I do believe civilians should be allowed to have body armor. I am pro 2A all day everyday. Imagine how many lives would be saved from criminals if everyday people could wear armor. Armor is defensive and therefore should be allowed even for those with felony convictions.
However, I do believe there should be different levels of armor available for civilians, law enforcement and military. Obviously the military needs the best armor since combat is literally their job. I doubt anyone sensible would argue a civilian needs military armor. SWAT officers on a SWAT mission should have this same armor as well.
Regular police should have heavier armor than the average civilian. They are the ones who put their lives in active danger everyday on the street but they will not face Fallujah-level weapons in most cases and the few they do that is what SWAT is for.
Civilians do not need the same level of armor as cops. Armor is very uncomfortable and can restrict movement. Most of the armed criminals an everyday civilian might encounter will have handguns, knives and an occasional semi-auto rifle. NO armor outside the military and SWAT is 100% effective against shotguns and hunting rifles. The lowest levels of armor can protect against most threats an everyday civilian could face. Also, law enforcement needs superior armor to protect themselves from crazed criminals. If a criminal has access to better armor than cops, then the city would have more dead cops and therefore have to spend more of their budget replacing those officers. Also, despite liberal propaganda, law enforcement does not just go out seeking to shoot civilians. If a cop draws a weapon on you, then either you did something to warrant it or the limited information they have forces them to take crazy precautions. Bottom line: obey the officer's commands and do not resist and their guns are no threat to you.
To your "update" argument that "If everyone agrees it's okay to own protection, then it's okay to own the weapons you are protecting against." this is a fallacious argument.
Agreeing that people should be allowed to own safety equipment, is NOT the same as agreeing they should be allowed to own dangerous equipment that the safety equipment protects you from. We buy theft insurance to protect us from theft; that doesn't mean theft is okay. There are welding goggles and other eyewear that protect from harmful light rays, that doesn't mean it's cool for people to own dangerous devices intended to blind people that don't have protection.
I'm not even anti-gun. But this argument is not logically valid that acceptance of body armor = acceptance of guns.
I'm for it. Just not sure when you would wear it? In your home as well from r home invasion purposes? If you were faced with a situation that called for body armor and you weren't wearing it at the time, you wouldn't be able to use it, right? You can't suit yourself up with it in front of the perpetrators would you. 🤷🏼♀️
I wear body armor for riding my motorcycle. It has a purpose, to protect me from injury. My dog clubs own bite suits. They have a purpose. To prevent from injury during the training of dog sport.
I'm only rolling a IIIA concealable body armor loadout right now. I keep by webbing ready to toss on top if I need it. Why wouldn't you be able to buy body armor? It isn't like buying C4 or anything, it can only serve a defensive posture.
Looking at that kit, are you more geared for evasion? Makes me curious what your pack and assault loadout is.
I lean towards private ownership but there is the potential problem of a nut deciding to go on a rampage and it is more difficult to take them out because they are wearing full body armor.
Much of the “body armor” sold today to civilians is several grades below what it claims to be… most civilians don’t even know there’s different grades of body armor and what each grade covers… Most civilians will never need body armor…
That being said… nobody should be prevented from owning anything. Buddy armor, guns, forms of pornography, drugs, and even biological weapons… Most people can’t get ahold of and don’t care to own any of these. But we’re not really free unless we’re free
I believe women and men should be forced to stay together in marriage and support each other until they die just short of premature death or abuse but you wouldn’t want me making that a law right?
Just cause you disagree don’t mean you have the right to enforce or block it.
No at least not everybody because imagine most people won´t use their weapon just for self-defense but instead to threaten other people because those people make them mad or they´ve taken someone´s priority in traffic. Sorry I don´t have enough in humanity that people just use that for honorable reasons. At the end of the day you would also need to turn the police into military to help them be a law in forcement. Because if everybody had weapons, the police would need more and better weapons to have the upper hand. I therefore just see negative sides of it.
NY PEN § 270.20 Unlawful wearing of a body vest 1. A person is guilty of the unlawful wearing of a body vest when acting either alone or with one or more other persons he commits any violent felony offense defined in section 70.02 while possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun and in the course of and in furtherance of such crime he wears a body vest. 2. For the purposes of this section a “body vest” means a bullet-resistant soft body armor providing, as a minimum standard, the level of protection known as threat level I which shall mean at least seven layers of bullet-resistant material providing protection from three shots of one hundred fifty-eight grain lead ammunition fired from a.38 calibre handgun at a velocity of eight hundred fifty feet per second.
The unlawful wearing of a body vest is a class E felony. ===== But you know these mother fucker will use it to commit a crime. because most fleeing felons do have that mentality
I don’t see why not. I think laws regarding body armor varies from state to state but for the most part, civilians can own body armor as long as they haven’t been convicted for violent crimes. Plus I’m sure there would be some modifications to civilian body armor to distinguish them from military armor like with civilian weapons and military weapons (Like the M4 and the AR-15)
0
7 Reply
Asker
+1 y
What do you do in the Army?
Well, for body armor there isn’t such modifications.
For M4 and AR15, yeah the main differentiation would be the semi and auto functions.
I work in Military Intelligence. As far as modifications I mean more along the lines of carrying a certain amount of ammo pouches and such. Aside from that, I see no reason why a civilian shouldn’t be allowed to own body armor
Have you ANY idea how UNCOMFORTABLE even the best body armor is? MANY folks OWN firearms, but so few legitimate Owners carry (yet alone carry well and PRACTICE, to minimize collaterally- damaged casualties. They're NOT 'magic talismans'!)
Firearms and armor offer NO REAL protection unless used with contextual insight, consistently!
What someone does on their own property or in their own home that puts nobody in danger and harms no one, isn't anyone's business. If a civilians want to have body armor because they think it's neat, then they should be able to purchase body armor. Some people like to feel 'tacti-cool' and there are plenty of hobbyists.
I say so, yes. Although I will admit anyone that doesn't work in the field of law enforcement, military or security is an odd purchase. Then again, if we can buy guns we can buy body armor too.
Plus given how violent some places can be, might as well have a way to be protected.
"If you’re in an emergency situation where you need to use deadly force, why wouldn’t you also wear body armor to protect you from potential armor?" If you are in an emergency situation it means it was unexpected, so you were not prepared for it. Tha other person is not going to tell you he will wait while you go home and get your body armor. And you are not going to wear your body armor daily to work, on dates, walks in the park, etc.
Sure. As former military who went on shooting competitions with a score of 97% accuracy your body armour won't protect you against a trainer sniper. Delusions bred by f-grade movies.
Just like how many civilians who own guns because they're delusional. Don't belong to a gun club, aren't properly trained, don't routinely clean them, etc. - just for display at house - so when a real situation arises they're more likely to shoot their toes off or their spouse than be useful.
Yeah civilians should have their own grade of body armor Something that's good for small arms fire and sharp objects with a little defense against blunt force trauma This should be totally fine for defending against some loon while still allowing police to dispatch them if necessary
Police have rifles which usually don’t have many issues penetrating body armor. The plates are only good for a couple of rounds and the soft armor is basically worthless against rifle rounds. You’re still getting hit with a projectile going 2000 feet per second. The bullets don’t bounce off you, the plates just redistribute the energy and prevent penetration in your most vital areas. It will knock the winds out of you, especially for inexperienced people. I don’t know all the details about the Buffalo shooting but I suspect there were more factors than we know.
"An Uvalde school district police officer, who worked at the school, saw Ramos emerge from the vehicle carrying a rifle and wearing body armour...
The officer "engaged" the suspect but was unable to stop him, Mr Estrada said. Two more officers from Uvalde Police Department also attempted to stop Ramos but were unable to do so, and called for back-up."
If every nutjob out there is allowed to own a gun, it's only natural that the normal people will wanna have some sort of defense against that nutjob, so yes, they should be allowed to own body armor. In my country many of the nutjobs have guns. They wear darkblue uniforms and drive white cars (see below). The sane people don't last there for too long and change the profession ASAP. 🤣
Yes; of course! The only reason someone would want to ban body armor for civilians is because they want civilians to actually get killed. That's the logical result of that decision; there's really no way around it.
It isn’t an offensive weapon so I don’t see the justification for legislating against it, other than It makes it harder for government thugs to kill us, but that’s not a reason to ban it, that’s a reason to buy more.
Is it illegal? Everything I've read on it is it's a state issue? Personally i've never even cared enough to consider such a thing.. But while I see little utility for it. I see no LEGAL justification for outlawing it.
"why wouldn’t you also wear body armor to protect you from potential armor?" - Well yeah, but what would the argument be for not allowing civilians to wear body armor?
No, I know, and I agree that civilians should be allowed to own and wear body armor. I don't see why they shouldn't, which is what I'm asking you. What would be the argument for not allowing civilians to own and wear body armor?
i think if you argue for the second ammendment, then trying to prohibit armor would be logically not sensible. and if you argued against it, then you would also have to argue against weapons.
Why would 50% of women say no? I mean what? 100% of men said yes. Why the fuck would we ban something that is literally only used for defence? Fucking slaves
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
