Video: Massachusetts school may train kids to fight back against gunmen
posted at 5:05 pm on December 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What do we call it? The Flight 93 plan? The Mark Steyn plan? “Duck And Cover 2008,” given that the circumstances are dire but the odds against the training ever being needed are mercifully long? Duck and cover is the opposite of what they’re being told to do, actually.
The arguments against it are that it’ll freak kids out needlessly given the unlikelihood of a school shooting and that it’ll actually backfire by antagonizing a gunman rather than subduing him. Throwing books is fine, after all, but who’s going to tackle the guy when he’s momentarily distracted by ducking? Any cops among the readership have advice? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I thought from the headline that some responsible kids would be given guns to fight back with. They’re supposed to throw stuff? Idiocy.
Jim62sch on December 10, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Throwing stuff worked for the Ewoks.
token on December 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I wonder how the Parents of these Children feel about this.
upinak on December 10, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Better than being sitting ducks, I guess.
Although any real plan would involve armed teachers.
Dark-Star on December 10, 2008 at 5:14 PM
If it is enough of an issue to take time away from class, then just arm some of the teachers and be done with it.
That said, teaching self-defense in PE would be great.
pedestrian on December 10, 2008 at 5:18 PM
If you oppose this, I guess you are in favor of teaching them to just lay down and die.
I have always tought my kids if you fear for your life, fight with everything you have.
redshirt on December 10, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Libs have thrown out everything, so they have to invent it all over again.
A Nobel prize to the lib who “discovered” self-defense.
LMAO
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Allowing staff, teachers and parents to carry firearms in school would allow people to resist. As it is now the Bad Guys know schools are Criminal Safety Zones.
johnsteele on December 10, 2008 at 5:22 PM
In the thankfully rare instance when this policy may need to applied, it will prove a huge benefit to the survivors that they resisted. Even if the resistance isn’t particularly effective.
I’ve seen studies of victims of violence (especially sexual violence) and each time, they show that those who resisted recovered better and suffered far fewer emotional scars than those who were passive.
Of course it would be better to have vigilant, armed school staff – but we’re talking about Massachusetts – flailing elementary kids are probably about all we can hope for…
innominatus on December 10, 2008 at 5:24 PM
This would be ideal, but the vast majority of teachers have no respect for firearms whatsoever, and would probably be entirely irresponsible with them, like leaving them where they could be stolen, or use it to make a point in a class where kids are being rowdy. I don’t trust them.
MadisonConservative on December 10, 2008 at 5:26 PM
My kids are in first, third and fourth grades, and their school just had an emergency lockdown drill a few weeks ago. The kids were taught to lock the classroom doors and hide in areas of the room where they can’t be seen from the doorway or windows.
Scary stuff for these little ones, and for the parents and teachers, too.
JA on December 10, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Teach the kids self-defense? Who ever heard of such a thing? Besides, it would traumatize them. Why not just declare the school a no-gun zone and solve the problem that way?
Now, about those pesky deer that refuse to observe the Deer Crossing signs…
petefrt on December 10, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I bet most of those liberal Kennedy/Kerry voting whack jobs would rather have their kids just take a round to the back of the head than serve justice.
Besides, they probably wanted an abortion anyway.
TheSitRep on December 10, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Wonder if this means they’ll be offering the music teacher job to Ted Nugent.
pilamaye on December 10, 2008 at 5:34 PM
The Call To Arms Plan! (TC-TAP).
The Massachusetts Junior High Combat Team!(TM-JHCT).
The Massachusetts Kindergarten ReArming Brigade! (TMK-RAB).
———————————————————
Or how about this one!
The Massachusetts National Civilian School Defence Forces!
(TMNC-SDF).
canopfor on December 10, 2008 at 5:34 PM
I wonder if the Liberal parents are going to war
at the next PTA meeting!A Hem.
canopfor on December 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM
When I was in elementary school, all us kids used to crouch in the hallways with our hands crossed over the back of our necks for air raid drills. But back then, folks were taught not to whine, but to buck up and play the hand that was dealt them.
petefrt on December 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM
We did the same thing, but it was for tornadoes. :)
JadeNYU on December 10, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Wonder if this means they’ll be offering the music
teacher job to Ted Nugent.
pilamaye on Dec 10,2008 at 5:34PM.
pilamaye: That would be an excellent choice!
Ted Nugents ‘Weekend Warrior’ comes to mind
when the kiddy’s have the weekend off!—:)
canopfor on December 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM
TheSitRep said “I bet most of those liberal Kennedy/Kerry voting whack jobs would rather have their kids just take a round to the back of the head than serve justice.
Besides, they probably wanted an abortion anyway” on December 10, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Hey pal, take a look at the map next time you leave your cave. Georgetown is located in Essex county and is one of the few counties in Massachusetts that pulled more than 40% for McCain in the last election.
Gee, with cavemen like you, I wonder why the Republican party is not doing well in the Northeast…
sayabule1 on December 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Sure, and it was no big deal, was it.
I say train the teachers to use guns and teach the kids the martial arts.
petefrt on December 10, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Just show the kids the movie Home Alone vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, or however many there were. That seems to be where this idea came from.
meci on December 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM
In Bailey, Colorado, a few years ago, an armed man entered the school and forced all the boys and the teacher to leave a classroom. He then barricaded the door, fondled the girls, raped one, and shot the one he raped before the cops could get their act together and try something.
This coming from the state where Columbine is still a deeply wounding historical event. Not wounding enough for the state to do anything constructive, evidently.
My kids are told to run if they can, fight if they have no option, and to ignore and disobey the teacher if they hear actual gunfire. The school practices lock down drills where the kids cower and hide, making the school a kill zone. My kids know they’re to go out the window and into the field behind the school.
I have nightmares about a Beslan-style jihadist takeover of an American school. In Beslan the jihadists set up a rape room for the girls and women, and they had hours and days to gang rape everyone they wanted to. Kids that fight back, kids that run, might have a chance. Cowering rabbits never will.
bonnie_ on December 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM
In our county, the sheriff’s department has a armed deputy at every school in the county during school hours. If cornered it’s a good idea for the children to understand they should fight back. But the best option is to escape the area. Maybe a group of school employee volunteers, who prove their gun skill, have a centralized gun and ammo locker in the principals office for instance. Janitors, lunch workers, teachers, office workers, anyone who can prove they would be effective protecting unarmed children from an armed gunman. You don’t face him down, you walk up behind them and stop the madness, then go home and sleep like a baby that night.
Almost anything is better than betting on the mercy of the shooter(s).
Hog Wild on December 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Do they go to school with little rope ladders on their backs?
But seriously, I’d tell mine the same as you.
petefrt on December 10, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Oh, I am no Republican.
But before you start getting all freaky calling people cavemen, look inside yourself. Maybe you can’t recognize a little silly sarcasm.
TheSitRep on December 10, 2008 at 6:00 PM
It’s a good idea to get the kids thinking proactively, but in reality, only high-schoolers would be physically capable of taking down a gunman, and not many high-schoolers (let alone adults) would be mentally capable of that.
The best answer has been tested and proven in Israel: arm and train all the teachers. But that solution runs up against another reality — most US teachers are liberals and women. So that’s not going to happen.
Splashman on December 10, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I’m a retired cop. What struck me about the Virginia Tech shooting was an article entitled “This is the desk I chose to die under”.
From my point of view (shared with my kids) was NOT the location but the fact HE CHOSE TO DIE.
After Columbine, when both my kids where in school, I told them that I hoped they’d at least fight back. The most precious gift you have is life. Don’t ever surrender it to some asshole without a fight. Throw a book, a chair, DO SOMETHING. Maggots like those at Columbine and VT rely on passive victims. I think things might have been different if the shooters had been distracted and then faced 50 people coming at them all at once. Yes, some will die, some will be injured, but the numbers were in favor of the victims. I’d support any school that teaches kids to fight back.
GarandFan on December 10, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Think of it as step one in Training for Conservative Thought.
Eventually some of them will mature and follow this to the logical conclusion that we all need to be responsible for our own personal safety, and that firearm ownership is one very, very effective option.
TexasDan on December 10, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Wow, your kids can outrun bullets. You both must be very proud, as that’s quite a feat! I hope if I ever have kids, they’ll also know that running away is the most effective defense to an attack.
apollyonbob on December 10, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Kids just need to be trained how not to be seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ
Not being seen is very valuable. However it is important to remember the first lesson of not being seen: Do not stand up.
apollyonbob on December 10, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I’m not armed, sworn law enforcement, but I am a training sergeant for an unarmed volunteer police auxiliary – uniformed officers who perform volunteer duties.
This thought scared me at first, but on reflection, I am all for it with full enthusiasm. My son and I have actually been discussing the moral core of this idea for a couple of weeks and I was about ready to make a blog post which I have now started here (will expand on it in a few hours).
If we do not obligate ourselves to qualify ourselves to make life-or-death decisions and TRUST ourselves to make them correctly, how can any of our other moral decisions have any moral authority?
It’s not always a life-or-death decision. It may be a decision as simple as deciding to violate an assailant’s ‘civil rights’ by throwing a book at the back of his head (if he is about to violate someone else’s civil rights).
Of course, as we look around ourselves today, there are many, many people who presume to instruct us that we are NOT qualified to make such a moral decision, when in fact such moral decisions are inescapable. We buy into this lie without even realizing it.
We should teach our children that such moral choices are unavoidable in life and teach them that they can trust themselves to make the right decision.
We are currently surrounded with evidence today in our society that our failure to convey this lesson is making us pay a price we all wish we were not paying.
ElRonaldo on December 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM
When we look back at the Thurstan High School shooting it seems pretty obvious that this isn’t the worst idea out there. Two young men tackled the gunman when they spotted an opportunity. If not for that bravery the body count might have been much worse. But, if the game plan is “throw books” then it is worse than nothing.
darcee on December 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Easy solution.
1. Concealed Handgun Licenses for all qualified citizens after appropriate background and training.
2. Authorize CHL holders to be able to carry ANYWHERE. Time to do away with these “gun free zones”. They should be called “Guaranteed Victim Zones”.
3. Open fire when appropriate and warranted.
Problem solved.
TexasEngineer on December 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
You know where you can stuff your smug-ass snark?
How about actually contributing to the discussion, instead of debasing it? Perhaps you could start by stating at exactly what age you expect unarmed kids to confront an armed gunman.
Splashman on December 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Oh…forgot The Rules as taught to me by my younger brother…the now retired cop.
Rule 1: Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting several times.
Rule 2: There is nothing a cop hates quite so much as conflicting stories. (See Rule 1)
TexasEngineer on December 10, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Dear TheSitRep: One person’s sarcasm is another’s hate speech…
sayabule1 on December 10, 2008 at 6:25 PM
We live in Kennedyshire, and my sons all went through or are in Naval Sea Cadets. They teach you, and offer free schools to augment training. What they learn beats tossing books.
Hening on December 10, 2008 at 6:30 PM
If you really want to understand the problem, and the solution, be prepared for some uncomfortable conversation. Here’s my take.
The number and level of severity of school violence incidents has grown over the years, but it has not done so in a vacuum. Statistics can be used, of one so wishes, to see that the rise in these crimes has gone up in almost the same proportion as and in the same period of time in which we as a society have tried to protect schools from guns by passing laws that make them so-called gun free zones. Even if you don’t want to accept it, if you were involved in passing those laws, you are to blame for the death toll.
The solution is not to train kids to fight with armed intruders, or to insist that all teachers be armed and trained, or even the addition of armed security guards in the schools.
Kids are kids and should be left alone to be kids; rather than be called into service to provide political cover for our failure to understand what our laws did. Sacrificing your children to keep from admitting your gun bans didn’t work is borderline insane.
Some teachers might be stable enough to be of service in a shootout, but it is foolish to talk about training all of them. Some of them would be a real hazard. It is just as stupid to think we can change our hiring/screening process for teachers to favor the same kinds of criteria we need for cops. If you screen them for cops you’ll end up with cops. That probably would stop some violence but the learning curve would suffer.
The answer is really pretty simple. Admit the gun free zone was a pie-in-the-sky group hug that just failed. And dump it. Allow people who are authorized, licensed and otherwise competent and willing be armed in those zones just like other places. The result would be an almost instant recognition among the school shooter nut cases that they no longer have any idea who might be the one to cap their crazy butt. Might be the school guard, but it might also be the lunchroom cook, a janitor, or a visiting parent. Not knowing where the other guns are would create the same unacceptable condition to most of them that it did before we banned guns, and for the same reason you don’t hear stories more about grocery store shootings, sidewalk mass shootings, etc. The bad guys may be crazy but they mostly ain’t stupid.
Would this stop all shootings. Of course not. But has what we are doing now? And at some point we have to admit that we are killing children with our political correctness.
MikeA on December 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Why not sacrifice a few kids for the safety of valuable members of a union that did so much to pay for our new regime in Washington? God knows we’re past expecting responsible behavior from teachers.
snaggletoothie on December 10, 2008 at 6:46 PM
It’s a sad sign of the times when “fighting back to save your life” suddenly may be controversial.
Any less scary to have been a child during the revolutionary war? Living out in the open west? Traveling through Indian territory by wagon train? There was a time when most children grew up on farms and watched animals being butchered.
I think teaching a child to fight back can actually instill some courage. It means to the child,, “I may make a difference,, my actions may have an effect,, I do not just have to hide and hope the monster will not find me,, it means I can face the monster and maybe I can take the monster down.”
And it is true,, a single gunman can be over powered. Some of these people were stopping and reloading while the sheep were clawing each other trying to get out of the window. It is a little hard to calmly reload when 5 chairs are flying at your skull. It can also mess up the plan when the sheep are not acting like sheep.
JellyToast on December 10, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Ask cops? Are you kidding?
The pusillanimous police professionals are the architects of the “just give them your keys” approach to crime.
Or to explain it simply to Allahpundit and the rest of the scribbling class, when the next 9/11 happens, just lie down and let them slit your throat with the box cutters.
Throwing books may not be terribly effective but creating a “The best defense is a determined offense” mind set is probably a step in the right direction.
While the best solution is the Israeli answer: armed teachers, our left of left educational community shouldn’t be trusted with sharp objects like pencils, let alone firearms. (The good news is “ewee” they wouldn’t touch them. )
CrazyGene on December 10, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Might I suggest the same idea I did at my left wing, we have a no firearms policy church (where I carry a Kimber 45): Those of you who find that firearms are not the answer to someone who wants to kill us with a firearm, you go rush in and throw things at the gunman or carry the printed out law/no firearms policy while proclaiming (in as low a voice as you can muster)”WE HAVE A NO FIREARMS POLICY HERE AND YOU’RE BREAKING IT!!!!”. That way all that extra ammunition is used on those who proposed to protect us with policy and thrown objects.
Hopefully Mr./Mrs. Bad Person will be reloading or out when I fire my 230 gr JHP’s.
Just a thought…
Amendment X on December 10, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Good point, and on reflection I agree.
But I still think it’s a good idea for parents and teachers to instill a “fight back against evil” mentality, without focusing on mass murderers in particular, as it works against schoolyard bullies, too. But as I mentioned earlier, that will never happen — schools are controlled by liberal women.
Splashman on December 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM
The very first time there’s an active shooter in a school, and kids die while throwing books, I hope the lawsuits will be thunderous.
I am gobsmacked by the stupidity of this. Engaging armed people while unarmed is the very last resort of a desperate situation. We have environments where total abject incompetence rules the day, and we insist that children default to suicidal tactics. This is beyond fucking sociopathic.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Dude, relax. They mean pointy books.
And also, blind them with chalk dust.
TexasDan on December 10, 2008 at 7:48 PM
On teaching kids to fight back, I raised two sons and have had the pleasure of spending a great deal of time with two grandkids. And I taught them not only to fight with they were threatened with violence, but they were also taught some very unsavory tactics that I always stressed they should hope they never got a chance to use. Many lessons were about how to see everyday objects as weapons, and it was not about throwing books. A pencil in the throat or eye, or a fire extinguisher discharged in an opponent’s face can have devastating effects. Stab the bastard with the damned flag pole in the corner. Whatever is at hand can be used and should be used if it means them or you. The other lesson I stressed with my kids was that the teachers and other school officials were not ever to be talked to about these things. Self defense is a family matter, and should be kept as private as talking about your bathroom habits. The teachers are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
MikeA on December 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Having spent a number of years in England (I assume from your name and use of “gobsmacked” that you are Brit)I certainly don’t fault your conclusions. Sadly, sucessive British governments (Labour and Tory both)have spent decades and decades teaching you to accept that your role in life is to be a victim of victimizers.
You will acquiesce to whatever violence is proffered towards you and hope for the better.
I will make a snide comment that in my 8 years in the U.K. I frequently arrange for my Brit cops colleagues and their wives to attend self-defense classes, both armed and unarmed.
They were aware society wasn’t going to protect them so I handed out a lot of illegal (in Britain) mace, and other hardware to use in self-defense.
I still send “fresh” mace to the wife of a good friend, a retired Detective Super in the Midlands.
While statistically your chance of ever been a victim of violence is rather small, it is, ironically, greater in the U.K. than my chances in the U.S.
I would agree that charging an armed person is not the height of sanity, however not charging an gunman who begins shooting people is even greater lunacy.
As a retired military man who led young men into battle I learned young men, 13 – 18 are hormonally fearless and will follow anyone who gives them leadership.
The shootings in Virginia would have been cut dramatically if one young man had charged the gunman.
Israel has armed its schoolteachers for decades. That’s probably a better solution than throwing books, but throwing books will be taught before they arm teachers because guns are eeevvviillll.
E9RET on December 10, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Finally a Massachusetts school move I can agree with.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 8:47 PM
I do think this is at least a step in the right direction. At least we are getting past the idea of “just go along, you’re less likely to get hurt” — an idea that is no longer (if it ever was) true. No chance anyone, anywhere, in Kennedy/Kerry la-la-land was ever going to recommend the same solution as those in Harold, TX (a place that I can proudly point to as where my Mom’s parents had their farm).
AZfederalist on December 10, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I believe the policy should be prevention….
Turn every school into a secure compound with extremely limited access after the school day starts. Not with fences but 10 foot walls and gates with armed guards, and a video system on those gates monitored the entire time with a direct link to the local police or sheriffs dept. This may sound extreme but the alternative is unacceptable.
These children are our future, we should protect them.
jerrytbg on December 10, 2008 at 9:22 PM
If there’s no chance that any responsible adults will actually have a gun that they can use to stop an active shooter, I guess throwing stuff at him is better than just sitting there waiting to be shot. Not much better, granted, but better.
I vote for more guns.
darwin-t on December 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Are you sure you have thought that all the way through? Scholls being government things, and government being what it is, what do you think are the odds that no lunatic will ever get inside on of your super-max gun free zones, and when that happens how do you plan to get him out? Can you see your property tax going to about 80% of home values to pay for this plan? Besides, don’t you think are kids are getting screwed up enough by the stupid and mostly unnecessary things we put them through in the name of political correctness? Your plan sounds like saying “What are doing now does not work so we need to do more of it.”
MikeA on December 10, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Terrorism is why dodgeball CANNOT be taken away from school children!!
Grafted on December 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Extreme circumstances require extreme measures.
A few years ago obl said the next attack on American will kill 2 million children.
Where do you think he plans on creating that killing field….or was that just rhetoric?
read the whole article.
jerrytbg on December 10, 2008 at 10:15 PM
How much federal money are they getting for this?
I don’t really see this working well with elementary students. Arm the teachers. Even a woman can shoot a gun.
boomer on December 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Well, I suppose it could be said it’s better than nothing.
But, really, it just seems to me like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
And why put the children through such fearsome training that, sorry to sound like a pessimist, in all likelihood will get them hurt or killed when they try to enact it?
Someone else had some harsh words for teachers (mostly women, mostly lib) which pretty much are true, BUT I hasten to add there are islands of sanity in the system. I’m a teacher and I have been really relieved lately to find that a couple of people think along the lines of many who have posted here. But many don’t, so what someone else said (sorry forgot who) is probably best: just drop the stupid requirement that forces us to be targets and announce to baddies: “No one here can realistically overcome you.”
It wouldn’t force anybody to be armed who didn’t want to, but would enable those who did to have a measure of protection.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t hear or see anything in that vid about *teachers*–armed and not–learning about self defense. That would be more effective than kids throwing even pointy books.
Also, there’s somewhat of a rumor that some principals in here carry.
fireweednectar on December 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM
More chilling thoughts on the subject.
jerrytbg on December 10, 2008 at 10:32 PM
My fear is that we have not taken these ba$tards seriously…And that we have spent so much money on other sectors of society that we’ve TRULY neglected the most vulnerable. In educating them we certainly have but their very safety is paramount!
jerrytbg on December 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Tasers instead of guns for teachers? Could help with discipline, too! :-D
SouthernGent on December 10, 2008 at 11:39 PM
This is a tough call. First of all, we need to get rid of the idiotic ‘gun free school zones’ better known as ‘open season on victims zones’.
If you want to have a couple of sleepless nights, read about Beslan.
So, when something happens like the India situation, I go over it with my 13 yo. He’s a second degree black belt but I remind him that you don’t bring a side-kick to a gunfight if you can help it. However, if it comes down to it, do anything including ripping the guy’s eyeballs out and tying them into a square knot if you are cornered and you get a chance.
Other things to consider.. Look for a way to slip away if possible. Fortunatley my state is a CCW state. I’ve made up my mind that I will never be herded alive into a freezer or bank vault. I realize that engaging people means I might die but at least you have a chance.
The other thing I keep reminding my kid of is to NOT get shot by the swat team. IOW, if you get a hold of a weapon and use it be very aware that if the swat team or NG comes in they will probably shoot you. Same thing to consider if you break free and run outside. Also, be aware of an ambush outside the school.
If you can dig up the writings of Col Jeff Cooper, they are great for establishing a survival mindset. Like others have said, you don’t want to freak the kids out but you do want them to be able to survive. I think the recent election will leave us a LOT more vulnerable to terrorists..
Oh well, what are we worried about.. The terrorists will give up their 1300 year old war when Barack Hussein Obama uses his middle name at the swearing in and gives his big speech in Mecca. (Unless Fitzie throws him in jail first)
bullseye on December 11, 2008 at 12:59 AM
See here’s the thing….one did. His name was Matthew Joseph LaPorte. He died trying to save the others in his classroom…two rounds to the head kinda does that. I and the rest of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets attended his funeral 2 weeks after he was killed. He was buried with full military honors (as an Air Force ROTC cadet) right here in Blacksburg and was a hell of a good man.
Several students barricaded their doors shut with everything they had over in Norris Hall. I was one building away (Pamplin Building) at the time and was fortunate that all of my friends who were actually supposed to be in that building when the SOB opened fire were either late or chose not to attend because they were feeling sick
SgtSVJones on December 11, 2008 at 3:58 AM
“The arguments against it are that it’ll freak kids out needlessly given the unlikelihood of a school shooting and that it’ll actually backfire by antagonizing a gunman rather than subduing him.”
That type of thinking boggles my mind. It may antagonize an active shooter??? HE’S ALREADY SHOOTING YOU DAMNED FOOL!!! You fight back. With whatever you have handy. Distract him with a thrown book, tackle him, beat the ever living tar out of him. Remember a few years ago when exactly that had happened? Kid on the wrestling team tackled the gun man and held him down until cops arrived.
Heck, teach them defense and start hiring some good conservative teachers with CWPs to carry in school. Change schools from protected (for the criminal) hunting preserves.
wolfva on December 11, 2008 at 4:23 AM
Seems most public schools now will put some covering over their room doors facing the hallway, as part of this madness.
desertdweller on December 11, 2008 at 4:27 AM
This is a truly difficult subject to deal with. In recent times our expectation that our children are safe in their schools has been shattered. It’s hard to comprehend the mind of those who would murder anyone, but especially children. I tried to impress upon my daughter that, if her life is in danger, the thug putting her life in danger has given up any expectation of mercy and, if she can’t escape, she must use every resource to injure, maim or kill her attacker. Her life was a gift from God and God expects her to defend that. There is no sin in that defense.
She is starting college next year and yes, it is a gun-free zone and no, she will not obey that restriction.
SKYFOX on December 11, 2008 at 5:23 AM
We live in the land of home invasions (phoenix metro) and we home school our kids.
Because we have firearms in our home, the kids start to learn about firearms day one (take a look at the NRA Eddie Eagle program if you are looking for some material). The kids learn how to shoot starting at the age of 5-6. We start with .22 rifles and pistols. By age 8, they are bringing down clay pigeons with their own 410 shotguns and shooting 2-3 inch groups with their .22 rifles @ 75 yd. My 12 year old can responsibly and effectively handle a .357 or 9mm hand gun.
At age 10, all of my kids go through a hunter safety education program (2 down, 1 to go) to have someone else reinforce what Mom and Dad teach. All of my children respect firearms and know how to responsibly use them because THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT.
In our home, we have a variety of firearms stationed (loaded & ready to roll) at different locations. We have drills on a couple scenarios on what to do. The basic goals are to get yourself and others to safety, and live to fight another day. Should those goals be infringed: fight, don’t give up, and don’t be afraid to empty the firearm.
Over the years, we have had a handful of events that were not drills, usually when I am not at home. Mrs. Redneck and the kids have performed admirably every time.
No … I am not raising Spartans. Just teaching my kids how to take care of themselves and others.
AZ_Redneck on December 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Quite right too. Good job sir ;)
My objection isn’t to the tactic of engaging the shooter per se, but that defaulting to this approach without even considering the infinitely more effective and rational approach (armed adults) is sociopathic.
These vile liberal cowards would rather have children in the firing line tossing books around than for an ‘adult’ (questionable) to utilize modern technology to neutralize the threat.
If a child of mine died under their watch, I think I’d willingly trade jailtime in exchange for ventilating the entire schoolboard. I would never entrust a child of mine to these gubmint school cretins anyway….
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I doubt that anyone are going to give them that much time here but you are right. Resist is the tactic of last recourse and a lot better than do nothing and die like a sheep.
We need to start growing up sheepdogs.
El Coqui on December 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM
A Nation Of Cowards
Should be required reading for every citizen, with a follow-up test for comprehension.
Self-defense, and acting to end a situation such as this in any way possible isn’t an option…it’s an innate duty.
I tend to wonder why none of these schools got stormed by the parents of the kids holed up inside? I’d have no qualms going into the building fully armed and ready to use those weapons on anyone who interfered with me getting my kids out of harm’s way, whether idiot, terrorist, or “law enforcement” personnel.
Jamie on December 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM
It has been shown several times that the best way to stop a gunman is early and aggressive engagment with a firearm. Even if you cant kill him the gunman can usually be pinned down until law enforcement (which some of you seem to have a lot of disdain for) arrives.
The gunman in these mass shootings are usually untrained and, while they usually want to die, 1. dont want to get shot and 2. want to take people with them. That is why they choose areas where there are unarmed civilians. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a military base or a police department?
The best route is to arm the teachers. Don’t make it a requirement for the rank and file but allow them to carry if they can get a concealed carry license. I do think that the principal should have a long gun locked in his office and should be required to quallify with it on a regualr basis to ensure that atleast one person is armed at the school.
But we all know that isnt likely to happen so I find nothing wrong with teaching these kids to defend themselves. They need to escape if they can but fight if they cant.
SnakeintheGrass on December 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM
The lesson we should be learning is that these cowards are utterly unwilling to lift a finger to defend the lives of the children entrusted to their care. Sociopaths.
Quite why anyone would put their children through such an abusive system is beyond me….the kids should be yanked out of these schools until the adults start acting like adults and shoulder their responsibilities, or are replaced by adults that will.
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Check out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3708154/Shopkeeper-fights-off-knife-wielding-raiders-with-cup-of-tea.html
The gal stopped them with ONE CUP OF TEA.
“Any gun will do if YOU will do.”
It’s more about mindset than anything else.
CrazyGene on December 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Perhaps we should arm the UK police with thermos flasks? What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder what the headline would have been if the robbers weren’t so ghey and had filleted her on the shop floor?
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I was unaware of that fact. I’m sorry he wasn’t successful but I applaud his determination, I wish some of the other young men had joined him; I believe that would have stopped the gunman. There’s a hard lesson for you Sgt SVJones.
Sometimes you do everything right but the bear still gets you. You stack the odds as well as you can then go for it.
I suspect the world is a poorer place without Matthew.
Heh. I was thinking about the two constables on “Last of the Summer Wine” taking on a desperate criminal with tea, white,please with two sugars…
E9RET on December 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Comment pages: