"Handbook of Research on Mass Shootings and Multiple Victim

Violence."

WILL TEACHERS SHOOT

An Analysis of Teachers Attitudes towards Teacher Carry

Howard A Kurtz, Southwestern Oklahoma State University (howard.kurtz@swosu.edu)

The question “will teachers shoot” is a neglected issue central to the

discussions of how to make our schools safer. Arming faculty may seem like
a cheap and immediate solution to the problem but it is an option that needs
objective consideration and a great deal of refinement. A deeper
understanding of the surrounding issues may invalidate the commonly held
logic that teachers care so much about their students that they will step into
the line of fire if called upon. After many casual conversations with teachers
my observation is that many of us who have spent our careers in academia
do not see “protection of our students “extending into life threatening
situations. There are of course some ethical and legal issues that are
probably best debated on a case by case basis but in general schools cannot
ask teachers or staff to risk their lives in what amounts to a law enforcement
role.

The ethical and legal issues are worth the debate but the end result is less
significant if large numbers of teachers won’t shoot. What if research can be
shown that most faculty will not shoot no matter the threat or that only
certain people will under certain circumstances? The author is principal
investigator of an ongoing state-wide study that is currently addressing this
issue. Those results will be forth coming in a future publication but the
discussion begins here.

Criminal Justice professionals around the country are seeking ways to end or
thwart active school shootings. Much has been written about arming
professors and teachers as a way to combat mass shootings. But little is
known about teachers armed level of expertise and studies on positive and
negative outcomes are practically non-existent.

With little data except a few individual cases we will address the question
“Will Teachers shoot”? Teachers are the experts in this area and their voice
needs to be heard. Some portray teachers as protective loving self-
sacrificing hero’s who will willingly put their lives on the line for their
students. A more realistic view may be one of teachers as professional
employees who are under no obligation to risk their lives for the students
they teach or the institutions thye serve.
When confronted with violence the natural response set is to fight, flee or
freeze. Different species use each of these strategies to their advantage.
That said, fighting no matter what the preparation may not be the best
solution in school shooting incidents? It may be more rational to develop
better flight alternatives or even better to continue to develop models were
potential victims shelter in place. We have chosen to examine the first option
and discuss weather teachers will fight back and consider if they are
equipped to do so.

Teachers are not law enforcement officers or security personnel but they
could become volunteers in a shooting incident at a school. Unfortunately,
literature is sparse and results mixed when we look for research targeting
the usefulness of volunteers in shooting incidents. One can find isolated
incidents that make the case for the importance of volunteers but they are
so rare that its hard and probably irresponsible to generalize from the
numbers.

1. When volunteers step in the results have sometimes been futile but
sometimes outcomes have been dramatically good. Two volunteers
stepped into an incident in Oklahoma City in May of 2018 at a lakeside
restaurant and shot and killed an assailant who had already shot two
strangers and was threatening to shoot more. Both of the volunteers
had training and/or experience in the military and law enforcement
arenas. They both downplayed their heroics as doing what needed to
be done. It seemed as if prior training was a key variable in this
incident. They neither knew the victims nor the assailant and their
response was so professional one wonders if many teachers could
operate with such detachment?
1. (Lake Hefner Shooting 2018)

Stories like this are indeed persuasive but do they make the case for arming
teachers? We will examine the following four areas in an effort to gain more
understanding of this complex problem.

1. Success stories and incidents of volunteer shooters (VS)

2. Outcomes of Trained persons in shooting encounters
3. Past research on police and combat like situations “will they shoot”
(WTS)
4. Teachers opinions

Thanks to a 218 FBI report,(2, Yablon 2018 )we have some actual data on
volunteer events from 2016-17. The FBI found 50 shootings throughout the
U.S. that it labeled "active shooter incidents. Thye define an Active shooter
event as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to

2
kill people in a populated area." Of those 50 cases reported, four involved
situations where the FBI believes that "citizens possessing valid firearms
permits successfully stopped the shooter." (Four others involved "unarmed
citizens [who] confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.") So,
in this study unarmed citizens were as likely to stop a shooting as were those
with weapons. This is such a small sample though that one should be
cautioned against generalizing too far this data. It does bring into the light
the notion that interventions alone may be effective in a small percentage of
cases while the use of weapons may or may not be the deciding factor.

These are small totals but statistcally speaking in 8% of the cases studied a
volunteer with a weapon stopped the crisis and in another 8% unarmed
citizens used persuasion or confrontation to stop the event from proceeding
in a negative direction. In half of the known intervention events from this
study volunteers did not need to use force but in fairness the volunteers
successfully intervened in 16% of the 50 cases. If you were saved due to
their intervention you don’t care about the data, just the outcome. Like the
“Lake Hefner Case” discussed above successful interventions are dramatic
and can make a persuasive argument. Of course, the FBI study does not go
into who the volunteers were or their backgrounds or prior training.

So, if our primary question is: do volunteer gun owners ever stop deadly
shootings? (3. Yablon 2017.) The answer must be yes but these appear to be
small isolated incidents. There are factual stories, backed by journalistic
reporting and official police reports, of everyday gun owners intervening in
deadly crimes with a positive impact.

If you dig into some of the prominent examples of "good guy" gun owners
intervening in deadly attacks, however, there are some common themes that
make it seem profoundly unlikely that more gun owner volunteers could
have helped the sort of incident that unfolded in Las Vegas where a gunman
used high-powered rifles at distance from an elevated position.

The point is that even if volunteers are trained and ready some
circumstances will likely prevent even their attempts to intervene and
possibly they too may add to the carnage. The “Vegas Shooter” committed
suicide according to reports when he faced possible capture. The police were
moving in to capture the assailant and though they certainly would have
they never shot the assailant and that is often the case even when
interventions are carried out by professionals.

3
A few Incidents of brave citizen involvement can lead to dramatic changes in
public perception with unintended consequences. Possibly supported by
incidents like the Lake Hefner Incident discussed earlier the state legislature
in Oklahoma changed the gun laws dramatically. In February of 2019 The
governor of Oklahoma signed a carry law allowing anyone without a felony
conviction to carry a gun without a permit or training.4(Hoberock 2019)

This circumvented the existing law that required a background check and a
certification class. When he signed the bill, he said good guys with guns stop
bad guys with guns. The chief of police of Oklahoma City immediately issued
a statement in opposition to the new law and predicted more shooting of all
kinds. The State Bureau of Investigation estimated their lost revenue due to
licensing in the 4-5 million dollars a year.

It seems fair to say that those who back laws that let all law-abiding people
carry concealed guns in public are willing to gamble with everyone’s safety
and think that the predictions of more shootings, gun suicides and accidents
do not outweigh the rare possibility that armed citizens will stop mass
shootings.

Citizen interventions are rare and according to Volokh even in states which
allow concealed carry, there often aren’t people near a shooting who have a
gun on them at the time. Many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-
free” zones (such as schools, universities, bars, or private property posted
with a no-guns sign). “

In 2015, Eugene Volokh detailed ten incidents for The Washington Post, eight
of which involved gun owners with no reported experience in the military or
in law enforcement. Needless to say, gun ownership advocacy and lobbying
groups ―most prominently the NRA ― are keen to publicize these stories.5
(Volokh 2015)

Volokh deliberately excluded killings stopped by people who were off-duty

police officers, or police officers from other jurisdictions, at the time of a
shooting, as well as some other cases which he considered borderline) Here
are his cases:

1. In Chicago , an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and

wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of
people.”

2. In a Philadelphia barber shop , Warren Edwards “opened fire on

customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a
concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course, it’s impossible
to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been

4
 stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he
[the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”

3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed

the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and
wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and
took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would
have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated
that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not
utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people
in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald
Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts
was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested.

4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and

wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected
from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor
and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-
carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the
evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was
reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We
believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne
County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.

5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed
with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a
concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and
other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance,
unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on
killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in
the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.

6. 6. In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an

apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they
gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women,
and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then
we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the
number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine
who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted
Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he
brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went
into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the
women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then
ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and
wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the
sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would

5
 have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they
not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the
military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But
Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had
a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base,
he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when
on security duty. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

7. 7. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people

and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then
shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a
concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have
killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family
feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more
names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more
people in trying to evade capture.

8. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people

at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church
member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had
been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my
knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked
down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether
he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my
guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the
church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).

9. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a

teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students.
He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack
more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he
was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next
door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was
planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the
police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not
stopped him.

10. 10. In Pearl, Miss., in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed

and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students
and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he
was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get
a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham
was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting,
though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so
state. [UPDATE: For whatever it’s worth, Heidi Kinchen of The Advocate
(Baton Rouge) notes that Myrick was in the Army reserves and in the

6
 National Guard, though he was obviously not on duty at the time of the
shooting.]

Volokh lists the following questions after studying these cases. These are
important question and may say more about what we don’t know about
civilians and mass shootings:

1. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions

happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the
shootings happen? The existence of gun free zones is a variable
that should be considered in any major study of this type. If more
guns are available perhaps more positive interventions would
occur? The possibility for more errors and accidental shootings
would also likely rise.

2. In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and

injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after
he’s already done? An important question to consider is that
some shooters might do less damage if they were confronted but
we cannot escape the possibility that it could also escalate some
situations. What if a shooter has targeted a few specific
individuals or plans to shoot themselves. The suggestion is not to
let them have their way or control the situation but at the end of
the event the death toll might actually rise. Research should
examine this “early intervention effect”.

3. In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to

bystanders? The error rate of police shootings is useful when
considering this possibility. Even trained police are often charged
with injuring innocent bystanders when involved in armed
confrontation. The caliber of many modern weapons should also
be considered in research since fragments and pass through
projectiles might have a significant impact on bystander safety.

4. Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings on average

account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate
and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since
the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is
thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the
prospect of encountering an armed bystander). This lay
statement is probably true but if the opposite of stricter gun laws
is a “Wild west shoot out mentality we may be taking a major
step backwards in public safety.

A final note on the Volokh research shows that after his original study Volokh
learned that Myrick (#10) was a National Guard member, and that Barner

7
(#6) was a Marine. This reduces the number of cases to eight not ten and of
course changes the statistics as well. One might conclude that “Active
Shooter Training and Live Fire Experience” are more important than gun
ownership or open carry laws. Even with training the willingness to engage
and shoot may be over riding factors.

There are definitely stories out there like these, and that's something the
pro-gun movement has mobilized in its favor. But these examples belie some
of the raw numbers about mass shootings ― in other words, when armed
citizens and mass shooters collide. A 2012 study by Mother Jones found that
none of the 62 mass shootings from the preceding three decades were
stopped by an armed citizen with a gun.6 (Fullman 2012)

For example, take the case of the Las Vegas shooting, in which a gunman
opened fire at night from a hotel room on the 32nd floor in the Mandalay Bay
Hotel Casino down on a concert crowd more than 200 feet away. The
possibility of an armed concert-goer identifying a target and firing up and
striking the shooter through the window of his room with a personal firearm
seems unrealistic. The potential that an innocent hotel room could take fire
and innocent persons killed in the confusion seems like a real possibility.
____________________________________________________
Live fire situations are difficult even for trained officers .Why should we
assume that citizens can enter a shooting scenario and hit their intended
targets The executive director of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid
Response Training told Slate's Alex Yablon, says, “most citizens aren't going
to be able to hit a target at a distance of more than 25 yards, and that's only
if they can even tell where the shots are coming from.” (7 YABLON 2018).
For example, if you were in the concert venue, concealed carrying, it’s not
likely you could effectively respond. The sad reality is that most people with
a pistol aren’t accurate and even less so at distance.

Leon Neal makes the case against more citizens with guns.(8 Neal 2008.)
“The NRA's laser-like focus on instances where gun owners do have a
positive impact also overlooks some essential realities. It's not enough to
judge the merits of gun ownership strictly by the fact that sometimes, in a
statistically slim percentage of cases; they help thwart some sort of crime or
act of violence.

All the instances in which guns are used to kill people in acts of domestic
abuse, say, or used in acts of suicide, or result in accidental death are
relevant, too, and can't be overlooked. Because taken in sum, those are the
sorts of factors that contribute to the 33,000 gun deaths America endures
each year.

While anecdotal evidence might make for compelling public relations, and
there are indeed some circumstances where gun ownership saves someone's

8
life, the statistics overall are very clear: more guns equals more gun deaths.
Which is precisely why so many other countries throughout the world,
admittedly unburdened by the 2nd Amendment, have taken legislative
action to regulate and control them.”

US Law Enforcement has spent billions of dollars ferreting out marijuana

growers and dealers in a country where pot is increasingly being taken off
the books as illegal. One could muster those same resources to the task of
removing illegal weapons from society if the legalization of marijuana trend
continues. This might make sense to those who believe that when guns are
criminal only criminals will have guns.

In conclusion, the case for armed citizens stopping school shootings is weak
but not closed. In the most recent statistics from (2018) the FBI analyzed 27
shootings, 27 incidents resulted in 213 casualties (85 people killed and 128
people wounded, excluding the shooters). The highest number of casualties
(17 killed and 17 wounded) occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in Parkland, Florida. Could an armed teacher have affected the
outcome?

As we examine 2018 incidents further we find that Law enforcement officers

suffered casualties in five of the nine incidents where they engaged the
shooter to end the threat.
1. In two incidents, two law enforcement officers were killed (one from
friendly fire) during an exchange of gunfire with the shooter.
2. In two incidents, five law enforcement officers were wounded during an
exchange of gunfire with the shooter. (In one incident, three officers
were wounded from gunfire, and one officer was wounded from injuries
incidental to the shooting.)
3. In one incident, a school resource officer was wounded as he was
about to engage the shooter; two other officers engaged the shooter.
4. One unarmed security officer was killed in 2018.

In five 2018 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter.

In three incidents, unarmed citizens confronted the shooter, thereby ending
the shooting.
1. In one incident, a citizen wrestled the gun away from the shooter. The
shooter fled the scene and was apprehended approximately 34 hours
later at another location.
2. In one incident, citizens confronted the shooter (including one who
was pistol-whipped by the shooter), allowing others to flee the scene.
The shooter committed suicide at the scene before law enforcement
arrived.

9
 3. In one incident, a teacher wrestled the shooter to the ground and
restrained him until law enforcement arrived and apprehended him.
4. In two incidents, armed citizens possessing valid firearms permits
exchanged gunfire with the shooter.
5. In one incident, two citizens retrieved their guns from their respective
vehicles, then shot and killed the shooter.
6. In one incident, a citizen armed with a gun confronted the shooter, but
no gunfire was exchanged. A second citizen exchanged gunfire with
the shooter, but neither was struck. The shooter fled the scene and
was apprehended by law enforcement a short time later at another
location

So, in 2018 in 27 incidents 5 seemed to be positively affected by citizen

involvement yet in only 2 did armed citizens exchange fire. In the others,
they wrestled the individual to the ground or deter them in a non-lethal
manner.
(8 Neal 2008.)
Perhaps we are focusing too much on just one variable the “volunteer
citizens” and subsequent outcomes. What effect does the profile of the
shooter have on the interventions of law enforcement and citizens? The
Shooters could be simply looking for attention or trying to commit suicide. In
other words, if we could identify or profile shooters could we then better
understand the effects of different types of interventions and more
importantly develop better strategies for deterrence. Once an incident has
taken lives or gone hot there is little recourse left but to neutralize the
shooter. But what if we could stop them before they become active?

We should note that because there are so few shooters statically speaking
we are looking at all of them not just school shooters to hopeful establish
patterns and understandings.

In the 2018 FBI study (9 FBI 2019) there were 27 shooters. Twenty-three
shooters were male; three shooters were female; the gender of one shooter
is unknown. Twenty-six shooters acted alone; one shooter may have acted
alone. The lone wolf phenomenon seems to be a recurring theme with
shooters. Marginalized individuals with few friends and poor support
emotional systems.

The shooters ranged in age from 13 years to 64 years. Five shooters were in
their teens, seven were in their 20s, seven were in their 30s, three were in
their 40s, two were in their 50s, and two were in their 60s. The age of one
shooter is unknown. The majority of shooters are younger and that seems to
fit with various “troubled youth” models.

10
Eleven shooters were apprehended by law enforcement, six at the scene,
and five at another location. Two of the 11 shooters initially fled the scene
after being confronted by citizens, and one was restrained by a citizen. Five
shooters were killed. Four were killed by law enforcement at the scene, and
one shooter was killed by citizens possessing valid firearms permits at the
scene.

Ten shooters committed suicide: four at the scene before law enforcement
arrived, three at the scene after law enforcement arrived, and three at
another location. One of the shooters committed suicide after being
confronted by citizens.
One shooter is at large. (9 FBI 2019)

A final thought that cannot be denied is the large number of suicides among
active shooters. Why do so many shooters want to die and take a large
number or specific people with them?

The effects of armed civilian interventions in active shooter cases is mixed at

best. But how effective would Teachers be in armed encounters? No matter
their dedication and willingness to serve a simple fact remains that teachers
are not trained law enforcement personnel. How would they compare and
how much would training do make a teacher competent?

If we assume that it is wise to have citizens and in this case teachers get
involved in active shooter incidents we should probably consider the
outcomes of trained persons in shooting encounters

Should the growing legislative and school board opinion on arming teachers
prevail we need to address another important question. Will teachers be
effective shooters or as gun control advocates argue will this lead to
dangerous unintended consequences. Even those with a weapons
background who receive training are not as efficient as you might suppose.
Besides, shooting on a firing range or shooting cans off a fence is not the
same as returning live fire while under duress.

According to Kruzel," Trained police hit their targets less than 30 percent of
the time, yet the @NRA wants to arm volunteer teachers," Shannon Watts,
founder of Moms Demand Action, "It's on each of us to prevent this NRA
dystopia, and stop letting the gun lobby write our gun laws. We're sacrificing
our children at the altar of gun manufacturers' profits."(10 Kruzel 2018).

Watts may have a point that the average armed teacher might be less
accurate than a trained cop. But her claim that trained police hit their target
"less than 30 percent of the time" is not as clear-cut as Watts suggests.

11
For starters, national numbers on police marksmanship are not readily
available. But we found data on some individual jurisdictions, including
several major metropolitan police departments. A 2008 Rand study (11
Rostker ... [et. al.]. 2008). looked at the accuracy of New York Police
Department officer-involved shootings. The key data point is the "hit rate,"
the number of rounds that struck a suspect divided by total shots fired.

The Rand study looked at NYPD firearm-discharge reports from 1998 through
2006. Some of the findings point in Watts’ favor, while other data refutes her
point. Hit ratios were below 30 percent for gunfights (18 percent) and from
long ranges (23 percent from more than seven yards away). However, in
cases where suspects did not return fire, NYPD officers hit their targets 30
percent of the time. Accuracy levels were above 30 percent when the target
was seven yards away or closer (37 percent).

Recent data shows a further uptick in the NYPD’s hit rate compared with the
Rand study. Inspector Kevin Maloney, who headed up the NYPD unit that
oversees police-involved shootings, told the New York Daily News in
December 2017 that the NYPD fired a record low number of rounds that
year. The department’s hit ratio also exceeded those in the 2008 Rand study
in 2017.

NYPD cops fired 170 shots and hit their targets 75 times, for a hit ratio of 44
percent for the year, as of Dec. 21, 2017. In 2016, police landed 107 of a
total 304 shots fired, a hit ratio of roughly 35 percent. Again, Watts said the
hit rate was less than 30 percent.

Recent data from the Los Angeles Police Department further undermines
Watts’ claim. According to the LAPD’s 2016 report, the average annual hit
ratio from 2012 through 2016 was 33.4 percent, with a substantial uptick in
2016. (11 Rostker ... [et. al.]. 2008).

"With a lot of training and reform, LAPD has a hit rate of 48 percent (in
2016). That is likely at the high end of hit rates," said Gregory Ridgeway, an
associate professor of criminology and statistics at the University of
Pennsylvania. "Their number of rounds per incident is also way down in the
last five years."

In a 2006 study, Michael D. White, (12 Watts 2018). a criminology professor

at Arizona State University, provided a roundup of hit ratio data from various
jurisdictions and timeframes. "Hit rates vary notably across police agencies
but in the largest samples like Michigan and New York they rarely exceed 50
percent," .In 155 Michigan police departments the rate was a mere 27% and
New York departments ranged from 23% to 31%.

White wrote. "The research examining shooter accuracy overwhelmingly

12
debunks the Hollywood myth of police officers as sharp shooters who can
wing suspects in the shoulder or leg or shoot weapons out of suspects’
hands. "Firearms’ training varies across jurisdictions. Some major
metropolitan police departments require officers to qualify up to four times a
year on handgun marksmanship and undergo simulated training exercises.
Police experts say that armed teachers should also be forced to undertake
specialized and repeated training regimens.

"Simply putting a gun on the premises and hoping someone’s going to do the
right thing with it is baseless," Chris Grollnek, a former law enforcement
officer who specializes in security issues told the PBS Newshour. "All you’re
doing is signing people up for PTSD."

President Trump first proposed arming teachers following the Feb. 14

shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that
killed 14 students and three staff members, and wounded 17 others.
Administration officials in March said the White House wants to partner with
local official to give teachers and other volunteer school personnel "rigorous
firearms training," but offered few details on a concept that has been
embraced by the National Rifle Association.

Watts said, "Trained police hit their targets less than 30 percent of the time."
By saying less than 30 percent, Watts is distorting the facts. A national figure
for police marksmanship is not readily available. Overall, data from some
jurisdictions supports Watts’ claim, while other data refutes it. This claim is
partially accurate. (12 Watts 2018).

The FBI’s analysis of active shooters between 2000 and 2013 has another
relevant data point: “Law enforcement suffered casualties in 21 (46.7%) of
the 45 incidents where they engaged the shooter to end the threat.” These
are people trained to do this kind of thing full time, and nearly half of
incidents resulted in at least one officer being wounded or killed. Teachers
with limited training would very likely fare much worse.(13 Lopez 2018. )

Given that even highly trained professionals miss more than they hit in
active shooter situations a teacher might not be a great candidate for the
role as armed participant. In fact even teachers that volunteer may not
shoot?

Surveys show the majority of teachers will not volunteer to be armed on

campus but it may be possible that the law could make them? If teachers are
reluctant participants and are drafted into the protective services one has to
wonder will they really participate? Will they shoot? A look at citizen soldiers
in wartime situations might help us understand the problem. Many wars are
fought by drafted individuals with little or no desire to fight. Basic training

13
and the will to survive should deliver them to the battlefield ready to kill in
the defense of themselves and country.

During the American Civil War 27,000+ loaded muskets where found on the
battlefield at Gettysburg, many with multiple loading. A far higher estimated
number, with 95% empty muskets was expected. It became apparent to
some that there was an ingrained reluctance to shoot at the enemy. Of
course, these undischarged weapons could have been left unfired by the
already dead or soldiers might have been saving a shot for closer quarters
but the perception remains that many did not fire. (14 Harvey 2016)

The common notion is that many did not want to even fire over the heads of
the enemy. General S.L.A. Marshall was the chief Army historian during
World War II and the Korean War. He observed that many men fired over the
heads of the enemy rather than into them. Many volunteered to recover
wounded or tote ammo, anything to avoid killing a fellow human being. Very
few solders were actually firing and shooting to kill or at least hit an enemy.
During the Civil War men would stand a mere 30 yards firing their guns,
sometimes for quite long periods of time. If a regiment fired, and shot to kill,
an opening volley should have created about 480 casualties, instead they
were experiencing only a casualty every couple of minutes or so. (14 Harvey
2016)

This claim about non-shooting is not without its detractors. Interviews with
surviving military officers dispute the findings of Marshall and others but it
brings up an interesting point. If hardcore military training cannot make
certain that a person will shoot under duress how can we expect a civilian
training program to work any better? It is hard to believe that combat
hardened soldiers don’t fire at the enemy but perhaps those new to the
battlefield will always be reluctant to take lives? When we ask these
questions of teachers generally dedicated to making the world a safe
peaceful rational place we may get alarming results? In an ongoing study
being conducted at Southwestern Oklahoma State University Kurtz and
Kavish are researching that very question in a study due out in 2020.(15
Kurtz and Kavish 2020)

Some have used the term “Killer Instinct” to describe a possible genetic link
behind the willingness to kill. Grossman developed a theory, based on the
World War II research of S.L.A. Marshall, that most of the population deeply
resists killing another human. Perhaps we need to focus more on that point
but some veterans and historians have cast doubt on Marshall's research
methodology.
Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute,
US Army Command and General Staff College) argues in his 1988 article,
"S.L.A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire “that Marshall had not actually

14
conducted the research upon which he based his ratio-of-fire theory. "The
'systematic collection of data' appears to have been an invention. This
revelation has called into question the authenticity of some of Marshall's
other books and has lent academic weight to doubts about his integrity that
had been raised in military circles even decades earlier.(16 Spiller 88) Still,
as a result of Marshall's work, modern military training was modified to
attempt to override this instinct, by:

1. using man-shaped targets instead of bullseye targets in

marksmanship practice
2. practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
3. dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
4. displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure,
i.e., the commanding officer and the military hierarchy
By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says
Grossman, (90% of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people. He
also says the act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even
more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others. Grossman
further argues that violence in television, movies and video
games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training
and desensitization.17. (Grossman 2017)
Milgram discovered years ago far people would go in obeying an instruction
if it involved harming another person. He was interested in how easily
ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example,
Germans in WWII. His conclusion was that 65% (two-thirds) of participants
continued applying pain to subjects to the highest level. All the participants
were persuaded to administer some pain. So, it may be that teachers can be
induced to shoot an intruder in many more cases than not if they accept the
administrative edict to do so as legitimate. (Milgram 1974)18.
A few studies have addressed the opinions of teachers when it comes to
arming them as a defense against active shooters in schools. A national
study found that nearly 75 percent of teachers oppose the idea of being
trained to carry guns in schools, a new survey finds.
1. 73% of teachers oppose teachers and staff carrying guns in schools
2. 58% say carrying guns in schools would make schools less safe
3. 18% would be willing to carry a gun in school buildings

(19 Brenan 2018 ).

More than half of teachers believe bringing guns into school would mean more risk.
One comprehensive analysis finds there have been more than 65 publicly-reported
incidents of mishandled guns at schools in the last five years, including:
 A teacher’s loaded gun falling from his waistband during a cartwheel.

15
  A student grabbing an officer’s gun while the officer attempted to
subdue the student.
 A teacher unintentionally firing a gun in class during a safety
demonstration.
(20. KELLY DRANE 2019)

More than 80 percent of teachers said they would not train to be able to wield a
firearm if their school presented the option to do so. However, 20 percent of
teachers support the idea of arming staff members and 18 percent would undergo
special training to carry a firearm at school. “They tend to be teachers in rural
areas who already own guns,” Newport said. It seems like if a person grows up
shooting guns and/or comes from a gun culture they would be willing to volunteer
but we should still not ignore the three things that continue to make one pause

1. Effectiveness of non-professionals and professionals alike

2. The Mortality rate for those who intervene in shootings
3. Other better options

Most Americans do not own firearms (70 percent) so they would need to be
trained from scratch even if willing. A large percentage of teachers K-12 are
women and approximately 78percent of the donor own firearms.

For those who do not know where these numbers come from consider that
these results are based on a Gallup Panel web study completed by 497
national adults, aged 18 and older, who teach K-12 students in the U.S. The
survey was conducted March 5-12, 2018. The Gallup Panel is a probability-
based longitudinal panel of U.S. adults who are selected using random-digit-
dial (RDD) phone interviews that cover landlines and cellphones. Address-
based sampling methods are also used to recruit panel members. The Gallup
Panel is not an opt-in panel and members are not given incentives for
participating. For results based on this sample, one can say that the maximum
margin of sampling error is ±7 percentage points, at the 95% confidence level.
Margins of error are higher for subsamples. In addition to sampling error,
question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce
error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. (19 Brenan 2018 ).

So, what are other better options? Here is a list of possible solutions to school
fatalities that we should consider first before arming teachers.

1. Safe rooms or at least safer rooms might save lives without arming teachers.
Companies are developing safe room systems for use in classrooms where
teachers and students can shelter in place. One system also serves as a
tornado shelter for those in storm threatened states.
(21Glover 2018)

16
 Even if a school cannot afford to install safe rooms they can at least make
classrooms harder to enter and easier to defend.

2. Better Exit plans. When schools are attacked and mass exits are underway
improved exit plans need to be in place that take into account all students and
staff and move them safely to designated areas. Electronic tracking as each
individual passes a sensor on a pole would make it possible to know who is
who and possible identify a fleeing attacker when they set off an alarm.
3. Better security and access cards. Restricting access to schools is a clear
enough goal yet some districts are far behind in security. Requiring electronic
badges and the use of subtle metal detector systems seems standard in some
districts.

4. The development and application of Non-lethal measures that can be safely

applied to a threat is a goal that all of law enforcement would welcome. Many
thought that MACE would be sure a tool and then it was Tasers but the truth is
we do not want responders to be armed with these items alone when facing a
gun and multiple loaded magazines.
5. Better communication and intelligence. We must be aware of privacy issues
and trust issues when installing cameras in schools but their use as a deterrent
and incident management tool can be of great value. Many school still have
Intercom systems but many don’t and that also can be a great tool during an
incident.
6. Improved mental health screening for students and staff.
7. Finally, if we do arm more teachers lets develop specialized units of willing
teachers with expert skills and live fire training and certifications. Instructors
who are properly trained and certified should be issued a “Kit” that includes at
least.

A. A weapon with stuffiest clips and ammo.

B. A Kevlar Safety vest and helmet that cannot be removed once deployed.
C. A communication device with direct line to first responders.

School Administrations will of course have to design appropriate and

adequate policies and procedures governing the carrying and use of firearms
by teachers and school staff? Here are some topics they will have to address.
1. The school will need to develop a” use of force continuum”. When
will it be appropriate for a teacher to shoot and when will it be ok to
shoot to kill? They can use existing police models and determine
they stand up in comparison to such standards held for police
officers and others who are armed and deployed in a public safety
capacity?
2. The school will need to decide on the types of firearms (types of
guns, caliber of weapons, etc.) are staff allowed to carry and not

17
 allowed to carry? Will staff carry their own personal firearms or
school district-issued firearms?
3. The school will need to develop regular “inspections” of staff
firearms to make sure they are functional and appropriate to policy,
and if so, who on school staff is responsible for that function and
what is their level of expertise and training to make such decisions?
4. The school will need to offer firearms training on a regular, ongoing
basis to those staff it authorizes to be armed with guns?
5. The school will need to offer Weapons retention training provided to
staff who are armed and steps taken to reduce risks of a teacher or
staff member being intentionally disarmed by a student or other
person, or for having a firearm dislodged from a staff member’s
control when the teacher breaks up a fight in a cafeteria or hallway?
6. The school will need to be prepared to prevent and manage
situations where teachers and/or staff members lose, misplace, or
have stolen firearms while on campus?
7. The school will need to manage an accidental shooting that could
occur?
8. The school will need to consider the impact of this type of board
policy and practice on the school district’s insurance and potential
legal liability posture?

After all, has been considered, volunteers recruited, training and policies
established and a new emergent culture of armed teachers has been
established questions remain.

Let’s imagine that 20%of a school’s faculty enlisted in the program. In my

children’s High school that would be 30 volunteers out of 150 teachers in a
school of around 3000 students. That seems like a virtual police force of
armed teachers. If a single armed teacher, using data discussed earlier
about the hit-rate of police assuming that the teacher was as proficient as
the police fired 10 rounds during the incident it is reasonable to assume that
at least 7 rounds would hit something other than the shooter. If two armed
teachers opened fire we can assume that 14 rounds would go astray and
each subsequent armed teacher could easily add another 7. If all armed
teachers engage that could lead to a staggering 210 stray bullets ricocheting
off marble floors and creating an unacceptable hazard. The last part of the
scenario is unlikely but the potential is enough to give one pause.

I have been in two potential shooter situations and locked down for two
hours in one of those. They were both false alarms but the tensions and
subsequent reelections are very real. I have a carry permit but my university
forbids guns on campus so I was unarmed and wishing I had a weapon. I had
no illusions about heading out to look for the shooter but it would have made
me feel safer knowing I could defend myself if the shooter tried to enter my
locked classroom. I would have been ok with a safe room or better exit plan

18
 too. The chapter began with the question Will Teachers Shoot? Perhaps a
better end note is to ask the question Do we really want teachers to shoot?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2. Lake Hefner Shooting News 9 OKC May 25th. 2018

https://www.news9.com/story/38279981/warning-lake-hefner-shooter-rants-on-
youtube

3. Gun Control Alex Yablon Jul 2, 2017, Active Shooter Incidents in the United
States in 2016 and 2017 FBI April 2018

4. Alex Yablon Jul 2, 2017, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evd4we/the-good-

guy-with-a-gun-theory-debunked The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked

5. Constitutional carry' becomes first legislation signed into law, Barbara

Hoberock Tulsa World Feb 27, 2019

6. Do citizens (not police officers) with guns ever stop mass shootings? By
Eugene Volokh
Contributor, The Volokh Conspiracy October 3, 2015

7. Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Fullman December 19, 2012

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-
mass-shootings/

8. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/las-vegas-should-put-an-end-to-
the-nra-good-guy-with-a-gun-line.html ALEX YABLON OCT 02, 2018

9. Leon Neal make the case against more citizens with guns Evaluation of the
New York City Police Department firearm training and firearm- discharge
review process / Bernard D. Rostker ... [et. al.]. p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8330-4416-7 (pub. : alk. paper) 2008

10. Active Shooters Incidents in the United States FBI April 2019

11. Do more than 7 in 10 police bullets miss their mark, as this gun control
advocate said?
By John Kruzel on Friday, May 25th, 2018 at 11:35 a.m.

19
12. Bernard D. Rostker ... [et. al.]. 2008 Rand , Evaluation of the New York City
Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process

13. "Trained police hit their targets less than 30 percent of the time." Shannon
Watts , May 21st, 2018

14. Lopez2018 The case against arming teachers More “good guys with guns”
wouldn’t be enough — and would likely make a lot of problems worse.
By German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com Mar 20, 2018,
11:35am EDT

15. Why the guns at Gettysburg were found loaded Aug 30, 2016 Ian Harvey The
Vintage News

16. (Kurtz and Kavish 2020) Southwestern Oklahoma State University approved
research project “ Will Teachers Shoot”

17. Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute,
US Army Command and General Staff College) argues in his 1988 article,
"S.L.A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" (RUSI Journal, Winter 1988, pages 63–
71),

18. Peaceby Lt. Col. David Grossman and Loren Christensen | Apr 25, 2017 In On
Combat (Grossman's sequel to On Killing, based on ten years of additional
research and interviews) he addresses the psychology and physiology of
human aggression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology 1996

19. Milgram “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974)

20. Most U.S. Teachers Oppose Carrying Guns in Schools

20
 BY ME G AN BRE N AN 2018 E DU C ATION
https://news.gallup.com/poll/229808/teachers-oppose-carrying-guns-
schools.aspx

21. Every Incident of Mishandled Guns in Schools

KELLY DRANE MAY 1, 2019 G IFFORDS .
22.
. HTTPS://WWW.NECN.COM/NEWS/NATIONAL-INTERNATIONAL/ARE-BULLETPROOF -
CLASSROOM-SHELTERS -THE -ANSWER -TO-GUN-VIOLENCE --475554023. HTML SAFE
ROOMS BY SARAH GLOVER
PUBLISHED MAR 1, 2018 US WORLD

21