Yup, the police are 'required' to carry numerous implements, including a 40Cal pistol (restricted cal to common people, prohibited magazine for common people) specifically to kill someone the moment they 'feel' in danger... (please word that another way if you disagree, by all means...)
Yet the citizenry is absolutely prohibited to possess anything to defend themselves.... and possession is not necessarily on 'their person', merely having access to something....
We have a whole act of parliament that controls 'body armour' and the law is called the control of weapons Act (& regs) because of course we all know that protective clothing is a 'weapon' as in an implement that intended to or indeed used to injure another person....
So our system is so effed that merely 'having access' to body armour
"..that is designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting the body from the effects of a weapon, including a firearm;"
So it would include wearing a Ned Kellyesque cylindrical iron face/head mask....
Would earn an obviously highly criminally intent Victorian a fine of 240pu ( $36,000 ?) or a 2 year vacation...
So I'm wondering how these brilliant public servants could satisfy any measure of sensibility in construing such ridiculousness?
I mean, its obvious that the concept of a crim undertaking a criminal action would be more difficult to kill with gear on..... just couple a few lines under the criminal code, say committing a crim WITH body armour, or intent to commit, or a prohibitted person WITH body armour.....
No they take away, from the law abiding all access, period.