Are Criminals Entitled the Same Protection?

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Speedo


Sorry, that's entirely incorrect on both counts.

hm, anyone can get a gun - legally, or if not because of a criminal record, illegally.

I was exagerating a bit here, but most handguns that are in use are owned illegally. You won't go shoouting a shopowner with a hunting rifle, admittedly, so I discounted them. And forget about old the elderly people who have a gun lying in the closet that hasn't been dusted in 200 years.

 

[Speedo]

So you're saying that most guns that are used illegally are owned illegally? Great, how does gun control help that then?

Why does this not apply to guns as well?

Guns have many legitimate, legal uses. Target shooting, hunting, collecting, to name a few.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

What is it that distinguishes a law-breaker from a law-abider? The former do not obey laws.

If someone is already willing to break the law by using firearms for unlawful purposes (eg armed robbery, murder) or using outlawed firearms (eg sawed off shotguns, AK-47s), why would they be willing to obey a new law that says the same things?

All that is going to happen if firearms are completely banned is that only criminals will have them, which means criminals will know they will have the advantage in any situation, leading to more crime.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Speedo
So you're saying that most guns that are used illegally are owned illegally? Great, how does gun control help that then?

no, most games that are not used for hunting or gathering dust are used illegally. But I read a statistic somewhere that more than 60% of al shots fired outside shooting ranges (i.e. controlled circumstances) are fired illegally - including hunting!

Guns have many legitimate, legal uses. Target shooting, hunting, collecting, to name a few.

Don't make me laugh! Sports alone accounts for a large number of guns - but when was the last time some mid-level executive bought a 44 to go buck-hunting?

No, gun laws in the US are ridiculous. Have it as we have it: if you want one you need a permit, may not transport it unless in a locked case, may not keep it except in a locked safe etc. A public weapon is as good as a stolen weapon, and then these guns are on the black market. Don't let them get there in the first place!

Admittedly, it is a bit difficult once so many guns ARE out there. We had it easier in Europe.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

I say that if criminals are viewed as more dangerous than noncriminals then why even let them out of jail? Is the purpose of prison not to reform? Therefore, the problem lies in the prison system and is what we should be arguing about, not some little law about vests.

 

[Lyonesse]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
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.

WOW! Interesting. What type vest was it? And what the heck were the police firing with? LMAO

Some will be surpised to find out that MOST "bullet proof vests" aren't necessarily so.

As actual police officers know, the vests that they wear are “bullet-resistant,” not “bullet-proof.” The body armor comes in a variety of grades. The higher the grade, the bulkier and less comfortable the armor is to wear, but the more ammunition that it can stop.

At the top of the scale is Threat Level IVA armor, which is ceramic, and can stop even a high-powered rifle bullet. It takes a very strong vest to stop a big-game hunting-rifle bullet: The bullet travels at very high velocity, due to the long length of the rifle barrel; and has a high mass, since a hunting-rifle bullet must be large enough to bring down a moose, elk, or other large mammal. The main people who wear Threat Level IV or IVA ceramic hard armor are SWAT team members on high-risk missions.

Far more common for ordinary police use is “soft” body armor made from Kevlar, and rated at Threat Levels II through IIIA. Level II armor can stop some handgun ammunition, while Level IIIA can stop almost any handgun bullet. Handgun ammunition is much easier to stop than rifle ammunition, since the handgun barrel is much shorter (less velocity) and handgun bullets are smaller (less mass).

Needless to say if this guy was wearing only "soft" body armor than a shot from a good rifle should have brought him down. Also just because this guy had a vest on does not mean that a police sniper couldn't take him down. I would guess that any "good shot" with rifles could have brought this guy down, there are other places to shoot than just the torso area.

As whether or not this individual should have access to the vest....I would assume. like guns, if you really want one you'll be able to get it. Just because it is "illegal" does not mean they will be unobtainable. So I guess I would say no, he shouldn't be able to buy one, but in reality whether legal or not, if he really wants it there will be a way to get it. Damned if you do damned if you don't