I do not believe that arming the teachers should even be considered tbh. A teacher has an emotional connection with their students and would hesitiate to fire upon another person they know/love. There are alot of factors to consider. Cost of training (who would pay for this), how much training would "qualify" a teacher to certified for such a situation? What happens if a teacher opens fire on a threat but hits a innocent student? (I saw one news clip on the tv and a principle of a school was doing a training with a fire arm and he shot the wrong target. He was then asked what happens if that was a real innocent fatality and his reply was "the life of 1 innocent vs saving hundreds is worth taking the shot.") arming the teachers is a really bad idea imo.......moby wrote:So considering the above, is it a good idea to arm Teachers and rely on them to act 'as instructed'?
Do they spend a day a month at the range?
What if it is one of the teachers that does the shooting?
Going down this path is just stupidity. Even bringing in reliable 'guards' is a slippery slope. A guard worth his/her position is not going to work for peanuts, and is not going to be sharp without continued training. There are going to be better paid jobs for anyone trained and able to do this to the required standard so either the costs are huge or the standards are low or the turnover is so high as to be untenable.
As for the deputy there is no one solution for this situation it can be debate many ways, For example
1) if sheriff deputy scot perterson received better training he would have perhaps had more confidence to take on the shooter and resolve the issue himself.
2) better gun laws would have prevented a 18yr old from owning an assault rifle.
3) if the countless warnings regarding the shooter Nicholas cruz were followed up in a more stringent manor this would have been prevented before it even started.
So many variables in this situation