Could Throwing Rocks Stop a School Shooter?
Video by the Associated Press
A Pennsylvania school district has armed its students with rocks to defend themselves in the event of a school shooting.
David Helsel, the superintendent of Blue Mountain School District in Schuylkill County, said at a state House Education Committee hearing on school safety this week that his district’s classrooms are equipped with 5-gallon buckets of river rocks.
“If an armed intruder attempts to gain entrance to any of our classrooms, they will face a classroom full of students armed with rocks,” he said. “And they will be stoned.”
Pa. school district stocks classrooms with rocks to combat school shooters
Really, not The Onion.
“You know? We cannot have volunteer highly trained teachers with guns in the classroom. That is too idiotic and dangerous. Instead we are gonna have the kids jump at a bucket filled with rocks, expose themselves to a mass shooter and home they have a good arm and a good set of eyes.”
The school’s baseball team should carry a backpack with rocks and be like the Bedrock’s SWAT.
I think the “stoned” part had nothing to do with rocks and more like a heavy ingestion the Cannabis by Mr. Helsel prior to the House Education Committee hearing. Come Monday her needs to be dug tested. That is my opinion anyway.
Hat Tip Don J.
(Even though he stopped me from getting a round of World of Tanks to post this. 🙂 )
Oh great, sharia compliant school defense. It’s a crazy man with a gun not a woman without a headscarf, I don’t think rocks will do much good.
In this case… he or she who casts the first stone… gets shot first! What a dumb idea, but arming school staff would be bad? Yeah right. Oh, and sorry about the World of Tanks….just had to share this one with you.
Better than nothing, no substitute for a gun.
I suspect that this guy is trying to show up the stupidity of the anti- classroom carry side
This idea is right up there with “bulletproof backpacks” and whiteboards. It’s like watching a golfer on the green keep putting at the hole… but missing and going right by, over and over again.
Also, try WarThunder if you haven’t. More fun IMO, but it’s not for everyone.
Well… there is some logic in it.
First of all, the general rules to follow in an active shooter situation are:
1. Get away
2. If you can’t get away, hide.
3. If 1&2 are not possible, fight.
The thought that the box of rocks (and I am not referring to the principal) is there to actively engage the shooter misses the point. It is for #3.
Scenario:
Active shooter is in school. Teachers either evacuate or lock classroom doors. They gather the students behind a hard wall facing the door, and everyone grabs a few rocks.
When the active shooter enters (if they enter), they are met with a hail of rocks. And, that hurts, likely enough to cause them to flee, drop the weapon to cover themselves, or (possibly) sensing armed resistance, take their own life.
Is it a smart thing to do? No, not at all, it is insanely stupid, but is it better hoping that the shooter will not notice a classroom full of kids hiding en mass in the corner?
Run, hide, fight. Providing an easily accessible item to allow a mass of students to actually fight is better then hoping for the best. If you have nothing in your hands, you have nothing except your hands to fight with.
Still not better than someone shooting back though.
I need to add another comment here as well.
When the gun rights side says that armed teachers are the best defense against a school shooting, the gun control folks mock that as stupid. They use terms like Rambo, and make up ridiculous scenarios where more students end up dead.
Does anyone actually think that in an active shooting event, the teachers will call for the kids to grab their rocks and run toward the gun fire? Is anyone really proposing rocks as anything other than a defensive weapon?
Is mocking this and making fun of this any different? Are we really taking the high road, and seriously considering this proposal? When the opposition says that our only solution is more guns, and we deride any solution other than armed teachers or police in the classroom, are we not feeding their stereotype that we are nothing but gun nuts?
What if the school administration issued a Swingline 747 stapler to each of the students for classwork, but also instructed them to throw them at an assailant in the event of a school shooting? That would be, in my book, an excellent use of an impromptu weapon for self defense. This school just decided to use rocks.
I stand by my above statement. This is not the ideal proposal, but it is better than the nothing that is being offered elsewhere.
Well, CBMTTek, to take the idea of improvised/impromptu weapons and suggest that it is a tactic worth considering is certainly right.
However, here’s my problem with their line of reasoning: It acknowledges that fighting back (in any degree) is a worthwhile solution, but then leaves out the best option on purpose.
I had a girlfriend many moons ago that didn’t like the idea that I was going to buy a handgun. We started talking about self defense, and what she would do if someone tried to sneak into her apartment at night to rape and possibly kill her (there was someone going around doing just that at the time). She admitted that she kept a knife right by her bed for such thing. She understood the overriding need to have a tool to defend herself should the unthinkable happen. She just couldn’t bring herself to use the very best tool for the job. She would rather use a knife in close quarters combat than a gun to defend her life. Because guns.
So, this school district is proposing that throwing projectiles at someone with speeds between 60 to 100 mph is a fine idea, but launching projectiles at someone with speeds of 470 to 880 mph is a terrible idea. Because guns.
If it’s okay to defend your life with your bare hands, why isn’t okay to use a tool? If one kind of tool is better suited or more efficient than another, why isn’t it okay to use that tool instead?
Simply put, the kids should absolutely use rocks, staplers, books or fire extinguishers if that is all they have access to at that moment. But, there is no reason the teachers shouldn’t also have access to a firearm if they want it.
I can only surmise that those who want to limit it to ‘only this’ or ‘only that’ ‘because guns’ are suffering from some form of mental illness, or they hate people and don’t really believe in the human right of self defense.
It really does come down to that. If someone believes a human being has the unalienable right to defend his life, then why limit them to only certain lesser tools? If someone doesn’t believe that humans have that right, then it makes perfect sense to limit them from defending themselves altogether.
“However, here’s my problem with their line of reasoning: It acknowledges that fighting back (in any degree) is a worthwhile solution, but then leaves out the best option on purpose.”
Could not agree more!
From the comments above, I think “we” all get it here on this site. Some of us just get to it by different routes or lines of reasoning, if you will. But we do all basically agree. Bottom line, armed resistance is the correct answer if the question is, how to handle an active shooter situation, period, end of discussion!
Armed resistance IS the only proven solution to a intent on causing harm. And if the only thing that you can seem yourself with legally is rocks that’s what you use.