Mr Ayoob, the recent shooting incident in the California hair salon involved a shooter who also wore body armor. I recall several other incidents in which the bad guys were similarly equipped. I know in a past incident involving a couple bank robbers, police on the scene were not initially prepared to deal with it. From what I have read since then, police have improved their tactics some have long guns somewhere in their vehicles. Though I wore body armor during hazardous duty assignments in the Army, I never do now that I am a civilian. Additionally, in civilian life, I do not have my team and I have my unarmed wife and small children, one which is an infant and one who is in a wheel chair. With all other variables remaining constant, this increases our vulnerability. This does not present the best tactical situation for us. In my current profession, I deal with threats. It has been observed that defenses often cause the threat to be redirected, though not eliminated. This requires a constant adaptation to the changing nature of the contested space. We refer to this dynamic threat environment as the new normal. There is no end state; there are only changing tactics. For those with some military background, this is similar to the OODA loop, in which the objective is to keep you loop smaller than that of the adversary. I expect you have considered how the bad guys are adapting to the changes in the environment. Though we see less police, we see more armed citizens, both men and women. I think body armor is one adaptation to this. This has be considering the need for new tactics for the armed citizen. Sorry if this was a bit long. Some out there may not be familiar with dynamics of conflict. How should private citizens adapt to changes such as bad guys using body armor and their other adaptations?