An anti-2A org. masquerading as a news source posted an idiotic argument against arming anyone inrecruitment centers but the soldiers:
Most armed service members are not trained to neutralize active shooters, and putting more loaded guns in their hands creates its own risks. Most service members — 99 percent of airmen, 88 percent of sailors, and about two-thirds of soldiers and Marines — are not in direct combat roles, but instead are technical workers whose specialties support those “tip of the spear” troops. These include navigators, supply clerks, water purification specialists, and camera crews. Roughly the same breakdown applies to the backgrounds of recruiters and reservists. Practically speaking, this means that your average military member’s firearms experience may only go as far as some boot camp familiarization with a service rifle on a “static range,” plinking at paper targets to qualify for a marksmanshipribbon.
Most active shooters commitsuicide when facing armed resistance. Stopping an active shooter, in most cases, doesn’t require any special training. All that’s required are bullets moving towards the shooter.
The problem is, we are almost always in a reactive posture instead of confronting the active shooter with multiple officers, and time is working in favor of the shooter. Often, we are waiting for the incident to unfold before we are able to interject ourselves into the fray. Depending on the place, whether the shootings occurred in a city or in an isolated rural community, the response of a well-trained personnel may be a while in arriving.
That makes the individual officer our best asset. Though it’s not always possible, we’d like to have a response in which we send in several similarly trained officers, making the responsibility rest with the first car on the scene, and in these types of incidents, it’s important to get inside and act quickly. This rapid interdiction is critical to saving lives. By doing this, we interrupt the killer’s plan and prevent further deaths and injuries.
But, running quickly into the active shooter situation, does not mean running blindly into a gun battle. Rather, it simply means stopping the shooter as fast as possible, either by lethal means or by the mere fact that he knows law enforcement is present. In many instances, knowledge alone, that cops are on the scene, has ended the carnage and caused the gunman to commit suicide.
Getting on the scene and inside as quickly as possible is the answer. Therefore, the key to reacting to an active shooter situation is a rapid response.
Because response time is the key factor for how long an active shooter scenario will play out, the first officer on the scene has to move in and start sending bullets at the shooter ASAP. The sooner somebody is able to provide armed resistance to an active shooter the sooner the situation stops in a vast majority of cases. The “training” that is supposedly absent from boot camp is having a gun and using it to shoot at the active shooter. Anybody who has gone through basic training in any branch of the military can handle that.
Still more effective than waiting for police to respond.
There is not one good argument against armed individuals at the scene being the most effective way to resolve active shootings. An active shooting is a scenario where, in the vast majority of cases, accuracy and tactics aren’t the primary deciding factors in how quickly it stops. A man at the scene with a tactical neon shirt and a camouflage armed a seemingly felonious fore-grip welding a sightless AR-pattern pistol is more effective against an active shooter than waiting for the police to arrive.