13 ms·

Inside America’s Growing Bulletproof Clothing Industry

92 points by KabuseCha 9y ago

tomalpha 9y ago
In the UK about ten years ago there was a rash of news reports about children being sent to schools in tough neighbourhoods wearing stab-proof clothing. It was never clear whether it was commonplace or just marketing from a startup. I haven’t seen anything since then in the media but the startup from the time appears to have grown their product range significantly. (I won’t name them but a quick google will find a few outlets).
emptybits 9y ago
A contrasting point to the American trend: where I live (Vancouver, Canada) it is illegal to possess bulletproof or stab-proof clothing without a permit. (!) In fact, even DIY-ing your own protection is illegal without a permit. Personally, I find this philosophically hard to reconcile. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/security-services/body-armour https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/busin...
- Matt3o12_ 9y ago
  Is there any reason why this might be illegal? I understand that defensive gear is forbidden when it can also be used as a weapon but I don’t understand why body armor can do anyone any harm. I am curious what reason there are to forbid body armor than is not dangerous to anyone.
  - nimos 9y ago
    It creates an arms race for criminals. If everyone is out there is wearing body armor you have to move up to larger higher power weapons. Sort of like missile defense systems in the context of nuclear arms.
    - clavalle 9y ago
      Not only that but it makes it easier for criminals to have protection from police bullets.
      - todd8 9y ago
        I don't think criminals are wise, but protection from police bullets doesn't seem like a reasonable motivation to wear bulletproof clothing. If required, the Police will simply call out a SWAT team using military weapons. There should be no reasonable expectation that somehow you can survive an armed exchange with the police. Sadly, there are criminals that have tried bulletproof clothing with the resulting escalation of violence. In 1986 bank robbers wearing bulletproof outfits wounded five and killed two FBI agents in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. Naturally, the two bad guys didn't survive. See [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
    - Trav5 9y ago
      Body armor is heavy and obvious, especially in warm climates. I don't think it would start an arms race. You would only wear it when you are attacking or expecting an attack. Not to mention it only protects your chest/back.
      - nimos 9y ago
        Body armor comes in a wide variety of sizes and weights many of which are not heavy and obvious. You don't need a full getup with plates to stop handguns.
        Trav5 9y ago
        Very true.
  - temp-dude-87844 9y ago
    A theme that recurs in political philosophy, and has been profoundly articulated since Bodin and Hobbes, is the state's monopoly on violence, and its necessity not only to rationalize the existence of a state, but also to empower it with irreducible means to enforce law and order. If one can obtain some mechanism that effectively negates the state's attempts to use violence on them, they can escape being subject to the rule of law. Prohibitions against body armor stem from trying to curb this; this is also why law enforcement hates widespread digital encryption, because it sidesteps mechanisms like search warrants entirely.
  - ACow_Adonis 9y ago
    Australian here: I presume the reasoning is along these lines... No one has any reasonable expectation of being at risk of being shot/stabbed. The only reason, therefore, that you would wish to have access to something like bullet-proof clothing or ballistic protection is that you foresee it likely you will soon be in a situation whereby you will be shot at. About the only conceivable situation that you are likely to be shot at is if you forsee yourself or are planning to be engaged in some type of violent action against a police/military force. Therefore, the only people wanting bulletproof clothing are those planning violent action against a police/military force. And since no one else who is deemed "socially sane" has any desire to own such a peice of equipment, banning it comes with the two benefits of not curtailing normal citizen's freedoms, while adding an illegal thing/signal to the kind of people who do or would plan to do bad things. Edit: I realise there is the additional possibility that the person seeking body-armour sees themselves involved in gun-fights with other gun-toting individuals/criminals. Even amongst the criminal classes (and certainly amongst civilians), that is seen as almost an equally preposterous/rare idea as gearing up to take it to the police...
    - whatshisface 9y ago
      >No one has any reasonable expectation of being at risk of being shot/stabbed. Isn't assault the quintessential thing that we have police around to deal with? If we didn't have any reasonable expectation of it then we'd be paying for a lot less law enforcement.
      - ACow_Adonis 9y ago
        Well, I'd say I can't answer that question authoritatively since its almost by definition context-dependent, in addition to asking the practical question of why/how a police force is raised/employed and depends a bit on a subjective point of view. But empirically, i'd observe a couple of things in the Australian context: a) Assault may be a continuum, with stabbings/shootings on one end, to the point where, as I said, almost no one reasonably believes themselves to be potentially shot/stabbed. (almost no one reasonably believes they'll be assaulted, either). b) When people are assaulted or violently attacked, its almost infinitely more likely to be by someone intimately connected with them in their domestic or everyday environment, or in the context of drugs/alcohol. In that context, body armour appears to be to most people equally silly. c) By far most police's time would be dealing with other matters apart from primarily preventing assault: case investigation and handling, property and vehicular theft, burglary, drug related offenses, traffic (including crashes, random drug testing, etc), crowd and pedestrian control (which COULD be stretched into preventing assault in context), suburban and domestic disturbances (which again, COULD be stretched into preventing assault in context). However, even in those cases where it could be stretched into preventing assault, the notion of appropriate use of body armour (or being exposed to stabbings or shootings in such a context) would be seen as relatively absurd.
  - junkscience2017 9y ago
    Canada only embraces personal liberties it can tax the shit out of they have no motivation to embrace personal liberty at all, the government is still a constitutional monarchy...liberties are at her Majesty's discretion
- userbinator 9y ago
  or stab-proof clothing Bullets I can sort of see the reasoning for, but that sounds like a slippery slope towards outlawing even things that might be required in some types of work environment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment
  - sgift 9y ago
    GP wrote "without a permit", so you can get one if you have a good reason for it like "I need it for my job"
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > it is illegal to possess bulletproof or stab-proof clothing without a permit. (!) I can see the bulletproof part - don't want criminals to be wearing it and thus forcing police to have high power rifles around to take them down, which also might mean those kind of weapons would get in the hands of criminals as well through the black market and such. What's the logic with stab-proof clothing then? Does police in Canada carry knives and is forced to use them to stop criminals.
  - njharman 9y ago
    Yeah cause criminals only ever use guns that police are allowed to have.
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      I didn't say I agree with that logic, but I can see someone subscribing to it. I don't see the logic for the anti-stab clothing though.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > I can see the bulletproof part - don't want criminals to be wearing it and thus forcing police to have high power rifles around to take them down Bullet proof clothing typically covers the chest area and wearing it doesn’t mean you won’t be injured. As a police officer’s primary job is to diffuse a crisis situation, not “kill every suspected perp”, I see minimal reason a bullet proof vest on the perp would impact the police significantly. Try getting shot, especially multiple times, wearing a bullet proof vest and you’ll understand completely why my opinion isn’t out of line.
    - GuiA 9y ago
      > Try getting shot, especially multiple times, wearing a bullet proof vest and you’ll understand completely why my opinion isn’t out of line. What is it like, for those of us who don't have guns and bulletproof vests on hands to experiment? Does it knock the breath out of you? Would it bring you to the ground?
uptownfunk 9y ago
Lack of any significant gun control is one of the biggest motivations for me to consider moving out of the states. My wife is from Australia and it seems as if it were a night and day difference when it comes to gun control. I wish our founding fathers had written something more explicit and more prohibitive so that perhaps more lives could have been saved to gun violence. I may sound paranoid but I may end up taking a serious look at some of these options in the near future.
- save_ferris 9y ago
  The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the advancements in weapon tech long after their deaths. I agree with you on looking outside of the US, though.
  - prepend 9y ago
    But so does the ability to communicate. Grown a billion fold and the first amendment still stands.
  - GiorgioG 9y ago
    This argument is so old. I’d guess you’ve never been trained to or handled a firearm. I suggest you learn about it and understand that it’s a tool like any other. “But it’s primary purpose is to kill!!!” Sure, and the primary purpose of alcohol is not to kill people, yet it causes as many deaths per year as gun-homicide. I understand, you don’t like guns, and that’s ok, nobody’s forcing you to acquire or use one, but taking away that option for law-abiding Folks doesn’t make any of us safer.
  - saosebastiao 9y ago
    I don’t know why so many people believe the founding fathers would think differently if they saw the world of weapons today. They had just fought and won a war largely due to the ability of commoners to fight off the threat of the most powerful colonial power in the world. The second amendment was written to allow people to defend themselves collectively (hence the mention of militia) from the threat of nation states and corrupted powers, not carjackers and armed robbers. If they saw the world of weaponry today, I wouldn’t be surprised if they would interpret the second amendment to include grenade launchers and machine guns...because that is what the potential external threats (and possibly internal threats) have become. You may believe the world has changed, but I still find it short sighted to go around disarming people. The count of people killed in genocides even in the last half of the 20th century is enough to dissuade me from putting my security solely in the hands of a government. And I say that as someone who generally hates America’s obsessive gun culture.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
I looked up a couple of these and it seems like a normal jacket with hidden pockets for bullet proof plates of armor to go over your vital organs. In retrospect, I guess that is the only way they could do it - but something about the article had me imagining something higher tech, like somehow the fabric was tougher or durable enough to stop bullets. My imagination was the bullet proof spray from Richie Rich, but the reality seems closer to wearing a bulletproof vest under your coat.
- derekp7 9y ago
  I'd like to see something that acts like a stronger version of corn starch and water. Normally flexible, but stiffens up when moved at high speed.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    It's in the works: https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-armor https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-ar...
    - lwansbrough 9y ago
      Wonder if the impulse of this liquid is fast enough to stop a speeding bullet.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
wnevets 9y ago
I guess this what republicans meant when they said they were job creators
neuro_imager 9y ago
I'm honestly still baffled by how the concept of "freedom" got conflated with gun ownership in the US. Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun. I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to hear a well explained argument for this.
- whiddershins 9y ago
  Have you read a bunch of literature online about these topics? I feel like there are many, many, pro-second amendment groups, not just the NRA, and perhaps that could shed a little light on it. I'm willing to bet there are many reasons. Off the top of my head: - An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. So if you want the freedom to protect your basic right to survive and defend yourself, a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. You don't have to be young and strong, just well versed in using the weapon and in possession of it. - The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process. People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan. Etc. This really isn't a topic that I am expert in but there has to be more reasons if you look for them.
  - neuro_imager 9y ago
    I don't agree with these arguments. > An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. If you want to ensure self preservation, take steps to create an environment where the likelihood of survival is higher not lower. All the reliable evidence that I've seen points to higher gun ownership correlating strongly with higher murder and suicide rates and to the USA being an outlier in terms of violent crime as compared to other developed countries. > Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. Well where that's true (and having lived in several countries, its not true everywhere) that's certainly a failing in law enforcement. > a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. This is extremely doubtful. Attackers generally attack in groups. They typically have planned their attack whilst you're taken by surprise. Also criminals are generally better versed in violence than the typical citizen. Pulling out your gun is often likely to turn a robbery into robbery and murder. > The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process. This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns? The same government that spends more than 500 Billion on military expenditure/year? > People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a failed state. The Taliban are likely funded by a lot of well heeled supporters included their partners in the Heroine trade.
gumby 9y ago
GF's kids came home yesterday talking about school shooting safety (hit perp with a fire extinguisher -- which is too heavy for any of them to lift), the safe closet, etc. Their chance of being shot is infinitesimal, while the chance of choking or dying in traffic (1K kids/year in the USA, for example) is real. But there is no training on what to do in these cases. Seems like it's all part of the terrorization of the populace, of which this clothing is a symptom.
leroy_masochist 9y ago
How much does this stuff weigh?! My flak with Level IV SAPI plates was like 35 pounds, that was just for the armor and nylon, and it was roughly tank top shaped. God only knows what something jacket-sized would weigh if it were lined in ballistic ceramic plates. The thought of international VIP types trudging around like a big ol' bulletproof Harrison Bergeron is actually kind of funny now that I think more about it.
- pmorici 9y ago
  I browsed one of the listings the level 3 stuff to stop small caliber hand gun bullets is listed as 4kg or about 9 lbs. probably similar to wearing a military style vest with the plates removed.

92 points by KabuseCha 9y ago

In the UK about ten years ago there was a rash of news reports about children being sent to schools in tough neighbourhoods wearing stab-proof clothing. It was never clear whether it was commonplace or just marketing from a startup. I haven’t seen anything since then in the media but the startup from the time appears to have grown their product range significantly. (I won’t name them but a quick google will find a few outlets).

emptybits 9y ago

A contrasting point to the American trend: where I live (Vancouver, Canada) it is illegal to possess bulletproof or stab-proof clothing without a permit. (!) In fact, even DIY-ing your own protection is illegal without a permit. Personally, I find this philosophically hard to reconcile. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/security-services/body-armour https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/busin...

Matt3o12_ 9y ago
Is there any reason why this might be illegal? I understand that defensive gear is forbidden when it can also be used as a weapon but I don’t understand why body armor can do anyone any harm. I am curious what reason there are to forbid body armor than is not dangerous to anyone.
- nimos 9y ago
  It creates an arms race for criminals. If everyone is out there is wearing body armor you have to move up to larger higher power weapons. Sort of like missile defense systems in the context of nuclear arms.
  - clavalle 9y ago
    Not only that but it makes it easier for criminals to have protection from police bullets.
    - todd8 9y ago
      I don't think criminals are wise, but protection from police bullets doesn't seem like a reasonable motivation to wear bulletproof clothing. If required, the Police will simply call out a SWAT team using military weapons. There should be no reasonable expectation that somehow you can survive an armed exchange with the police. Sadly, there are criminals that have tried bulletproof clothing with the resulting escalation of violence. In 1986 bank robbers wearing bulletproof outfits wounded five and killed two FBI agents in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. Naturally, the two bad guys didn't survive. See [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
  - Trav5 9y ago
    Body armor is heavy and obvious, especially in warm climates. I don't think it would start an arms race. You would only wear it when you are attacking or expecting an attack. Not to mention it only protects your chest/back.
    - nimos 9y ago
      Body armor comes in a wide variety of sizes and weights many of which are not heavy and obvious. You don't need a full getup with plates to stop handguns.
      - Trav5 9y ago
        Very true.
- temp-dude-87844 9y ago
  A theme that recurs in political philosophy, and has been profoundly articulated since Bodin and Hobbes, is the state's monopoly on violence, and its necessity not only to rationalize the existence of a state, but also to empower it with irreducible means to enforce law and order. If one can obtain some mechanism that effectively negates the state's attempts to use violence on them, they can escape being subject to the rule of law. Prohibitions against body armor stem from trying to curb this; this is also why law enforcement hates widespread digital encryption, because it sidesteps mechanisms like search warrants entirely.
- ACow_Adonis 9y ago
  Australian here: I presume the reasoning is along these lines... No one has any reasonable expectation of being at risk of being shot/stabbed. The only reason, therefore, that you would wish to have access to something like bullet-proof clothing or ballistic protection is that you foresee it likely you will soon be in a situation whereby you will be shot at. About the only conceivable situation that you are likely to be shot at is if you forsee yourself or are planning to be engaged in some type of violent action against a police/military force. Therefore, the only people wanting bulletproof clothing are those planning violent action against a police/military force. And since no one else who is deemed "socially sane" has any desire to own such a peice of equipment, banning it comes with the two benefits of not curtailing normal citizen's freedoms, while adding an illegal thing/signal to the kind of people who do or would plan to do bad things. Edit: I realise there is the additional possibility that the person seeking body-armour sees themselves involved in gun-fights with other gun-toting individuals/criminals. Even amongst the criminal classes (and certainly amongst civilians), that is seen as almost an equally preposterous/rare idea as gearing up to take it to the police...
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    >No one has any reasonable expectation of being at risk of being shot/stabbed. Isn't assault the quintessential thing that we have police around to deal with? If we didn't have any reasonable expectation of it then we'd be paying for a lot less law enforcement.
    - ACow_Adonis 9y ago
      Well, I'd say I can't answer that question authoritatively since its almost by definition context-dependent, in addition to asking the practical question of why/how a police force is raised/employed and depends a bit on a subjective point of view. But empirically, i'd observe a couple of things in the Australian context: a) Assault may be a continuum, with stabbings/shootings on one end, to the point where, as I said, almost no one reasonably believes themselves to be potentially shot/stabbed. (almost no one reasonably believes they'll be assaulted, either). b) When people are assaulted or violently attacked, its almost infinitely more likely to be by someone intimately connected with them in their domestic or everyday environment, or in the context of drugs/alcohol. In that context, body armour appears to be to most people equally silly. c) By far most police's time would be dealing with other matters apart from primarily preventing assault: case investigation and handling, property and vehicular theft, burglary, drug related offenses, traffic (including crashes, random drug testing, etc), crowd and pedestrian control (which COULD be stretched into preventing assault in context), suburban and domestic disturbances (which again, COULD be stretched into preventing assault in context). However, even in those cases where it could be stretched into preventing assault, the notion of appropriate use of body armour (or being exposed to stabbings or shootings in such a context) would be seen as relatively absurd.
- junkscience2017 9y ago
  Canada only embraces personal liberties it can tax the shit out of they have no motivation to embrace personal liberty at all, the government is still a constitutional monarchy...liberties are at her Majesty's discretion
userbinator 9y ago
or stab-proof clothing Bullets I can sort of see the reasoning for, but that sounds like a slippery slope towards outlawing even things that might be required in some types of work environment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment
- sgift 9y ago
  GP wrote "without a permit", so you can get one if you have a good reason for it like "I need it for my job"
rdtsc 9y ago
> it is illegal to possess bulletproof or stab-proof clothing without a permit. (!) I can see the bulletproof part - don't want criminals to be wearing it and thus forcing police to have high power rifles around to take them down, which also might mean those kind of weapons would get in the hands of criminals as well through the black market and such. What's the logic with stab-proof clothing then? Does police in Canada carry knives and is forced to use them to stop criminals.
- njharman 9y ago
  Yeah cause criminals only ever use guns that police are allowed to have.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    I didn't say I agree with that logic, but I can see someone subscribing to it. I don't see the logic for the anti-stab clothing though.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > I can see the bulletproof part - don't want criminals to be wearing it and thus forcing police to have high power rifles around to take them down Bullet proof clothing typically covers the chest area and wearing it doesn’t mean you won’t be injured. As a police officer’s primary job is to diffuse a crisis situation, not “kill every suspected perp”, I see minimal reason a bullet proof vest on the perp would impact the police significantly. Try getting shot, especially multiple times, wearing a bullet proof vest and you’ll understand completely why my opinion isn’t out of line.
  - GuiA 9y ago
    > Try getting shot, especially multiple times, wearing a bullet proof vest and you’ll understand completely why my opinion isn’t out of line. What is it like, for those of us who don't have guns and bulletproof vests on hands to experiment? Does it knock the breath out of you? Would it bring you to the ground?

uptownfunk 9y ago

Lack of any significant gun control is one of the biggest motivations for me to consider moving out of the states. My wife is from Australia and it seems as if it were a night and day difference when it comes to gun control. I wish our founding fathers had written something more explicit and more prohibitive so that perhaps more lives could have been saved to gun violence. I may sound paranoid but I may end up taking a serious look at some of these options in the near future.

save_ferris 9y ago
The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the advancements in weapon tech long after their deaths. I agree with you on looking outside of the US, though.
- prepend 9y ago
  But so does the ability to communicate. Grown a billion fold and the first amendment still stands.
- GiorgioG 9y ago
  This argument is so old. I’d guess you’ve never been trained to or handled a firearm. I suggest you learn about it and understand that it’s a tool like any other. “But it’s primary purpose is to kill!!!” Sure, and the primary purpose of alcohol is not to kill people, yet it causes as many deaths per year as gun-homicide. I understand, you don’t like guns, and that’s ok, nobody’s forcing you to acquire or use one, but taking away that option for law-abiding Folks doesn’t make any of us safer.
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  I don’t know why so many people believe the founding fathers would think differently if they saw the world of weapons today. They had just fought and won a war largely due to the ability of commoners to fight off the threat of the most powerful colonial power in the world. The second amendment was written to allow people to defend themselves collectively (hence the mention of militia) from the threat of nation states and corrupted powers, not carjackers and armed robbers. If they saw the world of weaponry today, I wouldn’t be surprised if they would interpret the second amendment to include grenade launchers and machine guns...because that is what the potential external threats (and possibly internal threats) have become. You may believe the world has changed, but I still find it short sighted to go around disarming people. The count of people killed in genocides even in the last half of the 20th century is enough to dissuade me from putting my security solely in the hands of a government. And I say that as someone who generally hates America’s obsessive gun culture.

ImSkeptical 9y ago

I looked up a couple of these and it seems like a normal jacket with hidden pockets for bullet proof plates of armor to go over your vital organs. In retrospect, I guess that is the only way they could do it - but something about the article had me imagining something higher tech, like somehow the fabric was tougher or durable enough to stop bullets. My imagination was the bullet proof spray from Richie Rich, but the reality seems closer to wearing a bulletproof vest under your coat.

derekp7 9y ago
I'd like to see something that acts like a stronger version of corn starch and water. Normally flexible, but stiffens up when moved at high speed.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  It's in the works: https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-armor https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-ar...
  - lwansbrough 9y ago
    Wonder if the impulse of this liquid is fast enough to stop a speeding bullet.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

wnevets 9y ago

I guess this what republicans meant when they said they were job creators

neuro_imager 9y ago

I'm honestly still baffled by how the concept of "freedom" got conflated with gun ownership in the US. Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun. I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to hear a well explained argument for this.

whiddershins 9y ago
Have you read a bunch of literature online about these topics? I feel like there are many, many, pro-second amendment groups, not just the NRA, and perhaps that could shed a little light on it. I'm willing to bet there are many reasons. Off the top of my head: - An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. So if you want the freedom to protect your basic right to survive and defend yourself, a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. You don't have to be young and strong, just well versed in using the weapon and in possession of it. - The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process. People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan. Etc. This really isn't a topic that I am expert in but there has to be more reasons if you look for them.
- neuro_imager 9y ago
  I don't agree with these arguments. > An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. If you want to ensure self preservation, take steps to create an environment where the likelihood of survival is higher not lower. All the reliable evidence that I've seen points to higher gun ownership correlating strongly with higher murder and suicide rates and to the USA being an outlier in terms of violent crime as compared to other developed countries. > Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. Well where that's true (and having lived in several countries, its not true everywhere) that's certainly a failing in law enforcement. > a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. This is extremely doubtful. Attackers generally attack in groups. They typically have planned their attack whilst you're taken by surprise. Also criminals are generally better versed in violence than the typical citizen. Pulling out your gun is often likely to turn a robbery into robbery and murder. > The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process. This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns? The same government that spends more than 500 Billion on military expenditure/year? > People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a failed state. The Taliban are likely funded by a lot of well heeled supporters included their partners in the Heroine trade.

gumby 9y ago

GF's kids came home yesterday talking about school shooting safety (hit perp with a fire extinguisher -- which is too heavy for any of them to lift), the safe closet, etc. Their chance of being shot is infinitesimal, while the chance of choking or dying in traffic (1K kids/year in the USA, for example) is real. But there is no training on what to do in these cases. Seems like it's all part of the terrorization of the populace, of which this clothing is a symptom.

leroy_masochist 9y ago

How much does this stuff weigh?! My flak with Level IV SAPI plates was like 35 pounds, that was just for the armor and nylon, and it was roughly tank top shaped. God only knows what something jacket-sized would weigh if it were lined in ballistic ceramic plates. The thought of international VIP types trudging around like a big ol' bulletproof Harrison Bergeron is actually kind of funny now that I think more about it.

pmorici 9y ago
I browsed one of the listings the level 3 stuff to stop small caliber hand gun bullets is listed as 4kg or about 9 lbs. probably similar to wearing a military style vest with the plates removed.