cąℓσceđrus ☁☽ Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 -three muslims shoot up california town -in response, democrats introduce bill to ban civilian possession of body armor does this make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think an assault rifle ban, and mandatory background checks would make more sense ... but I reckon the body armor industry doesn't have the same lobby power as the gun industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cąℓσceđrus ☁☽ Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 assault rifles are banned in california why would banning body armor be a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFFIRMATIVE Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Here we go again ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Wait, why would they ban body armour? Why would anyone wear body armour? I mean, body armour isn't hurting anybody, what purpose would a ban serve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted December 3, 2015 Administrators Share Posted December 3, 2015 I believe the idea is that regular, law-abiding civilians don't generally purchase or wear military-grade body armour, whereas terrorists can and do legally, which could encourage them to commit violent crime as they can protect themselves somewhat from return fire. Seems a weird argument though, as if making it illegal will stop terrorists using it? Like... they're fucking terrorists, they clearly aren't that fussed about the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I believe the idea is that regular, law-abiding civilians don't generally purchase or wear military-grade body armour, whereas terrorists can and do legally. Seems a weird argument though, as if making it illegal will stop terrorists using it? Like... they're fucking terrorists, they clearly aren't that fussed about the law? I believe the idea is that regular, law-abiding civilians don't generally need military-grade body armour, & that sometime, civilians cross a line, which ends in the cops being forced to shoot them. At that point, the harder it is to get body armour, the less likely it is they will wear it (not per se a linear relation, but still ...) <cheap shot> then again, with the amount of shootings in the US, perhaps people do need body armour </cheap shot> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 you see comrade, in order to kill the terrorist, you must shoot the accurate shot of head, for will be of no body armour there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrecks Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm rather astounded that people think that banning certain things will magically solve the issue. Terrorists, or criminals in general, aren't exactly following these laws anyways. There's always going to be a way for them to get their hands on these things. The only thing banning civilian body armor would hurt is the general public, but then again, no one really walks around with a vest on at all times. TL;DR, I think it's pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xolono II Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
get miked m8 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Wait, why would they ban body armour? Why would anyone wear body armour? I mean, body armour isn't hurting anybody, what purpose would a ban serve easier to shoot to kill (as Jeremy Corbyn of UK labour would say) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 easier to shoot to kill (as Jeremy Corbyn of UK labour would say) Corbyn's allies in Hezbollah would know a lot about shooting to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÐøømMãgñ€t Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Why don't they ban terrorist... Everything would be solved then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted December 3, 2015 Administrators Share Posted December 3, 2015 Why don't they ban terrorist... Everything would be solved then. lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Why don't they ban terrorist... Everything would be solved then. How exactly do you "ban terrorist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squidling Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think an assault rifle ban, and mandatory background checks would make more sense As a Brit, I reckon that 'Murica will always have a gun problem; it's like when you tangle controller wires so much that it becomes too much of a chore to unwind them, so even though it causes problems you leave it. Slightly laboured simile aside, there have been 'attempts' to lessen this sort of thing (Hi-cap magazines needing a special licence, plans for background checks, and so on) but nothing is going to stop someone who is determined enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Noob Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 As always: Mass shooting occurs -> let's do everything except get rid of guns because that will solve the problem somehow Countdown until next mass shooting: 1 week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Penguins Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 As always: Mass shooting occurs -> let's do everything except get rid of guns because that will solve the problem somehow Countdown until next mass shooting: 1 week We did try to get rid of some high power guns. NRA put a quick stop to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syndaz Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 assault rifles are banned in california why would banning body armor be a good thing? Despite ban, thousands of assault weapons remain legal in California. Uzi's, AK-47s, AR-15s, Bushmaster semi-automatic rifles – all are banned by California's Assault Weapons Control Act. Yet thousands of the guns legally remain in the state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
λngelღмander Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 You can't ban terrorists from using things. You can ban a law abiding citizen from owning high powered rifles and body armor, but there is no possible way, no matter how stringent the gun laws in this country, that we will ever stop terrorism. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the highest/nearly highest murder rate involving firearms. Criminals will get guns if they want to, and they will get body armor if they want to, and no damn laws are going to stop them. It may sound a bit trite to say this, but banning firearms only prevents innocent people from protecting themselves. Terrorists aren't just disobedient citizens, they're connected to and serving the muslim extremist groups, who have thousands of guns at their disposal. If a terrorist couldn't find a gun in the USA, they could hit up their buddies in Syria for some AK-47's and go shoot up a church. Taking away guns both violates the second amendment, and only harms citizens at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Noob Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 You can't ban terrorists from using things. You can ban a law abiding citizen from owning high powered rifles and body armor, but there is no possible way, no matter how stringent the gun laws in this country, that we will ever stop terrorism. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the highest/nearly highest murder rate involving firearms. Criminals will get guns if they want to, and they will get body armor if they want to, and no damn laws are going to stop them. It may sound a bit trite to say this, but banning firearms only prevents innocent people from protecting themselves. Terrorists aren't just disobedient citizens, they're connected to and serving the muslim extremist groups, who have thousands of guns at their disposal. If a terrorist couldn't find a gun in the USA, they could hit up their buddies in Syria for some AK-47's and go shoot up a church. Taking away guns both violates the second amendment, and only harms citizens at large. Lazily pointing to Chicago and saying "look gun control doesn't work because people died there" isn't really a good argument. Nevertheless, I've found some interesting numbers. Australia: no open carry, concealed carry in vehicles only, no carry without permit, gun checks, gun registration: .86 gun-related deaths per 100K people Japan: restricted issuing altogether: .06 South Korea: reduced issuing, heavy regulations on all types of carrying: .06 UK: reduced issuing, heavy regulations on all types of carrying: .26 Netherlands: reduced issuing, heavy regulations on all types of carrying: .46 The list goes on and on, these are just a few. USA: no license, open carry/concealed carry in many states, no checks/registration in many states: 10.5 So explain to me why we couldn't implement similar restrictions in the US and work towards similar results? You're basically saying, "people who want to get guns will get them no matter what, so let's not do anything and pretend the problem doesn't exist" which is asinine to say the least. Do you think the gun violence in Chicago is because of terrorists? Where are all these terrorists from? Are they dropping out of the sky? The gun violence in Chicago is not only because of the obvious racial and socioeconomic tensions and the abundant gang violence there, but also because you can simply drive an hour to Indiana or Ohio and buy whatever gun you damn well please. So is the problem really the gun control in Chicago, or do you think maybe it has to do with the fact that you can get any gun you want in the neighboring states and drive in with it hidden in your car? Another thing, focusing on Chicago, which is in Illinois. Illinois doesn't allow concealed weapons of any kind. In 2005, there were 451 murders in Chicago, 75% of which were estimated to be gun-related murders, giving us about 340 gun-related murders in Chicago. In 2010, there were 2.8 gun-related murders per 100,000 residents in Illinois, which proportions out to about 360 for the entire population of Illinois (12.88m). So of the 360 murders, 340 of them were in Chicago, in a state with the strictest gun control laws in the USA. If we take the 340 murders out as well as the population of Chicago itself (2.72m), that leaves us with 20 murders for 10.16m people which is about .2 murders per 100K people (which is extremely low). So is it reasonable to say that just because there is high violence in such a distraught city as Chicago (partially for reasons explained above) that the gun control there isn't working on the whole? I don't think so. I'm sorry, but unless you can provide something more substantial to support your argument I don't really buy the "let's do nothing because it's hopeless" solution. We might as well apply that perfect solution to every problem we face since not everything can be solved with 100% guaranteed success. Also, the second amendment has been twisted and obscured to suit the argument of the gun nuts in this country. The original intent was to keep alive a formed militia in case the government got out of control and a rebellion was necessary. When you discover a way to beat nuclear weapons, fighter jets, and tanks with your shotgun I'll be ready to hear why the second amendment isn't basically useless now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabaers Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Also, the second amendment has been twisted and obscured to suit the argument of the gun nuts in this country. The original intent was to keep alive a formed militia in case the government got out of control and a rebellion was necessary. When you discover a way to beat nuclear weapons, fighter jets, and tanks with your shotgun I'll be ready to hear why the second amendment isn't basically useless now. I hate this "you'll never defeat the government so don't bother" claim. A massive portion of US troops would defect if the government went to war with its citizens. The United States is a nation of 350+ million people. Assuming only 1/5 of those fight, the severely crippled military is fighting a force of 70 million with millions of guns and vehicles. Troops and will defect if they haven't at the start after seeing hundreds of their countrymen slain by their hands. They will never drop a nuke without having the rest of the world pissed off beyond belief. The military fighting against us is a war they would have lost from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Noob Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I hate this "you'll never defeat the government so don't bother" claim. A massive portion of US troops would defect if the government went to war with its citizens. The United States is a nation of 350+ million people. Assuming only 1/5 of those fight, the severely crippled military is fighting a force of 70 million with millions of guns and vehicles. Troops and will defect if they haven't at the start after seeing hundreds of their countrymen slain by their hands. They will never drop a nuke without having the rest of the world pissed off beyond belief. The military fighting against us is a war they would have lost from the start. Regardless of whether or not that's true, the minute possibility of that happening still doesn't warrant letting everyone own a gun so they can go shoot people in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Taking away guns both violates the second amendment, and only harms citizens at large. I'm not american hence I don't really understand why this is one of the more popular stances on gun control which is quoting an outdated law and naturally assume it should work the same now. When the amendment was made guns didnt have 12rounds in a single clip which can be fired consecutively or a rifle which can shoot 30 rounds giving people the power to gun down an entire block in a few seconds if they ever felt like it. Also instead of looking at Chicargo as your example which is still within the America surrounded by states where others have access to guns why not look to other countries which actually have gun laws there are countless examples eg Australia, Japan, South Korea, the UK practically all developed countries...etc all which show gun control can and does work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3.50 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 You can't ban terrorists from using things. You can ban a law abiding citizen from owning high powered rifles and body armor, but there is no possible way, no matter how stringent the gun laws in this country, that we will ever stop terrorism. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the highest/nearly highest murder rate involving firearms. Criminals will get guns if they want to, and they will get body armor if they want to, and no damn laws are going to stop them. It may sound a bit trite to say this, but banning firearms only prevents innocent people from protecting themselves. Terrorists aren't just disobedient citizens, they're connected to and serving the muslim extremist groups, who have thousands of guns at their disposal. If a terrorist couldn't find a gun in the USA, they could hit up their buddies in Syria for some AK-47's and go shoot up a church. Taking away guns both violates the second amendment, and only harms citizens at large. Yikes, mate. What are you, 18 years old and a registered member of the NRA? Do some research, please. Find out what actually happens when you have stricter gun control laws. Use numbers, not opinions. (Your info on Chicago was cherry-picked to support your argument, at best. Compare to other countries where things are actually noticeably different.) And remember this: There's no such thing as an "innocent" person. Your so-called innocent, law-abiding citizen is easily-panicked, poorly-trained (if trained at all), very inexperienced, and has terrible judgment. Also, they can't aim for shit, and have little understanding of ballistics. They're probably more likely to shoot someone by accident as they are to prevent any harm. Finally, look up the number/percentage of people in the USofA who have mental disorders. Still think they should all have guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.