23 Jul

Body armor was the red flag [Reader Post]

                                       

It has occurred to me that once again that the left is engaged in another one of its knee-jerk reactions to a horrific event. In the wake of the Aurora shootings, democrats are calling for more gun control.

Below are just a few examples of the Left’s continuing practice of exploiting mass murder to promote their agenda for eliminating gun ownership. As usual, before the families can even recover the bodies of their dead relatives, the Left starts exploiting the situation in their never-ceasing attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment via more restrictive gun control laws, .

Only a few hours after a gunman killed 12 people and injured dozens at an Aurora, Colorado midnight premier of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, CNN started banging the drums for stronger gun laws .

CNN reported that the slimy opportunist, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ever the dishonorable, limelight seeking politician was on a New York radio station earlier today using the Colorado shootings to call for tighter gun control laws.

Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia appeared on CNN television today saying that President Obama and Mitt Romney need to address the issue of gun control as soon as possible. The hostess of the CNN program where Mayor Nutter was a guest stated that she couldn’t believe that the president and Mr. Romney had commented on the shooting without ever mentioning gun control. It is a silly person that expects Mr. Romney to do anything of the sort.

ABC News began early on pushing the gun control theme.

NBC News and MSNBC didn’t wait long to start campaigning for gun control. They also reported on Philadelphia Mayor Nutter’s comments concerning gun control.

CBS didn’t wait long to join the chorus .

Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws:

How will stricter gun laws bring an end to criminals having guns, when the laws against murder have not been able to stop them from killing innocent people?

Currently in Aurora, Colorado, where the shooting took place, it is already unlawful to carry a concealed “dangerous weapon,” discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range, and have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.

Chicago has strict gun control laws to little effect:

The City of Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Up until a few months ago, it was illegal for a private citizen to own or possess a handgun anywhere within the city, including in one’s own home. For 2010, Chicago also holds another distinction. More Chicago Police Officers were killed by gunfire this year than any other police agency in the nation. The city also boasts one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, with 1 in 89 residents being victims of violent crime last year.

Right now shooting violence is out of control in Chicago. At least a dozen people were shot during the July 4th holiday:

(CBS) CHICAGO – The violence continues in Chicago, with a 10-year-old girl among more than a dozen people shot across the city Tuesday night and early Wednesday, reports CBS Chicago.

There are conflicting reports of the number of people shot, with CBS Chicago counting 16, and the Chicago Tribune counting 15 in the past 24 hours. The Chicago Police Department told Crimesider they could not provide an exact figure.

The girl and a man were with a group of people cooling off from the heat at an open fire hydrant when they were shot about 11:20 p.m. police News Affairs Officer Hector Alfaro said.

The girl, who was reportedly shot in the left wrist and abdomen, was taken to the hospital in critical condition. The man, 24, was shot in the right heel, police said.

It has been a bloody year for the Windy City so far. On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that homicide was up 37 percent in the first half of 2012, and shootings were up nine percent.

Gun control laws seem to be most ineffective where they are the most strict.

But then I read this:

He was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector.

And immediately thought of the North Hollywood shootings:

On the morning of February 28, 1997, after months of preparation, including extensive reconnoitering of their intended target—the Bank of America branch located at 6600 Laurel Canyon Boulevard—Phillips and Mătăsăreanu loaded five rifles, one handgun, and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines into the trunk of their vehicle: two modified Norinco Type 56 S rifles, a modified Norinco Type 56 S-1, a semi automatic HK91 and a modified Bushmaster Dissipator. Phillips also carried a 9mm Beretta Model 92FS INOX).[15] Phillips wore a bulletproof vest and several pieces of home made body armor, covering his groin, shins, thighs, and forearms. Mătăsăreanu wore only a bulletproof vest, but included a metal trauma plate to protect vital organs. Before entering, they took phenobarbital to calm their nerves.[16]

Body armor. Who buys body armor and why? I don’t know any hunters who by body armor. They’re not planning on shooting anything that could shoot back.

We already keep an eye on those who buy fertilizer.

Holmes’ weapons and armor were purchased recently and within a short period of time:

During the attack early Friday, Holmes used the military-style semiautomatic rifle, a shotgun and a pistol to open fire on the unsuspecting theater-goers, Oates. Holmes had bought the weapons at local gun stores within the past two months. He recently purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the Internet, the chief said.

Holmes also bought an urban assault vest, two magazine holders and a knife for just over $300 on July 2 from an online supplier of tactical gear for police and military personnel, according to the company.

Why would someone be buying multiple weapons, large amounts of ammunition AND body armor within a short period of time?

The body armor was the red flag. Had someone been asking the right questions about the body armor this shooting might have been prevented.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Law, Law Enforcement, Mass Murders and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, July 23rd, 2012 at 5:00 am
| 1,580 views

72 Responses to Body armor was the red flag [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 51

    Two things.

    First, a correction.
    His mother has now ”walked back” her original statement that, ”You’ve got the right person.”
    Now she is claiming she only meant that she was the right person, the one the reporter was trying to get.
    So, that means ONLY the man who owned the shooting range saw anything worrisome about this guy!
    Maybe we should put those kinds of men in charge of homeland security.

    Second, the Left is nearly always wrong.
    Sometimes it just takes a while to see it.
    Like, years ago, Gloria Steinem declared that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
    Now, we must ask ourselves if those women whose boyfriends, husbands, fathers, male acquaintances covered their bodies during the shooting so they could live feel the same as Gloria.
    All in all three men died.
    Probably others did the same protective thing but survived along with those they covered.

    ReplyReply
  2. Greg says: 52

    @JustAl, #46:

    There’s much confusion with that word. Ordnance can specifically refer to mounted guns and related munitions and equipment, but also to military equipment and supplies in general. In the second sense you could properly refer to a crate of rifles as ordnance–an ordnance officer might routinely do that, but might also be referring to supplies other than weapons. If you’re specifically talking about guns, then I think most military people would immediately understand ordnance to mean mounted guns. I never thought of my M-16 as ordnance. I recall that my drill instructor–who liked to use both rhymes and anatomical references as memory aids–made damn sure we never referred to it as a gun, either. (An M-16 is your rifle. It’s not for fun. )

    An ordinance is a municipal or county law.

    ReplyReply
  3. Mr. Irons says: 53

    Common Sense, I don’t think gaming is a catalyst here of all the members here I might be one of the few who staffs a local LAN party for games and violence and bad behavior is not tolerated and reported to police. A few unruly high schoolers and a thief are pretty much that have been banned. The issue here is Mr. Holmes isolated himself after being dumped by his girlfriend, getting eviction warning on his apartment due to dropping out the phd program and pretty much meeting a hard part of life by closing out socialization. I’ve spent a large time in Tom Clancy titles and SWAT 4 when I was 24 playing them at LANs. I’ll give you credit about the likes of Call of Duty and ghost recon for being violence only options but a lot of titles that have a violence option has a greater reward system for players to choose non violent solutions so that argument is pretty hard to sell to me given the extensive list of titles I own and play. If Postal 2 or 3 was on Holmes hard drive this well be even more problematic of a point, as it’s totally possible to play postal 2 without commiting to violence. And in the case of Skyrim a player can force hostiles to be calmed or manipulated into fighting on the players behalf. Metal Gear Solid 3 literally punishes the player for taking life of enemies, and that theme hits into Splinter Cell to a lesser degree till Conviction.

    ReplyReply
  4. Hard Right says: 54

    Now we are seeing reports questioning whether or not he was wearing body armor at all. It seems the origin of the body armor claim was from one source very early in the reporting.

    ReplyReply
  5. Aleric says: 55

    @Mr. Irons:

    Been a gamer since 1986 and have played most every shooter, first person as well as a lot of MMO’s, never have I felt the urge to go out and shoot people. Gamers are a secure lot and we normally weed out the crazy.

    ReplyReply
  6. MataHarley says: 56

    Nan G: Second, the Left is nearly always wrong.
    Sometimes it just takes a while to see it.
    Like, years ago, Gloria Steinem declared that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
    Now, we must ask ourselves if those women whose boyfriends, husbands, fathers, male acquaintances covered their bodies during the shooting so they could live feel the same as Gloria.

    Nan G, it would be nice to give credit where credit is due. Your paraphrasing is from a very good article, written today by Wesley Pruden, a Washington Examiner op-ed writer. But I believe you skimmed over his larger point of the article… which was not a political left vs right… but that despite all odds, the greater love for one another trumps evil and hatred.

    Gloria Steinem was wrong. Once in a fit of frustration, she rolled her eyes, stamped her feet and declared that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” This became a battle cry in the war between the sexes.

    Three young women, who survived the movie-palace massacre in Colorado because three men gave their lives to save them, beg to differ.

    The names of the three — Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves — are inscribed permanently in their hearts, vivid reminders of the words of Christ as recorded in the 15th chapter of the Gospel of John: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” This is the passage where Christ teaches that authentic love is not mere emotion, treacly sentiment celebrated in the syrupy lyrics of Tin Pan Alley, but the act of sacrificial giving. “This is my commandment,” Christ told his disciples, “that ye love one another as I have loved you.”

    Three sacrificial acts in a darkened charnel reveal the spark of humanity that can survive in the human heart.

    continue reading at the link above…

    Pruden’s editorial offering strikes an admirable balance of “blame” for the event. Indeed, one of the best I have seen. It acknowledges the major elements – freedom, responsibility and influence. i.e., is it the gun and accessory laws? Parenting? Hollywood’s penchant for blood, gore and violence for profit? None can be discounted as irrelevant and unrelated, tho none can take responsibility for Holmes’ personal choices either.

    His last paragraph is far more illuminating than the Steinem point you chose to highlight. (emphasis mine)

    The shooter, the self-described orange-haired Joker of the Batman comic books, is solely responsible for the carnage in Colorado. It was he who did the deed. Collective guilt is for the sociologists and head-shrinkers. But only a fool argues that movies like “The Dark Knight Rises” have not dumped trash and garbage into the cesspool the culture has become. We all swim in the pollution; a few of us, unable to keep heads out of the sewage, cannot resist the temptation to imitate in pursuit of transient fame. But we take the comfort and consolation we can from an unexpected act of greater love.

    There is a fine line we walk for our freedom, and how the effect using (or abusing) that freedom manifests itself in our moral and societal culture. The dividing line is usually an inherent sense of responsibility and common sense that was once instilled in our young in the course of daily living. Then again, it was easier those days to block out graphic and negative influences from outside.

    While we are free to have art form expressions that glorify, or depict violence in a very realistic way – and indeed with YouTube beheadings and assassinations found on the Internet, the line between fiction and reality becomes blurred – there is a question that most parents should be asking themselves. Is using our freedoms to desensitize our children to violence a wise use of that freedom?

    It is this casual acceptance of desensitization that has become the decline of what was, by choice, once a good and moral culture. I, for one, don’t know that it’s a reversible trend. And I find that sad.

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 57

    @Hard Right, unless there is another venue for more tactical gear and accessories, other that what I already pointed out, I’d say that the media (unsurprisingly) jumped to hype and erroneous conclusions.

    Then again, there was the talk of protective cup and shields… face mask as well? Like I said, too many watching GI Joe and thinking everything is “armor”. Or did any of the LEOs tell them of other equipment? My guess is it was just some survivors’ feedback, and without checking with the police, they just ran with the hype for more effect.

    Judging by this post, it seemed to work, eh? Forget that it wasn’t armor at all… just the idea of buying armor seems to be getting under the nerves of many you wouldn’t expect.

    Now you have people like Jeralyn, over at TalkLeft, hysterical in their ignorance about a vest with multiple mag capacities. Evidently she’s never hauled around a heavy box of ammo and magazines for hunts or shooting trips, nor had to pack mags during a competitive shooting match. One can anticipate using 500-1000 rounds in a single day of a shooting match, depending on how many times you run the stages and how large the event. You also burn thru a lot of ammo for practice in between. Thus why many competitive shooters own their own reloading presses.

    Needless to say, when you get ignoramus types, like Sheila Jackson Lee, wanting to meet with the NRA so people can’t purchase large amounts of ammo without someone required to report you so that Big Brother can knock on your door to ask you why, you have to know that clueless idiots are in charge. I say the cure to that is to mandate they spend a week in the woods, hunting with Dick Cheney… then ask them if they’d feel more comfortable wearing armor. LOL

    ReplyReply
  8. johngalt says: 58

    @MataHarley:

    Needless to say, when you get ignoramus types, like Sheila Jackson Lee, wanting to meet with the NRA so people can’t purchase large amounts of ammo without someone required to report you so that Big Brother can knock on your door to ask you why, you have to know that clueless idiots are in charge.

    It is none of her, or anyone else’s business what ammo I buy, or how much of it I buy. Maybe I saw a great sale on it and want to stock up. Maybe I’m planning a long trek in the wilderness. Maybe I just like looking at cases and cases of ammo as artwork.

    Besides, the guy used what? Maybe a hundred rounds total? That’s around 4 or 5 boxes, depending on manufacturer, hardly a “red flag”. Plenty of people going to ranges burn through more than that easily. And all on target practice.

    Again, the guy was smart, and if it is known that a certain amount of ammo purchased is going to cause that flag to be raised, he would have found another way to get the thousands of rounds he had, or limited himself in his targets. Regardless, the determination to inflict violent bodily damage was there, with, or without, a firearm, as evidenced by his booby-trapped apartment.

    ReplyReply
  9. there was a military special op retire who wrote a book on FOX TODAY, HE showed
    an item that he claim can save your life, some kind of flashlight blinding a criminal for some time that will give you a chance to get away, I miss the name but I think it has a lazer light,
    I heard there is a big rush in COLORADO TO BUY GUNS,
    some say because they might not be able later,

    ReplyReply
  10. I was reading that fact that gun don’t kill people
    people kill. in
    virtually 100% of SWISS HOMES HAVE A GUN, YET GUN CRIME IS ALMOST NON EXISTENT,
    IT MAY SEEM COMMON SENSE that if society restricks gun ownership and acces, there would be less gun crime, but it’s a limited truth, determined criminals will find guns, that said, too many gun control advocates don’t understand gun users, hunting, sport shooting, and collecting,
    too many are driven by fear and see guns as pure evil, they are merely tools just like knives,
    if there would have been gun allowed, there would not have been such lost of lives,

    ReplyReply
  11. DQcowboy
    it’s okay to be long , because it was interesting and we learned things
    we didn’t know before, thank you
    for that

    ReplyReply
  12. drjohn says: 62

    @MataHarley:

    Judging by this post, it seemed to work, eh? Forget that it wasn’t armor at all… just the idea of buying armor seems to be getting under the nerves of many you wouldn’t expect.

    If the reports are right, then my point remains a good one.

    If they are wrong, my point is still valid but it suggests that this event was more of a macabre Halloween dress-up party for Holmes.

    ReplyReply
  13. MataHarley says: 63

    drj, this isn’t about you being “wrong” (INRE was he wearing body armor, or not), but I will say it’s about whether your point is a “good one” or even “valid”.

    It’s human nature to want to come up with solutions in the wake of these senseless tragedies. We are not a country of citizens that enjoys feeling helpless. We always seek to improve what we see are flaws by our culture and quest for excellence.

    But unfortunately, the solutions are always along the lines of “there oughta be a law”. And that’s exactly what you are suggesting.

    I understand that you seem to think armor should be a heads up, and allow for for privacy intrusion with investigations. That puts you squarely in the camp with liberal gun control advocates like Jeralyn. Allow me to give you the example right before your nose…. the vest is not “armor”. Had you had your desired “armor law” in place, it still would have done nothing. So you would do what you are doing now… advocate to add vests that enable people to carry multiple magazines to the nanny watch list.

    Purchasing a viable product should not be an open invitation to have the ATF, HSA or FBI knocking at your door, interrogating you as to why you want that product. Giving government the power to decide what is questionable behavior, or too much, has always been the problem. Just who determines what is an acceptable threshold, and how long before they arbitrarily lower that threshold when they have the power to do so?

    If you agree they should report and track purchases of armor within a short time period (which wouldn’t have helped in this case since there was no “armor”), then they have scored a huge win in the gun control battle. For when you agree that they have that authority to do so, regardless of any time frame, the slippery slope easily collapses. It’s rather like the old adage, the government has already established *what* you are, now they are just haggling over the specific price.

    I find it amazing that the politicization of this event, relating to gun rights, has now managed to suck in many that consider themselves conservative. How are they doing it? By not going for the guns directly, giving you a false security. Now you agree they should profile for related gun attire, or accessories. They’ve been trying that for a while, but it seems they are now starting to convince enough on the political right to be making headway.

    It’s this compromising attitude that will lead to the fall of RKBA rights. Control my body armor today, magazines tomorrow, amount of bullets I can buy the next, and guns will easily follow.

    Sometimes, after these tragedies, you need to sit back, grieve, and allow some time to allow the anger at the senseless deaths to pass before your fall prey to the “there oughta be a law” mentality. While I understand the feeling of helplessness and desire to protect, I sure as heck don’t get anyone agreeing that profiling people because of body armor (or vests…) purchases is a way to go. It’s easy to be pulled to the dark side of nanny government intrusion during these moments, drj. But the more conservatives that fall for this bite by bite approach, the faster our RKBA will disappear.

    ReplyReply
  14. johngalt says: 64

    @MataHarley:

    “there oughta be a law”

    That is the most destructive phrase ever uttered in free and open societies. That is the catalyst that leads to removal of choice. Removal of rights. And removal of freedom and liberty. And the laws that are born by the utterance of such a phrase are greeted with enthusiasm and cheers by the masses.

    A smart person runs whenever they hear that spoken.

    ReplyReply
  15. DrJohn says: 65

    @johngalt:

    I understand that you seem to think armor should be a heads up, and allow for for privacy intrusion with investigations.

    So would wanting to buy thousands of pounds of ammonium nitrate.

    And so would wanting to buy a suitcase nuke.

    ReplyReply
  16. Mike O'Malley says: 66

    @DrJohn:

    So would wanting to buy thousands of pounds of ammonium nitrate.

    And so would wanting to buy a suitcase nuke.

    These by the way would be national security concerns and addressable outside of the law enforcement aspects criminal justice system. CIA and direct military intervention would likely be appropriate.

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 67

    @DrJohn, as a side note, you attributed something I said to johngalt. That said, it’s a serious leap of reality to go from nylon vests designed to carry ammo or body armor that has uses for multiple reasons and industries, to dirty nuke bombs and explosives. As O’Malley pointed out, that’s a different jurisdiction relating to national security, and unrelated.

    But if we want to go to “valid points”, johngalt made another one on the O’reilly/pinhead thread:

    Anyone, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc. that value our freedoms and liberties, especially as it relates to the 2nd Amendment, should not give the liberal/progressives an inch of play on this issue, especially as it relates to defining what kind of firearms we citizens should be “allowed” to have.

    The same goes for accessories. By advocating for government scrutiny, focused on those that purchase common accessories relating to gun use and safety, you’re living on a dangerous side of the RKBA debate here, drj. The more conservatives that think like you, the faster our RKBA and privacy/due process rights are going to disappear… all in the futile attempt to stop the occasional crazy loon that pops up. I will point out that despite Holmes’ legal purchases of weapons, accessories and ammo, he still broke the “no guns” law by carrying into the theater. Laws simply will not stop criminals, thus why they are criminals.

    ReplyReply
  18. brian winkler says: 68

    There are already some parallels between Holmes, George Hennard and Seung-Hui Cho. They were all marginalized socially and acted against the society around them. Holmes seems to have been unable to accept negative outcomes in his education,social life, employment and financial situation. That all three had begun unraveling emotionally before their acts goes to the core issue. Are we willing to accept further restrictions on our natural right to the means of securing our persons and property? How do you foolproof the NICS checks without conflicting with privacy safeguards in the mental health and treatment sector or infringing upon the rights of legal purchasers? There is a large part of the population that does not trust the current regime and gun and ammo sales reflect this. .223 Rem. ammo, components and the reloading dies have all been in short supply in recent months. Dealers are moving case lots of ammo as easily as they once sold by the box. Many people are storing ammunition in quantity in direct proportion to their unease with the economic,political and worsening crime situations they find themselves in. I don’t blame them one bit.

    ReplyReply
  19. Carbon Footprint says: 69

    Holmes was not wearing body armor – so this entire thread is worthless. Am I wrong? Then identify a police source claiming he was wearing anything other than a ballistic nylon vest. Just more media sensationalism for the mind-numbed masses to ruminate over. Along with this simple fact – the inane (stupid) position that someone with a ccw “couldn’t have affected the outcome” by the same idiots – based upon an errant conclusion, is easily demonstrated to be untenable.

    ReplyReply
  20. Nan G says: 70

    @Carbon Footprint:
    So, USAToday was imprecise…..
    That publication wrote:

    He was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1

    I think it is more a question of less-than-precise use of language.
    Perhaps the media had an agenda in being fast and loose with language.
    Most people would interchange such terms as ”body armor,” and ”bullet-proof gear.”
    I know the TV coverage all that 1st day had numerous mentions of ”body armor.”

    Mata is correct that such bullet-resistant clothing is not going to be made illegal even if ”body armor” becomes a controlled and tracked purchase.

    ReplyReply
  21. brian winkler says: 71

    @ Carbon Footprint
    04/24/12 Shooter at New Destiny Center church, Aurora Co., Kiarron Parker was shot and killed after fatally shooting one person in a senseless attack. The nephew of the victim, an off -duty Aurora policeman shot Parker decisively ending that attack. Obviously that “inane,stupid ” action saved lives. Were you actually in that theater that night? Can you attest to any of the variables, light, density of the smoke /gas depending on HVAC, muzzle flash of Holmes weapons at ALL points in the theater? You can’t , yet you make an invalid pronouncement based on ignorance of the situation in the theater and your hoplophobia. Any action, resistence against Holmes would have effected the outcome. That was proved at Ft.Hood. Holmes use of individual body armor will be proved when those items are produced as evidence and become available to the public. There is as usual a flawed and inaccurate use by the media of the images of the black tactical vest shown above. It is black and therefore menacing to liberals. The fact that it offers no ballistic protection is of no consequence to the media and the Left. They have no problem pushing their agenda before Aurora has finished burying its dead.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>