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

[357WheelGun]

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]

I think as college students need to voice up to have the option of having better self defense.

 

[MakAttak]

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]

funny thing is that one could easily CCW almost any handgun at a college campus, just have backpacks with built in holsters.

 

[JDoe]

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]

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]

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]

deleted

 

[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?

 

[mstirton]

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]

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]

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]

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!"

 

[Lamb of Gun]

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]

Written for the sheep by the herdsman. How pathetic.

yup how, very pathetic

 

[Robby]

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]

...been issued a Concealed Deadly Weapons License. This must change!

Is that what they call it in KY? I'd start with getting that CDWL changed!

Congrats on your efforts.

 

[Robby]

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]

Basic Math vs Calculus

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]

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.

 

[scrat]

Save you laptop. How are you going to get on THR. Throw your books instead

 

[Prince Yamato]

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]

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]

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]

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...