Body Armor: ridiculous or prudent?

[Bobson]

We've had the "Don't Clear Your House" thread* many many times already.

(* Here's probably the most recent one: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7770914. Another: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=529243 ... there are lots, all with about the same answers.)

Thanks - I was about to go searching for them lol.

In general, I don't think body armor is a bad idea to have ready. On the other hand, I know people who think having a "nightstand gun" is borderline paranoid schizophrenia.

It depends on your mindset, which is going to be impacted by your life experiences, and how they differ from the experiences of others. I would expect that a huge majority of people who have served in the military (which includes me), as well as many LEOs to think body armor is more prudent than ridiculous. Conversely, I would expect most civilians who have never worked in an armed position, or any position of public safety to find this entire topic to be ridiculous.

 

[JustinJ]

The problem with "wether or not there is sufficient time to put it on" is it may be very difficult to know just how much time you have before the bedroom door gets kicked in and being in the process of putting on armor makes one quite vulnerable.

Regardless, i imagine that one would be hard pressed to find many HD scenarios in which a person did or could have survived with armor. Yeah, it has an advantage but the chances of it being of use seem so slight i would just feel silly. Which is why seatbelt use is a not a valid comparison. There are always additional steps one can take to improve their security level but at some point you exceed or even blow by the paranoid threshold. What's next...wearing body armor to the grocery store?

 

[OregonJohnny]

What's next...wearing body armor to the grocery store?

In a public setting, if something really bad goes down, you most likely have an escape route, and the shooter/shooters are probably not looking for you specifically.

Barricaded in your bedroom, with your door being kicked in, you are the one and only target.

I guess you could pose the question about body armor for home defense this way:

You hear a violent entry into your home by an unknown intruder or intruders. You (and your family) quickly barricade yourselves in the locked master bedroom with a weapon aimed at the door, and possibly you or someone else in the room on the phone with 911. Before you know it, your bedroom door is being kicked in. Would you rather be wearing a piece of level IIIA armor, or just a bathrobe?

 

[Bobson]

What's next...wearing body armor to the grocery store?

These are incomparable levels of preparation.

In one case, you're choosing to wear armor proactively in an everyday situation, based on the chance that something could happen. In the other case, you would be equipping armor because something already has happened. They're incomparable situations.

If you're arguing that simply buying armor in the first place (for HD) is a step toward paranoia, that's logic that demands to be questioned. Why is it "okay" to buy firearms to protect yourself in your home, but taking another step to the same end suddenly bridges the gap between preparation and insanity?

Both levels of preparation are in response to what may very well be the most dangerous situation any civilian could ever find himself in. (Yes, I would argue that a home invasion is more dangerous than an active shooter scenario).

Out of curiosity, would you also claim that having a "panic room" in the home would be the act of a paranoid person, as opposed to someone who simply wanted to be prepared?

There's a lot to consider... for example, ask yourself the panic room question while supposing you have a family and make $100k per year. Now ask again, supposing you have a family and make $10 million per year. I would expect the answers to be different. The point is, what may seem impractical to some is a necessary and basic step toward survival for others. You can't just look at this type of thing and say, "Oh, that's ridiculous. This other thing is totally justified though."

 

[USAF_Vet]

I gave my opinion in the other thread, but I'll restate it here, since I have had some time to think about it.

Initially, I was leaning toward ridiculous, despite owning a Kevlar vest.

I'm falling in with Sam, and pretty much where I've consistently been. If I have time and I know there is a credible threat, I'll toss on the body armor.

If I don't have time, I'm not going to risk anything bad happening because I'm busy putting on armor instead of putting a bullet into a bad guy who is in my daughters room.

As I said in the other thread, body armor is a part of my security continuum. there is a point where it is more appropriate than others.

 

[JustinJ]

In a public setting, if something really bad goes down, you most likely have an escape route, and the shooter/shooters are probably not looking for you specifically.

So because in public you will "most likely" have an escape route (and there have been many shot by crazy ppl who apparently didn't) its not justifiable but even though you will "most likely" never need it in your home it is needed? You're not addressing my point. There are a million potential scenarios that one can take steps to prepare for but some, such as needing body armor at home, are too unlikely to justify said steps.

You hear a violent entry into your home by an unknown intruder or intruders. You (and your family) quickly barricade yourselves in the locked master bedroom with a weapon aimed at the door, and possibly you or someone else in the room on the phone with 911. Before you know it, your bedroom door is being kicked in. Would you rather be wearing a piece of level IIIA armor, or just a bathrobe?

You and your family are in a gas station when an two armed men come in demanding money and threatening to shoot everybody. A crazy man crashes his truck into a lubby's restaurant and opens fire just as you sit down to a meal. Two teenage kids grab a bunch of guns and go on a shooting rampage at their school as you arrive to pick up your kid for a dentists appointment. Would you rather have body armor? If your litmus test is if a potential scenario exists at a place where you'd rather have armor then i suggest you wear everywhere you go.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinJ
What's next...wearing body armor to the grocery store?

These are incomparable levels of preparation.

In one case, you're choosing to wear armor proactively in an everyday situation, based on the chance that something could happen. In the other case, you would be equipping armor because something already has happened. They're incomparable situations.

Except buying armor is also a proactive step to begin with.

If you're arguing that simply buying armor in the first place (for HD) is a step toward paranoia, that's logic that demands to be questioned. Why is it "okay" to buy firearms to protect yourself in your home, but taking another step to the same end suddenly bridges the gap between preparation and insanity?

Because there have been countless stories of people successfully defending their selves, family and property with guns. I haven't read any where body armor was used and very few where it arguably could have made a difference.

Both levels of preparation are in response to what may very well be the most dangerous situation any civilian could ever find himself in. (Yes, I would argue that a home invasion is more dangerous than an active shooter scenario).

How so? Each situation is unique. There are certainly home invader scenarios i'd prefer than some active shooter ones.

Out of curiosity, would you also claim that having a "panic room" in the home would be the act of a paranoid person, as opposed to someone who simply wanted to be prepared?

I suppose it depends on one's available resources and situation. People who are extremely wealthy, in politics or other situations in which they are a likely target have a good case for needing one. Average Joe living in a $200K suburban home and spending thousands of dollars on a panic room is silly IMO.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If I don't have time, I'm not going to risk anything bad happening because I'm busy putting on armor instead of putting a bullet into a bad guy who is in my daughters room.

This is always on of those conundrums. Does rushing to your daughter's room put both of you at more risk because you are unarmored and hence the bad guy may put a bullet into you first and hence leave your daughter as easy pickings or do you don the armor on the way and preserve your ability to protect both of you?

The conundrum is common in emergency services. Do you rush in now with limited resources or wait until you have more resources to better accomplish the job?

I am certainly not picking on you, USAF Vet, but you have expressed a seeming common opinion about being very optimistic about the outcome when not using a vest.

I know a lot of folks who have limited experience with vests and are of the opinion that they take a long time to put on and they don't if you have them set up properly. I always left one waist/chest cinch strap open on my concealment vest such that it could be thrown over my head as fast as a t-shirt, cinchng the last strap en route, or not. I now have a front opening vest and it goes on about as quick as me putting on a 5.11 vest.

 

[Nushif]

I don't think anyone here can truly say having on body armor during an encounter is a bad idea.
What a lot of people are saying is that the process of putting it on, or rather dealing with it as a commonly used item can be put to better use.

Let us say that someone broke open the front door of my apartment. The wife and I hit the ground, go prone and point our shotguns at the door, then call the cops and wait. Why someone is kicking in our door ... I don't know, but that is beside the point.
At this point we have some choices to make.
One arguably is as to whether we want to create the ruccus that comes with putting on a set kof body armor, and the other one is to be quiet, small, hard to hit and generally *maybe* avoid trouble in the first place.
The difference is whether to use speed and mobility or armor.

You get my drift?

 

[Mauser lover]

Sam1911, so there is no federal permit needed for body armor?

I was talking about a certain class of FFL (I think that it is class three?) to be able to manufacture a fully automatic firearm. Or is that idea just California propaganda?

I was kind of thinking like more of a flak vest from the Korean War or WWII with metal plates in them, although that kind would be slightly heavy for inside your house...

 

[Sam1911]

Sam1911, so there is no federal permit needed for body armor?

No.

I was talking about a certain class of FFL (I think that it is class three?) to be able to manufacture a fully automatic firearm. Or is that idea just California propaganda?

Certain kinds of Federal Firearms License holders can apply and pay a Class 02 "Special Occupational Tax" to build machine guns and other National Firearms Act Title II regulated devices. Some types of dealer can apply and pay a Class 03 SOT to SELL machine guns and other NFA Title II guns/items.

You don't need either of those licenses to own a machine gun. There is a process to is, but it doesn't involve getting licensed.

And none of that has to do with body armor.

I was kind of thinking like more of a flak vest from the Korean War or WWII with metal plates in them, although that kind would be slightly heavy for inside your house...

Well, those are for sale cheap at surplus stores and mail order places. And, unfortunately, they really suck at stopping bullets.

 

[fatcat4620]

Vests are for kids. Two words- ballistic shield

 

[Mauser lover]

Okay, thanks Sam1911.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Prudent to have, ridiculous and bordering on paranoia to wear it all the time.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

If you have the money to burn and want to buy something you will probably never need, go for it.

 

[justice06rr]

Depending on where you live, IMO its not far-fetched or even remotely over-reacting to wear a vest if you have one available. If you live in (or close to) unpleasant neighborhoods like Philly and even here in Tampa/Orlando where BG's can be expected to carry guns.

In my situation if I owned a vest, it would be under the bed or in my walk-in closet next to the M4.

 

[armoredman]

When you want to grab a flashlight, sidearm, maybe cell phone to check down the hall, this might be the do all thing you're looking for.

https://uspalm.com/component/magebridge/us-palm-defender-handgun.html?Itemid=102

Also, yes, there is a Safariland vest that is BOTH stab and bullet resistant. T'ain't cheap.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If you have time to put it on yoy probably have time to get behind hard cover where your vitals will be better protected anyway.

 

[Rail Driver]

If you have time to put it on yoy probably have time to get behind hard cover where your vitals will be better protected anyway.

Sure, if you don't have kids to go retrieve, or if you even have actual cover in your home... I certainly don't, although I have a fair bit of concealment. The only actual cover in my home is the front brick wall.

Kevlar vests don't stop knives.

They don't, but add-on panels that do defeat bladed weapons (and help soften the blow from a blunt weapon such as a bat or tire iron) can be bought from the same places you get the vests and armor panels.

 

[Paladin38-40]

Ham and cheese

A sandwich can be made with either, but given a choice I prefer both together. I usually have both handy in the fridge. The sandwich tastes better and defers hunger longer.

I see guns and vests in a similar light.

 

[Hugo]

It's another layer of safety but it does take a few seconds. If you have a few seconds to put it on, even better safety for you.

Some body armor is "stab resistant" or has another insert to become "stab resistant". Every maker/model is different, do your research.

 

[walking arsenal]

If you have time to put it on yo probably have time to get behind hard cover where your vitals will be better protected anyway.

Like what? Look around your home. What items in the average household will stop a handgun round?

In my apartment the answer is nothing!

 

[Isaac-1]

All this talk made me go look at ebay last night, and as luck would have it I found a poorly listed older Safariland Zero-G Gold IIIa vest nearly new including very worn original box about my size for $150, at that price I figured why not, sure its older (10 years or so), but is a Kevlar/GoldFlex/SpectraShield mixed layer combo, not ZYLON which has been recalled, and is out of warranty (5 year service life) so may have lost some of its protection due to age, but on the other hand it was rated IIIa (up to 44 Magnum) not the basic IIa (up to 9mm) so had a bigger safety margin when new. I don't really expect to need it know, but at that price it would be nice to have some day in case of civil unrest, natural disaster wtih looting, etc.

Ike

p.s. It might even be nice to have when going to the shooting range...

Oh, on the hard cover topic, this is one reason I like living in a 100+ year old house, solid lapboard walls built from old growth timber under the sheetrock, I don't know if a bullet will go through those walls, but it is almost impossible to drive a nail into them, and I burned through 2 blades on a jigsaw cutting a 6 inch exhuast vent a few years ago.

 

[armoredman]

OK, nobody listened the first time, so here's the link to ARMOR THAT IS BOTH BULLET AND STAB RESISTANT.

http://safariland.com/BodyArmor/SCPrismMultiThreat.aspx

Just to get that cleared up. My dwelling is not naturally bullet resistant, so I add what layers I can within budget. A fast slip-on vest might give me an edge, might not - I'll take the chance.

 

[JustinJ]

Whey not the ceramic plate armor? Home invaders may be carrying rifles.