school backpacks for kids manufacturers image
deckels
Here's an article about two Boston dads who invented (and are selling) a $175 backpack with bulletproof metallic insert to keep their kids safe at school. A good investment?
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1016084
Answer
Buying this product would be a horrible idea.
You'd be benefiting a greedy manufacturer who intends to exploit the fear of parents by selling a product of questionable utility.
How can the armor material be a 'secret' and also meet NIJ standards? It's unlikely to have passed NIJ testing since there's no mention of 'MJ Safety Solutions' or âMy Childâs Packâ in the database of tested products. NIJ has several standards in different areas a reputable firm would have specified the standard met and the independent testing agency that verified compliance. Even if they do show compliance with some NIJ standards, how are these standards applicable for a kid using this product?
The examples, comparisons, and quotes used in the article are disturbing and misleading.
âWe have tested and tested this product and we are very excited about it. We researched every school shooting since 1900 and found that our product is resistant to 97 percent of all bullets used,âResistant to 97% of all bullets used in school shootings is a long way from showing that this product would have saved any lives in those school shootings.
The backpacks werenât due to go on sale until the start of the school year but Pelonzi brought the release date forward to Friday, days after a Herald review revealed how more than 500 weapons were recovered from Bostonâs public schools in the past year.
Clearly Pelonzi sees the benefit of using fear to sell his product.
The backpacks, which will cost $175, have a super-lightweight bullet-proof plate sewn into the back which weighs no more than a bottle of water. Pelonzi said the material used is a secret.
The plate material meets National Institute of Justice safety standards, said Pelonzi, and during a three-year testing phase, stood up to bullets as well as machete, hatchet and Ka-bar knife attacks.
In this and other articles Pelonzi is trying to both claim his armor is light in weight and offers the same protection as a police officer's body armor. This is especially apparent in other articles where he compares the weight of police body armor to the backpack without acknowledging the greater coverage provided by police vests.
Think of how kids carry backpacks. How much protection will this thing provide slung over one shoulder? Even worn on both shoulders it would provide poor protection in a close-quarters gun fight. Is Pelonzi willing to demonstrate his product under those conditions? Let's see a video of test dummies optimally protected with backpacks being fired on by a single shooter. Even if you restrict the shooter to a fixed position and give him a limited time he'll likely do some serious damage to these poorly protected students.
âIt seems to me that it would not serve our district-wide dress code which says that students cannot wear anything which is threatening or offensive,â said Jonathan Palumbo, Boston Public Schools spokesman.
Palumbo's argument seems lame at first glance, what's offensive or threatening about an armored backpack? Isn't it purely defensive? The point he's making is a good one, a student with this backpack might feel sufficiently protected to confront a gunman and escalate a potentially violent situation that might have been brought under control by trained authorities.
My primary concern about this product is the false sense of security it provides students and their parents. A student would require a great deal of training and practice to make any use of this as a protective device. I suggest that time would be better spent educating students how to react to these situations safely without limited body armor. I wouldn't want any kid deciding to rely on this type of protection. I'd rather they acted smart and retreated in a safe fashion.
Buying this product would be a horrible idea.
You'd be benefiting a greedy manufacturer who intends to exploit the fear of parents by selling a product of questionable utility.
How can the armor material be a 'secret' and also meet NIJ standards? It's unlikely to have passed NIJ testing since there's no mention of 'MJ Safety Solutions' or âMy Childâs Packâ in the database of tested products. NIJ has several standards in different areas a reputable firm would have specified the standard met and the independent testing agency that verified compliance. Even if they do show compliance with some NIJ standards, how are these standards applicable for a kid using this product?
The examples, comparisons, and quotes used in the article are disturbing and misleading.
âWe have tested and tested this product and we are very excited about it. We researched every school shooting since 1900 and found that our product is resistant to 97 percent of all bullets used,âResistant to 97% of all bullets used in school shootings is a long way from showing that this product would have saved any lives in those school shootings.
The backpacks werenât due to go on sale until the start of the school year but Pelonzi brought the release date forward to Friday, days after a Herald review revealed how more than 500 weapons were recovered from Bostonâs public schools in the past year.
Clearly Pelonzi sees the benefit of using fear to sell his product.
The backpacks, which will cost $175, have a super-lightweight bullet-proof plate sewn into the back which weighs no more than a bottle of water. Pelonzi said the material used is a secret.
The plate material meets National Institute of Justice safety standards, said Pelonzi, and during a three-year testing phase, stood up to bullets as well as machete, hatchet and Ka-bar knife attacks.
In this and other articles Pelonzi is trying to both claim his armor is light in weight and offers the same protection as a police officer's body armor. This is especially apparent in other articles where he compares the weight of police body armor to the backpack without acknowledging the greater coverage provided by police vests.
Think of how kids carry backpacks. How much protection will this thing provide slung over one shoulder? Even worn on both shoulders it would provide poor protection in a close-quarters gun fight. Is Pelonzi willing to demonstrate his product under those conditions? Let's see a video of test dummies optimally protected with backpacks being fired on by a single shooter. Even if you restrict the shooter to a fixed position and give him a limited time he'll likely do some serious damage to these poorly protected students.
âIt seems to me that it would not serve our district-wide dress code which says that students cannot wear anything which is threatening or offensive,â said Jonathan Palumbo, Boston Public Schools spokesman.
Palumbo's argument seems lame at first glance, what's offensive or threatening about an armored backpack? Isn't it purely defensive? The point he's making is a good one, a student with this backpack might feel sufficiently protected to confront a gunman and escalate a potentially violent situation that might have been brought under control by trained authorities.
My primary concern about this product is the false sense of security it provides students and their parents. A student would require a great deal of training and practice to make any use of this as a protective device. I suggest that time would be better spent educating students how to react to these situations safely without limited body armor. I wouldn't want any kid deciding to rely on this type of protection. I'd rather they acted smart and retreated in a safe fashion.
Will it ever be like the good ol' days again?
Jesus Stre
I'm an old guy, so let me tell you 'bout the good ol' days. In my day, men in my home town did not set women of fire. Kids did not bring guns to school and start mowing people down. Therefore you could actually bring an opaque backpack to school without causing a panic. I know this sounds incredible, but it's true. In my day, none of our food had safety seals and yet no one died from poison. Hair driers didn't have warning labels saying "Don't use in the shower." Coffee cups didn't have labels saying "Contents may be hot, so don't dump it on your head." In fact, none of the stuff we bought had warning labels but we never got hurt nor sued the manufacturers for millions of dollars. In my day, you could fly in an airplane without being strip searched. Murderers and rapists stayed in jail, but they left people like Martha Stewart alone, told her not to do it again, or at worst gave her a fine. Back then the prison designed to hold a thousand men held about seven hundred men, not four thousand. In this way, people who did really bad things weren't set free in three years. You see, when I grew up common sense was common. Most people believed that the Bible was the Word of God. I wonder if there is any connection?
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20110331nh_man_charged_with_setting_fire_to_woman/srvc=home&position=recent
Answer
It is sad, but no things will never be as they used to be.
The innocent are in jail while the guilty walk free.
I saw a video saying Mercury is good for controlling kids behavior.
And I thought I had heard it all.
They are dumb-ing down the kids so they can control them.
This is called the stupid generation.
The warning labels are there for stupid people.
I just rip them off first thing. Same for assembly instructions.
Its sickening how stupid the world of today has become.
I like these Warning labels for stupid people: [Just kidding]
Don't eat rat poising as it can kill you, but they put it in pills to thin your blood.
Antifreeze warning. Don't store in a kids playroom. As kids might drink it.
Motor oil warning: This is not a cooking oil. Use cottonseed oil for consumption.
Drainoo Warning: Do not set it on the table where kids can drink it.
Potato dust insecticide warning: This is not powdered sugar. So please do not ingest.
Who would have thought we need warning labels on such products.
It is sad, but no things will never be as they used to be.
The innocent are in jail while the guilty walk free.
I saw a video saying Mercury is good for controlling kids behavior.
And I thought I had heard it all.
They are dumb-ing down the kids so they can control them.
This is called the stupid generation.
The warning labels are there for stupid people.
I just rip them off first thing. Same for assembly instructions.
Its sickening how stupid the world of today has become.
I like these Warning labels for stupid people: [Just kidding]
Don't eat rat poising as it can kill you, but they put it in pills to thin your blood.
Antifreeze warning. Don't store in a kids playroom. As kids might drink it.
Motor oil warning: This is not a cooking oil. Use cottonseed oil for consumption.
Drainoo Warning: Do not set it on the table where kids can drink it.
Potato dust insecticide warning: This is not powdered sugar. So please do not ingest.
Who would have thought we need warning labels on such products.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: New bulletproof backpacks: would you buy one?
Rating: 95% based on 9768 ratings. 4,5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 95% based on 9768 ratings. 4,5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment