Should Students Be Taught To Attack Shooters?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Apr 17, 2007.

  1. For decades, the law-abiding people of this country have been taught to be passive when faced by criminals, particularly if they are armed with a gun. That was also the advice given airline passengers in hijack situations, at least until 9/11 showed us the power of angry passengers who refuse to go to slaughter like sheep. Now we have yet another school shooting in which a nut is able to take target practice on students cowering in justifiable fear for their lives.

    Has the time come to change the way we react to these situations? If three men had charged the Virginia Tech shooter, they surely would have been able to take him down, although two of them might have been killed in the attempt. With the shooter down, the rest of the students could swarm him and, hopefully, kill him on the spot.

    Shouldn't our schools be teaching students this approach instead of the traditional hide under the desk and hope he shoots someone else tactic? Could it have turned out any worse yesterday? In Columbine?

    If the students had started hurling books, laptops, chairs, etc at the shooter as a few brave men went after him, he might not have been able to hit anyone.

    I'm not in any way criticizing the students at Virginia Tech. I'm sure they reacted as most of us would have. That's exactly why the schools need to be training students to react differently in the future.
  2. The question is whether you can prepare for and prevent attack at the same time.


  3. "Shouldn't our schools be teaching students this approach instead of the traditional hide under the desk and hope he shoots someone else tactic?"

    Do you think for one minute anyone would advocate to teach "violence" in school? That is what "they" (the social engineers) would call it. The "children" prolly could get sued for excessive force in that instance.

    I realize your looking for ideas or thoughts to prevent this but not until we have some decisive leadership in some way shape or form in any part of our society will anything change. In the meantime we'll just re-act, pass another law named after another victim and the politicians will mumble sound bites about how proactive everyone is.
  4. JA_LDP


    I was thinking the exact same thing. You're sitting in class with 3 of your friends. Man up and go after him while he's reloading his guns. When he's down on the ground, surely half a dozen other guys will come and help out while everyone else bolts for the exits.

    However, we were not there and it's easy to say this kind of crap after the fact.

    I got goose bumps listening to Bush speak today.
  5. AAA,

    I understand where you're coming from. I too am just flabbergasted that he was able to kill over 30 people without anyone fighting back or trying to take him down.

    Makes me think of reports of Allied POWs being assembled and shot by the Nazis in a forest, or thousands of Chinese in Nanking just sitting and waiting to be shot or beheaded by the Japanese.

    Why didn't they fight back?

    As you said, who knows how we'd react if we were in their shoes. I'd like to think that I would have tried to stop him - and asked for others to help me - rather than be like lambs waiting to be slaughtered.
  6. Arnie


    A better solution would be to allow anyone that is registered to carry to be able to wherever they go.......including college.

    As it is now, nearly every college has restictions against carrying a concealed weapon EVEN when the person is properly trained and has a permit.

    Remember, the last shooting at a school in Virginia was stopped by a student who was licensed to carry and had his gun with him. He probably saved the lives of countless others.
  7. Yes, they should, but how? The very best thing to do in this type situation is to go on offense. Easier said than done. Most people are not in anyway prepared for what amounts to a fire fight. I can only tell any of you, if you find yourself in a similar situation...Attack and attack with intent to kill. You may very well lose your life in doing so, but you are sure to die cowering in the corner as the shooter dials in on your head.
    The question still remains how to prepare and the answer is, as a society we really can't. We can only hope that one or two in the room have the stones, or the experience to fight back. The upside is you will catch the aggressor off guard with an attack of your own. They are not expecting anyone to fight back. If you're fast enough, ruthless enough, and lucky enough, you just might get him before he gets you. Bad situation either way!
  8. Someone cited a study to me today to the effect that a group facing a threat (such as our shooter here, or a hijacker on 9/11) is less likely to take action than an individual facing the same threat.

    I wonder if this is true.
  9. I don't know, but it makes sense. In a group, people are likely to wait/hope somebody else steps up. Individually, it's man up, or die alone.
    I hope to never find myself in such a situation, for all the obvious reasons, not the least of which is I'm now old and slow. I could only hope some young buck would follow me in while I took the first hit. On second thought, that could be an old mans fantasy. I'd like to think I haven't lost all my nerve, never knows. I could cower in fear with the rest.

  10. I actually agree to an extent. If just one of those kids sitting in class at VT happened to be packing steel, as that pathetic loser ran into the room, he wouldn't have known what hit him. The problem is, on average and over time, the kind of people that walk around with guns are probably going to start more trouble than stop it.

    As for the idea that a group should have rushed the guy...yes, true, it would have led to less deaths. But the psychological state that these kids, or anyone, would be in can't be understated. I think it would just happen far too quickly...your mind would be in both shock and denial.

    Nobody in the group dynamic would be willing to start the rush, because that person would not feel sure enough that he would be backed up. The entire concept revolves around a level of group coordination that wouldn't have time to develop.

    Although it still makes sense to go for it, if you know you are going to be shot anyway...however, at the instant that the gunman starts shooting, you wouldn't know for sure that he's going to try and hit everyone. Maybe he's just targeting someone. Maybe he'll run out of bullets. Maybe he'll just leave that classroom. All of those maybes add up and give people some hope. There would just be too many unknowns.
    #10     Apr 17, 2007