body armor

[G27]

and those 150+ police officers are always responding to crime reports AFTER--only AFTER the criminals have already attacked some innocent person--and those thousands have been killed during an 8yr period in Afghanistan and 6 years in Iraq--so let me break those figures down for you..the US serviceman death rate in Iraq is about 716 per year while Afghanistan averages 85 per year.

Now compare deaths/capita - I'd be stunned if civilian casualties were higher.

For example, there are approx 3 million service men and women in the US military. Approx 1200 service men and women are killed in action every year (on average), which yields a death rate of 0.04%. There are approx 302 million US citizens (subtracted the 3 million service men from the estimated 305 million total US citizens) with approx 12,000 death by firearm (non-accident or suicide)m whih yields a rate of 0.004%.

IOW, based on these figures, US Military forces are 10X as likely to need body armor than civilians.

[Guest justme]

False statement.

I'm a High School students and I own SEVERAL guns. All long guns (to be precise, because of law), but they are lawfully mine, given as birthday and christmas gifts.

let me correct myself--HS students don't need to carry pistols at school...but a HS student who wants to own a firearm with adult supervision should be allowed to.

[Guest c.a.s.]

I will use a gun to Protect my family, I carry a gun to Protect my family. I do not think that anyone will be shooting at me anytime that I leave my home. The only civilians that I know of who wore body armor happened to have robbed a Bank of America in Hollywood california in 1997.

If you cannot see the logic in carrying a gun and not wearing body armor then I cannot help you to do so.

Obviously you failed to see the point in my statement.

You stated that it was utterly PARANOID to wear body armor.

Guess who gets shot BEFORE any police get there?

A CIVILIAN.

So, you're doing EXACTLY what the Brady BUnch does for carrying a firearm--equate those who make that particular choice out as CRIMINALS.

You state that you carry a gun to protect your family, yet you don't think you'll be attacked any time soon. Then what's the point? It's the SAME THING. Just because you don't THINK it will happen, doesn't mean it WON'T. And it doesn't mean that BEING PREPARED won't come in handy. It's the EXACT SAME THING as with a firearm. It's quite odd that someone deemed a CHILD understands this better than an adult.

If you cannot see your off logic, I feel pity. You find it perfectly fine to carry a firearm, and find nothing wrong with it, but taking a DEFENSE against it is PARANOID.

[Guest justme]

I get the justification of having it if you want it. If you want a vest to lay by the bed in case of a break-in or a riot then that's good planning.

My point is the people who wear this stuff everyday because they could very well encounter an armed subject, don't like it and wish we didn't have to wear it.

C.A.S, as far as your comments to Willis did you even think about what you are saying? You as a civilian 17 year old have the option of running the hell away. The military, police officers, and private security professionals don't have that option. We run TOWARDS the gunfire. We do put on a uniform everyday fully intending to step between those who would do you harm and yourself. The chance I'm going to need a vest is exponentially higher than the average citizen. Regardless of how anyone here wants to spin crime statistics.

crime statistics are clear--1.3 MILLION violent crimes in 2006 against the people. Clearly it is the people who are on the front lines. I don't spin anything--I merely state the facts as they stand.

As for stepping between the criminals and the people---LE is clearly in a response only format, and quite frankly I would not want them any other way. More often than not LE only responds after the fact, hardly ever before it. And quite frankly I'm pleased with it like that--a police force based on Minority Report is not something any should cherish or desire.

Your exponential need for BA is no greater than any other citizen in this country--crime statistics would back that up I think.

[Guest c.a.s.]

I get the justification of having it if you want it. If you want a vest to lay by the bed in case of a break-in or a riot then that's good planning.

My point is the people who wear this stuff everyday because they could very well encounter an armed subject, don't like it and wish we didn't have to wear it.

C.A.S, as far as your comments to Willis did you even think about what you are saying? You as a civilian 17 year old have the option of running the hell away. The military, police officers, and private security professionals don't have that option. We run TOWARDS the gunfire. We do put on a uniform everyday fully intending to step between those who would do you harm and yourself. The chance I'm going to need a vest is exponentially higher than the average citizen. Regardless of how anyone here wants to spin crime statistics.

It doesn't help much that police arrive AFTER I'm dead. And it doesn't help much when the police have had rather bad reactions to all the mass shootings, and a rather bad record of stopping a murder in progress.

I have yet to have an officer stand between me and harm. Not the time I was jumped at the age of 8 by two 20-somethings.

They didn't even show up when it was reported to police.

They sure HAVE cussed out my family, though, when they ended up at the wrong door looking for "that %(ing a$$hole in the jeep" two months later.

Last I checked, more citizens are shot to death than police and security officers every year. Because Citizens are the ones subject to crime in the greatest majority.

And yet, none of this is stopping me from a Criminal Justice job.

I see the justification for Ballistic Vests/Armor in the same that I view firearms. You would rather have the choice to use it, than need it and not have the choice. It's not paranoid. If it were paranoid, so would carrying a firearm or even having a police force. It's simply choosing to use an option on the chance that you'll need it. While outside of school, I carry a knife. Because I MIGHT need it. I don't need it every day, but I MIGHT need it at some point. I also carry a pen. I WON'T need it every day, but I MIGHT. Same with my keys. I don't think I've used them in a full year, but I carry them anyway because I might need them at some point, and I'd rather have them at that point.

[Punisher84]

Obviously you failed to see the point in my statement.

You stated that it was utterly PARANOID to wear body armor.

Guess who gets shot BEFORE any police get there?

A CIVILIAN.

So, you're doing EXACTLY what the Brady BUnch does for carrying a firearm--equate those who make that particular choice out as CRIMINALS.

You state that you carry a gun to protect your family, yet you don't think you'll be attacked any time soon. Then what's the point? It's the SAME THING. Just because you don't THINK it will happen, doesn't mean it WON'T. And it doesn't mean that BEING PREPARED won't come in handy. It's the EXACT SAME THING as with a firearm. It's quite odd that someone deemed a CHILD understands this better than an adult.

If you cannot see your off logic, I feel pity. You find it perfectly fine to carry a firearm, and find nothing wrong with it, but taking a DEFENSE against it is PARANOID.

Your logic and misplaced comparisons are poor. There is a fine line between paranoid and prepared. When I gear up everyday I put on several things I do not carry off-duty. Handcuffs, pepper spray, 21" collapsible baton, and BODY ARMOR. Why? Because the chances of me being suddenly thrust into a violent confrontation are there, but they are considerably lessened. A gun is a good compromise to me at that point.

crime statistics are clear--1.3 MILLION violent crimes in 2006 against the people. Clearly it is the people who are on the front lines. I don't spin anything--I merely state the facts as they stand.

As for stepping between the criminals and the people---LE is clearly in a response only format, and quite frankly I would not want them any other way. More often than not LE only responds after the fact, hardly ever before it. And quite frankly I'm pleased with it like that--a police force based on Minority Report is not something any should cherish or desire.

Your exponential need for BA is no greater than any other citizen in this country--crime statistics would back that up I think.

You seem to think that there are battles waged in the street everyday and the cops only show up to sweep up the bodies and that the military only deals with insurgents with firecrackers and cap guns.

Tell me this, if there are so many civilians that could be saved by wearing body armor how come they aren't wearing it? It's not a crime in most states to possess it or wear it unless you are committing a crime.

You are looking for justification or a permission slip to wear it. Just do it man. Buy you a Second Chance Level II and wear it everyday. Wear it with pride. It very well may save your life, but you know what from? The same thing it saves alot of patrol officers from...a car wreck.

[nightrunner]

hey im looking into getting some industrial-grade tinfoil but its cheaper the more you buy, anybody want in on a group buy?

[Punisher84]

It doesn't help much that police arrive AFTER I'm dead. And it doesn't help much when the police have had rather bad reactions to all the mass shootings, and a rather bad record of stopping a murder in progress.

I have yet to have an officer stand between me and harm. Not the time I was jumped at the age of 8 by two 20-somethings.

They didn't even show up when it was reported to police.

They sure HAVE cussed out my family, though, when they ended up at the wrong door looking for "that %(ing a$$hole in the jeep" two months later.

Last I checked, more citizens are shot to death than police and security officers every year. Because Citizens are the ones subject to crime in the greatest majority.

And yet, none of this is stopping me from a Criminal Justice job.

I see the justification for Ballistic Vests/Armor in the same that I view firearms. You would rather have the choice to use it, than need it and not have the choice. It's not paranoid. If it were paranoid, so would carrying a firearm or even having a police force. It's simply choosing to use an option on the chance that you'll need it. While outside of school, I carry a knife. Because I MIGHT need it. I don't need it every day, but I MIGHT need it at some point. I also carry a pen. I WON'T need it every day, but I MIGHT. Same with my keys. I don't think I've used them in a full year, but I carry them anyway because I might need them at some point, and I'd rather have them at that point.

You're gonna make a fine liberal cop that no one wants to ride with when you grow up

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and I'm not a big fan of playing the age game, but the things you think now at 17 will be invalid in 3 years. There is an entirely different world to be experienced outside of high school and Mom and Dad's house. You will not believe this and you will not like that it is said to you. I know this because it was said to me when I was 17 and thought that I knew how everything worked.

[Guest justme]

Now compare deaths/capita - I'd be stunned if civilian casualties were higher.

For example, there are approx 3 million service men and women in the US military. Approx 1200 service men and women are killed in action every year (on average), which yields a death rate of 0.04%. There are approx 302 million US citizens (subtracted the 3 million service men from the estimated 305 million total US citizens) with approx 12,000 death by firearm (non-accident or suicide)m whih yields a rate of 0.004%.

IOW, based on these figures, US Military forces are 10X as likely to need body armor than civilians.

you have to consider the total combat strength of US military forces--just because there are approx. 3 million troops in US military does not make all 3 million active combat troops, nor will all 3 million see combat.

this will adjust your figures somewhat.

[Punisher84]

you have to consider the total combat strength of US military forces--just because there are approx. 3 million troops in US military does not make all 3 million active combat troops, nor will all 3 million see combat.

this will adjust your figures somewhat.

Consider how stretched the military is right now. MOST have seen active combat, two to three times.

[willis68]

Obviously you failed to see the point in my statement.

You stated that it was utterly PARANOID to wear body armor.

Guess who gets shot BEFORE any police get there?

A CIVILIAN.

So, you're doing EXACTLY what the Brady BUnch does for carrying a firearm--equate those who make that particular choice out as CRIMINALS.

You state that you carry a gun to protect your family, yet you don't think you'll be attacked any time soon. Then what's the point? It's the SAME THING. Just because you don't THINK it will happen, doesn't mean it WON'T. And it doesn't mean that BEING PREPARED won't come in handy. It's the EXACT SAME THING as with a firearm. It's quite odd that someone deemed a CHILD understands this better than an adult.

If you cannot see your off logic, I feel pity. You find it perfectly fine to carry a firearm, and find nothing wrong with it, but taking a DEFENSE against it is PARANOID.

You are in High School?

Once you grow up maybe then you will understand. I have a family wife, 6 kids it is my job to protect them. I am not a LEO or Military man whom would need to wear Body Armor. I have been carrying a gun longer than you have been alive. I have been in the worse parts of this world,several 3rd world countries I doubt that you have left this state. My common sense is enough of a defense to keep me and my family away from any need to wear any amour. In my opinion if you think that you need to wear body amour living the life of a normal civilian, lock your doors and stay inside. I have fought the Brady idiots with several thousands of dollars in donations to the NRA for the last 20 years, Perhaps once you grow up you will understand my logic!

[G27]

you have to consider the total combat strength of US military forces--just because there are approx. 3 million troops in US military does not make all 3 million active combat troops, nor will all 3 million see combat.

this will adjust your figures somewhat.

Well, if you're only talking deployed combat troops, then military forces are probably 100X (or more) more likely to need armor...

[Guest c.a.s.]

You're gonna make a fine liberal cop that no one wants to ride with when you grow up

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and I'm not a big fan of playing the age game, but the things you think now at 17 will be invalid in 3 years. There is an entirely different world to be experienced outside of high school and Mom and Dad's house. You will not believe this and you will not like that it is said to you. I know this because it was said to me when I was 17 and thought that I knew how everything worked.

Insult anyone outside your viewpoint? Nice.

I'm more inline as a Constitutionalist.

CAN NO ONE READ. I'm pointing out that the same arguments being used against armor apply to GUNS AS WELL, and HAVE BEEN used against them in the past.

You ought to know well by now, that police are a REACTIONARY force, and those subjected to crime are CITIZENS. They should have full options, as they have a higher chance of being shot than YOU. You arrogantly think you're more likely to need it, but the truth is, a "civilian" is more likely to need it. Just because you react to the the actions, doesn't mean you were the one shot to death.

So much for the age card, when I seem oddly more mature than most adults around here.

PHYSICAL age means s**t. I've met a fair share of PRETEENS who are well beyond their years in maturity. I've also met "adults" who were about as mature as a seven year old.

[Guest justme]

Your logic and misplaced comparisons are poor. There is a fine line between paranoid and prepared. When I gear up everyday I put on several things I do not carry off-duty. Handcuffs, pepper spray, 21" collapsible baton, and BODY ARMOR. Why? Because the chances of me being suddenly thrust into a violent confrontation are there, but they are considerably lessened. A gun is a good compromise to me at that point.

There is indeed a fine line between prepared and paranoid--but just because a person does/does not choose to wear BA does not automatically make them paranoid. You keep mixing up the issues.

You seem to think that there are battles waged in the street everyday and the cops only show up to sweep up the bodies and that the military only deals with insurgents with firecrackers and cap guns.

never said there was a battle waged in our streets every day--never said that. I said that WHEN violent crime happens--and it happens every single day--it happens TO citizens...and the police only show up when they are called, and most of the time only AFTER the fact.

Tell me this, if there are so many civilians that could be saved by wearing body armor how come they aren't wearing it? It's not a crime in most states to possess it or wear it unless you are committing a crime.

we really have no idea how many actually wear BA do we? more than you might think wears it..

You are looking for justification or a permission slip to wear it. Just do it man. Buy you a Second Chance Level II and wear it everyday. Wear it with pride. It very well may save your life, but you know what from? The same thing it saves alot of patrol officers from...a car wreck.

never said I was looking for "justification"--I merely asked the original question "how many have, or do wear BA, or have considered buying it"...how you got the idea that I need justification I have no idea--I merely asked how many wear it or considered buying/wearing it...

[Guest c.a.s.]

You are in High School?

Once you grow up maybe then you will understand. I have a family wife, 6 kids it is my job to protect them. I am not a LEO or Military man whom would need to wear Body Armor. I have been carrying a gun longer than you have been alive. I have been in the worse parts of this world,several 3rd world countries I doubt that you have left this state. My common sense is enough of a defense to keep me and my family away from any need to wear any amour. In my opinion if you think that you need to wear body amour living the life of a normal civilian, lock your doors and stay inside. I have fought the Brady idiots with several thousands of dollars in donations to the NRA for the last 20 years, Perhaps once you grow up you will understand my logic!

I love it when people think that age automagically means they are mature and wise.

You say it is your job to protect them, yet you think it's paranoid to take an option to protect oneself. YOU are more likely to be shot than any police officer. The EXACT SAME arguments you are using right now ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED by the Bradies against firearms. You are using THEIR LOGIC. "Common sense will keep me and my family safe so I don't need guns. You don't need them either, or else you're PARANOID."

The NRA gives up too much, "compromising" without any benefit.

My membership was a gift.

Maybe when you stop feeling so superior and look at things from an objective view, MAYBE you'll "grow up", and notice the chinks in your armor.

[Guest justme]

Well, if you're only talking deployed combat troops, then military forces are probably 100X (or more) more likely to need armor...

You may actually be right--but it seems to me the deaths over the last 8 years in Afghanistan and the deaths in Iraq over the last 6 years would bear out the following:

in Iraq there has been on average approx 716 US service members killed each year

while in Afghanistan there has been on average only approx. 85/yr...

which, and correct me if I am wrong--is far less than the annual murder rate in this nation.

[willis68]

I love it when people think that age automagically means they are mature and wise.

You say it is your job to protect them, yet you think it's paranoid to take an option to protect oneself. YOU are more likely to be shot than any police officer. The EXACT SAME arguments you are using right now ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED by the Bradies against firearms. You are using THEIR LOGIC. "Common sense will keep me and my family safe so I don't need guns. You don't need them either, or else you're PARANOID."

The NRA gives up too much, "compromising" without any benefit.

My membership was a gift.

Maybe when you stop feeling so superior and look at things from an objective view, MAYBE you'll "grow up", and notice the chinks in your armor.

I am amazed at your arrogance, you obviously know more than anyone about this issue. If you were 21 or older I would love to show you the Chinks in my armor

[Mike]

hey im looking into getting some industrial-grade tinfoil but its cheaper the more you buy, anybody want in on a group buy?

This thread has gone downhill for quite some time now...

C.a.s., I've been there. At 17, you know nothing. Nothing.

As has been said already, you won't like hearing this. But it doesn't make it any less true.

I'm only a few years older and I am still learning how much I don't know.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Mike

[Guest c.a.s.]

Your logic and misplaced comparisons are poor. There is a fine line between paranoid and prepared. When I gear up everyday I put on several things I do not carry off-duty. Handcuffs, pepper spray, 21" collapsible baton, and BODY ARMOR. Why? Because the chances of me being suddenly thrust into a violent confrontation are there, but they are considerably lessened. A gun is a good compromise to me at that point.

And what about the greater chance of a CIVILIAN being thrust into those violent confrontations? It's the exact same reason a fair number of "civilians" choose to carry a firearm. One could argue they have a higher chance of being thrust into a violent confrontation.

I put "civilian" in quotes because it's said as if they are lower then you. Newsflash: They are the same or better than those who are supposed to SERVE them, though that's arguable on a moral level as to the people who are predominant in society today.

For the very reason you are saying they shouldn't have BA, how does that NOT apply to a firearm?

You seem to think that there are battles waged in the street everyday and the cops only show up to sweep up the bodies and that the military only deals with insurgents with firecrackers and cap guns.

Tell me this, if there are so many civilians that could be saved by wearing body armor how come they aren't wearing it? It's not a crime in most states to possess it or wear it unless you are committing a crime.

You are looking for justification or a permission slip to wear it. Just do it man. Buy you a Second Chance Level II and wear it everyday. Wear it with pride. It very well may save your life, but you know what from? The same thing it saves alot of patrol officers from...a car wreck.

Largely, the police DO only "clean up" after the crime--they only know when they've been alerted that a crime has happened! That's a purely reactionary force. As someone else has said, I like it that way since I DO NOT LIKE Big Brother.

[Guest justme]

I am amazed at your arrogance, you obviously know more than anyone about this issue. If you were 21 or older I would love to show you the Chinks in my armor

sometimes teenagers act more responsible than adults.

he isn't arrogant--he is using common sense and sees things for what they are.

and C.A.S is right--most of you are using the exact same arguments that the Brady center does...

[nightrunner]

You may actually be right--but it seems to me the deaths over the last 8 years in Afghanistan and the deaths in Iraq over the last 6 years would bear out the following:

in Iraq there has been on average approx 716 US service members killed each year

while in Afghanistan there has been on average only approx. 85/yr...

which, and correct me if I am wrong--is far less than the annual murder rate in this nation.

and every single person on the front lines over there is wearing BODY ARMOR! citizens in the US for the most part are NOT!

[Guest justme]

all of this simply from a the question :

how many have or do own BA, or wear it?

[Guest justme]

and every single person on the front lines over there is wearing BODY ARMOR! citizens in the US for the most part are NOT!

I know. Like I said--Body armor is not a protect all. I merely asked who wears it, or considered buying it..

[G27]

which, and correct me if I am wrong--is far less than the annual murder rate in this nation.

You're obviously forgetting that less than 1% of the US population is in the military - this means the need for body armor by civilians would have to be 100x greater than the military to be equal.

[Guest c.a.s.]

I am amazed at your arrogance, you obviously know more than anyone about this issue. If you were 21 or older I would love to show you the Chinks in my armor

Just like you believe that you are the be-all-end-all bearer on what is normal.

I'm simply pointing out the fallacies in your logic that are the exact ones that have been used, and ARE being used, against firearms to this very day.

Police must be paranoid, because many wear armor. And you know what, more CITIZENS are shot every day than officers.

Society must be paranoid that crime will happen (you know, even though it does, and a lot) for having a police force.

A great number of people must be paranoid for carrying guns, and that's NOT including police. Not like their job is "to stand between you and harm."

That's pretty much the same argument, for different targets.