Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Body armour

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Nightowl, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. A short while ago a question was raised in another thread in general about body armour which caught my interest, so I fired off a query.

    Grue, & others who were interested, this one's for you. :)
    Hope it's of some help.

    Response just in ....


    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  2. well, that answers the question about MC gear not being classed as "body armor", but doesn't really answer the question of "WHY" body armor is illegal in the first place. It's purely a defensive item. Just makes no sense.

    The ONLY way it could be used badly is that if someone gets in a fire fight with police (aka Ned Kelly) then they might have armor on to protect themselves. But in reality, that's just silly. If they are in a shootout, they're ALREADY breaking firearms laws. What would 1 more matter?
  3. So basically they don't want citizens to be able to increase their chances of surviving encounters with someone who wants to kill them.

  4. *ding*

    Furthermore, anyone in that situation isn't going to say "Oh shit, I'm not allowed to wear body armor? Ok fine, I'll just shoot at them"

    Idiotic laws like this have zero useful purpose. They don't stop criminals from being criminals, and they negatively affect anyone who wants to protect himself in a completely passive way.
  5. Not quite. If during operations they discover somebody to be in possession of body armour it can lead to further warrants and investigations that will likely lead to the possession of 'non - passive' items.

    If you're prepared to ask why it's also worth asking why not?
    For what legitimate purposes would the general public have for wearing bullet proof armour?
  6. We live in Victoria, the cops are as big of a threat to our vital signs as anything else, and they've all got guns! :-s Anyway, it appears that if their plan is to say "only criminals need protection from weapons", it's working based on your statement that it'll "likely" lead to having other illegal items ;)

    But in all seriousness, if someone wants to deck himself out in kevlar and ballistic plate because he's scared to ride public transport, I fail to see the problem there. He's not affecting the life, liberty or property of someone else, so game on.
  7. Hmm, ask the Cartlon crew..
  8. Nope Im with Grue. Purely defensive garments like that are no concern of the gov.
  9. My sister in law was on the tram the other night (staying at our house atm) and as she was sitting next to some guy. He was just looking around the tram at the people, and all of a sudden, some other guy takes offence at being looked at. Comes over to the guy and pulls a knife. Starts ranting about "who do you think your looking at.. I'll cut your throat you white piece of shit..." etc. Needless to say, she was freaked out. In the end, some of the knife wielding guys friends pulled him away.
    My point is, I fully understand why some people may wish to think about body armor. Don't think I'd wear it personally, but I can understand why others may wish to.
  10. But a bullet proof vest won't protect you from a knife, I've never even been close to a situation where I've wanted or need protection from firearms in Victoria.

    Knives are another thing, but I don't think chain mail is illegal?
  11. Are you sure? I thought they would? Where is the Mithril chain mail when you need it?
  12. Only with plates. Aramid fibers don't do anything of note against edged weapons. My parachute lines could easily be snipped with shears.
  13. grue is right, you'll notice UK cops have chain mail or plates in their armour.
  14. MrsB is currently working on an art piece of chain mail (or maybe ring mail) using the sliced up barrels of decommissioned firearms.

    Slicing up the barrels has taught me a number of things.

    1) Tungsten carbide lathe tools rock.

    2) Shotgun barrels are frighteningly thin walled.

    3) Rifle barrels are made of widely varying steel, some of which is gorgeous and some of which is of a quality I'd be embarrasssed to give away, let alone sell as part of a piece of precision engineering.

    4) An awfully high proportion of the guns confiscated by the police or handed in under amnesty appear to have been neglected and abused scrap long before they went through the chop saw. Any armed insurrection intending to use them as a defence against tyranny would have had serious trouble hitting anything given the bends, scored bores, corrosion pits and stuffed rifling I've seen so far.

    Just sayin'.

    As you were people.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. From the letter, it appears the ban is only on gear to protect you from bullets & missiles, slash proof/stab proof garments aren't specifically banned.

    Kevlar,lead lined, chain mail hoody for public transport please :)
  16. Fascinating, you should post some pics when it's done.
    Obviously, the well kept ones are buried somewhere secure ;)
  17. Knife vests are NOT ballistic vests and used to be quite common in some security work. Some ballistic vests are knife rated but by no means all of them are. The question remains why would a government want to ban a purely passive form of self defense?
  18. Will do if I remember, and assuming I haven't managed to cheesewire my shutter finger whilst lathe winding the titanium wire connecting links that hold the sliced up barrel rings together :shock:.

    My thought exactly. Meanwhile, an awful lot of people got good money (in the buyback) for dangerous rubbish that was worth a dollar a kilo for scrap.
  19. The more you know. Thanks for that little tidd-bit NightOwl
  20. I was one of them. i figured if the Government wanted it that badly they could have it. They didnt want the .444 or the .22 tho just the pump action.
    We were assured that the guns handed in would be destroyed, so at least we know that they were.. or are in the process of..