Wrapping your kids in kevlar

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Children going to school with bulletproof backpacks, whiteboards that double as combat shields and bulletproof vests hanging next to coats in the cloakroom... you'd be forgiven for thinking I'm describing a school in Somalia or Waziristan . Unfortunately this is the USA.

After Newtown several US schools and parents have taken the step to start bulletproofing their kids and classrooms in case of a repeat of the massacre.

The company behind the bullet-proof bags, Elite Sterling Security, has already sold over 300 and is dealing with around 2000 further requests. It is also discussing ballistic vests in over a dozen Colorado schools.

While this is a million times better than the NRA's 'more guns!' policy it is still insane that people are having to send 5 year olds to school with body armour. With security cameras everywhere, security fences and locked doors how long will it be before the only difference between a school and a prison is the kids get to go home at 3 o'clock?

It's ok to want your kids to be safe at school but ballistic vests in the cupboard and 'escape the gunman' drills are something else entirely. This is the point you realise you can't just keep treating the symptoms and have to go for the cure.

source

And then Congress has the nerve to blame guns in Video Games...

Are there actual "escape the gunman" drills?

How do they work?

Well nobody wants to tackle the mental health care issue due to it not being easy , nor sexy, and having no apparent end game, so they treat the symptoms instead.

Reminds me of how after the guy in Florida ate the other guy's face companies started selling bullets guaranteed to kill zombies. As the saying goes "There's a sucker born every minute".

Statistically speaking, it would be better to provide children with floatation devices seeing as how they are many times more likely to die of drowning than by gunfire.

Then again, selling useless insurance to idiots is a hallmark of capitalism.

Also, soft armor is for losers. My child wouldn't have anything less than full ESAPI plates.

Almost makes you wish that parents would take this kind of initiative with things that kill substantially more people every year and are far more easily solved.

Ah, so I guess to be fair it's not just the gun and ammo manufacturers that get to profit from the constant fear and keeping the status quo intact. Touché.

2300 is hardly statistically relevant seeing as there are millions of school children. It seems a much more expensive route then giving CCW holders the ability to do what they do everywhere else in schools, but thats a different argument all together.

What a stupid idea. If they just armed the kids so they could shoot the intruder it'd be much cheaper for everyone!

I thought it was ridiculous in Fallout 3 how robots would be armed with lasers, missiles, flamethrowers etc. and be on orders to vaporize anyone who didn't have their employee card or train ticket with them. While I doubt Bethesda intended for it to happen it seems a lot less crazy now.

Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Well, us Brits can't be smug. I think there are a couple of schools in London which have had stab proof uniforms for a while now. Yep, this from 6 years ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6945814.stm

Quaxar:
What a stupid idea. If they just armed the kids so they could shoot the intruder it'd be much cheaper for everyone!

I was thinking that the other day. I mean, it worked in Harry Potter, kinda, right?

The next logical steps is baby-mechs. You heard it here first!
It will be just like my childhood drawings.....

Yeah, sorry - cant take this seriously.

FreedomofInformation:
Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Driving is already more restricted than gun ownership is, and there already are areas where you're not allowed to drive, what's your point?

FreedomofInformation:
Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Did you go through a mandatory training and licensing program to ensure your proficiency with guns?

Skeleon:

FreedomofInformation:
Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Did you go through a mandatory training and licensing program to ensure your proficiency with guns?

And yet, motor vehicles are responsible for more deaths in this country than are firearms of all kinds...

Perhaps we should revise the way in which we license and allow people to drive?

Scolar Visari:
Perhaps we should revise the way in which we license and allow people to drive?

Perhaps. Some people say you should have to renew your license every now and then (like, every decade or something), demonstrate you still know what you're doing, for example. Especially older drivers sometimes fail to follow even the most basic rules or are simply not physically able to drive well anymore (because of vision impairment for instance). I think a sensible argument could be made to change things in how we license folks and continue to allow them to drive, yes.

What does that have to do with the fact that guns are easier to qualify for than cars, though? Even if I disagreed with your presumably facetious suggestion, it wouldn't be a double standard - if that's what you were trying to imply here - since at least there's a one-time training and licensing process required for driving. Perhaps that's not enough, yes, but it's better than nothing.

Also, I don't really want to get into the whole "comparing cars to guns"-thing again, but I really have to point out how important cars are for all sorts of tasks, whereas guns are much more limited in their usage. Especially a lot of guns people don't want to give up (we're not talking about normal hunting rifles like they are still available in countries with stricter gun control, after all).

Scolar Visari:

Skeleon:

FreedomofInformation:
Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Did you go through a mandatory training and licensing program to ensure your proficiency with guns?

And yet, motor vehicles are responsible for more deaths in this country than are firearms of all kinds...

Barely. 33,808 fatal motor vehicle accident deaths (link to parent page) versus 31,347 gun deaths in the same year (2009). Of particular note should be that the rate of death (per 100,000) of traffic fatalities has been on a steady decline since at least the 1990s (the first data point on the Census fact sheet) whereas gun fatality rates have been holding steady at around 10.2-10.4 since 1999.

Perhaps we should revise the way in which we license and allow people to drive?

Perhaps you should licence and track ownership of guns at least to the level of cars? You know: licencing, registration, liability insurance, ownership tracking database for law enforcement purposes, graded licences (i.e. 1 licence for revolvers, shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc., 1 stricter licence for semi-automatic rifles plus lower licences, 1 even stricter licence for semi-automatic pistols plus all lower level guns, etc. - this would actually streamline the background check process), etc.

Coppernerves:
Are there actual "escape the gunman" drills?

How do they work?

It's not clear in the article but my guess is it's the same as a fire drill - drop your things, head to the nearest exit and try get away from the buildings. Dunno how useful they would be considering you could either run into the gunman in the halls or you end up out in the open with nowhere to hide.

FreedomofInformation:
Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Ignoring the fact that cars are in no way like guns we put seatbelts in cars to avoid accidents not intentional crashes. There is nothing accidental about a school shooting so the comparison is flawed.

A better example is pollution - the smog in London was so bad during the 50's it was killing people. What America is doing now is the equivalent of saying we should just walk around with gas masks on all day rather than properly regulate the cause and negate the need for gas masks in the first place.

What people fail to realize is that there is an entire country outside of the popular town of the week.

What Newtown residents do to make themselves feel better is not any sort of concern for the rest of the world.

"America" isn't behaving this way, a few unfortunately misguided parents are and thanks to our "news" media, it sounds like an epidemic.

It is fucking stupid, to be sure, but seriously.. not worthy of an real debate.

Its ridiculous that they propose all of this mess without considering allowing licensed, gun owning, teachers to carry on campus. 100% of their ideas for protecting kids are defensive measures. It's stupid to be 100% defensive, like an armadillo. People on the defense are the ones that get shot, we want to be on the offensive side.

I should go out and stomp on some armadillos to demonstrate the ridiculousness of being "purely defensive".

Scolar Visari:

Skeleon:

FreedomofInformation:
Why not apply the same logic to cars and ban them instead of putting seatbelts or baby seats in them?

Did you go through a mandatory training and licensing program to ensure your proficiency with guns?

And yet, motor vehicles are responsible for more deaths in this country than are firearms of all kinds...

Perhaps we should revise the way in which we license and allow people to drive?

You could ban them outright like those who want to ban guns.
No one needs cars, they can just walk or get the train instead.
However in cars people have taken safety measures so I don't see how it's any different from limiting the damage from guns from guns.

Safety lessons in school for gun handling is another topic.

FreedomofInformation:

You could ban them outright like those who want to ban guns.
No one needs cars, they can just walk or get the train instead.
However in cars people have taken safety measures so I don't see how it's any different from limiting the damage from guns from guns.

Safety lessons in school for gun handling is another topic.

I'm not sure what made you think no one needs cars. If cars were to be banned it would be followed by an economic collapse. The same can't be said about guns.

Comparing guns to cars is as silly as an argument can get. They are both totally different tools used for different purposes and designed for different purposes.

generals3:

FreedomofInformation:

You could ban them outright like those who want to ban guns.
No one needs cars, they can just walk or get the train instead.
However in cars people have taken safety measures so I don't see how it's any different from limiting the damage from guns from guns.

Safety lessons in school for gun handling is another topic.

I'm not sure what made you think no one needs cars. If cars were to be banned it would be followed by an economic collapse. The same can't be said about guns.

Comparing guns to cars is as silly as an argument can get. They are both totally different tools used for different purposes and designed for different purposes.

Plus nobody really wants to "ban guns" so your whole argument is against people who don't exist or at least not in any real number.

generals3:
I'm not sure what made you think no one needs cars. If cars were to be banned it would be followed by an economic collapse. The same can't be said about guns.

How do you plan on eating if we farmers cannot kill pests? Wild pigs regularly ripe up farm land and even attack stock animals. I think a lack of food would be a bit of a problem for any economic system.

farson135:

generals3:
I'm not sure what made you think no one needs cars. If cars were to be banned it would be followed by an economic collapse. The same can't be said about guns.

How do you plan on eating if we farmers cannot kill pests? Wild pigs regularly ripe up farm land and even attack stock animals. I think a lack of food would be a bit of a problem for any economic system.

Actually, (sorry for going off topic) I recently read a thing about the wild pig epidemic, and apparently, not only is hunting pretty ineffective at reducing numbers, it actually caused the crisis in the first place, with lots of pigs being shipped to one region for hunting purposes and then escaping and having a population explosion.

edit; found the source http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/who-can-stop-these-adorable-pigs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Counterparties+%28Counterparties%29

ClockworkPenguin:
Actually, (sorry for going off topic) I recently read a thing about the wild pig epidemic, and apparently, not only is hunting pretty ineffective at reducing numbers

Actually hunting is very effective. The problem is that hunting is not widespread enough to hit every area. Because of the lack of hunting, groups of pigs continue to grow and later spread into new areas. Hunting of wild pig has decimated the wild pig population in my home town. You cannot tell me that killing 500-1000 pigs every year is doing nothing for our area (especially considering the fact that it is down from the 5000 per year we were taking in when I started).

The factors your source mentions are being dealt with. We know what we are doing. We use technology to track them and see them. We use high powered semi-auto rifles to kill entire herds. We do not stay in one place but instead attack them where they are or where they are going to go (very easy to figure out under the perpetual near drought conditions here in central Texas). Plus, all of the farmers in the area assist us by calling or emailing us when they see a pig. Plus, pigs are smart but they are not that smart. Pigs work in the day. We kill them. They switch to night. We take out our night vision gear and/or we set up flares and set them off when we hear them and keep killing them. They stick to thick forests. We use infrared game cameras and hunting dogs. They spread out. We concentrate what they need so they come to us. And on.

it actually caused the crisis in the first place, with lots of pigs being shipped to one region for hunting purposes and then escaping and having a population explosion.

Thank the Spanish but do not blame the hunters.

farson135:

generals3:
I'm not sure what made you think no one needs cars. If cars were to be banned it would be followed by an economic collapse. The same can't be said about guns.

How do you plan on eating if we farmers cannot kill pests? Wild pigs regularly ripe up farm land and even attack stock animals. I think a lack of food would be a bit of a problem for any economic system.

You could probably go for traps and stronger fences, I don't think the effect would nearly be as devastating to banning cars. Do mind i'm not in favor of a full ban, heck most countries with strong gun regulation have hunting licenses which allow people to own rifles to hunt wild animals.

generals3:
You could probably go for traps and stronger fences

Pigs are relatively smart and obvious traps do not work for very long. And it is extremely difficult to capture a lot of pigs that way. As for the fence, if you can suggest a CHEAP and easy way to keep out a 300 pound wild pig that really wants to get into your land (remember that we are talking about fencing in hundreds of acres of land) I would love to hear it. That would make our lives a lot easier. Unfortunately, we are stuck with what we have.

I don't think the effect would nearly be as devastating to banning cars.

With my town killing between 500-1000 pigs per year the pigs are still able to do tens of thousands of dollars in damage. 600 million dollars in damage each year in Texas. And that is with Texans killing about 1 million of the 2 million pigs in Texas per year. Also keep in mind, the pig population is relatively stable WITH us killing about half of their population every year. What do you think would happen if we stopped?

Do mind i'm not in favor of a full ban, heck most countries with strong gun regulation have hunting licenses which allow people to own rifles to hunt wild animals.

But many of those countries would not allow me to use the AR10 that I have been using for more than a decade to hunt pigs. It is an accepted reality that wild pigs (in large numbers) have to be hunted with an AR15 or similar.

generals3:
If cars were to be banned it would be followed by an economic collapse.

etc, etc

imo, cars will be "banned" (or rather the ability to drive your conveyance yourself as standard will be removed/sidelined) as soon as computers can consistently and reliably do the job...which is probably not actually all that far off...

"cars" will become more like automated taxicabs where you get in and say "take us to grannies" and it just does so as safely, efficiently and expediently as possible.

doesn't mean ppl won't have "cars" just means they won't be "sitting at the wheel" and manually driving them any more "as the general norm".

imho that's an inevitability that's due to happen to "cars" (in "developed nations" at least) at some point in the future.

farson135:
But many of those countries would not allow me to use the AR10 that I have been using for more than a decade to hunt pigs. It is an accepted reality that wild pigs (in large numbers) have to be hunted with an AR15 or similar.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how an AR-15 works better than an equal caliber bolt-action rifle at killing pigs, and the linked article explicitly pointed out how regular and helicopter hunting (the only kind of hunting I could see even needing a semi-automatic rifle) are some of the least effective means at actually dealing with the problem regardless of the firearm, with the only advantage being human ingenuity (although that's how the problem got started in the first place), which is not a substitute for a better formulated plan.

As you pointed out: even at the rate of pig killing for your town and state, you're barely able to keep them at current levels, much less reduce the population necessary to actually deal with the problem. Until those crack scientists develop that swine genophage, traps and poisons are more effecitve (even if it turns into a mousetrap game).

The Gentleman:
Sorry, but I'm not seeing how an AR-15 works better than an equal caliber bolt-action rifle at killing pigs

Because the AR15 allows for follow-up shots. Wild pigs do not travel alone (usually).

and the linked article explicitly pointed out how regular and helicopter hunting (the only kind of hunting I could see even needing a semi-automatic rifle) are some of the least effective means at actually dealing with the problem regardless of the firearm

And as I pointed out the article is wrong. The article itself made projections for technology that does not even exist. How can it compare modern hunting to a technology that does not exist? What's more, their beliefs are based on theory rather than practice.

For fucks sake, if Ted Nugent can kill 500 pigs over a weekend you know damn well that hunting works- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/ted-nugent-kills-pigs-bill-maher-animal-freaks_n_2852302.html

As you pointed out: even at the rate of pig killing for your town and state, you're barely able to keep them at current levels, much less reduce the population necessary to actually deal with the problem.

Yes, because Texas still has rules that prevent us from going all out and because some communities are not helping. We are keeping the population from expanding with all of these problems. That speaks to our effectiveness.

Until those crack scientists develop that swine genophage, traps and poisons are more effecitve (even if it turns into a mousetrap game).

Traps and poison are NOT effective. Building a trap that a wild pig will not break is difficult enough. Building it in such a way as to prevent pigs from figuring out what the traps are is even more difficult. As for poisons, their use hurts local wildlife AND drainage (this is farm country in a drought prone area) and it makes the meat worthless.

Coppernerves:
Are there actual "escape the gunman" drills?

How do they work?

At my school, it was more like "pretending we're not here" drills. The teachers shut and lock the doors, shut off the lights, and then everybody piles up in a corner of the room that can't be seen from the window in the door.

In other news, I think this is really dumb. All this is going to do is make the rural/underfunded schools that can't afford these things the more advantageous targets.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked