Monday, April 4, 2011

Why No Body Armor?

The Truth About Guns is one of my favorite sites. It suddenly occurred to me that although Robert preaches such extreme practices as carrying a gun at all times, even home carry, and just today, electronic situational awareness, he doesn't seem to push for the use of body armor.

Why, I wondered.

Well, here's my theory.  Guys like Robert, and many of his approximately 6,000 daily readers, are living in a fantasy world. In that world there's no room for the passive protection offered by a bullet-proof vest.  Getting shot is not part of the deal. Their focus is on the more aggressive and active components of self-defense. They picture themselves pro-actively taking action.  It's all about the guns, the bang, the power, the ability to be fearless.

On The Truth About Guns, I've seen every type of gun imaginable. I've read more about ammunition than I really need to know.  But, unless I missed it, there's scarcely a mention of body armor.

What's your opinion?  Is there a better explanation?  I'd love to hear it.

Please leave a comment.


  1. First, it's hot, smelly stiff and uncomfortable. Second in many states it is illegal for civilians to possess it and a firearm at the same time

  2. Well you could ask me. But let's ask the readers!

  3. Thanks Robert, I'll check out their responses.

  4. Mikeb302000:

    Why not wear a vest? I would guess for the same reason that a lot of motorcyclists don't want to wear helmets.

    I was talking to a guy recently who said he couldn't hear cars comin up on him when he had a helmet on. If he's riding a Harley it's likely that it's so loud that he can't hear anything but his own noisemaker, anyway.

    Vests and helmets are for sissiies, you know that!

  5. Good one, democommie. I hadn't thought of the macho angle.