
After Every Mass Shooting, Americans Turn to Bogotá's 'Bulletproof Tailor' - aceperry
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/after-every-mass-shooting-americans-turn-to-bogotas-bulletproof-tailor
======
Bud
Some glaring editing mistakes here, like this:

 _The suede jacket I had on was level II, meaning it’s certified to stop .9mm,
.45mm, .38mm, and .22 caliber rounds_

Ouch. There's no such thing as a ".9mm": it's 9mm.

No such thing as a ".45mm" either: that round is .45 inches.

Same with the ".38mm".

~~~
danso
Maybe it's bulletproof clothing for ants

------
orbitingpluto
Odd to think that a simple undershirt (that costs $2000) could get you a
couple months in prison in British Columbia, Canada:

[http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/free...](http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_09024_01)

~~~
nitrogen
That seems even more illogical than banning encryption. What is the rationale
for a law that makes it illegal to protect oneself from attack?

~~~
lewisl9029
Long time BC resident here, but this is the first time I've heard about this
law. According to this [1] CBC article, the official rationale is:

> The intent is to deny criminals a protection that might make them more
> likely to engage in violent behaviour, Heed said.

> "Police see it all too often. The gang member or organized criminal is out
> on our streets and in our neighbourhoods while hiding behind the added
> protection of bulletproof vests as innocent bystanders remain unprotected
> and vulnerable," Heed said.

> "By taking away criminals' sense of security, we decrease the potential for
> violence in public settings."

But that seems like a pretty weak rationale to me. Quoting from the article,
"gangsters who ignore gun laws weren't likely to obey body armour laws".

[1] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/body-
armour-t...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/body-armour-to-be-
restricted-in-b-c-1.780821)

------
electic
If you look at the valuation of Bonobos you quickly realize this could be a
great start up idea. Assuming you can lower the price for the average consumer
where they can wear it as daily wear. It would greatly protect consumers
against potentially fatal situations such as knife fights, drive by bullets,
cross-fire bullets, and shrapnel from explosions.

~~~
13thLetter
Best part is, the media does your advertising for you by convincing terrified
citizens that they're going to get taken out in a mass shooting at any second,
while the actual odds are substantially less than those of getting struck by
lightning.

Hmm, perhaps these clothes could be paired with a special lightning rod hat?

~~~
Gys
'the actual odds are substantially less than those of getting struck by
lightning'

Better move to Europe, where the odds are even lower...

~~~
dawnbreez
And the odds of being mugged are even higher, depending on who you ask.

Meanwhile, in Europe, you're carded for butter knives. In the US, laws vary,
but generally speaking you can buy cooking equipment without having to undergo
a background check.

Some laws are helpful, others are harmful, and sometimes they're just plain
silly.

