When Teachers Suggest Fighting an Active Shooter: Examining the Controversy and Real-World Solutions
A high school student recently shared a troubling classroom conversation: “My teacher says if a school shooter was to come to school, we should attack him.” While this advice may stem from a desire to empower students, it raises critical questions about safety protocols, ethics, and the psychological impact of such strategies. Let’s unpack why this approach sparks debate and explore what experts recommend for surviving an active shooter scenario.
The “Fight Back” Debate: Well-Intentioned but Problematic
The idea of confronting an armed attacker isn’t new. Law enforcement agencies like the FBI have long advocated the “Run, Hide, Fight” framework, where physical resistance is a last resort if escape or shelter isn’t possible. However, suggesting that students—especially minors—should actively attack a shooter oversimplifies a chaotic, high-stakes situation.
Teachers who promote this strategy often argue that passivity equals vulnerability. They cite incidents like the 2018 STEM School shooting in Colorado, where students rushed the shooter and prevented further casualties. But these cases are outliers. Most active shooter events unfold too quickly for organized resistance, and untrained individuals risk escalating violence.
Key concerns include:
– Lack of Training: Students aren’t taught combat skills or tactical decision-making.
– Psychological Readiness: Freezing or panicking is a common human response to danger.
– Legal Implications: Could schools face liability if students are harmed while following this advice?
What Safety Experts Actually Recommend
Organizations like the Department of Homeland Security and the National Association of School Resource Officers emphasize avoiding direct confrontation whenever possible. Their guidelines prioritize:
1. Run: Evacuate immediately if a safe path exists. Leave belongings behind and warn others.
2. Hide: If escape isn’t feasible, lock doors, barricade entry points, and silence devices.
3. Fight: Only as a last-ditch effort—using improvised weapons (chairs, fire extinguishers) to disrupt the shooter’s ability to aim.
These steps are taught through age-appropriate drills that avoid traumatizing students. For example, the ALICE Training Institute (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate) focuses on situational awareness rather than encouraging aggression.
Why “Attack” Advice Misses the Bigger Picture
Telling students to “attack” ignores systemic issues that contribute to school shootings. Reactive measures alone won’t solve the problem; prevention requires addressing root causes:
– Mental Health Support: Early intervention for students showing signs of distress.
– Threat Assessment Programs: Identifying and monitoring potential risks.
– Secure Infrastructure: Controlled access points, emergency communication systems, and trained security staff.
Furthermore, framing students as defenders shifts responsibility away from policymakers and administrators. As security expert Dr. Jaclyn Schildkraut notes, “No child should bear the burden of stopping a shooter. Our focus must be on keeping guns away from dangerous individuals and improving emergency response plans.”
Real Stories: When Fighting Back Worked—and When It Didn’t
While rare, some successful counterattacks exist:
– In 2019, an unarmed student at UNC Charlotte tackled a shooter, saving lives.
– During the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, survivors credit physics professor Liviu Librescu with blocking a classroom door, allowing students to escape—though he died in the process.
However, these examples involve adults making split-second decisions, often sacrificing themselves. For K–12 students, the risks are magnified. During the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, staff followed protocol by locking doors and hiding children, but the shooter forced entry. Confrontation wasn’t a viable option.
A Better Path Forward: Empowerment Through Preparation
Instead of instructing students to attack, schools should:
– Practice Realistic Drills: Teach evacuation routes and lockdown procedures without inducing fear.
– Encourage Reporting: Create anonymous tip lines for students to share concerns about peers.
– Build Resilience: Offer counseling services to help kids process anxiety about violence.
Parents can also play a role by discussing safety plans and advocating for policy changes like stricter gun laws and increased funding for school security.
Final Thoughts: Balancing Courage and Realism
While the teacher’s advice to “attack” may come from a place of frustration with ineffective security measures, it’s not a standalone solution. Survival in an active shooter event depends on quick thinking, preparation, and—above all—preventing these tragedies from occurring in the first place.
Schools must foster environments where students feel safe, heard, and equipped to act wisely—not as makeshift heroes. By combining practical emergency training with proactive prevention strategies, we can work toward a future where “attack the shooter” becomes an obsolete last resort.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » When Teachers Suggest Fighting an Active Shooter: Examining the Controversy and Real-World Solutions