I'm talking about giving them the right to carry, obviously this would carry with it mandatory quals and training. Maybe you're right about military training but I don't think LEO are much better, talk about only shooting paper targets. As i've heard from police officers, their range time is few and far between and mainly for keeping qualifications up to date. If we say that individuals have a right to concealed carry, shouldn't teachers have that ability also? These should be responsible adults, a lot more responsible than the ones getting fingerprinted and a card.
Obviously this has holes, just like waiting for the police for 3-5 min, after an active shooter presents a threat, has holes. I think we agree that taking guns away from everyday people isn't going to do much good and, short of having funds for a squad sized security force, this seems like the most feasible alternative. Once again we're not talking about putting guns in the hands of every teacher, only those that maintain their qualifications and have a desire and ability to put down a threat if it comes to that. As you said, I'm all for reinforced doors that automatically lock and "safe rooms", this would be a secondary security measure, to have weapons posted in certain rooms that would only be accessed in emergency threat situations by certain individuals.
I've found that often when discussing things like this, there is a detectable bias in our opinions. That is to say, for example, that because I am a veteran I can extrapolate my experience and training to other veterans. The converse bias is rarely seen, because it is often less flattering.
When we look at this subject and try to determine who best to protect our children in school I think we have to be careful to avoid this bias. I would trust most vets on this site with a gun around my child, but the population of this site allows me to accurately correlate military experience with skill at arms. Clearly, a Special Forces Soldier, or a Ranger, ad nauseum, is qualified to protect school kids whilst armed. However, that confidence does not extend to everyone who has worn the uniform because someone like a 68-series biomedical equipment tech is not a gunfighter.
So, I support the use of certain former military personnel within specific CMFs to provide armed security in schools.
You're also dead on about the lack of emphasis placed on firearms training in many police departments. To illustrate the problem, I'll use standards I'm very familiar with for no particular reason whatsoever :-"
Agency A has two separate firearms standards. The first is the state standard, which requires one annual qualification with a pistol. That's a whopping 8 hours--minues lunch and breaks--of firearms training per annum. This standard is applied to all personnel other than SWAT.
SWAT shoots a pistol qualification twice monthly with a mandatory score over 90% to stay on the team, and rifle/shotgun quals at least quarterly with similarly high standards (everyone exceeds the standard).
I do not think
mythical Agency A's standards are outside the norm for police departments throughout the nation. I know for a fact some have higher standards and shoot more frequently, but I would wager the majority do not. So, you're right...police pistol training (at least in-service requalifications) is not terribly high-speed.
With that said, armed security are much worse. I could tell you the state standard here, but it amounts to have pulse + hit broad side of brightly painted barn = good for 5 years with no additional training needed.
For a few reasons, if we are to invest in placing armed men and women in our schools, these people should be commissioned law enforcement officers. Speaking generally (and yes, I know there are exceptions), the vetting of law enforcement personnel is much more stringent than private security. Likewise, the initial and ongoing training. The police in this country are generally equipped well, and have a direct line to more police who will respond at Warp Gazillion to help kids and a brother who is under fire.
More importantly, they have statutory authority to act, and have immunities that teachers and private security do not.
None of this, by the way, negates the potential value of allowing willing, self-identified, trained teachers to carry concealed pistols if they choose to do so.
