Gross.

Yeah, no. Anybody sick enough to start randomly shooting, who thinks you might be wearing armor, is not going to have any compunctions about aiming for your head/throat/eyes. They're not gonna try to wing you or aim for the heart. Should we head for Starbucks with a ballistic helmet/faceplate/gorget?

" With the exception of the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every mass shooting since 1950 has taken place where civilians are forbidden to carry firearms. "

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

Thanks to Joe Biden, and other liberals of the day, it is illegal for anyone but a active duty police officer to possess a firearm in a school.

Maybe a law that you have to hold your breath during shootings would work better?

Then wouldn't we have to admit that they need to wear this heavy clothing because Republicans apparently wanted to kill them?

@3 Yes, I agree we need laws with real teeth. We need to hold gun owners accountable for the use of their weapons through a national database. That way we aren't relying simply on laws about where guns can legally be carried, but can go after any gun owner whose weapon is used in a crime without mercy. Can we expect the NRA to endorse this reasonable step?

After all, if you're carrying legally, you have nothing to hide.

Wouldn't that just protect potential child shooters?

Fuck wearing armor.. too cumbersome!
We should just clone ourselves, so that if (if!) we get shot in some insane scenario, we can just boot-up the clone and continue on with our lives... minimal disruption.

@3 - Maybe that's because it's really quite sensible to not have any guns in highly-populated areas. Reduces deadly accidents, rage-inspired shootings, lost/stolen weapons, etc. etc. etc.

Also, that "where civilians are forbidden" qualifier doesn't elaborate that the mass-shooting at Fort Hood took place on a military base where guns are plentiful, and carried by at least MPs on-base, if not by more personnel.
Didn't seem to help them too much, sadly enough.

This really wouldn't help, as anyone who has ever had kids could tell you, if they weren't high on cordite.

It might work best for the children of careless parents who leave guns lying around their cars where their other children can find them and shoot each other. Like cops in Marysville, those sorts of parents.

Each NRA membership could come with a free kiddie sized bulletproof vest, since they're more likely to need them than the rest of us.

@8 Those who are horrified at the idea of stationing a police officer in every school should be obliged to tell us how long they would like to wait for the police to arrive in the event that they are needed.

All I keep hearing is "guns are bad, except when they are not"

I am just trying to feel the edges of the fantasy where a new law suddenly ends all violence and everyone hugs it out.

The fort hood trope is getting old as well, wikipedia tells me its 158,706 acres, since all arms are confined to the MPs and the armory, its reasonable to assume the MPs are as far away as police in a town or city.

#3: That's such a bizarre, obviously incorrect right-wing meme. The Capitol Hill massacre was in a private home and the Maurice Clemmons mass shooting was in a business with a bunch of guns inside, as two nearby horrible examples (among hundreds or thousands of others).

Why is no one talking about sperm-proofed vaginas? That's the answer! No people, no gun debate, that is, until Gorillas learn to shoot!

This isn't about gun problems, it's all about solving Miguel Caballero's not-enough-money problems.

@11

Here. Click and read. Go through each one and trace it back to the original sources.

Read it and weep. Stupid theory. Stupid meme. Easily disproven by easily verified facts.

Gun nuts lie. Film at 11.

Jesus. Any parent will tell you that by age 4 you can forget about dictating what they're going to wear. You're lucky if you can get them out the door without wearing their pants as arm warmers and their underwear on the outside.

Such an outfit will come in handy for the next 13-year-old who plans to shoot up his armed-guard protected school.

I'm not sure how many layers of kevlar you need to stop a .223 and not allow enough penetration by the vest fabric to kill you anyway, but I'm betting it's a lot. Soldiers' armor usually has a heavy ceramic plate in it, too. Kevlar-only vests are okay for smallish handgun rounds.

I'm envisioning miniature armored environments the children could ride around in, with audio/video receptors, loudspeakers and external gripper arms, like Daleks.

@18

You know, as President, Ronald Reagan signed a law to ban armor piercing ammunition, in order to protect cops. Because in the mind of Saint Ronald, paragon of conservative virtue, gun control to protect the police is reasonable and prudent. It was called the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985. Look that shit up my brothers. True fact about a true, rock-ribbed conservative.

Banning assault rifles to protect children? No, the cost in lost liberty is just too high.