I'm actually speechless. Even the "LOL" emoticon is not sufficient this time. Can we go back to talking about the "mail slot" hip shooting thing again... I'll find it easier to keep a straight face.todd wrote: Unrealistic? Far from it, turn on your nightly news. When the due in the picture hops on the bus you are on please let me know before you put one in the A and one in the C so I can get the hell off.
If you REALLY want a serious answer, here it is: body armor, chest mounted ammo carriers (and bomb vests, if you live in Israel) are a valid and reasonable scenario IN MODERATION. This is why IPSC matches frequently use hard cover on some targets to force a headshot. In those cases, the target is marked black so that the body does not score... the shooter is forced to make a head shot. However, this is a bit diffferent from ASSUMING that every target you have to shoot must be wearing such a fashion item.
Since you insist on trying to prove your point with "real world" scenarios, allow me to make the contrary argument. A head shot in the real world is a much more dodgy proposition than you seem to realize. When you point a gun at someone's head, guess what: they bob and weave, 'cause they don't want to get shot in the head. Duh. And, if they are armed, they are shooting at you while you refine your sight picture and wait for them to hold still. Moreover, cops know what every armed citizen should - each shot you fire has a lawyer attached to it. The headshot that misses is a lawsuit waiting to happen. This is why (absent specific intel about body armor) tactical doctrine typically focuses first on COM shots followed by a failure drill (head shot or pelvis shot) only if/when the target fails to stop.
Oh, and before you ask again - NO, I AM NOT AN "OPERATOR". However, when I lived in the UK I did have the privilege of practicing for, and competing in, IPSC matches alongside some of the original operators from Hereford. I learned a thing or two about "real world" shooting techniques from watching them.