US Schoolkids to get Body Armour

[Woodruff]

I guess I just find the idea of a nation where 5 year old kids need to wear bulletproof clothing kind of depressing.

That's just it...they really don't have to. To say that they need to do something like this for the extremely rare occurrence really isn't thinking clearly.

[Woodruff]

I guess I just find the idea of a nation where 5 year old kids need to wear bulletproof clothing kind of depressing.

They're not required to, and since the risk (on a national level) is extremely low, then saying "need to wear X" is a bit misleading. (Whether you're unintentionally misleading yourself or intentionally misleading others, it's difficult to say).

If anything, the story provides another outstanding example of the capabilities of the market, and the ability of people to find their own non-political solutions--without appealing to the state to take people's money to provide X (mass-supported theft would be depressing).

Absolutely. This is a great example of someone seeing a desire for a product and then producing that product for sale to those who desire said product. It's a great exchange. The producer provides a product, the purchaser gets piece of mind. Whether or not the purchaser is deluding themselves is another matter, but completely irrelevant. Both parties involved gain.

Ah, pretend economists. And I thought you guys were actually against gov't spending. At $375-400 each, per vest alone, it'll cost...

I hate to agree with BBS (I really do), but he's right in this case. If someone sees enough value in it to be willing to pay that $400, then who are we to say they're wrong? I don't know why you'd call it "pretend economics" at all.

[Woodruff]

Edit: Oh, you are probably talking about the bullet proof blackboards, right? Yeah, well, government is good at wasting money. But if, God forbid, another such shooting occurs and one of those blackboards even saves a single life, it'd be money well spent some would argue.

I would argue that the bullet proof blackboards/clipboards make much more sense. The backpack has a pretty limited duration of usefulness, but that classroom is likely to be there for a lot longer.

[Symmetry]

I guess I just find the idea of a nation where 5 year old kids need to wear bulletproof clothing kind of depressing.

That's just it...they really don't have to. To say that they need to do something like this for the extremely rare occurrence really isn't thinking clearly.

Aye. I didn't think the future would be kids in bulletproof backpacks, getting fitted for 5-year old sized military armour. Bulletproof rainbows.

[Symmetry]

I guess I just find the idea of a nation where 5 year old kids need to wear bulletproof clothing kind of depressing.

They're not required to, and since the risk (on a national level) is extremely low, then saying "need to wear X" is a bit misleading. (Whether you're unintentionally misleading yourself or intentionally misleading others, it's difficult to say).

If anything, the story provides another outstanding example of the capabilities of the market, and the ability of people to find their own non-political solutions--without appealing to the state to take people's money to provide X (mass-supported theft would be depressing).

Absolutely. This is a great example of someone seeing a desire for a product and then producing that product for sale to those who desire said product. It's a great exchange. The producer provides a product, the purchaser gets piece of mind. Whether or not the purchaser is deluding themselves is another matter, but completely irrelevant. Both parties involved gain.

Ah, pretend economists. And I thought you guys were actually against gov't spending. At $375-400 each, per vest alone, it'll cost...

I hate to agree with BBS (I really do), but he's right in this case. If someone sees enough value in it to be willing to pay that $400, then who are we to say they're wrong? I don't know why you'd call it "pretend economics" at all.

That would be the school district that's paying for the vests. For every student.

[Haggis_McMutton]

not to disrupt the (pretend or not) economical discussion but I think some (probably pretend) psychology might be more interesting.

How do people evaluate the amount they are willing to spend to protect against something? Ideally it would be some simple expectation of damage calculation a'la (probability of getting into a car crash X probability the car crash isn't minor) directly correlates to amount willing to spend to avoid said car crash.

Clearly it doesn't work like that though. I'm guessing the real valuation has something to do with how often we hear about the events, presumably because our monkey brains think that how often we hear about something correlates with how often that thing actually happens, and it probably also has something to do with how horrific the possibility is perceived as being. Of course the incentive media has towards sensationalism completely fucks us in regards to that first factor, as they're encouraged to repeatedly broadcast the most unlikely of occurrences. And the 2nd one probably isn't too great either in that I'm not sure it's really more "horrific" to get killed in a school shooting than it is to get killed in a car accident.

What's my point? hell if I know, I just like to ramble.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess I just find the idea of a nation where 5 year old kids need to wear bulletproof clothing kind of depressing.

They're not required to, and since the risk (on a national level) is extremely low, then saying "need to wear X" is a bit misleading. (Whether you're unintentionally misleading yourself or intentionally misleading others, it's difficult to say).

If anything, the story provides another outstanding example of the capabilities of the market, and the ability of people to find their own non-political solutions--without appealing to the state to take people's money to provide X (mass-supported theft would be depressing).

Absolutely. This is a great example of someone seeing a desire for a product and then producing that product for sale to those who desire said product. It's a great exchange. The producer provides a product, the purchaser gets piece of mind. Whether or not the purchaser is deluding themselves is another matter, but completely irrelevant. Both parties involved gain.

Ah, pretend economists. And I thought you guys were actually against gov't spending. At $375-400 each, per vest alone, it'll cost...

I hate to agree with BBS (I really do), but he's right in this case. If someone sees enough value in it to be willing to pay that $400, then who are we to say they're wrong? I don't know why you'd call it "pretend economics" at all.

That would be the school district that's paying for the vests. For every student.

The vests or the backpacks?

[Woodruff]

I guess I just find the idea of a nation where 5 year old kids need to wear bulletproof clothing kind of depressing.

They're not required to, and since the risk (on a national level) is extremely low, then saying "need to wear X" is a bit misleading. (Whether you're unintentionally misleading yourself or intentionally misleading others, it's difficult to say).

If anything, the story provides another outstanding example of the capabilities of the market, and the ability of people to find their own non-political solutions--without appealing to the state to take people's money to provide X (mass-supported theft would be depressing).

Absolutely. This is a great example of someone seeing a desire for a product and then producing that product for sale to those who desire said product. It's a great exchange. The producer provides a product, the purchaser gets piece of mind. Whether or not the purchaser is deluding themselves is another matter, but completely irrelevant. Both parties involved gain.

Ah, pretend economists. And I thought you guys were actually against gov't spending. At $375-400 each, per vest alone, it'll cost...

I hate to agree with BBS (I really do), but he's right in this case. If someone sees enough value in it to be willing to pay that $400, then who are we to say they're wrong? I don't know why you'd call it "pretend economics" at all.

That would be the school district that's paying for the vests. For every student.

That really doesn't change my statements at all.

[notyou2]

I have an idea. Why don't you limit the availability of guns so the children are protected?

[BigBallinStalin]

I've got a better idea. Give every child a gun, and give them training by the Obama-supported authorities who command child soldiers in Yemen, Dem. Republic of Congo, and Chad.

[notyou2]

Well that's weird. Those seem to be the same despicable groups that GW supported as well.

[saxitoxin]

Well that's weird. Those seem to be the same despicable groups that GW supported as well.

you gotta go back a lot further than 12 years ...

[2dimes]

What's my point? hell if I know, I just like to ramble.

[comic boy]

I have an idea. Why don't you limit the availability of guns so the children are protected?

Where is the profit....

[notyou2]

The profit is in having your kids reach adulthood

[2dimes]

I would limit guns to only responsible persons that take safety very seriously. Unfortunately I can't. So we have an issue here.

Do you have another option.

[comic boy]

The profit is in having your kids reach adulthood

You understand this , so do I , indeed the entire developed world does except for the USA it seems. Pro life my arse !

[2dimes]

While I appreciate your racism being "The good racism." is there any chance you might actually realize how billy07 you are being?

[notyou2]

There is a difference between race and culture. The US is in need of a major cultural shift. It won't be easy, if even possible at all.

[2dimes]

While I was not directing that at you notyou2. I did indeed leave it open to the possibility I was, intentionally.

I agree completely with your race is not determined by culture. And pre-judging a person based on their cultural exposure perhaps is not as bad as race.

Having said that. I am certain you agree that while not equal. It is still shall we say "incorrect" to presume that everyone within a particular region, social circle or even dare I say family will be the same.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are all of your drunk?

[2dimes]

Not me.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not mine.

FTFY

[2dimes]

As long as that means I isn't.

BBS, kids, and are you considering a backpack for them?

[notyou2]

The loud are bullying the majority into submission.

Stand up people for the rights of you and your children.