REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

New NRA ad drags Obama children into gun debate

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 946
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Now this one's interesting to me. On one hand, I do agree it's despicable and disgusting. But on the other, Obama (and Palin and others) DO use their kids in their political campaign, so does that make the kids fair game, or not?



The text of the ad is repulsive and the purpose hateful, so I'll jump on that side of the fence. But I'm afraid I can't get as steamed up as pundits have over it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:09 PM

BRENDA


I'm with you that ad is sickening and a low blow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:18 PM

JONGSSTRAW


The NRA people that made this internet ad are not very bright. If they had wanted to make a point about hypocrisy from say, anti-gun Hollywood or news media liberals that employ private armed security, that would have been legitimate. But the NRA apparently thinks there are people out there who aren't intelligent enough to understand that the President's children are national security targets and that they need special protections. Who doesn't grasp that? Only a low-brow moron would see any moral equivalency in this. It's sad and smacks of desperation.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:20 PM

PENGUIN


The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.





King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:07 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
But the NRA apparently thinks there are people out there who aren't intelligent enough to understand that the President's children are national security targets and that they need special protections.



I think that's about they only thing they havn't gotten wrong, lately. There really are plenty of people that stupid.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:57 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
I'm with you that ad is sickening and a low blow.


How? Oh, it points out that the President will leave your children unprotected, but not his.

Or, that the President will use your children for political props, but even the mention of his is not allowed (unless its by him or his wife to make their own political point).

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:01 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Penguin:
The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.


Your right. The kids at the school down the block are only targets for kidnapping or worse by criminals and the insane.

I note for the record that the kids down the block...have actually been victims, but nobody has gotten to a President's kid.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 1:50 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Penguin:
The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.


Your right. The kids at the school down the block are only targets for kidnapping or worse by criminals and the insane.

I note for the record that the kids down the block...have actually been victims, but nobody has gotten to a President's kid.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012



Wouldn't the vast majority of "kids at the school down the block" be exponentially more vulnerable to any of that outside the school rather than at school? How many children get kidnapped or worse on school grounds during school ours? Shouldn't true concern for kids place armed guards with every single one of them 24/7 to protect them from the far more likely abuse they are to suffer from their own parents or predatory acquaintances? Or will the armed guards at school interfere with school bullying? You know, the actual dangers facing the vast majority of children?

Besides: While all crime against children is abhorrent, the president's kids comprise an aspect of national security as well as being specific rather than random targets. That's why they are under constant protection, not just at school. To claim hypocrisy there is pretty unreasonable.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 2:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA



*snort*
Considering my current investigations into the wholesale, widespread abuse of students *BY* "school resource officers" all putting them in did was create a bigger bully and give them official sanction...

But if you were gonna have an armed guard present, you'd only NEED them for 30 minutes a day - one MIGHT recall the "Death at 3pm" editorial I wrote, complete with unassailable statistics showing that enormous spike ?
2:45-3:15pm

Not only is that when most kids aggress each other, cause the school denies any responsibility, but it's also when other criminals prey on kids for the same reason, since by following the directives of the school they are placed at a specific location and unarmed.
(i.e. handed out on a silver platter)

One of the things which got me in so much trouble was dealing with the perverts who'd roll up and wait, hoping some kid would miss the bus so they could "offer them a ride"... by virtue of sabotage and harrassment.

Not sayin kids should be armed, mind you - at least not in an educational environment, but if you ensure someone will be at a specific place and time and defenseless, you have a pretty solid moral obligation to defend them, and schools shirk that one hard.
Doesn't have to be an armed guard fer crying out loud, so much as a warm body which DOESN'T have less legal standing and rights than a freakin housepet, who can't be brushed off, dismissed, or ignored so easily.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Penguin, you pretty much summed it up, as far as the NRA's "claims". Thank you.

As far as using kids for props, of course many of them have. Aside from that, those kids there had written letters to the President about the issue, so were no doubt thrilled out of their minds to be there. I know the one couple and their kid who were interviewed were just beaming with pride. The the asshole who compared it to--I think Saddam?--pulling that poor reluctant kid to him is a perfect reflection of the mindless hatred against Obama that abounds in some.



Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 19, 2013 9:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




WaPost gives it four pinnochios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for
-a-slashing-nra-ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html


Quote:

The NRA ad notes that Obama said he was skeptical about armed security in schools, which the organization has touted as a solution to mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December. Obama did use the word skeptical, in an interview with Gregory, but the NRA has clipped the full meaning of his words.
GREGORY: “Should we have an armed guard at every school in the country? That’s what the NRA believes. They told me last week that that could work.”
OBAMA: “I'm not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”
Note that Obama said he was skeptical that armed guards were the “only answer,” not that he was skeptical of the idea. Indeed, in the package of gun-control proposals he unveiled on Wednesday, he called on Congress to help schools hire more guards or other school resource officers.
“Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs,” the White House said. “Some schools will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services.”
So the frame of hypocrisy is already a bit misshapen. But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?
This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.
Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.
But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)
Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.




So I guess the real question the NRA is asking is, "If an unarmed guard or two are good enough for the President's children's school, isn't it good enough for you?"



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 19, 2013 10:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Penguin:
The President's kids are targets for kidnapping (or worse) by terrorists.

The kids at the school down the block from me, not so much.





King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa



I think you and others are missing the point. Many may be doing so on purpose, too.

All the NRA are saying is that your kids are every bit as precious to you as the President's kids are to him. But while ANY President's kids are made as safe as humanly possible, with Secret Service carrying weapons, he expects the rest of us to be unarmed. Never mind the case in GA, where the mother , home alone w/ her twin daughters, shot an intruder while defending her family.

What really is going on here is blatant character assassination and message tampering, by the Left, to claim the NRA is horrible for saying something it never said, never intended to say, instead of admitting that the NRA actually have a valid point.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:06 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx for that, Mike, it was nice to read.

Poor Rap is once again stuck in the role of not only representing the right, but the NRA. I guess he hasn't seen the ad, since he thinks it's not what the NRA said (or meant to say...?). He is right, tho', it was definitely "blatant character assassination and message tampering". Yup.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:36 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


As to our children, here's the New Math:


Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:55 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


While they make a point that is worth pondering, they could have done it in a much better way, no need to be specific, they could have made the point in a more general way, something like "When there are children living in the White House they get lots of security to keep them safe, and aren't our children just as important as a president's children?".

That being said I don't think armed guards is the answer. I'd be fine with teachers and/or parent helpers concealed carrying (with permit and good teaching of course) if they wanted to, not manditory of course. And they'd have to keep the gun concealed and on their person at ALL times. Hiring armed guards sounds too authoritarian to me, and they could misuse that power easily, plus its distracting to have a guard around, it reminds you that there is the potential for danger and the kids don't need that reminder.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 20, 2013 11:24 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I think you and others are missing the point. Many may be doing so on purpose, too.

All the NRA are saying is that your kids are every bit as precious to you as the President's kids are to him. But while ANY President's kids are made as safe as humanly possible, with Secret Service carrying weapons, he expects the rest of us to be unarmed. Never mind the case in GA, where the mother , home alone w/ her twin daughters, shot an intruder while defending her family.



How does that supposed point about disarming parents, who are around their kid essentially anytime outside of school, have anything to do with armed guards in schools, then?

And since when is anybody aiming to completely disarm everyone? Last I checked they were talking about certain kinds of weapons?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 3:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
While they make a point that is worth pondering, they could have done it in a much better way, no need to be specific, they could have made the point in a more general way, something like "When there are children living in the White House they get lots of security to keep them safe, and aren't our children just as important as a president's children?".



From a national security standpoint, No. Sorry, but they really aren't. Please let me know next time you have received some 10,000 death threats against you and your family, and we'll revisit their importance to the nation and its security.

Quote:


That being said I don't think armed guards is the answer. I'd be fine with teachers and/or parent helpers concealed carrying (with permit and good teaching of course) if they wanted to, not manditory of course. And they'd have to keep the gun concealed and on their person at ALL times.



Unless they leave it in the students' bathroom, of course...

Quote:

Hiring armed guards sounds too authoritarian to me...


And that is entirely the point, and that's why the NRA and the GOP support it.

Quote:

...and they could misuse that power easily, plus its distracting to have a guard around, it reminds you that there is the potential for danger and the kids don't need that reminder.


As I've noted before, try to show an inner-city kid the difference between a school surrounded with armed guards, metal detectors, and locked door and windows, and a prison. And if you think about it, is it any wonder so many want to be as far as possible away from there, as soon as possible?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 6:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

And since when is anybody aiming to completely disarm everyone?

Agent, you...are...talking...to...Raptor.

Best to keep that in mind, y'know? So you don't expect sense, as it were...

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 7:56 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Agent, you...are...talking...to...Raptor.

Best to keep that in mind, y'know? So you don't expect sense, as it were...




Oh, you know. I'm an optimist. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 7:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Do please stay that way, just be aware of who you're asking to make sense! ;o)

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 11:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As I've noted before, try to show an inner-city kid the difference between a school surrounded with armed guards, metal detectors, and locked door and windows, and a prison. And if you think about it, is it any wonder so many want to be as far as possible away from there, as soon as possible?


Ayep, this is one reason I've been working on and looking into other more useful measures, that lockdown crap is harmful, doesn't work, and given the widespread abuse *BY* school resource officers, I am not entirely sanguine about professional guards - although depending on the school I've given a little thought to having the student body elect responsible students as safe-eyes... but again that runs into the problem of the less-than-pets legal and social status and how no one will LISTEN to them if they do see something.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 11:27 AM

CATPIRATE


OBama and Bloomberg always drag kids into it. Save the children crap. So Rosey and O who hate guns should practice what they preach. Why do your kids have armed security?

Bagram is nice every body carries. Just watch out for russian mines and rocket attacks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 12:51 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
although depending on the school I've given a little thought to having the student body elect responsible students as safe-eyes... but again that runs into the problem of the less-than-pets legal and social status and how no one will LISTEN to them if they do see something.

-F



Wouldn't that place an insane amount of pressure on the elected kids?

I mean, in a truly bad emergency situation along the lines of an attack, rare though this might ultimately be, can you really ask this of a kid, to carry actual responsibility? I mean, what is the kid supposed to do?

Much as the idea of armed guards in schools freaks me out, the idea of making the kids protects themselves freaks me out more. Like armed teachers, I don't think that's something you have a right to ask, or even accept if they offered. Their job as kids is to NOT have that responsibility.

(I'm not against teaching kids self-defense, danger awareness and any of that stuff. I am vehemently against placing responsibility on those skills, especially for more than just themselves.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 1:00 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ditto Agent. Not only that, but wouldn't it make the kids pariahs? Kinda the "resident snitch"? School is tough enough getting through, without that...

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 1:58 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Valid point Quicko, statistically his kids are in more danger on a regular basis than ours. But still, all children are important.

I agree with Rouka and Niki, expecting kids at school to be the "snitches" and take care of the others manditorally in an emergency is unfair and unrealistic.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 5:30 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Nah, didn't mean it like that, but something close to first responders, a little first-aid/emergency training to give them confidence, and evacuation plan and a whistle.
Kinda like meerkat sentries.

Us adults have got to step forward on this, but I think a lot of the security measures being pondered would not only be ineffective but detrimental - it's a matter of WHAT comes into their mind when they think "Security", rather than what might actually work.

In a situation like Sandy Hook, more important than ANYTHING is fast detection and response, get the kids the hell OUT of the killzone as soon as friggin possible, many older schools have fallout/tornado shelters and those doors can be held against even a madman for some time.

I'm still workin on this mind you - but having spotters wouldn't put undue stress on older kids, and in fact might benefit them by encouraging a certain protectiveness of their younger peers, which in time might even hedge slightly against bullying, perhaps.

Oddly enough, some schools in the inner city already have something like this unofficially amongst the kids themselves, which is where I got the notion from, a lot of them have a spotter or two set up to call a scatter if they see a crew wagon coming loaded up for a drive-by.
And sadly, most kids who live in such places are already familiar with the bathtub drill.

As I say, a work in progress...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 5:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


An interesting bit of research occured many years ago regarding social security offices (where traditionally clients could get quite aggro with staff). They found that the more security that was put in place, the more incidents of aggression occured. So they changed the layout to be user friendly. No security screens, no barriers, quite open plan. And the episodes of violence decreased. And I guess the moral of the story is that the more you dehumanise and environment, the more dehumanising behaviour users with display.


Most zoos sound better designed and user friendly that many schools in the US.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 5:40 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


When you say "spotters", I can't help but think of cornerboys yelling "FIVE-O! FIVE-O!"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 11:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When you say "spotters", I can't help but think of cornerboys yelling "FIVE-O! FIVE-O!"


Yep, there was some influence from that notion as well.
Frankly in some neighborhoods, the police *are* as much a threat as a carload of gangbangers, and for much the same reasons, alas.

Remember not long ago the Supreme Court ruled that fleeing the police is not necessarily an irrational response or indicative of criminal intent because they may very well present a threat to innocent people.
I bet that BURNED for them to have to admit too - but it was one step close to fixing the damn problem.

-Frem

ETA: Afterthought - consider how obviously effective that is though, and it'd work just as well on a shooter as it does the cops.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:25 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Nah, didn't mean it like that, but something close to first responders, a little first-aid/emergency training to give them confidence, and evacuation plan and a whistle.
Kinda like meerkat sentries.



I see. I guess I could live with a scenario that gave all kids that training (evacuation routes, remaining calm in emergencies, spotting danger, first aid) and let it work out among themselves to be alert for each other without assigning that role in an official capacity. While everything else is set up around them to make sure they are as protected a reasonably feasible.

The examples you give, though heart-breakingly routed in a harsh reality, are spontaneous, voluntary, independent efforts by the kids, I presume. I am all for kids extending their protective instincts toward each other, as long as it's their own idea, of their own volition and free of any pressure and responsibility.

Quote:


In a situation like Sandy Hook, more important than ANYTHING is fast detection and response, get the kids the hell OUT of the killzone as soon as friggin possible, many older schools have fallout/tornado shelters and those doors can be held against even a madman for some time.



The sad reality about many school shootings is that they may be well-planned a long time in advance but are carried out in an extremely short amount of time, many less than fifteen minutes from start to finish, many less than five. Meaning the attacker knows the vulnerabilities of the place, has the advantage of surprise and shock and essentially exploits that for as long as he can to create a maximum of damage.

Teacher tend to try and block doors while students evacuate, or hide students, which seems to be the most effective protection at such short notice, since the killer doesn't have too much time to spare to overcome obstacles.

So yeah, having solid classroom doors, potential hiding places, wide-spread emergency exits and accessible shelters available seems to be the key in these rare situations. Giving teachers training in that sort of thing, and pointing out the options in their particular environment would seem to make a LOT more sense than any of this "armed teacher" nonsense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:23 AM

JONGSSTRAW


When I was in elementary school we used to have air raid drills a few times a week. These drills were designed to protect us against a nuclear missile attack from Russia. Just a normal thing, no big deal. Other normal things for kids of the 60's were multiple political assassinations, Vietnam war tv coverage, Arab-Israeli wars, no car seat belts, dodgeball in gym class, trophies for winners only, daily bullying and money shakedowns from fraternity toughs, and bell-bottom jeans. And that this generation grew up to become today's financial, political, scientific, and cultural leaders has no correlation at all to the immoral and dysfunctional country we have today.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Agent, that last section is part of the argument as to why arming teachers wouldn't be all that effective, and might even lead to worse scenarios, such as the principal who tried to face him down. It's an argument we've tried to make, with little effect, to some here.

Interesting point about the children of the '60s. It's a generalization that doesn't hold for the majority of us, in my opinion, but might well be valid for some. But hey, leave of on the bell bottoms, I LOVED 'em! ;o)

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So yeah, having solid classroom doors, potential hiding places, wide-spread emergency exits and accessible shelters available seems to be the key in these rare situations. Giving teachers training in that sort of thing, and pointing out the options in their particular environment would seem to make a LOT more sense than any of this "armed teacher" nonsense.


More than the lockdown theory, too - cause all that seems to do is corral the herd for easy slaughter.

Some of this pondering has come from discussions with the Socrates Club, an unofficial discussion group with current and former students which evolved once they realized there was an adult with a clue who'd LISTEN to them.

One thing we wanna test soon is scatter theory - imma borrow a buddys old style paintball marker, and either an empty classroom or somewhere which can be set up as a facsimile, and field test the notion of how effective a scatter is versus other methods... since it's gonna be me with the paintball marker and I've no intention of offering quarter it should be an effective field test.

Getting the hell out of range, sight, or into hard cover *ARE* self-defense options, and I felt it annoying I had to stress that even to military personnel back in the day, to which my maxim was "Take cover, THEN shoot back!"... idiots.

Another thing which brought scatter tactics to mind was the self-defense stuff I already teach to kids, most of which revolves around stunning, confusing, or otherwise tripping up an adult to get three steps lead - because frankly with three steps lead most adults *can't* catch a kid in full flight - so a scatter and then relay to a known secure rally point is very possibly a workable idea here.

Again, a work in progress.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Harvard study: America is an oligarchy
Fri, April 18, 2014 17:05 - 10 posts
What's your Political Compass?
Fri, April 18, 2014 16:20 - 45 posts
Wait a minute, you didn't learn how Obamacare ended...
Fri, April 18, 2014 16:16 - 2 posts
How the Calif. Drought Will Hit Your Wallet
Fri, April 18, 2014 15:58 - 7 posts
Retirement plans
Fri, April 18, 2014 14:31 - 15 posts
A Change In RWED Slur Policy
Fri, April 18, 2014 12:20 - 11 posts
So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
Fri, April 18, 2014 10:32 - 91 posts
Climate Meeting to Discuss Future of Fossil Fuels
Fri, April 18, 2014 10:30 - 56 posts
Extinction by 2040? (part II)
Fri, April 18, 2014 09:36 - 14 posts
NY Times "reopens" rape case
Fri, April 18, 2014 09:33 - 4 posts
DC mag Photoshops the White House press secretary's bookshelves to fill in the blanks
Thu, April 17, 2014 20:41 - 21 posts
The predictions thread
Thu, April 17, 2014 20:39 - 244 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS