From: Ryan S. Upton (ryanu@pobox.com)
Date: Mon Dec 18 2000 - 23:31:44 PST
Of course, The classic reference to the sword cane and pepperbox pistol in
[2] are the times predecessors to this. Still they were used for defense or
assassinations (count Ferdinand, WW I...) The former topic was only
indicates that they are less effective because they show no deterrent. The
latter can be discounted as an assassin will likely have the resources and
motivation to create or obtain a custom piece of equipment for such a
singular goal, the assassin himself is likely 'disposable'. I wouldn't say
that they have no value to a private citizen. Their concealability is
greater than a small handgun, they can even be carried openly (as long as
you don't try to make calls or give out the number...)I'd say they have
much the same questionable place as the sword cane. I don' t think they
have much place as a method of personal protection. Protection is primarily
gained by deterrent, then by stopping power. The 22 caliber cell phone has
neither, and (because of the effects of a small bore round) is much worse
for the attacker and phonegun owner as well, the small caliber round is
more deadly but has significantly less stopping power. With an attacker
less likely to stop immediately, and more likely to become less mobile in
the near future (aka dead) the cell phone user has about even odds of going
to the hospital, morgue or jail.
so I'd say I disagree with your end statement, but only if the owner is
likely to put in as much thought. ok you might be right...
At 12/19/00 01:41 AM -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Ryan S. Upton wrote:
>
> > why bother outlawing the phones? ...
> > Yes, you too can threaten someone with a cell phone. The majority
> > of people will mistake it as that which it appears, rather than that which
> > it is, meaning you have to come up with the salesman pitch of the century
> > and convince them, run away, or shoot them before they do whatever it is
> > that motivated the draw of the cell phone.
>
>The gun disguised as a cell phone is not designed for deterrence. Quite
>the opposite; it is designed for shooting someone with the least possible
>warning.
>
>That's why the article[1] from the original post[2] quotes
>several law enforcement professionals and their concerns. Allowing the
>sale of these devices seems to offer law-abiding citizens miniscule
>benefits while offering criminals huge benefits.
>
>-Matt Jensen
> NewsBlip.com
> Seattle
>
>---
>[1] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html
>[2] http://www.xent.com/oct00/1600.html
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 18 2000 - 23:43:11 PST