"of mice and Men" By a blogger named "Breda"

[EdC]

Last week I heard an interview with public school policy makers in a town in Mass. discussing new emergency procedures that would include teaching the children (down to grade school) to fight back against an intruder, upon direction by a teacher. They were thinking about teaching the kids to fling backpacks, books, etc. on queue, as a last resort. Seems like some people are at least trying.

 

[flagtag]

I have heard that also. It seems that "they" are finally getting wise. There was a piece on the news about it.

Think maybe they have "seen the light"?

 

[jeremy]

Maybe some are starting to see the light, might be a case of to little to late. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[EliteCageFighting]

This one does deserve to come back, yes. I noted something in re-reading it:
Admittedly, I didn't go to read the story referenced, but only the "cliff notes" I've here quoted, but I have to wonder... I know that we have teachers and students here, and while the party line is that none of them carry on (college) campuses, I am not asking any of them whether that is true or not-I don't want to know. I don't want to know because when someone finds out you're carrying, in many cases they do so because it's the last thing they find out before finding out if they are to be issued a harp or a pitchfork.
In light of the unasked question, however, suppose the purported gunman entered the class to hold those students hostage, and one of our members was there and further, had for whatever reason decided to carry that day. Would the officer/actor have been shot? I think this to be likely. Would the student/teacher be charged with a crime? Almost certainly, I think s/he would, and the officer/actor would not have time to identify himself to prevent injury or death. Even if he did manage to avoid a student's or teacher's gun being discharged, what would happen to that armed individual who carries/carried? Termination? Expulsion? for no more reason than that they used their gun or attempted to do so while in fear of their life and/or to protect the innocent? If the officer was not able to stop the firing of that gun, that person would likely be charged with murder of a police officer, a capital offense.

Whose fault would this be? For a fire drill, there is no fire, but people are to act as if there is. For a terror drill, the same logic applies. In a fire drill, there is no panicked run for the exits-not so in a real fire. In a terror drill, when escape is impossible, the actor with a fake gun is taking a very large chance that he will not confront someone whose gun fires real bullets that can really kill.

Blessings,
B

The fault would lie on the person who decided to do this type of drill without the knowledge of the participants!

What is the difference in traumatizing those people for real or "in a test"? The end result is the same, as they still went through the event.

I can't believe more people didn't find this type of drill TOTALLY unacceptable. What is the difference in doing this in a college or a local Wal-Mart? The difference is that a campus is a "defense free zone". If someone were shot doing this at Wal-Mart, the citizens would be in an uproar (over the drill), but if it happened in a "defense free zone" they would lay all the blame on the person carrying one of those "devilish guns".

Personally, if this happened to me or someone in my immediate family, I'd be suing the hell out of someone!