Ban Body Armor?

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

Why ban it? Or why not ban it?

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".

It all comes down to individual freedom. I don't really NEED my 911. It is a toy I own for my amusement only. I want it, so I have it. Same with guns, knives, and most of the tools in my tool box.

You think there should be laws against me owning an item I want "just because" you don't want it? Criminals will still get body armor and kill people. The law against body armor will ONLY stop law abiding citizens and take away one of the freedoms of living in USA.

We just need to pass a law that makes it illegal to commit mass murder. That will stop it!

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

It all comes down to individual freedom. I don't really NEED my 911. It is a toy I own for my amusement only. I want it, so I have it. Same with guns, knives, and most of the tools in my tool box.

You think there should be laws against me owning an item I want "just because" you don't want it? Criminals will still get body armor and kill people. The law against body armor will ONLY stop law abiding citizens and take away one of the freedoms of living in USA.

We just need to pass a law that makes it illegal to commit mass murder. That will stop it!

Actually I don't think that at all. You Yanks love your guns and that's fine. As an outsider I don't have an opinion but body armour seems redundant.
I also don't have an opinion about bullfighting in Spain although it seem a lot of people who live outside of Spain do.

Imagine walking around with a bullet proof vest on all the time. I can't even imagine it. As far as owning it. If that's your thing then go for it. (I have a collection of "redundant" film cameras that I still use.)
But if you really feel you need to wear it then you should sell your house and move to somewhere safer.

The point is I think you have a lot of other more pressing issues to deal with. This body armour thing is just a "Red Herring" IMO.

--------------------------------------------------

A few years ago there was an incident in the US were two gunmen wore body armour and they had also sewn kevlar into their pants and jacket sleeves.
This rendered them basically impervious to hand gun fire from the Police. They were taken down eventually but only after many shots were exchanged and heavier rifles were used. (From a TV documentary. I'll try and find the story online)

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by fintstone

A lot of folks would similarly fail to see why the average citizen needs a Colt AR. If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow private citizens the means to protect themselves against an oppressive government...seem like similar weapons to the govt and protective armor should follow the same reasoning.

This.

FOOOCUUUS: the reason people should be able to own weapons has nothing to do with sport, recreation, or hobbies and investment. Its about the 2nd Amendment. Period. Paragraph.

Punish criminal behavior. Treat mental problems. Don't destroy the Constitution.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

That's true pretty much all around the world. It's in the US too many people believe firearms are the solution to every problem. Hate your mom? Go shoot a school full of little kids (Sandy Hook). Don't have a girl friend? Shoot up a college classroom (Roseberg, Oregon)

[McLovin]

Actually, in a population of 320 million people and 330 million guns, its surprising and amazing how few believe that firearms are the solution to every problem.

[Tervuren]

I pull out a shot gun and blast my computer every time I have a problem with it. Works great.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

That's true pretty much all around the world. It's in the US too many people believe firearms are the solution to every problem. Hate your mom? Go shoot a school full of little kids (Sandy Hook). Don't have a girl friend? Shoot up a college classroom (Roseberg, Oregon)

Is that what you think happened? Wow. You are never going to understand the real issue here.

[rcooled]

I just read thru all the posts here and would like to make a few comments. But first, let me say that I fully support our 2nd amendment right to own firearms...and yes, even body armor. I am also ex-military and have experience with a variety of weapons, including .45 caliber sidearms, M14 & M16 rifles, .30 & .50 caliber machine guns and even shoulder-fired rocket launchers.

That being said, I don't think that relaxing CCW laws and then encouraging everyone to carry a handgun is the best solution to the mass shooting problem. How much collateral damage would be inflicted if you had a dozen marginally-trained citizens drawing guns and attempting to fire upon a crazed shooter in a high target area? First off, many would attempt shots from too great a distance and the chances of killing or wounding even more innocent people would be high. Second: An effective response in a highly-charged, stressful situation like a mass shooting rampage requires specialized training for just such a scenario. How many of those who carry a weapon actually participate regularly in such training? And going to the range and burning up a few boxes of ammo once in a while doesn't count here. Not one of the mass shootings in this country has been stopped by an ordinary citizen with a gun...not even the one involving Congresswoman Giffords in the open-carry state of Arizona. I also don't think that these psychos only turn the gun on themselves when confronted with resistance. I believe this is part of their plan going in.

I completely agree that guns are not the real problem in these mass shooting incidents. Mental health, or the lack of it, is the issue here. There are just far too many crazy people running around loose in this world. Banning, or strictly limiting the ability to buy guns will not solve anything...there are way more than enough guns out there already. As mentioned before, culling the crazies out of society would be far more effective in preventing these horrible crimes. But how do you do it? The lawyers would be having a field day suing teachers, employers, ministers, relatives, acquaintances and anyone else who sought to have someone carted off to the loony bin whose sanity could somehow be proven in a court of law. Who would stick their neck out to make such an accusation if you risked losing your home, your business, or your life savings if proven wrong?

A reality check is in order for anyone thinks that citizens owning a gun, or even many guns, will prevent a military takeover of this country. Using only handguns and rifles to go up against a very large and well-organized fighting force, with all the newest and best weapons technology at it's disposal, is seriously flawed thinking.

And finally, stop thinking that if the govt. wants to prevent you from owning a gun, that a ban on owning a Porsche will be next. Let's face it, a gun's primary purpose is to kill something...people included, in the case of handguns. A car's primary purpose is something entirely different. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison and really does nothing to help the pro 2nd amendment argument.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

That's true pretty much all around the world. It's in the US too many people believe firearms are the solution to every problem. Hate your mom? Go shoot a school full of little kids (Sandy Hook). Don't have a girl friend? Shoot up a college classroom (Roseberg, Oregon)

I'm curious, is ignorance really bliss?

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by rcooled

That being said, I don't think that relaxing CCW laws and then encouraging everyone to carry a handgun is the best solution to the mass shooting problem....I completely agree that guns are not the real problem in these mass shooting incidents.

Agreed

Originally Posted by rcooled

A reality check is in order for anyone thinks that citizens owning a gun, or even many guns, will prevent a military takeover of this country. Using only handguns and rifles to go up against a very large and well-organized fighting force, with all the newest and best weapons technology at it's disposal, is seriously flawed thinking.

I would beg to differ. History tells us otherwise. The American revolution for starters.
An armed citizen militia is not going to overthrow the full weight of our entire armed forces but it can cause underground resistance. If there was coup, I would bet that some of our military would defect and join the resistance.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Were the American military turned upon its own people, you would see a massive number of defections. The British were better armed and organized yet they still lost the revolutionary war.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Is that what you think happened? Wow. You are never going to understand the real issue here.

So what is the real issue? Why can people in Canada and France deal with their emotional problems without getting a gun and taking out a school?

[onewhippedpuppy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Google nearly country in conjunction with "attacks" and you will find numerous examples of domestic terrorism. Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you have the ability to read these things with an open mind, you would also note that many of these countries have strict gun control measures. Obviously their criminals don't follow the laws either.

[sc_rufctr]

It's a "Red Herring" gentlemen.

The real issue is about gun control. Have no doubt the majority of your politicians and lawmakers do not want you to own guns.

[djmcmath]

Generally speaking, body armor appears to be moot in most of these cases: the killer panics and shoots himself when people with guns arrive. Outside of, say, Waco and the Branch Davidians, it's tough to think of a case where LEO actually ended up in anything like a real fight with one of these guys.

That wasn't the case on the Navy Yard, where the SWAT team from the National Park Service (yeah, I'm serious) got him, but then, he wasn't wearing body armor.

I'll chime in on the mental health side of things: It seems like in all the big cases, everybody who was close knew the guy was looney. Newtown, the kid's mother had warned babysitters to never take their eyes off him because he might kill them. Navy Yard, the guy was hearing voices that told him to do crazy things, and this was known by his employer and the people who ran his security clearance. In this latest case in Oregon, I read an article quoting a bunch of people who knew him saying he was absolutely nutty.

So I'll admit the statistical reality -- crazy people are hard to find, and harder to stop, but ... it sure seems like we ought to be able to find a slightly greater percentage of them than we're actually getting.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

That's true pretty much all around the world. It's in the US too many people believe firearms are the solution to every problem. Hate your mom? Go shoot a school full of little kids (Sandy Hook). Don't have a girl friend? Shoot up a college classroom (Roseberg, Oregon)

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

So what is the real issue? Why can people in Canada and France deal with their emotional problems without getting a gun and taking out a school?

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Google nearly country in conjunction with "attacks" and you will find numerous examples of domestic terrorism. Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you have the ability to read these things with an open mind, you would also note that many of these countries have strict gun control measures. Obviously their criminals don't follow the laws either.

In its simplest terms, it boils down to this: In other countries that have very strict firearms laws and almost no civilian ownership, the governments would dearly like the citizenry to believe their onerous laws to be a "success". As such, they downplay gun violence in an effort to promote that image, and to make the people feel "safe". The government has already disarmed the people, and allowing the notion to take hold that bad things still happen, that criminals and crazies still get guns and hurt and kill people, might raise suspicions among their populace that things are not working as planned. With the relative scarcity of gun violence, it's pretty easy to let is pass unreported and unnoticed.

The U.S. is in a far different situation. While these tragic events are every bit as scarce here as in most other civilized countries, here we have politicians and liberal elites that very much want to publicize each and every event as broadly as possible. They want to deliver the message that private gun ownership is a bad thing, that we are all in danger as long as it continues to be allowed. Bad things will continue to happen as long as the peasants own firearms. They need these tragedies to be publicized as much as possible, to make people feel unsafe, so they can justify taking guns away from private citizens.

These are two far, far different sets of circumstances. In both cases, governments and mainstream liberal media report what benefits them the most. If they have already disarmed the populace, they will not report incidents of gun violence as broadly as they might otherwise. If they are still trying to disarm the populace, they will broadly publicize each and every incident until folks start to believe it is a common place occurrence, and something must be done.

Just look at guys like wdfifteen. He's obviously swallowed the whole speil - hook, line, and sinker. He hates guns, gun owners, and will never be able to look at either objectively, nor the motivations of our political and media elite.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

Generally speaking, body armor appears to be moot in most of these cases: the killer panics and shoots himself when people with guns arrive. Outside of, say, Waco and the Branch Davidians, it's tough to think of a case where LEO actually ended up in anything like a real fight with one of these guys.

That wasn't the case on the Navy Yard, where the SWAT team from the National Park Service (yeah, I'm serious) got him, but then, he wasn't wearing body armor.

North Hollywood Shootout. But that is the only one that I can think of. And another thing, those guys buy the cheap hi capacity drums that almost always jam.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

North Hollywood Shootout. But that is the only one that I can think of. And another thing, those guys buy the cheap hi capacity drums that almost always jam.

Thanks Byron. This was the incident I was referring to in my earlier post.

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

[B] SNIP:::
A few years ago there was an incident in the US were two gunmen wore body armour and they had also sewn kevlar into their pants and jacket sleeves.
This rendered them basically impervious to hand gun fire from the Police. They were taken down eventually but only after many shots were exchanged and heavier rifles were used. (From a TV documentary. I'll try and find the story online)

[onewhippedpuppy]

That shootout was the inspiration for the shootout in the movie Heat. It also is part of the reason why today you will rarely find the police outgunned.

[sc_rufctr]

Interesting info... According to the video the Police borrowed heavy rifles from a local gun shop.