 Who wants a Body Armor?, For sale! |
  |
 Jun 25 2005, 01:23 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 358 Joined: 12-May 05 From: The nearest UV host near you... Member No.: 7,390  |
|
 |
 
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 01:26 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Why would this be a hoax? Flexible armored vests "camouflaged" as suit vests, jackets, whatever, are quite common. Here's the actual homepage of the firm making the EnGarde armor on the site you linked. Also check out Ballistic Clothing at BulletProofMe.Com.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 01:34 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
My Google-fu is weak - can anyone point me at a resource desribing the legality of body armour in the UK currently? Someone reading over my shoulder told me this stuff is illegal in Britain.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 01:38 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 608 Joined: 9-July 02 From: California Member No.: 2,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 01:40 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 608 Joined: 9-July 02 From: California Member No.: 2,955 |
Huh. Post, then get sandwich next time.
*sighs at his slowness* |
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 04:28 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
I sincerely hope that the photograph on that page is merely an advertising gimmick, i.e., for display purposes only.
Otherwise, the company logo on the dress vest's upper left chest/shoulder area is a dead giveaway--literally, if a kidnapper/assailant spots it. :eek: --Foreigner |
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 04:41 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
But just imagine the market for unarmored vests with that same logo. All the psychological defense, none of the heavy materials.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 06:07 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Foreigner: It looks like the logo can easily be taken off.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2005, 07:23 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
A.E.:
You're right. It appears that the patch may be attached with Velcro rather than sewn on. Evidently, I didn't look closely enough the first time. --Foreigner |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 08:27 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 20-May 05 Member No.: 7,405 |
I thought it was more for wearing with a jacket anyway - like to give a speech. If it's class III or better, it wouldn't fool anybody for long up close . . . concealment 8 :D
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 08:39 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Who the hell wears vests these days, anyway? Might as well sell armored bow ties and bowler hats while they're at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 10:37 AM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
If it were level III (which it isn't), it wouldn't fool anybody for a second at long distances if you have to move around even a bit. A 10" x 12", 1" thick rectangle resting at your center mass is hardly inconspicuous -- even less so when you'd have to pick up a separate carrier like these. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2005, 10:47 AM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 777 Joined: 18-February 03 Member No.: 4,110 |
That makes me throw up a little in my mouth. :( |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2005, 11:35 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
I'm pretty sure I could hide anything up to and including their Cougar vest under my leather greatcoat. :)
Hey, that would be armor stacking, woulden't it? P) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 11:57 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
If you're a really big guy, your coat has a massive collar, and you have a habit of standing, walking, and doing everything else without bending your torso at all, then you might fool someone for a moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 12:29 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
? I don't get it. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 26 2005, 01:53 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Many (Americans, mostly, but hardly all) find the removal of the right to arms repugnant. To deny people the right to wear armor, which is purely defensive, is a koo koo crizazy level of stupidity thrown on top, which seems to be where he's coming from.
Before this thread derails into a political discussion on the right to arms, self defense, and fascist governmental policies, don't. If you want to discuss that stuff, badger Adam to bring back the lounge and end his reign of tyranny (viva la revolucion, etc). On topic, I still don't understand how they expect the vest styled vest to fool anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 02:48 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Nicely done with the "Here's what I think about a subject, but you aren't allowed to say what you think cause it's off-topic"-routine. It might be aggravating (regardless of how I personally feel about the subject) if it weren't so common.
Suit vests aren't quite as common these days as they once were, but they're far from a rarity. VIPs (who that vest is meant for) might well wear one just because they happen to like wearing them with suits. And the average member of the social circles where such vests are used is hardly going to suspect it's an armored vests -- at most he might think it's not very stylish. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2005, 02:53 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Fool? Or just not be so damn obvious. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2005, 03:19 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
The bit about the right to arms happens to line up more or less with my personal opinions, but I was not injecting it just for the fun of expressing my opinion while suppressing all dissent. I'll admit I was editorializing on the bit about armor, but that's because it really is insane to make purely defensive measure illegal. So nyah. Seriously, I just want to avoid getting yet another thread closed because it derailed into talking about the right to arms. It happens enough here, and it'd be nice if it could happen less (possibly with an OT forum).
That's a tough one to call. It doesn't look anything like a real piece of clothing, and I think most people who anything about clothes will notice that. The average exec isn't likely to know lots about body armor and small arms, though, so that one can go a lot of different ways. It is very obvious, however, that something's up. Also, I would go so far as to call suit vests a rarity; not a complete anachronism like a bowler or a 19th century style collar, but even so. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 26 2005, 03:27 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,952 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Armor is incredibly far from purely defensive. I'd go so far as to say that its offensive possibilities are quite possibly richer than its defensive possibilities (in terms of allowing greater freedom of movement, etc.).
Note: this is not a comment on the correctness or incorrectness of banning it, or anything else along those lines, just a criticism of your reasoning coming to one of those opinions. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 03:55 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
I'm really not clear on how you're planning on hurting people with armor, but I guess I'm curious?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 04:16 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
If a home intruder has a knife, and you have a .22 pistol, your chances of success are much better if the intruder is unarmored.
Offense and defense provide options. Without any tools for either, your options in combat are limited to getting the potentially dangerous parts of your body at the potentially weak parts of the opponent and usually trying to stop your opponent from doing the same to you. Weapons add new ways to make an attack work, and armor makes counterattacks potentially less dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 04:21 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Yeah, and if you're packing JHP rounds in your pistol, your chances of getting full expansion are a lot better if your opponent is naked.
Armor is still purely protective. Just because it can be used on the assault doesn't make it at all offensive. If I'm making an assault in unfamiliar, close quarters urban territory, chances are I'll be moving fast and may stand a good chance of smacking my head into something. Would you call a Pro Tec hockey helmet offensive just because it's useful on an assault? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2005, 04:26 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
Arethusa: Only if your opponent got close enough for you to head-butt him/her. ;) --Foreigner |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th June 2023 - 09:29 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.