EDIT : Based on the comments below : CAN WE HAVE A CIVILIZED DISCUSSION NOT FILLED WITH INSULTS? Use an argument to disprove a theory, not a slur.
I have seen quite the amount of posts saying that Armor should be able to withstand more bullets, stop more lower caliber rounds and generally act as a direct means of opposition to an enemy firearm and it got me quite concerned.
I have always viewed armor as a defensive measure. A passive hunk of steel or composite made for situations when you are unlucky enough to get shot by an enemy. It was an item that was supposed to lower the chance of you dying rather than to negate it altogether. When I see people demanding we get leg armor or more protection for limbs in general I start to see that we miss the point of what kind of a measure armor is.
Armor is not an offensive tool. It is not supposed to help you run in front of your enemy with the knowledge you can tank 2-3 rounds and get the guy. It is not supposed to give you comfort of being able to do the quite common "rush them and hipfire" tactic and hope that as little of your limbs are blacked out in the exchange.
In my view armor is a purely defensive measure. It's not supposed to be considered when taking action or making choices prior to getting shot. It is a reactionary measure – made to add a potential of mitigating losses when you eventually do get hit. It is not a save all insurance, get out of jail card we slowly started to treat it like.
If I had to sum my observations in one sentence : It is not the armors job to save your life but much rather your job to make sure that armor does not have to be used to save your life. It is there for when you need it the most, not to rely on it.