I keep hearing about this Amazon thing. Maybe some day I will try it.

School & workplace shootings - would defense training help?

With respect to these assholes who show up and start shooting into crowds that react like lambs - would it help to create a more defensive psychology? Create an air that rushing a lone attacker (especially from the side or behind) will generally save lives?
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 8th, 2006 5:34pm
Ruahing a lone gunman may reduce the risk of loss of life overall but is likely to highly increase the risk that you personally will lose yours.

And your genes would only break even in that case if you saved more than two children or siblings, or four nephews, or eight first cousins and so on.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
April 8th, 2006 5:46pm
Arm the teachers.
Permalink xampl 
April 8th, 2006 6:22pm
>Arm the teachers.

That would likely cause FAR more accidental deaths than would be saved through stopping the well-publicized school shootings. Definitely a dumb idea.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 6:29pm
There's something called the bystander effect. The more people who wittnes a crime, the less probable it is that any one of them will do something.
Permalink Rock Hardbuns 
April 8th, 2006 6:32pm
I nearly watched someone get throttled as a teenager at an ACDC concert.

Two drunken dumbasses fighting, one got on top and proceeded to throttle the other whilst being watched by everyone in the immediate vicinity.

it seemed to go on for a while, eventualy the throttler got off and wandered away and the throttlee was fine.

I was just watching the whole time, I had just about reached the point where I thought I should intervene and was about to do so when it ended.

I think.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 6:47pm
<< That would likely cause FAR more accidental deaths than would be saved through stopping the well-publicized school shootings. Definitely a dumb idea. >>

You're right.
Teachers are not responsible adults, and they shouldn't be trusted with dangerous equipment like a firearm.

Or the education & safety of our children.
Permalink xampl 
April 8th, 2006 7:49pm
Are there a lot of school & workplace shootings in america?

Maybe you'd save more lives working on the nutritional value of the school lunches.
Permalink  
April 8th, 2006 8:02pm
you're right xampl.  clearly the best way to ensure that guns are used less frequently is to increase the number of them in the vicinity.

thats why we try and handle drunken drivers by encouraging other users to get drunk, cut back on violent crime by giving out machetes and stop kids from stealing by encouraging their parents to pinch stuff first.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 8:03pm
The more guns, the less likely anyone is to whip out theirs & just start shooting. Nobody wants to get shot in return.
Permalink  
April 8th, 2006 8:06pm
same reason that more speech isn't the answer to speech we don't like.  moderation works.
Permalink  
April 8th, 2006 8:06pm
No, YOU'RE right xampl, responsible people never have accidents, not with firearms and when they do they don't kill people.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 8:11pm
so kids won't steal because the don't want their parents to have stolen something first?
Permalink  
April 8th, 2006 8:12pm
>The more guns, the less likely anyone is to whip out theirs
>& just start shooting. Nobody wants to get shot in return.

In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States.

Guess which country has the most guns?
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 8:12pm
"The more guns, the less likely anyone is to whip out theirs & just start shooting. "

is that true?  Im not aware of any studies regarding this statement....perhaps you could link me to some?


just out of interest...where would you rather your children live...in a society where *everyone* has a gun, or in a society where *noone* does?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 8:25pm
Either's fine, depending upon the conditions, FNR. Switzerland and New Zealand are both safe places - one with and one without guns. The problem isn't the availability of guns per se, but whom they are available to.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 8:30pm
wow, thats deeply insightful.

oh, wait!  no its not.  its embarrassingly obvious.


everyone knows that the solution to gun control is to only give guns to people who won't use them to accidentally or intentionally kill other people.

guess what the hard part is?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 8:37pm
...actually I believe that both switzerland and NZ have guns....
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 8:37pm
Giving guns to teachers would encourage a Hitler-esque atmosphere.

There.  Godwin's Law!
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
April 8th, 2006 8:39pm
cannot be invoked intentionally to shut down a thread.


moron.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 8:40pm
Accidents do happen.  I can't argue that point.

But when a Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris shows up at a school, armed with a Tec-9 and several hundred rounds of ammo, what is supposed to happen? 

At Columbine, the first policeman arrived on the scene ~20 minutes after the two arrived on the campus.  By that time, they had planted their bombs in the cafeteria and had begun shooting students.  10 people were dead or injured by this point.

Post-Columbine, many school districts across the US placed policemen in each school (calling them "resource officers").  While their presence does help deter crime & drug use, it didn't help at Red Lake Minnesota, where Jeffrey Weise's first victim was the school's unarmed guard.

My recommendation of arming the teachers serves two purposes:
1. Knowing that the teachers at the school are prepared to defend the other students would act as a deterrent to anyone contemplating such an attack
2. If #1 fails, responding teachers would be able to minimize the effects of the attack before the police are able to arrive & assist.


References:
-----------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_High_School_massacre
Permalink xampl 
April 8th, 2006 8:40pm
"But when a Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris shows up at a school, armed with a Tec-9 and several hundred rounds of ammo, what is supposed to happen? "


when that happens the systems have already failed.  I was pretty much on the side of the bullied and harassed murderers more than I was on the side of the 'victims'.  the only real tragedy IMO was that the killers mostly killed the wrong set of kids, punishing the innocents and not the actual bullies who made their life a living hell.


Basically, if all else fails and my kids are being bullied in an extreme fashion by a bunch of kids at school....Ill be tempted to buy them a gun myself.

Schools need to provide a safe nurturing environment for all their charges.  if they do that successfully and effectively then on the whole murderous rampages by teenagers screaming for help will drop to a minimum.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 8:45pm
>everyone knows that the solution to gun control is to
>give guns to people who won't use them to accidentally or
>intentionally kill other people.

You are categorically wrong. Gun control debates nearly always degenerate into two diametrically opposed sides: one side who wants to remove all guns from society and one who wants everybody armed. When the discourse is lowered to this level, as it invariably does, everybody loses.

Switzerland manages to have nearly every man armed, but have very few gun deaths, either due to accident or malice. England has very few gun deaths and very few people dead. Both systems work.

In Switzerland it works because every man has to undergo compulsory military service, and so most of them are trained and qualified to handle firearms. They're also charged with keeping the firearms safe and under lock and key.

In America this doesn't happen. Firearms aren't locked up and people who aren't trained use them. The result is depressingly high rates of firearm injuries and deaths.

Um, that was the "hard part".

So the solution to this in America would seem to be to get people who want to have a firearm to sign up to the military or join a "well regulated militia" of some sort. Laws to make sure you lock up your firearm would help considerably too.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 8:55pm
"no name" above, with their comment about school lunches, has a valid point as well.  Much of our behavior comes from what we eat, and allowing young teens to load up on processed carbohydrates, refined sugar and caffeinated drinks is not a good idea.

You're going to have all sorts of disciplinary problems from this, and I can easily imagine the level of bullying increasing as a consequence -- to where a Harris or Klebold are produced.
Permalink xampl 
April 8th, 2006 8:55pm
>the only real tragedy IMO was that the killers mostly killed
>the wrong set of kids, punishing the innocents and not the
>actual bullies who made their life a living hell.

The killers weren't significantly bullied, and nor was their life made a living hell. The REAL reason they did it was to generate the media event of the century. They didn't quite succeed in their intentions (they laid explosives to blow up the people lined up around the school but they didn't go off), but they certainly generated a media storm of epic proportions.

Their objectives were somewhat similar to those of the 9/11 hijackers.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 9:00pm
<< Laws to make sure you lock up your firearm would help considerably too. >>

Already a law in North Carolina for homes with children.  With every gun purchase, you receive a brochure detailing the requirements of the law.  The cops *will* charge you with violating this law, too.  So it's being enforced.

And given that when a thief breaks into a home, they go after electronics, tools, and guns; it would make sense for every gun owner to own & use a gunsafe.  If for no other reason that homeowner's policies won't pay more than 2% of the policy for stolen firearms, which can easily be used up if you own an expensive shotgun like a Merkel.
Permalink xampl 
April 8th, 2006 9:01pm
>Basically, if all else fails and my kids are being bullied
>in an extreme fashion by a bunch of kids at school....Ill
>be tempted to buy them a gun myself.

You oughta go to a psychiatrist. You have anger issues.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 9:01pm
"You are categorically wrong."

nope, you are categorically failing to understand why:

"Gun control debates nearly always degenerate into two diametrically opposed sides: one side who wants to remove all guns from society and one who wants everybody armed. "

its because these are the two extreme ways of *achieving* the "giving guns only to those who wont kill people with them" part.

the first tries to achieve it by giving guns to no one, on the basis that this way the people who will misuse them wont be able to get them and the second by ensuring that the penalty for abusing guns be death on the basis that we will never be able to stop those who shouldn't have them from getting them and so we'd better find other ways of making them reluctant to abuse their ownership.

ultimately though they are two perfectly reasonable ways of trying to solve the same problem.  they both happen to be wrong of course, which is somewhat unfortunate.

"When the discourse is lowered to this level, as it invariably does, everybody loses. "

well put.

"Switzerland manages to have nearly every man armed, but have very few gun deaths, either due to accident or malice. England has very few gun deaths and very few people dead. Both systems work. "

yep.  switzerland does this by training. england does it because the british are just smarter on average than americans. 
new zealand does it because no one wants to own a bloody gun.  even the criminals tend to feel that a gun is just cheating.  far better and more manly to simply beat your enemy over the head with a pickaxe.

"In Switzerland it works because every man has to undergo compulsory military service, and so most of them are trained and qualified to handle firearms. They're also charged with keeping the firearms safe and under lock and key. "

ah! and so we begin agreeing.  scary.  I really should have read your entire post before beginning mine.  I just assumed that your moronic side was in control.  sorry.

"In America this doesn't happen. Firearms aren't locked up and people who aren't trained use them. The result is depressingly high rates of firearm injuries and deaths. "

thats not because they aren't locked up, or because they lack training (so do those in england).  Its because we americans have a particular background and a tendency to glorify violence and death. in texas there is still the concept of 'fighting words'...its a reasonable defence.
we see ourselves as tough, dangerous and mean.  we *want* to be tough, dangerous and mean. 
The high rate of gun death here isn't because of the high levels of gun ownership.  its because we like it.
our whole culture is about becoming a man, standing tall, fighting, proving ourselves by fighting and standing tall and becoming a man.  its not us against the elements in our culture, its us against our fellow man.  we have seen the enemy and he is tough, dangerous and mean.  so we want to be tough, dangerous and mean.  seriously, the high rate of gun murder exists because we like it.

"Um, that was the "hard part". "

Im surprised you got it so easily.  I clearly overestimated your stupidity levels this morning.

"So the solution to this in America would seem to be to get people who want to have a firearm to sign up to the military or join a "well regulated militia" of some sort. Laws to make sure you lock up your firearm would help considerably too."

no.  the solution to this in america is to change our culture.  or, failing that, to take guns the hell out of the equation.

what we really need is men who understand that strength can exist without power.
...and who dont believe that in the absence of strength, power will do...

unfortunately changes like that need to start at the top, and currently at the top we have a weak, incompetent man leading us who has limited his understanding of our strength to the power of our military.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 9:14pm
"You have anger issues."

I prefer to think of myself as togh, dangerous and mean.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 9:17pm
...togh being new england slang for 'slightly feminine' of course...
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 9:17pm
Colm, your statistics are slightly flawed in that the populations of the countries aren't the same (yeah, it's the same result when you normalize them, but not *quite* as drastic)

Also, I'm really starting to buy into the lost message of "Bowling for Columbine" in that the problem isn't the availability of guns - it's the near-constant drumbeat of violence Americans endure. Just look at Columbine - fewer kids killed than are killed on US highways every three hours. Yet we had over a month of surround-sound news coverage...

"The killers weren't significantly bullied, and nor was their life made a living hell."

IIRC, they were marginalized, like all geeks in high school. Not an active hell of physical torment, but a near-perfect hell of psychological exclusion. ("We're all having fun but YOU aren't invited!")
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 8th, 2006 9:22pm
"I'm really starting to buy into the lost message of "Bowling for Columbine" in that the problem isn't the availability of guns - it's the near-constant drumbeat of violence Americans endure."


bloody well said.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 9:33pm
>ultimately though they are two perfectly reasonable ways of
>trying to solve the same problem.  they both happen to be
>wrong of course, which is somewhat unfortunate.

Huh? It's both reasonable to take all guns away and to arm every man, woman and child? NEITHER are reasonable and NEITHER are even possible.

>thats not because they aren't locked up, or bcause they
>lack training (so do those in england).

England doesn't HAVE firearms. Even the police don't tend to carry them. If we had as many as America (proportionally), we'd have the exact same problem.

>Its because we americans have a particular background and
>a tendency to glorify violence and death. in texas there
>is still the concept of 'fighting words'...its a
>reasonable defence.

America isn't unique in the way it glorifies violence. Pretty much every culture does it to some extent.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 9:40pm
>Basically, if all else fails and my kids are being bullied
>in an extreme fashion by a bunch of kids at school....Ill
>be tempted to buy them a gun myself.
My parents took the position that I did something to deserve it. If I knew how to use a gun, the first school shooting would have happened in the early 70s.

America is a very violent country. It starts in kindergarten and continues throughout life. As a result Americans need violence to survive. Like a fish needs water to survive, and neither can conceive of a life without their needs.
Permalink ? 
April 8th, 2006 9:40pm
"Huh? It's both reasonable to take all guns away and to arm every man, woman and child? NEITHER are reasonable and NEITHER are even possible."

aha! your moronic side is back in charge.  excellent. he is *way* more amusing.

both are perfectly reasonable to suggest. neither are possible.

"England doesn't HAVE firearms."

wanna bet?

"If we had as many as America (proportionally), we'd have the exact same problem."

I doubt it.  well..kind of...I suspect that if you had as many guns as America proportionally it would be because you had similar cultural problems and therefore you probably *would* have the exact same problem.  but you dont, because you dont and therefore you dont.

follow that?  Im just asking because Im often surprised by how little your moron side *can* follow and I want to be sure I haven't left you behind.

be sure to ask questions if you think something needs clarifying.

"America isn't unique in the way it glorifies violence. Pretty much every culture does it to some extent."

ah.  see, that statement is exactly true.  its the 'to some extent' part of it that you dont seem to understand the importance of.
America *loves* violence. we see ourselves as tough bastards and try to live up to that every chance we get by being violent.
its hard to understand how deep it runs unless youve lived there I think.

maybe you should try it sometime.


oh, btw, I really enjoyed the brief conversation I had with your intelligent side further up and would love to repeat it.  just let me know when you are next going to let him out.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 8th, 2006 9:47pm
ad hominem!

Oh wait, this is CoT.
Nevermind.
Permalink xampl 
April 8th, 2006 9:49pm
>yeah, it's the same result when you normalize them, but
>not *quite* as drastic

I know. I couldn't be bothered to normalize them. Per capita gun deaths are still at least an order of magnitude higher in the US, though.

>Also, I'm really starting to buy into the lost message of
>"Bowling for Columbine" in that the problem isn't the
>availability of guns - it's the near-constant drumbeat of
>violence Americans endure. Just look at Columbine - fewer
>kids killed than are killed on US highways every three
>hours. Yet we had over a month of surround-sound news
>coverage...

Lost message? That was THE message. The glorification of violence isn't what separates America from the countries that don't have the same problem though - availability of guns is.

The way news is presented in the US is probably a contributing factor, however. If events like Columbine or 9/11 could be covered up or downplayed then they probably wouldn't happen.

As for violent movies, TV, video games and other accoutrements of a supposedly violent culture -- they are present all around the world.

>IIRC, they were marginalized, like all geeks in high
>school. Not an active hell of physical torment, but a
>near-perfect hell of psychological exclusion. ("We're
>all having fun but YOU aren't invited!")

Sure, I've seen the interviews with their friends. They were outcasts, but to depict their experience of high school as a "near perfect hell of psychological exclusion" is batshit insane. They didn't even target the jocks specifically. Don't you think they would've if they did this for revenge?

They did it to create an Event. A storm. A media circus. Something people would write books about (that happened), make movies about (that happened too) and talk and talk and talk about (ditto). This is what they said in their diaries and that is what happened. They achieved their objectives.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 9:55pm
>both are perfectly reasonable to suggest. neither are
>possible.

You said they were "reasonable ways of trying to solve the same problem". Now it's only reasonable to suggest it? I think you're

>ah.  see, that statement is exactly true.  its the 'to
>extent' part of it that you dont seem to understand the
>importance of. America *loves* violence. we see ourselves
>as tough bastards and try to live up to that every chance
>we get by being violent. its hard to understand how deep
>runs unless youve lived there I think.

You wildly overestimate the extent to which this is true. Britain has football hooligans who gang together and start wars on each other. France has riot after riot. All of us soak up those Hollywood violence-fests eagerly.

FIGHTING isn't any more popular in the USA than it is in Europe, it's just SHOOTING which is.

>I doubt it.  well..kind of...I suspect that if you had as
>many guns as America proportionally it would be because
>you had similar cultural problems and therefore you
>probably *would* have the exact same problem.  but you
>dont, because you dont and therefore you dont.

Culturally, we DO. When gangs in London manage to get hold of firearms (it does happen occasionally), they aren't shy about using them.

And besides, firearms don't even have to be used in anger to be lethal. Accidents and suicides are more common causes of death than violence, they're just not as well publicized.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 10:08pm
"Lost message? That was THE message."

That was Moore's intended message when he made the movie. However, when the *perceived* message was "guns in America is the problem" and the culture of violence message was completely lost, he played right along.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 8th, 2006 10:36pm
An already dreadful place called Port Arthur was the site for the world-record solo massacre and the strange man who did it is locked away for good.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/

There were individual acts of heroism where individuals attempted to distract him from others and were killed for their trouble.

Certainly this was seized upon as a opportunity to further reduce the quantity of guns circulating in Australia with the usual arguments flying back and forth but I suspect he would have been able to equip himself irrespective of the law as he was well-connected.

On the whole, guns are not an issue here with kids, knives are. But it's telling we have NEVER had a public debate here about stationing armed guards in school corridors or training students how to react to armed intrusion though some individual private religious schools may have quietly implemented deadly response.
Permalink trollop 
April 8th, 2006 10:56pm
Yeah, that's a good point. You can tell if you're successful or not because if you are then you wouldn't be having the debate in the first place.
Permalink Send private email كولم 
April 8th, 2006 10:58pm
" They didn't even target the jocks specifically. Don't you think they would've if they did this for revenge? "

so youve never been bullied a *lot*?  when you are in this situation overtime pretty much *everyone* becomes 'them' in your mind unless they have really gone a long way out of their way to be friendly....and even then its sometimes iffy.

your mind is telling you that every group laughing is laughing at you, every comment is interpreted with the assumption everyone is out to get you.

it becomes very difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys...everyone just becomes a bad guy.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 9th, 2006 12:30am
"You said they were "reasonable ways of trying to solve the same problem". Now it's only reasonable to suggest it? I think you're ....?"

Id love to know how that was going to end :)  if you go back and reread I said that they were both perfectly resaonable solutions, but that they were also both wrong.  surely you noticed that?  or did you only read the bits you wanted to? 

first your logic, now your reading comprehension is going.  its sad really, for a brief moment I thought we were going to have an actual intelligent discussion...


"it's just SHOOTING which is. "

umm...thats rather the point though isn't it.  america glorifies violence and the power that comes with it.  guns are a *big* part of it.

"Culturally, we DO. When gangs in London manage to get hold of firearms (it does happen occasionally), they aren't shy about using them. "

right.  so you are saying that when the people of your country who have a culture that *does* glorify violence and guns in the same way as the US does gets hold of guns they do what the US does?  amazing.

and *thats the point*  you *moron*.  the fact that the rest of england doesn't behave the same way as your gangs and the entire of the US is *because they have a different culture* a cultire in fact which is *not as violent*.

for chrissakes man, Im not sure I can dumb this down for you anymore.
America has a *violent culture* in the same way that your gangs have a *violent culture* except that for us its the ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY. 

Im not sure how to explain this to you except to point out that *we* have armed guards in some of our schools now, prepared and ready to blow any child who turns up with a gun apart.

because for us violence isn't the problem, its the solution.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 9th, 2006 12:40am
"ad hominem!

Oh wait, this is CoT.
Nevermind."

Come on. That's from Fullnamerequired, king of trolls :)

The rest of us are much nicer.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 9th, 2006 4:48am
"because for us violence isn't the problem, its the solution."

Well, violence is the short term answer to violence.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 9th, 2006 4:50am
Boom boom.
Permalink trollop 
April 9th, 2006 8:15am
Tsanger,  You're only nicer because your programmer turned off the troll unit after you got caught in that gay-hate-posting loop. Remember?
Permalink blinker 
April 9th, 2006 11:47am
------"My recommendation of arming the teachers serves two purposes:
1. Knowing that the teachers at the school are prepared to defend the other students would act as a deterrent to anyone contemplating such an attack
2. If #1 fails, responding teachers would be able to minimize the effects of the attack before the police are able to arrive & assist."------

Someone clearly has a rose-tinted view of teachers. Unless they were sleeping with some of their students most teachers would be highly loth to take any risks to defend them armed or not. When I taught eight-year-olds in a Primary school that was a lethal fire trap I informed the parents that my policy in case of fire was to make sure I always had a clear route to the door so I could get out first.

The number of weekly Monday morning massacres of uppity High School students by pissed-off teachers would sky-rocket. You could make a profitable sideline by running a book on it.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
April 9th, 2006 4:17pm
come on stephen, clearly you are thinking emotionally on this issue and not logically.
If the teachers *did* start murdering students all we would have to do is arm the students as well.

"Littledon High, training your students for a better armed, safer, tomorrow."

"Bighorn High - If We Cant Teach 'Em, lets Make The Murderous Little fuckers Protect Themselves"


Little Jim = "He fired on me first daddy"
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 9th, 2006 4:56pm
<< Someone clearly has a rose-tinted view of teachers. Unless they were sleeping with some of their students most teachers would be highly loth to take any risks to defend them armed or not. >>

I'm sorry to learn this.

Maybe I did have my rose-tinted glasses on, but I would hope that teachers had a greater sense of responsibility & duty than that.

Maybe that's what's missing in education.
Permalink xampl 
April 9th, 2006 7:48pm
"However, when the *perceived* message was "guns in America is the problem" and the culture of violence message was completely lost, he played right along."

He made the movie. Guns are the problem clearly wasn't the message.  When did he endorse guns are the problem? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Permalink Moron 
April 9th, 2006 7:57pm
here we go again:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060408/NEWS01/604080354/1006

Teenagers charged under a law with a mandatory MINIMUM 30 year penalty. Yep, now it's terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/06/terror.teens.ap/
Permalink trollop 
April 10th, 2006 12:33am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2006 Other topics: April, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics