It's just not practical for civilians....
It's quite obviously impractical for many civilian (or off-duty) activities, but not necessarily all. Civilians go to public ranges. It seems like it's completely practical to wear while a civilian is there, and doesn't require any wild fantasy to rationalize it.
I stay away from places where i might need body armor. Including staying out of town at night.
So you don't shoot at the range with other people whom you don't know? If you don't, I'm with you there... I'm fortunate enough to live rural and shoot alone, though not on my own property, but public land. Even so, I could be ambushed out there by persons wanting to get my guns. It happened on separate occasions to Emilio Briel and Jose Collazo -- they were shot and robbed of their guns while shooting in the Everglades. They haven't been the only ones, but their robbers were Michael Platt and William Matix, who went on to shoot seven FBI agents, wounding five and killing two of them, in an unassuming Florida suburb.
A lot of people who live in the city or suburbs have to shoot at ranges with people they don't know. They could be shot intentionally or accidentally. More than once, the public ranges near me have been used for suicide. I hope you don't have to go to places like that without armor, but your alternative might be never to train or practice with your firearms.
Do you have and wear body armor? If so, what type? In what situations and how regularly?
I have it at home, but don't include it when out and about.
It's been on my list. I would certainly wear it at training classes like if I went to Thunder Ranch for Urban Rifle. TR provided it when I went into the Terminator (shoot house), but I'd wear it on the line also. I was hit by fragment training at ITTS with steel targets. I'd wear it for MAG40. Those classes all impressed me as having high safety standards, but I still see the value. With budget outfits like my local CCW renewal classes, it would be even more comforting.
I don't see the application limited to the range. If I was working my church's security team, I'd wear concealed soft armor. I can also think of some other public events where it would be sensible. I sometimes work in places that I consider "at risk" for a shooting because there is a lot of alcohol consumption, mating conflict, and crowds that would bring other types of shooters the kind of attention they crave.
If you feel the need to wear body armor when going grocery shopping, you may 1) wanna go see a psychiatrist. 2) just stay home. Some of y’all take this ima get into a shootout and kill the bad guy crap too serious. I wear level 3a soft armor at work and despise it. Under the shirt, over the shirt it doesn’t matter. Its heavy, its hot, and it’s uncomfortable because it restricts movement.
Wearing to the range is one thing. Buying for the hope or thought red dawn is gonna happen is insane and a waste of money. 99% of us, including me wouldn’t last 10min if the US was attacked. No amount of body armor will help you in that situation.
A lot of people would make the same argument about carrying a full-size pistol, or any pistol. Some people don't want to carry what they consider a big heavy gun and to have to dress around it. Do you think carrying every day is irrational? You have more experience wearing soft armor than I do. Because I don't know from personal experience, I wonder if wearing it regularly wouldn't be much harder than carrying a pistol -- something that has to be adapted to, but isn't that difficult. I might learn that it's hopeless. I started the thread to consider the point. So far, I've learned that it's worth considering level II or IIa instead of IIIa -- something that wouldn't be obvious just looking at spec tables.
There was a time when law enforcement had armor but didn't wear it every day. Did you know they had body armor in the 1986 shootout? Most of it stayed in the back seat of the agents' cars. It would have been ineffective against Platt's 223 and the hand, arm, head, and groin shots that some agents took, but it would have been effective against revolver and shotgun rounds. Matix fired #6 shot.
The white thing in the foreground is body armor with a revolver.
The agents who did put their armor on only threw it over themselves as they ran into battle. They didn't have time to secure the velcro straps. Since then, wearing it all day every day has become the norm. While civilians don't have the same role as federal agents or local law enforcement, it hasn't stopped civilians from adopting a lot of their practices. Civilians in the US take queues from the practice of law enforcement more than any other source when it comes to firearm and ammunition selection. Just witness the tremendous influence this 1986 event had for two decades on civilian firearms and ammo choices.
As for Red Dawn, I'm not sure we can predict how such scenarios might unfold. It suffices that people readily acquire AR-15's and stockpile ammo without questioning the rationale. The essence of the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or protection from criminal hoodlums. Support for the 2nd Amendment and the intention behind it would necessarily include support for both black guns and plate carriers. I don't think that has to involve anticipation of Red Dawn, Mad Max, or any other fantasy. What's more, by the time a convincing need for body armor does become obvious, it will be too late to acquire any.
