i was trying to convey how the media would spin its web of falsehoods that usually stem from such an incident
Yeah, but you know as well as I do, they can do that with -anything-. The
fact that we own guns is enough as it is. And anyone who is a collector,
that might put them on "unstable media footing" too. For most of us, a
"bulletproof vest" is not going to change the "bad media picture"
all that drastically, if you start to think about the amount of
"politically offensive" gear that a lot of us have. A "bulletproof
vest" would just be a cherry on the political incorrectness sundae.
And yes, lawyers (more specifically, a DA or Prosecutor) will say shit... let
them. They will also say things like "why did mr so and so feel the need to
have a gun" etc. That will all have to be dealt with. You can live in
fear of what some lawyer will say, or you can come up with a constructive
way to fight it. (with good counsel, which you'll need in such an event
anyways.) There will be far bigger issues to deal with other than what gun
you used or whether or not you were wearing a vest.
I guess what I'm getting at is if any of us are going to crap our pants
in fear over what the "media" is going to say about us, then we might
as well not even bother with owning guns, if it's that much of a
risk. Yeah, the guy who shoots the BG with grandpas inhereited
duck gun (and its the only gun he owns) might get off a little easier in the public perception realm, but self defense cases are about -facts- and not
just public perception. I don't even think Mas Ayoob even makes glue for
sniffing that is -that- potent.
Edit: FWIW, Ayoob fumes aren't completey unwarranted... but I would
say that a "vest" is pretty low on the list, say, compared to Gary Fadden's
incident involving the shooting of some meathead biker with a registered
machinegun.
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t39127.html
-Mike