Hard to see a person with a gun as not being a threat to your or ither peoples lives.

@NeilMeyer I totally agree and so does SCOTUS. You'd pretty much need the person to be unconscious or disarmed and handcuffed before the person ceased to be a threat.

This does not answer the question which talks about possible killing of the shooter ("...and the shooter dies"). You write: "Any use of force of any kind that only harms the shooter".

@pabouk-Ukrainestaystrong : Depends how you read it. I initially read it as something that harmed no one but the shooter (including fatally), but looks like it could be read as something that did no more than harming the shooter (and not killing them). I'm guessing the first was intended, but applying selective bold text could lead people either way.

This post may just be improved by adding a short synopsis of self-defence doctrine and a paragraph of why this would count as self-defence. It sort of alludes to the fact. It should just state it directly.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere, I edited the text in the Body section to clarify that the teacher only does bodily injury to the shooter.

@NeilMeyer the USA does not agree, apparently.

@user253751: Once they start shooting random people, the problem goes away even in the U.S. Admittedly, with the crazy gun laws in some states, you might have trouble attacking someone until the moment they start aiming a gun at people, even if you expect imminent violence due to prior context, precisely because mere possession of a gun inside a school isn't necessarily violating laws in those states. But if they're actively threatening and/or harming people with the gun, you're in the clear for self-defense/defense-of-others.

@NeilMeyer simply having an oblect doesn't make a person a threat. having a knife, rock, or car in your control doesn't warrant someone trying to harm you. You could be a cop, safely shooting at a range, hunting, cutting your dinner, sharpening your pincil, bulding a rock wall, etc.

you might have means but you don't necessarily have motive or opportunity. all three are necessart for a self defence scenario to be reasonable.

@ShadowRanger I don't think it really even matters that much which state. Regardless of whether it's legal to have a gun in a school, unless there is a reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent them from harming someone with it, you can't just attack them for mere possession. Same way you can't just tackle some old lady who forgot to take her gun out of her purse before going to the airport. That is a crime in every state (exactly which crime depending on circumstances such as level of force you used.) Of course, this is all completely different from the question's scenario.

@NeilMeyer I don't discuss self-defense law in general because the question accurately pre-supposes it and is only focused in on the Garner limitation of it.

There is no possible reason to have a gun at a school other than to threaten the lives of students and teachers. This is not the first or the last school shootings. Rightly or wrongly as it stands now people are going to expect you want to murder people if you bring a gun to a school. Really what do people expect to happen?

@NeilMeyer or forgetting you had in on you. Or being a law enforcement officer. Or any of a number of other reasons people carry guns.

...or being one of the teachers that the NRA think should be trained to defend elementary schools.

@Esther That's the problem, IMHO, of 2nd amendment in USA. USA citizens find it normal to carry a gun even in places where in other (democratic) countries the mere act of carrying a gun would mean jail time. Heck! Here in Italy the mere possession of ANY "war weapon" or a part thereof is a criminal offense. Even the possession of a single cartridge case of expended ammo for an assault rifle is considered illegal!

@DJClayworth Good luck with finding good teachers which are also good shooters AND have the training to keep calm during a shooting with assault weapons! Like Rambo (or SWAT leader) with a degree in, say, chemistry, history or engineering (and the patience of a gentle mom while teaching kids)! How much are school institutions willing to pay for such an unusual mix of skills!?!

@LorenzoDonatisupportUkraine Don't look at me. I also think it's stupid to address this issue by training teachers to use guns, instead of taking the assault guns away.

@DJClayworth. Just to be clear, I didn't want to call you out or something. I just wanted to criticize the NRA statement you referred to. :-)

@Neil "There is no possible reason to have a gun at a school other than to threaten the lives of students and teachers." What makes schools different than other places? There's no lack of bullies at some schools, occasionally violent ones too. You could have a gun at school for self-defense, as much as you could at a bar.

@dbkk: "What makes schools different than other places?" Many would argue that taking a gun to a bar is inappropriate, too. But to give the obvious answer your question: schools are full of children. Children should not be using guns for self defence, nor should they be put in a situation where they need to.

@psmears Easy to make an argument that nobody should need to be using guns for self defense, that the gov't should keep schools as well as other public places secure. Clearly, school shootings happen depressingly often, so people in schools (be it teachers or students) need guns for self defense, as much (or as little) as anywhere else.

@dbkk: There clearly is a problem in the US. I'm not convinced that the answer is to give out guns to children.

@dbkk "people in schools (be it teachers or students) need guns for self defense": how did having a gun work out for the security guard in Buffalo who shot the gunman there? The security guard is dead, and so are the people who were killed by the gunman after he was shot by the guard.