The following is a 3 message exchange between 2 users
@9GNL8F7 6mos6MO
A uniformed guard provides only a single point of protection whereas multiple armed teachers provide a much stronger obstacle for a mass shooter.
Additionally, allowing teacher's to carry disrupts a shooter's plan by introducing unpredictability. School shooters often carry out a planned attack. Not knowing who is armed severely hampers their ability to plan.
Finally, armed security is a visible eye sore and may cause anxiety. Discretely armed staff is a superior choice.
@9GNMCZS 6mos6MO
Teachers with firearms could present a danger towards the children. They aren't trained professionals like an armed guard would be, where they receive almost daily training. If a teacher were to improperly secure their firearm, a child could gain access to it and mistake it for a toy, which could lead to an accidental shooting. As well as that, teachers mental health vary, and they would need to go through multiple tests and background checks to be eligible, if one of these checks were failed and a teacher got past it, they could end up being the suspect in a shooting.
@9GNL8F7 6mos6MO
It's a common misconception that police and armed guards are safer because of their training. Armed security and police do not receive "Daily Training" on firearms use. Most police departments only have a single qualification day a year where they fire an incredibly small amount of ammo. The Los Angeles Police Department's Pistol Qualification Course is a mere 30 rounds, once a year.
The reality is that a teacher who spends more than one or two days a year practicing with a firearm will be in a higher state of readiness than the majority of police officers in the US.
