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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
[...] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.