"It's unlikely that I would run into a building where shots are being fired, but if someone were shooting at me and I had a weapon, I very likely would use it to defend myself. See the difference?
#10 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2018-02-24 10:37 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"
A somewhat random comment, but I assume you are making the point that an armed teacher facing a shooter will use a gun for defense.
It is my understanding that the suggestion is that some teachers be armed, not all teachers - I think Trump indicated 20%, so 1 in 5. Under your logic, if the shooter choses a classroom where the teacher is unarmed ( a 4:1 chance ), then you would not expect an armed teacher nearby to run into the classroom under attack. Having armed teachers under these circumstances has a limited useful outcome.
Should an armed teacher abandon his/her assigned class to protect another under attack? Some attacks have more than one culprit. What if a teacher choses to assist an unarmed teacher under attack and exposes his/her class to attack by a second individual? Should a teacher even be asked to make this decision? I've just scratched the surface with my examples - the real world problems of arming teachers are far more significant than those advocating the approach chose to acknowledge.
The whole idea arming teachers is ill-considered. There is no greater sign of America's disfunction in my eyes than an inability of it's citizens, regardless of political allegiance, to determine that the best way to protect their children is to prevent guns from getting on campus, rather than reacting with off-setting force once the gunfire starts.