Originally published Monday, March 12, 2018 at 06:00a.m.
Granted, armed teachers would be a deterrent. However, as a retired US Army Special Forces Colonel, I’ve been trained to use firearms, taught marksmanship, trained with SWAT, and shot pistols in competition. And yet I wouldn’t like to find myself in an active shooter situation in a school. Why? I’m not currently trained to a level where I would feel confident hitting a moving target in a confined area with kids running, screaming, shots being fired (possibly at me) and with adrenalin flooding my thought process.
I would need training like hostage rescue teams, Delta, SEALS, FBI, and SWAT undergo. This training, by the way is expensive and must be done regularly.
Here’s a few questions: who pays for training teachers in active shooter situations, who pays for the ammo and firearms for the teachers (this is really expensive especially if you are in one of the lowest paid professions), who pays for insurance to cover a teacher missing an active shooter and hitting a student or the teacher’s firearm being stolen or misplaced, and who makes the determination that the teacher is qualified in the use of their firearm and trains with it regularly? Is this responsibility added to the job description of the principal and/or the superintendent?
Okay, see that the teacher is trained and qualified before allowing them to take a firearm into the classroom. See that the teacher trains regularly in active shooter situations, show me their ongoing training and qualification program, and prove to me that the armed teacher undergoes periodic psychological interviews, and I’ll go along with arming our teachers.
Colonel US Army (Ret.)