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."
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?
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?
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.
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?
"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.
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.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Already ahead of you....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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...
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.
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.
4) People who understand what a false dichotomy is.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
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.
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!
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"
"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.
[...] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"