# Teaching kids to fight back against (armed) classroom invaders



## maxiogee

This report from the CNN rss-newsfeed startled me.

What do people think of the idea of encouraging children to believe that they can successfully overcome a person with a gun?
As these invaders often come armed with several weapons, and are ready and prepared to use them with lethal intent, are they really likely to be subdued by a hesitant group who will probably falter when they see the first of their colleagues fall dead or dying?

Would parents have a case against the school authorities if their child dies in an attempted take-down of an armed intruder?

If your child comes home from school some day and tells you that they had an ex-soldier in to train them in doing this, how would you react?

Does anyone know if there are studies as to the outcome of hostage-schoolchildren situations where the intruder just wants to use them as a bargaining tool? 
How would the class of 20-30 children know whether their intruder intended violence against them before the first shots are fired? Should they assault a person who, up to then, means them no harm (even if they don't know that)?

Is this an abdication by the school authorities of their responsibility to protect the children entrusted to their care on a daily basis? If it isn't now, will it lead to that?
Would it not be better to impose rigid discipline on anyone bringing weapons into a school, even if that meant erecting metal detectors and scanners at every entrance? It is said that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure - is this a quarter-pound of cure, well below the recommended dosage and unlikely to solve the illness?


----------



## .   1

If the children and teachers are well trained I see it as a good idea.  the pent up rage and controlled fear of children and teachers would be a sight to behold.
There is a strange thing about a person carrying a gun.
They think that the gun makes them invincible and gives a false sense of security.
Children and teachers are being killed and maimed in ever growing numbers and the Amish children showed great courage.
The creatures who invade schools are not brave.  All have significant psychological problems.  All intend to harm the children.
I believe that empowering the children makes sense.
There are many simple techniques that can be employed to subdue these creatures.
Many high school boys are adept at tackling and smothering.
I have taught my daughter what to do if she is confronted by an armed assailant.
The most effective thing to do is to get right up into the face of the attacker as quickly as possible.  Once the children are inside the muzzle area of the weapon the kids can perform mayhem on the eyes and face of the attacker.
A diving tackle to the legs of the attacker will slow him down enough for others to beat the shit out of him with chairs or heavy books or sharp finger nails or heavy shoes and boots caving in his ribs.
The worst thing that will happen is that he will not be able to fire well aimed shots while the best result is that he will be reduced to a quivering blob of protoplasm.
Firing a weapon accurately is not an easy thing to do even when totally calm.  These attackers are often doped up to the eyeballs and scared shitless.  A vengeful mob of well prepared teenagers will do nothing to improve his aim.
The end result will be kids who see themselves as empowered and not victims to be shot like sitting ducks in a computer game.

.,,


----------



## Le Hibou

Given that such attacks are, thankfully, quite rare, and that most children will certainly never experience such a situation, one of the worst side effects of random gun attacks in schools, may well be the sense of insecurity and fear induced in children who are not directly affected. Children watch the news too. 

Lessons in how to fight back against classroom invaders can surely help counter the fear: instead of going to school feeling like a potential victim of an unpredictable occurrence, a child can go with a feeling off confidence, believing "*We* know what to do if a gunman comes in *our* school!".

Whether or not fighting back will eventually save lives, or possibly put them in worse danger, cannot easily be determined - a lot will depend on the circumstances at the time - but maybe even a bereaved parent might find some consolation knowing that their child went down fighting.


----------



## curly

What kind of sadistic weirdo wants to teach a child how to use things to beat a person sensless, and cave in their ribs? yes we all agree people who would walk into aschool with a gun is a coward, but why the hell would you want to turn a child into a weapon?

There is a reason children aren't allowed to have sex, guns or cars.

And no i think it's quite easy to shoot a person or persons standing two feet from you as at least one person in a crowd must be. I also note that some want to teach this to 5-2 year olds in primary.


----------



## COF

Very bad idea. The chances of it happening are almost zero and the kids would use the techniques on peers their angry with, turning a play ground scuffle into something deadly.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> What kind of sadistic weirdo wants to teach a child how to use things to beat a person sensless, and cave in their ribs?


This sadistic weirdo who wants to see his kids come home from school with no bullet holes in her head.
Standing meekly in line in to be shot seems odd to me.
Thanks for the ephitet curley.

.,,


----------



## ElaineG

> Would it not be better to impose rigid discipline on anyone bringing weapons into a school, even if that meant erecting metal detectors and scanners at every entrance?


 
Old hat here in NYC.

I'm just not expert enough to know what the right approach to take with a man with a gun is.  But I do know that the women's self-defense lessons that were offered as a physical education option to girls in my high school were very empowering and made me feel better, and I still remember some of the tricks they taught us, although thankfully (knock wood) I've never had caue to use them.


----------



## curly

I don't see how running at a person with a gun would prevent being shot in the head, and sorry about the sadistc weirdo comment i shouldn't have said that


----------



## french4beth

I just heard a news story on the radio on the way to work this morning - the recommendation is that children should not lay down and wait til an event ends - of late, random victims tjat didn't run away have been shot ,wounded and/or killed. 

The advice that I heard this morning was that since it is much harder to hit a moving target, children should run about & throw any available objects at the intruder. 

Schools in the town that I live in have kept the doors locked from the outside for several years now (since Columbine and also to prevent non-custodial relatives from illegally taking children out of school). 

This past weekend, I just attended a discussion group of teenagers regarding school violence (offered thru Yale University) - some students have metal detectors & wands at their schools: at some schools, students are randomly scanned, at other schools there is "profiling" - if the student looks like they may be carrying a weapon, they will be scanned; at others, only the boys are scanned (so the boys give objects to their girlfriends, and the girls give the objects back to the boys once inside the school). 

There is a huge debate going on in schools in my area - should the schools spend money on books, or spend money to hire security guards & buy metal detectors? I don't the actual statistics on the possibility of such an event happening at a particular school, but unfortunately, there have been many tragic, high-profile cases just in the past few weeks in North America, so there are likely to be more copy-cat cases.

And on United Flight 93, the passengers fought back and although they lost their lives, they averted a potentially greater tragedy. I don't think any child should ever have to give up their life, but my self-defense instructor's mantra is "Never give up. Never give up. And if things get really bad, never give up."

I strongly recommend self-defense training for _everyone, _as Elaine mentioned. I truly hope that no one will ever need to use such training, but better to be safe than sorry.

I have told my kids that they have every right to defend themselves - if someone walks into a school with a weapon, they're up to no good - "take em out!" by whatever means necessary (we are talking about my kids' safety, here - call me a twisted psycho, if you want...).

I agree with periodcommacomma's and Le Hibou's observations.


----------



## distille

Some simple self-defense teaching may be helpful psychologically both for kids and parents, but i think a ban on guns for civilians would have good results too.


----------



## karuna

Trying to fight back one who has a gun is a bad idea. An assailant simply will shoot them untill he is out of bullets. It happens all the time in armed robberies. One who doesn't follows instructions or makes weird moves gets shot. Sometimes there is no need to be a hero. 

In my opinion, the USA should deal with the root of the problem, not the consequences. You need to get rid of easy access to guns. There are psychos everywhere but in most countries getting guns are out of their reach. Then we can speak about teaching self-defence to kids.

Recently in Latvia a boy with a similarly "dark" profile took out his rage and attacked his classmates with a knife. Before he was subdued he injured nine classmates but nobody was killed. I doubt that the result would be the same if he had had a gun.


----------



## Poetic Device

Bottom line (although I know that this is nearly impossible nowadays) I feel is that children should be all owed to be children, not trained killers or what have you. I believe that the teachers and any other school staff should be trained in case of such an emergency, but not children. There are certain countries that at least used to train their 5 year old children how to fight in a war and such and brained-washed them into WANTING to die in a battle. Why should a child that is in kindergarten learn such things? If you allow children to know such knowlege, in my opinion, you might as well give them the option to sign up for the military. I personally would be completely furious to know someone was teaching my daughter those things.



> In my opinion, the USA should deal with the root of the problem, not the consequences.


I completely agree.


----------



## Etcetera

I agree with Poetic Device. 
In my opinion, it's good if the kid can stand for himself or herself. But knowing how things are taught in Russian schools... Moreover, thank God, there wasn't a single case when a man with a gun would rush into a classroom - like it used to be in the US. And in the Beslan school the situation was very, very different, and I can't imagine that any children might have been trained enough to fight those beasts who invaded the school.


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:


> There is a huge debate going on in schools in my area - should the schools spend money on books, or spend money to hire security guards & buy metal detectors?



Why should the school pay for books, apart from books for a library - and that's an 'extra' as far as basic education is concerned, I would feel? Do pupils not buy their own books (well, yes, I know that parents do the paying) in the USA?
They do here - except in some schools where there is a rental scheme.


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't know of any school in the U.S.A. (with the exception of colleges and maybe some private schools) that has their students purchase their own books. 

In any event, let's take the self-defense a step further, and forgive me if I go too extreme. Let's say that we teach these young children that don't know the difference between a synonym and an antonym manuvers that can disarm and hurt, if not maim, a person, and then send them out to the playground. What do you think will happen?



> 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.


 
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  "Yeah, let's throw pencils and stuff at the guy that has a gun. Lead poisoning vs. "lead poisoning".  I wonder which will win."


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I don't know of any school in the U.S.A. (with the exception of colleges and maybe some private schools) that has their students purchase their own books.



My point was that any 'spare' money should go on security for the school as a whole and that parents could pay for the books. What's the point of sending a child to a school where anyone can walk in at any time? 
Free books, oh wow - I'd prefer that they paid for security doors first.


----------



## Tsoman

The security guards get to have big guns right? Otherwise the crazy man could just blast them and walk right in


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> Do pupils not buy their own books (well, yes, I know that parents do the paying) in the USA?


 
That is what I was refering to when I said thet they do not pay for books. I was just simply answering your question. Nothing More, nothing less. In all honesty I agree with you that there should be mor money towards security. When Savanna and her brother/sister get older and go to school I would rather see them in a school with metal detectors than learning that they should run towards a guy with a gun. That is just assenine (sp). 

Just so that you know and to continue with the book thing, the schools here don't buy new books every year, They pourchase new books every five to ten years and if the student loses the book or damages it they are required to pay for it. So it's not exactly a free-for-all.

I know what your point was and you have to understand that the majority of the schools here do have security doors and some schools--especially those in and near cities--go as far as being just as if not more secure than a prison, yet that still does not help. An example of this would be that case that just recently happened where the security guard knew and let in the guy that was shooting all over the school. You are always going to find those circumstances because people will be people. So, what are you going to do? I honestly don't believe teaching a five year old those techniques (some if not most adults can't master I may add) is a good idea. Like I said, playground scenarios and "lead vs. lead".


----------



## maxiogee

Tsoman said:


> The security guards get to have big guns right? Otherwise the crazy man could just blast them and walk right in



Why?
Why not stout doors?


----------



## Poetic Device

That's only going to do so much.  Not only that, but don't you thik if we go too far the saftey precautions are going to affect the learning process?


----------



## WolfBrother

Those who know for sure please chime in.

I believe the Isralies was having this problem.  

Then they trained and armed all school employees.

Then after a couple of times of getting the $hit shot out of them, those who were invading an schools and killing children decided to try that some where else.

[Begin my opinion]
Those who say the gun causes the violence should also say the fork causes obesity.
[End my opinion]


----------



## Poetic Device

WolfBrother said:


> [Begin my opinion]
> Those who say the gun causes the violence should also say the fork causes obesity.
> [End my opinion]


 
LMAO......

And the rest I agree with as well.


----------



## Falcons508

> That's only going to do so much. Not only that, but don't you thik if we go too far the saftey precautions are going to affect the learning process?



It might help because the students would feel safer.


----------



## lampiao

I agree with maxiogee on preventing such situations.
One thing that should be noted is that some, if not many, of these attacks are made by students. That means they would know all about that empowering business. 

There is a bigger issue here: America is known, among many other things, for being a place where buying a gun is rather easy, but I won't elaborate on this. That would be a whole new thread.


----------



## WolfBrother

[Begin My Opinion]
Falcons508 - While I have been called a Cold Blooded SOB, I can't agree with 
"nuke every arab nation".  And yes, we've been fighting Muslim's for 200 or so years (Thomas Jefferson and the "shores of Tripoli").  

What the Religion of Peace (as demonstrated by the Nun killing a couple of weeks ago) has not done that Christian religions (for the most part) have done is have a reformation.  It is my prayer that the moderates git 'er done before we do have to nuke one or more.


lampiao - "America is known, among many other things, for being a place where buying a gun is rather easy,"   You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is one of the ONLY countries in the world where the peasantry and Middle Class (in most States) can own weapons.  As a Master Peace Officer, I love to see law abiding armed citizens.  Because I know I can't be everywhere and they can then do like our forefathers and defend themselves.

lampiao - If you like, I'll be glad to discuss this with you via email.

[End My Opinion]


----------



## Tsoman

I don't think that school shootings are really something that can be 'fixed' or even effectively prevented.

I think we should just do business as usual and not change a thing, except that schools should have emergency plans and everyone should keep a closer eye on the weirdos, but that's a personal thing


----------



## Victoria32

distille said:


> Some simple self-defense teaching may be helpful psychologically both for kids and parents, but i think a ban on guns for civilians would have good results too.


Yes, I echo that! 
Thankfully, we have never had such an event in our schools, but I think the danger is that the children could become over-confident and thus get killed more surely than if they 'played along' with the attacker, *psychological* self-defence may be better...


----------



## maxiogee

Proportionally, we have no fewer disturbed children in our schools than any other nation, I dare say.
I have yet to come across a case of a student running amok, armed or unarmed, in their school.
I have no idea what would happen here if a student did arm themself and wreak havoc amongst their fellow-pupils but I feel certain that encouraging pupils to try to take control of any future incidents would not be part of any suggested scenarios.
I would imagine that stricter security measures would be uppermost in most parents' minds.
That, and a month of double maths in detention! That'd soften their cough!


----------



## Poetic Device

distille said:


> Some simple self-defense teaching may be helpful psychologically both for kids and parents, but i think a ban on guns for civilians would have good results too.


 

...And that is why Tibet (or was it Tiwan?) had the recently past events happen.  The government/military basically overpowered the people and now look at what is happening.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> ...And that is why Tibet (or was it Tiwan?) had the recently past events happen. The government/military basically overpowered the people and now look at what is happening.


This is not a discussion about a population being required to defend itself against it's own government and I doubt that any armed civilian population could possibly put up any meaningful defence against a much better armed and trained military.
Of course it is better to have adults to protect them from these loons.
Of course it is better to place strategies in place to prevent these loons from entering the school premises to attack the students.
Of course it is better to leave it in the hands of the professionals.
The concept is for children in school who are being attacked by psychopaths to be empowered to do something when all of the other checks and balances have failed them.
Moving targets are always harder to hit than stationary targets.
Passive targets are always harder to hit than active targets.
Targets that fight back are frightening while passive targets empower the loons.

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> This is not a discussion about a population being required to defend itself against it's own government
> (If you read and payed attention I was rebutting the statement about civilians no longer being allowed weapons.)  and I doubt that any armed civilian population could possibly put up any meaningful defence against a much better armed and trained military.(Then who fought in the American Revolution?  That's just one example where you are wrong.)
> Of course it is better to have adults to protect them from these loons.
> Of course it is better to place strategies in place to prevent these loons from entering the school premises to attack the students.
> Of course it is better to leave it in the hands of the professionals.(This I will agree with.)
> The concept is for children in school who are being attacked by psychopaths to be empowered to do something when all of the other checks and balances have failed them.I don't think that throwing graphite pencils and books will help at all.
> Moving targets are always harder to hit than stationary targets.
> Passive targets are always harder to hit than active targets.
> Targets that fight back are frightening while passive targets empower the loons.
> 
> .,,


----------



## Bonjules

Well,
taking this concept further I would suggest to
collect the especially skilled, trained, armed and higly effective
children in 'Mighty Magnet Schools'*, so the 
limited resources can be used to fortify the others with high walls,
barbed wire, metal detectors etc.
Detailed psychological profiles of the armed/skilled ones and their
families would of course be highly valuable lest they suddenly
-for no apparent reason- might turn their skills against each other!
Cheers

PS.... How could I forget! Teachers in the MMS's naturally would
need special provisions for early retirement and disability!
*Actually, now I think 'Make My Day Schools' (MMDS's) would
even be more appropriate (Like: 'Come on in...')


----------



## beakman

I get numb at the thought that one day psycho may enter my son's school with a gun...I asked my son (he is six) what would he do if some "mad man" came to their school. "Oh, if he came with a gun I'd set free a big tiger and other savage animals!"-my son's response. "If we had animals at home, I could take them to school, so no "mad man" would ever try to come, besides, I like animals very much and I know many interesting things about them, by the way, they also may eat my teachers...and so, we wouldn't have to do homework..."

Here in Spain, at least in Andalusia, I've never heard of any similar case. Neither in Russia, where I was brought up, we'd ever heard of some mad man taking hostages and shooting at children...at least, before "Perestroyka" (Beslan is not the same). (Maybe things are not so good now there, or if they are still good they may in future turn bad ...here and there...everywhere, who knows?) If we insist on depicting everything in black, then everything will turn black, and our future will be hopeless... 

My viewpoint: let children, at least, small ones, have there childhood and happines as we had, I mean, without frightening them with everything and preparing them for evil things (at least, I wasn't taugt to, instead of Cold war and other problems my parents faced at time I was a child). Let schools be nice places which resemble schools and not prisons (as ours used to), where children learn and acquiere knowledge and play games (as we used to) and not prepare to face psychos. Why not trying to teach them to be good persons and not to do harm to others and to share, instead? Why not to pay more attention to everybody? Maybe, it's too idealistic, but I don't see another way to follow.


----------



## LouisaB

beakman said:


> My viewpoint: let children, at least, small ones, have there childhood and happines as we had, I mean, without frightening them with everything and preparing them for evil things


 
Beakman, I so agree with you, and I wish we could. In Britain, as in Spain, this terrible crime is not yet a real problem (touching wood with everything I've got) and so I agree with maxiogee that we should keep such things away from our children.

But I do not feel I have any right to say the same for America, or any other country that has suffered like this. Their children have _already_ been robbed of their innocence and childhood by the knowledge that these things occur. As Le Hibau said, 'Children watch the news too'.

If I lived in the States, and had children at school there, I would feel just as .,, does. Empowerment is better than fear.


----------



## .   1

LouisaB said:


> If I lived in the States, and had children at school there, I would feel just as .,, does. Empowerment is better than fear.


You're not wrong.
Empowerment will defeat fear.
Fear will kill you in small increments.
I feel pity for the poor kids in America who have to pass through scanners and see constant reminders that they are vulnerable when at school yet have no way of dealing with the psychopath other than to hide under a desk and hope that they don't catch the next bullet.
It must be terrible to survive such a situation and know that some of your mates did not.
It is a form of terrorism that must be eating at the very fabric of American society at a point in the lives of the citizens when they are at their most psychologically vulnerable. I advocate making the kids feel less vulnerable.
Doing nothing does not seem to be working.

.,,


----------



## karuna

I think that it is stupid to give a false sense of security. Besides it may instill the wrong idea and more deaths can occur when someone overestimates his possibilities and tries to stop armed attacker with bare hands. 

It looks that the society in the USA is permeated with fear. All these restrictions in the airports against manicure scissors, toothpaste and even a bottle of water are simply ridiculous and only serve to increase mass hysteria. 

We should do whatever is practical to save lives but when death is inevitable, one should learn not to fear it. It is not possible to reduce fear with empowerment. Out of fear people buy guns for protection and the result simply is that more innocent people are killed with those guns. Going to teach how to fight your classmate who has gone nuts will only increase distrust among children. Instead we should teach them how to trust and help each other even more. 

It is no secret that many school massacres were done by children who were ridiculed and humiliated by their classmates. Children can be mean at times. It is important that teachers and parents detect such situations and do not allow them to happen. But if instead children are taught how to fight against such "undesirable" persons, it guarantees that these skills will be used to bully some unhappy chap even more.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Doing nothing does not seem to be working.



True, but there are more forms of doing something than teaching children that the way to deal with this problem is to put them into the front line.
When these children are older, what will they think of a society which chose to leave it up to them to tackle an armed intruder into a school and yet spent money on protecting the building at night when it was empty?
I assume that these premises have monitored fire and burglar alarms and possibly even a security presence after hours.
If someone can be deterred and prevented from intruding into the school buildings at night, why can they not be prevented in the daytime?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> True, but there are more forms of doing something than teaching children that the way to deal with this problem is to put them into the front line.
> When these children are older, what will they think of a society which chose to leave it up to them to tackle an armed intruder into a school and yet spent money on protecting the building at night when it was empty?
> I assume that these premises have monitored fire and burglar alarms and possibly even a security presence after hours.
> If someone can be deterred and prevented from intruding into the school buildings at night, why can they not be prevented in the daytime?


Mistakes happen.

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

My mother-in-law is a teacher at a local school, and she just told me that the school runs these drill for such an occasion.  Apparently, the students are to blind and lock the windows and lock the door.  If for some reason the teacher is blocking the door (i.e. dead or badly hurt) they are to kick the teacher out of the way and then lock the door.


----------



## curly

maxiogee said:


> True, but there are more forms of doing something than teaching children that the way to deal with this problem is to put them into the front line.
> When these children are older, what will they think of a society which chose to leave it up to them to tackle an armed intruder into a school and yet spent money on protecting the building at night when it was empty?
> I assume that these premises have monitored fire and burglar alarms and possibly even a security presence after hours.
> If someone can be deterred and prevented from intruding into the school buildings at night, why can they not be prevented in the daytime?


 
Because a closed gate only needs to distinguish betwween a person with a key and a person without a key. To secure a school during the day time you need to allow entrance of students, staff, and visitors, it's much more difficult and expensive than a gate, some locked doors and even a security detail.


----------

