Mod Moved Comments To Chat
3 edited to correct grammar / add points about the comments.
source | link

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to get one.

  2.   

    Making bulletproofBulletproof vests common encourages criminalsare heavy and cumbersone, even people who legally have access to use bullets designedthem only uses them when there is a reason to piercedo so. In most of the USA bulletproof vests are legal yet -despite some weird claims- most of the people do not use them.

    OTOH, which has causedcriminals1 have the advantage that they often know beforehand when they are going to commit a crime and if they anticipate the need for bullet protection.

  3. The combination of guns with bulletproofs vests causes considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies. They not only allow criminals to stand for more time during a shootout, but may give criminals the idea that they might survive such a shootout and incite them to refuse to surrender.

  4. While it may seem reasonable to make a vest legal only if the owner also carries a weapon, this kind of regulation does not provide any benefit2. Someone who got a vest with the intent of using it in a criminal enterprise would just avoid wearing it before he is very difficultready to enforcecommit the crime. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.


1Note that I do not mean one of those apocalyptic scenarios (so common in some narratives coming from the USA) of millions and millions of criminals/terrorists/inept cops wanting to shoot innocent people at each street corner. Most criminals try to get their objectives while avoiding confrontation, and even those who assault their victims have a high chance of surrendering before getting in a full shootout with police force.

I mean the more common and realistic scenario where the criminals that would consider using bulletproof vests because they are ready for a shootout are a tiny minority. But, few as they are, those are the only public who would effectively benefit from the availability of the vests (because, as stated above, they are the ones who know when they will need the vests).

2I found this link explaining that in NY using a bulletproof vest for committing a crime is a crime, which I found utterly amusing. I cannot help but think about some people who happens to be ready to commit a crime and prepares for the possibility of a shootout (possibly with the police), but is deterred from using a bulletproof vest because that would be a crime.

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to get one.

  2.  

    Making bulletproof vests common encourages criminals to use bullets designed to pierce them, which has caused considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies.

  3. While it may seem reasonable to make a vest legal only if the owner also carries a weapon, this is very difficult to enforce. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to get one.

     

    Bulletproof vests are heavy and cumbersone, even people who legally have access to them only uses them when there is a reason to do so. In most of the USA bulletproof vests are legal yet -despite some weird claims- most of the people do not use them.

    OTOH, criminals1 have the advantage that they often know beforehand when they are going to commit a crime and if they anticipate the need for bullet protection.

  2. The combination of guns with bulletproofs vests causes considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies. They not only allow criminals to stand for more time during a shootout, but may give criminals the idea that they might survive such a shootout and incite them to refuse to surrender.

  3. While it may seem reasonable to make a vest legal only if the owner also carries a weapon, this kind of regulation does not provide any benefit2. Someone who got a vest with the intent of using it in a criminal enterprise would just avoid wearing it before he is ready to commit the crime. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.


1Note that I do not mean one of those apocalyptic scenarios (so common in some narratives coming from the USA) of millions and millions of criminals/terrorists/inept cops wanting to shoot innocent people at each street corner. Most criminals try to get their objectives while avoiding confrontation, and even those who assault their victims have a high chance of surrendering before getting in a full shootout with police force.

I mean the more common and realistic scenario where the criminals that would consider using bulletproof vests because they are ready for a shootout are a tiny minority. But, few as they are, those are the only public who would effectively benefit from the availability of the vests (because, as stated above, they are the ones who know when they will need the vests).

2I found this link explaining that in NY using a bulletproof vest for committing a crime is a crime, which I found utterly amusing. I cannot help but think about some people who happens to be ready to commit a crime and prepares for the possibility of a shootout (possibly with the police), but is deterred from using a bulletproof vest because that would be a crime.

2 Cleaning up some grammar errors, removing some redundant information at the end that really has nothing to do with bulletproof vests
source | link

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to butget one.

  2. The combination of guns with bulletproofsMaking bulletproof vests causescommon encourages criminals to use bullets designed to pierce them, which has caused considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies.

    1. As late terrorist attacks show, you do not really need a gun to do lots of damage.
  3. The idea of making possession ofWhile it may seem reasonable to make a vest illegallegal only if the owner also wearscarries a weapon makes it ineffective, this is very difficult to enforce. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.

    You could as well make biological weapons legal as long as they are not used against the public (and then blame the police for its lack of enforcement if something bad happens). Or (in a less alarmist example) it would be like making possession of kilograms of cocaine illegal only if you sell and/or consume it as a drug.

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to but one.

  2. The combination of guns with bulletproofs vests causes considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies.

    1. As late terrorist attacks show, you do not really need a gun to do lots of damage.
  3. The idea of making possession of a vest illegal only if the owner also wears a weapon makes it ineffective. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.

    You could as well make biological weapons legal as long as they are not used against the public (and then blame the police for its lack of enforcement if something bad happens). Or (in a less alarmist example) it would be like making possession of kilograms of cocaine illegal only if you sell and/or consume it as a drug.

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to get one.

  2. Making bulletproof vests common encourages criminals to use bullets designed to pierce them, which has caused considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies.

  3. While it may seem reasonable to make a vest legal only if the owner also carries a weapon, this is very difficult to enforce. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.

1
source | link

Because:

  1. There is not a general need for the public to own or use those. Usually people who are at danger have legal ways to but one.

  2. The combination of guns with bulletproofs vests causes considerable trouble to law enforcement agencies.

    1. As late terrorist attacks show, you do not really need a gun to do lots of damage.
  3. The idea of making possession of a vest illegal only if the owner also wears a weapon makes it ineffective. There are no police checks in every corner in Europe to detect when Joe is putting in his vest and also is carrying a gun; the first warning sign would be shots being fired.

    You could as well make biological weapons legal as long as they are not used against the public (and then blame the police for its lack of enforcement if something bad happens). Or (in a less alarmist example) it would be like making possession of kilograms of cocaine illegal only if you sell and/or consume it as a drug.