Will the ATF try to ban ALL rifle ammo?

[clarionite]

So, if one of the most popular kinds of ammo, of which millions of rounds are currently in possession by the citizenry, is deemed powerful enough to penetrate police vests (along with ALL rifle ammo) -- wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade police vests?

If the purpose of banning the ammo was to protect officers, Officers who have not lost any brothers in arms to the round they're proposing banning, then yes it would make more sense to upgrade the vests. But I see it as another version of "It's for the children", and "It's just common sense"

[C-dub]

So, if one of the most popular kinds of ammo, of which millions of rounds are currently in possession by the citizenry, is deemed powerful enough to penetrate police vests (along with ALL rifle ammo) -- wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade police vests?

If the purpose of banning the ammo was to protect officers, Officers who have not lost any brothers in arms to the round they're proposing banning, then yes it would make more sense to upgrade the vests. But I see it as another version of "It's for the children", and "It's just common sense"

I don't know much of anything about vests, but I have a sneaky suspicion that there's a serious difference in cost, weight, and mobility factor that prohibits the general use of level 3 armor for the average LEO too wear on duty.

[jmra]

So, if one of the most popular kinds of ammo, of which millions of rounds are currently in possession by the citizenry, is deemed powerful enough to penetrate police vests (along with ALL rifle ammo) -- wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade police vests?

If the purpose of banning the ammo was to protect officers, Officers who have not lost any brothers in arms to the round they're proposing banning, then yes it would make more sense to upgrade the vests. But I see it as another version of "It's for the children", and "It's just common sense"

I don't know much of anything about vests, but I have a sneaky suspicion that there's a serious difference in cost, weight, and mobility factor that prohibits the general use of level 3 armor for the average LEO too wear on duty.

The vast majority of BGs officers are going to encounter on the street carry firearms are going to be carrying small caliber handguns (usually 9mm or smaller) typically with the cheapest ammo they can get their hands on (think target ammo). Most officers are going to plan for the norm (what they are most likely to encounter) not the exception. I don't think many officers would fair well lugging around plates all day.

[LDB415]

North Hollywood Bank of America shootout anyone? Definitely the exception, not the rule.

[sjfcontrol]

Well, the comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless, a ban does not eliminate the ammo on the street. It would take decades (if ever) before the threat from the ammo would actually be gone. Vests could be upgraded tomorrow -- if there were an actual problem to solve here. (Which police forces seem to agree there isn't.)

[sugar land dave]

Honestly as others have stated I put nothing pass them. Me and friends had talked many years ago about them possibly banning hollow points, friend of mine thought they would try it long time ago cause of hollow points causing more damage and being more for killing than just wounding, I don't put that past them.

We don't use hollow point to kill, we use it to stop the threat while reducing the chance of a shot passing through the bad guy or multiple walls to injure an innocent.

[VMI77]

Honestly as others have stated I put nothing pass them. Me and friends had talked many years ago about them possibly banning hollow points, friend of mine thought they would try it long time ago cause of hollow points causing more damage and being more for killing than just wounding, I don't put that past them.

We don't use hollow point to kill, we use it to stop the threat while reducing the chance of a shot passing through the bad guy or multiple walls to injure an innocent.

Also, the reason for banning hollow points is nefarious, not any concern about more effective killing: the banners WANT a self-defense round to penetrate a bad guy and hit an innocent because it provides them with leverage for attacking the concept of self-defense and banning the weapons of self-defense.