The world's first shell phone?
Just don't get "dropped..."
Absolutely no one can make sense of the United States' infatuation with firearms. But that dichotomy between both arguing for extraordinary rights to carry guns and worrying intensely about being attacked by guns has rarely been as stark as the news that someone has developed a gun that looks like a mobile phone. In a country …
Just don't get "dropped..."
> "It's more so for people that want to be able to carry a gun when they need to and not have to engage other people about why they're carrying that gun,"
AKA "carrying a concealed weapon".
I thought they were AK-47's?
Dial '6887773_33777', surely
No, didn't you know the new emergency number is:
0118 999 881 999 119 7253
*Courtesy of the IT crowd.
*Courtesy of the IT crowd.**
** Who stole it from Not the Nine O'Clock News :)
idiots like that need shooting
"idiots like that need shooting"
I do find this interesting. I am in the UK but I do enjoy using firearms at a range so I have met a few people here who understand guns and their uses. Interestingly they seem to be generally nice people and fairly normal, the kind you can trust and get on with. However whenever I mention to a non-shooter that I do this I am often faced with a homicidal idiot based on their almost predictable reaction of 'dont shoot somebody' or 'oh you want to be careful not to injure yourself/others'. The only person talking about shooting someone is the idiot who doesnt know what they are talking about, I sometimes wonder how they function in the world of scary things (like cars or even fire).
So why does this guy who doesnt seem to want to cause any harm and instead seems to be trying to put such people more at ease by concealing the gun further need to be shot? Why must you be so violent? And dont you think maybe he considers his personal safety to be important, especially when people say things like 'idiots like that need shooting'.
You are full of bullshit. You like guns because, well, you like guns ... guns give you no "protection", that is bullshit ... and claiming we are violent when YOU have guns is quite hilarious.
Obligatory Jim Jeffries show on the subject.
"So why does this guy who doesnt seem to want to cause any harm and instead seems to be trying to put such people more at ease by concealing the gun further need to be shot?"
thats the point - by carrying a disguised gun he makes it easier to cause harm.
why does he need shooting? Simple: to improve the gene pool. We need fewer idiots around
"And dont you think maybe he considers his personal safety to be important"
I consider MY personal safety to be more important. Idiots with disguised guns compromises that safety
@ Hans 1
"You are full of bullshit. You like guns because, well, you like guns ... guns give you no "protection", that is bullshit ... and claiming we are violent when YOU have guns is quite hilarious."
Did you read my comment? I was responding to someone who suggested he needed to be shot (I can only assume for making this gun). Does that not sound violent? And while I am amused you find it hilarious that gun owners are not violent, I am amused you think they are. Also that you likely know someone who does or has been shooting. From what I see in the article he designed this gun so as not to make the people around him uncomfortable with their discomfort while still keeping his gun on him. Sounds very non-violent to me.
@ x 7
"thats the point - by carrying a disguised gun he makes it easier to cause harm."
So he would be better off carrying as normal, except the violent people around him who assume a gun must equal a problem. It is in their heads not his.
"why does he need shooting? Simple: to improve the gene pool. We need fewer idiots around"
And on what basis do you assume an improvement in the gene pool? Remove an innovator? Remove someone who hasnt asked for people to be shot in favour of you? Would he think the same of you? What makes one more valid than another? What makes him so undeserving of life (in your view).
"I consider MY personal safety to be more important. Idiots with disguised guns compromises that safety"
Maybe if people didnt have such a problem he wouldnt feel the need to disguise it. However if the state he is in allows concealed carry you probably wouldnt know anyway.
"So he would be better off carrying as normal, except the violent people around him who assume a gun must equal a problem. It is in their heads not his."
No, he'd be better off not carrying a gun at all. And so would be the people around him.
"And on what basis do you assume an improvement in the gene pool? Remove an innovator?"
I'd remove any "innovator" who makes it easier to kill other people.
"However if the state he is in allows concealed carry you probably wouldnt know anyway"
Oh, I think I would. All the people I've met who carry guns in public are arrogant twats
@ x 7
"No, he'd be better off not carrying a gun at all. And so would be the people around him."
Thats your opinion and your welcome to it but as proven by the law there, they have a different view. And of course they are free to carry or not to carry as they please, yey personal choice.
"I'd remove any "innovator" who makes it easier to kill other people."
As a good many things blunt and sharp, cold and hot, viral and bacterial can be used to kill then you have just wiped out such a large part of the gene pool and useful innovation globally. The fact that you talk of how you would 'remove' (that needs the air quotes, trust me) anyone falling foul of your beliefs really doesnt sound friendly. Talk like that in a gun club and they will likely show you the door quickly.
"Oh, I think I would. All the people I've met who carry guns in public are arrogant twats"
Again I do wonder what their opinion of you would be (based on our conversation so far it aint looking good). Of course you have your experience and I have mine and it appears I may have met the good ones or you met the less so (in your view). Yet in our conversation I enjoy shooting as a sport and you seem against guns, yet you are the one calling for death and violence. Maybe you could make your point better by being less aggressive?
@codejunky, there's no point trying to discuss things with some people.
Last time I was in the States I was on a road trip in Nevada. I pulled into a gas station, started filling the tank and noticed the three-line neon sign in the window. The first line read, "Guns." I thought, yep, this is the US. The second line read, "Ammo," and I thought you may as well. No point having one without the other. The third line read, "Alcohol," and suddenly everything made sense.
Like the saloon sign "Liquor in the front. Poker in the rear."
Sorry... FX <shame>
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms - need we say more ?
You forgot explosives too. Soo much fun wrapped into one!
Do you guys still have that deal where the "lord" of the manner gets to sleep with every bride first, or have you all finally been feminized to the point that the "commons" can't...."House of Lords"? WTF?
Do you guys still have that deal where you can own black people?
Do you guys still have that deal where the "lord" of the manner gets to sleep with every bride first,
No, because our laws have evolved over time to suit society as it changes. It's a trick you might like to learn, if you can only get over the sacred amendment issue.
Actually, such a law never existed to begin with, it's a myth.
."House of Lords"? WTF?
Which you changed for the House of Lards
Please do us (and you) a favour and read some history will you (no Wikipedia is not a definitive source)?
Btw wtf is a 'manner'?
Mind your manners.
noun: manner; plural noun: manners
A person who takes part in the activity of manning.
Yes, and not only is it a law that never existed, it was made up to justify how evil the previous regime was.
And then gets picked up as a hollywood trope, and because American's tend to either wish they had the gravitas of the British ex-empire, or need to hate and belittle them. Much like the Brits did/do to other older imperial groups (Dutch, Spanish, greco-roman). Copy all the bits you like, claim they are your own, and mock the other stuff.
At least it means there are a steady stream of brit actors playing villains in movies.
But this a gun debate, and so myths and false beliefs perpetuate rather than some engaging in rational thought.
Personally, long guns are usually fine. You use them as a tool, and you store them safely and securely, and when you run into other people when you're toting them around you not only ensure their safety (like a sensible person, clearing your shot etc) but make sure they don't feel intimidated or worried. Very much a UK countryside attitude I'd guess, and I had no worries about the local plod checking up that the shotgun etc was stored correctly.
The NZ attitude was far more stupid. Hunters not only shooting on land they had no right to, in the wrong season, but failing to identify targets whilst being close to campsites. Then, when to do shoot a school teacher in the head, the best thing is too drive back to your camp and get your story straight, rather than assist.
Handguns are either a sidearm for people who are going off to kill other people, a "minimum" carry gun for a police officer (if they are actually expecting a shooter then it would be a PDW or a long gun), or penis compensation. Hand guns are for killing people, no real other use. And while some believe the threat will keep people in check, others believe that an escalation of threat (eg pointing a gun at someone) leads to an escalation of violence.
The availability of weapons doesn't help the "weak" either. Male domestic abusers are 5 times more likely to kill their partner (versus "only" beating them) if the abuser owns a gun.
Wiki doesn't think it exists.
I suspect AC has been getting their info from that well known hollywood documentary on William Wallace entitled "Braveheart: Why the English are total cocks".
I'd guess they where going for "manor" but it's probably a phrase picked up from Downton or some other period piece :D
What??!!?? 'Droit de seigneur' was a Victorian myth. And the rest of your comment -- are you OK? Do you know where your meds are?
True, but Terry Pratchett still had a great deal of fun with the concept:
"The King? Oh, he's out exercising his Droit du Seigneur. Damn great hairy thing..."
"Btw wtf is a 'manner'?"
It's what an American tourist abroad has. The rest of us have more than one ;-)
Could be interesting when the FBI try and break into that one...
May I try? I am a rancher. We have bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, racoons, rattlesnakes, coyotes, feral dogs & cats, and other fauna that threaten the livestock.
Guns are tools on this side of the pond. Plain & simple.
Tools they may be but not everyone is a responsible adult when it comes to tools.
(I mean seriously, I've seen the damage a 3 year old can do with a screw driver.)
I also find it mind boggling the idea that times don't change enough to warrant changes to laws written up as rights (I mean come on, following that logic we should still be paying tithes, treating women as property and taking archery practice every Sunday)
Which is fine, we have farmers too and we let them have guns.
We don't tend to let them carry their guns through city centres and family restaurants where there are no bears or lions though, and we don't really see the need for assault rifles to control foxes.
The "guns are tools" argument misses the whole point. A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it. That is the function of the 2nd Amendment. But I guess times have changed so much that we no longer need fear the would-be totalitarians among us, right?
Sure I get that - I live in Australia and we have guns for exactly the same reason over here (Roo's, Drop Bears etc), they are tools of the trade, all licenced and pretty easily obtainable with the correct paperwork, what we don't have is people (other than the police) walking around with 9mm strapped to their jeans in restaurants.
"we have guns for exactly the same reason over here (Roo's, Drop Bears etc)"
You need guns because you're scared of Koalas? WTF?
And whats a roo going to do to you? It'll only kick you if you corner it - and first you'd have to catch up with it. If you'd said hunting buffalo/donkeys/dingos/cats I could take it seriously....
" A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it."
There is no handgun in the world that will protect you from an armed government. This is a weapon used by thugs, and not dictators. The idea that somehow we are safer from our government because some idiot thinks that having a disguised 2 shot 38 special is a good idea, is so laughable it hurts!!!
The other wonderful idea is to allow everyone at the Republican Convention to carry firearms openly. I can only speculate that someone wanted to make killing Donald Trump a much easier thing for some nutcase to do. That would save the Republican old guard from having to pass over him, and unite their party for the election. Nothing else about this makes sense. Why would you bring guns to a political convention where tempers will run high and over 50,000 people will be in attendance? Odds that someone there is crazy with those number has to be over 100%.
If I lived in Australia I wouldn't want at least a thermonuclear device to protect me from the local wildlife
Threatening fauna, sure!
Pure and simple?? By no means.
Thee are no conceivable (rational) circumstances under which a firearm is appropriate in a junior/primary school. If you have altered your perception of reality to permit such an outrage to be worthy of rational consideration, then you need to to sit down and spend some time considering the kind of world you seek to create for your children.
"A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it."
Yeah, how's that working out for you exactly?
Quite well, thanks for asking.
"Quite well, thanks for asking."
Is that a personal delusion or a state-sponsored one?
The archery practice every Sunday were one of the reasons the English won the battle of Agincourt. The English trusted their citizens with powerful weapons; the French did not. Nowadays, the English no longer trust their citizens with weapons.
"The archery practice every Sunday were one of the reasons the English won the battle of Agincourt. The English trusted their citizens with powerful weapons; the French did not. Nowadays, the English no longer trust their citizens with weapons."
And look at the environment our ancestors lived in at the time: feudal serfery, at the beck and call of the local landholder, and subject to summary punishment, disfigurement, or execution if you looked at him the wrong way. The freedom of the population was totally constrained: people were tied to the land and were to all intents and purposes slaves. The citizens weren't "trusted": they were controlled by their masters. Archery practice was part of a controlled system in which every able-bodied man owed forced allegiance, and forced military service, to his overlord - on pain of death
Do you go shopping in town with your tools?
Do you go to a family restaurant in town with your tools?
Actually, in the USA you're probably more likely to be arrested if you brought a scythe to the store than you would be if you brought a rifle. Which says a lot about the country really. "Right to bear arms", but only so long as those arms are approved by your munitions manufacturers.
So what you're saying is that people who get upset immediately turn to murder?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018