Michael Helms, Firearms Historian
@firearmshistorian.bsky.social
Arms historian, gun collector, target shooter, driver of country roads, doggy daddy, and chef de cuisine of our little home.
I'll ignore the rest of your ad hominem attacks, since you're just undermining your own credibility.
November 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM
I'll ignore the rest of your ad hominem attacks, since you're just undermining your own credibility.
applies here: if you take one thing away, what do you put in its place?
Lots of private citizens wear body armor: working professions in higher risk situations, executives and other "high profile" people, and ordinary citizens that, for whatever reason, decide to protect themselves.
Lots of private citizens wear body armor: working professions in higher risk situations, executives and other "high profile" people, and ordinary citizens that, for whatever reason, decide to protect themselves.
November 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM
applies here: if you take one thing away, what do you put in its place?
Lots of private citizens wear body armor: working professions in higher risk situations, executives and other "high profile" people, and ordinary citizens that, for whatever reason, decide to protect themselves.
Lots of private citizens wear body armor: working professions in higher risk situations, executives and other "high profile" people, and ordinary citizens that, for whatever reason, decide to protect themselves.
the increased risks. To wit: "gun free zones" often don't work because innocent people are disarmed and less able to respond to an attack, but there's no corresponding mechanism put into place to balance that exposure with enhanced security (as there is with airports). Newton's third law of motion
November 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM
the increased risks. To wit: "gun free zones" often don't work because innocent people are disarmed and less able to respond to an attack, but there's no corresponding mechanism put into place to balance that exposure with enhanced security (as there is with airports). Newton's third law of motion
red herring, since commercial airplanes are a highly controlled environments where multiple other actors take responsibility for passengers' security. Broadly banning body armor isn't analogous, since there's no state actor that assumes additional responsibility (and/or liability) for
November 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM
red herring, since commercial airplanes are a highly controlled environments where multiple other actors take responsibility for passengers' security. Broadly banning body armor isn't analogous, since there's no state actor that assumes additional responsibility (and/or liability) for
Aah, so you finally get to the crux of what you're saying: that the minuscule risk of someone using body armor to maximize their lethality outweighs the manifold uses of body armor to protect one's self from attacks. You're stretching the utilitarianism a bit thin there.
Security on airplanes is a
Security on airplanes is a
November 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Aah, so you finally get to the crux of what you're saying: that the minuscule risk of someone using body armor to maximize their lethality outweighs the manifold uses of body armor to protect one's self from attacks. You're stretching the utilitarianism a bit thin there.
Security on airplanes is a
Security on airplanes is a
... is making myself harder for someone else to kill. And I return to my original premise, which is that the crux of your argument is that you want for it to be easier for the police and the military to kill civilians. I know you hate that framing of it, but I don't see how that's refutable.
November 5, 2025 at 2:35 PM
... is making myself harder for someone else to kill. And I return to my original premise, which is that the crux of your argument is that you want for it to be easier for the police and the military to kill civilians. I know you hate that framing of it, but I don't see how that's refutable.
"Because we can ban X, we can ban Y." Sure, I guess, but you still have to independently rationalize why Y should be banned; otherwise you're just spinning in circles.
And to be clear: body armor doesn't inflict anything on anyone. If I wear body armor, the only thing I've succeeded in doing ...
And to be clear: body armor doesn't inflict anything on anyone. If I wear body armor, the only thing I've succeeded in doing ...
November 5, 2025 at 2:35 PM
"Because we can ban X, we can ban Y." Sure, I guess, but you still have to independently rationalize why Y should be banned; otherwise you're just spinning in circles.
And to be clear: body armor doesn't inflict anything on anyone. If I wear body armor, the only thing I've succeeded in doing ...
And to be clear: body armor doesn't inflict anything on anyone. If I wear body armor, the only thing I've succeeded in doing ...
You don't like the second half of that sentence only because it says the quiet part out loud, but your emotional please and arm flapping don't refute that logical reduction one iota.
November 5, 2025 at 2:23 PM
You don't like the second half of that sentence only because it says the quiet part out loud, but your emotional please and arm flapping don't refute that logical reduction one iota.
When you resort to the name calling ("petulant and childish"), it tells me that you've already lost the ground.
The entire premise of your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to own body armor because it should be easier for law enforcement / military to kill people.
The entire premise of your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to own body armor because it should be easier for law enforcement / military to kill people.
November 5, 2025 at 2:23 PM
When you resort to the name calling ("petulant and childish"), it tells me that you've already lost the ground.
The entire premise of your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to own body armor because it should be easier for law enforcement / military to kill people.
The entire premise of your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to own body armor because it should be easier for law enforcement / military to kill people.
Back to Critical Thinking 101 for you!
"There's no case for civilians owning body armor" is the assertion. It's a negative only in the sense that you want to take things away.
"There are aliens. Prove me wrong." It's the same thing.
The burden of proof still rests on you.
"There's no case for civilians owning body armor" is the assertion. It's a negative only in the sense that you want to take things away.
"There are aliens. Prove me wrong." It's the same thing.
The burden of proof still rests on you.
November 5, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Back to Critical Thinking 101 for you!
"There's no case for civilians owning body armor" is the assertion. It's a negative only in the sense that you want to take things away.
"There are aliens. Prove me wrong." It's the same thing.
The burden of proof still rests on you.
"There's no case for civilians owning body armor" is the assertion. It's a negative only in the sense that you want to take things away.
"There are aliens. Prove me wrong." It's the same thing.
The burden of proof still rests on you.
So you pivot to the "DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!" logical fallacy. I figured that was where this was heading—that's where most of these leftist "safetyism" pleas end up.
My wearing body armor doesn't cost anyone their life. Safety isn't a zero sum game.
My wearing body armor doesn't cost anyone their life. Safety isn't a zero sum game.
November 5, 2025 at 2:15 PM
So you pivot to the "DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!" logical fallacy. I figured that was where this was heading—that's where most of these leftist "safetyism" pleas end up.
My wearing body armor doesn't cost anyone their life. Safety isn't a zero sum game.
My wearing body armor doesn't cost anyone their life. Safety isn't a zero sum game.
So your rationale is that a few bad guys using body armor (and let's be clear: we're talking about a miniscule number) should determine public policy.
Sorry, but I don't believe that broad policy decisions should be driven by the misdeeds of a handful of miscreants.
Sorry, but I don't believe that broad policy decisions should be driven by the misdeeds of a handful of miscreants.
November 5, 2025 at 2:12 PM
So your rationale is that a few bad guys using body armor (and let's be clear: we're talking about a miniscule number) should determine public policy.
Sorry, but I don't believe that broad policy decisions should be driven by the misdeeds of a handful of miscreants.
Sorry, but I don't believe that broad policy decisions should be driven by the misdeeds of a handful of miscreants.
Do you even know what "well-regulated militia" means? Pro tip from a degreed historian: "well-regulated" doesn't mean "lots of laws!" and "militia" doesn't mean "the military."
November 5, 2025 at 2:10 PM
Do you even know what "well-regulated militia" means? Pro tip from a degreed historian: "well-regulated" doesn't mean "lots of laws!" and "militia" doesn't mean "the military."
there is no rational argument to be made for denying people the right to self-preservation. This includes the state banning garments that might make it harder for its actors to kill people.
If you want to make it easier to kill people, then at least own this logical reduction.
If you want to make it easier to kill people, then at least own this logical reduction.
November 5, 2025 at 2:59 AM
there is no rational argument to be made for denying people the right to self-preservation. This includes the state banning garments that might make it harder for its actors to kill people.
If you want to make it easier to kill people, then at least own this logical reduction.
If you want to make it easier to kill people, then at least own this logical reduction.
Third point: your assertion (even in CAPS) plays into the burden of proof logical fallacy. *You* may not be able to think of a good reason for civilians to own body armor, but that's your assertion to rationalize—and you haven't. Here's the counter to this:
November 5, 2025 at 2:59 AM
Third point: your assertion (even in CAPS) plays into the burden of proof logical fallacy. *You* may not be able to think of a good reason for civilians to own body armor, but that's your assertion to rationalize—and you haven't. Here's the counter to this:
... I have no civic obligation to passively tolerate anyone trying to kill me—police and military included. Lots of people make lots of errors in judgment, including soldiers and law enforcement. I see no moral or ethical reason to be denied body armor to placate a desire to easily kill.
November 5, 2025 at 2:46 AM
... I have no civic obligation to passively tolerate anyone trying to kill me—police and military included. Lots of people make lots of errors in judgment, including soldiers and law enforcement. I see no moral or ethical reason to be denied body armor to placate a desire to easily kill.
On your second point: body armor doesn't discriminate based on who is shooting. I sometimes wear it to the outdoor range I frequent because I've seen some pretty poor muzzle discipline. Or if I'm going to an area I know to be dangerous. But there's another argument to be made against your point: ...
November 5, 2025 at 2:46 AM
On your second point: body armor doesn't discriminate based on who is shooting. I sometimes wear it to the outdoor range I frequent because I've seen some pretty poor muzzle discipline. Or if I'm going to an area I know to be dangerous. But there's another argument to be made against your point: ...
On your first point: the SCOTUS decision in Miller v United States gives us a convenient test: body armor has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, so it's protected. Heller reiterated this in its protection of articles of self-defense.
November 5, 2025 at 2:41 AM
On your first point: the SCOTUS decision in Miller v United States gives us a convenient test: body armor has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, so it's protected. Heller reiterated this in its protection of articles of self-defense.
... this gun's heft could do double duty as a sledgehammer. It was sold in the late 1860s and early 1870s.
Some of the distributors gave these guns curious names, with this gun nicknamed the "Bulldozer."
#antiqueguns #44rimfire #oldgun #oldguns #antiques
Some of the distributors gave these guns curious names, with this gun nicknamed the "Bulldozer."
#antiqueguns #44rimfire #oldgun #oldguns #antiques
October 4, 2025 at 8:30 PM
... this gun's heft could do double duty as a sledgehammer. It was sold in the late 1860s and early 1870s.
Some of the distributors gave these guns curious names, with this gun nicknamed the "Bulldozer."
#antiqueguns #44rimfire #oldgun #oldguns #antiques
Some of the distributors gave these guns curious names, with this gun nicknamed the "Bulldozer."
#antiqueguns #44rimfire #oldgun #oldguns #antiques
... which gives a splendid sight picture.
I predict many happy range trips with this six shooter.
#smithwesson #smithandwesson #smithandwessonpartner #10mm #10mmammo #mountaingun #revolver #revolvers #pewpew #rangeday
I predict many happy range trips with this six shooter.
#smithwesson #smithandwesson #smithandwessonpartner #10mm #10mmammo #mountaingun #revolver #revolvers #pewpew #rangeday
September 16, 2025 at 9:55 PM
... which gives a splendid sight picture.
I predict many happy range trips with this six shooter.
#smithwesson #smithandwesson #smithandwessonpartner #10mm #10mmammo #mountaingun #revolver #revolvers #pewpew #rangeday
I predict many happy range trips with this six shooter.
#smithwesson #smithandwesson #smithandwessonpartner #10mm #10mmammo #mountaingun #revolver #revolvers #pewpew #rangeday
... and thick walnut grips from Tyler Gun Works that give your mitts plenty to hold onto.
The retro throwbacks are especially worth mentioning. I'm digging the retro tapered barrel, putting the styling of this pistol somewhere between the 1920s and 1950s. Ditto for the gold bead front sight ...
The retro throwbacks are especially worth mentioning. I'm digging the retro tapered barrel, putting the styling of this pistol somewhere between the 1920s and 1950s. Ditto for the gold bead front sight ...
September 16, 2025 at 9:55 PM
... and thick walnut grips from Tyler Gun Works that give your mitts plenty to hold onto.
The retro throwbacks are especially worth mentioning. I'm digging the retro tapered barrel, putting the styling of this pistol somewhere between the 1920s and 1950s. Ditto for the gold bead front sight ...
The retro throwbacks are especially worth mentioning. I'm digging the retro tapered barrel, putting the styling of this pistol somewhere between the 1920s and 1950s. Ditto for the gold bead front sight ...