back
3 comments
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

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"
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.
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...

That line of reasoning is eerily similar to "the only people who would want to use encryption are bad people who have something to hide."
Also an Australian. I have a feeling this may not make much sense to Americans.

Bulletproof clothing only protects you against bullets (well it protects against knives too but you can buy less expensive slash/stab resistant clothing). In Australia there is virtually no gun violence. The only people who can shoot you are cops. They will only shoot you if you're doing something that justifies being shot at. Therefore, the only reason you'd need bulletproof armor is if you intend to do something that would justify the police shooting at you.

Encryption on the other hand has legitimate purposes. It's quite possible for someone to say steal all your money by intercepting your bank account login and it requires no special, heavily restricted equipment to do so.

There's Bikies/Gangs who do drive-by shootings.
True, but without commenting on the merit/justice of it, they've historically focused on targeting themselves/each other.
Most bulletproofing that you would wear that isn’t actually armor is not stab proof.

Also, it’s trivial to make effective rifle armor out of AR500 steel, Rhino Liner (or other bed liner) as a spall guard and a nylon/Velcro plate carrier which will not tax a third year cosplayer in the least to sew.

It just occurred to me that lots of cosplayers are really good seamstresses.
My youngest is into cosplay, and seeing the amount of work that goes into a costume that may only be used for a half day one time is impressive.
>The only people who can shoot you are cops

And ISIS, as has been shown in France.

Perhaps on a technical/analytical level there is a similarity, but i think it is a false equivocation in this context. Its similar in the sense that a right to bear arms implies civilian access to tanks and nuclear weapons.

In reality, law and society are complex creatures. I'd observe that any knowledgeable person observes encryption is commonly and widely used for a variety of purposes, and has many people who will push back against its denial of use.

In terms of the body armour law, there would presumably be the empirical facts that:

1.) There's just not actually a demand for it amongst the society in the aussie context at least.

2.) The odds of being shot or stabbed by someone other than a close relative is virtually nil in Australia if you're not partaking in a criminal enterprise. And so far as long as those criminal enterprises don't spill over into public related injuries and violence, people's level of fear regarding guns/stabbings is pretty low.

3.) This must be taken in the context of an everyday culture that has a rate of ~1 in 100,000 rate of homicide (non-uniformly distributed admitedly) compared to the united states rate of ~4 or 5. The culture is relatively uniform, and united states-esque laws and policies regarding weapons and obsessions with are generally viewed as a mixture of "crazy", "a warning of what we could become", and just a generally undesirable state of affairs.

There is a debate regarding encryption. Whereas debate around things like increased access to weapons or body armour is "effectively zero" in the context of Australian society (keeping in mind I don't have the time/space to go into the historic details or rural hunter/fisher/farmer politics).

I'm going to assume that canadians in many ways view american laws/society in a similar vein to us in this context: our friendly but crazy relatives. (albeit with them sharing a physical border).

I'm also guessing (I haven't looked it up) that they have a far lower homicide rate, and would suggest, like Australians, that they believe de-escalation and keeping militarized equipment out of the hands of civilians primarily provides a greater civil protection against shootings/stabbings than ownership of body armour would.

Now, to not be objective for a second, i think real life is more complex, but empirically, given the relative differences in homicide rates, i'd say the American case at least appears to be starting the argument on the backfoot :)

Actually, I believe that there is a better case for civilian ownership of tanks, ordinance, and heavy/automatic weaponry than there is for handguns. According to a study by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 86% of gun crimes involved a handgun, even though there are roughly equal numbers of rifles, handguns, and shotguns in the US.

Meanwhile, there's a tanker militia not far from where I live that practices regularly, and doesn't really bother anyone.

I'm fairly certain that there have been no tank related homicides in living memory, and the only two tank related crimes I can find news reports of involve a tank being taken from an army base for a joyride, and Killdozer, which injured no one (discounting the operator committing suicide), and was home-made anyways.

The thing about crime is that criminals instinctively want to hide what they're doing. Handguns are about a million times easier to hide than a rifle, or even a sawn-off shotgun. Having this bulky, visible weapon hanging off of your back is an automatic deterrent to crime.

If we can prevent just one Tank Rampage [1] it would be worth it.

[1] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/lifestyle/people/sdut-ta...

... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. That's the first tank incident I referenced, and that wasn't a civilian tank in the first place.
Having all guns be part of a "well regulated militia" could indeed solve many problems in the US.
All our traffic is analysed by unknown third parties but not all of us have reasonable expectation to get shot. I would have this expectation at least in places with decent regulation.
>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.

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.

Unless your an expat from dodgy places and fear kidnapping when I worked for a Arab company in the UK some of the directors cars where the special order armoured up ones.

Like wise in Germany senior business men have armed guards as a result of RA / baader meinhof.

Politicians also have well founded fears of nutters of political extremists trying to attack and kill them

Just Google homicides by police in the US [1][2]. The US has a very high percentage of civilians, not all criminals, shot dead by our very own police force compared to all other nations, and not just developed countries.

  [1]  http://www.dailynews.com/2015/05/04/american-police-kill-civilians-at-a-shocking-rate-compared-to-other-developed-countries/
  [2]  http://time.com/4404987/police-violence/
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.

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.

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.
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.
Very true.
Not only that but it makes it easier for criminals to have protection from police bullets.
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

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

Depending on the (edit handgun) caliber it could bring you to the ground even with adrenaline flowing. You will end up with large bruises for sure. If there is a rifle involved >.22 caliber, then you will likely face penetration unless you have a trauma plate. Body extremities really can't be effectively protected.
3A Body Armor vs. 5.56 Nato and 7.62 x 39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JwlzR5nPFw

3A Body Armor vs.12ga. Buckshot and Slugs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qSVOZfp3R4

3A Body Armor vs. Pistol Caliber Carbines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia1k1Zg4l2A

https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-1-the-original-...

Handguns are handguns. Rifles are rifles.

Yes, caliber and grains matter too (in addition to barrel). A rim fire .22 is so different from a .223, that it's comparing them is almost useless (but not quite). Just look at the cartridge and it becomes very clear... http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-...
Might break a rib too, no? I've seen a video of tests on clay dummies so they can see the depth of damage from the impact behind the vest.
I’ve not experienced it directly, but I have a couple of friends who have. Best case scenario you are knocked down and bruised, worse case you get broken ribs, worst case the vest isn’t rated for the caliber and goes through.

You feel the entire kinetic energy of the bullet with a vest, the bullet just doesn’t go through. Imagine driving a truck at 100mph into a sturdy concrete wall. Similarish outcome.

A lot of times vests are rated for only one shot. Getting shot multiple times may very well compromise the vest.
It depends on how far away, and what you were shot with... vests are designed to block hand guns, not rifels. It may not stop every bullet. A larger hand gun, say 50cal, has more recoil and is harder to aim with sequential shots, thus not practical... but feels amazing and is so loud!

I believe it would take a person down and possibly kill them. I've been told police are taught 2 to the chest 1 to the head.

From my quick googling, a great read: "...Among the accounts from those who have experienced being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest (and lived to talk about it), there is one consistent analogy to describe the feeling: being hit with a baseball bat. ..." http://www.ponderweasel.com/shot-wearing-a-bulletproof-vest/

Police are taught to put all rounds in center body massage. They are never trained to do 'headshots' pistols are not made for that kind of accuracy, especially in high stress/adrenaline situations.
Indeed, obviously having not experienced it myself, just from understanding the sheer physics of it and how bullet-proof vests work, my initial prediction would be something like:

"Getting hit hard in the chest by a big blunt concussive object"

Yeah cause criminals only ever use guns that police are allowed to have.
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.
I don't think that that is the idea.

I think the reason is similar to what was shown for seat belts:

When you know you are protected you take more risks. If criminals can protect themselves they are probably more likely to use violence in the first place.