School teaching kids to fight back gunmen

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10....ap/index.html

What do you think of this? Is this a good idea, to take down a gunman before they become a serious threat, or is it just going to incur a lot of casualties (cause I know I wouldn't have any trouble lighting up a mob that was rushing me if I had a gun on me, but luckily I never want to do anything like that, but thinking like the gunman might, what if he did that and had an automatic weapon? I'm sure the sight of blood and guts lying everywhere is going to also traumatize those kids for a long time, if not for the rest of their lives).

At the same time though, I have to see the logic the school is trying to use. After all, if you "zerg rush" one or two guys (sorry, starcraft term, but essentially it means gang up on them), they won't be able to do much when there's a fat kid and like four others sitting on him.

And I bet a kid kicking a guy's balls is going to probably take him down (unless he's wearing a cup, but unless they start learning from this stuff, I doubt it).

Still, having like 6 kids jump on you should be more than enough, especially when they're all filled with adrenaline and stabbing you with pencils, hitting you with books and what not (and I wouldn't be surprised if they inflict a lot of damage with those things, because if I was in that situation, I'd sure as hell make sure that gunman suffers if he's walking into my classroom with a gun).

Do you think this is a good or bad idea? Why?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It's fucking retarded. It's like saying that you should give up your life for your classmates. Rushing a gunman will most likely only trigger his trigger, so to speak. If you do nothing, then you might live to see another day. Then again, you might not. I would only rush a gunman if I knew that I could get away with it and w/o someone dying. Usually, rushing anyone that has some kind of weapon is a bad idea.

Most amazing jew boots

It figures that an iniative like this would get put forward in Texas. A-hyuck.

Anyway. I don't know about the validity of this idea. If every kid in a class rushes a gunman, it's more than likely that he's going to get apprehend by said kids - but mightn't he pop off a couple of them in a panic, or desperation as they charge him? Heck, what if he takes them all down before they make it to him? That might just make him angrier, and result in more fatalities.

Is this really a better alternative to quiet complacence? Sure, just sitting there means you're essentially at a person's mercy... but usually it's better to take the chance of waiting for someone's rage to die out, rather than raising it higher. That's just me though.

If you were a student, and you were instructed to behave in this manner upon such an even though, would you?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Sword Familiar

It's fucking retarded. It's like saying that you should give up your life for your classmates. Rushing a gunman will most likely only trigger his trigger, so to speak. If you do nothing, then you might live to see another day. Then again, you might not. I would only rush a gunman if I knew that I could get away with it and w/o someone dying. Usually, rushing anyone that has some kind of weapon is a bad idea.

And if you just sit there doing nothing, you can still get shot.

Really there is no clear answer for this as each situation is unique. However in every school shooting case, the teachers and students basically just sat there like sitting ducks. Rushing the attacker with many students might be a good idea since many can over power one.

It could cause the attacker to fire, however it will more than likely be panic shots. Plus if you throw things at him, he'll have to react to it or he'll be injured, so he's target will become lost. It's a shame we have to do something like this, but I say it's better to put up a fighting chance rather than just sit and wait it out.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

There's the idea of working for the greater good too, isn't there? Even if a couple of kids get popped off, if they take the guy down, he can't take out any more people.

I was speaking idiomatically.

At least they are not teaching the kids how to protect their sandwich yelling "back off! Get your own sandwich"

But seriously, I know that self defence is good and all, but when little kids are being taught to take down a gunman means there is a big gun control problem.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Chibi Neko

At least they are not teaching the kids how to protect their sandwich yelling "back off! Get your own sandwich"

But seriously, I know that self defence is good and all, but when little kids are being taught to take down a gunman means there is a big gun control problem.

Or it could mean there are deeper underlying problems like a broken home, excessive teasing at school, lack of fitting in and other factors contribute to this problem. It's naive to think that gun control is the sole problem.

Of course you could say that without guns there wouldn't be any shootings. Sure, then you'd just have stabbings or beatings.

FELIPE NO

I've never heard of a 'school-stabbing'. Do they exist? I figure that you usually have to pick a single target for that... though hearing a story about a kid that held up/butchered a class full of children with a katana would be something interesting...

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Draz

I've never heard of a 'school-stabbing'. Do they exist? I figure that you usually have to pick a single target for that... though hearing a story about a kid that held up/butchered a class full of children with a katana would be something interesting...

Sure do, here in Canada there are reports of stabbing often, just with simple knives.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm in Canada, and the only stabbing I ever heard about was when in that whole 'Pokemon card' fiasco way back when... other than that, all I hear about in schools is... well, nothing. >>

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by DieSeLFueLeD

Most attackers have semi-auto or automatic weapons so they have more than enough bullets for everyone. They don't have to be good at aiming either, since they usually shoot people within 10-20 feet with them.

I think it's quite stupid to teach kids to be human shields for bullets. It will only excite the attacker and cause more damage.

Actually it seems that they usually arm themselves with either pistols or rifles, of course that doesn't mean there won't be casualities.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on school shootings in general which documents some key school disasters from America's and the rest of the world's history. This is not an easy solution to tackle and maybe if the kids are trained to attack the perpetrator at the right moment, it can lead to less casualities. Of course there is no true way to find out what will happen because of the unpredictable nature of school shootings.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by guyinrubbersuit

Actually it seems that they usually arm themselves with either pistols or rifles, of course that doesn't mean there won't be casualities.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on school shootings in general which documents some key school disasters from America's and the rest of the world's history. This is not an easy solution to tackle and maybe if the kids are trained to attack the perpetrator at the right moment, it can lead to less casualities. Of course there is no true way to find out what will happen because of the unpredictable nature of school shootings.

That is the most awful thing I have ever heard ever, and I only read this one post in this thread.

I mean, what, you want people to train children to shoot their peers, or even worse, the kids they bully on? You don't know what you're saying.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by guyinrubbersuit

And if you just sit there doing nothing, you can still get shot.

Really there is no clear answer for this as each situation is unique. However in every school shooting case, the teachers and students basically just sat there like sitting ducks. Rushing the attacker with many students might be a good idea since many can over power one.

It could cause the attacker to fire, however it will more than likely be panic shots. Plus if you throw things at him, he'll have to react to it or he'll be injured, so he's target will become lost. It's a shame we have to do something like this, but I say it's better to put up a fighting chance rather than just sit and wait it out.

As I said, you might not live to see another day. I didn't say that you won't get shot if you sit down, I just stated that you will probably have a better chance at surviving if you do. Besides, I really don't believe in "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" philosophy, or rather "let few die so that others may live". Besides, your assumptions about the perpetrator not being able to handle the situation and misfire is highly unlikely. After all, it should take more time to stand up from your desk, rush him and attack than it takes to fire an aimed shot. He'll have more than enough time to think.
Taking these things into consideration, I don't think it's a good idea. It might work, but then again, who will be willing to give up their lives for the others?

As someone else said, the problem is not really the kids not knowing how to handle the situation, it's the gun control system that's fucked up.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Chibi Neko

just with simple knives.

As opposed to complex and strange knives. We don't stab with those. Takes too much work.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

That is the most awful thing I have ever heard ever, and I only read this one post in this thread.

I mean, what, you want people to train children to shoot their peers, or even worse, the kids they bully on? You don't know what you're saying.

What are you saying? I didn't say for children to be trained to shoot their peers or to bully the kids. What in the hell are you saying, I'm apparently missing something here.

FELIPE NO

Umm... I'm not too sure about this one. I mean, sure they can use these tactics for self-defense measures armed with some kind of melee weapon, but against some crazed gunmen? Sorry, unless you can somehow sneak around the guy and slice the dude's throat open with some scissors or those large metal rulers, I don't see it working.

Ok, so maybe if 20 or 30 people charged at a lone gunman, maybe it could work, but this all theoretically speaking. In reality, no one's going to remember their training since they'd probably be too scared to do anything.

Just out of curiousity, aren't military academy students taught similar (and most likely more in-depth) kinds of self-defense programs?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

A mere kid cannot take the place of a professionally trained, cool-under-pressure marksman. Throwing pencils and erasers won't stop a gunman, they'll only make it much easier for him to kill them. They should instead be taught how to get away. Perhaps if there was a chance way of tripping up the gunman or getting him from behind there could POSSIBLY be a justification for this, but I think they really do want the kids to face danger head on.

How ya doing, buddy?

What a crazy idea. They should just give all the students guns...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Colonel Skills

As opposed to complex and strange knives. We don't stab with those. Takes too much work.

Well you know what mean.... knives as in not swords or katanas...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I had always wondered why no one fights back, but then again, unless the swarm is totally effective, spontaneous, and swift (quite a few criterion there already), then I can see people dying anyways. Aiming at the eyes would do the trick, but you'll need something that can cause serious damage, and even then, the gunman might just hope to randomly pull the trigger and spin around with blind fire. Plus, the smart gunmen would probably not let them self get unnerved by sudden noise/change of power :S
It might work with gunmen that have a slight amount of hesitation beforehand, but for those with the intention to kill, then people are definitely going to die regardless of counter tactics. As well, there's also the possibility that potential gunners would read this article and prepare themselves accordingly by setting up countermeasures to these countermeasures, thereby nullifying them.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Like Stephan Colbert said once, recently, "We need to arm the teachers with guns"

In some respects I agree, but then the whole trust issue, gun control issue, etc., starts coming into play. I think the only real option in the end is cameras and security.

I was speaking idiomatically.

This is the worst thing they could be doing, especially at an elementary school.

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

That's smart, let's get ALL of them killed.

I think the only solution is to spend the money on increased security, including armed trained guards at the school.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What an absurd notion these Texans have.
We want coming generations to cower until the person who asserts his power is appeased, or is taken down by some other higher power. What are these insane Texans thinking?! They want to tell kids to not be complacent as they witness atrocities under their very nose? For shame. These children may actually grow up to have a backbone.

This does not bode well for the government officials who need the people to become dependent upon them.

FELIPE NO

"You don't need courage. After all, who needs courage when you have a gun?"

Most amazing jew boots