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

[Zachowon]

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.

Body armor is rendered useless after repeated shots and won't casually let someone take the shot and keep going, even from pistol rounds.
Just look at every video of a cop woth a vest being shot.

Most teenagers also would be scared of a firefight and give up before decking it out woth someone

 

[Rocinante]

Body armor is rendered useless after repeated shots and won't casually let someone take the shot and keep going, even from pistol rounds.
Just look at every video of a cop woth a vest being shot.

Most teenagers also would be scared of a firefight and give up before decking it out woth someone

Counting on a gunner being afraid of a firefight is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do, ever.

But I am thoroughly against banning armor.

 

[posh-goofiness]

You're not following what I'm trying to say. A gun 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 gun 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.

Do you get my point now?

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.

I've said this before in other threads. I am done attributing things to incompetence when they can be attributed to malice. We have abundant evidence that our rulers are malicious with some notable exceptions. So you can be sarcastic about it but, yes, I believe it's an evil ploy from evil people pursuing evil goals.

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.

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

A few points from the article that should be mentioned.

1. The authors note that the majority of mass shootings are committed without body armor.
2. The authors note that any proposed restrictions would be subject to the same problems with gun laws.
   • The problem being that they seem to do fuck all about the problem of mass shootings.
3. Laws in other countries were implemented for gang activities rather than mass shootings.
   • This makes much more sense, because as I mentioned in my earlier reply reply- a law like this will do fuck all for responses to lone shooters. It will, however, have an effect when fighting large groups. And since I attribute to malice first nowadays that means this is transparently aimed toward disempowerment of the general populous.

 

[Zachowon]

Counting on a gunner being afraid of a firefight is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do, ever.

But I am thoroughly against banning armor.

I would not count on it no.
Just majority of times they are

 

[Marduk]

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.

This is an argument that vastly overvalues the utility of body armor to an individual nutjob fighting cops, in particular the soft, concealable kind that is not very obvious and raising suspicious. It's no 40k carapace armor to say it lightly. There is a reason why the biggest shooting involving body armor on criminal side involved a pair of well coordinated bank robbers who have managed to make the fight a medium distance one, so they could take cover and protect each other when one got distracted by taking a shot to armor. But police training has changed since then, the typical nutjob situation means one guy facing cops in close quarters, and good luck finding a US cop who doesn't know what mozambique drill is.

Secondly, in principle this is the same kind of democrat idea of suppressing law abiding citizen's ability to protect each other as inane ideas like banning bulletproof glass in stores because reasons.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Do you get my point now?

That's not actually equivalent, because unlike body armor, in most states it's common for some civilians to have a gun with them while they're out and about. Ever heard of concealed carry?

 

[Ixian]

"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.



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.

These two statements would seem to contradict each other.

If "someone could get around it" isn't an acceptable argument against banning/limiting the availability of body armor, then how is "they might not have it when they need it" an acceptable argument for banning/limiting the availability of body armor?

 

[Zachowon]

This is an argument that vastly overvalues the utility of body armor to an individual nutjob fighting cops, in particular the soft, concealable kind that is not very obvious and raising suspicious. It's no 40k carapace armor to say it lightly. There is a reason why the biggest shooting involving body armor on criminal side involved a pair of well coordinated bank robbers who have managed to make the fight a medium distance one, so they could take cover and protect each other when one got distracted by taking a shot to armor. But police training has changed since then, the typical nutjob situation means one guy facing cops in close quarters, and good luck finding a US cop who doesn't know what mozambique drill is.

Secondly, in principle this is the same kind of democrat idea of suppressing law abiding citizen's ability to protect each other as inane ideas like banning bulletproof glass in stores because reasons.

He is talking about every day people carrying vs Body Armor.
Which I say. If he is wearing a vest that can stop a full mag of 9mm ammo, and it is concealed what does he have...
Getting hot in the best is no walk in the park and will make follow up shots on that person easier

 

[posh-goofiness]

He is talking about every day people carrying vs Body Armor.
Which I say. If he is wearing a vest that can stop a full mag of 9mm ammo, and it is concealed what does he have...
Getting hot in the best is no walk in the park and will make follow up shots on that person easier

No one is going to casually shell out thousands for plate that stops a 9mm mag dump. They might shell out a few hundred for one or two plates that will take a single round each. Not to mention the latter is lighter and concealable.

That's not actually equivalent, because unlike body armor, in most states it's common for some civilians to have a gun with them while they're out and about. Ever heard of concealed carry?

Sounds like an argument to make concealed armor a more mainstream thing rather than restricting it.

 

[Zachowon]

No one is going to casually shell out thousands for plate that stops a 9mm mag dump. They might shell out a few hundred for one or two plates that will take a single round each. Not to mention the latter is lighter and concealable.

Sounds like an argument to make concealed armor a more mainstream thing rather than restricting it.

You would be surprised how many rounds some even cheap armor can withstand of 9mm.
Demo ranch makes plenty of videos about it

 

[Terthna]

"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.

Alright; now you have to establish that making a law that supposedly restricts access to body armor would accomplish that goal, which you haven't done as of yet. All you've done so far is dismiss everyone else's arguments.

 

[Battlegrinder]

These two statements would seem to contradict each other.

If "someone could get around it" isn't an acceptable argument against banning/limiting the availability of body armor, then how is "they might not have it when they need it" an acceptable argument for banning/limiting the availability of body armor?

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.

Sounds like an argument to make concealed armor a more mainstream thing rather than restricting it.

Right, well good luck to you on getting that cultural shift started then.

Alright; now you have to establish that making a law that supposedly restricts access to body armor would accomplish that goal, which you haven't done as of yet. All you've done so far is dismiss everyone else's arguments.

Ok, let's say we ban anyone under 21 from buying body armor. I think every mass shooter in the past ten years other than the Vegas guy would have been blocked from buying armor under that law. Given that unlike weapons, body armor isn't something these people need in order to accomplish their goals, it seems entirely possible that such a ban would stop any future would be mass shooter from copycatting the Buffalo shooting.

 

[Marduk]

Ok, let's say we ban anyone under 21 from buying body armor. I think every mass shooter in the past ten years other than the Vegas guy would have been blocked from buying armor under that law. Given that unlike weapons, body armor isn't something these people need in order to accomplish their goals, it seems entirely possible that such a ban would stop any future would be mass shooter from copycatting the Buffalo shooting.

Here's a better question.
How many mass shooters from the last 10 years who did use body armor were shot into it by a cop or armed citizen and then continued to kill people?

 

[Terthna]

Ok, let's say we ban anyone under 21 from buying body armor. I think every mass shooter in the past ten years other than the Vegas guy would have been blocked from buying armor under that law. Given that unlike weapons, body armor isn't something these people need in order to accomplish their goals, it seems entirely possible that such a ban would stop any future would be mass shooter from copycatting the Buffalo shooting.

How many mass shooters even had body armor?

 

[Battlegrinder]

How many mass shooters even had body armor?

One that I know of, but that will almost certainly change in the future, as these guys copycat each other. The Buffalo shooting copyed the "scrawl racist memes on my gun and livestream the shooting" bits from Christchurch, and all them consistent choose to use of an AR-15 despite it being just one of many equivalent rifles.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The thing is, body armor doesn't turn you into a Terminator, it just turns "Hole through your lung that kills in a minute or two" into "Broken ribs, bruises the size of a dinner plate, and agonizing disabling pain." I'm actually pretty suspicious of these claims that a shooter just shrugged off a hit like that, usually compared to a baseball bat to the ribs, and kept going because body armor, it sounds more like Hollywood than real life.

 

[Battlegrinder]

The thing is, body armor doesn't turn you into a Terminator, it just turns "Hole through your lung that kills in a minute or two" into "Broken ribs, bruises the size of a dinner plate, and agonizing disabling pain." I'm actually pretty suspicious of these claims that a shooter just shrugged off a hit like that, usually compared to a baseball bat to the ribs, and kept going because body armor, it sounds more like Hollywood than real life.

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.

 

[Marduk]

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.

True, but switching to armor with hard plates has certain trade-offs for mass shooters in particular. Not only this kind of armor is bulky and expensive, and not something people wear for personal protection usually, so its likely to raise suspicion because the sheer bulk is very hard to hide. Even then, the hard plates themselves cover 60-80% of front torso area, with some models also having side plates, which means that the reliability of stopping a magdump is also down to luck.
Even the heaviest, most expensive variants still don't make one into a terminator, because they still don't protect from pelvis (there are add-ons to protect from that and make one stick out even more) and thigh shots that can immobilize and bleed out pretty quickly.
Long story short, body armor is still not at the low sci-fi level of full body suits that allow someone to shrug off whole sprays of even pistol grade fire, its more of a "good chance" protection that focuses on survival by protecting areas where bullet wounds are most likely to cause death or severe risk of it even with best medical intervention. If you're lucky and the enemy cooperates it can shrug off dozens of rounds, but on the other hand one round going a few centimeters in the wrong direction can still kill or incapacitate.

As such, body armor has the most effect when combined with military style tactics and circumstances that encourage frequent use of low cover to shield unarmored legs, common use of helmets and other very conspicuous elements like faceplates, neckguards and groin plates, and a squad to provide cover when someone takes a painful and disorienting but not incapacitating hit, which without support can easily lead to taking more hits.

 

[Battlegrinder]

True, but switching to armor with hard plates has certain trade-offs for mass shooters in particular.
Not only this kind of armor is bulky and expensive, and not something people wear for personal protection usually, so its likely to raise suspicion because the sheer bulk is very hard to hide.

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.


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.

 

[Terthna]

One that I know of, but that will almost certainly change in the future, as these guys copycat each other. The Buffalo shooting copyed the "scrawl racist memes on my gun and livestream the shooting" bits from Christchurch, and all them consistent choose to use of an AR-15 despite it being just one of many equivalent rifles.

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.