Pelican Parts Forums
Page 3 of 5 « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/index.php)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Ban Body Armor? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=885768)

jyl 10-05-2015 09:02 PM
If you are confident in making that first shot to the head, then . . . you shouldn't be.

Z-man 10-06-2015 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl (Post 8823806)
If you are confident in making that first shot to the head, then . . . you shouldn't be.
Never said that I was confident. That's where the 'lather, rise, repeat' part comes into play.

Self defense is more about being prepared, less about being falsely confident.

berettafan 10-06-2015 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen (Post 8823250)
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.
I have only ever solved two problems with a firearm.

1-wanted to go bird hunting
2-wanted to go to the shooting range

In both cases I found a firearm to be the best way to achieve the desired results.

widgeon13 10-06-2015 07:18 AM
Boy, 11, accused of killing 8-year-old girl with shotgun

When we can stop raising eleven year olds to kill eight year olds we will have solved the problem. The shotgun was only the mechanism of destruction but the real problem is between the ears of the child and also the parents.

WTF is wrong with people and where have our values gone in the last XX years? :mad:

Rickysa 10-06-2015 07:50 AM
Just a little data in case anyone might be interested:



<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pELwCqz2JfE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Porsche-O-Phile 10-06-2015 09:07 AM
I know - lets just pass a law making it illegal for people to shoot each other! Because we can always legislate away the world's problems. In fact lets just legislate world peace and no more poverty for anyone! Rainbows and unicorns for all!

How about we make it legal for everyone to buy whatever they want including body armor? That way if you're paranoid about being shot you can have your own and wear it if you like. You know, that whole "be responsible for yourself" thing? Like we used to have in America?

Jeezus. I don't recognize this country anymore. Stalin would be proud.

red-beard 10-06-2015 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-man (Post 8824093)
Never said that I was confident. That's where the 'lather, rise, repeat' part comes into play.

Self defense is more about being prepared, less about being falsely confident.
Z-Man, I thought you were attempting to escape the Democratic Peoples Republic of New Jersey?

HHI944 10-06-2015 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by varmint (Post 8823269)
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.
The guys at the lodge need to stop talking out of their arse.
M855 is not armor piercing, it is light barrier penetrating. Pretty much an round in 5.56mm will defeat soft level IIIA and lower armor. On the other hand, short of M995, which is no longer available to civilians, a 5.56 is not going to penetrate hard armor.

As far as "going right through them", that's going to happen with any small caliber, high velocity ball round. It really is a shame we tie our troops hands by only allowing ball ammo. There are some very effective hollow point options available for 5.56 these days.

red-beard 10-06-2015 10:18 AM
I will again remind the readers that the shooter used a handgun, not a rifle, in this incident.

gacook 10-06-2015 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-man (Post 8823756)
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.
I work for the military (and was in the Army for a long time). Ironically, nobody on military installations is armed except for our cops, which kinda makes us a soft target. The past 10 years or so, we've been mandated to take active shooter training, and it was typically a "shelter in place" type training. This past year, they've changed how we train, and it's no longer shelter in place; it's attack, attack, attack.

gacook 10-06-2015 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHI944 (Post 8824470)
The guys at the lodge need to stop talking out of their arse.
M855 is not armor piercing, it is light barrier penetrating. Pretty much an round in 5.56mm will defeat soft level IIIA and lower armor. On the other hand, short of M995, which is no longer available to civilians, a 5.56 is not going to penetrate hard armor.

As far as "going right through them", that's going to happen with any small caliber, high velocity ball round. It really is a shame we tie our troops hands by only allowing ball ammo. There are some very effective hollow point options available for 5.56 these days.
You're right; we don't use HP rounds in the Army, but that 5.56 coming out of an M-16 still makes a much larger hole coming out than it does going in.

onewhippedpuppy 10-06-2015 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by widgeon13 (Post 8824182)
Boy, 11, accused of killing 8-year-old girl with shotgun

When we can stop raising eleven year olds to kill eight year olds we will have solved the problem. The shotgun was only the mechanism of destruction but the real problem is between the ears of the child and also the parents.

WTF is wrong with people and where have our values gone in the last XX years? :mad:
Legislated out of our schools, workplaces, and society. Right and wrong is no longer allowed because it might offend someone. It seems to be working out pretty well.....:rolleyes:

GH85Carrera 10-06-2015 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gacook (Post 8824575)
I work for the military (and was in the Army for a long time). Ironically, nobody on military installations is armed except for our cops, which kinda makes us a soft target. The past 10 years or so, we've been mandated to take active shooter training, and it was typically a "shelter in place" type training. This past year, they've changed how we train, and it's no longer shelter in place; it's attack, attack, attack.
That is good to hear. Some logic in action.

gtc 10-06-2015 02:17 PM
What we really need to do is take a cue from elite mall security forces. We should train teams of School Ninjas, and equip them with:
3) MP5K-PDW with red-dot sights;
2) G36 rifles using SS109 rounds;
3) Glock practical tacticles in .357 Sig
1) PSG-1 using Fed Gold Medal .308
1) Starlight scope for the PSG-1 in case we lose power in the building.
3) Glock 27 backup guns
3) Kahr P-9 holdouts

And of course body armour with extra trauma plates.

Taz's Master 10-06-2015 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen (Post 8823250)
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.
It seems to me that the real problem is freedom and self-reliance.

No matter what you do in regards to firearms and body armor, there will still be people who won't hesitate to hurt you.

sc_rufctr 10-06-2015 10:26 PM
Why ban it? Or why not ban it? :confused:

IMO, The only people who wouldn't want it banned are the crooks.

Again IMO, Law abiding gun owning citizen "couldn't/wouldn't give a stuff".

Arizona_928 10-06-2015 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_rufctr (Post 8825555)
Why ban it? Or why not ban it? :confused:

IMO, The only people who wouldn't want it banned are the crooks.
I know a lot of people who wear the level II for protection against knife attacks. Bar tenders, tattoo artists, ect. I know a tattoo shop owner who got stabbed outside of his shop getting robbed. You would be surprised.

Hell they even market level 3 backpacks

McLovin 10-06-2015 11:30 PM
This body armor sounds highly effective against guns.

Instead of banning it, why not make it mandatory for everyone?

fintstone 10-07-2015 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_rufctr (Post 8825555)
Why ban it? Or why not ban it? :confused:would c

IMO, The only people who wouldn't want it banned are the crooks.

Again IMO, Law abiding gun owning citizen "couldn't/wouldn't give a stuff".
And we could ban cars that go faster than 55 mph as well. Only people that would care are speeders/scofflaws. Let's ban donuts too. Only people who would care are people who have poor diets.

red-beard 10-07-2015 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_rufctr (Post 8825555)
Why ban it? Or why not ban it? :confused:

IMO, The only people who wouldn't want it banned are the crooks.

Again IMO, Law abiding gun owning citizen "couldn't/wouldn't give a stuff".
Law abiding citizens live within the law. The criminals do not. Why take away the one thing a person can do to protect themselves, even if they are denied the right to self defense?

In Oregon, the people gave up, like they were taught. Just like on 9/11, the pilots just gave up control of their airplanes. Just like they were taught. In both cases, the expected response was understood by the evil doer.

Light body armor would't help in all circumstances. But one of the students rushed the gunman. He was shot several times, but survived. If he had been wearing body armor, he would have succeeded in subduing the gunman. He was not shot in the head, because he was a moving target. The "head shots" were executions on people who had given control to the gunman.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:57 PM.
Page 3 of 5 « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.