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.
I hope the academics don't forget the proven deterrent value of STDs, vomit and rat tail combs...
These are the folks proposing this band-aid. I feel safer already knowing their top men ("top men") have, among other qualifications, "a Master of Science Degree in Counseling and Human Resource Development," a degree from "the School of Large Church Management," and "a Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Penn State University."
What they don't tell us is how many active shooters these experts have personally successfully warded off while unarmed.
And here is a trailer for their program. Say--aren't those LEOs praising this legally armed wherever they go?
I was hoping to see if there was anything on the Internet we could readily use to illustrate the success of groups of unarmed people taking on a lone shooter, and this was the best I could come up with on short notice. I quit after several rounds of successful kills because, even though you need to reload for each shot, it didn't really reflect a swarm.
What would?
I suppose a modified version of this--but to truly assess benefits vs. costs, you'd need to compare it to what would happen if there was an armed good guy or two in the room.
Some will no doubt say we shouldn't automatically dismiss this baby step toward campus safety. I've always said one of the things I like about Jackie Chan movies is how he takes ordinary objects and deploys them as weapons--and I recommend that identifying such objects in our surroundings should be part of our everyday situational awareness. I also think it's useful that people start thinking about going through threats rather than running hopelessly from them or freezing. But this presupposes that a campus culture that teaches self defense is wrong--and that men in uniform are the "Only Ones" competent, qualified and trustworthy enough to serve as protectors--would produce a sufficient number of courageous souls willing to lead the charge into blazing hell and take some gaping chest wounds for the team.
Who's first? Who wants to be a zombie?
Adults don't need baby steps. We know what the real solution is.
16 comments:
Yeah, David, but have you ever made sure to stay and watch the Jackie Chan outtakes? :D
One of the big problems with this program is, of course, that students who are of a mindset to throw chairs, books, laptops, and conduct human wave attacks don't need a program to tell them that. But they are in such a minority that I think you'd actually end up with the scene from Under Siege where the Marine attacks one of the terrorists and promptly gets himself shot as the other couple hundred guys just stand there being herded to the foc'scle and certain death.
If I were going to be the one-in-a-hundred (or maybe it would be 3%, in keeping with Mike Vanderboegh's theory) I'd still like to have something a little more oomphy than Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse Of Complex Societies"* to go after the bad guy with... If that's all I've got, I'll make do, but I'd really really really rather have something better.
*actually a pretty darned good book, in a dry, sociological sort of way...
What a crock. The folks in the video talked about letting people know they have an option and that they can survive a workplace incident. They can throw chairs or computers at him etc. Now do you think you can throw that computer faster and more accurate than that guy can shoot the bullet from the gun?
Hey I know I can survive a workplace incident but it has nothing to do with these clowns trying to make the world feel better by giving them fiat tactics and while ignoring the things that really work. How do I survive an incident? Well if I can safely remove myself and others from the incident I will, but if not than I'll do what is necessary to protect myself and others, in this case it would be to put this guy down before he had the chance to put me down.
If that office full of people were armed this guy would not have much of a chance. Give people real solutions not feel good solutions.
Anthony
I couldn't resist emailing them and asking about their marksmanship training program.
What a pack of morons!
Time 0 (First shot)
Student still in Condition White, daydreaming, reading textbook, listening to teacher.
+2 seconds
Students looking in direction of first victim see wounds, experience disbelief, disorientation. Students looking elsewhere think "Some idiot is setting off firecrackers in the classroom."
+6 seconds
PANIC! Everyone looking in every direction, jumping up and clogging the aisles trying to get out. Some run TOWARD the shooter without realizing.
+15-30 seconds
Surviving students realize the futility of running, embrace each other, look at the shooter and fear what's next.
At what point do they start throwing books?
The other method:
0 (First shot) Armed students and teacher in Condition yellow (relaxed but alert and observant) realize student standing and reaching was not scratching but drawing.
+2 Armed student shouts "Gun!" and unarmed students duck and crouch under desks as per training as armed students and teacher acquire target.
+4 Armed students and teacher assume combat crouch, move to cover or present moving targets, issue verbal challenge.
+10
Shooter surrenders or is neutralized.
Sooo is this an excuse to buy a Toughbook laptop?
I know that video is fiction. The "only ones" were entering the building before the shooter committed suicide. That never happens in real life. A living bad guy means an "only one" could get hurt.
So what are your credentials David? Or are you just pointing this out for other people...
Money walks bulls**t talks.
A $.25 - $.50 bullet is a lot less expensive than a laptop. And, is considerably more effective.
I always hesitate to talk about myself in these terms, HC, because it can sound immodest, but you can look me up on Google. For my credentials to write gun rights commentary, national magazines have been willing to pay me on a regular basis for going on nine years now, so I don't know what else I can say except the proof is in the doing, and I have plenty of activism experience before and during that.
As far as real world self defense credentials, I have successfully defended myself with a gun twice--once with my family in immediate danger. That, to me, goes to the heart of the matter.
I've also studied three different martial arts and competed in national tournaments when in college, plus I've been in altercations over the years, including taking on multiple assailants while unarmed--not recently, thank goodness.
I have been shooting since I was a boy, starting with a Daisy BB gun I carried around when living in Iran in the early 60's, where I discouraged aggressive wild "jube" dogs on more than one occasion. I currently own and use firearms from single-action revolvers to shotguns to semiauto rifles at least with confidence--and have never had a mishap in all the decades I've had them. I don't consider myself an expert with them but I've always been able handle myself and have fun. Much of my training has been informal and self-taught, but I have also taken courses from knowledgeable people with a lot more skill than I will ever attain, because truth be known, I'm not a gun person so much as a gun rights person--which I've written about before.
Oh, I've also taken épée fencing, practiced martial arts with Okinawan sai and bo, and once choreographed and then performed a bastard sword vs shield and arming sword fight for a short independent film that never made it out of the can into post-production and distribution.
None of this, by the way, is to say how tough I think I am or how skilled I consider myself to be--I don't. There are plenty who are stronger and faster, and plenty more who are a lot younger, neither of my children have ever feared me. But I don't back down and I don't fall apart, and I can take a beating and not give up.
What I have, HC, and what I've proven to myself and others over the years, is a mindset that allows me to act in dangerous situations and not go into adrenalin shakes until afterward--and reflexes and instincts that have always served me well in times of immediate personal danger. I have a strong sense of hating injustice which especially includes those who presume to preclude others from making their own choices about self defense, which is really what everything I write boils down to. And I know I have the will.
Now that I've answered you, how about you answer me--why do you ask? Do I need more, and if so, who are you to demand it?
Or are you just trolling?
Well why don't you put that on your CV? All I thought you were was ivory tower academic ;)
If that is so hc, you are a danger to yourself.
Making a mistake like that is one most people only get to do once.
If it's feds trolling they probably know enough already. At least that's what I say about me -s-.
Actually,hc, I prefer harsh language. But I am reluctant to start anything with a man who has a picture of himself with a rifle on his blog. I already had a pretty clear picture of Davids' qualifications, and anyone as intelligent and insightfull as him, I tend to respect. What self-defense boils down to, is what you do when it hits the fan. What you did to prepare for that moment makes all the difference between becoming a victim, or walking away afterwards. David is a patriot in the mold of people like Dan Morgan, and Rodgers. And he has done more for the Republic and it's citizens than they can ever repay.
> a training program that teaches professors and students not to take campus threats lying down but fight back with any "improvised weapon," from a backpack to a laptop computer.
So let me get this straight: They'll be "permitted" to fight back.... with weapons.... but only as long as they're improvised ones? Why not dedicated ones? If these improvised weapons are so effective against dedicated ones, but dedicated ones are deemed "too dangerous" (except for "Only Ones", of course), then why aren't we seeing many more incidents of professors and students beating the crap out of each other (and also "Only Ones") with them? And if they aren't thus laying about them with improvised weapons, then why would they suddenly do so with dedicated ones?
I would be interested in a reasoned argument from these paragons of academe, these bold and fearless intellects, that does not logically reduce to "Because we say so". Or is their unstated thesis that improvised weapons in the hands of their subjects aren't a threat to them, but dedicated ones are?
Mark Odell
?? I was just wondering! I've been reading this blog every morning for over a year, I'm sure David can see. I question because I don't know, not because I am trolling. Look at Zumbo, all respected but how much experience did he have with black guns? Come on, it's the internet guys, I just wanted to be more sure about the source, and now all of you are too. Thank you, HardCorps. Sorry for bringing up a verboten subject...
And thank you David for writing so well I can't turn away till I've read all your posts for the day.
Was that you, HardCorps? Posting as "HC" didn't tell me that, so I had no idea who or why. Thanks for the explanation and kind words.
Here's my bottom line-- I pretty much debated whether I should give any details at all because it sounds so cheesy, but say it was Casper Milquetoast who'd written my post on the Safe Travel guys--how much real world experience does one need to know that forcing people to face an armed attack with laptops instead of guns is an inherently bad idea? Or that the burden of proof and qualifications that it is a good one should rest on the people proposing it?
Post a Comment