Shouldnt only the kids with "winner" parents who can afford bulletproof backpack plates get one, so the kids of "loser" poor parents have a reduced chance of surviving?

How will these kids learn it's wrong to be and their life means less if they're poor if literally everyone in their grade has a roughly equal chance of survival in the event of our national pastime that makes us who we are happening at their school? How will the less poor kids know their life means more than their poorie classmates?

And really, shouldn't it only be legal for private academy kids to get these kinds of protective measures? Why expend resources protecting future capital livestock to this degree? Seems like a very inefficient investment.

This feels like a slippery slope to Marxist Leninist commie socialism.

🇺🇸

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago

So un-American, the second amendment isn't for bullet proof vests. The best defense is offense. These kids should all have gotten guns to protect themselves, with the rich kids bullet proof vests in addition. Because everyone has the right to gunslinging, rich people have the right to survival.

[–] MacAttak8@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

Judging by their shirts saying St. Someone, I am inclined to believe these ARE private school kids. So this is thankfully legal, no need to worry good citizen.

[–] schema@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago

Supply Side Jesus would be proud!

[–] el_bhm@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

I was thinking just shoot the brownies. But letting these kids suffer in the system is far more ~~merrican~~ ~~christian~~ gop to do.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

You'll be a Republican senator in no time.

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago

The Rich kids get plate carriers in the front while the poor kids only get to live if they get shot center mass while running away.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

You do make a good point. This should be illegal.