teachers, than just having them strap on guns.

- How would they be chosen?

- Would they be sworn like regular police?

- Would they be immune from liability and damages?

- Would they need to belong to a union or similar organization?

- Would they carry or have their gun in their possession at all times?

- Would they be provided with bullet proof vests capable of stopping assault rifle rounds?

- Who would pay for their shooting training on an ongoing basis?

- What qualification standard/s would they need to meet?

- Would they be trained in close contact fighting and take downs, and carry handcuffs?

- etc....


The thinking that arming teachers would deter / help stop mass murder shootings, presupposes that an armed teacher would act, and also act effectively in those situations.

However and unfortunately, they most likely would not. And the following explains why that is so.

First, Sight Shooting (Traditional Marksmanship), is taught to most all Police and civilian shooters.

Yet, Sight Shooting is not, or can not be used in most all close quarters (CQ), life and death armed encounters, which is where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed, and which is within the effective range of handguns.

Bizarrely, there is little if any photo or video evidence of Sight Shooting ever being used effectively in a CQ life and death situation. And there should be thousands of them since Sight Shooting has been taught for over 100 years. They are as rare as hens teeth.

Sight Shooting isn't used, or can't be used because of: - the close proximity of the adversary and the need for the swiftest possible reaction, - the dynamics of the situation and environmental conditions, - and the automatic activation of our instinctive Fight or Flight response, which occurs in real life or death threat situations. It can result in the loss of fine motor skills which are needed in aligning the sights, and the loss of near vision focus which also is needed in aligning the sights.

The NYPD's SOP 9 study of over 6000 combat cases, found that aiming was employed in only 20% of the cases.

In 70% of the cases reviewed, Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

Officers could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively in 10% of the cases.

The shooting distance in most all cases was less than 20 feet.

As the distance between the Officer and opponent increased beyond close proximity, and aiming ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference, to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

Also, Officers with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand.

The SOP 9 study, was published in 1981, and though dated, the findings are still relevant.

Finally, the recognized Police hit rate in CQ armed encounters is less than 20%, which means that for every five rounds shot, at least four will miss the target and go somewhere else. (In crowded school halls or classrooms that could result in collateral casualties.)

Also, and very importantly, would an armed teacher be mistaken for an active shooter, and be shot by Police?

Now, there are effective alternative shooting methods, but they are not taught to most all shooters.

So, the thinking that arming teachers would deter / help stop mass murder shootings, which presupposes that an armed teacher would act and also act effectively in those situations, is false.

Use your go back button to return to the prior page, or click here for the index.