Is That It?

Is that it? That was it?

We waited for something revolutionary, something innovative, something definitely effective, and it was all that? They just tell us to calm down and lock the doors.

This was supposed to be a simultaneous nationwide school safety drill with active shooter "reenactments." Well, it was supposed to work like earthquake and fire drills—similar to the simulation scenarios that fire brigade and Red Cross volunteers undergo to prepare for actual emergency incidents. We get the point. This is to prevent another school shooting, and the prompt response in addressing recent negative events deserves commendation.

But then, psychiatrist groups stepped in and pointed out that current evidence does not show these simulations "reduce casualties or prevent incidents." The Philippine Psychiatric Association and the Philippine Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry highlighted that multiple studies demonstrate such drills, which "expose learners to hyper-realistic scenarios of violence," may cause lasting psychological harm. Okay, it won't hurt to listen to your shrink. Some children may even misconstrue a shooting drill as an exciting sort of war game to emulate, while potential shooters could analyze the exercise to spot weak points and loopholes in the system. We have seen how analytical shooters can be.

So, instead of a drill, we got a lecture. We understand why. But then, the cops came up front basically to tell teachers, parents, and children that when a person with a gun comes along blazing bullets, we have to calm down, lock the doors, call the police, and fight if necessary. That’s it.

I was expecting them to share some strategy or survival hack that law enforcement and the military exercise when facing aggressive gunmen or insurgents. They could have at least taught us how to huddle children in the area farthest from the door. Maybe they had insights on which spots in a room are less vulnerable, or what materials prevent bullets from penetrating. Maybe they could have offered practical tips we don't already know.

Okay, okay—maybe those skills require extensive training. But they told us: first, calm down; second, lock the doors. If you ask me, we should lock the doors first—"calming down" might take some time, but at least the doors are already locked!

Oh no—then you remember those big windows with glass panels and grills designed for ventilation, or so school heads, supervisors, and parents can easily see that teachers are teaching, and children are studying. They would be massive liabilities in a shooting situation. Even if the doors are locked and the pupils stay as far back as possible, they would still be visible from the outside through the windows. Oh my!

Well, they did inform us that we could dial 911 for emergencies even without cellphone load. Too bad we can't test it to verify if it actually works without risking a penalty for wasting response time. Then again, there have been reports from residents in Pacol who allegedly called 911 to report a motorcycle accident, only to allegedly get no answer.

The police officers/lecturers arrived two hours late because they delivered the same lecture at two other large schools. Did they tell them to calm down, lock the doors, call 911, and fight if necessary, too? Or maybe the audience just asked a lot of questions.

Why do I get the feeling they're doing this just for compliance—just to get it over and done with?

Why is there a Miss Gay Bicolandia pageant, but no Miss Bicolandia this year? If funds were tight, couldn't they have simply simplified it?

Why are there hostile witnesses in the impeachment trial?

Why is the government official who allegedly made grave threats over social media for all the public to see and hear now allegedly afraid for her own security? Why is this same official allegedly fearful and allegedly distrustful of the people and institutions around her? Shouldn't the people against whom she allegedly made those threats be the ones afraid, considering they were explicitly threatened in front of social media viewers? Why is a legislator suggesting that an official who made grave threats against the President, First Lady, and House Speaker be exempted from lawsuits? Doesn't that tolerate or even condone the act of making grave threats—or any crime, for that matter? Isn't immunity supposed to protect the President? Isn't the President one of the people allegedly being threatened?

Oh, my mind has drifted to other issues.

Back to the topic: while we're trying to protect children from gunshots, maybe they need shots against dengue fever instead. Cases and deaths are rising in Naga. But that’s a topic for another article.

Proverbs 21:3: "To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice."”