
Inside America’s Growing Bulletproof Clothing Industry - KabuseCha
https://www.racked.com/2017/12/14/16738162/bulletproof-clothing
======
emptybits
A contrasting point to the American trend: where I live (Vancouver, Canada) it
is illegal to possess bulletproof or stab-proof clothing without a permit. (!)
In fact, even DIY-ing your own protection is illegal without a permit.

Personally, I find this philosophically hard to reconcile.

[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-
business/busin...](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-
business/business/security-services/body-armour)

~~~
Matt3o12_
Is there any reason why this might be illegal? I understand that defensive
gear is forbidden when it can also be used as a weapon but I don’t understand
why body armor can do anyone any harm. I am curious what reason there are to
forbid body armor than is not dangerous to anyone.

~~~
ACow_Adonis
Australian here: I presume the reasoning is along these lines...

No one has any reasonable expectation of being at risk of being shot/stabbed.

The only reason, therefore, that you would wish to have access to something
like bullet-proof clothing or ballistic protection is that you foresee it
likely you will soon be in a situation whereby you will be shot at.

About the only conceivable situation that you are likely to be shot at is if
you forsee yourself or are planning to be engaged in some type of violent
action against a police/military force.

Therefore, the only people wanting bulletproof clothing are those planning
violent action against a police/military force. And since no one else who is
deemed "socially sane" has any desire to own such a peice of equipment,
banning it comes with the two benefits of not curtailing normal citizen's
freedoms, while adding an illegal thing/signal to the kind of people who do or
would plan to do bad things.

Edit: I realise there is the additional possibility that the person seeking
body-armour sees themselves involved in gun-fights with other gun-toting
individuals/criminals. Even amongst the criminal classes (and certainly
amongst civilians), that is seen as almost an equally preposterous/rare idea
as gearing up to take it to the police...

~~~
refurb
That line of reasoning is eerily similar to "the only people who would want to
use encryption are bad people who have something to hide."

~~~
Veratyr
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.

~~~
Joakal
There's Bikies/Gangs who do drive-by shootings.

~~~
ACow_Adonis
True, but without commenting on the merit/justice of it, they've historically
focused on targeting themselves/each other.

------
gumby
GF's kids came home yesterday talking about school shooting safety (hit perp
with a fire extinguisher -- which is too heavy for any of them to lift), the
safe closet, etc.

Their chance of being shot is infinitesimal, while the chance of choking or
dying in traffic (1K kids/year in the USA, for example) is real. But there is
no training on what to do in these cases.

Seems like it's all part of the terrorization of the populace, of which this
clothing is a symptom.

------
uptownfunk
Lack of any significant gun control is one of the biggest motivations for me
to consider moving out of the states. My wife is from Australia and it seems
as if it were a night and day difference when it comes to gun control. I wish
our founding fathers had written something more explicit and more prohibitive
so that perhaps more lives could have been saved to gun violence.

I may sound paranoid but I may end up taking a serious look at some of these
options in the near future.

~~~
save_ferris
The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding
Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the
advancements in weapon tech long after their deaths.

I agree with you on looking outside of the US, though.

~~~
saosebastiao
I don’t know why so many people believe the founding fathers would think
differently if they saw the world of weapons today.

They had just fought and won a war largely due to the ability of commoners to
fight off the threat of the most powerful colonial power in the world. The
second amendment was written to allow people to defend themselves collectively
(hence the mention of militia) from the threat of nation states and corrupted
powers, not carjackers and armed robbers. If they saw the world of weaponry
today, I wouldn’t be surprised if they would interpret the second amendment to
include grenade launchers and machine guns...because that is what the
potential _external_ threats (and possibly internal threats) have become.

You may believe the world has changed, but I still find it short sighted to go
around disarming people. The count of people killed in genocides even in the
last half of the 20th century is enough to dissuade me from putting my
security solely in the hands of a government. And I say that as someone who
generally hates America’s obsessive gun culture.

------
ImSkeptical
I looked up a couple of these and it seems like a normal jacket with hidden
pockets for bullet proof plates of armor to go over your vital organs. In
retrospect, I guess that is the only way they could do it - but something
about the article had me imagining something higher tech, like somehow the
fabric was tougher or durable enough to stop bullets. My imagination was the
bullet proof spray from Richie Rich, but the reality seems closer to wearing a
bulletproof vest under your coat.

~~~
derekp7
I'd like to see something that acts like a stronger version of corn starch and
water. Normally flexible, but stiffens up when moved at high speed.

~~~
Veratyr
It's in the works: [https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-
ar...](https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-armor)

~~~
lwansbrough
Wonder if the impulse of this liquid is fast enough to stop a speeding bullet.

------
leroy_masochist
How much does this stuff weigh?!

My flak with Level IV SAPI plates was like 35 pounds, that was just for the
armor and nylon, and it was roughly tank top shaped. God only knows what
something jacket-sized would weigh if it were lined in ballistic ceramic
plates.

The thought of international VIP types trudging around like a big ol'
bulletproof Harrison Bergeron is actually kind of funny now that I think more
about it.

~~~
pmorici
I browsed one of the listings the level 3 stuff to stop small caliber hand gun
bullets is listed as 4kg or about 9 lbs. probably similar to wearing a
military style vest with the plates removed.

------
tomalpha
In the UK about ten years ago there was a rash of news reports about children
being sent to schools in tough neighbourhoods wearing stab-proof clothing. It
was never clear whether it was commonplace or just marketing from a startup.

I haven’t seen anything since then in the media but the startup from the time
appears to have grown their product range significantly. (I won’t name them
but a quick google will find a few outlets).

------
neuro_imager
I'm honestly still baffled by how the concept of "freedom" got conflated with
gun ownership in the US.

Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot
by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun.

I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just
a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to
hear a well explained argument for this.

~~~
whiddershins
Have you read a bunch of literature online about these topics?

I feel like there are many, many, pro-second amendment groups, not just the
NRA, and perhaps that could shed a little light on it.

I'm willing to bet there are many reasons.

Off the top of my head:

\- An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. Police
generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. So if you
want the freedom to protect your basic right to survive and defend yourself, a
gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. You don't have to be
young and strong, just well versed in using the weapon and in possession of
it.

\- The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government
to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil
rights or due process. People seem to think militias in the mountains of
Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how
the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.

Etc.

This really isn't a topic that I am expert in but there has to be more reasons
if you look for them.

~~~
neuro_imager
I don't agree with these arguments.

> An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation.

If you want to ensure self preservation, take steps to create an environment
where the likelihood of survival is higher not lower. All the reliable
evidence that I've seen points to higher gun ownership correlating strongly
with higher murder and suicide rates and to the USA being an outlier in terms
of violent crime as compared to other developed countries.

> Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime.

Well where that's true (and having lived in several countries, its not true
everywhere) that's certainly a failing in law enforcement.

> a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers.

This is extremely doubtful. Attackers generally attack in groups. They
typically have planned their attack whilst you're taken by surprise. Also
criminals are generally better versed in violence than the typical citizen.
Pulling out your gun is often likely to turn a robbery into robbery and
murder.

> The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to
> institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil
> rights or due process.

This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're
planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns? The
same government that spends more than 500 Billion on military
expenditure/year?

> People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be
> completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has
> been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a failed state. The Taliban are likely funded by a lot of well
heeled supporters included their partners in the Heroine trade.

~~~
whiddershins
I feel like your initial comment was in bad faith.

You've shifted from "I don't understand the argument."

to

"I don't agree with the argument."

These are two very different things, and I would have responded very
differently if you had written the latter. More precisely I wouldn't have
responded at all. There are lots of topics where my personal opinions are one
thing, but I do understand people's rationale for believing something very
different.

And most importantly, for my peace of mind, I try to maintain the humility to
realize that just because I came to a conclusion doesn't mean I am a priori
correct. I am not necessarily smarter or more well informed than the people
with whom I disagree, so I maintain skepticism about how substantive my
opinion is.

YMMV but this general concept keeps me mellower and happier than imagining I
am somehow on the right side of every issue.

~~~
neuro_imager
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.

