United States Push for gun control at state level include bill from Pennsylvania Democrat to ban body armor

Battlegrinder said:

We're talking about someone committing what is effectively a suicide mission where step 1 is "step out of your car holding a rifle covered in racist graffiti". I don't think the severe financial cost or high profile of his armor were large concerns.

Click to expand...

Ironically, in this case the supposed suicide mission guy surrendered to the police and remains alive. Much like the guy who inspired the rifle graffiti, and Breivik, who used home made body armor. And 2 of the 3 didn't get shot at all.
That does set up a pattern, perhaps the ones who bother with the discomfort, mobility loss and cost of body armor aren't truly convinced that they are going for a suicide mission?
There is a different group of mass shooters who do specifically go for suicide missions, and they tend to prefer vests filled with explosives, real or failing that, fake, rather than ceramics.

Battlegrinder said:

As for the rest, yes, I know. Body armor doesn't make you an FPS able to shrug off dozens of rounds until you run out of HP. But what it does do is give you a substantial edge against one or two opponents, which is still enough to let you possibly outshoot the odd security guard/armed civilian/pair of responding police officers and keep shooting.

Click to expand...

Its a slim chance if they do a proper mozambique drill or magdump. As far as the Buffalo shooting goes, the news reports i've read imply the security guard fired one shot, may be wrong, but if that was the case, it would make a lot of sense.

Battlegrinder said:

My understanding is that's for soft armor like in the video thumbnail, and that heavier lvl III or IV plates (which may be what this guy had, details are vague) it's much less dilbilitating, particularly when you're keyed up on adrenaline.

Click to expand...

Have you wore a vest before?
They are not light and take time getting used to when shooting in.
Especially if one wants to be accurate.

Also, even a 9mm can put someone in thier ass when wearing plates.
Because you are still breaking ribs at mist and brusing at least, and is enough to allow you the one shooting the guy with the vest to have follow up shots preventing them from getting a chance to shoot back.

Terthna said:

One. Plus a undeterminable number of future copycats.

I'm sorry, but I think you've not thought your position on body armor through. At all. You're basically making the same tired arguments most people in favor of gun control make; that we need to restrict the rights of and endanger millions to prevent edge case scenarios that you're just asserting without evidence will happen in great enough numbers to matter.

Click to expand...

On further research it's happened more than once, the Buffalo case was just the most recent one and the first time it appears to have been relevant.

Secondly, I don't think you're fairly characterizing my arguement or supporting your counterpoint very well. I am not suggesting an outright ban or supporting the proposed ban, the most concrete suggestion I've made is merely a restriction targeting the age range of most mass shooters. I don't see how that's unreasonable or endangers anyone, and you're not really giving me any concrete reasons for why the policy I've proposed is flawed. Who are these millions of 18-20 year olds that I'm endangering, exactly?

Marduk said:

Its a slim chance if they do a proper mozambique drill or magdump. As far as the Buffalo shooting goes, the news reports i've read imply the security guard fired one shot, may be wrong, but if that was the case, it would make a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

I'm not confident the average person can pull off a Mozambique drill (I certainly can't, and I'm a pretty decent shoot), or that trusting that they can do so is a wise response.

Zachowon said:

Have you wore a vest before?
They are not light and take time getting used to when shooting in.
Especially if one wants to be accurate.

Also, even a 9mm can put someone in thier ass when wearing plates.
Because you are still breaking ribs at mist and brusing at least, and is enough to allow you the one shooting the guy with the vest to have follow up shots preventing them from getting a chance to shoot back.

Click to expand...

I have no personal experience with body armor, and am going off of what's I can find online. That said, I think you might be overstating how vulnerable you are when you get shot in plates, based on the fact that according to everything I've seen in the media, that exact scenario played out in Buffalo and it didn't work.

Battlegrinder said:

Secondly, I don't think you're fairly characterizing my arguement or supporting your counterpoint very well. I am not suggesting an outright ban or supporting the proposed ban, the most concrete suggestion I've made is merely a restriction targeting the age range of most mass shooters. I don't see how that's unreasonable or endangers anyone, and you're not really giving me any concrete reasons for why the policy I've proposed is flawed. Who are these millions of 18-20 year olds that I'm endangering, exactly?

Click to expand...

Forgive me; I'm a bit too used to seeing gun control advocates argue in favor of "limited" restrictions, that end up not being limited at all when they're actually implemented. Though, if you honestly think it would remain as limited as you intend (especially with our current government), you're more foolish than even I realized.

Terthna said:

Forgive me; I'm a bit too used to seeing gun control advocates argue in favor of "limited" restrictions, that end up not being limited at all when they're actually implemented. Though, if you honestly think it would remain as limited as you intend (especially with our current government), you're more foolish than even I realized.

Click to expand...

I understand there's a danger of "limited" restrictions becoming less and less limited over time. That doesn't mean that refusing to ever restrict anything no matter the reason is a valid response.

Battlegrinder said:

Secondly, I don't think you're fairly characterizing my arguement or supporting your counterpoint very well. I am not suggesting an outright ban or supporting the proposed ban, the most concrete suggestion I've made is merely a restriction targeting the age range of most mass shooters. I don't see how that's unreasonable or endangers anyone, and you're not really giving me any concrete reasons for why the policy I've proposed is flawed. Who are these millions of 18-20 year olds that I'm endangering, exactly?

Click to expand...

Your argument devolves to 'Someone did a bad thing, and used X to help them do it. Therefore other people should not have X thing, regardless what they're going to do it.'

This argument is wrong at the basic level, because it deprives people of rights in spite of not having committed any crime.

Further, you have in no way demonstrated that your proposed restriction would do more good than harm. Where are your statistics on how many spree/mass shooters have worn bodyarmor? How many of them has it protected in any meaningful way? How many of them were able to kill more people because of it?

In opposition to that, how many private citizens have had their lives saved because they were wearing bodyarmor? How many were enabled to save other lives because of said bodyarmor?


All that you have presented so far is a hypothetical. That is not a sufficient reason to deprive people of access to something that can protect their life, and the burden is on you to give a reason for deprivation of rights.

Battlegrinder said:

On further research it's happened more than once, the Buffalo case was just the most recent one and the first time it appears to have been relevant.

Secondly, I don't think you're fairly characterizing my arguement or supporting your counterpoint very well. I am not suggesting an outright ban or supporting the proposed ban, the most concrete suggestion I've made is merely a restriction targeting the age range of most mass shooters. I don't see how that's unreasonable or endangers anyone, and you're not really giving me any concrete reasons for why the policy I've proposed is flawed. Who are these millions of 18-20 year olds that I'm endangering, exactly?



I'm not confident the average person can pull off a Mozambique drill (I certainly can't, and I'm a pretty decent shoot), or that trusting that they can do so is a wise response.



I have no personal experience with body armor, and am going off of what's I can find online. That said, I think you might be overstating how vulnerable you are when you get shot in plates, based on the fact that according to everything I've seen in the media, that exact scenario played out in Buffalo and it didn't work.

Click to expand...

I jabe never heard of the whole he got hit in the armor.
Every image I have seen never showed any bullet hits in his vest

LordsFire said:

Your argument devolves to 'Someone did a bad thing, and used X to help them do it. Therefore other people should not have X thing, regardless what they're going to do it.'

Click to expand...

Ok, is everyone but me in this thread running some sort of browser extension or something? Because that's the only way I can explain people repeatedly seeing, reading, and quoting a post where I say "I don't support a ban on body armor and think people should be allowed to own body armor, but maybe some limits on when or how they obtain it have merit" and then somehow getting "I think we should ban people from owning body armor" from what I said.

LordsFire said:

This argument is wrong at the basic level, because it deprives people of rights in spite of not having committed any crime.

Click to expand...

There is no constitutional or natural right to own any amount of any object, and there is a corresponding government interest in restricting access to things that are particularly dangerous in criminal hands, such as handgun bullets design to pierce police issue bullet proof vests.

LordsFire said:

Where are your statistics on how many spree/mass shooters have worn bodyarmor? How many of them has it protected in any meaningful way? How many of them were able to kill more people because of it?

Click to expand...

According to NPR, 5 high profile shooters in the last ten years (out of maybe 15 in total). It's not clear what impact it had in several cases, but I think it's prevalent enough that we should at consider new legislation, such as an age restriction, or if you feel that's still too much, having it licensed under a May Issue standard under 21 and Shall issue afterwards.

LordsFire said:

In opposition to that, how many private citizens have had their lives saved because they were wearing bodyarmor? How many were enabled to save other lives because of said bodyarmor?

Click to expand...

This is only a counterarguement to a total ban, which I have repeatedly said I don't support.

Battlegrinder said:

Ok, is everyone but me in this thread running some sort of browser extension or something? Because that's the only way I can explain people repeatedly seeing, reading, and quoting a post where I say "I don't support a ban on body armor and think people should be allowed to own body armor, but maybe some limits on when or how they obtain it have merit" and then somehow getting "I think we should ban people from owning body armor" from what I said.



There is no constitutional or natural right to own any amount of any object, and there is a corresponding government interest in restricting access to things that are particularly dangerous in criminal hands, such as handgun bullets design to pierce police issue bullet proof vests.




According to NPR, 5 high profile shooters in the last ten years (out of maybe 15 in total). It's not clear what impact it had in several cases, but I think it's prevalent enough that we should at consider new legislation, such as an age restriction, or if you feel that's still too much, having it licensed under a May Issue standard under 21 and Shall issue afterwards.



This is only a counterarguement to a total ban, which I have repeatedly said I don't support.

Click to expand...

The Army, Marines, AF, and Navy give 17 year Olds vests...

Zachowon said:

The Army, Marines, AF, and Navy give 17 year Olds vests...

Click to expand...

Amoung other things, many of which are illegal in civillian hands. The military is a heavily supervised, heavily controlled environment that requires a psychological evaluation before you're allowed to join. I'm sure they can screen out the people that are likely to abuse any of that equipment, and they control access to that equipment so that anyone that anyone that stilps through can't just do whatever they want.

The general population isn't subjected to those same checks.

Battlegrinder said:

Ok, is everyone but me in this thread running some sort of browser extension or something? Because that's the only way I can explain people repeatedly seeing, reading, and quoting a post where I say "I don't support a ban on body armor and think people should be allowed to own body armor, but maybe some limits on when or how they obtain it have merit" and then somehow getting "I think we should ban people from owning body armor" from what I said.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not claiming you are supporting a total ban. I'm saying that you support people (18-21 year olds in this case) having a restriction on their liberty because of what one or a handful of individuals did with that object.

By the same reasoning, 16-25 year olds should be banned from driving, because they're the most dangerous demographic for driving accidents and fatalities.

Battlegrinder said:

There is no constitutional or natural right to own any amount of any object, and there is a corresponding government interest in restricting access to things that are particularly dangerous in criminal hands, such as handgun bullets design to pierce police issue bullet proof vests.

Click to expand...

And this is where you lose any credibility whatsoever as a conservative or libertarian. All actual rights are natural rights, and it's not 'to own' it's 'to be able to own.' No other human owes me the fruit of their labors, but it is not the government's place to bar me from purchasing that in a free market, unless they have probable cause to believe I am going to use it to harm others.

'Someone in the same age bracket did harm with hit' is not probable cause.

Battlegrinder said:

According to NPR, 5 high profile shooters in the last ten years (out of maybe 15 in total). It's not clear what impact it had in several cases, but I think it's prevalent enough that we should at consider new legislation, such as an age restriction, or if you feel that's still too much, having it licensed under a May Issue standard under 21 and Shall issue afterwards.

This is only a counterarguement to a total ban, which I have repeatedly said I don't support.

Click to expand...

1. Actually link your source, and how it supports the idea that bodyarmor on civilian markets does more harm than good.

2. No, I have not made an argument that only applies to a 'total' ban. I have made an argument against any ban, because the same logic that makes a total ban unethical, makes your partial ban unethical.

The only ethical ban is one that affects people with criminal records.

LordsFire said:

No, I'm not claiming you are supporting a total ban. I'm saying that you support people (18-21 year olds in this case) having a restriction on their liberty because of what one or a handful of individuals did with that object.

By the same reasoning, 16-25 year olds should be banned from driving, because they're the most dangerous demographic for driving accidents and fatalities.



And this is where you lose any credibility whatsoever as a conservative or libertarian. All actual rights are natural rights, and it's not 'to own' it's 'to be able to own.' No other human owes me the fruit of their labors, but it is not the government's place to bar me from purchasing that in a free market, unless they have probable cause to believe I am going to use it to harm others.

'Someone in the same age bracket did harm with hit' is not probable cause.





1. Actually link your source, and how it supports the idea that bodyarmor on civilian markets does more harm than good.

2. No, I have not made an argument that only applies to a 'total' ban. I have made an argument against any ban, because the same logic that makes a total ban unethical, makes your partial ban unethical.

The only ethical ban is one that affects people with criminal records.

Click to expand...

Yep and to add. Young people really need to ability to get a CCW since people between the ages of 18 to 29 are the most likely to be a victim of Stalking. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/169592.pdf

Battlegrinder said:

I'm not confident the average person can pull off a Mozambique drill (I certainly can't, and I'm a pretty decent shoot), or that trusting that they can do so is a wise response.

Click to expand...

In case of an average person, doing a magdump is simple enough. For cops and serious security guards, Mozambique drill is something they can be expected to do.

LordsFire said:

No, I'm not claiming you are supporting a total ban. I'm saying that you support people (18-21 year olds in this case) having a restriction on their liberty because of what one or a handful of individuals did with that object.

By the same reasoning, 16-25 year olds should be banned from driving, because they're the most dangerous demographic for driving accidents and fatalities.

Click to expand...

And what legitimate use do 18-20 year olds have for body armor, particularly level III and IV armor? @Cherico mentioned gas station clerks and other people in jobs where they're at risk of violence donning vests, I assume that's probably lighter, level I and II vests and not the heavier stuff. Fair enough, maybe leave that be and just restrict the heavier stuff.

Rifle grade body armor is almost entirely owned people that think they're going to be boogalooing it up at some point, with the remainder being PMCs or private security firms (where it's provided to employees rather than them buying it). There is no legitimate day to day use case for that sort of armor that I am aware of, the only 18 years olds buying that kind of armor are doing it because A) They think they're going to need it survive a gunfight with a tyrannical government, B) they're doing a Rainbow 6 LARP or something and don't want to stop with just a plate carrier, or C) they're going the shoot up a building full of innocent people and don't want to be stopped by one lucky shot from a guard.

I do not accept your logic that the "needs" of the first two groups are so great that we have no choice but to accept the risk of the 3rd group actually doing something bad with that armor.

LordsFire said:

And this is where you lose any credibility whatsoever as a conservative or libertarian. All actual rights are natural rights, and it's not 'to own' it's 'to be able to own.' No other human owes me the fruit of their labors, but it is not the government's place to bar me from purchasing that in a free market, unless they have probable cause to believe I am going to use it to harm others.

'Someone in the same age bracket did harm with hit' is not probable cause.

Click to expand...

Ok, so armor piecing handgun bullets should be available for sale, despite the serious danger they pose to police officers if they fall into the wrong hands and the limited or as far as I know, non existent civilian use case for them (AP handgun rounds can't pen level III and up plates, so even if you're talking about civil war type conflict they're not useful)? I don't agree with that, I think in many areas that government has a legitimate and compelling interest to intervene.

Battlegrinder said:

I think you're misreading what I said again. My second paragraph there isn't about how if this changes, some people might not have armor when they need it. It's pointing out that because of behavioral norms, right now people don't don armor just in case, and so if it is ever needed they don't have it.

Click to expand...

No, I understood you, and you should really speak for yourself, I wear a light vest almost every day.

Sometimes I also conceal carry.

In both cases, no one around me knows about either unless I choose to tell them. So while the majority of people may not wear body armor casually, some percentage of people do, and often they are doing it for a very important reason. I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced banning/limiting body armor is the way to go.

Beyond any of that, why should anyone give up anything because of the criminal actions of someone else?

Battlegrinder said:

Ok, so armor piecing handgun bullets should be available for sale, despite the serious danger they pose to police officers if they fall into the wrong hands and the limited or as far as I know, non existent civilian use case for them (AP handgun rounds can't pen level III and up plates, so even if you're talking about civil war type conflict they're not useful)? I don't agree with that, I think in many areas that government has a legitimate and compelling interest to intervene.

Click to expand...

Yes?

As a people, we used to be allowed to own warships, they were often armor piercing.

Now that I think about it, practical and mass-produced body armor is a really recent thing, for the majority of American history, almost all bullets were "armor-piercing" for all intents and purposes.

Ixian said:

I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced banning/limiting body armor is the way to go.

Click to expand...

I think restricting the lighter, concealable armor is probably not justified, but at the moment I still think there's merit in put some limits in place for the heavier, level 3 and 4 plates.

Battlegrinder said:

I think restricting the lighter, concealable armor is probably not justified, but at the moment I still think there's merit in put some limits in place for the heavier, level 3 and 4 plates.

Click to expand...

Nope.

We have seen this play out again, and again, and again.

We say no, you can't ban this.

They say, fine, what about this?

We say, okay we will meet you in the middle and restrict that.

Then a few years later and the compromise turns into a "loophole" and they hound the self-made issue until that is restricted or banned. Besides, why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be able to buy a heavier set of body armor?

Ixian said:

Nope.

We have seen this play out again, and again, and again.

We say no, you can't ban this.

They say, fine, what about this?

We say, okay we will meet you in the middle and restrict that.

Then a few years later and the compromise turns into a "loophole" and they hound the self-made issue until that is restricted or banned. Besides, why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be able to buy a heavier set of body armor?

Click to expand...

people do not get that you cant have meaningful negiotations with bad faith actors.

Battlegrinder said:

And what legitimate use do 18-20 year olds have for body armor, particularly level III and IV armor? @Cherico mentioned gas station clerks and other people in jobs where they're at risk of violence donning vests, I assume that's probably lighter, level I and II vests and not the heavier stuff. Fair enough, maybe leave that be and just restrict the heavier stuff.

Click to expand...

That goes into even more ridiculous regulation territory, as the usual difference between the heavy stuff and light stuff are hard plate inserts. Or in case of some plate carrier vests, just those are the difference between armor and clothing with a weird pocket. Which in some cheaper level III variants are just a piece of high hardness steel.
Impossible to effectively police, but great way to threaten great many people in metalworking with pointless bureaucracy.
Sure, a substitute plate without certification and not the perfectly selected type of steel may not have the same multi hit resistance specs and be iffy for stopping rifle rounds compared to proper armor grade plates, but probably will still be plenty enough to deal with typical handgun rounds, as even higher classes of soft armor can do that.

Battlegrinder said:

Amoung other things, many of which are illegal in civillian hands. The military is a heavily supervised, heavily controlled environment that requires a psychological evaluation before you're allowed to join. I'm sure they can screen out the people that are likely to abuse any of that equipment, and they control access to that equipment so that anyone that anyone that stilps through can't just do whatever they want.

The general population isn't subjected to those same checks.

Click to expand...

Uh...
As mich as I defend the military.
Plenty of not sane people get in.
We really don't take a psych test to join.
People will go and sell thoer XMSI plates at a pawnshop for money.