Body Armor Helped the Buffalo Shooter Carry Out His Rampage. This Bill Could’ve Banned It
- Total Posts: 11,916
A “good guy with a gun” tried to stop the massacre at Tops supermarket in Buffalo, but was foiled by the assailant’s bulletproof vest and helmet.
When an 18-year-old began his alleged white supremacist rampage Saturday afternoon, a security guard employed by the market, former policeman Aaron Salter, shot at the gunman — and even hit him. “Our retired officer, Salter… engaged the suspect, fired rounds,” Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia said at a press conference Sunday. “We have evidence that he struck him at least one time and that unfortunately had no effect.”
Could restrictions on the kind of tactical armor worn by the gunman have made a difference? The New York legislature has been debating a ban on bulletproof body armor for years. In the current session, assembly bill A352 proposed banning “the purchase or possession of a body vest” by state residents. (A nearly identical bill in the previous legislative session stalled out in committee. The current bill is not faring any better, its current status is listed as “stricken.”)
At the federal level, Sen. Charles Schumer proposed body armor restrictions in 2019 in the wake of a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. “Shockingly, with the click of a mouse … just about anyone can order-up the kind of advanced armor … we see used in wars or all-out law enforcement raids, and that is unacceptable and needs to change,” Schumer said at the time, calling for FBI regulation. (The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act did not become law.) Such a body armor ban, had it been in effect, may have provided a level of deterrence to the gunman, who complained bitterly in his manifesto of the state’s “cucked” firearms restrictions and his inability to shop for a better rifle online.
Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction
May 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM #487721tk2kewlParticipant
- Total Posts: 1,968
May 20, 2022 at 1:00 PM #487723HassleCatParticipant
- Total Posts: 9,174
Can’t regulate assault weapons. Can’t address mental health problems. Might as well ban certain items of clothing. I think we should outlaw shoes because mass shooters would think twice if they had to go barefoot.
May 20, 2022 at 1:37 PM #487729
May 20, 2022 at 2:09 PM #487732retired liberalParticipant
- Total Posts: 5,045
The basic problem is the wholly misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, not protection from others.
Not only is the 2nd Amendment not saying everyone and their kid brother can be legally armed, but the first half is all but totally ignored.
Also part of the problem is the conservatives paranoid fascination with death and destruction. Mutual Assured Destruction anyone?
Somehow it has come about that we think we need a gun to defend ourselves from other people with guns. So now there are many times the firearms in circulation than there are people living in this country.
We are an arrogant species, believing our fantasy based "facts" are better than the other person's fake facts.
If Row vs. Wade is overturned, women could lose the right to not get pregnant in 26 states.
The Republicans are four year olds. The Democrats are six year olds. There are no grownups.
Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.
May 20, 2022 at 5:21 PM #487764
May 20, 2022 at 7:05 PM #487779
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.