Great Service-Bullet Proof Vest

[CanadianReich]

Wow...anger issues. There is medication and counselling for that! By the way I believe the cops have the right to pursue such issues. You don't put your safety on the line everytime you walk out the door for work but they do so that you can live a relatively safe and carefree existance. When their is a shooting ask your self who is running in toward the gunfire....the police.

Again, no anger issues, no mental illness, no im not a Nazi......

I'd like to point out that that's the kind of stuff I get from antis.


Your below point after that is irrelevant as my safety is irrelevant and your interpretation of my or another's safety is irrelevant.

Each individual knows if they are safe or not, if they live in a safe area or not, and if they deem there is danger in that area should be permitted to take precautionary measures to protect their own life- at least by wearing protective clothing if they wish. It is not bear spray. It is not a gun. It is not a tazzer... it is clothing.


The point you are trying to push is that a person's safety is irrelevant, that the cops have the right to tell that person they do not have the right to wear safety gear to protect their own life.....

I disagree with this point of view. It's that simple.

As far as the police running towards gun fire... granted... but so do some civilians...... thats why they are getting shoot, stabbed, and swarmed in some cities like Toronto or Halifax. Some neighborhoods are dangerous. Some people cant afford to move. Some people have to work the graveyard shift and walk home late at night in these neighborhoods....... some people other than cops may also have to walk towards gunfire just to get home. I am not this person, perhaps you are not this person, but if such a person exists they have the right to wear a bit of safety gear.

Hell, hunters are killed every year in Canada by other hunters.... it would almost be logical to require hunters orange vests that were bullet resistant rather than making them illegal (if the technology existed to make a nice lightweight one that could stop hunting rounds..... good luck with that).

[CanadianReich]

I have tried to stay out of this after the path this topic has taken. But I just can resists.

1) you constantly make ad hominem arguments. Arguably the worst method of reasoning and or argument.
2) Since you like the police and believe that they are so great, especially in regards to keeping people safe during instances of violence (in keeping with the origin of this topic lets focus on mass shootings of random people lets further say in movie theaters as an example or other such public places). Please note the following, in instances of mass shootings where a bystander intervenes the average death toll about 2.5, however when people wait until police arrive and intervene, the death toll is closer to 14!

In sum, I would prefer to be able to either a) intervene and have some peace of mind that I will have a better chance of survival wearing BA and or b) if for whatever reason I do not intervene, if shot I will stand a better chance of survival, as opposed to what others suggest in just hoping I am the 15th person in line not the 13th.

I think this post has been taken over. I intended to give positive feedback to SFRC and not start a whole thing about the police and BA, not that these are not valuable issue, but merely that this is not the thread to do it on.

I thank everyone for their input, thoughts and contributions, but lets move on.

I hear ya

there are 2 links on my post before last where the entire body armor debate was debated already, feel free to pick up there anyone

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum...8&postcount=34

[bluethunder]

Thanks for clarifying my point to me that you seem to miss.

At no time did I ever say that citizens should not be able to own or possess body armour. My comments are focused on the "need" for citizens to have body armour. You make blanket statements about police banning body armour in Nova Scotia which you know are not true. Police, as an identifable group who are regularly the target of violent criminal behavior, have the right to lobby governments for legislative change just as any civilian group does, clearly illustrated by the introduction of the firearms act back in the 90's. That act came into existance through the lobbying of anti-gun groups.

Take for instance the L.A. shooting where both bank robbers where wearing head to toe body armour and sustained multiple bullet strikes and yet were able to continue returning fire. As well lets look at the threatre shooter of late, guess what he was weaing when he was arrested by police? Body armour! Even if those people in the threatre were wearing soft body armour they still would have died since rounds from an AR15, which the bad guy was armed with, would cut through the vest like a hot knife through butter! (sorry for the analogy). So body armour is not anything like wearing a bike helmet. And no it is not clothing, it is equipment.

I believe that police have a very high stake interest in the control of body armour. Note I said control, the Nova Scotia legislation does not preclude you or anyone else living there of having access to body armour, it only places controls on its accessibility. If you can justify it you can have it. When you first got your firearms licence did you have to give a reason for wanting it? Of course you did. Target shooting, collector or for employment.

So I stand by my previous statement that you need to get your facts straight. Police officers, based upon numbers, are more often the victims of violent crime than the average citizen due to their occupation. I have first hand experience being the target of deadly violence and having to repel it. (not bragging, just stating a fact).

I don't doubt that there are citizens out there who would like to own body armour and want to possess it and use it with no ill intentions however the proliferation of such items will find their way into the hands of the criminal/pyscho element adding to the danger for everyone particularly the police. If some legislation helps control who has a real bonifide need for body armour, I think that is a good thing. If you can not give a reason for needing it other than it looks cool or I'm severely paranoid, then too bad. Can you imagine being a police officer caught in a gun battle and the bad guy does not go down after taking multiple hit to the torso and continues returning fire? Police officers worse nightmare #1-getting into a gun fight in the first place, #2-trying to protect yourself or others with your issue firearm and realizing it is ineffective!

So if you and Mr. Ruger feel so insecure and paranoid about living in this great country which is one of the safest in the world, then perhaps you should just lock yourself in your house and huddle in some dark corner and be scared!

Again, no anger issues, no mental illness, no im not a Nazi......

I'd like to point out that that's the kind of stuff I get from antis.


Your below point after that is irrelevant as my safety is irrelevant and your interpretation of my or another's safety is irrelevant.

Each individual knows if they are safe or not, if they live in a safe area or not, and if they deem there is danger in that area should be permitted to take precautionary measures to protect their own life- at least by wearing protective clothing if they wish. It is not bear spray. It is not a gun. It is not a tazzer... it is clothing.


The point you are trying to push is that a person's safety is irrelevant, that the cops have the right to tell that person they do not have the right to wear safety gear to protect their own life.....

I disagree with this point of view. It's that simple.

As far as the police running towards gun fire... granted... but so do some civilians...... thats why they are getting shoot, stabbed, and swarmed in some cities like Toronto or Halifax. Some neighborhoods are dangerous. Some people cant afford to move. Some people have to work the graveyard shift and walk home late at night in these neighborhoods....... some people other than cops may also have to walk towards gunfire just to get home. I am not this person, perhaps you are not this person, but if such a person exists they have the right to wear a bit of safety gear.

Hell, hunters are killed every year in Canada by other hunters.... it would almost be logical to require hunters orange vests that were bullet resistant rather than making them illegal (if the technology existed to make a nice lightweight one that could stop hunting rounds..... good luck with that).

[CanadianReich]

Thanks for clarifying my point to me that you seem to miss.

At no time did I ever say that citizens should not be able to own or possess body armour. My comments are focused on the "need" for citizens to have body armour. You make blanket statements about police banning body armour in Nova Scotia which you know are not true. Police, as an identifable group who are regularly the target of violent criminal behavior, have the right to lobby governments for legislative change just as any civilian group does, clearly illustrated by the introduction of the firearms act back in the 90's. That act came into existance through the lobbying of anti-gun groups.

Take for instance the L.A. shooting where both bank robbers where wearing head to toe body armour and sustained multiple bullet strikes and yet were able to continue returning fire. As well lets look at the threatre shooter of late, guess what he was weaing when he was arrested by police? Body armour! Even if those people in the threatre were wearing soft body armour they still would have died since rounds from an AR15, which the bad guy was armed with, would cut through the vest like a hot knife through butter! (sorry for the analogy). So body armour is not anything like wearing a bike helmet. And no it is not clothing, it is equipment.

I believe that police have a very high stake interest in the control of body armour. Note I said control, the Nova Scotia legislation does not preclude you or anyone else living there of having access to body armour, it only places controls on its accessibility. If you can justify it you can have it. When you first got your firearms licence did you have to give a reason for wanting it? Of course you did. Target shooting, collector or for employment.

So I stand by my previous statement that you need to get your facts straight. Police officers, based upon numbers, are more often the victims of violent crime than the average citizen due to their occupation. I have first hand experience being the target of deadly violence and having to repel it. (not bragging, just stating a fact).

I don't doubt that there are citizens out there who would like to own body armour and want to possess it and use it with no ill intentions however the proliferation of such items will find their way into the hands of the criminal/pyscho element adding to the danger for everyone particularly the police. If some legislation helps control who has a real bonifide need for body armour, I think that is a good thing. If you can not give a reason for needing it other than it looks cool or I'm severely paranoid, then too bad. Can you imagine being a police officer caught in a gun battle and the bad guy does not go down after taking multiple hit to the torso and continues returning fire? Police officers worse nightmare #1-getting into a gun fight in the first place, #2-trying to protect yourself or others with your issue firearm and realizing it is ineffective!

So if you and Mr. Ruger feel so insecure and paranoid about living in this great country which is one of the safest in the world, then perhaps you should just lock yourself in your house and huddle in some dark corner and be scared!

post that exact same thing in one of the 2 body armor threads I noted if you want a reply...and as usual I have plenty to say.... because as usual I disagree with most everything you said. PM me if you do
with the link.

Even better, could a moderator move our last few comments to http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum...d.php?t=601476 ? Thanks

Also, please stop with the insults (insecure, paranoid, etc) if you wish to debate with me I need to think it is possible. If I think it is impossible, ie a logical debate can not happen, I simply will not try.

[bluethunder]

I am finished.