Slashdot Mirror
Company Creates Gun That Looks Like a Cellphone (nbcnews.com)
Earthquake Retrofit writes: Sometimes you want to carry your gun in peace, but people keep drawing attention to your piece. This very issue plagued Kirk Kjellberg, the creator of Ideal Conceal, a [.380-caliber pistol] that folds up to look like a smartphone. "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.
According to NBC News, "In locked position, the two-shot plastic gun with a metal core can be discreetly slipped into pockets, like a real phone. But 'with one click of the safety it opens and is ready to fire,' Ideal Conceal claims. The Department of Homeland Security has contacted him about the pistol, and he plans on giving them x-rays of it so law enforcement can distinguish it from cellphones during airport screenings. An Ideal Conceal prototype is slated for June, with sales beginning in October. The gun is listed for $395."
Are you trying to get shot? Because that is how you get shot...
giving all those idiots who say 'I thought it was a gun' extra excuses.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
iShoot
Table-ized A.I.
So the guy's carrying a gun in a way that a kid notices, gets attention for it, and then creates this weapon so he won't feel awkward??? Rather than coming up with something that people will most definitely abuse, perhaps he should figure out a better way to conceal his lethal weapons. If he absolutely must carry them.
Nice little toy, though I do think its quite horrible of him to give images to law enforcement.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
"A boy spotted me in [a] restaurant and said loudly, 'Mommy, Mommy, that guy's got a gun!'
So instead of thinking "maybe I shouldn't carry a weapon when I go to a family restaurant", his first reaction was "How can I hide it better?".
Faith in humanity: Lost.
Bulldog holsters makes a "cell phone" cases in both ballistic nylon and leather. You cannot see what is in the cases and thats what counts. http://www.bulldogcases.com/ca...
Passionately Indifferent
No thanks. It's not like it's hard to conceal carry already. Plus only 2 rounds.... I'll stick with my 7 rounds of 9mm that is not that hard to carry out of view.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What an amazing story to explain why you're an asshole that was gagging for an opportunity. I need his help for some excuses on why I may be home late or something
this disguise has been done before. link: http://www.snopes.com/crime/wa...
Use care taking "selfies".
Don't step on the baby.
Can he make it look like the woman carrying on a conversation on the bus at the top of her lungs? 'Cause I'm definitely in favor of her taking a bullet from, well, anyone who mistakes (or doesn't mistake) her for brandishing a weapon.
So you guys are ashamed of your guns or something?
The whole "concealed carry prevents crime" idea relies on criminals having above average intelligence and thinking ahead. It's only if the thing is there to be seen that the "deterrent" idea is anything other than a poor excuse.
Any plans to share the X ray profile it with law enforcement agencies in other countries? Probably not, because this dude only acted on it when Homeland security came knocking.
Good for him than gun manufactures are indemnified from product liability in the US.
Let's not even consider the stupidity of making this thing "look" like a cellphone. If you are going to design a "hidden" weapon, it needs to be something that is not designed for causing "I though it was a gun" excuses like mkohne pointed out. Forcing a police officer to decide if the bystander pulling out their cell-phone is texting or shooting is going to cause all sorts of problems.
I can see a "folder" derringer-like pistol being useful - for a woman's purse. But not in .380. Possibly in .22 or similar. .17 would be even smarter. .380 without a full grip is asking for hand/wrist damage. For close-in concealed and defensive, a derringer-like pistol is the way to go. There used to be concealed pistols designed for 'cleavage' and 'garter' carriage - please pardon the pun, the ultimate in feminine protection - but that market segment got swallowed up by the "9mm Black Pistol Zealots."
But for crying out loud, a cellphone?
I'd think that this gun would fall under the BATFE classification as "any other weapon" under Title II, making it very difficult to purchase in most states. It is a gun designed to not look like a gun, which even if it was allowed by federal law would make it prohibited as a "zip gun" or some other designation by state law.
I believe that the problem is the hopolophobes can't stand the idea of people being armed for their own defense. Disguising weapons to look like something else is only going to make their phobia worse.
I also believe that this is an inevitable development. People have been looking for ways to conceal their ability to defend themselves for many reasons for many years. Swords and guns that look like canes are not a new idea. There have been pocket pistols that look like pocket watches since the Civil War, if not earlier. With technologies like 3D printing getting cheaper and more widely available ideas like this will be easier to implement and more difficult for law enforcement to control.
Not I new idea, far from it. What is new, I suppose, is that this guy wants to market it at a time and place where they've been effectively banned for a century. The laws are changing though. Expect the BATFE to either throw a fit over this or make some ruling that will open the flood gates on guns like this again.
AOW reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Another thing, concealed carry is getting popular. Nine states in the USA now have provisions in law that do not prohibit concealed carry without first obtaining government permission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Either nobody carries a gun or everybody does. In between is asking for trouble.
14 people killed by "terrorists", 14,000 killed by americans.
Statistically you are more likely to be killed by someone you know, family, neighbour, work colleague than by a stranger and a LOT more likely to b killed by an american than by a terrorist.
If you are scared of ISIS, then you should be terrified of vending machines, because each year they kill more americans.
Since we're talking statistics, and since I do statistics for my day job, I'd like to point out the OUTRIGHT FALLACY of citing what I call "slice" statistics.
"Slice" statistics are statistics that only look at a "slice" of the problem, and are used to make an emotional argument in the mind of the reader. For example, if you own a gun it's much more likely that someone in your family will get shot.
While that may be true, it's not the right statistic to look at.
For example: countries that ban guns have a lower incidence of gun deaths.
That may also be true, and again it's not the right statistic to look at.
The right statistic is this: if you own guns, will your (and your family's) average lifespan be longer or shorter?
This is the one statistic to look at. If most family shootings are suicides *and* the person would have committed suicide anyway, then this statistic will sort it out. If you catch pneumonia because you got robbed and had to put off buying a winter coat, but your neighbour scared away an intruder and wasn't robbed... then lifespan will detect this as well.
Lifespan is affected by many things, and comparing, for example America with the UK (or another modern nation) won't work because the UK has excellent health care.
Instead, compare roughly similar areas in the US that have easy access to guns and harsh restrictions. Compare NH to Illinois or Houston to Washington, DC.
Let's see some real statistics here, not the "it's more likely that someone you know will kill you" crap.
the real purpose is to give law enforcement an excuse to ban cell recordings of them in public.
First, the kid should not have seen the guy's concealed weapon... because: concealed.
Second, responsible handgun carriers typically carry them in a holster, to eliminate the possibility of lint getting into the barrel(s) (and to cover the trigger, though this design already has that covered)... and to keep them pretty. Even pocket guns get pocket holsters.
Third, I'm pretty sure this design will not be legal in some states. It puts me in mind of some laws that prevent guns that are disguised by their holsters.
Done
Have gnu, will travel.
Leave it to the ammosexuals to figure out a way to flush this country even further down the shitter.
How long before we read the story of the Florida man who tried to take a selfie of his dick and ended up blowing his nuts off?
You are welcome on my lawn.
So if I reach for my cellphone, I'm dead.
Which is pretty much the expected outcome when looking down the barrel of a Police Special, no matter which side of the law is holding the gun.
The tricked-up one or two-shot pocket pistol has been around forever. You are down to Custard's Last Stand, your back to the wall, you'll be damn lucky to get a clean shot off and the story ends just as you would expect.
A large part of the defensive value of a gun is the visibility to the criminal of the gun in the hand of the intended victim. If instead of seeing a gun pointed at him, the criminal sees a cell-phone-cum-transformer pointed at him, the deterrent factor will be lessened, me thinks.
Like normal people. *sigh*
Wear a proper IWB (Inside-The-Waistband) holster, use some brains when you dress, and you won't "get made."
A winged IWB holster + a loose t-shirt = invisible. Still need to be a bit mindful to not let the t-shirt ride up. It won't, under most conditions. But if you slouch deep into a reclined chair, it can happen.
Too many people just shove the piece in their pocket or jam it in their waistbands without a holster. That's just looking to get made, or worse, have a negligent discharge.
And oh yeah... select a piece suitable for carry for your size and circumstances. This is no time for what you want to carry, it's time for what you can carry.
Dunno why but this article smacks of advertising.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I can't help but wonder what the accidental suicide rate will be for anyone who owns both.
We see it has shot its load under the pressure of various conservative nerds that can't get enough of this item. Is there a conceal-carry permit that defends webservers from spikes in traffic?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
So a slingshot firing a projectile does more damage than a gun firing an identical projectile, assuming identical projectiles and an efficient, well-designed gun made for that bullet and an efficient, well-designed slingshot made for the same projectile.
I think not.
Heck, even if you allow for the small extra mass of the shell casing and un-exploded gunpowder in the slingshot, the gun will send the bullet out with far more momentum and far more energy than any normal slingshot could.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Guns in the US are generally required by law to look like guns. Before those laws, there used to be a wide variety of stealth guns available to the public (later only available to the secret service): cane guns, palm guns, lipstick pistols, flashlight guns, tiny ring guns, skeleton key guns,
Because one day I might absent-mindedly answer it.
I read not long ago, about a cop that shot a guy with a knife because he had seen guns that looked like knifes being sold at walmart or wherever. Now they'll be able to use the line "I saw a cellphone and there are cellphone guns now so...".
Nullius in verba
http://gizmodo.com/can-a-slingshot-hit-harder-than-a-pistol-spoiler-dam-951914923
You could be wrong. Exit velocity, Joules of Energy Released, Momentum of projectile.
And the winner is: SlingShot.
That little jerk from a pistol in your hand is the equal and opposite reaction of the bullet.
A gun isn't a magical killing machine. And, a crossbow can put a rifle to shame.
... You might be shooting your mouth off.
You surely dont think facts are going to convince the cowardly micro dick ammosexuals do you?
A whole world full of blatantly obvious eveidence clearly shows more guns = more shootings, despite the pathetic attempts to fudge figures by gun nuts.
Personally, I would like to see all Americans armed, theyre so good at shooting each other it help raise the average iq of the planet when another fuckwad dies, and takes down the number of deluded violence crazed asshloes, win win.
Didn't call it the iGun. Afraid of getting sued by Apple? Anyway, hope it comes with sights on the side.
Except the sling shot rounds used were much larger and have much less penetrating power
Seems like something out that movie.
Cripes, if you can't tolerate the social attention, which can come from carrying a gun in public, you shouldn't carry a gun in public. Carrying a gun in public is one of the greatest responsibilities the average american can have. It is not for the mentally unbalanced, the nervous, or the angry. Many people should not do it. In my stressful job, I know my mental stability is low, so I have mine locked up some place far from my apartment.
Let's try that test again using actual bullets, or, if you must, identical-mass projectiles.
A 1-inch steel ball has a mass of about 66g, give or take.
66 grams is about 1020 grains give or take.
Your typical 44 magnum - which was one of the biggest bullets used in the video - typically weighs in at 250-400 grains, but it could be a tad more.
So, if we cut the mass of that steel ball down that of the 44 magnum - either by using some other material, making it hollow or filled with air pockets, or reducing its size, how would it compare against the bullet?
If we further reduced its mass so it was equal to the other bullets tested in the video, how would it fair?
My guess is that unless you had a very inefficient gun, the gun would beat the slingshot.
Having said that, there are some inefficient guns out there and I wouldn't be surprised if a few well-known guns were less powerful "at the target" than the best-engineered, best-built slingshot for a same-mass projectile.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The US military, and local wars, has kept the terrorists busy, and unable to control large swaths of territory, except for the last year. ISIS has been mass producing terrorist operatives, and sending them off to Europe, disguised as refugees. How many casualties are hundreds of car bombs capable of? I think Europe will soon find out. It's a good thing many ISIS operatives have been tied down fighting Assad, the Kurds, and Iraqi government.
Fuck DHS/TSA those asses can **buy** a unit from him and photograph it themselves!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Why the fuck is it so hard for liberals to comprehend this? If we want to engage is intellectually masturbatory exercises in torturing the interpretation of the Constitution: The first amendment limits Congress explicitly; state governments are free to pass laws that shit all over freedom of religion, speech, the press, and the rights of the people to assemble and petition the government. And hey, maybe the Feds could even encourage it by using federal highway funds to extort - uh - convince the states to see reason.
"Other people don't like being around people with guns all the time? They'd rather go out to social in environments where they don't have to be around tools specifically designed to kill and intimidate people held by strangers who clearly feel they need to have the constant threat of violence about them? People would rather not go out and have strangers with guns around themselves and their children? This can't mean there's anything wrong with my values so I'll just try to find a work around."
Get a clue people. No one likes hanging out with a nut with a gun besides another nut with a gun. Gun ownership in general is a tricky issue for me but anyone who showed up to my home or at a social event I started at a public place with a gun would never be invited back. If they had a disguised piece I'd be doubly pissed that they tried to hide it from me.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
How long before little Johnny or Jilly goes to phone mummy and shoots themselves or someone else?
Done
If a stupid lady who doesn't realize that coffee is hot, can sue McDonalds for millions of dollars because she spilled hot coffee in her lap,
If the pain of hot coffee in the lap is worth $1,000,000.00 then surely getting shot, even if survivable where there are so many differing possibilities of being, disfigured or permanently injured.. is surely worth 100 to 1000 times that, so:
If I am a cellphone user minding my own business and I get shot because someone thinks my cellphone is a gun, Two things will happen:
1- I will sue the shooter for every cent he makes or will ever make in his lifetime.
2- I will sue the manufacturer for every cent he has made on this product and ever will make.
then I will retire.
then I will retire.
retirement 6 feet under ground kind of sucks.
...a cellphone that looks like a gun!
There is no reason for a civilian to carry a firearm in public. America is fucking crazyland...
Projectiles are not hollowed out to be lighter in order to be the same as some other projectile. That would of course be stupid. So you've pointed out that if you did something stupid and pointless, it wouldn't work well.
Which is more dangerous, a car with a drunk driver, or a rat?
Obviously the drunk driver is more likely to kill someone. Oh but IF the car weighed only as much as a rat it wouldn't be dangerous, therefore drunk driving is not dangerous, right?
There have been other firearms made that look like a cell phone.
Here's a rather old video of a fake phone that can fire four rounds of .22 ammo. I'll bet accuracy is terrible with no sights and probably no rifled barrels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1SRtkhh-U
The new one is presumably firing something bigger than .22, but it's still not the first time something a gun/phone has been made. It may be the first time someone has planned to mass-produce such a thing, though.
Even back in the World War II days there were single-shot .22 weapons made to look like pens.
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2287
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Cool idea, but this will just give trigger-happy cops another reason to be able to shoot you to death and get away with it. :(
"I thought it was one of those cell-phone guns, and I feared for my life, your honor!"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
... that doesn't involve doing things that are at the very least dubious, if not actually completely illegal?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Looking at the bad Photoshop/Rendering of someone holding it, I don't think it's a real product. I'm not even sure how many rounds it could possibly hold.
You are conflating several bullshit statistics, cherry picked without rhyme or reason.
Meanwhile, back in reality, concealed carry laws have been debunked as the cause for lower crime rates.
And no, it isn't the stand your ground laws either.
Hint: Florida ain't the only state with conceal carry nor stand-your-ground laws. Where are those supposed low Florida numbers in all other states?
In fact, ALL 50 STATES have concealed carry laws. It's just that some require a concealed carry LICENSE.
Of those that DON'T REQUIRE A LICENSE - two (Alaska, New Mexico) are first and second on the list of the most dangerous US states, due to their high violent crime rate.
Florida is ninth.
Shouldn't easier concealed carry mean less violent crime?
And what about three other states (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont) that also don't require a license - but which are among the most peaceful states?
Vermont and Maine being the most peaceful states.
How can the same easier concealed carry actually create less violent crime in these states but not in others?
I.e. Concealed carry, with or without a permit IS NOT the cause nor is it an indicator of violent crime rates.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... it could protect people not only form firearms but also at traffic accidents, falling down, etc.
This could really be a big hit for the convention. This way the trump backers can protect themselves from the nasty Cruz followers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Let's make something carried almost universally now by travellers be suspect as a weapon!!!!! The cops would NEVER overreact to that!
"Please step out of your car. I see a weapon mounted on your dashboard."
"What? That's just my cellphone!"
*BLAM*
I love you man.
Preach brother !!!!!
I've been concealed-carrying 24x7 a full-size auto since before the advent of mr. Glock's tupperware. It's not hard to do properly and undetected (and is, in fact, the way recommended by the relevant law enforcement agency in my locale - charges of intimidation or "pointing of fire arm" have allegedly been laid in the past when not concealed completely.) I have discovered tacky/sticky holsters about 2 years ago, which do not have any tell-tale devices outside the waistband whatsoever, and consider these a huge improvement in the area. I normally dress informally: t-shirts or open-neck shirts with shorts or cargo pants/jeans, jackets or sweaters may stay packed away for around 7-8 months of the year due to warmer climate. I even carry when doing sport (bicycling in my case). Where I live, every now and then a cyclist is forcibly relieved of his bike (especially the expensive equipment), his mobile or wallet, and even his life.
I have to say, I find two shots of 9mm Short a bit on the inadequate side - about as practical as that mechanism requiring some complex and iffy transformation before being usable. I don't know about this inventor, but under stressful/life-threatening conditions I tend to loose fine-motor skills and feeling in my extremities (especially fingers).
So I would have to say: do not want. But, the world is big and there are bound to be enough people that think this is a worthwhile object to acquire.
(And to those that think this Anonymous Coward is much paranoid, I'm glad to say that having had that equipment with me has already paid off a couple of times - the most notable being preventing a home invasion at 02:00 from escalating (in this case the concealment ironically was bed covers). I'm quite glad I haven't actually had to discharge it at a presumed perpetrator, yet. Of course again, YMMV.)
With a whole new meaning.
then I will retire.
retirement 6 feet under ground kind of sucks.
You have a problem still (since kindergarten apparently) with this whole concept of "Cause and Effect"
See if I survived the gun encounter, to successfully sue the police or the manufacturer.. It implies (Very strongly) that I did not die in the gun encounter.
Sadly however, eventually we will all retire underground and become worm food.
You might want to talk to someone about that low IQ you have going on there.. Your scorching case of the Dunning Kruger effect doesn't seem to be helping you either.
So airport security cant even identify bullets from xrays? Talk about security theather...
So now when the bad guy steals your iPhone and notices the con he gets to shoot you too?
I also carry. If I ever fire, it was because I was under real threat of mortal injury.
No, it will be because you THINK you were under real threat. There is a huge difference. Problem is that you might be wrong and if you are the consequences are severe. Sadly that is too often the case. Police officers who are experienced in dealing with hostile and sometimes armed people make that mistake rather often. You lack the training and experience they have so what makes you think you will be any more successful in differentiating a real threat from an imagined one? Remember that most people who carry firearms have zero actual experience using firearms in a hostile situation. If you are wrong the best case scenario is that you go to jail for assault or worse and that an innocent person gets hurt or killed.
While I don't have a problem with people having the right to carry, I think most of them are delusional about how well they would react to an actual or perceived threat. Worse I think most of them are badly trained if they are trained at all (no your NRA safety course isn't going to prepare you for combat), mentally ill equipped, unpracticed and won't react properly when the shit hits the fan.
Well, I kind of learned to be from adventures overseas. I had one attempted mugging in Amsterdam, one successful one in Marsellies, was shot in the leg in Bogota, and was robbed in Rio.
Sounds like you haven't a clue how to be safe overseas. I've traveled quite a lot, including to some not-so-friendly locations, and not I nor anyone I know who has traveled a lot to these places has been assaulted. Why? Because they didn't do stupid things while in a foreign country. Bad things can happen to anyone and if you get assaulted once then you can chalk that up to bad luck. It happens sometimes. But if you've been assaulted 4 times then the problem isn't them, it's you.
If you've actually been assaulted that much and you aren't just making up stories then you are doing something wrong. The common denominator is YOU and your behavior, not your lack of a weapon. The only thing that would have happened if you had a weapon in all likelihood is that either you or someone else would probably be dead or in jail right now.
This.
Except I outsourced the manufacturing of the weapon to Ruger (LCP) and the "looks like a cell phone" aspect comes from keeping it in a pocket holster with an iPhone 4 back glass to reduce printing. Oh, you know what else helps its concealability? Being comfortable with it staying in my pocket. Always. ...not wanting to parade it around to find opportunities to preach about my rights or get approving nods from Bubba and Cletus. Jesus, redneck America, stop fondling your effing guns! Not only will they go unnoticed, but the people around you will be safer as well.
.380 is a pretty crappy caliber. But i guess he needed something small, you'd think though with today's phablets you'd be able to use something a little larger. Even a 9mm is the same diameter, yet a bit longer and more powerful.
-Pizentios
Police are already claiming that you can't film them because there are guns disguised as cell phones so they have to make you put the phone away "for their safety". Of course, it's complete bullshit and they just don't want accountability.
Until now.
This is the reason the Geneva Conventions require soldiers to be dressed in uniform. When soldiers start dressing as civilians, actual civilians are harmed at a far higher rate because nobody knows who the enemy is.
Now we're giving police officers in this country plausible reason to take your cell phone because "they thought it was a gun." Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Do you have ESP?
Swipe left to shoot
I'm pretty sure these have been around for years.
If I needed to use my gun in a sudden self-defense situation, I'd much rather have a "real" gun and not this gimmick. I would suggest anyone who is ashamed of their gun to simply learn to conceal it properly. Myself, I open carry my gun everywhere I go. I'm not ashamed of it. If people want to stare, let them stare.
It's odd. I am constantly reminded about the "evil, racist, police" that kill people with impunity and am also constantly reminded that, in order to be safe, the only people that should possess a gun are police.
Outlawing guns means that only outlaws will have guns. The safest possible society would be to make it mandatory for all adults to go through firearm safety and marksman training and then for each one to be issued a gun. Crime would pretty much disappear.
Most criminals only commit crimes with guns because they know nobody else around is likely to also have a gun. It gives them the upper hand to do what they like. Most criminals wouldn't dare commit a crime with a gun if they knew for sure that every single person around them had a gun too.
Most ideas are just dumb, but it seems that in the US, dumb ideas are endorsed and people rally behind them.
Bette to have an AR-15 now and go all out than bother with not having any gun and being shot for texting.
I'd have an AR-15 if I lived in the US.
Am I the only one who see's the child's reaction as a sign of the parental teaching? Like it was a "bad thing" that this guy had a weapon and that the child was taught to immediately report to the parent and to the world if someone has a gun.
Assualt is the threat of violence.
Assault is more than the mere threat of violence. "In common law, assault is harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." Note that assault is separate from battery. You can assault someone (throw a punch and miss) without battery.
Discharging a firearm at someone is attempted murder...
Not necessarily. Murder is the killing of a person without justification or a valid reason. If you fire a loaded gun at me and I kill you in response, it is by definition not murder because I had a valid excuse (self defense). It IS attempted homicide but to be murder requires certain factors to come into play. For homicide intent doesn't matter. For murder intent matters greatly.
Have you ever actually spoken to a police officer when they were out of uniform?
Not only have I spoken with quite a few of them, my grandfather was a police officer. I have several good friends who are on various police forces and sheriffs offices. I've spoken to them at some length about many of the topics in this thread. Very interesting conversations actually. You are correct that they don't tend to readily discuss this stuff but if they know you they will talk about it. No, not all of them are jaded and paranoid though that is a risk of the profession.
Apparently you have the right to carry a gun, but I don't have the right to know if you're carrying a gun.
As far as I'm concerned, carrying a gun is far less safe than not. If you carry a gun, I am less safe around you. And I can't know if you're carrying a gun.
The US Constitution is quite literally a "law" (recognizing document) that makes it black letter illegal to restrict guns in the capitol building.
The Constitution say "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". (I'm not getting into the militia bit) Like the rest of the Constitution it is not a right without limits and that has been held up by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. See District of Columbia v Heller. You do not and never have had the right to carry firearms in any manner you choose for any purpose. Your right to carry arms is not infringed by the reasonable prohibition of you doing so in the Capitol. There is no reasonable purpose (self defense or otherwise) you can come up with whereby it would be appropriate for you to carry a firearm in that location.
"It was such a good way to kill people, we had to make it work somehow," Jame Burke, speaking about the mounted knight.
Seems fitting here, too.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You want to shoot your mouth off.
Don't take your guns to town son
The question is: is there a greater likelihood that one of those encounters might spiral into a violent and possibly fatal encounter because of one's race.
Of course there is. It's not even a question. The evidence is clear that minorities are substantially more likely to die at the hands of a cop than a white person in the US. I don't think it's overt racism in all but a tiny handful of cases these days. I don't think cops are waking up thinking "I'm going to kill a minority today". I think it's a confluence of circumstances (race, location, biases, paranoia, opportunity, readily available firearms, etc) that together result in a long series of tragedies.
Frankly it is extremely rare that cops actually need to carry a sidearm. In many countries they do not and yet crime still remains under control. This is totally unrealistic and will never happen but I've often wondered if we could solve a lot of problems with police and guns if we took the approach that if a police officer unholsters a weapon, he will have to automatically face a jury to explain his actions and go to jail if he doesn't have an acceptable excuse. Basically if the cop shoots or even threatens someone innocent with a weapon then the cop should go to jail the same as anyone else. It's a huge problem that the police can straight up kill people with impunity in most cases.
Uh, no. Nearly every mass shooting in the US has taken place in a location (building or campus) where it is illegal to be in possession of a gun.
Yes, common sense tells us that zero guns means zero shootings but there are very few cities and towns in the world with zero guns.
Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?
No, it doesn't. Black people are more heavily policed, are more likely to be arrested than a white person for the same crime, they are more likely to be convicted if they face charges that a white person for the same crime, they are more likely to be incarcerated for the same crime, etc. This holds true even if you control for factors like poverty and other demographics.
Nah I think it's expected that sometimes police kill people and in a small fraction of that it's totally unwarranted, wrong and avoidable; in such a case these random outliers will of course more likely impact blacks than non-blacks, males than females, etc.
That's a very casual and inappropriate dismissal of a real, complicated, and nuanced problem.
So maybe blacks are wrongly killed but non-blacks, even more so, relatively speaking.
It sounds to me like you are trying to justify the problem rather than solve it.
Would you consider suing McDonalds if the stupid lady dropped the coffee on you? Would you sue Ford because the stupid lady blew through the stop sign and ran into you? Would you sue Ford because Chevy made an ugly car that pissed the stupid lady off so she ran into your Ford? On what grounds would you sue a gun manufacturer because a stupid person mistook your phone for one of their products that you never bought?
That last analogy should have been written like this to really match the proposed scenario: Would you sue Ford because Chevrolet made an ugly can that pissed the stupid lady off so she ran into your Chrysler?
All of the recent "open carry" debate are just nonsense to most of us earthlings. Yes, I live in what is perceived abroad as a violent society (Mexico). But no, I have never seen civilians "casually" owning or carrying a gun. Only people in law enforcement.
Of course, were I to be subject to a robbery (note: I have only been robbed once in my 40 years of living in Mexico City, and I tend not to take too much precautions on which neighbourhoods I cross. And it was by two guys, one of them armed with just a knife), owning a gun and carrying it would do absolutely no good: By just drawing it, I'd very much be hurt or killed. And most probably, anyway, my precious gun would be taken away.
Guns should be strictly controlled. Yes, our government fails in this strictness, and there's a lot of gun overpopulation in the wrong hands (thanks, oh dear neighbours across the border!). But still, not having so many guns in the street make us much safer.
No, the people who crave power would be the libs who feel power rests solely with the governement, NOT the government AS representatives of their constituents.
Big difference; glad to be of service in clarifying your misconception about power.
You need to look up the Luby's incident in Kileen, Texas.
Your right !!... If only guns weren't so readily available he would have resorted to using far less efficient make shift weapons that people had a chance to defend them selves against, and he might have only gotten through 3 people max before being disabled rather than 50, how insightful of you!
I know guns are uber popular to some Americans but the whole "my right to defend myself" excuse is such BS, if that is truly the reason then why don't you ban guns and buy body armour instead. Everyone without brain damage can understand how even "certified" gun ownership will lead to an increase in availability of guns on the back market, and "certified" people are humans and can decide to be immoral too... what part of learning how to use a gun safely stops you from deciding to go crazy and kill some people because life treated you like shit.
"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,"
Admit it, it was a Waffle House. I've only seen a gun 3 times. Once on my grandpa's farm, and twice while I was inside a Waffle House.
You sound like the worst kind of pussy.
However, looking at what happens when guns are allowed isn't really encouraging. In the Giffords shooting, somebody rushed the shooter. In the recent Oregon shooting, an armed person decided to wait for the police anyway.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A better way to tell would be to use a ballistic pendulum with a target of ballistic gel, to show energy transfer. Energy that doesn't transfer to the target is wasted, but it goes without saying if your projectile makes a hole big enough to throw a cat through, who cares about a little wasted energy.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Because they are doing a job and not playing some stupid little game of pretending to be James Bond and pretending that their game in some magical way makes others safe. They are making other people safe without participating in some weird guessing game.
The whole argument is nonsensical. Surely if an unseen gun that is supposed to make people imagine that there are guns around is going to make people aware then a real, visible gun that is unquestionably there is going to have many times the influence.
However such a thing does not push the desired agenda so the weasel words are let out from the cage with talk about tricking people into seeing imaginary guns everywhere.
So, allowing guns meant that an armed citizen was able to lessen the damage done by a mass shooter 50% of the time, from your two anecdotes. I'd say that cutting the carnage in half is a pretty good argument for allowing concealed carry. Why didn't the Oregon guy do anything? Was it because he (she?, I'm not familiar with the situation) didn't have good angles or wasn't close enough and couldn't get close enough? Maybe he simply decided that he really wasn't prepared to take a life to save lives and has quit carrying. Do you realize that you really need to be within about 25 feet to be accurate with a concealable handgun? Movies and TV seldom ever reflect reality when it comes to guns.
...Is a phone that looks like a gun!
Just like my Johnny Spy 007 set I got for my 8th birthday, with the gun that looked like a camera!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The battery only lasts 3 hours, and there's no coverage in 8 states.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
No, most mass shootings have taken place where guns were legal to carry (offices and public spaces). When you only look at school shootings, yes, most schools are gun free zones (but not all). But that's not the place for most shootings. Just the ones more likely to make the news.
Learn to love Alaska
Worst April Fools gag ever
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
This was done before when cellphones were slightly larger and had an antenna. The version I remember seeing in the late-90s/early-2000s had three rounds stored and would be fired via one of the number buttons on the phone's dialing interface, e.g., 7,8,9.
No sig for you! Come back one year!