Should students be armed with cans?

Instead of in the Funny Pictures Thread, I thought we might be able to have the discussion here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stodg73

When you think about it, a can of soup may distract the shooter enough to be tackled, knocked out, put in pain, etc.

Has anyone tried to shoot accurately while someone is throwing something at you?



The normal human response is to duck, cover the head, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Have you tried to throw something at someone who's shooting at you?

This is an irresponsibly ridiculous idea from liberals who once again are using the "it's for the children" platitude. If it was really "for the children" they'd have armed staff to protect them rather than expecting middle-schoolers to take on an armed gunman.

Oh, yeah...the canned food items are also kept under lock. Lotta freaking good that's gonna do when the shooting starts. "Quick...someone get the canned peas!"

ETA: I meant to also say how ironic it is that these liberal administrators will keep the "canned food weapons" locked up so they aren't misused by the kids...but they expect the kids to be responsible and mature enough to not only get the locked-up items from the locker but to engage a gunman with them. Stupidity of liberal thought never ceases to amaze me.

---

With your answer, you are assuming that there is only you and the bad guy, how about adding more people/students to the mix?

Now please remember, there are an average of about 21 people in a classroom at one time, in most schools. Since this is hypothetical, the gunman comes in and takes out the teacher, several students run out, now the gunman has 15 students left. The protector is gone, the concealed weapon on the teacher is useless, the students have nothing to do but get shot or fight with whatever they can use.

Now, since the students have a can of peas, they have a chance to protect themselves, because the gunman can ONLY engage one target at a time, giving a few precious seconds for someone to hurt/distract/knock out the gunman. This also gives time for more students to get out of the kill zone.



Lets discuss this topic civilly, no name calling, no bad mouthing, etc. Keep it clean and open.

I think the risk would outweigh the benefit. Sure it's *possible* you delay the gunman, or maybe even get in a super lucky shot, but I suspect that it would more just piss them off and make you more of a target. If you have nothing else and they're killing everyone as they go, sure having something is better than not, but again, if they're looking for certain targets, by fighting back you just draw their attention.

I suspect most people would miss with their cans, or they wouldn't hit hard enough (I think only high schoolers would have any chance whatsoever of having enough strength to use them potentially effectively, and again, it's a crapshoot whether they do or not).

Sam colt didn't make all men equal the green giant did dummy.[hahhah-no]



Seriously, if this is the thought process being established for the defense of kids in our public schools god help us it's stupid.

It goes along with the "warning shot" or "shoot the gun out of his hand theory." It works great in la-la-fairy land, but your weakness here is that this is reality.

Sounds like a fun one for the shoot house. Bring a bin of commonly available items found in a classroom. The items can be randomly scattered around the room. 21 on 1 seems fair if only the aggressor has a firearm and the aggressor gets to choose the time to attack while the 21 perform meaningless tasks over a half hour period.

My guess is the most successful option would depend on how quickly the defenders recognize the threat and whether they gang rush the aggressor quickly enough to limit the damage.

I would think the video from the exercise would look like French police storming a super market with similar results.

Be safe.

If someone threw a can of soup at me I'd shoot them in the face. Bet they wouldn't do it again. [facepalm]

We could save the government a crap ton of money. Let's quit buying Kevlar and all of that bullet proof gear and get them chicken noodle soup instead.
[fail]

Not to mention your average students reaction is probably going to be flight, not fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colorado_Outback

Not to mention your average students reaction is probably going to be flight, not fight.

---

Bingo. If a kid has a second thought about running for their life and getting away from the threat, in order to throw a can of food, there are going to be more dead kids....

I'm sorry, but I guess I would like to have something that I could try and defend myself with. I think we are having a difference of culture here. I'm was country kid, not a city kid. I think there is a big difference there. I was brought up to take care of myself. I agree the younger the kids get, the less likely they could throw hard or açurately. When you get to 9-10 years old, a country kid has thrown a lot of rocks. If they understood when to throw the cans at the attacker would be another question. Don't throw unless you can't escape or evade.

As I said in the Funny Pics thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

I saw this earlier today and my initial reaction was to shake my head and end in a nice facepalm. But then I got to thinking and for a moment the curtains of cynicism lifted and I realised that this is actually a step forward. At least these Marxist/Alinskyite Union Teachers are starting to acknowledge the efficacy of (and possibly even rightness of) self defense. Sure the method is stupid but this is a huge step forward for people who here-to-fore would have insisted that their students try to empathize with their would be killers and figure out what they had done to deserve being murdered.

Silver linings and all that.

---

Again, I agree that the idea in and of itself is dumb ... might even go so far as say stupid and irresponsible. BUT it is a sign that the closed leftist mind of the Union Teacher is opening up to the possibility that self defense is not a greater evil than mass murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by encorehunter

I'm sorry, but I guess I would like to have something that I could try and defend myself with. I think we are having a difference of culture here. I'm was country kid, not a city kid. I think there is a big difference there. I was brought up to take care of myself. I agree the younger the kids get, the less likely they could throw hard or açurately. When you get to 9-10 years old, a country kid has thrown a lot of rocks. If they understood when to throw the cans at the attacker would be another question. Don't throw unless you can't escape or evade.

---

That's more in line with my thinking/experience too. I am 100% FOR the empowerment and awareness mentality and teaching it to our kids, but giving them a canned good and equating it to a defensive tool, when we already know it's woefully inadequate and will be a failure in nearly all foreseeable conditions.... I want my kid to get the F outta there as fast a humanly possible.

If they were to train as a team, such as with sports, and each had a "game plan" for an event such as an attack, then we'd be having a different conversation right now.... but simply giving them a canned good without any kind of teamwork or plan in place, is basically worthless in my opinion.

I heard of this scheme as well. My first thought was that at least the someone has self defense in mind. Empowering people and teaching them to refuse to be victims could be only the first step. Towards what I'm not sure. I imagine twenty or so soup cans being hurled at an attacker would have a distracting effect. There would also be the possibility of slipping on the cans once they were all over the floor. In the end though we can all guess what happens when you bring a can to a gun fight.

As a side note, I participated in a defensive pistol scenario that began by throwing a bottle at the nearest popper before drawing your pistol and engaging other targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Sounds like a fun one for the shoot house. Bring a bin of commonly available items found in a classroom. The items can be randomly scattered around the room. 21 on 1 seems fair if only the aggressor has a firearm and the aggressor gets to choose the time to attack while the 21 perform meaningless tasks over a half hour period.

My guess is the most successful option would depend on how quickly the defenders recognize the threat and whether they gang rush the aggressor quickly enough to limit the damage.

I would think the video from the exercise would look like French police storming a super market with similar results.

Be safe.

---

Put a tennis ball launcher that is triggered by a target at a stage... fires tennis balls back at the shooter from a different location.
(not that we'd be training to counteract this scenario, it just seems like an interesting stage)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colorado_Outback

Not to mention your average students reaction is probably going to be flight, not fight.

---

Bingo- and I'll add additional on top of that... IF you tell them they could possibly stop an attacker with a can of peas (unrealistic), then how do you deal with their emotional/psychological state after when it doesn't work (assuming they survive for another reason) or how do you explain that you made children targets by telling them to come out of hiding and throw a can of peas at them. This is along the same lines as the "pee on your rapist, that'll stop them" thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyDrama

I heard of this scheme as well. My first thought was that at least the someone has self defense in mind. Empowering people and teaching them to refuse to be victims could be only the first step. Towards what I'm not sure. I imagine twenty or so soup cans being hurled at an attacker would have a distracting effect. There would also be the possibility of slipping on the cans once they were all over the floor. In the end though we can all guess what happens when you bring a can to a gun fight.

As a side note, I participated in a defensive pistol scenario that began by throwing a bottle at the nearest popper before drawing your pistol and engaging other targets.

---

The take away from this would be "At least they realize that their current method doesn't work well"... but this 8oz can idea is just dumb.

I could see cans getting stolen, kids getting sick off the contents and suing the schools. Or an infestation of mice or rats when they find the stash because out of all the schools in this country, the extreme majority of them will never open the door to the cans. The locks would probably rust shut before they needed to be used.

I thought this was about saving the students hearing while firing inside the school.

I could see tomahawks and spears, but this is ridiculous.

I get very frustrated when I think about that a bit over 100 years ago families were fighting off Indians and other varmints and now we are told to piss ourselves to scare off attacks.

Maybe they could at least construct active shooter kits: rope, wedges and zip ties to keep doors closed.

As an aside a friend of mine mentioned seeing a place where you could purchase an "active shooter kit" with such accessories, I looked and could not find it. If anyone has any ideas or the website let me know. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CO Hugh

...

Maybe they could at least construct active shooter kits: rope, wedges and zip ties to keep doors closed.

....

---

This is a significantly better idea, in my opinion, if escape is not an option.

Is there a 15 ounce limit and do you need an FCL to transfer the can ?

I find it ironic that they understand that when you oppose a shooter, it makes life harder for them. But they won't admit a trained person (CCW holder) that can shoot bullets back is a good idea.

Come on everybody.

All they are saying is give peas a chance.

Just when you think you've heard the most stupid idea for self defense and keeping kids safe in schools the progressives are able to lower the bar again. Wrist rockets with steel ball bearings would be more effective for the kids.

Of course the best is to ARM teachers and have the ability to lock down rooms. Works for Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAnd

Come on everybody.

All they are saying is give peas a chance.

---

Just imagine, Whirled Peas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAnd

Come on everybody.

All they are saying is give peas a chance.

---

SAnd wins the thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Just imagine, hurled Peas!

---

[Coffee]

Sure, cans launched from here;

http://youtu.be/HihYF9JDoJo

In the classic line, from one of my favorites, "FOOD FIGHT !!"

John Belushi, may you R.I.P.

[Spam]

I'm guessing there will be a can capacity limit, like 14 oz. Because no sane person needs 24 oz of creamed corn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stodg73

Lets discuss this topic civilly, no name calling, no bad mouthing, etc. Keep it clean and open.

---

It doesn't matter how civilly this is discussed. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to this insane idea. Liberals are just stupid.

'cuz everybody knows that it takes a good guy with a can of creamed corn to stop a bad guy with a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

It doesn't matter how civilly this is discussed. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to this insane idea. Liberals are just stupid.

---

^^^^^^ Truth.

No point in having a can if you don't have a firearm to attach it to [LOL]

Hey, some kids are good at throwing cans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nkwq6bijGk

And here I thought the discussion was going to go toward dropping the minimum age for ownership so students could carry suppressed pistols to defend themselves in school ...

When cans are outlawed only outlaws will have cans.[Coffee]