Thread: Banning Body Armor? NO!

Originally Posted by Melanie

I object to the new pending legislation regarding body armour. I object because I agree with those of you who feel that it will not keep armour out of the hands of criminals. As others have said they are not going to worry about a permit because they don't worry about laws or permits for any other of their activities. I seriously feel that our freedoms and even our enjoyment of life is being compromised by more and more restrictive laws as time goes on. I don't want my freedoms removed because a segment of society is using a perfectly legitimate item or place in an inappropriate way.

Recently I have seen the removal of park benches from our local park because drug dealers were sitting on them. Now mothers with small children can't sit down while their children play on the playground equipment. The drug dealers are sitting in the same park on the grass now.

I've seen all the pay phones disappear from the local area where I live because drug dealers were using them. Now people have to have a cell phone or they can't make a call unless they go home. There are a lot of underprivileged children around here who can't afford cell phones and can't even call their parents. All the drug dealers are still here and are now using pay as you go cell phones.

All public washrooms are now for customers only. There are some places like a particularly popular coffee shop downtown that doesn't even allow customers to use the restrooms anymore because the police have asked them to close them completely. Drug addicts were using them. Good luck finding anywhere to go if the coffee makes it to the bladder before you get home. The drug addicts are using the alleys and doorways now.

People are no longer allowed to sell their own goods on a sidewalk or on the front grass portion of their house outside of their fence in a yard sale because some drug addicts have sold stolen goods on the sidewalk. Most of the time it was junk they found in dumpsters. The stolen goods usually went to pawnshops. Now they use pawnshops exclusively and get in there before the goods are reported stolen.

People are not allowed to take metals to a scrap yard anymore unless they drive it in with a vehicle. They have made this new law because drug addicts were stealing metals and bringing them in in shopping carts. Now law abiding people can't sell their own metals if they can't afford a vehicle.

We have a transit system that has openly admitted that the system would be more cost effective to operate if it were free but they refuse to implement it because homeless people might stay on the bus or trains all night. So now law abiding and working people are paying high fares because of a paranoia that a few people might sit on trains longer than the usual customers.

We have strict gun laws in Canada so that only those law abiding citizens who are willing to go through a lot of money, time and trouble can own and transport a gun to a gun club. Criminals buy them on the black market just like they always have.

I could think of dozens more examples of freedoms that have been removed and that affect our quality of life. These are just some examples. Now body armour is not going to be taken out of the hands of criminals but law abiding people will not have access to it. Personally I don't know any people outside of law enforcement or crime that would even think of buying body armour anyway so the law will only really make it difficult, if not impossible for security persons to retain it.

I agree with whomever said that it's political, just like all the other restrictions that have been imposed and haven't worked to quell crime but have interfered with our quality of life.

Wow awesome speech, I second your statement

Well, since we are on the topic of removing citizen's rights and freedoms, I would like to direct you to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...e.html?ref=rss

British Columbians caught smoking in a vehicle with children under 16 present will face a $109 fine under new provincial regulations effective April 7.

The new regulations aim to protect children from second-hand smoke, Healthy Living Minister Mary Polak said Wednesday.

"Any level of second-hand smoke has harmful effects on a child's health, so it's important that we protect vulnerable children who are confined in a vehicle," Polak said.

Police will have the authority to stop any vehicle when they suspect someone is smoking in the presence of children.

People who fail to pay the fine will not be able to renew their driver's licence or auto insurance.

The regulations follow legislation that was passed in the spring of 2008 under the Motor Vehicle Act.

"The dangers of second-hand smoke are more pronounced in the enclosed space of a vehicle, and children — who are more susceptible to its harmful effects — have no choice but to breathe it in," said Barbara Kaminsky, chief executive of the Canadian Cancer Society's B.C. and Yukon division.

B.C. joins Ontario, Nova Scotia, and the Yukon in banning smoking in cars when children are present.

So, if I stand outside and breath in the exhaust fumes from passing vehicles, while my child is safe and secure in my "smoke free" car, that's okay?

Little by little, our rights, freedoms, and privileges are slowly being eroded away. They come in with "safety issues" at first, and then, grow from there. Guns, armour, tasers, bicycle helmets, etc. What's next, a walking permit?

Originally Posted by Melanie

I'll try to tie this in by saying that if you want a permit to wear body armour you'll probably have to take a class.

That had better be quick class. Seriously. You put the armour on properly, you take it off. General care, maintenance and laundry instructions. No moving parts (other than the strapping). Secondary use, uncomfortable pillow? Give me my permit.

For me, $85.00 for a class, to get a permit for equipment, that could save my life, is a small price to pay. Plus, I can submit the reciept for income tax purposes. Sounds like a win-win for me! Now, if only they would (quote Nike) just do it. The manual would come in handy, my kitchen table is getting un-level again.

Now, I wonder what the people in the armoured car industry have to say about this?

What bothers me is this, gangs have bulletproof vests, cops have bulletproof vests, and the public in the middle has..............? As security, we are considered to be more or less, another segment of the public, and our safety means very little to the powers that be. Wearing a uniform means you could be the next potential target for random violence. Not just security, look at Ambulance attendants, or even bus drivers are members of the public in high risk situations, where the statistics tell the story of how a bulletproof vest might have been the difference life or death. The politicians need to pull the heads out of the sand and look at the real world, with open eyes, and make the right decision.

Holy Necropost Fred!

Here's my personal perspective on Security and body armor. 1) There is no such thing as bullet proof vest. It's a misnomer, bullets will penetrate body armour, just depends on how big those bullets are. 2) Security, those who operate in this field, are sometime less the stellar in their decision making skills. I'm afraid allowing them to wear body armour merely increases their risks to injury, as the armour gives false sense of invulnerability to some. Now, I am speaking about my experiences working with security personnel in the past.... and I really don't think body armour would help those who have been injured, because what led to the injury was the inability to assess the situation, and make a sound tactical decision.

Regardless, that's just my point of view. I don't believe body armour should be banned. Banning it means NOTHING to those within the criminal elements, and it really means NOTHING to those of us who are authorized to have it, even with the ban in place. It's a patch work idea, and nothing will come of it. It's been a year, and nothing more has been said... you see?