Proposed Ban on Type III or Higher Body Armor

[Rick 67]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

same argument used for window tint

I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night.

Don

my buddy got pulled over and ticketed last week for having tint that was darker than allowed.
he said the LEO approached the vehicle with his hand on his gun. He told him that it was a danger to him (the LEO) because he could not see what was going on in the vehicle

I have ridden in that truck at night. Maybe it is my old eyes but it was harder to see.(he even has a lighter tint on the windshield)

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[rehmwa 2]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

isn't "armour" some kind of hot dog?

Isn't it French for "love"?

It's French for 'love of hot dogs'.....but it loses something in the translation for sure

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[riggerrob 558]

...
I'm more on the fence about the body armor issue. If enough cops get shot by criminals wearing protective armor, I think a reasonable argument can made that these things should be made illegal. Also when the armor is too heavy it compromises the wearer's ability to move, and it's not comfy when hot.


so, it's apparently another 'where do you draw the line' discussion on how much big brother do you want then?

..................................................................................

May I suggest drawing the line at the 70 pounds of armour?
That 70 pounds should be a MINIMUM.

Police should be able to fine, arrest, imprison, "beat like a rented mule" any bad guy caught wearing sissified, lady-like, light-weight, concealed, pistol-only body armour.

However, bad guys who are tough enough to wear the 70 plus pounds of armour routinely worn by American, British, Canadian, etc. troops hiking in the mountains of Afghanistan, should be treated differently. A heavily-armoured the bad guy should be allowed to go free. The bad guy would be required to wear full armour, all-day, every day in the heat of a Miami summer. If the bad guy can still run away from the cops in full body armour, up a steep hill, then he stays out of jail.

How is that for perverse old-soldier logic?
Hah!
Hah!

[normiss 622]

So there's these van things...you can't see anything through the steel.
Should we make glass houses to protect the cops from us too?

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

So there's these van things...you can't see anything through the steel.
Should we make glass houses to protect the cops from us too?

see? now that's out of the box thinking - what traditionally is called a liberal idea

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

normiss

So there's these van things...you can't see anything through the steel.
Should we make glass houses to protect the cops from us too?

As I said I'm "on the fence", it's not a huge issue to me. However for the sake of discussion:

1. Delivery/work vans have a well known purpose, which often requires shelving/storage on the inside. Requiring them to be made of glass would mean they could not be used for their designed purpose. They do, however, have to have windows around the cab for the driver to see. Discussions about "tint" could apply to those.

2. I mentioned that very dark tints, dark enough to obscure the inside of the cab, will also interfere with the driver's ability to see. To your way of thinking, is it unreasonable to require that the driver's vision not be impeded? Is there any room for the concept of "public safety" in your world view? Or, is it perfectly OK for people to be driving around with most of their vision obscured, so that at night they can only see what is directly ahead in their headlights, but nothing to either side such as parked cars, cars approaching on cross streets, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc?

3. Though you may think it should not happen, it is a fact that police will be more jumpy approaching a vehicle where they cannot see the driver, passengers, etc. Under such conditions it is more likely that overreactions will occur. I don't see how you can reasonably demand that police not be on their guard under these circumstances, given the history of police being ambushed.

Of course you can take an all-or-none approach that any limitation on the amount of window tint is unacceptable "big brotherism". The FAA requires rigs to have a reserve, and that reserve has to be inspected and repacked every 6 months. Is that "big brother"? Reserves and repacks are expensive, and containers could be cheaper and smaller (="cooler" to some) if they didn't need room for a reserve. Do you favor repealing the rule, and letting people jump without a reserve if they choose to be so reckless? Would you favor that even if the consequent death toll led to the government banning skydiving altogether? Or is requiring reserves a reasonable compromise (a term I realize does not exist in the libertarian lexicon) that ultimately helps preserve our freedom to jump at all?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

3. Though you may think it should not happen, it is a fact that police will be more jumpy approaching a vehicle where they cannot see the driver, passengers, etc.

If the want to use the argument about not being able to see inside the vehicle to see what is going on in the car as they approach why do they allow you to completely tint, and I mean 0% light transmission your rear window, or any other windows besides the front row seats and windshield? In other words if you have a 4 door truck you can black out all the windows but the front row and windshield. This would block anyone from seeing what is going on in the second row of seats, and passenger front if you approach from the rear of the truck to the drivers side.

Anyone that has approached a vehicle from the rear in such legal conditions knows that you cant see the driver until you are at an almost 90 degree angle to the vehicle. If you are on the side of the road doing this you would have to walk out about 25 feet into traffic, or a ditch in an arc to "slice the pie" on the driver without walking right up the side of the truck and be 2 feet from him before you ever see the person.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

If the want to use the argument about not being able to see inside the vehicle to see what is going on in the car as they approach why do they allow you to completely tint, and I mean 0% light transmission your rear window, or any other windows besides the front row seats and windshield?

Who (or where) is "they"? I'm pretty sure the amount of tint, and other issues involving obstruction of vision, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It seems quite risky to me to completely obscure the rear and side windows. Risky to everybody else on the road, that is, not just to the driver. However it seems some would say that should not be a consideration.

Here is a link to a web site that lists tint laws state by state. There is a lot of variation. I am surprised at the number of states that allow the rear and back side windows to be completely blacked out.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Anvilbrother 0]

Louisiana. Your right they did change it from Limo(0%) to 25% and 12%. Its been a few years since I have dealt with tint issues. Still at that levels in the day, and especially dusk and night the officer will not see occupants until he is a few feet from the window unless he comes at the vehicle in an arching motion. Either way if someone was looking to do harm they have the jump on him.

Quote

Back Side Windows Must allow more than a total of 25% light in. Transmission through glass. *(MPVs allow any light transmission)

Rear Window Must allow more than a total of 12% light in. Transmission through glass. *(MPVs allow any light transmission)

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Stumpy 256]

Wow. Only in the US could there be a problem with criminals shooting cops wearing body armour, and the body armour is the problem?!

Oh yeah that's right, guns don't kill people, body armour does.

Maybe next they will ban walls because a criminal shooting you might stand behind one.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[normiss 622]

I tend to make sure my window is fully down (with the understanding that nothing in the law requires that and I'm free to be a jerk to the cop by only opening it an inch) and my hands are on the steering wheel.
I don't make a move for anything until asked to.


They do tend to ask if there is a weapon in the glove box when I reach for my papers. "No sir. It's in the holster clipped to the underside of the steering column. "Nice" seems to be the typical response, followed by detailed instructions on retrieving my papers, while he takes a step back and places his hand on his holster.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Sounds like the sensible thing to do, good on you.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[champu 1]

GeorgiaDon

Do you favor repealing the rule, and letting people jump without a reserve if they choose to be so reckless? Would you favor that even if the consequent death toll led to the government banning skydiving altogether? Or is requiring reserves a reasonable compromise (a term I realize does not exist in the libertarian lexicon) that ultimately helps preserve our freedom to jump at all?

You're phrasing is as though the banning of skydiving altogether is a naturally-occurring consequence of too many people not having a reserve. That's the part that gives me heartburn as a libertarian. The natural consequence of not requiring a reserve is that you will probably see some more deaths and the public image of skydiving will be degraded. Skydiving doesn't just "become banned" in the passive voice.

It ceases to be compromise when the only alternative presented is further and more draconian regulation by the government. In the example of my original topic, it's not compromise if you say, "There was an incident involving body armor... let us ban some body armor now or we'll ban all body armor after the next incident. (which, btw, we may do anyway if there's another incident.)"

[rehmwa 2]

Stumpy

Wow. Only in the US

do a few of you just have that on copy/paste to save time?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[craddock 0]

GeorgiaDon

It seems quite risky to me to completely obscure the rear and side windows. Risky to everybody else on the road, that is, not just to the driver. However it seems some would say that should not be a consideration.

??? Is that why tractor trailer, dump trucks, ton'ers with dump box, cube vans, box vans, on and on have such a high accident rate?(they don't). Clearly you have not driven anything other that small passenger vehicles, never pulled and RV or any enclosed trailer. I always now who is behind me because I watch it unfold continuously.

Is it really that amazing that anyone can navigate the grid with anything other that a Prius? Like a women backing up. Learn to use your effing side mirrors! Those that can't are the ones I worry about!

And my tinted front windows on my explorer do suck. It messes with me backing up all the time at night if I do not roll them down

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

??? Is that why tractor trailer, dump trucks, ton'ers with dump box, cube vans, box vans, on and on have such a high accident rate?(they don't).

Is it your argument that the average 18 year old car driver has the same skills as a trained tractor-trailer driver? What state do you live in? I live in a college town and I can assure you most of the drivers around here suck. You're quite fortunate to live in a place where every driver on the road has professional skills.

Quote

Clearly you have not driven anything other that small passenger vehicles, never pulled and RV or any enclosed trailer.

AFAIK we have never met, yet you claim to know my driving history? Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that I drove a concrete mixer truck for a year while saving up money for university.

Do you really think your experience applies to everyone else on the road? Are you truly unaware that the world is full of people who have their own experiences and skills, which might actually be different from yours? And what is it that you've got against women?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[grue 1]

I don't know about other states, but body armour is illegal in Victoria. Granted, Victoria is a police-run nanny state full of completely risk-adverse pussies, but still.

cavete terrae.

[regulator 0]

riggerrob

...
I'm more on the fence about the body armor issue. If enough cops get shot by criminals wearing protective armor, I think a reasonable argument can made that these things should be made illegal. Also when the armor is too heavy it compromises the wearer's ability to move, and it's not comfy when hot.


so, it's apparently another 'where do you draw the line' discussion on how much big brother do you want then?

..................................................................................

May I suggest drawing the line at the 70 pounds of armour?
That 70 pounds should be a MINIMUM.

Police should be able to fine, arrest, imprison, "beat like a rented mule" any bad guy caught wearing sissified, lady-like, light-weight, concealed, pistol-only body armour.

However, bad guys who are tough enough to wear the 70 plus pounds of armour routinely worn by American, British, Canadian, etc. troops hiking in the mountains of Afghanistan, should be treated differently. A heavily-armoured the bad guy should be allowed to go free. The bad guy would be required to wear full armour, all-day, every day in the heat of a Miami summer. If the bad guy can still run away from the cops in full body armour, up a steep hill, then he stays out of jail.

How is that for perverse old-soldier logic?
Hah!
Hah!


I'd take that bet if I was a little younger. You should try some 20+ mile road marches with well over 100+ pounds of gear and rarely were we walking. However today after I just turned 45 a few days ago...well it would be alot tougher on this old body. I'd probably make it 5 miles if I was determined.

[kallend 1,623]

champu

This bill is in its infancy, and I don't actually think it will go anywhere, but I'm curious as to what people think about representatives proposing laws like this, as a gesture or otherwise. What does this law say to you when you read it?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344/text

To save you the trouble of looking it up, type III basically means anything that will stop rifle rounds.

Silly idea.

History shows that in the ever continuing tussle between offensive weapons and defensive protection, the offensive weapons win.

Knights in expensive mail armor defeated by cheap long-bodkin arrowheads (Crecy, Agincourt). Expensive plate armor defeated by cheap musketry. Wooden fortifications defeated by trebuchets. Stone castles defeated by cannons. Armored warships defeated by armor piercing warheads. Expensive tanks defeated by inexpensive rpgs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lurch 0]

I can see where this is going... 200 years from now the cops will be using spread-spectrum rapid-cycling pulse lasers that go from IR to UV 300 times per second to drill through any color armor, the gangsters will be using extended-spectrum polymerized sapphire first-surface mirror armor to defeat it, and the cops will be trying to ban it...
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[Bertt 0]

Quote

... in the heat of a Miami summer. If the bad guy can still run away from the cops in full body armour, up a steep hill,

A steep hill in Miami ?? You Canadians crack me up. And yet, you somehow manage to walk among us, virtually unnoticed. now for the good stuff:

Quote

In response to a Guns.com article published last week, California congressman Mike Honda issued a statement about the references he used during the Aug. 6 introduction of his controversial bill to prohibit the sale of body armor to civilians.

“[W}hile speaking about my introduction of The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, I referenced a shooting in Riverside County, California. My staff has been informed that some of the information I gave about that shooting, specifically that the shooter was wearing body armor, was based on media reports at the time which have turned out to be inaccurate,” Honda said.

“The errors in this reporting were repeated in the materials that we used to prepare for Wednesday’s press conference. We should have done a better job of researching this particular case before using it as an example.”

He also said he “misspoke” when detailing the incident where the suspect, Alex Anderson, 34, got into a shootout with police in multiple locations in Moreno Valley. He said two law enforcement officials were killed, when in fact two civilians — an 86-year-old grandmother and her 58-year-old son-in-law — were killed and a deputy was wounded.

The early and inaccurate news reports used were published by NBC Los Angeles and The Press Enterprise.

Additionally, Honda described the shooter as wearing body armor, when he was not. However, Honda still thinks his bill has merit.

“While this incident did not involve a gunman wearing body armor, there have been too many other cases where a well-armored gunman has injured and killed citizens and police officers,” Honda said. “This bill seeks to help law enforcement protect us, and themselves, in an active shooter situation.”

That's right. The Congressman didn't even have his facts straight. Now, there's a fucking surprise.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[champu 1]

Bertt

That's right. The Congressman didn't even have his facts straight. Now, there's a fucking surprise.

His bill could have been mistakenly banning body glove (the wetsuit manufacturer here in Redondo Beach) and he'd issue the same press release saying despite the misunderstandings his bill still had merit. Politicians that dig in like this make me throw up in my mouth a little.

But, Honda is a representative for silicon valley and he nails all the rest of the democratic social bullet points so he can do whatever he wants when it comes to firearms, body armor, etc. and there's no risk of him losing an election.

I wish republicans would put forward candidates that basically are the exact same platform as their democratic opponents, but pick one or two things that the democrat is actively doing that's ridiculous like this and then just... not do those couple things.

[riggerrob 558]

"... a shooting in Riverside County, California. ... some of the information ... that the shooter was wearing body armor, was based on media reports at the time which have turned out to be inaccurate,” Honda said.

“The errors in this reporting were repeated in the materials that we used to prepare for Wednesday’s press conference. We should have done a better job of researching ...
The early and inaccurate news reports used were published by NBC Los Angeles and The Press Enterprise.
...

That's right. The Congressman didn't even have his facts straight. Now, there's a fucking surprise.

...................................................................................

The surprise is that he trusted the Riverside Press Enterprise.
The other surprise is that I used to read the Press Enterprise when I worked in Perris Valley, California.

Maybe California needs to hire more Canadian-trained journalists.
For example, Canadian media got the story of the soldier shot at our National War Memorial accurate and early and did not need to publish any retractions.
Even more amazing was the famous American journalist (Anderson Cooper?) who did accurate on-the-street, same-evening reports from Ottawa. He was standing on a street corner half-way between the National War Memorial and the Parliament Buildings.

[rifleman 61]

I think that the problem is that some journalists nowadays focus on sensationalism rather than remembering Kipling's "Six honest serving men" - What, Why, When, How, Where and Who.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation