Teaching kids to fight back against classroom invaders

In light of recent events ...

Teaching kids to fight back against classroom invaders

Kids in a Texas school district are being taught that iif a gunman invades their classroom to rush him and hit him with everything they've got be it 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.

This type of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get kids killed.

But as noted in the article ... women and youngsters are often told by safety experts to kick, scream and fight during an attack or abduction ... so will this work?

I can see teachers and staff requiring some training, but eventually could self defense classes be part of our children's curriculum from grade school on up?

 

I saw a bit on this earlier. It doesn't surprise me that this is coming out of Texas. It's pretty much their state motto:

Don't Mess With Texas!

While the opponents of it may complain that some kids may get hurt... I think it's plain to see the kids are getting killed if they just sit there and do nothing as well. While yes I agree it's insane that society is at a point where school children now need to be trained for an all out gladiator brawl... it's sadly not going to change the circumstances. With as many school shootings as there have been in the last several months it was bound that this would come about.

Will it actually save more lives?
That's a darn good question. Many of the people who go into schools are heavily armed and intent on hurting random people and in many cases end up killing themselves. This doesn't really bode well for kids.

On the other hand - as we've seen in massacres like the Columbine Highschool :Massacre...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
a few more may have lived if their had been some resistance. But that's best guessing as the students who rocked up were quite literally armed to the teeth. I do however agree that it's better to die trying than it is to be slaughtered like so many sheep. For anyone who's read the reports of that massacre (and many others) you'll agree that many student were indeed slaughterd like sheep.

Generally in self defense people are taught if there is a gun or a knife to use Nike-Fu and split. Yet here it seems they are being taught just the opposite against an attacker or attack that is more premeditated and more heavily armed than your average mugger. The average mugger doesn't usually kill himself. He also doesn't carry several handguns or several hundred rounds of ammunition in his duffel bag with his assault rifles.

I dunno. While I agree that you can't live in fear and that it's sad that school kids should have to deal with this kind of nightmare... I wonder if it simply won't get more of them killed. Perhaps the best thing is making a decision one way or another (Christ what a mess of society when we're asking school kids to make decisions on life or death in this sort of scenario!!!). As they say 'He who hesitates is lost'... so perhaps these sadistic idiot nutbars who prey on schools to work out their murderous personal issues will now think twice. Perhaps knowing that schools are not an easy target anymore they'll not victimize them.

But will it work in reality like that?
Can school kids be taught to be on-point' at school all the time?
Do they stand a chance against a walking arsenal who has the drop on them?

What a horrible set of questions to have to be asking.

 

I'm of two minds on the issue...

On the one hand, I can't really complain about teaching kids not to be victims all the time. Certainly there is something to be said for bum-rusing a school invader and trying to take him down. And there may very well be situations where it can work.

On the other hand, it would be naive to think that a room full of kids can take out a gunman armed to the teeth. A room full of kiddies against an attacker armed with an automatic? Let's be realistic for just a second... Teacher makes a ruckus, tosses whatever is handy, kids get up to bum-rush, and guy opens fire. How many people, realistically speaking, would be dead before he got taken down?

I dunno. I think this one is tougher because it's kids and hiding or passive resistcance *could* save their lives. I think we're also a bit more prone to want to protect kids from the world rather than have them engage it. The article used Flight 93 as an example, but that was a plane full of grown adults. It just isn't the same when it's kids, IMO.

It's certainly something to mull over...

 

It's interesting because it's setting the president that physical force is acceptable in self-defence. While we all know that this is the case, it's usually de-emphasised in schools to the extent that kids defending themselves from bullies end up in trouble for using what would otherwise be considered reasonable force. Now the school is saying "passivity will get you hurt, defend yourself"... Let's see how this works out.

 

It does make you wonder when schools will start taking a page out of George W. Bush and the current Administrations book... I mean this is all waiting until some loser walks into your class room loaded for bear is rather reactive isn't it. Sure is... nothing proactive about it.

So suppose we do as our supposed elder and wiser leaders do... we launch preemptive strikes.

Why not?

I mean if the government does it to protect national interests and security then surely citizens of the same country should be able to launch preemptive strikes against anyone they deem as a threat.

 

source: newsday.com

also something similar is here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218067,00.html

I think the need to arm teachers is nutbag hysteria at it's worst.

The logistics and practicality of having teachers competent enough with a gun to be any real deterent to another gunman is a nightmare verging on a stupid impossiblity.

The amount of training to be able to take someone out with a handgun is ridiculously high to expect it of someone who is a teacher. Given that the other person is armed and intent on killing - I doubt a gun would really be of that much use to the average teacher anyhow. They simply would not be able to keep up a sufficient amount of training under a adrenalin stress environment to make any use of it.

There is reason why they suggest shotguns for home defense and not handguns. On top of that... it introduces a ridiculous element of danger in the classroom with introducing a gun where the previously was none. There is a far more likely chance that:

A) A student would grab the gun and smoke the teacher and other students

B) A teacher would get fed up with some smart ass kid and smoke the kid

C) The teacher would miss the gunman and smoke kids by mistake

D) Teachers realizing how crap they're paid would smoke themselves

It's insane.... and I don't think it will get very far. He's (Frank Lasee) going to have a very very hard time finding a work-around to get any such legislation past Federal laws that ban guns on or near a school campus. Though the media will run with it like a madman and everyone will insist that Americans are gun crazed! What else is new. Same crap different size bag... nothing new.

On top of it he has no clue what he's actually talking about in regards to Thailand. For all the Thai teachers carrying guns... both teachers and student are still getting shot down in record numbers. The teachers carrying guns has had zero effect on them or their student being shot because of the friction with muslims in areas such as Yala and other border provinces. :bang:

It's basically the same thing as if an airliner were to crash and they wanted to pass new legistlation banning all airplanes.

It pays no attention to the frequency of such shootings in contrast to the population numbers... which... despite all the media hype and the genuine tragdy of such shootings... are ridiculously small.

Total knee jerk politiking. :bang:

 

Have there been any instances of parents sending their children to school armed, to defend themselves in the event of an attack?

 

Yeah I had no doubt it'd get proposed. It doesn't at all surprise me that it came from a state like Wisconsin.

I can remember at highschool our school had the dubious distinction of being one of the first to install metal detectors and have an armed school police officer. It was quite new at the time - granted the school was quite rough. So it didn't come as much of a surprise to anyone. That same area (Logan Heights, So. Cal) is still just as bad today. I don't know if they still have the metal detectors though.

If I remember correctly the gun control elements in the government in Australia used the Port Moresby (?) massacre as the force behind banning private ownership of weapons in Australia except in very particular instances.
Someone here on MAP posted about it a while back.

 

Not that I can recall. But that not to say it hasn't happened.
I do know there have been many cases of a kid finding or taking his parents handgun to school to either show friends or dole out payback to a bully. If I recall there were several cases where the child was really young and innocently took the gun to school for show and tell. In several of the cases it then led to drug busts on the parents (no surprise there) when the house was searched to ascertain if it was a place where a gun could actually be secured from a child.

And of course... tragically there are any number of actual cases where a young child found the gun and accidentally shot his playmates or sibling... not realizing how to handle a gun or that it was loaded.

My mom has had a concealed carry permit pretty much all her adult life because of her profession - yet as kids we never screwed around with that stuff because we were taught to respect guns and what they could do. We always new where it was at and that it was loaded and that it could easily kill you or anyone else if you played with it. Besides we had easier access to kitchen knives and scissors to put the hurt on our siblings with.

Laws on gun ownership and the home differ from state to state so there is in many ways no one blanket policy for how guns are treated in the privacy of ones own property. However there are Federal laws in place that explicity state when and where you can carry a gun in public and on public property.

 

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but perhaps you could just clear up one thing which puzzles me.

My understanding is that it is every American's 'constitutional right' to 'bear arms'. But that the laws on owning and carrying guns vary a lot from state to state. This appears on the face of it to be contradictory.

Without going into vast detail of what every state allows, perhaps you could just clarify the situation for me?

Cheers!

 

I guess you can quibble over what the definition of "bearing" a weapon is

 

A quick disclaimer - I'm not much of an expert per se on American gun law - it's a pretty massive and tangled subject - even among those who are pro-gun.

That being said... as you know under our constitution we have the right to bear arms (... waits for the arming bears joke that will inevitably follow) so while we have that as a right for the entire United States (which would fall under federal jurisdiction) the states also have the power to set down laws which dictate how you can own a gun.

For example - some states you're allowed to own types of weapons that you can't any longer legally own in Californai. I believe Virginia is one such state... you can pretty much own automatic weapons... where as in Cali you can't. I grew up with automatic weapons and they were part of many teenage years of fun and hijinks... however much of that changed with two things... crack cocaine and strong arm bank robberies. They changed laws - but not neccessarily about owning guns... just what sorts of guns you could own. So you could still own a lever action 22 or a a bolt action 306 but you couldn't own an easily concealable MAC10 with a massive clip.

As well it's up to each state in some regards as to what the parameters are on being considered qualified to own a gun. This means each state has different parameters for background checks etc. There are however many work-arounds in place - sort of... getting concealed carry permit didn't used to be an easy thing... it's still not as far as I know... they keep a relatively tight grip on them... however you can go to a place like Utah and get one relatively easily. Whether or not the state your in will recognize that concealed carry permit is again another issue.

Again - much or some of that could have changed. It's been ages since I spent much time in the US. And it sure has changed since I was kid... now getting caught with automatic weapons is a serious deal... not like yesteryear.

Yes. You can be sure it's been done to death from all angles. All the way to the Supreme Court... several times I belive. Much of it will depend on what part of the country you are in as to what side people will take. Some of the darnedest people support owning guns that you could never imagine would... then others you'd peg for gun freaks wouldn't. Go figure. The interpretation of the Second Amendmant of the Constitution will be debated infinitely.

 

Cheesr - that makes it a bit clearer.

Just one thing.... if you don't have a 'concealed carry' permit, does that mean you have to walk around with the gun in your hands?

 

If you mean just strolling the street with the actual gun in your actual hand... err... chances are no. They could easily pull you in on other laws in that case. In a state like California they have catch-all laws in place... as a kid we got pulled on them all the time.
For example... loitering... they can pull anyone in at any time pretty much anywhere on this one... and there is little to nothing you can do about it. As the ACLU say's if you feel your rights are being violated... be polite, do what you're asked by the officers and when you get out... then contact them... because you can scream all you want in a holding tank about violated rights... but it doesn't make any difference. If only we'd have known.

Anyhow - for instance my mother carries her sidearm just like the permit says... as a 'concealed weapon' - now whether or not that explicity forbids you form carrying it on your hip or in plain view.... I'm not sure. I never quite thought about it that way... my moms reasoning on it is basically that she doesn't want anyone to know she has it... that way if she has to draw down on someone her chances of surprise and therefore survival are far greater than if it's in plain site.

Again - I'm not 100% sure... and it may vary from state to state. In general in the US you will never see someone carrying a gun on their hip unless they are law enforcement officer. In many states you cannot even have your hunting rifles in rifle racks that a visible in your truck.

edit:

Doh~! :bang:
I just reread your post.
Okaaaay.... if you haven't got a concealed carry permit then you can't carry your gun on your person. Again - the 'ol disclaimer - this varies from state to state. You used to be allowed to transport it to and from the firing range - and it had to be locked in your trunk unloaded or something similar. But not on your person. As well if I remember correctly in Cali it was legal to have your gun in a campground... but it couldn't be concealed or worn as a sidearm. But that was a long time ago and I don't know if that was rumour or actual law. But to my knowledge... if you don't have a CCW permit... don't get caught with a gun on your person/under your seat/in your glovebox because it's a hassle. It's led to no end of problems for many kids.

Last but not least... Wikipedia gives a decent summary of the whole many splendored mess that is the right to bear arms. The first part about the interpretation of the phrase 'to bear arms' is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

 

Hey all,
im sitting in class atm and this got me thinking. If someone came in now and started spraying most people, myself included, would be too shocked in those first few seconds to do anything. if i didnt panic id like to think id try and jump the gunner but realistically kids my age really cant do much against someone intent on blowing us all to hell.
Anyway thats my thoughts.
cheers

 

This topic makes me sick...I'm going to start teaching next year and personally feel very protective over my students. I just pray I have the instinct to do something rather than be a victim if this ever happens in my class.

In high school we used to have teachers on duty at the school entrances and school grounds at all times. I remember a drug peddler who tried entering the school (got pwnd by our Math teacher) and a flasher who got rugby tackled by our female Deputy principal (booyah!). The whole school community should get involved..parents on duty, children made aware. Even mock drills should be done in my opinion. We had fire drills and bomb threat procedures back in my day, now we've got to have them for terrorists and maniacs too.

 

Johnno,

Gun laws vary greatly across all 50 states. I moved from NY where gun laws were very strict, to CA where relatively speaking they're not as bad, though most states have lax laws on gun ownership, and even in CA, when it comes to shotguns and rifles, it's not a problem, just go to the store, pay, and take it home. Though there are restrictions on assault rifles.

Aside from the state differences, the laws vary by county within the state. Additionally, the laws change over the years. There are also different types of permits issued in many states.
-Concealed Carry (There are also multi-state CCW permits)
-Home Protection
-Business
-Target

Even with a given law within a state, and within a county, the county sheriff can make exceptions (in some counties), and some gun owners get "grandfathered" if a weapon is no longer 'legal' (laws change) and they already own it.

I can travel 20-30 minutes from where I live in one direction and see regular citizens bearing sidearms visibly on the hip. If I travel the other way, there won't be anyone bearing a sidearm.

Technically, in some places you could get a carry permit (not concealed). In those cases what ends up happening is that citizens call the cops, the cops stop the person and question them. He provides his permit, and weapon, and usually it ends right there. That's also the case when someone spots a (legal) concealed weapon and calls the cops.

NY by far has stricter gun laws. It took me 9 months of paperwork, and once you have your permit, you're given a very limited window to go get the handgun, and then have to bring it back to get inspected. You also pay $250-$300 every two years or so for the permit renewal.

By comparison, when I moved to CA, I walked in to a gun shop, took a test, passed, purchased a handgun, waited 2 weeks, and then picked it up. If it had been a rifle or shotgun, I could have walked out with it the same day.

More info on the topic:

http://www.packing.org/state/california/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control




You may find this interesting.

I Shot My First Firearm at This Age.
Answer Votes Percentage Graph
6 - 8 Years Old. 3571 44%
9 - 10 Years Old 1534 19%
11 - 12 Years Old. 1075 13%
13- 16 Years Old. 822 10%
17 - 21 Years Old 609 8%
22 - 30 Years Old. 281 3%
30+ Years Old 145

http://www.packing.org/survey/#45

 

Cheers for the info guys.