Re: Well ...
Can I put one in the other? It would still make more sense than US gun policy.
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 …
Like most in the USA I prefer to carry a firearm with more capacity, and can easily conceal a Glock 43. This is really a novelty, as for a 'two shooter' you could as easily carry a small derringer in a pocket.
As to the author's dislike of Americans and firearms. No worries, you aren't required to visit.
"Like most in the USA I prefer to carry a firearm with more capacity, and can easily conceal a Glock 43. This is really a novelty, as for a 'two shooter' you could as easily carry a small derringer in a pocket.
As to the author's dislike of Americans and firearms. No worries, you aren't required to visit."
As an example of missing the point, it would be hard to beat this.
I didn't miss the point at all. The author doesn't like guns and thinks Americans are crazy for carrying a concealed firearm for self defense.
The article wasn't a review of the product, but a rant against the society in which such a product would be purchased.
I chose to respond primarily to the product itself, which I consider useless and proposed better alternatives for those that wish to carry a concealed firearm. I'm a firearms instructor and state certified concealed carry handgun course instructor in my state, as well as retired career military, so I feel I can provide some advice there.
As always, this is a hotly contested subject even within the United States, and I again will take the high road and not beat that dead horse here.
Tourists heading for Orlando, Florida and carefully funnelled through a 'safe area' so there is a much-reduced risk of them being shot.
I occasionally visit the USA, but I avoid any state that has decided that citizens walking around with firearms is a good idea. I also avoid any state with a racist immigration policy. So I really don't go to the Southern of South-West states.
I can't be alone, as Texas and Florida regularly have marketing campaigns to get Brits over as tourists.
This post has been deleted by its author
How about the ladies? Or are they not allowed to walk around outside without a male escort as in some middle eastern countries?
They're referred to as "equalizers" for a reason. If only we could train all Middle Eastern women in gun safety and supply them with handguns. Of course we might need to unbrainwash a few that all Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians are infidels to be killed, first...
And it looks like a phone.. hmm.... I do have a pistol that can use shotgun shells (.410) or .45 ammo. But it's used for the rattlesnakes we get that come through several times a year*. It looks like a gun and feels like one. There's no mistaking it for anything else.
This phone gun is an accident or stupidity waiting to happen. Ok. actually many accidents, much stupidity. This is just a very bad idea, IMO.
*I live across the street from a rather large farm and when the farmer is plowing or harvesting, we get the mice first followed by the snakes a day or so later. When he's doing his thing in the field, I carry when I go out into the yard or even just around the neighborhood.
I met a lovely Texan once in eastern Europe. Eventually the subject of guns came up and he enthusiastically acknowledged he carried a gun to protect his very expensive telecoms installation equipment.
How else would you protect your livelihood?
I suggested insurance was a more civilised option to the death penalty.
It's not the job of the police to protect you. Their role is to apprehend the criminal after the fact. Yes, there is some deterrent in their presence but as my father said, "Locks only keep honest people honest." The criminal pays no attention to locks - or police.
There's a very simple question that needs to be answered: Do you believe that an American Citizen has the right to defend their life, their property, and the lives of others anywhere they have a legal right to be?
But the first argument you get from the anti-gun believers is, "That's what the police do." The anti-gun crowd loves to cite statistics regardless of how skewed they may be but they'll never bring up the following.
Across America there are, on average, 2.4 sworn police officers for every 1000 citizens. In the cities, the lowest ratio is 1.1 and the highest - let me say that again - the HIGHEST is 4.4 per 1000. And that city with the highest ratio of 4.4 per 1000 population is Chicago, if you can believe it.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/17/chicago-tops-major-us-cities-with-44-swo
Divide that by three shifts and we see how well the police can protect any one person, family, school, church, theater, or gathering. Look up your city here:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/78tabledatadecpdf/table_78_full_time_law_enforcement_employees_by_state_by_city_2012.xls/view
The point is that the U.S. Constitution does NOT guarantee protection. It guarantees the RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL to protect one's self, property, and others and that's what makes this very elegant question so very important. In the end, it is always up to the individual in the moment to protect themselves, their property, and others.
If government has any responsibility at all, it is to protect our right to protect ourselves, our property, and others.
I have rural property and I have a home in a large city. Living in a city removes one mostly from the danger of wild animals and makes people feel more secure. But the truth is that population densities in cities are very high which means people in cities are surround by the most lethal predator on the planet at all times - humans. That doesn't just apply to America.
The only thing worse than no security at all is a false sense of security.
Good Post with supporting facts.
But ....
It only works if the arms you have the right to hold can only be used for defense.
The real problem is that having the availability of a defensive device that can be used for 'other' purposes is one of the problems you have to protect yourself from, so the problem escalates and gets worse as more and more people bear arms.
Someone has an argument or just a bad day and BANG yet another death from the right to bear arms.
The lack of any real control over who gets arms and the certainty that any misunderstanding can be turned into a lethal event is the problem.
Every prejudice can be bolstered by using your 'defensive device' to prove your point!!
The US regulates access to most dangerous things more and more yet the right to arms is ignored.
I agree with your right to have arms but you need to regulate the ease of access and the escalation of the need to get Military grade automatic weapons that are designed for Modern War use and cannot be reasonably needed for Defense.
Realistically the man in the street could not defend themselves from the Govt if the Military was used against the people of the USA (however unreal that scenario is!!) so the original aim is somewhat redundant.
The original intent was framed by the idea that the Govt and the 'People' had access to the same arms and you could fight the Govt 'Man to Man' on equal terms with equal arms.
This is not the case and has not been for a very very very long time.
Regarding the 'False sense of Security' (to widen the scope):
The right to bear arms is conceptually good to feed your concept of 'American Freedom' but in reality we all are, both inside and outside the US of A, ruled by Big Business (Multinational Corporations that have the spending power of whole Countries and Political influence you could only dream of.)
You can already see that the Dollar/Pound/Euro/etc controls everything, just look at the current state of Politics where the one who spends the most wins.
In the US, while the 'People' fight for the right to bear arms, the ground is being bought from beneath your feet!!
Similar 'Local' diversions/distractions are in action elsewhere in the world while they are being bought up also!!
So, who is exactly 'employing' who, at the end of the day.?? :)
Here in the UK the police are required to "keep the peace" and whilst this doesn't mean that they are your personal bodyguard the effect is that for the most part you are safer without a gun and letting the police handle it..
This simply because those members of the public who would use them upon you also do not have guns.
Anyone person with a firearm in public generates calls to the armed response team who are highly trained to kill, not wound/disble. So the risks to anyone illegally carrying a firearm are very high and this tends to limit criminal use of firearms against joe public.
There are still incidents but as far less people are carrying firearms there are far less deaths even per head of population than in the US. So does your gun really protect you or increase your chances of being shot?
Good points. There is an arms race going on in the US, where people carry guns because criminals carry guns, whereupon criminals get more guns, etc. There is another point too: The police in the UK (or here in the Netherlands) do not have to prove you committed any crime other than carrying the illegal firearm. You can simply go to jail for owning it. If criminals could be put in jail simply for carrying an unlicensed one in the US, maybe the deadly arms race could be reversed.
One point I also do not quite get is that, given the NRA mantra of "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", why they oppose any measure merely designed to prevent bad guys getting guns. Surely the requirement that you can have a gun legally only if you do not have a criminal record and are not psychologically unstable makes sense. The vast majority of the people in the US see the sense in it. This should not infringe the right of good guys to carry guns.
BTW, the above suggestion would not solve the problem of the horrendous death toll due to gun violence any time soon. Too many illegal firearms are out there. Criminals would find ways to acquire arms illegally. However, preventing known criminals and psychiatric cases from acquiring guns legally should not prevent responsible adults getting the guns they might need if there are indeed many criminals about with firearms. So in that sense nothing changes, both sides get guns.
What does change is that a licensing scheme means that criminals can be jailed without needing to prove they shot somebody with the gun, and that manufacturers may no longer sell their product legally to criminals. Why does that worry the NRA?
If you're going to use a title containing the word "facts" you might want to start by knowing what the constitution actually says. Hint, it doesn't say what you said it says, nor does it say what you seem to think it says.
"The only thing worse than no security at all is a false sense of security."
Oh the irony. Guns are the thing creating the false sense of security, it's only really America that can't see this. My sense of security is based on the fact that any time there is a shooting in the UK there is public outrage, the criminal is caught and placed in gaol, and crucially the almost complete lack of guns available to shoot people with.
Carrying a gun in a place where shootings are a regular occurrence and only mass shootings cause minor public discussion but where guns are available at every convenience store does not make you secure. I fail to see how anyone would miss this point.
Sure, someone may decide to beat me up, but in that scenario I am protected in two ways. Firstly, equal or near equal "firepower" so I may not lose. Secondly, and this is most important, someone has to actually put the effort in to give me a beating which tends to ensure that they want to really badly.
But then, the constitution does state that you need a well regulated militia for the security of the state, so clearly the founding fathers wanted you to shoot one another as sport.
Warren v. District of Columbia. The police have no obligation to an individual, only the general public. Add to that the sheer size of the US (police response time to my last house was 15 minutes), and it's fairly easy to see why someone might want to keep a gun in the dresser.
Yes this is what happens.
I crossed an ordinary road in the USA and was immediately stopped and berated by an angry police officer who threatened me with all kinds of consequences as if I'd robbed a bank. I had the strongest impression that I had no right to reply or even speak. That day I felt less free than I ever have felt in my life.
At home I use my own eyes, ears and brain to decide where it is safe to walk.
You know when the cops stop a car for a traffic offence, they at the very least, unbutton their gun holster and may choose to draw their weapon and point it at you.
"The land of the free" Fuck off.
I've mentioned this before, probably on this site, but it warrants repetition, I think.
The oaf Jeremy Clarkson was pulled over in the States by a cop for a minor traffic offence which in any normal country would have attracted a "Just be careful next time" (or a bribe).
Clarkson says "Can't we use common sense?"
Cop replies "We have laws. We don't need common sense."
Duh...
The US is clearly insufficiently paranoid and I think that all every day items should be converted into firearms so they can feel justify in blasting everything around them, just to be sure.
To this end I will be offering a cokecan thermonuclear device for sale in the next couple of weeks, definite gap in the market there that needs filling and should lower tooth decay and obesety in the process
It's sadly pathetic to see Brits whinging about "extraordinary rights to carry guns". Our Second Amendment was based on YOUR recognized right to carry guns. Aren't boffins taught about the English Bill of Rights any longer? 1689 wasn't *that* long ago. No, I imagine not -- can't have you lot learning about natural rights now, can we?
Somehow, you wankers have let your 'betters' convince you that not only are Guns Bad, but that ANY form of self-defense is also Bad. Things have got really Bad when it is *against the law* to defend your British arses in *your own home.* Or do we not discuss the pathetic treatment of Myleene Klass any longer?
And now you've got silly gits whinging "Surrender your knife, Save a life." And from your very own "Ask the Police" website:
"Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?
"The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets."
This is beyond parody. What is WRONG with you people?
The 2nd amendment is based on a bill passed to declare how bad the recently deposed king was. Including such activities as forming a (professional) standing army. It legitimised the importation of a Dutch prince. It was also followed by an anti-catholic disbarment from office.
We've moved on.
Wow, had no idea that the situation was that bad. So a woman can't even have pepper spray or taser/stun gun...I wonder if they even allowed to scratch a rapist?
I've always been a fan of the device developed by a female doctor in South Africa were rape is prevalent. The attacker is damaged and made easily identifiable, but only after initial penetration, so he can't whine (whinge) that he meant no harm.
Well we don't live in a country with laws that appear to allow a legal gun owner to walk into a school and kill groups of children.
We had one nutter who did that and we did something about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
A simple comparison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
against
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_UK
your point?
>"Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?
>"The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets."
Blinkers! The ground beneath your feet has multiple uses in self-defence. And it's free and ubiquitous.
Aren't boffins taught about the English Bill of Rights any longer? 1689 wasn't *that* long ago.
That's your defence? Referring to a document produced over three and a quarter centuries ago. That's pathetic. As people have already pointed out, we moved on, and don't tend to base our entire way of life around rules drawn up in an era when Isaac Newton had only recently begun to wonder why we weren't all floating away. No wonder the rest of the western world looks upon your gun obsession with a mix of pity and mild amusement. It's like watching some kind of bizarre social experiment.
BTW, as you're an American, please don't use the word "wanker". It doesn't suit your accent.
Actually you can defend yourself in your own home or on the street, it's called reasonable force, and AFAIK can also in some circumstances include killing someone and also making a first strike. (IANAL)
The Mylene Klass thing is something spread but not true, but is a good example of how the sort of bullshit used as an argument to justify over the top home defence, other good references daily mail and fox news.
There's actually nothing wrong with us. We just have decided not to fear the whole world around us to such an extent it colours our daily live. It's rare I walk along a street expecting to be attacked and having to leap into action and if I do I would not expect them to be carrying a firearm, (from what I understand our bad areas are nowhere near as bad as some of yours, although erm...less guns may help that). I am not expecting my government to start up death camps and if they do I am not sure I would have anything that can stop a MK3 Challenger tank coming down my street. If the North Koreans invade I am not sure I would have much to stop a country that's military has somehow managed to overcome the whole of NATO's combined forces.
So if it does happen sure I will be surprised but generally speaking I think I will just carry on going through life with a lack of fear.
Things have got really Bad when it is *against the law* to defend your British arses in *your own home.* Or do we not discuss the pathetic treatment of Myleene Klass any longer?
They have the Daily Mail in the USA?
Tony Martin was put in jailed for killing a kid that he caught burgling his house, because the kid was trying to escape out of the window and he shot him in the back. Had the kid been facing him with a knife, then he would not have been punished.
*"...This is beyond parody. What is WRONG with you people?..."*
You do actually have a point there. It's also illegal in UK to wear a stab/bullet-proof vest without legal authority —which must be just about the defensive item *least* likely to be used to attack someone there is.
Yes. The UK is almost as idiotic in the other direction, but I think, on balance, it's a safer idiocy.
You do actually have a point there. It's also illegal in UK to wear a stab/bullet-proof vest without legal authority
Complete & total BS - please cite the act of parliment outlawing the sale/ownership & use of body armour in the UK
There are no laws outlawing the sale, ownership or use of various types of body armour in the UK, including stab vests & 'bulletproof' armour (as no armour is ever entirely 'proof' against everything, hence the '')
It can be difficult & expensive to obtain & if you wear overt armour to walk down the street you might be stopped & questioned as to why, but there is nothing they can do about it & any actions taken by the UK police to make you surrender your body armour to them or to prevent you wearing it in the future would themselves be illegal
I suspect if you wore overt body armour in the USA too & walked into Times Square you might also get stopped by the cops & asked why as well.
There are no laws outlawing the sale, ownership or use of various types of body armour in the UK, including stab vests & 'bulletproof' armour (as no armour is ever entirely 'proof' against everything, hence the '')
In fact if you are passing Harrods, go to the top floor where they have various items of bullet resistant clothing and armour for you to try on and admire in the mirror. Some of it even has internal cooling for hot days.
*"...Complete & total BS - please cite the act of parliment outlawing the sale/ownership & use of body armour in the UK..."*
You're right. I stand corrected. I must have read it in the Daily Fail!
Mind you, I do break UK law every day when I leave the house with my tiny EDC Swiss Army knife in my pocket, because the blade locks. So the general tenor of my point still stands:
If someone was beaten to death with a rolled-up newspaper...
US would allow all citizens to carry rolled up newspapers to defend themselves —but would then have to arm their police with even bigger rolled-up newspapers to keep the citizens in line. [As well as bombing countries where they liked to fold their newspapers.]
UK would ban everyone in the country from "rolling a printed periodical in a manner likely to cause injury" and the citizenry would meekly oblige because, if you're carrying a rolled-up newspaper, you must be a 'terrist' or a 'paedo'.
Mind you, I do break UK law every day when I leave the house with my tiny EDC Swiss Army knife in my pocket, because the blade locks. So the general tenor of my point still stands:
Again you are incorrect, a locking knife under 4 inches in length is perfectly legal to carry around with you as a pocketknife without breaking any UK laws as long as; the blade does not lock automatically when the knife is opened (ie you have to operate a switch to lock it open)
Please do carefully learn the UK laws & rules about these things before posting incorrect information
*"...laws as long as; the blade does not lock automatically when the knife is opened."*
Which almost all of them [with the possible exception of the Opinel pocket knives] do —including Swiss Army Knives, Leathermans [Leathermen?] etc. So, this time, I was right and you was wrong.
Deuce!