As a retired teacher and a former U.S. Army officer, I’d like to weigh in on the subject of arming teachers.

Let’s set aside the idea that schools ought to be welcoming, nurturing places with an atmosphere of warmth and encouragement.

Let’s take the best-case scenario - which is definitely not the case. We have all the teachers voluntarily armed and all well trained in both marksmanship vis-à-vis a moving target and the use of deadly force.

Since armed intruders generally do not announce their intentions ahead of time, the teachers’ weapons would need to be always at the ready - and always loaded. There are countless problems with that scenario. Am I to sling my weapon while I continue my routine schoolwork, assisting students, using high-tech equipment, etc.?

Why do I say sling? Why not a holster? Because the intruder is likely to have an AR 15 and the teacher defending the class (and him/herself) needs to be similarly equipped; otherwise, they are very likely to be a victim themselves.

Once the shooting starts, how do the police determine in the chaos who is the teacher and who is the intruder? What about shots that miss the intended target? Etc., etc.

You might say, well, not all teachers will be armed; only those who have volunteered and are deemed up to the task and tried. OK, so now, how do we convince the intruder to come to those classrooms first? Or do we have the armed teachers rushing around the halls trying to find the source of the gunfire?

Let’s not even mention the statistics concerning police officers involved in shooting incidents. I believe the accuracy when aiming for a moving target is something less than 20 percent - among trained police officers.

One final point to consider: While I was a fairly decent athlete, I had never fired a gun of any kind before my military training. The weapon I learned on was an M 16, similar to the AR 15.The thing that impressed me was how easy it was to fire the weapon and hit a target. I, a person with no prior training, could easily hit a stationary target up to 300 yards away. Why are we allowing members of the general public to have these sorts of weapons - not to mention bump stocks and other such devices to render the weapons even more lethal?

While some may argue that those seeking to gun down students would only find other means, I tell you this: A weapon like the AR 15 with a semi-automatic function (no need to reload) and a magazine of 30 or more rounds can do damage that any sort of single-shot weapon cannot. There is no reason for a civilian to have these sorts of weapons. And to the old “only criminals would have guns” rejoinder, I say: True, and they could be arrested and charged with a felony merely for possessing them. And don’t try to tell me this type of gun ownership was something our Founding Fathers had in mind.

Get real. Other countries have addressed this problem without taking away guns from hunters, recreational target shooters or those looking to protect themselves. We can, too - if we have the desire.

Editor’s note: George VanDoren is a contributor to the Press’ Focus section. He chairs the Lehigh Valley Poetry Project Adjudication Committee. He plays brass in area municipal bands. He is a retired Bethlehem Area School District teacher.