I’ve got news for the NY Daily News: there’s no such thing as “bulletproof.” There’s bullet resistant. Somehow I think the paper’s resistant to that idea, as well. Writer Joanna Malloy’s got her tongue planted so firmly in her cheek it looks like she’s giving Peter North oral sex. “[Miguel Caballero] may have found the answer to gun violence – stylish clothing for men and women that is completely bulletproof. God help us . . . You can order your chic shields ‘mild’ – they’ll stop a bullet going at 1,120 feet per second, like a 9-mm.; a ‘medium,’ which they say will stop a .357 magnum bullet; and a ‘high,’ which Caballero claims will stop the fusillade from an Uzi. Best of all . . .

if you get shot in the first six months, which is becoming increasingly likely these days, Caballero will let you trade your purchase in for a new one! Only problem: Caballero hasn’t developed a kids’ line yet. With even 2-year-olds getting shot in New York City, we need bulletproof kiddie clothes.

It stops being funny when it starts being true. And it stops being true when New York City stops stopping its citizens from defending themselves against vicious criminals. Anyway, it’s worth a try.

21 Responses to NY Daily News on Bulletproof Fashion: “God help us”

  1. “It stops being funny when it starts being true. And it stops being true when New York City stops stopping its citizens from defending themselves against vicious criminals.”

    Excellent summation! Thanks.

    • It does have that classic Yogi Berra ring like his “If the fans don’t come out to the ball park, you can’t stop them.”

  2. Something I never quite understood about Superman, you can shoot at him (or really do anything to him) and he just walks at you as if nothing. yet when the bad guy throws their empty gun at him as a last resort, he puts his arm up to protect himself. You can shoot him point blank in the face and he doesn’t flinch…but you throw your gun at him and he blocks it. Odd

  3. Caballero has been doing this for a while. I first heard about the company from a NY Times article some years ago. This is the kind of dribble journalists produce when Google searches at Starbucks are inspiration.

  4. I don’t understand this line:

    You can order your chic shields ‘mild’ – they’ll stop a bullet going at 1,120 feet per second, like a 9-mm.; a ‘medium,’ which they say will stop a .357 magnum bullet; and a ‘high,’ which Caballero claims will stop the fusillade from an Uzi.

    Most Uzis fire the 9mm cartridge. How does the “high shield” differ from the “mild shield,” which they claim will also stop a 9mm?

    • It’s likely due to the differing barrel lengths assumed between a standard 9mm pistol (generally 3-4.5 inches) and the assumed barrel length of the UZI (~10 inches for the standard MG config, up to at least 16 inches for a non-NFA config), the caliber (Uzis come in a variety of calibers up to .41 AE), and/or that it can stop multiple rapid hits.

      My guess, is the combination of barrel length (thus more energy) and ability to stop multiple rounds.

  5. For women it is a unique vest that is pecker proof as well. Somebody save us from this BS. “Tap, Tap, is this thing working”??

  6. It’s actually an interesting concept. If your a person who is concerned with such things – celebrity, diplomat, etc. then I could see a use for something like this… having the protection without looking out of place.

    I’d like to see some actual tests though.

  7. “Malloy’s got her tongue planted so firmly in her cheek it looks like she’s giving Peter North oral sex.”

    HAHAAHAHA

  8. I think the news is focusing more on the “chic” than the “bulletproof” (resistant).

    So I can keep the majority of my torso, but if anyone ever shoots me in my arms, because I’m too fabulous to wear a full jacket, I’m screwed. Yes, I know they have full ones available, but this picture is stupid.

    I heard about this guy on some Discovery channel show a few months back anyways, old news.

      • The vest pictured, looks like it’s suited more for the fashion-savvy, then people who care about protecting themselves from a bullet. If these are actually as effective as bulletproof vests, why bother trying to look “chic.”

        Then again, I’ve always despised regular vests. Unless it’s a tactical situation, you’re going to NEED it, or you’re in the military/LE, it’s pretty dumb.

        Yeah, yeah.. I’m ignorant/stupid, blah blah

    • Uh.. if you get shot in the arms wearing 99% of available body armor, you’re screwed. However, you’re probably not dead, as most people don’t keep their vital organs in their arms.

      It’s a silly concept, to a point, and they will certainly not perform as well as conventional armor, but it does offer a non-obvious method of adding a level of protection. I really don’t think most people would enjoy the level of attention cum indirect SWAT fire they’d attract wearing a conventional over-clothes vest in a public setting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *