Should body armor be banned?

No. It should be made widely available to everyone.

No. Body armor is purely defensive and has no offensive capability. Firearms are offensive weapons by definition.

Body armor also works against other weapons besides an AR-15.

A body armor ban (much as the entire gun debate) is little more than a distracting waste of time. EVERYONE of sound mind knows EXACTLY what is required to assuredly lower the homicide statistics. Once again, were this any other issue, say an epidemic of snakebite or rat infestation, the argument against snake or rat control would be categorically dismissed as absurd.

Body armor, is a device of war. Why would ANY civilian “need” it?

@MrGrimm888 Body amour is protection and good sense in risky situations.

I don’t know, how many people has body armor killed?

@MrGrimm888 “Body armor, is a device of war. Why would ANY civilian ‘need’ it?”

Because we’re increasingly being shot at by people carrying other devices of war. Until that problem is fixed, it’s not unreasonable for civilians to want body armor. And if the problem does get fixed, there will be no need to ban body armor. So there aren’t really conditions under which banning body armor makes sense.

@MrGrimm I was a medic on an ambulance decades ago. All of us were civilian volunteers. While responding to a call one of the other medics was shot at by a nutjob. He was not hit but a few guys bought vests.

I agree with the reasoning of the nos.

It is OK to have defensive equipment – it does not hurt anyone. One should have good reason to have offensive equipment since it can be used to hurt people.

~ ~ ~ ~ They’re going to need a lot of body armor for all the teachers carrying AR-15 ‘s to protect the schools.

If everyone wore body armor, it would be twice as hard to shoot someone dead. That would discourage shooters. Then we wouldn’t need to arm teachers and students.

~~It should be compulsory for all those who don’t carry any weapon..)

Its banned in Alberta.

@RedDeerGuy1 It’s not banned. You just need a license to get it.

If our concern is the big public mass shootings is body armor even a concern? Don’t most end in suicide?

And I am all for people wearing it. That shit ain’t light. If everyone had to wear it you would save more life’s from cardiac arrest than bullets.

lol..)

Lots of the worst mass shooters, have dawned some type of body armor. It is a equalizer, on level with any other military gear.

Why should it be legal to wear something that makes it harder for police to shoot you?

Just like a high capacity magazine, makes it easier to kill more people, doesn’t the ability to absorb police interactions make you a better killer as well? More capable of killing cops, and civilians…

*donned
“Why should it be legal to wear something that makes it harder for police to shoot you?”
To help you defend yourself against, and hopefully overthrow eventually, the tyrannical government. If you are white.
To help you defend yourself against, and hopefully overthrow eventually, the racist government. If you are not white.

^donned, yes. My bad.

@MrGrimm888 – can you show a single incident where someone went on to kill more people due to having body armor? The police seem to be pretty effective once they decide someone needs to be shot.

I think you understand you’re stretching, but I’m not following why.

A single incident. Ok. February 28th,1997.
LAPD suffered mass casualties, and great difficulty dealing with two robbers in full body armor, and armed with assault weapons. It’s easily viewed on u-tube. I think it has multiple documentaries, and is on the beginning of the movie “SWAT.”

The police bullets can be seen literally bouncing off of them.

Many mass shooters wear body armor. It’s an ability to be more deadly. Assuming that they are being shot at by a police officer, or armed civilian. Most vests, will hold up against conventional small arms fire.

I am trying to illustrate, that just because something has military application, and can be used as an advantage in a mass shooting situation, the majority of the use is used for nonviolent means.

Most vests protect LEOs, and military personnel. Most ARs are used responsibly, and/or for their purpose by qualified/responsible people.

Give someone body armor, and an AR, and they are more deadly than without…

Some would say that their AR, is for protection. Same as a vest. The intent of the (law abiding) owner, is protection.

As mentioned above, the vest won’t stop a determined SWAT team, or government force. Just like an AR, won’t stop any serious government army. Well organized militia, or what not. Body armor should fall into the same category as an AR…

How many casualties in that bank robbery over 20 years ago where two guy carried in automatic weapons, including a modified AR-15 set to fire automatically, fired over 1000 rounds, and wore body armor?

Who died?

^I don’t remember. Are you insinuating that you have to die, to be a casualty? Or that the armor didn’t provide a massive advantage?

Look, I’m not trying to be rude, I just think you’re trying to prove something that isn’t true.

Are you insinuating that you have to die, to be a casualty?

Yes. That’s the definition of casualty.

Or that the armor didn’t provide a massive advantage?

Yes.

The only two people to die were the robbers. Shot by an army of police officers (300) despite body armor. One was shot in the legs until he bled out.

So this would be a bad example of the massive advantage provided by body armor. I don’t think there’s a good example of body armor providing someone with an effective advantage against law enforcement, which is the base of your argument.

That’s beside the fact that body armor is strictly defensive and doesn’t harm anyone, while potentially saving lives. It’s a bad target for regulation, so I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.

Casualty , noun ; a person killed, or injured in a war, accident, or incident .

If you watch some of the footage, it’s actually very obvious that the armor is a huge advantage.

Just saying, it seems like the “why would you need an AR? question.” There is really no way to justify body armor for a civilian. The armor is just a tool, and can give a mass killer an advantage over first responders.

There’s no slow clap – standing ovation point I’m getting at. Just pointing out the logic of banning certain things, that are normally not used for nefarious acts.