quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
He's a poster child for the leftist future for America...the cuckold male.

Somewhere there is a divide by zero. I can take away your rights, but you can't take away my rights.

In reference to the video rusbro posted:

So he is complaining about the violation of his first amendment rights because of some nut, while he advocates for the violation of the rights of 130 million American"s who own guns because of some nut? Hmm........he is definitely trying to follow in the foot steps of his apparent idol and constitutional scholar, Obummer.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
In reference to the video rusbro posted:

So he is complaining about the violation of his first amendment rights because of some nut, while he advocates for the violation of the rights of 130 million American"s who own guns because of some nut? Hmm........he is definitely trying to follow in the foot steps of his apparent idol and constitutional scholar, Obummer.

So, he's a constitutionalist now? When it's self-serving, the constitution is a good thing, apparently? Hmmm, maybe this man-child is exposing his emotionally-driven, ego-centered, blind ignorance? Allow me, in my smarmy, arrogant manner, to choose which rights are worthy in MY country. Seems to be the depth of his analysis.

He is a 17 year old idiot...sums it up!

quote:

But if a teacher decides to lockdown a classroom, there are rocks in a five-gallon bucket kept in every classroom closet that students could throw if shooters get inside.

Or any other reason students might feel the urge to throw rocks.

I don’t have a problem with the rocks. Is it the best solution? No. But it’s a lot better than telling kids to cower in the corner with their backs turned. Teaching kids to take their personal security into their own hands and not rely on others is a start.

I think some people are in denial about the stare of the world. We’ve lost a lot. The liberals took control of the media, the universities and our public school system. We can want it to end immediately but this madness isn’t going to end overnight. This is far from perfect but it’s better than nothing and may just evolve into more.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
I don’t have a problem with the rocks.

I go further and believe it’s a good idea.

I’m always amazed when people automatically dismiss the value of any defensive measure other than having a Ma Deuce mounted in the room—or anything else that’s just as unlikely, if not illegal. Rocks won’t end an active attack, but it’s part of what can be done to end an attack. Now school staff are being told to throw things like staplers and books to distract an attacker until more active and effective measures can be taken.

As for “Johnny might throw a rock at the teacher,” yes, he might. He might also throw a stapler or book; how do we prevent that? And what about the Ma Deuce or Glock 19 we want to put in classrooms? How do we prevent Johnny from shooting Sally or Jimmy? That’s the antis’ most persistent (and, frankly, valid) argument against arming teachers by any method.

If anyone needs a little help with their imaginations and how to keep Johnny from grabbing a rock and chucking it across the room, how about sealing them in something like an unlabeled cardboard box only to be opened when the sound of gunfire is coming down the hallway?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

But if a teacher decides to lockdown a classroom, there are rocks in a five-gallon bucket kept in every classroom closet that students could throw if shooters get inside.

Or any other reason students might feel the urge to throw rocks.

Isn’t this essentially the same argument the left has against teachers being armed?

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
Isn’t this essentials the same argument the left has against teachers being armed?

More succinct and clearer than I put it.

And if the answer is not clear: Yes, it is exactly the same argument—exactly.

I'm a big advocate of defending yourself, but the rocks just seem silly. Of course, I've never been 'stoned' and could be mistaken about the effectiveness of rock throwing. I can concede that multiple rocks to the face would be unpleasant.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
I'm a big advocate of defending yourself, but the rocks just seem silly. Of course, I've never been 'stoned' and could be mistaken about the effectiveness of rock throwing. I can concede that multiple rocks to the face would be unpleasant.

Again, it’s a start.

Once kids start learning that it’s okay to defend themselves I expect their want of better items to use will come along with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
I'm a big advocate of defending yourself, but the rocks just seem silly. Of course, I've never been 'stoned' and could be mistaken about the effectiveness of rock throwing. I can concede that multiple rocks to the face would be unpleasant.

Again, it’s a start.

Once kids start learning that it’s okay to defend themselves I expect their want of better items to use will come along with it.

That's a good point that I didn't consider.

A couple of questions:

1) what's the efficacy of a single / few rock throwers? how close would they have to be to be effective (ie - accurate and strong enough impact?)? what's the risk of being shot while trying to throw a rock?

2) if one were going to be a shooter, knowing that the classrooms had rocks, what would one do to prepare for that? are rocks a thing where it might be good for the first event as an unexpected surprise for the shooter but subsequent shooters could better prepare for the rocks and render it ineffective?

I can't believe you guys are having this conversation. Buckets of rocks?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
what's the risk of being shot while trying to throw a rock?

Hmm ….
Let me think. What’s the risk of being shot by an active murderer who just came into the room with a gun and starts shooting everyone in sight—including the ones curled up on the floor and not throwing things? Hmm … So difficult.

Okay, I’ll try:
The object of fighting an attacker in an active killer event is to prevent him from killing people. How do we do that? If we have a Ma Deuce in the room and aimed at the door when he comes through, a quick 50-60 round burst will probably discourage him from further murders. If we have a Glock 17, firing 10-15 or maybe only one shot will do the same.

But what if we don’t? Then we must think of other ways. If 1. we can take the gun away or at least cause a malfunction by grabbing the slide, then we’re off to a good start. If 2. we can wrestle the guy to the floor and four or five others keep him mostly restrained while another one or two of us stick pencils in his eyes or even our fingers at the same time someone is repeatedly kicking him between the legs, then that will—as I tell it—give him something else to think about other than trying to kill us.

If we have other improvised weapons available besides the pencils and hard-toed shoes, we continue to use them.

In order to get close enough to do all that multiple-on-one fighting, it’s necessary to not be standing across the room when he bursts in. Hopefully some of us will be in a position to charge him, and the chances of doing that successfully will be enhanced if he’s distracted when he enters: hence the rocks (or books or staplers or canned corn).

Is it possible that after the first active murderer is taken down with the help of rock-throwing students, that others will be less susceptible to the counterattack? Sure. Is it possible that after the first armed teacher takes out an attacker that the next one will study up on ninja/Spetsnaz tactics and not be so easy? Yes. Does that mean we should just give up because no method (even the Ma Deuce) is guaranteed to work? I don’t believe so.

I fully realize that all this sounds very strange to a bunch of people who are armed to the teeth to resist something like a home invasion. But that’s not the situation in any school I’m familiar with—not even in Israel where it’s evidently possible to comply with the law if a woman has an M1 carbine somewhere in reach. If I’m ever in a life or death situation and am not armed with an effective weapon, I will still fight with whatever I can find rather than just giving up. If that’s a rock, so be it. And if I am unsuccessful in defending my life or the lives of others, you have my permission to come and laugh over my grave.

Or you can laugh at me right now; I’ll start us off: Ho, ho, ha, ha.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I can't believe you guys are having this conversation. Buckets of rocks?

This. Exactly what I was thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I can't believe you guys are having this conversation. Buckets of rocks?

Well...you can't have "sticks" without the "stones"...to "break those bones" ...maybe if those "stones" are zipping along at 1200 fps (+or -)

quote:

Originally posted by Jelly:
Patriots loan plane to Parkland students for D.C. trip

Huh. An NFL franchise helping an anti-gun cause. Who'd have expected that? And named the "Patriots," no less.

I believe classrooms should be stocked with an adequate supply of rocks but that shouldn't be the only means of defense. I think there should be additional force multipliers like Silly String to confused and block the shooter's vision, and marbles to roll across the floor to cause the shooter to slip and fall.

I honestly think that rocks would technically be better than nothing but that's about it, in all seriousness. It's hard to imagine kids charging forward (and I'm imagining high school age kids and not the younger middle school or grade school age) in some coordinated and successful fashion and subduing a well armed attacker, particularly if he's sporting a helmet and protective gear. It could happen, but it's not likely. I also have a fairly difficult time, especially in this age of over protection and helicopter parents and schools, with the concept that schools would "weaponize" the kids. The first rock-throwing heroes that get shot down would bring significant legal and civil wrath to the school systems and municipalities that put kids in the position of being school security, even though it could be considered practical on some level. There just have to be better solutions.

Good grief. Listen to what you're saying.

Try to imagine the terror of someone young and who has not been exposed to live gunfire. It will be indescribably loud. People will be screaming and panicking. Do you actually think that these children will defend themselves with a bucket of rocks? In the face of some maniac with a firearm?

Come back down to Earth. Please, just stop and think about what you are actually, seriously suggesting. This is just some idiotic idea from some idiotic administrator in some typically ridiculous public school system and you guys have latched on to it as if it makes sense.