Watching Fox News this morning (and I hope some on this site also saw it), I couldn't help but send them a sarcastic email about their reporting of the Swiss miniature revolver that is almost too small to hold in two fingers. "Lethal", "Deadly", and a general panic mode that this "easily smuggled deadly weapon" is banned from the U.S., but no one will know that it is being smuggled in. Their reporting was at the level of a suit case A-Bomb attack. I find the general attitude of the reporting shouts IGNORANCE in capital letters. I did end the email (too large for attaching) with the suggestion that they get some expert (read non-journalist) advice on guns and ballistics before they jump off the deep end (paraphrased).
Sailor
Titles are un-American.
That thing has been around for some time...it's nothing new. It can probably be useful as a weapon, about the same as anything else that happens to be randomly lying around. A spork or a pair of glasses can also be used to kill (especially against an untrained individual), but they don't really lend themselves as weapons in an ideal sense.
Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics
I guess most everybody missed the part about it being 3000 British Pounds and was built solely as a collector piece. I'll give $1 to the first person I can find that can feasibly operate it. That means:Originally Posted by toreskha
1) fitting their finger in the trigger guard and/or actually being able to pull that little bitty trigger
2) If #1 is successful, let's see someone try to put it on target 3 shots in a row.
What a bunch of ninnies.
Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown
I have to admit I question how this could be used intentionally as a weapon. Looking at the ballistics charts they provide, and running some numbers, this weapon generates less than 1 lbs-ft of energy at the muzzle. This gun has 25% less energy than a Daisy Red Ryder.
You may be able to do some damage to someone's eye, if you put the gun against the eye and fired. You would be far better off stabbing them in the eye with the spork at that range.
I suppose you could stick it in a donut hole, offer that to your target and hope they choked.
That's what I love about Fox news, always fair and balenced, cough! BS!
["Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Ben Franklin
FONT]
Liberty or Death
This just in: a new weapon that will threaten the very existence of mankind. What sick mastermind could have invented such a brutal weapon of destructive capability. I am speaking, of course, of the: Little tiny harmless collectors item gun!
Lol, that's some fine news reporting there Fox.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they don't have a real enemy, they'll invent one in order to mobilize us.
Titles are un-American.
Well, if it breaks the skin, it might be effective at very close range - eg, to arteries or veins in the neck. You could shoot someone in the nostril with it and possibly perforate their brain.
Obviously, a spork would probably be more effective though. This would work best as a surprise attack, or while someone is sleeping. Neither a tiny Swiss gun, nor a spork, is a very effective weapon for self-defense.
Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics
I can hurt you worse with one of those wide rubber bands.
[QUOTE=sqlbullet; This gun has 25% less energy than a Daisy Red Ryder.
You may be able to do some damage to someone's eye, if you put the gun against the eye and fired. [/QUOTE]
Menacing, to say the least...
In the words of Little Ralphie's mother, teacher and Santa Clause "You'll shoot your eye out!"
Samurai - "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
Just imagine using one of those for home defense, the BG would laugh them self into a coma, and so would any one else you flashed one on.
Reply With Quote
