Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

In Australia, it is illegal to import body armour without prior authorisation from Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.[69] It is also illegal to possess body armour without authorization in South Australia,[70] Victoria,[71] Northern Territory,[72] ACT,[73] Queensland [74] & New South Wales.[75] In 2009 Tasmania considered passing control legislation as well.[76]

The sole purpose of body armor is to prevent people from getting killed by bullets. How is that a bad thing worth criminalizing?

I mean, I guess you could argue that people who expect to get shot at are probably planning on doing something illegal. It still feels like one of the crappiest possible ways to reduce gun violence.

[Leafsnail]

Body armour makes it much more difficult to stop someone, I guess.

[crazysheep]

It still feels like one of the crappiest possible ways to reduce gun violence.

Banning body armour alone would be a crap way to reduce gun violence.. but Australia also has gun laws in place alongside the ban on body armour.

[penguinofhonor]

I still don't see how that would accomplish anything more than just a gun ban would.

[zombie urist]

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

[Flying Dice]

Banning body armor does the same thing as banning assault rifles and the like: it makes it theoretically more difficult for serious criminals (organized bank robbers and the like) to arm themselves, but does fuck-all about the fact that the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, or that legally purchased and owned weapons are still quite often used in crimes or stolen and then used in crimes. Maybe it's a useful step, I'unno. I remember an old video of a bank robbery where two guys with AKs and body armor managed to kill a whole ton of police officers because they could shoot straight through cinderblock walls and so forth, and the ordinary PD couldn't get through their ballistic vests or w/e for a lethal hit.

e: THIS

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

Seriously, let the crazy militia types have their private armories; they mostly live out in the boonies anyways. If we're going to muster the political capital to get some reforms passed, start with a blanket ban on handguns. That leaves out hunting weapons, and still allows the possibility of shotguns or whatever for home defense. Handguns are the first and foremost issue in gun crime: they're cheap, concealable, easily disposable, and incredibly common.

[Steelmagic]

As someone who likes guns (can't find a less irresponsible sounding way to say that) i don't particularly care for handguns anyway. I prefer assault rifles, which may actually put me at least on the border of the crazy militia types, but i swear I'm not a crazy militia type. Not like i could afford to be one anyway.

EDIT: I should also add that when i say assault rifle i mean a semi-automatic AK-74, not a select-fire AK-74.

[Yoink]

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

That is awesome. 

[Sheb]

The logic is to prevent criminals from being unstoppable with normal police handguns. Less of an issue in the US where it seems every police department got enough military gear to equip a small army, but some other countries have other spending priorities.

Plus it has other benefits: if criminals have access to body armor, the police need to have access to bigger, more dangerous weapons, which means more of them are going around and as it has been pointed out they can be stolen and stuff.

[DJ]

Law should be standard police equipment anyway, for pun opportunities if nothing else.

[Sheb]

"Rule of law" now sounds a lot more badass.

[zombie killer]

Banning body armor does the same thing as banning assault rifles and the like: it makes it theoretically more difficult for serious criminals (organized bank robbers and the like) to arm themselves, but does fuck-all about the fact that the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, or that legally purchased and owned weapons are still quite often used in crimes or stolen and then used in crimes. Maybe it's a useful step, I'unno. I remember an old video of a bank robbery where two guys with AKs and body armor managed to kill a whole ton of police officers because they could shoot straight through cinderblock walls and so forth, and the ordinary PD couldn't get through their ballistic vests or w/e for a lethal hit.

e: THIS

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

Seriously, let the crazy militia types have their private armories; they mostly live out in the boonies anyways. If we're going to muster the political capital to get some reforms passed, start with a blanket ban on handguns. That leaves out hunting weapons, and still allows the possibility of shotguns or whatever for home defense. Handguns are the first and foremost issue in gun crime: they're cheap, concealable, easily disposable, and incredibly common.

and handguns are the easiest to illegally make, because you need less material, and the best for a legally carrying person to carry. banning wont do anything, what with all the guns floating around, the best way to reduce crime would be to employ more people, with government programs, somewhat like they did in the depression. but banning weapons will not really help that much.

[Remuthra]

All that banning something will do is keep those who follow the laws from using it.

[zombie killer]

I've heard body armor is illegal in Australia as a result of a high-profile bandit using homemade metal armor. True? Because at least we can have armor here.

Who, Ned Fucking Kelly? Man's practically a hero in the eyes of most folk, for some reason; he was the subject of the first feature film ever made, for Chrissake.

I don't actually know whether armour is allowed in Australia, but it's something of a moot point, as we don't let random jagoffs walk around with guns, either.

implying that others let random jagoffs have guns?

USA?

who, exactly, are random jagoffs, and who, exactly, lets them. i am honestly curious as to the precise meaning of the statement.

on an unrelated note, would someone move this to a different thread if they want to debate weapon control laws and such? i would enjoy debating, but i am still looking for a knife for a good price.

[nenjin]

If spring-loaded knives aren't illegal where you live, and you have at least one "head shop" (Exotic Gift Store, they go by different names), I'll bet my bottom dollar they have at least a couple. I can also say the quality may not be all there and it will priced over wholesale....but if you want one that badly it can't hurt to take a look.

(I worked at one in a state where they're not legal, and we still had a couple switchblades and angel blades. Under the counter, of course. So I can only assume head shops in your town will carry them.)