Guns stay, but certain things should be banned...

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I read this article over at
urbansurvival.com...



Missed in the discussion are several important facts, not the least of which is that in almost all of these mass shootings, body armor was worn by the perpetrator. So while I believe the Second Amendment is a great thing - and the right should not IMHO be impinged, there is no right to buy body armor. For a truly eye-opening experience, click on over to __________ and search "body armor" and see what you come up with. I found a "Buy It Now" set of military body armor for $400-bucks.


The second gives the right to bear arms, and its a good right, but lets be honest, what are you buying body armor for? A fashion statement? A corset?
No, the only reason you have body armor is to hit the offensive. You don't wear it on a daily basis, cause it just chaffs.

I agree with the article which states that cabbies and others, such as police are the only ones who really need to be wearing such an item.

What do you think?
edit on 17-12-2012 by winterkill because: added material




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by winterkill
I read this article over at
urbansurvival.com...



Missed in the discussion are several important facts, not the least of which is that in almost all of these mass shootings, body armor was worn by the perpetrator. So while I believe the Second Amendment is a great thing - and the right should not IMHO be impinged, there is no right to buy body armor. For a truly eye-opening experience, click on over to __________ and search "body armor" and see what you come up with. I found a "Buy It Now" set of military body armor for $400-bucks.


The second gives the right to bear arms, and its a good right, but lets be honest, what are you buying body armor for? A fashion statement? A corset?


Just in case those deer and squirrel start to shoot back?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


Pretty good point and interesting take. I think all these things need to be discussed, mulled over to form some decisive plan.

The correct answer will not infringe on individual rights and yet will go a long ways toward solving the problem.

The correct answer will examine all causes to this most recent heinous crime and address each contributing factor on it's own accord.

Mental illness,
Lack of treatment facilities or resources for parents,
Anti-depression drugs suicidal side effects,
A poor health care system,
The vulnerability of schools,
The proliferation of guns
and the ease with which criminals manage to get guns away from the "good guys."

For example, mental illness which eventually translates into health care and treatment options for people with mentally unstable and volatile children. It appears to be vital for all of us to get a grip on this. What about all the behavioral medications and anti-anxiety meds that warn of an increase in suicidal feelings? Perhaps they should not be prescribed to every child with serious behavioral problems?

RE: The "only criminals will have guns" argument, keep in mind the mass murders of late were not committed by criminals - they were just somebody's kid. We might need to regulate the way people secure their guns since 1.4 million were stolen from cars and homes 2005-20010. May as well be handing the gun to a criminal by storing it in your glove box. Something we could look at before banning anything.



cabbies and others, such as police are the only ones who really need to be wearing (body armor)

Very probably true. Solutions such as this make a lot of sense too. If people work together with their goal being to save people, in front of their desire to save assault weapons, will find some answers to satisfy both the pro and con- gun groups who seem to be driving the discussion.
edit on 17-12-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Body armor was not warn by these guys. The MSM is getting tactical vest mixed up with "body armor" Body armor is already very hard to get your hands on. Just like “assault weapons” , Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons. These are already federally ban. Its all a play of words the MSM uses to scare people into giving up there rights.

A tactical vest is easy to get your hands on. its used for paintball and airsoft wars. Some airsoft vest are interchangeable with real world tactical vest. They even have plate pockets for armor inserts. but getting the armor plates themselfs are hard. Most companys, even though its legal to sale, will no sale to the public.
edit on 17-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 



How exactly is body armor an offensive device?'

You get hit while wearing armor you're still going down. In horrible pain with cracked ribs and bruised organs.

Of course you could be decked out head to toe in tank plating but isnt that obvious sight enough to put anyone around the walking tank on alert?

Why cabbies? Because they work with the random public all day and night? So then that should include cashiers, librarians, mailmen, bank tellers, cooks, dog walkers, babysitters, etc.....



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 

Well you will need body armor when they come for your guns, of course. Most of these mentally insane shooters who wear body armor end up killing themselves anyway so why bother to wear it (except it might help them to access that "warrior state of mind" which is a prerequisite perhaps to going beserk,,,,same for the camo and/or black clothing). Do you want to outlaw certain types of clothing also?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by winterkill
 

Well you will need body armor when they come for your guns, of course. Most of these mentally insane shooters who wear body armor end up killing themselves anyway so why bother to wear it (except it might help them to access that "warrior state of mind" which is a prerequisite perhaps to going beserk,,,,same for the camo and/or black clothing). Do you want to outlaw certain types of clothing also?


the whole "they are wearing body armor" thing is stupid. THEY DID NOT HAVE ARMOR ON!!!!! Why shoot yourself in the head when you have armor on? why even put it on? You put it on to have a shoot out and in both large shootings the shooter shot himself in the head or just gives up. dont you think its strange?
edit on 17-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Quoting myself from another post.




I think, wherever one lives when it comes to democratic countries, that the laws are more than sufficient. We don't need more laws. What we need is more education, and in the case of U.S.A. and Canada, FAR stiffer penalties.

I know a man, shot and killed his "associate" that owed him money. Buried him, used lyme to help the decomposition of his body. In court, he said they were "hunting", and he thought his friend was a moose. He shot him in the back of the head with a bow. He said he panicked and buried the body. He said he was sorry. He was sentenced to 5 years for careless use of a weapon causing death. He served 3 years.

My uncle, drank a lot, drove semi truck. Drunk, killed a family heading home after a vacation. I was 4. I remember him coming to my 6th birthday after I was told he was overseas "working". 2 years. Really? No wonder criminals don't care about our laws. More laws will equal a population requested policed state.

Have fun with that.




new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join