It's amazing how much little we trust people to cut out hair, especially when we compare the amount of training required for other things.
For instance; in Ohio, the 700 hour training program for teachers to use guns was just paired back to 24.
It wasn't a 700 hour training program for teachers to use guns. It was a peace officer training course (Law Enforcement Officer). Maybe 24 hours isn't enough, but that's 3 days of coursework normally. As opposed to 4.5 months of training (that's probably unpaid, which really amounts to: no one took it).
"...in the USA."
I wonder if, when some teacher eventually does go on a spree, the training will allow them to rationally kill more 'than would have been previously expected".
Additional gun question. In religious schools would nuns, for example, be expected to be armed?
Probably not. Most of the training is about use of force and very basic marksmanship.
"Additional gun question. In religious schools would nuns, for example, be expected to be armed?"
No one is being expected to be armed. It's optional/voluntary.
I would imagine that many people don't see it as a huge issue given that 25+ states don't require training to carry a gun in public; that school children are also in the public areas where those people carry; and that there are exceptionally few issues with those carrying a gun legally, even more so in the context of school children being affected. Add to that the idea that if a teacher can't be trusted/responsible with a weapon around a child (responsibility could include choosing not to carry if they don't feel competent), then they probably don't have the trust/responsibility necessary to be a teacher in general.
The predominate threat of guns to children is that they gain unsupervised access to one. I imagine/hope that a large part of the training focuses on that. No leaving it in a purse/desk/etc.