Active Shooter Teenager Self Defense

[pdg]

Start the kids meditating and practicing chi kung at age 4.

By age 6 roughly 1 per class should have ascended to the 4th Potential and be able to maintain Mushin and launch focussed chi attacks to disrupt the brain function of an assailant.

Obviously this will require teachers to learn the appropriate psychic defences and recovery pressure points in case the prodigy child has a Carrie moment.

Your sarcasm is weak and flawed...




Edit: Oh, and do you have any reasoned disagreement to my post or is it just a drive-by click?

 

[DaveB]

Your sarcasm is weak and flawed...

How so?

 

[pdg]

How so?

Because things like militant vegetarianism, or religion, or being a politician - these are things where sarcasm is suitable.

Kids shooting kids?

Seriously mate, grow up.

 

[Steve]

Okay. I regret bringing this up . So far it seems run away and look for cover is the best we can do .

 

[hoshin1600]

Okay. I regret bringing this up . So far it seems run away and look for cover is the best we can do .

Don't regret it. I'm willing to have a serious conversation with you. I'm interested, what your thoughts are.

 

[drop bear]

Okay. I regret bringing this up . So far it seems run away and look for cover is the best we can do .

It is a pretty bad situation. The gun man has all the advantages before you even start to try to counter them.

I mean han you even sneak out a window or something?

Block the door with a table?

 

[drop bear]

as usual i am at a total failure to understand your point. maybe i am missing something. i will agree numbers matter if your talking about attacking a gunman. i am not implying the contrary. i am however looking at the fact that we are talking about school children ages 6 to 17. Sandy hook killer shot and killed 6 year olds. there was not a chance in the world they could fight back. this is why i tried to point out that the video you posted (unless i am wrong) was of a college student who was 22 years of age. thats an adult in my book. totally different situation.

Then come up with a better plan.

Because huddled in the far corner just seems silly to me.

Shoulder throws.
Oh.
My
God
No.

Ok that was everthing that is wrong with martial arts in pretty much one class.

 

[hoshin1600]

Because huddled in the far corner just seems silly to me

You keep asking me to come up with a better plan as if you don't agree with me but then you say huddled in a corner is silly which was one of my initial points. The Sandy hook massacre had such a high death toll because one teacher led her class to hide in a small bathroom with one entrance. And I'm sorry to offend anyone for being insensitive but the saying "fish in a barrel" comes to mind.
I don't have the answers. But I have to believe there are better people than i out there who do have solutions but for some reason they are not being listened to.

 

[drop bear]

You keep asking me to come up with a better plan as if you don't agree with me but then you say huddled in a corner is silly which was one of my initial points. The Sandy hook massacre had such a high death toll because one teacher led her class to hide in a small bathroom with one entrance. And I'm sorry to offend anyone for being insensitive but the saying "fish in a barrel" comes to mind.
I don't have the answers. But I have to believe there are better people than i out there who do have solutions but for some reason they are not being listened to.

Yeah "for some reason."

 

[DaveB]

Because things like militant vegetarianism, or religion, or being a politician - these are things where sarcasm is suitable.

Kids shooting kids?

Seriously mate, grow up.

But we are not talking about kids shooting kids, to do so would be political.
We are discussing self defence for children vs an assailant armed with high fire-rate firearms.

I give this topic the seriousness I feel it deserves.

Edit: yes I have a very good reasoned disagreement with your post, but to raise it would get the thread locked as you strayed into politics.

 

[pdg]

Edit: yes I have a very good reasoned disagreement with your post, but to raise it would get the thread lockedlas you strayed into politics

Well, for curiosity's sake feel free to pm me - I didn't think I got political but obviously interpretations vary...

 

[pdg]

Nothing personal, I'm quoting this message because it's recent...

But we are not talking about kids shooting kids, to do so would be political.
We are discussing self defence for children vs an assailant armed with high fire-rate firearms.

This thread was political from the start really, having been triggered by comments made by a politician.

In reality, there is no 'self defence' a teenager can effect against a determined armed attacker, and the suggestion gets even more preposterous as the age goes down. They're not exactly going to stand up and de-escalate the situation, and what physical option does a 12/13 year old have against someone armed (with anything from a hammer to a rifle)?

In any case, suggesting they defend themselves is to suggest the introduction of a policy, which is a political decision.

To suggest teaching "CPR" is hugely misinformed, but it's making the political statement that "hey, these things are going to happen, let's give the victims something to do after".

Securing schools with entry systems, bulletproof glass etc, again a political policy and budget decision.

Trying to shift the blame onto the victims as he did is incredibly cowardly, to suggest children should take responsibility to defend themselves... I'd quite like to give him a (completely non political) slap upside his head...

 

[DaveB]

The phrase "duck and cover" springs to mind.

 

[pdg]

The phrase "duck and cover" springs to mind.

Works well against nuclear attack by all accounts...

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

In my mind it's tricky. The two options are run and hide, call 911, in which case your chances of survival may be higher, but more overall children may die. Or you can learn how to be a hero, possibly prevent casualties, but drastically decrease your own chance for survival. And that's not something I personally would ever be interested in teaching a child to do. I'm not really sure if there is anything effectively that they can be taught.

You shouldn't really have to learn first aid, from my thinking. Either the situation has been fixed in which case the professionals should be there in seconds, or it hasn't in which case it would be risky going to the other child to administer first aid.

 

[hoshin1600]

the title of the thread includes the word "teenager" so unless @Steve wants to expand on that i have to assume we are talking high school. 14 -17 years of age. as i said before college (or University as some people have said there is a difference) is different not only due to the students age but by the policies that might be instituted for each group.
high school i think would be very much the same policies and procedures that you would see in the lower grades. i know if i was again in high school but knew what i know now on the subject, i would not be able to sit on the floor curled in a ball waiting to die. i would be out the window , through a wall or up into the ceiling. something to get me out of the building. school policy would not permit that. the teachers will step in to prevent me from escape. teachers have been put into a position of control over the students and that doesnt disappear during a crisis, it amplifies.
i do think that at the age of 14 you can begin to apply the Run, Hide, Fight model.

 

[JowGaWolf]

CPR is not the correct action for a gun shot wound.

Simple example. You get shot in the leg and are still breathing. How does CPR address that wound? CPR doesn't address gunshot wounds nor bleeding. There shouldn't be any debate about things like this or any question about how to treat a gun shot wound.

 

[oftheherd1]

Firstly, that guy recommending CPR - it's painfully obvious that he knows less about trauma first aid than I know about interpretive dance.

I suppose there are worse things than CPR you could do to a gunshot victim, like you could shoot them again, or maybe stab them...

Any of this type of measure (first aid training, encouraging people to arm themselves, etc.) isn't even thinking about addressing the problem though - car insurance doesn't stop your car being stolen.

Neither do the protective measures like bulletproof glass or secure entry - I mean, in a fire situation everything would open for efficient evacuation and everyone would go outside right? So just set off a fire alarm and wait somewhere outside the fire escape with your gun...

So, the next option is gun control...

I don't believe that will work.

Look at how strict gun control is in the UK, people still get shot. Enough that there are dedicated armed response police. If 'our' model of control worked fully, we wouldn't need those, a stick and a whistle would be plenty.

It's either uninvent guns (erm...) or control them to such a degree that they might as well not exist. Even then, it's only restricting the tooling.

Neither of those are viable either.


What needs looking at is why these shooters go on a shooting rampage in the first place. Why does society breed that mindset? What is it that makes these people think it's a good plan to go kill a load of other people?

That's the real problem that (apparently) nobody will admit to - and because it's not admitted it can't be addressed.

From the amount of reports, it's hardly justifiable to say it's just the occasional nutjob.

This indeed. Since we have had guns for a long time but didn't have mass shootings, especially at schools, what has changed?

In fairness, I did 'argue' both sides and came down on the side that it's not worth pursuing.



But that fundamentally agrees it's a societal issue. That it's the root cause of the problem not being addressed.

To refuse to do anything about people who pose a real threat to others is to deny that it's a problem. It might be understood, but if that understanding isn't acted on what's the point?

There are other societies around the world with easy access to firearms and they don't appear to suffer from the same problems.

I agree that there is a societal issue that we are not admitting to, and that we therefore will have trouble correcting it.

We did not used to have a real problem with firearms in the US either. Therefore, I believe there is another problem which needs correcting. To me, firearms usage as it is manifested now, is a product of a deeper problem we haven't studied, or even admitted to existing.

And I agree politics of the issue should be avoided in Steve's discussion.


Now to @Steve and his question about self defense.

I don't think we can teach children to a black belt level in the martial art of their choice, and expect that to work against a weapon that can be used at a distance that prevents good chances at disarming the shooter. Arming teachers is a possible solution but presents too many problems of its own imho, that makes it not useful, and again, Steve seems to want to limit our discussion to SD for the kids.

Somebody has already mentioned if you see something say something. To me, that relates to the SD aspect we often discuss about being aware of possible threats. Whether they report their concerns to teachers or police, that may bring an awareness that will help identify a person with a serious problem that needs attention. Does it guarantee every incident will then be avoided? Of course not. But every one that is is a win.

How about students thinking about possible scenarios and planning what they will best do? Hiding, running away, playing dead, calling out the shooter's name so the shooter may recognize a potential victim as a person instead of a target?

That's all that comes to mind right away. I, like Steve, would like to hear what others think of as possibilities that are available to an unarmed, probably unsuspecting, student. And possibilities before or during an incident.

 

[lklawson]

you somewhat missed the direction of my post.

1. schools have fire alarms that are direct to fire responders why do we not a alarms to notify police responders? we have tremendous technology but we dont apply it.

Someone just did invent this. Free to schools too. App for smart phones.

Smart Safety for Organizations - Mayday Safety

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[oftheherd1]

Okay. I regret bringing this up . So far it seems run away and look for cover is the best we can do .

I don't think you need to be sorry Steve. I think it is a reasonable question for us as martial artists. One of the most common reasons people give for wanting to study martial arts is self defense. There are other aspects about self defense than strikes, kicks, and grappling. We often discuss them. Why not think about which of those other aspects might (or might not) be useful to a kid in school? In my post above, I mentioned prevention, but that wasn't your question.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned prevention at all in this thread. If anyone thinks that is a useful matter for discussion, we should have a new thread started with that in mind. In this thread we should focus on SD in an incident.