From 9mm to .50 cal: Discovering if the Tesla Cybertruck really is bulletproof

[m4a4]

Your 'point' is wishful thinking. At best.
1) 9 of the 10 states with the lowest firearm mortality rates are deep blue.

2) This includes New York and California, which host the largest cities in the country.

3) A new study published in Journal of the American Medical Association’s Surgery found that firearm deaths are more likely in small rural towns than in major urban cities

The stats are the stats. Your conjecture is something else. Clearly, you right wingers have gone way past making up alternative facts. You inhabit an alternative reality altogether. Which is not, in fact, real at all.

You deflect on a reply where I pointed out deflection. States are made up of counties. Try again with more context.

 

[Kotters]

How do those 'stats' compare to Republican cities? ie: what are your control groups?

Republican what?

 

[Beerfloat]

It doesn’t matter who’s coming at me or breaking into my house, I’d rather have a firearm than not.

The fact that you are more likely to have the firearm means that they are more likely to bring a firearm.

And of course, it is not even necessary to bring other people in for the equation to work.
The mere fact that your firearm is around has just dramatically increased the chance of you getting injured or killed by a firearm.

 

[erickmendes]

That means literally nothing.

Yeah, nothing is foolproof

 

[Beerfloat]

You deflect on a reply where I pointed out deflection. States are made up of counties. Try again with more context.

No deflection. Refutation of your wishful conjecture, with stats. Deflection is actually what you do, when you choose to disregard statistics about our states (because they are uncomfortable) and substitute another arbitrary unit.

I am not interested in your game. Here is your context. Counties are made up of municipalities. Municipalities are made up of individuals. More individuals have guns? There will be more problems with guns.

 

[opckieran]

The fact that you are more likely to have the firearm means that they are more likely to bring a firearm.

And of course, it is not even necessary to bring other people in for the equation to work.
The mere fact that your firearm is around has just dramatically increased the chance of you getting injured or killed by a firearm.

What a fallacy. By your logic we should ban electricity, anything with 4 wheels, medication, because their mere presence suggests a higher mortality rate right?

The problem is, when you focus on really narrow things like “mortality rates”, you are completely ignoring the positives these things all bring. Guns included.

 

[erickmendes]

What a fallacy. By your logic we should ban electricity, anything with 4 wheels, medication, because their mere presence suggests a higher mortality rate right?

The problem is, when you focus on really narrow things like “mortality rates”, you are completely ignoring the positives these things all bring. Guns included.

Nothing is fail safe, not handling eletric cables with protection can kill, drink and driving can kill, medication abuse can kill. These are made for useful functions and services and have the ways to keep it's use safe. They are not made for killing people.

Guns if used the right or wrong way can kill just the same. Even if you argue that guns right use is self defense in some cases that involves killing someone, even if handled properly.

The chance you kill someone by messing with eletric cables using the right protection and following the proper procedures is quite lower then someone using a gun for self defense.

Drivers must follow driving rules to avoid accidents. Also the best scenario would be universal public transportation so accidents would be less likely.

Summing up... There's things/devices/systems that are designed to operate safely to reduce the disks of accidents and add to society in ways that shape how we live.

Society would still the same or even better if there were less guns and the ones left be used under higher more controlled ways, with no access by common people.

 

[gamerk2]

If you were to look at the murder rates (highest to lowest), you would see that the highest listed R city is Mobile, Alabama (R) (low on the list), where it is both an R city and R state. Only 2 R cities are in the top 20.

But looking at the highest R state, you have Missouri. Where both St. Louis (D) and Kansas City (D) top that rate.

If you want to continue looking, be my guest.

Funny how you need to label cities as (R) or (D) to try and deflect blame from the root cause. Regardless of the cities affiliation, they are bound by *state* laws on purchasing/ownership of firearms. And, don't be surprised by this, but conservatives live in deep blue cities too. And sometimes, they also own firearms.

The fact is, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and deaths related to firearms. Whether a (D) or (R) owns the gun is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[Slappy McPhee]

Of course an article analyzing claims about the technicalities of those claims would degenerate into political responses rather than focusing on the content and context. It obviously doesn't help either than the article makes statements to spur on discussion outside of the scope of the actual content because apparently TechSpot enjoys people being keyboard cowboys going rampant. Elon's comments and claims never should have been made because as it has been stated the use case for the vehicle isn't personal protection. This is Elon though that we are talking about and much of his personality is hubris for any product that he brings to market.

 

[opckieran]

Society would still the same or even better if there were less guns and the ones left be used under higher more controlled ways, with no access by common people.

This will literally never happen in America, no matter how many terrible laws are passed (remember, this is Congress we are talking about...). The crazies are always going to find ways around them or other ways to commit murder.

Looking at Uvalde, looking at all the survivors of home invasions who survived due to having a firearm, can we really say that giving the common people no access is a better thing? Do you want to tell the pregnant single mother that it was wrong for her to have a gun when her house was broken into by multiple people? That she should have waited 15 minutes for the cops to show up?

 

[Thanthan]

"Lower-velocity pistols are the most popular guns in the US, so the Cybertruck should offer at least some protection against most shootings " This is not the purpose of the Cybertruck it was a dumb thing for the author of the article to write.


People are killing each other all over the world. The UK where guns are all but banned have shootings all the time, they just don't hit the news because it's mostly bad people shooting other bad people. Most countries don't have 330 million people or the problems the US has none of which still be solved by taking guns away from people who are responsible and trained.


If the glass was damaged from a steel ball thrown by a tech bro there is no chance the glass will survive a bullet. Not that anyone should expect it to be since the vehicle isn't a protective vehicle it's only a claim Elon made and not a trend in vehicles today.


This is such a stupid thing to say. Everyone who commits violence with the use of a gun is breaking piles of laws. Banning certain drugs didn't stop those drugs from getting across the border.

Gun's do not cause suicides. You could stop some violence from people who purchase guns legally, but all crimes involving guns involve a person breaking at least one law if not several. It's like banning all drugs including prescription drugs.

People who follow the law shouldn't get their rights taken from them by people who don't follow the law. If there was a way to actually take all guns from everyone it wouldn't make violence go away. I'm all for people being required to get training and perhaps have to prove they are responsible before being allowed to own a gun, but taking the ability for anyone to protect themselves in a violent country is stupid. The violence from people who don't follow laws isn't going to be affected by laws that don't affect them.

No. It’s the scientifically accurate thing to say. Countries with lower gun availability have fewer homicides and suicides, end of story. It is also a fact that most gun crime in the US is committed by people with no record of criminal activity (typically against their spouses), and, as a matter of fact, most gun violence in the US is not even criminal in nature, as most gun violence is suicide.

I happen to live in a place where almost everyone owns a rifle for hunting, and even in a place with deeply entrenched culture around guns not being a tool for violence against each other, we still have disproportionately high gun violence and accident rates. Give a man a hammer, and everything is a nail. Give a man a gun and he will shoot something. Sometimes it’s a person being shot.

Would I ban rifles? Not where I live, as it’d be incredibly hurtful to the local culture. Would I ban semi automatic weapons (currently legal), and enforce safety standards regarding gun safes, training, minimum age to carry a rifle alone (due to above mentioned hunting culture, we don’t actually have one). Absolutely.

And most places, including most of the US, has nothing like the hunting culture of where I live, to provide legitimacy to the act of owning lethal weaponry. So would I go a lot harder in the US if I could? Absolutely.

 

[m4a4]

Funny how you need to label cities as (R) or (D) to try and deflect blame from the root cause.

...Did you miss the whole context for the convo? The whole point was state and city political affiliation. Started with an ignorant comment trying to say that whole states (R) have worse stats because of a overall political affiliation.

So yeah, funny how you pointed out the obvious....

 

[VaRmeNsI]

9 of the 10 states with the highest firearm mortality rates are deep red states.

Which is only a problem if the wrong people are dying.

 

[Beerfloat]

Which is only a problem if the wrong people are dying.

Preserving this quote for posterity.

 

[dmatheson]

“Firearm mortality” is a metric severely lacking in context. If someone was shot and killed while assaulting someone or committing a home invasion, that would definitely be a plus for firearm ownership.

Except that's a rarity in these statistics. More likely to be a child playing with a gun, an ***** shooting into the air who doesn't understand physics, or a suicide than anyone but an off-duty law enforcement officer actually using a firearm for its "justified" purpose. It's just people who can't tolerate their feelings of fear grasping onto a feather like Dumbo...though a feather never killed anyone to my knowledge. (I'm sure there's a ******* out there who figured out how to do even that.) Pull up your big-girl pants and suck it up. There is no such thing as a risk-free life and a gun only pushes those risks up, not down. There are many more effective risk-abatement strategies than owning a gun. When you've done all those, come talk to me about wanting to take that step. Justifications for owning a gun, from what I've seen, are emotional, not logical.

 

[Aus spot]

Love how an international ICT tech site is taken over by American gun nuts (both sides).

My opinion, from outside looking in.
1. Obviously less guns will lead to less gun deaths.
2. There’s so many guns in America, it is not practicable to control/remove the guns of (good guys)

There’s both sides of the argument in a small nut. But no one should care as I don’t have to live with the situation. Face it, America is screwed on gun deaths.

But please don't spew your ignorance onto the rest of the world you barely know. Even Ben Shapario has had egg on his face when trying this, and he’s a lot smarter then most here.

 

[Endymio]

A typical American problem…
The rest of the world looks an while Americans keep killing each other.

Eh? Let's look at some nearby US neighbors, all with stricter gun control laws than the US.

Bermuda: 2X the US murder rate.
Bahamas: 5X the US murder rate.
Mexico: 6X the US murder rate.
Honduras: 7X the US murder rate.
Virgin Islands: 8X the US murder rate.
Jamaica: 9X the US murder rate.

Mexico is a particularly relevant example, as when they passed laws essentially banning all private gun ownership, the murder rate *soared* in result.

 

[Endymio]

Except that's a rarity in these statistics. More likely to be a child playing with a gun, an ***** shooting into the air who doesn't understand physics, or a suicide

Utter absurdity. US citizens use firearms to prevent more than 2 million crimes per year, and of the 440 active shooter incidents that were stopped in progress from 2014 to 2022, 157 were stopped by armed citizens, not police.

Furthermore, though per-capita ownership of firearms increased sharply from 1993 to 2012, gun homicides decreased by 39% over the same period, and gun-related non-fatal crimes dropped by 69%, according to DOJ statistics.