This feels like a weird thing to say but exposing students (or anyone) to this seems like a really bad idea. By letting them experience that kind of terror, I feel it may give anyone with sociopathic tendencies 'ideas' and may influence them to seek that kind of control over others. We're all just the sum of our experiences and giving young impressionable kids terrifying experiences in the pursuit of protecting them from something that is statistically incredibly unlikely seems like a good way to make it statistically less incredibly unlikely.
It's not weird to say; that assessment makes sense to me and I'm fairly sure it would to others as well.
Sociopathic kids will use the events and memories from the drills as triggers to intimidate and remind their peers of the threat - or as you say, even further as inspiration for actual attacks.
And I'd be willing to bet there are some unusual psychological characteristics of the folks who perform these drills and arrange them - does a normal-minded person really want to teach others what it's like to live in threat of imminent death?
All of this time and money should go to reducing the possibility of shootings occurring in the first place, and reducing the cycles of hurt which lead to them, rather than re-enacting and normalizing them.
Anecdotal but the mentality and culture of those I know who work in law enforcement in the US is quite frightening.
Referring to fellow citizens as civilians as if they were separate from them, obsessions with guns and military equipment, and maybe most visibly telling, mixing "blue line" symbols with things like "The Punisher" logo.
> The character is an Italian-American[4][5] vigilante who employs murder, kidnapping, extortion, coercion, threats of violence, and torture in his campaign against crime. Driven by the deaths of his wife and two children who were killed by the mob for witnessing a killing in New York City's Central Park, the Punisher wages a one-man war on the mob and all violent criminals in general while employing the use of various firearms.[6] His family's killers were the first to be slain.[7] A war veteran and a United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Castle is skilled in hand-to-hand combat, guerrilla warfare, and marksmanship.[4][5]
> The Punisher's brutal nature and willingness to kill made him a novel character in mainstream American comic books when he debuted in 1974. By the late 1980s, the Punisher was part of a wave of psychologically-troubled antiheroes.
I think it was the best kind of demonstration how dangerous guns are, that even DEA agent managed to literally shoot himself in the foot. I only hope it was not done on purpose.
He probably carries a pistol with him everywhere and standard practice is to keep it loaded with a round chambered. If demonstrating safe handling were necessary, he probably should have brought another pistol and kept his carry weapon holstered.
In any case, he should have cleared the weapon before his demonstration and kept it pointed in a safe direction.
"A 17-year-old student was struck in the neck, according to his father, Fermin Gonzales III, who spoke to Monterey County Weekly.
"He was going to go to his next class, but he was pulling out metal fragments," Gonzales said of his son. "It was a soft metal."
"Nobody from the office came in and looked at what had happened," he alleged." (Struck in the neck from shrapnel, fyi)
"In a series of tweets, he (Donny) said, "20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to ... immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions ... Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A 'gun free' school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!""
>This is what happens if you just cower and do nothing
You sure? Because even when I was in the military, they trained us to respond to security events by locking our area down rather than running into the fight unless we were designated responders. Sounds to me like the cops just wanted to fire their fancy training pellet guns at someone.
This whole situation is absurd, and the idea of passing a law explicitly banning intentionally injuring a teacher during a training drill is the cherry on top.
It sounds like this whole training activity is being run by idiots that don't actually know anything about or respect gun safety. Shooting someone unexpectedly with an air soft gun is already illegal. If the teachers signed a liability waiver making it okay, it's on the teachers for willingly participating in a clearly stupid and dangerous activity. If they didn't, then the injured teachers should hire a lawyer and sue...
>If the teachers signed a liability waiver making it okay, it's on the teachers for willingly participating in a clearly stupid and dangerous activity. If they didn't, then the injured teachers should hire a lawyer and sue...
I have to disagree here. Signing a waiver isn't iron-clad in court. You can't just sign a waiver saying it's OK for someone to shoot you, or do anything else illegal to you. Unless these teachers were clearly warned that this would injure them and draw blood, they have good cause to sue, and even if they were warned that way, they can still sue, arguing they were afraid for their jobs.
I'd like to see these teachers sue the bejesus out of this school district. It's absolutely incredible that anyone thought this was a good idea, and if no one goes to jail for it, the local government clearly deserves to pay dearly for it.
"During active shooter drill, four teachers at a time were taken into a room, told to crouch down and were shot execution style with some sort of projectiles - resulting in injuries to the extent that welts appeared, and blood was drawn. ... The Indiana State Teachers Association is lobbying lawmakers to add language prohibiting teachers from being shot with any sort of ammunition to a school safety bill working its way through the Statehouse."
I feel like existing laws should cover this. If they need a new law so specific to this situation, I'd worry there's nothing covering many other situations.
Can they press charges for assault? That'd send a clear message.
Taking it back about a million steps, did they know this was a drill? Having anyone think they're being executed is insane trauma. And if they did know, what is the point of shooting them with pellets?
I'm pretty sure existing criminal and civil laws in most jurisdictions adequately address shooting people with projectiles without consent and outside of reasonable self defense, or conspiring with, soliciting, or procuring others to do so, whether or not in the context of an employment relationship.
And if they don't in Indiana, then a limited fix for teachers isn't the solution needed.
The cops will probably claim they felt in danger for their lives in this drill and the prosecutor will refuse to bring charges. Just another day at the office for these scumbags.
Controversial opinion from someone with extensive experience with assault weapon violence.
GOOD
The current "shelter in place" model of active shooter drills KILLS CHILDREN. In combat we had another name for "shelter in place"... "die in place".
People must be taught to fight back or flee. They must because it is not instinctive. Most of us were raised in relatively peaceful societies and have a school yard/Hollywood understanding of violence.
For those who haven't seen the Christchurch video, the killer was ALMOST taken out by one lone person who rushed him while his back was turned. Sadly, this brave soul was alone in his efforts and perished. He came literally within inches of getting the drop on the shooter. Had there been a second brave soul with him the shooting could have ended with far less death.
Two unarmed adults in close quarters can absolutely disarm one person. In a fight, two are four times as effective as one.
If someone is attacking you there are two options, run or fight. Hiding in a room with no exits is to wait for death, as evidenced by every eyewitness account we've ever heard on the news, "I heard the shooting in the other room, I knew we were next".
From a tactical point of view a school/church shooting is a de facto "raid". There are principles of conducting and defending against a raid. The active shooter drills I've seen are in total ignorance of these principles.
Whether you disagree with the practice of sheltering in place or not, it still doesn't seem like a good idea to mock execute teachers. You don't need to get shot to get training.
I think it's a little absurd to think that shooting somebody with a pellet gun once is going to benefit them in an active shooter situation. With repeated training, maybe, but this is something that is never going to happen again.
The training is fairly reasonable for someone who has a reasonable expectation of engaging in combat. You need to drill reactions under duress until you stop thinking and just do what you've drilled instinctively. The problem is that that this is not a reasonable expectation for school teachers. They shouldn't and don't really have a statistically significant chance of seeing combat. They're also a population that strongly self selects for physical and mental inability to be effective in combat. For the majority of school teachers, trying to turn them into halfassed semi-trained soldiers is hopeless and cruel.
If you read the article it sounds like they just put them up against a wall and shot them in the back. It doesn't sound like training, it sounds more like punishment or hazing.
I did read the article, and I maintain that it is training. It can save lives. They're trying to make you more afraid of dying through inaction than dying through action, and get you familiar with the fear so you don't freeze. This sort of training can be traumatic but it can also be effective. For young high agressive males, it's high on effeciveness and arguably lower on trauma, and reasonably justified if they are going into combat. For your average middle age female school teacher who has probably never even been in a fist fight let alone a firefight and probably never will, it's largely ineffective, much more traumatic, and likely pointless. I'm sure there were even a few teachers in that session who got some benefit from it. What is training for one person can be hazing for another. Try stepping into a ring with a thai kickboxer for some medium sparing in preparation for a fight. For some people that's just another day at the gym, while for others it's assault, and the most violent traumatic thing they've ever experience. The training has to be calibrated to the students, and in this article it clearly wasn't. To me it sounds more like executive incompetence/misunderstanding than deliberate malice.
I'm not against pain being incorporated into training, but for this specific scenario I don't get how you go from "I have been shot in the back once with an airsoft gun" to "I must rush the active shooter or I will die".
Also, these _were_ just recreational airsoft guns, very comparable paintball. Lots of people play airsoft and paintball for fun in their spare time. Yea, you're supposed to have goggles on, and point blank shots are frowned on 'cause they hurt more, but it's not all that bad. Sure you might end up with some bruising and broken skin particularly with close range shots to exposed skin, but I'll still play in shorts and tshirt on a hot day and if I get lit up on exposed skin, meh, at least I'm not sweating as much. For the guys running these trainings who are used to shooting each other with paintballs fired from real firearms, airsoft is consumer grade toys, one step above nerf guns. This situation is like having a cross training day between the competitive cagefighting gym and the over 50 cardio kickboxing class...there's just _so_ much potential for that to go poorly.
Okay but we aren't training solders here, they took teachers, told them to kneel against the wall, and shot them in the back repeatedly without telling them what was about to happen.
These are elementary schoolteachers - they're job is to educate (and half baby-sit) children.
I'm not making any statement with training, I'm just saying the method here is inappropriate.
EDIT: Plus how is this training? Are they expected to "fight back"? Okay cool a pellet gun hurts - what's the point? A gun hurts more anyway - if it doesn't kill you.
Does it? According to the US Naval Postgraduate School, 56 people died in school shootings during 2018 (includes shooter). While this is terrible, I'm not sure this counts as a "battlefield"? According to the CDC, over 3x more children died from the flu (185)!
EDIT: Yes during a shooting your environment does resemble a battlefield. Shootings are not common however (see above statistic) so I feel resources may be more valuable elsewhere.
This applies most in the situation where there is no escape and no one other than the shooter has firearms. If one is able to use tactics to even or upend the odds, then do that. Aggression is just the tactic of last resort.
It depends. If immediately rushing the shooter would result in fewer casualties, maybe that's the best choice. However, if that would only result in your getting mowed down, then setting up an ambush and waiting for the shooter is arguably better.
My recommendation, if you are in this situation, is to think one more time about your chance of escape. If there is truly no chance of escape, and if there are willing confederates, create a situation where the shooter is distracted and you can get the drop on him. (If possible, such that your confederate stands a chance of escape. They could distract by running and ducking into a doorway in the other direction, for example.)
If there are multiple, determined, trained shooters, it's probably best to run.
As someone who carries a firearm every day and is not law enforcement, it's situationally dependent.
If my family is with me, my first objective is to get them to safety. If that's not possible I'm certainly not leaving them to "hunt" the shooter.
If someone is actively engaged in shooting innocents and I'm alone, I'm going toward them under cover or concealment. I'm going to try my best to be as accurate as possible, and accuracy is proportional to the time taken to take the shot. The best resolution here would be firing before I'm seen and preventing the shooter from being able to continue their assault. That said, most mass murderers don't intend to survive to be captured, and someone returning fire is often enough for them to cut their massacre short through suicide to avoid that - so if I don't have a means to get closer, taking a shot that is unlikely to be effective is better than waiting and doing nothing. Even if they attempt to return fire at me, that means that innocents being targeted by them have more of a chance to reach cover.
Finally, and by far the most likely, I wouldn't be close enough to the shooter to immediately stop the situation. In that case I would keep my firearm holstered and try to help others flee to safety.
For what it's worth, I don't see any of this as being at all likely. On any given day I'm extremely unlikely to need a firearm; over the course of a year, a decade, or a lifetime, that chance goes up to merely "unlikely". By far the most likely circumstance I will ever use a firearm is self-defense is demonstrating the ability and motivation to defend myself, probably by merely preparing to fire by reaching for the gun.
I'm 36, and this has held true in the handful of situations I've encountered thus far; I've had one instance where I made the decision to draw and fire, and in the second or so before I had drawn and began to pull the trigger my assailant had stopped their assault and began to flee.
Why not have school-wide martial arts training or something instead? Empower the populace, and discourage people from attempting it in the first place. "An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure" as they say...
These shelter in place drills are addressing a symptom, and not the cause of violence.
A Hollywood caricature of martial arts might be useless. But my understanding of some martial arts is that they emphasize keeping a cool head, awareness of surroundings, deescalation and evasion over violent confrontation. Being even somewhat competent in those skills could prove valuable in an active shooter situation.
It's not about preparing anyone. The (sometimes unannounced) murder drills are about learned helplessness. I know of instances where it was done to special-needs students.
I find it difficult to articulate how much it pisses me off. Teachers are each responsible for a priceless group of people, if they individually would like the option to defend themselves and their students they should get the proper training and carry a firearm.
I've had occasion to participate in an active shooter exercise using simunitions. It was for police and EMS to practice their response. All participants were given safety gear, informed of the risks, and signed a waiver. I can't imagine not being given the proper safety gear and not being briefed about the exercise beforehand.
I'm from Europe. I mostly clicked on the link to find out what a shooter drill is. I'm baffled by the article and the comments in this thread. Having to have drills for school shootings is apparently considered a normal part of life in the US.
It's not. I don't know anyone that's ever been through an active shooter drill. The closest I know of is the college my wife taught at had an optional hour long seminar for teachers.
Nearly 95 percent of public schools had lockdown drills as of 2015-16.[1] I don't know anyone who's been through one either, but I'm an adult, and our generation just missed the cutoff.
I went through the public school system and I remember having lockdown drills from 1997 onward. Teachers just locked the doors and continued teaching until the all clear was announced and they unlocked the door.
In 2014 I was working IT for a private high school which had an active shooter drill on a yearly basis. I was told they started it two years prior because a student came onto campus with a handgun.
Sadly you're mistaken. Not many current American adults experienced them growing up even though school shootings have been happening for decades, but in recent years they've started to become as commonplace as fire drills in American primary schools.
"Nine out of ten public schools now drill students and teachers to respond to mass shootings, according to the National Center for Education Statistics." [regrettably via Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17016382/s... but still, seems legit]
The problem is that these mass shooting drills are taken to the extreme, way beyond what is necessary to prepare them. If they were treated more like fire drills, it wouldn't be nearly the impact on students and faculty as they currently are.
Ask a current middle or high schooler if they have. Probably, the answer will be yes. Source: I know an awful lot of teachers. IMO the drills are dumb as hell and indefensible considering how traumatic they are (reports of teachers breaking down crying afterward, let alone students) and how unlikely mass indiscriminate shooting[0] is at a school, even in the US. The old less-insane and less "real" teacher-only drills were probably enough, considering how harmful this alternative is.
[0] A distressingly large percentage of students will be near some kind of gunfire while at school, yes—a whole lot smaller percentage will experience the sort that these drills address. The more common variety that way more will hear or see are targeted (gang, grudge, whatever) shootings on or near school property, not the mass shootings these drills are designed to prepare them for.
You know, there are countries where this kind of thing doesn’t happen. Like, all of them. Know how many such drills we had in Canada? Zero. Probably because most guns are illegal so we don’t need them.
That the solution isn’t gun control but instead making it illegal to shoot teachers unexpectedly with airsoft rifles is evidence of how insanely beyond the pail US gun policy and the whole discourse has become. New Zealand had a shooting, six days later, gun control. That’s how you solve the problem. Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.
Probably because most guns are illegal so we don’t need them.
I saw a YouTube video from a few years back. A Canadian walked into a gun store co-located with a gas station and bought a semi auto rifle. I also recall a more recent video from one of my subscribed YouTubers firing a different semi-auto rifle. I don't think your logic really holds up to the facts.
It’s no YouTube video haha but Wikipedia has a pretty good description of the rules [1]. Everyone needs a license, long guns you’re free to own unregistered, everything else requires registration.
So if people can get a license and go and buy semi-auto long guns, which you say, thus corroborating what I recall seeing on YouTube, your logic doesn't really hold up.
Ah, remember when all that gun control prevented a group of armed terrorists from massacreing nearly 100 people in Paris? Or when Brazil abolished private firearm ownership - did that make the country any safer? It seems to be the opposite - firearm homicides increased to over 60,000+ yearly (compared to 10,000-15,000 in the US anually.)
The US is far safer than it was in the late 80s/early 90s when barely anybody owned dreaded "assault weapons" and when concealed carry wasn't a thing.
More guns = less crime.
Homicide rates in the northern US are comparable to that of Canada.
Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold up. You said, "Probably because most guns are illegal so we don’t need them." Since Canada has ready availability of semi-auto long guns, has relatively relaxed gun laws, and even licensing and daily background checks would not have stopped all mass shooters, your logic that such drills are therefore not necessary is empty and illogical.
You cannot prove a negative. I hope for your sake, you're just trolling with deliberately faulty logic.
There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay.
There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves.
California has pretty much this, and in implementation is much stricter than Canada. The result? There are mass shootings here as well as lots of urban gun violence.
New Zealand already has stricter gun laws than many places in the US.
Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay.
The government unilaterally taking away the rights of innocent people shouldn't be okay. If it's okay with someone, then it means they're okay with stomping on the human rights of people they don't like.
I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.
It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries.
>>> I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.
Horrifying.
So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. That’s the problem, life is always trade offs. I don’t feel comfortable with everyone armed, that infringed on my rights. Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I do however want to live. And I want my children to grow up in a country without mass shooter drills and metal detectors so you can pursue your hobby, because 300 years ago a few people thought everyone should have muskets and slaves. Constitutions are amendable for a reason.
It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries.
You haven't heard the tales of Minnesota bootleggers and mobsters. (Directly relevant to Canada.) National borders don't mean that much to criminals. This includes illegal firearms trafficking.
Horrifying.
My family has direct experience with Leftists who take away individual rights for the sake of the group. My mother and oldest uncle had to be smuggled for hours in a pitch black compartment of a freighter to escape. That's horrifying. War is horrifying, because that's what came soon after.
It's orders of magnitude more likely you'll die in a car crash than die from an active shooter scenario.
So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive.
Sorry, but none of that makes sense. Many of the states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest levels of violence.
The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns.
I dialed 911 once. It malfunctioned. I called from a neighbor's. I wound up with a bloody face and stitches. The police in their SUV drove past my house to the wrong address, driving right past me waving my arms with blood streaming down my face. This was in addition to their arriving way too late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
One of my housemates had a direct experience with preventing a mugging, because the potential assailant figured out he had a weapon.
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
Restricting the guns won't take the means to kill away from determined nutjobs and criminals. However, every day it's in action, it will take away the means for tens of thousands of innocent law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while creating the precedent of the government stomping on their property and 2nd amendment rights.
Sorry, but your "logic" sounds like something ignorant kids would write.
> Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts.
Latin America has many countries with restrictive gun control and widespread gun crime. Brazil and Mexico have actually relaxed gun control so people can defend themselves[1,2]
But even if your claim were true, who cares if gun crime goes down if overall murder and crime rates don't? Are people better off if killed or mugged with other weapons?
Brazil and Mexico are on the way to becoming failed states. If America moves towards a Mad Max future you can have your gun back. Until then, let's leave the shooting to the people trained to do so instead of literally anyone who wants to shoot. All the experts I've seen interviewed say people think they'll be awesome in a high-pressure situation like a shooting but unless they're actually trained specifically for it they'll likely harm people they didn't intend to.
There are places in America that aren't much better than Brazil or Mexico. There are other places in America where help is hours away and defending yourself is the only option. And places where hunting is still a means of feeding families, as well as the primary method of managing animal populations.
By all means, ban guns in New York and San Francisco if that's what the people of those cities want, but don't impose your needs on people who live completely different lives.
If there are parts of America as lawless as Brazil and Mexico you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Giving those people guns and wishing them the best is just horrifying. Figure out how to repair the situation instead. Mad Max wasn't meant to be instructional, you know.
I'd also suggest your opinions about America are pretty divorced from the realities on the ground.
I live in a rural area with bears, mountain lions, and wolves...so I'll be keeping my guns for as long as I'm out here...I've killed 2 skunks in the last 3 months that would have killed my chickens...the parent comment on rural areas rings true to me.
> I'd also suggest your opinions about America are pretty divorced from the realities on the ground.
St Louis and Baltimore have murder rates as high as the worst countries in Latin America; much worse than Mexico or Brazil, and many more American cities murder rates are as high as Mexico or Brazil.
If you have effective ideas to improve that I'm sure they'd love to hear from you, but personally I'm not smart enough to fix every problem in society.
Great, the reason they’re shooting each other isn’t due to not having enough guns. Solve the real problem don’t throw up your hands and say shoot yourselves. Total anarchy isn’t better.
The reality is the shootings are a symptom of a real, meaningful social problem. They’re not the cause in and of themselves. At best allowing people to intimidate each other with weapons is masking the real problem and prolonging the pain of those suffering — while simultaneously giving untrained and unqualified vigilantes easy ways to hurt people. At worst, you’ve just made it easier for people to murder unchecked. We’ve had fairly lax gun policy for centuries so it’s pretty clear your plan to just arm everyone and hide in the sand from the real cause hadn’t worked so far, so why should it start now, all of a sudden?
What about your fellow citizens who don't live in LA, SF, or NY?
Guns aren't a hobby out in my rural town...we have bears, mountain lions, and wolves ...and livestock to protect....you can choose to not buy a gun if you want but I'll always keep mine as long as I live around nature's predators...
Yep, 100%, and you should have them. You know, after a background check. And one shotgun or rifle, or some reasonable quantity of a type of weapon that meets your needs. No pistols or AR-15s. Norway has strict gun control regulations but require you possess one to leave the built up areas of Svalbard due to polar bears.
I was replying to the comment implying that you can buy rifle without background check. To be fair no amount of government restrictions and bans will stop the mass shooter who really wants to become one. There are a lot of illegal guns getting to Canada from US.
There is no background check at the time of sale for non restricted rifles or shotguns. This is compares to restricted firearms (handguns and some types of rifles) that do require background checks at the time of sale. The "background check every day" statement is somewhat correct in that someone's PAL is invalidated if the commit a crime, or get divorced. As far as I know that's what's referred to by daily background checks. I am almost certain that background checks are not actually peformed every day, that would be a massive amount of labor.
This in contrast to California where all firearms sales other than black powder muzzle loader have backgry checks run every time someone buys them.
You have to pass a background check to get a PAL. There's no background check at the time of sale for non restricted guns. "Runs background checks daily" is kind of correct. Your PAL is revoked if you commit a crime that would disqualify you from getting a PAL.
This is distinct from restricted firearms (mostly handguns) where a new background check is performed each time you buy a restricted firearms.
In California, all firearms save for some really old ones are treated like restricted rifles in Canada. You have to get a background check and wait 10 days for every purchase even if you already own a dozen guns. Plus there are a bunch of rules about the shape of the grip, whether it has a for grip, the shape of the muzzle brake, and whether or not the stock folds that can make guns felonies to possess.
All guns (save for the aforementioned muzzle loader) are registered in California. Well, technically not registered because to do so is a violation of Federal law. But the State does log every firearm brought into the state, every firearm bought, and every firearm transferred. So basically a registry in everything but name.
What's the point of these drills? It's not like the cops are going to go into a school with an active shooter and stop him. They'll just wait outside while the children get killed and hope the shooter kills himself like in every other school shooting. Or maybe they like to practice murdering teachers and other innocent people since they think it's part of their job? Seems pretty insane the school would let them carry out their sick fantasies this way.
(Compare: the DEA agent who shot himself while talking to a classroom about gun safety:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNa5n2I_DUw
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/safety-first/ )
reply