good idea or bad idea? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 10-13-2006, 11:24 AM

Texas school tells classes to fight back

Quote:

BURLESON, Texas - Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they got — books, pencils, legs and arms.

"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.

That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.

But school officials in Burleson said they are drawing on the lessons learned from a string of disasters such as Columbine in 1999 and the Amish schoolhouse attack in Pennsylvania last week.

The school system in this working-class suburb of about 26,000 is believed to be the first in the nation to train all its teachers and students to fight back, Browne said.

At Burleson — which has 10 schools and about 8,500 students — the training covers various emergencies, such as tornadoes, fires and situations where first aid is required. Among the lessons: Use a belt as a sling for broken bones, and shoelaces make good tourniquets.

Students are also instructed not to comply with a gunman's orders, and to take him down.

Browne recommends students and teachers "react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as we can and bring them down."

Response Options trains students and teachers to "lock onto the attacker's limbs and use their body weight," Browne said. Everyday classroom objects, such as paperbacks and pencils, can become weapons.

"We show them they can win," he said. "The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun."

The fight-back training parallels the change in thinking that has occurred since Sept. 11, when United Flight 93 made it clear that the usual advice during a hijacking — Don't try to be a hero, and no one will get hurt — no longer holds. Flight attendants and passengers are now encouraged to rush the cockpit.

Similarly, women and youngsters are often told by safety experts to kick, scream and claw they way out during a rape attempt or a child-snatching.

In 1998 in Oregon, a 17-year-old high school wrestling star with a bullet in his chest stopped a rampage by tackling a teenager who had opened fire in the cafeteria. The gunman killed two students, as well as his parents, and 22 other were wounded.

Hilda Quiroz of the National School Safety Center, a nonprofit advocacy group in California, said she knows of no other school system in the country that is offering fight-back training, and found the strategy at Burleson troubling.

"If kids are saved, then this is the most wonderful thing in the world. If kids are killed, people are going to wonder who's to blame," she said. "How much common sense will a student have in a time of panic?"

Terry Grisham, spokesman for the Tarrant County Sheriff's Department, said he, too, had concerns, though he had not seen details of the program.

"You're telling kids to do what a tactical officer is trained to do, and they have a lot of guns and ballistic shields," he said. "If my school was teaching that, I'd be upset, frankly."

Some students said they appreciate the training.

"It's harder to hit a moving target than a target that is standing still," said 14-year-old Jessica Justice, who received the training over the summer during freshman orientation at Burleson High.

William Lassiter, manager of the North Carolina-based Center for Prevention of School Violence, said past attacks indicate that fighting back, at least by teachers and staff, has its merits.

"At Columbine, teachers told students to get down and get on the floors, and gunmen went around and shot people on the floors," Lassiter said. "I know this sounds chaotic and I know it doesn't sound like a great solution, but it's better than leaving them there to get shot."

Lassiter questioned, however, whether students should be included in the fight-back training: "That's going to scare the you-know-what out of them."

Most of the freshman class at Burleson's high school underwent instruction during orientation, and eventually all Burleson students will receive some training, even the elementary school children.

"We want them to know if Miss Valley says to run out of the room screaming, that is exactly what they need to do," said Jeanie Gilbert, district director of emergency management. She said students and teachers should have "a fighting chance in every situation."

"It's terribly sad that when I get up in the morning that I have to wonder what may happen today either in our area or in the nation," Gilbert said. "Something that happens in Pennsylvania has that ripple effect across the country."

Burleson High Principal Paul Cash said he has received no complaints from parents about the training. Stacy Vaughn, the president of the Parent-Teacher Organization at Norwood Elementary in Burleson, supports the program.

"I feel like our kids should be armed with the information that these types of possibilities exist," Vaughn said.

Good idea or Bad? Most schools 'safety' plans or lockdowns run along the lines of the teacher turning out the lights, locking the door, and having the kids hide in the corner. That works great if the gunman never comes to your class, but what if it's YOUR kids class that the gunman enters? what would you want your child to do in that situation? I've tried to teach mine how to fight many times so that he could defend himself in situations like this.

ratbastid · 10-13-2006, 11:28 AM

I'm torn. On one hand, running toward the guy with the gun strikes me as a very poor strategy. On the other, everybody running toward the guy with the gun would tend to end his spree pretty fast.

Also, if I were a kid in that school district who was planning another Columbine, it'd chill my shit to know that every kid in the school was trained and encouraged to take me out.

dksuddeth · 10-13-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'm torn. On one hand, running toward the guy with the gun strikes me as a very poor strategy. On the other, everybody running toward the guy with the gun would tend to end his spree pretty fast.

Also, if I were a kid in that school district who was planning another Columbine, it'd chill my shit to know that every kid in the school was trained and encouraged to take me out.

having been on the receiving end of a teachers stapler once (don't ask, long story) I've no wish to do it again and it would certainly give me pause to imagine the team quarterback or pitcher whipping that thing at my head.

flat5 · 10-13-2006, 12:01 PM

I'm fer it.

Siege · 10-13-2006, 12:45 PM

It sounds like a good plan, but how many people can do what they're taught in an emergency.

More importantly, how many of the students will be able to do this together? I don't want to be the one throwing the stapler only to find out everyone else decided to crawl beneath their desk.

Quote:

"We show them they can win," he said. "The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun."

But how many of them end up dead before that happens?

That being said, if I know I am about to die, i'd like to believe that I would go down fighting instead of being passive.

Infinite_Loser · 10-13-2006, 12:50 PM

That's what rent-a-cops are for.

Sweetpea · 10-13-2006, 12:54 PM

potentially, that could be a positive idea. If only for the fact that it would make the children feel empowered instead of like defenseless victims waiting to be shot....

but on the whole, children aren't known for maturity... I don't think that this is the way to address the issue of school shootings, but it's an idea.

sweetpea

Ch'i · 10-13-2006, 01:05 PM

I think its a good idea, unless the gunman had no intention of shooting anyone until he saw the classroom charging.

Seaver · 10-13-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

I'm torn. On one hand, running toward the guy with the gun strikes me as a very poor strategy. On the other, everybody running toward the guy with the gun would tend to end his spree pretty fast.

Much the same as hijacking airplanes, it only works when the people do not fight to prevent it. Personally I know I would charge at the guy instinctively. But that's just me, if me dying prevents many more people than so be it.

Quote:

I think its a good idea, unless the gunman had no intention of shooting anyone until he saw the classroom charging.

So you're in a classroom and you pull out a gun and yell everyone to get down.. then you're going to say you don't intend to shoot people?

analog · 10-13-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

...if I were a kid in that school district who was planning another Columbine, it'd chill my shit to know that every kid in the school was trained and encouraged to take me out.

This strikes me a bit like the thought process of "places are less likely to be robbed when they know every person in there is potentially packing as well."

And I don't find that a problem.

In reality, however, there will be times when a person had no real intention of killing anyone, but a stampede would very likely make them panic- and a person holding a gun and panicking because he's being charged is not a good combo.

So, this is the optimal fix for the "guy walks in with a gun and immediately starts shooting or making known intentions to shoot" scenario, but not necessarily for the guy who walks in and seems to just be taking hostages for another purpose.

It will be great until the first time a kid gets shot and the guy with the gun goes on TV saying he never intended to shoot anyone, but panicked and "accidentally" shot the kid. Then the person who taught the kids to charge him will be metaphorically burned at the stake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seaver

So you're in a classroom and you pull out a gun and yell everyone to get down.. then you're going to say you don't intend to shoot people?

A lot of times, the point of a hostage-taker is not to hurt those they've taken hostage, but will hurt them if necessary to get what they want. That's the very definition of hostage-taking. Also, they do not at all always end in the hostage-taker killing anyone. By and large, ignoring hollywood, hostage-takers are vying for attention and want something, but are actually total cowards unwilling to actually kill anyone.

hunnychile · 10-13-2006, 01:56 PM

If they all run toward the gunman, won't that make it easier for him to shoot & injure more kids, i.e. close range = direct hits ???

la petite moi · 10-13-2006, 01:58 PM

Two wrongs don't make a right. You should not fight, because it just makes everything worse and makes for more chaos.

Carno · 10-13-2006, 02:00 PM

So if a guy rapes you, you won't fight back?

stevie667 · 10-13-2006, 02:14 PM

I think it would be good (in theory) until the kids start using it on one another...

billege · 10-13-2006, 02:34 PM

We can play the "what if the gunman wants to..." game all f'ing day imagining different situations when it may or may not be a bad idea.

It all boils down to:

Let other people choose what happens to your life, by sitting quietly. Or,

Use your best judgement and fight.

Either way, when someoene's got a gun pointed at you, you have only two choices:

Don't fight and see if you get shot or not.

Fight and see if you get shot or not.

America's so pussified, most of us would rather sit quietly and get shot.

Personally, I'm choosing my moment and throwing a desk at the mother f'er.

Ch'i · 10-13-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

So you're in a classroom and you pull out a gun and yell everyone to get down.. then you're going to say you don't intend to shoot people?

A man running from the police enters a school campus perchance, with no intention of shooting a kid (which is not unheard of). He hides in a classroom and gets jumped by thirty students, a TA, and a teacher. See what I mean?

paulskinback · 10-13-2006, 02:48 PM

I just posted "attack" on the poll, and it was a complete 50/50. I had to really think about this one... I would like kids to be taught to defend themselves, but I think i'd be the first one to dive head first out the nearest window. Imagine if the policy was to teach kids to attack, then an incident occurs in the future where a gunman kills all the kids who try to?

fucked up

Val_1 · 10-13-2006, 03:10 PM

I posted attack, but really, I'm torn. It would very much depend on the moment and the apparent aptitude of the gunman. If you catch him off guard, you could very well save a bunch of lives. If not, you could be what starts him firing and he might not stop till the gun goes "click".

Tamerlain · 10-13-2006, 03:15 PM

Good idea in theory, but hard to put into practice I would think. It's hard to get kids to line up properly in a classroom, how are they supposed to all attack someone with a gun? But then I guess they might be motivated by the knowledge of past attacks and what happens...

Hard to decide either way. Either way people will most likely be shot, so I guess it comes down to what do you want to be doing when you're shot?

-Tamerlain

dksuddeth · 10-13-2006, 03:32 PM

everyone that has said 'it would be easier to shoot all the kids as they charged you', think a minute. 17 kids stand up and charge you all at once....will YOU be able to shoot them all? I was a marine for 6 years, a damn fine expert shot with both rifle and pistol, and there is absolutely no way I could plug more than 3 of them before I get swarmed. People have to STOP considering people with criminal intent as some sort of superhuman.

Also, the 'what if' situations of someone just wanting to take hostages...etc. That is how we end up with the high crime rates like DC, chicago, and new york. You should ALWAYS assume that anytime someone comes at you with a gun, knife, ball bat, golf club, katana, or any other weapon, that he means to do you serious or fatal bodily injury. NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death.

la petite moi · 10-13-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carno

So if a guy rapes you, you won't fight back?

If he has a gun, I probably would be very hesitant to "fight" unless I found a direct weakness in his approach. Gun > hand-to-hand, always.

dksuddeth · 10-13-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la petite moi

If he has a gun, I probably would be very hesitant to "fight" unless I found a direct weakness in his approach. Gun > hand-to-hand, always.

while severely handicapped if you are unarmed, submitting to being raped does nothing if afterwards he decides to kill you anyway simply to avoid a witness.

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2006, 04:51 PM

A guy walks into a school and pulls out a gun. Several students respond by attacking him, just as they were taught by their school to do in the event of this happening. The gunman kills three and critically injures five before being overwhelmed.

This is a perfect formula for a series of lawsuits, public outrage, and years of misery.

Children are not police officers, nor are they soldiers.

filtherton · 10-13-2006, 04:52 PM

I don't know, i think that in some situations it might work and in some situations it probably wouldn't. I don't like the idea of my kid going out like some WWII russian infantryman, though.

dksuddeth · 10-14-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

A guy walks into a school and pulls out a gun. Several students respond by attacking him, just as they were taught by their school to do in the event of this happening. The gunman kills three and critically injures five before being overwhelmed.

as opposed to casually executing 15 because he was given zero resistance?

highthief · 10-14-2006, 05:49 AM

Unfortunately, there is no one single best answer to the question. In some situations, a class might pull together well enough to charge a panicky guy successfully, in others, fleeing would work better. It's one of those situations in which either method could be right or wrong.

Having seen what happened at Ecole Polytechnique in 1991, my first instinct ever since that time has been to charge the gunner.

Carno · 10-14-2006, 08:07 AM

How many gunmen have you charged?

longbough · 10-14-2006, 08:48 AM

Don't forget the MOST important issue in a situation like this is the well-being of the children ... even if that means they have to run and hide while a gunman escapes. It's stupid to use our kids as cannon-fodder until a gunman runs out of ammunition. I'd rather train and arm at least one teacher or security officer in the school

Which brings up another issue ... what's the function of "Gun-Free Zones?" It's not going to stop a deranged gunman from doing his business. It just assures him that nobody in the school is going to be armed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

as opposed to casually executing 15 because he was given zero resistance?

The other option was to immediately run - not stand around.

-----------------
If you SERIOUSLY want our kids to bum-rush a gunman then a school should hold self-defense courses and courses on grappling a foe. So martial arts should be MANDATORY - otherwise we're asking children to remain unprepared as well as placing themselves intentionally in harm's way. We don't even ask our police officers to do that.

Gilda · 10-14-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carno

So if a guy rapes you, you won't fight back?

No, I wouldn't.

I voted run away. Many supporting "rush the gunman" are comparing that to doing nothing. That wasn't the second option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death.

This is complete nonsense. It is far, far from "certain death." Armed robberies don't always end in someone getting killed. I'd guess that most do not. Rapes don't always end in someone getting killed. Bad guys freqently do not want to kill, only to achieve some other goal and use violence or the threat thereof as a means to that end.

Gilda

ngdawg · 10-14-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbough

Don't forget the MOST important issue in a situation like this is the well-being of the children ... even if that means they have to run and hide while a gunman escapes. It's stupid to use our kids as cannon-fodder until a gunman runs out of ammunition. I'd rather train and arm at least one teacher or security officer in the school

Which brings up another issue ... what's the function of "Gun-Free Zones?" It's not going to stop a deranged gunman from doing his business. It just assures him that nobody in the school is going to be armed.

The other option was to immediately run - not stand around.

-----------------
If you SERIOUSLY want our kids to bum-rush a gunman then a school should hold self-defense courses and courses on grappling a foe. So martial arts should be MANDATORY - otherwise we're asking children to remain unprepared as well as placing themselves intentionally in harm's way. We don't even ask our police officers to do that.

Those 'gun-free' and 'drug-free' zones aren't referring to the schools, they refer to the point that if you are caught with either within that(school) zone, your sentence will increase.(Like anyone thinks, 'gee, I'm 1000ft from a school, I better move before I shoot this thing and sell this crack'

)
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.

hiredgun · 10-14-2006, 11:39 AM

This thread makes me so sad.

That's not because I strongly prefer one position over the other. It's because we're being forced to choose between two such loathsome outcomes.

highthief · 10-14-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

This is complete nonsense. It is far, far from "certain death." Armed robberies don't always end in someone getting killed. I'd guess that most do not. Rapes don't always end in someone getting killed. Bad guys freqently do not want to kill, only to achieve some other goal and use violence or the threat thereof as a means to that end.

Gilda

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not speaking of a bank robbery where indeed the main object is to obtain money rather than hurt people. The OP is speaking of a school setting, where anyone walking in with a semi-automatic rifle likely has one thing in mind, namely killing people.

When there is another goal - be it money, sex, or other - "going along" may make sense. When the goal of the villain is simply to kill and hurt people, there is a time for fighting, and there is a time for running. Each situation is different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carno

How many gunmen have you charged?

Me? One. But it was part of what I did for a living.

dksuddeth · 10-14-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

This is complete nonsense. It is far, far from "certain death." Armed robberies don't always end in someone getting killed. I'd guess that most do not. Rapes don't always end in someone getting killed. Bad guys freqently do not want to kill, only to achieve some other goal and use violence or the threat thereof as a means to that end.

To add to highthiefs comments, you're also betting on the 'mercy' that a criminal who has just committed a capital is going to give you. You are a witness that can put him in prison and dead men/women tell no tales.

Gilda · 10-14-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not speaking of a bank robbery where indeed the main object is to obtain money rather than hurt people. The OP is speaking of a school setting, where anyone walking in with a semi-automatic rifle likely has one thing in mind, namely killing people.

That's what the OP was referring to, not what the part that I quoted was referring to:

You should ALWAYS assume that anytime someone comes at you with a gun, knife, ball bat, golf club, katana, or any other weapon, that he means to do you serious or fatal bodily injury. NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death.

dksuddeth is making a very broad statement regarding what should "always" be done "anytime" someone threatens you with "any . . . weapon", and says that if you do not this is "an invitation to certain death".

That is complete nonsense. Threatening someone with a weapon does not lead to "certain death".

Quote:

When there is another goal - be it money, sex, or other - "going along" may make sense. When the goal of the villain is simply to kill and hurt people, there is a time for fighting, and there is a time for running. Each situation is different.

Exactly my point. Making such broad absolute statements renders the point meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

To add to highthiefs comments, you're also betting on the 'mercy' that a criminal who has just committed a capital is going to give you. You are a witness that can put him in prison and dead men/women tell no tales.

No, I'm not betting on anything. I'm disputing that the threat of violence using a weapon leads to certain death.

Yet, not all criminals, not even all those who use weapons, kill their victims. Your hypothetical does not match reality.

For the record, I won't fight back, but I don't advocate that position as best for anybody else.

Gilda

dksuddeth · 10-14-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

That's what the OP was referring to, not what the part that I quoted was referring to:

You should ALWAYS assume that anytime someone comes at you with a gun, knife, ball bat, golf club, katana, or any other weapon, that he means to do you serious or fatal bodily injury. NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death.

dksuddeth is making a very broad statement regarding what should "always" be done "anytime" someone threatens you with "any . . . weapon", and says that if you do not this is "an invitation to certain death".

That is complete nonsense. Threatening someone with a weapon does not lead to "certain death".

Ok, I now understand what it is you're saying and how I misrepresented my statement. Rephrasing that statement to 'compliance to all demands from someone with a weapon will lead you to complete defenselesness if said criminal intends to harm/kill you. If you let the bad guy tie you up, thinking he won't hurt you, you've now invited certain death, IF the bad guy decides to kill you, because you've complied yourself in to a helpless state.

roachboy · 10-14-2006, 03:03 PM

what i really have to say about this hiredgun said quite eloquently above....

there are no good ideas in such a context.
there should not be such contexts.

and there seems something--o i dont know---horrifying about the idea that the idea is afloat out there because of saturation coverage of isolated instances by television that some guy with a gun and a whole series of inward problems and a plan of killing children is likely enough to turn up in any classroom anywhere that a defense routine of any kind is a topic of discussion in elementary schools--- it's as if tv has generated the impression that there is some screwed up sense in which this is now somehow "normal"---part of a reasonable set of expectations about life in america.

how many school attacks have there been over the past decade or so?
how many schools are there in the united states?
how many students were affected by such attacks?
how many students have there been through all the schools in the united states over the past decade?

this texas idea seems hysterical to me, on the order of those creepy "duck and cover" films that circulated during the cold war. the message in those was: hi kids, do you know that your whole life is contingent and that you could be blasted to atoms at any moment? well you could. so you'd better be constantly "prepared" (afraid), ready to dive beneath a closet door in order to ride out the thermonuclear holocaust. o and have a nice day.

i really dont see much of a difference.
and i didn't respond to the poll.

Gilda · 10-14-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Ok, I now understand what it is you're saying and how I misrepresented my statement. Rephrasing that statement to 'compliance to all demands from someone with a weapon will lead you to complete defenselesness if said criminal intends to harm/kill you. If you let the bad guy tie you up, thinking he won't hurt you, you've now invited certain death, IF the bad guy decides to kill you, because you've complied yourself in to a helpless state.

Once you add in all the qualifiers, it becomes easy to see how there is no "certain death" involved here.

Therein lies the dilemma. Are you more likely to be harmed through compliance or through resistance? Resistance creates the possibility of provoking violence from the bad guy than otherwise would not have occurred, or may result in a higher degree of violence than otherwise might have occurred, or it might deter the worse aspects of it. Compliance might make things easier for a criminal intent to do harm, or it might satisfy the criminal with other intent such that no violence is necessary.

I don't think there's any one answer that is going to be best for everyone in every situation. I've chosen escape if possible, and if not, compliance and pacifism as a way to exert some control should such a situation ever happen to me again. It's what I think is best for me as a person, given my physical limitations in a confrontation, particularly with an armed person. Fighting back isn't going to do the guy much, if any harm, but it'll sure give him incentive to hurt me more, and I'd prefer to avoid that.

Gilda

ASU2003 · 10-14-2006, 04:06 PM

Maybe we should just allow any student that wants to bring a gun for self-protection be allowed to do so. You outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them...

It is a tough choice. But after watching the movie Battle Royale, I think the same thing would happen 99% of the time. You shoot one kid or one teacher right away and there is no way any kid will be brave enough to charge the gunman (I'm assuming that the gunman is at least 15 feet away from anybody, and there are walls behind him so he won't be blindsided). And I would figure most of the school shooters want to take out specific people and will shoot anybody else that gets in the way (and don't care if they are killed in the process).

The limiting factor of an all out charge would be the number of bullets the clip can carry. But it could get really messy, really quick. I would think a better option would be as soon as a SWAT team is on the scene, they will go in and take the gunman out. Take him by surprise and it should be over rather quickly.

What would happen in a situation like what happened in Russia a few years ago when several gunmen with bombs took over a school? A classroom of students charging one person isn't going to do much. Then again, in the Amish school, he might have been surprised and not expecting to shoot right away, and might have been able to be stopped by a group of kids.

Zeraph · 10-14-2006, 04:23 PM

Back when I was still in high school I always used to joke that everyone should have a heavy metal object near their desk that they could throw if a gunman entered the room.

But all in all i doubt it's a good idea. Maybe on an individual basis if the parent wants to, but training school kids in violence won't end violence...

Anyways, the kind of training that would really help defend against gunman isn't really feasible for school (mostly psychologically).

jorgelito · 10-14-2006, 06:18 PM

Or there could be a deterrent effect. If arming kids & teachers or training classes to defend themselves, I think an attacker would think twice or pick a different target.

View Poll Results: Should students be taught to fight back against a gunman or flee the room/school?
attack as quickly as possible	21	48.84%
turn and run away	22	51.16%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

10-13-2006, 12:50 PM	#6 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	That's what rent-a-cops are for. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

10-13-2006, 12:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	potentially, that could be a positive idea. If only for the fact that it would make the children feel empowered instead of like defenseless victims waiting to be shot.... but on the whole, children aren't known for maturity... I don't think that this is the way to address the issue of school shootings, but it's an idea. sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

10-13-2006, 01:56 PM	#11 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	If they all run toward the gunman, won't that make it easier for him to shoot & injure more kids, i.e. close range = direct hits ??? __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

10-13-2006, 02:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	So if a guy rapes you, you won't fight back? __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

10-13-2006, 11:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm torn. On one hand, running toward the guy with the gun strikes me as a very poor strategy. On the other, everybody running toward the guy with the gun would tend to end his spree pretty fast. Also, if I were a kid in that school district who was planning another Columbine, it'd chill my shit to know that every kid in the school was trained and encouraged to take me out.

10-13-2006, 12:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	I'm fer it.

10-13-2006, 01:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	I think its a good idea, unless the gunman had no intention of shooting anyone until he saw the classroom charging.

10-13-2006, 01:58 PM	#12 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	Two wrongs don't make a right. You should not fight, because it just makes everything worse and makes for more chaos.

10-13-2006, 02:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	I think it would be good (in theory) until the kids start using it on one another... __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

10-13-2006, 02:34 PM	#15 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	We can play the "what if the gunman wants to..." game all f'ing day imagining different situations when it may or may not be a bad idea. It all boils down to: Let other people choose what happens to your life, by sitting quietly. Or, Use your best judgement and fight. Either way, when someoene's got a gun pointed at you, you have only two choices: Don't fight and see if you get shot or not. Fight and see if you get shot or not. America's so pussified, most of us would rather sit quietly and get shot. Personally, I'm choosing my moment and throwing a desk at the mother f'er. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

10-13-2006, 02:48 PM	#17 (permalink)
paulskinback Insane	I just posted "attack" on the poll, and it was a complete 50/50. I had to really think about this one... I would like kids to be taught to defend themselves, but I think i'd be the first one to dive head first out the nearest window. Imagine if the policy was to teach kids to attack, then an incident occurs in the future where a gunman kills all the kids who try to? fucked up __________________ 'Everything that can be invented has been invented.- - 1899, Charles Duell, U.S. Office of Patents. 'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.' - Ken Olson, 1977, Digital Equipment Corporation

10-13-2006, 03:10 PM	#18 (permalink)
Val_1 Addict Location: In a State of Denial	I posted attack, but really, I'm torn. It would very much depend on the moment and the apparent aptitude of the gunman. If you catch him off guard, you could very well save a bunch of lives. If not, you could be what starts him firing and he might not stop till the gun goes "click". __________________ I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. -Frank Sinatra

10-13-2006, 03:15 PM	#19 (permalink)
Tamerlain Insane Location: Victoria	Good idea in theory, but hard to put into practice I would think. It's hard to get kids to line up properly in a classroom, how are they supposed to all attack someone with a gun? But then I guess they might be motivated by the knowledge of past attacks and what happens... Hard to decide either way. Either way people will most likely be shot, so I guess it comes down to what do you want to be doing when you're shot? -Tamerlain __________________ I never let school interfere with my education.

10-13-2006, 03:32 PM	#20 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	everyone that has said 'it would be easier to shoot all the kids as they charged you', think a minute. 17 kids stand up and charge you all at once....will YOU be able to shoot them all? I was a marine for 6 years, a damn fine expert shot with both rifle and pistol, and there is absolutely no way I could plug more than 3 of them before I get swarmed. People have to STOP considering people with criminal intent as some sort of superhuman. Also, the 'what if' situations of someone just wanting to take hostages...etc. That is how we end up with the high crime rates like DC, chicago, and new york. You should ALWAYS assume that anytime someone comes at you with a gun, knife, ball bat, golf club, katana, or any other weapon, that he means to do you serious or fatal bodily injury. NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-13-2006, 04:51 PM	#23 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	A guy walks into a school and pulls out a gun. Several students respond by attacking him, just as they were taught by their school to do in the event of this happening. The gunman kills three and critically injures five before being overwhelmed. This is a perfect formula for a series of lawsuits, public outrage, and years of misery. Children are not police officers, nor are they soldiers. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-13-2006, 04:52 PM	#24 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't know, i think that in some situations it might work and in some situations it probably wouldn't. I don't like the idea of my kid going out like some WWII russian infantryman, though.

10-14-2006, 05:49 AM	#26 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Unfortunately, there is no one single best answer to the question. In some situations, a class might pull together well enough to charge a panicky guy successfully, in others, fleeing would work better. It's one of those situations in which either method could be right or wrong. Having seen what happened at Ecole Polytechnique in 1991, my first instinct ever since that time has been to charge the gunner. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-14-2006, 08:07 AM	#27 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	How many gunmen have you charged? __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

10-14-2006, 11:39 AM	#31 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	This thread makes me so sad. That's not because I strongly prefer one position over the other. It's because we're being forced to choose between two such loathsome outcomes.

10-14-2006, 03:03 PM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what i really have to say about this hiredgun said quite eloquently above.... there are no good ideas in such a context. there should not be such contexts. and there seems something--o i dont know---horrifying about the idea that the idea is afloat out there because of saturation coverage of isolated instances by television that some guy with a gun and a whole series of inward problems and a plan of killing children is likely enough to turn up in any classroom anywhere that a defense routine of any kind is a topic of discussion in elementary schools--- it's as if tv has generated the impression that there is some screwed up sense in which this is now somehow "normal"---part of a reasonable set of expectations about life in america. how many school attacks have there been over the past decade or so? how many schools are there in the united states? how many students were affected by such attacks? how many students have there been through all the schools in the united states over the past decade? this texas idea seems hysterical to me, on the order of those creepy "duck and cover" films that circulated during the cold war. the message in those was: hi kids, do you know that your whole life is contingent and that you could be blasted to atoms at any moment? well you could. so you'd better be constantly "prepared" (afraid), ready to dive beneath a closet door in order to ride out the thermonuclear holocaust. o and have a nice day. i really dont see much of a difference. and i didn't respond to the poll. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-14-2006 at 03:08 PM..

10-14-2006, 04:06 PM	#38 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Maybe we should just allow any student that wants to bring a gun for self-protection be allowed to do so. You outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them... It is a tough choice. But after watching the movie Battle Royale, I think the same thing would happen 99% of the time. You shoot one kid or one teacher right away and there is no way any kid will be brave enough to charge the gunman (I'm assuming that the gunman is at least 15 feet away from anybody, and there are walls behind him so he won't be blindsided). And I would figure most of the school shooters want to take out specific people and will shoot anybody else that gets in the way (and don't care if they are killed in the process). The limiting factor of an all out charge would be the number of bullets the clip can carry. But it could get really messy, really quick. I would think a better option would be as soon as a SWAT team is on the scene, they will go in and take the gunman out. Take him by surprise and it should be over rather quickly. What would happen in a situation like what happened in Russia a few years ago when several gunmen with bombs took over a school? A classroom of students charging one person isn't going to do much. Then again, in the Amish school, he might have been surprised and not expecting to shoot right away, and might have been able to be stopped by a group of kids.

10-14-2006, 04:23 PM	#39 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Back when I was still in high school I always used to joke that everyone should have a heavy metal object near their desk that they could throw if a gunman entered the room. But all in all i doubt it's a good idea. Maybe on an individual basis if the parent wants to, but training school kids in violence won't end violence... Anyways, the kind of training that would really help defend against gunman isn't really feasible for school (mostly psychologically).

10-14-2006, 06:18 PM	#40 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Or there could be a deterrent effect. If arming kids & teachers or training classes to defend themselves, I think an attacker would think twice or pick a different target.