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

[DarthOne]

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

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

His legislation follows efforts on the federal level and in other states to prohibit civilians from acquiring protective shields

justthenews.com

His legislation follows efforts on the federal level and in other states to prohibit civilians from acquiring protective shields

A Pennsylvania state Democrat lawmaker is proposing a bill to bar civilians from buying or owning body armor in the state.

The bill was proposed last week by state Rep. Tim Briggs, whose district is in suburban Philadelphia.

His legislation follows efforts on the federal level and in other states to prohibit civilians from acquiring protective shields, according to the Star News Network.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a body-armor ban in 2019 after a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. The New York State Assembly has tried unsuccessfully over the past few sessions to pass such restrictions.

And such an effort in Pennsylvania would likely face a similar if not more difficult challenge, considering its legislature, unlike New York's, is controlled by Republicans who have previously not supported such measures.

When a ban on semiautomatic weapons came up for a vote last week, it failed decisively and received almost no GOP support, Star News also reports.

Briggs argues the perpetrators in the country's two most-recent mass shootings wore body armor while attacking.

He also pointed out the alleged mass shooter earlier this month at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket was wearing a body shield and the mass shooter last week at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school was similarly protected, which could explain why police could not subdue him quickly.

"Law enforcement responded almost immediately but could not protect the children in their fourth-grade classroom from the power of a military assault rifle wielded by a mass murder [sic] wearing body armor," Briggs said.

Days after Briggs circulated his memo, news came to light that the police response was not immediate and that numerous officers, while gathered at a school hallway, apparently hesitated for several minutes to enter a classroom into which a shooter had gone.

 

[Ixian]

Right, taking away a defensive item with total stop mass shootings.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I.....tentatively agree with the basic idea. I don't support stock gun control arguements because they consistently target features that are, at best, of equal value to law abiding citizens and criminals, and more typically are purely cosmetic.

Body armor is substantially more useful to criminals than civilians given that criminals know when they need to bring it and civilians obviously won't. An outright ban is probably unwise given there are non-law enforcement/first responders with a legitimate need for body armor (and enough civil unrest that people outside those groups could do with a set), I would support limiting it's availability, at the very least an age limit seems reasonable.

Right, taking away a defensive item with total stop mass shootings.

It's not supposed to stop mass shootings, it's to stop some teenage edgelord from grabbing a vest and making his rampage harder to stop.

 

[posh-goofiness]

It's not supposed to stop mass shootings, it's to stop some teenage edgelord from grabbing a vest and making his rampage harder to stop.

What a load of shit. Body armor becomes ineffective after a couple shots. A group of cops shooting into an armored torso are going to kill the target.

 

[Battlegrinder]

What a load of shit. Body armor becomes ineffective after a couple shots. A group of cops shooting into an armored torso are going to kill the target.

Yes, a group of cops can take on a shooter and win easily, particularly if they have rifles and other weapons.

An armed civilian like myself or the rare armed guard, much worse odds, since stopping an armored opponent needs multiple shots or a heads hot, while stopping an unarmored opponent is much easier.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Yes, a group of cops can take on a shooter and win easily, particularly if they have rifles and other weapons.

An armed civilian like myself or the rare armed guard, much worse odds, since stopping an armored opponent needs multiple shots or a heads hot, while stopping an unarmored opponent is much easier.

Uhuh. So, what you're telling me is that the government which wants to have a monopoly on force and already have the capability to "win easily" against an armored assailant are right to make body armor illegal for civilian use?

Doesn't that seem... I don't know... just a little incoherent to you? Now, granted you're thinking about a single assailant... maybe two... hell maybe three... but even then, they'll win. The cops can escalate harder.

Now... if we're more forward looking. Midterms are coming up and PA was one of the states with, shall we say, completely fucking bonkers discrepancies in their election results. If that happens again might the general populous get a bit... riled? 1-3 assailants isn't a problem for cops. Hundreds? Thousands? That's much more a problem for them and ultimately why they want to ban them. Just like guns, it's not about the fucking mass shootings it's always about disarming the general public.

 

[Captain X]

The ban on body armor is aimed at making civilians less able to defend themselves against the government going all gestapo on them and nothing else.

 

[Cherico]

Ive worked late night shifts at gas stations, I know people who's lives were saved because of a vest they wore just in case.

This bill will kill people, innocent people and it will be mostly poor people and recent immigrants who die.

 

[Ixian]

I.....tentatively agree with the basic idea. I don't support stock gun control arguements because they consistently target features that are, at best, of equal value to law abiding citizens and criminals, and more typically are purely cosmetic.

Body armor is substantially more useful to criminals than civilians given that criminals know when they need to bring it and civilians obviously won't. An outright ban is probably unwise given there are non-law enforcement/first responders with a legitimate need for body armor (and enough civil unrest that people outside those groups could do with a set), I would support limiting it's availability, at the very least an age limit seems reasonable.



It's not supposed to stop mass shootings, it's to stop some teenage edgelord from grabbing a vest and making his rampage harder to stop.

Except it'll impact law abiding citizens far more than said teenager. I don't see how banning or restricting a defensive item will help with the mass shooter epidemic.

Just like gun free zones haven't helped.

All restrictions on these sort of items will do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Uhuh. So, what you're telling me is that the government which wants to have a monopoly on force and already have the capability to "win easily" against an armored assailant are right to make body armor illegal for civilian use?

Doesn't that seem... I don't know... just a little incoherent to you? Now, granted you're thinking about a single assailant... maybe two... hell maybe three... but even then, they'll win. The cops can escalate harder.

I said that I can see merit in restricting (not banning, restricting) body armor given it's disproporately useful to bad guys, and I have no idea what you're going about for the rest of this or how it's supposed to be a response to what I said. That doesn't mean I'm sold on the line of logic cited by the lawmaker in the OP nor the particular bill that he's pushing, just that maybe there's reason to think that letting anyone buy body armor without a background check, age restriction, etc is something we should fix. The guy who did that buffalo shooting was, per some reports, shot in the chest by a guard but shrugged it off because he had armor, if he had been banned from buying armor he probably still would have tried the shooting but he would have been stopped sooner.

 

[Terthna]

I.....tentatively agree with the basic idea. I don't support stock gun control arguements because they consistently target features that are, at best, of equal value to law abiding citizens and criminals, and more typically are purely cosmetic.

Body armor is substantially more useful to criminals than civilians given that criminals know when they need to bring it and civilians obviously won't. An outright ban is probably unwise given there are non-law enforcement/first responders with a legitimate need for body armor (and enough civil unrest that people outside those groups could do with a set), I would support limiting it's availability, at the very least an age limit seems reasonable.



It's not supposed to stop mass shootings, it's to stop some teenage edgelord from grabbing a vest and making his rampage harder to stop.

Said "teenage edgelord" could very well fashion his own body armor out of wood, scrap metal, or even old phonebooks; how exactly is banning body armor supposed to stop that from happening?

I said that I can see merit in restricting (not banning, restricting) body armor given it's disproporately useful to bad guys, and I have no idea what you're going about for the rest of this or how it's supposed to be a response to what I said. That doesn't mean I'm sold on the line of logic cited by the lawmaker in the OP nor the particular bill that he's pushing, just that maybe there's reason to think that letting anyone buy body armor without a background check, age restriction, etc is something we should fix. The guy who did that buffalo shooting was, per some reports, shot in the chest by a guard but shrugged it off because he had armor, if he had been banned from buying armor he probably still would have tried the shooting but he would have been stopped sooner.

As far as I'm aware, that was a lie; the Buffalo shooter didn't have body armor.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I said that I can see merit in restricting (not banning, restricting) body armor given it's disproporately useful to bad guys, and I have no idea what you're going about for the rest of this or how it's supposed to be a response to what I said.

It's not disproportionately useful for bad guys. It's has, in fact, exactly the same utility; protection from one bullet to the torso, maybe two, certainly not more than three bullets. As to the rest of what I said, it's to illustrate a point using a hypothetical. That being, that this bill isn't about mass shootings, the logic they use (and which you agree you aren't sold on) is spotty at best and an outright manipulation at worst. This is, like always, a transparent attempt by our rulers to make it easier to control us as they clamp down.

That doesn't mean I'm sold on the line of logic cited by the lawmaker in the OP nor the particular bill that he's pushing, just that maybe there's reason to think that letting anyone buy body armor without a background check, age restriction, etc is something we should fix.

Why? I don't mean this facetiously. Why? The Uvalde shooter passed a background check. The buffalo shooter... er... I think also passed a check. I'm not clear on this one. If I remember right, he definitely was at least on the feds radar and didn't trigger shit. If a check for the sale of a firearm didn;t trigger anything why would a background check for body armor do so?

The guy who did that buffalo shooting was, per some reports, shot in the chest by a guard but shrugged it off because he had armor, if he had been banned from buying armor he probably still would have tried the shooting but he would have been stopped sooner.

Would like confirmation one way or another that @Terthna was correct or incorrect on this part.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Said "teenage edgelord" could very well fashion his own body armor out of wood, scrap metal, or even old phonebooks; how exactly is banning body armor supposed to stop that from happening?

"someone could get around it, therefore this idea has no merit" is an argument against any law. The point isn't to prevent any future would be mass shooters from every having any sort of body armor whatsoever. The point is to make it harder for them to obtain that armor, increasing the odds they'll give up on acquiring it or buying more time for them to get caught, ideally in a way that places as little burden as possible on law abiding citizens.

It's not disproportionately useful for bad guys. It's has, in fact, exactly the same utility; protection from one bullet to the torso, maybe two, certainly not more than three bullets.

You're not following what I'm trying to say. Body armor is more useful to criminal than the law abiding, because criminals know ahead of time when it will be needed and can plan for that, civilians can't. Yes, a bulletproof vest works just as well for the good guys as the bad guys, but good guys don't know that they'll need one and so don't have it, whereas criminals do know they'll need it and can bring it along.

This is, like always, a transparent attempt by our rulers to make it easier to control us as they clamp down.

Yes, I'm sure that's it, it's all an evil ploy to pave the way for the Pennsylvania government to seize total power from the helpless citizens. There's no way that it's just a politician just trying to be seen as Doing Something To Address The Issue, regardless of if his proposed solution will do anything about it or not.

Why? I don't mean this facetiously. Why? The Uvalde shooter passed a background check. The buffalo shooter... er... I think also passed a check. I'm not clear on this one. If I remember right, he definitely was at least on the feds radar and didn't trigger shit. If a check for the sale of a firearm didn;t trigger anything why would a background check for body armor do so?

I said "background check, age restriction, etc", meaning I raised a background check as one of several possibilities that could be explored rather than the only one.

Would like confirmation one way or another that @Terthna was correct or incorrect on this part.

According to this, he was in fact wearing armor, and he was shot and saved by the armor.

 

[Cherico]

Battlegrinder.

Late night convinance workers the ones who work over night in bad neighborhoods they can and do wear vests to give them some protection. Because people do come in and rob their stores and try to shoot them.

Its gotten to the point where.

see that? Thats bullet proof glass, that happens and is needed in some places, but in some places they cant afford that. I know people who wore vests, this would sentence them to death.

 

[LordsFire]

You're not following what I'm trying to say. Body armor is more useful to criminal than the law abiding, because criminals know ahead of time when it will be needed and can plan for that, civilians can't. Yes, a bulletproof vest works just as well for the good guys as the bad guys, but good guys don't know that they'll need one and so don't have it, whereas criminals do know they'll need it and can bring it along.

The same argument applies to guns, to knives, to any and every possible tool of violence.

It also fundamentally fails to deal with the fact that if bodyarmor is restricted or banned, that'll just create a black market in it, and you'll make criminals out of good men, while still not keeping evil men from being able to get access to it.

 

[Gaouw]

So, on the one hand, I can kinda see the point that the lawmaker tried to raise.

On the other hand, I can also see that there are much more steps that affect the point that he didn't or can't take.

Tho I see that the Americans will try anything but control the guns to reduce gun-based tragedies.

So, yeah...

 

[Cherico]

So, on the one hand, I can kinda see the point that the lawmaker tried to raise.

On the other hand, I can also see that there are much more steps that affect the point that he didn't or can't take.

Tho I see that the Americans will try anything but control the guns to reduce gun-based tragedies.

So, yeah...

The police in america proved that they will not protect people during a riot. They will actively let the mob murder you, they will stand by and let small children get murdered. The social contract here has been ripped apart, we need weapons to defend ourselves because the police will not protect us.

Maybe its different in your country but we have to live in reality as it is.

 

[Captain X]

Worse, they won't even just stand by and let the mob murder you, they'll actively stop you from defending yourself or others.

 

[Cherico]

Worse, they won't even just stand by and let the mob murder you, they'll actively stop you from defending yourself or others.

That's a story that only lasts so long, and ends with politics of revenge.

 

[Rocinante]

So, on the one hand, I can kinda see the point that the lawmaker tried to raise.

On the other hand, I can also see that there are much more steps that affect the point that he didn't or can't take.

Tho I see that the Americans will try anything but control the guns to reduce gun-based tragedies.

So, yeah...

I will never support gun control.

I don't care what the tragedy is...and these are absolutely tragic events.

However, my emotions will never lead to me accepting being punished for the actions of someone else.