I have read a number of letters to the editor in which people state that school personnel should be armed because they would be in a position to protect students. A National Rifle Association task force released a 225-page report on Tuesday that called for armed police officers, armed security guards or armed staff members in every American school. The reasoning is that they are on site, they could respond quickly, the bad guys would know they had guns thus reducing the opportunities, and the result of all of this is that the kids would be safe. This argument has been extended to many other scenarios.
In 1981 Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington, DC. There were five or six Secret Service agents within 10 feet of the president. Other agents scanned the scene from a distance. These agents had guns. They had extensive training with their firearms. They knew how to use them. Their entire focus was on the task of protecting the president from harm. They were ready.
John Hinckley Jr. knew that there would be Secret Service with guns. He knew they had firearms training. He knew these agents would be looking out for someone who might harm the president. He was still able to get close to the president and fire six rounds with a cheap German revolver in 1.7 seconds. The president was injured, but thankfully survived.
Would armed educators be successful at protecting students from harm? How is that possible?