Shared publicly  - 
 
Submachine guns now marketed like apps.

You've no doubt heard of the UZI submachine gun. But have you heard of the "UZI Pro"? It sounds like the paid version of a free app.

Oh, and for you road warriors, check out the Micro UZI.

The marketing is weird. But I still want one. (Unfortunately it costs more than $1.99.)

http://j.mp/MsKwiU
40
13
D C Robbins's profile photoEmir Kurtovic's profile photoLuis Lopez's profile photoKenneth McCormack's profile photo
81 comments
 
Truly a compact weapons system...
 
What alarms me about "Uzi Pro" is the implication that other Uzis are therefore intended for amateur users.
 
Micro UZI, Mini UZI... man this is flash-card marketing at work...
 
Wow. What's next? Assault rifles, GPMGs and grenade launchers? Maybe even an F35 fighter. Well is suppose it is different strokes for different folks!
 
I've killed hundreds of thousands of people/aliens/robots etc. in video games in any manner possible. However, I find it a bit unsettling to consider owing a real gun "cool".
 
Cool!!! All the gangs must be dying to get those babies and start blasting away!!
 
Owning a gun is a right. It's a tool, a hobby, and enjoyable to have them.
 
Why? It's just a tool, the person BEHIND it is responsible for what it does.... worry more about those who do not understand that than those who do....
 
+Stephen Smith +Don DeCaire You know, I'm totally OK with it being a weapon, a hobby, and enjoyable to own, but referring to an Uzi as a "tool" seems kinda creepy to me. A tool to do what?
 
Showed this to hubbie who loves his guns LOL...he was interested...
 
A. K. Forty Seven. When you absolutely, positively have to ( upgrade to the pro version and download the EA Massacre 2K12 DLC to ) kill every m*fer in the room... accept no substitutes!
 
Tool to practice for MW3 duhhhh
 
It's an inanimate object that is used to exert extreme force at other objects at which it is directed. Much like a rock, frisbee, baseball bat, or other inanimate object. The use of the tool is entirely at the discretion of it's operator.
 
It IS a tool and ANY tool can be misused, my point is BLAMING a tool for it's misuse is denying responsibility the user has in operating that tool no matter what it is.... weapons aren't toys or status symbols they are for a specific purpose and owners need to respect them and what they can do.... I see nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership...
 
well this would not be legal for sale to civilians as it is a newly manufactured fully automatic weapon. I don't think you have to worry to much about gangs purchasing them. Unless you don't think gun control laws stop bad guys...

on another note I wonder how compact it is with the stock folded compared to the original as that was one of the main selling points
 
+Stephen Smith +Don DeCaire The thing is that I don't think that owning a gun is wrong. People might need it for protection and shooting can be a sport after all.

However that's also just that - a gun is a tool. Created for one specific purpose. So as long as you need it, sure grab one, that's fine. But the notion of it being cool or desirable is just kind of worrisome.
 
+Stephen Smith that's a lie. A tool serves a purpose. Gun's purpose is to kill, everything else (shooting an inanimate target?) is secondary to it.
 
That's just it +Don DeCaire there is nothing wrong with "responsible gun ownership" .. unfortunately there are too many irresponsible types out there. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go climb into my M1-Abrams and head to the store.
 
+Gabriel Perren by that logic so is my baseball bat, my knives, my car and anything else i can use to kill people.
 
If that's the case we need to ban cars and trucks also.... so a few irresponsible people should determine if those of us who are responsible can own weapons?
 
? +Mike Elgan with an Uzi. That is not something I could previously imagine. Maybe I should pay closer attention to your writings. ;-)
 
+Chris Anderson yes there is. Nobody except law enforcement (and with reserves) and the military should be allowed to have a device who's main purpose is to harm a living thing.
 
+Gabriel Perren sooo... something like a slingshot falls into that category... should they too be banned? Weapons are tools... even if you don't agree with that tool's purpose.
that said, there are plenty things out there that are often misused other than their intended purpose.
 
Are they going to sell this to the public. I could massacre some deer and pigs with this bad boy
 
my guns main purpose is killing targets in fact its why I bought them self defense was actually the secondary purpose.

and I would like to disagree that there are that many irresponsible gun owners. Gun related accidents are actually very low.
 
Jarom - For white people maybe
 
+Rob Miller it would not be legal to sell this to the public in the select fire configuration shown in the ad they would have to make a semi automatic version and even then I don't know if you would be able to purchase it as a handgun due to the stock.
 
+Stephen Smith none of those things are specifically made with the purpose of harming (except some types of knives) Your argument is false.

+Chris Anderson any weapon should be banned to the general public. Gun owner's in general would like to believe there's this big grey area between what is considered a weapon and what is not. That's another lie. If it's built to be a weapon, then it's a weapon. Period. A bow and arrows used in sport competitions can be used to do harm just like a hammer or a screwdriver, but that's not it's main purpose.
 
such kinds of weapons are designed for killing man but why don't you use it for good thing
 
Bows and arrows according to your definition was built for the purpose of "harming" but they are ok? Your logic escapes me but I guess we agree to disagree.
 
I look at Syria and it is the perfect example of why gun ownership is important, the government in Syria took advantage of an unarmed population and HAD no fear of them whatsoever and all the hand wringing and all the meetings at the UN did NOTHING to stop it. Now of course I'm not saying this massacre could have been completely avoided but giving the individual the power to defend themselves may have saved many more lives....by allowing them to defend their families if nothing else. That is why I so strongly defend the right to own weapons as an individual....
 
+Stephen Smith
1- Tell me the last time you heard of someone being attacked or robbed at bow and arrow point.
2- Tell me how much damage I can do with an automatic weapon and compare it with a bow and arrows. This is an important issue. By your logic, you should be allowed to buy C4.
3- A competition bow and arrows are built specifically to be used in competitions.
 
I would love to be able to buy C4. It is a tool that I could use to blow out a stump in the back of my place.
 
actually they have resorted to IED's which are far more catastrophic to all concerned...your point is made though.
 
+Gabriel Perren In the UK there are allot of home invasions by people with just bats and clubs because they have such tight gun control. So people are very frequently attacked with much less than a bow and arrow.
You would be able to do allot of damage with a bow and arrow if no one else had a gun
and competition guns are built specifically for competitions so whats your point.

+Gabriel Perren have you ever fired a gun? I find that most people that are afraid of guns have not fired one.

+Rob Miller gun accidents are very infrequent for people of all color
 
can you tell me the cost of your life? you louse your life with a single bullet.
 
That think that it needs a 4-5 foot long magazine. Then you can monopod.
 
As a Little Old Lady I would rather have the PMR-30/RMR-30 combo for zombie stuff -- just less recoil.
 
Criminals aren't going to use a bow and arrow because you may have a gun.... What was it Sean Connery said? "If he pulls out a knife you pull out a gun. If he pulls out a gun, you pull out a bigger gun." Let's say it's Utopia for a moment, and guns don't exist... so we're back to the era of bows and arrows... gun violence now no longer exist... but B&A violence would. are we supposed to be that naive to really believe that if we suddenly got rid of all guns in the world that violence would suddenly end? Sorry that BS just doesn't pass muster with me.
But then we could ban all B&A.... what would we be left with... clubs? Sticks? stones? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Oh, and as for your C4 argument, that doesn't fly... there's a difference between a discriminate weapon (guns and things that can be aimed) and indiscriminate weapons (things that make explosions).
 
Obviously this is just a difference in how people see weapons, some respect them and some fear them, that's understandable to a point but when that point crosses a line that inhibits the ability for me to own a weapon responsibly then that is one line too many....
 
More responsible people lead to a safer world not fewer tools... Great discussion, enjoy your weekend all! :)
 
+Jarom Banks I'd much rather be robbed by someone with a bat than by someone with a gun. And I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of imbeciles with guns (the vast majority)

+Chris Anderson your argument is so weak it's not even worth a response.

+Stephen Smith you could blow up your kid's school too. But I guess that's a reasonable price to pay for your freedom to buy explosives, right?
 
i say a man with his gun,one day blow his head after he had finished his surroundings.
 
+Gabriel Perren I guess we just disagree I would rather be shot and killed then beat to death with a bat

But I do take offence to you saying the vast majority of gun owners are imbeciles as that is not my experience with other gun owners
 
your life depend not on your personality,it depend on your gun.
 
+Gabriel Perren Are you under lock down and have no ability to make personal choices? If I had the material needed to blow up a school that sure as hell does not mean I would do so. You are the perfect soul for totalitarianism. You trust authorities more than yourself. Good luck with that.
 
+Jarom Banks you are purposely misquoting me, I never said killed I said robbed. Although the chances of getting killed are amazingly higher if a gun is involved, they're still different things.

+Stephen Smith do you trust everybody's ability to make such personal choices? Do you trust them enough to give to everybody the liberties you seek for yourself? Who'd be the judge of who gets to buy explosives and who doesn't? Should they be sold to evangelists? How about crazy right wingers? How about extreme NRA supporters? How about radical PETA members? How about those commie Obama lovers?

+Alex Morando if those are built specifically to perform under a competition and as you say are terrible for killing people or hunting, then I don't see why they should.
 
Unless they give society as a concrete reason not to be trusted, it's not our business to tell them what they should or should not do. It's called freedom.
 
haha, I'd love to see how your society where everyone has access to high powered guns and explosives because It's called freedom, develops. From far away if you don't mind.
 
+Gabriel Perren well if the weapon is never used on you why would it matter what you get robbed with. but it is much easier for me to carry a gun to defend myself from said robbery than a baseball bat as they can be much smaller. Your mistrust of society is precisely why you would need a gun to defend yourself.

and our society currently does have access to high powered guns and explosives and its one of the best on earth
 
+Jarom Banks it matters because the probability of getting severely injured is orders of magnitude higher if there's a gun involved. It matters.
And no, the solution for my distrust of imbeciles with access to guns is not to carry a gun myself. Why level the field towards the most dangerous position? It's really people like you, who think they are safer with a gun, the reason why guns should be banned.

our society (...) its one of the best on earth <-- O.O yeah, ok.
 
I'm glad you have your trust solely in the hands of government. I hope they 1. don't let you down 2. hope they are there for you when you need them the most. 3. Hope they never deem you an imbecile and decide what's best for you.
 
You should live here,the only way to own a gun is to be licensed by
the police you can get semi auto rifles and shotguns but no
automatic weapons,and you have to have a reason to own a semi
a hunter or duck shooter.
 
+Stephen Smith well that's the problem with imbeciles. They obviously aren't smart enough to realize by themselves they are imbeciles, so who better than your own democratically elected government to tell you You are an imbecile and decide for you on certain aspects regarding public safety?

+colin watson I don't understand your point, you say the only way. Should I assume you think those conditions are too restrictive??
 
No not at all the person who is going to use that firearm has to be
sound in the head the police do not want people who they might
have to arrest and be better armed than them,most of our police
are not armed if there is a problem they call on the armed offenders
squad who carry weapons locked in the boot of car.
 
I'm so glad that I live where your love of governmental control and meddling is rejected and personal freedoms are based on the fact that they are inherit and not bestowed on to us. There are however, a minority of people (like yourself), who are elitist and want to protect us from each other on the basis that they know best.
 
ALL OF YOU PRO AND AGAINST PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE MAIN POINT, that even the "pro" version of an UZI is still a tinny sounding piece of crap. I thought someone dropped a coffee can!
 
+Stephen Smith I understand your feeling, I'm so glad I don't live in a country where pretty much any random imbecile is allowed to have a high powered weapon or explosives.
 
+Stephen Smith +Jarom Banks I'm glad people like you are still willing stand up for the freedoms we hold dear.

+Gabriel Perren Weapon ownership is an essential part of a free society. It is what provides the citizens of a society the ability to defend the rest of their rights and freedoms. Please keep in mind however, no one is arguing for an anarchistic society. We already have laws to control the behavior of citizens, so that they match our accepted social norms. If one commits murder, theft or violence, they are punished; regardless of the tools or methods used to commit said crime. If you outlaw a weapon, the criminal will always find and use the next available effective alternative.

I've never understood why people on your side of this argument state that law abiding citizens need to have weapons taken away. They are by their very nature, law abiding. Criminals by their very nature, break laws, thus rendering weapon control laws irrelevant.

Explosives and automatic weapons are actually legal to own for the common citizen, provided the citizen has undertaken the appropriate licensing and training. As with vehicles, we have recognized that an untrained individual posses a significant risk of accidental injury to a large number of people. Semi-automatic firearms are relatively simple to use and operate and accidental discharge does not endanger a large number of people; hence the reduced restrictions.

You need to separate the potential for violence from the potential for unintended harm. I could drive a truck down a sidewalk and hurt a lot of people, that does not mean we should make trucks illegal.
 
That reminds me a lot of the old Steyr TMP, the one the company they sold it off to made. But rather more modernized.
 
Call within the next 30 minutes and we'll include the bluetooth scope with iphone and android remote viewing software!
 
So much nicer than the The Oberfranken Steakknife!
 
+Jason Chambers sigh the same argument again and again by gun lovers: I could drive a truck down a sidewalk and hurt a lot of people, that does not mean we should make trucks illegal., please read my comments above, I've explained why this is a false statement like three times already.
Anyway, I'm tired of running in circles. Have fun with your Uzis, just don't be surprised when the next columbine happens.
 
+Gabriel Perren I have read your arguments fully. Your main take away is that you believe guns are dangerous and that the average citizen is too stupid to use them safely. You also make the point that a gun's primary purpose is to take life, since it was created as a weapon.

It is my belief that guns, like many other items invented for war, have alternate uses which make them reasonable for the average citizen to own them. And I will grant you that a gun's primary utility is still for killing. However, in the U.S., we believe that a citizen has an inherent right to defend one's self and property from anyone unjustly trying to cause harm to said items. For this purpose, a gun is still the most effective tool for self defense at this point in history.

And to your statement about Columbine, I would like to point out that Oklahoma City happened due to rental trucks with fertilizer bombs. Disturbed individuals motivated to do violence will find a way to accomplish their goals. I don't believe making policy based on emotional reactions to single catastrophic events ever ends up working very well.
 
+Jason Chambers I would like to point out that Oklahoma City happened due to rental trucks with fertilizer bombs, and there's that fallacy again. The kids at Columbine could have killed a dozen other kids using a screwdriver too, but it would've surely cost them a lot more work. The issue here is how much are you willing to facilitate that job to imbeciles. A gun or an explosive makes it pretty much hassle free.

I'm going to assume that both you and I agree that there should be a limit to an individual's freedom regarding weapon ownership. You don't think everybody should be allowed to have their own nuke, right? Ok, so starting from that point what remains is where to draw the line. Missile launchers? Bazookas? Hand grenades? Shotguns? Etc...
I believe the line is the logical zero point: no weapons for anybody (civilians)
You arbitrarily move that line up to some point based on a- individual freedom and b- personal security.
I contest both those points stating that: a- Less guns means less personal freedom, but it also means less probability of being assaulted and killed by an imbecile with a gun and b- since you can not control if an imbecile owns a gun or not, the costs of allowing gun ownership far outweighs the benefits in terms of personal security.
 
+Gabriel Perren I agree that it would be irrational to allow any civilian to own a bazooka or, in the extreme, a nuke. However, your zero point isn't really the zero point. No weapons for civilians would also have to include knives, bows, spears, swords and, in the extreme, rocks. We both have drawn a line somewhere in the list. The difference is my line comes from the point of view that it should be placed at highest point where society doesn't break down and your line is the least possible point where civilians don't feel oppressed enough to revolt.

This gun argument stirs such extreme emotion because it really isn't about guns. It is about differing ideologies regarding government control. My point of view is that citizens should be allowed as much freedom as possible, until it negatively impacts the society as a whole. There is a reason the 2nd amendment is the 2nd one. We are a nation that earned our freedom by fighting our previous government for it. Free expression of ideas is a powerful thing, it has changed societies and started wars; hence why it is the 1st amendment to our constitution. The 2nd amendment exists to protect the first.

In America gun ownership is legal under our constitution and 100's of thousands of Americans exercise this right. On average in 2010, 90 people died every day in traffic accidents. Gun related deaths, half of which are suicide, average in at 87 per day. Assuming that most of the suicides would occur by another method in the absence of firearms, you have a non-suicide gun death rate of roughly 50 per day. Given their negative impact on society is at worst on par with traffic accidents and at best much less; I don't see any need to make them illegal.

It is a matter of personal ideology. I prefer freedom over perceived safety.
 
+Jason Chambers you clearly have no intention on reading what I write and actually stop to think about it. No weapons for civilians would also have to include knives, bows, spears, swords and, in the extreme, rock that's the third time out of three comments (100% success rate!) you've stated that fallacy even though I specifically explained to you why it was false. Oh wait, there's one more: ...is at worst on par with traffic accidents and at best much less..., four times in three comments, impressive.
You really don't understand that car accidents have nothing to do with guns related accidents/injuries/murders? Is it really that hard of a concept? Is it seriously that hard to comprehend a car is made for driving it and a gun is made for killing? Is it seriously that hard to see you're comparing apples with oranges? Really?

Sigh...
 
+Gabriel Perren Perhaps you don't understand the point I'm trying to make. The purpose of the item is irrelevant to me, only the impact it has on society. We have a society of 100's of thousands of gun owners. The net loss of life is on par with traffic accidents. Therefore gun ownership by responsible citizens has no more negative impact on society than vehicle ownership.

Like I said before, this is really a debate about the role of government in controlling the lives of citizens. It is my belief that the government should only interfere in the lives of citizens to the most minimal extent needed to preserve an orderly society.

I do have an honest question for you though. What drives you to have such a laser tight focus on guns specifically? You accuse me of using a fallacy in comparing them to other lesser weapons, yet you compare them to nukes. Is this not the exact same fallacy?
 
what i said is now american society will understood it
Add a comment...