Are Criminals Entitled the Same Protection?

[Aphex_Twin]

I have recently read something about a special decree passed in several US states.

In short, it makes it illegal for past criminals to own and/or wear a bullet-proof vest.

Do you think this is right?


The idea came after a gunman wearing such a vest, equipped with an AK47 terrorized a neighbourhood, the police being unable to stop him because of the vest.

 

[thestonesfan]

Depends on what kind of criminal. Violent criminals probably shouldn't be able to buy one.

 

[useless]

at least u get to kill them!

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Depends on what kind of criminal. Violent criminals probably shouldn't be able to buy one.

Violent criminals are usually in jail and have little chance to ever get out. But when some criminals are out, society generally sais they have paid the price and should be treated again as "equals".

 

[carlosMM]

In our societis, bullet proof vests are NOT normal tools everybody has. They rather are a form of defensive arm. What would you want with one? You do nto get shot at!

As with handguns and rifles, you should not be able to buy one without need without a license if you have a criminal record.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No, they should only wear the mark of Cain.

 

[Speedo]

No, they shouldn't be able to buy them. I don't think they should be available to the general public at all.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Speedo
No, they shouldn't be able to buy them. I don't think they should be available to the general public at all.

But if guns are available to the general public...

 

[Speedo]

But if guns are available to the general public...

If you need a vest it means one thing: you're expecting to get shot at. If you're in the public and expecting to get shot at, then you're either planning on committing a crime, or you're in some kind of trouble and should be talking to the police and getting a vest from them.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Folks, remember, a bullet resistant vest WON'T protect against shots to other parts of the body, and may not protect the torso completely against shots from the side. If someone is wearing such a vest, you can still kill them with a shot to the face.

Hell, you can probably still knock them down by shooting them in the torso. And if you do nothing more, its going to leave one hell of a bruise.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by phoenix_night


But if guns are available to the general public...

then your country has a problem - a big one!

but then, doesn't it make sense to still limit vests? because the vest will usually be worn to faciliate a crime, while hte use by non-criminals is restircted to oneinamillion chances OR those who should get them anyways, with a license and from the police.

 

[useless]

they might get a cheap bullet vest! but it might be useless any way! :slay:

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Why limit the sale of vests? What about a shopkeeper in South Central Los Angeles who wants some measure of protection against the inevitable armed robbery?

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Speedo
If you need a vest it means one thing: you're expecting to get shot at. If you're in the public and expecting to get shot at, then you're either planning on committing a crime, or you're in some kind of trouble and should be talking to the police and getting a vest from them.

So why the need for guns?

And of course, where's the sense in allowing the general public to access guns but not any protection against them?

 

[Speedo]

Why limit the sale of vests? What about a shopkeeper in South Central Los Angeles who wants some measure of protection against the inevitable armed robbery?

I can see in that case. But they should be obtained (or require a license) from the local police, and they should require a valid reason for trying to get one. I believe now they're available to anyone with the money. (a good vest with level IV trauma plate will run you $500-600 IIRC)

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by ShiplordAtvar
Why limit the sale of vests? What about a shopkeeper in South Central Los Angeles who wants some measure of protection against the inevitable armed robbery?

why have armed robberies? time your country did something against the fact that anybody can get a gun, and that most guns are owned by criminals!

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by phoenix_night


So why the need for guns?

And of course, where's the sense in allowing the general public to access guns but not any protection against them?

No need for guns.
and vests are NOT good pretection against guns - unless you want to wield a BIGGER gun with impunity... bad boy! bad terrorist! go sleep!

 

[Speedo]

the fact that anybody can get a gun, and that most guns are owned by criminals!

Sorry, that's entirely incorrect on both counts.

 

[useless]

guns are for protection!

 

[phoenix_night]

@Speedo,
I'm trying to understand your reasoning of allowing guns, but not the vests. Well?

You say "If you need a vest it means one thing: you're expecting to get shot at. If you're in the public and expecting to get shot at, then you're either planning on committing a crime, or you're in some kind of trouble and should be talking to the police and getting a vest from them." Why does this not apply to guns as well?