The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **fieldy snuts** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:34 pm

Back to the wackjob, how did he acquire that body armor legally? I thought after the West Hollywood bank robbery, body armor was illegal for the average person nationwide unless they got special permits.

by **achilles** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:36 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:Back to the wackjob, how did he acquire that body armor legally? I thought after the West Hollywood bank robbery, body armor was illegal for the average person nationwide unless they got special permits.

I have no idea.

by **Thunderstorm** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:36 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:Back to the wackjob, how did he acquire that body armor legally? I thought after the West Hollywood bank robbery, body armor was illegal for the average person nationwide unless they got special permits.

I think it's the type. The Hollywood folks had some serious shit on, but I've seen less effective body armor for sale since then.

by **Victorian Squid** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:42 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:Back to the wackjob, how did he acquire that body armor legally? I thought after the West Hollywood bank robbery, body armor was illegal for the average person nationwide unless they got special permits.

Nope! While places that supply tactical armor can refuse to sell to civilians if they choose:

"All body armor is legal to buy, any civilian. Whether it be tactical body armor, concealable body armor. It’s just more or less, store by store, what they choose to sell to whom,” Bellia said.

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Store- ... z21OjN9uWo

In fact, he probably used student grant money from the federal gov't to buy it.

by **achilles** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:45 pm

McDarkseid wrote:
Nope! While places that supply tactical armor can refuse to sell to civilians if they choose:

Interesting. I wonder how much it is? For a nice typical set of tactical body armor that is.

by **Victorian Squid** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:46 pm

achilles wrote:
Interesting. I wonder how much it is? For a nice typical set of tactical body armor that is.

From the same link:

Bellia said the amount of gear that James Holmes was wearing during the time of the shooting could have cost anywhere from $2,000 to $3,000, and anyone can buy the same protective gear because there is no required background check by state or federal law when it comes to that type of protective gear.

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Store- ... z21Okns3LE

by **fieldy snuts** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:53 pm

McDarkseid wrote:
Nope! While places that supply tactical armor can refuse to sell to civilians if they choose:

Well that's fucking dumb.

For the record, IMO, that and firearms sales need to be regulated a lot heavier. I find it hard to fathom why people deserve the right to buy assault rifles, submachine guns and even heavy machine guns freely. Don't outright ban then, but for fucks sake, make the truly overpowered ones that much harder to obtain.

And regarding your second amendment rights, when that was added it was a product of it's time in 1791 to protect the states from oppressive federal government or invaders by allowing them to form militia's. While at the time most people had was rifles and muskets...a few rich people actually owned warships armed to the teeth so they could wage private wars. You can't really apply that setting to this day and age.

Different era.

by **habitual** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:57 pm

achilles wrote:
Interesting. I wonder how much it is? For a nice typical set of tactical body armor that is.

For a nutjob the guy definitely had some nice firearms and other gear.

I'm really curious as to what type of explosives his apartment was filled with.

Hab

by **Victorian Squid** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:59 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:
Well that's fucking dumb.

For the record, IMO, that and firearms sales need to be regulated a lot heavier. I find it hard to fathom why people deserve the right to buy assault rifles, submachine guns and even heavy machine guns freely. Don't outright ban then, but for fucks sake, make the truly overpowered ones that much harder to obtain.

And regarding your second amendment rights, when that was added it was a product of it's time in 1791 to protect the states from oppressive federal government or invaders by allowing them to form militia's. While at the time most people had was rifles and muskets...a few rich people actually owned warships armed to the teeth so they could wage private wars. You can't really apply that setting to this day and age.

Different era.

Why do you hate freedom, fieldy? :wink:

by **fieldy snuts** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:03 pm

McDarkseid wrote:
Why do you hate freedom, fieldy?

I really should've bought that shirt the first time I saw it =/

by **TROY** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:28 pm

Has anyone posed this question in the thread yet: What do you guys think should happen to the shooter? Life in Prison, Life in Mental Institution, Death Penalty?

If I were one of the cops, and this is the reason I could never been one, I would have put two bullets between his eyes when I walked on the scene. That obviously not being what happened, I don't think the guy even deserves to have a trial by his peers. He freely admitted to doing what he did, there is a theater full of witnesses that saw him do it, and he was arrested right there at the scene of the crime. So why waste time and money for the trial, and feeding and clothing this asshole until the trail is over. I say go ahead and publicly execute his ass and show the other fuckers in the world that are even thinking about doing some shit like this that we are no longer going to tolerate their insane bullshit any longer.

by **LobsterJ** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:44 pm

I vote for life in jail with no possibility of parole, but I assume he will get the death penalty.

by **Thunderstorm** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:48 pm

Line the victims families up and let them take turns, then kill him.

by **Ntikrst** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:51 pm

fieldy snuts wrote:The problem with that train of logic is this: how many aggravated assaults and others with deadly weapons will become escalated to shootings?

It's nice to imagine all gun owners will be safe and reasonable, but putting that sort of faith in humanity is beig a bit too optimistic.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the cornerstone of international diplomacy, I don't see why it wouldn't enforce diplomacy and restraint among people when it works so well with sovereign nations.

As far as gun owners go, they should be trained before they carry. If I can put my faith in a police officer I can certainly put my faith in a private citizen who has completed a comparable training course. Most cops never fire their weapon so it's not like they all have a vast degree of practical knowledge in gunfighting.

by **Ntikrst** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:56 pm

Thunderstorm wrote:
I agree, but in a big crowd several people firing through smoke and chaos could be a bigger disaster. It is interesting these 'highly intelligent' shooters seem to pick areas where people can't have guns.

But trained shooters don't fire blindly into smoke and chaos for the same reason police wouldn't. Police don't have magic powers, they just have a little more time at the range.