Hmm good point. The exercise could be bad because of the attendant signalling effects. I'd like it a lot more if it were completely gratuitous.
Maybe they should prep for a Roman legion attack instead.
Active Shooter Drills in schools
- Thread starter zarada
- Start date
Hmm good point. The exercise could be bad because of the attendant signalling effects. I'd like it a lot more if it were completely gratuitous.
Maybe they should prep for a Roman legion attack instead.
We can consider a nation that considers it necessary to train its civilian population — its children — to be ready when — when, not if — an armed attack on civilians occurs within its borders. A nation where many consider it a more appropriate solution to arm its civilian population with firearms and have them rely on self-defense, rather than rely on law enforcement and civil order.
That nation is us. Is anyone else haunted by that?
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 584
- Location
- Washington State
- Website
- shaunhorton.blogspot.com
If this is all pointless and people are worried about it causing more harm than good, why have any kind of emergency drills at all? Damaging earthquakes are pretty rare. So are serious fires at school, most of them have sprinkler systems, right? Oh, except they do happen. And is anyone really going to argue that such drills do save lives?
I want to make it clear though, that I think the example in the article is the best idea. Mainly the teachers/faculty and the police department. Students can be included on a volunteer basis. Conducting a random drill while the entire student body is present, or including students that are only in primary/elementary school is pushing things beyond the boundary that is needed.
And, while it would certainly be nice if we didn't have to accept that this is something that can happen; for the time being, at least, it's a possibility that we should try to be prepared for.
I want to make it clear though, that I think the example in the article is the best idea. Mainly the teachers/faculty and the police department. Students can be included on a volunteer basis. Conducting a random drill while the entire student body is present, or including students that are only in primary/elementary school is pushing things beyond the boundary that is needed.
And, while it would certainly be nice if we didn't have to accept that this is something that can happen; for the time being, at least, it's a possibility that we should try to be prepared for.
But they save lives because in general there are things one can do to mitigate against the likely course and effects of fire or earthquake, surely? Whereas a crazed shooter is a far more random, unpredictable event - because, human brain and all that. And I doubt that
is going help. And neither is play-acting, even with make-up. It's just a hell of a lot of dumpage to dump on kids, is my thinking.
Surely the responsibility should lie fairly firmly with, I dunno - other people. Grown-ups, for starters.
Obviously, I have no problem with law enforcement training for these kinds of incidents. That is their job.
A teacher's job is to teach. I don't really see how subjecting them to seeing students running from blank shots and covered in blood is necessary or beneficial. I don't see how it's beneficial for the students who volunteer, either.
A teacher's job is to teach. I don't really see how subjecting them to seeing students running from blank shots and covered in blood is necessary or beneficial. I don't see how it's beneficial for the students who volunteer, either.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,984
- Reaction score
- 6,937
- Location
- At some altitude
- Website
- www.jamie-mason.com
And what did we teach the high-school drama student who had to play the frantic runner or hostage, banging on doors, begging to be let in to no avail? What does she take away from this drill? Or the heartsick teacher getting a little dose of despair for having to write off her doomed student on the wrong side of a locked door? What good does that do anyone?
The lockdown drills at my daughter's school consist of locking the door, pulling a shade over the door's glass and moving away from the windows. Much like a fire drill, it's practice for getting yourself to the safer place in the event of an emergency. It's a little sterile, but practical, which is a decent balance as I see it and keeps the notion of imminent disaster in a safer mental place than the ever-present "when" not "if".
Beyond that, the side effects of a vaccine against mortal terror and impossible choices, in my opinion, are too great.
The lockdown drills at my daughter's school consist of locking the door, pulling a shade over the door's glass and moving away from the windows. Much like a fire drill, it's practice for getting yourself to the safer place in the event of an emergency. It's a little sterile, but practical, which is a decent balance as I see it and keeps the notion of imminent disaster in a safer mental place than the ever-present "when" not "if".
Beyond that, the side effects of a vaccine against mortal terror and impossible choices, in my opinion, are too great.
Last edited:
I actually think the active drills that involve teaching a student to throw things in self-defense have some utility. If a shooter manages to get through a door, then hiding under a desk might not be enough to protect them, if you've got a shooter intent on leaving a high body count. But I can see the other side of that argument, too. If the shooter merely opens the door, sees no one in the open and keeps going to another door, then you're telling the kids to expose themselves to danger.
And that's the biggest problem with these scenarios. There's no baseline. There's no way to know what a shooter's mindset will be until s/he has begun the assault, at which point, there are already going to be potential casualties.
It might be more beneficial if the schools redirected their efforts toward securing the campuses, adding features like secure check-ins for people visiting. These are usually smallish anterooms that require the person entering the school to stop and present an ID, which is scanned by the secretary before the door into the main building is unlocked.
Portable buildings would still be vulnerable, but it's still a viable and strong first line of defense. In the case of something like Sandy Hook, the shooter would have been stuck inside that second door, because it can't be forced like the outer doors. Even if he could have shot it open, it would have slowed him down long enough to give the people inside notice of his intent before he ever got near a single person. Halls could have been cleared, emergency services called, and doors locked tight on classrooms.
And that's the biggest problem with these scenarios. There's no baseline. There's no way to know what a shooter's mindset will be until s/he has begun the assault, at which point, there are already going to be potential casualties.
It might be more beneficial if the schools redirected their efforts toward securing the campuses, adding features like secure check-ins for people visiting. These are usually smallish anterooms that require the person entering the school to stop and present an ID, which is scanned by the secretary before the door into the main building is unlocked.
Portable buildings would still be vulnerable, but it's still a viable and strong first line of defense. In the case of something like Sandy Hook, the shooter would have been stuck inside that second door, because it can't be forced like the outer doors. Even if he could have shot it open, it would have slowed him down long enough to give the people inside notice of his intent before he ever got near a single person. Halls could have been cleared, emergency services called, and doors locked tight on classrooms.
The pediatrician in me wonders about the long term effects, if any, of growing up in anticipation of this kind of event.
I think these sort of drills should be done with outside people: actors or volunteers from some other setting. I have a co-worker who left her bank teller job after her second robbery. Couldn't stop thinking that it was going to happen again, flinching when the door opened and a customer came in.
It might well be the same for an impressionable child or teenager: if every time they hear a loud noise or a commotion in the hall, they think it's the real thing this time.
What if every time a kid goes down the hallway, they're thinking of which door they could get to in time? Or, for a less speedy child, which door they couldn't get to? It's one thing to be told 'get to a safe place and lock yourself in', and quite another to have it demonstrated to you that you will be locked out. And you have to go into that setting, day after day, looking at the doors that will lock, and the teachers who won't help you. That can't be good.
And, lest we forget, America, like Canada is a nation of many different backgrounds and circumstances. There are children in both our nations that know all too well what gunfire sounds like and what gunmen can do. What does this do to them?
I used to write bank security training videos. Before they were screened (for adult-bank-workers) a form would go out with appropriate warning and releases. Only those (adult-bank-workers) who felt they could cope with seeing the vids would attend.
I don't see this sort of thing as appropriate in schools. I just don't.
ETA: Goddamn they were well-paid though!
You're really going to pick out one sentence to deny that there's a propensity among those in power to use fear of (insert item here) to maintain social control? We're bombarded every day with something else to fear, while little is made of the progress we've made, and the fact that we have less to fear than any generation before us?
Let's not lose perspective here, although that seems to be the basic intent of stories such as that in the OP.
Only because I know Michael Crichton has an agenda to push.
But also because, no, I don't think paranoia over school shootings is part of some kind of government conspiracy to maintain social control. It's just a consequence of 24/7 nationwide media and people overreacting like always.
I don't see the droids you're looking for.
But Don, that whole rant you posted is an example of lack of perspective. The "we" he talks about - I know a lot of Americans, and heaps of Westerners and they don't seem to be fear-based. Nor does a spirit of scientific investigation = fear.
It's far too simplistic and self-serving a rant to be taken seriously.
ETA: I took it seriously for you, though. Because I like to be helpful.
Last edited:
I think it would be good if you were teaching them to defend themselves in a realistic situation, but that will likely not happen anytime soon.