Well, being an American, I have been raised to be ignorant and dismissive of "other cultures", as if any such things actually exist.
I didn't know they were called Nazca Lines and would appreciate learning such a thing in the news... if only I had. I learned about this only by following Techdirt.
My brain seriously does a little happy dance when American news reports anything not related to America. It definitely does not happen too often. I think our school children might take a moment of silence to appreciate the grace and fragility of the Nasca Lines (that could certainly be a better use of the time expressly given for saying the Pledge of Allegiance). Older students should look at Greenpeace's assinity and realize that virtually nobody ever respects someone's political message on someone else's apolitical work.
Right, I understand that a employer/customer to business relationship is a net loss at both ends due to you-name-it-tax. Even before vacuum taxes are considered, employees can never be paid more than the business earns and a business can never earn more than a customer can pay. It's lose-lose.
I said it was nonsense. ("such drills ... are nonsensical to me.") Why are you yelling at me as if I don't understand it's not combat when that paragraph explains why they should not be treating the children in this manner?
They're still oblivious to how actual training works, for some reason. They give that "how you perform in a training is how you will respond in real life" to justify the intensity of the exercise. Protip: That is *after* you have been trained. That is more accurately described as a test, not training.
Let's try an example. Say a police cadet must respond to an armed target. The target, only 15 meters away, will pop up. The target may or may not be armed, and the cadet has 10 seconds to evaluate the threat, and if armed, draw his weapon, fire and shoot the target. If he fails, the target will shoot and kill the cadet. For a gimme, the cadet is not penalized if he shoots an unarmed target.
The chief can do this quite well. Always seems to down appropriate targets within 2 seconds. Rookies who have recently graduated from the academy seem to do well enough. There is almost never a mis-identification, and about the only time it takes more than 5 seconds is when there is a misfire, or other unlikely situation like dropping the pistol as it catches on a belt buckle.
But the cadets? some do okay. Enough die, however.
Why? Because they haven't been trained. As suggested, this is a practice situation, not a training situation. Many of these recruits have never fired a pistol before. None of these recruits have been trained before.
I did not train them on how to prepare their weapon before hand. I did not tell them in training whether their pieces should be loaded before hand or not. (Protip: they should be loaded for this scenario). I didn't not train them what discerning markings or features to look for in order to evaluate whether the target is armed or not. I didn't train them how to unbuckle their holster. I didn't train them to know where the safety is. I didn't train them how to aim. I didn't train them to hold the pistol parallel to the horizon -- nor any other method. I didn't train them to put a round in the chamber. I didn't train them to ensure their fingers are clear of the slide so that they don't lose any digits when the slide slams back. I didn't train them how to fire a second shot.
Now, I cannot imagine anyone saying that training someone how to take the safety off has to be performed under the stress of almost real engagement. Yes, the cadet will eventually reach the point where he must successful test under stress, but the journey from complete ignorance to fully trained (a.k.a. ready to be tested) is a progression of training.
This scenario of mine is not training. This is a test. You need to be trained before you can practice this test.
Those that die in this scenario prove that this was not training. After all, they are not trained; they are dead.
Those students? Are they trained now, or are they traumatized? The School Shooter Drill was a test, it was not training.
*IF* such training for school student were to ever be implemented, it has to be by degrees. Perhaps *training* once a month for 8 months, then you can run your full *test* in the 9th month as a graduation send off.
But such drills under as real circumstances as possible are nonsensical to me. The kids are arguable being terrorized. You know, the terrorist only win if we live in fear. You are making the children live in fear by doing this training. You are the terrorist.
But if we are going to talk about this, please dismiss this myth -- this misnomer -- that "training must be done under real-life circumstances." No, training is something different entirely. Training is what you do so that you act appropriately when tested. Training is what you do BEFORE the test.
Training would ideally also decrease the amount of traumatizing stress a participator absorbs. The stress of real life combat situations, unfortunately, cannot be trained for. Simulating real life combat situations will always have the chance to mentally scar people.
Watch a movie? Having a real-life re-enactment where the children can actually be volunteers in the Hunger Games would be a far more appropriate reward, not to mention further ensuring the children's on-going safety.