This is something that goes beyond the gunz/no-gunz thing.
This is the ultimate bullshit.
>Be me
>Ausfailia
>Body armour is illegal
Seriously?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest#Legality
Will they try to regulate also the size of my pants?
My question is:
- What serious arguments have been proposed by government officials or MPs in order to support such legislation? They cannot be arguments such as the no-guns ones, because a ballistic vest is passive self-defence.
I will not accept answers such as: "it's the government who wants to fuck citizens from behind by banning ways to defend oneself". This may be the implicit agenda, but I wanna know the official reasons!
Please don't tell me it's some Common Law bullshit. E.g. it happened once with Ned Kelly and then for the next 200 years you are not allowed to wear body armour. It can't be like that!
>>28018042
>Please don't tell me it's some Common Law bullshit. E.g. it happened once with [someone] and then for the next 200 years you are not allowed to wear body armour. It can't be like that!
I hate to burst your bubble but thats pretty much exactly what I heard the reasoning was.
Fuck this nanny state
>>28018042
How are the police supposed to shoot you to death if you have armor on?
Sauce on the armor in Oapie's pic?
>>28018057
I found this file in an article:
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature-protection-racket-military-body-armour-business-booming/
Haven't read it yet. Not sure if I want to know much about the body armour cartels.
>>28018042
Wanting body armour = poofta
>>28018053
I have just said that I wanted to know the explicit reasons provided by governments.
The implicit ones may be the ones you quoted, yet it's not an answer to my question.
>>28018042
>dat body armor
Someone's been watching Aliens
>>28018042
Its pretty easy
if the people can arm and protect themeself, the goverment wich wants authoritary powers will never com te power.
But if you disarm people and they dont have bodyarmour, they will not last as long as with this stuff.
All other bullshit told is just a strawman and nothing more.
The rhing that you even ask is a proof that you already got caught in their trap.....
>>28018051
I kinda like Common Law systems.
The judiciary is greatly empowered and can respond more swiftly to changes in the social fabric, thus overturning sentences that were useful at the time, but would be bullshit nowadays.
It also creates a very lean system. It is true there is a lot of ancient crap being kept for no purpose, but, in the end, the meaningful codes are shrinked down to the essential, so that you can easily skip that 13th Century bullshit without having to pass a bill to cancel it. You just ignore it.
On the contrary, Civil Law systems aim at making a structure evolve in time. However, they always require such legal network to be updated from above, and even though constitutional judges can rule against something unconstitutional, generally speaking they have to merely shut their ears and apply what is written. Brief, you have this artefact, the Civil Law system, that can only be programmed by the Admin without allowing users to make adjustments on the run.
However, seldom we run into issues that are still relevant today, but they aren't anybody's top priority... so we have to carry the burden of past choices and wait for politics to move their ass.
>>28018042
You can thank this Hipster Dickhead.
That said, if someone is going to shoot up the place the law aint going to stop them.
>>28018042
because we're a fucking nanny state.
Same reason they ban a bunch of retarded weapons like nunchucks or switchblades or whatever weeaboo stuff.
>>28018042
only terrorists use body armor
>>28018090
Source here: >>28018082
>>28018099
Anon, do you even care to read OP before answering?
E.g.:
>>28018042
>I will not accept answers such as: "it's the government who wants to fuck citizens from behind by banning ways to defend oneself". This may be the implicit agenda, but I wanna know the official reasons!
Another e.g.:
>I have just said that I wanted to know the explicit reasons provided by governments.
>The implicit ones may be the ones you quoted, yet it's not an answer to my question.
Dear anon, do you read questions or are you just triggered by the title and put in the microwave the first ready-made answer you keep in your freezer?
>strawman and nothing more.
You tell me to ignore official arguments.
Yet you are unable to quote what these arguments are.
So go fuck yourself, merrily. Merrily get a tree trunk inserted into your arse, possibly with its rough bark scratching against your rectum walls.
>>28018090
THAT'S why I instantly fell in love with it.
>>28018145
>>28018151
Again.
Nobody able to quote the official reasons.
>>28018142
Ned Kelly was not a hipster, but actually a pro-gun.
If you cared to read the Jerilderie letter, he may have misrepresented some facts (e.g. the theft of some cattle). However he is right in complaining that police enforcement was unfairly targeting the Irish people and that they stormed his mother's house and tore it apart and threw her food on the floor with the excuse of looking for him.
What reason do you have to own body armour? Are you going to wear it around all the time? If your profession requires it than you're able to buy it, they're illegal because they see the potential for criminal abuse which lets be honest, are the only group of people besides guards and shit(who are able to get it anyway) that are likely to get use of it.
>>28018168
no seriously if i could i would buy body armor but i would only ever wear it realistically if there are some riots or civil war
>>28018169
How's that boot taste?
>>28018169
"Hi, I'm from the nanny state, the world is a potentially dangerous place. Come inside our protective bubble where you have everything you need. And ONLY what you need."
>>28018169
the smaller soft vest pads and shit could be worn pretty comfortably every day by people. I'm not OP though. I'd probably only wear it if I was forced to go through somewhere particularly dodgy.
I'd actually be significantly more interested in a stab-proof vest desu considering how much more often knives are used.
>>28018053
This
There's countries in Europe where you can even get charged for wearing a leather jacket or thick clothes when the police wants to beat you.
>>28018201
>>28018208
>ask a question
>get a reasoned response
>hurr durr, muh freedoms
>>28018220
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdtKbq3Omkw
>>28018169
this desu
>>28018156
I said what is the reason. And its true.
If he says " why is this and that, but dont answer xyz" than he diesnt want the true anseer but is just trolling
>>28018169
Because I want to. And in the situations where you need it and not have it, there is no substitute.
>>28018199
lol i looked it up i remembered wrong it's not even banned in my country. they just wanted to ban it but it didn't go through basically ballistic vests are unregulated.
fuck you op now i have to buy one.
>>28018230
This. Same reason for carrying a CCW.
>>28018230
Like what situations? Do you prowl the streets at night looking for crime to fight?
Make your own, a hardened steel plate isn't difficult to acquire.
For soft armour see here, he claims it'll stop 9mm fmj.
http://www.tarantulapettingzoo.com/diyFlakJacket.html
>>28018241
>Its 4 am
>You're awaken to a crash at the front door
>>28018241
You don't need to 'prowl the streets at night' to be accosted by an armed criminal.
>>28018254
Yes, I'm sure you'll have time enough to slip on a plate carrier before you go and get your gun that's locked in a safe.
>>28018257
Which goes back to my "are you wearing it around at all times" question.
>>28018270
I have had to put my boots on, my flight suit top on, grab my weapon, run to my aircraft and then put my body armor and flight vest on. Allowing enough time to get airborne in 15 minutes from being alerted. It isn't hard.
>Implying I'd keep my home defense weapon in a goddamn safe.
>>28018234
what should i buy /k/ what is good enough for a civvie concealable and does not break my bank account? i saw some vests for $1000 very convincing but a tad too much for me.
something for 2-300?
>>28018298
>15 minutes
When Dazza breaks down your door I'd think you'd want to get your weapon first and foremost instead of picking out an outfit.
>Implying I'd keep my home defense weapon in a goddamn safe.
It's illegal not to do so here and if you don't care about breaking the law than there's no reason not to get a vest.
>>28018169
>What reason do you have to have free speech?
>Are you going to talk all the time?
>If your profession requires you to write and speak and you are able to afford to pay the media...
>...but they're illegal because they see the potential for criminal abuse of free speech (like inciting rebellions)
>criminals, let's be honest, are the only group of people besides politicians and shit (who are able to get free speech anyway) that are likely to get use of it.
Dear anon, what you've just read is called "analysis". In philosophy, analysis is what you do when you take statements and you try to substitute terms with other terms of the same class to see if the statements actually hold.
>>28018321
get a good door that gives you 5 minutes problem solved.
i have a steel door multiple points of bolts with an extra bar lock across it.
i could drink a coffee brush my teeth pick something nice to wear don a star wars imperial storm trooper armor unlock a safe assemble a gun load a mag rack it and he still wouldn't be halfway through.
>>28018321
That's getting dressed AND starting a goddamn helicopter to the point of going wheels up in under 15 minutes.
>>28018042
where the fuck do you live? Aleppo?
>>28018328
Looks more like dodging by way of false equivalency to me.
>>28018383
>These type of people
>on /k/
If the point of banning/restrictions of firearms is to reduce the level of violence by removing a means to do violence in a country, or to reduce the effectiveness of it, then you also ban any device specifically designed to stop firearms.
The logic being, in theory, if you make it easier to get defenses against firearms, then the need for more powerful firearms goes up. Law enforcement ("the system", "the man", whatever) requires more powerful weapons that are easier to get, the gap between law enforcement and the public widens, and this either leads to police misconduct (or some other systemic abuse of power) or some of the restrictions on firearms lifted in order to reduce that gap.
I doubt that's the actual reason, but if you asked me to come up with some justification, that'd be it. It's nanny state bull, so the actual reason probably falls somewhere between the appearance of public safety and sociopaths in power making more rules for the "peasants" beneath them, when we all know the rules don't apply to them, whether or not it's explicitly stated.
>>28018396
*dodging the question
>what reason is there to stick a needle in my eye
Gee, i guess there isn't and therefore free speech should banned.
>>28018396
What legitimate reason is there to outright ban armor?
>>28018412
It isn't outright banned and i gave reasons why it's restricted in the post.
>>28018412
Also it's amusing to see the "legitimate" preface from someone that just gave a lecture on philosophy.
OP here.
>>28018214
>I'd probably only wear it if I was forced to go through somewhere particularly dodgy.
I wouldn't wear it on a daily basis, but suppose I go to a mass gathering of sort (Australia Day of some shit)... why should lack of passive protection ruin my day?
>stab-proof vest desu considering how much more often knives are used.
Holy shit yes. Do you have intel on stab proof vests?
>>28018215
Surely not Southern Europe.
>>28018228
Not trolling. I just said that I knew already the implicit agenda and wanted some intel on official justifications.
>>28018234
Netherlands?
>>28018298
In fact. If you read well, my OP is about owning. Not about wearing it all the time. Cannot I keep something at home just in case SHTF?
>>28018321
Yeah, thanks for reminding us how Ausfailia looks like.
>>28018332
Nice pic bro!
>Canada
>Body armour illegal
>Obtain Possession and Acquisition License
>Body armour legal
It's weird, almost everyone (including those selling) think it's completely banned from civilian ownership.
>>28018396
So, basically, you discounted the ownership of passive self-defence protective items on the basis that I cannot offer you a reason to have one other than the pleasure of ownership.
To this, I replied by taking a random right and repeat your argument: if I need a reason to own something, then you have to provide me a reason to enjoy other kinds of rights other than ownership, right?
I mean, why drinking booze then? Why enjoying free speech?
If you ask me for a reason to own a bulletproof vest, I can give you one. But that's precisely the point, right? Why should my intentions be scrutinized when it comes to enjoy a simple right such as the ownership of a harmless item?
And don't throw at me the bullshit that vests are "preparatory" to crime, because that's a fucking slippery slope man.
You might want to look "slippery slope" up in the dictionary.
Don't call yourself a green, a libertarian or even a hipster if you are unable to grasp the basic tenets of reasoning.
But you're most likely a shitposter. A troll of kind. As such, I dismiss you in the same way I dismiss the shit in my toilet: by flushing it.
because retarded liberal faggots.
It's the same stupid (failed) logic when it comes to banning guns. Someone misuses it; so if we ban it, bad people won't get it.
>some criminal used a gun to commit a crime!
>If we ban guns, it won't happen again!
>Some criminal used BODY ARMOUR to protect themselves!
>If criminals couldn't get body armour to help them in their crimes, the cops won't have as hard a time getting them!
>Better ban it!
Cheers from /k/anada
>>28018455
Are some individuals exempted from the Act?
-Police officers
-Peace officers
-Ambulance attendants
-Wildlife or conservation officers
-Firefighters
-Individual holding a valid license under the Security Services and Investigators Act (i.e., security guard, investigator, loss prevention worker, bodyguard)
-Individuals holding a valid licence under the Firearms Act
>Individuals holding a valid licence under the Firearms Act
OP here.
>>28018402
I see your point.
I suspected this and I think it is possibly the strongest argument we have so far for gun control.
The argument, if you allow me to summarize it, is that by allowing people to individually equip themselves for defence, you somehow reset the social contract that gives the State the duty to defend, and create a war of all against all.
But some people will not buy this contractualist bullshit... and, in a very anarchic fashion, they will demand the right to carry weapons.
But the argument is actually better than that. The argument doesn't say that by banning firearms you're going to eliminate crime. However, the argument asserts that, by banning firearms you lower the level of threat for everybody... so that criminals will go around with knives rather than guns because it's unlikely they will face an armoured citizen. Consequently, it will be easier to disarm them and, overall, they will be less likely to cause massive issues.
So, the idea is to keep the level of threat low for everybody.
In this thread I am not supporting this anti-gun argument, yet I can see it is powerful because it assesses things under the perspective of potential level of threats rather than looking at guns as dangerous items per se.
But still... this is about active self-defence devices. What about the passive ones? Seriously?
>>28018437
There are some good stab proof vests around for relatively cheap
The only hitch is you have to be a security guard and have a category E endorsed firearms license
kek
OR. you make your own set of heavy plastic lamellar plate armor, or straight up wear a chain mail shirt. Have fun
>>28018042
Basically it's banned because if the cops need to shoot someone, they kinda don't want them to be immune to bullets. That is the only reason.
Yeah fuck this country
>>28018215
>There's countries in Europe where you can even get charged for wearing a leather jacket or thick clothes when the police wants to beat you.
Citation? that just seems a little too orwellian to be true
>>28018169
>>28018199
>>28018241
>>28018383
>>28018396
>>28018412
>>28018423
>>28018423
Troll detected. There were different users involved, but he thinks he is arguing against the same dude.
Either he is a troll or he is an idiot.
>>28018450
>Why should my intentions be scrutinized when it comes to enjoy a simple right such as the ownership of a harmless item?
It's not a right, rights aren't inherent imo and are a meaningless construct anyway and it begs that question that it is harmless which i disagree with.
>if I need a reason to own something, then you have to provide me a reason to enjoy other kinds of rights other than ownership, right?
Yes, which goes into the false equivalency portion of my criticism. I can give you a reason i should or should not own a nuclear weapon, this has no bearing on whether i should or should not have the right to free speech.
>You might want to look "slippery slope" up in the dictionary.
>The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
>Don't call yourself a green, a libertarian or even a hipster if you are unable to grasp the basic tenets of reasoning.
Holy kek, your critiquing my reasoning, good one m8. Also i don't call myself any of those because I'm not a retard.
>But you're most likely a shitposter. A troll of kind. As such, I dismiss you in the same way I dismiss the shit in my toilet: by flushing it.
I'd like to dismiss you as a troll but i think you're just think.
>>28018402
Yeah basically this.
Which makes zero fucking sense because even in places where body armour is easy to get, you don't have this problem.
It's literally the government saying "but what if everyone wears body armour" and legislating because of that.
Honestly I would want stab proof armour in aus, because people get shanked here for no fucking reason so often that it's downright scary, just look at the gold coast/brisbane
>>28018472
Troll detected. There were different users involved, but he thinks he is arguing against the same dude.
Either he is a troll or he is an idiot.
>>28018448
>It's weird, almost everyone (including those selling) think it's completely banned from civilian ownership.
Okay, but we were talking ausfailia, where it is really banned from civilian ownership.
>>28018466
>Individuals holding a valid licence under the Firearms Act
So if you have a fiearm license you can have a bulletproof vest.
But if you do not have a firearm license you cannot have a bulletproof vest.
Say I'm a hipster and not interested in carrying or owning guns.
State says I cannot wear a vest.
However, if I were practising gunnery on a monthly basis (as requested in Australia to prove you use it for sports), then I would be allowed to.
Hence, this means Australia has an even more fucked up system.
>>28018468
>Basically it's banned because if the cops need to shoot someone, they kinda don't want them to be immune to bullets. That is the only reason.
>Yeah fuck this country
Though we all agree criminals feed on the black market.
>>28018470
>Citation? that just seems a little too orwellian to be true
South Europe: legal for civilians, even without a firearms license. They do not need to justify passive means of protections. It's even better than this, where exemptions are activity-specific: >>28018466
>>28018482
>So if you have a fiearm license you can have a bulletproof vest.
No
![larp-dragon-warrior-armour-[3]-9166-p.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EY3VsJw.jpg "larp-dragon-warrior-armour-[3]-9166-p.jpg")
>>28018473
>It's not a right, rights aren't inherent imo and are a meaningless construct anyway and it begs that question that it is harmless which i disagree with.
Have you just claimed armour is harmful? To whom?
Provide me a positive answer to the question: "Is body armour harmful?"
And make sure this answer is not a slippery slope.
You're welcome trying to prove armours are harmful.
>>28018485
But dude here (>>28018466) said yes! :-o
>>28018474
too bad bullets are easier stopped than knives
>>28018468
>The only hitch is you have to be a security guard and have a category E endorsed firearms license
Fuck me.
Are wooden swords allowed?
>>28018482
>However, if I were practising gunnery on a monthly basis (as requested in Australia to prove you use it for sports), then I would be allowed to.
No, you specifically need a firearm license endorsed with Category E (QLD), which is specifically body armour
Would post a picture of mine but cbf getting phone and going through the shit
>>28018489
Armour is inherently harmful to someone trying to cause you harm, because it makes it more difficult for them.
Also
Security officer here with Cat E, H & C on firearms license, also qualified for batons and handcuffs (also illegal for everyone else), ask me anything
>>28018500
Surprisingly yes.
Swords in Aus are almost laughably unregulated, customs doesn't give two shits and you can sell them with no problems at all, there's no laws for them except you can't display them in public UNLESS you're doing a demonstration or some shit.
>>28018489
Not that guy, but if an assilant is wearing body armour it becomes harder to stop him, resulting in more possible violence before he is stopped.
>>28018502
>No, you specifically need a firearm license endorsed with Category E (QLD), which is specifically body armour
>Would post a picture of mine but cbf getting phone and going through the shit
Got it.
Didn't realize it was a state law.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
>>28018502
>Armour is inherently harmful to someone trying to cause you harm, because it makes it more difficult for them.
Then even a brick wall is harmful, according to your definition.
Is there a law against taking cover in case of gunfights?
>>28018489
To those whose lives could really on the timely incapacitate of a criminal. Also i didn't claim that it was harmful, my calm is that it's harmful that everyone has the right to own it without exception.
I fully support ownership of body armour for those in the police, security, military etc.
>>28018511
>Apologies for the misunderstanding.
You were close, if you want a firearms license for anything sport shooting related, then yes you do need to shoot often at a club and have it recorded and shit.
>Then even a brick wall is harmful, according to your definition.
>Is there a law against taking cover in case of gunfights?
Unfortunately you can't wear a brick wall in most cases.
Believe me, i've tried.
>>28018511
A brickwall is harmful in certain circumstances. If i smacked my head against a brickwall i would be harmed.
>>28018505
>Swords in Aus are almost laughably unregulated, customs doesn't give two shits and you can sell them with no problems at all, there's no laws for them except you can't display them in public UNLESS you're doing a demonstration or some shit.
I think you need a license in Victoria.
>>28018473
>>28018502
>rights aren't inherent imo and are a meaningless construct anyway and it begs that question that it is harmless which i disagree with.
>Armour is inherently harmful to someone trying to cause you harm, because it makes it more difficult for them.
Wait a minute:
>There are no inherent rights
>Armour is inherently harmful
So, basically, we have the claim that people do not have intrinsic rights, but we have the claim that objects have intrinsic proprieties.
Nice one.
>>28018513
>Also i didn't claim that it was harmful, my calm is that it's harmful that everyone has the right to own it without exception.
But here you are implying that by making it legal to own without restriction, then everybody would own it.
But that's not factually true. Even if you made it legal, only a minority with diverse interests (collectors, gunners, etc.) would own some. Not the whole population.
Seriously though i'm pretty sure chainmail is unregulated as body armour in Aus and it's remarkably effective against most knives unless Bogan McShank has a rondel dagger.
>>28018524
>A brickwall is harmful in certain circumstances. If i smacked my head against a brickwall i would be harmed.
Yes, but that's exactly my point.
You can claim harm from every object.
Even my couch can be harmful.
Consequently, I do not see why we can argue civilians shouldn't be able to own armour *because* it can be harmful in some situations.
Even if I gave you credit for the fact that in some contexts is harmful, that's not an argument for restricting its ownership.
But the false equivalency guy says it's bogus. Instead, I claim that contextual harm deriving from an object does not make an object harmful in itself. It's not a property of the object. In particular if the object is apparel... come on guys! You're trying to make the donkey shit at all costs.
>>28018528
>So, basically, we have the claim that people do not have intrinsic rights, but we have the claim that objects have intrinsic proprieties.
No we don't. Not the same person and you're misrepresenting his post anyway as you seem to be fond of doing.
>But here you are implying that by making it legal to own without restriction, then everybody would own it.
Again, no that wasn't implied anywhere. I don't know if you're being deliberately dense(though i strongly suspect it) or trolling but if you continue i won't bother replying.
>>28018528
>I think you need a license in Victoria.
Not sure, only know about NSW and QLD
>So, basically, we have the claim that people do not have intrinsic rights, but we have the claim that objects have intrinsic proprieties.
Well.. yeah
because if you tell a brick wall it's a fluid and try to run through it, I think you're still going to run into a solid brick wall, it's kind of an inherent property of brick.
But yeah, Australia's rights system is fucked. We don't even have a bill of rights and all the guys at the top don't want us to have one either because it means they can't fuck us around as much because courts would actually have to take basic human rights into consideration.
>>28018538
>Even if I gave you credit for the fact that in some contexts is harmful, that's not an argument for restricting its ownership.
A good argument would be a scientific study that proves that unregulated body armour causes increased likelihood of harm in situations in which it is the victims who wear them.
If that study, with those conclusions, existed at all, I would support the ban for civilians.
>>28018541
>>28018543
Look guys... I think that here (>>28018545) I made myself very clear.
If such study existed, I would support the ban right away... without even asking questions about the chain of events that cause harm. If cause is shown (and not just correlation), and it is shown that by preventing non-criminals from wearing body armour you actually end up reducing harm to non-criminals, then I would be and anti-armour without questioning it.
>>28018538
>people could choke on my penis let's ban all penis
>>28018543
>>So, basically, we have the claim that people do not have intrinsic rights, but we have the claim that objects have intrinsic proprieties.
>Well.. yeah
>because if you tell a brick wall it's a fluid and try to run through it, I think you're still going to run into a solid brick wall, it's kind of an inherent property of brick.
So, what if I said that, because of my brain design, I am naturally bound to pursue happiness and prevent harm coming to me?
Maybe that's not a right in the traditional jusnaturalistic sense of the term, but it is definitely a characteristic of my biological makeup.
So the question is, given this instinct that stems from my brain design, should we suppress such instinct or should we allow it to exist?
Because, as far as I know, we are more concerned with allowing human expression than we are able to suppress it. So you would need strong arguments in order to make me agree with a rule that works against my natural makeup -- however contingent it may be.
>>28018538
>You can claim harm from every object.
You can, it's a balancing act between harm and utility. My argument against unregulated body armour is that i don't believe(and i stress believe as i don't have eevidence) the utility or "good" that it does for society outweighs the negative.
This is for various reasons that I've touched upon but the primary concern is that there's a very small minority of people who would buy body armour if it were legal and an insignificant number of people that are the victim of a crime who own body armour and are wearing it at a time in which it is helpful.
>>28018572
Exactly the point I was trying to make with that ludicrous example. It would be ridiculous.
>>28018128
that's all well and good until your live-in girlfriend decides she wants alimony and a property settlement. fuck common law.
>>28018573
Exactly how high are you right now?
>>28018579
it's an argument i actually use when arguing with nofunzfags
>live in Finland
>work as a car mechanic
>boss keeps a baseball bat next to office table
>has a cheap knife in drawer
>ask about them once
>we end up talking about self defense and our shitty self defense laws
>suddenly he mentions that you can actually walk around with a fully loaded rapid fire assault rifle strapped on your back in Australia
>err nope
>he thinks it is me who is mistaken
>only believes me after 6 months
I guess he finally got around to check the facts.
Curious, upon reading into QLD Police's definitions for weapons.. I came across this
>Category E weapons
>A bulletproof vest or protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms projectiles is a category E weapon.
>designed to prevent the penetration of small arms projectiles
Stab proof vests should be completely legal to buy correct?
And the chance of getting stabbed is probably a lot higher than being shot
>>28018578
>there's a very small minority of people who would buy body armour if it were legal
You don't need evidence for this horn of your reasoning, because it's just an explanation of why nobody changed the law so far (lobby is not big enough). It's not a reason in itself to be concerned about body armour.
I am inclined to discard this because the paucity of the market share does not make a good argument to scrap a product altogether.
>a very small minority of people who would buy body armour if it were legal and an insignificant number of people that are the victim of a crime who own body armour and are wearing it at a time in which it is helpful.
Here you are saying that just because only a fraction of people would actually wear it, then it follows that only a fraction of this fraction will be actually subject to crime and benefit from armour.
Very well. I agree with this last point.
However, it's not an argument for its ban.
Maybe it's an argument for its economical unsuccessfulness... but definitely you cannot argue that just because few people would benefit from it, then it's okay to make it illegal.
Because that's what you've just said.
Srs tho everyone should wear chainmail
http://www.medievalshoppe.com.au/butted-chain-mail-shirt-medium-size/
It's cheap as fuck
>>28018088
No, that's the explicit reason. If you wear a ballistic vest it's because you expect a gun fight. If you expect a gun fight in Australia, you're either a police, a criminal or a crazy person. The police wants to be able to deal with the other two categories.
>>28018585
Top kek.
>Alimony
Could you believe I learnt the meaning of this legal term only once I moved to an English-speaking country? Never heard of that thing before... not even in translation.
Kek.
>>28018587
>Reads terms that require a college degree to be understood
>Writer must be high
Check your ignorance, anon.
>>28018588
I'm glad we agree. I'll call you brother tonight.
But I'm not touching you're dick -- in case you're suspicious about my friendliness.
>>28018600
Now I see where my misunderstanding came from.
Body armour is CLASSIFIED AS A WEAPON!
Not as a dangerous item.
Holy shit that's crazy. Not even the dictionary of synonyms allows for such a flexible and extensive definition of weapon!
Armour = weapon.
Holy mother of god that's so fucked up in so many ways.
>>28018606
On this topic, that site also sells 20g steel articulated cuirasses
>mfw the news prints a story about a guy who survived being stabbed in the chest 20 times because he was wearing a fucking steel plate chest piece under his jacket
>>28018606
heavy as fuark too and very inconvenient to wear it without padding and even then it tends to pull your shoulders down and give you back-aches.
i used to wear chain there are several other problems with it you either oil it in which case it stinks stains your clothing and makes everything black or it will rust faster than you can blink in which case again it will stain all your clothing. it also makes noise if you run.
so there was at a time a great armor with several perks over other types of armor but it was substituted by plate for a good reason and not very practical in modern days.
>>28018610
>No, that's the explicit reason. If you wear a ballistic vest it's because you expect a gun fight. If you expect a gun fight in Australia, you're either a police, a criminal or a crazy person. The police wants to be able to deal with the other two categories
Kek...
It's like saying that by wearing something you expect something and by expecting you are actually advertising the fact that such shit happens.
And they don't want you to act in ways that may suggest this shit happen.
Plus, this is ignorant of the fact that preventative measures are better undertaken even when the danger is not around.
E.g. I can prepare for a bushfire. Does this mean I expect it? The hell no. But preparing does not make me automatically crazy.
Moreover, when you are prepared you have to be always prepared. Otherwise there is no point in preparedness. So really you cannot claim I expect a gun fight... 'cause I expect it not to happen!
>>28018604
>Because that's what you've just said.
I was being lazy, the other side is that it is very useful for certain criminals and since they're the initiator of violent crimes they'll almost certainly be wearing it at the opportune moment which is in the commission of the crime.
>>28018619
>But I'm not touching you're dick -- in case you're suspicious about my friendliness.
kek i just read an article 2 mins ago that a dude attacked a couple clubbed the guy with a bottle and forced them at knife point to touch his penis.
i was just thinking that in a case like that a lot of good does a bullet prof vest do you, won't stop the bottle and won't stop the knife nor the penis.
>>28018638
>I was being lazy, the other side is that it is very useful for certain criminals and since they're the initiator of violent crimes they'll almost certainly be wearing it at the opportune moment which is in the commission of the crime.
Yeah, but this argument is so famously debunked I shouldn't even post about it.
It is the argument that if it is legal it makes it easier for criminals to commit crime. But, as far as I am concerned, Australia has the same murder rates of other countries who allow body armour.
So, in the worst case scenario, body armour does not statistically help, but it does not harm either.
>>28018644
There must be some martial arts dedicated exclusively to learning how to disarm people wielding swords and knives.
Not your average MMA... there must be some Japanese shit that sucks in other respects but is the supreme mastery of disarm and wrist control...
I just don't remember what its name is!
>>28018636
Do you also wear a gas mask in case you run into some nerve gas?
>>28018631
Not really, 6mm links are comfy as fuck with just a shirt on
A good belt also takes a decent amount of felt weight out of it.
Sure it ain't the best, but better than nothing if you're expecting to get stabbed
>>28018656
or you pull out your dick laugh at him and he runs off in shame
>>28018473
>rights aren't inherent imo and are a meaningless construct anyway
This goes against everything the constitution stands for.
More pertinent, if you don't care about rights, and you want to live in a perfect and safe bubble with the government protecting you, why don't you go live in a prison? It is exactly what you want.
Why do you want to enforce imprisonment on everyone ELSE?
>>28018662
sure butted chain would be pretty much knife proof welded or riveted would be 100% knife proof and with padding under even bayonet proof.
but i think you could make knife proof vest out of abs plastic even. much lighter. something like a regular vest but instead of a steel insert you got abs trauma pad
>>28018649
>Yeah, but this argument is so famously debunked I shouldn't even post about it.
Post this famous debunking.
>But, as far as I am concerned, Australia has the same murder rates of other countries who allow body armour.
And a much lower murder rate than other countries which allow it also, i might be mistaken but i don't believe much of Europe has unrestricted ownership.
>So, in the worst case scenario, body armour does not statistically help, but it does not harm either.
I believe no conclusion can be drawn from the murder rate alone as the potential variation is too great.
>>28018657
No. But surprisingly I have one at home. I got it from Bunnings.
Remember? This post is on ownership. Not on carrying the item.
>>28018684
>>Yeah, but this argument is so famously debunked I shouldn't even post about it.
>Post this famous debunking.
Sorry mate. I cannot link you to all the no-gunz threads on /k/ just now. I have other things to attend to.
Your (famous) argument is:
>If you make X legal
>You will make it easier for criminals to use X to commit crime
Surprise, surprise! The debunking is:
>Criminals usually get X illegally, so banning X affects only law-abiding citizens.
As I said in the other post, if you have evidence that the possession of X by law-abiding citizens causes overall damage, then you should ban it or restrict its use.
Instead, proving that X causes damages in the hands of criminal is not sufficient a reason to ban it or restrict its use.
Welcome to /k/. It's your first time here, for real?
Have politicians ever needed a reason for banning something?
>>28018700
This.
>>>28018384
>I believe no conclusion can be drawn from the murder rate alone as the potential variation is too great.
So you agree WDK = we don't know.
And since we don't know... you advocate for ban and restriction.
You're a fucking genius.
>>28018702
No. But OP was curious about the official motivations... the propaganda about it and the history of the ban.
>>28018700
>Criminals usually get X illegally, so banning X affects only law-abiding citizens.
Which is a flawed argument, the same misrepresentation could be made with any law
>why prohibit rape if criminals are going to rape anyway?
>if you have evidence that the possession of X by law-abiding citizens causes overall damage, then you should ban it or restrict its use.
I don't have evidence that civilian ownership of nuclear weapons causes damage but my ability to reason leads me to this conclusion.
>>28018723
>why prohibit rape if criminals are going to rape anyway?
Wrong equivalence. Rape is the act and is identified with harm and lack of victim's consensus.
Instead, owning something... does not make you a criminal.
Fantasizing about rape (which is something I don't like, but some people do)... does not make you a rapist.
So are you gonna ban rape fantasies now?
>I don't have evidence that civilian ownership of nuclear weapons causes damage but my ability to reason leads me to this conclusion.
Analysis: "I don't have evidence that civilian ownership of swimming pools causes damage but my ability to reason leads me to this conclusion".
Well, your ability to reason ALONE cannot get you to any conclusion if unsupported by facts.
I am not arguing any more with somebody who bases his claims on lack of evidence.
You'd have a better go at banning car, or booze... lol Australia is full of drunkards. Because there are more alcohol-related crimes than gun-related crimes in this fucking country... but you know very well, in the case of alcohol, that is culture and education (not ban!) that saves the day.
>>28018749
>So are you gonna ban rape fantasies now?
please don't!
>>28018723
yeah that argument gives me some headache
when i tell nofunz people that i don't see any reason to ban firearms for civilian use they ask why can't civvies own tanks warships and nukes then?
it's just... i mean why the fuck can't i own a fully functional tank /k/? why?
>>28018042
The government needs to be able to kill you as easily as possible if you start acting up :^)
>>28018042
Body armor is prohibited so you can't protect yourself with it if you try to fight the government.
It's as simple as that.
>>28018749
>Instead, owning something... does not make you a criminal.
This is not true of any justice system on earth.
>Rape is the act and is identified with harm and lack of victim's consensus.
Seems you're going off into an unrelated tangent. You don't think banning of something is worthwhile because a criminal will do it anyway, this is what you said. The same logic applies to any crime.
Making rape a crime only serves to punish rapists who would otherwise be innocent if rape were not a crime.
Banning firearm ownership only serves to punish firearm owners who would otherwise be innocent if firearm ownership were not a crime.
That' some top tier "analysis" if i do say so.
>Well, your ability to reason ALONE cannot get you to any conclusion if unsupported by facts.
Facts rely on reasoning also, there is no such thing as absolute truth and everything is a subjective interpretation.
>>28018804
dude the gubment has easy access to calibers your armor wouldn't even dare to think about
regular soldiers fight other soldiers that wear body armor
it's not that if the gubment wants your ass armor will help you any
it's more nobody wants like regular police force to get more militarized and if people were walking around in body armor rated for assault rifles then the criminals would easily _blend in_ and when asked what they are doing parading in armor and long rifles on the street in front of a bank they would tell the police to "piss off cause muh 2nd amendment" or something similar with it and the police would need to step up their game significantly which would mean vehicle mounted heavy machine-guns and all kinds of shit nobody wants to see. it's expensive and ugly.
>>28018753
>please don't!
They've already banned lolicon.
Actually, Australia has a censorship procedure that allows the banning of porn where small tits are displayed or young age is implied (e.g. matures dressed as schoolgirls).
The bra-size rule is famous in porn industry.
Personally, I'm not into lolicon and I find it creepy. Seriously. I don't give a shit about the ban. But my libertarian side cringes when what is banned is the fictitious representation of something and not the prosecution of actual offenders.
So yeah. It's happening already, in a sense. There is a grey are of society where the acceptable merges into the unacceptable.
We all know the list:
- porn bordering age play
- recreational drugs (marijuana)
- gun ownership
- prostitution
- etc.
That's where most of the debate, the cultural fears, the witch hunt occurs. E.g. think of recreational drugs: war on drugs is raging, yet those who have suffered more are the minor drug users (e.g. the dude smoking pot, etc.).
At some point, a balance has been reached. E.g. it's illegal to grow, but not illegal to own. Or compromise shit like that.
Brief,
1. For historical reasons, Guns and Armours currently belong to a grey area.
2. We have all seen what happens when debate touches the grey area: people are ignorant of the actual thing (e.g. prostitution) yet they have very strong opinion, but never tried to actually understand the situation.
3. Eventually, some compromise is reached... but this does not mean it is optimal in libertarian terms, because it is a compromise between law enforcers, commoplace ideological claims, and the factual claims of the supporters of the activity.
So, grey areas are not a domain where the debate is conducted with reason, because there is so much ideology about it that the best possible scenario is a compromise, not a solution.
>>28018868
You haven't seen those episode of myth busters where they make decent body armour out of stuff like duct tape or layers of paper glued together? Like suppressors which can be made of steel wool and pvc pipe, it serves no purpose other then to waste resources making people feel like they've achieved something.
>>28018891
>But my libertarian side cringes when what is banned is the fictitious representation of something and not the prosecution of actual offenders.
That was ill-written.
I meant to say my libertarian side suffers when I see the representation of something being made subject of bans and regulations, whereas little is done in order to prosecute those who carry out the actual thing.
In a sense, this is full-fledged censorship of ideas and has little to do with the actual thing. It just creates an underground environment with the aim of policing minds and opinions (and images, etc.) rather than policing actions and enforcing the law.
I don't completely disagree with the idea of policing this way. Sometimes you want to prevent things so much that you want to make them taboo. But is this always effective? My libertarian side doubts it.
>>28018903
i know all this, butt still think the reasoning behind is "who gets the most use or value out of body armor?"
and the answer they came up with is military police and criminals intending to fight the police or other armed security.
if it was acceptable to wear body armor i like to think i would, but indoors or in the summer heat? no thanks. it would be fucking hell.
>>28018168
Stop romanticising him he was a fuckwit. Murdered people, stole from people. Irish people were to Australia what niggers are in America now.
>boo hoo muh discrimination I dindu nuffin except murder and rob and now me mah's food is on the floor
fuck that coward
>>28018042
Because your government is scared of you owning an object. An object that can not be used to harm yourself, anyone else, or the enviroment in any way.
They made a non weapon, non harmful object illegal to possess for 1 reason:
you need to die if they should have a need to kill you.
Your government is literally planning on killing you.
>>28018298
>dustoff detected
>>28019218
Nothing new. Governments tax the shit out of new safer cars for no apparent reason, meaning that it'll harder to get a safer car for a young person. While old people dying should be a priority to avoid a complete collapse of pension funds and social system.
>>28018042
Same reason why self-defense laws and carrying anything for protection is illegal. Its nanny state bullshit to try to convince you of the delusional utopia where there is no crime and you are not in danger. Making bulletproof vests legal is admitting that they are necessary and that you are in danger and law enforcement cant protect you. Cant have people doubting the government now can we.
>>28019361
In fact, most European gun laws were originally made because of the fear of a Commie revolution between 1917 and 1920.
Many parliaments even had politicians stating things like 'them filthy Communists'.
Yes, communism was evil and grabbed guns, but the anti-communists seized the opportunity to do gun grabbing of their own.
Aren't there some companies which make supposedly bulletproof clothing?
Or at least clothing which is supposed to provide some kind of resistance? Not sure though
>>28019608
franz ferdinand wore a bulletproof vest too
look all the good it did to the world
>>28019608
Yeah there's loads. Bulletproof jackets, bulletproof suits, etc.
>>28019804
Where can I buy a bulletproof jacket?
>>28018809
An object is not an act. An object is inanimate. Rape is an act. How hard is that to understand?
You're deliberately avoiding dealing with the fact that posessing something is not the same as doing something.
>>28018042
>>28018042
>>28018042
SOURCE ON SYSTEM IN OPs PIC?
>>28018128
Common law is ideal for reactionary mob mentality to take a shit on the foundations of society. Civil law is as solid in it's integrity as the constitution it builds upon.
>>28018051
common law just builds on statutory law. you need a hook in most cases to interpret. some things are wholly based in common law but legal prohibitions are typically not.
>>28018723
>>28018809
Holy shit, you're dumb.
>>28018619
Don't see why you are so hysterical about this.
Basic research of the Weapons Acts (via AustLii) indicates that most states enacted firearms laws restricting handguns, machine guns, body armour in the 1920's. (Earlier laws from 1905 and the late 1890's focused on supplying guns to minors).
Curious thing is that most big firearms amendments occurred bout 4 or 5 years after the big wars. In the 1920's and the late 40's early 50's.
If you are interested, the legislation has descriptive notes explaining what the law is meant to do.
