Maybe 30-50 years into the future, if almost every piece of clothing could be made bulleproof through nanotechnology, and it wouldn't be a "big deal" getting cloths like that.
Until then it's just a crazy idea that would probably put terror into those kids...which could be the goal here.
The last time armour able to protect fully against any sort of anti-personal, non-widespread damage was available was sometime in the middle ages. Given the advent of energy weapons, I doubt nanotechnology will do much to protect us in the future.
not even then - the English longbow went through armor like butter - it pissed the Aristocracy off to no end that a commoner could kill them from a distance.
Wikipedia mentions 1135 as the first recorded use of such archery and the prominent battle of Agincourt took place in 1415, so I find it fair to say that before that, armour was a somewhat decent defence – with the middle ages ranging from roughly 800 to roughly 1500, I think ‘sometime during the middle ages’ is somewhat correct.
Fear shouldn't rule us, but in a gun culture I suppose that's hard to escape and that makes me so sad for those 2 little girls in the picture using their backpacks as a shield. I'm from Canada and so I don't really understand why the states doesn't change their gun laws. Maybe I'm naive and missing a key point as to why guns are so important and necessary for freedom, but it really just seems like it outweighs the benefit of public safety at this point (so much school shooting recidivism)?
there is zero recidivism. Every school shooter in the last two decades so far is dead or jailed.
We don't change our laws because not enough people buy the pap that making guns illegal will stop shooting, and too many people believe the government will outright take rights once we have no physical way to enforce our demands.
Oops sorry, I am not talking about prisoner recidivism so perhaps recidivism was not the word for me - I just meant that these crimes are becoming more repetitive as time goes on.
As for the second sentence, Canada doesn't have America's gun rights and we haven't had all our rights stolen due to a lack of our own physical enforcement (guns). It must be a fear based notion, because it doesn't make logical sense.
Most "bullet-proof" vests only protect against relatively weak, slow, large handgun rounds (9mm, 40 cal, .44, etc.). High-power rifle rounds used for hunting (.223, .308, 30-06, etc.) would easily penetrate this material.
I only mention this because, when you talk about something being "bullet-proof" you need to understand, that's not true for most rifle rounds, only handgun rounds. And if parents buy this material, they need a clear understanding of what it does stop and what it does not stop.
> "The American people have traditionally viewed the classroom as a revered sanctuary that should not be sullied by any form of negative influences either of an external or internal nature," it says. "Regrettably the safeguards which were initially put into place to protect the sanctity of the classroom didn't evolve with our dramatically changing society."
These days, it's rare to find a quote in traditional media that directly and succinctly addresses the main issue in an honest fashion. The religious language being used is especially revealing: "revered" American "sanctuaries" have been defiled, and the "sanctity of the classroom" has been compromised. To address sins of this magnitude, the high priests of the Church of Safety at All Costs are willing to go to any lengths, including hiring former Secret Service personnel to train teachers, strap students into military grade armor, and lobby for armed guards at the entrance to every school.
> "It's like you find life jackets on ships or planes in case they go down," he says. "It's no different to having a seatbelt in a car."
Presently, only a few schools have taken it this far. But the cavalier attitude with which they are able to discuss these changes shows the degree to which America has accepted its post-9/11 militarization. Bulletproof vests for children are now thought of as no different than seat belts or life jackets.
People spend so much time and money preparing for the astronomically low probability that their child will be involved in a school shooting or a terrorist attack, yet I routinely see parents do things like talk on their cell phone while driving their kids around town. Or buy their kid a car at 16 without making sure they know how to drive it well. Or not allow their children to get a flu shot because vaccines are dangerous and/or a conspiracy.
These parents are subjecting their children to a subtle, prolonged form of psychological abuse. They are teaching them to be afraid of basic activities in life instead of equipping them to honestly and objectively prepare for realistic risks. They are not maximizing the safety of their children, they are minimizing their own fear.
It's time we stopped conflating well-intentioned parents with good parents, because the road to a needlessly militarized world devoid of personal rights and privacy is paved with their good intentions.
Cars are two-ton hunks of metal barrelling down the road at life-threatening speeds. There is an inherent risk that comes with using them; that risk is so high (comparative to other every-day activities) that we have megalo-insurance companies covering them and laws demanding we wear seat belts.
I'm uncomfortable with agreeing with this analogy, because it implies that, where seat belts address the risk of operating a car, these bulletproof backpacks address an everyday risk of being shot while attending school.
I'm not versed in statistics on either; my uneducated gut says that the risk of getting in a car crash is huge compared to the risk of being shot in a school. If I'm wrong, that's troubling, terribly so.
I get the need to address fears in every way possible, but I think calling these products "no different than seat belts" is possibly maximizing fear where it's not necessary.
12 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 41.3 ms ] threadUntil then it's just a crazy idea that would probably put terror into those kids...which could be the goal here.
Fear shouldn't rule us, but in a gun culture I suppose that's hard to escape and that makes me so sad for those 2 little girls in the picture using their backpacks as a shield. I'm from Canada and so I don't really understand why the states doesn't change their gun laws. Maybe I'm naive and missing a key point as to why guns are so important and necessary for freedom, but it really just seems like it outweighs the benefit of public safety at this point (so much school shooting recidivism)?
We don't change our laws because not enough people buy the pap that making guns illegal will stop shooting, and too many people believe the government will outright take rights once we have no physical way to enforce our demands.
As for the second sentence, Canada doesn't have America's gun rights and we haven't had all our rights stolen due to a lack of our own physical enforcement (guns). It must be a fear based notion, because it doesn't make logical sense.
I only mention this because, when you talk about something being "bullet-proof" you need to understand, that's not true for most rifle rounds, only handgun rounds. And if parents buy this material, they need a clear understanding of what it does stop and what it does not stop.
These days, it's rare to find a quote in traditional media that directly and succinctly addresses the main issue in an honest fashion. The religious language being used is especially revealing: "revered" American "sanctuaries" have been defiled, and the "sanctity of the classroom" has been compromised. To address sins of this magnitude, the high priests of the Church of Safety at All Costs are willing to go to any lengths, including hiring former Secret Service personnel to train teachers, strap students into military grade armor, and lobby for armed guards at the entrance to every school.
> "It's like you find life jackets on ships or planes in case they go down," he says. "It's no different to having a seatbelt in a car."
Presently, only a few schools have taken it this far. But the cavalier attitude with which they are able to discuss these changes shows the degree to which America has accepted its post-9/11 militarization. Bulletproof vests for children are now thought of as no different than seat belts or life jackets.
People spend so much time and money preparing for the astronomically low probability that their child will be involved in a school shooting or a terrorist attack, yet I routinely see parents do things like talk on their cell phone while driving their kids around town. Or buy their kid a car at 16 without making sure they know how to drive it well. Or not allow their children to get a flu shot because vaccines are dangerous and/or a conspiracy.
These parents are subjecting their children to a subtle, prolonged form of psychological abuse. They are teaching them to be afraid of basic activities in life instead of equipping them to honestly and objectively prepare for realistic risks. They are not maximizing the safety of their children, they are minimizing their own fear.
It's time we stopped conflating well-intentioned parents with good parents, because the road to a needlessly militarized world devoid of personal rights and privacy is paved with their good intentions.
Yeah. Not enough people discuss this aspect.
You should compare the number of children who die in school shootings to those who die from other preventable causes like car accidents.
I'm uncomfortable with agreeing with this analogy, because it implies that, where seat belts address the risk of operating a car, these bulletproof backpacks address an everyday risk of being shot while attending school.
I'm not versed in statistics on either; my uneducated gut says that the risk of getting in a car crash is huge compared to the risk of being shot in a school. If I'm wrong, that's troubling, terribly so.
I get the need to address fears in every way possible, but I think calling these products "no different than seat belts" is possibly maximizing fear where it's not necessary.