Andrew B.: I agree with your statement to gun advocates. Part of what the NRA should represent is the safe use of guns, proper storage of guns and ammunition*, and extensive training on how and WHEN to use guns. If they're not fulfilling that main responsibility, then they are indeed failing the public, and their toys should be taken away from them. This includes anyone who feels that arming a person makes that person an expert marksman instead of a death dealing novice... such as teachers or principals.

*Without bullets, an assault rifle is just a fancy club.

1- Find and stop the shooter. By whatever means. (Best)

2- draw fire. Every bullet sent his way is one not aimed at a child. 

3- force him to flee.  He’s shooting at children.  Unlikely to engage police

4- he knows law enforcement is in scene and commits suicide or surrenders. 

5- he’s able to give real time locations of shooter and victims even if he never catches up.  

6- Dying.  Terrible, but again it’s a bullet not aimed at a child. Plus it’s the job. 

It’s the harsh truth of the job. Dying is possible, but he needed to enter.  It’s ok to be scared, but he needed to enter.  The theory of waiting for a tactical team (SWAT) is outdated.  You enter and engage. 

-C!

(FBI and Police fails horrendously)

How dare you criticize the police! Keyboard militia! Surrender your weapons!

I did ask you a few pages back if you had any evidence pertaining to UK burglars choosing to intrude when people are at home (personally, without surveying actual burglars - and how could anyone do that? - I am not sure where the evidence would be).

EDIT: I did ask and you didn't reply. And (this applies to everything), incontestable statistics compiled by a legitimate organisation, not "My friend saw or said..."

David M: "The keyboard militiae heaping abuse on the deputy are despicable. It takes some balls telling a stranger he should have gone to his death,"

Then maybe I'm one of these despicables, but I think that - as a last resort - that is the police's job. To be In Harm's Way to protect civilians. In an emergency or crisis, the officer might indeed have to take that risk... that's what they're paid for.

But a lot of people seem to think that this deputy would have run into the building, right out in the open and making a perfect target of himself, and practically inviting the shooter to take him down.

I'm not a police officer, and I could never be one; I don't have the right temperament, and I certainly no longer have the physical skills. I wonder if anyone here, or any of the multitudes of critics have American police training for such situations. I have reason to believe that, now more than ever, such situations are probably covered when a cadet goes to the police academy. Tactics, situational awareness, such of that nature which, again, I'm not unquestionably familiar with.

I'm curious if any of my fellows here are police who could provide further insight into this. I think a professional might give us some insight to this matter. I've briefly touched on this once or twice with one or two police friends I have, and they all agree; they don't want to get shot and killed. But they know that their job has that kind of dangers, and they stay with it anyhow.

In any case, I think we don't give police enough respect for the danger they face.