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.

-Brittius

 

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.

Advertisements

56% of Americans Have The Wrong Idea About Gun Crime

Did you know that the gun homicide rate has fallen by 49% in the past 20 years? The rate for gun related crime not labeled homicide has fallen by a shocking 79%.

Despite having these findings readily available to anyone willing to search for it, according the a new Pew Research Center Survey, more than 56% of Americans believe that gun related crime and gun homicides has gone up. 12% of Americans believe it has gone down, and 26% of Americans believe it has stayed the same. You can view the full report here.

Gun homicides and violent crime overall has been decreasing since the early 1990’s.

Gun Homicide Rate Declines By Half Since 1993 Peak

Then people ask “But what about all of the mass shootings?!”

Actually, mass shootings make up less than 1% of gun homicides. Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest, therefore people follow them just as heavily as they do other major news stories.

Mass Shootings Capture Public Interest

 

Now let’s look at the INCREASE in gun ownership since 1993 to compare our data. View the full article Two Recent Studies Confirm Gun Control’s Worst Nightmare: More Guns Equals Less Crime on TheExaminer.

20 year trend shows crime rates on decline as gun ownership rises

 

Here is a chart I thought would be fun to throw in, so why not? This chart shows gun ownership DECREASED and crime INCREASED.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that more than half of our country’s population believe that gun violence is increasing with gun ownership even though studies prove that is not the case. More legal gun owners DECREASE gun related crime because it gives criminals a reason to fear what consequences their decision will bring.

The problem lies with the media. Our media is creating false perception for each event and sadly, perception seems to beat the facts. Especially when it comes to a crowd that refuses to research for themselves.

How Obama Is Misusing Gun Terms To Deceive You

Think about words that you hear most in anti-gun debates; high-capacity magazines, gun show loophole, high-power ammunition, and assault weapons. As I have plenty of opinions on the supposed ‘gun show loophole’, I’ll save that discussion for a later post.

One of my biggest points that I have mentioned in previous posts is that most anti-gun advocates don’t actually know much, if anything, about guns. They believe that guns are a threat to their safety as well as their family’s. In the wrong hands, a gun can be a threat to anyone’s safety. Which is why I strongly believe in proper knowledge of how to handle a firearm. 

Obama is taking advantage of other anti-gun advocates to promote his own agenda: to disarm law-abiding American citizens. How can he take advantage of them? Because they aren’t properly educated. How can you advocate for gun control if you know nothing about guns in the first place?

Think about Obama’s speech in Denver in April of 2013. He says:

The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with a high-capacity magazine, has one purpose: to pump out as many bullets as possible, as fast as possible. It’s what allowed that gunman to shoot seventy people and kill twelve in a matter of a few minutes. I don’t believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters. 

 

First of all, none of the weapons used in the Aurora shooting were automatic weapons. Which means, none of them were “assault weapons”. The weapons the gunman used include:

  1. An AR-15 rifle
  2. A Remington 12 Gauge 870 Shotgun
  3. 2 .40 caliber Glock handguns

Guns that have cosmetic features, such as an AR-15, look like military weapons. Because of this, Obama and other anti-gun advocates misuse the term “assault weapon” to confuse the public. That way, uneducated citizens are made to believe that an AR-15 is a military weapon and thereby associate a perfectly legal gun as an “assault weapon”. 

The public is extremely confused over fully automatic versus semi-automatic weapons. Anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun, even if it does not function in the same way. An automatic weapon continues to fire as long as the trigger is pulled. A semi-automatic weapon needs time to reload, therefore requires a trigger pull each time in order for a round to be released into the chamber and fired out the muzzle. FULLY automatic weapons have been highly regulated for civilian ownership under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Since 1934, there have been 2 homicides associated with LEGALLY owned automatic weapons.  When looking at automatic weapons obtained ILLEGALLY, the number associated with homicides is extremely low, even including cities with high homicide rates such as Miami and Detroit. This is mainly because criminals prefer something they can conceal. Furthermore, automatic weapons have been banned from manufacture and import since 1986. With such limited supply, you’re looking at more than $20,000 for an automatic weapon. If a criminal can neither afford these guns nor prefer them due to the lack of options for concealed carry, these guns aren’t the issue. Sorry Obama, it looks like you don’t have this girl fooled. 

It is extremely hard to find crime rates and statistics associated with assault weapons. One reason being that people like Obama and Freinstein insist on misusing the term “assault weapon” and because homicides hardly ever happen using a machine gun. 

Now is when you say, but doesn’t AR in AR-15 stand for ‘assault rifle’? No. Actually it doesn’t. It actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company in which developed the model. Once the rights were sold in 1970, there were other manufactures that mimicked the model and released it for sale. If you ask me, I think it stands for ‘awesome rifle’, but I highly doubt the libs will agree with me (unless they shoot one). 

The term that you, Mr. President, SHOULD be using is ‘Modern Sporting Rifle’. Tell the truth- you aren’t going after law enforcement and military guns. You call these ‘assault weapons’ because you want to scare people into believing that standard semi-autos should be banned as well. Not to mention, they shoot ammunition at the same speed and power as other guns. These certain ‘cosmetic features’ that you say make a firearm an ‘assault weapon’ actually have NO effect on how the firearm actually functions. Do you know what ‘cosmetic features’ Obama refers to in determining whether or not a firearm is an ‘assault weapon’?

  1. A folding or a telescoping stock
  2. a pistol grip
  3. a bayonet mount
  4. a flash suppressor

Obama even tries to bring law enforcement in to justify his claim.

Weapons of war have no place on our streets, or in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers should never be outgunned on the streets.

First false claim right there. Law enforcement is not being ‘out-gunned’ by assault weapons. According to FBI data, in 2011 72 LEO’s were killed. 50 by handgun, 7 by rifles, 6 by shotgun, 6 by vehicle, 2 by hand, and 1 by knife. Even when asked if the ban on ‘assault weapons’ would have any effect on crime, 71% of police officials said none. Take a look at what our law enforcement officials are saying about gun bans:

  • An extraordinary 99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings. 
  • Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime. 
  • More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains. 
  • More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right to Carry by law abiding Americans. 
  • More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence. 
  • Eighty percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence. 
  • Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime. 
  • More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime. 
  • More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm. 
  • More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime. 
  • More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales. 
  • Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally. 
  • More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

So not only do a majority of law officials think that a ban on ‘assault weapons’ would not reduce crime, but take another look at the second bullet.

Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime. 

So much for Obama’s idea to ban ‘high-capacity magazines’. Wait a minute, WHAT is a high-capacity magazine? 5 rounds? 10 rounds? 15? 30? 50? 100?

Did you know that the average number of rounds fired in a criminal shooting is under 4? 

Another study, commissioned by
Congress, found that these bans
were not effective in reducing crime
because “the banned weapons and
magazines were never used in more
than a modest fraction of all gun
murders.”

Not to mention, you can have 4 separate magazines that meet the legal restriction, but that doesn’t stop you from using them. Which in this case, a magazine ban of over 10 rounds would be void because the shooter now has 40 rounds split between 4 magazines. Do you know how quickly you can release and load a new full magazine? I’m an amateur and I can do it in under 5 seconds. How quickly do you think it takes an experienced shooter to reload a handgun?

So as you see, Obama isn’t trying to implement these bans because he is some hero who has your best interest at heart. The research is all there. He is choosing to IGNORE the research and continually misuses terms to encourage people to get on board with his gun ban nonsense.