PDA

View Full Version : Students taught to fight back



Dr Mordrid
13th October 2006, 20:11
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/13/defending.the.classroom.ap/index.html


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.

"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.

At Burleson -- which has 10 schools and about 8,500 students -- the training covers various emergencies, such as tornadoes, fires and situations where first aid is required. Among the lessons: Use a belt as a sling for broken bones, and shoelaces make good tourniquets.

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

Browne recommends students and teachers "react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as we can and bring them down."

Response Options trains students and teachers to "lock onto the attacker's limbs and use their body weight," Browne said. Everyday classroom objects, such as paperbacks and pencils, can become weapons.

"We show them they can win," he said. "The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun."
>
>

lowlifecat
13th October 2006, 21:02
I'm on the bus through downtown ottawa and am seeing three cop cars and an ambulance infront of a mcdonalds. Five cops just left the mcds and a cop car left.

I hope there is nothing interesting on the news tomorrow. :(

Teaching kids to fight back is one thing, teaching them to keep after it even after seeing their friends gunned down.

9 times of 10 fighting back will scare off the perp... Those who aren't expecting resistance or actually cowards for bringing in guns to a school.

Greebe
13th October 2006, 21:09
and after they finish up training them wait 6 weeks or so (out of sight out of mind, ie caught off guard) have a room setup to fake damage done by a gun firing blanks/ink markers shots on the kids and see how well these kids stack up against the would be killer

I'd like to see how they would react in this sort of simulated real life (via hidden camera) experience along with the head count of how many kids died in their attempt to take him down

Nobody would get hurt (other than minor scrapes and bruses) and would be the perfect tool to stop this kind of Gung Ho mentality nonsense :rolleyes:

Dr Mordrid
13th October 2006, 21:36
Todays kids might beat the 'practice bad guy' senseless. :p

Greebe
13th October 2006, 21:49
These "children" are nothing more than we were at this age. We on the other hand did have the Cold War nuclear disaster training (like that would have saved us... NOT ;)

KvHagedorn
13th October 2006, 22:47
You just can't expect little kids, particularly girls, to be as bloody-minded as James Bond, and God save us if most have to become this way.

Dr Mordrid
14th October 2006, 00:03
You just can't expect little kids, particularly girls, to be as bloody-minded as James Bond, and God save us if most have to become this way.
You've never met my daughter Sabrina :)

When she was 6 her older brother Kurt, then 8, was being roughed up on the playground by a school bully. She took it upon herself to cold-cock him on the noggin with a rock, ending the fight for stitches. The Principal almost gave her a medal because the kid was such a PITA.

When she was 13 an older boy constantly harassed her about her 'blooming' chest. After a week or two she grabbed him by the scruff of his neck & shoved him against a locker, telling him to shut up or have his d**k pop-riveted to said locker.

Shame on anyone that messes with her, and yet she can be so femme when she wants to be :p

Daddy didn't raise a wallflower. When I taught the boys how to street fight if need be she got the exact same training, and I've never regretted it.

Jessterw
14th October 2006, 10:43
When I was in elementary school we did disaster drills. Of course, this was on a military base just prior to and during the Gulf War. I doubt most other schools, even those on bases, would have done the same, but MacDill was home to CENTCOM, SOCOM, and a certain general by the name of Norman.

There was also all those pesky water spouts/tornados and hurricanes.

So I think having kids prepared for possible scenarios, of which a hostage situation is one, is vital for their safety. I'm not entirely sure rushing the gunman is the 'best' tactic, but it surely isn't the worst, especially when you consider how such situations play out.

Jon P. Inghram
14th October 2006, 12:23
Tornado drills were/are common here in school, although I think they might do better training people to simply get out of the way of the tornado as the "cower in terror" technique seems to mature into people piling under overpasses and blocking off the roads at the slightest sign of any "ominous" clouds.

Greebe
14th October 2006, 14:44
We too had tornado drills (living in Tornado Alleys' most eastern part), but left that out for simplicity's sake :)

For extra impact lets say we introduce a new classmate (child actor) first thing in the morning and say sometime after lunch 1-2pm (when the calories hit and are getting a wee bit sleepy) have this supposed Killer storm the classroom. With the kid in on the act, complete with fake blood packs etc. Killer breaks into the room, fires a couple shots into the ceiling tiles just prior to taking aim at the new kid, ceiling material all over the place, kid laying there on the floor, blood everywhere. Kids screaming/scattering/hiding

Yeah we all know all too well what the result would be, but none the less love for this to be done and the results with complete video and make it a PBS documentary.

How many times have parents talked to their children about not talking to strangers, opening the door while they aren't home etc. Can't remember who did a news story on this but it was done receintly and the kids failed miserably dispite what they had been told and taught.

MultimediaMan
14th October 2006, 15:22
This is really the product of bad security policy: Schools are looking more and more like correctional facilities everyday: This type of architecture is as good at keeping people out as in. Building security can work for or against you; newer buildings definitely work against easier rescue/escape venues. Quite a few schools get a Fire Code Deviation/Variance because of their construction (Brick/Mortar/Steel) which allows them to cut down on the number and type of fire exits they must have to meet code.

Look at it from a Terrorist's perspective: A (undefended) fortress filled with unarmed people; This is a case of "Nakatomi Plaza" writ large.

This is not restricted to the US, either: The Russian School hostage crisis illustrated this very well.

The Solution? Tear down the walls surrounding the schools, or if you insist on building fortresses, please put armed police in there.

Brian Ellis
15th October 2006, 00:18
I'm not happy at teaching children to meet violence with violence. Whereas crazy people are not unique to the USA (or Russia), you do seem to have more than your fair share. Give or take a little, the population of W. Europe is about the same as the USA but such terrible incidents as happen in the USA all too frequently are happily very rare in Europe (I can think, offhand, of only two in Europe over the last 20 years). Why? What is the difference? I believe it to be the inculcation of violence in the USA (witness: a few of those who post here) and the notion of an eye for an eye, along with, of course, the gross availability of arms. As long as this notion exists, those nations with high proportional rates of gunshot-related deaths will continue to suffer from violence manifested by and against minors, as well as adults.

I'm not trying to be "holier than thou". The Dunblane affair hit the UK just as much as Columbine in the US and was as equally tragic. One can never guard against madmen, but one can reduce the possibility of such events happening, but the surest way of propagating this risk from one generation to the next is to teach children violence and provide them with the means of wreaking it.

IMHO

KvHagedorn
15th October 2006, 00:23
On the other hand, we are capable of understanding agressive invaders for what they are..

Brian Ellis
15th October 2006, 01:08
On the other hand, we are capable of understanding agressive invaders for what they are.. Non sequitur. In any case, what about Mexicans?

Dr Mordrid
15th October 2006, 01:09
It's not that Europe and other regions don't have deadly violence on at least a par with the US, it's that their deadly violence is on a different schedule.

Yes, we have a 'steady state' of violence that is widely distributed and usually tied to criminality, drug use or mental illness. On the other hand history shows that in at least the case of Europe violence occurs in cultural paroxysms; the wars of the 17th & 18th centuries, WW-I, WW-II, Bosnia, Kosovo and other widespread upheavals.

Yes; we often get dragged in to these conflicts, lose many lives and participate in their concluding acts, but only after the more than preventable initiating events. I say preventable because in many/most cases they were, it's just that this was ignored by most all of the leadership class.

ex: the punitive steps taken against Germany after WW-I combined with a dedication to political process over effective action vs. he NAZI's lead directly to WW-II.

Over time these events are far more destructive, kill more people and more often than not set the stage for the next round of killing. Even during our participation in these foreign adventures our level of overall fatalities due to violence pales next to the many millions that die every time Europe implodes.

Given what we see as those 'outside the forest' events are already aligning for the next round; the internal (for now) conflict with Islamist immigrants and their progeny, the dependence on Russia for gas supplies and that eternal reliance politicical process over preventative action make me think that Europe is on another countdown.

az
15th October 2006, 01:46
a) This is a completely different topic.

b) I don't think so. And I don't think you will see war arising from within the EU for a long time. Don't tell me Bosnia and Austria are essentially the same, as they're both "european".

MultimediaMan
15th October 2006, 01:47
I hardly think that teaching the unarmed/defenseless to make a stand against one who would do violence will beget more violence: At that point, what have you got to lose, Brian?

Some nutjob or a terrorist may not know how to deal with someone confronting them; There have been several instances of crooks actually laying down arms/surrendering simply because they were told to by cashiers, tellers and gas station attendants. Even giving a perp pause to think can be a huge break for someone otherwise unarmed.

In one incredible case, a cashier actually offered to purchase the gun from the crook pointing it at her head: the perp agreed and handed the pistol over, as he took the cash he was ordered to the floor by the new owner of the pistol.

It's sort of like Flight 93: you may be going down, but how you choose to go down is up to you. Your actions may not be enough save yourself, but they just might save the lives of others. If everybody acted in such a manner more often, not only would our society be much safer (barring the odd Darwin Award Winner who attempts such an action), but people would tend to not consider such a course of action viable.

Dr Mordrid
15th October 2006, 02:20
a) This is a completely different topic.
Not at all. US and European violence come from different root sources, but it's still violence. It just manifests in different ways; ours in criminality and yours in cultural conflagrations. One harms people in dribbles and the other in bloodbaths.

b) I don't think so. And I don't think you will see war arising from within the EU for a long time. Don't tell me Bosnia and Austria are essentially the same, as they're both "european".
Yes; while Austria and Bosnia both arose from the Ottoman Empire they're totally different culturally. That said Europe does have a tendency to conflagrations, and to those of us viewing current events from the outside history is repeating.

Internal destabilation can come from many sources, but the current trend is your growing, and often radicalized, Islamic population. Your falling native birthrate and political decisionmaking so far leads in only one direction; civil conflict akin to our 60's but most likely more violent.

Now; what if Russia decides to come in on the Muslim side when things go from push to shove by cutting energy supplies? They're already using this tactic in Georgia over the arrest of Russian spies.

Oops.

TransformX
15th October 2006, 02:31
One can never guard against madmen, but one can reduce the possibility of such events happening, but the surest way of propagating this risk from one generation to the next is to teach children violence and provide them with the means of wreaking it.

IMHO
One can increase security. One can have more policemen and policewomen that do their friggin jobs to SERVE & PROTECT instead of constantly doing whatever is in their own interests. If needed (as it usually seems so) pay them more so to get better personel. The Police has to be well staffed, reliable and quick to act. The more well trained security related people you have, the less force you need to use. In a way, it's much like an audio system, the more and better loudspeakers you have, the less you need to 'pump-up' the volume and irritate everybody else.

Brian Ellis
15th October 2006, 02:33
It's not that Europe and other regions don't have deadly violence on at least a par with the US, it's that their deadly violence is on a different schedule.

Yes, we have a 'steady state' of violence that is widely distributed and usually tied to criminality, drug use or mental illness. On the other hand history shows that in at least the case of Europe violence occurs in cultural paroxysms; the wars of the 17th & 18th centuries, WW-I, WW-II, Bosnia, Kosovo and other widespread upheavals.

Yes; we often get dragged in to these conflicts, lose many lives and participate in their concluding acts, but only after the more than preventable initiating events. I say preventable because in many/most cases they were, it's just that this was ignored by most all of the leadership class.

ex: the punitive steps taken against Germany after WW-I combined with a dedication to political process over effective action vs. he NAZI's lead directly to WW-II.

Over time these events are far more destructive, kill more people and more often than not set the stage for the next round of killing. Even during our participation in these foreign adventures our level of overall fatalities due to violence pales next to the many millions that die every time Europe implodes.

Given what we see as those 'outside the forest' events are already aligning for the next round; the internal (for now) conflict with Islamist immigrants and their progeny, the dependence on Russia for gas supplies and that eternal reliance politicical process over preventative action make me think that Europe is on another countdown.

This is a total non sequitur. We were talking about individuals committing heinous crimes, not nations going to war. In any case, I don't think that the USA has exactly a good record on this score, either, not even in recent history. There is a world of difference between the two.

Dr Mordrid
15th October 2006, 02:42
And that thought process is exactly why European history repeats itself every 50-75 years.

Violence is violence, it's only how it manifests that changes. Each culture has its own way. In some cultures citizens turn on each other while in others it's the State vs. the citizenry or other States. Different colors of paint on the same human condition.

When the US gets involved in foreign events there is almost always a precipitating act by an outside party;

Lucitania & Germany's attacks on US merchant ships
http://www.beyondmagazine.co.uk/wreck/ILUSI_21.JPG

Pearl Harbor & NAZI Germany's declaration of war on the US shortly after
http://www.pearl-harbor.us/images/dec7am.jpg

Berlin blockade
http://chris2x.com/wp-content/PastedTiff131.jpg



9/11
http://info.med.yale.edu/library/gifs/disaster-9-11.jpg

az
15th October 2006, 03:02
Aren't you forgetting a few wars there? Though if we follow this discussion, we'll drag this thread off-topic, won't we?

Dr Mordrid
15th October 2006, 03:12
The War for Independence was justified. Period.

The War of 1812 was an English invasion.

Several territorial & border skirmishes, often with the Spanish or their Mexican minions or the French.

The Indian Wars were due to stupidity by both parties.

Korea was a war started by China and declared by the UN. We just did our part.

Vietnam was another issue. I don't thinl we would have remained there if Kennedy had not been assasinated. Johnson always was an aggressive, insecure, tempermental political hack. His short portrayal in "The Right Stuff" was pretty much spot on.

Brian Ellis
15th October 2006, 04:19
Not to forget the Afghanistan and Iraq catastrophes due to trigger-happy reactions, both of which have been "mission unaccomplished". And the US invasion of British territory in Grenada in 1983; if Maggie hadn't been at the helm, copain-copain with Reagan, there would have been hell to pay at the invasion of a sovereign territory without an official invitation. As it is, she persuaded the GG to say, a posteriori, that he had asked for it, to get herself off the hook, even though he had no authority to do so.

However, this is still off-topic.

TransformX
15th October 2006, 07:29
I suppose Europe was also quite 'trigger happy' in Bosnia and other places..?

ZokesPro
15th October 2006, 08:25
Non sequitur. In any case, what about Mexicans?
What does sequitar mean?

Dr Mordrid
15th October 2006, 08:34
"Non sequitur" = a logical fallacy.

Brian hadn'd had his brain food yet not to see the logic in that post :p

Brian Ellis
15th October 2006, 08:36
It literally means 'it does not follow'.

az
15th October 2006, 08:37
Look up non Sequitur in Wikipedia, they can explain it better than me :)

It basically means "you're drawing conclusions that cannot be drawn from the basis". For example: Basis: Berlin is in Germany. I am not in Berlin. Conclusion: I am not in Germany. Non sequitur: I can't draw this conclusion from this basis.

Brian Ellis
15th October 2006, 08:39
Brian hadn'd had his brain food yet not to see the logic in that post :p

He sees your fallacious logic, but this is called thread hijacking, changing the subject because there is no other way to get round it.

az
15th October 2006, 08:39
Brian hadn'd had his brain food yet [...]

Eat your grammar food :p

KvHagedorn
15th October 2006, 11:56
I'm not happy at teaching children to meet violence with violence. Whereas crazy people are not unique to the USA (or Russia), you do seem to have more than your fair share. Give or take a little, the population of W. Europe is about the same as the USA but such terrible incidents as happen in the USA all too frequently are happily very rare in Europe (I can think, offhand, of only two in Europe over the last 20 years). Why? What is the difference? I believe it to be the inculcation of violence in the USA (witness: a few of those who post here) and the notion of an eye for an eye, along with, of course, the gross availability of arms. As long as this notion exists, those nations with high proportional rates of gunshot-related deaths will continue to suffer from violence manifested by and against minors, as well as adults.

I'm not trying to be "holier than thou". The Dunblane affair hit the UK just as much as Columbine in the US and was as equally tragic. One can never guard against madmen, but one can reduce the possibility of such events happening, but the surest way of propagating this risk from one generation to the next is to teach children violence and provide them with the means of wreaking it.

IMHO

Alright, you want the real cause of US internal violence rather than a cross-recrimination which you label "non-sequitur"?

Can you even GUESS what I'm going to say? Yeah, the big M. Do you think without the institutionalized alienation we have in this country that there would be nearly as many of these characters? Absolutely not. And Europe is going down the same path, thinking they are all upright and liberal.. well whoop de doo. Welcome to Hell.

NetSnake
15th October 2006, 14:35
For some reason I always think about an old tv series called moonlighting with Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd when Brian and Dr. Mordid actively participate in a thread :confused: :D

Wombat
15th October 2006, 18:29
The War of 1812 was an English invasion.
It was what? We invaded Canada, and then got our ass handed to us.

Also, your little montage there implies that we invaded Iraq after being provoked by 9/11. What? There's NO link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists.

Dr Mordrid
15th October 2006, 19:52
1. Your scenario ignores the precipitating acts by the British from the time of the Treaty of Paris to the outbreak of fighting.

a. the British violating the Treaty of Paris by refusing to surrender western forts as the treaty demanded.

b. arming the Indians in an effort to sabotage #1 even further.

c. boarding American ships on the high seas looking for 'deserters'.

d. a trade embargo and seizing of hundreds of American ships during the Napoleonic wars.

These resulted in the US declaring war on June 18, 1812...which is where you picked up the story.

2. uhhh...yeah, right :p

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (AQ planner of 9/11) was the uncle of Ramsey Ahmed Yousef, who was one of two "mission specialists" sent to handle the first WTC bombing.

Yousef entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi." He is the one who persuaded the local cell to make their target the World Trade Center. It's also known that he was an Iraqi intelligence officer.

The second mission specialist was Abdul Rahman Yasin, who fled to Baghdad after the WTC bombing. ABC news reported in 1994 that he had been put on the Iraqi government payroll.

If you still believe that Iraq had no hand in 9/11 I have this bridge for sale....

That said; 9/11 begat Afghanistan. Iraq was dessert, and IMO a strategic item putting us on both sides of Iran just in case.

az
15th October 2006, 21:56
Oh, a war killing tens of thousands (grammar?) of people is a dessert? What's it taste like? Really sweet, huh? With cream on top.

KvHagedorn
15th October 2006, 22:17
I would have stayed out of Iraq for the simple reason that Saddam was killing Iraqis just fine without our help, and without us getting killed too. To paraphrase Bismarck: Iraq is not worth the blood of a single Iowa farmboy.

Brian Ellis
16th October 2006, 01:01
Alright, you want the real cause of US internal violence rather than a cross-recrimination which you label "non-sequitur"?

Can you even GUESS what I'm going to say? Yeah, the big M. Do you think without the institutionalized alienation we have in this country that there would be nearly as many of these characters? Absolutely not. And Europe is going down the same path, thinking they are all upright and liberal.. well whoop de doo. Welcome to Hell.

Here we go again with another non sequitur

I lived in a country for 35 years, probably the most M country and one of the most peaceful countries in the world, with very little violence. Internally, it has four national languages, three of which are Latin (French, Italian and Rhaeto-Romansch) and the fourth is polydialectal German. The native people belong to five identified ethnicities or cultures, each quite distinct with relatively little intermingling until the 19th century (the advent of rail). In addition, the foreign population is high, over 20%, bringing in other cultures and languages, often under the worst conditions.
http://library.thinkquest.org/28952/lifpic/auslbfs.gif (since this chart was issued, there have been many other Middle East ethnicities introduced, mainly Kurds, Iraqis, Afghanistani etc. because of conflicts)

There are 1.4 millions foreigners living in Switzerland (20% of the total). They are an essential component of the economic and demographic balance of Switzerland’s aging population. In fact, without its foreign residents, Switzerland’s population would decrease by 7,500 every year through death and emigration. However, thanks to the foreigners’ higher birth rate, the total population is actually increasing.

Immigrants are attracted to Switzerland by the quality of life and some of the highest salaries in the world. However, with such a high foreign population, immigration is a constant issue in Swiss politics. Strict federal immigration regulations apply, with annual quotas and a strong bias in favor of European immigrants, who constitute almost 90% of the foreign population.


Now, the average is 20% but these are mainly in the larger agglomerations, so that, Geneva, for example, has

In Switzerland, Geneva comes first with the number of foreign people within its population : around 45% representing nearly 180 nationalities.
Ah! You say, this is mainly because of the International Organisations in that city, with a higher-than-average IQ. This is a half-truth. At least half the foreign population are occupied in low-paying jobs in construction, cleaning, hotellerie, unskilled industry etc. Most of these are housed in subsidised city-dormitories like Le Lignon. However, these are not ghettos of a single ethnicity but mixed. You can find a Turk, an Italian, an ex-Yugoslav, a Nigerian a Portuguese and a Swiss family housed on the same floor of an apartment block.

Yet, there is little conflict in Geneva. The last time there was a riot there was a couple of years ago and this was caused not from within, but from imported foreign protesters against the G8 summit in nearby Evian, in fact your anti-multiculturists, like yourself. All those arrested (several hundred) were of foreign domicile and were exported from the country illico presto as undesirable aliens (except for a few who were caught in flagrans delicto committing serious crimes, now housed in Champs Dollon, the Geneva Pen). So, multiculturism does work.

I now live in another multicultural country (mainly Greek, Turkish, Maronite and Armenian communities). Unfortunately, it worked fine until the mid-1950s, when foreign pressure caused problems, culminating in the 1974 division fomented by the USA, the UK, Greece and Turkey, because of its strategic position in the Middle East, after Nasser closed the Suez Canal and Egypt threw out foreign armies. Cyprus is called the "permanent aircraft carrier of the Mediterranean". Today, in the Republic of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots are very few and far between (a couple of thousand) but the other cultures are thriving, plus about 15% of non-Cypriots. There is no cultural conflict and almost no violence (most of what there is emanates from foreign tourists, mostly Brits). Just to illustrate this, a few weeks ago, a man shot his wife with a shotgun and then turned it on himself. The headlines in the Cyprus Weekly were BRUTAL MURDER, it is that rare an event. This is still a country where I often leave the house and car unlocked.

So, don't give me all that guff that all the evils of this world are due to multiculturism. They are due to evil people of whatever culture and I include the majority of politicians of whatever nationality and position within the spectrum within the epithet of "evil". I am aware that you have a very parochial outlook (if I remember right, I think you have said you have never travelled, so you have never seen what other cultures are like). You condemn everyone out of sheer ignorance.