Another good reason to homeschool.

Discussion in 'Homeschooling' started by vantage, Jan 16, 2015.

  1. vantage

    vantage Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    2
  2.  
  3. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    You know, you could always give the kids erasers to throw at the gunman!!!

    While I agree with person in the article that says we don't want to give the kids the idea that they can overcome a gunman with a can of food, I also feel we need to tell the kids that if someone is pointing a gun at you, you can do WHATEVER YOU CAN to defend yourself, including throwing things at the person.
     
  4. MinnieMouse

    MinnieMouse New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, if they're going to be sitting ducks then they may as well throw canned goods at the shooter. The article was written by an idiot. I see his or her point but disagree.

    However, since we homeschool we don't have to deal with it! yay
     
  5. Lindina

    Lindina Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    11
    Actually, the article makes good sense, it's the principal who thought up this plan who's the idiot. Does he really expect a 6-year-old to lob a regular-sized can of food at a gunman? How far and how hard could a child throw it? How exposed would a child have to be to be able to throw it? How accurate does the principal think the child's aim would be? RIDICULOUS!
     
  6. MinnieMouse

    MinnieMouse New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a six-year-old that could easily throw a canned good 20 plus feet. The point is not accuracy here. Think back to Sandy Hook- the gunman came into classrooms with children and a sole teacher who were then exposed and trapped. In that situation, 25 people throwing cans at the shooter may have caused him to move on, may have given him cause to pause, may have hit him in the head, may have been distraction enough for someone in the hall to help. Whatever it does, the idea is that at least they aren't sitting there helpless. The principle is trying to empower the students.

    The children should not live scared. They should feel safe, loved and cared for. However, we have proven to the children, families, and school employees that they are not safe. There have been more school shootings than I'm willing to think about. If we armed teachers, had better mental health care, locked doors, put more officers on school grounds... whatever the solutions are then this would be a mute point. Nobody is asking for a child, armed with a canned good, to go rogue and kill the attacker. That would be insane. This measure, unconventional as it is, is intended to be a last ditch effort and a bit of empowerment for children in a scary situation. I think the principle is right on.
     
  7. vantage

    vantage Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    2
    I guess it gives a whole new meaning to "imagine whiled peas".

    I don't think I would want to be hit by a can thrown by a 6 year old. It is just sad that there are parents that have to contemplate where they stand on this issue.

    With stuff like school shooters and the Boko Haram attacks in African schools and villages, there are people world wide whose children at at risk merely because they are blessed with an opportunity for education.
     
  8. MinnieMouse

    MinnieMouse New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you mean by that?
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

Total: 69 (members: 0, guests: 67, robots: 2)