Inside America’s Growing Bulletproof Clothing Industry

Also an Australian. I have a feeling this may not make much sense to Americans.

Bulletproof clothing only protects you against bullets (well it protects against knives too but you can buy less expensive slash/stab resistant clothing). In Australia there is virtually no gun violence. The only people who can shoot you are cops. They will only shoot you if you're doing something that justifies being shot at. Therefore, the only reason you'd need bulletproof armor is if you intend to do something that would justify the police shooting at you.

Encryption on the other hand has legitimate purposes. It's quite possible for someone to say steal all your money by intercepting your bank account login and it requires no special, heavily restricted equipment to do so.

Perhaps on a technical/analytical level there is a similarity, but i think it is a false equivocation in this context. Its similar in the sense that a right to bear arms implies civilian access to tanks and nuclear weapons.

In reality, law and society are complex creatures. I'd observe that any knowledgeable person observes encryption is commonly and widely used for a variety of purposes, and has many people who will push back against its denial of use.

In terms of the body armour law, there would presumably be the empirical facts that:

1.) There's just not actually a demand for it amongst the society in the aussie context at least.

2.) The odds of being shot or stabbed by someone other than a close relative is virtually nil in Australia if you're not partaking in a criminal enterprise. And so far as long as those criminal enterprises don't spill over into public related injuries and violence, people's level of fear regarding guns/stabbings is pretty low.

3.) This must be taken in the context of an everyday culture that has a rate of ~1 in 100,000 rate of homicide (non-uniformly distributed admitedly) compared to the united states rate of ~4 or 5. The culture is relatively uniform, and united states-esque laws and policies regarding weapons and obsessions with are generally viewed as a mixture of "crazy", "a warning of what we could become", and just a generally undesirable state of affairs.

There is a debate regarding encryption. Whereas debate around things like increased access to weapons or body armour is "effectively zero" in the context of Australian society (keeping in mind I don't have the time/space to go into the historic details or rural hunter/fisher/farmer politics).

I'm going to assume that canadians in many ways view american laws/society in a similar vein to us in this context: our friendly but crazy relatives. (albeit with them sharing a physical border).

I'm also guessing (I haven't looked it up) that they have a far lower homicide rate, and would suggest, like Australians, that they believe de-escalation and keeping militarized equipment out of the hands of civilians primarily provides a greater civil protection against shootings/stabbings than ownership of body armour would.

Now, to not be objective for a second, i think real life is more complex, but empirically, given the relative differences in homicide rates, i'd say the American case at least appears to be starting the argument on the backfoot :)

All our traffic is analysed by unknown third parties but not all of us have reasonable expectation to get shot. I would have this expectation at least in places with decent regulation.

Well, I'd say I can't answer that question authoritatively since its almost by definition context-dependent, in addition to asking the practical question of why/how a police force is raised/employed and depends a bit on a subjective point of view.

But empirically, i'd observe a couple of things in the Australian context:

a) Assault may be a continuum, with stabbings/shootings on one end, to the point where, as I said, almost no one reasonably believes themselves to be potentially shot/stabbed. (almost no one reasonably believes they'll be assaulted, either).

b) When people are assaulted or violently attacked, its almost infinitely more likely to be by someone intimately connected with them in their domestic or everyday environment, or in the context of drugs/alcohol. In that context, body armour appears to be to most people equally silly.

c) By far most police's time would be dealing with other matters apart from primarily preventing assault: case investigation and handling, property and vehicular theft, burglary, drug related offenses, traffic (including crashes, random drug testing, etc), crowd and pedestrian control (which COULD be stretched into preventing assault in context), suburban and domestic disturbances (which again, COULD be stretched into preventing assault in context). However, even in those cases where it could be stretched into preventing assault, the notion of appropriate use of body armour (or being exposed to stabbings or shootings in such a context) would be seen as relatively absurd.

Body armor comes in a wide variety of sizes and weights many of which are not heavy and obvious. You don't need a full getup with plates to stop handguns.

I don't think criminals are wise, but protection from police bullets doesn't seem like a reasonable motivation to wear bulletproof clothing. If required, the Police will simply call out a SWAT team using military weapons. There should be no reasonable expectation that somehow you can survive an armed exchange with the police.

Sadly, there are criminals that have tried bulletproof clothing with the resulting escalation of violence. In 1986 bank robbers wearing bulletproof outfits wounded five and killed two FBI agents in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. Naturally, the two bad guys didn't survive. See [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

Depending on the (edit handgun) caliber it could bring you to the ground even with adrenaline flowing. You will end up with large bruises for sure. If there is a rifle involved >.22 caliber, then you will likely face penetration unless you have a trauma plate. Body extremities really can't be effectively protected.

I’ve not experienced it directly, but I have a couple of friends who have. Best case scenario you are knocked down and bruised, worse case you get broken ribs, worst case the vest isn’t rated for the caliber and goes through.

You feel the entire kinetic energy of the bullet with a vest, the bullet just doesn’t go through. Imagine driving a truck at 100mph into a sturdy concrete wall. Similarish outcome.

A lot of times vests are rated for only one shot. Getting shot multiple times may very well compromise the vest.

It depends on how far away, and what you were shot with... vests are designed to block hand guns, not rifels. It may not stop every bullet. A larger hand gun, say 50cal, has more recoil and is harder to aim with sequential shots, thus not practical... but feels amazing and is so loud!

I believe it would take a person down and possibly kill them. I've been told police are taught 2 to the chest 1 to the head.

From my quick googling, a great read: "...Among the accounts from those who have experienced being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest (and lived to talk about it), there is one consistent analogy to describe the feeling: being hit with a baseball bat. ..." http://www.ponderweasel.com/shot-wearing-a-bulletproof-vest/

> Chances are the gun was acquired illegally, possessed illegally,etc. How do more gun control laws help here?

You can't illegally acquire guns when there are no guns to acquire. There's a reason why muggers in Paris or Tokyo don't shoot people, and the reason is not because they are nice muggers.

And "you can't put the genie back in the bottle" is kind of the opposite of "gun control laws are slippery slope toward total dictatorship" (which a lot of people seem to believe). You cannot claim both at the same time.

In the UK, handguns are so difficult to get hold of that organised criminals often resort to using modified flare guns or antique duelling pistols. Suffice it so say that these are not particularly deadly or reliable weapons.

There are about 50 firearm murders per year in the UK. We haven't had a single mass shooting incident since 2010. When taken seriously, gun control works.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-shooting-t...

"It’s interesting that the focus is on the gun and not the situation: club, drugs, (alcohol?)"

And a gun. A gun is really an important part of this, and the bit that we can have some control over, and a gun is the thing that makes this situation different in the US rather than UK or Australia.

It isn't like we are going to get rid of drinking locations. If they weren't happening in public, they'd happen at people's houses. Same with alcohol - we've tried it. I won't speculate on possible drugs since we aren't quite sure about that bit, but it is unlikely we'll get rid of these things either.

Without the gun, the weapons likely wouldn't have been so deadly especially if the person doesn't have proper training and control. Most likely, the weapons would be things like knives or broken bottles. Not saying they aren't deadly, just that they take a bit more work and might have more chance to live.

Now I'll assume the weapon was illegal. Hey, it happens even in place with tough laws. If they are put in place correctly (see Australia, who had a similar gun culture to the US for an example), fewer people have guns. Illegal guns are harder to come by because of that. Between scarcity and increased risk in selling, prices will likely go up and the end result is that fewer criminals actually have guns because fewer criminals can afford them. Especially possible low-level drug dealers.

Sorry random throwaway account, but you are incorrect. After the revolution, during the Articles of the Confederation era (1780s), the national defense devolved to various state militias and this was continued into the early 19th century. Thus we see all of the various references in section 8 enumerated powers to calling up, paying, and directing the state militias when necessary but a key point was that training of the militias was a reserved state power. Unfortunately, the states were poor. Very, very poor. Providing a few cannon was within their power but not providing each and every rifle of these militias. The states argued, successfully, that if the militia members had the right to maintain their arms at home the burden of providing such would fall to the militia members and not the states. Training and practices of such militias was the 'well regulated' part of that amendment, btw. It was not a rhetorical flourish that existed nowhere else in the document but was in fact a key part of the amendment as understood at the time. The 2A is a way to enable the states to push the burden of providing a rifle (a useful tool most of them would have already) onto the citizens and avoid the creation of an expensive mandate for the states that they were ill-equipped to provide at the end of the 18th century. One can argue that interpretations and opinions regarding the meaning have changed, but the history is both well-documented and quite clear.

If you actually studied US constitutional history rather than getting your arguments from the side of whatever box your latest gun purchase arrived in you might know these things.

> American government seems very concerned with terrorism.

I'm not sure, from what I hear they have a lot of support from the people, especially the conservatives.

> Do you really have less worries in Australia? I’d argue since it’s your homeland, you are simply used to the things that non-Australians would find worrisome. I don’t worry about medical bills (I have health insurance,) not concerned about ever being homeless, don’t consider tipping to be something worthy of worrying, etc.

I absolutely do have less worries in Australia. I think you need to turn that point about it being my homeland around. Just as there are things I might be used to as an Australian that worry foreigners (perhaps like the venomous native wildlife), the things you're used to are worriesome to me.

Sorry, I realize I was heavy handed in my reply and I've edited it slightly.

I feel I should rephrase - I personally believe the arguments as stated are largely tools of propaganda by pro-gun lobbies and it baffles me that this isn't obvious. (And again I'd be eager to see evidence that this is not the case and there is justification for conflating freedom with gun ownership).

I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this discussion.

> The military is not allowed to do it AFAIK.

Presumably the law would change under the martial law? (which is the hypothetical presented)

Your initial comment struck me as sarcasm.