Body armor

[Styx]

But you own guns for self defense and are that paranoid?

Yes, but not to the point and extent to where I am paranoid enough to start EDC'ing body armor, or should I say the threat level is high enough to where I deem body armor is worth the effort, cost, and inconvenience.

 

[Old Dog]

Agreed. No other POV makes sense.

And there you have it. Close the thread now, the voice of authority has spoken.

Seriously though, if we have members on an RKBA-centric forum telling everyone that there's no need whatsoever for private citizens to have body armor...

...we may have some members who are having problems seeing the big picture.

 

[Styx]

And there you have it. Close the thread now, the voice of authority has spoken.

Seriously though, if we have members on an RKBA-centric forum telling everyone that there's no need whatsoever for private citizens to have body armor...

...we may have some members who are having problems seeing the big picture.

I think everyone just have their own personal opinion on the need or usefulness for body armor. I don't think anyone is saying it should be illegal or other's can't have opposing opinions. Some of us just are of the opinion that the argument for them doesn't make much sense to us. Our argument might not make sense to those who find them useful for everyday life. We both can agree that it still should be a legal option.

 

[lemaymiami]

Did my best to describe what wearing body armor is like day in and day out but I know everyone interested will still have their own choices to make.

Something I noted years ago though needs mentioning... If there are places where you wouldn't want to be unless armed (or armored...)... Why oh why would you go there - unless it was an overwhelming obligation - or part of your job? If you go looking for trouble you just might find it - and what happens after an armed encounter will keep you up at night - that I guarantee (as Justin Wilson would say...).

By the way - I was working in uniform the day that FBI Miami disaster went down... It totally exposed the bureau's lax approach to things tactical and the agents on the scene paid dearly for that. In the following years they pulled up their socks and got very serious about street tactics, armaments, specialty outfits to deal with potential serious armed conflict in most scenarios.. So did we all... I was no where near that incident since I worked about 30 miles to the north. Watching the bureau's performance today (and with only what info is publicly available) I suspect they're once again - badly in need of reform - but that's a topic for another forum...

 

[Doc Samson]

Hard armor plates are great. I have a set of Level IV triple curve ceramic plates in a Voodoo Tactical Heavy carrier backed by soft armor as my emergency set up, and it's been worn for work. It weighs 15+ pounds. I'm a fairly strong guy, but if I tried to run in that setup I'd die.

It's not enough to just have the kit and firearms. Unless you just like looking cool sitting on the couch. You have to train with it. Train with your rifle and handgun. Train while wearing armor kit. Training at emergency first aid. You have to be in some sort of shape other than round, otherwise you are a liability to yourself and those around you. This goes for me too.

If you want armor, buy the best you can afford. But more importantly, get training.

This! I was looking into plates because I figure if you need it, you might as well get the best protection possible. Been lifting weights for decades but not much into cardio but thought "Eh, what's 15-20 lbs?". The more I read, the more I realized I probably needed to "train up" before making a large monetary commitment. Bought a 40 lb. weighted vest to start training with (stair runs, mowing the lawn, etc.) and... it's been an hot and sweaty eye opener!

 

[21H40]

This thread has challenged me to reconsider some of my opinions - and delve into where they came from.

I've done the full battle-rattle in a desert environment, and I do not miss it at all. Even little things like getting in and out of a vehicle were more difficult and irritating. I've been opposed to donning armor as a civilian because of my experience in the desert.

Tactically, I think armor is a commitment that you will remain in place despite incoming fire. My civilian mindset is that I will NOT hold ground (outside of my home), and intend to escape and evade as soon as the situation allows.

 

[CapnMac]

we may have some members who are having problems seeing the big picture.

If it were as simple as just wearing long trousers and a woolly sweater, perhaps.

From some of the logic expressed above, we should "killdozer" our Honda Civics, too. There's a real, one in a million chance that having an 8000# 3mpg commuter car that needs new tires every six months and won't corner nor fit in parking garages very well could be a "life saver."

I'll go out on a limb and predict no one here would "ban" ownership of armor.

Only that rather more than a few of us are like to point out that it's like driving a LAV-25 or a Bradley to work and back. Would that be effective to task? Certainly. Will it come with its own set of additional burdens--well, there's a the rub of it.

Consider the effort and trouble we each go to selecting a concealed carry holster. All that effort just goes out the window on getting armor, hard or soft.
If you live south of say, Springfield IL, you will want two sets of soft armor. One set goes in the freezer to try and control the stank. It's a reality of life in armor.

 

[Old Dog]

If it were as simple as just wearing long trousers and a woolly sweater, perhaps.

I was not speaking to the practicality of wearing body armor, but rather to one person decreeing that only one point of view on the issue made sense. You're right, it's not that simple. There can be differing perspectives and opinions -- and also some willing to sacrifice comfort for perceived increase in personal safety.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Civilian body armor - is like bars on your windows.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

What I remember from that thread was that a lot of people responding to it completely dismissed the idea that body armor has any use for a civilian...I argued that while it may seem irrational to a lot of us, it makes as much sense as having any gun. I argued for the sanity and rationale behind having both a plate carrier (and helmet) as well as having concealable soft armor.

I'm late to the party, and I missed your other thread, but my thought is...

If I were a teacher, I would absolutely have Level IV plates and a kevlar ballistic helmet in my classroom at all times.

It may be impractical to wear armor to Wal-Mart, the movie theater or to church, (the other common places mass shootings happen) but if you spend 8 hrs a day in one room where you're essentially a sitting duck just waiting to be killed with no hope of protection, then, yeah...armor up.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

PS: If you think about it, laws restricting possession of body armor are pretty heinous. Let's see, not only does the government want us completely disarmed, but they also don't want us to have anything that would minimize the weapons they can bring to bear against us. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[westernrover]

A shield is another good option to have on-hand. As others have pointed out, armor is a trade-off -- the user trades agility, speed, mobility for protection that adds weight and hinders speed and movement. In some cases, the trade-off is undesirable, but in others it is favorable. If you're stuck in a classroom (referring to post #60) and you are not able to evacuate or if bailing would mean leaving some of the ~30 kids behind and defenseless, then running-away might not be the preferred tactic. A helmet and level IV plate carrier are good options to have on-hand if your plan includes options that don't allow for you to escape. A ballistic shield is a useful adjunct. It can protect body parts not covered by a plate carrier, it's quicker to deploy, it can shield other people, and it can be used in conjunction with a handgun to mount a counterattack.

I do teach kids in classrooms, though not in public schools or full-time. I wouldn't normally wear armor in those circumstances, but it seems rational to have on-hand if a shooter were to announce themselves with gunfire down the hallway. I wouldn't ridicule teachers in particular circumstances from wearing soft armor when they're aware of credible threats.

 

[westernrover]

Fortunately, no federal law and few of our states restrict body armor except during the commission of crimes and for those convicted of crimes in the past, particularly felonies. Connecticut restricts the sale of body armor to in-person transactions but does not outlaw the purchase or possession of it. At least one state, Kansas, prohibits the wear of armor during parades, protests, rallies, and demonstrations, but otherwise does not prohibit its purchase or possession.

Second Chance, significant because of its role in this history of kevlar armor, always had a policy of not selling to citizens and only to law enforcement -- screw them. I think they were ultimately ruined by the Zylon scam and they're gone -- bought by armor holdings which was then bought by BAE. I haven't seen any other brands of armor with that kind of policy.

 

[Styx]

Fortunately, no federal law and few of our states restrict body armor except during the commission of crimes and for those convicted of crimes in the past, particularly felonies. Connecticut restricts the sale of body armor to in-person transactions but does not outlaw the purchase or possession of it. At least one state, Kansas, prohibits the wear of armor during parades, protests, rallies, and demonstrations, but otherwise does not prohibit its purchase or possession.

Second Chance, significant because of its role in this history of kevlar armor, always had a policy of not selling to citizens and only to law enforcement -- screw them. I think they were ultimately ruined by the Zylon scam and they're gone -- bought by armor holdings which was then bought by BAE. I haven't seen any other brands of armor with that kind of policy.

It's another low hanging fruit. Give it time and there will be a Federal ban, or at the very least, more states will ban it. Not many Americans utilize body armor, so their won't be much of a fight put up just like there wasn't with bumpstocks.

 

[JDeere]

And there you have it. Close the thread now, the voice of authority has spoken.

Seriously though, if we have members on an RKBA-centric forum telling everyone that there's no need whatsoever for private citizens to have body armor...

...we may have some members who are having problems seeing the big picture.

That's your opinion others have theirs. Is it not what forums are for in regards to discussing things? If you want to prep so be it. The big picture is what one sees for themselves...

 

[drobs]

My office at Camp Victory in Baghdad Iraq at the end of the War in Iraq. I'm pretty sure it was a IIIA soft vest plus front and back steel rifle plates. It was HEAVY!!!!

There is an expensive progression of equipment within certain circles of civilian firearms ownership.
1. Magazine Fed Semi-Auto Rifle.
2. Body Armor rated for rifle calibers.
3. Rifle Caliber Suppressor.
4. Night Vision.

I'm on step 3. I have a plate carrier set up with Level IV RMA Ceramic Plates. Even ceramic plates are heavy. It stays in my bedroom and is easily put on if the need arises.

Fun story, I was invited to shoot on private land with some new friends from my Jeep Club. I thought I would be cool bringing my Suppressed AR15 pistol. Then 2 Iraq & Afghanistan vets show up at the shoot with suppressed AR15's with $6,000 to $10,000 Thermal scopes on them.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I half heartedly feel the first image in this article of the soldier on the left is somewhat relevant, particularly after drobs post...
https://archive.nytimes.com/lens.bl.../21/behind-the-scenes-man-in-the-pink-boxers/