back to article Oi, idiot fanbois. DON'T buy this gun-shaped iPhone case, mmkay?

US police have warned punters not to buy a new iPhone case that resembles a handgun. The Ocean County Prosecutor's office took to Facebook last week with a plea for punters to ignore the case. “Please folks – this cell phone case is not a cool product or a good idea,” the post says. “A police officers [sic] job is hard enough …

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Just Enough

      There's never any accounting for people's awful taste. I'm sure there are plenty of dumb people who'd think this was just the perfect accessory for their bad-ass image.

      Seven-year-old me, on the other hand, would have thought this looked like great fun. Not that I had an iPhone to put in it. Or a phone. Or even a watch.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If you thought holding a phablet to your ear looked stupid...

        ... how about pointing this at your head, so that you look like you're about to shoot yourself, every time you receive a call?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If you thought holding a phablet to your ear looked stupid...

          I think I do want to shoot myself when I receive a call.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      right to bear arms

      Right to bear things that look like arms.

    3. king of foo

      Looks like an arse to me on mobile. The image only scales so you can see the gun/case when you click it.

    4. NightFox

      It's impressive how they've perfectly segued the shape of the iPhone into the shape of a gun

  2. Amorous Cowherder
    Facepalm

    "Glorfied version of a pellet gun..."

    I won't go as far as to say, "Anyone stupid enough to buy something like this, deserves to be shot!" but I'm pretty close. The day I saw a video of 6 year old girl drooling over her pink semi-automatic and handguns, was the day I lost any tiny fragment of respect for anyone who says they need to own guns.

    "Glorified version of a pellet gun.

    Feels so manly, when armed."

    1. NoneSuch Silver badge

      Re: "Glorfied version of a pellet gun..."

      Darwin Awards Winner here.

    2. MrXavia

      Re: "Glorfied version of a pellet gun..."

      While I think this is stupid, I wouldn't tarnish everyone who wants to own a gun with the same brush...

      Sure there are many idiots, and yes controls are needed...

      Guns have uses other than killing people, hunting, target shooting, pest control.

      I actually think the UK has too lax gun-laws, except for the ban on hand-guns..

      I think they should change the law on hand guns, but require anyone wanting any gun license to pass a test of proficiency & psychological stability...

      We don't allow untrained people to drive cars unsupervised, but we do allow untrained people to own a gun.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Glorfied version of a pellet gun..."

        In order to own a fireram in the UK you need to pass a number of tests in order to get the license.

        This involves the police dropping by your house a few times to make sure you are the sort of person who could own a gun and not do one of those American things where a kid goes to school in order to murder his class mates with the 9 cent bullets he bought at the corner store. They also make sure you can store the gun correctly and safely as well.

        I dont know how you say our laws are too lax, its impossible to own a pistol, assault rifle, rocket launcher, grenade etc. So thats the largest section done with. When it comes to rifles, getting a license is a little harder, a shotgun license is pretty easy to get.

        In the UK, gun ownership has been a big problem. We only banned assault rifles after Hungerford, where a local nutter holed himself up in a school with some assault rifles. Years later, it took a school shooting for us to ban hand guns.

        Long story short - it doesnt matter if you train people to use a firearm safely or not. At the end of the day, people are the weak point - if the person snaps then it doesnt matter how well he knows how to use the gun.

        Basically, ban all firearms from everyone apart from the very few who need them and it means iPhone cases like this will not be an issue.

  3. Yugguy

    You deserve everything you get

    If you buy one of them and take it anywhere near a policeman or an airport.

  4. astrax

    Probably not the best idea to buy one...

    ...especially in Texas. I think if Apple made iGuns then at least there would be a decline in the number of gun related homicides. The number of accidental deaths might possibly go up significantly though...

    1. wowfood

      Re: Probably not the best idea to buy one...

      "I fired my iGun and it blew up in my hand, taking my hand with it. Turns out the problem was the third party bullets I'd used."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Probably not the best idea to buy one...

        "I fired my iGun and it blew up in my hand, taking my hand with it. Turns out the problem was that I was holding it wrong."

        FTFY

        1. Stevie

          Re: FTFY

          Downvote. original was fine, good enough for you to steal in fact. If you are going to crib, at least do it politely.

      2. markw:

        Re: Probably not the best idea to buy one...

        "I fired my iGun and it blew up in my hand, taking my hand with it. Turns out the problem was the third party bullets I'd used."

        You are holding it incorrectly ...

    2. Stevie

      Re: Probably not the best idea to buy one...

      "I was in line at the Apple Store and went to phone my bros to tell them I was only thirty seventh from the front of the queue, but my iPhone Personal Defense Edition stupidly selected "ordinance" mode instead of "phone" and I shot out a street light and burst my eardrum."

    3. Tom 13

      Re: Probably not the best idea to buy one...

      Texas would probably be one of the safer places to own one. The hoplophobes there have been forced to confront their fears and the cops are trained to understand that wearing a gun isn't as sign you're an outlaw. Austin and Dallas excluded of course.

  5. petur

    New

    Seen cases like that on DX for several years now....

  6. codejunky Silver badge

    Not good

    I expect the lawful gun owners will be avoiding these as they will understand the difference between a gun and a toy. I would expect the criminals would avoid it as they have plenty to be shot for anyway and wouldnt want to up their risk. That leaves the many people who likely intersect the group wanting to ban guns because they are dangerous.

    For those wanting this case: Its not the gun, its the person holding the gun, use your noggins people

    1. Simon Watson

      Re: Not good

      "Its not the gun, its the person holding the gun, use your noggins people"

      Pretty sure it's the combination of the two. You can attempt to control one, the other or both. Guns are easier to control than people.

      1. sisk

        Re: Not good

        Guns are easier to control than people.

        You would think so. Until you learn a little about the issue and realize that controlling guns doesn't have much of a statistical impact on violent crimes.

        1. DJO Silver badge

          Re: Not good

          Until you learn a little about the issue and realize that controlling guns doesn't have much of a statistical impact on violent crimes.

          I suppose this is true if you believe the magic imaginary statistics* peddled by the NRA, real evidence backed statistics suggests otherwise.

          * Statistics used poorly either by accident or design can be very misleading: For example there are far more fatal car accidents involving sober drivers than drunk ones therefore statistically it is safer to drive when drunk than when sober. This is plainly nonsense as there are far more sober drivers than drunk ones but it does illustrate a problem with statistics.

          1. John Robson Silver badge

            Re: Not good

            @DJO - imaginary statistics peddled by the NRA

            There are two questions to ask the NRA...

            How many school shootings have there been in the US since Colombine?

            How many school shootings have there been in the UK since Dunblane?

            1. MrXavia

              Re: Not good

              "How many school shootings have there been in the UK since Dunblane?"

              How many were there before?

              One, 9 years earlier, and there had been none before that..

              The law change was not needed (although tighter controls would have been a good idea)

              What was needed was better policing, they knew about this guy, they should have stopped him in advance, and if he had no guns I suspect he'd have used a different weapon..

              1. John Robson Silver badge

                Re: Not good

                @MrXavia - The law change was not needed

                I didn't say it was..

                The level of gun control in the UK is significantly tighter than in the US, and we have far fewer mass shootings.

                We also have fewer mass shootings which get stopped early by a concealed carrier in the crowd, but that's probably a compromise worth making.

                Dunblane was 20 years ago now. So that's three mass shootings in 30 years (including Cumbria, which IIRC didn't involve a school)?

                There are separate wikipedia pages for school shootings and rampage killings in the US (and they exclude things like hate crimes, terrorism, familicide). I'm genuinely shocked at the count

                20 Rampage killings in the US since 2000 (i.e. just 15 years)

                112 School shootings in the US since 2010 (i.e. just 5 years)

                Good to know liberal gun laws are serving you well over there, now about those back taxes... ;)

                1. Tom 13

                  Re: Not good

                  You keep ignoring size and culture differences. Those account for all of your so called facts.

          2. sisk

            Re: Not good

            I suppose this is true if you believe the magic imaginary statistics* peddled by the NRA, real evidence backed statistics suggests otherwise.

            I've never seen the NRA's numbers. I used the numbers from the UN office on drugs and crime. The real data shows, very clearly, either a zero impact or a rise in violent crime in a given area when strict gun control measures are put in place. In the UK, for instance, violent crime rose for 10 years straight before plateauing when they took your guns away.

            Both the NRA and the anti-gun crowd have an annoying habit of comparing different areas (and cherry picking the areas they choose), which contaminates their data with other factors. By taking one area and comparing before and after statistics you get a much more reliable picture of the impact of gun control. And that approach, frankly, makes gun control look inefficient at best.

            I've taken the time to do the research myself rather than listening to people who have agendas. Maybe you should try it. The numbers are all easily accessible and paint quite a clear picture.

            1. DJO Silver badge

              Re: Not good

              The real data shows, very clearly, either a zero impact or a rise in violent crime in a given area when strict gun control measures are put in place. In the UK, for instance, violent crime rose for 10 years straight before plateauing when they took your guns away.

              But out of context. When do you think gun control was introduced into the UK? I suspect you are thinking of the changes enacted after the Dunblane shootings, however guns have been controlled here for a lot longer than that.

              Context: The UK has a tiny number of violent crimes compared to the US (even allowing for 5x the population) a small change in a small number is not very much, any change to the quantity in the US is far more significant.

              To argue that gun control has no effect of gun related crime is absurd.

              The best solution in the US where guns are far too entrenched probably is to restrict access to ammunition, bullets not used in gun clubs or ranges should cost about $100 each, for personal defence $100 is a bargain but for other uses the cost is restrictive. Legitimate hunters could buy replacement ammo cheaper by turning in the empty shells. All guns should be kept in a locked gun safe, even the NRA agree with that one, or at least used to.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Not good

                @ DJO

                "Context: The UK has a tiny number of violent crimes compared to the US"

                Do you compare as a total or as states? Each state has its own laws and some of the worst for violent crime are heavily restricted. Oddly some of the worst gun crime states were (probably still are) the most regulated.

                1. sisk

                  Re: Not good

                  Do you compare as a total or as states? Each state has its own laws and some of the worst for violent crime are heavily restricted. Oddly some of the worst gun crime states were (probably still are) the most regulated.

                  Even more true at the city level. The US city you're most likely to get shot in is Chicago, which is also the US city with the most restrictive gun laws. On the flip side you can probably count the gun related murders in a given year in all of Kansas (where you'd be hard pressed to find more permissive gun laws) on your fingers (though, granted, the entire population of Kansas is probably less than the population of Chicago, plus the effects of the new license-less concealed carry law have yet to be seen - I expect that particularly ill conceived change in law to result in a lot more accidental shootings since concealed carriers no longer have to go through a safety course and prove they can shoot straight.)

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Not good

                    True, but I didn't say "gun related crime". I said "violent crime". Do you think being stabbed to death is somehow better than being shot?

                    If someone is going to try to murder me, I would very much prefer that they attempt it with a knife instead of a gun. You have a better chance of surviving; they have to get in close which is a psychological barrier that will stop some people and -even if they win- they will probably be covered in a fair amount of evidence which will increase their chances of being successfully caught.

                    Consider, also, the scale of the thing. How many victims could a knife-bearer reasonably expect to get away with before being dogpiled/shot? Compare that with the usual victim count of someone with an assault rifle.

                    1. sisk

                      Re: Not good

                      f someone is going to try to murder me, I would very much prefer that they attempt it with a knife instead of a gun. You have a better chance of surviving;

                      Only if you've been trained in hand-to-hand combat and thus know how to deal with a knife wielding attacker. Otherwise your odds really aren't any better or worse. If anything you're more likely to bleed out from a knife wound that a gunshot. Guns most often kill from shock, which is slower than bleeding out usually and gives you more time to get help. One slice to a major artery and you've got under two minutes to live unless there's someone right there who knows what to do.

                      they have to get in close which is a psychological barrier that will stop some people

                      Someone who's willing to pull the trigger on a human being will have no psychological problem with stabbing them. And getting close is no problem for someone who wants to kill you unless you've got personal security. Knives, even biggish ones, are very easy to hide.

                      and -even if they win- they will probably be covered in a fair amount of evidence which will increase their chances of being successfully caught.

                      Fair enough, but that's not going to matter to you at that point.

                      Consider, also, the scale of the thing. How many victims could a knife-bearer reasonably expect to get away with before being dogpiled/shot? Compare that with the usual victim count of someone with an assault rifle.

                      One mass stabbing left last year 29 dead and 140 wounded. Link. Another in 2012 left 22 school kids wounded, many in critical condition. Link. Another left 6 dead in a railway station. Link.

                      In other words, pretty similar to what you could expect from a gunman shooting up a public place.

                      1. DropBear
                        Unhappy

                        Re: Not good

                        At some point, I've tried to half-seriously research defence against a knife-attack (because reasons - don't ask). The main point I came away with was - there's no such thing. Well, for a fairly average bloke that is, without any sort of "my hands are registered lethal weapons" shenanigans. There isn't really a way to stay completely unhurt, and the shock of getting cut (even if not necessarily badly) apparently gives quite enough edge to the attacker over the victim to finish the job. Conversely, if one gets into the fight with the expectation of getting wounded to some degree and does not lose one's head if it happens, apparently one stands a fair chance of striking back effectively, at which point the consensus seems to be "just run - don't try to 'win'". Obviously, it's all about the specific context...

                        1. sisk

                          Re: Not good

                          At some point, I've tried to half-seriously research defence against a knife-attack (because reasons - don't ask). The main point I came away with was - there's no such thing. Well, for a fairly average bloke that is, without any sort of "my hands are registered lethal weapons" shenanigans.

                          Speaking as someone who could by strictest definition call his hands lethal weapons (meaning that, yes, I could kill with my bare hands without too much effort should I choose to do so and no, the average guy on the street would probably not be able to prevent me from doing so), let me say that even with such skills unarmed defense against knife attacks is no sure thing. Odds are you WILL get cut unless you're a world-class 7th+ degree black belt. In fact I know a couple world-class 7th and 8th degree black belts and they assure me that they would run from someone with a knife.

                          Conversely, if one gets into the fight with the expectation of getting wounded to some degree and does not lose one's head if it happens, apparently one stands a fair chance of striking back effectively, at which point the consensus seems to be "just run - don't try to 'win'"

                          That's pretty much basic rule number 1 to self defense no matter what the specifics are. I don't trust any self-defense teacher who doesn't use "If you can get away, run" as the foundation of what they're teaching.

                          1. Triggerfish

                            Re: Not good

                            I agree with Sisk comments earlier, knife (not counting guns just melee) was always regarded as one of the worst things to defend against, its as fast as someone punching, you are going to get cut. Running is much better.

                          2. Tom 13

                            Re: Not good

                            Knives are even easier to hide than guns. You'll never see them coming.

                      2. Vector

                        @sisk & codejunky Re: Not good

                        Here's the biggest difference between a knife and a gun: If I see someone coming at me with a knife, I can run, which significantly improves my chance of survival compared to running if I see someone coming at me with a gun. Granted, several factors come into play, such as seeing the weapon and my ability to out run the attacker, but, overall, I still think the odds improve greatly.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: @sisk & codejunky Not good

                          @ Vector

                          "If I see someone coming at me with a knife, I can run"

                          Big if. A gun needs to be cocked and loaded (assume pre done) and then pointed at the person (aim). A knife can be completely concealed and doesnt need aim or pointing just pushing into the victim even if it is still concealed in a bag or something. if bystanders do not see the knife (even if they get a glimpse) probably dont realise what has happened. Then we go back to basic rules of physical prowess where anyone not so physically fit as the attacker is a sacrifice as the fit ones get away.

                          "compared to running if I see someone coming at me with a gun"

                          The shock of seeing one might hold you. But then you may have advantage of distance as they try to actually hit you with the bullet. The closer they draw the more likely you will react (assuming a physical assault) and the further away the better their aim must be.

                          "I still think the odds improve greatly"

                          For you yes. But that is an I'm alright jack attitude which abandons a large part of the population (*assuming indiscriminate killer). This is where the right to carry does help. It is the great leveller. Anyone could be armed and anyone could be willing to intervene. Anyone could fight back even if they are old and frail, and kill you. The physical advantages of nature are greatly removed and suddenly people are on a more equal footing than before. A massive improvement of the odds.

                    2. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Not good

                      @ moiety

                      "If someone is going to try to murder me, I would very much prefer that they attempt it with a knife instead of a gun"

                      If someone is going to use a knife they are likely either bigger/stronger than you, more of them than you or intending to get close before revealing the knife. While the same can apply to a gun the size of the attacker is irrelevant and the number is less relevant. The third one is about not being spotted making the attack so a bang could be a problem.

                      "Consider, also, the scale of the thing. How many victims could a knife-bearer reasonably expect to get away with before being dogpiled/shot?"

                      Many. How many jumped on the 2 who killed the soldier in public? They could have done so much more and nobody could stop them. If your fear is body count then stay away from gasoline and other house hold chemicals. Bombs are more effective.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Not good

                        Yeah, but at the end of the day, a knife-wielder has to get close enough to stab you. That is a huge disadvantage to a gun-bearer who doesn't even have to be in the same kilometre (depending upon the type of gun).

                        The main thrust of your arguments seem to be that knives are just as dangerous as guns; which is patently bollocks.

                        Someone who's willing to pull the trigger on a human being will have no psychological problem with stabbing them.

                        Not necessarily. Using a knife involves getting close in with attendant extra physical risk and increases chances of something going wrong. It's also messier. And more personal.

                        One mass stabbing left last year 29 dead and 140 wounded. Link. Another in 2012 left 22 school kids wounded, many in critical condition. Link. Another left 6 dead in a railway station. Link.

                        OK, fair enough.

                        If someone is going to use a knife they are likely either bigger/stronger than you, more of them than you or intending to get close before revealing the knife.

                        Not necessarily. They could be drunk, mental, desperate or anything else. Not only groups of Special Forces get stabby. Making the attempt does not necessarily confer skill and that variability in skill is a major reason that I would prefer a knife attempt....because using a knife offensively does require more skill than a gun and there's more that can go wrong: incompetence of attacker; unexpected competence in attackee; useful scenery (stuff to hide behind/throw/get a good swing with); and bystanders.

                        How many jumped on the 2 who killed the soldier in public?

                        They had a gun; which somewhat negates your point. And the police turned up and shot them.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: Not good

                          @ moiety

                          "Yeah, but at the end of the day, a knife-wielder has to get close enough to stab you. That is a huge disadvantage to a gun-bearer who doesn't even have to be in the same kilometre (depending upon the type of gun)."

                          So lets assume not throwing the knife, or the many knives since everyone has a good supply and often openly on display. It worries me how people think they have a chance against a knife. All them wonderful combat ideas of blocking or defending yourself is generally bull, a knife fight is usually something closer to the speed of Seagal at the end of Under Seige. You will be shredded. So you run. Thats ok if your not old, frail, injured, weaker than the attacker, etc. Except there are a lot of those people around who CANT run away and CANT escape someone determined to kill people, and thats just with a knife!

                          "The main thrust of your arguments seem to be that knives are just as dangerous as guns; which is patently bollocks."

                          Of course not. Knives are more dangerous. People usually try to keep the guns away from nutters but we let them access knives without a thought. Easy to conceal, readily available, cheap, etc. Also the preference of serial killers.

                          "Not necessarily. Using a knife involves getting close in with attendant extra physical risk and increases chances of something going wrong. It's also messier. And more personal."

                          And cheap and easy to conceal. And hard to defend against.

                          "Not necessarily. They could be drunk, mental, desperate or anything else."

                          Exactly. And yet they can easily get a knife from home or avoid that risk and get one at their destination. Where doesnt have knives? They are everywhere. And if you base your whole hope on them being less in physical and mental capacity to the point of them being incapable then you are pretty screwed. A good example is the guys who broke into my grandparents house and the first thing they did was take a knife from their kitchen. Lucky they wernt in because they would have no chance (absolute zero).

                          "because using a knife offensively does require more skill than a gun"

                          I guess you have never fired a gun, never been to a range, never compared the difference. Kids can use knives. Pretty much any kid can use a knife. It is a problem for some schools and certainly a problem on the streets. No aim, no recoil, no technical ability to load/safety/cock, no nothing. Just slash or stab.

                          "incompetence of attacker; unexpected competence in attackee; useful scenery (stuff to hide behind/throw/get a good swing with); and bystanders."

                          Your hoping for incompetence? Ah. You hope the attackee is lucky + military trained? Ah. Run and hide from someone who put so much effort to close the distance? More hope with a shooter. And bystanders, who will watch assuming they notice a concealed weapon stabbing you silently. Nope.

                          "They had a gun; which somewhat negates your point. And the police turned up and shot them."

                          And nobody could do a thing until the police turned up and shot him. Nobody did anything until armed guy turns up and shot the attacker. People stood and watched the event and nobody acted. So much for your idea of bystanders. So much for criminals not being armed.

                          1. Jeremy Puddleduck

                            Re: Not good

                            Bloody bystanders that do nothing, eh?

                            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22703063

                            "Among those paying their respects in Woolwich was Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, who was seen last week trying to reason with one of the attackers as he stood holding a bloody knife."

                          2. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: Not good

                            @codejunky All your arguments there can be applied to any weapon. A heavy ashtray can be concealed until the last second; a gun can be fired from within a jacket/purse and so on.

                            The fundamental difference between knives and guns is that a knife attacker has to be close enough to stab you. That opens up possibilities if you see them coming (big if, I know, but still...if you don't see them coming then it is pretty immaterial what they're armed with). If you have an exit available then fucking off at high speed is a personal favourite (possibly the attacker might be fitter; but you're going to be really motivated). A knife attacker still has to close with you though, and there are things you can do about that. Flip tables, throw stuff, fend them off with a stool....anything to keep them arm's reach plus-a-bit away.

                            I guess you have never fired a gun, never been to a range, never compared the difference.

                            Shotguns and airguns - nothing sexy. But I do know that mostly you don't have to cock a gun..just check the load and safety and pull the trigger. Cocking it for the click is largely a Hollywood thing, I believe

                            And nobody could do a thing until the police turned up and shot him. Nobody did anything until armed guy turns up and shot the attacker. People stood and watched the event and nobody acted. So much for your idea of bystanders. So much for criminals not being armed.

                            I say again - the beheaders had a gun (as well as machetes, so had short and medium distances covered). Also it was the middle of the day and open terrain with little in the way of cover. Nobody without a gun was going to take them on, trained or not.

                            For you yes. But that is an I'm alright jack attitude which abandons a large part of the population (*assuming indiscriminate killer). This is where the right to carry does help. It is the great leveller. Anyone could be armed and anyone could be willing to intervene. Anyone could fight back even if they are old and frail, and kill you. The physical advantages of nature are greatly removed and suddenly people are on a more equal footing than before. A massive improvement of the odds.

                            A massive improvement in the odds of being shot by accident. And let's not forget that anyone prepared to be one of these great levellers will then run a nearly 5x greater risk of suicide.

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: Not good

                              @ moiety

                              "The fundamental difference between knives and guns is that a knife attacker has to be close enough to stab you."

                              Which is easy. As we have already explained, defending against a knife is the unlikely scenario which leaves running. So how physically fit are you? Are you cornered? This person intends to do you harm, do you think they are going to make it easy for you? The dream of running away is the last refuge of the fit and able while the rest have no hope. Even if they had a knife themselves.

                              "Shotguns and airguns - nothing sexy. But I do know that mostly you don't have to cock a gun..just check the load and safety and pull the trigger. Cocking it for the click is largely a Hollywood thing, I believe"

                              Not done shotgun, not sure I fancy it. Air and live rifles are good, and yes you cock a gun if it is semi/auto for both pistol and rifle. You do have to check the safety, know how to unjam the gun, clean it, keep it operational etc. A knife you pick up, even if rusty and dull and it is operational.

                              "Also it was the middle of the day and open terrain with little in the way of cover. Nobody without a gun was going to take them on, trained or not."

                              And the people stood there. They are lucky these guys didnt want to kill a load of people because even without the gun they were not challenged. So you are right, nobody would take them on, not even the police until they had a gun. Until then the attackers were free to go on. The gun as far as I am aware was not used by the attackers, it was the knives.

                              "A massive improvement in the odds of being shot by accident. And let's not forget that anyone prepared to be one of these great levellers will then run a nearly 5x greater risk of suicide."

                              Bullseye. Fear of an accident. Irrelevant that people have accidents every day with varying levels of injury? No but you ignore that to blame just a gun. As for your second point, why do you feel you have the right over other peoples lives? Suicide is a personal choice and shooting yourself is a fairly quick and accurate way to go compared to the many other ways (and very messy) that people do it. Claiming people are more likely to do that might possibly be correct, which says more about how depressed they are. Surely it would be better to support people than take away their rights to their own life?

                              1. Anonymous Coward
                                Anonymous Coward

                                Re: Not good

                                @codejunky - You know, I think we're both approaching the subject from different religious positions, so a compromise isn't going to be possible.

                                Running - fitness will be a factor, sure, but I just have to be faster (or equally fast + a bit of a head start) than the theoretical attacker over a set distance. In this case it's a bit over a mile to the nearest police station; which is doable. And the motivation would certainly be there.

                                "The gun as far as I am aware was not used by the attackers, it was the knives."

                                They didn't have to use the gun. People knew they had it; which was enough. And as they were beheading people with machetes, so people weren't going to take a chance with assuming the gun wasn't real, working, or loaded. Without the gun (and the attendant medium-range coverage) the situation would have been tactically different and maybe there would have been something people could do. In the Tunisia shooting recently, for example, a builder tried pegging the shooter with roof tiles because conditions were right...he had cover, height and a supply of 'ammo'. Some people will try if the conditions are right; but they just weren't in the London beheadings.

                                Bullseye. Fear of an accident. Irrelevant that people have accidents every day with varying levels of injury?

                                Statistics seem to show (I say seem because gun statistics seem to have been massaged into unrecognisability by both sides) that a gun owner stands a significantly higher chance of accidentally capping a member of his own family than nailing a burglar.

                                In the context of this discussion, the 'accident' I was referring to was an assailant with an unspecified number of covert/open carriers who would try and stop the assailant. Now that's OK if just pointing the gun is enough; but as soon as the first bullet gets fired the chances of a serious accident go way, way up for everybody in the room and for quite some distance around. Not sure what you're imagining about your carriers; but you seem to be assuming competence, training, sanity and sobriety....whereas I am making no such assumptions. It could go smoothly, which would be nice, but it could quite as easily devolve into the end scene from Reservoir Dogs.

                                Suicide is sort of a special case. Research seems to show that a large proportion of suicides are impulsive. That is to say that if the means are easily available then people so inclined will go for it in the moment. If those means are not easily available and only other -slower/more painful methods- are available then some will avail themselves of those methods but many will not and grind through their depression to live another day. While I'm not arguing with people's right to cap themselves; I am saying that having the means to do it -as you say quickly and accurately- increases the chances of it happening by nearly 5x.

                                1. codejunky Silver badge

                                  Re: Not good

                                  @ moiety

                                  "Running - fitness will be a factor, sure, but I just have to be faster (or equally fast + a bit of a head start) than the theoretical attacker over a set distance."

                                  You are right, we agree. So half the population will be less fit than average and lets assume an average attacker. This ignores being cornered or anything an attacker will do to have an advantage.

                                  "They didn't have to use the gun. People knew they had it; which was enough."

                                  Which is the argument of personal defence. Especially concealed carry as you may have a gun as may any observers.

                                  "Without the gun (and the attendant medium-range coverage) the situation would have been tactically different and maybe there would have been something people could do"

                                  And you called medium range the machete? So if they didnt have the gun AND the knife. And then people may have done something (including unarmed police).

                                  "In the Tunisia shooting recently, for example, a builder tried pegging the shooter with roof tiles because conditions were right...he had cover, height and a supply of 'ammo'."

                                  The staff also made a human wall/shield which the attacker wouldnt shoot through as they were muslims. He had a gun, the people stood. The roofer had a good position and timed it for the police arriving with guns. I also hear an officer with a gun saw him on the beach but wouldnt do anything (understandable). Some kids asked for the gun (officer gave it) and they ran at the attacker shooting in the air until it jammed and they were chased away. Various amounts of bravery, situation resolved when someone armed and willing to shoot the attacker did so (police).

                                  "Statistics seem to show (I say seem because gun statistics seem to have been massaged into unrecognisability by both sides) that a gun owner stands a significantly higher chance of accidentally capping a member of his own family than nailing a burglar."

                                  Hang on. You saying that a gun owner is more likely to accidentally shoot someone than someone without a gun? Next you might change my world and say people using cars are more likely to be in a car crash. As for nailing burglars, those would be the ones willing to risk their life (as the statistics when I last looked also support less burglars in areas of personal defence firearms) and the aim is not to shoot people, its to reduce violent crime, reduce being attacked, and if you are not necessarily discharging the firearm to have the desired effect. This is a good statistic, its positive news.

                                  "Not sure what you're imagining about your carriers; but you seem to be assuming competence, training, sanity and sobriety....whereas I am making no such assumptions."

                                  In an ideal world I would mandate that anyone buying a firearm have some training in its use. I dont need to assume any of that, the presence of that possibility reduces crime. Without firing a shot the gun can stop a violent attack instantly (and it does). And in the last moments it gives the victim a chance which otherwise they do not have.

                                  "Suicide is sort of a special case"

                                  Suicide is personal choice. If the choice is removed then they have no right to their own life.

                                  1. Anonymous Coward
                                    Anonymous Coward

                                    Re: Not good

                                    To sum up the case for the defence; guns are dangerous and people mostly are idiots...not all the time but everyone manages to have their own special brand of idiocy in certain circumstances. More guns, more accidents...it's that simple.

                                    Where I am has gun control and my chances of being shot -if I refrain from drunkenly waving katanas around and similar- are effectively zero. Also I don't have to carry around a heavy lump of metal; which is nice, and am in no more real danger because of it. The number of situations I have been in in my life where guns would have helped = zero. The number of situations where omnipresent guns would have fucked things right up = several.

                                    I appreciate that things are different in the US where guns are so much more prevalent; but frankly I prefer it here.

                                    Suicide is personal choice. If the choice is removed then they have no right to their own life.

                                    I wasn't advocating removing the choice. I'm advocating introducing a delay between the thought and the act. Studies would seem to indicate that a thwarting of the act at the time (doesn't have to be a big thwart either...just a slightly higher bridge railing will do it in some circumstances) leads to a cooling off period and that a lot of people who would otherwise be dead -get this- don't "complete". And by 'a lot' we're talking 9/10 numbers here. The British coal-gas story is an analogous situation where once the easily-available means were removed the suicide rate of a whole country dropped like a stone and stayed there. Remember, it's not only the suicide's rights that have to be looked after - it's all the poor bastards surrounding them too; as well as society's cleanup costs.

                                    1. Anonymous Coward
                                      Anonymous Coward

                                      Re: Not good

                                      P.S. And you called medium range the machete? So if they didnt have the gun AND the knife. And then people may have done something (including unarmed police).

                                      No the gun was the medium range bit. Now a machete is fucking frightening so nobody's going to close with someone wielding one. Without the gun, though, bystanders may have been able to do something along the lines of "heave a brick and run away". Enough people doing that can be quite effective, as ISIS prove on a regular basis. The presence of the gun precluded that, though, as the terrorists would have simply shot them.

              2. sisk

                Re: Not good

                To argue that gun control has no effect of gun related crime is absurd

                True, but I didn't say "gun related crime". I said "violent crime". Do you think being stabbed to death is somehow better than being shot?

          3. Tom 13

            Re: Not good

            Actually the NRA has bedunked all of the imaginary statistics put out by hoplophobes posing as impartial observers.

        2. Simon Watson

          Re: Not good

          "You would think so. Until you learn a little about the issue and realize that controlling guns doesn't have much of a statistical impact on violent crimes."

          Really. Got a good source for that?

          1. John Tserkezis

            Re: Not good

            "You would think so. Until you learn a little about the issue and realize that controlling guns doesn't have much of a statistical impact on violent crimes.

            Really. Got a good source for that?"

            Granted, this is a small sample size (especially when compared to the US, and more so when you consider guns are not acceped as a natural part of life), but in Australia, we had a gun buyback sceme set up where you could surrender your firearm for market value (I think) where it was subsequently destroyed.

            This study https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf, shows the sceme "did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

            So there. Well, for a small sample size anyway...

            1. Simon Watson

              Re: Not good

              There seem to be a few papers with differing opinion as to whether or not the Australian legislation had an effect on gun crime, gun accidents and gun suicides. All use sensible approaches to the analysis which obtain different results. The range is from there is an effect to no significant effect.

              I suggest that when presented with a range of equally hard worked, sensible yet unprovable conclusions it seems likely that they represent a distribution over the true result. I think that's the general basis of medical meta-analysis. In this case it suggests that no effect is likely to be an outlier as it represents the most extreme result in the range from no effect to some effect.

          2. Tom 13

            Re: Not good

            Yep:

            http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

            Interestingly, when the author started his study he assumed your lies were true and he was finally going to produce the statistically solid proof the hoplophobes hadn't been able to. It was his own work on the subject that changed his thinking on the issue.

        3. Jeremy Puddleduck

          Re: Not good

          So, Britain has way less gun crime, per person, not because we have far fewer guns but because...we like each other more?

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: Not good

            People are forgetting that in the UK knives are also controlled. There is a max blade size you may carry in public, and for that you must have a good reason to be carrying it. Folding knives that lock out are illegal, as are spring/flick-knives.

            Of course, I have some huge chefs knives in my home but they get used regularly for useful purposes. I couldn't imagine chopping vegetables with a Beretta M9.

            There is a good deal of straw-clutching going on when you watch people trying to argue in favour of gun ownership. Handguns really have no justifiable use the hands of the public in any place that is not already awash with them.

            In a nation that is saturated with handguns, I can see that it is a hard call to remove handgun ownership from the law abiding public, when that would leave them feeling defenceless against the criminals who would have access to millions of illegally held weapons. But the idea of a society existing in a virtual Mexican stand off is pretty sad, and our best example of a society like that has so many virtues yet is sadly let down in that respect.

            1. sisk

              Re: Not good

              There is a good deal of straw-clutching going on when you watch people trying to argue in favour of gun ownership.

              There's also a good bit of fear mongering going on whenever you see people arguing in favor of tighter gun control.

              Handguns really have no justifiable use the hands of the public in any place that is not already awash with them.

              Sports shooting, for one. Also the gun's status as an equalizer makes the self-defense argument valid no matter what what the specific circumstances. Unless you're one of those who think a 103 pound woman can fend off a 250 pound rapist by pissing herself. You may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it's an argument worth considering.

              1. Vector

                Re: Not good

                "Unless you're one of those who think a 103 pound woman can fend off a 250 pound rapist by pissing herself."

                I find this argument to be highly specious as well. The odds of a gun making any positive difference in your rape scenario are extremely low and highly dependent on a series of fortunate coincidences. The most likely outcome is that the gun will be taken from the 103 pound woman and used to force her to comply

                1. sisk

                  Re: Not good

                  The most likely outcome is that the gun will be taken from the 103 pound woman and used to force her to comply

                  Reality disagrees with you. The most common outcome of that scenario is this: rapist menaces woman, woman pulls gun, rapist runs like hell. If he doesn't run and the woman actually knows how to use the gun odds are he'll be shot before he's close enough to try to take it away. Do your research and you'll find this to be true. The "it'll just get taken away" argument is pure fantasy and has no bearing on reality. Don't believe me? Just try to find a case where it's happened. You can find a few cases where the opposite has happened and plenty of cases where a rapist has been shot by a gun toting would-be victim, but no case of a rapist taking a gun has ever been in the news.

                  1. Vector

                    Re: Not good

                    "Do your research and you'll find this to be true..."

                    Actually, in looking into this, I found the studies to be decidedly mixed with the results canted heavily based on agenda (conservatives prove they help, liberals prove they hurt). My sense was that the conservative studies tended more towards anecdotal evidence than liberal studies but, I'll admit, that's probably my own bias weighing in.

                    On your point about "rapist taking gun" not being in the news, well, of course not. That's not news worthy. There's nothing compelling in that story. Victim wards off attacker, on the other hand, is very compelling.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Not good

                      @ Vector

                      "On your point about "rapist taking gun" not being in the news, well, of course not. That's not news worthy. There's nothing compelling in that story. Victim wards off attacker, on the other hand, is very compelling."

                      Your kidding. The anti gun nutters would love it. They would lap it up. It would be one of the wonderful examples they could parade around to bash infidels over the head with. It would be screamed about for many years. It would make the anti gun people so happy. Especially if a victim was then shot. The morbid joy of another example to claim that the many people in the many developed countries who own guns are all secretly mass murderers waiting for their moment. How could the new pass on such outrage?

                      In comparison there was a story in the UK a while ago about a stag that was shot. It was front page BBC 'oh my god who could do such a thing' 'think of the children'! The outrage as this majestic creature was killed brutally and left there like it was nothing.

                      As the hours went on the story went through so many revisions that the faux outrage was bordering on propaganda. Every revision updated with some of the facts but then still had rage behind it against these cruel gun owning people. In the end the stag was shot legally to preserve the health of the stag population and after being cleanly shot in the accepted manner had been collected up and taken away. The reports changed so much that the story was almost new by the end. It was a non-story but worth reporting just to rage against gun owners. And you dont think the anti gun nutters would run a story as good as that one?

                      1. sisk

                        Re: Not good

                        Given the extreme liberal bias and anti-gun sentiment in most American media I find it extremely difficult to believe they wouldn't pick up a story about a rape victims gun being used against them and run it into the ground. It would certainly be more newsworthy than a petty criminal attacking a cop and getting shot for his trouble and they ran with that one for weeks even after they'd already caused riots.

                    2. Tom 13

                      Re: not being in the news

                      He didn't say "in the news" he said reported. Which include includes police reports where withholding information (in addition to your failure to report that your gun has now been stolen) is a crime. And you won't find any of those in the police reports either.

          2. sisk

            Re: Not good

            So, Britain has way less gun crime, per person, not because we have far fewer guns but because...we like each other more?

            First, stop confusing "gun crime" and "violent crime". The terms are not interchangeable and gun crimes are no worse than any other violent crime.

            Second, yes Britain has less violent crime than the US. Britain also has less poverty and less population density than the parts of the US that are largely responsible for our crime statistics being so high (the big cities). There are also cultural factors to consider. Basically when you compare the US to Britain on crime you're comparing apples and oranges. There are too many factors to nail it down with to any one of them.

          3. Tom 13

            Re: Not good

            Actually, for the most part yes. As is the case in Japan and Switzerland.

      2. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Not good

        @ Simon Watson

        "Pretty sure it's the combination of the two. You can attempt to control one, the other or both. Guns are easier to control than people."

        Then you are wrong, but a lot of people get it wrong. Terrorists throughout ages have found things that go boom work better. If you want to kill a group of people a bomb works better. The gun is a tool, the problem is who is using it

        1. Simon Watson

          Re: Not good

          "Then you are wrong, but a lot of people get it wrong. Terrorists throughout ages have found things that go boom work better. If you want to kill a group of people a bomb works better. The gun is a tool, the problem is who is using it"

          Not sure how we got onto terrorism, but hey. You are indeed correct, the problem is who's using it. That's what gun control is for.

          Once you have effective gun control, the job of law enforcement becomes so much easier. I see a gun, it's unlikely to be lawful. I see a child with something that looks like a gun, it's unlikely to be real. Plus you don't create a huge pool of weapons that can easily be used for crime. The argument for everyone having guns is like the argument for everyone having nuclear weapons. I'm only safe if I can blow up the other guy. No, you'd be safer is nobody could.

          I sleep far better at night knowing I'll probably never see a firearm except at an airport or on a farm than I would having a gun in my bedside table and knowing any idiot on the street might have one too.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Not good

            @ Simon Watson

            "Not sure how we got onto terrorism, but hey. You are indeed correct, the problem is who's using it. That's what gun control is for."

            I mention terrorists as their aim is killing, and there are cheaper things than guns that are more readily available to everyone without a second thought. Gun control reduces the amount of harm by a gun (note suicide, accident, etc) but doesnt remove them from criminals. As the point I made stands solid, people will kill regardless and with much cheaper and easier ways. Gun control didnt help when 2 guys cut down and publicly killed a soldier while onlookers were powerless. The police eventually arrived but the fact is these 2 guys could have done so much more with little to no resistance. We still have various killings and murders in various ways. I agree with an amount of gun control but the problem is the nutter, not the tool.

            "Once you have effective gun control, the job of law enforcement becomes so much easier. I see a gun, it's unlikely to be lawful. I see a child with something that looks like a gun, it's unlikely to be real."

            But that doesnt work does it. How many guns are confiscated in the UK, its a lot. And we tend to ignore it as long as they shoot each other, but how many civvies get caught between gangs? Even lone idiots use them for robberies. And we have such tight controls it stops our Olympic teams from practising and makes everyone paranoid.

            "No, you'd be safer is nobody could"

            That is a good point. If nobody had em we would be fine. That however isnt an option. It doesnt exist. So when you deal with reality you have to then weigh up facts. Do you rob a house if you might get shot? Mug someone on a street? Some people do but a lot dont. Looking at the individual states there seems some credit to people possibly being armed even if most aint. Because you all look the same and you might be armed.

            "I sleep far better at night knowing I'll probably never see a firearm except at an airport or on a farm than I would having a gun in my bedside table and knowing any idiot on the street might have one too."

            You must be in the UK. I can understand that. If you ever saw one your world would be destroyed for a while but chances are you can avoid them in general. I have seen a few (gun range) and I am fairly sure I saw one used in a robbery (not discharged) that I witnessed from outside. The idiots on the street with bad intentions can already get them and do have them. Good people with good intentions jump through insane hoops to get them. And the rest pretend they are safer. As I said it is those I expect who would buy one of these cases.

    2. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Not good

      "I expect the lawful gun owners will be avoiding these as they will understand the difference between a gun and a toy."

      Yeah, about that: Cleveland Police shoot and kill 12 year old with toy gun

  7. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Widely misunderstood item

    This is simply a ticket to this year's Darwin Award competition.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you do get one...

    ...definitely don't choose the black one.

    Sorry.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: If you do get one...

      @AC

      The colour wont help. When the gov demanded that toy guns had to be brightly coloured our club was amused. A criminal will just spray their gun while a copper will recognise the shape of the thing and unlikely care about the colour, especially at night.

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: If you do get one...

        @codejunky:

        *woosh*

        Obviously a crack at the many recent cases of black people being murdered by US cops.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: If you do get one...

      Racist!

  9. thomas k

    Saw this on The Nightly Show

    Larry's advice to potential African American buyers - "No, uh-uh, no!"

  10. Dana W

    As someone who carries a pistol every day, let me say that this is an INTENSELY stupid case. And very, very dangerous.

    Mister policeman is NOT going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    1. Donn Bly

      Of course it is a stupid idea - but so is any the mindset of many people (officers included) that anyone with a gun is a criminal.

      1. Simon Watson

        That really depends where you live, doesn't it? In the UK if you're in public with a firearm it's most likely you are (I'd appreciate it if all the farmers and farm hands out there didn't flame me down about shotguns, thanks!).

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          To be fair to farmers etc, there's often noone else around, so it's not exactly "in public"

      2. Just Enough

        Mindset

        Yes. It's a mindset. Now be sure to engage the police officer in a discussion about this when you pull it out of your pocket. I'm sure they'll be happy to talk about it a while, before they jump to any silly conclusions and shoot you.

    2. DropBear
      FAIL

      Just to get this straight - am I in mortal danger carrying around a Super Soaker too if it looks vaguely realistic? How about one of those novelty "cigarette lighter" 'guns'? Or a complete "dummy" piece of casting...? Not talking about trying to draw one on a cop, mind you - just having it visibly on my person. Is this really where we're at? ...Srsly?!?

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      2. Tom 13

        Re: am I in mortal danger carrying around a Super Soaker

        Depends where you are. The higher the number of hoplophobes, the more danger you are in. Cops in Chicago and NYC have shot people who were pulling wallets/phones (without the gun handle case) out of their back pockets.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Darwin Awards here we come...

    http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/

    In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Darwin Awards here we come...

      How long will it take?

      After over 100 years of motoring there are still rabbits who haven't evolved to learn the green cross code.

  12. sisk

    The first time I saw one of these things it was captioned with "I wonder how long it'll be before this gets someone killed." I couldn't agree with the sentiment more. My cousin once almost got shot by a cop (a good cop at that, which I can say with confidence because I've known him for a long, long time) because he was holding a paintball gun, which looks nothing like a real gun. And then you've got this thing which looks very much like a real gun.

  13. iLuddite

    ok, then

    Standard business strategy: identify a need and fulfill it. So this is just a... um... just a...hmmm...Just who needs what here?

  14. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Disappointment

    And here I was, thinking that it was just a bunch of iPhone fanbois shooting themselves in the head.

    1. Mark 85
      Joke

      Re: Disappointment

      Maybe that will be the next model? Get them used to the idea of "press the trigger to call"....

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Disappointment

      Is "fanboy" the most hackneyed word on the web by now? I'm pretty bored with it.

      If you look on the Chinese website, these gun cases are available for phones other than those made by Apple.

  15. Kar98
    Pirate

    Dumb

    If anything, I'd buy a gun holster that looks like a cellphone case.

  16. Allan George Dyer
    Coat

    "You can prise my iPhone from my cold, dead hands."

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like