Company Creates Gun That Looks Like a Cellphone (nbcnews.com) 678
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."
Trying to get shot? (Score:3)
Are you trying to get shot? Because that is how you get shot...
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's trying to get everyone who carries a mobile phone shot.
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, 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 [time.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Trying to get shot? (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.
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Already ahead of you....
Accidental Suicide (Score:2)
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Technically that's a trichotomy they tried to set up there.
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell us, why do you carry a gun?
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Perception of threats (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
"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... [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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trying to get shot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Common denominator = you (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 bee
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, Informative)
The Guardian [theguardian.com] has been running a live counter [theguardian.com] of people killed by police in the US. The site is pretty haunting... showing a picture of the deceased [guim.co.uk] 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.
The anti-gun anti-police logic (Score:3)
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Yes racism still exists in policing (Score:3)
Does it have to do with the fact that crime has a higher prevalence rate among the black?
No, it doesn't. [huffingtonpost.com] 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 just
Re: (Score:3)
> 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
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trying to get shot? (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... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He was known to the Capital Police for previous actions as well. There is no law or right to carry your gun where ever you please, there will be places that can restrict guns and this includes the capitol building.
Re:Trying to get shot? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
I don't appreciate (Score:5, Insightful)
giving all those idiots who say 'I thought it was a gun' extra excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
giving all those idiots who say 'I thought it was a gun' extra excuses.
If we're talking about the Polezei, a Ringding [google.com] is more than enough to get you shot.
Realistically, is this a wonderful new product designed to improve outcomes? No, of course not.
Is it going to sell like hotcakes to a certain niche market? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:3)
Law enforcement already uses that excuse whether a cell phone is involved or not.
Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
iShoot
Re:Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
iShoot
uMiss
Re: (Score:3)
You're Doing It Wrong
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about a derringer, so: iHave1more
I don't want to live in this planet anymore (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.
Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore (Score:4, Informative)
You need to look up the Luby's incident in Kileen, Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
A gun that looks like an iphone would have stood out like dogs balls in 1991.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore (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.
Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:I don't want to live in this planet anymore (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.
Re: (Score:2)
you should be terrified of vending machines, because each year they kill more americans.
It was self defense
Slice Statistics (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.
Re:Slice Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Drain cleaner is the worst way to clear a clogged drain. If you have drain cleaner in your house, then you have already thrown up your hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. I don't believe in banning guns.
My argument is that you cannot make a deduction about safety, based on a statistic that people who own guns have longer life expectancy (within a margin of error, by the way) than people who do not. There are just too many other variables that would have greater impact.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Slice Statistics (Score:5, 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.
Re:Slice Statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What if your family, friends, and colleagues are vending machines?!
Re: (Score:2)
The two shot derringer would slow down the terrorists by a few seconds.
Another option (Score:3)
A derringer as a concealed carry? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
The mouse gun you have with you is better than the .500 BoomenLouder you left at home because it is too big, too heavy, too hard to conceal etc
That said I wonder if he has an ATF Opinion Letter on his design - disguised guns can fall under the NFA and require a tax stamp and associated BS
Re:If you've got it why hide it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:If you've got it why hide it? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Hence it relies on criminals having above average intelligence and actually think about guns they can't see probably being there.
I doubt it actually deters crime, it's only a weak and counterintuitive excuse for people who want to carry concealed guns.
If it was really about deterring crime it would be open carry. Police don't hide their guns, they wear them openly as a sign that they will use them if they have to - that deters people from
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 =
Way Back Machine....old news for nerds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out... (Score:2)
What about airport security outside the US? (Score:2)
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.
Title II Any Other Weapon? (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/... [wikipedia.org]
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/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I still like the ring gun personally.
http://www.pinfireguns.com/pin... [pinfireguns.com]
Re:Title II Any Other Weapon? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Title II Any Other Weapon? (Score:4, 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.
Darwin (Score:4, 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?
Wonderful. Just wonderful. (Score:2)
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.
Just wear a proper IWB holster (Score:2)
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
Apparently webserver not well defended (Score:2)
generally illegal (Score:2)
Even as a Republican, I wouldn't carry one (Score:2)
Because one day I might absent-mindedly answer it.
tragedy in the making (Score:2)
These People Don't Have a Clue (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.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't own a gun, but I'd rather hang out with gun owners than nuts with gun phobias.
In time for GOP convention? (Score:3)
I invented this three years ago... (Score:3)
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.
What a stupid idea (Score:5, 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.
Re:Next level social awkwardness (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!
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Done [likecoolcase.com]