The BulletProof Backpack

I'm with ehBeth here.

Yesterday I stopped at the farm stand for fruit and vegetables. On a whim I weighed my carrier bag--15 pounds! That bag was heavy.

Murderous lunatics are a problem--the lunatic fringe is never going to go away.

Meanwhile one third of American school children are overweight or obese.
One third of American school children are in danger of heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, GIRD and other affluent ailments.

This is a problem that can be tackled, if not solved.

0 Replies

ASo we forget about their safety? Just make sure their corpses are trim and sveldt. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Farmerman--

At the very least let's get the chubbers to lose 15 pounds of fat before acquring 15 pounds of teflon shielding.

Also, for a backpack shield to be effective the kid would have to be wearing that shield at all times. There are very practical reasons for lockers and coatrooms--kids learn more effectively when not freighted down with bulky possessions.

0 Replies

The tone of this entire thread has me kinda disgusted with some of the "normal" grownups here, starting with that Stetson wearing dork.
My point isnt that we make the kids wear the backpack in full array on their chests, they have them as a short term safety shield while getting to or from a "safe room" Im concerned that schools begin to recognize these conditions and place n some contingency design elements for safety . It was funny how, when the AMish school murders happened last year, the Amish Safety Committee (a standing comittee in their community because we "English" love to run down their buggies when we get road rage, and now they have to worry about school attacks. The safety committees quickly did some retrofiting of school entry doors and window heights with sills just a foot higher so seeing in is now impossible unless youre Shaquille Oneal.
Their doors are like those on an Israeli airliner, and theyve retrofitted air horns to alert the nearest AMish farms (remember the movie Witness?). It seems the Amish have learned a few lessons but most new schols Ive seen in Pa have few safety design elements and thos ethat do, have the 'Safe room" concept pevailing , so that rooms can quickly go "Lock down" However, some kids may need a piece of protetcion as they run to their nearest safe room.
The backpacks that kids carry today have always given my wife a concern , so she redesigned the last one that my son used to keep the weight distributed higher . Hed have a pack that was like a military field pack , and he is still quite fit.

I applaud the fathers for trying the idea out, designs can always be made better and lighter, thats never an issue. A conept will be made to work if theres a need it can fulfill. Standing on the sides and ridiculing it was like the cavemen who stood by and made fun of the "wheel".

Im kinda glad that I hang out with people who first ask the question "why not?"

0 Replies

A slogan just waiting to be said..

"Lose weight, become a smaller target."

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The ecurity issue is one that needs filling by changes of tactics and arming more plainclothes security folks.

The arming of everyone as David seeks,
is silly and the money could better be spent
by providing schools with more armed personnel
and certain full body armored elite teams that would practice "urban assault" tactics.

My position is being misrepresented and distorted.

I never suggested that the students be armed from the public treasury,
just as thay do not get free pens, nor free paper, nor free shoes.
RATHER, I suggest that the students' OWN
preparations for self-defense NOT be obstructed by the polity.
I further suggest that thay be trained in defensive gunnery practices,
the same as we were trained to swim, for safety reasons.
Schools have had many, many rifle and pistol teams for many generations,
certainly since Congress established the Director of Civilian Marksmanship,
around the time of the First World War
( from whom I purchased a .30 caliber M-1 Carbine for $20
and a .45 caliber Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol for $12 )

Quote:

The perps are universally narcissistic and have some major wiring problems ,
so , once they begin their acting, its too late,
the time for intervention has passed
and these kids must be neutralized as quickly as possible.

Yes.
I believe that a hollowpointed .44 special round
directed into the lower intestines wud effect swift neutralization.

Quote:

Columbine was a perfect example where kids were being killed
while police were methodically closing in on the perps.
Its no critcism of them, they were instructed to assume that the perps
could meld right into the crowd of schoolkids.

That is not what happened.

The police were too cowardly to enter the school
until several hours after the murderers had already committed suicide.
( The police were afraid of all the bombs. )
Thay limited themselves to false promises of armed assistance,
over the telefone, while teachers and students were literally lying on
the floor bleeding to death, waiting for help. Thay DID bleed to death, waiting for the police.
( That IS a criticism of the local police, and it is indicative of the wisdom
of relying upon help from society, instead of being self-reliant.
Let us be COGNIZANT that this is the dichotomy of American philosophy:
the old self-reliant right, and the newer collectivist reliant point of vu,
as evinced by Reginald Denny in L.A. and by Kitty Genovese in NY,
both of whom found out, empirically, how safe it is to rely on the police.
BOTH of them were in full and perfect compliance with ALL gun control laws.
Surely the suppressionists must be PROUD of them.
( Their abusers shud certainly be grateful to them for obeying the gun control laws; RIGHT ?? )

Quote:

Arming everyone (like David states regularly)
would not be a sane solution because the number of accidental shootings
(like "friendly fire" incidents could make a bad situation much worse).

By THAT reasoning,
all police stations shud be disarmed,
on the grounds that thay might have an accidental discharge
in friendly fire circumstances, and of course we know that that happens
every day; right ??

PLEASE NOTE that this is more than an examination of the WISDOM
of repealing laws that sabotage the citizens' abitilty to defend their lives and property:
this concerns a matter of USURPATION of power by government,
that was never granted to government
( like the power to choose your favorite color for u and assign it to u ),
but this concerns a usurpatory seizure of power that was explicitly denied
to government so that the citizens 'd be able to control, modify,
and even overthrow government AGAIN, if thay so chose,
as thay just had done in their very recent memory in the American Revolution.

Under the old English Monarchy, the GOVERNMENT had been sovereign.
The King was ofen called " the Sovereign. "
The establishment of the American Republic rejected that point of vu.

In the nu government, the CITIZENS were sovereign
and government was only hired help, like realty owners hiring a property manager.

By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.
US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers a strong moral check
against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally
...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea, adding:
"The meaning of the provision... is that the people ...
shall have the right to keep and bear arms and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."

The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns
than to edit the Bible or control who has one.

David

0 Replies

Om sig

Quote:

just as thay do not get free pens, nor free paper, nor free shoes.
RATHER, I suggest that the students' OWN
preparations for self-defense NOT be obstructed by the polity

. And your casue is for the arming of all students teachers , cooks, librarians, etc. What a silvan scene for learning beneath the boughs. "Today we discuss the Summa Theologica", Mr David, please stop picking your nose with your Falcon"

Lets use laptops as an example, Whether the schools pay for laptops and then tack it on to "fees" or the students pay themselsves, the average laptop fee for a university the size of U Va is PPROXIMATELY 15000 X 600$ PER YEAR, al,most 10 mill per year. Im saying that , spending your "Arm the students" cash and spend it on beefed up security and tactics would be about 20 mil on year one and then would drop to a quarter of that for subsequent years, and
of the debating team would be packing.

Quote:

That is not what happened.

The police were too cowardly to enter the school
until several hours after the murderers had already committed suicide.
( The police were afraid of all the bombs. )
Thay limited themselves to false promises of armed assistance,
over the telefone, while teachers and students were literally lying on

the floor bleeding to death, waiting for help. Thay DID bleed to death, waiting for the police.

Whew, youve got fim l?, Cause Ive seen film of the cops in the school going from room to room while shooting was still going on n the library. I agree that the TIME taken was the time that resulted in kids deaths. So with an urban assault mentality by fully rigged body armored teams going quickly to the shooting some kids could have been saved. WOuld bacpaks have helped? I dont know, but since it appeared that there were NO targeted students , the shootings were random and opportunistic, maybe a kevlar back pack, worn like a life jacket may have helped.

I still think that arming everybody is kinda loony but , hey, thats your gospel.

0 Replies

Quote:

By THAT reasoning,
all police stations shud be disarmed,
on the grounds that thay might have an accidental discharge
in friendly fire circumstances, and of course we know that that happens
every day; right ??

Your mind overheats easily David. Your attempt at linkage in that last statement is wholly inconsistent with what Ive said and its just a stupid attempt at miscasting.

Even though friendly fire accidents occur among TRAINED individuals, do you think the problem would be lessened among the population as a whole? Are the citizenry better at handling deadly force situations as well as trained cops? Are you quite mad? More guns in hands of even well meaning , ane, individuals will statistically bear out my prediction, not yours.

0 Replies

I like the idea of having bullet-proof shields at the ready in schools; I'm not convinced that backpacks are the best way to provide them.

To begin with, at my daughter's school, it's not like her backpack is right there next to her for easy access. And it's actually on her back for maybe 5 minutes on her way in and out of school.

What about some sort of lining on tables, so they could be turned sideways and kids could huddle behind them? Or just a set of straightforward shields that are easily accessible?

I'm definitely in favor of viable and non-harmful defensive measures in schools, as a concept. (As in, bullet-proof barriers yes, guns no.) Psychologically-speaking, I like the idea of lined tables better than individual shields -- no need to have a constant reminder of what might happen.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I like the idea of having bullet-proof shields at the ready in schools; I'm not convinced that backpacks are the best way to provide them.

To begin with, at my daughter's school, it's not like her backpack is right there next to her for easy access. And it's actually on her back for maybe 5 minutes on her way in and out of school.

What about some sort of lining on tables, so they could be turned sideways and kids could huddle behind them? Or just a set of straightforward shields that are easily accessible?

I'm definitely in favor of viable and non-harmful defensive measures in schools, as a concept. (As in, bullet-proof barriers yes, guns no.) Psychologically-speaking, I like the idea of lined tables better than individual shields -- no need to have a constant reminder of what might happen.

That 'd be OK, if if wud WORK,
but the murderers wud just stroll around them, at their leisure.

To successfully get the job of defense DONE,
the victims need to successfully counterattack the predator and take him out.
That is just the shape of the world.
That is how it has always been.
That will not change.

I love to watch my HDTV, with Nature shows ( e.g., the National Geographic Channel ).
When I see the water buffalo running from the lion,
I know that this will not work; he is too heavy n will tire.

His only opportunity to survive is to use his formidable armament
to disable the predatory lions.

We need to take a lesson from that.

As Jesus advised:
if u don 't have a sword, u 'd better buy one ( Luke 22:36 )
( extrapolate that to a .44 special revolver, with hollowpointed slugs )
or
be prepared to emulate the Jews at the Warsaw Ghetto,
defending from the nazis.

Did Cho 's victims believe that Cho was nicer than the nazis ?
or LESS worthy of being defended against ??
I doubt that.

David

0 Replies

Plenty of kids in the inner cities are already packing guns. I think training them to become marksmen is a great idea. They should train them how to accurately shoot out of a moving car window to decrease accidental shootings of babies.

There's no reason to bash the idea of the backpack, even though it probably wouldn't do a hell of a lot. And bringing the obese issue is stupid. Kids are fat because their parents don't know how to feed them or get them off the couch.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I like the idea of having bullet-proof shields at the ready in schools; I'm not convinced that backpacks are the best way to provide them.

To begin with, at my daughter's school, it's not like her backpack is right there next to her for easy access. And it's actually on her back for maybe 5 minutes on her way in and out of school.

What about some sort of lining on tables, so they could be turned sideways and kids could huddle behind them? Or just a set of straightforward shields that are easily accessible?

I'm definitely in favor of viable and non-harmful defensive measures in schools, as a concept. (As in, bullet-proof barriers yes, guns no.) Psychologically-speaking, I like the idea of lined tables better than individual shields -- no need to have a constant reminder of what might happen.

( Shud we call them Maginot Shields ? Maybe deploy them in a Line ? )
That 'd be OK, if if wud WORK,
but the murderers wud just stroll around them, at their leisure.

To successfully get the job of defense DONE,
the victims need to successfully counterattack the predator and take him out.
That is just the shape of the world.
That is how it has always been.
That will not change.

" non-harmful defensive measures "
entail a contingent committment to suicide, at the discretion of a murderer.
( " Take me; I 'm YOURS. Let all of my future Christmases,
birthdays, graduations and summer vacations be voided, in your discretion, since u r a murderer. " )
I disfavor that.

I love to watch my HDTV, with Nature shows ( e.g., the National Geographic Channel ).
When I see the water buffalo running from the lion,
I know that this will not work; he is too heavy n will tire.

His only opportunity to survive is to use his formidable armament
to disable the predatory lions.

We need to take a lesson from that.
This is another way of saying that SURVIVAL of predatory attacks
is to be found in BRAVERY, not in the cowardice
of hoping, begging and grovelling for the predator's mercy behind a Maginot Shield.

As Jesus advised:
if u don 't have a sword, u 'd better buy one ( Luke 22:36 );
( extrapolate that to a .44 special revolver, with hollowpointed slugs )
or
be prepared to emulate the Jews at the Warsaw Ghetto,
defending from the nazis.

Did Cho 's victims ( or their families ) believe that Cho was nicer
than the nazis ?
or that Cho was LESS worthy of being defended against ?
I doubt that.

I deem it ineffably sad,
that not even one of Cho 's victims opted to violate
the school 's gun control policy, such that absolutely NO ONE shot back at him.
The penalty for obeying gun control rules is death, with no appeal.

David

0 Replies

The point that I was originally making was that school designs must now incorporate "safe area" concepts. Talking to an architect fvriend of mine today at lunch, he had some brillliant ideas about incorporating such ideas into school designs with minimal intrusins into useable spaces and lockable hallway systems , doing away with the present system of lockers , instead using a separate entryway annex that had the lockers and using a system of staggered school days (which most schools do now anyway). The purpose of cenralizing lockers and keeping hallways as "potential lockdown mecanisms" would be to isolate any chances of weapons(some technology would be involved but I shall not bore).

My friend brought up a single point that we struggl;e with here in PA.ie. OUR SCHOOL BOARDS CONTROL design and build standards and theres no present way to make safety concerns a design element in a school without heavy legislative intervention. In otherwords, PA needs a Va Tech incident, . WE had one at PEnn STate a number of years ago and that did nothing except have a memorial built near the hotel.
Design inputs for security are easily accomplished but almost as impossible a task to get in the planning stage as is eliminating gun availability., cause its goverened by extensively moneyed lobbies.

The biggest Pa lobby is the teachers, however, they dont seem to care about much beyond their next pay contract negotiations.

The bullet proof backpacks are a small "Something to buy you time till you can get to a (NoNEXISTENT) safe area".
If the lecture halls at VA Tech coulda been locked down Cho would have had a hard time carrying out his attacks. Also, if there were more of the "sky marshall"type security guards stioned throughout the campus, maybe he could have been brought down earlier. Hoevere, the biggest failure, it seems, was to not recognize that the first shootings in the dorm were gonna be continued an hour or so later with even greater carnage.

I have a project Manager Friend whos also an architect for a "...Large" AE design fir that does a lot of school builds and retrofits. They still havent got it. They are still designing schools the way I remember my schools in the 60's . The only difference is that some are putting "lawns on the roofs" now. I think the :green" movement needs to take a break and we get with the aspect of school safety and security design elements. .

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The point that I was originally making was that school designs must now incorporate "safe area" concepts.

That is all well and good,
but everyone STILL has the inalienable right to defend his life n property from violent depredation,
and the right to immediate, instant access to emergency survival equipment,
at school, going and coming therefrom, and everywhere else.

Did your project manager explain how to defend the students
or teachers on the way to n from school ?
David

0 Replies

DAVID, rest assured, everyone on the board understands your personal POV. It just scares me when you write it in crayolas.

I reject your thesis, it merely increases the danger level, it only enriches gun manufacturers, last year I had some kids in surveying firing the EDM lasers at college dorm windows and peering in o take readings of their targets. My TA was unable to control it so I had to flunk two peiople (and couldne flunked more but two kids took the whole rap)
Please dont lecture about "personal responsibility" kids need guidance and unless the kids are in a criminal justice program with a heavy dose of firearms training and ethics, they will be brandishing their weapons out in public . I also believe (data will support from other areas) that kids will not choose a College because it has an "open season" everybody carrys statement in their catalogs . You must be a criminal defense attorney, they somehow believe most all of their defense crap.
:wink:

0 Replies

Schools need to think about safe area concepts because guns are in the hands of just about everybody, sane, or not.

Every bit of this consideration is insane to start with.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Schools need to think about safe area concepts
because guns are in the hands of just about everybody, sane, or not.

Every bit of this consideration is insane to start with.

Is it OK if the students or teachers are slain
on their way to or from school ?

David

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
DAVID, rest assured, everyone on the board understands your personal POV.
It just scares me when you write it in crayolas.

I used ONE Crayola; the black one ( Q. V. )

Quote:
I reject your thesis,
it merely increases the danger level, it only enriches gun manufacturers,

Not " only "; it also provides them with the means to defend their lives from violent depredations.
By saving their customers' lives,
the manufacturers rightfully EARN their profits.
I suspect that every person who has successfully fought off
a predatory attack will agree that he got his money 's worth
( as long as the gun functioned properly ).
I don 't begrudge the manufacturers their profits
from any exhibit within my gun collection.

Quote:
Please dont lecture about "personal responsibility" kids need guidance

People 's alleged " NEEDS " do NOT curtail their rights,
which in this case are protected by the Bill of Rights
of the Supreme Law of the Land.
Their RIGHT to defend themselves remains intact,
regardless of any of their " needs ".

Quote:

and unless the kids are in a criminal justice program
with a heavy dose of firearms training and ethics,
they will be brandishing their weapons out in public .

( this from the guy who is scared of crayolas )

Baloney !
History has disproven u.
For many years of my life, I have been surrounded by armed people
of different ages ( including myself ), who never " brandished " anything.
People who are accustomed to the possession of firearms
do not think much about them ( other than proper maintenance )
and have demonstrated no interest in brandishing.
Gunnery practice is fun.
I imagine that brandishing wud be boring; I 've never felt a need to
experiment with brandishing. However, some folks are of the vu
that when under attack by a robber, brandishing is preferable
to blasting a round into his lower intestine, or into his medulla oblongata.
I don 't know how u feel about that.

Quote:

I also believe (data will support from other areas) that kids will not choose
a College because it has an "open season" everybody carrys statement in their catalogs .

Thay will do whatever thay wanna DO;
as well thay shud.
David

0 Replies

I'm with Noddy on this. It is just not practical. At my daughter's school as in many grammar schools, the children do not even have the backpacks with them. They are in a cubby or hanging on a coathook in the hall. There isn't a problem at all with trying to make your children safer - but this reeks of trying to make a buck off of people's fears or guilt of not properly protecting your children.

Many of the things you mentioned, farmerman make much more sense than a bullet proof backpack. For example certain types of lockdowns, safety drills, etc. My daughter's school is part of a program where the teachers and administrators are attending programs on ways to make schools safer. They have drills where the class participates in crouching in a corner, locking doors and being quiet for example. The school is locked down during the day and the only way to enter is to ring a bell where an administrator can view you through a camera before entering. There are many other safety type things in place and they continue to learn more.

This makes more sense than giving a 6 year old a 15 pound safety backpack that remains in the hallway useless and heavy as heck.

0 Replies

The BulletProof Backpack

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know