Colleges: Don't use real weapons, throw your laptop at 'em


PDA






myrockfight
August 26, 2008, 08:08 PM
I read this and thought it was quite ignorantly flying in the face of the obvious. I would think we all support the right to carry on campus. I really don't understand the lack of logic. :banghead: I added bold for emphasis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_us/campus_shooting_classes

Colleges confront shootings with survival training

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Hundreds of colleges across the nation have purchased a training program that teaches professors and students not to take campus threats lying down but to fight back with any "improvised weapon," from a backpack to a laptop computer.

The program — which includes a video showing a gunman opening fire in a packed classroom — urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers.

It reflects a new response at colleges and universities where grisly memories of the campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University are still fresh.

"Look at your environment through the lens of survival," said Domenick Brouillette, who administered the course at Metropolitan Community College, which serves more than 20,000 students. "Survivors prepare themselves both mentally and emotionally to do what it takes. It might involve life-threatening risk. You may do something you never thought you were capable of doing."

Nearly 300 professors at Metropolitan Community College were shown the video as part of a training exercise before the first day of classes on this downtown campus. The training, produced by the Center for Personal Protection and Safety, a for-profit firm based in Spokane, Wash., is also available for the school's students.

The training drills teachers and students in a "survival mindset," said Randy Spivey, a former U.S. Department of Defense hostage negotiator who is executive director of the center. The center's roster includes retired FBI agents and others with federal law enforcement experience.

"There are two extremes. On the one hand is paranoia, and on the other is oblivion," he said. "We're just trying to get people to keep this on their radar."

The training discourages cowering in a corner or huddling together in fear, Brouillette emphasized at the Kansas City session.

Instead, Metropolitan Community College faculty members were taught to be aware of their surroundings and to think of common classroom objects — such as laptops and backpacks — as "improvised weapons."

The program has been bought by nearly 500 colleges, which tailor the company's safety messages — laid out in instructional videos and other training guides — to craft localized violence prevention programs. Spivey expects that by year's end that number will have grown to about 1,000 schools.

Schools may provide the training to students as well as staff, as at Metropolitan, or limit it to instructors or security personnel.

Campus safety experts interviewed by The Associated Press said they are not aware of any similar survival training courses marketed specifically to college campuses.

"It's a dark subject," Brouillette said. "But we can't say 'It's never going to happen again.' It's 'When is it going to happen?' And we have to be prepared to survive that."
The sort of aggressive survival response cited by Brouillette troubles school violence researcher Loren Coleman, a retired University of Southern Maine professor.

Showing students violent images of school shootings could trigger post-traumatic stress or other reactions that resident advisers, graduate assistants and similarly untrained workers would be unequipped to handle, Coleman said.

And the techniques shown in instructional videos such as "Shots Fired" could provide inspiration for troubled students considering their own acts of violence, Coleman suggested.

"You more or less are giving them a blueprint for how to avoid law enforcement," he said.

At the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, officials are looking for ways to incorporate the training as part of the school's "Alert Carolina" program. Campus police chief Jeff McCracken said the school may offer hands-on training to students and faculty, or simply post a link on the university Web site.

Despite the relative rarity of deadly violence on campus, colleges can no longer assume that they are immune from such problems, McCracken said.

"I do think it's important that we talk to our folks and give them some guidance on how to protect themselves and others," he said. "It's not something that 10 years ago we thought we'd be talking about. But unfortunately, it's something we need to do now."

Todd Bowdish, a Metropolitan Community College life sciences professor who participated in the recent training session, agreed that today's classroom climate requires extreme caution.

"It's a really basic thing," Bowdish said. "We have drills for fires and tornadoes. This is just another tool for the toolbox." :banghead:


Just another tool for the toolbox would be a firearm, smart guy. Maybe this is a step in the right direction though. At least they acknowledge the fact that it can actually happen even though they ban firearms. Now we have to convince them of need for proper tools.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colleges: Don't use real weapons, throw your laptop at 'em" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rantingredneck
August 26, 2008, 08:13 PM
Two things:

1) Improvised weapons work, BTDT..... Good for the schools for at least putting a training curriculum together.

2) If the universities and state legislatures (in NC it's a state law) would realize that university students are adults and should be treated as such, improvised weapons wouldn't have to be relied upon as much.........

WinchesterAA
August 26, 2008, 08:14 PM
Interesting point, my friend..

Proper tools.. No more redneck innovations when it comes to self defense. Let professionalism take over, prepare outright, and rightfully so.

COMPNOR
August 26, 2008, 08:20 PM
Even if it was legal, carrying is still a personal choice (unless everybody wants a law making it mandatory to carry :rolleyes: )

So to me it makes perfect sense. Yes it is another tool in the tool box. Just like a gun. Because even in the CHL/CCW community, I'm sure there are some who don't carry 24/7 for whatever reason. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you can't do anything. It doesn't automatically make you ineffective or a victim.

Dismissing it as useless because it doesn't involve a gun is just silly.

myrockfight
August 26, 2008, 08:20 PM
Of further note...does anyone now if the Center for Personal Protection and Safety is anti-gun? They are the ones who produced the video.

Even if it was legal, carrying is still a personal choice (unless everybody wants a law making it mandatory to carry )
Dismissing it as useless because it doesn't involve a gun is just silly.

Who said anything about dismissing common sense measures? Trust me. I would do the exact same thing and would do anything to prevent from being a "helpless" victim. I just graduated from college last summer. I often thought of the different ways, outlined in this video, to defeat a shooter. I pray that I would have the courage to do so in such an event. Giving it a good amount of thought and running through the scenarios in your mind certainly help.

And when did someone say everyone was going to be forced to carry? :rolleyes:

I was simply pointing out the fact that school administrators dismiss the most obvious tools available.

elrod
August 26, 2008, 08:21 PM
Written for the sheep by the herdsman. How pathetic.

rantingredneck
August 26, 2008, 08:23 PM
Even if it was legal, carrying is still a personal choice (unless everybody wants a law making it mandatory to carry )

So to me it makes perfect sense. Yes it is another tool in the tool box. Just like a gun. Because even in the CHL/CCW community, I'm sure there are some who don't carry 24/7 for whatever reason. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you can't do anything. It doesn't automatically make you ineffective or a victim.

Dismissing it as useless because it doesn't involve a gun is just silly.

Very true........

One of the issues with "gun free" zones though is that they present target rich environments for spree shooters. Making the choice available for those students who choose to carry would then change the calculus of target selection a bit.

george29
August 26, 2008, 08:23 PM
It smells of the regular liberal-poop that continues the Victim Disarmament Zone without coming up with a real solution, i.e either enough Armed Security Personnel or Armed Teachers. The first costs more money than they are willing to accept as viable, the second they won't accept because it is against their mindset. I did not even try suggesting allowing CHL because there is no way they will go for that. In essence, this is just spin and someone was able to write themselves a nifty government grant that sells an idea that's about as good as stocks in a mortgage bank.

Oana
August 26, 2008, 08:25 PM
I look at it this way: at least it shows a movement in the right direction. Can you imagine this sort of video being shown in colleges 10 years ago? Mindset first.

I'm not sure I'd want to use a laptop as an improvised weapon, though. They're pretty unwieldy.

green country shooter
August 26, 2008, 09:11 PM
The decision makers are not the people who make or show these videos. The people who decide whether teachers and students can carry are the legislature or the presidents, not the people tasked with educating teachers and students about survival. Criticizing the people who make the videos is silly. It's not up to them whether to allow guns or not.

ltetmhs
August 26, 2008, 09:26 PM
You can't have a knife and fork, but we would be happy to teach you how to eat a steak with this plastic spoon.

Something tells me throwing laptops is a good way to be the next victim.

Elza
August 26, 2008, 09:28 PM
Instead, Metropolitan Community College faculty members were taught to be aware of their surroundings and to think of common classroom objects — such as laptops and backpacks — as "improvised weapons."People had better be careful advocating such things. The politicians will start wanting laptop and backpack control followed by a ban on ‘assault calculators’.

GingerGuy
August 26, 2008, 09:40 PM
Seems to me the University's Chancellors want them all drunk...you know alcohol and guns don't mix.

akodo
August 26, 2008, 09:49 PM
hey wait, how do these 'improvised weapons' that are found everywhere co-exist with the 'weapons free environment' policy?

Guns and more
August 26, 2008, 09:50 PM
Written for the sheep by the WOLVES. How pathetic.
Fixed that for you.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that groups don't fight back. A killer can line up victims and kill them one at a time. No one knows why. Strength in numbers, but it doesn't work. Universities should know that if I do. (I think they do, but are so anti-gun they would rather another mass killing take place than to allow CCW on campus).

taliv
August 26, 2008, 09:53 PM
yeah, i was wondering how long it will be until they ban backpacks and laptops


still, telling people to be aware of their surroundings and to find a way to solve a problem given whatever situation they're in, isn't all bad. of course, solving it before it turns into a problem would be better, but hey... baby steps

protolith
August 26, 2008, 09:53 PM
urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers
Yes Embrace your inner sheep. Yessss, and bleat really loud while you huddle with your group... and throw something at the gunman.

Hmmmm throw something, fight back with a weapon they say?

At least they are beginning to recognize the need for a self defense mentality.
Its only a matter of time before the come all the way around and recognize the utility of a REAL weapon. The conclusion that campus CCW should be permitted will only follow.

It's not a very big step from recognizing the need to improvise a weapon and realizing that actual weapons just work better.

Even though I would like to know how to survive in the wilderness indefinitely, dropped naked and armed only with a steak knife, I'm not going to consider a simple knife as a reasonable backup plan for the unexpected. I'm going to take appropriate clothes, that can accommodate any weather that I might encounter, Some food (even if I expect to find something to eat where I'm headed), and certainly an appropriate means of self defense for the environment.

If I'm in bear country I want something chambered for bear,
If I'm in mountain lion country want something chambered for cougar.
If I'm in psycho-********* country I want something chambered to defend from the same.

goon
August 26, 2008, 10:02 PM
A laptop is a piss-poor substitute for a handgun.

romma
August 26, 2008, 10:10 PM
Let he who is without common sense, cast out the first laptop... :uhoh:

jonmerritt
August 26, 2008, 10:31 PM
What they forgot to mention, was how many are going to stand and fight (be a target). And how many are going to duck and cover and run for the exit?? While being shot at by some lunatic? Oh wait, no guns on campus law, so there safe...

siglite
August 26, 2008, 10:51 PM
This is right up there with duck and cover drills for nuclear attacks.

Standing Wolf
August 26, 2008, 10:54 PM
What a nation of wimps we're becoming! Next thing you know, we'll invite the English back.

iheartboost
August 26, 2008, 11:03 PM
looks like I'm off to the range with my Toshiba......

sanglant
August 26, 2008, 11:51 PM
hmm barrel below the lcd panel trigger on the side........ :evil:

Monkeyleg
August 26, 2008, 11:54 PM
Showing students violent images of school shootings could trigger post-traumatic stress or other reactions that resident advisers, graduate assistants and similarly untrained workers would be unequipped to handle, Coleman said.

Um, has this guy ever gone to the movies?

And the techniques shown in instructional videos such as "Shots Fired" could provide inspiration for troubled students considering their own acts of violence, Coleman suggested.

The "inspirations" have already been heavily published by the "if it bleeds, it leads" mainstream media.

MD_Willington
August 27, 2008, 12:03 AM
WSU in Pullman WA

PLAY DEAD

Lookup their policy....

Green Lantern
August 27, 2008, 12:19 AM
I may be in the minority here, but I'm kinda glad to see the article.

As others have said, when you don't have anything better, improvised weapons CAN work. Just posted in a thread where an unarmed woman fought off a pistol-packing carjacker to save herself and her kids.

While CCW on campus is of course a much better answer, the fact that people are starting to remove their heads out of their backsides and see the need for self-defense at all is a GOOD thing, and a step in the right direction. IMO.

hopelessjoe
August 27, 2008, 12:41 AM
Do none these collage mambie pambies have a set (of balls, male or female) anymore. I carried and I knew that being discovered would lead to being banned for life.

Better to be banned than dead. Better to be arrested and charged than dead.

What will the next set of instructions be?

"In the event that there is no more retail food shopping, be sure to nail your potential prey with your Ipod squarely in the temple since it hasn't had power for quite some time and you are now insane with hunger!"

ColinthePilot
August 27, 2008, 01:12 AM
I think this is great, for the mean time at least. Theres a thread in the Tactics section about unarmed defense. Its great to complain about unarmed victims zones, and we should continue. But in the mean time, people need this type of knowledge to be available. Unarmed victim zones are a fact of life for the time being and we can't expect people to roll over and die, all the while wailing and grinding teeth over the gun they can't carry when they could be using other means to fight back.

myrockfight
August 27, 2008, 01:16 AM
While CCW on campus is of course a much better answer, the fact that people are starting to remove their heads out of their backsides and see the need for self-defense at all is a GOOD thing, and a step in the right direction. IMO.


As I have said. I agree with you. I don't think we are in the minority though. I think it will just take some time. Hopefully, we will not have to endure another massacre while we are waiting.

JDoe
August 27, 2008, 01:27 AM
"Shots Fired" trailer (http://www.shotsfireddvd.com/)

The Center for Personal Protection (http://www.safe-travels.com/pressroom,17) and Safety is composed of former U.S. Department of Defense and FBI officials, responsible for much of the US Government's current teaching and training on crisis negotiations, workplace violence, abduction prevention and hostage survival situations. It is the parent organization of the Safe Travel Institute (www.safe-travels.com) and National Hostage Survival Training Center (www.hostagesurvival.com). Program developers, Randy Spivey, Jim Sporleder, Eugene Rugala, and Steve Romano are recognized leaders in personal safety issues; are in demand as speakers, and appear regularly in media outlets including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Live, New York Times, USA Today and Forbes Magazine.

Here is the trailer for another video they offer for travelers called "Safe Passage" (http://www.yoursafepassage.com/index.php?page=introduction)

Steve Raacke
August 27, 2008, 03:14 AM
Hey, I am all in favor of teaching the sheep how to defend themselves with whatever is at hand. It's sad that we have become so docile that this has to be told to someone but it's better than nothing. We dont' allow them guns so we have to teach them something to defend themselves. I'm fine with it then I read this part....
The sort of aggressive survival response cited by Brouillette troubles school violence researcher Loren Coleman, a retired University of Southern Maine professor.

Showing students violent images of school shootings could trigger post-traumatic stress or other reactions that resident advisers, graduate assistants and similarly untrained workers would be unequipped to handle, Coleman said.

And the techniques shown in instructional videos such as "Shots Fired" could provide inspiration for troubled students considering their own acts of violence, Coleman suggested. :what: So telling people, if you are facing a deadly threat you should fight for your life is considered troubling? Well, Heck. I'd be troubled by the nut attacking a classroom full of people more than the thought of having to break my Dell computer across his head in a life or death struggle. Something is mentally wrong with people who think like professor Colman. I'm a libertarian. I beleive in less government. Yet when I read comments like the one quoted above I start to think that maybe we have become too soft as a nation. Maybe we need to remodel our schools like old boarding schools or military academies. Give our next generation the skills and mental conditioning we have seemed to have lost over the past few decades. We are too worried about pampering and coddling our citizens.

mgkdrgn
August 27, 2008, 07:56 AM
I saw this article on a news site I frequent, and had 3 comments:

Rules for a Gunfight:
1) Bring a gun
2) See rule #1


The "strength in numbers" defense.
Hmmmm, I think they use to call that a "Bonsai Charge". If I remember correctly, that side lost the war.

"Improvised weapons" ... like a laptop
Needs to back to the "American Films" class and watch "Raiders of The Lost Ark" again. I'm thinking specifically of the scene where Indy dispatches the swordsman.

Lastly ... at Virginia Tech, 6 of the people in the classrooms that were shot up were CCW holders ... two were ex or current military. All had their weapons at home or in their cars. How different that might have been if they had been allowed to exercise their god given right of self defense?

romma
August 27, 2008, 08:26 AM
Geez, what if one of these laptops hits an innocent victim? :eek:

Aka Zero
August 27, 2008, 08:36 AM
This seems to me like "someone mgiht have a gun, and since that might happen, we won't let you be armed, whack them with a book"

Why not just allow ccw permit holders to carry, arm the guards, arm the teachers..... and well, the guy WANTING to shoot people, gets shot instead.... Not shoots people that are trying to book him to the ground.

357WheelGun
August 27, 2008, 09:59 AM
The program — which includes a video showing a gunman opening fire in a packed classroom — urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers.

Ahh, yes. The old, "If we have 50 people walk in front of the tanks, we can go right through a minefield without worrying about damaging the tank" theory. Just rush the shooter with enough people, eventually he'll run out of bullets and the few students left standing can take him out. I mean, sure, this virtually guarantees additional casualties, but hey, we're all only here to serve the collective, right?

Sheesh.

230RN
August 27, 2008, 10:00 AM
mgkdrgn:

Lastly ... at Virginia Tech, 6 of the people in the classrooms that were shot up were CCW holders ... two were ex or current military. All had their weapons at home or in their cars.

Is that accurate? I thought it was 6 CCWers over the whole campus. (And how would anyone know how many anyhow--was it merely an estimate based on the number of Permittees in the population at large?)

My personal opinion on stuff like the training class is that it is a good thing --opening the awareness of any population to the effectiveness of concerted action against an attacker can't be bad. Sure, having self-defense firearms would be good, but that is not the reality of the situation as it stands at present.

And to make jokes about using any missile that is handy, including water bottles, coffee cups, and laptops, is unproductive.

In the same vein, demeaning the duck and cover drills (in which I took part many times in grade school) is ridiculous. Sure, caught within the fireball, it won't do any good. But a couple of miles away, many injuries (and deaths) would have been avoided. Sure beats standing by a window and getting torn to shreds by flying glass and other secondary missiles, or just standing there openmouthed and getting hit by the inevitable falling debris.

There's a place and time for sarcasm and satire, but knocking this program for the sole purpose of satisfying oneself with a good sneer, is not very productive. Let's analyze the efforts of the administrators and authors of the program realistically, shall we?

230RN said that.

P=> 0.80 that mods will move this to tactics and strategies within an hour of my posting this.

Vern Humphrey
August 27, 2008, 10:04 AM
Hmmmm, I think they use to call that a "Bonsai Charge".
A bonsai is a little tree.

A Banzai charge is a human wave attack, accompanies by shouts of "Banzai!"

bowl443
August 27, 2008, 10:09 AM
Who brings a book to a gun fight??:uhoh:

You can throw your own laptop... For the money spent on a good laptop, i could have got an EMP

Vern Humphrey
August 27, 2008, 10:12 AM
I was in England some years back, and there had been some brutal rapes in the area. The police were advising women, since guns and pepper spray were illegal, to carry perfume spray.

Typical liberal mindset, "We agree you need a weapon, but you can't have a weapon that works."

Bubbles
August 27, 2008, 10:20 AM
And how would anyone know how many anyhow--was it merely an estimate based on the number of Permittees in the population at large?

In VA the CCW list is public info available from each county's circuit court. Someone probably cross-referenced the names and addresses of the victims with the permit holders.

Vern Humphrey
August 27, 2008, 10:30 AM
I don't see why the survivors of those who had CCWs do not sue the University -- violation of civil rights leading to death.

shdwfx
August 27, 2008, 10:37 AM
The program — ... — urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers.

I wonder if these liberal pacifists were inspired by their Soviet brethren in WWII?
Men were more plentiful than guns, so they sent hoards of them unarmed to face the enemy.
The idea was they could gather weapons from the fallen.

#shooter
August 27, 2008, 10:43 AM
We just had the emergency preparedness lecture by our emergency service coordinator (ESC) and the police chief (PC) at our school (IUPUI). The first half was of the lecture was about what to do with an active shooter on campus the last half was natural disasters. It is basically what is described in the article. There was an escape and evade component and if cornered a fight back component. Our PC acknowledged outright that the police usually do not make it in time when there these incidents occur. They advocated self defense and personal responsibility as the best method to deal with a shooter if you could not get away. No one mentioned trying to reason with the attacker.
This is a good first step for colleges and universities because it acknowledges that the police will likely not save you. It also puts another nail in the coffin of in loco parentis which still has a strong grip on college campuses.
This movement also has some CYA flavors as well. No one wants to inherit VT’s “largest student massacre” award. Preaching self defense and responsibility also relieves some of the legal pressure off of the university if a situation occurred and victims wanted to sue.
At our meeting the ESC and PC asked who would like to have weapons on campus, dejectedly I was the only one out of a room of 100 or so people that raised his hand. They then proceeded with the “guns should not be allowed because the police will not be able to tell the murderer from the victim” defense. The audience bought it and nodded their heads in agreement. My chuckling was not appreciated.

Drgong
August 27, 2008, 10:48 AM
Let teachers and staff with CCW at highschools, and students,staff, and teachers with CCW in college carry if they chose to. If I Recall correctly, 20 out of the 22 students killed at VT died AFTER the police arrived. the majority of college students could afford a Nagant or a PA-63, and even one guy with a nagant (which I am pointing out as its not a ideal self defense gun) could of saved dozens of lives.

hankdatank1362
August 27, 2008, 11:02 AM
I'm suprised, that after searching, I could not find a firearm disguised as a laptop. The closest thing I found was the Magpul FMP-9.

doc2rn
August 27, 2008, 11:16 AM
appear regularly in media outlets including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Live, New York Times, USA Today and Forbes Magazine.

Are you kidding me! This alone discredits the jokers.

Gunnerpalace
August 27, 2008, 11:28 AM
Lastly ... at Virginia Tech, 6 of the people in the classrooms that were shot up were CCW holders ... two were ex or current military. All had their weapons at home or in their cars. How different that might have been if they had been allowed to exercise their god given right of self defense?

Can that be confirmed?

mike101
August 27, 2008, 11:35 AM
Laptop vs 9mm. My money is on the 9mm. :cool:

COMPNOR
August 27, 2008, 11:39 AM
Ahh, yes. The old, "If we have 50 people walk in front of the tanks, we can go right through a minefield without worrying about damaging the tank" theory. Just rush the shooter with enough people, eventually he'll run out of bullets and the few students left standing can take him out. I mean, sure, this virtually guarantees additional casualties, but hey, we're all only here to serve the collective, right?

Sheesh.


Kinda funny considering a THR member suggested the same thing about the Kirkwood Council Meeting shooting. Charge the "madman".

Officers'Wife
August 27, 2008, 11:59 AM
Wow! Advocating violence against the poor misunderstood shooter? Perhaps they should make it a policy to bring in a Soc prof to lecture and put the shooter to sleep from boredom. Or a Physics prof to discuss string theory so he will commit suicide.

My late uncle used to speak at great length at what he called 'educated idiots.' These people are overqualified for the title.

Selena

JImbothefiveth
August 27, 2008, 12:12 PM
The whole "charge the shooter" thing actually worked when that guy shot up the unitarian church a little while back.

I think college students should be allowed to carry some sort of metal tube. They can use explosives to propel some sort of lead projectile down the tube, and put grooves in the tube to stabalize it. We'll put the explosives and projectile in a brass container, with a smaller explosive to detonate the main explosive at the bottom, and call it a "primer". The primer will be detonated by some sort of needle, which will be given the force required by a falling hammer. The hammer will be activated by some sort of bar that you pull with your finger. We can call it a "1911". You get a classroom full of these, homicidal maniacs won't stand a chance. ;)

Mr White
August 27, 2008, 01:06 PM
Not everyone wants to or should carry a gun. Providing ideas on alternative methods of defense fo those people is a good thing. As for those who would carry a real weapon, the way I see it...

The only thing stopping a law-abiding CCW holder from carrying on campus is a law or a policy.
If a law or policy puts my life at risk, there's more than a slight chance that I won't obey it.
Last time I checked, backpacks or persons are not searched when entering a college building.
There are no metal detectors at the entrances of most college buildings.
The only time a CCW should ever be discovered is when it is used.
I'm not advocating that anyone break the law, but I'll take alive and in a world of ******** over dead anytime.

'nuff said.

damien
August 27, 2008, 01:42 PM
When the SHTF, I think I would rather "look at my environment through the lens " of a peep sight. An open sight would be a second choice. No sight at all is not acceptable.

KBintheSLC
August 27, 2008, 02:00 PM
Doesn't the saying go something like "don't bring a laptop to a gunfight"???

This article made me lose several IQ points just by reading it.

Last time I checked, backpacks or persons are not searched when entering a college building.
There are no metal detectors at the entrances of most college buildings.

Mr White,
I agree completely with your comments... The above quote is exactly the reason why "no guns" policies fail to stop psycho killers. For some strange reason, they are not diverted by a piece of paper that says "no guns"... funny how that works.

foghornl
August 27, 2008, 02:58 PM
The only "portable" computer I can think of that would reliably stop a shooter would be one of those mid-80's vintage Compaq brand 'Lug-able' computers...weighed about 35 Lbs...and if dropped on shooter from 3 floors up.....

Rugerlvr
August 27, 2008, 04:15 PM
This staggering article leads to only one logical question:

Why should anyone have to improvise a weapon in these situations?

MakAttak
August 27, 2008, 04:15 PM
The only "portable" computer I can think of that would reliably stop a shooter would be one of those mid-80's vintage Compaq brand "Lug-able' computers...weighed about 35 Lbs...and if dropped on shooter from 3 floors up.....

Yeah, using today's computers as a weapon would continue to get less and less effective.

Has anyone else picked up the new iBook? A frisbee would do more damage!

Vern Humphrey
August 27, 2008, 04:33 PM
When you study disasters, you often are struck by the fact that some people plan to have disasters. They do stupid things like plan to defend themselves against a gun-wielding criminal with laptops.

Larry Ashcraft
August 27, 2008, 04:41 PM
Folks, a wise reminder from page two:
There's a place and time for sarcasm and satire, but knocking this program for the sole purpose of satisfying oneself with a good sneer, is not very productive. Let's analyze the efforts of the administrators and authors of the program realistically, shall we?

230RN said that.

230RN
August 27, 2008, 07:20 PM
Thank you, Larry Ashcraft.

Quote:
Lastly ... at Virginia Tech, 6 of the people in the classrooms that were shot up were CCW holders ... two were ex or current military. All had their weapons at home or in their cars. How different that might have been if they had been allowed to exercise their god given right of self defense?

Can that be confirmed?

Yes, I'm still waiting.

Laptop vs 9mm. My money is on the 9mm.

Laptop vs. beer bottle. My money is on the laptop. Get the point?

And that "charge the shooter" thing apparently worked. Sorta. FLight 61, was it?

And you only need one shooter torn apart to discourage others. Subconscious muttering: "Wul, mebbe it ain't gona be so easy after all. Where's the nearest Mall? Or mebbe a church?"

yokel
August 27, 2008, 07:30 PM
Is this predicated on the notion that when confronted with a swarm of their prey, many predators become confused and are less successful in their attacks?

357WheelGun
August 27, 2008, 08:30 PM
And that "charge the shooter" thing apparently worked. Sorta. FLight 61, was it?

Flight 93. Charging the shooter is viable only in very limited circumstances. Notably, circumstances where it's essentially certain that you will not survive regardless of your actions.

I'm sorry, but suggesting that unarmed people mob a psychopathic person with a firearm is a recipe for a lot of unarmed dead people. It's a desperate bid at best.

I am all for people making some efforts to improve safety, but I disagree with any plan that essentially turns students into bullet-traps.

COMPNOR
August 27, 2008, 09:37 PM
I'm sorry, but suggesting that unarmed people


Unarmed? Aren't people around here always saying how dangerous a pen can be, so lets ban them next? How people can be killed with anything, that a gun is no more dangerous, its just an object? :rolleyes: Seems like your average college kid is quite well armed. Of course, whether or not he knows how to use what he has....well that applies to firearms too. That gun doesn't do you any bit of good if you can't shoot straight with it.

Aren't people around extolling the virtues of how carrying is a confidence builder? Shouldn't we give people the tools to feel confident no matter what? Or is it puff out your chest and carry a gun or cower and die as a sheep? Are those really the only two options you're giving people?

Charging as a tactic is limited. Of course remembering some of the classrooms I've been in, taking the fight to the bad guy isn't going to be the worst thing to do. I personally would rather go down attempting to do something and not be shot in the back cowering in the corner. So wouldn't knowing when to charge and when to not be important to know? Wouldn't it be one more tool in the toolbox of self defense?


So since you don't recommend charging, what would you suggest? Honest question. No guns now, this isn't about needing to allow the right to carry in school. Carrying is a personal choice.

ArizonaTRex
August 27, 2008, 10:45 PM
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) _ Hundreds of colleges across the nation have purchased a training program that teaches professors and students not to take campus threats lying down but to fight back with any "improvised weapon," from a backpack to a laptop computer.
(So Dell® and Gateway® should make Kevlar lined Laptops with Razor lined edges ala “Oddjob- [James Bond movie villian]” style and all also backpacks be made of Kevlar with perhaps telescoping rods that could be extended like a spear maybe)

The program — which includes a video showing a gunman opening fire in a packed classroom — urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers.
(So all the students should rush the gunman and take as many bullets as possible before collapsing so as to provide the last surviving students the pleasure of leaping over the bodies and stomping the Badguy.)

It reflects a new response at colleges and universities where grisly memories of the campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University are still fresh. (I will not comment on fresh)

"Look at your environment through the lens of survival," said Domenick Brouillette, who administered the course at Metropolitan Community College, which serves more than 20,000 students. "Survivors prepare themselves both mentally and emotionally to do what it takes. It might involve life-threatening risk. You may do something you never thought you were capable of doing."
(Such as wishing “BOY I WISH I HAD A GUN TO SHOOT BACK WITH!”)

Nearly 300 professors at Metropolitan Community College were shown the video as part of a training exercise before the first day of classes on this downtown campus. The training, produced by the Center for Personal Protection and Safety, a for-profit firm based in Spokane, Wash., is also available for the school's students.
(So buy our tape on “HOW TO TURN A LAPTOP INTO A DEADLY WEAPON-make sure you have the manufactures optional damage insurance” for only 3 easy payments of….. )

The training drills teachers and students in a "survival mindset," said Randy Spivey, a former U.S. Department of Defense hostage negotiator who is executive director of the center. The center's roster includes retired FBI agents and others with federal law enforcement experience.

"There are two extremes. On the one hand is paranoia, and on the other is oblivion," he said. "We're just trying to get people to keep this on their radar."
(And that I totally agree with)
The training discourages cowering in a corner or huddling together in fear, Brouillette emphasized at the Kansas City session.

(NOW that’s a good Idea, don’t huddle or cower when under fire-Run like HELL is better, of course pulling your Constitutionally guaranteed firearm and SHOOTING back might ALSO be considered a “GOOD IDEA”.)

Instead, Metropolitan Community College faculty members were taught to be aware of their surroundings and to think of common classroom objects — such as laptops and backpacks — as "improvised weapons."
(But DO NOT bring a real weapon)

The program has been bought by nearly 500 colleges, which tailor the company's safety messages — laid out in instructional videos and other training guides — to craft localized violence prevention programs. Spivey expects that by year's end that number will have grown to about 1,000 schools.

Schools may provide the training to students as well as staff, as at Metropolitan, or limit it to instructors or security personnel.
(A school in Texas has a really good idea about what to do..)

Campus safety experts interviewed by The Associated Press said they are not aware of any similar survival training courses marketed specifically to college campuses.

"It's a dark subject," Brouillette said. "But we can't say 'It's never going to happen again.' It's 'When is it going to happen?' And we have to be prepared to survive that."

The sort of aggressive survival response cited by Brouillette troubles school violence researcher Loren Coleman, a retired University of Southern Maine professor.
(Sheep, do not attack the wolves, ……please understand, that is not how its done…..):banghead:

Showing students violent images of school shootings could trigger post-traumatic stress or other reactions that resident advisers, graduate assistants and similarly untrained workers would be unequipped to handle, Coleman said.
(Remember Sheep, do not attack the wolves, ……understand, that is not how its done…..everything is, OK, bad things only happen to bad People, so only THINK Good Thoughts)


And the techniques shown in instructional videos such as "Shots Fired" could provide inspiration for troubled students considering their own acts of violence, Coleman suggested.
(Of course knowing the Staff and most other Students are armed may ALSO cause them to RE-Think those thoughts)

"You more or less are giving them a blueprint for how to avoid law enforcement," he said.
(Right- Do not try to Murder People and you will generally avoid Law Enforcement)

At the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, officials are looking for ways to incorporate the training as part of the school's "Alert Carolina" program. Campus police chief Jeff McCracken said the school may offer hands-on training to students and faculty, or simply post a link on the university Web site.

(How about a Campus Gun Club? Training Practices on every 1st and 3rd Saturday at the Colleges Range?)

Despite the relative rarity of deadly violence on campus, colleges can no longer assume that they are immune from such problems, McCracken said.
(Were they ever immune?)

"I do think it's important that we talk to our folks and give them some guidance on how to protect themselves and others," he said. "It's not something that 10 years ago we thought we'd be talking about. But unfortunately, it's something we need to do now."
(10 years ago violence was never a problem- no one ever got mugged, raped or murdered while they were in College. Mass murderers never targeted college girls [Ted Bundy murders from 1961 to ‘74] and a Campus had NEVER had a shooting by a student [Charles Whitman-shooting 45 people Aug 1966] so lets please talk about it now)

Todd Bowdish, a Metropolitan Community College life sciences professor who participated in the recent training session, agreed that today's classroom climate requires extreme caution.

"It's a really basic thing," Bowdish said. "We have drills for fires and tornadoes. This is just another tool for the toolbox."
(WOW- guns are considered “tools too”, how about letting responsible adults chose whether they would prefer to defend themselves with a Laptop or a legally carried Firearm!)
_______
And there is my rant on it. I do believe this video is a good idea, but it is only the first step. I wonder how many people after viewing it, and actually THINKING about how to implement these suggestions, will come to the conclusion that maybe allowing firearms on campus could be a good thing?

myrockfight
August 27, 2008, 10:56 PM
Charging as a tactic is limited. Of course remembering some of the classrooms I've been in, taking the fight to the bad guy isn't going to be the worst thing to do. I personally would rather go down attempting to do something and not be shot in the back cowering in the corner. So wouldn't knowing when to charge and when to not be important to know? Wouldn't it be one more tool in the toolbox of self defense?


I hope you guys don't think I disagree with making due with what you have. I would absolutely advocate doing so. Something I always noticed handy, heavy, and goofy was the chairs we always sit in. I know you have to be somewhat stronger to throw one a good distance. But I always thought that would be what I did, if I didn't have anything else.


My original post was to point out the views of those making decisions against the ability to lawfully carry on campus. They recognize the need for weapons, yet they deny the very tools made for that specific purpose.

I don't think it is a bad idea to show students. I just think they should go all the way and let people carry since they are recognizing the general need.

Oana
August 28, 2008, 04:07 AM
Thinking it over a little more, I think I see one of the problems here. I don't know how the video handles it all, but I think we're mixing issues when we talk about it being "dangerous to rush the shooter".

We've actually got TWO scenarios with a campus shooter, not one. Remember that. The first scenario is the one the first victims find themselves in. There's been NO warning - they're the first targets, and they're at the most disadvantage. Obviously, telling everyone in a packed room to up and "rush the shooter" isn't necessarily the best advice. (Honestly, I don't know - I'm not anything near an expert!) Chairs are packed in together, and even *if* every single student immediately jumped up and attacked, it's a given that many someones are going to be injured, perhaps fatally. They may get the guy down, but the trick here is getting a bunch of people to rush him, knowing that they run a huge risk of getting killed. In your garden variety college class, I'm not banking on that. I won't say it isn't a decent option, especially if there's no other exit. OTOH, if you're at the far end of a large room, you'd probably be shot before making it to the shooter. Ducking behind your copy of Shakespeare's Complete Works might be a smart idea, at least until something else presents itself.

If there are secondary exits, the safest course of action would probably be to run, escape, get out - as quickly as possible. Knowing, of course, that he's still shooting people. If you're by the door and can respond immediately to the threat, then an attack could be fruitful. Who knows. I have no deep desire to find out first-hand. :what:

Any way you slice it, this first group is in deep, deep trouble, especially without a gun. *This* group needs a gun The. Most.

The second scenario is what everybody else finds themselves in, if they've heard any inkling of what just happened to the first group. These people - the ones in adjoining rooms, hallways, etc. - are out of the direct line of fire and have a chance to get away or make a split-second defense/offense/Nike defense plan. *This*, I think, is an easier spot for a plan of attack. If you can't get out of the area, plan to meet the shooter head-on. You (hopefully) have the benefit of surprise and a chance to grab a makeshift weapon. You've still got to be brave enough to face the risks, but if there's nothing to lose, you're in a better spot.

All that to say that, yeah, we need guns in schools...badly.

yokel
August 28, 2008, 07:28 AM
Do the schools regularly train, drill, and exercise this "program"?

Double Naught Spy
August 28, 2008, 08:30 AM
Written for the sheep by the herdsman. How pathetic.
A laptop is a piss-poor substitute for a handgun.

Yes, and a handgun is a piss-poor substitute for a rifle.

Sadly, neither firearm is legal on most campuses across the country.

So being critical of a program that seeks to provide legally available options is a bit silly. If you want to complain, complain to lawmakers in the respective states, not to those who are attempting to help students with options most would never bother to consider. Remember, there is no way they can host a program where they teach everyone to act illegally. There is no way that the program is going to be used by universities if the program is instructing people to break the law.

Lamb of Gun
August 28, 2008, 08:33 AM
I would seem to me that telling the students to engage in a physical confrontation with a psychotic killer using things like laptops and backpacks would be far more dangerous than an armed security guard. Which makes me wonder what really makes the world turn: cost analyzation on EVERYTHING or the satisfaction of a peaceful and safe society.

I feel like mentioning armed students and armed teachers is somewhat pointless since it seems like the last thing that will happen. Besides we all know about the old west style shootouts that will occur if we let people carry around guns all "willy-nilly".

My point summed up is:

If there are routes they can take that:

A.) Can and WILL protect these people from, literally, small-scale genocide

B.) Satisfy everyone, even alot of anti-gun, liberals.

then why are they teaching this Jason Bourne garbage to students that will be so gripped with fear in the event of such catostrophe that it will not change the outcome one bit?

Because safey and peace of mind are not worth the money.

taprackbang
August 28, 2008, 08:37 AM
In Texas our unsavory Governor had the intelligence enough to promote public school teachers being allowed to carry a personal handgun.
I think this became a law, but I am not sure off hand.

COMPNOR
August 28, 2008, 09:00 AM
I hope you guys don't think I disagree with making due with what you have.


myrockfight, you actually have reason so my comments aren't directed at you. But this thread is full of useless and senseless posts that bring nothing to the conversation. What does thumping our chests and saying "Don't bring a laptop to a gunfight" accomplish? In this case, a laptop is what you can bring to the gunfight.

The tone I get is carry a gun or be a sheep. And I just don't see why we should allow ourselves only those two options.


Chairs are packed in together, and even *if* every single student immediately jumped up and attacked, it's a given that many someones are going to be injured, perhaps fatally. They may get the guy down, but the trick here is getting a bunch of people to rush him, knowing that they run a huge risk of getting killed. In your garden variety college class, I'm not banking on that. I won't say it isn't a decent option, especially if there's no other exit. OTOH, if you're at the far end of a large room, you'd probably be shot before making it to the shooter.


I've seen plenty of classrooms with only one door. Maybe windows, but those generally are those casemate windows that don't open fully. So getting out of those tightly packed chairs and then rushing and piling up at the door, the only door the shooter could come in through just doesn't strike me as being a whole lot smarter. And you're right. If you're in one of those big autorium style classrooms, if you're at the very back and he's down front you would probably have a higher probability of being shot if you charged him. So perhaps thats one of those times when you wouldn't charge, especially if you could slip out the back. Now for the guy in the first row who would be closer to going out the door in front, the door that the guy came through, may be better of charging.

Charging can throw the attacker off guard though. Giving people the proper tools is what any situation should be about.

Intune
August 28, 2008, 09:02 AM
Giving people the proper tools is what any situation should be about.The proper tool at a gunfight is a gun. :banghead: Not a laptop, not a bolo, not a knitting needle. A gun.

COMPNOR
August 28, 2008, 09:22 AM
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Except you can't bring a gun to this gunfight! So what are you going to do?

If the bad guy is between you and the door, are you going to politely ask to move aside so that you can run for your life? Or would you throw that $120 thick paperback book that is grossly overpriced at him before trying to slip out the door? Or are you going to cower because you don't have a gun?

Once again, carrying is a PERSONAL choice. So lets just say for the briefest moment that campus carry is legal. So some people do carry. Not all though. And the gunman finds himself a class of people who don't carry. And opens up, now what?

Are you just going to say to these people "Well since you didn't have a gun you get what you deserve, just lay back and take it"? "You didn't carry so you don't take your security that seriously"? Is that then the tone you want to set?

Or do you want to say "Well if you don't want to carry then this is what you should do"?

ZeSpectre
August 28, 2008, 09:28 AM
Well, I posted something related to this just a little while ago and as someone who worked in/with LE and then moved to an educational institution I have to say that everyone here may not be happy with the progress made (to be honest, I'm not satisfied myself) BUT

and this is a HUGE BUT....

You have NO IDEA what a HUGE shift in mindset it is for educational institutions to go from "the best practice is compliance" to even hinting that folks should fight back.

HUGE, this is HUGE!!! I can't stress that enough.
If it still has a long way to go, well, Rome wasn't built in a day and I sometimes think it is easier to quarry rock than change mindsets.

Ze

357WheelGun
August 28, 2008, 09:37 AM
Unarmed? Aren't people around here always saying how dangerous a pen can be, so lets ban them next? How people can be killed with anything, that a gun is no more dangerous, its just an object? Seems like your average college kid is quite well armed. Of course, whether or not he knows how to use what he has....well that applies to firearms too. That gun doesn't do you any bit of good if you can't shoot straight with it.

This is either an intentional red herring, or you're tragically unable to understand the difference between objects that can easily be used for harm and those that cannot. In and of itself, a firearm is no more dangerous than the mouse attached to my computer (that is to say, without any human interaction, the inanimate object itself is no more dangerous). However, a firearm has far more capacity to be used to harm another person if and only if it is acted on by a human. That is to say, the actual danger lies not in the device, but in the use of the device.

Furthermore, postings by anyone other than me cannot be expected to embody my beliefs. The fact that people other than me have posted such things about the danger of pens, etc is completely and utterly irrelevant to a discussion of my own position.

Finally, even when other people bring up the issue, the point is not that pens, etc are dangerous. In fact, the point is quite the opposite. It is intended as a sarcastic reminder that the danger of an item (and some items contain more capacity for harm than others) is not realized until that item is acted upon by a human.

Aren't people around extolling the virtues of how carrying is a confidence builder? Shouldn't we give people the tools to feel confident no matter what? Or is it puff out your chest and carry a gun or cower and die as a sheep? Are those really the only two options you're giving people?

Again, what other people have argued is not necessarily what I have argued myself. You cannot substitute other people's opinions for my own. This is a particularly poor example for you because I stand completely and utterly opposed to the notion of carrying any weapon as a "confidence builder". If a person is not confident without the weapon, he or she will not truly be confident with it. At most, it will be a false confidence, and that has a very unfortunate tendency to encourage very stupid decisions. I would even go so far as to say that, if carrying a firearm is truly a confidence builder for a person, that person is nothing more than a mall ninja. I am no more confident with my side arm than I am without it. There is only one option for confidence, and that is to be confident without resorting to external devices.

Charging as a tactic is limited. Of course remembering some of the classrooms I've been in, taking the fight to the bad guy isn't going to be the worst thing to do. I personally would rather go down attempting to do something and not be shot in the back cowering in the corner. So wouldn't knowing when to charge and when to not be important to know? Wouldn't it be one more tool in the toolbox of self defense?

Therein lies the root of my disagreement with teaching unarmed students to mob a gunman. They are never warned that it is, for many of them, a suicide mission. It is irresponsible to present this as a reasonable option without also emphasizing the fact that many students are certain to be wounded or killed in the process. If everyone who charges agrees that they are, individually, willing to die to stop other people from getting shot, that's fine. Noble even. But to teach students to fight back with backpacks and laptops without also informing them that such resistance is, in essence, a suicide mission, is morally repulsive.

So since you don't recommend charging, what would you suggest? Honest question. No guns now, this isn't about needing to allow the right to carry in school. Carrying is a personal choice.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never once said that I don't recommend charging. I said that I think it's a recipe for a lot of dead people. There's a difference.

Drgong
August 28, 2008, 09:46 AM
I think as college students need to voice up to have the option of having better self defense.

MakAttak
August 28, 2008, 10:02 AM
Thank you for the reminder, Larry-

However, though made with levity, I think my point is still valid:

As our technology progresses, laptops make even worse weapons.

Add to this the fact that few students carry more than a couple books to class, backpacks/laptop bags will continue to get lighter.

Now, further add that, especially in the large lecture halls, all seats are bolted to the floor or a table.

At this point, "throwing something at the assailant and charging" or "charge the assailant with whatever weapon is at hand" is simply not an option.

It is good that they are trying to suggest action rather than passivity to a threat.

I think the suggested tactics are very poor and will only become worse as people move away from paper/books (many courses, especially higher level courses, now use mainly articles available online) and our other technology becomes lighter and smaller.

I repeat this may be a good concept, but poor tactics.

Drgong
August 28, 2008, 10:03 AM
funny thing is that one could easily CCW almost any handgun at a college campus, just have backpacks with built in holsters.

JDoe
August 28, 2008, 11:01 AM
Discussions just like the one going on here are bound to occur in classrooms where the video is viewed. All of the sudden for some students the concept of a "Gun Free Zone" becomes the reality of a "Victim Rich Environment."

Some students will realize the suicide mission that charging a gunman might be for a fellow student or themselves. The phrase, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" is likely to make a lot more sense after seeing this video.

Overall I think it's a good step towards making concealed and/or open carry legal and even encouraged in schools.

Intune
August 28, 2008, 11:37 AM
There are too many variables in a panic situation. The “fight or flight" reaction is too strong and I’m gonna go out on a limb here without any psychology degree or empirical evidence and say that the “wimpification” (hi Art’s gran) encourages/promotes the flight reaction over the fight part. I hope I'm wrong.

Strength in numbers isn’t just a quaint saying.

When lions attack a herd of buffalo, if they spook & run, the results are usually grim. But if the “fight” (for lack of a better term) adults wheel and form a defensive perimeter and even counter-attack, the fight is over and the lions retreat.

The counter-attack on flight 93 occurred because the passengers had time to analyze/rationalize the situation, gather the “fight” passengers and coordinate their response. I believe they were determined enough that even if the terrorists had firearms, the passengers would have overpowered them.

Strength in numbers.

Let’s put ourselves in place as the shooter and to keep it from being so distasteful we are entering a room populated by 50 fast zombies. Choose your weapon, step through the door & it locks behind you. 100 eyes (well, 99. Pirate dude messed up the count. ;)) Turn your way and you begin firing. Anybody here want to step forward & say they could prevail? Anyone? Oh, and before any of you gauss gun, phaser phreaks or belt-fed bubba’s jump to the line for a try your choices are, AR-15, shotgun & pistol. Or all three. Not going to matter.

Now let us say, for the sake of discussion, that 47 of them are dining on professor tartar and ignore you when the shooting begins. 3 see you as sushi and advance. Anyone here handle 3 zombies? 4? 5? Me too.

Strength in numbers and determination wins the day.

If they are saying that throwing a laptop in hopes of knocking him/her out is better than cowering under a desk, I’m with 'em. Who’s first?

Vern Humphrey
August 28, 2008, 01:29 PM
This isn't an attempt to solve the problem -- it's CYA, so the faculty can say, "Well, we told them what do do in an emergency. It's not our fault they all got killed."

nwilliams
August 28, 2008, 01:39 PM
deleted

Hoplophile
August 28, 2008, 01:53 PM
I'm going to refrain from criticizing them. CCW on campus, I'm all for it, but at least this is a step in the right direction. It's better than "don't look the gunman in the eyes" and "play dead".

Plus, ever been hit with a backpack?

mstirton
August 28, 2008, 02:25 PM
how would they feel if a particularly savvy student were able to disarm the shooter? Could he then shoot the perp or would this put him in danger of being pelted with laptops?

COMPNOR
August 28, 2008, 02:27 PM
That is to say, the actual danger lies not in the device, but in the use of the device.


Then is it not fair to say that they are still armed? Perhaps not with traditional arms, but do they not possess something that can cause serious bodily harm? It might not be as easy as a gun, but I would think as long as you have your wits you have a chance, regardless of how slim it would be.



Furthermore, postings by anyone other than me cannot be expected to embody my beliefs. The fact that people other than me have posted such things about the danger of pens, etc is completely and utterly irrelevant to a discussion of my own position.


True. And I apologize because I was not really responding to you or challenging you. I was using it as an opening to get a lot of stuff off my mind that I see posted by many people around here.



Again, what other people have argued is not necessarily what I have argued myself. You cannot substitute other people's opinions for my own. This is a particularly poor example for you because I stand completely and utterly opposed to the notion of carrying any weapon as a "confidence builder". If a person is not confident without the weapon, he or she will not truly be confident with it. At most, it will be a false confidence, and that has a very unfortunate tendency to encourage very stupid decisions. I would even go so far as to say that, if carrying a firearm is truly a confidence builder for a person, that person is nothing more than a mall ninja. I am no more confident with my side arm than I am without it. There is only one option for confidence, and that is to be confident without resorting to external devices.


And I would agree with that.



Therein lies the root of my disagreement with teaching unarmed students to mob a gunman. They are never warned that it is, for many of them, a suicide mission. It is irresponsible to present this as a reasonable option without also emphasizing the fact that many students are certain to be wounded or killed in the process. If everyone who charges agrees that they are, individually, willing to die to stop other people from getting shot, that's fine. Noble even. But to teach students to fight back with backpacks and laptops without also informing them that such resistance is, in essence, a suicide mission, is morally repulsive.


I see nothing to suggest in the article that "if you use your backpack you will survive." I would assume that those teaching the course know that and would let their students know. But then maybe not.




Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never once said that I don't recommend charging. I said that I think it's a recipe for a lot of dead people. There's a difference.


I'm not putting words in your mouth(ok I did so again I apologize). I'm asking you a question.

What are you're recommendations? Other than apply campus carry, what would you suggest to improve safety?

357WheelGun
August 28, 2008, 11:48 PM
What are you're recommendations? Other than apply campus carry, what would you suggest to improve safety?

Very honestly, short of implementing airport-style security it's not going to happen.

I'm not suggesting that be implemented, but other than actually allowing people to arm themselves the only real option is to increase security to a near-oppressive level.

Vern Humphrey
August 29, 2008, 08:01 AM
Very honestly, short of implementing airport-style security it's not going to happen.

I'm not suggesting that be implemented, but other than actually allowing people to arm themselves the only real option is to increase security to a near-oppressive level.
Right now, leftists all over the country are weighing this question, "Which do we want, freedom so people can protect themselves, or oppression? Freedom or oppression?

No contest! We'll take oppression!" :barf:

Lamb of Gun
August 29, 2008, 08:03 AM
Hoplophile: I'm going to refrain from criticizing them. CCW on campus, I'm all for it, but at least this is a step in the right direction. It's better than "don't look the gunman in the eyes" and "play dead".

Plus, ever been hit with a backpack?

I agree, but I don't believe this makes a good solution. I believe that a decent solution should have been devised long ago.

betobeto
August 29, 2008, 08:17 AM
Written for the sheep by the herdsman. How pathetic.


yup how, very pathetic

Robby
August 29, 2008, 08:32 AM
We in KY, are starting a petition drive for the legislature to get the laws changed in KY. It might be time for each states CC group to start an action to remove those laws that will not allow for carry in schools and campuses.

IS YOUR STUDENT PROTECTED AT SCHOOL? Who provides the protection for Kentucky Students, from armed intruders while they are in classes, at primary schools, high schools, and universities? Not the teachers or administrators! The police cannot be in every school every day. Their primary job is to catch the criminal who did the shooting (after the crime is committed).

Are you aware that in most of the United States of America, and Kentucky!! Parents, Teachers, or concerned citizens are not allowed to carry concealed weapons on any school or university property. Even if that person has been granted the right to carry through out the rest of Kentucky and been issued a Concealed Deadly Weapons License. This must change!

KC3 is petitioning the state government, for a fundamental change in the current law. This would allow properly trained and licensed people to be able to protect themselves, and students through out Kentucky.

Intune
August 29, 2008, 10:27 AM
...been issued a Concealed Deadly Weapons License. This must change!:what::( Is that what they call it in KY? I'd start with getting that CDWL changed! :barf:

Congrats on your efforts.

Robby
August 29, 2008, 11:13 AM
Yep,KY calls it exactly that, CDWL, but were are not limited to firearms. The list of approved weapons is extensive. Knives, throwing stars, chuks, clubs & others.

migoi
August 29, 2008, 02:22 PM
The concept I see in a lot of post in this thread is how far along the learning curve most of the posters are.... way too far to be the audience of this program.

When it comes to personal protection concepts and actions...most of the posters here are somewhere in advanced calculus or at least Algebra 2. The intended audience for this program is somewhere around trying to figure out order of operations and how to add double digit numbers with a carry (pun intended).

A huge percentage of folks in the US today glide through their lives in condition white (not even realizing there is such a thing), fully confident in the whole "to protect and serve" logo on the side of the local police car.

They are no more able to understand the concepts presented by most of the posters here than your average 3rd grader would be able to understand a college level trigonometry course. Just as it would do not good to sit that 8 year old in a college math class, you can't start with advanced self protection concepts. I know that bringing a gun to a gun fight might SEEM to be basic, the ability to extract cube roots would be viewed very differently by the college math major and the 3rd grade monkey bar champ.

The value in this program is not in the idea that tossing a laptop will help you survive...the value is in presenting the concepts that you have a responsibility for your own protection, you have to be aware of your surroundings, and that you don't need an "authority's" permission to act during an emergency.You've got to start that thought process in the realm of the current knowledge base of the person you're trying to educate.

Cactus Jack Arizona
August 29, 2008, 10:11 PM
Hmmm, let's see. I'm working on a Criminology degree with a Sociology minor. I do not carry a laptop around campus because I don't see the need in it. For me, it's impractical. I'm not alone.

This story makes it sound as though 90+% of college student's carry a laptop around campus. This is hardly the case. Most students in my degree field do not carry laptops around with them.

Bottom line; this entire "plan of action" being sold to the fools at the colleges and universities will continue to get students killed as they refuse to utilize the only option which is a stand alone deterrent: faculty, staff, and students who meet the minimum age requirements to conceal carry.

Hey, a $.66 bullet being shot by a $150 PA-63 is a lot cheaper than throwing a $1,000 laptop at a crazed gunman. :neener:

scrat
August 29, 2008, 11:00 PM
Save you laptop. How are you going to get on THR. Throw your books instead

Prince Yamato
August 30, 2008, 01:20 AM
Improvised Weaponry? What am I, some sort of feudal Japanese peasant? The hell with that being the end solution to the problem. How much money are they wasting on promoting the obvious instead of just allowing people with CHLs to carry?

Also, the laptop solution is going to be rather worthless as they are getting smaller, thinner and lighter, or replaced altogether with palmtops or iPhones. I just replaced my 10.4" Fujitsu Lifebook with a new 3G iPhone for example. Textbooks are nice, but unless you did shot-put in highschool, you're not going to be able to hurl one across the room effectively. Plus many students don't bring books to class because they don't want to haul the extra weight around campus with them.

Why must the liberals always avoid the obvious.

230RN
August 30, 2008, 02:03 AM
The value in this program is not in the idea that tossing a laptop will help you survive...the value is in presenting the concepts that you have a responsibility for your own protection, you have to be aware of your surroundings, and that you don't need an "authority's" permission to act during an emergency.You've got to start that thought process in the realm of the current knowledge base of the person you're trying to educate.


Well put, migoi.

And let's all the rest of us remember that we are only using "laptops" as an example of improvised missiles/weapons that can be used.

Like pop cans, for example. (I wonder how many people will now seize on "pop cans" and call it ridiculous.)

Oana
August 30, 2008, 04:21 AM
Therein lies the root of my disagreement with teaching unarmed students to mob a gunman. They are never warned that it is, for many of them, a suicide mission. It is irresponsible to present this as a reasonable option without also emphasizing the fact that many students are certain to be wounded or killed in the process. If everyone who charges agrees that they are, individually, willing to die to stop other people from getting shot, that's fine. Noble even. But to teach students to fight back with backpacks and laptops without also informing them that such resistance is, in essence, a suicide mission, is morally repulsive.

I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, but yes, you're right. I hate the idea of cowering in a corner (even though in *some* cases, e.g. you're in the back of a large lecture hall, it might be smarter), but attacking ain't no picnic either. People need to come to grips with reality, with all their options, and with the possible results. But maybe the video does just that. We don't know that it says "Hey, rush the guy, and everything will be OK!"

In order to encourage the proper mindset, of course, it needs to be pointed out that *not* participating in the "suicide mission" may well be suicide in itself...

Oana
August 30, 2008, 04:25 AM
Don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious - do we have any sort of info on how these shooters started shooting? I can deduce from this discussion that the closer you are to the door, the greater your chances of being able to attack the shooter when he comes in. BUT - would you also be first in the line of fire? Or would the shooter start at the medium/far range?

Of course, I don't want to put any tactical ideas into any wannabe's head, either...:scrutiny:

Vern Humphrey
August 30, 2008, 09:09 AM
Like pop cans, for example. (I wonder how many people will now seize on "pop cans" and call it ridiculous.)

A man who would choose a pop can as his weapon against an opponent with a gun is ridiculous.

We are not in the fighting stage here. We are in the planning stage, and if we plan to use laptops, pop cans, or similar ineffective weapons against a man with a gun, we are living in la la land.

230RN
August 30, 2008, 09:33 AM
^ No offense, but I think you missed mine and migoi's well-put point:

The value in this program is not in the idea that tossing a laptop will help you survive...the value is in presenting the concepts that you have a responsibility for your own protection, you have to be aware of your surroundings, and that you don't need an "authority's" permission to act during an emergency.You've got to start that thought process in the realm of the current knowledge base of the person you're trying to educate.

(migoi said it so well --much better than I did.)

Kinda reminds me of the "Army Method" of teaching;

"First,you tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em. Then you tell 'em what you're telling them. Then you tell them what you just told them."

So I guess you're going to have to see me post the migoi comment yet one more time later on.

(The pH of this post is 5.8 -- and the lower limit for acidity on THR seems to be about 5.0 or so. Hope I don't have to go there.)

Vern Humphrey
August 30, 2008, 09:43 AM
I think the point is this program is not about "presenting the concepts that you have a responsibility for your own protection." It's about CYA for the college administration. It's about giving them room to say they did something, when in reality they did nothing.

230RN
August 30, 2008, 09:56 AM
I'm sorry, I can't report on other peoples' motivations since I am not a mind reader. It's a good program in my opinion disunirregardless of the college administration's motivations.

myrockfight
August 30, 2008, 10:12 AM
(The pH of this post is 5.8 -- and the lower limit for acidity on THR seems to be about 5.0 or so. Hope I don't have to go there.)

LOL. Took me about ten seconds to get that funny. But it is funny!

Ash
August 30, 2008, 10:25 AM
Well, piping in, I have to agree that the concept of using what is at your disposal to defend yourself is something that should be taught. Watching the convenience store clerks scald baddies with hot coffee, or the Taiwanese jewelry clerks attack robbers with stools and curtain rods should be reminders to everyone that self-defense is far better than meek submission. Fight back. Fight back with what ever you have. If it means the other guy has a gun, then smash his skull in with a lap top. If you can bean him with a coke, then do it. If it means you are pulling his eye out with your fingers, then do it.

Sure, it would be better to be armed than not. But the Jews in Warsaw showed the entire world that you can indeed resist. The women in the liquor store who smash the robber with a fifth of whiskey show what true grit is. If we simply taught resistance to evil not only would we reduce crime (Criminals are not generally willing to wade into the fight. If they had that kind of fortitude, they would not likely be criminals who by their very nature prey on those they can dominate) but we would likely have the fortitude to fight evil in the world. Our society needs a good dose of not putting up with crap, regardless of the danger it might pose.

So, I for one, while I strongly disagree with disarmament and then weak attempts at alternatives, I strongly agree that our kids should be taught to resist and fight back, that our society needs to be taught to grab the mugger by the ears and bite his stinking nose off.

Ash

4v50 Gary
August 30, 2008, 11:52 AM
Remember the MP5K that fit into the briefcase? How about a firearm disguised like a notebook? It can have a laser sight and pop-up red dot sight and folding iron (with tritium) sights as back-up. The extra space can be kevlar for protection. :p

The military model will have a folding handle, sling swivels and can take a bayonet.

myrockfight
August 30, 2008, 10:14 PM
How about a firearm disguised like a notebook? It can have a laser sight and pop-up red dot sight and folding iron (with tritium) sights as back-up. The extra space can be kevlar for protection.

What company put out that subgun? that stores as a small box. They unveiled it at the last SHOT show, I think. It was pretty darn cool.

george29
August 31, 2008, 11:40 PM
What IS IT about a projectile-firing-weapon that so scares the liberals. Why is it that they don't even advocate carrying a taser? Their mindset is dangerous and it is not a change for the better, it is the same warped mindset with a new twist. It IS a CYA program. It IS a Duck & Cover program. If it were a positive change, these twisted individuals would search for a real solution. A) More armed guards. B) Armed teachers. C) Allowing for off duty LEO students to carry. D) Allowing for non lethal weapons such as the Taser to be carried by all. For pity;s sake, did they omit using pepper spray for a reason? BEAR SPRAY, what's wrong with advocating that? No no no no, there is no MINDSET change, that's just wishful thinking. It is plain and simple Liberal Manure fertilizing simple minds.

Vern Humphrey
September 1, 2008, 08:00 AM
What IS IT about a projectile-firing-weapon that so scares the liberals.
Peasants with guns might not want to give everything they own to the government.

GEM
September 1, 2008, 11:28 AM
Just to add some reality, it is not just liberal administrations that are anticarry. It is power structures.

Big old capitalist companies aren't high on weapons at the plant or office. They don't want exploited workers to think about the exploited.

You may recall GWB, Mitt Romney, Bob Dole - all fans to the AWB. Ronnie R - the champion of the right - was a fan of the Brady Bill. Jack B. T. - George the First.

Fighting back is a nice thing to put on the web page of a school. It is just a post incident liability defense.

Vern Humphrey
September 1, 2008, 12:37 PM
Fighting back is a nice thing to put on the web page of a school. It is just a post incident liability defense.
Exactly right. Their attitude is best described as, "Who cares how many unarmed victims are killed -- as long as we don't get blamed for anything."

doc2rn
September 1, 2008, 12:51 PM
The college I attend actually stated the bean counters set the policy. They are gambling with our lives that the average gunman wont kill more than 12 people so they only need to keep $1.5 mil around to buy off families in case of an incident.
That is what my BU 250 teacher told me at the range.
Sad isnt it.

myrockfight
September 1, 2008, 11:57 PM
They are gambling with our lives that the average gunman wont kill more than 12 people so they only need to keep $1.5 mil around to buy off families in case of an incident.
That is what my BU 250 teacher told me at the range.
Sad isnt it.

That is sick, pathetic, and a the exact reason our court systems have punitive damage awards. So they plan on giving just over $100,000? LOL. That is a joke. The average income for people over their lifetime is around a million dollars. That is $30,000 (avg. US income) a year for 30 years. By average standards that is ridiculous. I wouldn't accept it as a victim's family and would definitely sue. Especially if they pre-planned this and ran the numbers to that conclusion.

Vern Humphrey
September 2, 2008, 06:32 AM
They're probably well covered by insurance. If you lost a loved one in such a case, you'd have to weigh a payout now against a possible payout many years in the future -- a hundred thousand dollars now could be worth more than a million many years down the road.

And they know that.

myrockfight
September 2, 2008, 09:05 AM
They're probably well covered by insurance. If you lost a loved one in such a case, you'd have to weigh a payout now against a possible payout many years in the future -- a hundred thousand dollars now could be worth more than a million many years down the road.

And they know that.

True. Very true. I'm a finance major. I should have thought of that! From a finance standpoint, I do understand their whole planning process. However, I still find it detestable. Maybe it is just because they could just let people carry and possibly prevent these things, or greatly curtail them anyway.

Vern Humphrey
September 2, 2008, 09:24 AM
That's why ultimately we need criminal charges -- the university, acting under color of authority, violated the victims' civil rights, and they died as a result.

GEM
September 2, 2008, 11:27 AM
I attended a VT aftermath seminar. One part of the planning is now for the events, counseling and bonding that will be needed.

Of course, counseling is needed for victims and relatives. No argument. However, the events and rallies are interesting. They are said to pull the community together and not let them be defined by the shooting.

However, there are other views. Some scholars see them as a revision to more primitive tribalism. After a small group tribal conflict, the tribe remarks its terrority. Goes to the boundaries of their area and makes an agressive display. So shouting the school cry is exactly that. Unfortunately, this defensive display has no reality as to mounting a real defense.

Second, it is an attempt to bond the victims and victim relatives to the group to diminish their motivation to sue, prosecute or otherwise take action against the school. How could you violate the sense of commuity and spirit? By offering a group settlement, you have to distance yourself from the small group of bonded victims if you don't take it.

Very well thought out human relationship manipulation strategy.

Remember, the school wants to survive as a corporate entity - the individual parts are not central to that.

myrockfight
September 2, 2008, 02:46 PM
Second, it is an attempt to bond the victims and victim relatives to the group to diminish their motivation to sue, prosecute or otherwise take action against the school. How could you violate the sense of commuity and spirit? By offering a group settlement, you have to distance yourself from the small group of bonded victims if you don't take it.

Very well thought out human relationship manipulation strategy.

Remember, the school wants to survive as a corporate entity - the individual parts are not central to that.


GEM, thanks for the social analysis. It is very interesting to see how that is used to manipulate the victim's families.

After attending college and being actively involved with many of the faculty, I realized that universities and colleges were acting more like corporations. A very poorly run corporation, but a corporation none-the-less. I don't think they could get anything done inside of a year that needed to be done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colleges: Don't use real weapons, throw your laptop at 'em" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!