Well think about it, the last thing a criminal wants is to attract attention. I'm talking about a simple robbery, the guy just wants some money. The gun is a single-shot, so if you fail to kill him, he'll kill you. Whereas is you just gave him the money, you'd be down fifty dollars, but no one is dead.

If it was unaggravated assault, by all means pull it out.

Criminals don't care about attracting attention in an armed robbery (burglary might be a different thing). In fact, some do it for attention. They care about whether you live to testify against them though.

How many news stories are there about people shot dead for nothing. Perp just walks up and kills you to see how much you have on you. Or you give them everything you have and the perp doesn't think it's enough, so he shoots you. If you've seen the criminal, you can identify the criminal (which they definitely don't want in court). If you think giving some crack-head your $50 is gonna keep them from killing you, I wish you luck.

These people followed your advice and didn't resist:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lo...r_of_four.html
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/117328/
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/35596824.html
http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie2.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28226099/
http://www.9news.com/news/article.as...4813&catid=339

I could keep posting these links but it's just getting too damned depressing.

Newspapers don't make money from headlines like "Man is robbed and goes home shortly after" They make money from reports of insanity. These people are unfortunate in that they were chosen by mentally unstable people to kill, but the chances of it happening are small compared to examples where people were robbed by a desperate, but otherwise regular person.

The murderers in your examples are obviously very disturbed individuals, and one was noted to have been high on PCP prior to the murder. In those cases, a single-shot 9mm bullet would not have convinced them not to kill you. The palm guns are marketed towards seniors, I presume, and I doubt their abilities in gun handling. The guns will do more harm than good, maybe convincing a 70 year-old man that he is safe when walking in a dangerous neighborhood.

Murder isn't something one does willy-nilly, and even killing in self-defense would be hard to for a regular person. Soldiers are drilled specifically to prevent them from hesitating in action. What people say they can do and what they would do in a high-stress scenario is uncertain. Having a gun does not automatically make you safe, and may cause you to take higher risks than you would have without one.

OK, let's put it this way. If the odds are that 99 times out of 100 giving the psycho the money ends up solving the problem and no one is harmed, do you really want to be the 1?

Edit: The device is not only aimed at seniors, but at the disabled also. The device in question is not even in production AFAIK and is probably a piece of crap. The CONCEPT, however is a different thing.

No, I would not want to be the one. But I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The one in a hundred (odds are smaller than this) psychopath isn't hard to spot. I am against the palm gun specifically. If a seething madman is going to rob and kill you, the palm gun won't do anything to stop him. The user will be afraid, pumping with adrenaline, and if they miss, or even hit in a non-lethal spot, they are dead.

Robberies don't happen in a crowded mall, they happen in quiet, dark places. If a person knows their limits, they won't go into these places and they will never get robbed. Given a weapon, one may feel confident in their safety when they are actually not. Its prevention that counts, if a murder could have happened, the person wasn't safe enough


Edit: For what reason would a disabled person be putting themselves into a dangerous situation and require a gun?

If this was true then why are there almost 30x as many robberies as there are murders? If criminals were so concerned with survivors being able to testify against them I believe the ratio would be much closer to 1:1. If they are rational enough to evaluate the risks of leaving witnesses behind, then it perhaps they are rational enough to evaluate the risks of killing witnesses and the added jail time and other penalties they face. It's like the idea why rape often does not carry a death sentance, being a small incentive for the rapist to leave their victims alive.

Super Market answered this well. A story only makes the news because it is new ;) You'll never hear about the day-to-day robberies or muggings because they are ordinary and common. Degree of news coverage alone is not an effective way to evaluate crime trends.

How does that solve the problem? So, let me get this straight; just give anyone what they want anytime they want it? I think criminals would love this mindset, if they knew that any demand they make will be met without resistance...:hmm:

Well, if you said no, bodily harm of death is a significant risk

You guys are acting like a 9mm is little more than a bb. People die from 9mm gunshots all the time.

Whatever, I just find the whole concept of cooperating with a thief in the hopes he'll let me live to be particularly repulsive. Maybe this kind of thinking will get me killed someday but hopefully i'll get a lick or two in beforehand.

I thought this invention was the dumbest thing I had seen in awhile. Then it just hit me. If I live long enough to be wheelchair bound and too old and worthless to even operate a hang gun I will have use for a device that will only fire one round. One round would be all I needed.

:hmm:

I'm sure your family will just love that... :roll:

Well they would prefer I do it now, but I'm just having too much fun. Honestly if I knew becomming a liberal would make them go so crazy I would have done it when I was in highschool just to mess with them.

i think the idea is that you survive the assault/robbery, call the police, then they go out and catch him.

You really hate your family that much?