Wednesday, July 25, 2012

A Handgun Would Have Been Useless Against the Theater Shooter Because He Was Wearing Body Armor

Tell that to these guys.

7 comments:

Crotalus said...

I didn't see in the article how did they get killed. There was a police officer who died in the line of duty, and Clinton shamelessly used him to argue for his gun ban. Trouble was, he died in a car crash, not from being shot.

Anyway, this is why we have the drill "Two to the chest, one to the head."

Teke said...

I have seen reported in several places that he was wearing a tactical vest not body armor. I am not looking at the case file to know if he was or not but we all know the media never gets things wrong.

If he was infact only wearing a tactical vest a Handgun would have provide quite effective.

David Codrea said...

Good tip--I'll look into it. All the "Authorized Journalist" accounts I've read have basically said this guy was Iron Man.

Anonymous said...

Here's a statement by Tacticalgear.com regarding the so-called bullet proof vest they sold him:
http://tacticalgear.com/news/colorado-shooting/

And here's a picture of it:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5864/...nassaultve.jpg

Bet the media doesn't report this!

Anonymous said...

One can wear a tactical vest in addition to body armor. In fact, some tactical vests double as a carrier for bullet-resistant vests. At the price point in question from tacticalgear.com, the vest would seem only to be a carrier for equipment and NOT resistant to bullets by itself.

-PG

Mack said...

David,

Our humble President of VCDL had this to say:

http://tinyurl.com/c8j27op

... featuring Lori "almost comical" Haas.

Anonymous said...

The best body armor the U.S. Army issues will not stop a measly 7.62X51 at 400 YARDS!!! Even when the bullet doesn't penetrate, the impact of the projectile will get someone's attention. Even one person pouring fire into an armored shooter can make a difference.

Gun Free Zone = Target-Rich Free-Fire Zone