• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A.L.I.C.E. The Program Teached To Students In Case Of School Shootings.

Anti-Party

Anti-Party

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
145
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ALICE.

It's what is being taught to our kids. People keep attacking me personally for stating what our kids are being taught so I thought I'd make a thread about it. I did not invent this. I did not condone this. This is the national standard.

Take some time out of your day and read/view the information. Make comments on what is good/bad about ALICE. More information is available beyond my link.

The Creators of ALICE Active Shooter Training | Response Options
 
I even had someone say, "Don't throw a book at the gunman! That's idiotic! Poke their eyes out!".....................eh.
 
Anti-Party said:
I even had someone say, "Don't throw a book at the gunman! That's idiotic! Poke their eyes out!".....................eh.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to this website? If so, the eye gouging was in relation to the MORONIC idea that a few people laying on the shooter is sufficient to subdue them safely.
 
ecofarm said:
Are you referring to this website? If so, the eye gouging was in relation to the MORONIC idea that a few people laying on the shooter is sufficient to subdue them safely.
Click to expand...

Yes ecofarm. This website. You and a select few others attacked me about ALICE.

I just thought I'd make a post to inform you all that it's not my perspective, just a government program :)
 
Anti-Party said:
Yes ecofarm. This website. You and a select few others attacked me about ALICE.

I just thought I'd make a post to inform you all that it's not my perspective, just a government program :)
Click to expand...

Well, you confused two completely different comments. So, let me try to make this comment clear:

The idea that laying on an active shooter is sufficient to safely subdue them is stupid. It's so naive as to be laughable. If people actually decided that laying on him is sufficient, they probably deserve for him to pull a backup and blow them all away. God forbid anyone ever has to take down an active shooter, but if one does... break his arms and (maybe) gouge his eyes, then he'll not shoot any more people - guaranteed.

That half-assed, bunny foo foo method of subduing an active shooter pisses me off.

Is that clear enough, no confusion there?
 
Last edited:
NEW RULE TO THIS THREAD!

If you are going to attack the ALICE program, then be smart enough to say what the better idea would be. Don't just be the typical, "well that is stupid" person. Thanks :peace
 
ecofarm said:
Well, you confused two completely different comments. So, let me try to make this comment clear:

The idea that laying on an active shooter is sufficient to safely subdue them is stupid. It's so naive as to be laughable. If people actually decided that laying on him is sufficient, they probably deserve for him to pull a backup and blow them all away. God forbid anyone ever has to take down an active shooter, but if one does... break his arms and (maybe) gouge his eyes, then he'll not shoot any more people - guaranteed.

That half-assed, bunny foo foo method of subduing an active shooter pisses me off.

Is that clear enough, no confusion there?
Click to expand...

I get that you went wishy/washy. Yesterday it was "Kung Fu him!" Today it is "Only Kung Fu him if he is taken down" Just respond to the thread today, not the one before..
 
Anti-Party said:
I get that you went wishy/washy. Yesterday it was "Kung Fu him!" Today it is "Only Kung Fu him if he is taken down" Just respond to the thread today, not the one before..
Click to expand...

You're wrong. I was clear then and I am clear now. I was and am referring to the subdue section (~"to keep the attacker down...") of the training that you present(ed), in any reference to breaking arms.

We can discuss the book throwing part, as well. Why not, instead, have the kids charge for the door like a herd of zebra, it's likely that a couple will make it out. Throwing the books gives a higher likelihood that they all die.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You're wrong. I was clear then and I am clear now. I was and am referring to the subdue section (~"to keep the attacker down...") of the training that you present(ed), in any reference to breaking arms.

We can discuss the book throwing part, as well. Why not, instead, have the kids charge for the door like a herd of zebra, it's likely that a couple will make it out. Throwing the books gives a higher likelihood that they all die.
Click to expand...

Well this discussion isn't about my perspective. It's about ALICE. I only quoted one part of ALICE and you actually personally called me stupid. I'll guess after a google or two you decided to man up and cover your tracks.

Either way. A herd of zebra?

 
Anti-Party said:
NEW RULE TO THIS THREAD!

If you are going to attack the ALICE program, then be smart enough to say what the better idea would be. Don't just be the typical, "well that is stupid" person. Thanks :peace
Click to expand...


NEW RULE TO THIS THREAD!


When someone addresses two aspects of the training,

1. the ~"keep him safely under control by laying on him" stupidity
and
2. the ~"throw books at him"

Address the criticism and alternatives provided instead of inventing previous positions/creating strawmen in place of the arguments presented.
 
Anti-Party said:
Either way. A herd of zebra?
Click to expand...

I don't need your youtube video, I've been with zebra in the Serengeti.




I think the point is within grasp.
 
So, are you gonna recognize the arguments I presented that directly address two specific aspects of the training and the alternatives I've provided?

1. Keeping the shooter down by merely laying on him is grossly insufficient.
2. Throwing the books, instead of rushing the exit, provides a higher likelihood of all the children dying.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
So, are you gonna recognize the arguments I presented that directly address two specific aspects of the training and the alternatives I've provided?

1. Keeping the shooter down by merely laying on him is grossly insufficient.
2. Throwing the books, instead of rushing the exit, provides a higher likelihood of all the children dying.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading when you said, "throwing books is better than rushing the exit?"

This thread is for people who have actually read about ALICE. Please do the homework before posting here. ALICE states throwing books is only the correct measure when locked in a room with the shooter.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm only pointing out that you are responding to a thread you clearly did not research.
 
Anti-Party said:
I stopped reading when you said, "throwing books is better than rushing the exit?"

This thread is for people who have actually read about ALICE. Please do the homework before posting here. ALICE states throwing books is only the correct measure when locked in a room with the shooter.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm only pointing out that you are responding to a thread you clearly did not research.
Click to expand...

Locked in the room, yes, charge the shooter. If there is an exit, kids trying to attack the shooter is probably higher casualties. Has a shooter ever walked into a room and locked the door behind him?

And the other objection to the training?
 
ecofarm said:
Locked in the room, yes, charge the shooter. If there is an exit, kids trying to attack the shooter is probably higher casualties. Has a shooter ever walked into a room and locked the door behind him?

And the other objection to the training?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are catching up. But I'm sad you still don't recognize possibilities of the plan. You clearly have not seen the movie, "We need to talk about Kevin" Saying, "Has anyone ever locked the room" is an absent minded question because you can't predict a shooter wont....

Besides......IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ABOUT ALICE THE "L" IN ALICE MEANS LOCKDOWN!

Now please read about the actual post before responding. I'm going to bed..................heh.
 
Anti-Party said:
I'm glad you are catching up. But I'm sad you still don't recognize possibilities of the plan. You clearly have not seen the movie, "We need to talk about Kevin" Saying, "Has anyone ever locked the room" is an absent minded question because you can't predict a shooter wont....

Besides......IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ABOUT ALICE THE "L" IN ALICE MEANS LOCKDOWN!

Now please read about the actual post before responding. I'm going to bed..................heh.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to recognize the other objection? G'night.
 
Wouldn't it more effective to shoot the attacker than to throw books at him?
 
Anti-Party said:
ALICE.

It's what is being taught to our kids. People keep attacking me personally for stating what our kids are being taught so I thought I'd make a thread about it. I did not invent this. I did not condone this. This is the national standard.

Take some time out of your day and read/view the information. Make comments on what is good/bad about ALICE. More information is available beyond my link.

The Creators of ALICE Active Shooter Training | Response Options
Click to expand...

At one time people thought that stop duck and cover was a good way of saving yourself in the event of a nuclear attack. Throwing books and rushing at a person with a gun is just as retarded. Bullets can do through people especially at close range.You can not use someone like a invincible shield against bullets like they do in the movies. So you are just making it easier for the shooter to conserve ammo by making all his targets close together. Barricading and trying to keep the door locked is a good idea assuming the walls and door are bullet proof.
 
Last edited:
I have another objection, this not about the details. I posted it elsewhere and I don't wanna retype it:

ecofarm said:
I don't think the country getting terrified and deciding to teach school children gun-defeating kung-fu is really doing any good. Just let teachers carry and let's stop wasting resources training (and terrifying) children to react if struck by lightning. Let's take the "Kung-fu Children" money and put that into science class and extra safety training for teachers.
Click to expand...
 
This one is kind of a meta-objection, so I'll understand if the OP doesn't take it so seriously: The name, ALICE, is a poor choice. It's not fierce or implicitly empowering. 'Alice in Wonderland' is about a child in a bizarre fantasy realm (correlation) and the reality of cost-benefit analysis here, even if we do not include terrifying the children in costs, begs comparison to insanity. Go Ask Alice is a famous book about an abused child.

Another objection, this one political: I kinda get the feelin' that people are trying to terrify children into fearing guns and implant a sort of "anti-gun" platform in their head through what amounts to fear mongering.



Let's review my objections (one was "addressed" by the OP):

1. The odds of a child being in a locked room with an active shooter are slim to none. The OP claims that is irrelevant because it could happen, and recommends a movie presumably about school shooters.
2. Attempting to maintain control of an active shooter by laying on him is grossly insufficient advice. This borders on negligence, to recommend such a bunny foo foo way of dealing with a shooter.
3. Wasting money on "Gun-defeating Kung-fu Children" in general.
4. Stupid name.
5. Smells like indoctrination via terror, given the lightning strike likelihood of a child being anywhere near a school mass shooting, let alone in a locked room with an active shooter.
 
Last edited:
Anti-Party said:
NEW RULE TO THIS THREAD!

If you are going to attack the ALICE program, then be smart enough to say what the better idea would be. Don't just be the typical, "well that is stupid" person. Thanks :peace
Click to expand...
Better idea:

7.webp
  • Return fire as directed or required.
  • Render aid.

You don't leave, you don't hide unless you're setting up an ambush....you stand your ground and you kill the active shooter. Then, you administer 1st aid to the injured.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
NEW RULE TO THIS THREAD!


When someone addresses two aspects of the training,

1. the ~"keep him safely under control by laying on him" stupidity
and
2. the ~"throw books at him"

Address the criticism and alternatives provided instead of inventing previous positions/creating strawmen in place of the arguments presented.
Click to expand...
Choke his ass out. Tie him up.
 
Jerry said:
Choke his ass out. Tie him up.
Click to expand...

Maybe, if one is happy with leaving him there or tying him with a belt or other sub-standard material. I gotta go with elbows broken backwards, he really can't shoot anyone then - for sure.

You're gonna pat him down, etc? C'mon, you don't have your squad with you. Disable immediately, tactically-permanently and without concern for force required. Lethal force in maintaining control of him is absolutely justified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom