Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
dude, I can't believe you just dumped me like that.
|
Pfft, I totally just broke up with you via Facebook. You never check that,
Duh-wain! You could have taken the "It's Complicated" in my relationship status as a hint, ya know? Ugh, you're so 1997.
...
Seriously:
I think anything that has a "shoot 'em up" military application is likely to come under scrutiny when involved in crimes and I wanted to see what TFP thought about this.
Body armor just seems like something else that could be lumped in with other "militant nut manly-man man-ness man-tiques" (Roachboy, my feelings?
Seriously? You're so not my Facebook friend anymore either!) silliness because people don't think about prevalence, incidence, and crazy shit like... oh, I dunno...
actual application. I wanna explore this stuff.
Such one-chunk categorization of "manly man-ness" is Starbelly-Sneetched goofitude and has lead to laws that cater more to the emotions of the technically and statistically ignorant than any actually Tokyo-stomping monster. Clearly outlining subcategories is important in any debate or so I've been taught. Vast generalizations are for crappy journalists and Crompsins, not for legislators or Real Academics (TM).
SEE: Bayonets, grenade launchers, "assault weapons characteristics," .50 BMG, Class II and III use in crime vs. legislation.
This thread wasn't ever intended to suggest that I'm waving the
Wolverines! flag of screw-the-law... I was simply asking a survey question. I know that state laws vary and that purchasing and owning body armor in other countries is not nearly as free in the US, where you can buy it online and have it shipped to your door. Some countries have laws that ask the question, "Why do you need to stop bullets aimed at your torso?" I was just wondering if anybody here thinks that our country may think those kinds of laws are a good idea.