Previous Post
Next Post

In the aftermath of the murders of school children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut , many have cried out to “do something,” to prevent future murders.“Doing something” has taken many guises. Sandy Hook Elementary is no more; it has been demolished. President Obama’s grandiose gun control measures–none of which would have done anything to hamper the Sandy Hook killer–failed in spectacular fashion. This has not, of course, stopped anti-freedom activists from proposing a wide variety of anti-gun laws, even though they often admit their laws would not have so much as inconvenienced any known school shooter . . .

There is only one question that truly matters in stopping active shooters: when a shooter is about to enter a school, how will the lives of students and staff be protected? This is a question I recently answered here at TTAG. The obvious, proactive answer is to arm willing staff with concealed handguns. No other policy is capable of not only deterring school shootings, but of stopping active shooters, potentially before anyone is injured or killed.

Unfortunately, that rational, low cost solution remains a hard sell in much of the nation. This sad state of affairs has, however, opened opportunities for those proposing expensive, reactive “solutions.” I wrote of one such product–bullet-resistant whiteboards–in August of 2013.  The whiteboards cost from $300 to $500 each and offer scant protection indeed.

Now comes a far more expensive “solution,” that offers no more real protection against bullets, but is certainly more inventive in marketing. The photograph at the beginning of this article displays the product. The New York Daily News reports:

“Soft and fuzzy security blankets have met their match.

Developers in Oklahoma have revealed an unusual new product hoping to appeal to nervous mothers and school officials: bulletproof blankets.

Amid a rise in school shootings and deadly tornadoes across the country, the Bodyguard Blanket is touted as able to withstand being punctured by 200 mph falling debris and protect against ‘90% of all weapons that have been used in school shootings in the United States.”

Touting the blanket as proof against tornadoes is a clever marketing ploy. The manufacturer, ProTecht, (get it?) is very cautious with specifications and claims, providing only vague reassurances.

“According to its manufacturer, ProTecht, the shield is made from the same materials used in military and law-enforcement body armor.

‘As a bullet enters the Bodyguard Blanket, its incredibly strong materials ‘catch’ and deform the bullet. This deformation of the bullet occurs within the layers of the blanket and allows a high degree of energy absorption,’ according to ProTecht.

CNET reports that the bullet-proof pads are priced just under $1,000, though ProTecht hopes they’ll be able to offer discounted rates to schools and nonprofits if they buy in bulk.”

There is no such thing–arguably outside the armor of an M1 Abrams tank and some lesser armored vehicles–as “bullet proof.” Police officers wear “bullet resistant” vests that provide protection only against handgun projectiles and shotgun pellets. Most common rifle ammunition will easily penetrate them. This is why ProTecht cautiously claims that their blankets will “protect against 90% of all weapons that have been used in school shootings in the United States.” Most school shooters have used handguns and the occasional shotgun. The Sandy Hook killer used an AR-15. The .223/5.56mm ammunition used in such rifles would easily penetrate ProTecht’s blankets as it would the bullet resistant vests of most police officers. That’s the other 10% ProTecht doesn’t specify.

Vests that will stop rifle ammunition are available, but are far too thick, heavy and expensive for daily wear. A blanket made of such materials would cost thousands and be far too heavy for most school children, while providing no more practical protection than the $1000 dollar model. Notice that I said “practical” protection. ProTecht’s product, on a theoretical level, might seem attractive, but particularly where preventing shootings is concerned, it provides little other than the appearance of safety.

Blanket 2

As this photograph illustrates, the blankets incorporate backpack-like shoulder and waist straps that attach the blanket to the wearer. Notice too that the blankets cover only about 2/3 of the bodies of these relatively small children, leaving their legs from the knee down exposed. Tragically, these blankets would provide, at best, limited protection from bullets, and might extend the lives of students by mere seconds, if they could don them in time, and if they could keep them in position between themselves and a gunman while simultaneously being unable to see what he was doing.

The tactical limitations of any shield are older than ancient Greece. Shields, of necessity, limit the mobility and vision of their user. Even so, they are useful in battle because they can absorb and ward off the blows of one’s opponent until an opening can be found or made to get beyond their shield and kill them. When everyone has a shield and sword, they have the same limitations and strengths. A warrior armed with only a shield will only live long enough for their opponent to push the shield aside or knock them down.

Notice that the teacher in the photo is removing blankets from a container and outfitting students one by one. This presupposes that in a school attack, they’ll have that kind of time. Notice too that the blankets have multiple creases, which allows them to be folded for storage. These creases are weak points where there is much less ballistic material and where projectiles may penetrate. Another significant drawback of the design is that much of the shield has no solid backing.

By this I mean that a significant part of the effectiveness of bullet resistant vests is that every inch is held in place by the body of the wearer in contact with the interior of the vest. A bullet striking the vest does not displace it, or skitter off at an angle, but flattens, distributing its energy over a portion of the surface of the vest and not penetrating. This would be true with the blankets only if a bullet strikes directly over the torso of the wearer. Strikes anywhere else, such as near the sides, would merely brush the blanket aside. The effect can be seen by merely throwing a baseball at such a device at moderate velocity.

The terrible reality of this particular product is that it does nothing to deter attacks, and its protection is limited in time and effect. Imagine a shooter entering a classroom. All of the children and the teacher have had sufficient time to don their blankets, and are huddled together in a corner, covering as much of themselves as they can. The shooter is armed only with a handgun, and fires several rounds which by chance, strike the blankets in their sweet spots and stop the projectiles. Noticing that he can’t penetrate the blankets, he plays by the rules, curses his bad luck, and leaves.

In the real world, all he need do is walk to the pile of blanket-covered children and pull their blankets aside, one by one, shooting the exposed children and teacher beneath because they can only cower behind the blankets. They have no means to stop him and their blankets have bought them only a few additional seconds of life.

But what if the children and teachers could use the blankets to hold off the shooter until the police arrive? Analysis of school shootings reveals that no one can expect police help for an average of 15 minutes after an attack begins. The Sandy Hook attack is illustrative.

In that attack, it took more than five minutes for the first 911 call to be made to the police. It took about 30 seconds for the first radio call to officers on the street. The first officer arrived within about 4 minutes–an amazingly rapid response to any school shooting.   Unfortunately, the first officer could not enter the building until more than 9 minutes after the 911 operator received the call, about 15 minutes after the attack began. The shooter killed him self within about 10 minutes of the start of the attack.

Had the Sandy Hook attacker still been alive when the police entered, it would almost certainly have taken them at least two minutes to find and neutralize him under the best of circumstances, and likely, longer. Fifteen minutes and more is a very long time when a killer merely has to pull aside ballistic blankets, or simply push the barrel of his gun behind them. In any school attack, seconds mean lives. Unless the attacker can be immediately engaged and stopped, there will be injuries and deaths.

This is the ancient problem. Unaccompanied by a weapon capable of stopping an attacker, a shield is of little use. What of a teacher and students attacked in the school library, an athletic field, waiting for a bus, or at recess where there are no ballistic blankets, or will students have to wear them everywhere like little red turtles?

But what of tornado protection? Theoretically the blankets could provide some limited protection against wind-driven projectiles and crushing injuries, providing the wind didn’t simply strip the blanket away first, and providing whatever struck the child wasn’t heavy enough to render the blanket meaningless.

But that’s not the issue. How may school shooters be deterred and what will be done when they’re not deterred, when they’re in a school and about to begin killing? At $1000 each, these blankets are prohibitively expensive. For an elementary school of 500, that’s a half million dollars. A million for a high school of 1000. As ProTecht suggests, bulk purchases might earn a discount, say a mere $400,000 for an elementary school of 500 and even if a school district had that kind of spare money–and very, very few do–for what? A false sense of security? The possibility that some number of students and teachers might be able to get to their blankets in time and perhaps live a few seconds longer until the shooter began peeling them away?

Shortly before the Virginia Tech killings, school spokesman Larry Hincker commented on the defeat of a bill in the legislature that would have allowed students and faculty to carry concealed handguns on campus:

“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, student, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

I wonder if, after the attack, Hincker understood the terrible irony of his thinking?

ProTecht can’t be faulted for manufacturing and marketing a legal product, but adults responsible for the safety of children can be faulted for making faulty choices that make them “feel safe,” rather than implementing the sole policy that can actually deter and stop killers when and where they attack.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. All these will work…unless the students are shot in the head. What a great argument for home schooling.

  2. Because in a tornado a sail on your back is ideal, and when an “active shooter” is present being bright orange is the preferred color.

    • This is particularly unnecessary given that “Twister” proved once and for all that even for an F-5 tornado, all one must do is buckle one’s belt around a well pipe. Once that is done, even though surrounding buildings are destroyed, you will be fine. In fact, Helen Hunt’s top won’t even blow off.

  3. Yes that blanket looks like it would do will keeping a child from being crushed from debris during a tornado. And I am totally convinced it offers the same protection as a plate carrier *sarc* Yes lets spend millions of dollars giving one of these to every child (up to and including 25 year olds) in america. That is surly more cost effective than “allowing” staff members to exorcise their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

    • Of course! If we drill elementary students to form up a Testudo using bullet resistant shields and arm them with long pikes they really should have no great difficulty driving off or defeating a lone shooter. . . wait though, wasn’t there a problem with the Testudo . . .let me see, yes; poor maneuverability on constricted or broken ground. . yes, yes like halls doors an stairs, right. . .there was something else. . . oh yes, highly vulnerable to more maneuverable formations, particularly cavalry . . .cavalry developed heavy armor. .. knights yes! We should armor each child head to toe in full plate and get them horses. . . no wait. . . ok, steel cross bow, yes, no, gonne? What the heck is a gonne? Oh, yes, that think that made heavy calvalry obsolete so no plate and horses. . . what to do, read down a bit and YES!

      We should arm the teachers with gonnes! These seem to be superior to either the Testudo, which doesn’t work well inside a building anyway or even armored cavalry (which was better than the Testudo anyway, and we don’t have to build a stable for every school! Gonnes are the answer! They don’t require nearly as much training as Testudo or cavalry and seem more effective but they are a little slow to load and fire. If only some better method of loading and firing a gonne could be had. There! It’s right there I just had to turn the page! It seems there is something called a ‘cartridge gun’ that seems to have simplified loading and has an advanced firing mechanism. Some it seems have such capacity and rapidity of fire that it’s not even necessary to train all the children in volley fire but just give their teacher one of these new fangled gonnes, I mean ‘guns’. That’s certainly safer than children carrying burning slow match around everywhere (they’re so irresponsible with fire safety you know) and it seems that these new ‘guns’ can lay down as much fire as a whole class with gonnes can anyway. I should have know there was some sort of technology that provided a solution. Guns, heh, who knew? Wait till this gets out, they’ll want every teacher to have a ‘gun’ as soon as possible. And to think, I almost went with the Testudo formation. . so 3000 years ago, right? embarrassing!

  4. seems to me that solid core door, kept locked, with sturdy,armored deadbolt and maybe an extra bolt lock or two would require so much effort as to discourage most intruders
    perhaps a bit of armor in a corner to provide safe cover from rounds coming thru the doors/walls.

    coupled with a functional, preferably protected remote exit for evacuation
    would be way cheaper then the gimmicks being proposed

    • This sounds like an excellent defensive posture to take. All that remains to complete this word picture is a gun in the teachers hand. 😉

    • This sounds like a painfully contorted and unnecessary method of avoiding the obvious fact that simply allowing those teachers who would choose to do so to go armed would solve the problem with little to no cost and more effectively than all this. Would one rebuild every school in the country to have security doors, entry/bullet resistant walls, no or armored windows, floor drains in every doorway to prevent introduction of noxious or flammable fluids, protected sally ports for emergency escape (do we put murder holes in the ceilings of these things?) armored entry doors, perhaps man traps and portcullises at every hall way intersection, jersey walls to prevent vehicular incursions and truck bombs, perhaps a moat to defend against construction equipment being used to breach the walls, maybe abatis work better than moats, or maybe we should use both and who tests this stuff anyway. . . where does it end?

      Show me a passive defense that costs $1,000,000 and I’ll show you a $100 way to defeat it. Meanwhile a more effective active defense that cost the public either nothing or very little is completely ignored. Let the teachers who want to already carry concealed. That alone is more deterent and more useful defense than any even absurd level of hardening a structure and has the added benefit that that it costs so little in comparison and doesn’t make the average elementary school look like some unholy combination of medieval castle and modern prison. Before we start stringing wire across the playground to interfere with a heliborne assault, perhaps we could for a moment considering arming the very people we trust with our children’s safety in the first place. I mean, I know, it’s crazy right, but it might work. If it doesn’t, I suppose we could always fall back on building medieval fortifications because that’s not crazy at all.

  5. It is wrongful for a school district (and most any other entity/organization/group) to even claim that they can protect (offer any form of protection for) your children – TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012. Not even you can do that. People die violently with weapons in-prison. Attempting to eradicate weapons, or their use is folly on its own as you cannot eradicate the i d e a of a “gun” (TERMS) so you will never be able to reduce their number to zero, and they will forever be advancing through advancements in materials and other technologies. Attempting to eradicate weapons to eradicate the threat of weapons to our beloved crumb-snatchers in schools is ignorant enough to force the surrendering of a few teaching certificates, and the paychecks of a few superintendents.

  6. Trying to defeat an attack in progress is the last thing we (alright at least I) would want to have in a school or public building. Yes plan for it but…

    When we speak about how to stop a shooter, stop the bullets, etc. we fall into the logic trap and we must argue that if the shooter did not have a gun then we would not be being shot at.. The only thing that changes the active shooter, bomber, fill in the blank is to remove the firearm, pressure cooker, fill in the blank. We must admit this. None of us in our right mind would say we would like to face an armed opponent. OK, OK some might. Let’s step away from this argument.

    First…Sorry to say bluntly … if your gun is taken by your kid, neighbor, spouse. easily stolen you should be locked up should they take it and kill someone or themselves.

    Then…That leaves locking down the criminal or disturbed element and that costs money. Taking fees from us generates money and this is part of the battle that we face. When we buy into talking back to the argument of gun control we let the others off the hook and don’t challenge them to buck up (pun intended) and appropriate the $$$ for the real steps that must be taken to get rid of guns that are illegally owned.

    If politicians really want to keep schools safe we need to force the question and response that they, in the end game cannot guarantee a schools safety with anything they are doing now. Get them to eat this, the same dogfood as the major corporations in the US and the world: mandate that all schools have a mantrap set of entrances with, if they choose, metal detectors (to scan all those ‘borrowed’ AK’s in the guitar cases) at building entrances. This will actually generate local revenue for installers, etc.

    For those who aren’t familiar, the mantrap is a 2 sets of doors each at one end of a hallway. You can get in but until you activate the security code on the other side you are trapped. In a data center for example, one may need two or three types of authentication to get in and then past the second set of doors. Otherwise you get to meet corporate security services and local police.

    The ‘traps’ would be bullet and bomb proof but wide and provide for entrance or exit at the start and end of school and in an emergency. Once school is in session the trap, maybe looking like an entrance lobby, is activated. Just as in most schools today, if you don’t have an appointment you don’t get in. If you need to pick up your kid in an emergency the normal vetting process is followed but, still you don’t get past the trap and so on.

    And yes, to cover all the security or emergency exit scenarios would take many pages. Also other attack plans will come up around other site weakness and this is the nature of risk management but I think you get the idea.

    • First…Sorry to say bluntly … if your gun is taken by your kid, neighbor, spouse. easily stolen you should be locked up should they take it and kill someone or themselves.

      Sorry, but I don’t agree. We don’t have that standard for anything else, so it’s just anti-gun hysteria to apply it to firearms. If your spouse takes your car and deliberately drives into a crowd of people, you have no special liability, even though it was your car. Same thing with your set of premium kitchen knives, or your bowling ball, or whatever.

      • Absolutely, what’s next? If someone uses your identity, illegally, to purchase a gun you’re prosecuted for failure to secure your identity? This line of thinking is so counter to liberty, due process and common sense as to be laughable, that is, it would be if there weren’t some seriously demented people actually proposing such things. If you want accountability, how about we hold people who actually hurt people accountable and leave everyone who isn’t doing so out of the judicial system. What’s the appropriate punishment for having your property stolen and used to commit a crime anyway? What sentence would produce justice in that scenario? Madness I tell you, madness!

      • I guess that my intent is to stress a level of responsibility and to live outside of the world of negligence. We don’t keep our knives on the floor where young kids can get them, we don’t leave our cars running and unattended with non-drivers in the car.

        I agree that facts and circumstances are important. Johnny takes the loaded gun from daddy’s dresser drawer – bad daddy, Johnny breaks into a gun safe – bad johnny, the guns are stolen – bad criminal. If the first example happens it may be that one owner’s actions (or lack of) is the reason some crazy legislation passes.

      • Yes, yes of course. I mean allowing teachers to be armed to react effectively to threats internal and external is right out because. . . guns are bad, emmmkay? So, yeah pretty much learning to live in a lockdown facility is the right approach because, you know, that the direction a disarmed utopia heads in anyway. Might as well get used to being groped at school so it’s not so shocking to be groped at the airport and courthouse and eventually everywhere. Oh glorious paradise where no one has any guns or rights and everyone can submit to being groped many times a day! If it weren’t for you bitter clingers desperately squawking with your 1a rights about keeping your 2, 4 , and 5a rights we could all live together in peace and harmony. In fact, lets abolish the 1a, people just us it to complain about the loss of their other rights anyway!

        (If I have to attach a sarc tag to this, see Poe’s Law and really think about it for a moment.)

    • Argh, dratting man trap doors. If only there were some other way to get into a building, some creative way I could use my criminality to think outside the box, something that law abiding people wouldn’t have thought of. . Oh yes, of course! Windows! I’ll climb in the window. I knew my stunning intellect and criminal prowess would allow me to overcome the elaborate security procedures in place. Wait? what’s that? Oh, my accomplice is quite correct. Rather than trouble ourselves with climbing in, we could simply shoot the students in queue at the security bottleneck observed at each entrance everyday. Now that does make sense. There they are, out in the open and standing in a line, I think it could work. . .

    • Steve wrote, “The only thing that changes the active shooter, bomber, fill in the blank is to remove the firearm, pressure cooker, fill in the blank.”

      And therein lies the folly of Steve’s “solution”. It is utterly and totally impossible to control and/or remove every possible implement that a spree killer can employ to harm victims. How are you going to prevent a spree killer from using chains, locks, a container of gasoline, and a match from killing scores of people? How are you going to prevent a spree killer from driving a car into a crowd of children all stacked up at your “secure entrance”? How are you going to prevent a spree killer from making a simple devastating weapon with inexpensive components available at any good hardware store and using that weapon to execute an unsuspecting police officer and taking the officer’s weapons on their spree killing?

      Let me say it again: it is utterly and totally impossible to control the items and actions of a determined spree killer in the open and free environment of our nation. What we CAN do is be mentally and materially prepared to IMMEDIATELY and EFFECTIVELY engage a spree killer the moment they start their attack. And that means good, responsible people being armed when they are out-and-about in public. That and ONLY that will minimize the body count.

      • +1 I’m a ‘gun guy’ but if I turn my thinking to inflicting mass casualties it’s not a gun I’m going to. Just off the top of my head (since this isn’t something I’d ever consider doing) I can come up with at least a dozen highly effective means of inflicting mass casualties that don’t involve a gun and which require little money, specialized skills or any equipment that can’t be found just about anywhere. I’m not going to specify them here for obvious reasons, but seriously, the concept that you can’t have a mass casualty incident without a gun involved is fallacious to the point of being absurd.

  7. The “bullet proof blanket” reminds me of the silly contraptions that used to be sold by mail order through advertising in the back of comic books.

    The “X-Ray Glasses” were my favorite. I’m sure that they worked as well as these blankets.

  8. Just borrow the construction equipment from the road work down the street and go right thru an exterior wall. Static defences suck you can’t build a target for A hundred million someone can’t breach with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and the will to do it

  9. It would make a lot more sense to make every classroom (really every door) bullet proof and strong enough to not be bashed in than it does to waste money on something like this. Hell, it’d still be cheaper to pay for armed security than to outfit a school with something like this. Kevlar has a shelf life, so these blankets would have to be replaced every so often which would also add to costs.

    With any luck, this recent school shooting in Oregon being stopped by two armed resource officers will sway more schools to work toward having armed good guys on campus (whether this be teachers and other faculty or by full time paid guards) to stop this kind of attack rather than all the feel-good measures that politicians love to push that won’t do a damn thing to stop attacks on schools.

  10. Well, this is their ballistic test (might help with bullets and small debris, but won’t help you if a tornado drops a car on you):

    • What I meant to say is that lots of things may help, but nothing is a perfect defense, not ballistic shields, not tornado shelters, nor even armed men.

  11. It seems to me that perhaps our local public school principal may have a solution to armed criminals, mentally ill, and jihadists invading his school. This summer he has offered to pay for any teachers or administration staff who wish to attend the state required safety training course to obtain a concealed weapon permit ($125 average cost per person). He will pay them back in notebooks, school supplies, paper, and things they would purchase anyway. This way, he said he will have about 25 personnel with CCP and carrying in the school daily. The school is located in one of the worst areas of town and gangs control the neighborhoods.

  12. For about $1,000 per kid, you can get a decent handgun and some good, basic self-defense training (per student). Of course it is for the children!

  13. The bullet proof blanket sounds like a scam designed to prey on the fears (and wallets) of parents who lack the knowledge to make an informed decision.

  14. I don’t think there’s a “one size fits most” to school security, other than the obvious solution of allowing CC, the additional measures need to be tailored to school size, location, schedule, ect. Things like reinforced exterior doors are a good idea, and some would say they need to have “bullet proof” glass, but if we really wanted to take security seriously there would be no glass of any kind at all on the exterior of the building.

  15. Lets say 20 kids per classroom. 20 * $1,000 = $20,000. $20,000 would pay for a spectacular heavy duty door.

  16. If this is so great, prove it Pro Techt by putting your own kids under these blankets and subjecting them to live fire to show us how wonderfully it works. This borders on being a criminal scam. It might help in a tornado, but not from crushing by collapsing buildings or heavy debris, as someone else suggested…like a car.

    How in the world are we becoming so cowardly that we think only in terms of passive defense (and a damned poor one at that) when the objective should be to prevent a school shooter from getting to the children in the first place by active defense, or to be able to aggressively defend if the shooter gets to them?

  17. So all the shooter has to do is pull the “blanket” off or shoot around it.
    As a correctional officer recently issued body armor to prevent being stabbed, inmates now just simply target head and neck areas.
    Same concept.
    In these scenarios the best defense is a better offense.

  18. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that these are blankets? Just a warm fuzzy piece of cloth to make you feel better before you die. Kind of like having a hazmat suit without a SCBA in the middle of a gas attack.

  19. Just hide under the blanket and the monster will go away! That’ll be $1000 please.

    Are you effing kidding me?

  20. Wait, they demolished a multi million dollar building? Bullet holes can’t do THAT much damage… Clean and sterilize the place…the taxpayers of Newtown must be in some serious pain when they destroy ENTIRE buildings just because it’d make people uncomfortable. That’s like burning down your house because you saw a spider…

  21. This ballistic blanket approach to surviving a spree killer is ineffective, wrong, and silly.

    There are only two effective tactics for surviving a spree killer:
    (1) Unarmed people immediately evacuate AWAY from the spree killer.
    (2) Armed people immediately engage the spree killer.

    Combining both responses radically reduces the ability of a spree killer to inflict casualties for two simple reasons:
    (a) A spree killer cannot kill victims who are not there.
    (b) A spree killer cannot kill victims when the spree killer is actively evading the projectiles of armed defenders.

    This is so simple and obvious it is stupid. Anyone who opposes these tactics is either a violent criminal or hysterical.

  22. I know! Lets us just outfit each child in head to toe in body armor made from car doors. Cuz everyone knows from watching TV and movies that car doors stop bullets. And RPGs. What could possibly go wrong?!?!?

    Or drywall! Again, thanks to TV and movies, we all know beyond any shadow of a doubt it stops bullets. Lets just coat all children with sheet rock and everything will be okey dokey.

    And stop being such doom-criers, our Fearless Leader has commanded all inclement weather to cease! Just as He ordered the sea level to go back down where it belongs. There are no more dangers in our world, Barrack Hussein Obama has so commanded and so it is a fact. Silly clingers, worrying about all these nonexistent dangers to children. How dare you question The One!!!!!

  23. considering most of the kids killed during a tornado at an oklahoma school last year drowned in the puddling rainwater, I hope these blankets can also be used as a flotation device.

  24. Next “they” will tout an anti-bullet serum or cream which strengthens the skin…

    “Our product offers a ballistic safety (BS) factor of over 150…”

Comments are closed.