Kids Fighting back against gunmen in school

[sixboysdad]

No one is advocating a group of 10 year olds breaking glass bottles and attacking the gunmen

I realize this is a serious discussion, and I appreciate that. But did anyone else get the picture in their head of Stewie Griffin doing this and saying, "I'm gonna cut you, bitch!" when they read this?

OTOH, I agree that this should not be taught in schools. That's why I do it at home. At least I can teach them the mindset that they don't have to hide in a cupboard--they can run, or they can fight if they are cornered, but don't go down without that fight.

[ToddG]

Carlos -- My pleasure, dude.

I don't have kids (as evidenced by the fact that I haven't committed suicide), so I'm surprised by the number of folks who have objected to the idea of kids learning to protect themselves. Not a criticism, I'm genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.

Ideally, teachers and police will come to the kids' rescue. Just like, ideally, police will come to my rescue if someone breaks into my home late at night. But just as I wouldn't give up my right to defend myself simply because the police may show up in time, why should kids be taught to sit tight and pray for the cavalry?

If fifth grade too young for a kid to start adopting a warrior mindset? Many of you have stated that you teach your kids these things at home, anyway. If you can teach your kid avoidance and evasion and resistance, what is the specific objection to schools doing the same?

Again, I'm not asking these questions as challenges, they're sincere.

[Safetyhit]

If fifth grade too young for a kid to start adopting a warrior mindset? Many of you have stated that you teach your kids these things at home, anyway. If you can teach your kid avoidance and evasion and resistance, what is the specific objection to schools doing the same?

Teaching kids at home to defend themselves at 10 is one thing. Teaching that same 10 year old to go on the offensive against an armed adult, in a school that is full of adults directly responsible for that child until they get off the bus, is quite another. Sure, let's just assume that most likey the adults will be inept and ineffective, therefore prepare the 70 pound children for battle with a man wielding a gun who is shooting people.

If the threat is substantial enough for them to consider that extreme, then it is substantial enough for the school to have armed personnel in the building. End of story.

By the way, exactly what might you envision a 10, or even 11 or 12 year old doing to an armed gunman to stop him? Maybe something out of the movie "Home Alone" like marbles on the floor then a blow with a ruler?

Please.

[ToddG]

Safetyhit --

I don't envisage a 10yo beating up an armed adult. But thirty 10yo's would make it a lot harder for him to be effective ... certainly compared to having thirty helpless sheep for the slaughter. Will it save every child? No. I think the point of the program is to make the best of a horrible situation.

When a gunman walks into a classroom, there is likely going to be one adult present, not a school full of them. I think it's pretty clear based on historical data that the teacher is one of, if not the, first person to get shot. I doubt you're advocating an armed guard or two in every classroom, are you?

I guess what it comes down to is this: could a classroom full of 5th graders do anything to increase their odds of survival while waiting for adults to arrive and respond to an active shooter?

It's also worth noting that in most of the school shootings I can think of, the shooter has been a peer, not an adult off the street. So could a group of 5th graders do something effective against one 5th grader with a gun?

If someone says, "Hey, from a developmental standpoint, 10yo's just aren't capable of this," you'd get no argument from me. I know zippy about child development. But barring that, I'm trying to figure out what they lose by learning to fight back rather than cower in fear.

[Safetyhit]

Safetyhit --

I don't envisage a 10yo beating up an armed adult. But thirty 10yo's would make it a lot harder for him to be effective ... certainly compared to having thirty helpless sheep for the slaughter. Will it save every child? No. I think the point of the program is to make the best of a horrible situation.

I personally believe the idea is good in principle if the actions taught are defensive, not offensive. However, the defensive actions should be limited to getting away from the gunman or, yes, finding a place to hide. Training little kids to attack when cornered is still training little kids to attack. And really, with what and how?

Look at it this way. Anyone see the dozens of stories of high schoolers hiding under desks and such while others were shot around them? How many would be alive today if they stood up and rushed the gunman? Good question. If it were a few teenage boys that attacked while he reloaded or was distracted, great. I am all for it.

But what about if a few girls gave it a try, think they would have the resilience and aggressiveness to succeed? Wonder if any might get shot just for trying? They may be better served under the desk or running out the door if the bad guy is distracted.

Now, replace the high school teenagers with 10 and 11 year olds. What are they supposed to do? What weapons do they utilize in an environment where certain scissors are deemed too dangerous to be in the building?

Todd, as someone without children I can semi-understand your perspective. But, again I ask, what has a 10 year old's school day become if part of it incorporates them thinking "I could be attacked and killed today, so I better be ready" and learning to physically fight a much older, likely adrenaline pumped, much larger, ARMED man?

And, what if the person just wants, let's say, his ex-wife the teacher dead and wants to make a spectacle of the event by doing it in the school. A bunch of attacking kids (again, with what weapons?) may only fuel his rage and cause him to retaliate.

[GlockWRX]

If the threat is substantial enough for them to consider that extreme, then it is substantial enough for the school to have armed personnel in the building. End of story.

That right there is the crux of it. If the school does not have an armed school safety officer, and they haven't trained the teachers to take down a gunman, they've got no business teaching my kid to do their jobs. Having a child step up to the responsibility of a cowardly adult pacifist is disgusting.

[ToddG]

A 10yo with a ballpoint pen and a mean disposition could certainly hurt someone.

Like I said, I've got no kids and no horse in this race. To me, the idea of teaching a kid to defend himself at an early age makes sense. Whether it comes into play during a active shooting, an attempted abduction, or a playground bully incident it's still better than hiding under a desk and Hoping for Change.

[GlockWRX]

A 10yo with a ballpoint pen and a mean disposition could certainly hurt someone.

Like I said, I've got no kids and no horse in this race. To me, the idea of teaching a kid to defend himself at an early age makes sense. Whether it comes into play during a active shooting, an attempted abduction, or a playground bully incident it's still better than hiding under a desk and Hoping for Change.

I agree with the self-defense principle. I have no problem teaching a child to defend themselves.

My issue with the story behind this thread is that there are people out there advocating teaching the kids to fight an armed assailant in the school. While I don't disagree with this principle either, I think it's rediculous to teach the kids to fight when the teachers and principal's are not equally trained.

If my daughter's kindergarten teacher is required to take 40 hours of instruction in Krav Maga every year and has established a coordinated plan with other teachers to confront and kill an armed assailant in the school, and THEN they want to teach my kid how to do a leg tackle so Miss Teacher can deliver a proper curb stomp, then I've got no problem. But if the teachers and principals are saying "We don't take the threat to these kids seriously enough to arm ourselves or hire armed security officers, so let's just train the kids instead." That is a NO-GO in my book.

[CarlosDJackal]

I personally don't have an issue teachings kids how to survive. As long as the Instructors puts the use of force in the right perspective and parents reinforce the ethics involved with learning how to use force.

I'm wondering why there hasn't been an incident (that I've heard of) of an "Active Killer" doing his or her dirty deed at a Boys Military Academy (we have quite a few of those in Central VA). Or how come there aren't very many in Parochial or Private Schools?

IMHO, they should bring back some sort of self-defense course in schools (all schools) and make it mandatory for kids to take some Combatives as part of their Phys Ed. But this is never going to happen when we can't even have Dodge Ball in some so-called educational systems as it is.

[Safetyhit]

IMHO, they should bring back some sort of self-defense course in schools (all schools) and make it mandatory for kids to take some Combatives as part of their Phys Ed.

How about make the "Combatives" course a requirement for adults who have the strength and knowledge to handle an armed adult threat much better than their ten year old students if we are so worried about it? Any logic there?

Anyone of the die-hard Joe's here want to tell me what a 10 year old child who plays with action figures at home is going to do against an enraged, armed adult attacker? Seriously, someone tell me.

Besides the brilliant ballpoint pen idea.