bdickens
Member
Children are 12 times more likely to die in an automobile accident that to be shot at all.
Back to school: Bulletproof backpacks and jackets?
- Thread starter docnyt
- Start date
- Status
Officers'Wife
Member
Since the trend is schools demanding that backpacks be transparent they wouldn't be allowed to use them. Never mind that transparency shows what kind of laptop, phone etc the child has making the "hoodies" able to know who is most profitable to rob.
JustinJ
Member
I don't necessarily disagree but let's keep this in perspective. The chances that the common law abiding citizen will ever in their lifetime NEED a gun to survive or avoid serious injury is not going to be terribly high either. Yes, the chances of being the victim of a crime are much higher but in the vast majority of such events the loss of property is the only result. The chances that my wife will ever need a gun are incredibly low but I want her to have one because the devastation of such an event is so extreme.
My issue with bulletproof backpacks and jackets is that they are just not practical.
At best that is a misrepresentation, at worst its just untrue. Schools want classroom doors to be locked and the kids to try and hide or at least stay away from the door or out of view of it's window. I don't know if they actually discourage exiting the building through windows but having students running through the halls as a shooter walks down them poses some very obvious problems.
bdickens
Member
I see your point, but the data shows, if I remember correctly, that one in four people in the US will be a victim of violent crime. I do know that one in six women will be the victim of a sexual assault.
That makes it far more likely that you or your wife will need a gun than your child will need a bullet resistant backpack or jacket.
So if you were to do a cost/ benefit analysis you would find the cost of carrying a gun is minimal. Handguns are relatively small, lightweight, easy to manipulate and easy to carry. The potential benefit is of course incalculable. What is your own life worth?
Anyone who has worn body armor will tell you it is hot, heavy, uncomfortable, and can slow you down. Now for a cop or a soldier - someone who can reasonably expect to have bullets directed at him at some time or another - the benefits can surely outweigh the cost. But for a school kid, who not only has a less than a one in a million chance of dying in a school shooting, not to mention that he probably won't have it when he needs it, not so much.
That makes it far more likely that you or your wife will need a gun than your child will need a bullet resistant backpack or jacket.
So if you were to do a cost/ benefit analysis you would find the cost of carrying a gun is minimal. Handguns are relatively small, lightweight, easy to manipulate and easy to carry. The potential benefit is of course incalculable. What is your own life worth?
Anyone who has worn body armor will tell you it is hot, heavy, uncomfortable, and can slow you down. Now for a cop or a soldier - someone who can reasonably expect to have bullets directed at him at some time or another - the benefits can surely outweigh the cost. But for a school kid, who not only has a less than a one in a million chance of dying in a school shooting, not to mention that he probably won't have it when he needs it, not so much.
anyone else considered, the added weight in the backpack can now make it into a deadly weapon? I mean you put a plate of anything in there and suddenly you can swing that sucker with intended impact that can cause some pretty grave harm. so... how long until they ban armored backpacks for that reason? 
beatledog7
Member
Yes, we're all unlikely to ever need to draw our guns.
But one of the reasons we are so unlikely to have to is because criminals know we might be carrying. There's no way to satisfactorily quantify that deterrence factor in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd, but I don't feel a need to quantify it. As the above notes, that gun protects the most precious thing there is, that which if lost can never be replaced. For me, that is all it does.
Insurance (the kind we buy for cars, homes, professional practice, etc.) is a hedge against catastrophic loss. But all it does is kick in after the loss has already occurred, and it can never cover every possible sort of potential loss; it would have to be prohibitively expensive if it even tried to.
I prefer the kind of "insurance" that makes the catastrophic loss less likely to occur in the first place--things like ABS, sprinklers, cautious practices, and as so eloquently phrased by Han Solo, "a good blaster at [my] side." It works better than traditional insurance, and it costs less.
I no longer have kids in K-12, but if I did, I'd pass on body armor. I do have a daughter in college on a campus where carrying a firearm is prohibited, but she's underage to carry anyway. I've equipped her with the best possible alternative SD tools and taught her how to keep her wits about her. That's all I can do.
JustinJ
Member
If fear of being shot deterred criminals one would think gang activity would eliminate itself. Violent crime is generally the domain of young men or those with substance abuse issues and neither tend to be risk averse. No, sorry, civilian owned guns deterring crime is minimal at best and in many cases may actually encourage some crimes such burglaries.
Violent crime statistics are largely skewed by those involved in criminal activity. The chances of a gang member or drug dealer getting shot is far higher than the average citizen and as such distort the stats. Also, violent crimes includes threats of violence to steal property, brandishing of weapons and domestic violence, as well as bar and schoolyard fights. Sexual assault stats include molestation and date rape which is far more frequent than random violent rapes. One in six is not representative of incidents in which a women could have prevented a rape with a gun. I was referring specifically to incidents in which a person would need a gun and be able to deploy in order to prevent sustaining injury or death. Nowhere near 1 in 4 people will experience such events.
True but we are still talking about extremely unlikely events. My point is that the statistical unlikelihood of a child being shot in school is not for many a valid reason to not take precautions that protect against it. If a device existed that offered protection from gun shots but was not overly burdensome or impractical I think many would opt for it. I agree though, bullet proof backpacks and jackets are probably not such a device as their potential effectiveness relative to the burden is pretty low.
beatledog7
Member
JustinJ, I disagree. It may not be huge or even accurately measurable, but one cannot prove the non-existence of something, including the deterrence value of civilian gun ownership, especially lawful carry in public.
You argue in effect that gangs should cease to exist if there is deterrence value, but you leave out that gang crime is usually highest where lawful civilian carry is lowest and that gang violence is typically gang-on-gang in such places. Of course there are exceptions--we hear about them all the time. We rarely hear about the far more typical gang-on-gang case because nobody in media seems to care.
Criminals seek weak, easy marks, minimizing risk to themselves. Even those on drugs or in gangs don't attack purposely someone whom they see as potentially more powerful than themselves. In short, criminals don't select victims whom they think can hurt them in any way, let alone shoot them. That's why I like having the option to OC.
A person can't argue that gun-free designated zones invite mass shooters and also argue that civilian carry is not a discernible deterrent to violent acts committed with a gun. They are utterly contradictory positions. I believe in deterrence as the best precursor to defense, and I believe the concern that a person might be carrying is bound to have some deterrent effect on some would-be bad guys. Not all, but some.
I stick to my position that body armor is a waste of resources. I also support parents' right to make that choice and to choose where they send their children to school. Mandating that everyone pay for anti-gun anti-freedom youth indoctrination camps is utterly wrong.
JustinJ
Member
I don't have to prove there is no deterrence as burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. If I claim to have superpowers and you don't believe me, the burden of proof is on me to prove I do, not you to prove I don't.
What would civilian gun ownership have to do with gang members willingness to shoot each other or risk being shot by each other. Are you saying that criminals only worry about being shot by law abiding people but they don't mind if it's another criminal shooting them? And there are plenty of areas with extremely high gang activity without strict gun laws. Also, strict gun laws very often come about because of an existing high level of crime to begin with. One can argue that gun laws don't reduce crime but there is no evidence or logical way one can argue that a lack of gun laws reduces crime.
Given open carry is extremely rare, in fact concealed carry is relative to the general population too, what does that matter? Are you trying to say that criminals have a subconscious fear in areas with fewer gun laws? Again, gang members carry guns at a much higher rate than the general population but that doesn't prevent them from attacking each other regularly.
Okay, and I never argued that gun free zones do invite mass shooters because they don't so it's beside the point. There is nothing to suggest that concern over the likelihood civilian carry factors into the decision of mass shooters on the whole. Mass shooters tend to attack areas with some sort of connection to their rage or where there are they believe their act will cause the greatest devastation.
pikid89
Member
If you are that worried about school shootings, you should probably home school
JustinJ
Member
Given the vast majority of adults have jobs they need and are not qualified to provide an adequate education that doesn't seem like a practical solution.
pikid89
Member
Might be more practical than slipping a 30lb plate of AR500 in juniors power rangers backpack
beatledog7
Member
JustinJ, we aren't going to agree on this, clearly. You've misinterpreted most of my last post, and I can see there's no fixing that. So be it.
I believe in the deterrent value of civilian carry, and you don't. There's no need for either of us to prove anything. Done.
I believe in the deterrent value of civilian carry, and you don't. There's no need for either of us to prove anything. Done.
Lost Sheep
Member
JustinJ
Member
Actually, I asked you to clarify what you meant numerous times.
One simply has to look at mass shootings to see the destinations are selected based on relevance to whatever matter the shooter is lashing out against. Sure, there may have been the rare mass shooter who took into account the potential of facing armed resistance but I'm not aware of any evidence as such. What is clear is that the majority of mass shootings happen at a place in either related to the anger of the shooter or where they feel the damage will be the most devastating.
Supposedly the guy in CA who acted a Jewish school avoided another that had an armed guard. One can look it up to see details. Too busy for that.
But - on the other hand, the guy who attacked the Holocaust museum or the El Al terminal in CA must have known there would be armed guards.
We will never know who didn't do something but certainly armed folks is not a guarantee of deterrence. I feel the best argument is that armed folks can mitigate harm if the incident starts. There are positive and negative instances of that.
But - on the other hand, the guy who attacked the Holocaust museum or the El Al terminal in CA must have known there would be armed guards.
We will never know who didn't do something but certainly armed folks is not a guarantee of deterrence. I feel the best argument is that armed folks can mitigate harm if the incident starts. There are positive and negative instances of that.
bdickens
Member
YOU try explaining to a lady who has been the victim of such that molestation or date rape isn't violent.
Not me. I'm scared to... and I carry a gun.
The idea of a bullet proof backpack makes little or no sense. The cost and weight provide little protection, and what little protection they do provide exists when the risk is lowest.
Regarding the protection of children from school shootings, the likelihood of occurrence is remote, but the severity of potential consequences is extremely high.
For those demonic persons who would wreak havoc in schools with firearms, explosives, accelerants, or poisons, there are targets of opportunity everywhere. Those targets are poorly protected, and once the demons are inside there is little to stop the mayhem, in this country.
I seriously doubt that the fact that the schools are legally "gun free" attracts miscreants to any great extent, but the fact that there is no way to stop them can obviously increase the likely death toll tremendously.
We had a mass killing in a city hall a little under six years ago; like all but one or two mass killings it occurred in a "gun free zone".
Those identifiable as having weapons (they wore uniforms) were systematically taken out first, and from than on it was open season. One person would have been able to end it all after the second shooting, had he had a concealed weapon--he was less than three feet from the shooter's ear as he passed him.
Deterrence is a lesser issue, but the ability to stop the killer is a big one.
Regarding the protection of children from school shootings, the likelihood of occurrence is remote, but the severity of potential consequences is extremely high.
For those demonic persons who would wreak havoc in schools with firearms, explosives, accelerants, or poisons, there are targets of opportunity everywhere. Those targets are poorly protected, and once the demons are inside there is little to stop the mayhem, in this country.
I seriously doubt that the fact that the schools are legally "gun free" attracts miscreants to any great extent, but the fact that there is no way to stop them can obviously increase the likely death toll tremendously.
We had a mass killing in a city hall a little under six years ago; like all but one or two mass killings it occurred in a "gun free zone".
Those identifiable as having weapons (they wore uniforms) were systematically taken out first, and from than on it was open season. One person would have been able to end it all after the second shooting, had he had a concealed weapon--he was less than three feet from the shooter's ear as he passed him.
Deterrence is a lesser issue, but the ability to stop the killer is a big one.
JustinJ
Member
You're playing semantics but I did not say such things were not violent to begin with. Sexual assault includes far more than a woman being ambushed and forced to have sex. While a gun could defend a women from such, the 1 in 6 statistic is largely comprised of those for which a firearm could not be employed in self defense. If a young female child is molested, woman is making out with a man and he refuses to stop when she says to or a woman is passed out drunk, that is a sexual assault but not one in which a gun is likely to be useful.
Panzerschwein
member
Agreed.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
I think we've pretty much covered the essence of the OP, so lets call this one done - I'll stick a fork in it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked