
A pre-K teacher on the trouble with lockdown drills - johnny99
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-death-a-pre-k-teacher-on-the-trouble-with-lockdown-drills/2014/10/28/4ab456ea-5eb2-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html
======
zaroth
It was a really great essay on the absurdity of the drill, all up until the
last two paragraphs. Next they'll be ducking and covering, and the teacher can
conclude by quoting the model numbers of some Russian ICBMs. You know, the
cold war seems to be amping up again after all...

My daughter was in JK ("Pre-K") last year. If the school pulled a stunt like
this, she wouldn't be attending it anymore. It's offensive and pathetic... I
really thought I was fully jaded enough with the public school system that
nothing could surprise me anymore, but well I guess I was wrong.

Is this is some sort of Orwellian conditioning process to prepare these young
minds for the friendly Homeland Security Officers that will be riding armored
tanks around town in the not-to-distant future?

Do people think these drills are reasonable, proportionate, and beneficial?
It's sounds completely toxic to me. There are innumerable ways you could help
increase K-12 students likelihood of surviving a multitude of common
disasters, or fatal accidents. Let's talk about what to do if you see a downed
electric wire. Or how to recognize a stroke. Or teach them the the Heimlich
maneuver. Or how to find people to talk to if you're feeling depressed. Or not
to drink the shit under the kitchen sink, or eat anything in the medicine
cabinet. Or how to safely cut with a kitchen knife. Or how to make a disaster
readiness plan with your family. You know, shit that actually maims or kills
more than 1 in 10,000,000.

Practicing hiding in the closet because a killer is roaming the halls with an
assualt rifle... Either this is an "agenda" or someone needs to get a fucking
clue. I guess in that sense, the last two paragraphs of the article clarified
it for me.

~~~
willvarfar
> Let's talk about what to do if you see a downed electric wire [etc]

Absolutely! Isn't that taught?

> If the school pulled a stunt like this, she wouldn't be attending it
> anymore.

That's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Would you really make
such a binary choice about such a small part of the school? And what school
would you choose instead?

> Either this is an "agenda" or someone needs to get a fucking clue.

Surely its a combination of small factors such as people being genuinely
scared that their school will be next or that its dictated from above the
school level?

~~~
zaroth
No, these things are definitely not taught enough. For example, ask grade
schoolers what the signs of a stroke are, and what to do if you see someone
exhibiting those signs. What percent can answer? Google says strokes kill
130,000 Americans every year. So, I'm thinking... what's the "Expected ROI" of
15 minutes per year on stroke education? Somewhere between 10,000x and
infinitely more than the Expected ROI of this drill. But that's just one
random example, I think you would be hard pressed to find literally any use of
15 minutes of classroom time with a lower ROI than this drill.

To me, it reflects so poorly on the judgement of the school administrators
that it should make people seriously question what's going on. Every school
does fire drills, probably because there's some regulation requiring it, and
the mental framework for the drill is that there's an accidental fire in the
building. This is an entirely different league. This is a "terrorist loose in
the hallways" training exercise for 5 year olds. I'm mad enough it happened to
someone else's kids.

Just to give some context, my daughter's JK teacher brought her _horse_ to
school for show-and-tell, she gives my daughter riding lessons (and yes
there's a lot of trust involved letting someone help your 5 year old ride a
horse), she had my daughter over for dinner one night when we had to take my
son to the ER. It's a parent-participation school so regularly I spend time in
the classroom. I could not imagine a more nurturing, peaceful, and loving
environment. The juxtaposition of that with this terror drill is hard for me
to reconcile.

I totally agree this is a combination of fear and horrible policy-making by
administrators. I in no way hold the teachers responsible/accountable for
this.

------
r0h1n
By this time I know better than to waste my effort trying to make Americans
see why guns really _are_ a problem, and one that can be identified, analyzed
and solved far easily than trying to address the "motivations" that turn
people into mass killers. Because guns are freedom; guns don't kill people; we
need our guns to protect against criminal's guns; blah blah.

I've realized many Americans will never see high-caliber/high-capacity assault
rifles as an easier problem to solve than mental health or psychopathic
triggers. It is also not an XOR, because you can try to solve both in
parallel.

The rest of us non-Americans are just glad our psychopaths and murderers are
nowhere near as effective as American ones. And that our children can go to
school without having to practice hiding under their desks to avoid being
slaughtered mercilessly by some random guy. With a gun.

~~~
Crito
> _" By this time I know better than to waste my effort trying to make
> Americans see why guns really are a problem,"_

> _" assault rifles"_

Maybe part of your problem is that you are not particularly informed when it
comes to gun laws and crimes committed with guns in the US. Americans, who
_are_ familiar with both, immediately notice your ignorance and tune out
whatever you are saying.

Assault rifles in the US are _heavily_ regulated at the federal level (as are
all other automatic weapons). Since 1934, there have only been _two_ murders
with legally owned automatic weapons. One was in 1988 (the murderer was a
cop^), the other was in 1992. In _neither_ case was the machine gun an assault
rifle (both were machine pistols). To put this in perspective, there are
_hundreds of thousands_ of legally owned machine guns in the US.

Legally owned assault rifles simply are not a problem for America.

 _^ Worth noting since law enforcement are are still allowed to purchase new
automatic weapons, while other American civilians are not._

------
rdtsc
Guns are pretty funny in this country. It is a very polarizing issue. I don't
really get it. Why people care so much to either have them or not have them.

Maybe they should be worried more about road safety, heart disease, diabetes,
wars so many more pressing issues.

I hear all this talk about "well it is in the Constitution". Let's talk about
Constitution. It is a not a scroll passed down from God, contrarry to what
many believe. Founding Fathers are not Moses and Abraham. It was a piece of
paper written hudreds of years ago, when arms meant rifles and pistols. Some
things in it cannot be taken literally anymore. What was the purpose of
letting people have arms? Presumably not just to hunt rabbits, but mostly to
protect against government abuse and to be able to overthrow it.

Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter
jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of
your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect
against "government abuse". It is pointless and stupid. I've seen people go to
Startbucks with their AR-15 slung over the shoulder. Really? This is a grown
up toddler walking around showing their toy off. Maybe it should be one of
those thing if someone really really wants a gun, they shouldn't be allowed to
have it, because they are a little too obsessed with it.

On the other side, I don't get the "lets ban the guns" crowd either. So what
if some people want to go to gun ranges and shoot soda cans. Or even be idiots
and show off their AR-15 at Startbucks. They won't overthrow the government
because they'll start shooting each other first. Criminals will find ways to
get access to guns anyway. Want to save the children. Best way is to put more
money into education, healthcare, social care, after school programms, assist
parents and so on.

~~~
ars
> Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter
> jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of
> your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect
> against "government abuse".

You are actually quite wrong. All those weapons you mention are useless for
dealing with small groups of people. Those weapons are for taking out huge
installations and entire countries.

Even the most oppressive government you can imagine does not kill its citizens
in mass, they do it in small numbers. And rifles work perfectly fine to
protect against that.

They might not help if the government decided to take out an entire city - but
the government can't do that very often before having no one to govern.

Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established
government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying
"established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms, not
fighter jets.

~~~
rdtsc
> Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established
> government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying
> "established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms,
> not fighter jets.

In that case I want to demand legislation to have rocket launchers, AA-
manpads, propane tank cannons, Shilkas (ZSU-23-4, they work very well for the
ground, especially in urban areas, never know where that armored police trunk
will roll by) and so on. Semiautomatics and pistols would be a joke there.

Is there any recent example of any of these millitia groups successfully
opposing the US government and winning?

\- Waco Seige?

\- MOVE standoff, where Uncle Sam bombed a whole city block.

I wouldn't call those successes exactly.

~~~
pandaman
>Is there any recent example of any of these millitia groups >successfully
opposing the US government and winning?

Afghanistan. Not just the American government, the USSR had to withdraw from
there as well just about 20 years before.

~~~
rdtsc
General posession of fire arms is illegal in Afghanistan. Do you know
otherwise? I know Mexico and Guatemala I think have a right to bear arms in
their Constitution.

Also, can't think it would have been legal during the Soviet occupation.
Presumalby we should then ban the guns here as well if we are to follow the
model then?

Or, if we don't then I want an ammendment to let me have Stinger missles.
Pretty sure just semmiautmatics and pistols wasn't quite enough to shoot down
military helicopters and blow up whole convoys between mountain passes.

~~~
pandaman
I am sorry, I have no clue about Afghani law. I just gave an example of
militia, armed basically with rifles and improvised weapons, successfully
defending against not one but two modern military forces.

Also, from the history of recent internal conflicts (e.g Ukraine) a militia
fighting its own government can obtain and use tanks and artillery quite
easily as there are plenty of people on the both sides who are trained to use
such equipment.

------
ck2
It's not just about gun control.

It's about people in this country treating guns like their favorite playtoy.

Every freaking thing glorifies guns and what used to be people just committing
suicide is now "hell I'll take a dozen people with me because it is so easy".

It's a mental illness and we absolutely refuse to deal with mental illness in
this country.

------
Guthur
The real questions that need ask is what motivates someone to undertake in a
premeditated fashion the mass murder of young people.

The firearm is just the means, the motivation is the real question.

------
willvarfar
In Italy its socially unacceptable to be publicly drunk.

Think how nice your country would be if that were so where you live too.

In Switzerland - where most men have a proper army rifle at home - when
there's a break those men don't think "where's my gun?" to go get it and use
it but rather to hope that the thief doesn't find it.

(Just picking countries I have actually spent time in; if you can pick out
other local norms that you think would make the world a nicer, safer place
please share; there's bound to be loads more!)

Social norms will police society. Who wants to live in a bigger society where
people seem to buy guns with the explicit intention of actually having the
ability to use them on others?

The US doesn't need laws it needs a change in the definition of acceptability.
Let guns be the defining acquisition of low-life scum and let the idea that
respectable people would arm themselves against the scum be ludicrous and
giving in to letting the scum terrorize.

I know everyone is going to downvote everyone in this whole thread based on
whether they are pro or con guns, which is a shame; better if we used the
votes to promote a meaningful debate regardless of which side we personally
shoot for?

~~~
duncan_bayne
If you lived in a high crime area, would you deliberately choose to be
unarmed, despite knowing that statistically speaking you'd be safer armed?
Just to make a political or cultural point?

~~~
willvarfar
Absolutely. Which was the thrust of my argument. Culture can change.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Interesting. What if you had dependents? Would you expose _them_ to higher
risk in order to (hopefully) facilitate long-term cultural change?

~~~
willvarfar
As a law-abiding family, we can only ever be _victims_ of crime. And we've
have break ins etc and it sucks. There is a really horrid fear for the first
glance at the flat's door every time you come home, fear that it'll be ajar.
And the fear that the car window will be broken again.

Now I'm not the kind of man to shoot my own kids or anything like that, but
statistically its the man who is most likely to use a handgun to shoot his own
family rather than use it to protect them in any kind of superhero
intervention dream.

Every American who thinks guns solve disputes should live in Scandinavia and
get a feel for how good things can actually be when life is looked at
differently and norms are different. I strongly recommend that therapy. Change
cultural norms I say!

~~~
duncan_bayne
Right, so: that's a yes? If the stats showed your dependents would be in
greater danger if you were unarmed, you'd _still_ be disarmed?

~~~
willvarfar
Its a No. I would not be armed. I am advocating that we don't arm ourselves to
protect ourselves.

~~~
duncan_bayne
I get it - I'd meant "yes" in the sense of "yes you'd choose to be unarmed".

------
voltagex_
>Instead of controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them, we
are rounding up and silencing a generation of schoolchildren, and terrifying
those who care for them. We are giving away precious time to teach and learn
while we cower in fear.

It's time to have a serious chat about gun control, America. Is the NRA really
that powerful that all sensible debate is quelled?

~~~
duncan_bayne
Indeed. It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms
of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them
effectively. (Perhaps you and I might have different points to make during
that conversation).

~~~
Goronmon
_It 's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of
minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them
effectively._

It literally boggles my mind that people make this suggestion with any
sincerity.

~~~
duncan_bayne
What does a mind look like when it's literally boggling? :)

Seriously though, either:

\- school shootings are a statistically significant threat, in which case,
arming teachers who wish to be armed seems reasonable

or

\- school shootings aren't statistically significant, in which case, enough
with the fear-mongering already

~~~
adamnemecek
It really is too bad that there are only those two options. /s

~~~
duncan_bayne
How long would you say it'd take to disarm America? To a point that had an
effect on school shootings? What do you plan to do in the intervening, say,
century or so?

You can't point to other countries with no guns and just wish it were like
that where you are. It isn't, it won't be for a very long time, and to pretend
otherwise is just wishful thinking.

~~~
adamnemecek
Why would it take a century? Idk, 2-3 years? Like 5 tops.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Really? You genuinely believe that you could usefully reduce the number of
guns in the US in 5 years?

~~~
dllthomas
"usefully" to what purpose?

------
Elrac
I enjoy this article:

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-
says...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-
nation-where-this,36131/)

Yes, it's satire.

