(August 30, 2014 at 11:41 am)Endo Wrote:

(August 30, 2014 at 11:38 am)Diablo Wrote: 'Loaded post'

Oh, that. Hehe. I'm kinda slow today.

(August 30, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chad32 Wrote: I'm more concerned about firearm regulation than body armor. If type three protects against hunting rifles, then it's probably just bought to protect against idiots who drink while handling their firearms, so they don't have to resort to using orange clothes. If you can't tell the difference between a human in camo, and a deer, then you don't need to be out in the woods with a gun.

But more often, it's purchased and worn by "right-wing ultra-conservative gun nuts" who are usually ex-military and are involved in local militia groups, the Tea Party, and other sorts of debauchery. Knowing that, how do you feel?

For every person that's using something responsibly, there will always be people who aren't. We do have a problem with rightwing terrorist groups, and obviously the better geared they are the more of a problem they'll be for the police. Like anything else, it should be regulated, and at least with armor it's less likely to get someone killed. You're not likely to hear stories about kids getting into the closet, pulling out the body armor, and killing each other with it. It's defensive, not offensive, so I'm just less worried about it.

The only regulation regarding body armour that I'd like to see is that, if the runners aren't wearing 60lbs of bronze plate and carrying a shield, the race should be called something other than a 'Marathon'.

Boru

Yeah, like the original courier who carried the news of the victory at marathon was a hoplite or would have worn the entire hoplite panoply while running back to Athens. Classical Greek long distance messenger runners usually ran nude.

Only good guys should have body armour and guns. The bad guys should have neither.

That's it, sorted.

I do not understand the logic in limiting body armor.

(August 30, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Losty Wrote: I do not understand the logic in limiting body armor.

It makes them harder for our policemen to kill them.

Of course it should but the regulation should be based on how spikey it is.

(August 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It makes them harder for our policemen to kill them.

is there any legitimate argument for this? I mean, not necessarily one you agree with, but one that at least tries to make sense?

(August 30, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Losty Wrote:

(August 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It makes them harder for our policemen to kill them.

is there any legitimate argument for this? I mean, not necessarily one you agree with, but one that at least tries to make sense?

The notion that the State should have a monopoly on violence and assurance the most threatening aspects of its violence can't be nullified?

(August 30, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Losty Wrote: is there any legitimate argument for this? I mean, not necessarily one you agree with, but one that at least tries to make sense?

Probably because they think its the Hollywood indestructible body armor that you can be shot 50 times and carry on running around and diving through the air firing two pistols at the same time.