Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
All the school shootings had one thing in common: there was no fighting back.
I'd want my kids to do everything possible to get them out relatively unscathed-throw chairs, bite the gunman's fucking thumb off, if they could...
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, but there are reports in other instances (rape, robbery,abduction, etc) where fighting back was the thing to do.
|
Whether or not it's apparent, the subtext of my statement isn't an argument at all for passivitiy.
In truth I'd sooner have teachers trained with access to a firearm in a quick-access lockbox on school grounds. Most people don't know this but in every hospital Emergency Department in which I've worked there is a revolver in a hidden lockbox available. Most locums physicians don't know about it but it's there.
Again, I'm not even arguing for students to
passively submit, either. On the contrary I'd rather have them
actively running.
If you want another reason ... twenty students running away are twenty moving (and receding) targets going in twenty different directions.
But if they attack they converge into a pack (especially if a gunman retreats a few yards before making his shot) wherein multiple targets can be taken down with every single shot.
And consider this ... we all are familiar with the scenario of the young soldier trained intensively in boot camp for warfare only to become petrified in the face of danger as his comrades die about him (in truth an uncommon scenario given the quality of modern military training). And now we expect that untrained, unconditioned and unarmed children to exhibit the courage of ghurka warriors and charge ahead undaunted by loud sounds of gunfire or the screaming of classmates either shot or trampled ... just because someone gave them a 10 minute lecture on the subject?
There are many better alternatives to making our children into cannon-fodder - e.g. Arming Teachers or having the kids run away.