Protective vests and being honest

[farmerboy]

yes some should buy and wear a vest, and a football helmet, goggles, safety gloves, knee pads, steel toe boots and a red becon light on your forehead just in case. Theres alot of things out there Better be prepared than not!

[AK103K]

Flat out here in FLA is truly sucked from May to late October.

Same goes here for PA. Not bad when youre outside, November to January though.


Then again, even in the summer, when the nit wit in the next booth puts a round in the divider and says "Sorry, my bad dude", an hour or two doesnt really seem all that bad.

[AK103K]

yes some should buy and wear a vest, and a football helmet, goggles, safety gloves, knee pads, steel toe boots and a red becon light on your forehead just in case.

Wait now, you left out the gun. Thats OK, I have mine.

Actually, I have to wear most of that stuff on a lot of jobs Im on, or we get a fine (OSHA dont ya know ), and its not near as dangerous as a sight seeing trip to Philly or Harrisburg.

[farmerboy]

haha just having fun with this, Really though Yes a cop should wear one, which I dont. May start in cooler weather. If civilians want to, it is their choice but really if you live in an area with bullets flying everywhere I'd say move. I grew up in North side Houston (4th ward) and never felt the need for one then and wonder how bad some civilians actually need one . If you really got down to it Id say a big time drug dealer, undercover narc. or an officer well in a war also. Other than that, I'd buy more guns or ammo also. Just my opinion.

[Kevin Rohrer]

Wearing armor when I feel the need is the same thing. No fear, just common sense. Its available, so why not use it if the situation warrants?

And what might that be for civilians?
Mowing the lawn??
Babysitting???
Grocery shopping?????!

[AK103K]

And what might that be for civilians?
Mowing the lawn??
Babysitting???
Grocery shopping?????!

I believe thats a bit of a condescending tone I detect there. But then again, SWAT always did think they were special.

If someone has the money, and wants to wear one doing any of the above, who cares? And what do you care anyway? Or is this some sort of elitism thing? Next thing youll be telling us, civilians shouldnt wear a gun.

[Hook686]

The jacket provides the same level of protection as the European Police Standard for tactical vests. So basically, it’s a police-grade bullet-proof vest in coat form. Very nice.

The jacket is made of 100% Polyester Canvas with PU-coating on the reverse. The piece of mind you get with owning one of these does come with a hefty price tag. Expect to pay about $2000 for one.

Bullet-proof raincoat [via boingboing]

http://www.slashgear.com/the-bullet-proof-coat-094234/

http://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/bl...ket-p-380.html


Mighty expensive I'm thinking.

[farmerboy]

Do they also make pants, socks and underwear just I'n case i think i may ever need it?

[youngunz4life]

I'm understanding where people are coming from with the 'heat' argument, but the bottom line the weather shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether you wear some form of vest:

well I wear it while hunting in the winter

I don't carry a gun when the sun is out in south florida

I don't wear my flak vest in Iraq when it is 110 degrees

etc etc

I don't have one, but I could throw one in trunk w/the rope and tool box and blanket. That way when me and rambo meet up we can save the POWs together(I mean the hostages)

[Kevin Rohrer]

If someone has the money, and wants to wear one doing any of the above, who cares? And what do you care anyway?

The argument wasn't about money, wants, or my caring. It was about "common sense" and "if the situation warrants". My tongue-in-cheek question was asking what situations the man on the street needs one.

Just trying to inject some "common sense" into this topic.

[Double Naught Spy]

... pretty sure it'll be hard to prove effective against bear attacks.

- TXGunNut

http://news.yahoo.com/victim-mont-gr...232212127.html

I rest my case.

I have no doubt that vests would be somewhat helpful in protecting a person in a bear attack, but only when the bear was going after the chest area and people often die as a result of trauma to their heads, necks, lower abdomen, and limbs. They do no good in protecting areas not directly covered by the vest, such as the legs which were being chomping on in the above incident where Ty Bell shot and killed his hunting partner, Steve Stephenson, while a grizzly chomped on Stephenson's legs.

Typical ballistic protection worn by street cops is soft armor. Soft armor will not protect against rifle rounds such as used to shoot the bear in the above story.

Im kind of amazed at the negativity associated with them, especially from people who say they carry a gun. The very same reasoning can be applied there. Like carrying a gun, its a personal choice, for whatever reason the person sees fit. If you dont want to wear one, thats fine, dont. Dont carry a gun either, youll probably never need it anyway.

I have found this amazing as well. Apparently, if you carry a gun that will allow you to project force over distance against other people, it is considered to be good self protection. If you wear a vest that will help protect you when force is used against you, you are parnoid. Quite honestly, I would be more inclined to believe that these are reversed.

I had a cop freak out when he pulled me over for speeding and I was wearing a vest. "Freak out" is probably a bit strong, but I have never had a cop come to my driver's side window and then retreat quickly in mid sentence to the rear of my vehicle and question me from the back bumper before. He finally relaxed, came and retrieved my licenses, but still questioned my 'need' for a vest even at the gun range. I asked if he wore his to the range and he said that he did, but that he shot with other cops. So I said something like, "So you think I should trust the gun handling skills of strangers at the range when you don't trust the gun handling skills of your fellow officers?"

I got the ticket.

[C0untZer0]

Originally I just had two points:

1) Barring heat or a situation that would make wearing a vest extremely uncomfortable, or impossible, - logically, all the reasons for carrying would also seem to indicate wearing body armor.

2) I think the main reason it doesn't get more attention in some people's tactical thinking is that guns are fun but body armor is boring.

I now think part of it is attitude - from reading some of the responses in this thread it seems like many people think that the idea of wearing body armor is nuts.

There are dozens and dozens of people on this forum who will discuss the tactical importance of using LED flashlights versus regular incandescent bulb, or discuss the importance of having a knife or other ECQ weapon as a tertiary backup, but they never talk about body armor.

Some people have mulled over the decision and based on their knowledge of how uncomfortable they are, they made a decision not to wear them. That's fine. But I think many people haven't even gone through that decision making process, they just think it's nuts.

I find that attitude amazing.

I'm just guessing that some of these same people strap on a primary firearm, a bug, extras mags and a knife, when they leave the house every day or even run down to the store to get groceries.

[Hook686]

Kevin Rohrer wrote:

Just trying to inject some "common sense" into this topic.

'Common sense' is relative to the observer ... see A. Einstein.

You can only interject your personal view about 'Comon sense', and can not establish the standard ... at least not with this crowd. Why are you trying to ?

[Shadi Khalil]

I've lived in the N. Virginia area, right out side D.C my pretty much my entire life. As a kid (I'm in my early 30's now) most of N. V.A was a very quite place to live. In fact the town I grew up in looked almost rual compared to how it looks today. At that time D.C was out of control; crack was every where, day time shootings, it was like a war zone. These days it's different D.C has calmed down and places that were once down right scary are some is some of the most valuable property in the country. While DC has flourished, the surrounding areas have suffered (manassas va is a good example for those who know the area) and crime and gangs are wide spread.

Those changes compelled me to carry a gun, something I could never imagine doing during the lazy and lofty days that proceeded the urban sprawl. Right now I could never think of wearing a protective vest, it just seems like over kill. However, if things got worse I might have a change of heart, just like I did when I decided to start carrying. So for some people, it might seem over kill to wear one but for others it makes as much sense to wear a vest as it does to wear a gun. You can't judge other peoples choices without full understanding what's compelled them to make certain choices.

[farmerboy]

I do agree with this last post

[C0untZer0]

^ ya but what are you basing your decision on?

Cost ?

How uncomfortable a vest would be to wear?

I just just seems like its a generall feeling for you.

At some point conditions in your environment compelled you to make a change - to start carrying where before that it was something you'd never imagined you'd be doing.

I wonder why you would need further changes, worsening conditions, or something to make a subsequent decision to wear a protective vest.

It seems to me that all of the factors that would have originally compelled you to consider the decision to arm yourself would have also compelled you to consider a decision to shield yourself.

[Shadi Khalil]

Originally Posted by C0untZer0

It seems to me that all of the factors that would have originally compelled you to consider the decision to arm yourself would have also compelled you to consider a decision to shield yourself.

Ok, those are some good questions and I'll respond the best I can. For me, carrying a gun is already uncomfortable enough. Maybe I'm over sensitive but I've never been the type of person who can stand having a bunch of stuff on me. In fact, if I'm out with my wife almost everything goes in her purse. I hate the feeling if keys in my pocket or having to sit on a wallet. Also, I'm not a big guy and don't wear big clothes. I've always carried smaller weapons because I've never followed the conventional wisdom of dressing around your gun which is a good rule of thumb. So I guess I've big reason is the whole comfort factor, I just perfer to be as comfortable as possible.

When I decided to carry a gun it wasent something I was thrilled about. I had always loved guns since I was a kid but I could never imagine that at some point in my life I'd carry a gun for self defense. When I finally did start carrying a gun I almost felt defeated. It felt like I was being forced to change my life style and being ripped out of mt comfort zone. Of course, I realize that you can't stay in your bubble forever but at the time I was not happy about it. I will also add that I've always been a supporter of all thing 2A and have always taken pride in VA's decent laws. Over the last few years I've gotten used to carrying and don't even think about it.

So maybe I feel the same way about the vest now then I did about the guns way back? Who knows. Right now though, either I don't feel like I need one or I'm not ready to accept that I so. To be honest, the more I read this thread and the well thought arguments for wearing one, the more it sounds like a good idea.

[Don P]

This came to mind and I'll ask for view points here. As Mas Ayoob has stated about reloads for SD and the possible fallout from using them I wonder if any possible fallout would come from being in a SD shooting and one is wearing a vest?
What say the members and please lets not get into the reloads for SD debate just thoughts on the vest and a SD shooting.

To be honest, the more I read this thread and the well thought arguments for wearing one, the more it sounds like a good idea.

Like I stated before making the expenditure wear one if possible. They do not breath and are HOT!

[farmerboy]

I believe we all must make choices and do so that suits us as individuals. Sure it'd be wise to wear a vest. As a civilian feels as it is needed or as a protective piece of mind. An officer really should because of company policy and if you break it and the dust settles, thats the first thing that will come up is he broke policy and did not wear a vest. As well as if you failed to call trffic stop in (10-27, and or 10-28) I rarely do. 1 out of 50. Plus as someone stated your benefisiary would recieve alot bigger lump in case you died from a shooting while on patrol. So yes, it would be wise but we still all have choices and make them that suits us. Youd think you could go to Church and have a time of piece to get away from it all and just to Worship, yet the doors could swing open and all or few could get shot by BG's too. Bad things do happen everywhere at anytime. In the end we still will do according to our individual needs or desires as a person

[kozak6]

If you wear a vest, do you wear a helmet too?

Why or why not?

[youngunz4life]

If you wear a vest, do you wear a helmet too?

I haven't read any posts since posting last night, but I'll give this hypothetical question a shot before I catch up.

That would depend on the person, and the two don't go together hand-in-hand. As an example, someone could wear a helmet and no vest or vice versa. Other variables could be thrown into the mix such as a CCW, holster GPS device, compass, etc, etc.

In other words, no matter the question or how rare something is or how probable something is, one could wear a vest, helmet, CCW and other devices such as a flashlight to name one, yet one could also wear none of these or one or a combination of these to suit his own, personal fancy.

[Shadi Khalil]

Originally Posted by kozak6

If you wear a vest, do you wear a helmet too?

Why or why not?

I think the helmet point is a red herring. Do you ask the same question to cops who choose to wear a vest? Probably not.

I'd say a large majority of police offers will never be in a shoot out and as a result will never have to draw their gun. Also, I would also argue that less police offers are shot each year than are normal, everyday citizens. Despite that, police still wear protective vest, carry guns, mace, shotguns, ect. So, if normal everyday folks are more likely to be a victim of a shooting then why would wearing a protective vest seem so far fetched?

[Chris84]

I dont even wear a helment when I am over seas. I dont like them they are hot the are heavey and it just makes it harder to move and look fast if the need araises. I do wear my level IIIA soft armor under my plate carrier which has mulit-hit plates in it. But in CONUS I only wear my soft armor when at work and not all the time then. It is not because of the heat or wieght, but becuase I dont feel that I need it. If you think that you need it then get some and wear it. I mean each to there own. who am I to tell you not if that is what it takes to make you feel safe. But I will tell you that they are hot, very hot and that most are really heavey for all day wear. And it still hurts like a B**** when a round hits you with on.

[C0untZer0]

I think a helmet is a piece of tactical equipment that deserves serious consideration.

I think all of this is about making decisions.

On one hand - when "we" collectively talk about what caliber or what handun someone should carry, we commonly say things like "You should get the largest, most effective caliber / handun that you can both shoot effectively and carry concealed."

Something along those lines. Well, depending upon how you dress, you can theoretically carry come pretty big guns. There are people on this board who CC a Beretta 92 every day. Some of it may be body type but some of it is probably how you dress.

But then there are people who carry pocket pistols - pocket autos, or little snub nosed 38s.

You could make an argument that if you're serious about self defense then you'll carry a full-sized pistol in a major caliber and the factors that argue for carrying at all - can also logically call for someone to carry a full sized pistol in a major caliber, and a reload, and to dress around the pistol to conceal it. That argument says that you do not choose your firearm based on your style of dress, choosing a handgun to fit your wardrobe, but rather you choose the most effective handgun / caliber combination possible and then dress accordingly.

Someone who follows that kind of strict philosophy is probably not going to be as comfortable as someone who has a pocket holster in their pants and drops a pocket pistol in there...

I think it's about decisions, assumptions and tradeoffs.

When someone drops a 7 shot 380 auto into their pocket before going out the door, they're playing the odds that they are not going to get into a confrontation with a 320lb ex con with the bull barrel chest and 28" from front to back (not counting the belly) ...

Unless you live in the neighbor hood that is disputed gang territory, that is probably statistically a pretty good assumption and it's a tradeoff that works on any given day.

I think I should educate myself on the pros and cons of integrating a helmet into my overall tactical scheme, and make a rational decision about it.

[Shadi Khalil]

Originally Posted by C0untZer0

I think a helmet is a piece of tactical equipment that deserves serious consideration.

I think all of this is about making decisions.

On one hand - when "we" collectively talk about what caliber or what handun someone should carry, we commonly say things like "You should get the largest, most effective caliber / handun that you can both shoot effectively and carry concealed."

Something along those lines. Well, depending upon how you dress, you can theoretically carry come pretty big guns. There are people on this board who CC a Beretta 92 every day. Some of it may be body type but some of it is probably how you dress.

But then there are people who carry pocket pistols - pocket autos, or little snub nosed 38s.

You could make an argument that if you're serious about self defense then you'll carry a full-sized pistol in a major caliber and the factors that argue for carrying at all - can also logically call for someone to carry a full sized pistol in a major caliber, and a reload, and to dress around the pistol to conceal it. That argument says that you do not choose your firearm based on your style of dress, choosing a handgun to fit your wardrobe, but rather you choose the most effective handgun / caliber combination possible and then dress accordingly.

Someone who follows that kind of strict philosophy is probably not going to be as comfortable as someone who has a pocket holster in their pants and drops a pocket pistol in there...

I think it's about decisions, assumptions and tradeoffs.

When someone drops a 7 shot 380 auto into their pocket before going out the door, they're playing the odds that they are not going to get into a confrontation with a 320lb ex con with the bull barrel chest and 28" from front to back (not counting the belly) ...

Unless you live in the neighbor hood that is disputed gang territory, that is probably statistically a pretty good assumption and it's a tradeoff that works on any given day.

I think I should educate myself on the pros and cons of integrating a helmet into my overall tactical scheme, and make a rational decision about it.

Helmets, vests, big guns with lots of ammo are no substitute for proper training. Also, you are planning on wearing a vest and helmet then you should be training while wearing those items.... So, if your going to wear a vest you should probably wear a full on flak jacket that covers your groined area. And if your wearing the helmet you might as well have some sort of face guard as well.