assailant wearing armor

[Cosmoline]

1. I'd say my position is evolving. But if it does happen in my life, it's most likely to be at a court house where (hopefully) the security can deal with it and I'm unarmed anyway.

2. Not much, but armor isn't complete protection and I know of at least one case (in Texas IIRC in front of a courthouse) where a citizen at least stopped the shooting even if his bullet didn't penetrate. The impact tends to get one's attention even if it doesn't penetrate.

3. Not really, and day-to-day the risks remain the same old routine ones. Nationally there remains a real possibility of a Mumbai style assault, though.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks,

Please stick to the ST&T aspects of body armor, not the legal and political or the SHTF aspects of it. Otherwise, as hso said earlier, the thread will drift into closure.

 

[Jeff White]

1. No.

2. Train, carry a rifle (not practical but a solution)

3. No. Criminals have used body armor since it was invented.

I don't worry about encountering a criminal wearing body armor. If it happens, it happens....I train on failure drills, I can use them if necessary. My biggest weapon is avoidance. I no longer put myself in situations where I am likely to encounter armored up criminals at work, and I certainly don't go to places where I might off duty.

The likelyhood of encountering a crazed armored up shooter like the ones in the Bank of America robbery or other highly publicized incidents is so small I don't worry about it.

If it were to happen I would deal with it as I was trained to. I'm not going to lug my patrol rifle around everywhere I go or carry a magazine of AP rounds on the off chance it will happen.

No one, not even the military can plan for, train for and equip themselves for every possible contingency. No one has that kind of resources and time available to them. You plan, train and equip yourself for the situations you are likely to encounter. Right now I don't think it's a big enough threat to warrant making any changes in how I currently do things.

 

[bluethunder1962]

,,,

 

[Fred Fuller]

Body armor is a reasonable consideration for some people in some circumstances. The whole world doesn't have to be in deep difficulty at the same time, for one lone individual to be in deep difficulty in their own locale. Which is why we don't discuss SHTF stuff here - it can very well be an individual event without having to be a collective event.

 

[4tsmith]

Does anyone practice hostage drills?(shoulder socket,pelvic saddle,soft pallet..etc)

Generally avoid toys,but some 6mm paint marker gas gun games sure woke me up on tactics,accuracy and methods..very humbling and pain avoidance is terrific motivation.

Sure rethinking range time now and a big change in target selection.

 

[jbrown50]

1. If you didn't feel that an armored assailant was a risk to plan for or worry about before the Aurora shooting, has your opinion changed?

I've always considered it a risk to plan for and I do practice hostage drills. My concern has been my ability to recognize that the assailant is wearing body armor and to quickly take the appropriate counter measures with adrenaline pumping and at a moving, bobbing, active assailant/assailants.

2. If you feel it's a risk, what can the average citizen do for protection against it?

As mentioned earlier the Mozambique drill is one good method of engagement. I include precise shot drills into my CCW training regimen. Just remember though, if you're close enough to take that kind of shot with your handgun you're also close enough for the assailant to get a good shot on you with his rifle. If you're too close to get away safely, your escape route(s) are blocked, you're covering an injured family member or are injured yourself, etc. you may have no choice but to engage.

3. Do you think that the risk is increasing, or are more examples being publicized when they weren't before?

Well, yes I think it's inceasing because, as already mentioned, body armor is becoming lighter and easier to wear.

 

[mokin]

I practice failure-to-stop drills farily regularly. That being said, my thought was, hmmm, a dark movie theatre, what about one of those new fangled flashlights that puts out 100+ lumens?

 

[bikerdoc]

Staying on topic

1 No
2 Live like I Do (avoid crowds, go to bed at 9 pm, use situational awareness and ADEE
, carry everywhere)
3 No

 

[FMF Doc]

1. I considered it before, and still consider it a possibility.
2. Train. In the military we call it "Failure to Stop" drills, 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. That is the military (at least in the Navy/Marine Corps) standard. Bullets are cheap...use enough them. If you can't hit the head, roughly a 4" target zone at a given distance, then that distance is beyond your effective range. If you carry a pistol for "worst case scenario" then you need to REALLY train for that, and that could mean only a head shot works.
3. The world is becoming a crazier place. I don't know that the risk of armored attackers is increasing, but I know that I carry even more religiously than I used to. When I started I was around 75% carry wherever legal. Now, it is 100% when legal, and I serious consider what is the bigger threat in non-legal carry areas: the bad guys, or the police. "Always carry, never tell."

 

[Big Boy]

That's what you would have done if you realized he was wearing FULL body armor. Likely you would have not. I'd say most of us would not.

With the amount he had on you might have noticed the chest and head, but I doubt any of it would have processed in time. Threat = fire at threat. You're brain goes nuts in a chaos situation. If I put you in a theater, with people running around you screaming, and asked you to name the multiples of 2, it wouldn't happen. Let alone the fact that you are magically going to get behind a gunman who is shooting everything in sight.

Practical discussions are better. Not what you would have done if you were John Rambo.

 

[WinThePennant]

I've never been shot. But, I've heard that getting shot while wearing body armor is like getting punched by a heavyweight boxer.

Had someone started scoring hits, I think this BG would have ran for cover. Lives would have been saved.

This guy was no trained Army Commando. He would have crapped himself and ran.

 

[moto_stevo]

I am a Colorado resident. This has been on the news all day. Witnesses had the chance to run out of the theater during reloads. Body armor doesn't cover the face. Bystanders were getting between mom/children and the assailant. If someone were pretty competent with their CCW, I would be pretty sure that they could have taken aim and gotten a headshot at 25 yds.
I think it's more important for all of us as responsible gun owners the be able to hold paper plate groups consistently at 25 yards

 

[Lost Sheep]

In the wake of the Aurora shooting, I'd like to know if anyone's opinions have changed about the possibility of encountering an assailant who is wearing body armor. I've seen others ask questions about what to do or what gun to carry in the event of a situation like that, and they often get pooh-poohed. Now we have a good example of the awful possibilities - a deranged person with armor, helmet, gas mask, and "as many as four weapons."

So.... to boil it down, here are the short questions.

1. If you didn't feel that an armored assailant was a risk to plan for or worry about before the Aurora shooting, has your opinion changed?

2. If you feel it's a risk, what can the average citizen do for protection against it?

3. Do you think that the risk is increasing, or are more examples being publicized when they weren't before?


In this thread, let's try to leave out the "political fallout" and Brady stuff since we already have a thread on that.

1) Yes, I had not considered leg and head armor all that likely. However, the likelihood of any armor is still pretty slim.

2) Heavier bullets, maybe. For the "average citizen" beyond the normal situational awareness and tactical skills (marksmanship, movement, etc) not much more can (or needs) be done. Just keep your skill level high. The same set of skills apply when confronting an armored shooter as an unarmored one, just more so.

3) Yes, I thinkg the risk is increasing.

I am a Colorado resident. This has been on the news all day. Witnesses had the chance to run out of the theater during reloads. Body armor doesn't cover the face. Bystanders were getting between mom/children and the assailant. If someone were pretty competent with their CCW, I would be pretty sure that they could have taken aim and gotten a headshot at 25 yds.
I think it's more important for all of us as responsible gun owners the be able to hold paper plate groups consistently at 25 yards

Sorry, moderators, this is specific to the situation. But it does have some general applicability to the original questions, so here goes. The shooter in question was gas-masked, armored (and presumably taking aim) and probably would be able to see you better than you could see him (because of the gas). He was using a long arm and presumably you would have a 4" barrel or less. You would be hidden in the chaos, though and presumably shooting from concealment, if not actual cover and await a carefully aimed shot, so have some advantages there. Probably you would not know until your first or second shot was taken that he was wearing armor. By then, he knows of your existence and possibly location. How many rounds do you have left?

Also, with the chaos, you should take care not to hit anyone who may (while escaping and paying no attention to you) run between you and the shooter just at the instant you pull your trigger.

I would say the odds are against your "competent CCW" carrier. But that wouldn't stop me from trying if I thought I could save lives.

From Luby's to Virginia Tech to Columbine to the present event, the potential that a practiced armed (or even unarmed) citizen(s) could have taken out the shooter is real (as has been demonstrated in Tuscon and other places) is real, but risky.

Armored bad actors increase the risk of failure.

Lost Sheep

 

[Deaf Smith]

In the wake of the Aurora shooting, I'd like to know if anyone's opinions have changed about the possibility of encountering an assailant who is wearing body armor. I've seen others ask questions about what to do or what gun to carry in the event of a situation like that, and they often get pooh-poohed. Now we have a good example of the awful possibilities - a deranged person with armor, helmet, gas mask, and "as many as four weapons."

So.... to boil it down, here are the short questions.

1. If you didn't feel that an armored assailant was a risk to plan for or worry about before the Aurora shooting, has your opinion changed?

2. If you feel it's a risk, what can the average citizen do for protection against it?

3. Do you think that the risk is increasing, or are more examples being publicized when they weren't before?


In this thread, let's try to leave out the "political fallout" and Brady stuff since we already have a thread on that.

1. It is a possibility. Not probability but a possibility.

2. To hell with 'average'. Ain't no such animal. If you run into such a nutjob.. head shots only cause so many of them wear body armor. Just practice head shots!
WHY? So any missed shots go up and past other bystanders heads and they don't get hit. Practice alot folks cause these nutjobs need to be put down.

3. No. But it does feed on hysteria.

Deaf

 

[Hugo]

Crazy situation that was made lose/lose since when the bad guy plans this well you have bad odds for you. Tear gas, complete surprise, dark theater, panicky people running and climbing over seats, body armor on bad guy, plus bad guy is just crazy/evil is a nightmare situation. Shot placement is pretty hard even if you were an IDPA champion with a laser sight on your super accurate pistol. Nightmare all around.

Remember the North Hollywood bank robbery and shootout? The cops had to shoot (at least one of them) the bad guys in the legs and feet (hips maybe?) to stop them. Many police now carry rifles in their cars to improve their odds but it's just plain tough fighting against body armor.

Expect the media to jump on a crappy Ewe Boll movie a little similar to this.

 

[Hunter125]

What about shooting below the waist or just dumping as many rounds possible into the head/neck area? Also, how effective is 2a armor against blades? I know it would be gutsy/stupid/suicidal, but a possibility to save others.

Another option could be mace/pepper spray to disorient and the rush him, take away weapons, use other weapons like blades etc.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

1. If you didn't feel that an armored assailant was a risk to plan for or worry about before the Aurora shooting, has your opinion changed?

2. If you feel it's a risk, what can the average citizen do for protection against it?

3. Do you think that the risk is increasing, or are more examples being publicized when they weren't before?

1. No, my opinion hasn't changed. This is because such occurances are, fortunately, pretty rare. Also, I consider various scenarios where a high accuracy shot may be needed. This is essential because center of mass isn't always a viable target, for whatever reason. Body armor is just one such circumstance.

2. The average citizen can utilize many of the same tactics they would otherwise use. Situational awareness, movement, cover, counter-fire if armed, etc. Body armor isn't the be-all and end-all of self-protection. For an unarmed citizen, body armor or the lack of it makes no difference. It only comes into play when offensive weapons are brought to bear on the criminal.

3. Certainly the risk is increasing. The question is "how much?"...or more accurately, since all risk is relative, "how much in comparison to other risks we commonly encounter and accept each day?"

 

[krupparms]

I have body armor, an AR & a Tokarev. They will stay where their at when I leave the house. I will carry my 9mm or .45acp. just like always. If someone in body armor &a AR starts shooting in my area I would leave if I could! If I had to deal with them I would try for face or pelvis. Not something I want to do! I think more criminals will use any technology that helps them commit a crime! The news people help fuel the fire with their propaganda. And DC will wring their hands & maybe pass some laws, while the next person that gos out & plans something like this will do so! We can only pray that we are lucky in life & something like this never happens to us!

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

1. I always considered it a possibility, not a strong one, but one worth preparing for. So, no, my opinion hasn't changed.

2. Practice failure to stop drills – Mozambiques, pelvic-girdle shooting (not because I consider the latter a great idea, just another option) – and the usual use-of-cover and running away options.

3. I think the risk is probably a miniscule subset of the other small risk of ever being in a gunfight in the first place.

 

[gallo]

The risk may be small when dealing with street robberies in the US, but when dealing with organized crime, i.e. high end home invasions, kidnapping, carjacking, assume the bad guys are wearing armor.

How do you prepare? By not thinking the gun is the end all be all of personal safety since most likely you will be outnumbered and outgunned.

 

[Girodin]

I think what I thought before. It is a possibility but a rather remote one.

The thing about folks talking about 7.62x25 and 5.7 rounds is that if a person is going to go to the effort to get soft armor they could also go to the effort to get plates.

Unless you are going to walk around with a rifle there is not a good hardware solution to the problem of an armored.

 

[Doghandler]

Armor changes nothing for me. I view my side arm as nothing more or less than a long stick with a little bit more range but less accuracy.

If, for some strange reason, a well armed and armored assailant would get within stick distance of me and I am not dead or incapacitated, I'd actually rather have a stick than a handgun.

 

[newfalguy101]

My opinion is that its unlikely that your normal everday thug will ever have body armor.

As for the rest, body armor doesnt do squat for headshots.............

 

[beatledog7]

In a case such as the Aurora shooting, hundreds of people had an opportunity to stop the shooter, even though they were unarmed and he was armored.

Ever heard of the 21-foot rule? It would have taken no more than 5 or 6 brave souls all rushing the shooter from as many different directions to wrestle him to the floor and stop the shooting. Two or three may have taken a round in the process, but they could have stopped him.

The problem here was not that everyone was unarmed or that the shooter was armored--the problem was that everybody ran the wrong way.