The Labour Party’s legacy grows;
Essex-based firm BladeRunner produces clothing lined with the material for police and security guards.
But inquiries from parents have now prompted it to modfify school uniforms.
Barry Samms, one of the firm’s directors, said the company initially produced stab-proof hooded tops that were bought by teenagers.
It was then asked by parents about the possibility of strengthening school uniforms with Kevlar.
The firm now offers to line blazers and jumpers with the material if pupils send in their uniforms.
Blazers cost £120 to stab-proof and jumpers £60 to £70.
“initially produced stab-proof hooded tops that were bought by teenagers.”.
Nice.
(submitted by reader “Larry” who ponders the market potential here in the “land of the living knives”.)
Comment of the day;
“Its like reading the Dune series all over again.”
Wow! Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert could use Kevlar reinforced garments for shopping uptown.
“The Land of the Living Knives” indeed! HAhaha
To understand why Europe has declined and is on the verge of collapse, I highly recommend Bruce Bauer’s “While Europe Slept” and why America is close behind.
If school kid’s are looking at buying stab proof clothing for school, I’d say that the adults of the world better start taking a closer look at the reasons our societies are falling apart. Band Aid solutions are just not good enough.
Jane
Will The West be the next civilization to crumble by frightening itself to death?
…wow piston, you must have a h&rdon for Saskatchewan for some reason?
The Islamic Republik of Britain is a marvel of social engineering.
Those poor Brits. Can’t afford guns so they have to resort to knives. How utterly gauche.
With some of the most far-reaching control of guns anywhere on earth Britain has a knife problem. Doesn’t this prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the criminal that should be controlled, rather than an inanimate object?
Its like reading the Dune series all over again.
There’s a company in the US that is producing a bullet proof backpack for ‘Back to School’ – they’re selling like hotcakes, apparently.
“With some of the most far-reaching control of guns anywhere on earth Britain has a knife problem. Doesn’t this prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the criminal that should be controlled, rather than an inanimate object?
Posted by: George at August 18, 2007 12:53 PM ”
ROTFLMAO…you own me 1 cleaning of my keyboard after spewing my coffee! George, you are talking about leftards using logic and brain cells instead of fuzzy-wuzzy slogans and emotions. Actual programs to stick it to the criminals instead of the victim don’t win votes from the sheeple in socialist societies like Euroarabia and Canuckistan.
I hope the stab-proof uniforms come with a knife of their own so the student can at the very least have a chance to fight his way out of the attack.
If the Muslim (most likely attacker) can’t stab through the uniform, then perhaps the eye socket or throat will be a good target.
What then my fearful, soft, politically correct, socialist, idiotic control-freak Brits?
Kevlar glasses and scarfs?
There already is a move afoot in Britain to ban knives with points. I kid you not. Here’s a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
And continuing this thought; I’m currently buying a Puma Skinner which I plan to carry with me at all times, these being the times they are.
If you want to help Brit civilians out het them some ballistic underware so they can defend against the constant “Rogering” their degenerate socialist Polis give them.
I can’t believe none of the previous posters used the catchphrase “root causes”. get with it people-take care of the root causes and crime will dissappear.
the above statement is paraphrased from an actual letter to the editor of the calgary sun by some brilliant leftard. and now as protocol demands I have to go hit my fingers with a hammer as punishment for typing the words “root causes”.
This slays me. A camera on every telephone pole and fence post, parents buying their kids kevlar lined school uniforms, but I’M the crazy one for wanting to keep a gun at home.
Not for having one mind you, just for asking permission please and thank you.
phantom,
It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.
And remember, an empty gun is a paper weight.
:0)
Ingrid is right, heres the Bullet Proof back Pack link:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/safe-books/ballistic-bookbag-bullet+proof-back+pack-289587.php
Why bother with knife-proof hoodies when you can have metal detectors and security guards in your school, like they do in some places in the US.
That’s what happens when people or a state are not held accountable for their actions. If you overlook the basic responsibilities of one toward another and let misdeeds go unchecked or unpunished the result is the withering of your civilization into anarchy. If accountability is overlooked because of race, colour, religion, age, sex, or whatever the decline in your/our civilization is inevitable. Different cultures and societies developed to suit, rightly or wrongly in our eyes, for that race or religion to succeed.
It is truly a large part of the leftover psyche to be not to be responsible or accountable. Look at the majority of them, it’s either mother government, in one form or another, mother union or welfare recipient. When that is the majority mentality in your country what do you expect? How many leftovers do you know that are independent self-starters that didn’t inherit their money?
Just remember, don’t spank little Johnny for doing something wrong, you’re libel to bruise his psyche for the rest of OUR lives.
This story demonstrates only that a tiny minority of Brits, like the average SDA reader, live their lives in irrational fear. Yawn…
What’s happening to Britain is tragic.
I’ve had some close associations with Britain, and I’ve always enjoyed the people I’ve interacted with.
Although I admire the Queen I think that one is probably better off being a free citizen than the subject of a monarchy. Even if the royal family is primarily symbolic today (I love all that ceremonial stuff) it seems to have contributed to a lack of will on the part of the people.
I regard as totalitarian movements that want to deprive citizens of the freedom to defend their precious loved ones. And that’s what this anti-gun mentality ultimately is all about.
Whenever the subject of self-defense gets lost in ruminations about government or social engineering, intellectuals have gone too far.
Defending one’s life or loved ones or liberty is not an intellectual process when the rubber meets the road. It is an instinctual or trained process that may carry out a plan, but excludes cogitation and reasoning about society.
You may have read recently about the American doctor whose wife and two daughters died after two psychopaths broke into the house, beat him unmercifully, threw him in a basement, raped the wife and the 11 year old daughter.
Then they burned the woman and girls to death. If only they had had a firearm with the possibility of getting to if, possibly a different outcome would have occurred. The psychos only had a knife.
So I want to live next door to The Phantom or WLM Redux, or Western Canadian, and many others posting here. We would all know that we have each others’ backs and that under the grim spectre of necessity we would break rules, break heads, and bust caps if that’s what it took to save someone’s life.
Greg in Dallas: If only they had had a firearm with the possibility of getting to if, possibly a different outcome would have occurred.
Actually, if we’re talking about possibilities, then the odds are better that the 11-year old be killed in an accidental shooting than the firearm being used in self-defense. You watch too many Hollywood movies, Rambo.
John Lott who wrote “Freedomnomics – Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t” made an observation on C-span recently that studying US states where laws very was an excellent way to compare with real data what works and what doesn’t.
In states with concealed weapon permits, crime drops an average of 6% and more. Criminals, being opportunistic predators, do calculate the chances of getting caught or getting a bullet by an armed citizens. Would a criminal pick a latte liberal’s home in San Francisco or a Texan’s ranch to break into? It’s a no brainer.
In Arizona, I’ve seen liquor store clerks with holstered pistols. I’d love to see the clerk homicide stats compared to Washington DC.
Liberals have set themselves up for extinction. Children are an inconvenience for them and measured out far under the replacement ratio, self-defense is a self-imposed prohibition. They haven’t noticed expansionist Islam has designs on their geography. They’ll transfer their wealth to any con artist invoking the environment or rock star’s new pet issue. Some would argue they aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Hey, Iberia, ghetto kids aren’t killed at their school desks, four teenagers were gunned in Newark last week in the adjacent playground by an illegal alien gangbanger no less.
And, smoke, not everyone lives in your place of comfort and security. What’s “irrational fear” to you, is a dangerous reality to them.
“This story demonstrates only that a tiny minority of Brits, like the average SDA reader, live their lives in irrational fear. Yawn…”
Mocking humor is lost on the philistine left 😛
An empty gun is still a club. With a bayonet, its a dandy spear.
Me, I’m upgrading to the crew served 6 D-cell Maglite. Because I am the MUTANT that moved back to CanaDUH from the Land of Freedom.
And yes, it does torque me off. Every damn day.
Penny, there were five teenagers, one only had her face shot off and lived. She fingered the shooter (for a wonder, usually they don’t) and he’s an illegal alien gang banger OUT ON BAIL for another violent crime.
But I’m the paranoid crazy person. Natch.
Smoke puffed: “Actually, if we’re talking about possibilities, then the odds are better that the 11-year old be killed in an accidental shooting than the firearm being used in self-defense. You watch too many Hollywood movies, Rambo.”
You picked the wrong topic today Mr. Smoke. If you can name the paper from which that often repeated canard comes (which I strongly doubt, for you are a Lefty speaker of vague nonsense) I can show you five things that makes that paper complete crap. There are more than five, but I’ll be brief.
Here’s a hint, the guy’s name is Kellerman. Go ahead, make my day.
Actually, if we’re talking about possibilities, then the odds are better that the 11-year old be killed in an accidental shooting than the firearm being used in self-defense
Based on what facts? More 11 year old kids drown in the family swimming pool than are ever killed by a gun(very rare).
You either made that up or never googled the statistics. Hint; get from the library the best seller “Feakonomics” by the guy that drilled down and disputed the dumb mythical canards that so many dredge up.
He’s a troll Penny. He’s repeating some vague thing he thinks he read at the Kos or some such idiot venue.
The truth of the matter is that the author of the papers (from which Mr. Smoke won’t be able to quote) refused to produce his data. Eventually he was dragged before a Congressional committee looking into junk science funded by the CDC. The CDC’s funding was cut, incidentally.
Kellerman didn’t even believe his own hype.
“If you’ve got to
resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your
weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special
in her hand? Yeah.” – Dr. Arthur Kellermann(Health Magazine, March/April 1994)
The anti-gun asshats on the thread can google the following name:
Massad Ayoob, author of In the Gravest Extreme and director of The Lethal Force Institute.
Ex cop, author of 1,000 articles and an Arabic last name. And yes, he hates terrorists.
ol hoss, the guy’s a poster boy for the term “Scheming Liberal”. He rode that anti-gun gravy train through the golden Clinton years, right up until Algore used it to lose an election.
Then, suddenly, there was no more money for anti-gun propaganda. Like magic, it went -poof- gone! Gee, I wonder how that happened?
Lately he has fallen on evil days. Last I saw his name it was on a paper about bicycle helmets or something. Looks good on him, if I may be allowed a bit of snark.
I spotted this in the comments for the article, and it neatly encapsulates post-war Britain.
“Another money making opportunity spotted by a resourceful company. This will make it even worse as those carrying knives, ready to do battle, will kit themselves out with this gear. It should be banned for all except those that need it in their job of protecting the public from these savages.”
There is no arguing with that mentality. I don’t even know what to call it. But that right there is THE THING that drives the anti-freedom voter.
Penny: More 11 year old kids drown in the family swimming pool than are ever killed by a gun(very rare).
This is true. It’s also true that more kids accidentally injure or kill themselves or others with a gun (very rare) than that gun being used in self-defense to scare away, injure, or kill a would-be attacker (very very rare).
The Phantom: If you can name the paper from which that often repeated canard comes (which I strongly doubt, for you are a Lefty speaker of vague nonsense) I can show you five things that makes that paper complete crap. There are more than five, but I’ll be brief. Here’s a hint, the guy’s name is Kellerman. Go ahead, make my day.
Penny: You either made that up or never googled the statistics.
What, Kellerman et al., 1998? Bah, too easy for you. Try the following instead (there are more, but this should consume a sufficient portion of your Sunday):
– Weibe, D. (2003). “Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(5): 711-716.
– Miller, M. et al. (2002). “Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths,
suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds.” Journal of Trauma, 52(2): 267-275.
– Miller, M. et al. (2001). “Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33(4): 477-484.
– Grossman, D.C. et al. (1999). “Self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries among children and adolescents: the source of the firearm.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(8): 875-878.
– Hemenway, D. (1997). “Survey research and self-defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87(4): 1430-1445.
Hollywood films. Irrational fear.
guns will be needed to protect ourselves from freedom destroyers, liberals, all who espouse the socialist view.
It’s also true that more kids accidentally injure or kill themselves or others with a gun…
I wonder how many of those children live in the slack discipline of a leftard’s home?
It’s no wonder leftard’s fear guns, they know they haven’t the disipline to safely handle guns.
Nice pub med search, Mr. Smoke. Did you actually -read- any of them?
The Hemenway 1997 study is a feeble attempt to discredit Kleck and Gertz’s defensive gun use studies. His methods are if anything worse than Kellerman’s. A first year statistics student will giggle while reading that thing, its hilarious. Call it dueling surveys, total scientific content zero.
Grossman 1999 conflated suicides with deliberate shootings and accidents, to arrive at the startling conclusion that kids get guns from “the victim’s home or the home of a friend or relative.” One problem, you can’t lump the three things together as if they were all the same. Apples, oranges and cows. Bogus from the get-go.
Miller 2002, “A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent.” Gee, do guns cause crime or does crime cause guns? Correlation does not equal causation, and you can’t compare apples, oranges and cows.
Miller 2001, problem, where’d they find out how everybody stores their gun? Plus, apples, oranges and cows again.
Etc.
So Mr. Smoke sir, did you notice the same names and study designs keep popping up, time after time? Same funding agencies too.
Did you notice the commonality among these, that a gun which is disassembled, in a safe and has a trigger lock on it (that’s their recommendation) is not particularly useful for self defense?
Another thing the authors fail to mention time after time, for thirty years of this propaganda in the medical literature. Accidental shootings of children are RARE. Like, really rare. Guns are -common-. Everybody has one. They are almost as ubiquitous as cars. Do the math.
Finally, a curious truth is that availability of firearms does not change suicide rates. It only changes the number of suicides by GUN. They kill themselves anyway, and you’re just as dead off a bridge as you are shooting yourself.
Got any more Mr. Smoke? I can keep this up for days. I read them. All. They suck.
And I’ve got two for you.
1) Suter, EA “Guns in the Medical Literature: A Failure of Peer Review” 1994 Journal Of The Medical Association Of Georgia, 83(13).
//teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html#contents
2) National Academy of Science, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” (2004) //www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
Important note for your edification, the panel which produced this tome had one (1) mildly pro-gun member, James Q. Wilson. His dissenting opinion can be found here: //books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=269
Your opinion is unsupported by science, Mr, Smoke. Lots of propaganda though. How’s it feel to discover you’ve been spoon fed bullsh*t by your “friends” for so long?
The Phantom: The Hemenway 1997 study is a feeble attempt to discredit Kleck and Gertz’s defensive gun use studies. His methods are if anything worse than Kellerman’s.
Um, did you actually read the study? You think that Hemenway’s critique of Kleck and Gertz in terms of social desirability bias and extrapolation from rare events are statistically flawed arguments? Tell me this: have you ever taken a first year statistics course? If you think Hemenway is wrong, how do you explain the fact that, for instance:
– K-G’s sample is not representative (interviewers asked to to speak to the male head of the household); or
– straight-forward extrapolation of rare event incidence (e.g., UFO sightings) from survey samples to national populations is dubious at best (as any first-year stats student will tell you); or
– taking K-G’s numbers at face value would lead to ludicrous conclusions (e.g., “in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun”).
Grossman 1999 conflated suicides with deliberate shootings and accidents, to arrive at the startling conclusion that kids get guns from “the victim’s home or the home of a friend or relative.” One problem, you can’t lump the three things together as if they were all the same. Apples, oranges and cows. Bogus from the get-go.
Please, point out the conflation you think you see. The data are presented separately for intentionally self-inflicted (suicides) and unintentional (accidental shootings). These are correlated with incident location separately throughout the results section. Fatal and non-fatal are collapsed within these two categories starting Table 3, but that’s it.
Gee, do guns cause crime or does crime cause guns? Correlation does not equal causation, and you can’t compare apples, oranges and cows.
Well, duh. Unfortunately, ethics prevents us from conducting a gold standard double-blind RCT, so correlation is about as good as it’ll get. And Miller et al. don’t compare homicides (apples), suicides (oranges), and unintentional shootings (cows). Table 2 presents the IRs for each category separately. All three correlate independently with gun ownership rates.
But even in the absence of causal evidence, logic suggests a clear direction. Areas with more gun ownership are also areas where a greater proportion of kids are unintentionally shot with guns. Now, how likely is it that household gun ownership increases after one of the kids shoots him/herself? And how likely is it that gun ownership precedes an unintentional shooting? Only a moron would be confused about the answer.
And funny that you trot out the “correlation doesn’t equal causation” argument when trying to discredit these papers, but fail to recognize that all those “pro-gun” studies about concealed carry laws and reduced crime rates, etc., are equally limited to findings of correlation and not causation.
Did you notice the commonality among these, that a gun which is disassembled, in a safe and has a trigger lock on it (that’s their recommendation) is not particularly useful for self defense?
Yeah, I did. Did you notice that adherence to safe storage practices has also been statistically correlated to lower rates of unintentional shootings? So you think it makes sense to have a loaded gun at the ready, even if it may lead to the rare event of an accidental shooting, all so that one can be prepared for the even more rare event of needing it for self-defence?
And last, it’s sooooooooo entertaining for me that you bring up the NAS study, which finds no link between right-to-conceal laws and reduced crime rates, and then go on to claim that my opinion is unsupported by science.
Smoke,
This is pretty far down the page, so I doubt if anyone will see it.
My suggestion is that you and The Phantom solve the issue through personal combat.
(My money will be on The Phantom.)
Incidentally, just a helpful note, when somebody is trying to kill you, if your immediate thought is “I must consult a study,” you’re already dead.
Thanks Greg! ~:D
Mr. Smoke, if you want to cling to the apron strings of people who willfully lie to you using your tax money, please be my guest. Just don’t expect me to toddle along with you, I despise liars.
I included the NAS study to make a point that can’t bounce off even your thick head. The NAS panel was 99% anti-gun, many of them vociferously so. The best they could say after reading 250+ of these abysmal papers was that there is -no- evidence to support gun control as an effective public policy. None.
Including all the articles you listed, for the reasons which I said, plus others.
You don’t like it, too bad so sad, but thems the facts. If you think you’re smarter than the NAS pros then maybe you should re-adjust your cells a bit.
James Q. Wilson’s dissent covers your “no link between right-to-conceal laws and reduced crime rates” objection. Read it, its nice and short so as not to test your attention span too far.
The main problem with these studies is they don’t address reality. Crime in the USA (and Canada) is not evenly distributed. There are small geographic areas where most crimes occur, the rest of the country is pretty much crime free. Accidents and suicide follow similar patterns.
Hemenway, Kellerman, Reay, Sloan, all these jackasses are telling you that social context means nothing, all that matters is the presence or absence of a gun. The children of a crack addict single mother in Philly will behave exactly the same as the children of a proper two parent family in Marshall Minnesota, the gun is the driving force for action. Guns as germs.
External reality check, if the above were true then suicide, homicide and pediatric shooting deaths would be evenly distributed to match population and gun ownership. But they’re not. Therefore the determining factor is not the presence of a firearm.
Therefore any public policy based on controlling access to firearms as a means of reducing crime, suicide or accident is doomed to failure. Indeed we have seen all such programs fail horribly everywhere they are tried. Canada, USA, England, Australia, Japan, you name it.
As to a protective effect for concealed carry laws, yep its a correlation. So what? Private gun ownership can only be allowed if we can PROVE a general crime reduction? When did that get decided?
In a free country Mr. Smoke, -I- decide things like that. Because that’s the meaning of the word “freedom”. If I feel the need to own and carry a pistol for self defense, its really none of your business.
If it bothers you that other people have guns and you feel all threatened and skeered, that would be -your- business and -your- problem, not mine.
The only downside to “blade proof” school uniforms is that kids are dumb enough to think they’re “blade proof”. What are the odds that knife activity will go UP because kids think they’re wearing armour.
I know that if you tell a kid that his shirt is blade proof, he’s going to go get a knife and check it out himself. Or better yet, test it on his friend.
On another note, how will the children protect their faces? Maybe the girls can have some kind of head covering with just a slit for the eyes? To protect them, of course.