Plan9

First with the worst:

The two most recent (as of my popcorn memory) CNN 5-minutes-worthy spree killings in the US featured gunmen that were supposedly wearing body armor (Binghamton, Pittsburgh). The "enlightened" media commentary was that the gunmen were anticipating a shootout with the police and intended on extending their survivability by donning protective vests before they started their respective rampages. Intent aside, neither of these jokers had a chance to actually use their vests (NY guy gave himself a third nostril and the PA guy was SWAT'd and is now in custody).

My thoughts:

My position is that personally owned body armor is probably going to be a casualty of these kinds of shooting incidents. Bad press leads to stuffed shirt "action." The gotta-blame-something crowd is starting to milk the gun arena dry again. Body armor doesn't kill people, it doesn't give anyone superhuman abilities (other than foolish confidence perhaps), and it's prohibitively expensive. Much like the hype created around "assault weapons," body armor may go the way of the dodo simply because of repetitive liberal media mention / political scapegoating.

This is more of a non-issue, short of bad guys using hard plate body armor inserts, as many police departments now have "patrol carbines" or 5.56mm M16 / M4 style weapons in their vehicles. 5.56mm ammunition easily defeats soft body armor.

Question:

Do you feel that body armor ("bulletproof" vests) is simply a passive protection item and should be left alone or that it enables spree killers and other criminals and should be more heavily regulated at the state or federal level (more like firearms)?

=EDIT=

PURPOSE OF THREAD: Create a discussion to examine the perspective of various TFPers in regards to how they see body armor as a political issue. Is it one? Could it be made one? What other issues are involved?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

roachboy

i'm a bit confused about the way in which this is an "issue"---i can easily imagine donning such gear as part of a travis bickle ritual that enframes going out in a blaze of blah blah blah and little else.

it seems like a straw man, both out there and---particularly---in the bizarre-o characterisation of the (real? imaginary?) Persecuting Other that you imagine wants to take away all your toys and reduce you to a less than manly state of manly man-ness.

do you have any examples of such arguments actually being advanced by anyone?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

I believe that there may already be a few states where body armor possession by non law enforcement is a crime. I wonder how much time will go by and how many 'sprees' will we see happen before legislatures all over the country try to outlaw any kind of protective gear whatsoever.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

KirStang

I think the only time where Body Armor played a huge role in preventing apprehension was the LA shoot out at the Bank of America. Those dudes had AKs, fully automatic, full body armor and Beta Drum mags.

Indeed, even then, one of the perpetrators was taken down with a bullet through the neck...(although he was about to attempt suicide and shot himself in the chin? head? Not clear on that fact).

So, I don't think body armor is a huge issue for 'enabling' shooting sprees.

Cynthetiq

IMO seems like a reasonable safety gear option for those that go hunting around stupid people.

this doesn't sound unreasonable as a means of weeding out the morons that shouldn't have access to body armor, though I'm not sure what is considered a class A misdemeanor. If that's too broad... well it's then worthless in protecting people's right to choose.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

eribrav

As a hunter, I will say that if I don't trust you with a firearm I am not hunting with you at all, period, even if you could offer me head to toe body armor.
Hunting is an enjoyable activity and I won't have it ruined by worrying about some idiot who is unsafe with a weapon.

Plan9

Just this: Body Armor Thread

*palmface*

I knew there was a reason I left this place. The site title descriptors are often inaccurate.

I concur. Firearms and protective equipment are separate entities. Personal responsibility should prevent the first from ever necessitating the second. There is no good reason for why you would need to wear body armor while shooting at a pistol range, hunting deer, or bustin' clay pigeons. That's just silly.

Besides, short of wearing hard plates, body armor would be a little pointless as a solution for hunting "accidents."

Also:

I found it interesting that "residents of Connecticut are prohibited from buying body armor unless the sale is face to face (or unless the buyer is a police officer or military personnel)."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Rekna

This is an interesting thing I have never thought of before. Can someone who advocates the ownership of body armor (non-work related) please explain some law abiding reasoning's for owning body armor?

The hunting reason earlier seemed extremely weak. I have never seen or heard of anyone hunting with body armor on. Plus as mentioned earlier if you don't trust the people you are hunting with then you probably wouldn't hunt with them.

Cynthetiq

It's not an argument, it is a simple statement. I can't control stupid drivers, but yet I seem to have airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, and other "safety features" because of someone else who I don't know or am not party to while out in the streets. Stupid people are out there, stupid unsafe hunters are out there too. It was just a thought, not saying I'd don one when out there, or advocate for it's usagae, but then again, why do they make you wear orange? Safety, some people take safety to just as stupidly extreme measures. If it made them feel safer why not let them have the choice was my thought. I'm not a hunter, and it seems silly to me to wear such gear if you were out there.

When I lived in Van Nuys, I'd hear gun fire from time to time, all because the local gangs decided it was cool to drive by and shoot up houses. There's another application.

Again, I wouldn't do it myself, but I can see someone else thinking it be a good solution for themselves.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Rekna

I'm confused on your last reason. Is it that you would want to wear the armor when doing a drive by or that you would want to wear the armor in case someone did a drive by?

Cynthetiq

well jeez, i never thought of wearing them when I did the drive bys... no, people wearing them in houses because of stray gun fire.

It was common in some places I knew that they didn't go near the windows or doors at night.

I was and am just looking for logical legal usage that was enough to give reasonable doubt against legal banning.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Rekna

It sounds to me you are grasping at straws. Do you know anyone that wears body armor around the house just in case of a drive by? Do they also wear tin foil hats? Do these mythical people wearing body armor in there house in case of drivebys wear the armor around town also? It seems a lot more likely you would get shot by a drive by when not in your house than when in your house.

Also it seems to me that most drive bys are targeted and are usually gang on gang violence. Is your argument that body armor is used by criminals to avoid being shot by other criminals?

Cynthetiq

No, I'm not speaking about the criminals, I'm speaking about the people who live doors down the criminals who still get shot by stray bullets missing the intended targets and passing through walls and doors. It happened all the time in LA and still does from time to time.

I'm again, looking for simple reasons why it should be legal and not blocked by reasonable means, not for enhancement of committing crimes.

There's lots of proposed laws that don't become laws because of simple usage "gets it by", that's the angle that I'm looking at.

I don't care if it sounds silly. I'm not defending anything here just trying to find reasons for a law abiding citizen to own and use body armor.

In fact, I just thought of one, armored truck drivers and escorts are not law enforcement. They wear body armor here in NYC.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

rekna, are you of the belief that there is only gang on gang violence and that these episodes of violence are wholly restricted to targeting and/or victimizing other gang members with these acts of violence?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rekna

If you read my posts you will see I said non-work related. I am trying to find a reasonable use for body armor. That is a use that a reasonable person would potentially use it for.

Just because someone may use it in an extreme case does not mean it should be legal. Look at lock picking tools. You cannot have them unless you have a permit for work related reasons. However, a person may use them to pick a lock in their own home (a legal use) but that doesn't mean the lock picks are legal. At the same time look at napster and other file sharing services. There are legal reasons to use those services (sharing your own files for example) but yet the courts ruled that those services were illegal because they were primarily used for illegal reasons.

Right now I don't see a logical reason to have body armor (and I'm not talking about a bullet proof vest here, i'm talking about the stuff the military uses) without a work related reason for having it. If someone would please provide a typical use of such an armor then my view could be easily changed but right now I haven't seen a good reason. The only "good" reason I can think of right now is for a costume party....

KirStang

Ugh. Another 'justify your X against my presumption against X' post.

Non work use. Going to a carbine course, or participating in three gun shoots. Who knows, maybe some asshat will have poor muzzle discipline. It's not considered weird among some Iraq contractors to wear armor when going to their local recreational shooting range stateside.

So. Protection around other people recreationally using firearms. Is that enough justification?

Rekna

No I said a majority of gang violence is gang on gang. Here is something else I don't believe. I don't believe people sit around in there house in body armor because they are afraid of a drive by.

Cynthetiq

they don't. I never said they did.

I said they stay away from windows and doors, even though stucco, fiberglass insulation, gypsum drywall aren't much barriers either.

I guess you don't believe that gangs miss their targets on a consistent basis and that many innocent people are killed by stray bullets just as they walk in their living rooms minding their own business.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Rekna

No I do believe that gangs perform violence on non-gang members often. Again you stated that people would sit at home with body armor on because they were afraid of being shot. I don't believe this and you have not shown any evidence of this.

Let's look at it a different way. Is there a single real world example that actually occurred where a civilian was saved because of body armor? (Again I'm talking combat armor here not a bullet proof vest). We can find numerous examples where civilians having access to this armor was bad (hollywood shootout). All i'm asking you guys to do is provide me a real world example where it is used.

So far the best reason anyone has posted was to wear it to a gun range. My challenge to this is find me a case where the combat armor actually protected someone at a gun range.

Cynthetiq

again, they don't. but whatever, i've stated my statements and tried to show a different point of view, you can't see it or won't see it, and here we are.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Rekna

I don't see why you all get so upset over a simple question. I asked for a reasonable example of why civilians would need this for non-work related activities and instead I get a bunch of upset people... Many of you are very defensive about this question. I suspect it is because the only reasons you can think of are 1) its cool and 2) I might need it to help take over the government someday. If your reasoning is 2 don't you think the government has an interest in keeping it out of your hands?

It would be interesting to look at a simple cost/benefit analysis of civilians owning combat armor. How many lives have been lost because of it and how many have been saved because of it.

roachboy

i can see a use in that folk who were in the military who might have become accustomed to wearing it perferring to have it on in certain situations, like on a firing range, maybe because of the sound associations, maybe for more pragmatic reasons.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

hiredgun

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.

dksuddeth

you would be right, but these people probably get the grapevine news network on when something is about to go down and if they had body armor, they'd probably want to use it.

On a side note, light kevlar has become popular attire among school students in parts of the UK due to the rising knife attacks.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

You're my new best friend.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

dude, I can't believe you just dumped me like that.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

Pfft, I totally just broke up with you via Facebook. You never check that, Duh-wain! You could have taken the "It's Complicated" in my relationship status as a hint, ya know? Ugh, you're so 1997.

...

Seriously:

I think anything that has a "shoot 'em up" military application is likely to come under scrutiny when involved in crimes and I wanted to see what TFP thought about this.

Body armor just seems like something else that could be lumped in with other "militant nut manly-man man-ness man-tiques" (Roachboy, my feelings? Seriously? You're so not my Facebook friend anymore either!) silliness because people don't think about prevalence, incidence, and crazy shit like... oh, I dunno... actual application. I wanna explore this stuff.

Such one-chunk categorization of "manly man-ness" is Starbelly-Sneetched goofitude and has lead to laws that cater more to the emotions of the technically and statistically ignorant than any actually Tokyo-stomping monster. Clearly outlining subcategories is important in any debate or so I've been taught. Vast generalizations are for crappy journalists and Crompsins, not for legislators or Real Academics (TM).

SEE: Bayonets, grenade launchers, "assault weapons characteristics," .50 BMG, Class II and III use in crime vs. legislation.

This thread wasn't ever intended to suggest that I'm waving the Wolverines! flag of screw-the-law... I was simply asking a survey question. I know that state laws vary and that purchasing and owning body armor in other countries is not nearly as free in the US, where you can buy it online and have it shipped to your door. Some countries have laws that ask the question, "Why do you need to stop bullets aimed at your torso?" I was just wondering if anybody here thinks that our country may think those kinds of laws are a good idea.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

highthief

Both the missus and I own body armour from a previous life - never really thought about it enabling mass murderers. These guys always seem to want to die anyway and usually end up that way. I'm not sure there are any restrictions in Canada on owning armour and I don't think there needs to be.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Zeraph

so long as they don't ban my bullet proof codpiece...


(but no, there's no way any defensive item should be banned)

telekinetic

Body Armor is not terribly useful in a civilized world, but there is an argument for purchasing it while you still easily can as insurance against if and when the world becomes less civilized (and anyone who totally discounts that possibility has not paying attention).

Here is an excerpt from a thread on frugalsquirrels (which now requires a login to read, boo) about surviving the economic collapse of Argentina:

__________________
twisted no more