The first versions of armor to protect against gunshots appeared in the 18th century, made of layers of cotton and sufficient enough to protect against rudimentary firearms. In the 1870s, Australian outlaw Ned Kelly famously crafted entire suits from steel for himself and his gang members for the final, ill-fated standoff with police that led to his capture. During the Korean War of the 1950s, U.S. forces used armor made of fiberglass, nylon and heat-treated aluminum. Today an array of protective gear is available including the soft ballistic vests favored by police and S.W.A.T. team members, often made out of Kevlar, a lightweight fiber five times stronger than steel. Hard armor plates, on the other hand, are made of thick ceramic or metal engineered to withstand high-powered assault weapons and are more often used in the military.
Body Armor can be highly effective when worn properly; some analysts cite its use as standard equipment for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as reasons why troop fatalities in those conflicts have remained at historically low levels (even as a larger proportion of soldiers return home injured or maimed by wounds that previously would have killed them). But the same evolution that has likely saved thousands of lives is now raising the question of whether tighter regulation would save even more. When laws vary so widely from place to place and the civilian purchase of Body Armor becomes more common, the lines get more difficult to draw. "There's a challenge and a balance between giving consumers protective solutions and protecting those who serve," says Foreman. "I would not want to discount that there are others who may feel the need for protective solutions for their own safety."

The news come from www.bossgoo.com

Body Armor