I don’t own any hockey pucks. On the other hand..

I agree a rock would have been as good a choice and cheaper!
And they wonder why people keep voting down these stupid school bonds.....

Let me start by saying I prefer to be armed, but not everyone has the training or inclination to do so. Throwing an object at someone during a violent encounter is a valad option, but it needs to be followed up. There is training out there that has this as part of an over all strategy, (A.L.I.C.E.) Starting in grade school we have all participated in fire/earthquake drills, setting patterns of behavior in these situations. Responding to violent critical incidents should be practiced as well.

That being said, the goal is not specifically to hurt the violent individual, but to throw off their focus, causing them to reset, which takes about 1.2 to 1.4 seconds. With this goal in mind, anything readily available is the best option. I have explained to my Church, to give freely if anything were to happen. Bibles, purses, or phones, we’ll figure out who’s stuff is who’s when it’s over.

Spending the money on hockey pucks was a feel good move on the part of the administration. “See, we’re doing something!”

Those are some great points.

How about handing out blow guns with curare tipped wooden darts.
This one will kill a 35 pound anteater without poison, according to the ads they ran in Boys Life and Shotgun News.

Seems to me that hockey sticks would at least be a step up from hockey pucks. I throw like a girl (well duh) but even I could probably wallop someone pretty good with a hockey stick.

It's not a completely crazy idea. If you can get people to stop thinking like victims, some of them will make the natural jump all on their own to using tools that work even better than sticks and pucks. There's a zero percent chance of that happening if you keep telling them someone else will keep them safe.

This is the twisted logic of liberals and pacifists and anti-gunners.

It's not uncommon for that group of thinks to have the following mental dialogue: "I don't want a gun in the house because it's violent/dangerous/etc. If someone tries to get me I'll hit him with this (heavy purse, rolling pin, cast iron frying pan, golf club, bible, you name it).

So, they are willing to use "some" violence, and do recognize the right of self defense. However for whatever reason (fear of guns, physical inability, lack of confidence, etc.) they choose to use the "least" effective defense tool for the job of self defense.

It's a bewildering notion.

Edited to add: I do agree that it's an inexpensive tool and better than nothing. Other schools have soup cans to throw. I get the concept, but in reality exposing yourself to a lunatic with a 12 gauge to launch a hockey puck at him is suicidal... So it might actually do more harm than good, giving students a nonsense concept of survival armed with stones basically.

I think part of this is rooted in Hollywood. TV and movies just love to show the gunless good guy taking on one or more attackers armed with a gun, and of course succeeding.

I don't see it as bewildering at all. Everyone has to weigh their own risk/reward equation. We could argue the "least effective tool" notion all day long. Why have a pistol at home when a shotgun is really the better option? Why take aspirin when a handful of Vicodin would probably relieve your pain faster and longer?

If someone wants to fight back, I don't see why we shouldn't encourage that. It brings people out of the helpless victim mindset. Some of them will probably continue down that path to making better choices about other things, too. But if we beat this "it's a gun or nothing" drum, then some of them will just throw their hands up and hope someone else is around to save them if something bad happens. That sure isn't a good choice. I'd rather have an improvised weapon at hand than nothing at all.

I'm not saying this hockey puck idea is spectacular, but doesn't it represent at least a small step in the right direction?

Good point, LC.

Ban all hockey pucks. Or at least limit to only 10 in possession. Also consider changing color. Black hockey pucks are evil. Probably should require background checks and waiting periods before person can possess. Also, mandatory safe storage of the pucks when not in use. Assault pucks will seriously endanger the public and should only be used by law enforcement or military. They are designed for only one purpose, to kill people....

Don't even get me started on assualt rocks.

Just don't use the blue ones. Those are the softer kids practice pucks. In fact, if you're using hockey pucks, maybe dip them in glue and broken glass and make them more tactical--I mean, effective.

Because in self defense, there's no A for effort. You don't encourage anything that won't actually work.

The solution to a shooter is the same on the battlefield as it is on the streets or in a school. You have more shooters on your side, training, and a plan. The 3 to 1 rule plays out over and over again.

Throwing a hockey puck is like taking a tae bo class. You think you can actually protect yourself, when you are actually helpless. And you look stupid doing it

I read about an elementary school a while back that had the kids carry a canned good in their back packs to throw.