Yankee ingenuity at work.
Look, we Americans take the "find a need and fill it" axiom literally.
It might even be better if you could make it with a 3D printer (just to give it the IT angle).
Me? No, not now.
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 …
There is very little overlap between those pushing back against gun regulations and those pushing back against voter restrictions. On the contrary, the NRA types tend to be pushing for voter-ID. In private conversations it becomes real clear that "THEY" shouldn't be allowed to vote (where "THEY" = black people, mexicans, liberals, the queers, anyone on any form of public assistance, anyone who does any kind of drug unless it was weed back in the 60s or 70s and it's ok now that I'm an old white dude but the kids that smoke it now are clearly bad...)
Anon, because I work for some of them.
Those that have a problem coming up with a legal ID to vote prove that there needs to be voter ID laws. If you can't get your happy ass to the driver's license station with the proper documents proving you are a still living breathing legal citizen, then you have zero right to vote in these elections that have important consequences for our nation. Dead people have no right to vote and neither do illegal aliens so the solution is voter ID to prove who you are. We have to show ID for hundreds of other things why should we permit voter fraud to continue unabated and run rampant especially among Obama's party "of change".
No self-respecting gang banger or mass-murder-contemplating [insert noun of choice] would be caught dead with a two-shot .380 pistol. This is a novelty item, sure to become a collectible. Relax, gang. More people will die from texting-while-driving than from this little cell-phone-look-alike shooter.
At over 3,000 deaths a year from texting and driving in the US I'd hope so.
Not entirely sure that fewer than 3,000 a year dead is necessarily a good yardstick to be measuring by though.
Still, even in the US, these sorts of weapon are regulated and breaking the rules on their supply comes with harsh penalties. This is by no means the first mobile phone firearm.
Yeah, but when people are being killed by texting and driving, you know that there are people studying ways to reduce those numbers. Auto-accidents used to kill a lot more people than today, but people studied the deaths, looked for patterns and then found ways to reduce the death toll.
With guns, there is no serious nation-wide study or tracking of shooting incidents (seriously, the newspapers are the ones doing the best job of tracking it?) and so no pattern analysis and so no steps to reduce the death toll.
Isn't freedom wonderful?
With guns, there is no serious nation-wide study or tracking of shooting incidents
The CDC was explicitly banned from gathering data on gun deaths, after there was no other agency left with the capability. Presumably the gun-fondlers in Congress felt that rapid-onset lead poisoning didn't count as a disease (unlike food and water poisoning, which the CDC is mandated to track and advise upon).
Call me crazy, but I always thought that having access to tools for killing made killing easier?
Since humans are known for losing their temper, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and sometimes for being mental, I'd say I would feel safer not solely relying on people being nice.
"Guns don't jump off the shelf and shoot people by themselves"
True, But a person is hard pressed to Fire a gun if they do not posses one,.
"Chicago has very strict control laws" - assuming for a moment thats true, how effective is that really, when you can drive accross to the next state and buy a gun off someone from craigslist. really... gun control needs to be set and enforced at the federal level.
Gun control = limiting firearms to those that A require it and B have been formerly trained in the safe use and storage. sport shooters, hunters, licensed armed security gaurds, famers, police in australia are all permitted to own a gun. as a currently unarmed civillian that has fired rifles down a range, all i need to do is join a gun club, pass the police check showing im not a complete psycho and off I go. it does however mean that people previously convicted of violent crimes cant just sign up, walk into a gun shop, then have another crack at GTA live.
"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,"
I thought, at least how the gun freaks explain it, one purpose of having a gun is so, when "necessary", the bad guys (or whoever) could see that you have a gun. Silly me.
So the solution to the whole problem would be for everyone to carry a phone that looked like a gun!
Yes! I mean... no. A much better solution is to carry around a whole bunch of robot parts that look just like cell phones and can self-assemble into a giant battle droid. For self protection, of course, because robots don't kill people. Yet.
Open carry is so you don't look like an opportune target. Concealed carry is so you are prepared against being a target in some circumstances without having everyone around you freak out.
Remember, our firearm history has been quite different over here, and it has served us well. At one point, able bodied males attending church were expected to bring firearms against attacks from the natives. The threat has changed drastically, but the need has not wholly disappeared.
Carrying firearms to church to defend against natives? When last was there a need for this, 1687? And the threat to church-goers has disappeared? From memory, church-goers were indeed shot down -- but a gun nut white supremacist waving a confederate flag. I am not sure those African Americans in that congregation felt that carrying guns was a Christian act, and really should not have been necessary.
You are right, but not necessarily for the reasons you give.
It is really easy for us in different countries to take the piss out of the USA, but it is not realistic. The gun-genie is well and truly out of the bottle over on the left side of the pond, and there is no way to put is back, even if there the political will existed. The logistic problem of getting even 50% of the guns handed over is fatal to the idea.
What also needs to be taken into account is whatever it is in American society/psyche that makes the number of gun-deaths per gun significantly higher than countries with equivalent rates of gun-ownership. It is easy to see how people would feel the need to have guns for self-protection - the saying that goes something like "I'll give up my gun when I can carry a policeman in my pocket" makes a lot of sense when there are so many guns on the streets, and so many people apparently willing to use them.
Unfortunately, this means that the tragedy is going to keep running on and on. Idiots will take out their frustrations by climbing towers or walking into schools or cinemas and killing lots of people, others will respond by buying guns that they don't really know how to use and killing themselves or others accidentally, and mistaken assessment of risk will lead to frightened people killing strangers, and the cycle will keep going.
A surprisingly large percentage of Americans don't own guns. Quite a lot of Americans who do own guns own lots of guns, dozens of the things, so the statistics for gun ownership can be misleading. What it boils down to -- second Amendment or not -- is that having some fellow carrying a gun makes a lot of people uncomfortable. We already have a problem with police shootings, and that's with people who carry guns every day and practice tactical shooting, so why the average Joe thinks they're going to be any better at dealing with 'bad guys' is beyond me. (BTW -- unlike many I don't think that most cops are trigger happy, I just think that the service pistols are too fast, they can discharge a clip in less time than the brain takes to engage so you surprise a cop when they have their gun out you're dead. Its a dangerous enough situation without having wannabes making it even more dangerous.)
"If you dun like 'Murrica then you can jist gyetout!"
Not quite so easy ... you can get out but you'd still be subject to the IRS wherever you go ... something my son, born in US but left aged 4 months, will have to start dealing with in 2 years time when he's 18 - unless he wants to pay a few thousanmd dollars to officially relinquish his citizenship.
...after reading a particularly interesting piece in Newsweek quite a few years ago which proposed the view that Americans are like children. If you follow that proposition, everything in America makes sense. The quick gratification. The storming into places without a proper plan. The proposal that to protect schoolkids from guns we should introduce yet more guns - for the teachers. The desire to play with toys, however deadly. Guns are guns - whether pretending to be the Lone Ranger with blanks or George W Bush with Hellfires and nukes.
Lovely people, but the ones who put men on the moon are in the increasingly small minority.
Good point. I'd like to add the 'please love me' attitude.
As to "Lovely people, but the ones who put men on the moon are in the increasingly small minority. - a lot of the ones who put men on the moon are dead already. (Especially the "Nazis with slide rules" brigade.)
*"...a particularly interesting piece in Newsweek quite a few years ago which proposed the view that Americans are like children..."*
Bloody Hell! I've been saying that for years. Can i sue Newsweek for nicking my "Interlekchal Property"?
My favourite is what I call the " Pat-a-Cake" "Hold-me-Back" fights with friends and colleagues, which all Merkin hunky heroes must indulge in, in almost every drama or film —to show just how hunky and heroic they are. Activity which in Merka is obviously "The Mark of a Man", but which most of us this side of the pond seem to manage to grow out of, some time before leaving primary school.
You reading my comment?
What if I am?
Don't fuck with me man! Don't read my fucking comments!
Well, fuck you, man!
No. Fuck you!
Fuck you more!
Fuck you most!
[Clint Granite puffs out chest. Hunk Steele does likewise. Both men butt against each other, torso to torso, snarling and showing off plastic fantastic fluorescent white orthodontistry, which would snap like a twig in a real fight]
You fucking telling me what I can read?
Don't read my fucking comment!
[Meanwhile a million American women sigh "Now that's the kind of man I want to father my children!" and in the Pentagon, US foreign policy advisors turn to each other, high-fiving and yell "Let's go whoop some ass, Clint Granite style!", before calling for an atlas and a pin.
I actually genuinely think it's to do with cultural memes/ namshubs whatever. Americans have the usual ones carried over from Western Europe but on top they have acquired new ones, I'm gonna call them The cowboy (rugged individualist, gun on hip to protect homestead against bandits, way of the gun), the revolutionary (the government are oppressors, we can fight of the chains, militia, 2nd amendment etc) & possibly the Hollywood action hero (leap into action against some nefarious undefined bad guys).
I wonder if a lot of these sort of tropes in America are the reasons you guys seem to have so many problems with guns.
I'm sorry but I seem to recall where several other nations throughout history have stepped into other countries themselves. Need we go through the list of England's interferences? How about Spain and France? You non-Americans act like the USA is the only one in history to do so. (What is that saying, something about people in glass houses throwing stones?) You also seem to forget that most of your countries were there alongside us during the ousting of Saddam from Iraq, a man who tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and let his two sons run free raping to their hearts delight. Not to mention the al-Quaeda terrorist training camps he sponsored there. Whether you agree or not that WMDs were found that bastard deserved to go!
"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.
@ 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.
"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
@ 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?
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.
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
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)
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
"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"
And look at the environment we live today: government/corporation serfery, at the beck and call of the local government and subject to summary punisment at their whim. The freedom of the population is totally constrained: people are tied to thei job and are to all intents and purpose slaves. The citizens aren't "trusted": they are controlled by their masters.
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 archers at Agincourt were freemen, not serfs. This was 1415; the Feudal System had all but disappeared from England by then.
Haha. You mention things that Western civilization has advanced beyond relatively recently, but your attitude toward self-defense (especially by women, who can usually be dominated physically by one or two men) makes me think that you are one of those folks that would never criticize modern Muslim morals which espouse those things (and much worse).
Criticize a westerner or a Christian, get an annoying reply. Criticize a Muslim, get bombed or beheaded (but at least it may not involve a scary gun). 8)
AC, thankyou for that amazing stream of consciousness collection of half arsed nonsense conclusions. Let's get this straight: If you think guns are something we've grown out of, then you support rape, are an apologist for Islamic terryrism, and get all offended by criticism on account of you being a muslim.
Straw manning at it's most creative (and unfortunately, least coherent)
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?
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%.
" A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it."
I would argue that fear of your government is often one of the reasons given for arming yourself.
I never understand the amount of comments about countries like the UK being disarmed by the government and now the government has all the power, it's like they really think we are lined up and sent off to camps for any dissent.
Yeah, because a bunch of hicks with rifles is going to be able to stop a totalitarian government that controls the military?
Now, if you were part of a trained militia, which is the part of the whole 2nd Amendment that your dear munition manufacturers and their spokespeople, the NRA have completely left out, you might have a hope in hell. As a bunch of individuals? Not a chance.
"Yeah, because a bunch of hicks with rifles is going to be able to stop a totalitarian government that controls the military?"
You know [he mused, thoughtfully], that's exactly what they said before the Battle of Bunker Hill too. This is a British publication; you guys might remember that one ...
said as the point went whooshing over someone's head, I think.
At Bunker Hill, weapons were well matched on both sides. Cycle forwards a couple of hundred years and you have:
Civilians - handguns (lots of those!), assault rifles, perhaps even the occasional truck mounted rotary cannon, several million 'rugged individualists..
Government - Stealth fighter bombers, armed drones, heavy artillery, tanks, laser guided missiles, a trained and heavily armed military force and the UN to send in the blue helmets to keep the civilians in order once they've had their arses handed to them on a plate. Oh, and surveillance on all your 'rebel' phone call planning sessions, the capacity to shut off water and power to any area that gets uppity, etc.
Now take that to Ladbrokes and ask them to give you odds on the civilians coming out alive, let alone victorious..
"The "guns are tools" argument misses the whole point."
Yep. Far too rational.
"A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it."
No.. A well fooled populace convinces themselves that they employ their government. And as you lot show all the time.. fear everybody. Because they might have a gun too.
You really should stop believing stuff because it comes with a snappy slogan.
Your government is not afraid of your guns.
Your government is not afraid of you.
Because you are a well conditioned corporation loving, regulation fearing idiot who will do what you are told, and shout down anybody who dares to disagree.
As you will now proceed to do.
"A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it."
We get to see your current events too. Have you considered education as a first method for avoiding poor government? Seems daft to vote in morons and then shoot them for being morons. Not that you've been controlling your government with your guns, it's very clear that anyone with sufficient funds can influence the US government quite easily and true democracy has been dead and buried for quite some time over there.
". A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it."
So how many guns each do you need to stop fearing your Govt? They seem to be taking the piss no matter how many guns you have.
A quick calculation 1 POTUS, 1 VP, 100 senators, 435 congress members, 9 supreme cout judges.
we'll call it 600 for luck
30 shells per clip in a reasonable sized glock magazine. So I reckon 5 guns would do it and we'll add an extra one in case one of the primaries jams.
So if the rest of you can leave your guns by the door please...
How very paranoid. That said, yeah, a well armed populace is going to last five minutes against the combined military might of the US Government. Muh freedoms and muh bear arms aren't much use against long range missiles, drone strikes, or aircraft carriers when it comes down to it.
Also, given the popularity of Donald Drumpf, I'd say a big chunk of the US public is pretty ok with would-be totalitarians 'cos dey're gunna make 'murrica great again. :\
American civilians are limited to owning small arms. About the heaviest kit they may possess are Civil War era muzzle loading cannons; mostly semi-automatic self-loading rifles are the most potent weapons permitted.
The US Army and Air Force, not to mention the various police forces and militias are all permitted to have much more effective weapons than that. At best, any US citizen with a legal weapon would be able to make themselves mildly irritating to the government before getting themselves killed.
The US "right to bear arms" does NOT in any way hold the government to account.
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....
"You need guns because you're scared of Koalas? WTF?"
Drop Bears are not exactly "cute and cuddly" - I suggest anyone contemplating visiting Australia should read this paper first:
"Indirect Tracking of Drop Bears Using GNSS Technology"
Can you make sense of this?
"Reports of periodic attacks on opal miners in Coober Pedy may be apocryphal and related to excessive consumption of cooling amber fluids in dry areas."
Hanging from your feet all day seems to lead to a dry sense of humour.
Drop bears do not target human beings specifically, but there have been several
cases where humans have fallen victim to drop bear attacks, resulting in serious
lacerations and even death. Disappearances which may (or may not) be attributed
to drop bears have occurred frequently across Australia (e.g. Holt 1967; Hussey
1989; Mulder & Scully 2000).
The truth is out there.
Several methods have been proposed to protect humans from drop bear attacks,
although their effectiveness often remains scientifically inconclusive (e.g. Skywalker
Alternatively rather than guns just use the force against them.
It even goes on to credit them at the end, brilliant.
Damn you, I thought that paper was real when I started reading.
"Reports of periodic attacks on opal miners in Coober Pedy may be apocryphal and related to excessive consumption of cooling amber fluids in dry areas." - they were drunk.
Then I skipped to the references:
CRIKEY, O. & BEAUTY, U (2008) - O Crikey and U Beauty
MULDER, F.W. & SCULLY, D.K. (2000)
SKYWALKER, L. (2008) ‘May the force be with you: a study on the protection from drop bear attacks’
Good laugh, thanks for the share.
"Then I skipped to the references:
CRIKEY, O. & BEAUTY, U (2008) - O Crikey and U Beauty
MULDER, F.W. & SCULLY, D.K. (2000)
SKYWALKER, L. (2008) ‘May the force be with you: a study on the protection from drop bear attacks’"
you missed the Lestat Vampire reference........
"Disappearances which may (or may not) be attributed
to drop bears have occurred frequently across Australia (e.g. Holt 1967; Hussey
1989; Mulder & Scully 2000)."
Oi m8!! A Drop Bear ain't no Koala, you know. Teeth like knives, claws like chainsaws and the attitude of a cornered Republican. Of course, it's POSSIBLE they don't exist, but who wants to take THAT chance?
On a more realistic note, roos don't kick, they tear. And a roo is just as likely to disembowel you with a swift slash because he feels like it, cornered or not.
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.
no reason for firearms, in a schools?
does this include the armed guards at schools in central Africa defending against roving band of arms hooligans?
it appears your world view is very limited to your country view
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.
And no one would want to remove YOUR guns, any more than they would want to remove a New Zealand farmers .22, shotgun or whatever they need for pest control (rats, rabbits, possums etc).
Or a hunters guns for that matter - plenty of them here. Very few handguns or assault rifles as they're designed to kill people, which we kind of frown upon here.
Just don't take them into town - except when returning from hunting. You don't need a handgun to get groceries.
You don't need a handgun to get groceries.
How in hell are you to subdue wild spinach without one? Club it? Stab it with a pitchfork? That's so going to destroy its flavour.
(The one with the Ray Mears/Julia Child "The Compleat Survivalist Gourmet Cookbook" in the pocket)
Guns are tools for many farmers/ranchers, and in many countries. But take a step back for a second. Would you really use a handgun, or an Uzi to take on a mountain lion? Or would you prefer the combination of decent rifle and safe distance?
And are mountain lions, foxes, coyotes, rattlesnakes and bobcats still a major problem in NY, Denver, Dallas and Washington?
10/10 for stating the blindingly obvious, but unfortunately minus several million for smugly suggesting that every handgun in the inner city is used to protect the owner from rattlesnakes.
It will surprise absolutely no-one that farmers have guns on this side of the pond too. However that doesn't answer the infatuation and how you ended up with a 9 year old having an automatic weapon and being filmed shooting her instructor with it.
And you see absolutely no difference between a gun used to control pests/ vermin, and a handgun disguised as a smartphone?
Guns can be used as tools (I currently have a rifle permit for polar bear protection) but the sole purpose of a handgun like this is to put holes in other human beings.
When it comes to guns, I think the late Bill Hicks encapsulated the entire issue:-
"In the USA, where we love guns, there were 23000 deaths from Guns last year.
In the UK, where nobody has guns, there were fffffffffourteen. 14.
Now let me run through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance
In the USA, where we love guns, 23000. In the UK, where NOBODY has guns, 14.
BUT there's NO connection (and you'd be a fool & a communist to think that there is) between having a gun then killing someone, and NOT having a gun and NOT killing anyone with it.
On this side of the pond we have, in no particular order, scouses, scots and mancunians and I've never felt the need to carry a gun. Guess we're just a bit tougher over here. cf. your need to wear full body armour just to play a ball game.
Just to be clear, you are advocating handguns as tools for farmers here?
Guns are not illegal in the UK, despite the bollocks issuing from the mouths of certain cretins. Pistols are, with the exceptions of the military, police and veterinarians. Shotguns and rifles are not "freely" available, but I'd be shocked if most farms didn't have a couple of work guns.
Long guns can totally be a useful tool. Even semi/full auto can have some justification, and deciding when something is a rifle versus an assault rifle does get into the range of the silly (does it have a bayonet lug etc). Same as a rifle that can kill a goat could count as a "sniper rifle".
But other than people who are carrying with the intention of shooting another person (this includes the police), what use is a hand gun for dealing with dangerous pests, over and above say a stick?
The issue that you are ignoring is that the US's northern neighbor has many of the same issues for farmers, also has large areas suitable for hunting, and has similar gun ownership rates, has a much lower rate of deaths by gunshot. It's similar in other countries (Finland, Switzerland), but the US and Canada are more similar in various other terms.
Handguns are the big killer, and that will not be dealt with currently.
I generally like Americans. Not so hot on the actions of the federal government, but I gather that is also something many American's agree on too :)
In fact I like American's so much that I think it would be nice if they didn't kill each other as much. At least with guns. Stick with killing each other with cars, and themselves with opiates ;)
We have bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, racoons, rattlesnakes, coyotes, feral dogs & cats, and other fauna that threaten the livestock.
Good luck trying to take on a bear or mountain lion with a hand-gun, because an injured and angry bear is so much safer to deal with. Snakes are best left alone, all those other animals are best handled through the judicious use of chicken wire and cement, like the rest of the world manages to do without shooting at everything that moves.
"We have bears, mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, racoons, rattlesnakes, coyotes, feral dogs & cats, and other fauna that threaten the livestock."
None of which you should be taking on with a pistol or a carbine due to accuracy issues.
The right tool for the job, etc.
"Guns are tools on this side of the pond. Plain & simple."
And get off the freeway in "gun country" and most of the road signs that still remain have bullet holes in them. It's not that there are sensible gun owners who use guns as tools for their work, it's the tools who have guns that are the problem.
Back in the pager era, a local bloke here in Florida fitted a "pager" with 4 9mm cartridges, and used them to kill a judge in court. The 4 "barrels" came out at the top, where he'd stuck on a sticker looking like a display, and there were photos in the local paper. I don't know how he fired them, or kept the thing from exploding in his hand, but it did the job it was designed for.
It ended up looking a lot like the pic on the left after being fired, except with 4 barrels instead of two.
About 10-15 years before 9/11, but my memory is hazy. I only remember it because it made such an impression on me as a teenager at the lengths and ingenuity people will display. It looked like a lot of work went into the thing.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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."
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
A simple comparison
>"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.
[Missed retarded edit window]
*"...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?], Gerber tools, etc. So, this time, I was right and you was wrong.
Anyway, your pedantry is muddying the waters. My point is that: rather than actually properly punish the wee brain-dead scrotes who think the answer to someone "looking at you in a funny way" is to stick a knife in them —UK law [as always] just blanket bans *everything* for *everyone*, rather than attacking the problem head-on. Possibly by locking a few wannabe "Gangsta's" up and throwing away the key.
As a kid, I thought it wasn't fair when teacher made the whole class stay behind because he couldn't control one or two tearaway kids —and I think it's just as unfair when the government adopts the same policy.
In one sentence you might understand.... "Shit changes all the time, roll with it dude!"
We decided it was a bad idea, we have plenty of proof and 'cos the UK has no written constitution, we're not brain washed into believing a constitution to be the be-all and end-all of the law, we amend it as we see fit based how society changes.
Speaking of 1600s, we're no longer forced to stand up every morning in school and pledge allegiance to a flag and an imaginary bloke with a white beard sitting on a cloud! If kids don't want to take part in religious ceremonies, we respect that and they don't have to. We even trust our kids to be able to make up their mind about things they dislike, that's evolution and change.
"Shit changes all the time, roll with it dude!"
You realize, of course, that your own fear of defending yourselves, and any implement that might be bent to that purpose (i.e. a scary knife or heaven forfend a stick (oops, forgot that belief in any spiritual being or external moral code is also claptrap)), seems ludicrous to most citizens of the USA. I’ve always wondered as to its roots. Was it the long history of “monarchs” and their blessed enforcers (e.g. barons, lords. dukes, etc.) that outlawed peasant ownership of any implement that might be turned against them? Was it the hundreds of years of grinding into the ”lower classes” that their lives and rights were of almost no consequence when measured against a “blue bloods’” (I know for me, watching “Downtown Abbey” has been a fascinating glimpse into that culture, in even the recent past, unless the attitudes have been completely fictionalized, which I would be more comfortable believing)?
I would have hoped that the influx of large populations that may not share your cultural inhibitions might have caused you to revisit them. I speak of both isolated immigrant populations, such as those behind the Paris car-burning riots two or so years ago and the widespread sexual assaults in Germany recently, as well as the gang-violence culture being engendered in poor youth populations I’ve seen reported (is the term “chav”?), though the media may well have over-reported the youth threat.
While the dominant/submissive behavior of many pack animals (rolling onto your back and begging forgiveness) may work in many situations, it is not well-respected in the U. S., when translated to a human context. We have a long history of reliance on the individual and respect for those willing to fight, and sometimes die, for the causes they believe in. Which is one of the reasons that the battlecry “Remember the Alamo” held such meaning, along with the treatment of combatants that could no longer fight on.
Regardless, it would do well to treat the attitudes of the barbarians/cowboys in the U. S. with a tad more respect, or at least with fewer snide remarks, just in case your country ever has a need to call on our citizens to rescue them again, when the “gun culture” many of us respect will be put to good use.
And yes, Anon because I don’t believe in divulging private information for free (send me $100 for real name and email, and none of that silly euro crap which finally seems to be headed for the garbage bin of history).
@AC - you should take your own advice and not post anonymously, not make excuses for your own lack of cojones. English law does not prevent one from defending oneself. It basically frowns upon anyone hurting anyone else, irrespective of the circumstances, and in cases that end up in court, takes note where a person's actions are deemed to be unreasonable. Now, I happen to feel that it is a little too even-handed, and that criminals profit unduly thereby, but I'd still rather live here than in a country where the childish and mentally unstable can so readily obtain weapons that can kill perfect strangers at a distance.
Quite frankly, you're nuts to want to make it - keep it - so easy for the intemperate and mentally unwell to have such free access to weapons that can kill perfect strangers so readily at a distance.
As for history, I'd point out that the USA was reluctant to get involved in a worlwide war against fascism until it was attacked itself. It didn't get involved out of a sense of what was the right thing to do. I also suspect that the Russians might have something to say about who did most of the winning in the fight against fascism (ironically, given what their own regime was like). And frankly the US involvement in most wars its been involved in since 1900 doesn't give a very good impression of its collective morals.
But then, you're probably one of those who has been badly served by the US educational system and don't actually understand history very well, and are blinded by the myth of US exceptionalism.
That is, at least, the impression that you are giving.
(I know for me, watching “Downtown Abbey” has been a fascinating glimpse into that culture, in even the recent past, unless the attitudes have been completely fictionalized, which I would be more comfortable believing)?
That's quite funny. I really don't believe that employers of service staff in that era were anything like as benevolent as is portrayed in Downton Abbey. It's a very fictional situation.
And firearms were much more commonly held in those days. Although it was necessary to license owners, guns were easy to get and until 1968 a person could use "self-defence" as a reason to apply for a firearms license.
Shotguns and rifles are still licensable in the UK for people who can show they have a useful need.
I owned a 12 bore (gauge) under&over for some years when I was a keen clay pigeon shooter.
*"...A well-armed populace employs its government instead of fearing it..."*
Yes. The one thing that really stands out when watching American politics at play is how "the people" really keep their leaders in check and completely don't turn into a mass of whooping, hollering, crying with pride brain-dead flock of sheep —the moment some orange tailor's dummy in a suit tells them how great they and America are.
As you seem to be obsessed with taking your guns everywhere.
Please can give you me a cogent argument as to why you should be allowed to take your weapons onto civil aircraft.
As you keep saying guns are for protection, so I'm sure you would have no objections to your fellow citizens packing on the 06:50am out of <insert name of Intnl airport here>.
In the time when christianity basically ruled the country and wanted everyone to be fully clothed for "decency", the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the right to "bare arms".
Someone must've written it down wrong and hundreds of years later this is the result.
"Absolutely no one can make sense of the United States' infatuation with firearms."
By no one I assume you mean you. I am in the UK and regardless of if you accept it as right or wrong it is very easy to understand as long as you do a little thinking (and it shouldnt take too long either!)
"In a country that has seen countless people shot and killed for carrying all manner of not-guns because people thought that they were guns, it seems only logical to develop a product that can cause people to fear literally everyone that they see all the time."
Oddly you seem to be brushing up against the reason so much that its glitter will rub off on you. Are you sure you dont understand the infatuation with firearms? Not just a little bit?
"Of course that "better thing" wasn't to not actually carry a gun around in public, but rather to figure out a way to have a gun but not clue people into the fact."
Makes sense since the cotton wool reaction of people getting all bothered because someone has a gun which doesnt sound to be overt (nobody else noticed) but not wrapped away to tight he cant get to it. So finding a way to be less obvious does make sense even if it is pandering to the less educated.
"Kjellberg told the local KARE news channel, presumably to looks of incomprehensible horror."
Why horror? I can understand that might be your reaction, I read your article on the female tech writer, but again you are not everyone. Actually his development in hand gun concealment is not incomprehensible and instead makes sense if he lives in a state with open or concealed carry but judgemental sorts. The kind of people who assume everyone reacts with horror for example.
"It's just that kind of small business entrepreneurship that made America great."
I detect sarcasm at a point there shouldnt be any. How long has the daylight shootings in manchester and london been going on? Or do you not believe stuff like that happens here? How how about stabbings and other violent crime? And you seem to be losing your cool over a hand gun designed to make people like you more comfortable with the people you interact with every day.
There are so many guns in the USA (more than one per person) that the criminals can easily obtain them (even if they are legally prohibited from owning them). As the criminals ARE armed and will continue to be, removing guns from the law abiding population will just make criminals life easier.
Also gun deaths are not a major cause of death in the USA
Excluding suicide, the number of gun deaths in the US was approximately 12,000 in 2013 for a death rate of 35 per million people. The total number of deaths (all cause) in the USA was approximately 2217000 so the non-suicide gun deaths amounted to approximately 0.54% of the total deaths (1 death in every 185).
Accidental deaths were over 120,000 so a person was over 10 times as likely to die from an accident than they were from a gun (and over 100 times as likely to die from heart disease or cancer).
"Accidental deaths were over 120,000 so a person was over 10 times as likely to die from an accident than they were from a gun (and over 100 times as likely to die from heart disease or cancer)."
They're also significantly more likely to die from gunshot wounds inflicted by a toddler than by any form of terrorism, but that doesn't stop them throwing up their hands in horror about terrorism.
@ Alan Brown
"They're also significantly more likely to die from gunshot wounds inflicted by a toddler than by any form of terrorism, but that doesn't stop them throwing up their hands in horror about terrorism."
If I remember right there isnt a great deal of difference in the numbers and there are a lot of toddlers vs terrorists. So either the terrorists are really good at shooting a lot of people or there are very few incidents by toddler.
And of course a toddler shouldnt get hold of a gun, nor should they get hold of a sharp and pointy.
I'm sure it's a great comfort to the families and friends of the victims (not to mention the thousands who are wounded every year) that guns are not a major cause of death in the USA . NOT!
These are 12,000 unnecessary deaths because you cannot get over your childish obsession with firearms. The longer you continue to do nothing, and the louder you shout about individual freedom, the right to bear arms, or the right to self-defence, the more stupid you look to the rest of the world.
I think I can explain this to citizens of non-American countries who are oppressed by their own governments and do not have a right to carry a gun. Gun laws vary by state. In states which allow carrying a gun, those who carry usually must carry guns concealed. A phone gun is an attempt to better comply with the law.
At the end of the day, it's still just gun - and, a modest caliber and limited capacity, obviously designed to be defensive rather than offensive and to comply with local regulations.
" it will be available in October for a very reasonable $395"
It's a Title II category 3 weapon (Disguised gun/AOW(*)) and as such there's a federal manufacturing tax of $200 per item (payable by the maker the instant the device is created), must go in a national registry, cannot be exported or imported to the USA(**) and there are transfer charges each time the unit changes hands.
(*) "Any other weapon"
(**) This encompasses parts which are intended to make a Cat3 weapon, and in this case almost all of its components would count as "intended"
AOWs are a prohibited item in several states, most other states require specific licensing for them and carrying a disguised gun is classified as a "concealed weapon", so there's a kettle of legal worms in most states which prohibit concealed carry.
If it's $395 to the end user - and USA made for this price - then it's likely to be a dangerously nasty piece of trash more likely to kill its owner than whatever it's pointed at.
I happen to like guns - for shooting targets and pesky furry animals which can't be gotten rid of via other methods, but carbines and pistols (shortbarrelled weapons) are anti-personnel weapons and should be specifically treated as such. I've yet to see the average rabid 2nd amendment nut actually _be_ a member of a "well regulated militia".
No ... no, spot on, me thinks.
So what if the drop arms would be bearing Aussies, then my mobile phone goes *bang*? Provided I am neither in the USA, wearing full body odour, nor in the UK, quoting 17th century laws made by Dutch princes, killing bears and snakes with the 2nd Amendment.
Wow, vitriol, "thy name is the Reg Forums".
Look, for all those going "no our way is the only way", we're all wrong. In the UK we're insanely restrictive and in America you guys are way too liberal with them.
Once heard not a bad interview with a rational NRA person who pointed out he had no problems with sensible gun owners. These are people who have guns, lock them up, keep ammo and firearm in different safes etc etc etc. He also had no issues with people who keep a loaded gun in the kitchen drawer being shot by their kid because frankly, what the f*** were you expecting. Act like a Fraggle, get shot by your kid, sort of natural justice.
Sensible gun ownership shouldn't be an issue, it's when you let any crazy yahoo get their hands on them that problems occur, and that surely that is a big part of the issue? Education in firearm usage and some way of stopping lunatics from having them has got to be a better idea than a society with no firearms in legal hands (crooks are fine with owning illegal things because, well, breaking the law is rather the job description) OR just dishing out firearms and ammo with few questions asked!
Waiting now for the legendary down voting for disagreeing with absolutely everyone *smile*.
"He also had no issues with people who keep a loaded gun in the kitchen drawer being shot by their kid because frankly, what the f*** were you expecting."
that's a sign he/she is a sociopath.
there is something very wrong with tolerating the death of a parent even if you can rationalise their death as being a result of their own stupidity. in the case you quoted, a toddler has lost a parent. a parent has lost a life. that is a tragic thing to happen. accepting it a a kind of 'natural justice' is part of the problem.
but that's what sociopaths do. they rationalise things like that to absolve themselves of conscience and social responsibility.
Has any of you anti gun people bothered to look at actual statistics? To me, you look like scared toddlers: 'Mommy, a gun! It's so scary! Hold me!'. Full disclosure, I live in Texas, where, just the other day, in the city where I live, I saw a guy out for a walk with what you would call an 'assault rifle', technically a semi-automatic carbine, strapped to his back and thought nothing of it. It happens all the time down here. Texas is no worse statistically than any other modern Western demographic in aggregate crime and my neighborhood is very safe.
If you focus only on gun statistics, sure, gun homicides are higher. If you focus on homicides in general, the question becomes a lot muddier. If you focus on crimes committed by Concealed Handgun License holders, it becomes very clear: we just don't commit crimes at anywhere near the Texas average.
As for carrying, which I do all the time (no, really, I feel undressed without my .38), civilians carrying have proven to be an effective deterrent and protection against crime. You can, if you want to know the truth, go look for all the stories of defense using a firearm in this country. More importantly, it allows those who cannot physically defend themselves a chance to do so, allowing a weakling to defend him/herself against a bruiser, leading to the fact that CHL laws reduce rapes the most, something that ought to chuff a feminist, given that the pistol is very empowering. God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal. Some 800,000 times a year, according to conservative estimates, someone in the United States uses a gun to lawfully defend himself against a crime.
The US murder rates are mostly a result of drug gang activity, and, if we can't stop drugs from coming into the country, I really don't understand how we can stop guns from coming in from South America, where they are cheaply, plentifully and illegally made. As an aside, note that England, with its gun ban, has not, as of yet, stopped guns from coming into the country either. What they have managed to do is make it so anyone not physically fit can't defend themselves, which, as I understand it, would be a felony anyway, as the once-proud English commoner no longer has the right to self-defense.
It is like you anti-gun people somehow magically think that if you try really hard, guns will just go away, when history shows us they do not. Every society that has outlawed gun possession has found that they cannot actually stop gun possession any more than they can stop drug possession or crime in general. All they have done is made it harder for the most vulnerable in their society to defend themselves. Oh, and made a police culture of shooting first and asking questions later whenever they see anything that even remotely looks like a gun.
Finally, you are probably not aware of the most likely reason the man carrying the carbine mentioned above had it: I live in an area about 15 miles from a major downtown metropolis, where there are coyote about. I have personally seen a coyote about a mile from my house. There are also feral dogs and, well, semi-tame dogs owned by people who think pit bulls are great pets but only if you make them angry. Many of the households in my neighborhood have at least one semi-automatic rifle for this reason, and a lot of us carry pistols when we walk for this reason. It is not unheard-of for a pet to go missing and there is a definite risk to small children as well.
So. Please keep yer snarky uninformed opinions about the childishness of America to yourself when reporting on such things. It does not look well on you to parade such idiocy so broadly.
As for the gun in question, it is interesting, but likely not very useful to me. I can conceal a full-frame auto, being a big guy, if I want to, and nobody would ever see it. Just looking at the grip for the thing, I expect it would both be quite painful to shoot and hard to shoot accurately. And, .380 auto is not a very effective round, in my opinion. Since I can already get a very small .380 derringer that would be impossible to spot in my pocket or in a concealment holster, I don't see the point.
You sound like a straight forward rational bloke, unfortunatley you are not the demographic that is the problem. You claim guns would flood in from south America:
a. this is just a re-import from the original supplier
b. To get hold of weapons in various US states is easier than a drivers license, in fact I don't believe you need an eye test anywhere - but I'm happy to be corrected on that.
c. Your own countrymen magnify the stupidity of gun use, - just watch Youtube the shear stupidity of these people can be boggling
d. As you rightly say in the UK you can't own a weapon just for ownerships sake but really, the fantasy of violent crime and the actual occurrance does not come close to the devastation that an inapropriate gun owner could cause.
Sorry my friend, you and many like you are stuck in your social circumstances and hold a belief that the ever increasing ownership of weaponry will keep the status quo, it won't. The argument for protection against coyotes and mad dogs is not a case. If it were such a problem would it not be better to have a paid official to take care of this with legal powers.
Your arguments do not hold water. If you travel to the UK or most parts of Europe, you will not have a gun - are you more likely to be shot at?
If I travel to the US, should I pick up a gun at customs to fend off a coyote?
Unfortunately the NFA tax on this type of weapon is much lower.
"The tax is $200 for the transfer of any firearm except a firearm classified as an “any other weapon” which is $5.
[26 U.S.C. 5811, 5852(e) and 5845(h); 27 CFR 479.11, 479.82 and 479.91]"
As a long time firearm owner, regular competitive shooter, and concealed carry holder, I am saddened by items like this. I think they make it more likely that someone will be shot for/by a mistaken weapon. As well as making it more likely that it would have to be used since it is disguised and much less likely to be seen as a deadly threat and (hopefully) cause a cessation of hostilities.
This seems to me to be nothing more than a dangerous novelty with little to no practical value. If you need a small gun there are already plenty without having to resort to this.
> "The tax is $200 for the transfer of any firearm except a firearm classified as an “any other weapon” which is $5.
I'm aware of the transfer tax (and the rate) but there's also a manufacturing tax - and attaching a silencer on a pistol (or a front handgrip) counts as manufacturing a AOW too.
My personal suspicion is that because of the various cases of disguised firearms that have already happened, bring found with one of these on your person would result in no mercy whatsoever being shown by "the law" - as they're the ones most likely to be on the nasty end of such devices.
I'm disappointed that he gave in to public-shaming from a child who doesn't know any better. Americans should carry their guns without fear - the right to bear arms in defence against criminals and tyrannical governments was made a constitutional right for good reason. Children should be taught to respect this right, just as they're taught to respect other's individuality. The totalitarian tiptoe to take away those rights is insidious and dangerous, as is the public brainwashing and false flag terrorism used to advance it.
"Children should be taught to respect this right, just as they're taught to respect other's individuality."
Unfortunately that isnt the world we are moving toward. I am in the UK and being massively intolerant is seen as a pro as long as its an approved intolerance. By bringing their children up ignorant or misinformed there are more people to oppose something because it is too scary for them to comprehend.
Best of luck to you YARR
"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?"
Have there been any studies into the number of lives saved by American Citizens exercising their right to "defend their life, their property, and the lives of others anywhere they have a legal right to be" versus the number of lives wasted by the abuse of firearms?
If so I cant imagine many impartial ones. Accuracy is a bit of an issue as we all know they stop crimes, but we dont know how many (how many 'nearly a crime' are reported?). However a crime with a gun is likely to be reported. Also the comparison would have to be per state as the states with more guns are likely to have more gun crime, but then how are crimes recorded and can they be compared?
Of course there would have to be an agreement over what is being reported. Those against guns tend to like reporting gun crimes. Those pro gun like to report violent crimes. The difference seems to be that gun liberalisation tends to reduce violent crime. This causes argument as those against guns focus on reducing gun crime but pro gun focus on crime.
There is also the demographics of crime as less able people are able to defend themselves, which is obviously counterweighted by idiots on a killing spree. Location also seems to be an issue so may be worth reporting on as the mass killers seem to prefer places where nobody is likely to be armed (low gun ownership states, gun free zones).
Abuse is a very fuzzy term too which could be homicide (what about self defence?), accidents (as we have with anything) and suicide (in the land of the free is it personal choice?). A while ago I was amused at the statistics wanting some better regulation in general (pretty high) with the absolute opposition to Obama doing so (also pretty high). Simply the articles suggested people wanted better safety but didnt trust the gov to provide (Obama is a vocal anti gun nut). Throw in the political polarisation going on and I doubt the pro/anti gun people could agree on the colour of the sky.
Unfortunately the all or nothing arguments lead to a stalemate and the polarisation makes studying complicated at least.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019