Back in the day, when you did 90, you thought you were on the verge of blowing up... 2-handed death grip on the wheel, shit wound right out, rattling and feeling like it was barely hanging together. Today, even the cheapest $10k 3-cylinder car will do 90 and be comfortable doing it.
You can order them (the original “Jart”-style lawn dart”from Britain new, they are just disassembled.
I went to my friendly neighborhood sporting goods store to get a 10 round mag for my new rifle (that's all I really need for hog hunting and the 20 rd one it came with is too heavy).... you know what's scary? There was fucking tannerite just sitting there on the shelf right next to the paper targets. This is tannerite by the way. (boom boom at 2:10) I'm kinda surprised some kid hasn't weaponized that yet. Gave me the heebie jeebies seeing it just like I got first time I saw a bump stock at a gun show. Like "yeah, someone's gonna do something really bad one of these days with that."
I'm not particularly worried about Tannerite... reloading powders are way more destructive and volatile. Hell, gasoline, propane, and a whole host of other freely available materials are more dangerous... this one just happens to be a "safe" and "fun" for shooting.
Comparatively, tannerite costs a crap ton in big enough quantities to do damage that would worry somebody AND has to be mixed properly AND has to have an accurate shot from a high-powered rifle to do that. If you have the money, time, weapon and desire to hurt people / create terror, that is not going to be the way you choose to do it.
massive pro-gun control marches today. They're titled, as a blanket, "March for our Lives." I'm anxiously awaiting the first images of people legally open carrying a big black (and thus intimidating?) rifle while holding a sign saying "I'm marching for my life too." You know it's gonna happen. If there was one near me I would definitely attend it while open carrying.
Speaking of which: District arms teachers with rocks in case of school shooter I honestly had to double check to assure myself I wasn't on a news parody sight.
Given your penchant for accidents and concussions and other traumas, let's hypothetically say that your biggest threat to your own survival is yourself. Would it not then be more reasonable to carry, say, a helmet instead of a rifle, in the interests of self preservation? And because carrying a gun at a protest being held by students demanding gun reform would make you a resolute asshole?
It's honestly not a bad idea if used as a last resort. Doing something is better than nothing. You look at these mass shooters -- every one of them, once they meet some form of resistance, they either give up or kill themselves. Usually killing themselves. They have this fantasy in their head, this narrative of how it's going to go, of going into a place and racking up all these kill counts and being some kind of rambo badass. But none of them are good shooters (just look at the numbers of rounds they fire and how many people they actually hit). They don't plan for anything else other than everything going according to their plan, and they're terriible fucking shots. So all you need is something -- ANYTHING -- to break up that mental narrative and provide even minimal resistance. So yeah, throwing rocks isn't that bad of an idea. It's certainly more palatable to the kids and parents than the idea of arming the teachers. Run, hide, or fight. Even if it is just river rocks, it's still fighting.
Everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face. If I've ever heard of a better justification for arming the student body with slingshots, this is it. The Slingshot Militia... coming to a high school near you. In totally unrelated news, school window repair budgets have increased by an order of magnitude...
Their plan is actually usually for it to conclude with suicide - either by their own hand or by cop - and this is their way to go out with a (forgive me) bang, so increasing the prevalence of guns in school, by whichever means, isn’t going to be the blanket deterrent people keep thinking it is.
I'm thinking that the sooner a school shooter is engaged with gunfire, the sooner that will happen, and the less damage they will end up doing. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html I don't care who has the guns, as long as they are trained and allowed to carry.
If nothing else, engaging them in gunfire will at least make them devote their full attention toward the person engaging them and will prevent them from doing anything else. It's all about response time, and given that in even the best of jurisdictions you're looking at several minutes for police to arrive, those who live and work around schools should feel a moral obligation to undergo the necessary training and be prepared to use a firearm in a responsive measure, if they feel that they are mentally and physically capable of doing so.
I think there's definitely an argument for having a gun presence lowering the effectiveness of school shootings when they happen, and I go back and forth with how much I agree with it versus it not being effective or making things worse or having negative effects in everyday school life outside of shootings, but there's a narrative that that would prevent them, and based on what we've seen that just doesn't seem to be true.