8 ms·

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

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?

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?