SgtToadette

If you're throwing on a chest rig you've already configured, why would you need more MOLLE? The potential weight savings would seem to offset the comfort situation. Side plates seems to be the only real advantage, but I'm just armchair quarterbacking here. EDIT: Re-read my comment and it sounded snotty, which wasn't my intent. I'm genuinely curious.

So what's the advantage of having a separate plate carrier when you can just attach a compatible chest rig to a low-profile armor carrier?

I really don't like that I feel the need to post this. Let me start with some base statements: The internet is awesome. Never before in human history has the average person been able to access and publish so much information. They can look up almost anything. They can submit almost anything. Bias is bad. Bias is effectively the act of taking a collection of facts and aligning them into a narrative to support a worldview. If the goal is to discern facts and objectify reality, then bias gets in the way. Everyone inherently has bias. The scientific method helps us identify and sterilize that bias as much as possible. I was lucky. I grew up with the internet. I have memories browsing eBay with my parents looking for the best deals on LEGOs and K'nex toys with the comically slow and loud dial-up service. Facebook was but a tiny fetus and smartphones weren't the norm. As a result, I know my way around the internet pretty well. I may not have an intimate understanding of networking, web design, or search algorithms, but I can tell when something smells funny and I know how to follow through with my suspicions. I know how to narrow my searches on Google and to take a website that looks straight out of the GeoCities era with a grain of salt. I was learning how to vet my internet sources as early as elementary school. I know to look for organizations with an agenda and to understand that they likely only have one side of the story. I know to be wary of publications that claim to have the complete story or give you the 5 secrets doctors don't want you to know about weight loss. It's really not all that difficult, and I urge people here to do their due diligence when examining a source; be it a news story or a blog post. Keep in mind that as important as it is to be wary of sources that contradict your worldview, it is perhaps even more important to be critical of sources that affirm your worldview. Our goal should be to be informed, not affirmed.

I've actually gone so far as to remove this from the NJGF Online Resource Compendium.

I need to be a bit of a buzz-kill here. I'll post the summary of why below: Source (with better formating): http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1lbu4p/gun_bans_dont_mean_lower_murder_rates_finds/cbxqe2o "This is not a peer-reviewed study, and it's filled with blatant errors. Below is a debunking I've written in the past, and with a bit of scrutiny, it's quite easy to find more errors and fallacies. To start, the journal it was published in. It's actually a student-run law review, as the website points out: "The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship." Far more important, however, is what it does with the data. Some examples below. It claims that Luxembourg had a murder rate of 9.01 per 100k population in 2002 (table 1), and uses that as an argument in several places: "For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002." (p. 652) "As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use." (p. 661) "France has infinitely more gun ownership than Luxembourg, which nevertheless has a murder rate five times greater, though handguns are illegal and other types of guns sparse;" (p. 674) A compelling argument, that suffers from just one, small flaw: it's false. Eurostat data on homicide in Europe show that there were 4 murders in Luxembourg in 2002 - a homicide rate of about 0.9 per 100k population. And those data show that the numbers were similar for surrounding years. Kates and Mauser got their European data from this report: "The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Homicide in Canada, Juristat, 2002." That report contains one table containing data of some countries other than Canada, presumably for purposes of comparison. As its source, it only lists "National Central Bureau - Interpol Ottawa", without referring to any documents, reports or studies. Apparently, at one point a decimal error snuck in - sloppy, but somewhat forgivable since the non-Canadian data weren't the subject of the report. But why did Kates and Mauser choose to use reports on "Homicide in Canada" for a study that doesn't actually use any Canadian data? And why did they fail to verify that hugely unexpected number on which they based several claims? Plus, why didn't they notice that the source they used for table 4 shows a murder rate of 0.7/100k for Luxembourg just a few years earlier, and take that as a sign that just maybe they should verify the 9/100k number? The most charitable interpretations would involve either negligence or incompetence. And it goes on. Here are some select murder and suicide rates, as given in tables 4 and 5: Countries murder murder w/ handgun suicide suicide w/ handgun Italy 1.7 1.7 8.2 8.2 Sweden 1.0 1.3 15.3 15.3 Holland 1.2 1.2 12.8 12.8 Belgium 1.7 1.7 18.7 18.7 France 1.1 1.1 20.8 20.8 That doesn't look quite right, does it? Yet it's in there. Pages 687-688, tables 4 and 5. It's clear that the "murder with handgun" and "suicide with handgun" figures in table 5 are simply the murder and suicide numbers from table 4. But why did they mislabel both table 5 and its columns? And why is the number for "murder" in Sweden lower than the number for "murder with handgun" in Sweden? More generally: how the hell did all of that slip through peer review? ...oh, right. I could go on (it's like fishing with dynamite), but I think I've shown enough evidence to prove that this "study" features massive errors, making it pretty much worthless. There's nothing wrong with being pro-gun, but bad science has no place in reasonable debate. And this... this is as bad as it gets."

Is this new rig for play or work?

If you ever have a garage sale let me know, lol!

I'm going to make it a goal that the rig doesn't exceed a two mag thickness at any point. Hopefully BFG's helium whisper attachments will mitigate the bulk a teeny bit. I'll bite the bullet on some Mayflower mag pouches and see how I like it. Worst case scenario: I'm out a bit of cash, learned something new, and have some spare pouches laying around.

I guess my concern is that it just seems, for lack of a better term, weird to only keep 45-60 rounds on my chest. Now I could run 2 single stack triples, throw an admin pouch on top to keep it flatter, and still maintain the same utility. Now you got me thinking! I knew I liked you guys for a reason.

Soooooo... I had a TAG mag pouch on order that is apparently back-ordered until mid October. It was a double stack tripple mag pouch with bungee retention. Now I'm fine waiting if it's the right pouch for the job, but I've been thinking of alternatives. At the top of the list is running a single stack triple mag pouch from Mayflower and the mount two FastMags and a double pistol pouch in between them (or move my pistol mags to my future belt system and mount tourniquets in their place). I'd lose a mag of capacity but it would make the rig a bit slimmer. Just wanted some thoughts from anyone willing to share.

Ad hominems are stupid. I agree.

Upload to imgur for best results. http://imgur.com/

Is that a CIRAS clone? Looks familiar in design.

I'm getting a pretty heavy McDojo vibe from their website.

I have a PPQ, but I'm pissed they changed the mag release to the inferior American button style. It's been running strong though and has served me very well in my IDPA adventures. I'd highly recommend the PPQ.

I wasn't aware that Inforce made multi-mode 200 lumen lights. Their website says all their WML models are still at 125 lumens.

Only time will tell, but I'll stay optimistic for the moment. I try to stay away from American news stations when I can.

I've typically heard good things about Al Jazera's reporting. Wish I had the channel to tune in.

I'm going to grab one of those HSPs sometime soon. Glad you like it!

This is correct. The extremist connotation is a result of the perception of the western world.

Why no vegetarian option on your poll?

Certainly in an age where anyone can record a video and instantly upload it to YouTube it's going to be easy to make isolated incidents look like the norm. There's no news like bad news and the fascination and enjoyment that people get with watching someone screw-up (see also: the rise of reality TV) would seem to indicate a disproportionate perception of the reality of police work. However, I think having an attitude among police that by default defends the actions of other officers does enable the populace to grow so cynical. When clear cases of abuse get largely swept under the rug or receive superficial penalties it frustrates people. While you state that you've been on the hot seat because of a frivolous complaint, it would seem that the system worked in the end. I certainly don't think that weakening Internal Affairs is going to solve anything relevant to the topic here.

It would seem, as Vlad argued, the American citizenry is largely taking issue with it. Thus the purpose of this conversation.

I think the clothing thing is an apprehension that most people will let go of with some thought. The more important issues seem to be no-knock entries on sloppy warrants, increasing number of departments "needing" APCs, abusive overrides of consent, and hostility to "smart-asses" who just so happen to know and understand their pesky rights.