H.R. 5344 - Bill Banning Enhanced Body Armor

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Most of those cases mentioned above it seems to me the unaffected armors would be sufficient, some of them even preferable.

Honestly, the best argument for level III armor I can think of is one nobody seems willing to make: Hunting accidents frequently involve shotguns, sometimes at very close range, and while I can't find much information on what kinds of body armors are effective with shotguns, I would imagine concealability isn't a concern but maximum protection is. I know it's a long way from the narrative gun rights groups want, but that kind of drunken stupidity does happen. A lot. Consider a particular vice president who showed an epic disregard for the 10 o'clock rule and muzzle sweep discipline, and imagine if the same mistake had been made hunting deer instead of birds.
Shotgun shot is not armour piercing, the lower level protection vests would suffice. From far enough away a heavy parka would stop shotgun pellets.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Shotgun shot is not armour piercing, the lower level protection vests would suffice. From far enough away a heavy parka would stop shotgun pellets.
The level 3 armor offers higher blunt force protection. So even though shot is likely not to penetrate even at close range. It still might offer the wearer less blunt injury and thus time to take cover or escape. It might not matter but it could mean the difference between getting the wind knocked out of you or not.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The level 3 armor offers higher blunt force protection. So even though shot is likely not to penetrate even at close range. It still might offer the wearer less blunt injury and thus time to take cover or escape. It might not matter but it could mean the difference between getting the wind knocked out of you or not.
Are we expecting hunters to walk over to deliver a coup d'grace?
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Penetration isn't the issue, it's blunt force. There's a lot of youtube videos showing off what vests can do, and in most of the ones involving shotguns at close range, the vests weren't pierced but the wood or cinder blocks they were set on still broke, meaning that hunting accident victim still likely has life threatening injuries.


This is type IIIA armor. Two shots, neither penetrates, but the first one deformed the jacket significantly and you can see the wood isn't giving way yet - a person would likely have broken ribs but I doubt it would be life threatening. The second shattered the wood it was hanging on, but with a second shot we're not talking about an accident anymore.
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I note Hevach mentions Cheney's faux pas. IIRC the guy got shot in the face. First of all a vest wouldn't have saved him from a face shot, and second, it was small shot so he survived.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Are we expecting hunters to walk over to deliver a coup d'grace?
No, but an active shooter wearing such protection could potentially continue the fight because of the added blunt force protection. That is the argument being made for passing this bill, active shooters and stopping them easier.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Penetration isn't the issue, it's blunt force. There's a lot of youtube videos showing off what vests can do, and in most of the ones involving shotguns at close range, the vests weren't pierced but the wood or cinder blocks they were set on still broke, meaning that hunting accident victim still likely has life threatening injuries.
Wouldn't it have to still be pretty close range for a shotgun to do that? Are we expected to accept that military level protection against your hunting buddy climbing over a fence behind you, shotgun in hand is sufficient reason to stop this bill?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Penetration isn't the issue, it's blunt force. There's a lot of youtube videos showing off what vests can do, and in most of the ones involving shotguns at close range, the vests weren't pierced but the wood or cinder blocks they were set on still broke, meaning that hunting accident victim still likely has life threatening injuries.
Yeah, at some point the range is just too close for a shotgun blast to not do internal damage. The protection would probably need to be steal plate and be too heavy to wear effectively.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Wouldn't it have to still be pretty close range for a shotgun to do that? Are we expected to accept that military level protection against your hunting buddy climbing over a fence behind you, shotgun in hand is sufficient reason to stop this bill?
I never said it was. I just pointed out that every scenario in which defenders have said the armor is useful doesn't call for type III armor, but it's kind of amusing that yet again the one situation in which it would save a life that unaffected armors would not is the one that (despite statistics to the contrary) they frequently insist doesn't happen.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
No, but an active shooter wearing such protection could potentially continue the fight because of the added blunt force protection. That is the argument being made for passing this bill, active shooters and stopping them easier.
Most of those cases mentioned above it seems to me the unaffected armors would be sufficient, some of them even preferable.

Honestly, the best argument for level III armor I can think of is one nobody seems willing to make: Hunting accidents frequently involve shotguns, sometimes at very close range, and while I can't find much information on what kinds of body armors are effective with shotguns, I would imagine concealability isn't a concern but maximum protection is. I know it's a long way from the narrative gun rights groups want, but that kind of drunken stupidity does happen. A lot. Consider a particular vice president who showed an epic disregard for the 10 o'clock rule and muzzle sweep discipline, and imagine if the same mistake had been made hunting deer instead of birds.
This^^^ was the hunting scenario I was responding to. Conflating that to an active shooter scenario is a bit odd.

Keeping level III armour available also means its as likely, or greater, that the active shooter also has it.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
This^^^ was the hunting scenario I was responding to. Conflating that to an active shooter scenario is a bit odd.

Keeping level III armour available also means its as likely, or greater, that the active shooter also has it.
If pointing out facts is conflating things then I'm not sure how to respond.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I never said it was. I just pointed out that every scenario in which defenders have said the armor is useful doesn't call for type III armor, but it's kind of amusing that yet again the one situation in which it would save a life that unaffected armors would not is the one that (despite statistics to the contrary) they frequently insist doesn't happen.
OK, the irony that the NRA says hunters are safe when in fact its the scenario best applied to wearing a vest.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
If pointing out facts is conflating things then I'm not sure how to respond.
Just that I was responding to one scenario and you responded speaking to a different one.

Seems a text only communications interactions got in the way of understanding.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Just that I was responding to one scenario and you responded speaking to a different one.

Seems a text only communications interactions got in the way of understanding.
I was keeping with the topic of the thread. The hunting accident seems a bit OT. It's just a random passing comment someone made.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I was keeping with the topic of the thread. The hunting accident seems a bit OT. It's just a random passing comment someone made.
Understood now.

How often would such a scenario come up? The list of scenarios in post 26 would be pretty highly escalated if this shooter is going for the kill. Would that really apply to a car jacker or a hold up man in the store parking lot?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Understood now.

How often would such a scenario come up? The list of scenarios in post 26 would be pretty highly escalated if this shooter is going for the kill. Would that really apply to a car jacker or a hold up man in the store parking lot?
What's the point of coming up with all these scenarios?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2014/02/22/10-reasons-civilian-consider-buying-body-armor/

Ask the preppers who came up with the list.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Ask the peppers who came up with the list of reasons to keep it legal.
This isn't a place to argue for or against it though. The debunk is that all body armor is said to be banned.

If there is a claim of evidence with a scenario then I say start a new thread on it.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.

Some people perhaps have played a bit too much Call of Duty....

I got shot in the lower chest in 1996, and whilst my body armour saved me, it put me on my arse and that was the end of activities for me for that day.... North Hollywood was the exception and it was in an era when the LA cops only had pistols and shotguns. I doubt they could get away with remaining upstanding these days.

The type of body armour described is the type used in this video. It is heavy, and usually has complex velcro and clips holding it together, so the idea that one might pause to calmly put it on while someone else is crowbarring your window open is a bit of a stretch....

But, as much as I find the NRA, 'Preppers' and the 2nd amend fan club etc obnoxious, paranoid and massively overstating the necessity to own huge amounts of weaponry, body-armour is essentially safety equipment, and though debunked, I cannot think of a single reason to ban safety equipment.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Just to clarify...there is a large difference between types IIIA and III. Sort of counterintuitive, but IIIA is the lower level of protection (.357 SIG and .44 Mag) where III is tested against 7.62 NATO rifle rounds. III requires hard armor or plates (ceramic is the choice now, I believe). There's a huge difference in protection between III and IIIA. Just as there is no reason for sale of armor piercing ammunition, I see no legitimate use for type III for any civilian.

None of the prepper scenarios justify it and the hunting protection thing is just kinda silly. People try to save ounces on what they carry when they hunt with rifles...do you really think anyone would wear a 30 lb vest? Heck, some won't even wear orange.

I won't pretend to know for sure, but as I understand, even military vests rated as type III are very carefully designed to ONLY protect the vital zones from specific directions. Sure, you could get shot in the armpit and go through vital areas, but if you dress them up like knights of old...they can barely move, let alone run and shoot back.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Just to clarify...there is a large difference between types IIIA and III. Sort of counterintuitive, but IIIA is the lower level of protection (.357 SIG and .44 Mag) where III is tested against 7.62 NATO rifle rounds. III requires hard armor or plates (ceramic is the choice now, I believe). There's a huge difference in protection between III and IIIA. Just as there is no reason for sale of armor piercing ammunition, I see no legitimate use for type III for any civilian.

None of the prepper scenarios justify it and the hunting protection thing is just kinda silly. People try to save ounces on what they carry when they hunt with rifles...do you really think anyone would wear a 30 lb vest? Heck, some won't even wear orange.

I won't pretend to know for sure, but as I understand, even military vests rated as type III are very carefully designed to ONLY protect the vital zones from specific directions. Sure, you could get shot in the armpit and go through vital areas, but if you dress them up like knights of old...they can barely move, let alone run and shoot back.


When fully kitted up now, I can hardly move.... but thats also because I'm getting on and someone needs to design a special body-armour for the over-40s....;)

The UK Osprey claims to be 'the best in the world', which is a claim that may have some merit, considering how heavy it is.

osprey_prod_1.jpg

Your comparisons to Knights of Old is not an inaccurate one, as one no longer runs, we plod along wearing this. I have been told that the front an back plates were designed to absorb up to three armour piercing 7.62mm rounds before failure, but this is a test I'd not like to discover - Iv been shot once already and didn't like it much the first time....
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
During my Navy years, we had old flak vests for issue to gunners and the ships security forces. Probably the Vietnam era M69 I imagine. Even those, which offered no real protection against bullets, were heavy uncomfortable things. And they were hot! Must of had the sweat of 100 people before me in them as well.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
During my Navy years, we had old flak vests for issue to gunners and the ships security forces. Probably the Vietnam era M69 I imagine. Even those, which offered no real protection against bullets, were heavy uncomfortable things. And they were hot! Must of had the sweat of 100 people before me in them as well.
Were they the ones with the nylon cover and heavy metal zip which would jam up with molten nylon if there was a fire...?
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Yep...I guess the velcro flap over the zipper was supposed to help with that? Never had to test it thank (whatever) god. It did make me feel a bit safer in Somalia and some of the other African ports we visited though.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Yep...I guess the velcro flap over the zipper was supposed to help with that? Never had to test it thank (whatever) god. It did make me feel a bit safer in Somalia and some of the other African ports we visited though.

Also, no quick release if you fell overboard....
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
I agree, but I still can't think of a reason to ban it...
Strictly speaking from an LEO point of view, I can fully understand the reason to want to limit the ability of an active shooter or similar to be able to walk about with heavy protection from first responders who may only be carrying a sidearm limited in range and penetrative capability. It's easy to say "aim for the head" but much harder in practice, esp when rounds are going both ways.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Strictly speaking from an LEO point of view, I can fully understand the reason to want to limit the ability of an active shooter or similar to be able to walk about with heavy protection from first responders who may only be carrying a sidearm limited in range and penetrative capability. It's easy to say "aim for the head" but much harder in practice, esp when rounds are going both ways.

I agree its very difficult to make any of your rounds go where you would prefer when its coming back the other way, but I might also opine that the type of person that buys the top-end ceramic body-armour against 'tyranny' and against the imminent, yet never quite arriving 'economic collapse' will also probably out-gun you in every other aspect as well...!

I understand the rationale behind such a bill, but I'm no policeman and do you think such a ban would improve the situation much?
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
I agree its very difficult to make any of your rounds go where you would prefer when its coming back the other way, but I might also opine that the type of person that buys the top-end ceramic body-armour against 'tyranny' and against the imminent, yet never quite arriving 'economic collapse' will also probably out-gun you in every other aspect as well...!

I understand the rationale behind such a bill, but I'm no policeman and do you think such a ban would improve the situation much?

Yeah, fair call - your average paranoid anti-gov types aren't going to be coming at you with a slingshot. Also Im in Australia, so there's quite a difference in reasoning and justification re gun ownership (which I dare not comment on, that's sure to devolve into something else!)

I guess without doing further research on just how many active shooters were utilising body armour at the time of the shooting, which I dont think would be the majority, this bill would be more geared towards preventing that from entering the equation in the future.

So I'd have to say anything that gives the good guys an upper hand, if only slight, has to be a good thing. I realise that then opens up a can of worms in regards to rights to self protection and freedoms etc..
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
It's easy to say "aim for the head" but much harder in practice, esp when rounds are going both ways.

I appreciate this perspective, from someone who has actual training.

Earlier (I think up-thread) I may have pointed out that a Human who turned his/her torso to the side presents a profile that is....well, not much more than a head or Thigh/Leg profile. I know that the "shooting range" galleries always show a torso....front (or 'back') on.

Any comments on this, from your experience/perspective?
 

Jason

Senior Member
The likeliness of this bill getting passed is very slim, and just by bringing a bill like this to the floor to be voted on will have a negative effect like it did when congress was trying to limit certain types of weapons and ammo. People will inevitably go out now and purchase IIIA body armour because they fear the government is trying to ban it. Not too mention the wackos out there that didn't even think about wearing body armour, now a light bulb went off in their head(s)...
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I guess without doing further research on just how many active shooters were utilising body armour at the time of the shooting, which I dont think would be the majority, this bill would be more geared towards preventing that from entering the equation in the future.

The one that most people remember was the North Hollywood bank shooting, but don't really remember any others.

Would it also be reasonable to say that mass shootings of the type that make the news are usually committed by people that do not actually expect to survive the event anyway?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
People will inevitably go out now and purchase IIIA body armour because they fear the government is trying to ban it. Not too mention the wackos out there that didn't even think about wearing body armour, now a light bulb went off in their head(s)...

Perhaps the government should announce they are about to ban trigger guard locks and gun-safes...
 

Jason

Senior Member
I guess without doing further research on just how many active shooters were utilising body armour at the time of the shooting, which I dont think would be the majority, this bill would be more geared towards preventing that from entering the equation in the future
I posted an article from slate that discussed;
How many gun-toting criminals are wearing body armor? A Slate investigation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._how_many_felons_wear_bulletproof_vests_.html
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/h-r-5344-bill-banning-enhanced-body-armor.4133/#post-120887
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
JMartJr Covid Stimulus Bill mandates UFO Disclosure UFOs and Aliens 5
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West No, SB 1424 is Not a Censorship Bill Criminalizing Anti-Vaccine Misinformation Conspiracy Theories 9
deirdre Claim:Republicans block bill to stop terrorists from buying guns General Discussion 9
3 Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering General Discussion 51
H Bill Gates is helping fund geoengineering (chemtrails) ... so why are you denying it? Contrails and Chemtrails 77
TWCobra Peter Kusznir and Bill Gates Contrails and Chemtrails 3
JRBids Dr. Bill H. Weld People Debunked 2
Jay Reynolds Bill Cooper Debunks Chemtrails (Vintage Audio) Contrails and Chemtrails 13
FreiZeitGeist Bill Vander Zalm: Ex-premiere of British Columbia acknowledges chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Grieves Bill Gates and Polio Vaccination Conspiracy Theories 56
Mattnik 'John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights' General Discussion 10
HappyMonday NEW BILL H.R 748 - National Service General Discussion 1
HappyMonday Bill Gates Admits to Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Leifer Is bill S.968 really a gov't blacklist bill ? General Discussion 1
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
3 Debunked: Fort Lauderdale Passes Resolution Banning Aerial Aerosol Dispersement General Discussion 6

Related Articles

Top