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

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.

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.

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




;)

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.

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.

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)?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

http://www.armourshield.com/images/c...mour-plate.jpg http://www.armourshield.com/images/c...ody-armour.jpg

Link: NIJ STANDARD 0101.04

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.

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.

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.

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?

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