Ban Body Armor?
 

A propos of the timely topic of mass shootings.

You notice that the folks doing these now often wear body armor?. Umpqua, Aurora, are the latest. The Aurora guy wore vest, chestplate, helmet. Not sure what the Umpqua guy wore. You can buy the stuff easily, and fairly cheaply if you are okay with used police gear.

Some of us here have CCWs. I'd say we mostly carry small caliber guns, .380 or .32, .38 or 9mm.

I don't give my .38 snubby much chance against a guy in body armor with an AR. Wouldn't make too much difference if it was a 9 or a 45.

I understand that making it hard for people to own ARs is controversial to say the least.

But how about making it hard for people to buy body armor?

It has, as far as I know, no sporting uses. No personal defense uses either, unless you insist on wearing your body armor for the walk to the mailbox.

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?

That's an interesting question;


IMO it seems like you're trying to ban . . . paprika to combat obesity though.


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.

I'm good with it. fail to see where the average citizen needs it.

you're not getting the Colt AR I might or might not own.

When you get hives from Lymphoma do concentrate on treating the hives or do you treat the Lymphoma? I would want my Doctors to treat the Lymphoma.

The same is true with these gun problems. The guns and the body armor are like hives caused by Lymphoma. They aren't the real problem. The real problem here is the mental instability of the people that commit these crimes.

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.

*If only banning something would make it go away*
(P.S.-I say that as pro gun)

So, you want to ban the one thing that would have been legal to help the students on these campuses? They are not allowed to carry a firearm, but the students COULD purchase body armor.

I have a patent pending on improved bullet proof backpacks.

You don't need a car that can exceed the max speed limit and you surely don't need an evil black rifle either. So let's ban those too.

Hmm. I don't think you will ever see the average person wearing body armor to class or the movies. And not much body armor works against 223 or head shots.

^ beat me to it.... 22

primitive thinking focusing on inanimate objects.

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.

Yup. Extremely simplistic thinking - ban an object rather than address the social/behavioral issues at the core of the problem.

I think we need to ban the word "ban". Seems to be the liberals' battle cry of the new millennium - "Baaaaaaan it!!!..."

But how?

Indeed - the question of the day.

Used to be we very much relied upon the family, doctors, teachers, friends, and other close contacts to help determine if someone was "a bit off". I think that knowledge must still reside with those folks, but how do we tap it, "quantify" it, and establish "standards" for commitments and/or restrictions? Hoo boy - what a quagmire that would quickly become. This certainly ain't gonna be easy...

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!

I understand your point. Just being honest about my feeling on the stuff.

It seems very hard if not impossible to prevent mentally unstable people from purchasing guns. You have to actually be adjudicated as mentally defective, or have been committed to a mental institution, or otherwise been officially determined to be dangerous. The standards vary by state. We see every couple of months examples of how this system doesn't work. I think there must be ways to improve it, but every time someone massacres scores of people, his friends and family all say they never suspected he could do such a thing, he was a quiet guy, unremarkable, etc.

Agreed. I think the demons that drive folks to this end must live very, very deep within. Predicting who might "crack" in this manner is well neigh impossible. Casting a big enough net to catch everyone who might would make no one happy.

So, what do we do? "Banning" the implements used would not only do no good, but would also trample on the rights of everyone. Even as an avid gun owner, I would hate to see a society where everyone is armed all the time as an answer to this. So much for both sides' knee jerk "solutions"...

He could do head shots because the people surrendered. If the students were wearing body armor and rushed him, he would have been taken down sooner. The gunman used a handgun, body armor would have stopped the rounds.

The Latest: Shooter used handgun in Oregon slayings - Washington Times