The differences between the police and your neighbors with military or police experience are negligible especially in the context of using a weapon in an emergency.
Are you really comparing the ability to perform surgery to the ability to shoot a gun and hit a target? Think. Please.
How does that relate to using armed teachers or armed volunteer guards in schools? Shooting a gun is not surgery. Most people can do it as soon as they can point their finger.
You know that most people are competent or you would never drive down a 2 way street - or drive at all - or walk near a road. Anyone with a military or police background will be able to perform at least as well as all the police during the Parkland shooting.
It is not just the ability to shoot and hit a target but having the proper judgement. And from what I saw in my military service, shooting and hitting a target is not as easy some people think.
Armed police are a poor choice to protect schools, as they normally lack the training to handle an active shooter incident and in some cases, such as Parkland where not permitted to intervene by orders of the their captain.
True, but human judgement is limited. Police, like armed teachers or armed volunteers will make mistakes. The police are most effective as a deterrent when they actually have to act to "protect and serve" Parklands happen. When four armed retirees are sitting at a table playing cards at the end of school hallways school shooters will find better targets.
And honest law enforcement leaders admit to that and actually encourage their law abiding citizens to take up arms and become first responders.
An armed teacher or volunteer would have acted immediately and had a far better chance of stopping or slowing the shooter. More than one would have had an overwhelming advantage.
There is actually research showing that when people point there finger at a target they are usually pointing right at it. But then a gun is not a finger.
That's because the anti's operate on a one way street of logic, if the threats fit their narrative, they are proper and good, if not, they need to investigated and prosecuted. These people are not living in reality, but in a world where they will have all the power and anyone who disagrees with them shall be terminated with prejudice.
I know a guy who couldn't get a terrorist who was believed to have information about an upcoming attack on the LTC's men, failing to get straight answers from the Islamist he withdrew his sidearm, pointed at the terrorist's head and fired. After which he apologized for missing the target but it did cause the terrorist to become more cooperative and reveal the information the LTC needed, the JAG present did not take such action well at all and even though the information provided prevented an attack she still reported the LTC.
Yea take a firearm and shove it somewhere, you and I understand that's after a few beers bar room bloviating.
My guess is they would do much better. Instead of standing down as ordered they would go in and try to do their best to take out the threat. In Parkland the SRO stood down and fled the building, leaving the children to fend for themselves, one man in the school, an unarmed coach was killed while leading children to a safe place. He was a man, who under fire was protecting his students, that takes brass balls, imagine what that coach might have been able to do if he was trained and allowed to have a firearm in his possession?