|
Would body armor really be useful to a one-off shooter such as the guy in Binghamton? Body armor is designed to save your life, but if you take a direct hit while wearing armor, my understanding is that you're still going to go down, and hard. In a standoff with one crazy guy versus a team of elite police, I don't imagine that the shooter is really very likely to bounce back from that as a result of his armor - the cops should be all over him by the time he recovers. Or am I mistaken about this?
In any case, because I think the harm is (presently) fairly minimal, and because I think recreational protection as described by other users is pretty legitimate, I wouldn't advocate for control of armor.
Of course, this is about context. If we were involved in a protracted war against guerrillas or organized gangs, armor could be a key factor. So for example, I think it would make sense for Mexico to outlaw armor as a facet of its war against the cartels, because the decision to limit the circulation of that material to non-government personnel would probably save lives and help them fight organized crime.
|