And you seem to think that a teacher guarding the door to his/her classroom is the equivalent of a squad of Marines working through Falujah. Stop working the extremes. You have to admit that an armed teacher at least has a fighting chance when a shooter attempts to enter his classroom, whereas an unarmed one has none. I want the kids to have that last line of defense if the teacher is willing to provide it. Don't you?That's why you don't require all of them to do it. You only allow those who are already CC permit holders and who are willing to put in some extra training in how to effectively guard the one door into the classroom. IOW, I'm talking about the teacher who gets an alert that an active shooter is in the school, puts the kids behind whatever barrier(s) he can find, pulls his weapon and watches the door. You're talking about urban combat training wherein Dirty Harry stalks the hallways, snapping off hip shots and snarling, "Do you feel lucky, PUNK?".
This isn't rocket science. There's usually ONE fairly narrow door through which a shooter has to enter a classroom. An alert, armed teacher has a pretty good chance of stopping him at that point. An unarmed one has none.
And, how many armed teachers does it take for a sign to go up outside to the effect that there are armed teachers on premise? Also, which school is more likely to be attacked in the first place, one with such a sign or the ones with signs that proudly proclaim there are no oppositional weapons on campus?
I can tell you which, because the anti-gunners even understand the simple truth. Not a single one of them would post a sign outside their house proclaiming that their house is weapon free.
You seem to think a day of training takes you almost to the point of being ready for combat. It's not. At best, it slightly reduces the chance of you shooting yourself.
Working the extremes? In case you haven't figured it out yet, a combat situation such as all those school shootings is extreme.
You're avoiding the question. I want the kids to have that last line of defense. Do you?
I prefer greatly reducing their need for defense, and any need for defense beyond that be something that won't make things worse. Giving each of the kids a knife and a baseball bat makes as much sense as what you are proposing.
And we all hope and pray that a shooter never gets into a classroom. But we're not talking hypothetically here, because shooters DO get into classrooms, and when they do, the teacher is the last defense the kids have. Do you deny that?
It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively. How can you object to that?
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.
The shooter comes into the room. Do we see him run away because he gets return fire, fall because he's hit, or do we see the children fall one by one and the shooter move on to the next room because there's no defense for them?