# Bulletproof backpacks



## Kacey (Aug 20, 2007)

Dads push bulletproof backpacks in schools


> *I*t&#8217;s back-to-school time so load up with those pencils, notebooks, rulers and, of course, a bullet-deflecting backpack, if you buy the pitch of the security accessory&#8217;s Danvers inventors.
> Dads Mike Pelonzi, 43, and Joe Curran, 42, dreamed up the bullet-proof backpack, which also blunts knife attacks, to protect their own children after witnessing the Columbine massacre in 1999.
> <snip>
> 
> ...


I saw this story recently.  I'm not sure which concerns me more; that parents think their children need such things, or that the school district is considering not allowing them because they might be "threatening or offensive".


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2007)

These kinds of products are sick.  They play on the fear mongering culture that rots American courage and turns us all into easily controlled sheep.  Someone should market insulating shoes to protect school children from lightning strikes, because kids have a far greater chance of dying from those...oh wait, they never say that **** on the news do they?


----------



## Drac (Aug 20, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Dads push bulletproof backpacks in schools
> 
> I saw this story recently. I'm not sure which concerns me more; that parents think their children need such things, or that the school district is considering not allowing them because they might be "threatening or offensive".


 
Offensive??? Have they listened to some of the music these kids are listening to???


----------



## morph4me (Aug 20, 2007)

Could  it be that they're afraid that some kid might hit another one with his backpack in one of those random backpack attacks that are in the news all the time? 

School districts are notorious for worrying more about litigation than people. I once offered to do a self defense course for the teachers in my wife's district, there was alot of interest from the teachers union, but I wasn't allowed to do it because "if a teacher defended him/herself with something that the district allowed to be taught, the district could be sued. " Shortly after that a pregnant teacher was beaten with a hammer by a student who was failing her class.


----------



## Drac (Aug 20, 2007)

morph4me said:


> Could it be that they're afraid that some kid might hit another one with his backpack in one of those random backpack attacks that are in the news all the time?
> 
> School districts are notorious for worrying more about litigation than people. I once offered to do a self defense course for the teachers in my wife's district, there was alot of interest from the teachers union, but I wasn't allowed to do it because "if a teacher defended him/herself with something that the district allowed to be taught, the district could be sued. " Shortly after that a pregnant teacher was beaten with a hammer by a student who was failing her class.


 
[OFF TO TOPIC RESPONSE] You would be surprised how many times during the school year the local LEO's respond to the HS on a teacher assaulted by a student call..This **** didn't happen before 696-kids came to exsistance..If you got stupid with a teacher when I was in school you got your butt whipped.[END]


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2007)

morph4me said:


> School districts are notorious for worrying more about litigation than people. I once offered to do a self defense course for the teachers in my wife's district, there was alot of interest from the teachers union, but I wasn't allowed to do it because "if a teacher defended him/herself with something that the district allowed to be taught, the district could be sued. " Shortly after that a pregnant teacher was beaten with a hammer by a student who was failing her class.


 
If a kid came after me with a hammer, I'll be damned if I'm going to worry about a lawsuit.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 20, 2007)

morph4me said:


> Could  it be that they're afraid that some kid might hit another one with his backpack in one of those random backpack attacks that are in the news all the time?
> 
> School districts are notorious for worrying more about litigation than people. I once offered to do a self defense course for the teachers in my wife's district, there was alot of interest from the teachers union, but I wasn't allowed to do it because "if a teacher defended him/herself with something that the district allowed to be taught, the district could be sued. " Shortly after that a pregnant teacher was beaten with a hammer by a student who was failing her class.



Oh, I've offered to teach classes at my school, and people always express interest... but nothing ever comes of it, and they won't go to the district's CPI (Conflict Prevention and Intervention) class either, which is basically verbal de-escalation followed by 1 and 2-person holds for kids who won't de-escalate.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 20, 2007)

Personal opinion...

These backpacks are silly.  All they've done is put a panel of body armor (don't know exactly which style; they're reticent on details) in place of the foam pad many backpacks provide to cushion the user's back from the crap inside.

Odds are that they won't provide much actual protection.  At best, they're maybe enough to cover the chest or back...  More likely, in the event of a shooting situation, they'll be under a desk, in a cubby or locker, or otherwise not available.  

As noted by others... this is playing to fears in the worst way.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 20, 2007)

Drac said:


> [OFF TO TOPIC RESPONSE] You would be surprised how many times during the school year the local LEO's respond to the HS on a teacher assaulted by a student call..This **** didn't happen before 696-kids came to exsistance..If you got stupid with a teacher when I was in school you got your butt whipped.[END]


 Amen to that bruddah, my classmates and I lived in fear of the terrible wooden paddle carried by many a teacher (male and female) and we knew the consenquences of screwing around or screwing up badly during class or fighting (anytime). But those bleeding hearts who were the whiny kids of our day(s) grew up to be bleeding heart lawyers who as adults now have the P-O-W-E-R to litigate anything and everything, thus call teacher disciplinary action(s) illegal, immoral and not their responsibility. I recall double punishment in those days 1 from the teacher and 1 from my folks when I had to bring home a note to be signed by either one of them. 



			
				morph4me  said:
			
		

> School districts are notorious for worrying more about litigation than people. I once offered to do a self defense course for the teachers in my wife's district, there was a lot of interest from the teachers union, but I wasn't allowed to do it because "if a teacher defended him/herself with something that the district allowed to be taught, the district could be sued. " Shortly after that a pregnant teacher was beaten with a hammer by a student who was failing her class.


You might want to consider sending each of those "interested" teachers a private note offering a "private class" that would have nothing to do with the school (district) itself... :wink1: :wink2: if you haven't done so already... WINK! 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If a kid came after me with a hammer, I'll be damned if I'm going to worry about a lawsuit.


AMEN to that... provided it's an upperclassman in H.S. dunno about middle-school aged kids though it could happen. Probably just do the disarm thing and drag that kid to the principal's office. 

While the bulletproof backpack has merits it is a fear-tactic way to get folks to spend money. There are other cost effective ways to ensure the safety of the children as they attend school. The last high-school I attended (North Dallas High in TX) had several armed city LEO's roaming the halls with at least one on duty at all times on campus. There were fights but they were all regulated to fisticuffs and no weaponry. If ANY weapon were to be found it was confiscated (as evidence) and the student hauled off to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. So the highly volatile mix of whites, blacks, hispanics & asians in that school kept their cool and kept the fights to just good-ole fashioned school yard scuffles. 
But that was roughly 25 - 30 years ago. Now with the "gang-banga" mentality and so forth, guns are the norm for the ultimate "gonna get cha sucka". Something I couldn't understand and I still don't. In my day you bring a weapon into a fight and everyone would just laugh at you and call you a *****... for the rest of the year! 
The bulletproof backpack is a money-making venture which doesn't take into account of the thousands of school-yard fights that take place each year being nothing more than fists and feet and lots of rolling around on the ground type fights. The spate of school shootings is horrifically tragic yes, but as stated earlier by upnorthkyosa more rarer than the dreaded lightning strike or shark attack.
Likewise a bullet-proof backpack only protects the back. Not the sides, head and front torso/abdomen. How many kids are going to walk around with it on their backs all the time and every single day and will they wear one during Gym class? Get real!


----------



## Kacey (Aug 20, 2007)

And as someone else mentioned... many schools won't allow kids to carry their backpacks around anyway - largely for reasons related to space; if every kid in the school where I teach carried their backpacks to every class, the hallway congestion would be even worse than it already is - so they come in in the morning, put their backpacks in their lockers, and leave them there until the end of school.  At that point, it won't matter how much armor the pack has, or how well it works - because the kids won't have the packs with them.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 20, 2007)

> As noted by others... this is playing to fears in the worst way.


 
Nah, this is as American as apple pie: making money by creating anxiety.


----------



## Carol (Aug 20, 2007)

I dunno...I've met one of the fellows that designed the backpack so I may be a bit biased but...I don't really mind the idea.  If a parent wants to buy a $175 backpack for their kid, that's their choice.

To me it seems that after every school shooting, there is someone that asks "What can we do about events like this?" ... or "Why doesn't someone do something?"  or worse, someone that asks "Well, why wasn't (this) done?"  

So...this is one of those "somebodies" that is trying to "do something" by making a backpack that their website states could be used as a shield.  

Perhaps the introduction of a product such as this will get more families to think seriously about the importance of self-defense.  If it does, that's a very good thing, IMO.  :asian:


----------



## LuzRD (Aug 20, 2007)

id like to add that while these backpacks may not be insurance against injury or worse, if they save a few lives theyre worth having imo. 

dont forget that school kids arent always in school. somthing like this could potentially save a kid just trying to walk home 

how many times do we hear about some kid that was killed by a stray bullet while they were waiting for the bus, or playing in the park, or just sitting in front of thier house?
 i know this pack wouldnt help most of those cases, however if it hasnt happened yet it likely will happen (unfortunately of course!!) that a kid will be wearing a backpack and will be shot in the back. now if some product like this helps that 1 kid then its money well spent imo (not as well spent as educating/reprimanding the parents of the kids that cause products like this to be developed, but thats an entirely different story!!)


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2007)

Hmm..maybe I'm not not following things here, but I have a few questions.

1) How is a backpack threatening or offensive?

2) What is the purpose of this 'creation'?  What are the kids supposed to do, hold it in front of them in the event someone starts shooting in the school?  Sorry, I guess I'm not following.  If its on the kids back, the chest is exposed.  If they're holding it in front of them, the back is exposed.  Its not a bullet proof vest like a LEO would wear.


----------



## Carol (Aug 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmm..maybe I'm not not following things here, but I have a few questions.
> 
> 1) How is a backpack threatening or offensive?



The administration of the Boston Public Schools see it as a threat because they want Boston parents to believe they can take better care of the kids than their parents can is how I read it.  Typical city politics.  Wish I could say its changed since I left the city 10+ years ago but I don't think it has. 




> 2) What is the purpose of this 'creation'?  What are the kids supposed to do, hold it in front of them in the event someone starts shooting in the school?  Sorry, I guess I'm not following.  If its on the kids back, the chest is exposed.  If they're holding it in front of them, the back is exposed.  Its not a bullet proof vest like a LEO would wear.




http://www.mychildspack.com/My_Child_s_Pack_for_school.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2007)

You've got to think about the odds.  A kid is thousands of times more likely to be killed crossing the street then they are in a school shooting.  How about spending a few bucks on some bright colored clothing?  See my point?

Carol, I honestly doubt that these guys intentionally went out to design a product that would play off of the general publics fears.  My intuition tells me that they are unconciously plugged into this matrix and that they are thinking one step ahead of the game.  Basically, they are out sheeping the sheep.  

This doesn't change the fact that this product says something really sick about our society.  I've taken this article and posted it on some of the international boards that I belong to and everyone with an outside perspective thinks that this is beyond imagination.  My friends from overseas (even Canada) cannot even conceive of a possible need for such a thing and they wouldn't want to raise children in a place that this is even remotely possible.

And the sad thing is, in the US, it isn't even remotely possible.  For school kids in Iraq, maybe, but here, no.  

The talking heads tell us what to believe though.  They shape our reality despite the data.


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> The administration of the Boston Public Schools see it as a threat because they want Boston parents to believe they can take better care of the kids than their parents can.


 
Well, given the school shootings that take place, you have to wonder about the schools protection methods.







> http://www.mychildspack.com/My_Child_s_Pack_for_school.html


 


> While wearing the back pack it offers upper torso coverage on the back or it can be used as a shield for frontal protection of the head and upper body. Now, affordable protection is available, sealed in a lightweight back pack for everyday use.


 
I suppose a better judgement would be able to be passed if I actually saw one in person.  In any case, it can only protect either the front or back at one time.  I have to wonder about the material though.  Is it the same quality as you'd find in a vest for a cop?  Only reason I ask is because I'd want it to be the same if I was going to a) buy one and b) rely on it to save a life.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> I suppose a better judgement would be able to be passed if I actually saw one in person. In any case, it can only protect either the front or back at one time. I have to wonder about the material though. Is it the same quality as you'd find in a vest for a cop? Only reason I ask is because I'd want it to be the same if I was going to a) buy one and b) rely on it to save a life.


 
I see your point, but I have to ask, what is the logical solution?  Do we dress our children in body armor in order to go to school?  I mean, if you are really afraid of being shot, that makes the most logical sense.

Then again, do you really want to dress your kids in body armor in order to send them off to school?  Think about that...

I think about my two little ones and I can't even imagine letting them grow up in a society where that is even a thought.

In the bulk of the civilized world it isn't.

Think about it.


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I see your point, but I have to ask, what is the logical solution? Do we dress our children in body armor in order to go to school? I mean, if you are really afraid of being shot, that makes the most logical sense.
> 
> Then again, do you really want to dress your kids in body armor in order to send them off to school? Think about that...
> 
> ...


 
Just for clarification, I'm not saying that I'm buying one, nor am I suggesting that everyone run out and buy one.  IMHO, I think that way too often, people try to capitalize on the fears of others.  9/11 happens, because we're lax in security, security is then increased, but the fear of flying is instilled in people.  Same thing with the recent bridge collapse.  If I thought about accidents every time I got into my car, I'd never go anywhere.  

Moral of the story...live your life normally, not in constant fear of a tragedy.  Not saying to walk with your head in the clouds, unaware of your surroundings, but a bullet-proof backpack...sorry, I don't walk around with a backpack on 24/7, so I'll save the $100+ and go about my daily business.

Mike


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 20, 2007)

Drac said:


> [OFF TO TOPIC RESPONSE] You would be surprised how many times during the school year the local LEO's respond to the HS on a teacher assaulted by a student call..This **** didn't happen before 696-kids came to exsistance..If you got stupid with a teacher when I was in school you got your butt whipped.[END]


 
I can confirm that as recently as twenty or thirty years ago this was true over here in England too.  Spot-on-target observation, *Drac*, with the addition, as *Caver* has said, that if you got punished for something at school you got it worse once you go home .

The bullet-proof backpack is an absurd idea in that it is a response to a problem that should not exist (not that it's idiotic in and of itself, just that it's an inappropriate response to the environment of fear that has been allowed to grow).


----------



## Drac (Aug 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Moral of the story...live your life normally, not in constant fear of a tragedy. Not saying to walk with your head in the clouds, unaware of your surroundings, but a bullet-proof backpack...sorry, I don't walk around with a backpack on 24/7, so I'll save the $100+ and go about my daily business.
> 
> Mike


 
Well said Mike...


----------



## Gordon Nore (Aug 20, 2007)

Kacey said:


> And as someone else mentioned... many schools won't allow kids to carry their backpacks around anyway - largely for reasons related to space; if every kid in the school where I teach carried their backpacks to every class, the hallway congestion would be even worse than it already is - so they come in in the morning, put their backpacks in their lockers, and leave them there until the end of school.  At that point, it won't matter how much armor the pack has, or how well it works - because the kids won't have the packs with them.



Right on the money. I'm a middle school teacher. Kids at this level put backpacks and coats in their lockers in the morning and can only go back to their lockers at lunch hour or after school -- this is all for safety, to reduce trip hazards, etc. The other problem with backpacks is that they can be used to conceal things you don't want in a school to begin with.

Nowadays a lot of students over-pack their backpacks, which has raised concerns about back and spinal injuries. I don't know whether a really heavy pack is a great advantage under fire.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 20, 2007)

I find it incredibly unlikely that a backpack like this would be where it was needed when it was needed; as I said before, many schools require students to leave their backpacks in their lockers all day... and every school shooting I can recall occurred during the school day, not at the beginning or end of the day when students would actually have their backpacks with them.

In addition, one of the reasons why school shootings make the news so widely is because they are, mercifully, so rare.  The likelihood that a student will have such a backpack at the time it is needed is incredibly rare.

Students have enough to worry about already; giving a child or teen a bulletproof backpack seems certain to add to their worries, with an event that is unlikely to occur, and even less likely to occur when the student has the backpack - IMHO, the inventors, with the best of intentions, are giving the parents and students a false sense of security.  Better, as others have said, to deal with the societal issues that lead to school shootings, than to dress our children in accessories intended to replace body armor... which, as I've said, I don't think will help anyway.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2007)

Well, it looks like things aren't that different in the UK.  Check this product out...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...+protect+pupils+from+knife+attacks/article.do



> Parents are sending children to school in stab-proof uniforms to guard against knife crime, it has emerged.
> 
> They are paying a firm which makes body armour to line blazers and jumpers with a stab-resistant material called Kevlar.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kacey (Aug 21, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Well, it looks like things aren't that different in the UK.  Check this product out...
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...+protect+pupils+from+knife+attacks/article.do




One of the people who commented on the article pointed out that the Kevlar is too thin to protect against stabbing, and I think that person is correct.  It would help with slashing, but at a thickness appropriate to a jacket or shirt lining, it would be thin enough to be forced into a stab wound by the knife.

On the one hand, I understand _why_ parents want these products - but on the other hand, I go back to what has been said before:  it is better to work on the underlying issues leading to these concerns, than to armor children to send them to school or out to play.

From Calling All Angels by Train - look at the bolded portions of the lyrics:



> I need a sign to let me know youre here
> All of these lines are being crossed over the atmosphere
> I need to know that things are gonna look up
> Cause I feel us drowning in a sea spilled from a cup
> ...


----------



## Marginal (Aug 21, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Dads push bulletproof backpacks in schools
> 
> I saw this story recently.  I'm not sure which concerns me more; that parents think their children need such things, or that the school district is considering not allowing them because they might be "threatening or offensive".


My main concern would be if that plate helps the backpack keep its shape after the kids put 3,000 books into them.


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 22, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Dads push bulletproof backpacks in schools
> 
> I saw this story recently. I'm not sure which concerns me more; that parents think their children need such things, or that the school district is considering not allowing them because they might be "threatening or offensive".


 
Yea... Seriously.

Someone should let these moron "dads" know that there is no such thing as "bulletproof" material anyways, despite the commonly used term. Soft ballistic resistant materials especially like what they would put in police vests or (in this case) backpacks provide protection, but not a sure thing against all bullet or blade attacks. Not to mention the impracticality of the material being only on a backpack.

What's worse is that I would put my money on it that these "dads" have yet to enroll their kids in a practical self-defense program that stresses common sense and self-esteem, which would entail proactive parenting rather then just throwing money and a new gadget at a problem.

This is almost as dumb as those school districts way back when who payed sell-out self-defense instructors to waste class time teaching kids to throw pencils and rulers and crap at armed assailents in the event of an attack.

But hey, what the hell do I know? :lol:


----------



## fireman00 (Aug 22, 2007)

Do you take shots at the folks that buy  or sell Volvos  because of the car's inherent safe design or look to buy a car with side air bags?   

In today's society why would it surprise anyone that folks are marketing a back pack with a bulletproof panel? 

As far as it being a fear driven reaction I'll ask how many of us carry some form of self protection; Surefire Defender flashlight, pepper spray/ mace, pocket folder, small cal hand gun, cane or any other easy to use weapon or even have bought a cell phone to use "in an emergency"?


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 22, 2007)

fireman00 said:


> As far as it being a fear driven reaction I'll ask how many of us carry some form of self protection; Surefire Defender flashlight, pepper spray/ mace, pocket folder, small cal hand gun, cane or any other easy to use weapon or even have bought a cell phone to use "in an emergency"?



I can see your point. But most of us also go to the trouble of training so that we can use these items. It is not some sort of talism that keeps bad people away.

Unless someone goes through some sort of training- and I can't imagine many teenagers going through that, I do not see much use for this. The most use I can see for it is in protecting kids from someone who drives up behind them and tries to to shoot them in the back. I do not think many kids when faced with a shooting will be able to keep their mind straight enough to move this thing to thier front and use it like a sheild. If you train them, maybe. But that does not seem to be much of an option.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 23, 2007)

I've seen the way my kids pack their bags. The amount of books alone is probably enough to stop a bullet. :biggrin:


----------



## fireman00 (Aug 24, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> I can see your point. But most of us also go to the trouble of training so that we can use these items. It is not some sort of talism that keeps bad people away.
> 
> Unless someone goes through some sort of training- and I can't imagine many teenagers going through that, I do not see much use for this. The most use I can see for it is in protecting kids from someone who drives up behind them and tries to to shoot them in the back. I do not think many kids when faced with a shooting will be able to keep their mind straight enough to move this thing to thier front and use it like a sheild. If you train them, maybe. But that does not seem to be much of an option.




I'll agree with you 100% on that  and unless there's some kind of stress, postioning and exit strategy training they would be useless.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Aug 24, 2007)

Okay, I must be the oddball here.
I think the bulletproof backpacks are a good idea.  Yes, it is pandering to the fears of paranoid parents, but the fear is there for a reason.
I have several police friends in my area and all of them tell me that they go to the middle and high schools around here for kids bringing guns to school often (almost always unloaded, but still).
Yep, it's paranoid, but reasonable.

AoG


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Aug 24, 2007)

And on a related note, here is an article suggesting using textbooks as shields:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/102006tswshootings.25c68a8.html


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 26, 2007)

The problem isn't really the practicality (although highly questionable) of books or ballistic rated backpacks; the problem is the favoring of knee jerk reactions built on paranoia and a lack of understanding of violent encounters over logical and practical solutions. This reminds me of the good ol' days of the cold war where kids would practice hiding under desks in case of a nuclear attack...

As Upnorth mentioned, the probability of a school shooting is very low; disproportionately low in comparison to other safety hazards. This does not mean, however, that you don't disaster plan. Every school, for example, has a disaster plan for tornadoes, even though the probability of a school building being ravaged by a tornado is also low.

But that is just it; most of us don't have irrational fears of tornadoes. The news, the media pundents, and the politicians aren't ranting and raving about he next possible tornado attack that is going to the destroy lives and families of all in its wake. So, people tend to not be irrationally afraid of tornadoes, or the weather in particular, even though it can be dangerous at times. We use our resources to understand the weather and the risks, and we take the proper precautions if something like a tornado does hit our schools or homes.

Why can't we do that with terrorists threats in the schools? [keep in mind, "terrorism" isn't isolated to islamo-facist driven violence; I consider any school shooting like Columbine a terrorist act.] It is very simple to put a disaster plan in place if there is a threat that involves either exiting the building or barracading a door and staying in a room per the teachers discretion. Really, a practical solution that is  PROPORTIONAL to the probability of the threat is very simple to put in place. And these simple, practical solutions are much more effective then the outrageous paranoia driven ideas that the news catches.

Ballistic backpacks are not practical or cost effective. Such an item will cost 100's of dollars, and the kid isn't going to be walking around with his backpack on all day for it to even be effective, and it won't cover most of the child's body. Granted, it up's the safety level a little, but only circumstantially. Considering that the child would have to have it on while running away and to only get shot in the back with a pistol (it will not stop a rifle round) and no where else, I just don't think it is a reasonable solution. Really, you might as well have your kid wear a vest to school if your going to go this route.

And yes, books can stop rounds to a degree. Nice article on the subject: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot31.htm

But... practical? Not really. If someone is in a room shooting, a kids best bet is to get the hell out of that room, not waste valuable time trying to fish a book from under a desk or elseware. Teaching a kid to try to deflect a bullet with a textbook or backpack like something out of a poorly choreographed action film would be laughable if people weren't serious about it. That isn't going to be a natural reaction for a trained adult human being, let alone a scared child. If someone is shooting in a room, and if you can't shoot back or beat his *** right there, YOUR going to run, plain and simple. And you should. And so should a child.

What will work for children is a simple, effective disaster plan that should be in place, but like tornado plans, not really given much thought once the plan is understood. There are much more important things that kids and parents should be worrying about otherwise...

C.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> What will work for children is a simple, effective disaster plan that should be in place, but like tornado plans, not really given much thought once the plan is understood. There are much more important things that kids and parents should be worrying about otherwise...
> 
> C.



Uh... what makes you think schools _don't_ have disaster plans of the type you describe?  I know the school I teach at does, just the same way we have tornado and fire drills.- in fact, we have 3 levels of lockdown, depending on the circumstances, and the location of the threat.   The lowest level of lockdown involves locking the all the doors of the building and making sure the PE classes are inside rather than out on the athletic field or track - other than that, school goes on as usual.  This usually occurs when there is a threat in the neighborhood - for example, last year there was a report of a hysterical woman with a gun wandering the neighborhood near the school which led to a level 1 lockdown (turned out to be a false report - at least, they never found anyone). Level 2 is somewhat more restrictive, and involves more verifiable threats or threats that approach the building more closely - in those drills, students are not allowed out of the classroom without a an adult, and classes do not change until the drill is over.  Level 3 is a full lockdown, with students against interior walls (all our walls are cinder block) where they cannot be seen from the doorway or windows (if the room has any), the lights off, the doors locked, and everyone quiet.

And no... kids are not allowed out to get their backpacks from their lockers, bulletproof or otherwise, and they are not allowed to carry their backpacks to class anyway, as I said previously in this thread.


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 26, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Uh... what makes you think schools _don't_ have disaster plans of the type you describe? I know the school I teach at does, just the same way we have tornado and fire drills.


 
That's great to know that some districts are putting practical plans in place. Those solutions are far more practical then "bulletproof backpacks" and other ridiculesness. I haven't seen anything like that in the districts around me. Yet, where are the media reports of a job well done by any district when a good solution is put in place? It is much more fun for them to report on the silly impractical propositions then the good solutions that the schools can, and in some cases as you described, are doing...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Yet, where are the media reports of a job well done by any district when a good solution is put in place? It is much more fun for them to report on the silly impractical propositions then the good solutions that the schools can, and in some cases as you described, are doing...


 
Got Fear?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 26, 2007)

Most schools, public or private, today have some sort of lockdown procedure and plan which they do rehearse, just like a fire drill.  Just like most police departments have developed and practiced "active shooter" responses.

The sad fact is that school shootings, while rare, do occur, and we've learned that what was once the accepted response to any similar situation of where you have an active, dynamic shooter in a contained environment like a school or office is inadequate.  First responders used to hold the perimeter and wait for a SWAT/tactical unit to arrive.  Today -- the first responders on the scene know how to team up, and have practical, rehearsed tactics for advancing on the shooter.

These backpacks?  Inadequate and silly, in my opinion.  For the minimal protection provided, they're just impractical.  And, given lots of these backpacks the kids take home today anyway...  They are carrying enough bulk in the books alone to provide pretty equivalent protection.


----------



## morph4me (Aug 27, 2007)

It doesn't have to be practical or realistic, just has to make people feel better. I live near a nuclear power plant, there's an evacutation plan for the area surrounding it in the event of another Chernobyl. Not a viable plan, everybody seems to know it won't work, but it makes people feel better knowing it exists. How many women carry a can of self defense spray stuffed down in the bottom of their purses and feel better knowing they have it? Will they be able to get to it if they need it? Not likely, but they feel better, just like the people who have guns locked in a safe and separated from their ammunition, not worth a damn if they need it in a hurry, but they feel good knowing they have it. I guess it's alot easier for some people to think they're protected than to realize that safety is an illusion.


----------

