3 Pittsburgh Police Officers Murdered

[Ice]

Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.

EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?

Oh get off your high horse already. Notice how i said Ak 47 and Kevlar vest. Did I say all guns? No I did not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh get off your high horse already. Notice how i said Ak 47 and Kevlar vest. Did I say all guns? No I did not.

How about you stop pretending to be naive about what you tried to do with this post. You posted a deadly and tragic shooting and asked why do we allow such guns and armor to be allowed, to get pissed over this turning into another gun control debate is idiotic. Thats like posting a story about a stupid 13 year old having 6 abortions asking why she is allowed to do such a thing and then getting pissed when it turns into a giant abortion debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: Yeah, go ahead and flag me mods, I don't care at this point.

[Ice]

How about you stop pretending to be naive about what you tried to do with this post. You posted a deadly and tragic shooting and asked why do we allow such guns and armor to be allowed, to get pissed over this turning into another gun control debate is idiotic. Thats like posting a story about a stupid 13 year old having 6 abortions asking why she is allowed to do such a thing and then getting pissed when it turns into a giant abortion debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: Yeah, go ahead and flag me mods, I don't care at this point.

I'm not going to flag the mods... not sure where you got that idea.

I'm not trying to be naive at all. For the record, I do approve of gun ownership, just on a very restricted basis. I do not believe anyone needs/should be allowed to own an Ak47.

From the description I don't see that the ak-47 was an issue over a regular gun. It says they were shot in the head at close range.

I was more directed toward the fact that he was able to suppress police long enough for the officers to die, although I do admit I'm not sure how much help would have done. We will never know. Would a lower caliber weapon done less damage?

he questions here are "how long does it take to put body armor on" and "how hard is it to make"?

I don't know a lot about it but I can't imagine it takes long to put on or is particularly hard to make. They made a vest out of bathroom tiles on mythbusters that stopped a 9mm

I've just never heard of anyone using body armor for home defense. I very well could be wrong, but that is the impression I have.

[Lemur]

Actually, body armor is restricted on a State-by-State basis. Some States ban it for civilian use outright, others just make it a felony to commit a crime while wearing the stuff (if this seems pointless to you, consider how a DA can heap up the charges on a defendant; throwing in another violation makes it that much worse for the criminal).

Body armor is not protected under the Second Amendment, and nobody has made a serious argument that it is.

That said, I did a long article for a now-defunct publication on the subject of body armor, and most of their clients had genuine needs. Businessmen traveling to dangerous areas, for example, or public figures with multiple stalkers. One guy even told me about selling a Spectra-lined coat to a woman who was afraid of her ex-husband, who mad threatened to shoot her on more than one occasion.

I don't see how you could have hoped to avoid this turning into a gun control thread, what with your premise. Seems kinda ... naive ...

[Xiahou]

Actually, body armor is restricted on a State-by-State basis. Some States ban it for civilian use outright, others just make it a felony to commit a crime while wearing the stuff (if this seems pointless to you, consider how a DA can heap up the charges on a defendant; throwing in another violation makes it that much worse for the criminal).

It still sounds pointless. I can just imagine some guy getting ready to go out and shoot up a bank... "Let's see, where's my body armor- oh wait, better leave it, that'd be a felony to wear while robbing a bank."

To the OP...
People always try to use isolated, statistically insignificant emotional appeals to tell everyone else what they "need" or don't "need". It's a poor basis for decision making.

[Lemur]

I can just imagine some guy getting ready to go out and shoot up a bank... "Let's see, where's my body armor- oh wait, better leave it, that'd be a felony to wear while robbing a bank."

You're looking at it purely as prevention, which it is not. Talk to any DA or public prosecutor, and they'll explain the benefit of being able to pile up the charges on a violent criminal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're looking at it purely as prevention, which it is not. Talk to any DA or public prosecutor, and they'll explain the benefit of being able to pile up the charges on a violent criminal.

I can see how that would be useful, but it seems like it would be a bad thing in general. If they wish to increase the penalty for robbing a bank then they should do so directly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not going to flag the mods... not sure where you got that idea.

I'm not trying to be naive at all. For the record, I do approve of gun ownership, just on a very restricted basis. I do not believe anyone needs/should be allowed to own an Ak47.

I was talking to the mods not you. I just don't understand the concept of approving gun ownership then restricting what and how much the public can buy when the criminals themselves don't follow the gun laws and buy them illegally on the black market, which are usually untraceable. The only people you are preventing getting guns are the law abiding citizens.

[Ice]

I was talking to the mods not you. I just don't understand the concept of approving gun ownership then restricting what and how much the public can buy when the criminals themselves don't follow the gun laws and buy them illegally on the black market, which are usually untraceable. The only people you are preventing getting guns are the law abiding citizens.

I never liked that argument. I would venture to guess that most people don't exactly know where to go to buy an Ak off the black market

I don't see how you could have hoped to avoid this turning into a gun control thread, what with your premise. Seems kinda ... naive ...

That was the point of the thread. To clarify, I do not want a legal battle. This is why I asked to exclude the Constitution from decision. A logical debate about gun control is fine though.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor. Reasons such as "I need the armor when the entire country collapses and descends into total anarchy" should not be a good reason to purchase armor.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I never liked that argument. I would venture to guess that most people don't exactly know where to go to buy an Ak off the black market



That was the point of the thread. To clarify, I do not want a legal battle. This is why I asked to exclude the Constitution from decision. A logical debate about gun control is fine though.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor. Reasons such as "I need the armor when the entire country collapses and descends into total anarchy" should not be a good reason to purchase armor.

Law abiding citizens don't, criminals do. Again, criminals are different from the average person, it is their life to to buy these weapons and commit crimes with them. It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

EDIT:
Also who has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

Half of the consumer products people buy nowadays are backed up with as little reasoning as buying some body armor.

[Ice]

Law abiding citizens don't, criminals do. Again, criminals are different from the average person, it is their life to to buy these weapons and commit crimes with them. It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

What's stopping otherwise law abiding citizens from using these weapons incorrectly in either a crime of passion or in a premeditated manner?

Also who has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

The government already does this to many things. Unless you are in favor of absolutely no government intervention, this argument does not hold weight.

Half of the consumer products people buy nowadays are backed up with as little reasoning as buying some body armor.

I agree, but so what? An easy bake oven does not equate to body armor.

[ajaxfetish]

It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

I'm sorry, but I can't help myself. It should be "Especially on bigger forums than the org)."

Ajax