Is The Body Blanket Giving Children a False Sense of Security?

In my previous post I provided my own opinion as to why I think The Body Blanket is not safer for children in the event of a school shooting. My original reasons included the following:

One problem: Price is a huge obstacle. At about $1,000 per blanket, most schools can not afford to purchase enough blankets to protect every student in the event of a school shooting.


Another problem: This is really just a security blanket. If the shooter had a 9mm handgun (MAYBE) or an extremely low-power rifle, this could protect them from the bullet. To stop a high-caliber bullet, you would probably be looking at about 3 or 4 of these stacked together.


Another problem: These blankets won’t protect you from someone coming over and yanking it off you or rolling you over.

In my opinion, this is a waste of money. Most schools cannot afford these blankets. I think money well spent would be providing faculty with proper firearms training or getting better security for the schools. Heck, even installing thicker doors would be a cheaper option than purchasing $1,000 vests for every student.

With further research and the comments from my readers, I decided to write a ‘part 2’ in hopes of giving you a little more evidence as to why these blankets are not the best idea when considering the safety of these children.

First, here is the video found on the Body Guard Blanket website.


As you can see, there were some very large contusions. When taking into consideration how small a child is and looking at the severe amount of force that comes from a bullet, even with a safety device, you have to realize that the force alone is enough to severely injure if not kill a child. Anatomically speaking, children aren’t fully developed therefor do not have the strength, muscle capacity, and body density to withstand something with such traumatic force. In addition to that, these blankets were not tested using rifles. This should have been done especially because rifles are often the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

Killers who set out to massacre large numbers of people, however, often choose assault weapons, including James Holmes in Aurora, Colo. (12 killed, 58 wounded), and Lanza in Newtown (26 killed). Killers used assault weapons in 25 of the 62 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982, a Mother Jones analysis found — that is, in 40 percent of such crimes. Another study found that mass killers who use assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines have more than twice the number of victims, with an average of 15.6 people shot.

Take a look at these videos. Here is Richad Davis, the President of Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. shooting himself while wearing his protective vests:


First, I want to point out that he shoots “several inches” above the first point of impact. This is because the trauma plates are worn down from absorbing the first shot, meaning that a second shot to the same area would not be absorbed as well (if at all) and could continue into the body. This works for the Body Blankets as well. Multiple shots to this blanket would fail to stop a bullet from hitting a child even coming from a small caliber.

Now, here is another example of someone testing out a bullet proof vest with a handgun. This video shows the damage immediately after.


The Body Blanket is a level 3A product which is designed to protect rounds up to a .44 magnum.

Let’s put this into perspective. Here is a video using a level 3A vest against a .223 caliber rifle WHICH has been used in multiple shootings including Sandy Hook, Clakamas Town Center, Aurora, Fort Hood Army Base, and more.


Finally, these blankets only cover the top of the individual. There is still a high risk of ricocheting, shots coming from the side, or the shooter simply walking up and pulling the blanket off the student. With all of the information I have provided above, I can and will conclude that these blankets are a bad idea.

Those red blankets endanger children greater with a false sense of security and sets the little ones up to be systematically slaughtered.



In conclusion, these blankets are not the best tool when it comes to protecting children from shooters on campus. The amount of money it costs for one blanket can educate faculty and staff on proper gun use and handling as well as give them training on how to DEFEND their students in the event of an attack on campus. Training should be mandatory. If the teachers are against guns, that is fine and is their own choice but at least in this case, they know how to use them and are free to make the decision. If schools do not feel comfortable allowing teachers to carry on campus, then invest some money on better security or install heavier doors and windows.

Harvard Study Reveals Gun Control is Counterproductive

I would like to share this article I recently found. I was going to give you the website but it looks like is has been removed. Incase the cached copy gets deleted as well, I’ll share this with you. Please notice that the link to the study is attached as well.

Once again, a study from an organization that you would never accuse of being “gun-loving” or “right-wing” seems to disprove the myth that the availability of handguns increases murder rates.  In fact, it doesn’t.

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides.  Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.


Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high.  In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study.  ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”  In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.


The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates.  Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.”


The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world.  ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.”  Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.

People kill people.


Here is the original link incase it gets reposted: