Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Just to be argumentative, if the entire crowd got up and unloaded on him he would of went down.
Lots of people would still have died. You really expect a bunch of people to see someone shooting at them, in a room filled with smoke, to suddenly coordinate, remain calm, and aim well enough to kill this guys before he takes lives away? This argument is as silly as the argument that not having gun control laws make us safer.
Back to the switzerland argument. Give everyone military training and a gun, and people will remain collected in times of danger.
Besides the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution under the 2nd amendment. This thread is null.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Just to be argumentative, if the entire crowd got up and unloaded on him he would of went down.
Lots of people would still have died. You really expect a bunch of people to see someone shooting at them, in a room filled with smoke, to suddenly coordinate, remain calm, and aim well enough to kill this guys before he takes lives away? This argument is as silly as the argument that not having gun control laws make us safer.
Back to the switzerland argument. Give everyone military training and a gun, and people will remain collected in times of danger.
Besides the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution under the 2nd amendment. This thread is null.
this is absolutely true. and to all the people saying less guns means we're all safer: In canada, more guns per capita, less murders and gun violence.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
So maybe he takes more than one shot to hit him in an exposed area. Maybe people freak out. Maybe people mistake him for a '2nd shooter'. Maybe, god forbid, he even has poor aim and a stray bullet from this vigilante's gun hits an innocent bystander.
BUT WHAT THE FUCK MAN, 83 people were shot! Do you think that XYZ factors of risks in return fire aren't worth ATTEMPTING to put this man on the ground before 20, 30, even 40 were lit up? I would gladly be the innocent bystander that takes a stray bullet from a hero citizen gun owner so that god knows how many people don't have to take one from the assailant, you know what I mean?
PS: Most competent gun owners train with their firearm, so that their muscle memory allows them to put the bullet at least close to where they want it, despite rough conditions. Also, even the mere bullet shock on tac vests is enough to put large men on the ground. After several, even without wounding him, he would be at least stunned for a moment.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Just to be argumentative, if the entire crowd got up and unloaded on him he would of went down.
Lots of people would still have died. You really expect a bunch of people to see someone shooting at them, in a room filled with smoke, to suddenly coordinate, remain calm, and aim well enough to kill this guys before he takes lives away? This argument is as silly as the argument that not having gun control laws make us safer.
Back to the switzerland argument. Give everyone military training and a gun, and people will remain collected in times of danger.
Besides the right to bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution under the 2nd amendment. This thread is null.
this is absolutely true. and to all the people saying less guns means we're all safer: In canada, more guns per capita, less murders and gun violence.
Exactly, less guns means that the police and criminals will be the only ones to have guns, leaving average Joe's to take Krav Maga lessons in hopes that the criminals get to close.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
This would disagree with you
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
So maybe he takes more than one shot to hit him in an exposed area. Maybe people freak out. Maybe people mistake him for a '2nd shooter'. Maybe, god forbid, he even has poor aim and a stray bullet from this vigilante's gun hits an innocent bystander.
BUT WHAT THE FUCK MAN, 83 people were shot! Do you think that XYZ factors of risks in return fire aren't worth ATTEMPTING to put this man on the ground before 20, 30, even 40 were lit up? I would gladly be the innocent bystander that takes a stray bullet from a hero citizen gun owner so that god knows how many people don't have to take one from the assailant, you know what I mean?
PS: Most competent gun owners train with their firearm, so that their muscle memory allows them to put the bullet at least close to where they want it, despite rough conditions. Also, even the mere bullet shock on tac vests is enough to put large men on the ground. After several, even without wounding him, he would be at least stunned for a moment.
Yeah you might not get penetrated by the bullet if you have a kevlar vest but it hurts like hell. Shoot him 2-3 times in the vest and he will hit the floor in pain at which time you can overwhelm him.
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
I'm tired of hearing about what the founding fathers thought, not only were they alive nigh 200-300 years ago, but our country shouldn't be based on what a few guys thought was right a long ass time ago.
Is that single line all you took from what I just said? I will delete that line if you'll honestly take a look at all the data from the rest of the post. It was actually completely irrelevant to the topic.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
Now imagine all of the people who were defenseless on the floor returning fire.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
Now imagine all of the people who were defenseless on the floor returning fire.
A bunch of women and old people with handguns are going to stand a better chance than police officers?
Some people talk in here like its a computer game or something. Just shoot the guy,mass jump on him, headshot!, ill take a stray bullet I will respawn in 15 secs anyway np. Dont wory people im from the internet!.
I even doubt highly trained soldiers would be able to keep their head cool in such situation.
I tell ya if everyone in the cinema would have a gun you would have had 200 deaths instead of 15.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
Now imagine all of the people who were defenseless on the floor returning fire.
Americans, completely disregarding the fact that no civilian was hurt by these two heavily armed robbers until the police arrived. You know?
Im curious, what do you think wouldve happened if a john wayne was between the hostages and started shooting at these heavily armored people? Tell me please, im curious. And dont dare to say "there wouldnt be someone stupid enough", we both know that there are. Alot. Even in this thread.
On July 21 2012 07:30 StarStrider wrote: People should absolutely be allowed to own and carry personal protection firearms. This is just another example of why, and a great example of what kind of situation that those of us who 'go packing' do it to prevent.
For those of you who see the NRA as a 'lords of war' gun lobby organization.... Here is some info for you.
Because of the NRA our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down 6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%.
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new gun control laws.
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
Furthermore, the vast majority of law enforcement officers receive their firearms training from NRA Certified Instructors, and the NRA has numerous firearms safety, marksmanship, and self-defense training programs for civilians including their award winning Refuse To Be A Victim Program.
The NRA is far from being a "Criminal organization, and is, in fact, a criminal's worst enemy.
The national conversation in the US over the last few years has shifted more and more from being pro gun control because more and more people are waking up and realizing that the founding fathers were right... To be truly free and safe, each citizen can and should bear arms.
My god, that is a poorly written propaganda piece. I don't feel like ripping it apart now, but there are so many flaws to the logic in this artice. I will just keep it short without going into detail. But first claiming a correlation without any clear proof. Second comparing relative values. For example, lets say there are 1000 acts of gun violence in the USA, and it goes down by 5% to 950, and there is 1 act of gun violence in the UK, and it doubles, it goes up to 2. It is still much lower in the UK. Etc.etc.
I'll concede your point that overall the violence figures begin and end at a much lower scale in the UK, if you concede the points that the facts are not lying or skewed that gun violence is increasing in the UK and violent crimes are on the decline in the USA. I'll even concede that this may just be a fluctuation that may just reverse again tomorrow. But at least concede it's true for now, because it is.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
Now imagine all of the people who were defenseless on the floor returning fire.
-.- Yes, I can imagine that... It would look a lot like this video unless one of them was lucky enough to hit him in the head. So many arm chair hero's come into this thread. AR-15+shotgun vs a few pistols in the room... You really need to get out of that imaginary world of yours. Do I think people should carry guns? yes, would it have helped? fuck no, not unless someone somehow got behind him and point blanked him in the head.
My point to the question is rather simple actually. In today's world everything has become so extremely specialized and differentiated that there basically is TOO MUCH. One example: Go to the store and buy good food. Unless you are used to it and have actually given it much thought, the question take you on a journey including medical, biological and chemical parts of knowledge. You will learn what psychology has to say about buying and how the organizational sciences approach it. And only after that will you be able to go to the store and make an educated decision. Nobody des that. Where is this crazy dude going? In a world where we do not have the ability to buy food anymore without cutting corners and "just going" with something, people have enough to worry about. No one outside of the executive organs should be allowed to carry any weapon because you don't know what you are doing.
P.S. Oh and just in case you think you "know how to handle a gun" and have been doing so in pirate camp since you were 6 years old or whatever, the sheer use of a gun is not my point, rather what comes with it.
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
So maybe he takes more than one shot to hit him in an exposed area. Maybe people freak out. Maybe people mistake him for a '2nd shooter'. Maybe, god forbid, he even has poor aim and a stray bullet from this vigilante's gun hits an innocent bystander.
BUT WHAT THE FUCK MAN, 83 people were shot! Do you think that XYZ factors of risks in return fire aren't worth ATTEMPTING to put this man on the ground before 20, 30, even 40 were lit up? I would gladly be the innocent bystander that takes a stray bullet from a hero citizen gun owner so that god knows how many people don't have to take one from the assailant, you know what I mean?
PS: Most competent gun owners train with their firearm, so that their muscle memory allows them to put the bullet at least close to where they want it, despite rough conditions. Also, even the mere bullet shock on tac vests is enough to put large men on the ground. After several, even without wounding him, he would be at least stunned for a moment.
Yeah you might not get penetrated by the bullet if you have a kevlar vest but it hurts like hell. Shoot him 2-3 times in the vest and he will hit the floor in pain at which time you can overwhelm him.
Or you accidentally shoot someone else who suddenly runs in front of you. Or you miss and hit someone running away from the shooter. Or someone trying to escape bumps into you, causing your gun to fire and hit someone in the crowd. Or you mistake someone else holding a gun for the shooter's partner, and you accidentally kill him. In fact, isn't that exactly what happened at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, when one bystander pulled out a gun and another bystander shot him?
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
Now imagine all of the people who were defenseless on the floor returning fire.
The problem in this case is that since theres tear gas and movie theater is dark and poor visibility the defenseless ppl now with guns will probably be shooting randomly lol the fact that everyonelse has gun will also make people panic and fear even more and i bet at least half of the people will go into the "i have to shoot everyonelse with gun or they are going to shoot me"
and this incident would have been something like 100 deaths and 300 injured lol
On July 21 2012 07:17 storm8ring3r wrote: so too bad there was noone with a concealed carry license in the crowd.
It would not have made any difference, he was wearing full body armor.
Well, a competent shooter could have taken him out. Well trained and responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
Yes... He would have made a headshot in a dark theater with people running around while the man with the rifle/shotgun/handgun was unloading his rounds on anything that moved... He was wearing bulletproof vest/groin/neck protector...
Competent? Try Wyatt Earp.
Well, kevlar armor isn't all purpose bullet repellent. Get hit in the chest with a 9mm slug from 30 feet away even with armor on and you're probably gonna drop like a rock.
edit: actually maybe with enough trauma plating...but he'd have to be one equipped son of a bitch.
I doubt 1 man with a gun's stopping anyone equiped like that. (and yes I understand this is a remake, but this event actually happened so like I said, Wyatt Earp or dead hero is what you'd of had)
". Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective." That is the quote given about what happened.
There's a reason I edited my post to mention trauma plating. Those guys had steel plating under the kevlar, which, yeah, is pretty effective at stopping most handgun ammunition.
EPT
