LAPD arrests man on suspicion of making deadly swatting call to Wichita police

>Their first instinct shouldn't be to fire first to save their own skin.

I agree with this, however, do you realize that the officers were told this was a hostage situation? I think in this case they were thinking about the hostages, not themselves since they weren't the ones being threatened.

That's quite the victim blaming you're doing there. I'll make sure to never play an FPS against a twelve year old again, just to make sure a cop doesn't shoot me for no reason

>That's not how impulse propagates. The force carries through the plate, into the person, and does its damage as a compressive wave.

That would be true if the plate was pressed hard against the body. A force requires a carrier - a field or a matter. This is why there is padding behind armor. The padding air-gaps the body from the plate. Nothing crosses the air gap during the 0.02ms that the huge force you're talking about is acting between the plate and the bullet. The body isn't aware that something that violent is happening just a few millimeters away. At t=0.02ms the interaction between the bullet and the plate has finished and the plate is flying toward the body with the speed ~16m/s. At that t=0.02ms the plate has so far traveled only for less than 1mm and it will take it ~0.5 milisecond to cross the air gap and to slam into the body at about the same speed of 16m/s. Such slamming is like being hit by a frying pan. Can be pretty damaging if hits a joint or the head. May break a rib. Yet nothing close to being subjected to the force of being stepped on by an elephant or 30 of them.

>Why then does a shotgun slug, with considerably less momentum than the .50 cal and even a frying pan, crack ribs through armor?

The slug momentum (0.03kg at 540m/s) is 2.5 times less than that of .50 cal (0.045kg at 900m/s), so nothing surprising here, especially if it is through a flexible (i.e. different mode of action) kevlar armor. The steel plate armor we're discussing is much heavier.

>Why can I put a piece of AR500 steel in front of a watermellow, hit the steel with a .308, and have the watermellon explode despite nothing getting through?

Even if the watermelon is air-gapped from the steel, the watermelon still can't sustain being hit with a frying pan ( even with less than a full swing of it). If the steel isn't air-gapped from the watermellon - in this case the watermelon do get the force applied if the steel isn't fixed, or a compression wave by the steel plate vibration if the steel is fixed in place.

(I hope you don't mind me quoting parts of your comment—it helps me categorize stuff.)

> You say 60k deaths from guns is bad

Well, 30k. And I'm not saying the 4 deaths are okay, I'm saying it's not an epidemic and, statistically, schools are safe. But, I'm still not sure how that part of your comment logically proves much.

> As a counter example I will posit that gun owners have failed to put forth any meaningful policy changes...pushing for less control.

I'd suggest that gun owners have always had to play catch-up. For example, consider the '94 AWB. It was rammed through as a halfway, last-minute measure that pitted gun owners against each other and has left a bad taste in many of their mouths. The general feeling is if they give an inch, "the other side" will take a mile. It's evident if you compare and contrast the positions groups like GOA and NRA take on bills.

I'd also posit that defense of one's self _from_ the state is an underlying reason for the 2nd amendment. Considering the massive (over 350 million) number of firearms in the US and entrenched gun culture, I'm of the opinion the amendment is fine in that respect.

> I think most reasonable people will agree that things like hunting can be treated separately from other uses of firearms by civilians.

As it should. I think where we disagree is on the type and scope of difference.

> But gun control debate often gets lost in nuance. Who cares about bump stocks when you can buy the AR-15...[or] buy a 22 and blow your brains out in the parking lot?

Granted, an AR-15 is not necessarily more dangerous than "any old rifle." It's simply a platform that encompasses different calibers, gas systems, etc. But, good gun control could help stymie sales to prohibited persons. Is it any better, though, if instead of purchasing a $200 pawn shop gun the person hangs himself? When I had a family member dealing with that issue we were told that, essentially, those who _want_ to commit suicide _will_. Have we achieved much if we've simply caused those people to change methods?

Anyway, as an aside, I appreciate the dialogue. It's not too often this topic can be discussed without name calling and such or without degrading into "muh rights" versus "think of the children."

On my side of the aisle, the feeling is that gun rights groups take a mile with every opportunity they get. While some states, like Connecticut, have enacted slightly stricter gun control measure, federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress. Again, I don’t believe gun owners and especially organizations that represent them have done anything to make me safer in this country. All they managed to accomplish is to stoke the fire around gun ownership to the tune of rising profits for gun manufacturers. Because of that I support the idea that they aren’t responsible actors and should not be a major voice in the debate. Basically self regulation didn’t work.

Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one.

As far as the second amendment, yes there are a lot of guns in this country. But, I still posit that it failed:

1. We don’t have a well regulated militia. We have a bunch of individuals, often times with poor training.

2. The individual gun owners are not doing anything to keep the State free. There have been no instances where there was even an attempt to form the well regulated militia it talks about.

3. Even if a major threat to the State showed up, within or without, in a modern world hand guns and semi automatic rifles would not stand up to modern military tech. That fight is over before it starts.

Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety, hunting, or anything like that. It basically says that for the purposes of having a civil defense force, individuals can own guns. So in my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership.

As for suicide stuff, I am not sure if you are familiar with some of the stats around it, but basically women are more likely to attempt suicide but men have a higher rate of success. The difference is that men tend to use more lethal methods, often times hand guns. In HN terms, guns reduce friction. Of course if someone is determined to commit suicide, they will. But the other thing is that most people are not. They will go through the steps but also look for an off ramp as they do. And the longer the steps, the more chance they have to change their mind. Suicide is a very complex issue with a large number of underlying causes, but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it.

Lastly, as for mass shootings, I would say that schools were safer in 2017 vs 2016, etc. but they aren’t at an acceptable level of safety in absolute terms. As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. Also, check this out http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.....

I also appreciate the dialogue. If only this had any real world effect :)