Startup Offers Citizens More Opportunities To Get Shot By/Have Their Smartphones Seized By Law Enforcement
from the I-want-to-carry-a-gun-to-a-soccer-game,-but-don't-want-to-look-unhinged... dept
Someone’s worst fears just became a reality. A lot of “someones,” actually.
A Minnesota startup is making headlines today for its novel solution to the age-old problem of “children being frightened by strangers with guns.”
Behold, the double-barrel .380-calibre handgun by Ideal Conceal: a gun designed to look exactly like a smartphone, complete with fake camera lens and headphone jack.
“In today’s day and age, carrying a concealed pistol has become a necessity,” reads the company’s website. “But what if you didn’t have to conceal?”
“Smartphones are EVERYWHERE, so your new pistol will easily blend in with today’s environment,” the site further explains. “From soccer moms to professionals of every type, this gun allows you the option of not being a victim.”
I’m not sure people are going to be more comforted that people are carrying guns they can’t see, especially not US law enforcement, which has already demonstrated it fears cell phones as much as it fears guns.
Here’s Ideal Conceal’s new weapon:
Now, this is not the first disguised weapon offered for sale. Nor is it even the first gun designed to look like a cell phone.
But it is the one receiving the most media attention. Law enforcement officials have already registered their dismay.
“In general, the concept of any kind of weapon that’s disguised, so that it’s not apparent that it’s a weapon, would be cause for concern,” said Bill Johnson, executive director and general counsel for the National Association of Police Organizations.
Yes, it is a cause for concern. But not just for law enforcement agencies. It’s highly doubtful most criminals will have much use for a gun that only holds two bullets. But it does give law enforcement the justification it needs to continue harassing people for recording police activity. When any smartphone could conceivably be a weapon, securing the scene means grabbing all the smartphones in the vicinity. Whether or not this seizure would hold up in court during civil proceedings still needs to be tested, but by that point the elimination of possibly damning footage will have already been accomplished.
Worse, it makes mistaking a cell phone for a gun a justification for shooting someone carrying nothing more dangerous than a communication device. The slim possibility that it may be a weapon would generate the requisite “fear for safety of self and others” needed to deploy deadly force. While 99.9999% of the time, the smartphone will only be a smartphone, the 0.0001% chance that it isn’t is a blank check for phone seizures/deadly force.
For those concerned about any of these issues, the nation’s gun laws won’t be of much comfort. At best, the law would require purchasers to shell out $200 in tax (above the $395 retail price), rather than the normal $5 tax applied to most guns — as this would fall into the “any other weapon” category. Chances are concealed-carry permits would be needed in states requiring them, even if the weapon is carried in “plain sight.”
Ideal Conceal says it’s already received 2,500 emails from interested customers, which is really a very small percentage of gun owners. Despite this weapon’s niche status, we can expect to see more law enforcement officials and legislators expressing their concern in the near future, possibly in the form of badly-written bills filled with broad wording and unintended consequences.
But the broader harm won’t be felt by law enforcement. It will be felt by citizens “armed” with actual cell phones, who will find their devices confiscated more frequently, possibly with the assistance of deadly force.
Filed Under: filming, filming police, guns, mobile phones, police
Comments on “Startup Offers Citizens More Opportunities To Get Shot By/Have Their Smartphones Seized By Law Enforcement”
So Spielberg was right in editing E.T.?
Those are really big headset jacks ..
oh .. that is where the stylus go?
So cops shoot people with cell phones today and courts let them off. Now you are upset with a company that makes guns that look like cell phones?
Why are you not upset with the cops that unjustly shoot people?
Re: Re:
You obviously have not been reading this site before today.
Re: Re:
People can be upset at both. But, the fact that cops are already shooting people with phones should make it doubly troubling that a company is giving them more justification for doing so, surely?
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
The mere existence of this weapon is sufficient to justify a ‘frightened’ law officer into shooting someone. But then, it would be sufficient even if this was a prototype, or an ‘art project’ (which in many ways, this gun is).
The officer need merely know of the existence of this gun, to exercise this justification. Doesn’t need to know what the gun would actually look like. The victim could have been holding a flip-phone, no difference.
Re: The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Your country already did it in peru, supporting those inmunity laws (like “ley 30151”, supported by Spanish and USA parties to protect their business against peasants).
Re: The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
As other commenters have stated, officers have already been “mistaking” actual cell phones for guns, shooting the citizen, and then getting away with it because cries of “Officer Safety!” trump all. They did not wait for the existence of this weapon to decide that “Shoot first, ask questions later” was an instructional mnemonic, not a criticism.
Nice use of an obscure quote for a subject line, but you missed the “already”.
” “A boy spotted me in [a] restaurant and said loudly, ‘Mommy, Mommy, that guy’s got a gun!’ And then pretty much the whole restaurant stared at me,” Kjellberg told NBC News. He developed Ideal Conceal to avoid those awkward situations.”
https://apple.slashdot.org/story/16/03/29/2054244/company-creates-gun-that-looks-like-a-cellphone
In my mind its like buying condoms, if your embarrassed to pick them up and walk them to the counter you aren’t ready to have sex. If your upset because people point at you for carrying a gun, perhaps you shouldn’t carry one… or invent a hidden one that fits an already used trope of we were afraid it was a gun!
Re: Re:
*you’re x 2
Re: Re: Re:
I know I’m doing good when people focus on my typos rather than the content.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. Focusing on grammar or typos rather than refute your argument is the new ad hominem attack. Never let it slide my friend, always call them out on it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
What makes you think I want to refute his argument? Maybe I agree with it, and have nothing to add in that regard.
Re: Re:
Or carry concealed (your mileage may vary depending on jurisdiction).
Re: Re:
Not true at all. With all the hysteria it is just best that when someone decides to carry, nobody needs to know about it. Yes, open carry is legal in many places too, but not many people carry open.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t see how that refutes his point. If you can’t handle the attention that comes from carrying openly, then don’t do it – but regular old concealed carry seems like a much better solution than the cell phone gun.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“regular old concealed carry seems like a much better solution than the cell phone gun.”
But playing James Bond is so much more exciting, no?
AOW?
Not sure this would be classified as an AOW subject to Title II of the NFA unless it is designed with a smooth bore. There isn’t anything in the ATF definition for AOW about handguns being designated as AOW due to being able to be disguised as something else. The side image on the Wikipedia article that shows the image of the previous one is a little misleading. Here is the definition of AOW from the ATF website:
If the one in the Wikipedia article is classified as AOW it is likely because it has a smooth bore or wouldn’t classify as a pistol or revolver. This clearly would classify as a pistol and as long as it has a rifled bore I couldn’t see it qualifying as an AOW under the current ATF regulations. Of course the ATF is known to change the rules whenever they feel like it so who knows what will happen in the future.
Re: AOW?
Forgot link to definition on atf.gov:
https://atf-eregs.18f.gov/479-11/2016-00192#479-11
Re: AOW?
Not sure what part of “Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive” you’re having trouble with.
Re: Re: The other part.
I think the question is, why isn’t it a pistol?
I think if it qualifies as a pistol, it’s no longer an AOW..
People Who Insist On Carrying Guns Don’t Care About Others, Do They?
And that’s not going to change now.
Re: People Who Insist On Carrying Guns Don’t Care About Others, Do They?
There are a lot of people who carry guns who do care about others. Unless your willing to say all cops, guards, and members of the military are evil.
Also, a lot of concealed carry is people doing so for their own protection. That doesn’t mean they don’t care for others, it means they realize we live in a screwed up world.
I really hate how many people can’t seem to remove their rose colored glasses. This world has evil people in it. These people don’t care about the laws, so banning guns doesn’t effect them. Pretending you can wave a wand by passing laws and make bad things vanish is just stupid.
Re: Re: People Who Insist On Carrying Guns Don’t Care About Others, Do They?
Lawrence D’Oliveiro is a mouth-foaming gun grabber. You’re not going to convince him of anything; he’s just here to rant about how evil we are.
Re: People Who Insist On Carrying Guns Don’t Care About Others, Do They?
There are many, many people who carry guns that don’t care about others (i.e. criminals). There are many, many people who carry guns that do care about people (i.e. honest, law abiding citizens) because there are people who don’t care about people.
Looks like /someone/ just because the best friend of dirty cops everywhere...
And just like that cops with twitchy trigger fingers and/or cops that would really rather not have their actions recorded got the best gift they’ll ever receive, as though they really needed another excuse to steal phones, order people to put them away, or gun someone down because they ‘feared for their life’ after seeing a phone.
As TAG noted above if you’re embarrassed about the attention you get for carrying a gun, maybe that’s a sign that you’re not mature enough to be carrying one in the first place.
Re: Freakin' typos...
‘Looks like /someone/ just became the best friend of dirty cops everywhere…’
Check the main text for typos multiple times and completely miss the glaring one in the subject line, brilliant.
Hands
I once saw an an artificial hand and forearm that had been modified to incorporate a firearm that gave new meaning to the term “armed”. Does this mean that having hands is also a good reason for a cop to shoot you? Should a “good citizen” have their arms removed just to avoid making police nervous?
What, no 1st amendment defense? I thought that position was favorable here.
Re: Re:
You don’t actually have thoughts, so I understand your confusion.
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt is literally blaming the victim by saying police shootings of cell phone wielders are justified and gun makers should not express their first amendment right to free expression.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Reading comprehension and logic are not your strong suits are they? The article doesn’t say police shootings of people are justified. At all. It says the police will claim that this is evidence that it these shootings are justified. And a first amendment claim is very weak, especially since the person who made already stated what the purpose behind it was and that wasn’t to make some sort of political statement or anything like that. A better argument would be a second amendment argument but that one is a given so no one really needs to make it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That’s the police justification, as was pretty clear from the context in this article.
Way to go
All I can say is Ideal Conceal are Asshats. This thing is just inviting new gun regulations.
Re: Way to go
Not to mention it’s almost like it’s purposely designed to cause yet another ‘gun scare’ that THIS time the Federal Government will really do something about it after all those other shootings got them to do nothing.
Step 1: Build a gun that looks like a cell phone.
Step 2: Wait for a cop to kill someone with a cell phone because they thought it was one of these cell phone guns.
Step 3: Profit as gun lovers over-react and start to buy up a ton of guns and ammo at ridiculously inflated prices from fear of Obama/congress coming to take their guns away for sure this time.
Step 4: Repeat the process after Obama/congress does nothing yet again.
Re: Re: Way to go
I kind of like it. When everything looks like a gun because it looks like a cell phone maybe the jackass that would try to grab your kit won’t. The police? Pfft. What’s another reason to shoot gonna do? Make it worse?
Any person that wants a gun, really wants one, can get one. Is that a problem? I don’t think so. The problem is that one guy. Always that one guy.
The real problem is anybody that wants a law can get one. All them war laws and such are doing far more damage to multiple generations than any one man could possibly hope to inflict.. with a gun. Even Mr. Policeman – most are simply a construct of their surroundings.
Best part?
It doesn’t even have to exist. Someone just had to demonstrate that it was possible, and that’s all the excuse needed by police to say you’re threatening them by recording them with your cameraphone.
Just a bad idea
Hey, I’m a “gun guy” – NRA lifer, win shooting competitions; I don’t hunt and am disgusted at killing in general, no matter the tool used. Rarely, I might have to whack a varmint that’s hurting my pets, but I can usually just chase them off. Or I can shoot and miss on purpose, the bang and flying dirt gets the message across really well to your basic possum, racoon, deer, etc.
For all the reasons above, this is just a really bad idea.
I do carry some, sometimes open, sometimes concealed – far from impossible to conceal a “real” gun that will actually hit what it’s aimed at. This thing…maybe not so good and one would worry about collateral damage even more.
Open carry does attract attention, and can be very dumb. In VA, you can open carry in a bar (can only conceal if you’e a lawmaker – the “just us” system). I find that ignorant and the last place I’d ever show a gun – around a bunch of drunks, you gotta be kidding me. BTW, this stupidity applies to concealed permit holders as well (I help teach the course around here and help cops re-qualify). We all think that’s pretty dumb. Remove your gun in the parking lot where everyone sees you do it, then go where you can’t see the car? Just as dumb.
It can also be fun. My bank, the local liquor store – no reaction at all, to the point I asked. They said “We know you and know we’re safer this way than not – please ignore the signs and do open-carry here”. But go near a city where there’s been one of those mass shootings (always in gun free zones and usually by SSRI med takers) and people will actually come up and pick fights. Not pleasant. So I don’t do that. Simple enough. In those situations, conceal or don’t carry.
While the NRA might object to this comment, I basically avoid places where I think I might need a gun to defend myself. (Duh!) Since I’m not always right, I sometimes carry anyway, and thankfully, haven’t needed to use a gun that way, ever. I suspect the blinding laser on my main carry piece might even help me avoid needing the trigger – the object is to make the bad guy stop or run away, not kill him – that can be someone else’s job if necessary.
And that’s another hit on this idea. It isn’t obviously a gun, so lacks deterrent value. Staring down the bore of my “obviously and seriously the real deal” will make any even partially sane person re-think very quickly.
Some people might say “I can’t avoid those places”. I call bull. Pull up stakes and move. Yes, it’s hard, it’s expensive. Is your life worthless, then? It’s a question of balance. If you’re nice people, go live with we other ones. You’re welcome. I’m a refugee from DC myself…
Where I live – very rural – everyone has guns – a farmer might need to defend his crops or livestock – and we know how to shoot (A pretty big deal, look at all the cops who can’t hit anything they intend without emptying a few mags). There is zero crime, no murders, no killings. There is the odd crook, but they go a county or two over (less rural) where plying their trade is a lot safer. I like it like this, personally. “An armed society is a polite one”. Even with the huge egos on display at competitions, you bet everyone is very polite…we are all armed to the teeth and very good at what we do there.
Re: Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Just a bad idea
Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
Fun facts taken totally out of context don’t really mean anything. Sure a gun owner is more likely to be shot. I bet that fact includes all the self inflicted gunshots. Suicide attempt account for a very large portion of all gunshots, and lets be realistic, most people attempting suicide are going to regardless of access to a gun. So if suddenly there were no guns, they would just do something else.
Re: Re: Re: Just a bad idea
lets be realistic, most people attempting suicide are going to regardless of access to a gun.
I think that needs a citation. The easier you make it to do something on the spur of the moment, the more it’s going to happen. If someone with suicidal tendencies has access to a gun, it gets really easy to grab it and pull the trigger in a moment of crisis. If the person has to come up with some other way to do it, that might be enough to keep it from happening. Perhaps he’ll change his mind, or someone will show up and intervene, or a slower method will be selected that gives time for the person to be saved. It’s foolish to pretend that the presence of a gun around a depressed person cannot affect their probability of suicide.
Re: Re: Re:2 Just a bad idea
So everyone should quit something because some people are going to get hurt? Do we quit selling alcohol because people drink and drive? Or they become alcoholics? Do we quit selling cars because of the many fatal accidents? The whole suicide by gun thing is a complete red herring.
Re: Re: Re:3 Just a bad idea
So everyone should quit something because some people are going to get hurt?
I have no idea what you think I wrote. I just read it again and I can’t correlate this question with anything I actually stated.
The whole suicide by gun thing is a complete red herring.
In what way? Are you disputing the idea that gun accessibility has an effect on the suicide rates of depressed people?
Re: Re: Re:4 Just a bad idea
I am disputing that having things should be dictated by a small number of people unable to control themselves, be it alcohol, cars, guns, knives or any other thing. If someone wants to figure out how to identify someone who is suicidal and remove their guns, that would be great. But to make any argument that nobody should have them because of the few then it is a bogus argument, when carried to its logical conclusion means nobody could have anything.
Re: Re: Re:5 Just a bad idea
But to make any argument that nobody should have them because of the few then it is a bogus argument
OK, but nobody made that argument.
Re: Re: Re:6 Just a bad idea
Uh, yes he did.
Re: Re: Re:7 Just a bad idea
Lawrence didn’t, and neither did I. He said “Fun fact: those who own guns are more likely to be shot than those who don’t.” That isn’t arguing that all guns should be banned.
Re: Re: Re:8 Just a bad idea
But is that the Truth?
Has Pontifex Larry proven this the Truth? He always goes on about the Truth, let him prove it the Truth.
Carrying on in the great tradition of argentum mountain.
Re: Re: Re:8 Just a bad idea
Lawrence didn’t, and neither did I. He said “Fun fact: those who own guns are more likely to be shot than those who don’t.” That isn’t arguing that all guns should be banned.
Then what was it arguing?
Re: Re: Re:9 Just a bad idea
Then what was it arguing?
I would take it at face value and assume he was arguing that guns don’t provide safety, but the opposite.
Re: Re: Re:10 Just a bad idea
Um, no. FBI stats say people use guns in self defense 1 to 2 million times a year, many times it goes unreported. So I will take those odds. Also, the risk is mine to assume, you don’t need to worry about it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Just a bad idea
If someone with suicidal tendencies has access to a gun, it gets really easy to grab it and pull the trigger
So you didn’t say that? Weird, seems like you did.
Re: Re: Re:9 Just a bad idea
So you didn’t say that? Weird, seems like you did.
If you think that sentence says “we need to take away everyone’s guns”, then you have a very serious reading comprehension problem. If that is not what you were thinking then I missed your point.
FBI stats say people use guns in self defense 1 to 2 million times a year, many times it goes unreported.
That’s not actually contradictory. It can be true that people use guns in self defense, and at the same time that gun owners are also more likely to be shot than non gun owners.
Re: Re: Re:10 Just a bad idea
You certainly implied that as many anti-gunners do. Did you know car owners are more likely to get into car accidents? Who cares? It is my risk to take so why do you worry about it?
Re: Re: Re:11 Just a bad idea
You certainly implied that as many anti-gunners do.
I wrote what I meant. If I had meant to state that guns should be banned or confiscated I would have written that. If you want to assume things about what I think (including that I’m an anti-gunner), that’s on you.
Did you know car owners are more likely to get into car accidents?
I’m not the one who brought up that point, so that would be best addressed to Lawrence.
Re: Re: Re:11 Did you know car owners are more likely to get into car accidents?
Actually, no.
Re: Re: Re:12 Did you know car owners are more likely to get into car accidents?
Is that the truth?
Re: Re: Re:2 Just a bad idea
The point is that the gun is not really the issue. You want to take away everyone’s guns because someone might use it to shoot themselves? That is just stupid. If you start down that road then where will you stop? They also use pills, rope, household cleaners, buildings, cars, bridges, knives, and any number of other things.
To help the suicide numbers we need to actually treat the cause. There is a HUGE problem with our lacking any real help for mental illnesses. Knowing several people including family members who have depression I get rather frustrated seeing our society shunning them, all while doctors use them like lab rats tossing drugs around like candy to see what “works”. So how about instead of wasting energy trying to take guns, why don’t we use that energy to study mental illness and learn how we can really help these people.
Re: Re: Re:2 Just a bad idea
Why should everyone’s right to own a gun be limited by what some suicidal person might do in a moment of extremis?
Re: Re: Re:3 Just a bad idea
Why should everyone’s right to own a gun be limited by what some suicidal person might do in a moment of extremis?
Once again… nobody has argued that it should.
Re: Re: Re: Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
Somehow I doubt it.
We all have knives at home in our cutlery cabinet. How many of us get stabbed? Hardly any.
(I can’t speak for the US, of course…)
Re: Re: Re:2 Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
I don’t know where your located, but here in the US almost the exact same can be said of guns. There are guns all over in the US. They are not quite as common as a knife but they are pretty dang common, yet how common are shootings?
Something people often forget. If it is in the news then it ISN’T common. Someone dies in a car wreck and your lucky if it makes local news, unless they were famous you can forget about it making anything beyond a short blurb in local news. Shootings on the other hand often get picked up by news reports, because they don’t happen that much.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
They are not quite as common as a knife but they are pretty dang common, yet how common are shootings?
Over 40,000 people were shot in the US last year. That’s a lot, I think significantly more than were killed in car accidents (note one is deaths plus injuries, the other only deaths so I’m not comparing apples to apples, just noting for scale). I guess something that occurs over 100 times a day would have to be called fairly common, or at least not rare.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Re: Re: Re:4 significantly more than were killed in car accidents
Not only that, but the rate of traffic accidents is going down even as the number of cars increases.
The same cannot be said for guns.
Re: Re: Re:4 Car deaths vs. gun deaths in the US
Cars collision deaths and gun deaths have been neck-and-neck in the US for a while, but that’s because cars have gotten super safe (or safer than before).
Our homicides in general have plummeted to pre-mafia-drug-war levels, but that’s probably in the same realm as the plummet of most violent crime, probably to do with taking the lead out of gasoline. I’d rather blame it on internet porn.
Most of our gun deaths are suicides and that’s the real danger. Guns seem to be an easy, feasible way to off one’s self in the moment. We do have accidents and plenty of stupidity, but few of those are fatal.
What amazes me is that some of the gun-friendlier states allow one to shoot while drunk, which accounts for way too many firearm discharges and attempted murders. Here in California, you have to be sober enough to fly a plane before you can handle a firearm. It might be overkill, but I like it given I personally don’t trust people to drive with a legal non-zero blood-alcohol level.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
“Shootings on the other hand often get picked up by news reports, because they don’t happen that much”
Define “shooting”. Mass shootings? Sure. Other types of shooting happen regularly, daily in some areas. They certainly don’t make international news unless there’s an unusual component to them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
Hunting accidents also tend to get under reported by the press (Dick Cheney excepted). Many fatal hunting “accidents” might actually be planned murders. (Murdering someone on a commercial shooting range, as happened to “American Sniper” Chris Kyle, would of course be picked up by all the hidden cameras.)
Re: Re: Re:3 Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
Machin Shin:
Your general point (uncommon makes the news) is correct, but where I live (also in the U.S.) shootings don’t usually make the news unless it occurs in a rich neighborhood, the victim or alleged shooter is famous, or the shooting involves a lot of victims.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
Re: Re: Just a bad idea
Fun fact: those who own guns are more likely to be shot than those who don’t.
Fun fact: those who own rope are more likely to hang themselves with rope than those who don’t.
Outlaw rope?
Re: Re: Re: Just a bad idea
What are the official statistics for accidental shootings vs. accidental hangings? I’ll bet one of those figures is significantly higher…
Re: Re: Re:2 Just a bad idea
What are the official statistics for accidental car deaths vs accidental shootings? I’ll bet one of those figures is significantly higher…
Re: Re: Re:3 Just a bad idea
Yeah, move those goalposts.
Funny thing – because I’m from a country that doesn’t fetishise the things, I’ve never felt the need to touch a gun, let alone carry one. Yet, my daily life requires a vehicle but I’ve never felt the kind of mortal danger gun nuts insist they need guns to shield themselves from.
I wonder why? Must be something to do with one of those things not being designed for killing.
Re: Re: Re:4 Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re:5 Just a bad idea
Ah, someone who disagrees with you is a “gun grabber”. Why is that always the go-to conclusion? Maybe it’s the fear with which you respond to people questioning your ability to wield a death-dealing penis extension (as many Americans seem to treat them) is where I get the idea that you fetishise them.
Calm down, I’m not trying to take away your weapons, nor am I in a position to do so. I’m just commenting on how bizarre the thing whole thing is from a point of view of a country that’s not similarly obsessed about such things. Many other countries manage to live life without the obsession you have over deadly weapons, guns or otherwise.
What’s dishonest is trying to claim that people giving their honest opinions in a thread about your toys are lying.
Re: Re: Re:6 Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re:4 Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re:5 Just a bad idea
“your scared feelz”
I’ve managed 41 years on this planet without needing to carry a deadly weapon for protection. I’m not the one scared.
I’m glad your sister was able to protect herself, but I also wonder at the kind of culture that made her feel like she had to carry a gun with her at all times. It seems that was justified on one occasion, but I’m glad that’s not the culture my family are subjected to.
Re: Re: Re:6 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
I wonder how often the women in your family are subject to sexual harassment on the street.
Yes, it seems to happen quite a lot around here.
Usually it’s not the sort of thing to which a handgun is required, but here in the US, women are certainly not made to feel safe.
What nation are you from, PaulT, that women are treated with respect without the threat of force and brothers behind them?
Re: Re: Re:7 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
“I wonder how often the women in your family are subject to sexual harassment on the street.”
If it’s ever happened, they’ve never told me. They’d certainly have done so, especially if the only option saving them was to carry around a handgun. Why is your neighbourhood so incredibly dangerous for them?
“here in the US, women are certainly not made to feel safe.”
If it happens that often, you have bigger problems than whether or not someone wants to take away your shooting stick. Why are women so victimised by your people that they need to carry guns with them?
“What nation are you from, PaulT”
If only people were willing to read publicly available information… Is the desire for self-education not as prevalent as the need for deadly weaponry in your country? What a shame if not.
“that women are treated with respect without the threat of force and brothers behind them?”
I was raised where I don’t need a gun to provide force and where brothers don’t need the ability to kill in a split second strapped to them. Why do you feel it’s necessary?
Re: Re: Re:8 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
You didn’t answer my question, PaulT, and Spain isn’t exactly the paradise you make it out to be. So I don’t believe you. Maybe the women in your family have been very, very lucky, or maybe they tell you less than you know.
Harassment of women happens just about everywhere. And yes, I agree, it means we have far bigger problems then people uncomfortable with an armed public wanting to disarm their armed neighbors.
But I thought that was obvious.
Re: Re: Re:9 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
Harassment of women happens just about everywhere.
You mean it happens everywhere people don’t have guns right? Or are you saying guns are useless at stopping harassment of women?
Re: Re: Re:10 Guns vs. Harrassment
You mean it happens everywhere people don’t have guns right? Or are you saying guns are useless at stopping harassment of women?
I would jump to neither conclusion. First off, there is no populated place in the world where everyone carries a gun.
I don’t know if open carry deters harassment. Concealed carry obviously doesn’t.
I also don’t how often possessing a gun (and being adequately trained with it) makes a woman feel safer in an environment in which harrassment is commonplace. This doesn’t prevent the harrassment itself, but rather aleviates some of the lasting effects of harrassment.
Personally, I’d be glad for any ideas about how to allow women to walk the streets alone feeling as safe as I would. It’s a different problem than guns violence in general.
But if a woman feels unsafe walking the streets at night, and having a handgun changes that, then I think she should be allowed to carry a handgun. And, it’s notable that she is the first person disarmed by most gun control laws.
Re: Re: Re:11 Guns vs. Harrassment
“Concealed carry obviously doesn’t.”
Not letting people know you’re armed doesn’t stop them from acting like you’re not armed? Do you know how stupid it sounds that you find this surprising?
Re: Re: Re:12 Guns vs. Harrassment
Apparently my Californian dialect is confusing you. My use of the word obviously was to indicate it wasn’t surprising.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that we were having a dialogue rather than some kind of macho pissing match.
Perhaps you feel differently? Is this some kind of auditorium debate to you where winning through personal attacks and demagogy is more important than determining truth?
Re: Re: Re:13 Guns vs. Harrassment
Sorry if my observation angers you, but that sounded utterly ridiculous to me. It’s a shame that your gun obsession prevents you from seeing why.
Re: Re: Re:9 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
“You didn’t answer my question, PaulT, and Spain isn’t exactly the paradise you make it out to be”
It can be, but it’s not perfect. But even in the worst areas, I never felt that the only possible protection would be to carry a gun with me at all times. It’s a shame that you feel that way.
“Harassment of women happens just about everywhere”
Harassment? Yes. Harassment to the point where a woman has to carry a weapon at all times to save her life (as the guy I replied to said happened)? No.
I’ll never understand why you’re so obsessed with guns, but I’m glad I don’t have to live surrounded by people like you, or the people you think you have to defend against. I prefer a society where people can be mostly civil to each other without the threat of deadly force.
Re: Re: Re:10 I'll keep my liberty, thank you.
Harassment of women happens just about everywhere
Harassment? Yes. Harassment to the point where a woman has to carry a weapon at all times to save her life (as the guy I replied to said happened)? No.
Very well, let’s take a specific instance: some years ago, a young woman, a client of mine, was being stalked by a man twice her size. He would call her and had several times made verbal threats to kill her. She went to the police about it. They said there was nothing they could do.
She was terrified. I got for her some pepper spray of riot control caliber. It fired in a cone, would stain the target and was spicy enough to discourage a bear. This wasn’t enough for her. She felt she needed a handgun.
And so she got one. She trained with it. The guy never went through with his threats. She never shot anyone. But with that gun she felt safer and slept better at night.
Imagine, that this young woman was someone you care about (since you seem to not give two bits for anyone else). Would you tell her that for the sake of your peace of mind she has to live in fear for her life?
Or would you do her the service of going out and dispatching the stalker for her, at risk of assault / murder charges?
I’ll never understand why you’re so obsessed with guns, but I’m glad I don’t have to live surrounded by people like you, or the people you think you have to defend against. I prefer a society where people can be mostly civil to each other without the threat of deadly force.
I’m not obsessed with guns. I like gun lore, maybe, but I don’t feel the need to own one or shoot them in real life. But there are some things that I really do like, that I have found useful, but the state and some public organizations believed were dangerous. And I don’t trust people like you to stop at outlawing guns. If I were to allow you to ban guns, what would stop you from outlawing non-reproductive sex, rock-&-roll or free thought?
The truth is, the public has tried before many times. And they will again. The ability of people to determine what is or isn’t genuinely dangerous has been proven time and again to be severely inaccurate erring towards false positives.
Re: Re: Re:11 I'll keep my liberty, thank you.
“She felt she needed a handgun”
Such is the gun-obsessed culture you inhabit. I’d venture a guess that a woman in another culture wouldn’t demand a firearm and would be using an alternative method of self-defense. But, you people demand deadly force at all times.
“And I don’t trust people like you to stop at outlawing guns”
If you weren’t such a fool, you might realise that I’ve suggested no such thing. Attack the strawmen all you want, but you’ve invented a complete fiction at this point.
Re: Re: Re:12 Open hostility.
Interesting how you attack me for daring to suggest you or someone like you might saysomething and then at the same time you accuse me of making a demand I never did.
You’re right. I was a fool in trying to engage you as if you were interested in truthful discussion.
I stand corrected.
Re: Re: Re:13 Open hostility.
“at the same time you accuse me of making a demand I never did”
You insisted that people required handguns. Stated that nothing other than a handgun would be sufficient. How else am I supposed to read that?
I’m sorry that you read the questioning of your violent culture and daring to state the alternatives that exist in reality as not being truthful, but such is the conversation when sheltered minds get exposed to differing points of view. I’m still glad my friends have a multitude of ways to protect and/or entertain themselves that don’t require bullets, so I’ll be happy with that.
Re: Re: Re:8 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
Re: Re: Re:9 Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
“Why is it so hard for you to just use the word “gun”? You must have some reason for not doing so. Please, enlighten us”
It’s a strange world to me. I’ve never felt the need for a gun, let alone held the obsession with them that so many people in your country have. It’s alternately sad and laughable in my mind. Plus, typing “gun” lots of times gets boring so i use euphemisms.
Re: Re: Re:6 Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re:6 Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re:4 Fetishizing Guns
In fact, it is because guns are fetishized (read: enjoyed by enthusiasts) that they should stay free and available.
Remember, ours is a society that condemed Dungeons & Dragons and Rock-&-Roll and Huckleberry Finn and The Catcher In the Rye as being too dangerous for society. There are long lists of challeged books and banned ideas.
We still ban (or suppress approval) numerous kinds of birth control because the US largely thinks a healthy level of promiscuity is icky and offends state religion.
In short, the public and governmet suck at deciding what is dangerous or not. And as the War on Drugs demonstrates, the government sucks at enforcing bans without a fuck-ton of collateral damage.
Incidentally we in the US do fetishize guns as the great equalizer and as a populist symbol, empowering the common man to choose his own destiny, where Europe fetishized the horse empowering the elite to rule over (and tax, and fuck, and kill) the rabble. It doesn’t mean as much now that corporations can hire mercenaries, but banning guns in the US would certainly provide a symbol for the end of American freedom.
Re: Re: Re:5 Fetishizing Guns
I do enjoy the fact that everyone thinks that people who criticise the strange American fetish with these weapons must be trying to ban them.
Re: Re: Re:6 Fetishizing Guns
everyone thinks that people who criticise the strange American fetish with these weapons must be trying to ban them.
Because that’s typical. Those who don’t care about the status of guns aren’t concerned about the fetish. Those who call it a fetish typically are doing so derisively.
Mexico has guns the way the US has guns, and it’s part of their national heritage, given they’ve had to overthrow tyrants and European oppressors. Several times. Tell them its a fetish and you might get yourself shot dead.
Re: Re: Re:7 Fetishizing Guns
“Because that’s typical.”
Except where it’s not. But, since you just assume everyone is then you’ll never know who’s trying to take everything, who’s making sensible suggestions to reduce gun violence (which may not involve removing guns from current owners) and who’s merely taking the piss out of you.
“Those who call it a fetish typically are doing so derisively.”
Those who I use that term against deserve it. Need a gun to defend your home? Fine. I’d be questioning the reason why you feel so unsafe in your home, but as long as you don’t let your toddler play with it as so often happens, defend away.
Feel like you need military hardware to go hunting, like you need to wander down the local grocery store displaying your weapon or like you need to have a larger arsenal than many small countries? You might be a fetishist.
Re: Re: Re:8 Fetishizing Guns
Feel like you need military hardware to go hunting…
Sounds like you don’t know the difference between military weapons vs. hunting weapons. Unless it’s a new thing to shoot deer with AMRs, and that is to which you’re referring. I doubt it.
The whole point of the US is I should be able to wank to guns if that’s what gets me bothered. And I should be able to have a robust collection of working firearms from 1880 to present, if that’s what I wanted. Neither of these things should be derisible in this country. The former is because unlike most other industrialized nations, the US regards sex the way a bunch of nine-year-olds might. It would explain the open carry trends.
I agree that so many gun owners in this nation are pretty sucky at caring for, maintaining, keeping safe or even shooting straight with their weapons, what should have an implied responsibility, but those usually aren’t the same folks as the ones that keep a pristine arsenal of fifty-plus guns.
We should be allowed to like guns, own them and indulge in our enjoyment of them without further necessity for them. I shouldn’t have to justify to you, or a police officer or a court why I own a gun. It should be an accepted matter of course that I can, as much as I might own a car or a power tool or a swimming pool.
Frankly it surprises me, in a territory where police officers gun naked, unarmed people in the shower, or in their own bedroom, that you can feel safe in your home. I take you’re white, male and in a gated community. Many of us aren’t so lucky.
Re: Re: Re:9 Fetishizing Guns
“The whole point of the US is I should be able to wank to guns if that’s what gets me bothered”
Which is fine until other people start getting maimed and killed by your fetish. Then, some kind of moderation should be in order.
“Frankly it surprises me, in a territory where police officers gun naked, unarmed people in the shower, or in their own bedroom, that you can feel safe in your home. I take you’re white, male and in a gated community.”
Nope, just not American. How you put up with that sort of crap and decide that the answer is more weapons is beyond me.
Re: Re: Re:10 Literal fetishizing and wanking
The whole point of the US is I should be able to wank to guns if that’s what gets me bothered
Which is fine until other people start getting maimed and killed by your fetish. Then, some kind of moderation should be in order.
At that point, since I was being literal, I’m not sure how you imagine I would be maiming or killing others. Indeed, it’s curious considering that most gun owners enjoy their guns without maiming or killing anyone.
Reciprocity is the norm whether we have guns or not. Besides which, the Bill of Rights specifically enshrines that our ability to own our own weapons (or exercise any of our rights) doesn’t extend to use them to deprive life or liberty to anyone else. A gun is not license to murder any more than a car is license to run people over.
How you put up with that sort of crap [police brutality and overreach] and decide that the answer is more weapons is beyond me.
I’m not sure the answer is more weapons, but I find the notion that it’s fewer weapons equally dubious. It’s not the police seem to actually care whether their victims are armed or otherwise.
If you wouldn’t put up with that sort of crap, I take you have a better solution to our police brutality problem than disarming the public? If you don’t, it sounds very much like you actually would put up with that sort of crap.
Re: Re: Re:11 Literal fetishizing and wanking
“A gun is not license to murder any more than a car is license to run people over.”
I also consider people who obsess to that degree over cars to be fetishists, and I’m equally mystified by them. It’s just that I understand the appeal and utility of a car for its primary purpose (transportation) than a gun (whose primary purpose is always to fire a projectile with lethal force).
Death and injury from a vehicle is an unfortunate side-effect and one which people are going to great lengths to try and reduce – from redesigning cars to reduce damage to restricting who can operate them and how to now even attempting to remove human drivers completely. For some reason, even suggesting a way to reduce the incident of gun-related harm is met with complete opposition even when they are simple minor common sense measures based on real evidence.
“I take you have a better solution to our police brutality problem than disarming the public?”
Yes, it has to do with everything from the gun-obsessed culture that leads to police having to assume that everyone’s armed, to the attitude of the police themselves. I’ve lost count of the number of videos I’ve seen where an incident is instantly escalated to violence by the actions of the police, whereas in most other countries the police seem to have the ability to defuse situations without escalation to violence.
There’s no easy answer. It’s a complicated subject, but I don’t see how giving people more weapons – especially concealed weapons as described in the article – would do anything but greater harm.
Re: Re: Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re: Just a bad idea
Fun fact: those who have swimming pools are more likely to drown than those who don’t.
And apparently having a swimming pool is significantly more dangerous than having a gun.
Re: Re: Re:2 Just a bad idea
Re: Re: Re:3 Just a bad idea
Far more kids die every year in accidental pool drownings than die from accidental gunshot wounds.
By itself that means very little, but even if you take into account the number of households with at least one gun and the number with a pool, the pools are more dangerous.
Re: Just a bad idea
dcfusor wrote:
I’m glad your blankie makes you feel safer, but this is utter bullshit.
1. The “mass shootings happen only in gun-free zones” thing has been debunked.
2. Depression does not make a person more inclined to hurt other people. Attitudes like yours, though? They further stigmatize mental illness, and discourage people from seeking help who need it.
Sincerely,
An SSRI Med Taker
Re: Just a bad idea
But go near a city where there’s been one of those mass shootings (always in gun free zones and usually by SSRI med takers)
Chiming in too – please don’t imply that people who take SSRIs are violent. Also, citation needed.
Sincerely,
Father of an SSRI taker
Re: Just a bad idea
To be fair crime is generally lower in rural settings, armed or otherwise.
Though there is a shitload of racial and religious discrimination in such zones too, often endorsed by the local authorities.
And if you’re near a reservation, don’t you dare look even remotely Indian.
I am pro-2nd Amendment, pro-gun, pro-concealed carry. But this is ridiculous. Maybe it could spike the incidents getting shot by a cop, but I can almost guarantee it will increase the numbers of negligent discharges.
I I were paranoid I would suspect the person behind this startup to be a supporter of a police state.
Honestly who creates a startup for a gun disguised as something that does not look like a gun?
Re: Re:
“Honestly who creates a startup for a gun disguised as something that does not look like a gun?”
Cane Guns have been around for quite a while, same for Cane Swords.
People no longer generally carry canes as a fashion accessory or a mark of power, but they do carry cell phones.
The form factor is new. The concept is not.
Also released this week in the innocent looking guns catagory, this one makes it look fun!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJbS5PYQudQ
WHAT WOULD BE NICE
would be a service like 911..or a bypass signal to wifi..
Then add a tracking device to the unit that is not removable..
as soon as its more then 100 feet away, it starts a Tracking signal..
A Lowfi signal, can reach miles, easily..and you could even use a common radio to track it..
This is the US remember!
“When any smartphone could conceivably be a weapon, securing the scene means shooting dead anyone in possession of a smartphone“
FTFY
No
It really hasn’t.
?
“I’m not sure people are going to be more comforted that people are carrying guns they can’t see…”
You mean ‘concealed carry’? That’s the only way most state licenses work. It’s a new thing to allow it to be open. And yes, people are comforted either way.
It’s curious that every illustration of the gun is a computer rendering.
To me that suggests either
This is someone looking to raise money around this idea. They aren’t serious enough to build a prototype. That suggests that they can’t fabricate things (why would you fund them?) or will take the money and run (why would you fund them?)
It’s a false-flag operation, where someone is trying to get in the news or provide a “see, it could exist” example.
I can’t decide which is more likely. Before KickStarter, I wouldn’t have believed that people are gullible enough to invest in someone with just a rendering, with no financial oversight. Or even a nominal fiduciary responsibility.
Re: Re:
BINGO!!!
It’s rather amazing that no one called bullshit earlier.
A few other points ….
If we pretend for a moment that the device pictured is actually a working .380 caliber gun, it would need to be MUCH thicker than shown, since a modern smartphone is itself thinner than a .380 bullet. (A .22 caliber, however, could probably be made to fit within the confines of a normal-sized smartphone, but that’s not what’s advertised here)
Also, a .380 round would have painful, wrist-snapping recoil when fired from such a small, lightweight device, as those sharp edges would become embedded in the shooter’s hand.
Finally, the list price of $395 would be a pipe dream, as that would suggest a probable wholesale price of around $200. As this type of gun would definitely be considered a “AOW” under the (US) National Firearms Act, the manufacturer would be required to pay a $200 tax per gun to the ATF upon building it. So they’d be in essence giving it away virtually for free.
Buying an NFA weapon is another trouble spot. Many states outlaw them, and where they are legal, the ATF requires the buyer to submit an application, pay the tax, and wait about a year to be approved before taking delivery.
All in all, this cellphone gun smells likes pure bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:
How exactly would it be considered an AOW as long as it has a rifled bore?
“Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores…”
This would seem to clearly be classified as a pistol.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although the law does not specify one way or the other, the ATF has historically considered cane guns, pen guns, and other camouflaged firearms as AOWs, not pistols.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-8
Like many ATF rules, it’s basically based on their own creative interpretation of the English language and an extreme extrapolation of federal law, and don’t forget that they give themselves the right to contradict themselves or change their mind at any time as they see fit. Many ATF ‘legal opinions’ seem to defy reason and common sense, but if you don’t agree with their warped logic, then by all means feel free to fight your conviction all the way to the Supreme Court.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
As I said above, I agree with you that the ATF likes to make it up as they go. Afterall, they are basically tax collectors so anything they can do to squeeze more revenue they will. But from reading the definition, it seems pretty clear that they intend to classify firearms that are crafted out of ordinary objects which wouldn’t be classified as a pistol or a rifle, (such as pen and cane guns) instead of pistols designed to be concealed as other objects.
Re: I think you get the gold star of the day.
Whether or not it’s a serious product, it’s telling if they don’t even have a prototype.
It’ll be a shame if police-shootings and phone confiscations go up because of an idea that doesn’t actually exist.
Crying shame in 3…2…1…
Victims
“From soccer moms to professionals of every type, this gun allows you the option of not being a victim.”
It’s interesting that this person believes (or at least is pretending to believe) that the only way to avoid being a victim is to carry a gun. Everyone not armed gets victimized by criminals?
Re: Victims
The best way to not be a victim – and this is taught by gun groups as well as others, is situational awareness. If it feels wrong, it might be time to get outa there – but most are too lazy to keep paying attention, so they want some magic bubble wrap world that will never exist.
Leaving before the bad stuff can happen is the most desirable option. Guns are at most, a pretty crappy last resort. And best used when not fired, but just to make the bad guy give up and leave. Again, something the media doesn’t even find out about, much less report.
Re: Re: Victims
The best way to not be a victim – and this is taught by gun groups as well as others, is situational awareness. If it feels wrong, it might be time to get outa there – but most are too lazy to keep paying attention, so they want some magic bubble wrap world that will never exist.
Totally off topic, but this reminded me of a prank video where a guy strapped a (large) shark fin to his back and then swam around by a beach. It was pretty funny, but what surprised me is that often people didn’t notice him until he was right on top of them. If he had actually been a shark intent on a meal they would have been toast.
dumb idea
Yes, I’m white, kind of. I look more or less like an old homeless hippie-bum, though. Took awhile before the “really white” people figured out I’m OK.
Sorry, most mass shootings are in gun-free zones. Fact.
It’s much safer for the shooter, as guys like myself won’t have a gun there – I’m law abiding.
The rare case where a would-be mass shooting was stopped by someone with a gun – it has happened – is suppressed by the mainstream media. It happened at George Mason University in the last decade. One short blurb. Then crickets. You’d think that with all the people with guns it would happen more often. Maybe it does and isn’t reported, or maybe we respect the “no guns” zones and can’t. I’d hoped that people on this otherwise-intelligent and questioning site would do basic fact-checking and have a little skepticism about the media that brings us all the propaganda Mike and others here resist. You think copyright, TPP, TTIP, NDAA and so on are the only lies they tell?
Really?
Most mass shootings in the last decade are indeed done by people who are (or were prescribed) SSRI meds – I hear some people get pretty nuts when they stop taking them for whatever reason. Just saying otherwise or finding it said on some site that helps your confirmation bias doesn’t make it so. They put people on those meds for some perceived reason (which of course, might be wrong, doctors aren’t perfect), and IMO it should be on the form you fill out to get a gun legally, as one of the questions.
Sorry if people fall for the hoplophobe propaganda, it’s not my or any other reliable source’s data or experience.
Believe what you want – I’ll defend you and hope it makes you happy – but it won’t make it the truth.
Some people obviously haven’t read John Lott’s “More guns, less crime” – he started out anti-gun, but the data (he’s a careful statistician) – do show otherwise.
As we all know, the internet won’t take the bits if they aren’t true, right?
I suggest reading up on the truth track record of some of the anti-gun groups if you’re not afraid of having your confirmation bias blown. It’s about as good as say, Exxon’s on global warming. Not something you’d brag on.
Re: dumb idea
I’ll just leave this here…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Re: Re: University of Texas Tower Sniper Shooting of 1966
A friend of mine has a family story about that day. Her grandfather was there, got the police on the phone and had Whitman in his cross-hairs, and asked the police for permission to fire.
They didn’t give it and he didn’t.
Re: Re: Re: University of Texas Tower Sniper Shooting of 1966
Re: dumb idea
They put people on those meds for some perceived reason (which of course, might be wrong, doctors aren’t perfect), and IMO it should be on the form you fill out to get a gun legally, as one of the questions.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/health/gun-violence-mental-health-issue/
http://csgv.org/issues/guns-and-mental-health/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279714001471
I could go on but you can research further if you want to learn.
Re: dumb idea
Citations please?
Re: Re: dumb idea
There are none, they’ve all been suppressed by mainstream media…
Re: dumb idea
Some people obviously haven’t read the recent study that eliminated the flaws in Lott’s study design and found no correlation whatsoever between “right to carry” and mass shootings?
https://www.utdallas.edu/senate/documents/MassPublicShootings_000.pdf
Well, geez, if you heard it that than must make it more reliable than anything someone found on a site.
Re: Re: dumb idea
By the way…
You know what does correlate with mass shootings?
Prior incidents of domestic violence.
Re: Re: dumb idea
Is that the truth?
Just couldn’t resist.
Re: Re: Re: Is that the truth?
Butthurt, much?
Re: Re: Re:2 Is that the truth?
Is that the truth?
Re: Re: Re:3 Is that the truth?
Yes.
Re: Re: Re:4 Is that the truth?
From source given above as being your answer of yes.
So does lack of precision and argument is circular means what he says is an adequate answer?
Is this then the truth?
Or are you just full of it and can’t make a logical argument in support of your premise without being imprecise and circular?
Re: Re: Re:5 Or are you just full of it
Even if I am, my argument is still true.
Re: Re: Re:6 Or are you just full of it
Prove it. By your own opinionated wording, if you cannot prove it then we know what you are because you don’t tell the truth.
Or is it that you are the Authority and you believe everything you say is the truth? I think that is usually seen as having “Grand Delusions of Godhead”.
So, Prove it.
A non US view
As someone from the UK, I cannot fail to notice how the US homicide rate (per 100000) stats over decades (looked at stats 1950’s to date) have always been far higher for the US than the UK.
In the UK you can get guns e.g. most farmers have shotguns for vermin control, competitive shooting (shotgun, rife & pistol) is allowed, plenty of (rifle) deer shooting etc.
Various criminals get access to illegal guns, as there is always going to be kit smuggled in, “lost” from army bases, legal devices repurposed to become illegal weapons (e.g. conversion of a blank firing pistol used to start athletic events into a device cable of firing live rounds) etc.
There are very few shops selling guns / ammunition as gun usage is so low.
A key thing is that there are lot’s of restrictions (so if someone was carrying a shotgun in public e.g. on their way to a job killing rabbits in a farmers crop field they would have it carried in a case of some sort) – having an openly uncased gun in public (e.g. in a town street, not on the aforementioned rabbit culling field) would typically merit a rapid armed police response as it would be assumed a crime was about to be committed.
Thus the vast majority of homicides in the UK are not gun related, but are due to knives, physical assault, vehicle etc.
Mass homicides in a short timespace (as opposed to serial killers doing lots over many months / years) tend to be rare, purely because the easiest tool for such a task is a gun and they are not that easy for the average disaffected spree killer to obtain.
Plenty of murders happen, but they are typically less easy than a “gun murder” – to knife someone / beat someone with fists / hammer etc. the attacker (unlike with a gun) needs to be close enough to the planned victim to put themselves at risk (which may well cause some potential attackers to “chicken out” of the attack)
So, based on my non US experience, the more guns = more safety idea is met with some scepticism, as low guns = low homicide rate here.
About the only place I can think of with high guns / low crime is Switzerland where many people have guns due to conscription into military when young (weapons held at home) & after military service over option to keep gun for personal use. As a tourist there I saw the odd (unloaded) military use rifle over someone’s back, but no civilian concealed / open carries (public carrying carefully licenced there, you need a credible reason e.g. a specific risk to yourself necessitating a gun)
Re: A non US view
About the only place I can think of with high guns / low crime is Switzerland
However the Swiss have a high gun related suicide rate.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-troubling-record-of-suicide/8301804
In fact even if guns did reduce crime (which they don’t) it is likely that the difference would be more than compensated by suicides and accidents.
Re: Re: A non US view
“However the Swiss have a high gun related suicide rate.”
Suicidal people use whatever tools are available, especially if it’s a serious attempt. If there’s a gun nearby they’re more likely to use that than a more painful/less reliable form of suicide. None of this is surprising – if you want to kill yourself and you’re more likely to be near a gun, you’re more likely to use the gun. You only get creative when you don’t have lethal weapons sitting nearby.
However, it’s worth noting that the rate is only “high” according to that article compared to other European countries. It’s still not as high as the US.
“it is likely that the difference would be more than compensated by suicides and accidents”
Not really. According to the figures in Wikipedia, at least, while Switzerland has a gun related homicide rate around 15 times higher, the suicide rate in the US is still around double and the “unintentional” rate is just over half. Only the “undetermined” figure is close between the two countries. I couldn’t find a similarly easy to read set of stats on non-lethal events, but I’d imagine some correlation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
These figures are obviously still high compared to the UK and other European countries. But, whichever way you choose to slice it, there’s more than simple gun ownership causing the problems the US is facing.
Re: Re: Re: A non US view
There’s definitely a correlation between gun availability and suicide rate, in that it provides a means that is particularly quick and available to someone who is driven to impulsiveness.
Having an armed society means we’ll have to live with that risk. It’d be nice if we took mental health more seriously, and approached the suicide problem that way. It’d also be nice if gun owners approached fire discipline and gun care and safety with some gravity.
Re: Most homicides are hand-to-hand.
Granted, this includes all the Cluedo weapons but the rope and revolver (and handgun homicides by far outnumber all other guns). It also includes lucky punches, throttling and defenestration.
But even if every gun murder is magically stopped, that will only mildly dent the entire murder rate.
Re: A non US view
Plenty of murders happen, but they are typically less easy than a “gun murder” – to knife someone / beat someone with fists / hammer etc.
Or a bomb? The murderer doesn’t even have to be there when it goes off. Seems I recall this happening more than a few times in the UK.
the attacker (unlike with a gun) needs to be close enough to the planned victim to put themselves at risk (which may well cause some potential attackers to “chicken out” of the attack)
Maybe, if you can be sure your “planned victim” doesn’t also have a gun. Gun laws are good for providing that safety factor for attackers. I mean, you wouldn’t want your intended victims shooting back, would you? That might be enough to make you “chicken out”.
I think this thing is silly. If I’m going to carry a derringer, I’m gonna carry a derringer with some potency. If the folding grip limits me to a .380ACP, I just don’t see the point. Even sticking with a base caliber of 9mm, I’d rather have a .38 special or .357 magnum. If I wanted something with a .380ACP, I’d rather carry an automatic that is not much bigger than this thing. To me, it strikes of a solution in search of a problem.