I've been suggesting for a long time that if the threat of attack is real enough to own guns and carry them every waking moment, then wearing body armor would be the most natural thing in the world. Not to do so would be a gross failure in personal responsible and responsibility for one's family. Of course, the fantasizing gun lovers we keep discussing this with aren't very interested, and fail to provide a reasonable explanation.
My idea is that they place an unrealistic importance on the gun itself and their ability to eliminate a threat.
Yesterday, Dog Gone provided us with the rest of the package. Obviously protecting the torso from ballistic damage is not nearly enough. The truly responsible and prepared gun owner will want to don a pair of these under his cargo pants, which will naturally have those built-in tourniquets.
Well Mike there are three problems with wearing body armor.
ReplyDelete(1) Some states have criminalized wearing body armor.
(2) Wearing body armor over your clothes makes it obvious that are security conscious. That could tip-off criminals that you are probably armed as well.
(3) Body armor interferes with most methods of concealed carry -- at worst literally making it impossible to carry concealed and at best making it next to impossible to draw.
I just recently learned about fabric that is literally bullet proof. I have no idea how stiff or supple the material is buts its properties allow you to make a suit jacket out of it. I am highly interested in that. If the cost is reasonable, I will very likely purchase one.
And remember, armed citizens are able to stop something like 90% of attacks without any shots fired when they simply point their firearm at an attacker. That means that body armor or bullet proof fabric isn't necessary for the overwhelming majority of encounters.
Mike, I must say, I thought that was dog gone writing that intro. According to the anti-rights group here, on the one hand, it's such a dangerous world that firearms should be banned, but at the same time, it's not so dangerous that free people should be carrying a firearm. The question could be posed to your crowd. If it's so dangerous out there, why don't you wear body armor? Of course, you'll have to take off your armor in gun-free zones (that makes a whole lot of sense).
ReplyDeleteBut, let's look at some facts:
I have a bigger chance of being critically injured in an auto accident, having a heart attack, suffocating, having a bad medical reaction, drowning and bumping my head than being shot to death, I don't want to hamper CPR.
someguy, I don't know if you got the joke. Talk of body armor is one thing, I can understand if you take that seriously. But, when we get into the bullet-resistant undies and the tourniquet pants, and especially when we consider you wearing them on your daily routine, the sarcasm should be apparent.
ReplyDeletemikeb302000 says..."the sarcasm should be apparent."
ReplyDeletestudies have indicated that persons who lack to understand sarcasm have a propensity to have Alzheimer later in life, perhaps I should be worried.
You gun grabbers did note that the man pictured wearing body armor also has two spare magazines and what looks like two handguns.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I've seen numbers that suggest that almost half of street cops don't wear ballistic vests. They do go out with sidearms, though.
I have tourniquets and pressure bandages in my home, range bag and my car. I don't need pants with one built in.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteSemper paratus or Semper prats'r'us?