# Run, Hide, Fight



## PVC (Aug 3, 2012)

The city of Houston has released an instructional PSA video with instructions of how to react in an Active Shooter Event.

The producers actually considered including an instructional for armed citizens but decided that the percentage of legally armed Texans was to low. They paid for the PSA with a Department of Homeland Security Grant.

Do you think the 200,000 usd was money well spent?

http://youtu.be/5VcSwejU2D0


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 3, 2012)

PVC said:


> The city of Houston has released an instructional PSA video with instructions of how to react in an Active Shooter Event.
> 
> The producers actually considered including an instructional for armed citizens but decided that the percentage of legally armed Texans was to low. They paid for the PSA with a Department of Homeland Security Grant.
> 
> ...



no.

it has been sown in the immediate disaster situation, some freeze and some react. 

I believe it was established during the sept 11 attacks that it was people shouting instructions who had the most impact.

This is reactionary and ill conceived. Maybe it makes people feel better, like hiding under your desk with a burn kit in the event of a nuclear attack.


----------



## PVC (Aug 3, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> no.
> 
> it has been sown in the immediate disaster situation, some freeze and some react.



Wouldn't you think that planning would reduce the number of people that "freeze"? Particularly if they have been instructed on what their optional SOPs might be?



Veneficus said:


> no.
> 
> it has been sown in the immediate disaster situation, some freeze and some react.
> 
> I believe it was established during the sept 11 attacks that it was people shouting instructions who had the most impact.



First, from a tactical standpoint the twin towers and an Active Shooter Event are two very distinct scenarios that are very different both in action and reaction.

I don't understand what you mean by "it was the people shouting instructions who had the most impact". 



Veneficus said:


> no.
> 
> This is reactionary and ill conceived. Maybe it makes people feel better, like hiding under your desk with a burn kit in the event of a nuclear attack.



I don't believe it is a reactionary video. It has been in the works for a long time but the release was expedited after the Aurora, CO shooting.

What do you think a better option for preparing civilians for an Active Shooting Event would be?


----------



## TB 3541 (Aug 4, 2012)

I agree with PVC. Something as simple as this video could significantly reduce the number of casualties in the next active shooter event because people will have an idea of what to do instead of panicking. 

Alternatively, this might be a better solution: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html


----------



## rwik123 (Aug 4, 2012)

Are they alluding to the fact that carry free zones prevent the stopping of active shooters by showing it on the front door as the shooter enters?

Oh and btw in most states a business cannot legally stop you from carry unless they state that legal blurb on the front door. If its just a no gun sign or a diagram you are still legally entitled to conceal carry (not including federal and state gun free zones).


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 4, 2012)

PVC said:


> Wouldn't you think that planning would reduce the number of people that "freeze"? Particularly if they have been instructed on what their optional SOPs might be?



No.

I think it takes training. 

"I saw what to do on tv" isn't training. 

At least no more than teaching people how to be soldiers, firefighters,martial artists, etc.

Have you ever heard the interview of a firefighter, soldier, etc who did something that saved lives?

Somehow "it was what I was trained to do" gets a lot of credit.



PVC said:


> First, from a tactical standpoint the twin towers and an Active Shooter Event are two very distinct scenarios that are very different both in action and reaction.



From a tactical point of view?

I understood this to be addressing the reaction of "civilian" persons to a physiologic stress response. (overload of sensory perception in the CNS)



PVC said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "it was the people shouting instructions who had the most impact".



there have been several studies over the years looking at how people react during disasters. Particularly among behavior or those that survived vs. those that didn't.  

As I remember (I do a lot of reading, i don't always remember where or exactly) in one analysis of why some people survie and some don't is reaction over nonreaction and those who shout simple direct commands being able to not only "wake up" people from freezing, but also have an impact on what people's choices are.

I don't believe it is a reactionary video. It has been in the works for a long time but the release was expedited after the Aurora, CO shooting.



PVC said:


> What do you think a better option for preparing civilians for an Active Shooting Event would be?



I think if a person needs to be told to run and hide or fight in desperation, with an active shooter, then Darwin is going to naturally select that person next.

"in the event of fire, walk don't run to the nearest exit." (played at most theatres)

"in the event of active shooter, run! everybody run!" (Is that what is next?)


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

rwik123 said:


> Are they alluding to the fact that carry free zones prevent the stopping of active shooters by showing it on the front door as the shooter enters?



I think that may have been one possible intention, another might have been to explain away why the "armed citizen" scenario was not included in the film. Great observation.



rwik123 said:


> Oh and btw in most states a business cannot legally stop you from carry unless they state that legal blurb on the front door. If its just a no gun sign or a diagram you are still legally entitled to conceal carry (not including federal and state gun free zones).



I believe the 30-06 sign is specific to Texas as it cites Section 30.06 of Texas Law. There is another legal sign in Texas, the 51% sign that indicates that 51% of the business revenue come from the sale of alcohol. Legal signs vary from state to state. In some states the "ghostbuster" sign is enough to make carrying on the premises unlawful.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> No.
> 
> I think it takes training.
> "I saw what to do on tv" isn't training.
> ...



If you are referring to training as "the act, process, or method of one that trains or the skill, knowledge, or experience acquired by one that trains" Merriam-Webster online dictionary, then i don't understand your point and would appreciate clarification.

Are you saying that knowledge acquired through video instruction is invalid and useless?
Are you saying that the only way to establish a contingency plan is to have an instructor with a pulse present?
Are you saying that civilians cannot learn through a video?
Are you saying that people would not use these three recommendations and think, Hey, If I have to run, this is where I would go?  
Is it possible that businesses may see a need to implement a Active Shooter Contingency plan that is more specific to their environment?

I agree that a video is not Marine level training but neither is EMT school.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> No.
> From a tactical point of view?



The tragedy of 9/11 and a Active Shooter event are different from whatever point of view you prefer.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> No.
> there have been several studies over the years looking at how people react during disasters. Particularly among behavior or those that survived vs. those that didn't.



Of course there are studies about the individual qualities of disaster survivors of which you have posted no reference.
Would you consider an Active Shooter Event a disaster or something else.

I would think that an Active Shooter Event is not a disaster but something else.

But, I get your point. Some people are just going to freeze when confronted with stress overload for the first time, no matter what their degree of training is. I happens to people that are trained in many professions, soldiers policemen, firemen EMTs, etc. 

I would not consider the uncertainty of an individuals emotional reaction as a reason not to increase public awareness as to what to do when confronted with a specific stress producing situation. In fact I would sustain that it argues the opposite.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> No.
> I think if a person needs to be told to run and hide or fight in desperation, with an active shooter, then Darwin is going to naturally select that person next.



Darwin is dead.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> No.
> "in the event of fire, walk don't run to the nearest exit." (played at most theatres)
> 
> "in the event of active shooter, run! everybody run!" (Is that what is next?)



The next course of action recommended by the City of Houston is to Hide,Fight.

You would do something different?


PS. I could not figure out how t o get  all off the quotes to show up in a single post. Sorry for the multiple post.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Aug 4, 2012)

200k is a drop in the bucket. If this video helps 2 people out of the 4+ million in Houston then it will be worth it. Long odds on that happening but major cities are having to do something in order to show they take the issue seriously. I think this is probably much less reactionary than many of the things we will soon be seeing.


----------



## FLdoc2011 (Aug 4, 2012)

I think for the average civilian just watching a video isn't going to do a whole lot.  If they are even in such an extreme situation like that again they are probably going to react the same as before and instincts are going to kick in.... whether its running, or freezing up. 

I've read some reports of military personnel being in the theater and the difference there is the extensive ACTIVE training they've been through.... enough so that when the situation happens they get beyond the body's natural fight/flight reaction and can stay somewhat calm and react appropriately.  

For us health professionals just watching a CPR/ACLS video wouldn't be enough.  I bet it took a few codes before you really were able to stay calm during a code.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

FLdoc2011 said:


> I think for the average civilian just watching a video isn't going to do a whole lot.  If they are even in such an extreme situation like that again they are probably going to react the same as before and instincts are going to kick in.... whether its running, or freezing up.
> 
> I've read some reports of military personnel being in the theater and the difference there is the extensive ACTIVE training they've been through.... enough so that when the situation happens they get beyond the body's natural fight/flight reaction and can stay somewhat calm and react appropriately.
> 
> For us health professionals just watching a CPR/ACLS video wouldn't be enough.  I bet it took a few codes before you really were able to stay calm during a code.



No kidding, my heart still races while working codes, not that I have run that many. But one could argue that we are comparing apples to oranges when comparing ACLS algorithms with running from a shooter.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> 200k is a drop in the bucket. If this video helps 2 people out of the 4+ million in Houston then it will be worth it. Long odds on that happening but major cities are having to do something in order to show they take the issue seriously. I think this is probably much less reactionary than many of the things we will soon be seeing.


, 

This video might not save anyone, then again it might. The sad condition of our world is forcing all of us to "rethink possible". I am sure that cities that have survived such events are most definitely working on operational changes at all levels of EMS and LE services.

It is a sad world we live in when cities have to destine resources advising citizens on how to hide from mass murderers in public places.


----------



## FLdoc2011 (Aug 4, 2012)

Yeah, different scenarios but similar theory IMHO.   The only ones that will have true experience will be some police officers and military folks.  There's always stories of an active duty military person being at one of these tragedies and they are just able to "perform" and seemingly get past the initial gut reaction of freezing in fear.  Ultimately they've trained in stressful situations and have gone through similar things before.

One of my hobbies is shooting and I do some IDPA/USPSA shooting events partly because I wanted to be more comfortable shooting in more "realistic" environments involving shooting from cover and on the move as opposed to standing in one place punching holes in paper.  Ultimately I'm not going to anywhere near the experience of someone in military who regularly trains in stressful situations but if I take personal protection seriously the I need to train the best I can.  It would be foolish of me to assume that just because I can stand on a firing range and shoot a piece of paper that I'm going to perform well in a scenario where I have to move to cover or shoot in suboptimal conditions.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

FLdoc2011 said:


> Yeah, different scenarios but similar theory IMHO.   The only ones that will have true experience will be some police officers and military folks.  There's always stories of an active duty military person being at one of these tragedies and they are just able to "perform" and seemingly get past the initial gut reaction of freezing in fear.  Ultimately they've trained in stressful situations and have gone through similar things before.
> 
> One of my hobbies is shooting and I do some IDPA/USPSA shooting events partly because I wanted to be more comfortable shooting in more "realistic" environments involving shooting from cover and on the move as opposed to standing in one place punching holes in paper.  Ultimately I'm not going to anywhere near the experience of someone in military who regularly trains in stressful situations but if I take personal protection seriously the I need to train the best I can.  It would be foolish of me to assume that just because I can stand on a firing range and shoot a piece of paper that I'm going to perform well in a scenario where I have to move to cover or shoot in suboptimal conditions.



That is very,very cool! I have no experience with IDPA/USPSA (I had to google them).  If you ever need someone to go the movies with, I am your guy. 

It would be interesting what Houston would recommend for armed citizens to do in a similar situation.


----------



## FLdoc2011 (Aug 4, 2012)

Honestly I don't think they're going to recommend anything different for armed citizens.   The role of an armed citizen in situations such as this is a constant debate on concealed carry/personal protection forums.  Really it's going to be an individual decision.

Personally, I carry for protection of myself and my family. I'm not carrying to play role of an officer and protect the "general public".   Certainly I'm sure there would be exceptions and legally I would be justified in interceding to prevent a forcible felony but my threshold would be MUCH higher if my or my family's life wasn't in immediate danger.  

In the theater situation there are too many variables to suggest a specific course of action.  Certainly I wouldnt just start shooting as there were too many innocent people around and you are responsible for knowing you're target and what's potentially BEHIND your target....your bullets don't care.  If I was very close to the shooter and felt I would have a safe/clear shot in an obvious situation where he is the bad guy threatening lives then yeah I would take it.


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

FLdoc2011 said:


> Honestly I don't think they're going to recommend anything different for armed citizens.   The role of an armed citizen in situations such as this is a constant debate on concealed carry/personal protection forums.  Really it's going to be an individual decision.
> 
> Personally, I carry for protection of myself and my family. I'm not carrying to play role of an officer and protect the "general public".   Certainly I'm sure there would be exceptions and legally I would be justified in interceding to prevent a forcible felony but my threshold would be MUCH higher if my or my family's life wasn't in immediate danger.
> 
> In the theater situation there are too many variables to suggest a specific course of action.  Certainly I wouldnt just start shooting as there were too many innocent people around and you are responsible for knowing you're target and what's potentially BEHIND your target....your bullets don't care.  If I was very close to the shooter and felt I would have a safe/clear shot in an obvious situation where he is the bad guy threatening lives then yeah I would take it.



When I started carrying, one of the first realizations I had was in fact that having a firearm does not give me police powers nor obligations for others actions or well being. The next was that using my firearm, even in self defense, would cost me a lot of money, money that is destined to provide comfort to my family. So in essence if carrying a concealed firearm is purposed to protect me and my family, then I had better be absolutely sure of my actions, and their conscienceless, if I decide to discharge my weapon at a person. My actions should protect both financial and physical integrity.

The whole movie scene is a nightmare. You are spot on in what a nightmare it was. There is no way of telling if an armed citizen could have made things better. I do know that in Texas, AMC Theaters have posted signs discriminating against CCW patrons and will never sell a ticket to me.


----------



## LearningByMistakes (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus, I'm just curious what parts of this were so bad. Seemed like pretty good advice to me. 

And what exactly is YOUR experience that makes YOU such an expert to say this video is so bad?


----------



## bigbaldguy (Aug 4, 2012)

Just a reminder to keep things civil and professional folks. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Just for the record I don't necessarily think this kind of video would have helped in Colorado. These people were virtually ambushed. Nonetheless in other situations I suppose it might help. 

I wonder if having yearly drills in primary school is something we'll ever see. Something like the nuclear drills in the 50s or earthquake and fire drills we have now?


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Just a reminder to keep things civil and professional folks. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


Yea, let’s be nice.



bigbaldguy said:


> Just for the record I don't necessarily think this kind of video would have helped in Colorado. These people were virtually ambushed. Nonetheless in other situations I suppose it might help.


I am not sure anything short of having armed guards in theater 9 or outside the emergency exit would have made much difference in Aurora.


bigbaldguy said:


> I wonder if having yearly drills in primary school is something we'll ever see. Something like the nuclear drills in the 50s or earthquake and fire drills we have now?


There are many schools all over America that are running Active Shooter drills, A quick google search came up with drills being executed in Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and California. There might be others.  I find this to be a little unsettling. 
We have always felt safe in the USA. Confident that our society and LE can protect us. Shooter drills are supposed to be for countries like, Israel, Iraq or Mexico. It is very sad we have to consider this level of preparation here.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 4, 2012)

LearningByMistakes said:


> Veneficus, I'm just curious what parts of this were so bad. Seemed like pretty good advice to me.
> 
> And what exactly is YOUR experience that makes YOU such an expert to say this video is so bad?



I have been many places and seen many things. 

including this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Middle_School_shooting


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I have been many places and seen many things.
> 
> including this.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Middle_School_shooting



You were there? What grade were you in? I mean, were you a student or a worker?


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 4, 2012)

PVC said:


> You were there? What grade were you in? I mean, were you a student or a worker?



A responder (*Edited to protect the identity of the specific agency in retrospect*)


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> A responder (*Edited to protect the identity of the specific agency in retrospect*)



Tough call. Good on you for stepping up and being available.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 4, 2012)

PVC said:


> Yea, let’s be nice.
> 
> 
> I am not sure anything short of having armed guards in theater 9 or outside the emergency exit would have made much difference in Aurora.
> ...



It is not sad, it is a simple fact of life. There are many people that own at least one firearm in this country, and many more with direct or indirect access to them. If you (plural) want to live in a society where guns are so prevalent and obtainable, expect to deal with the consequences and prepare accordingly.


----------



## TB 3541 (Aug 4, 2012)

Tigger said:


> It is not sad, it is a simple fact of life. There are many people that own at least one firearm in this country, and many more with direct or indirect access to them. If you (plural) want to live in a society where guns are so prevalent and obtainable, expect to deal with the consequences and prepare accordingly.



You cannot expect to be able to remove every single weapon. When a criminal wants to use a firearm, they _will _get it. The more guns in law-abiding civilian hands, the safer our country will be. Whenever you look at places where firearms are required or open carry is allowed, the crime rate is nearly zero. 

Think about it: if you wanted to rob a bank, but knew that just 10% of the people in that bank were possible CCW permit holders, how likely are you to continue with your plan? Oppositely, if you know that there is a low chance that even one person, including the guard outside, has a weapon, and LEO's are 5-10 mins out, things look much better for your heist, don't they?

You know, it baffles me; I was listening to the radio, and a lady called in. She immediately stated her intent to push for a complete ban on all firearms. The host asked her what her plan was if her house was broken into at night while she was in bed, and the robber was armed. Her response: "My husband and I would grab our cellphones off the headboard and roll off under the bed and wait for police." :rofl:


----------



## bigbaldguy (Aug 4, 2012)

You can almost hear the train leaving the tracks.

Ok folks back on topic. We were discussing the recent PSA regarding what to do in an active shooter/mass shooting incident. So if this video is not useful what kind of training should we be offering? Should we be offering any at all. who should it be offered to?

This is an interesting semi related link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sings-to-schoolchildren-during-shoot-out.html


----------



## PVC (Aug 4, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> You can almost hear the train leaving the tracks.
> This is an interesting semi related link.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sings-to-schoolchildren-during-shoot-out.html



It is interesting that you would choose a video of a Mexican gunfight. Mexico is a gun free society or should I say a disarmed society. All weapons have to be registered with the Mexican army and are specific to the person and domicile. If the weapon is found outside of the information on the registry the penalty is 5 - 20 years in a South of the border Prison. 

I agree with staying on track. I am so tired of the guns are good/bad arguments. Freedom works for everyone, how novel.




bigbaldguy said:


> You can almost hear the train leaving the tracks.
> Ok folks back on topic. We were discussing the recent PSA regarding what to do in an active shooter/mass shooting incident. So if this video is not useful what kind of training should we be offering? Should we be offering any at all. who should it be offered to?



I think the video is a good start as a PSA but as with all education we should educate children in school as well. 

The home is the very first place that safety should be taught. Along with the “don’t talk to strangers “ , “just say no” and the “where babies come from” we could include what to do when there is a shooter emergency in public places.

And the train rolls on.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 4, 2012)

TB 3541 said:


> You cannot expect to be able to remove every single weapon. When a criminal wants to use a firearm, they _will _get it. The more guns in law-abiding civilian hands, the safer our country will be. Whenever you look at places where firearms are required or open carry is allowed, the crime rate is nearly zero.
> 
> Think about it: if you wanted to rob a bank, but knew that just 10% of the people in that bank were possible CCW permit holders, how likely are you to continue with your plan? Oppositely, if you know that there is a low chance that even one person, including the guard outside, has a weapon, and LEO's are 5-10 mins out, things look much better for your heist, don't they?
> 
> You know, it baffles me; I was listening to the radio, and a lady called in. She immediately stated her intent to push for a complete ban on all firearms. The host asked her what her plan was if her house was broken into at night while she was in bed, and the robber was armed. Her response: "My husband and I would grab our cellphones off the headboard and roll off under the bed and wait for police." :rofl:



At no point did I ever say that I think we should remove guns or the right to carry them. That's not my point in the slightest. What I am trying to get across is that in a society with a lot of access to firearms, as a whole we need to prepare accordingly. Whether or not this sort of PSA is useful for this purpose I cannot say, but in the present climate, we need to understand that our old concept of safety is perhaps less valid.


----------



## Aidey (Aug 4, 2012)

I'm with Vene on this one. If you have to be told to run and hide when someone is shooting a gun then Darwin has you on his short list. 

If individual businesses want to do individual plans with their staff that is their choice. I do not think that a PSA is an appropriate use of $200,000. I don't believe that watching a video once is adequate education for the general public and the impact is going to be limited by the delivery. The best way to maximize viewers is to play it on TV and a 30 second commercial isn't going to change anything.


----------



## TB 3541 (Aug 4, 2012)

Tigger said:


> At no point did I ever say that I think we should remove guns or the right to carry them. That's not my point in the slightest. What I am trying to get across is that in a society with a lot of access to firearms, as a whole we need to prepare accordingly. Whether or not this sort of PSA is useful for this purpose I cannot say, but in the present climate, we need to understand that our old concept of safety is perhaps less valid.



Sorry, I misunderstood. It is difficult to convey emphasis and tone across message boards.


----------



## LearningByMistakes (Aug 4, 2012)

I'm sorry if my response seemed harsh.


----------



## PVC (Aug 5, 2012)

Aidey said:


> I'm with Vene on this one. If you have to be told to run and hide when someone is shooting a gun then Darwin has you on his short list.
> 
> If individual businesses want to do individual plans with their staff that is their choice. I do not think that a PSA is an appropriate use of $200,000. I don't believe that watching a video once is adequate education for the general public and the impact is going to be limited by the delivery. The best way to maximize viewers is to play it on TV and a 30 second commercial isn't going to change anything.



I would hope that it would get a lot of classroom time and be a catalyst for giving the subject serious thought. Time will tell.


----------



## Aidey (Aug 5, 2012)

How exactly is the general public going to get classroom time on active shooter situations?


----------



## Camtheman (Aug 5, 2012)

I believe that for $200,000 it fell short, but that being said it is a start. 
A short video is not enough IMO and I think that some sort of "emergency prepardness" should be taught throughout the education system. Maybe make it a part of health class? Things that could be included would be active shooter, fire, first responder (high school) and natural disaster.


----------



## PVC (Aug 5, 2012)

Aidey said:


> How exactly is the general public going to get classroom time on active shooter situations?



If by general public you mean every American, I wouldn't have the first idea how they would see it in a classroom. I am not gonna look at the stats because I am lazy (smile) but I would think that the sum of people that are in school and are required to attend schools in their employment are a lot of people.

I suppose projecting it off the clouds like a batlight could work.


----------



## Aidey (Aug 5, 2012)

Do you honestly think tons of employers are going to sit their employees down and have them watch a PSA? Employers who think it there is enough risk probably already have in house plans, like every hospital I've been in. 

And when do you think they will be showing it in school? Health class? What age group is actually going to benefit from it? And again, if the school thinks there is enough of a risk, they probably have their own plan in place. 

And as I said before, a 30 second TV commercial is useless. That is enough time to tell people the basic run, hide, fight, to which they will they will all say "no freaking duh".

So great, it is on the internet. So are about 100,000,000 cat videos. Being on the internet means some people will see it, but it doesn't ensure wide spread viewership. The people who see it have to actively seek it out, and many of those are going to be people who already have some idea of what an active shooter situation is and are probably not going to learn anything new. 

In short, I am saying it was a waste of money for a PSA that will have a limited audience and advocates doing what the vast majority of people would do anyway.


----------



## Camtheman (Aug 5, 2012)

My middle school and highschool both had "lockdown drills" in case of someone unwanted enters the school and we lock the doors and moove away from the windows. Also, we would have fire drills and go over escape routes periodically and have them posted route 1,2 and 3 in ever class room.


----------



## PVC (Aug 5, 2012)

Aidey said:


> Do you honestly think tons of employers are going to sit their employees down and have them watch a PSA? Employers who think it there is enough risk probably already have in house plans, like every hospital I've been in.
> 
> And when do you think they will be showing it in school? Health class? What age group is actually going to benefit from it? And again, if the school thinks there is enough of a risk, they probably have their own plan in place.
> 
> ...



I have no way of knowing what anyone would do with anything much less this  particular video. Houston will probably promote it locally since they produced it.


----------



## RSKS (Aug 5, 2012)

I think it gives average people something to go on in that type of situation. Any type of education is better than none. Someone might have absolutely no idea what to do and may instead do something that would lead them or others to harm.


----------

