Joined
·
265 Posts
There was a controversial plan to teach school kids how to react if there was a gunman in the classroom:
At first it sounded like a bad plan but after pondering on it for a while it kinda makes sense. When we were young we were taught to give in to someone trying to rob you or taught to not fight back in times of aggression. It turns out that passivism didn't work during Columbine and other shootings.
Maybe they may be too young now but also maybe nothing will happen to them at this age. The thought being is that by the time they are in middle school or high school it will be ingrained in their head that self-preservation is more important than giving in to home-grown terrorists.
That story is in contrast to a different school planning gunman drills instead of fire drills:
I have seen the Columbine video and many of them tried to hide under tables and it did nothing but prolong there life for a few moments more. I would post a link to the Columbine vid but don't know if that would be a violation of this fourm's policy so I will not do that. If you forgot what the students did and how the gunman reacted, you might want to watch the school surveillance vid once again.
Since teachers are not allowed to carry guns in most schools and it could take a half-an-hour plus for the cops to do anything, should students be taught to fight back or hide under desks? If elementary is too early to teach these kids about defending themselves then what would be a good age to teach them?
Fight back LINKControversy Erupts Over School Proposal to Teach Kids to Fight Back Against Gunmen
A proposal to teach children as young as 10 years old to fight back against a classroom gunman is causing quite a stir in a small town in Massachusetts.
The Georgetown Public Schools in Georgetown, Mass., are considering a proposal to teach kids to fend off a gunman with backpacks or textbooks as part of a proposal to revamp their "Code Blue" safety policy.
At first it sounded like a bad plan but after pondering on it for a while it kinda makes sense. When we were young we were taught to give in to someone trying to rob you or taught to not fight back in times of aggression. It turns out that passivism didn't work during Columbine and other shootings.
Maybe they may be too young now but also maybe nothing will happen to them at this age. The thought being is that by the time they are in middle school or high school it will be ingrained in their head that self-preservation is more important than giving in to home-grown terrorists.
That story is in contrast to a different school planning gunman drills instead of fire drills:
Gunman drill LINKIn an Era of School Shootings, a New Drill
MONMOUTH JUNCTION, N.J. — Tim Matheney stalked the silent hallways of South Brunswick High School one recent Wednesday at 1:07 p.m., peering into dark, seemingly empty classrooms and jotting down room numbers whenever he heard giggles behind locked doors. Students were supposed to remain silent and out of sight.
Mr. Matheney, the school’s principal, was roaming the suburban campus as if he were an “active shooter,” à la Virginia Tech or Columbine, as part of a “lockdown drill” now required twice a year here and in many schools around the country.
I have seen the Columbine video and many of them tried to hide under tables and it did nothing but prolong there life for a few moments more. I would post a link to the Columbine vid but don't know if that would be a violation of this fourm's policy so I will not do that. If you forgot what the students did and how the gunman reacted, you might want to watch the school surveillance vid once again.
Since teachers are not allowed to carry guns in most schools and it could take a half-an-hour plus for the cops to do anything, should students be taught to fight back or hide under desks? If elementary is too early to teach these kids about defending themselves then what would be a good age to teach them?