Ban Body Armor?

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by jyl

But how?

There's not much more that can be done, at least if we want to enjoy the style of life we live in the US.

It's a byproduct of freedom.

We could reduce these kinds of things, easily, if we were willing to give up many of our freedoms and rights, i.e., due process rights, privacy rights, etc.

But it's a lot of hand-wringing for a problem that statistically isn't a significant one. It's just one that the media and politicians (and highly emotional subjects) love.

How many people are killed by a crazy person in a mass killing like this each year?

In a country of 330+ million people, with 300+ million guns present?

It's not a lot. In fact, all homicide, by any means (guns or otherwise) account for only .7% of deaths in the US. You are more likely to die from being bitten by a snake or spider than in a mass killing by a crazed lunatic with a gun.

[McLovin]

So, of course, while we'd like for the death rate by spider or crazed lunatic with a gun to be zero, we're doing pretty well on both fronts. We don't need to jump on the ban wagon just yet.

[URY914]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

What they need to make illegal is murder. If only we could pass a law against shooting strangers for no real reason that would make sense. Just imagine no more murders ever again if we could just make it against the law!

HELLO!?!! Don't you know we HAVE a law against murder. It's called the "Don't kill people law".

[Racerbvd]

[jyl]

I doubt most of us could manage a head shot outside of a pistol range. Maybe that cartoon should show the lady depositing a .32 bullet in the killer's body armor as he executes her.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jyl

But how?

The US gun culture it so deeply ingrained we will never expunge it. We have a culture that believes the solution to every problem is a firearm. That will never change. We've got to start there and work with that.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by jyl

... I don't know of any practical solutions to address the mental health or cultural issues. We can devote more resources to enforcing the existing prohibitions against gun purchases...

Why not take that money you're so eager to throw at gun control (helping nobody, and possibly preventing a shooting) and instead use it to help some people with mental health problems (definitely helping some people, and possibly preventing a shooting)?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Gogar

...
Until we accept that these problems are (mostly) mental health and culture problems, banning this or making that smaller or changing the color of this and that are total wastes of time.

Originally Posted by winders

...
The guns and the body armor ... aren't the real problem. The real problem here is the mental instability of the people that commit these crimes.

Thank you two for quickly bringing some reason to this discussion. I agree 100%.

[varmint]

some speculation from listening to guys down at the lodge.


the shooter was most likely shooting cheap green tip ammo. it's military surplus designed to defeat body armor. experience in the middle east shows that it is less effective against people wearing regular street clothes. it goes right through them, hence the guy who was shot seven times charging the shooter but lived.

not sure how this impacts the body armor debate.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by varmint

some speculation from listening to guys down at the lodge.


the shooter was most likely shooting cheap green tip ammo. it's military surplus designed to defeat body armor. experience in the middle east shows that it is less effective against people wearing regular street clothes. it goes right through them, hence the guy who was shot seven times charging the shooter but lived.

not sure how this impacts the body armor debate.

Since he was using a PISTOL, it seems unlikely green tip .223 would be an issue. He didn't use a RIFLE.

[Rikao4]

agree about the culture..
the rest..nope..

Criminals currently have little to nothing to worry about..
at most they face some more 'Probation'..

so why should I care..?
when I see & know my Government breaks / ignores / chooses which laws ..
to enforce..

I'm not fearful of them enforcing the law..
I don't break them other than speeding..
but my views and stance tell me..
I should // need to worry about reprisal..

Rika

[varmint]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Since he was using a PISTOL, it seems unlikely green tip .223 would be an issue. He didn't use a RIFLE.

i stand corrected

all i've read is that he had 14 weapons total and a rifle on him during the attack. the reports gets infuriatingly vague after that.

and some say body armor and others flak jacket.

[Brando]

I have a couple of these should SHTF. ½" plates on front and back. I hope I never have to use them. Instead of camo they're just olive drab.



Link: NIJ STANDARD 0101.04

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

We have a culture that believes the solution to every problem is a firearm.

I cannot believe anyone is actually stupid enough to believe such a thing, much less say it out loud.

Firearms have proven themselves for centuries to be the solution to some very specific, pressing problems. Most folks would tell you, after having solved such problems, that nothing else would have worked nearly as well.

Funny, as I get older, my position on firearms ownership continues to evolve. I have now reached a point where I'm actually somewhat pleased, or relieved, that certain folks have chosen not to arm themselves. I'm sure you will be happy to learn that I fully support you in your decision to remain unarmed.

[sc_rufctr]

Why ban it? If "they" do the "crims" will buy it along with their illegal guns.

If anything it would be financially beneficial to illegal gun suppliers because they'd have more to sell.

Also... With a little bit on knowledge it's actually possible to make your own. All the materials are easily available.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by jyl

Sure, but I don't know of any practical solutions to address the mental health or cultural issues. We can devote more resources to enforcing the existing prohibitions against gun purchases by certain persons (based on mental health, donestic violence, criminal record) and closing certain loopholes in the gun market (jurisdictions that don't report data, too-short waiting periods, gun show exemptions), but even best efforts there won't be enough.

Wishing that mentally unstable people will all be compelled to get treatment and that the treatment will be effective is basically like wishing for a magic pony. Let's eradicate cancer while we're at it.

I'm not in favour of general restrictions on gun ownership. No interest in taking away anyone's AR nor my own guns.

So I'm wondering what additional steps can be taken.

Body armor bans may be a small thing, but what is the downside?. I also think that, should I find myself in a theatre trying to defend myself and my family against the next mass shooter, I'd like to have more chance than my CCW gun will give me against a guy wearing full body armor. No, head shots with a snubnose are not a realistic option . . . I've been shooting for most of my 50+ years, and I know my limitations.

The preponderance of this mindset is frightening. Something bad happened, and we have to do SOMETHING, but fixing the problem is hard. So lets go after one of the symptoms instead of the disease. Ultimately all you get is a restriction of the rights of law abiding citizens, while the real problem continues unabated.

[Racerbvd]

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by jyl

Not sure this would actually deter the next mass killer. Plenty of them do their business in a hoodie and sneakers. But if you think CCW is the answer to stopping mass shootings, then maybe we should give the CCW guy with his .380 a smidgen of a chance?

In my opinion, having a CCW on the scene would help deter the next mass killer, or at least minimize the carnage. Time and again, a mass shooter will off himself once he is met with resistance. This is even the case with the Oregon shooter - the autopsy showed that the killer died of a self-inflicted wound, and not by a police bullet. But it was when the killer was cornered by a resisting force that he killed himself - not before.

Same scenario has occurred time and again with these mass shootings - idiot goes on a rampage - and once he is met with resistance from law enforcement, he turns his weapons on himself.

Another thing to consider - in an active shooter scenario, the shooter is unaware of why type of ammo a CCW is firing at him. He's pumped full of adrenaline, has pinpoint vision, and is definately NOT in a calm state of mind. With those and many other factors at play, he doesn't have the wherewithal to determine if that bullet he just took is enough to penetrate his body armor.

Again - in the Oregon shooting, there was the military fellow who stood up to the shooter - and while he got shot multiple times, the shooter went on to another room where presumably there would be less resistence. Had that man who stood up to him been carrying, the shooter may have killed himself sooner.

Resisting, especially with a firearm, is significantly more effective than the typical 'hide and cower' (ie: shelter in place) line of thought. Shelter in place is not effective against a lunatic's desire to inflict the large amount of chaos possible.

Final point: as others pointed out, this is a mental health issue, not a gun control issue. That is where the effort should be spent.

-Z-man.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Z-man

In my opinion, having a CCW on the scene would help deter the next mass killer, or at least minimize the carnage. Time and again, a mass shooter will off himself once he is met with resistance. This is even the case with the Oregon shooter - the autopsy showed that the killer died of a self-inflicted wound, and not by a police bullet. But it was when the killer was cornered by a resisting force that he killed himself - not before.

Same scenario has occurred time and again with these mass shootings - idiot goes on a rampage - and once he is met with resistance from law enforcement, he turns his weapons on himself.

Another thing to consider - in an active shooter scenario, the shooter is unaware of why type of ammo a CCW is firing at him. He's pumped full of adrenaline, has pinpoint vision, and is definately NOT in a calm state of mind. With those and many other factors at play, he doesn't have the wherewithal to determine if that bullet he just took is enough to penetrate his body armor.

Again - in the Oregon shooting, there was the military fellow who stood up to the shooter - and while he got shot multiple times, the shooter went on to another room where presumably there would be less resistence. Had that man who stood up to him been carrying, the shooter may have killed himself sooner.

Resisting, especially with a firearm, is significantly more effective than the typical 'hide and cower' (ie: shelter in place) line of thought. Shelter in place is not effective against a lunatic's desire to inflict the large amount of chaos possible.

Final point: as others pointed out, this is a mental health issue, not a gun control issue. That is where the effort should be spent.

-Z-man.

But if you are that CCW guy, defending yourself with your .32, wouldn't you prefer the killer not have a 1/2" ballistic chest plate covering his center of mass?

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by jyl

But if you are that CCW guy, defending yourself with your .32, wouldn't you prefer the killer not have a 1/2" ballistic chest plate covering his center of mass?

Sure. I would even prefer the shooter off himself before he fires a single round. But that's an unlikely scenario.

In self-defense CCW class, among other things, they teach you to draw your weapon, fire one round in the head, and two into the center of mass. Lather, rise, repeat. Aiming for center of mass is only part of effective self defense against an assailant.

There is a big difference between a person who holds a CCW and carries vs. a person who is trained in CCW scenarios.

-Z