School request children throw can goods at shooters?????????????

[chipbennett]

They must think a real active shooter situation looks like the movie "Home Alone".

I guess throwing cans is better than nothing, but gimme a break. The people making the decisions need to be placed in a realistic active shooter training scenario if for nothing more than to prove how idiotic their "solutions" really are.

Throwing cans is better than throwing nothing - for about 5 to 10 seconds. The end result remains unchanged.

 

[chipbennett]

Yep, wife teaches 3rd grade. And her school district has gone thru the ALICE training thru the local sheriffs department. The officers all told the teachers, and students, to throw items at the active shooter. They also taught the teachers how to "tackle" someone.

In my book, a class of 25 students throwing canned goods at a bad guy is a good thing. It's. A lot better than hiding in a corner waiting to die.

Never bring a canned good to a gun fight.

If and when my girls are in public school, they're going to know to head straight for the nearest window in an active shooter situation.

 

[chipbennett]

I think most, if not all, of us on Ingo think teachers should be armed in some way. However, teachers having a gun doesn't mean that nothing bad can never happen, just like me carrying my firearm doesn't make me invincible. IMO any steps taken, even can throwing by students, that could potentially impede an attacker could have positive results. Better than sitting there doing nothing, and you can't give an eight year old a handgun.

Actually, having armed teachers may very well be a 100% deterrent to school-targeted spree shooters.

Such shooters tend to be cowards, end their aggression when faced with armed resistance. Every single spree shooting has taken place in a Gun Free Zone. Arming teachers would eliminate schools as GFZs; therefore, it may completely eliminate schools with armed teachers as spree shooter targets.

 

[eldirector]

In my book, a class of 25 students throwing canned goods at a bad guy is a good thing. It's. A lot better than hiding in a corner waiting to die.

Strawman. There are more than those two choices.

I know the forum has hosted many conversations on school safety/defense improvements. Not all involve firearms. If safety/defense was an actual concern, we wouldn't be talking about cans of fruit salad. We would be discussing hardening the buildings, training staff, students, and parents, and providing the necessary tools.

I can only assume, that since we are discussing pork-n-beans, that schools (and parents) are not yet willing to discuss redirecting funding from "more important" school functions to security.

 

[printcraft]

Never bring a canned good to a gun fight.

If and when my girls are in public school, they're going to know to head straight for the nearest window in an active shooter situation.

This ^^^^^^^

All of my kids were taught the "shelter in place" is not to be followed.
You get out of the building come hell or high water.
We'll find you later.
Somebody going to attack a school is not going to chase a straggler outside, they are going for the huddled, pinned, easy meat.

 

[lovemachine]

The windows in my wife's classroom are too small and narrow for a child to get thru. Also, they are THICK. I don't see a child breaking the glass easily.

Also, at my wifes school corp, they have a retired police officer patrolling the halls now. He goes to all the different schools as much as he can. The corporation just doesn't have the budget to add any more officers like that.

Arming teachers. I dont see that happening in the next 5 years. It was a huge step for IN to pass the bill to allow us to keep our guns locked in the car in the school lot.

But until they do allow armed teachers, I think training the teachers and kids in this matter is a good thing. It's better than what they were doing a few years ago, which was nothing.

 

[AndersonIN]

My wife is a Para educator and we've actually worked on how to jam an semi automatic pistol and rifle (if she can get close enough) and how to block a revolver hammer. Also how to unjam a semi too (just in case the BG would drop one that jammed on them that she can get too)!

Had no idea I should have been working on her overhand throw instead!

 

[ilikeguns]

Actually, having armed teachers may very well be a 100% deterrent to school-targeted spree shooters.

Such shooters tend to be cowards, end their aggression when faced with armed resistance. Every single spree shooting has taken place in a Gun Free Zone. Arming teachers would eliminate schools as GFZs; therefore, it may completely eliminate schools with armed teachers as spree shooter targets.

Arming teachers is a great idea. It may even deter %100. I hope it would, but do you want to bank your kids life on it? How is anything, no matter how small(like thirty cans of beans flying through the air) a bad thing? I am not saying that it will be super effective. I'm not saying it will be any kind of deterrent. I'm simply saying why not? It's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't hurt anything and there is a chance it could throw an attacker off his game just long enough for an adult to do something. If it only saved one kids life it would be worth it.

 

[chipbennett]

Arming teachers is a great idea. It may even deter %100. I hope it would, but do you want to bank your kids life on it? How is anything, no matter how small(like thirty cans of beans flying through the air) a bad thing? I am not saying that it will be super effective. I'm not saying it will be any kind of deterrent. I'm simply saying why not? It's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't hurt anything and there is a chance it could throw an attacker off his game just long enough for an adult to do something. If it only saved one kids life it would be worth it.

I prefer not banking my children's lives on anyone or anything else other than me, and whatever I am able to instill in them. However, in a public school setting, self-sufficiency in defending against an assailant is a wee bit lacking. Given the choice (and it is a binary choice; after all, who would arm children with canned goods when the teachers have firearms?), I would much rather bank my children's lives on armed teachers than canned goods.

Canned goods chucked by middle school students will do nothing to stop an armed shooter. To think that they would is a pipe dream. (Especially given the other brain-dead tactics being employed, such as huddling all of the students into a corner, making the shooter's shots all that much more efficient.) In the end: the same number of victims will be dead, and the spree shooter might sport a few extra bruises before he offs himself as the police arrive 15 minutes later.

And what is an adult going to do?

Canned goods: stupid tactically, and stupid strategically. Make the doors able to be locked from the inside. Teach teachers and students how to lock and bar the door. Provide fire-escape windows in every classroom.

Oh: and allow teachers to arm themselves, and then advertise boldly that the school has armed teachers.

 

[JetGirl]

It can happen to the best among us. Witness: Hickok45's facebook post from a couple of days ago:

Can't rep you again so soon.

 

[MjQ-G18]

Arming teachers is a great idea. It may even deter %100. I hope it would, but do you want to bank your kids life on it? How is anything, no matter how small(like thirty cans of beans flying through the air) a bad thing? I am not saying that it will be super effective. I'm not saying it will be any kind of deterrent. I'm simply saying why not? It's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't hurt anything and there is a chance it could throw an attacker off his game just long enough for an adult to do something. If it only saved one kids life it would be worth it.

When this topic came up a while back I thought about it and very quicly shot it down. Not only just because of the simple fact many of the teachers in the school i went to didnt support it, the ones who did I wouldnt ever trust to defend anyones lives anyways. letting your avegage every day teacher carry isnt a smart thing. To carry in a school were escentially you have been given the responsibility to defend kids lives isnt something that should be taken lightly. Trained people should be the only exception. I had a 67 year old home cooking class teacher who wanted to carry. I wouldnt ever want to see someones life being proctected by someone with zero training.

 

[MjQ-G18]

I prefer not banking my children's lives on anyone or anything else other than me, and whatever I am able to instill in them. However, in a public school setting, self-sufficiency in defending against an assailant is a wee bit lacking. Given the choice (and it is a binary choice; after all, who would arm children with canned goods when the teachers have firearms?), I would much rather bank my children's lives on armed teachers than canned goods.

Canned goods chucked by middle school students will do nothing to stop an armed shooter. To think that they would is a pipe dream. (Especially given the other brain-dead tactics being employed, such as huddling all of the students into a corner, making the shooter's shots all that much more efficient.) In the end: the same number of victims will be dead, and the spree shooter might sport a few extra bruises before he offs himself as the police arrive 15 minutes later.

And what is an adult going to do?

Canned goods: stupid tactically, and stupid strategically. Make the doors able to be locked from the inside. Teach teachers and students how to lock and bar the door. Provide fire-escape windows in every classroom.

Oh: and allow teachers to arm themselves, and then advertise boldly that the school has armed teachers.

All this would do is make the student throwing a can of beans an easy target. Would show a threat and would be a sure fire way to be picked as a target. Kids are not ment to be a schools defence.

 

[MjQ-G18]

When this topic came up a while back I thought about it and very quicly shot it down. Not only just because of the simple fact many of the teachers in the school i went to didnt support it, the ones who did I wouldnt ever trust to defend anyones lives anyways. letting your avegage every day teacher carry isnt a smart thing. To carry in a school were escentially you have been given the responsibility to defend kids lives isnt something that should be taken lightly. Trained people should be the only exception. I had a 67 year old home cooking class teacher who wanted to carry. I wouldnt ever want to see someones life being proctected by someone with zero training.

And one life being save and 15 sacrifced to save the one life would not be affective. Kids need to be prtected not the protector. Untrained individuals is also not the answer, I know every teacher at the school I went to and there was only 1 teacher in the entire school who might have been able to help. If the were to select certain teachers, train then just as the police have to go through or any other program then it would be a good thing. Untrained civilians jumping into the line of fire just becasue they were told they had to will never solve anything, it will only result in more casualties.

 

[Woobie]

Arming teachers is a great idea. It may even deter %100. I hope it would, but do you want to bank your kids life on it? How is anything, no matter how small(like thirty cans of beans flying through the air) a bad thing? I am not saying that it will be super effective. I'm not saying it will be any kind of deterrent. I'm simply saying why not? It's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't hurt anything and there is a chance it could throw an attacker off his game just long enough for an adult to do something. If it only saved one kids life it would be worth it.

Exactly, not even an active shooter.

 

[chipbennett]

When this topic came up a while back I thought about it and very quicly shot it down. Not only just because of the simple fact many of the teachers in the school i went to didnt support it, the ones who did I wouldnt ever trust to defend anyones lives anyways. letting your avegage every day teacher carry isnt a smart thing. To carry in a school were escentially you have been given the responsibility to defend kids lives isnt something that should be taken lightly. Trained people should be the only exception. I had a 67 year old home cooking class teacher who wanted to carry. I wouldnt ever want to see someones life being proctected by someone with zero training.

So, do teachers forfeit their own right to self-defense, and the attendant RKBA, merely because they are teachers?

Your argument against arming teachers is essentially a carbon copy of the gun-control crowd's argument against the RKBA of the average citizen.

 

[chipbennett]

Untrained civilians jumping into the line of fire just becasue they were told they had to will never solve anything, it will only result in more casualties.

Would you please stop parroting MDA talking points?

 

[dusty88]

And one life being save and 15 sacrifced to save the one life would not be affective. Kids need to be prtected not the protector. Untrained individuals is also not the answer, I know every teacher at the school I went to and there was only 1 teacher in the entire school who might have been able to help. If the were to select certain teachers, train then just as the police have to go through or any other program then it would be a good thing. Untrained civilians jumping into the line of fire just becasue they were told they had to will never solve anything, it will only result in more casualties.

I agree that any volunteer teachers would need training.

However, they don't necessarily need police-level training. IMO, the main criteria for "carrying" is having the knowledge and judgment to know when NOT to use your gun and how to wear/store it so that there is not an accidental discharge. No one should claim that any 1 individual will be able to stop every perp.

Simply removing the "gun free zone" status would likely be helpful. Then the shooter is in the same situation as if he tries a grocery store. He doesn't know who might be there carrying. It gets more complicated when the school starts "authorizing" certain individuals.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree that any volunteer teachers would need training.

Learning the Four Rules takes fewer than five minutes.

That said: I would be okay with a school requiring some degree of firearms training - provided that the school covers the cost of the training, and that the training not be unnecessarily onerous. (An NRA course would be more than sufficient, IMO.)

However, they don't necessarily need police-level training. IMO, the main criteria for "carrying" is having the knowledge and judgment to know when NOT to use your gun and how to wear/store it so that there is not an accidental discharge. No one should claim that any 1 individual will be able to stop every perp.

Exactly. And one individual stopping one attacker isn't the calculus here. Rather, it is the understanding that spree shooters do not want any resistance - especially armed resistance - and removing the absolute certainty that the desired target is completely unarmed completely changes the decision-making of the would-be spree shooter.

Simply removing the "gun free zone" status would likely be helpful. Then the shooter is in the same situation as if he tries a grocery store. He doesn't know who might be there carrying. It gets more complicated when the school starts "authorizing" certain individuals.

I favor schools "authorizing" any school employee, who is present on school grounds during school hours, to carry a concealed firearm, if he or she wishes to do so. I would even be okay if that "authorization" includes reasonable training. (See above.)

I would also (and moreso) be in favor of eliminating the entire concept of "Gun Free Zones", and not prohibiting any law-abiding citizen from exercising RKBA while on school grounds - but that is a much longer-term goal.

 

[halfmileharry]

You know they'll outlaw can openers next.....

 

[AndersonIN]

And one life being save and 15 sacrifced to save the one life would not be affective. Kids need to be prtected not the protector. Untrained individuals is also not the answer, I know every teacher at the school I went to and there was only 1 teacher in the entire school who might have been able to help. If the were to select certain teachers, train then just as the police have to go through or any other program then it would be a good thing. Untrained civilians jumping into the line of fire just becasue they were told they had to will never solve anything, it will only result in more casualties.

Thanks for voting to take the gun out of my wife's hands (a teacher)! I trained hundreds of military in multiple small arms. My wife has trained for years with me and has also had multiple NRA courses, safety courses, etc! But according to you unless she has recent (my words not yours) "Advanced SWAT Team training" she'll only kill others? I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't put more rounds down the muzzle than many police last year! She would appreciate at least a fighting chance.