< Back to the Main Site
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: cans of food now considered weapons  (Read 2461 times)

Offline shooter

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Aug 2013
  • Location: near Yutan
  • Posts: 1630
cans of food now considered weapons
« on: January 13, 2015, 06:49:50 PM »
  I couldn't believe this when I saw it on the news, kids are supposed to bring 8 ounce cans of food, so they can throw the cans at a attacker who comes into the school,
   I wonder who did the ballistic test to determin that 8 ounces has the best velocity,

   the news anchor was having a very hard time to keep from laughing.

    http://fox6now.com/2015/01/13/can-canned-goods-stop-school-shooters/
Logged
Was mich nicht umbringt macht mich stärker
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
 NRA Endowment member
  Shoot  them in the crotch.  Clint Smith, thunder ranch.  Oct 14, 2016

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2015, 07:03:02 PM »
Quote
“The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive. The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters the classroom.”

So you see, even though they are bringing cans to a gun fight, the cans will give them a sense of empowerment and make them feel secure, while the psycho guns them down.  So, in a libs mind, everything is ok.
Logged

Offline thirtydaZe

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 300
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2015, 08:56:33 PM »
If i have cans to thwart my attacker, does that mean i dont have to pee on them?
Logged

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2015, 06:15:21 AM »
Quote from: thirtydaZe on January 13, 2015, 08:56:33 PM
If i have cans to thwart my attacker, does that mean i dont have to pee on them?
IANAL but,  if a can is designated as a (lethal ?) projectile doesn't it become illegal to take to a school?  :P
Logged

Offline ejeviking

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2014
  • Posts: 7
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2015, 10:17:09 AM »
The Stupid, it must hurt like hell.
Logged

Offline Mali

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 1718
  • My life, my rights.
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2015, 11:21:52 AM »
Quote from: ejeviking on January 14, 2015, 10:17:09 AM
The Stupid, it must hurt like hell.
I am sure at that particular level of stupid they have already become very numb so there isn't much pain.
Logged
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

Offline ILoveCats

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 802
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM »
Here is the source article.  http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/13/living/feat-students-canned-goods-stop-school-shooters/

The linked Fox News article admittedly is a bit sarcastic and misleading, and there are elements of the training curriculum that are correct.  Teaching people to fight back viciously with whatever is at hand is always good guidance.

I keep saying that a Charlie Hebdo-style thing targeting US schools is a very real threat.  Probably the most likely one out there right now.  And we as a country have our collective head buried in the sand.

Is no state senator trying again to get teachers the ability to CCW again this year?? We need good people like HuskerXDM to be able to protect our kids.
Logged
"Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder." ~ FCK

Offline RLMoeller

  • Sponsor- NFOA Firearm Raffle at the 2009 Big Buck Classic. 2010 Firearm Rights Champion Award winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: La Vista, NE
  • Posts: 3058
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2015, 12:02:19 PM »
Quote from: feralcatkillr on January 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Is no state senator trying again to get teachers the ability to CCW again this year?? We need good people like HuskerXDM to be able to protect our kids.
   

I agree.   LB184 is a step in the right direction.
Logged

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2015, 12:10:18 PM »
Quote from: thirtydaZe on January 13, 2015, 08:56:33 PM
f i have cans to thwart my attacker, does that mean i dont have to pee on them?

Well, the kids can use their tactical pencils if their pee or cans don't work out.
Logged

Offline mott555

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 200
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2015, 02:21:13 PM »
Cans are not the right tool for the job. Clearly they need firearm-shaped Pop-Tarts.
Logged

Offline thirtydaZe

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 300
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2015, 03:53:14 PM »
Quote from: mott555 on January 14, 2015, 02:21:13 PM
Cans are not the right tool for the job. Clearly they need firearm-shaped Pop-Tarts.

i think you might be on to something here.  if the kids bring firearm-shaped Pop-Tarts, they'll face suspension or expulsion (in the case someone brings a chocolate one, you know the whole AR pop tart thing), in which case no one will be at school, thus avoiding the attack all together.

problem solved.
Logged

Offline 66bigblock

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 235
  • When SHTF, which side of the Fan will you be on?
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2015, 04:07:42 PM »
tactical poptart?


66bigblock
Logged
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.  I carry a lot of ammo because I cant run very fast.

Offline tstuart34

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 885
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2015, 04:59:21 PM »
Quote from: mott555 on January 14, 2015, 02:21:13 PM
Cans are not the right tool for the job. Clearly they need firearm-shaped Pop-Tarts.

Man in Middle school I would have killed for a pop tart...  I would be bringing reloads every other day....  :laugh:

I think i would send my kid with something tacticool.... maybe some Bacon in a CAN.



EDIT: ITS OVER THE 8 OZ LIMIT.... WOULD THIS BE A DISQUALIFIED PERISHABLE FOOD?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 05:02:24 PM by tstuart34 »
Logged

Offline RedDot

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2010
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 357
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2015, 06:39:09 PM »
I wonder how long it would take for that first "over-achiever" kid to figure out what putting that 8oz can in the bottom of a tube sock gets him?  Then you get the inevitable Blue on Blue incident and everybody's looking for a lawyer.   ;)
Logged

Offline OnTheFly

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 2617
  • NFOA member #364
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2015, 07:03:32 PM »
Just caught a glimpse of a "News" program talking about this.  They justified it essentially saying "One can won't deter an attacker, but imagine if everyone was throwing an 8oz can".  Yeah, those grade schoolers have some wicked arms not to mention the great aim a kid has at that age.

Fly
Logged
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Offline ejeviking

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2014
  • Posts: 7
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2015, 08:30:06 AM »
Quote from: tstuart34 on January 14, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
Man in Middle school I would have killed for a pop tart...  I would be bringing reloads every other day....  :laugh:

I think i would send my kid with something tacticool.... maybe some Bacon in a CAN.



EDIT: ITS OVER THE 8 OZ LIMIT.... WOULD THIS BE A DISQUALIFIED PERISHABLE FOOD?
Perishable, hell, talk about needing reloads for poptarts, you would need to send these by the case!
Logged

Offline HuskerXDM

  • 2014 NFOA Firearms Rights Champion
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 948
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2015, 08:43:45 PM »
The flip side, from a teacher's perspective... since I can't carry at work, is that I tell my kids in "Shelter" drills, that they should grab a math book.  All I get are my teacher scissors, so they'll throw books if someone makes it through the door.  Could something go wrong?  Sure, but there's a gunman in the doorway, so it's about to be the worst day of my life anyway.  Might as well hope that the shooter is disoriented while I do my thing with safety scissors and non-toxic glue  ::)
Logged
The master has failed more than the beginner has even tried.

Offline tstuart34

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 885
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2015, 10:20:40 PM »
Quote from: ejeviking on January 15, 2015, 08:30:06 AM
Perishable, hell, talk about needing reloads for poptarts, you would need to send these by the case!

Ha issue is you can not have a can opener.... that might be harmful!
Logged

Offline depserv

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 870
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2015, 09:30:33 AM »
I suppose a bunch of cans being thrown at an assailant might slow him down for a second or two while the teacher gets her gun out and shoots him.  Given the right circumstances it might be enough of a distraction that maybe a few could escape who otherwise would not have.  And fighting back by whatever means are available is better than just cowering and doing nothing.  But to suggest something like this while not having the adults in the school armed with something that actually can stop the assailant is pretty stupid.

I agree that schools could be the target of a terrorist attack, or another mass murder by some crazy person who wants the liberal press to turn him into a celebrity.  So not putting an armed responder in place is a betrayal of our children, and those who fight against such a responder being in place are in effect accessories to anything that happens because of the inability of the school to protect the children in their care.

How about this idea: There are a lot of retired middle aged men with carry permits.  I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to get quite a few who would be willing to be in the schools as a guard against this sort of thing.  The sheriff or police could have some kind of training for them.  Armed teachers and school administrators are a good idea too, but if they don't want to be armed, let those who choose to be armed be there to protect the kids.

It should be added that the Charlie Hebdo office had armed guards, so as we all know, guns in the hands of good guys are not a panacea.  But it's still the best chance we have.     
Logged
The liberal cult seeks destruction of the American Republic like water seeks low ground.

Offline tstuart34

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 885
Re: cans of food now considered weapons
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2015, 10:19:36 AM »
Quote from: depserv on January 17, 2015, 09:30:33 AM
I suppose a bunch of cans being thrown at an assailant might slow him down for a second or two while the teacher gets her gun out and shoots him.  Given the right circumstances it might be enough of a distraction that maybe a few could escape who otherwise would not have.  And fighting back by whatever means are available is better than just cowering and doing nothing.  But to suggest something like this while not having the adults in the school armed with something that actually can stop the assailant is pretty stupid.

I agree that schools could be the target of a terrorist attack, or another mass murder by some crazy person who wants the liberal press to turn him into a celebrity.  So not putting an armed responder in place is a betrayal of our children, and those who fight against such a responder being in place are in effect accessories to anything that happens because of the inability of the school to protect the children in their care.

How about this idea: There are a lot of retired middle aged men with carry permits.  I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to get quite a few who would be willing to be in the schools as a guard against this sort of thing.  The sheriff or police could have some kind of training for them.  Armed teachers and school administrators are a good idea too, but if they don't want to be armed, let those who choose to be armed be there to protect the kids.

It should be added that the Charlie Hebdo office had armed guards, so as we all know, guns in the hands of good guys are not a panacea.  But it's still the best chance we have.   

Middle schools and high schools both have security within the school. I am somewhat recent graduate of LPS I was in the first class to go al the way through the school. Since it was a new school we got a lot of the wash outs from every other school in Lincoln. Gangs tried to move into the school there was constant fights. It took a year to get the place cleaned out of all the junk. The security for the school consisted of the softball, baseball, and wrestling coaches. They all were hired as coaches and given the position as a campus security as they have to be employed by LPS to coach. They did a pretty good job of breaking up fights and so on. For the most part they were able to pull the parties apart and everything settled down. They never had a situation were any soft of hand to hand combat experience was needed or were never threatened with a weapon.  If "back up" was required there was a police officer either on campus or hear by. The first few years she was typically on campus most of the day. For the most part as a student I thought it was a pain to have these people around.

Now I am a father of 3. My oldest son is in 2nd grade and my daughter will be starting preschool next year hopefully at the same elementary school as my son. And I am absolutely disgusted with the security of the school. As you walk up to the main entrance of the school there is one door that is unlocked. As you walk in the first set of doors the office is on the left through a unlocked door and the second set of doors are locked. The only way into the main school is though the office. Right inside of that door sits the office staff the first person you meet is a women in her late 50 early 60s that is very frail. Behind her sits to very kind and caring women. After that a person and free range to the rest of the school. No other security you have a police officer that is assigned to several of the schools in the area. There ETA is unknown?

My point with all this is you have campus security in middle schools and high schools and you have a door receptionist in elementary schools. These are the people that should be trained and armed first to protect our children. Like you said there are a lot of people with either LEO or Military background that are looking for jobs. Sure maybe we would have to pay them a little more and they would have to be trained and have continuous training but isn't it worth it??

Teachers should also have the choice if they want to carry or not. But I believe there should be a armed first responder in every school that is trained in active shooter. Not just some mall cop!


Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »