Talking tactics with teachers in a classroom.
Photo: Sandy Lawrence
- “Just shoot them.”
- “Arm the teachers.”
- “That’s why I carry.”
- “Get your CCW.”
- “Bullet to the head.”
- “You’re an idiot.”
Without fail, most responses will be some variant of these, and no matter how reasoned, impassioned, informed, or lucid the counter-arguments are, the confirmation bias is so strong, they are disregarded out of hand. Here’s my attempt to shine some light on the topic.
To begin with, I have guns. I have had guns since it was legal for me to do so. I grew up around guns. I first shot when I was four years old. My grandfather owned a gun store. I have a makeshift range on my property. I’ve trained with the likes of Larry Vickers and Daniel Shaw. I am a co-founder of Fit to Fight®, a training organization with affiliates in six countries. Since inception, our primary focus has been on unarmed tactics, but a big part of our newest course is armed responses in these events, when possible. I am very pro-gun when it comes to ownership in the U.S. I am very pro-self-defense, in general. I think if more good people would train and carry, we would all be safer.
This is not a gun issue.
Demonstrating a disarm during a seminar.
Photo: Ryan Hoover
TRAINING
Depending on the source, police “hits on target” are under 20% in a gunfight. These are people whose lives depend on their training, daily. They have to draw their weapons on a regular basis and are trained to do so under extreme circumstances. Now you have a teacher who is probably as likely to have to draw her weapon as she is to be struck by lightning and attacked by a polar bear on the same day, and if she does, she has kids running all over the place. What do you suppose her success rate might be under those conditions? What are the odds she shoots a child or another teacher?
What sort of firearms training do you expect to get teachers when most school systems aren’t willing to even have a discussion about fighting back unarmed? You want to choose six teachers in a school and train them as you would an Emergency Response Team? In that case, I say let’s go. I will do what I can to make that happen. Having well-trained, armed teachers is a viable response. However, if your solution is to send any teacher who wants to through a simple CCW certification and encourage them to carry inside a school, I am not on board with that. I think if you would ask most experienced shooters and firearms instructors, you would get a similar response.
Demonstration of solo tackle at a recent seminar. Photo: Loren Rodgers
CULTURE
Even though the vast majority of school systems have tepidly adopted run-hide-fight, almost all of them ignore the last part of that mantra. We all know how to run and how to hide; we have since a very young age, when it was encouraged in games. Fighting, while just as natural as the other two, has been mostly dissuaded since childhood. Therefore, very few adults know how to fight, especially in a situation like the one we are discussing, and administrators are by and large unwilling to change this.
Again, do you think firearms training is something that is going to happen for teachers in our current environment? If you want to get them involved in some force-on-force scenarios, where hitting paper at seven yards is not the milepost, and you can get admins and legislators to sign off on it, I say let’s go, but …
Going through unarmed response to an active shooter with teachers. Photo: Andre Herbert
REALITY
Ultimately, while I am all for having armed and well-trained staff, I am dealing with the reality that we live in. That reality, at this time, does not only have unarmed teachers, but that reality does not even want a discussion about it. So save your bluster, your bloviating, your grandstanding platitudes, and get with the real world. If you want to actually make schools safer, let’s admit that what is currently being done is grossly inefficient and needs immediate and massive reform. If the culture is not ready for armed teachers, then let’s recognize and acknowledge that. Let’s give them options that might be more palatable to the powers that be and continue working toward a more complete approach to school safety. Let’s recognize that in a study of active shooter events between 2000 and 2013, 13% were stopped by unarmed citizens, while only 3% ended after armed citizens who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire.
It’s not the existence of the gun that makes everyone safe, just like it’s not the existence of the gun that puts everyone in danger. As long as one side believes the only answer is a gun and this idea of an unarmed response is “stupid,” and the other side insists we should simply “ban all guns” or that we “need more locks/cameras/buzzers,” then absolutely nothing will be accomplished. I am willing to (continue) doing my part. What about you?
By Ryan Hoover
I agree with the whole thing everyone needs to be worried bout keeping people safe but this nicely said
Excellent piece, and it does make sense to train for unarmed combat. Weapons fail and the ability to tackle, grapple or just b**** slap the perp is good first line or back-up defense.
This is a very good article. One teacher training program I am aware of is called "FASTER Saves Lives". It is privately funded so any school district in Ohio that wishes to have trained armed staff in their building can send volunteers with current hand gun licenses (CHL) through this program at no training costs to the district or the individual volunteers. One of the news outlets in Ohio did a series of reports one of which they interviewed a school resource officer who was adamantly against non LEO's being armed in schools. He took the training himself and was going to endorse it to his school district. Schools outside of Ohio have inquired about training or starting training in their states. I can only hope the district my wife subs in has such a policy in place. I have attached a link below. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/faculty-administrator-safety-training-emergency-response
Thank you for telling it like it is. I am a high school English teacher, and I am also coordinating with our executive team (principals, directors, superintendent) on making our schools safer. My first statement to them is exactly what you say: we know how to run and hide, but we've been told since we were small children that hitting and fighting are wrong. Thus, we need to train school staff how to engage a shooter in the most effective way possible. I am asking my principal to buy safe improvised weapons that students can use against an intruder (and he is on board with the idea), and we will hold a follow-up training for teachers in August. There's a probability that I will be presenting to numerous schools in my district to train them in the 'fight' component of R-H-F. Great post. Thanks for sharing it.
None at this time.
I am a college instructor. I want to change change things related to our cc policy. I have to deal with the reality of school administrators expressed in this piece. Thanks.
Our school district has no active shooter plan.any ideas on how I can get them to acknowledge that they should have one?
The article seemst factually incorrect, and logically suspect. The comments about police training in firearms and their hit ratio being using as scare tactics to say that teachers will shoot kids all the time is just nonsense. This quote: "However, if your solution is to send any teacher who wants to through a simple CCW certification and encourage them to carry inside a school, I am not on board with that." ...interesting, considering this author purports to teach self-defense, and if he thinks that daily CCW in public is LESS hectic and more controlled than having a teacher in their own well-known classroom with their own kids under circumstances where an active shooter or other criminal can be easily identified and all safe lines of fire can be easily known---then the author has no idea what he is talking about. "If you want to actually make schools safer, let’s admit that what is currently being done is grossly inefficient and needs immediate and massive reform. " Indeed. But then he follows it with something that sums up to "but let's not make massive reform in the area that will make the most difference, let's instead work on having teachers be taught something that is much harder to learn, takes much more time to ingrain, to the whole range of teachers many of whom won't be interested or care (or can't for physical reasons), and that is simply not nearly as effective. "Let’s recognize that in a study of active shooter events between 2000 and 2013, 13% were stopped by unarmed citizens, while only 3% ended after armed citizens who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire. " ...and yet, those stats completely misrepresent the situation. Given that armed responses by non-LEOs is unlikely because the laws don't allow it in most places, comparing the numbers is meaningless. But if you compare the number of people who were hurt in said situations, you will find that armed responses invariably results in far fewer casualties. Overall, this really looks like an article by someone who has an opinion, doesn't understand the situation, and will use non-related numbers to attempt to make an emotional point that isn't supported by actual data. Odd that the author's name doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the article. Am I missing it somewhere? (Oh, of course, he's a Krav Maga instructor.) The author starts by making the false claim that whenever the subject is brought up, "...the inevitable knee-jerk, uninformed responses are as predictable as a celebrity divorce" and he says that the people saying them won't listen to anything else. He then follows it by saying those people are completely wrong and he won't listen to anything that they say. Hm. People who actually study self-defense know that not everyone has a self-defense mindset. As such, any assumption that everyone can be taught effective self-defense is incorrect. In a similar fashion, people who study self-defense know that in any type of active shooter situation, empty hand defense comes in a far distant second to an armed response, AND that is true when the people having significant amounts of unarmed training. Something I wrote the last time our state legislators were discussing allowing teachers to carry in schools: Let's see: active shooter in the school. Choice is a 1) armed teacher with extra training, 2) an armed teacher with basic training, or 3) unarmed victims. Of course we'd pick #1, given that choice---but why in the world do people seem to think that #2 isn't any better than #3? C'mon, folks. People carry in public in the midst of crowds of people they don't know, in areas they are not familiar with, and are expected to handle it just fine. And they do. Teachers, on the other hand, have less-crowded situations wherein they easily recognize the people around them, know their area and surroundings, and where it will be obvious if someone is a bad guy. Where did this "oh, they must have more training!" stuff come from? People who CCW in their daily life have it HARDER in terms of situation recognition (and appropriate use of lethal force), an understanding of their surroundings, knowledge of safe directions, and target discrimination (and most likely also target distance). A teacher in their classroom literally has it easier on all of those fronts. At absolutely WORST, it is _only_ "as bad" as it is for CCW carriers in public. The author said: "Now you have a teacher who is probably as likely to have to draw her weapon as she is to be struck by lightning and attacked by a polar bear on the same day, and if she does, she has kids running all over the place. What do you suppose her success rate might be under those conditions? What are the odds she shoots a child or another teacher? " ...which shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. Literally. "However, if your solution is to send any teacher who wants to through a simple CCW certification and encourage them to carry inside a school, I am not on board with that. I think if you would ask most experienced shooters and firearms instructors, you would get a similar response." I think he's wrong. And very much so. But then again, what do I know? Oh yes---I know that many, many of the experienced shooters and firearms instructors in my state are completely for the idea, as evidenced by the last poll, surveys, and hearings that were had on the topic.
First I would like to say that it's a good article with a lot of good comments. You are right, someone with a gun that has no training is almost as dangerous as a nut with a gun. I work at a university and hope and pray that I am never in a nut with a gun situation. But if I am ever in a armed shooter situation I hope I have a gun and there is a room full of people with concealed carry weapons that know how and will use them. The more of this type of discussion we have the better.
13% of active shooters were stopped by unarmed citizens. 3% were stopped by armed citizens. What about the other 84%? They generally stop when the shooter kills himself or leaves. Very few are stopped by the police because they get there too late. Very few are stopped by armed citizens because THEY ARE BANNED FROM THE PREMISES. How many of the 3% stopped by armed citizens resulted in bystanders being shot? If an armed teacher can't stop a shooter, how will an unarmed teacher stop one? You are correct in that training is essential. But, well trained or not, if a shooter is kicking at my classroom door I would rather be waiting behind my desk with my pistol pointed at the door than cowering in the corner.