Students taught to attack if gunman appears (Suburb Ft Worth, TX)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253321/

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've 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.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Um,

Isn't that like teaching them to stand underneath heavy objects during an earthquake?

[susanna]

24. Or to tuck and roll?

Or to duck and cover during a nuclear ambush?

Yikes x5,000,000.

[Threedifferentones]

59. If youre five feet from a gunman

running away is not a good idea. If the gunman is in the middle of the only door to the class, running is not an option.

[ElboRuum]

2. Oh, this is such a fabulous idea...

A gunman has a gun. The kids throw pencils. This won't end well.

[RamboLiberal]

4. I have no problem with it

Too often people have acted like sheep and get massacred by these jerks. Personally I'd rather run like hell and hope he's not a great shot than sit there or hide under a desk and wait for it to happen.

[ElboRuum]

7. Yes. By all means run like hell.

But don't be stupid and try to subdue the guy, which, unless I miss my guess, is what they're advocating.

[RamboLiberal]

8. I say rush him if he's between you and escape

Throwing things at him, bull rushing him, is not that bad a tactic. He's probably going to shoot a couple of people but it's going to be damn hard for him to maintain enough concentration to effectively pick off the others. If this is a high school class then if he gets wrapped up by enough people he's going to lose control of the weapon.

Not going to work in an elementary school class though the throwing things while running like hell out the door is not a bad idea.

Another reason I don't think this is a bad idea is that some of these high school kids end up working in fast food joints. I've read a number of cases where a gunman has killed all the employees late at night when they are locking up. In that case you gotta read the situation. If all he wants is the money, give it to him. But if he's going to take you all in to the cooler there's a good chance he intends to kill everyone.

[ElboRuum]

21. You have a point.

But I want you to consider this:

This tactic means that Mr. Gunman will shoot Johnny instead of Bobby. I will agree that in that situation, doing something makes more sense than doing nothing, but these guys aren't really picky about their targets. Besides mayhem, do they have a goal in mind?

And it assumes quite a bit about the psychological warfare you can wage against a person who is a) psychotic, b) driven, and c) apparently because the guys turn the guns on themselves when its all over, suicidal.

Furthermore. More than likely, these kids will never have this happen to them. It's rare as it is. I mean really, for all the media attention given to these incidents, how often do they really happen?

So here these kids are with their faux-ninja training growing up with the idea that it is generally a good idea for an unarmed target to attack an armed assailant at distance.

[Irreverend IX]

82. You'd be surprised...

At how effective a surprise attack on a gun-wielding assailant can be. Read up:

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

An assailant with a knife (or a pencil, or just their arms to tackle their opponent) can close a distance of 21 feet between themselves and the opponent in 1.5 seconds--the same average time for a _trained_ marksman to draw and fire a pistol. People who haven't fired guns often underestimate how difficult it is to quickly bring the weapon to bear and fire at a moving target, especially in a surprise situation. Police with years of training have died to attackers with knives, so there's a good chance that a class of children will be able to bring down a nutcase who likely has no training and is expecting no resistance.

[Pastiche423]

22. I fought my abductor/attacker

I was left for dead and I am now paralyzed for life.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. Do you regret fighting back?

[Pastiche423]

64. I sure as hell regret the torture that followed

If I could have a "do over", I would not have fought back.

[greccogirl]

54. If you had not fought,

possibly he could have killed you outright?

[Pastiche423]

65. Dunno

But I wish he had.

[Drifter]

70. You got it ...

There is no way to teach anything that is going to work for all situations.

I am still not sure this is the best approach without "proper" training. I have a hard time believing that you can teach this properly in such a "Fire Drill" type manner. It will, in most cases ensure that a few will be Killed. Not sure any parent likes those odds.

Cheers
Drifter

[colorado_ufo]

51. Run where?

Remember your days in a classroom. We were all lucky we could even get out in a fire. A lot of schools these days are built even without windows, to save on student distraction and heating/cooling bills.

[greccogirl]

55. Look what happens on airplanes.

People that cause trouble might find themselves beaten half to death by the passengers and trussed up like a christmas turkey.

[bigworld]

3. Am I wrong here?

Without reading the article, I consider myself pretty much a pacifist but I can't say that's such bad advice. 30 pencil-wielding kids could do some damage.

[LiberalArkie]

5. The gunmen are power freaks, When they have a group fight back

maybe only one or 2 get hurt, I consider that better than the gunmen walking around to each one and putting a bullet in their head.. And I am a pacifist also.. I have taken many lumps and never fought back, but that is a different situation. You are fighting to save someone else, not yourself.

[brentspeak]

34. You're being sarcastic....

Er, right?

[Totallybushed]

6. DELETE!!

[whistle]

9. Get ready for more school shootings, this is nuts

[karlrschneider]

12. Are you saying this sort of tactic will encourage more? By what reasoning

??

[whistle]

30. In the article itself, it says that...

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

I tend to agree. This sounds like schools want to train kids as young Nazi brown shirt storm troopers using aggressive tactics against armed sickos. That will almost certainly end up getting some students killed and once that pattern is established, the approach will likely lead to less hostage taking and immediate lethal tactics by attackers. Our communities need to get to the root causes of school violence which the present political atmosphere and mentality are apparently not willing to look at or know, but choose to do nothing about.

[brentspeak]

36. "young Nazi brown shirt storm troopers"????????????????

You're likening self-defense techniques aimed at preventing kids' lives from being snuffed out by psychos as training kids to be "young Nazi brown shirt storm troopers"???? Should the kids instead try to "understand" the killer, maybe analyze the sociological factors which underlay the reasons why he has become a psycho killer?

You're comparing apples with...

[Nihil]

63. First time for everything.

I usually disagree with you (mentally if not online) with most of your posts
but I agree totally with this one.

Sadly, these days you simply cannot disagree with teaching kids self-defence.
Worry about the "reasons" afterwards but get the kids safe *first*.

[whistle]

68. The self-defense for unarmed students in our schools is get out

...or hide. Who in their right minds would tell students to rush an armed psychopath, this is not intramural football for christ sake!

[Nihil]

75. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

"Get out or hide"

I don't know what sort of classroom you were taught in but all of
the ones I went through had exactly ONE door.
How is a classful of kids supposed to "get out" when the psycho
controls the only exit to the room? We're not talking about an
orderly fire-drill here: in a fire-drill there isn't a nutter
with a gun shooting at you.

If you don't want kids crushed & trampled, they have to move one or
maybe two at a time through the doorway. This means the rest are
queueing up right past a psychotic gunman ...

Even if you *are* prepared for a panic "every kid for themself"
scramble through the door, the people at the back are in exactly the
same situation.
Your nutcase will find it pretty easy to pick them off at his leisure.

How is this a more effective strategy than the same number rushing AT
the threat?

OK, maybe "get out" isn't so good after all ... why not "hide"?

Hide a classful of kids (and a teacher)? In a classroom? WHERE?
Either you haven't been in a class of kids recently or you simply
haven't thought it through.

This is exactly why school shootings are so dreadful.
It is the deliberate murder of innocents who have NOWHERE to hide
and NOWHERE to run.

The suggestion of rushing the attacker is their only chance ...
unless you believe in putting all your trust in the "power of prayer".

[happyslug]

10. Actually a reflection of Military tactics.

In the Army you are taught if caught in an Ambush the best thing to do is ATTACK. If you stay put, the gunmen has all the time in the world to kill you, if you run, he can take careful aim.. If you attack, you minimize the time under the Attacker's weapons, you minimize the time he has to react AND you put the fear that HE might be overrun in the mind of the attacker.

I am sorry, this might be the BEST OPTION, but the emphasis MUST be on subduing the attacker not just throwing things at him (or her). Several kids attacking an adult in relays can do it, and it would be so unexpected that the attackers will NOT be prepared for such actions. Combined with a policy that if YOU can NOT attack, you vacate, the plan sounds workable, much more than standing around to be killed.

Several years ago when Penn State University had its Shooter, the Shooter was stopped because one of the students at the School CHARGED the shooter and took her rifle away from her (After she had killed three people). She could have killed more (She had the right weapon to do it with a Mauser 1898), but the student who charged stopped the shooting while before the Policed Arrived.

We can NOT wait for the Police to do the job, to have enough Police to do such a job would bankrupt this country. Thus we must be willing to do so.

[buddysmellgood]

16. So it has come to this? I'll take my chances against islamic fundies

anyday compared with this bullshit. The real terrorism is domestic. It makes me sick to think that you are right...but I do.

[brentspeak]

37. Why would you take your chances against Islamic fundies?

Psycho killers invading a classroom, Islamic psychos hijacking an airplane -- same difference. You have to rush them, overwhelm them before they kill you.

[buddysmellgood]

52. My point is that we are spending billiions to supposedly fight a war on

terror. We're not fighting that war, but we are spending billions. I'd rather not proceed with the "War on terror" and instead focus on the psychos in the classroom etc.

[JoFerret]

62. Not to mention the sane response of GET RID of the GUNS

plus money for mental health and other services.

[Taoschick]

83. And then

Get rid of the knives, right? Then what? Mandatory psychological testing of all citizens to see if someone is about to flip out and brain a bunch of kids with bricks?

I'd rather teach kids not to be victims. We teach our children to raise hell, scream and run if a stranger tries to abduct them. We don't tell them to passively submit to strangers so why is this any different?

[UncleSepp]

66. How is it an either-or?

I'm not seeing what the "war on terror" spending has to do with teaching kids to resist violence, or with public education in general. Public education funds come from property taxes, and military funding comes from income taxes. Spending in one area does not remove funding from the other area.

[buddysmellgood]

69. The idea is that the "War on Terror" money would be better spend

confronting the terror in the schools instead of pissing it down the hole that is Iraq.

[Rockstone]

26. I remember that girl, Jill, from the College Diner

her gun jammed when the guy jumped in the bush with her, so she took out a knife and tried to stab him, but ended up stabbing herself in the leg.

[pinerow]

44. Street fighting rules...rush a gun...run from a knife...

worked well in the wild old Bronx I used to live in...

[Phillycat]

80. Exactly. Same thing I was taught in South Philly. nt

[karlrschneider]

11. Stick those number 2s into eyes, ears & throat. Groin too.

I guess we'll have another flame war over this but I agree with Maj. Browne.
Like someone else said, better that than hiding under a desk waiting to be executed.

[LiberalFighter]

13. What will they do if the intruder has a bazooka?

Will they do the same thing if the intruder has a automatic gun/rifle?

[Oak2004]

20. The presumption is that the students will be shot regardless

which has in fact been the case in school shootings.

If I were in such a situation I would least like to be facing a short-barreled shotgun, not an automatic weapon (full auto is almost impossible for an untrained shooter to maintain control of, and few thugs have trained with full auto weaponry).

[krispos42]

27. Not to mention it's damn hard to find full auto, legal or illegal

[Oak2004]

46. Yep

About as likely as that a shooter will enter a school with a bazooka, and only somewhat more likely than that he or she will enter a school with an alien death ray.

[Paladin]

47. And Why Is That, Pray Tell?

Because fully automatic weapons are rendered scarce and expensive in this country by an effective gun control program. You know---gun control, that thing that gun activists say never, ever works.....

[Pavulon]

49. Rich people

can afford NFA guns after a background check. They are plenty to be bought. You can get a cheap one for $3000. Not all that much really. The background check is the reason only one legal nfa gun has been used in a crime in 70 years.

The la shooting is proof that criminals will get and use select fire rifles. Those are illegal.

Socio economic placement of those weapons is worth a look.

[Paladin]

56. Sure You Can Get A Full Auto

Pay a shitload of money, fill out all the forms, and be assured thereafter that your name can be found on every geek list that the government maintains. Be my guest.

I repeat what I said before: the low level of crimes involving fully automatic weapons derives from an extremely effective gun control program. That's what is worth a closer look, particularly when the Gun Huggers starting blubbering that gun control never works....

[Pavulon]

57. Yep

for people who choose to follow the law.

for people who choose to buy them illegally and shoot it out with the lapd, not so much.

Enforcement by the atf of the draconian penalties is what makes the law work.

PS gun crime is illegal.

[Paladin]

60. That Would Be The ATF.....

...the federal agency that the gun activist movement has been trying to kneecap for decades, but which, by your own admission, is still effective.....

[krispos42]

58. Probably because you can easily get legal guns

Not to mention that the 1934 National Firearms Act went into effect BEFORE World War 2. This was the war that established the automatic weapon on the battlefield. World War One was fought with bolt-action rifles, revolvers, autoloading pistols, and pump-action shotguns. There were some portable machine guns, such as the Lewis gun, the BAR, and the Chaucha, but the 1934 Act was put in place before tons of World War Two surplus firearms went to market.

Basically, the 1934 Nationa Firearms Act pre-empted wide-scale distribution of full-auto firearms, and is a rare case of the government acting BEFORE there was a problem.

Incidently, the 1934 National Firearms Act was part of fighting organized crime, which was largely destroyed by the re-legalization of alcohol in 1933. It is entirely plausable, IMHO, that if alchohol had not been outlawed in the first place then it would have been decades more before full-auto weapons were outlawed. Especially since after WW2, when ten percent of the country was a war veteral with plenty of experience with using automatic weapons and fears of Japanese, German, and Russian invasions were running rampant.

And regarding if gun control works, ponder this: two-thirds of all civilian-owned firearms on the globe are in the hands of US citizens, some 240 millon guns. And we rank 24th in terms of worldwide homicide rates. And that's with a massive drug and gang problem.

[Paladin]

61. Thanks For The Historical Perspective

I still don't agree witrh you, though. By any sane perspective, the rate of gun-related deaths in this country is an abomination.....

[krispos42]

73. Thank you for the thank you!

It is, sadly, not often I get thanked for opening eyes regarding this issue. Most anti-gun people do not believe, at their core, that guns are anything but evil incarnated in steel, aluminum, wood, and plastic, and are more than contect to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "The Star-Spanged Banner" if you tell them anything different. 'tis most refreshing...

The US ranks 8th in terms of deaths by firearm. The top ten:

1. South Africa (72 per 100,000 people, per year)
2. Columbia (51 per 100,000 people, per year)
3. Thailand (31 per 100,000 people, per year)
4. Zimbabwe (4.9 per 100,000 people, per year)
5. Mexico (3.4 per 100,000 people, per year)
6. Belarus (3.2 per 100,000 people, per year)
7. Costa Rica (3.1 per 100,000 people, per year)
8. United States (2.8 per 100,000 people, per year)
9. Uruguay (2.5 per 100,000 people, per year)
10. Lithuania (2.3 per 100,000 people, per year)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The fact is that the people who will be impacted first and most by restrictive gun laws are precisely the people that are not any sort of threat to society, and in fact would only use firearms for sporting, competition, and self-defense uses. This is because the aim of most schemes to get guns out of the hands of criminals involves drying up the supply potential guns, which means disarming the entire civilian population.

Guns get into the hands of criminals mostly through unscrupulous firearms dealers and through home and car robberies. Therefore if you want to get and keep guns out of criminal hands, you have to first take away the ones they currently have, then you have to keep them from getting new ones.

The first part occurs during arrests and police raids. The second can be achieved either through making the sale and possession of firearms grossly illegal, or be requiring extremely strict gun storage laws, like keeping firearms in a very large and secure safe, and somehow having law enforcement do periodic checks on gun storage. Neither of which is appealing, I don't think.

Mexico has extremely strict gun laws. From an article in Guns & Ammo:

Mexico's current stance on gun ownership is one of the toughest on record. The common citizen is not allowed to own a gun. Period. Exceptions are occasionally granted on agricultural operations. Ranchers and farmers can apply for a permit to own a .22 rifle for predator control, though restrictions are tight. Gun clubs, especially silhouette, have always been extremely popular and certain permits can be obtained (at a high price) for target shooting. Permits can also be acquired by hunting guides for their clientele to import certain guns for hunting, though the paperwork is vexing. Police and military checkpoint personnel often get greedy when they see a vanload of U.S. hunters and their guides.

Anyone else caught with a gun or ammunition is on a fast track to the juzgado, including hapless Americans who inadvertently cross into Mexico with a gun or ammo in the car. Mexican judges have no sympathy for American gun owners who take a wrong turn in heavy traffic and find themselves at the Mexican Customs secondary inspection area with no way to turn around.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/gun_columns/border/117_0203_border/

Yet is does not seem to be helping them any. They are #6 on the homicides-per-capita list, with a rate over three times ours.

If you want to reduce gun crime, boost the economy by bringing back the middle class. And start legalizing recreational drugs.

[Cronquist]

41. get him while he reloads?

[slackmaster]

45. A 15-year-old student did just that at one of the shool shootings

I can't recall which one, but a student who was familiar with the firearm counted the shots and tackled the shooter.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Drawing on the lessons learned from a string of disasters?

Exactly what have they learned?

Have they tested this theory out?

If the intruder is using a non-automatic weapon maybe... maybe it might work. BUT who wants to find out for sure?

[LiberalFighter]

15. Military vs. School kids

This would work in a military situation because they were trained.

The liklihood it work in a school? Trained to what degree? Will they be trained enough and as much as those in the military? Or will it be more like they do for fire drills?

[krispos42]

28. Remember the inexperience works both ways

The shooter (most likely an angry student) will not be a trained ex-Marine or ex-cop. It will be a kid who's never trained to be in a life-or-death situation outside of "Call of Duty" or "Quake". In some cases the shooter has never handled a gun, or only handled one a few times, and not in a high-stress environment.

It is also surprisingly easy to miss with a handgun unless you have experience using one, especially in a fast-paced situation. The shooter tends to look at the attacker, with the result that sight alignment goes to hell and the bullets go wide.

[LiberalFighter]

31. What do they do if that handgun is a automatic?

With an inexperienced kid it would become more dangerous. A few rounds shot off those kids/teachers are not going to be thinking about attacking as body.

[krispos42]

42. Actually an inexperienced kid would be best

And I'm going to assume you mean an autoloading pistol, like a common Colt, Beretta, or Glock. "Automatic" pistols actually are semi-automatic in operation, with one shot fired per pull of the trigger. Recently the term used to describe them is "autoloading" pistol, but it may take decades for this term to catch on. A full-automatic-firing pistol is called a 'machine pistol' and are both exceedingly rare and illegal.

Anyway, an inexperienced shooter trying to use an autoloading pistol is very likely to screw it up. Improper hold can result in "hammer bite", where the web between the thumb and forefinger gets pinched by the hammer getting recocked. It can also result in the slide painfully cutting the shooter's hand if his hand is too high up on the grip.

If the shooter's grip on the gun is weak (called 'limp-wristing'), the gun may jump during firing resulting in what is called a 'stovepipe jam'. Instead of frame remaining relatively solid while the slide moves back under recoil, they both move together. The slide is unable to fully move back, so it snaps forward prematurely, catching the fired brass casing before it fully ejects and keeping the slide from moving forward. And if the slide can't move forward, it cannot reload, and the jam must be cleared.

And there is always the chance that the shooter forgot to cock the gun for the first shot, chamber a round, or disengage the safety, and in the case of pistols like the Model 1911 (the classic .45 auto), fully depress the grip safety.

Firing a pistol is also a very loud endeavor, and if the shooter is inexperienced the blast and recoil may impair their ability to focus and concentrate. Combine that with the stress of actually doing what has only been dreamed of, and there's a decent chance he might screw things up enough to make a charge successful.

In this post listed below I mentioned that a decent pistol shooter can fire about three rounds per second with some change of hitting, but that does not apply to novice shooter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2561369&mesg_id=2561814

[benEzra]

76. I'm assuming you mean semiautomatic?

Not sure why the handgun's mode of operation would make a difference. A semiautomatic pistol and a revolver have the same rate of fire--one round per pull of the trigger, no more, no less. And both only shoot where they are aimed.

[whistle]

77. Just make all schools in the country military training schools....

....back to my original response that we will be turning our young people into Nazi storm troopers. Next move, place automatic weapons in each classroom just like we now have fire hoses and extinguishers.

Has anyone yet determined in the case of the Amish school shootings, why the shooter selected that particular environment for his display of horror?

[buddysmellgood]

17. All too true. Kids won't stop to evaluate the situation. They will do as

trained. I can't believe we are talking about this. This will be the end of public education.

[Oak2004]

23. This is a last resort technique to use when dealing with shooters

i.e., people who will kill the students whether they cooperate or not, which has been the case in nearly all recent school incidents.

It's a crappy situation, best avoided, yes. And someone will get hurt, yes. But given a choice between standing there while a gunman puts a gun to the back of your head and shoots, execution style, versus fighting back, the odds obviously favor those who fight back.

[sam sarrha]

18. if you die you get to graduate to heaven with straight A's.!!

[Oak2004]

19. This is absolutely the right tactic

Some are likely to be shot, but those that are are less likely to be killed, and fewer kids on the whole will be killed.

It's not as easy to aim as non-shooters might think, nor as fast. When I was learning a combat (not a sport) martial art (one that included firearms training and excluded fancy kicks and multiple pretty belt colors), I was taught that in a knife vs. gun battle under ten or twenty feet or so, it's about even, because the knife wielder can rush the shooter as fast (or faster, depending on reaction time, feints, and any telegraphing of moves) than the shooter can aim and shoot.

Moreover, at classroom sized distances, even if completely unarmed and alone, you've got a better than zero chance to overpower a shooter if you know how and when to move. There are certain small gestures, such as squinting, that people make just before thay fire a gun. When you see the cues, you react, get out of the line of fire, and move towards the shooter. While under such circumstances it would be better to be armed, and best to not be there at all, few thugs have any real training and can sometimes be overpowered with skill and a little luck.

[Kingshakabobo]

25. I agree...

I would rather fight and stand my chances against some schmuck who just broke in to his daddies gun cabinet and decided to kill some people.

But then again, I've had several years of judo, wrestling and boxing training.

Running like hell is a great option too.

[krispos42]

29. It is difficult to be the first to rush, but this actually might work

It's only a couple of dozen feet in most classrooms to attack any given shooter and can be done in a couple of seconds. But nobody wants to be first, because they don't want to be the first one shot. Look at United 93; nobody attacked until they learned the Twin Tower fell. They spend a lot of time working themselves up into a frenzy before storming up the plane and into the cockpit.

A determined shooter can fire maybe three rounds per second from a autoloading pistol, so maybe six to nine shots could be fired before the first students tackle the shooter. Less, if the students throw textbooks and bookbags just befored they charged to distract the shooter.

Also, a shooter charged by several people will also probably hesitate because of several reasons. One, he's lost the initiative. He thought "I have gun, I am the aggressor", and now that's been violently and quickly turned. Two, now he had to pick out a target, and trying to pick the most dangerous threat attacking him will also slow him down.

Finally, once he engages an attacker, he will most likely be looking at the person charging him, not at the front sight like he should. This drastically reduces his chances of scoring hits, so he will have to fire several rounds at his attacker. Most likely he would only have time to engage one attacker before he was fighting hand-to-hand for control of the gun.

This is perhaps an optimistic view, but the view that the attacker is some sort of para-military killing machine is I think unduly pessimistic. People that don't use guns a lot often times think that simply having one in your hands makes you invulnerable to attack, and that is simply false confidence.

[Paladin]

38. Sounds Like You've Given This A Lot Of Thought.....

....maybe a little too much thought, actually.

Reminds me of the unsavory threads that pop up down in the Gun Dungeon every so often, where the subject of how much firepower is required to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky is discussed in clinical detail.....

[krispos42]

43. Well,that's to counter false claims

People want to ban .50-caliber rifles because they think that a person can shoot down a commercial airliner with one. It's like trying to shoot flying clay pidgeons at 200 yards with a pistol.

I also saw "United 93" recently, and I got pretty emotional when they were fighing their way through the cabin. That might be it.

[ovidsen]

72. Reasonable argument.

If the kids are really trained (more intense than just "duck and cover") they could shock, awe and disarm your nervous, agitated gunman before he knew what was happening.

It wouldn't work all the time, but doing whatever the gunman says doesn't work all the time either.

[ContraBass Black]

74. If it were me at that age, I wouldn't react quickly enough.

[Wcross]

32. Why is it a bad idea?

The shooter is there to kill people. If the shooter has a rifle it is the absolute best tactic. If he has a pistol somebody will probably be shot but not as many as would be if everyone complied passively. The shooter will not have time to aim.
I guess the other option of arming teachers is always an alternative.

[Hope springs eternal]

39. I agree

except for the armed teacher part.

[comradebillyboy]

33. Good Idea

Do not go like lambs to the slaughter. Train children to defend themselves. I love the idea. Of course I also think properly trained teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. If you wait for the police to protect you, you will die and the cops will write a lovely report and maybe arrest the perp, if they can find him.

[mitchum]

35. BIG money in fear...and Response Options are bloody parasites

[lynne]

40. Mmmm . . . choice between being executed or fighting back -

- is not much of a choice, in my opinion. There is only one option and that is to attempt to survive. You won't survive if you stand there like sheeple and willingly take a bullet to the head.

I agree 100% with fighting back. An attack by students would be unexpected. It would certainly knock-off the gunman's aim and might turn intended lethal shots into wounds. The only other alternative is to line up like lemmings and wait for your turn to jump off the cliff.

[bemildred]

48. This is not enough, students need to be armed to protect themselves. nt

[sandnsea]

53. Sometimes people, not just kids, should fight

Nothing makes me crazier than to see these videos of captors going with their kidnappers. Everybody should know that if an attacker has removed you from an area, he's most likely going to kill you. The time to stage your attack is when you're out on the street and might attract attention. The kidnapper knows that and will usually flee. Never ever go with a kidnapper. It stands to reason that holds true with a gunamn in schools too.

If kids are given an intensve self-defense course, to include various scenarios, it could save a lot of lives. It tends to build self-esteem as well, when done correctly. I think it might be a good idea and is certainly worth a try.

[RamboLiberal]

67. Couldn't agree with you more sandnsea

If someone wants to grab me I'm going down fighting - once you're kidnapped he's probably going to kill you anyway. I'd rather die before the torture.

[Nevernose]

71. "Don't worry: we all got guns here. Fuckin' crackers."

That's what one of my students at my "urban" high school told me a couple of years ago during a practice for what I term a "crazy white-boy emergency."

"Don't worry, Mister Nose. If one a' them crazy-ass white motherfuckers comes in here with a gun, we all gots guns. We all cool here; nobody gonna's start SHIT wid us."

Very reassuring. Really, where do you go from there? "Uh, okay? And aside from issues of gun ownership, why do YOU think Putnam blames witchcraft for the behavior of Salem's children?"

"Nigga ain't crazy, not like his bitch is. Nigga just has a grudge and shit. But fuck him: what happens in Act Two? Are those white people gonna get off they's charges of withcraft and shit, or what? I don't think so, but whatever"

Rarely articulate but frequently insightful, I wouldn't trade these kids for any other students on Earth, though. The only ones that scare me are the ones that I talk into getting a higher education -- someday, they can and will rule the world. If these guys are what the future is like, then I don't have any fear at all.

[BreweryYardRat]

78. *claps hands*

About. Fucking. Time.

Jesus Christ, it should practically be self-evident. The sort of person who goes into a school and butchers people is not going to take hostages.

Do whatever the fuck you can to live, and if the school provides training to help with that, so much the better. Any word on whether they're training the high school students to use desks/chairs as weapons?

Speaking of things which are self-evident, the poster whistle is a fucking imbecile. Training students for self defense does NOT equal making them into the new Hitler Youth.

Note: whistle, don't even bother replying, you're already on ignore.

[Subdivisions]

79. Good for my neighboring (and former) town.

My brothers and all 5 of my kids have attended Burleson schools and though things are generally peaceful here, I suspect the community of Columbine saw their community as safe and secure.

In light of the recent events around the country involving violence on school campuses, and combine that with the generally more stressful days we currently endure, and you have ample reason to come up with and implement some sort of equalizing plan.

The first thing I heard coming off the Amish school tragedy was to arm teachers. Bad idea for all the obvious reasons and then some. However, I like the idea (so far) of having hundreds of students being empowered to take matters into their own hands if confronted with a situation similar to the invasion of Bailey HS in Colorado a couple of weeks ago.

Yes, there is no doubt that going on the offensive, rather than being passive and scared, draws such a scene as potentially more dangerous. After all, there is a chance that a gunman who invades a school has no intention of killing anybody but rather just wants to take hostages. It would be a shame and a tragedy if the invader killed a student or students who are attacking him in self-defense, but such a death would be akin to a police officer getting killed in the line of duty. Teachers and students have no way of knowing what the invader's intent is and, as such, should not hesitate long enough to find out.

As much as I hate the need for such a line of thinking by the BISD, in lieu of any other alternative, I say full speed ahead.

[Anakin Skywalker]

81. Ooh. How Cool. Just Like a Video Game.

KILL KILL KILL!