When your smartphone gets you killed

A couple of weeks ago, I was browsing a camera store when I came across this: A woman walks past a display of iPhones, a Samsung Galaxy S6 and a Samsung V30 smartphone.

She looks up, and a moment later she’s dead.

This is what I would have expected to see in a mall, but the woman, whose name I will not reveal, was killed by a stray bullet fired from a gun that appeared to be an Apple iPhone.

This is not the kind of murder that most people associate with mass shootings, nor does it fit the usual narrative about the way gun violence is treated in the United States.

I’m not trying to be mean, but this is exactly the sort of case that makes me question the whole idea of universal background checks.

When a gun is stolen or used by a person who shouldn’t have access to it, it should be impossible for that person to get a gun and fire it again.

The only way to do that is to have a federal database that automatically tracks all guns that are used in crimes.

That’s the premise of the background check bill that was passed last year.

This bill, which would have required the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to have records of all firearm sales, was backed by the National Rifle Association, which wants to see a national database of guns and the sale of guns.

The NRA is not just wrong on this, it’s wrong on most of the things that they’re talking about.

It’s also wrong on the gun itself.

The basic fact is that guns do not kill people.

They are tools for people to use in self-defense and for criminals to steal from, use in the commission of a crime and kill again.

I understand why they are a part of the debate.

But the NRA has not been able to convince its members that universal background check laws would be better than the current system.

If the NRA is truly concerned about crime, it would like to see all guns sold and stored in federal hands.

That way, criminals who might be trying to rob or murder people could be tracked and arrested, and if they could get the gun, they could have it back.

Instead, the NRA seems more interested in attacking the idea of gun ownership as a universal right.

It wants to stop any government from making the rules of the game for gun owners.

It is trying to prevent people from having guns in the first place.

This isn’t just a matter of a few bad apples or bad decisions by a few criminals, it is about the NRA’s ideological commitment to the notion that gun ownership is a privilege and a right that is subject to government intervention.

That, of course, is completely false.

It seems as if the NRA thinks that if you own a gun, you have the right to use it in a way that doesn’t violate any laws.

That doesn’t make sense, because it doesn’t apply to everyone, it doesn of course not apply to me, it just doesn’t.

I am not a criminal.

I do not own a car.

I don’t drink or smoke, nor do I kill anyone.

I have no idea what would happen if I had a gun.

I would not have been able, for example, to fire it if I’d been in a fight with a neighbor.

But it does make sense to have gun laws, because the government cannot regulate all aspects of my life, and it has no right to dictate what I do with my own life.

The problem with this is that the NRA, as a political organization, is not interested in fighting against gun ownership.

The reason that the government has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and criminals’ allies is because criminals need them to commit crimes.

If a criminal with a gun had a choice between committing a murder and shooting someone, he or she would likely choose the murder, but if the same criminal had a different gun, the crime would probably be stopped before it could occur.

And if you are a gun owner, you know this better than anyone.

If you’re a victim of a violent crime, and you think that your life is at risk because of your gun, it does not matter what the law says.

If you are armed, you are the one who has the right and duty to protect yourself.

The right to self-protection does not end with the ownership of guns, and I am proud to say that I have never been charged with a crime.

I was able to defend myself at the point where I had the gun.

This should be a point of pride for gun enthusiasts.

But if the right for me to defend my life is not guaranteed to everyone who uses guns, then who are the ones who are really going to have any rights at all?

The NRA and its allies have made a huge mistake by focusing on the wrong issues.

It should be clear that the problem is not that criminals have access, or that the laws need to be changed.

The gun issue is the one issue where we have