This article, "Florida school shooting: Armed officer 'did not confront killer'" (BBC News, February 23),contains a link to an earlier article stating:
[size=1rem][/size][/color]
[size=1rem][/size][/color]
[/size][size=1rem]US President Donald Trump has signed an order to ban bump-stock devices, which were used by a gunman who killed 58 Las Vegas concert-goers last year.[/size]
[/size][size=1rem]Such devices enable a rifle to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute.[/size]
[/size][size=1rem]Speaking at the White House, Mr Trump said he had directed the justice department to propose a law to make the accessories illegal.[/size]
[/size][size=1rem][/size]
[size=1rem][/size][/color]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43164634?ocid=global_bbccom_email_23022018_top+news+storiesThis is certainly good news.
However, the President has also come out in favor of arming teachers. And the account in this article, about how the regularly assigned security guard never even entered the school but just stood outside while the shooting went on, should make a person wonder about the effectiveness of having armed personnel at a school. This was a person whose job it was to act in a situation involving an armed shooter. He didn't, for some reason.
Armed teachers would presumably still be teachers primarily. If the trained, assigned security guard doesn't act in an emergency situation, how likely would teachers be to jump into one?
In an interview the deputy's lawyer stated that this officer misunderstood where the shots were coming from. He thought they were coming from outside the building.
Less trained, less experienced eyes and ears would be even more likely to make this mistake. Teachers are talented, versatile people but most of them would not be very good at doubling as security guards.