.

TELL US: Have You Reviewed with your Children What to Do in 'Danger' Scenarios? Should You?

A week after the Newtown, Conn., massacre, schools have reviewed their safety procedures. Now should parents follow up with more coaching?

 

A week after the deadly elementary school attack in Newtown, Conn., that has rocked the the nation, some parents say their kids remain oblivious to the attack — and the danger. 

Most teens and children are wrapped up in their own worlds. One mom of a middle-schooler told me instead of being worried about how the Newtown deaths would affect her daughter, she is more concerned that the girl is not aware enough of what took place.

And there is only so much the schools can do.

So this mom will spin out a scenario of danger and ask the daughter to think through how she might best respond. 

If you are a parent, are you doing the same kind of 'coaching' with your kids? Should parents be following up and expanding on the schools' safety procedures and lockdown drills? Or could that only cause more confusion for a kid about what to do in danger? Tell us in the comments section below.

Michael Fleming December 26, 2012 at 05:24 PM
So, Aron, people who respond to your posts are "stalkers" huh? Wow, free speech seems to really frighten you doesn't it? Here...try this: if you have an opinion that you've actually put some thought into, let the world know what it is. Then, when it is exposed to critique by others, get ready, certain logical flaws may be exposed. Don't respond by calling them names or insulting their intelligence ...respond on the merits of the argument. It seems that ad hominum attacks are the first and last refuge of the Left, and real conversations with leftists such as aron, are doomed to go down the path of grade school playground taunts, leaving real decent people who actually want to converse within a blog site, standing there smeared with grimey useless insults, taunts, un-bunched panties and false accusations. You make my self congratulatory attitude easy. Instead of trying to strengthen your weak arguments by demeaning others, why don't you prove them wrong with FACTS or LOGIC? Try blogging with others as if they were standing in front of you, and not using the distance and anonymity of the Internet to hide behind? Do you speak to others face to face like you blog? I think not. Treat others like you lived next door to them. Blog like you will run into them at the dry cleaners tomorrow. Argue your convictions, even if we disagree, with honor and intelligence, not with bile or suppressed anger. Be nice.
Aron Levy December 26, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Michael, what Jerry does is stalking. He creates and deletes his account every few days. He specifically seeks out my posts in order to insult and libel against me. He claims to search other fora for information about me. Oh, and we both know full well that no matter what anyone here says, you'll never change your opinions based on a comment. I may be young, but I'm not stupid. If that's not cyber-stalking and -harassment, I must have never taken that course on business etiquette.
Aron Levy December 26, 2012 at 06:45 PM
What we are doing isn't 'BLOGGING.' It is 'COMMENTING.' The initial news story might constitute a 'blog post,' but all the comments after that are just that: 'blogs.' Oh, wait. Dammit.
Michael Fleming December 26, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Aron I'm sorry, is there THAT big of a difference between the definitions between "blogging" and "commenting"that you think that changes the essential crux of my comments? I was aiming at the level of civility of expression, not whether one is blogging or one is commenting. Doesn't the author of the comments made need to follow a certain level of civility, regardless of what you call your exchange? You, my friend, as well as other lefty commenters, predictably insults the person whom you are responding to when you run out of logic in your argument. One could set their watch by it. Why is that? Have you even asked yourself that? Yet, you seem to think that their is some kind of existential difference between the two activities, between "blogging" and "commenting". Either way, Aron, you are engaged in a conversation with another human being, one whos opinions ought to be respected, and the difference between yours and theirs ought yo be shown some level of tolerance. Call it what you like, but your repeated reaching into the old insult bag during your arguements seems to suggest an intrinsic weakness in your over arching philosophy, and may I suggest, your personality. Try doing what I suggested above. Attack my argument, not me personally. Can you DO that Aron? Because if you can't, you will always win the "chop fight" as we called it in High School, or the trash talking competition, but you will never win the arguement.
Aron Levy December 26, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Obviously you ignored my first comment. The second comment was FAR more important. Michael, I'm glad I don't know you personally. You strike me as an utter boor. (And I don't actually come here to debate politics. I know online political discussions are a futile endeavor. I come here to see people make fools of themselves. And you are proving quite entertaining.) Oh and PS, please explain how Jerry WASN'T stalking and harassing me. I look forward to your dissembling.
Aron Levy December 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Micheal, I'm still waiting for a substantive answer to my first question pertaining to the 'armed guards in schools. You seem to only give real answers when you can 'talk smack' of your own, and pretend you are superior to me. Until you answer that question, I shall ignore you. You simply aren't worth my time.
Michael Fleming December 27, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Aron I am still waiting to hear from you on how conservatives are similar to Kristalnact. You were supposed to get to your computer which you were away from at the time, before you could give me and answer. That was....oh...a week and a half ago. Just WHERE did you put that computer?? And I HAVE answered your comment about the cost of armed guards in schools. I even AGREED with you on that subject. (shock!) Scroll up and you will see it. Go up exactly 20 comment boxes and you will see it. 20. Aron, When you pose an intelligent question, I will bend over backwards to engage with you on it, and if you don't insult me, I promise to not insult you. Do you agree? Aron, I am truely interested in your point of view. Honest to God. I WANT to know why you think the way you do. Its acyually interesting to me. I KNOW what I think. What I want is to know what YOU think. And most importantly, WHY. I may or may not change my point of view, nor do I expect you to change yours either as a result of these interactions.... But the point of talking is trading points of view, not trading insults, which I view as infantile. If you want to talk ...without calling names...I'm for that. But if you must make defiling the other as a "de rigueur" exercise, then yes, we can certainly ignore each other Please consider my offer of civility.
Aron Levy December 27, 2012 at 12:49 AM
1. You agreed with me regarding the cost, yet you offer no substantive solution. In spite of your continued pushing for the guards. 2. My explanation of post-Strasserism mixed with elements of Falangism should have been sufficient for you. It is hardly my fault if you do not understand rightwing totalitarian political theory. Come to me with a question that concerns my assertion, and then I will take you seriously. Until then, toodles!
Michael Fleming December 27, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Aron- I honestly don't have ant solutions to offer you. This issue of our own citizens killing each other is a conundrum that is VERY complex, and has many threads, none of which, alone, will do ANYTHING. Sorry to disappoint. You comments about the high cost of guards is a valid one, one which I think will eliminate that idea as a possible solution. As far as your " post Strasserism mixed with elements of Falangism" is not an explanation. Since I am not a political theoretician and have no formal training in that field, nor does anyone who might be interested to hear what you have to say here on these pages, since you made the comment, I was hoping for you to explain your comments to me. I have no idea what you meant. Can you school us in your area of expertise? I mean, since it was YOU that drew the comparison, it falls on you, logically, to expand as to why your comparison is apt.
Aron Levy December 27, 2012 at 01:39 AM
Post-Strasser National Socialism began after the Night of Long Knives. In short, with the death of Gregor Strasser along with the leadership of the SA, any last vestiges of socialism within the National Socialist German Workers' Party was dead. Adolf Hitler was free to ally himself with the industrial concerns that allowed him continued power (not to mention providing so much impetus for the concentration camps: forced labor). I see elements of Falangism in the near symbiosis of the modern Republican Party with the American Religious Right. It has gotten to the point where religion is nearly as important for Repiblicans as is their fealty to big business and the wealthy.
Aron Levy December 27, 2012 at 01:44 AM
I'm glad to see you realize there is no easy solution to the gun issue in this country. I think a ban on high-cap magazines is only a start. I disagree with the AWB as written, as most elements are largely superficial. (Honestly, when was the last time you heard of a civilian killing someone with a rifle grenade?) But the state mental institutions closed under President Reagan's watch desperately need to be re-opened. It is because of those closures homelessness is so epidemic, and we will continue to see more crazed killing further down the road. In addition, the whole gun culture in the US needs to be re-evaluated. Ted Nugent at the NRA National Convention, need I say more? I am all for owning firearms -- I own several. But the madness has to end.
Michael Fleming December 27, 2012 at 02:55 AM
Aron- I will not be able to comment on your analysis. It is too esoteric for these pages, and I would have to become an active student of political theory to become familiar enough to refute or even agree with your opinions. Sorry. Not trying to dodge your question, it's just what you said is so much gobbledy goop to me, so I will have to plead ignorant. I WILL say that all modes of thought, throughout all of history, religion has its supporters and detractors, and they will always align themselves with one political party or another. Everyone has the right to defend their beliefs and to work for its preservation in society. That the right sided politics attracts the religious is no more damning than the anti religious is attracted to the left. That's just how the political dice has been thrown. No one is a bad guy for religion preferring one candidate or political party over another, no more than people who depend on welfare subsidies depend on one candidate or another. We ALL vote for our own interests. In America, everyone has that right to chose. Just because some failed political system attracted religious folks 60 years ago, doesn't make them equals. How about this? Hitler banned guns before taking over Germany, but that isn't making the Democrats similar to Nazisim when The American Left call for gun bans does it? But because Hitler had ties to "industrial concerns"... now THAT proves conservatism and Nazisim are the same, right?
Michael Fleming December 27, 2012 at 03:20 AM
Aron- To your second post- I believe AWB, as written, as you do, has too many holes, and multi bullet clips are too easily made in your basement. If you want one, you'll be able to get it. Besides, there are too many assault rifles AND clips in circulation. And they dont wear out. They will be with us, literally forever. Reagan was wrong to close psych hospitals. I was actually in my residency in my psych rotation when they were shut down. I SAW the level of mentally ill folks that were about to be released on the street. I was appalled. But apparently the release was done from pressure by the ACLU. ( Look up the politics behind this drastic move) But the cost of re institutionalizing the mentally ill has a cost that now is beyond our current level of available funding. So that may never get fixed. But "this madness needs to stop"? We agree. Will it? No sir, it will not. It is the nature of humans to murder it's fellow creatures. If we can consciously turn a blind eye to Hitler, Mao, Bosnia and currently Hassan killing 20,000 (and counting) of his own people, you think we are going to do anything significant to slow down a relatively few school killings? (the operative word is "significant") David Chase in posts above makes an excellent point. We could save FAR more children's lives by simple acts like vaccinations, household cleaner safety, etc. ...yet we don't. You think we are going to split this country down the middle by dumping the 2nd amendment? Nope
Aron Levy December 27, 2012 at 03:33 AM
Believe you me, you will no find a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment than myself. If simple for logistical reasons. No one is coming to 'grab our guns.' Surely you can see Wayne LaPierre for the scaremonger he is? You're not a fool Michael. We may disagree on many issues, but you are certainly not a fool.
Michael Fleming December 27, 2012 at 05:23 AM
Nor are you. LaPierre is the guy hired by the NRA to protect their lobby. What position would you EXPECT him to take? Trumka is the head of the UAW. His job is to protect the interests of the unions. Do you expect him to abandon his "It's not the unions fault" position even though the unions influence on job growth and economic recovery is detrimental to America? Of course not. Don't be surprised when you see a cat, it meows. I am glad you are a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. Everyone ought to be. But the question is: what measures can we take about gun possession in this country that will EFFECTIVLY reduce gun violence, without completely removing the 2nd amendment? Nibbling at the edge of gun rights will do NOTHING to stop this crazy stuff going on. There are more guns than people in the US. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Guns are everywhere, their numbers are increasing every time Obama burps, and guns never wear out or break. They last forever. Guns will ALWAYS be available to people, especially to ones that have evil acts planned. No effect will be seen if we pass an AWB...or even an outright ban on ALL guns will only decrease the number by a small amount. However, I expect an AWB to pass in the next 6 months. But it will do nothing, nada, zippo to mass shootings or the murder rate. But we "did"something!...and that is what the point of trying to legislate morality is all about. How it made us FEEL. I appreciate your comments. Keep them coming
Phil December 27, 2012 at 01:09 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html Murder rate is down significantly. At the lowest level over the past century.
dan December 27, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Security Worked, These are the words of Congressman Barney Frank after the United States Capitol Shooting Incident of 1998. The doctor’s didn’t protect the public. The killer had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic six years before but was released after testing as being of no danger to himself or anyone else. Furthermore, it was not the uniformed arm guards that stopped the murderer, it was a plain closed officer assigned to the dignitary protection detail that wounded the murderer. After the murder walked around the metal detector just inside of the entrance of the building and shooting one guard in the head killing him instantly and wounding the other. He was stopped, by the Massachusetts resident who was assigned to executive protection group for congressman, as the murder entered the outer office of a group of offices. They shoot at each other. Although the officer died from his wounds, he wounded the murderer enough to stop the carnage any further. Congressman Barney Frank was correct, Security Worked. Don’t our children deserve the same protection? Why didn’t government officials throughout the country put in a plan to protect our children?
Anonymous December 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM
I wish they introduce a bill to put all mentally sick people into mental institutions as well.
dan December 28, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Senator Feinstein like many of the elitist tub-thumper call for more gun control laws such as the law she will introduce in January that will call to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises. These law have not been effective for over 50 years. Let us ask ourselves, where are these killers learning to shoot these military-style assault weapons; and, where are these killers learning to shoot people in mass, including children? According to Retired Colonel Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano, who wrote the book “Stop Teaching our Kids to kill;” there have been over (5,000) five thousands studies showing a causal relationship that TV, video games and media cause violence. This book was written in 1999 and the studies have been conducted since the early 1950’s— http://www.killology.com/new_media_vio.htm It is the medial that is creating these mass killers along with mental health problems. So, why haven’t the elitist such as Senator Feinstein, and the other tub-thumpers, called for 20,000 laws against violence in TV, movies, video games and media in the past 50 years, as they have done for the firearm.
Michael Fleming December 28, 2012 at 02:49 AM
I have a question:...would any of you put a sign on your front door stating: "This is a gun free family and a gun free household. You are entering a gun free zone"? Please include your reasoning why or why not in your response.
David Chase December 28, 2012 at 03:48 AM
If we had the gun regulation that we hope for, then yes. Your question is not unlike asking someone who advocates for higher taxes why they aren't paying the higher rates their own selves already; one person acting alone may make no difference, or put themselves at special disadvantage, but if we are all compelled (by the government that we choose) to act together, we can obtain a better outcome (the quantity of crime is not changed much, but the quality becomes somewhat less violent, as in the case of the crazed man who recently attacked in a school in China. 22 children stabbed, but none died).
Michael Fleming December 28, 2012 at 05:39 AM
David When you say "if we had the gun regulation that we hope for", I don't know what that regulation is. The AWB? Complete removal of all weapons from every citizen? Somewhere in between? But regardless of your answer, my question still stands. Let's say ownership of any weapon, by any citizen was outlawed tomorrow. Millions of citizens turn in their weapons by the truck load in eager anticipation of a brighter tomorrow. The bad guys, of course, being bad guys, decline the opportunity to disarm. Would you, David, post that sign on your house?
Michael Fleming December 28, 2012 at 05:51 AM
Binder Woman- Uhh....you KNOW that this site is FOR discussions, ...right? If you are not logging in and typing your question to get into a discussion...why, exactly, are you even here? If you are not interested in a discussion, why would you not just go do something else? Just curious.
David Chase December 28, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Your question is ill-posed. We wouldn't do it that way, and we would keep some "weapons" (clubs, knives, feet, yappy dogs). So to your specific situation, no, I wouldn't. But that's not what is proposed. You start out with licensing and restrictions on carry, and close up gun sale loopholes. It would take years to get to where it would feel safe to post that sign, not overnight. Hunting guns, licensed, small magazine/clip, probably those stay legal forever.
Michael Fleming December 28, 2012 at 02:01 PM
David- I appreciate your reply. Perhaps my question was posed in a confusing manner. Let me restate: this was more of a rhetorical question. I wasnt asking how any gun ban might be implemented. Would you, in today's environment, EVER post such a sign prominently displayed on your front door? In fact, regardless of what gun control legislation that might be passed in the near future as I anticipate there will be, would such a sign be a good idea? You more or less answered that question with your comment "it would take years to get it where it would be safe to post such a sign" From your answer I can see that you understand that such a sign wouldn't be safe. I agree. Which brings me to my point: if such a sign would not be safe in today's environment, why have we been putting such a sign on our SCHOOLS since 1975?
David Chase December 28, 2012 at 03:23 PM
There's several reasons to regard such as sign as okay on a school. First, there's history. Schools are very, very safe. Safer than riding in cars, safer (on average) than being at home. Second, what's the point of attacking a school? There's not much money there. The only people who have done these attacks have been exceptionally, extremely nuts. And third, you are completely discounting the possibility of gun accidents, which history also tells us occur at a low but steady rate. Unless we decide that we don't really care about other deaths, we've got to consider net deaths, not just one-cause deaths.
Michael Fleming December 28, 2012 at 04:15 PM
David If such a sign indicating that the occupants of a home are unarmed and such a sign is unsafe... isn't it logical that the same sign announcing the occupants and employees of a school are unarmed equally unsafe? You say that history shows that schools are very safe. Then why are we even talking about how to prevent murders in schools in the future? Clearly school safety is the topic of day, and everyone is submitting ideas as to how we can improve it. You ask what would be the point of attacking schools? I don't know...why don't we ask the idiots that attack them? Clearly the days where we see schools as a "safe haven" are over. Talk of posting armed guards fails to address their prohibitive cost. My point is, If posting "gun free zone" signs on your home is a bad idea, why doesn't that make it a bad idea for anywhere else? With exception of the Giffords shooting, all the mass murders in the last 20 years have been committed in "gun free zones". Apparently criminals are for "gun free zones" as they make their jobs easier. I am looking for ways to help the situation, and one way I can think of that won't cost bazillions of dollars is to revoke the 1975 Federal Gun Free Zone Act" it creates a an area that essentially outlaws defending your self. I am certainly open to other ideas, but this sounds doable and certainly more effective than banning future assault weapons sales, when there are already millions of them already out there. THAT will do zero to help the situation
dan December 28, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Steven, So, people who the government has investigated and decided that they are allowed to possess a firearm are nuts. So, should we consider teacher, who have to be certified to teach by the government, nuts. Also, the government is licenses and certifying many people who preform many activities; so, are all people licenses and who are certified should be considered nuts?
David Chase December 28, 2012 at 06:09 PM
No, it's not logical to treat schools and homes in the same way. Schools and homes are different, and we have years of statistics to prove it. It's silly to get all excited about gun control because a school is attacked, but gun control is a good idea, and was before the school was attacked. A fair number of us had pretty much just given up on the idea being politically practical (e.g., Obama -- notice any action from him on guns in his first term?), but if it comes up, people like me are going to say "yes, that is a good idea". Big picture, for the amount of work it would take to make gun control work, there are bigger fish to fry -- better health care (universal health care, especially for pregnant women and young children) will prevent far more early deaths (if we could achieve Canada's quality of care, 8000/year in infant mortality alone). And I'm talking pure numbers here, just plain net death reduction.
Michael Fleming December 28, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Dan I've read your posts before about death reduction and the little things we can do to reduce deaths, and I totally agree. Mandatory vaccination alone would by far save more lives than banning guns, but we don't have the political will to force parents to do what is needed...so we don't. This shooting tragedy is simply a political opportunity. As you said, the window has opened and Obama is stepping through it. But let me return to the gun free zone issue. These zones are clearly not preventing crazies from doing their bad deeds. Right? The bad guys don't give a damn about any sign. If they have decided to commit heinous atrocities, do you think a sign "banning"guns will do anything to them except make them chuckle as they chamber their weapon. These aren't burglars who are motivated by money or your stereo to be stolen. They are crazed whack jobs who want to do as much damage as possible in order to get the noteriety they would not otherwise get in their loser lives. Doesn't it make sense to have SOMEONE there to have a weapon? We have guns in our homes for protection. To keep bad guys from stealing our stuff or threatening our family. Why shouldn't that logic also apply to a place where we put the most valuable things in our lives, all day? Are our TV's more valuable than our kids? Dan, if it makes sense to protect our homes with a gun, why doesn't it make sense to protect our MOST valuable possession? Bigger fish to fry? Not if it's my kid you are talking about.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »