Sign in to follow this  
Kavinsky

A ban on type 3 (rifle proof) body armor?

Recommended Posts

Kavinsky

I was just checking through my gun youtuber's for old times sake (as I havent done that in years, since the end of 2012) and I came across this video from sooch00

 

 

 

and apparently a Cali Democrat by the name of Mike honda, and 3 others are trying to get body armor, not pistols, guns or knives, Body armor, type 3 that can take rifle bullets banned for civilian use.

 

and I really dont see how this is wise in any form, like this seems to be a knee jerk reaction to them seeing some fiction on TV or something.

Edited by Kavinsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James

Don't want to sound crazy, but - I think they're getting everyone ready for the NWO, they want to be able to shoot to kill people who refuse to be locked up in a FEMA camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt5

That article in the news today about a 9 year girl accidently shooting her instructor in Arizona at a teaching driving range with a machine gun  !? The world is going mad.

Edited by Matt5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MetroVice

One thing to note about the shooting incident involving the 9 year-old girl... I don't think she was using a full-auto Uzi, as the article never said it was the full-auto model. Still, the semi-auto model is a very poor firearm to be learning to shoot with. That said, most of people's responses have capitalized on the idea the girl was using a full-auto Uzi, or a "machine gun", which is simply not true. Although I still cannot fathom how any shooting instructor would allow a little girl to use such a firearm for instructional purposes, it clearly did happen. One of the articles of this incident made sure to point out that "some Uzi models can fire xxxx rounds per minute", which implies the gun she was using was a full-auto model. As completely irrelevant as this information was in relation to the accident, they still felt it necessary to include this useless info which is likely what incorrectly made people *assume* the girl was using a full-auto Uzi when it was not. I believe that is the only reason why one such publication included such irrelevant info in their little article to begin with, which is so typical of today's journalism. They include little tidbits of otherwise irrelevant information knowing good and well it will make people assume the gun in question was full-auto when it was just a standard semi-auto model.

 

Having said this, this wasn't the girls fault and the truth of it is this could have happened with ANY handgun. Perhaps she should have first learned to shoot using only ONE round in the gun until becoming completely familiar with it. Sadly, shooting accidents happen all the time, and as dumb as this one was, they also happen to law enforcement personnel on a regular basis so as terrible as this was it doesn't change my position on people's ability to have and use firearms. Proper instruction means everything...

Edited by MetroVice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kavinsky

That article in the news today about a 9 year girl accidently shooting her instructor in Arizona at a teaching driving range with a machine gun  !? The world is going mad.

 

yet again? jesus christ when will these instructors learn that kids can not handle recoil like an adult and give them one in the clip, not a full one, as to make sure they can safely handle the recoil of the gun first.

 

as this has happened before, here in MA as a matter of fact, back in 07 I heard of this with a young boy and it was the same kind of thing, why didnt they give the kid only one in the clip.

 

as what happens is that the arms are not strong enough to hold the gun properly and their not strong enough absorb the recoil, so it goes off, the trigger releases, and the recoil forces force it up and back.

 

up towards the persons head, and well you can guess the next grusome part as they pull the trigger by accident while trying to hold onto the gun.

 

 

and this not only applies to this particular instance, but in general to everyone as my father often told me of a story where some woman had a .44 magnum in alaska in the 1960's

 

 

single action ruger, she goes to fire it, the recoil forces of the first shot point it towards her head and then somehow she recocked the gun for the second shot in all of this.

 

and yet again same gruesome end of story.

 

 

and theres even video of a close call on the internet with a double action magnum 500

 

 

same damn thing, the recoil forces are just too much for her body frame and well that damn near repeated there

 

 

I mean in the same way you dont give a Ferrari or a 427 Cobra to an 18 year old, or even some 20 to 30 year olds without proper training, you dont give anyone who hasnt shot before a 44 magnum or a semi auto variant of a gun that is designed to go full auto, or any with more than one in the gun before you know they can handle it

 

after all for every reaction there is an equal or opposite reaction in the land of Physics.

Edited by Kavinsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kavinsky

Don't want to sound crazy, but - I think they're getting everyone ready for the NWO, they want to be able to shoot to kill people who refuse to be locked up in a FEMA camp. 

 

I think its more them preying on the ignorant, and the law makers themselves being heavily ignorant themselves, after all no amount of body armor or metal work hanging off of you

 

 

 

is going to prevent heavy blunt force trama from being implemented onto what is essentally a bag of water and guts being held together by a rigid skeletal system after getting hit by a rifle, I mean all body armor does is prevent the object from going in, it doesnt stop or absorb the force of the object hitting you, atleast not fully

 

and hell Ivan Drago did actually Bruse Sly Stalones heart in the rocky films, so do you really think body armor is going to stop someone like that, who has the punch that is the equavalent of getting hit by a non ground hog (.223) round, like a 30 - 06?

 

 

as the main idea of body armor is it stops blood loss which is what takes people out of a fight and prevents infection,

 

after all hollowpoints were banned from Military use back then given the kind of infections they gave people when they got hit by them during the first great war, and it was a general concenious too amongst all of the nations given the primative medical tech of the time, plus the fact that it was neighbor vs neighbor back then too.

 

after all that is the reason why they've used ball ammo for years.

 

plus if you've ever had your wisdom teeth removed, you know how much those two .35 caliber sized missing teeth take you out of action for a few days.

 

in my case it was atleast 4.

 

but I guess Mr Mike Honda thinks that body armor turns you into this:

 

 

in which in that case, the blunt force trama of a car would come in mighty handy in that particular instance, or confiscate a bank van and hit him with the bloody thing.

 

and why would you take him on one on one with a lousy pistol too.

 

plus this is the world of stun guns and mace too no less, amongst other things that could defeat such things, along with the immobility such heavy armor would cause.

 

so the whole idea of banning it, is quite ridiculious when you look at it logically and objectively

Edited by Kavinsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
damrod


"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kavinsky

Good words, although I think the real issue is that people refuse to look into the psychology of these people who do these horrendious things, and thus opt to blame something that is blameless in itself by definition

 

the thing that was used by said person, as this has happened recently with the Paul Walker incident, and the car that was used in the accident, a V10 Porsche Carerra GT (a Car I've never liked as its just ugly to me) And since the driver who killed him is dead, their opting to blame the car instead.

 

not the man who refused to respect the machine, and was behind the wheel, but the car itself, much like a reverse of what happened with James Dean and the porsche 550, where since the driver who crashed into him by accident survived and not him, they blamed him for the rest of his life and never let him alone, when in truth it was an accident in both cases, and people just cant let go because they feel an emotional connection to it

 

such as with things that are universal when it comes to kids getting hurt or innocent people getting killed by a sycophantic mad men who's seen too many PG13 movies to realize just how horrendious the thing is that he is doing

 

http://miamiviceonline.com/index.php/topic/12134-the-problems-with-pg-13/

 

as I'm starting to think that they key with depciting things like this, is that you have an obligation to show it as is, not PG ified so you dont get people who think this is anything to be taken lightly, the opposite of the Marry Whitehouse approach

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Whitehouse

 

such as they used to do in the old days of the 1980's, like Vice did with the subject of what happened to Evan, no holds bar about how bad it is to ostracize someone like that, and the lack of resposibility and the ability for people to protect people, young people namely from Bullies like that are what I think is part of the cause of alot of this stuff, as it creates outsiders who are living on the edge, and the people who are likely to do this kind of crap.

 

as humans are a social creature by definition, and it takes real will to hold it together under the opposite of those conditions,

 

and alternatively they fail to use this as a proper punsihment in prisons for gang members, as solitary confinement for everyone in gang would actually be a proper punishment for these criminals, not just a hey lets  hang out in the lunch hall like your at school with your buddies who also got locked up kind of punishment like it seems to be,

 

like I saw they were doing in LA with them, where they just stuck all the members of one gang in with their fellow buddies, rather than keeping them all separate and in separate white rooms with as little contact as possible to break their social dependance on each other.

 

 

and the last, most recent thing I saw that actually showed it as is, more or less fiction wise, was Mad Max Fury Road, and I was impressed with the way they depicted marksmanship with the rifle in the blue scene, and how he actually put in that sound effect of what would actually happen if you fired a rifle that close to ones head.

Edited by Kavinsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this