A commercial suggestion, for now, bulletproof tested Cybertruck

[HaulingAss]

Here's a company that armors cars for businessmen, celebrities, the pope, etc:



I'm telling you, this video is soooo irresponsible. now everyone is going to be shooting up cars to see which ones are really bulletproof! ?

I did do a doubletake when the boss let his employee shoot at him behind the glass!

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

...what? You do realize that this is a forum for Tesla enthusiasts, right?

Yes, but I'm not so naive to think people don't use this forum for other purposes. Specifically, to try to throw shade on Elon and Tesla, and how he is re-inventing the auto business.

 

[JBee]

Imagine, if you would, a situation where someone is on trial for murder in a road rage incident and their defense is "I thought it was bulletproof because I saw it in a picture once. I just wanted to scare them." Does that really sound so far-fetched to you?

Sure, having a bulletproof car is nice and all - and I'll be happy to ride around in it. For me, the unnecessary part is broadcasting it to the world and inviting people to see how bulletproof it actually is. Same thing with those stupid ball bearings back in 2019.

I don't doubt that someone will use that as an excuse, but would any judge consider this a defense to a felony crime? Likewise, would it really become a common motive to "I just wanted to test it", while people are inside?

If we were to use our combined intelligence to conceive every stupid idea, every idiot on the planet ever could come up with, does that make us smarter, or just as dumb? Wouldn't converting that idiocy into intelligence be more productive an fruitful?

The point is still, will somebody "test" this, or as you now claim only use it as an excuse?
We are moving the argument now.

To be clear I find gun violence abhorrent, and agree we should do what we can at all costs to protect the innocent, even criminals that are left unreformed, but I cannot agree that advertising, yet another potential "life saving" feature as a "bad idea" because someone will potentially test it, as enough justification, to not publicize it, or make it available.

Just because kids do airbagging, doesn't mean all cars shouldn't have them, or advertise that feature right?

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Here is the quote from Elon on the test.

CEO Elon Musk revealed that the Cybertruck had an “entire drum magazine of a Tommy gun” emptied into the driver door “Al Capone style,” which revealed the truck would keep occupants safe as no bullets penetrated into the cabin.

I'm soooooo glad Elon won't be repeating history by offering something even remotely close to 'Not-A-FLAMETHROWER'
'Roland The Headless Thompson Gunner'
( Warren Zevon )

 

[intimidator]

I would rather show a Model Y or 3 going over that cliff in California where the family of 4 survived about a 200 foot fall.

In my commercial the Tesla goes over that same cliff (yeah, you might have to do a few takes) and when it gets to the bottom, the door opens and out climbs an Optimus robot and waves.

This is not CGI. This really just happened. Teslas.
Safest car on the road (or off the road)

 

[davelloydbrown]

Here's a company that armors cars for businessmen, celebrities, the pope, etc:



I'm telling you, this video is soooo irresponsible. now everyone is going to be shooting up cars to see which ones are really bulletproof! ?

I did do a doubletake when the boss let his employee shoot at him behind the glass!

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/testing-bulletproof-vest-1923/

how about this one!

 

[JBee]

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/testing-bulletproof-vest-1923/

how about this one!

Interesting read.

Is the reason they had to make them, a prediction, or history? Or both?

But I'd like to point out that neither of these were a "test" as such, rather a demonstration of what they had previously tested.

I'm sure they could of done it without a person in harms way, but they obviously staked their life on their product.

For a climber, a rope or carabiner, or anchor would be just as life threatening if it failed.

Would I do it? Um na.

 

[GlockandRoll]

To be honest, it being bullet proof is one of the biggest appeals for me.

 

[rizvend]

I don't even have to click on any of the links, because regardless of what happened in any situation, it was the human that was inattentive, brainless, or otherwise with compromised behavior.

If something is in their hand, some humans will find a way to make it dangerous.

If nothing is in their hand, some humans will then go find something to make dangerous.

Common denominator in all cases - human behavior.

Attempting to blame lifeless objects is really about some humans attempting to leverage behavioral fallacies into false projection. It will do no good because the lifeless objects will always get replaced, and can never all be purged anyway. The root human behavioral problems will always remain because they are central, and should be the focus.

This is why FSD endeavors to replace or safeguard faulty human behavior while driving. You don't solve a problem of bad dangerous drivers by eliminating all cars. You solve the problem by mitigating the actual cause (some humans at the wheel, which is what FSD development is making progress in doing, more so than other solutions).

- ÆCIII

So, make FSD but for guns?

 

[PilotPete]

Imagine, if you would, a situation where someone is on trial for murder in a road rage incident and their defense is "I thought it was bulletproof because I saw it in a picture once. I just wanted to scare them." Does that really sound so far-fetched to you?

Yes, it does. The shooter’s belief that the vehicle was “bulletproof” in no way relieves them from or justifies their breaking the law. What does sound far fetched is a defense attorney believing that might get their client off the hook. Simply brandishing the gun “to scare them” is illegal and faces a charge of “assault with a deadly weapon” among about a dozen different charges.

 

[Nolacyber]

Imagine, if you would, a situation where someone is on trial for murder in a road rage incident and their defense is "I thought it was bulletproof because I saw it in a picture once. I just wanted to scare them." Does that really sound so far-fetched to you?

Sure, having a bulletproof car is nice and all - and I'll be happy to ride around in it. For me, the unnecessary part is broadcasting it to the world and inviting people to see how bulletproof it actually is. Same thing with those stupid ball bearings back in 2019.

That’s crazy thinking, equivalent to saying that thugs who fire weapons at bullet prof wearing cops are some how less culpable. Not a defense.

 

[firsttruck]

To be honest, it being bullet proof is one of the biggest appeals for me.

It would appeal to me to if the truck passenger area was really bulletproof to common 9mm handgun.

But even at 2019 Cybertruck unveil the "Tesla steel ball resistant armor" glass was NOT said to be bulletproof to common 9mm handgun and now the rumor is that the production Cybertruck will not even be "Tesla steel ball resistant armor" glass.

Looks like Cybertruck ill be giving a false sense of security due to weakness of the window glass.

 

[GlockandRoll]

It would appeal to me to if the truck passenger area was really bulletproof to common 9mm handgun.

But even at 2019 Cybertruck unveil the "Tesla steel ball resistant armor" glass was NOT said to be bulletproof to common 9mm handgun and now the rumor is that the production Cybertruck will not even be "Tesla steel ball resistant armor" glass.

If you look at people sitting in the truck, not much below their head is exposed to glass.
With that said, the tommgun has a lot more energy from a 13" bbl than a 9mm handgun has, even if the handgun has the new FBI Hornady critical defense 124grn+P flex lock round.

Sponsored