Bill to Ban (some) Body Armor

This question comes up from time to time, and to put it in perspective I'll quote Richard Davis, who invented soft body armor

"If they see the armor, they shoot for the head."

If you've ever been curious about BA, here's Richard Davis and Alec Jason (ex - S.F.P.D.) testing BA the hard way - notice the difference between concealable soft body armor and Rich's "SOF" model designed to stop rifle caliber projectiles:



My .02 is that this is a feel-good - do-nothing proposal that allows some lazy politician to appear to have done something important when in reality they merely have a solution to a non-existent problem.
 
I get the feeling that people might have a mistaken impression of how these products work in real application as well. Yes, you survive the shot. Probably. You have less of a chance to survive the next one. And less after that. Also, it isn't 'shrug it off'. From rifle rounds described, you still go down from getting hit.

It increases survival rates in war because other assets complement it. You survive the hit, your team helps get you out, and the next week you're in a new vest or replaced the plate. In isolation it's not as effective as some people seem to think it is.

This is another reason why I speculated about a concern from rogue militias; they're the only groups who would be able to take much of an advantage from these.
 
WildCat said:
I don't think military are legally "employees", but police are certainly included.

Why should police have protections denied to civilians?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that military are not considered government "employees" in the context of this bill? Or in many other aspects as well? Especially given that the USA no longer has an active military draft. Service men and women apply for a position, sign a contract, are assigned specific pay grades, are assigned specific duties, and are paid a salary in return. There might be contexts where they are treated in a distinct manner from other employees, but why do you think that in regard to this particular bill?

Of course, I assume that the bill exempts the police from the body armor restrictions, but not post-office mail carriers (although I can see an argument for allowing them body armor). Do you know anything about this question?

I will simply pass on your question as to why police should have protections denied to civilians. In fact, I can't think of a single reason with which you might agree.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
The bill has to be justified with it's benefit, not simply acceptable because the perceived cost is low. This is especially true when the justification is simple vilification.
Click to expand...

Well said. That should apply to all laws.
 
tyr_13 said:
That argument is backwards. What is the benefit?
Click to expand...

Someone cited a couple of cases of armed lawbreakers using this kind of armour. So the benefit would be that lawbreakers are less likely to use it in criminal acts.

Seems like a case of no meaningful cost, tiny but meaningful benefit.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Someone cited a couple of cases of armed lawbreakers using this kind of armour. So the benefit would be that lawbreakers are less likely to use it in criminal acts.

Seems like a case of no meaningful cost, tiny but meaningful benefit.
Click to expand...


They actually didn't. The armor under discussion is Type III rated, and of the ones cited in that article that I could find rough information on kind, none were that. In almost all of those cases the armor was already illegally acquired or home made. That's two ways this bill would have had no benefit to the cases cited.

Thus far it's no meaningful benefit either.
 
tyr_13 said:
They actually didn't. The armor under discussion is Type III rated, and of the ones cited in that article that I could find rough information on kind, none were that. In almost all of those cases the armor was already illegally acquired or home made. That's two ways this bill would have had no benefit to the cases cited.

Thus far it's no meaningful benefit either.
Click to expand...
You couldn't find any cases so there were no cases? Seriously?
 
Gawdzilla said:
You couldn't find any cases so there were no cases? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Does anyone including the bill sponsors have any rational reason to believe that a new law like this will protect anyone or make us relatively safer in the USA?

Ranb
 
tyr_13 said:
I don't know if there are no cases, but so far there haven't been any cited.
Click to expand...

Do you completely rule out the idea that politicians should try to foresee problems and prevent them before they happen? Or are we arguing from the starting point that no law is justified unless something bad has already happened?

Because the argument that the armour used by criminals in the past wasn't quite the same kind of body armour seems a little bit over-specific. I don't imagine criminals are that fussy about where they get their body armour, and some criminals are clearly interested in body armour in general.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Do you completely rule out the idea that politicians should try to foresee problems and prevent them before they happen? Or are we arguing from the starting point that no law is justified unless something bad has already happened?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but looking at previous problems is one way to prove there could be an actual problem worth addressing, the potential costs and benefits, and if the steps will actually address the predicted problem or not. So far, any problem predicted or evidenced to exist in present isn't addressed by this bill. So what is it for?

Because the argument that the armour used by criminals in the past wasn't quite the same kind of body armour seems a little bit over-specific. I don't imagine criminals are that fussy about where they get their body armour, and some criminals are clearly interested in body armour in general.
Click to expand...

These points actually argue against the bill, not for it.
 
tyr_13 said:
Of course not, but looking at previous problems is one way to prove there could be an actual problem worth addressing, the potential costs and benefits, and if the steps will actually address the predicted problem or not. So far, any problem predicted or evidenced to exist in present isn't addressed by this bill. So what is it for?

These points actually argue against the bill, not for it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you will have to walk me through the logic.

Some criminals sometimes are interested in having body armour, which allows them to have much better odds in a shootout with police. It doesn't make them Superman, before anyone tries that straw man, but getting shot while wearing armour is clearly vastly preferable to getting shot while not wearing it.

This is body armour which is fit for exactly that purpose. Therefore it is reasonable that some criminals in the future may be interested in this armour for unlawful purposes. Therefore making it harder for them to get it counts as a benefit, albeit not a huge one.

This armour has no everyday civilian application that anyone has yet raised. Its only use is to someone who is about to go into a situation where they are likely to get shot. Thus restricting it from civilian ownership has a cost of zero.

How do you put these facts together and conclude that they add up to a case against restricting this kind of armour from civilian sale? The implied argument seems to be that you think that criminals are not interested in this specific kind of body armour because they have not been in the past. However it seems implausible to think that criminals have a special love for home-made armour and a strict aversion to buying commercial-quality stuff.
 
Maybe the sponsor is looking to garner funds from law enforcement officer. Or at least claim "I sponsored a bill to enhance law enforcement's ability to take out the bad guys" and get support from the anti-crime voters.

Politics as usual, or am I being (eta- tooo) cynical?
 
I think pistol proof armor is good for the cop's buck shot, or his pistol. And not many patrol officers carry anything bigger than 5.56 in their cars. Which side if the line does 5.56 fall on?

Nah, this is a law in search of a problem. or do I mean votes?
 
casebro said:
I think pistol proof armor is good for the cop's buck shot, or his pistol. And not many patrol officers carry anything bigger than 5.56 in their cars. Which side if the line does 5.56 fall on?

Nah, this is a law in search of a problem. or do I mean votes?
Click to expand...
You mean votes.
 
casebro said:
I think pistol proof armor is good for the cop's buck shot, or his pistol. And not many patrol officers carry anything bigger than 5.56 in their cars. Which side if the line does 5.56 fall on?

Nah, this is a law in search of a problem. or do I mean votes?
Click to expand...
You mean votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom