Our Soft Body Armor Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
for or against us? What the heck are you guys talking about. Get off your philosophical horse and chill out. Your equating body armour sales to firearm sales.....they are not parallel except it seems in the emotional department. A store can have any policy about selling whatever they want. If you want to buy it, get it from somewhere else. Your "rights" have not been trampled on, it is their store policy...and the policy of a lot of other stores as pointed out by Wes and others. Most of you would never buy the stuff anyway, you just came here to complain. This is not a for or against us discussion...chill out...

Some of you need to get outside for a bit and get some sun.
 
Duck_Hunter said:
And how many gang bangers wear body armor? I know the legitimate uses for ARs and Handguns, I own both, I'm simple comparing this policy with the Liberal mindset of making law abiding citizens feel like criminals.
Click to expand...

Lots wear body armor.
It's extremely common, especially with the gang shootings being so prevalent.

And I fail to see how not selling soft body armor to people that would never have bought it in the first place(but cry when an announcement is made that it won't be sold to them) makes them feel like criminals???

Oh well.

I'm gonna call up Colin tomorrow and make a big order.

I wonder how many sets of sba they have... I think I'll order 5. One for each day of the week(I'll stay in on the weekends). :p
 
rivetc78 said:
Glad to see no one is attacking D.S.T. directly. Some good discussion on their policy. :) We can be adults after all.....
Maybe we should get the 'other' retailers involved too.
What is the basis for their policy decisions? Are they willing to change it? ,etc.
Kinda feel bad for Colin stepping out and taking the heat......
Click to expand...

X2 Is it possible that some dealers have contracts that state something to the effect of "only sell to us", "no sales to civilians", etc?
 
This is a IRCC, I like the US approach to vests, you can have one BUT it is an offence to commit a crime while wearing one.

Sorry, but If crime is so bad in Vancouver then maybe I should be wearing a vest also, last time I checked more civy's are killed by criminals than police officers.

The point is that the theory behind this decision is of the same ilk as 'antis' and that goes against my belief. When the government makes dumbass laws we fight it, why would it be any different with a retailer??? DStactical is making a dumbass rule that does not even involve legal requirements, we stop supporting government members when they pull this type of mentality....

Sorry, but this goes against what we have and are still fighting every day.
 
This whole thing is wrong for many reason's I think. Yes I do not 'need' body armor, I agree with that. I don't need about 90% of the things that I purchase though!

There are times I could see looking at it in a civilian capacity and needing it though:

  • You works as a bouncer somewhere near jane/finch in toronto
  • You have been threatened and feel more secure wearing it for protection(after all the police have no requirement to be there to protect you)
  • your worried about a complete collapse of society and want to have some 'just in case'(less likely, but what makes it a bad reason??)

How in the heck can it be up to a retailer to limit this type of thing. Fact is, if I want body armor, I should be allowed to have it. Period, end of story.
 
carbonrod said:
What is body armor legitimately used for outside of what Dave's lists? Educate me. Seriously.
Click to expand...
I know of two professional guides who use body armour while guiding bird hunts in the U.S. Also a doorman at a club in Toronto might like a vest or a disc jockey in a bad part of town. Or are those not "legitimate" uses in your view?

Legitimate use? Sounds like you've taken a cue from Alan Rock who once said that only police and military need handguns.

carbonrod said:
Because often if an industry can regulate itself in a way that is in the best interests of all of society, then it does not require government intervention. If businesses did not behave like Dave's is trying to do, the government may choose to step in and limit your rights.
Click to expand...
Now that is among the odder comments I've seen on this site. Industry knows what is in the "best interests of all society" and bans something because the government might ban it. Why should government be bothered to ban something if a compliant industry has already banned it? :confused:

More likely this is a business decision. LEO purchasers don't want vests in the hands of anyone but their kind and lean on industry to dance to their tune. That is a rational reason not to sell to civilians so why not spare the fanciful bulls**t about "best interests of all society." :rolleyes:
 
Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

lol


In all seriousness though, I have a lot of respect for Colin in starting this thread. He could have saved himself(and the store) a lot of grief by not saying a thing and keeping the policy in-store. And with the frequency of legal gun owners going in to buy the stuff, it would never have been an issue.

But, he came on here to let everyone know.

So like I said, I'm calling tomorrow and making an order. I don't need anything right now, but they're gonna get my business any way.
 
Last edited:
I wish I knew about their policy last month, I would have spent my $650 somwhere else. I will take my very, very long shopping list and my money somwhere else.
Hopefully other businesses will learn from this and won't alienate their customers unless they want to lose sales.
 
seancanada said:
I hope you shoot better than you joke, Wes.

There's only one side of this issue that is for whining babies, and it's not the side of the law-abiding taxpayer.

Insider secret, Wes: Criminals get whatever gear, drugs, cars, etc. by whatever means they want. They're criminals. Why does this not get through to people; perhaps I'll never know.
Click to expand...

sure they do, but its funny that the outrage in this thread is because daves publicly stated the policy while the other 4-6 of the site sponsers do not publicize it.... i would like to see you guys boycott ALL ofthe dealers that will not sell bodyarmor to civilians.... so lets start with EVERY major dealer in canada, from marstar to wolverine, from one shot tactical to 911supply

I am a poor shot.... thats why I buy lots of ammo with the money I saved not buying armor.
 
It's a pretty clear message that Dave's considers the average customer to be a "second class" buyer.

I respect "Dave's" right to make individual buisiness decisions, and I hope they respect the fact that from now on, I will cease spending money there.
 
... Realistically, from reading most of the "Post" on this thread one would assume that there's a huge market out there for "Body Armour" and "posters" critical of "Dave's" policy were actually going to spend a substantial amount of money and buy some ! I for one don't believe that's the case. I still maintain that the store has the RIGHT to choose, withing the legal framework, what products to sell, and to whom they wish to sell to (or not ) . Frankly, if anyone is all that concerned, obviously they are also entitled to go elsewhere, to purchase their Body Armour. Free Market and all that stuff, and yes it's legal to buy and wear Body Armour ! ....... From my own personal experience/knowledge, I'm aware of one case,( Langley if recall correctly? ), where a "subject" was arrested, complete with Body Armour and a loaded pistol, en route to do an Armed Robbery, ( Surveillance and Wire taps involved ) and then there's the famous case in LA where a couple Bank Robbers got into a shoot out with Deputies and were winning, thanks to Body Armour, until someone got lucky a leg shot or two !........ So far, sure the "Gang Bangers" haven't used 'Armour much, guess, it gets in the way of showing off their jewelry, and doesn't co-ordinate with their Gucci's etc. ...... kudos to "Dave's" for having the courage of their convictions for openly posting their policy ! ..... David K.
 
Claybuster said:
More likely this is a business decision. LEO purchasers don't want vests in the hands of anyone but their kind and lean on industry to dance to their tune. That is a rational reason not to sell to civilians so why not spare the fanciful bulls**t about "best interests of all society." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


That's a few times that this 'reason' has been mentioned in the thread.

I highly doubt a business like Dave's(which makes a hell of a lot more money off of the paintball, airsoft, and halloween buyers than LEO's) would be influenced by the police.
 
More likely this is a business decision. LEO purchasers don't want vests in the hands of anyone but their kind and lean on industry to dance to their tune. That is a rational reason not to sell to civilians so why not spare the fanciful bulls**t about "best interests of all society." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Exactly, why even bother with making stupid laws when you can just ask retailers to stop selling it. The higher up's think that for the better of society we should not have guns, knives or body armor......
 
Last edited:
cdn_traveller said:
You works as a bouncer somewhere near jane/finch in toronto
Click to expand...

Claybuster said:
I know of two professional guides who use body armour while guiding bird hunts in the U.S. Also a doorman at a club in Toronto might like a vest or a disc jockey in a bad part of town. Or are those not "legitimate" uses in your view?
Click to expand...

The above 2 examples should be handled by the companies health and safety person, every person in canada has the right to refuse unsafe work, if the worker feels the job is unsafe then he and the employer have to enact a "back to work policy" that ensures the workers safety.

P12 said:
I wish I knew about their policy last month, I would have spent my $650 somwhere else. I will take my very, very long shopping list and my money somwhere else.
Click to expand...

where else in canada you going to shop that does not have the same policy... be sure to ask them about before you order otherwise you would be a hipocrite.
 
Westicle said:
The above 2 examples should be handled by the companies health and safety person, every person in canada has the right to refuse unsafe work, if the worker feels the job is unsafe then he and the employer have to enact a "back to work policy" that ensures the workers safety...
Click to expand...

And where exactly do you expect the company's OH&S person to buy this stuff, Wes? The businesses whose practices you are defending won't sell to them.
 
I agree with those arguing on Dave's side that you guys posting the boycott crap should not be singling out Dave's on this. As pointed out before, they are not alone on this policy. Dave's is a great store and I would hate to lose them as a supporting dealer.
 
krausb said:
Well as long as the elite class get theirs, then I guess all is well... :rolleyes: Or were you trying to make some other point?
Click to expand...

Elite class... Thanks!! I kinda like the sounds of that! lol(again, that is sarcasm)

Yes, I was. But you of course, misinterpreted it.

I hope all of you that are going to boycott Dave's will do the same to the other businesses mentioned in the thread. Because how can you, in good conscious, buy from a business that limits your ability to buy something you want?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom