LEO training - school shootings

[chasfm11]

Thanks for your input, Howdy. My very limited understanding of the Argyle program is that it mirrors your description in many ways. I will certainly use your information with any future social media posts where I can. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Many teachers have volunteered to pay for their own training, too. I look at it this way. There are roughly 5-6% of the Texas population who already has LTCs. I personally know a number of teachers that do so I'm guessing the distribution percentage among the population would apply to them. That is a large number of teachers who already have LTCs. They cannot be happy having to be disarmed in their schools, given that they have already made a carry decision and know that the schools are often targeted. I would gladly pay for additional training if it allowed me to carry in places where I currently cannot. I'm not surprised at any teacher who would want to do the same.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

There was a sobering question asked by one of them. Could you shoot a kid? That one gave me pause.

Maybe my humanity needs a tune up because I think this is not a sobering question (at least not in the way you meant it), but a DUH! question.

If the 'kid' in question is an active shooter, you have nowhere to go but 'up' by shooting him. Because every other kid he kills after you had the opportunity to engage and didn't, could be considered to be partially on you. Now THAT'S what I call 'sobering'.

[chasfm11]

There was a sobering question asked by one of them. Could you shoot a kid? That one gave me pause.

Maybe my humanity needs a tune up because I think this is not a sobering question (at least not in the way you meant it), but a DUH! question.

If the 'kid' in question is an active shooter, you have nowhere to go but 'up' by shooting him. Because every other kid he kills after you had the opportunity to engage and didn't, could be considered to be partially on you. Now THAT'S what I call 'sobering'.

I understand your point. But I see the situation as more complex. Not ever gun that shows up in a school is a lethal one. In a local high school this week, a boy brought a gun (unloaded but with ammo his back pack) with the intent of committing suicide at the school at some point in the day. He may well have preferred suicide by armed defender instead of shooting himself if he had had that chance. He left a suicide note at his home. I do realize that all of us may only have split seconds to process whatever we think we see and act. If I truly believe that I am being threatened, I will do what I have to do. But I still believe that taking action again a kid is sobering.

Edited to add that the opening scene in American Sniper is what I thought of when I wrote this post.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

You're referring to the kid running toward the tank and infantry with an IED? That's still pretty clear cut in terms of the mathematics.

Yes, you're more likely to be struck by lightening or die of a heart attack then to get caught in an in-progress active shooter situation. If the math is one on none (you know the kid has a gun, but nobody is on the wrong end of Cooper Rule #2 by him, yet) or even one on one (YOU are on the wrong end of Cooper Rule #2 but you're not sure about his motivation yet) it gets a lot harder/more complicated. But that's not so different from the stories you've seen here from forum members who have gone to Walmart at night or fueled up at a gas station in a questionable part of town. You have to decide on the fly if you're facing evil or merely dysfunction, and if it's dysfunction you're going to have to decide on the fly what/how much you're willing to risk.