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."

78 of 678 comments (clear)

  1. Trying to get shot? by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Are you trying to get shot? Because that is how you get shot...

    1. Re:Trying to get shot? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he's trying to get everyone who carries a mobile phone shot.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Trying to get shot? by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

      No problem! We can just create a cell phone that looks like a gun, so the cops can tell the difference!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Trying to get shot? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No problem! We can just create a cell phone that looks like a gun, so the cops can tell the difference!

      Recently the TSA stopped a woman from wearing gun themed shoes throug Baltimore airport.

      TSA Stops Passenger With Gun-Shaped Shoes at Baltimore Airport

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Trying to get shot? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      Already ahead of you....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Trying to get shot? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you trying to get shot? Because that is how you get shot...

      ...By grabbing the wrong "phone" and taking a selfie.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Trying to get shot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a parody, right?

      The shooting occurred shortly after 2:30 p.m. after the man set off an alarm while going through a metal detector and "drew what appeared to be a weapon and pointed it at a police officer," Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa said.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

    7. Re:Trying to get shot? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      So...if I have a T-shirt with a "realistic" AK-47 picture on it, I will be sent to Gitmo?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Trying to get shot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Recently the TSA stopped a woman from wearing gun themed shoes throug Baltimore airport.

      That wasn't for security reasons, that was for reasons of Good Taste.

    9. Re:Trying to get shot? by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 3, Informative

      4) People who understand what a false dichotomy is.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    10. Re: Trying to get shot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also don't like putting my safety in the hands of others, which is *exactly* why I carry a gun (I have a permit to do so). My ability to defend myself is my means of keeping my safety in my own hands, and I am willing to accept the responsibilities.

      Your desire to take my gun away from me is a (legal) threat. I will do all I can to (legally) defend myself against that threat, too.

    11. Re:Trying to get shot? by Flytrap · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Guardian has been running a live counter of people killed by police in the US. The site is pretty haunting... showing a picture of the deceased as a normal smiling person before they died. While statistics can be projected so as to further any agenda, even a racist one as you rightly state, the raw data - without any biased analysis or interpretation - speaks for itself: 1145 people were killed by police in the US last year, and if you were black, you were 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person.

      But this is only part of the story... the Guardian counter allows you to click a link in the image of each person killed by the police to read about the circumstances under which they were killed, and it is clear that the vast majority of these people (regardless of race, ethnicity or sex) were out looking for trouble when they met their demise - criminal intent knows no racial or genetic boundaries - and maybe many of these people got what they deserved.

      I think that the issue that many people take umbrage of is the clear disparity in which police handled the 226 unarmed people they killed in 2015. Once again, many of these so-called unarmed people were not innocent in their endeavours at the time they had their untimely encounter with the police. However, what the facts tell us is that if you were an unarmed black person and had a violent encounter with the police in 2015, you were 3.8 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person. This includes people such as Keith Childress who failed to drop an object in his hand when instructed to do so by the police - the object turned out to be his cell phone, and one might understand why he might have hesitated flinging that onto the floor - as well as Leroy Browning who allegedly reached for a deputy's firearm during a physical struggle, prompting officers to open fire; Keith did not deserve to die while Leroy probably got what he deserved.

    12. Re: Trying to get shot? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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. Never had a problem in the US, but experiences overseas were enough to convince me to be armed when possible.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Trying to get shot? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure people who like having power over other people are the one's with the guns.

      Odd. I own guns and I carry a gun. Can't say I want power over anyone, unless we're counting myself. I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    14. Re:Trying to get shot? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      Technically that's a trichotomy they tried to set up there.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    15. Re:Trying to get shot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it interesting that people frequently mention the disproportionate killing by police of black people (including you, twice in your post), but hardly ever mention the even more disproportionate killing of men. Is the latter group considered an acceptable target?

    16. Re:Trying to get shot? by cas2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation.

      Another interpretation (only slightly more extreme than yours) is that even prisoners and inmates of mental hospitals, being citizens, have a right to keep and bear arms - a right that is inalienable under any circumstances.

      Yet another interpretation is that ONLY members of a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. And then you can argue about the definition of 'militia' - does it mean something official like the 'National Guard', or does it mean any group of people who declare themselves to be a militia (white skinned, of course. black or brown people doing that are obviously terrorists). And, then, what does 'well-regulated' mean? does it mean subject to government regulation, or able to march in something roughly akin to a uniform.

      There are lots of possible interpretations. Some more stupid than others.

    17. Re:Trying to get shot? by Flytrap · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the problem with selecting a single element of detail out of a body of data and using it to make an argument that completely ignores the rest of the data.

      If you look at the data in its entirety you will realise that no race, sex, or whatever is immune to being killed by the police... especially if you charge at the police with a knife or point something that may look like a firearm at them... the police will shoot you no matter who or what you are - this is just Darwin's theory of natural selection in action - weeding out the stupid gene so that it hopefully does not multiply, regardless of race.

      However, if you look at all the data... not just the part that support the argument that you have already decided you want to make... all of the data... you will see that from time to time innocent men and women, black, white and everything in between, are sometimes killed needlessly by police. Sometimes it is an error - a civilian crossing the street in the middle of a shoot out with criminals - sometimes it is a cop who has had a bad week and that innocent person just happened to in the wrong place at the wrong time when the police officer lost control of their faculties. Regardless of the reasons, if you look deeper into the data... once again all of the data at the same time, not individual strands separated from the rest of the data... you will see that all too often, when this happens... when an innocent person is killed by the police... there is a disproportionate probability that that innocent person is going to be a black male than any other race or sex.

      This is not a point of view to be debated... this is a matter of fact as evidenced by the publicly available data - we can debate why this might be the case, but not whether or not it is happening... that would be disrespectful to all he innocent people, of all races, whose deaths at the hands of the police make up the data we are discussing.

      Now lets go out and celebrate one more gangster, murderer, rapist, etc who was stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with the police... and is now six feet under pushing daisies. We should not forget that sometimes the officers may not have had an alternative option that would safeguard life and property at the time or may have already exhausted non-lethal options at the time they took the lethal action.... sometimes.

    18. Re:Trying to get shot? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell us, why do you carry a gun?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re: Trying to get shot? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

      I was robbed in Thailand, Canada and in Cambodia.

      All three situations have in common that the criminals wanted money. Having a gun while a group of 15 year olds surround you with knives would be useless. If you seriously want to kill a kid who's had no chance in life... there's something wrong with you. Trying to use a gun while surrounded by mobsters would be suicide.

      Never even thought of carrying a gun.

      Many places in South America have a shoot-first-take money later, kind of crime, which is scary. But I don't see how your gun being discovered on your body would help you in that situation either.

    20. Re:Trying to get shot? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?

      How do you even know that this is the case for these people if they get killed before any trial takes place?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:Trying to get shot? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Nice straw men you've got there. Do you smoke near them? The leftists I know are as concerned about government overreach as the right-wing types, although not necessarily for the same reasons. The Democratic Party is primarily Christian, and certainly isn't officially anti-God. Republicans and Democrats seem to favor strong government, although to do different things. The only serious attempt I know of in the last few decades to cut down on the Federal government was in the Clinton administration, and it did succeed in cutting spending to some extent. In that period, fiscal responsibility has been a feature of Democrats, not Republicans.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:Trying to get shot? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tell us, why do you carry a gun?

      Short and possibly flippant answer, because a cop weighs too much.

      Longer and more useful answer, because things happen and when it does the odds that a cop or such will be right there is vanishingly small. Sure, you can call the police and should do so. However, even under the very best of conditions it will still take them minutes to get there in a situation where seconds count. Do I have pretensions of being some super bad ass who will take on terrorists and vanquish evil? Don't be silly. I hope I could acquit myself well and have practiced with that in mind, less for terrorists (highly unlikely to ever happen) and more for mundane things, but still.

      I have a fire extinguisher, but I am not the fire department. I have car insurance as well, and hope I never have to use any of these things. Yet, if I do I hope to be as prepared as one can reasonably be for such a thing. One could ask why you don't, if I may presume so much, carry one and be prepared as well. One could ask that, but as far as I'm concerned it would be rude to do so as if you don't I presume you have what you feel are good and proper reasons and I would not presume to judge anyone for doing so or not doing so. It's a personal decision and should remain such.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

  2. I don't appreciate by mhkohne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I don't appreciate by Agripa · · Score: 2

      Law enforcement already uses that excuse whether a cell phone is involved or not.

  3. Apple? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    iShoot

    1. Re:Apple? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

      iShoot

      uMiss

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Apple? by antdude · · Score: 2

      You're Doing It Wrong

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  4. I don't want to live in this planet anymore by Edis+Krad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to look up the Luby's incident in Kileen, Texas.

    2. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by msauve · · Score: 2
      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      you should be terrified of vending machines, because each year they kill more americans.

      It was self defense

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if your family, friends, and colleagues are vending machines?!

    6. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      What is particularly depressing is that most people:
      1. Think it is OK for a police officer to carry a gun into a family restaurant.
      2. Are probably willing to accept that criminals may also illegally carrying concealed weapons in that restaurant.
      3. Cannot deal with a private citizen legally carrying a firearm in public.

    7. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fuck it, I've got karma to burn.

      It's a lot like the anti-vaccine crowd. They think not getting vaccinated makes them safer, but actually the stats say the opposite. Worse still, it makes the people around them less safe too. But it's their right not to be forcefully medicated.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Well there are some places where carrying a firearm is just a good idea but then most of these aren't where most people are carrying a firearm. For example I have a carry permit in my state but I only exercise that when I am out in the woods. I have property up in northern Minnesota and there are large predators out there (bear, wolves, cougars, bobcats, coyotes) that I have had close run ins with in the past. To be legal when walking down a road with a loaded handgun you need to have permit to carry so I got one to be legal. Then again my handgun isn't a concealable one and is really meant to put a big hole in a bear and I don't take it to the grocery store because to me it does seem silly.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    9. Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore by Optic7 · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't be depressed about those things because:
      1. Police officers are much more likely than a private citizen to have frequent, recent training in handling the gun, as well as dealing with dangerous scenarios where they would need to use them.
      2. There is no way to tell if the person you spotted carrying the concealed weapon is a criminal or a law-abiding citizen, so it is wise to be afraid whenever you see someone with a concealed weapon (also see #3).
      3. Being near any person carrying a gun makes you statistically more likely to be seriously injured or killed.

  5. Another option by kqc7011 · · Score: 2

    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
  6. A derringer as a concealed carry? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re: A derringer as a concealed carry? by alantus · · Score: 2

      Income inequality is probably the biggest factor for high crime rates.

      When the guy flipping burgers works his ass to make 500 times less than a CEO, and at the same time he has easy access to firearms, bad things happen.

      Besides drugs and easy access to firearms, the prison system is a factor too. People in the US go to jail as a punishment, not for rehabilitation. People do jail time for small crimes that don't deserve it, and they become real criminals there.

    2. Re: A derringer as a concealed carry? by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      You mean 1/500th what the CEO makes. 500 times less than the CEO would mean that the burger flipper is paying the CEO 500 CEO-salaries for the privilege of flipping burgers or something like that. It is difficult to get the equation exactly right because it is a bogus concept. Maybe the burger flipper only pays 499 CEO-salaries. Let's see... The CEO makes 1 CEO-salary and 500 times that is 500 CEO-salaries and so the burger flipper makes 500 CEO-salaries less than the CEO so we have 1 BurgerFlipper-salary = 1 CEO-salary - 500 CEO-salary => 1 BurgerFlipper-salary = -499 CEO-salary. So, I guess Mr. Burger Flipper is actually paying McDonalds 499 CEO-salaries for the privilege of flipping burgers at McDonalds. No wonder McDonalds remains profitable. Remind me that when i retire and supplement my income at Mickey-Ds to work the counter instead of flipping burgers; i hear that McDonalds actually pays the counter workers.

      In reality, I know the owner of what we could call a burger joint franchise and he made less money over the past two years than some of his employees. Granted, he is paying himself a very low wage for the first two years of being an owner in order to pay down the $1.5 million dollars of loan he needed to open the business but who cares about that. It just sounds better to say that everybody running a business is an asshole and that it takes nothing to run a business.

  7. Title II Any Other Weapon? by blindseer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Title II Any Other Weapon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not considered an AOW so not regulated as an NFA item or requiring the $5 tax stamp. The AOW distinction for this type of devices is based on it's design when in a firing position. As this "cell phone" cannot be fired till unfolded into a pistol, it is regulated like any standard pistol. If you're curious about a historic example of this, look at the Stinger Pen Gun - which resembled a standard pen gun (NFA item) - but can only fire when configured into a pistol form (non-NFA item).

    2. Re:Title II Any Other Weapon? by Toshito · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe that the problem is the hopolophobes can't stand the idea of people being armed for their own defense.

      No, what I believe is that 90% of humans are complete and utter morons, who can't be trusted with a firearm. They are irrationnal, moody, have mental problems (depression, mood swings, anxiety, are religious nuts, etc.)

      Having a firearm at home is ok with me, but carrying it everywhere is a bad idea.

      I don't know where you live, but if I lived somewhere where I would need a weapon on me at all times to feel safe, I would move out of there as soon as I could.

      In fact I'm in my mid forties and so far I've never been in a situation where I needed a firearm on me. And nobody I know (friends, family, coworkers) ever talked to me about a time in their lives when they used, needed or would have needed to have a firearm on them to save their lives or get out of a bad situation.

      Still, a lot of them (including me) have firearms at home for hunting, or target shooting. So we're not anti-guns wackos.

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    3. Re:Title II Any Other Weapon? by twotacocombo · · Score: 2

      No, what I believe is that 90% of humans are complete and utter morons, who can't be trusted with a firearm. They are irrationnal, moody, have mental problems (depression, mood swings, anxiety, are religious nuts, etc.)

      Having a firearm at home is ok with me, but carrying it everywhere is a bad idea.

      Why would you feel it's a bad idea to arm yourself when you believe that 9/10ths of humanity is FUBAR? You obviously believe yourself to be part of the 10% who aren't criminally insane, so why do you not trust yourself to carry a firearm? This is reasoning I've never understood. "The rest of the world is crazy, but I'm cool, although I still shouldn't be trusted with a gun". Wut?

    4. Re:Title II Any Other Weapon? by twotacocombo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't trust myself to carry a gun, because I'm an ordinary citizen without any training, and I don't want to carry the HUGE responsability that goes with the gun. I can get angry, I can loose my temper, I can take irrationnal decisions, and get scared for the wrong reasons, and all those things can get really interesting when you add a gun to the mix.

      Ordinary citizens are exactly what the 2nd amendment applies to. Do you think cops aren't ordinary citizens, who happen to wear a uniform and carry a gun for their job? Many cops can't even hit the broad side of a barn, and have serious impulse control issues as well. It's time we stop pretending that they're infallible super humans, and that the rest of us aren't capable of carrying a gun without murdering someone. There are many training programs available to us lowly civilians; my county requires training before issuing a CCW, and there's nothing stopping us from getting more afterwards. It's actually a growing industry in these parts.

      I do agree with your statement that is is a huge responsibility to carry in public. If you don't want that responsibility, or feel that you can't live up to it, then by all means please do not carry. I can support that 100%. However, please don't look down on those who do decide to carry as if we're not worthy of the right because you think we can't handle it either. I know a shit ton of people who can't drive, and are dangerous on the road, but I won't be the one crusading to get everyone off the streets because one of them might wind up killing me. It's just part of the risks of being alive and leaving the house. You're far more likely to be hit by someone on their cellphone than by a random stranger shooting you, especially a CCW holder.

  8. Re:If you've got it why hide it? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Street crime in Florida dropped precipitously immediately following that state's concealed carry law allowing non-criminals to be armed. It wasn't because all the criminals suddenly went back to school and got really caught up in their French Literature studies.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  9. Slice Statistics by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Slice Statistics by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The right statistic is this: if you own guns, will your (and your family's) average lifespan be longer or shorter?

      If you own guns, it means that you can afford guns, which means that you have money. As someone who does "statistics for my day job", you sure don't seem to have a grasp of how to use statistics.

      People with money live longer.

      You would also find that people who drive Mercedes Benz automobiles have longer lifespans than those who don't.

      The only statistic that matters is this: If you own a gun, are you and your family more or less likely to die by a gun? The answer to that one is known. Here's another: If you own a gun, is your toddler more or less likely to be killed in a gun accident? Also, If you own a gun, are you more or less likely to kill yourself?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Slice Statistics by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If I own drain cleaner, is my toddler more or less likely to be killed by ingesting it?"

      You see, though, I can unclog my drains and take care to keep the drain cleaner in a secured cabinet. I don't have to throw up my hands in dismay and just accept that I have to live with a clogged drain I can't clear.

    3. Re:Slice Statistics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Guns are designed for many things. Including competitive uses (like most bows and baseball bats). Or for providing food on my table (like bows, and knives). But you don't get it, that's fine. You're obviously not from the US, so enjoy where you're at! In the mean time we'll simply go about living as we do, and realize that about 80% of all shootings are drung and gang related; factor those out and we're equal or lower than many European countries.

      BTW, the only times I've had violent confrontations were overseas (two in Europe whilst living in Belgium, and two in South America whilst living in Chile). Never had to draw my firearm (concealed) in the US.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Slice Statistics by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2

      > So, we should ban guns because poor people can't afford them?
      No, you should ban guns because THEY FUCKEN KILL PEOPLE!
      Jesus, how god damn hard is that to understand.

      *looks over at his rifle on the wall* "Oi, kill anyone today?" *silence*

      Oh.. right.. inanimate object. Doesn't answer and also doesn't jump off the wall and kill people. Weird that, isn't it?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    5. Re:Slice Statistics by Goonie · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, then, what about this study? Good enough for you?

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    6. Re:Slice Statistics by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Nobody is talking about banning guns or anything else.

      We have the ability to make devices safer.

      Here is the good old car analogy:

      Cars kill thousands of people every year. We don't talk about banning cars but we DO talk about making cars safer. And cars are safer today than they were in the past. As a result, less people die. Yet, we cannot seem to have the same discussion about guns. Make guns safer? Quit trying to take away my guns! Can you see the problem here?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  10. Re:Next level social awkwardness by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Yes, kid, I have a gun, and that's okay. Before I could get this gun, I had to go to the police and show them that I'm one of the good guys. They made me promise that no matter what, I would use this gun only if there are bad guys who want to hurt me or the people around me, and there is no other way to escape. See, you've probably seen some movies or TV shows where the good guys arrive right in time. In the real world, that doesn't always happen. Sometimes, a good guy has to be there already. Right now, if a bad guy comes in this restaurant, I might be able to stop him, and that's why I have a gun."

    ...and that's how you change "awkward" into "awesome", and you don't even need to make even more identification problems!

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  11. Darwin by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  12. These People Don't Have a Clue by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:These People Don't Have a Clue by Diss+Champ · · Score: 2

      I don't own a gun, but I'd rather hang out with gun owners than nuts with gun phobias.

    2. Re:These People Don't Have a Clue by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      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

      Doubt your courageous stance would apply to armed government agents

  13. Re:If you've got it why hide it? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    That's quite a claim to make. I woke up early today and it rained. It must rain every day I wake up early!

    No, it's more like, "It frequently rains here, and when it does everyone gets wet. Until they have an umbrella, which reduces the odds of that happening."

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  14. Re:If you've got it why hide it? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    It wasn't the only thing that changed.

    That's true. There was also a drop in armed robberies in businesses, coinciding with more business owners defending themselves.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  15. Re:Next level social awkwardness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    [...] I go anywhere I like and can freak out people with my metallic penis if I want to."

    Why does anti-gun libtards are so obsessed about penises? Look, if you crave cocks that is fine, it called being homosexual. It is perfectly acceptable to be homosexual and desire penises in your every orifices, you can drop that silly anti-gun rhetoric now.

  16. In time for GOP convention? by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    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.
  17. Perception of threats by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Perception of threats by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 2

      It's funny, you described most cops to a "T". Lack of training, no real hostile threats, thinking someone has a gun and doesn't, "perceived threats" (I thought he had a gun).

    2. Re:Perception of threats by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2

      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.

      Assualt is the threat of violence. Discharging a firearm at someone is attempted murder whether or not you hit them if it can be reasonably assumed that your intent was to hit them. Hell, even pointing a firearm at someone can be seen as attempted murder if it can be assumed that a third party's intervention is why you never fired. Sorry for the pedantry but I agree with you and I think this rather important fact should be emphasised to people in order to prevent the "idiot cowboys" that you are criticising in your post.

      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?

      Have you ever actually spoken to a police officer when they were out of uniform? I mean like sat down and had a beer with them? My guess would be no, because police don't do that with civilians. They don't like to leave their social echo chambers where they can be constantly reassured that their jaded outlook toward the rest of the human race is valid. Police are overworked and isolated from the rest of their community, they constantly deal with the worst parts of our society and that makes them see the worst in the people that they meet. This leaves them in a mental state that is no better equipped to deal with these situations then an untrained yet rational person. Normally I think of psychology as a psudo-science, but then papers like these make me think that there might be something there: http://www.apa.org/science/abo...

    3. Re:Perception of threats by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      No, it will be because you THINK you were under real threat.

      If someone breaks into my house, especially at night, then they are automatically a perceived threat to myself and loved ones...I have no qualms about unloading at least one magazine into them before checking to see if they still breath or not.

      And in New Orleans, if the intruder is somehow able to make it back outside your door...the NOLA cops will often be nice enough to help drag the body back across the threshold before pictures are taken...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Perception of threats by cmiller173 · · Score: 2

      The police are more than 5 times more likely to shoot an innocent person than a civilian.

      "Although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals."

      https://www.learnaboutguns.com...

      Regarding the myth of "highly trained professionals":

      "...one of several shootings where the police, in legitimately (mostly) trying to shoot bad guys, accidently[sic] shot citizens instead, in one case, shooting not only the bad guy, but nine innocent bystanders."

      The author goes on to talk about mediocre training and political decisions that make most police sup-par shooters.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...

  18. Common denominator = you by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Common denominator = you by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      I lived in Europe for 3 years, South America for 2, Asia for 7. There's more countries I've been to than I haven't (105 and counting). I know how to be safe overseas - and I've gone places where most tourists WON'T go because they're afraid. I try to go where locals go - and sometimes that means you run the risk of being assaulted. Hey, it happens if you just live in NYC or London, too. But that's OK, must be me and not the fact that crime and criminals are a worldwide issue. We'll go ahead and just cower and hope a policeman stumbles by when needed...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  19. I invented this three years ago... by rayd75 · · Score: 2

    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.

  20. What a stupid idea by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. The anti-gun anti-police logic by Notorious+G · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. Yes racism still exists in policing by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Yes racism still exists in policing by robi5 · · Score: 2

      > Black people are more heavily policed [...]

      Men are also more heavily policed than women; adults as children or frail etc. Do you advocate that 1) overall policing levels overall should be decreased, while policing levels for white people should remain level, or 2) policing levels for white people should be increased?

      > [...] 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.

      Indeed, this is wrong, unjust, horrible and in need of fixing. Nothing I said is to the contrary so I see this statement as a possible attempt at building a strawman...

      [...]
      > That's a very casual and inappropriate dismissal

      OK strawman is debunked! Nothing I said is a dismissal; again, my original point was that a per capita incidence rate multiple is NOT the real issue; in fact such a comparison doesn't control for a large number of factors such as general level of crime across parts of the population. Not disputing (and for lack of data on my part, not attesting to, though it seems likely) the racial bias you and the HuffPost article describe, even after you accounted for said bias, probably we're in agreement that various demographies don't have the same uniform level of law violation. For example, men are likelier to commit a lot of types of crime; poor people are more likely to commit certain types of crime etc. So even if the policing, charging, conviction and incarceration rates shifted such that there's no longer racial bias, a significant part of the unevenness of the prevalence remains. Which leads to a higher number of very regrettable and tragic outcomes per capita for certain groups (gender, economic background, size of city, location etc.) than for others. It is a problematic yet indisputable fact of life _currently_ that some of these boundaries and features in the distribution of the data will be correlated with ethnic background too. It is therefore can't be escaped in the short term that certain ethnic boundaries at least somewhat align with crime prevalence by crime type, resulting in per capita comparisons that aren't useful without such context.

      > It sounds to me like you are trying to justify the problem rather than solve it.

      Neither: it was just a post on the web, not an attempt at either solving it or justifying it, let's not get carried away. I solely took exception with the claim that the problem is the 2.5x per capita factor. I think 'solving' something and 'grabbing whatever metric by the hair in an attempt to show our concern' are two different things. If anything, I'm pointing out and rejecting out-of-context per capita by ethnic group factors to let us not get distracted from the real issues at hand, some of which yourself cite above (higher punishment for like things etc. and IMO sheer brutality and racism from a significant number of people in the police).

  23. Re:Next level social awkwardness by kwbauer · · Score: 2

    Nope, economics is on the side of the police being far more likely to hit bystanders. Why? Because the police are not held liable for injuring others and the private citizen is.

  24. Re:If you've got it why hide it? by kwbauer · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, the reality of the situation was that criminals realized that many more non-criminals would now be carrying guns and so the odds of targetting an unarmed victim decreased dramatically.

    Your stupid comment about the police concealing their weapons would only make sense if 1) the vast majority of police were also plainclothes and 2) there were as many police as there are non-police. Since neither of those apply, then your little ranting is pointless or as you put it "a gross insult to intelligence."

    But please keep trying because you just may get lucky enough one day to have a rational thought. They say that if you give enough monkeys enough time and enough typewriters that those monkeys will be able to reproduce the works of Shakespeare so you too have hope.