It is common knowledge that in the past year there have been far too many mass shootings. Programs have been started and preparations in regards to shootings have been encouraged in schools and places of employment. That being said, many people still feel that this is not enough. Many believe that gun-laws are still too weak and that shootings are not preventable or handled properly. American's everywhere, specifically in Douglasville, Georgia, do not feel safe and are being encouraged to take matters into their own hands.
A town hall seminar, conducted by the Douglasville Police Department, showed a video titled "Active Shooter: A Citizen's Guide to Planning for Survival" and encouraged the public to be ready to take matters into their own hands in dangerous situations. The seminar taught the basic self defense principals and taught the citizens how to recognize an "active shooter". There are three options in the event of a shooting; to run, hide, or fight. Lockdowns and hiding has been protocol throughout the nation, but now towns like Douglasville are embracing the idea of fighting back. The police chief told a middle school teacher who asked what more could be done besides a lockdown, to "Jab the guy in the eyeball with a pencil" and that the students could "kick the attacker with a hundred little feets".
We have reached a point where children are being encouraged to react physically in a situation of a shooting, which I think proves more than anything else that something needs to be done about our country's current state. Do you believe that citizens should respond with violence in mass shootings? Should it be the job of local and federal police to make sure the citizens feel safe enough to not take these drastic measures? What can be done in order to make people feel safe and not make them resort to these extremes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/georgia-town-teaches-fight-back-as-option-in-mass-shootings.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
10 comments:
The fact that children are being actively encouraged to retaliate against shooters physically is deplorable. This puts these middle school kids directly into harm's way. If an shooter comes to a school, that person is set on killing children. to suggest that children should have to attempt to fight a person with a loaded gun is near child endangerment. The fact that such awful thoughts are being treated as viable options in case of attack shows the United State's great need for stricter gun control laws.
Encouraging children and mostly untrained adults to "fight back" against a person with a gun are essentially inviting and encouraging a higher death toll every time that a dangerous person opens fire. It is important that people know how to protect themselves, but those two options should be run or hide *unless* you are highly trained and experienced. It should not be the civilians job to take on an attacker. If people are told this, or even given minimal training, they could assume that they know more than they do and believe it is their job to stop the attacks. This os extremely dangerous, because for a person whose training extends only to one class in self-defense, nothing they do is going to be adequate in the face of a firearm. Yes, it feels good to be a hero, but far too many will die if they put themselves in harms way. I think that self-defense training is extremely important, as well as being able to recognize a shooter in a crowded area. So, the classes that Douglasville Police Department are running are not totally dangerous. However, telling children to take down the shooter is negligent and frankly quite stupid. As the commenter above me said, the fact that these classes exist exemplify the need for better and more comprehensive gun control.
Teaching kids to kick a shooter with "a hundred little feet" probably isn't such a good idea. Unless we're talking about Bruce Lee, feet typically won't out match a man with a gun, but maybe an adult or two with a little training would be a better match up. With the rising number of mass shootings, I think two things should become necessary: 1) increased gun control laws (obviously) and 2) providing citizens with the know-how to protect themselves from such situations. Even with increased gun laws mass shootings will still occur (hopefully not as often) because people will still be able to find a way to get their hands on a gun. Due to that risk, I believe it is a logical step to take to teach the people how to: a) recognize an "active shooter" and b) stop the shooter before it's too late. Obviously we shouldn't expect children to take on a man with a gun, but perhaps we could expect it from teachers and older students. I know its tough to ask a person to take on a gunman rather than run from him, but it would also tough for that gunman to hit his targets when some of them are taking countermeasures to stop him. This raises the issue that the death toll would be greater if more people put themselves in harms way, but I believe that if people were provided with the right resources and knowledge to stop a shooter it could be the difference between 3 wounded and 30 dead. Violence is often never a good solution, but if saving multiple innocent lives meant killing one psycho, it'd probably be the best solution for that situation.
One of the major problems with guns is that there are few methods of self-defense that can protect against them. Were we to replace guns with knives, this would be a whole different story. However, when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, I highly doubt you're bold enough to take a step closer to the gunman and "Jab them in the eye". To me, that sounds like an invitation to the shooter to get you first. An average civilian making any advances toward the shooter is asking for trouble.
Encouraging children to actively retaliate against an armed gunman dangerous is pretty ludicrous, as maybesarah brought up. Though I do not think anyone except for armed policemen should approach a shooter and retaliate, I think it is in particularly poor taste to tell young, defenseless children to go for it. I find it concerning that this idea comes from a former Army veteran, Chief Gary Sparks, whose 29 years on the police force probably should have enlightened him about the fact that children are the least protected individuals in mass shootings, given their small size and weak nature relative to adults (Fausset).
Though I may not agree with the exact methods presented in "Active Shooter: A Citizen's Guide to Planning for Survival", I will say that I do approve of giving Americans some ideas for ways to protect themselves. When living in a world where there is a mass shooting per day, it's essential that we have some plans for self-defense. However, I think that lockdown drills are a fairly good way of combatting school shootings. Still, it is a majorly flawed system. At the end of the day, the only way to reduce the impact of mass shootings is to take away the potential shooters' guns. Stop the problem at the source.
Source: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/georgia-town-prepares-to-fight-back-against-mass-shooters/
In all honesty, the fact that they'd put forth an attack strategy for middle school children seems like a joke. There is still no doubt that by far the most effective methods of dealing with a shooter, or any attacker of some sort, is trying to hide or flee as far away from the situation as possible. While mounting a counter-attack is a somewhat viable option and it is important that children are educated on any possible situation, doing so is downright dumb. That being said, turning the hunter into the hunted sounds valiant in theory, but it is a job for trained professionals and law enforcement agents only, not a band of middle school students and their peers. In addition to this, kicking the attacker while he down is a lot to easier than it sounds, especially for children. The amount of fear generated in life threatening situation is often too much for full grown adults to handle, let alone teenagers. Even if the students and teachers were able to locate and terminate the gunman/attacker, the amount of collateral damage that would likely happen would be extremely high. Attacking an attacker is absolutely-positively-undeniably a last resort action that should not be taken lightly be law enforcement or school administration. The key to decreasing tragic occurrences in undoubtedly taking the weapons out of the hands of the men and women who would even think of acting in such a way. In simple, tighten up gun control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/georgia-town-teaches-fight-back-as-option-in-mass-shootings.html?_r=0
I do not think anyone should be encouraging fighting back during a shooting because that means a high probability of more deaths. Kicking the attacker with "one hundred little feet" is a terrifying image, in my opinion; I would not want any child to think it is the best solution to run up to a shooter, unarmed and untrained. I believe local police should train their teachers and students on what to do during crisis situations, (which does not include children going after attackers). Some of this preparation should include lockdown drills and debriefing on how to handle the situation.
I really think that the only realistic solution to make people feel safe is to have stricter gun laws. This may not prevent all acts of violence, but it will stop some tragedies from occurring.
Children should most definitely not be taught to take on a shooter. Children can't do much to a shooter at all and putting them in harm’s way can cause many more deaths than is necessary. Making children believe that fighting back is okay is teaching them to be scared and to be violent.
Though I believe it is beneficial for adults to recognize a shooter and know what steps to take for the protection of themselves and others, I don't think fighting is the safest answer. Adults may be able to learn basic protection skills but unless someone is trained to do this task, I believe the responsibility lies in the hands of the police.
In my opinion, prevention through stricter gun control policies is a major step to prevent public shootings. Everything else such as these classes and adding security are just quick fixes, and won’t solve the main problem—that guns are available to everyone, even those who cannot be trusted with one. I agree with everyone above: the fact that these classes even exist are testament that action should be taken to tighten gun control measures.
While it is beyond realistic to think that attacking a gunman with "a hundred little feet" is a good way to reduce deaths in a mass shooting, I do think that it may be the responsibility of citizens to be prepared for mass shootings if they are afraid. First of all, I think that mass shootings, while terrible, are blown out of proportion by the media. Disease, sedentary lifestyle, and alcohol, are all much bigger killers in this country that don't get the same level of media attention since they are not as shocking. Any loss of life is terrible, but at this point, the mental illness in these people is not immediately obvious or even apparent after examination. These disparate events I don't think will even be stopped through strict gun regulation because of the ease of access to black market guns over the internet; within 10 minutes any person with the drive to do so can buy an automatic gun online. While I do not htink that every person should be armed, I think that encouraging citizens to get a concealed carry permit is a good coarse of action to take to remedy gun violence.
I agree with King Pash that this is all just ridiculous. You can't expect civilians to be prepared to fight back in the same way a trained professional would be. It's asking a lot, especially out of children, to fight back against a person armed with a gun. We are in a very bad situation in this country, with gridlock over gun control and tragedies happening all the time, but this certainly is not a way to remedy the situation. It sounds hopeful, but as with many plans to deal with difficult situations, hopeful doesn't mean it will work well. While I am not sure of a better solution, this one doesn't seem like the right answer. A normal person not prone to violence would not be able to act correctly in that situation.
Post a Comment