<p>
Source: <a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/13/defending.the.classroom.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/13/defending.the.classroom.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>I thought this was intriguing and was wondering what CC parents think. For those of you with kids still in elementary, middle or high school… would you want your kids to have this sort of training? Would this make you feel more – or less - secure about your kid’s safety?</p>
<p>I think it is CRAZY! You’re going to have second graders throwing pencils at a madman with a GUN? Ludicrous. There may be more than one kid, but a gun is a lethal weapon, and these crazies who come into schools with them have no compunction about using them to kill…they have and do. A thrown pencil from an eight year old isn’t going to do anything but make the situation worse.</p>
<p>I don’t know about at the high school level. Still seems crazy, but maybe not AS crazy.</p>
<p>How many “gun in school” stories end without anybody being hurt? These only get local coverage?</p>
<p>beprepn</p>
<p>hmmmm… I can see it now Undercover Police Officer Killed in Elementary School kids notice a gun under the man’s jacket, start screaming, “He’s got a gun!!!” attack him with sharpened #2 pencils… :(</p>
<p>It might make sense to train the kids to run away, rather than hide under desk or take orders from a gunman, but attacking? I don’t think so. That would put kids at risk that could otherwise be safe by running away.</p>
<p>I think the students would be better served having “duck and cover” drills rather than “attack” drills if they feel some sort of training is necessary. You never have an advantage being on the wrong end of a gun.</p>
<p>Well, as far as I can see, current strategies have been successful mainly in terms of protecting the safety of students and teachers who are outside the affected room. That’s what evacuations and lockdowns do, and it seems to work – as it did in Colorado recently. But I don’t see any progress in terms of improving the chances of people who are in the room with a person with a weapon. So maybe this idea, crazy as it sounds, has some merit.</p>
<p>I still think, though, that the main emphases should be on 1) preventing unauthorized people from getting into school buildings and 2) preventing people who are authorized to be in school buildings from bringing in weapons with them.</p>
<p>I’d want my kid to fight like a tiger if that was the only option. It’s very sad (and maddening) that schools can’t protect our kids. Is it going to have to get to the point that schools are fenced off with guards on watchtowers, such as prisons?</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t understand how people in this country are so passive. A few months ago, there was a series of articles in the New York Times about women who are groped on the subway. Apparently, in other countries, men tend to not do that, as women have no qualms about fighting back. Americans have been trained to elevate politeness above bodily integrity.</p>
<p>So yes, I do think it’s a good idea that kids learn how to fight. I just disapprove of the methods. Teachers should be given the tools to quickly communicate for outside help; young students should be taught to escape, and those in high school can defend themselves. One of my friends is a karate instructor and taught me (albeit briefly) how to disarm someone with a gun, from face-to-face, the side, or from behind. We can hope that we don’t have need of this knowledge; we can hope that other people will save us; or we can realize that, regardless of circumstances, you cannot leave your own body and that is, ultimately, the weapon always with you. </p>
<p>I cannot help but read the article and think of 9/11. There are a lot of people who count on us being quite passive under attack.</p>
<p>ariesathena:
when were you last in Italy or Japan?
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d put this under 'don’t try this at home. You are much more likely (though not 100 %) to survive an armed attack if you negotiate with the attacker, than if you try to take away a gun unless you are highly trained.</p>
<p>Gla - not disputing that you’re more likely to survive an attack if you don’t resist. However, WHY does that rationale seem to encourage people to not learn the alternative? I would, personally, prefer to die than be raped; at least I would have a third option if someone, intent on killing me, were to force the issue. </p>
<p>“Don’t try this at home…” um, right. As I said, we train people to be incredibly passive. What is wrong with having a back-up plan to negotiation? What is wrong with having a back-up plan, and the confidence that goes with it? When I took self-defense, they did tell us that a lot of the thing that will help you to win if you fight is the confidence in not being scared, because attackers know that. </p>
<p>Sorry, logic doesn’t compute. If “negotiations” (whatever that is) fails, or if you are put into a position from which you are unlikely to survive (i.e. being taken to another location or being tied up), then you should 1) be aware that you’re about to die and 2) have the means to stop it.</p>
<p>From what I’ve read about things like Columbine, students are more likely to survive if they run to get the heck out. Those who sit with hands folded or huddle under desks are likely to get shot dead.</p>
<p>Those nut cases who are invading schools with guns want to kill, not just scare kids or make some crazy statement. Consequently, kids should be taught to do whatever they can to get away. If that means throwing books and running, good move.</p>
<p>"
BURLESON, Texas (AP) – Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, 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’ve got – books, pencils, legs and arms."</p>
<p>I know this is incredibly cold, but the best way to get out and survive is mayhem. Thing is, a gunman can (usually) only harm a specific area at once - he can only shoot at people who are, say, running out the back door. If some people go out the door, some out the windows, and some throw stuff at him, it’s a lot harder for him to hurt everyone. Problem is that some people get very unlucky and are the ones that he hurts before everyone gets out.</p>
<p>At Columbine, some students were shot as the huddled under desks, but some were ignored by the gunmen. Had they provoked the gunmen, who knows what would have happened. And others hid quietly in classrooms and were not discovered by the gunmen. It’s a hard call to know what would work. After all, homicidal maniacs tend be pretty random and unpredictable (understatement).</p>
<p>Personally, my objection to the training has nothing to do with effectiveness. I wouldn’t want my child to be afraid to go to school, worried that a Columbine could happen at their school. Anything is possible in this life, but children are not mature enough to be philosophical about risk. This kind of training seems to be almost another form of terrorism that unwittingly steals peace of mind…and it’s just not worth that imho.</p>
<p>“wouldn’t want my child to be afraid to go to school, worried that a Columbine could happen at their school.”</p>
<p>Even if you have no TV or radio in your home, your kids will hear about the shootings from their peers, many of whom will see and hear the news stories.</p>
<p>The situation is similar to what existed when some of us older parents were young and there were concerns about the atom bomb. Those schools air raid drills with us hiding underneath our desks didn’t cause us to become frightened about the possibility of a nuclear attack. We already had heard about that possibility through news reports and overhearing adults’ conversations.</p>
<p>The drills at least gave us hope that we could survive (though in actuality, a desk will not prevent death from an a-bomb).</p>
<p>It’s true that no child can be shielded completely from bad news. But hearing news of something that happened elsewhere is quite different from having a retired military officer standing in a classroom essentially telling your child that at any moment, their time could be up too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just wanted to second gla on this one. Japan, anyone? </p>
<p>People are passive everywhere.</p>
<p>Train the Students!?! If you are going to train the students to do anything, “train” them to stop bullying students who are different; start there. That’s just for the students who bring guns into schools. As for protecting children from outside attackers, that is the job of the teachers, and other administration leaders. They are ultimately responsible for the well being of the kids in schools. I’m certain that there are enough teachers within a school who haf some sort of formal weapons training. Whether it’s from serving in the military, or from going hunting with their family. The point i’m trying to make is this; in schools where they think it’s neccesary, and if they can’t afford armed security or to have sherrifs walking the halls, have certain teachers elected to carry a weapon of some sort. Maybe not a pistol, but maybey a projectile stun gun. Train the teachers, and the administration to protect the students.</p>
<p>I think it’s more of a crime that our society has even gotten to this point where there is a forum discussion like this. I blame our media for constantly pushing the issues on terror and hatred on to our society. The media today is only concerned with death, rape, and destruction of lives. Yes, our society needs to know what is going on, but make an effort to put some good news into the news. The journalists of today are lazy and only talk about what everyone else is talking about, “What blew up today!?!” maybe if they got off of their butt’s and did some real investigation as to what is actually going on in the world none of this would be happening. Our society is a rapid downward spiral of corruption, greed, and selfishness; a rapid downward spiral like the soiled water in a toilet.</p>
<p>Train the students…? I say PROTECT the student from ever having to be in that environment. It is much more than just putting up metal detectors, we have to change the way society thinks and acts!!! If you think I’m wrong PLEASE tell me why I am wrong!!!</p>
<p>Good post imo 
I also agree with whoever said there should be focus on making sure people who shouldn’t be in school don’t get in and anyone coming in isn’t carrying a weapon. My old high school was a nightmare for that, having absolutely loads of outside doors, and they’ve recently put a security fence round the entire school so there is only one entrance with cctv during classes.
Said school also sorted out training by ex-special forces guys for those students going off to college on what to do if we were attacked.
Personally I feel better off being prepared :)</p>
<p>Not … enough … information.</p>
<p>In order to determine if this is a good or bad idea, we’d have to have some data about hostage situations and how often passivity leads to death vs. how often passivity leads to negotiation and no deaths. I really don’t know, and I would be very, very reluctant to make ANY kind of decision on this until I actually had some facts. You can’t play the odds until you know what the odds are.</p>
<p>ariesathena: My wife was gang raped in London by men in kabuki makeup trying to recreate A Clockwork Orange. They blinded her in one eye and left knife scars all over her body. Nevertheless, she lived and produced two of her own children and was mother two six others that we adopted.</p>
<p>What am I supposed to tell her? She would have been better off dying in London?</p>
<p>tarhunt-I am sorry that your wife had that happen to her-
But congratulations on all those children?</p>
<p>I also don’t understand the statement" I would rather die than be raped"
Is that to mean that you are not strong enough to endure the experience and come out on the other side? That your virginity is more important than your life? I really do not agree with that at all.</p>