Funny, I know of at least two incidents where crooks had body armor.
Once case was in the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia. The cops’ pistols couldn’t do the job, so they looted a nearby gun store or sporting goods store for hunting rifles that WOULD shoot through body armor.
Another case was in Florida. The FBI tried to take them down, and lost several agents before managing to kill them.
So yes, armor piercing capacity is useful for self defense.
And, of course, you might need it to deal with anonymous black-suited armored home invaders.
{Andy Rooney Voice} I believe in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Except for really useful rifles with scary features..or around children.. or anywhere outdoors. Besides, who needs the rapid fire capabilities of fixed cartridges? They shoot one right after another..bam-bam-bam. Flintlocks are okay, though. And why carry indoors where your neighbors can see in your windows and be scared? I’m all for the right to carry flintlock rifles in a box inside your home. Well, rifling gives too much accuracy.. maybe a flintlock smoothbore. And don’t forget the box, it has to be inside a box..” {/Andy Rooney Voice}
Its Bill of {God-given} Rights, not Wants or Needs.
Do we really want the government telling a free-citizenry what they Need to defend themselves?
Im picking up a strong hint of a conflict of interest there, does anyone else get that impression?
“Do you need an AR-15 with 30-round clips to defend your house? From what?”
From you, moron, from you.
I do not believe that the government, in the form of the military and police, should be in sole possession of the means of deadly force.