Revolver takes a picture every time you pull the trigger

From the Netherlands' National Archive, a 1938 photo taken in New York City of a Colt revolver that has been modified to shoot a picture with every trigger pull. Presumably most of those photos are of people looking horrified and about to say something like, "Oh Christ, you turned your gun into a camera? No, don't point it at me! Ahh!"

(via Super Punch)


  1. Jesus, that’s a bad idea. It could get you killed, not even mentioning terrifying people. Extremely irresponsible, coming from this gun owner.

    1.  Totally.  I’d be in favor of every cop having one of these and of requiring the images to be presented every time the gun is used in the line of duty.  Given how tiny and light webcams are now, I don’t see any practical downside.

  2. If a police officer actually used one of these camera guns… would other police officers beat them down, mace them and then confiscate/break these subversive guns at every opportunity like they do when anyone else is “Illegally videotaping them”?

  3. Eh, I thought I read something in boingboing previously about a modern example of this, but I couldn’t find it. I distinctly remember reading about a current edition of an automatic with attached camera. So instead: something from engadget in 2007:

    None of its outgoing links are live anymore, and in finest engadget tradition they neglect to name the product they mention so you can’t google it.

  4. Don’t fear the gunman who turns his weapon into a camera. Fear the photographer who turns his camera into a gun.

  5. If we could do this three quarters of a century ago, why the heck is it not standard in every gun? Or at least in every public servant’s gun?

    In my ideal world, civilians would have the right to wear panoramic camera-hats at all times in public; and public servants would be expected to, while in public. Cameras are not evil. Lack of public access to them or their footage, is.

    1. In my ideal world, civilians would have the right to wear panoramic camera-hats at all times in public; and public servants would be expected to, while in public.

      There’s such a thing as going too far in the other direction. How many people would be willing to talk to cops if they knew there would be a public record of every discussion?

  6. I recall once seeing in a video library a videotape promising a film about a killer who attached a camera to his rifle so he could photograph his victims at the moment of death. I have no idea what it was titled, though it was probably from the 1980s.

    1. Really interesting link, actually, but the “model” used to demonstrate the guns is, like, 12, and wearing a WW I uniform. From the thumbnail, I thought it was just a fresh-faced 18-year-old (or, someone who lied about their age to enlist), like you see in old photos from WW I and II.

      But no – it’s literally a 12-year-old dressing as a WW I soldier, with a goofy look on his face as he tries to look like a serious soldier :)

      That said, I thought your link would be referring to WWII gun cameras in combat aircraft – you see footage from these all the time in WWII documentaries. They’re cameras mounted in the wings near the machine guns that are linked to the gun trigger, so whenever you shoot, footage is taken as well. I took a photo of one at an air show, on a beautiful chrome P-51.

  7. That cameraguy is a terrible shot.

    I like the idea of going one further though, and requiring officers to wear cameras/mics on their person. They are “uniformed” when it is activated.

    Yes, It will allow other people to tell them how to do their jobs, which are hard enough without such interference, but you know what? about 20% of the police DO NEED to be told how to do it right. And theother 80% have to raise that thin blue line if they want it to be anything but a garotte on a free and civil society.

  8. There are plenty of mounts for putting sportcams on Picatinny rails. Used by a lot of competition shooters for diagnosing performance with post-game footage.

  9. I could get behind requiring service pistols to take pictures. The courts and internal affairs already allow a reasonable amount of flexibility for difficult, heat of the moment decisions, so I don’t think it would threaten honest cops, and it would certainly help victims in clear cases of malfeasance. Heck, it might help honest cops, too, because they could point to photographic evidence of threatening behavior/apparent weapons which is otherwise contested. Sounds good to me.

Comments are closed.