Canon Shooter
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2020
- 17,673
- 14,513
- 2,288
After every school shooting the conversation, sooner or later, becomes a discussion of whether or not we should allow teachers to be armed.
I believe we should.
I'm not advocating that every teacher be armed. The last thing I would want to have is someone who, for whatever reason, either cannot or will not use a gun properly. If a teacher doesn't want to be armed, I can respect that. What I can't respect, though, is when those who choose to be unarmed want to insist that others should not be allowed to be armed.
Opponents of this idea are quick to say that it's a bad idea, yet, thus far, every single one has failed to offer a valid reason as to why it would be a bad idea. Apparently, opponents are of the belief that a teacher can't be properly trained in the use of a firearm, or in the use of deadly force. I reject that idea. Once upon a time, every single person who is a cop today did not know how use a firearm. They learned how to use a firearm. If a teacher is smart enough to teach, doesn't it fit that the teacher should be smart enough to learn, too?
Let those who wish to be armed be armed, and those who don't wish to be armed can remain unarmed.
Often mentioned is the idea of "crossfire". Let's discuss that for a minute, because it's really an invalid concern.
In order for crossfire to occur, a minimum of two people need to be shooting at the same target, which is between them. Now, I'm not entirely sure why, but opponents seem to believe that once law enforcement shows up, an armed teacher will still be blasting away. That's simply not the case. A simple doctrine would be that the teacher secures his or her weapon when police arrive. That way there's no chance that the teacher is misidentified as the active shooter, and the teacher can get to the task of comforting students instead of protecting them.
Opponents will also often say that the teachers aren't police officers, and that police officers should be allowed to do their jobs. Well, that sounds nice, doesn't it? Unfortunately, at Robb Elementary, the police were on hand yet they failed to do their job for 78 minutes. That means, for well over an hour, Salvador Ramos was able to kill. The police made a bad call and it resulted in 21 deaths. Could an armed teacher have stopped Ramos? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. What we do know is that the police didn't. Isn't having a slight chance at stopping an active shooter better than having no chance to stop an active shooter?
Or how about Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida? That's another example of police being on the scene but failing to do their jobs. As a result, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz was able to walk through the school, killing people along the way, simply because there was no one to challenge him, and no one to stop him.
In 2001 my daughter was a freshman at Santana High School in Santee, California. Her classmate, Andy Williams, shot 15 people, killing two of them. A 23 year old security officer, Peter Ruiz, was shot three times in the back as he was going for help. Peter is still a dear friend to this day. He doesn't mince words when he speaks of the incident. He told me once "Steve, if I had a gun I could've stopped him."
And not that it was a school shooting, but it shows how an ordinary person with a gun can have an impact: In December of 2012 I was living in Portland, Oregon and was in a store not far from the food court at Clackamas Town Center when 22 year old Jacob Roberts entered the shopping mall and started shooting. A shopper in the food court, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon (a Glock), drew his weapon and aimed it at Roberts. Roberts saw the man, ran into a stairwell, and blew his brains out.
You don't have to be a police officer to stop a shooter...
I believe we should.
I'm not advocating that every teacher be armed. The last thing I would want to have is someone who, for whatever reason, either cannot or will not use a gun properly. If a teacher doesn't want to be armed, I can respect that. What I can't respect, though, is when those who choose to be unarmed want to insist that others should not be allowed to be armed.
Opponents of this idea are quick to say that it's a bad idea, yet, thus far, every single one has failed to offer a valid reason as to why it would be a bad idea. Apparently, opponents are of the belief that a teacher can't be properly trained in the use of a firearm, or in the use of deadly force. I reject that idea. Once upon a time, every single person who is a cop today did not know how use a firearm. They learned how to use a firearm. If a teacher is smart enough to teach, doesn't it fit that the teacher should be smart enough to learn, too?
Let those who wish to be armed be armed, and those who don't wish to be armed can remain unarmed.
Often mentioned is the idea of "crossfire". Let's discuss that for a minute, because it's really an invalid concern.
In order for crossfire to occur, a minimum of two people need to be shooting at the same target, which is between them. Now, I'm not entirely sure why, but opponents seem to believe that once law enforcement shows up, an armed teacher will still be blasting away. That's simply not the case. A simple doctrine would be that the teacher secures his or her weapon when police arrive. That way there's no chance that the teacher is misidentified as the active shooter, and the teacher can get to the task of comforting students instead of protecting them.
Opponents will also often say that the teachers aren't police officers, and that police officers should be allowed to do their jobs. Well, that sounds nice, doesn't it? Unfortunately, at Robb Elementary, the police were on hand yet they failed to do their job for 78 minutes. That means, for well over an hour, Salvador Ramos was able to kill. The police made a bad call and it resulted in 21 deaths. Could an armed teacher have stopped Ramos? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. What we do know is that the police didn't. Isn't having a slight chance at stopping an active shooter better than having no chance to stop an active shooter?
Or how about Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida? That's another example of police being on the scene but failing to do their jobs. As a result, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz was able to walk through the school, killing people along the way, simply because there was no one to challenge him, and no one to stop him.
In 2001 my daughter was a freshman at Santana High School in Santee, California. Her classmate, Andy Williams, shot 15 people, killing two of them. A 23 year old security officer, Peter Ruiz, was shot three times in the back as he was going for help. Peter is still a dear friend to this day. He doesn't mince words when he speaks of the incident. He told me once "Steve, if I had a gun I could've stopped him."
And not that it was a school shooting, but it shows how an ordinary person with a gun can have an impact: In December of 2012 I was living in Portland, Oregon and was in a store not far from the food court at Clackamas Town Center when 22 year old Jacob Roberts entered the shopping mall and started shooting. A shopper in the food court, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon (a Glock), drew his weapon and aimed it at Roberts. Roberts saw the man, ran into a stairwell, and blew his brains out.
You don't have to be a police officer to stop a shooter...
Last edited:
