WHY ARMING TEACHERS TO DETER MASS MURDER SHOOTINGS, WOULD BE FOLLY
Traditionally, Sight Shooting (Traditional Marksmanship), is taught to most all Police and civilians for self defense use.
Yet, Sight Shooting is not, or can not be used in most all close quarters armed encounters, where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed. And most students are not taught an effective alternative shooting method for use in close quarters self defense.
And even though Sight Shooting has been taught to Police and civilians for over 100 years, there is little if any photo or video evidence of it ever being used effectively in a close quarters gunfight. There should be thousands of such photos/videos, but they are rarer than hens teeth.
Also, the recognized Police hit rate in close quarters 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.
Basically, handguns are difficult to shoot accurately because of their short sight radius. For example: If the sights are 2/8 in. out of correct alignment, and you are at a distance of only 15 feet, you will miss a chest sized target (11 in wide x 17 in tall) .
And, if the target was to turn sideways and/or move, it would be very very difficult to align the sights with the precision needed to make a hit. Practically speaking, that would be close to impossible in the likely gunfight condition of bad light, or where the sights are dark and the target is dark, or the target is moving, or when one is firing multiple times with the gun jumping and bucking in his or her hand, etc..
In most all close quarters armed encounters, Sight Shooting is not, or can not be used: due to 1. bad lighting, 2. other environmental conditions, 3. the close proximity of the adversary, 4. the need for the swiftest possible reaction, 5. the dynamics of the situation, 6. time constraints, and 7. the automatic and instinctive activation of our Fight or Flight response, which occurs in real life threat situations, and can result in the loss of fine motor skills that are needed to align the sights, and the loss of near vision focusing that is needed to focus on the sights.
For example, one of the findings of the NYPD SOP 9 study of over 6000 combat cases, was 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.
In 10% of the cases, Officers could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
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, which is contrary to the way most all shooters are shown on TV and the internet, and trained to shoot. Using a two handed grip makes range safety sense, but that is not reality.
The SOP 9 study, was published in 1981, and though dated, its findings are still relevant today.
Also, per Rex Applegate, "When a man is in combat, his muscles and nerves are tense, because of the excitement and danger to which he is being mentally and physically subjected. There will be no inclination to take a stance, raise the weapon, line up the sights, and squeeze the trigger when the enemy is firing or about to fire at him. The shooter will grip his weapon, exerting great pressure when he fires it."
And when an automatic is griped in a crush grip, the gun will twist down and around to the left, and the fall of the shot will be low and left.
Given the above facts, it's no wonder that armed encounter shooting accuracy is as poor as it is. And the facts make the case that arming teachers would be folly.
Now, there are effective alternative shooting methods, but they are not taught to most all shooters.
Administratively, it would present a host of problems.
Would teacher participants be "sworn" like other Police?
Would they be part of a national union of armed school teachers?
Would they receive liability protection like Police?
What qualification standard/s would they need to meet?
What kind of training would they receive and who would pay for it?
Would they be able to retire in a shorter period of time than other teachers, as is the case with Police and Fire members?
Very importantly, would an armed teacher be mistaken for an active shooter, and shot by Police?
Use your go back button to return to the prior page, or click here for the index.