Slashdot Mirror


Man Robs Convenience Stores With Klingon "Batleth"

mnovotny writes "Colorado Springs police are looking for a man who hit two 7-Eleven convenience stores, armed with a Klingon 'Batleth' sword inspired by the Star Trek science fiction series. They did appear more human in the original series."

579 comments

  1. When they outlaw batleths.... by drachenfyre · · Score: 5, Funny

    only outlaws will have batleths...

    1. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by areusche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't like stealing much like any other guy, but if some guy came into a store i was working at and he appaeared with a Bat'leth I would be impressed. Seriously I would give the guy the cash and then ask how he made it. Insurance would cover the lose and I can say i saw a bad ass sword!

    2. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by tunabomber · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly, you're being ironic, but you cannot out-irony the authorities.

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    3. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking he "made" it by selling off some of his mom's jewelry he stole or something

    4. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      only outlaws will have batleths...

      The U.K. has been fighting the Klingon horde for many a fortnight already.
      Interpol should contact inspector Mac McGarry, he's got relevant expertise.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by hodet · · Score: 1

      Or in Canada, the Assault Sword Registry.

    6. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by Lazyrust · · Score: 1

      Where is the National Batleth Association to protect our rights to own assault swords for our own security. Besides, theyre only used for hunting and recreational use.

      Whats really sad is that both clerks recognized the weapon from Star Trek.

    7. Re:When they outlaw batleths.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Slurpys have no HONOR!!!

      Worf

  2. There is no honor in theft. by defile39 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He should be stripped of his land and titles.

    1. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That punishment is too lenient for such a p'tahk! He should face discommendation!

    2. Re:There is no honor in theft. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This honorless p'tahk will be sent to work the mines on Rura Penthe!

    3. Re:There is no honor in theft. by cliffski · · Score: 5, Funny

      can we all cross our arms and turn around now?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    4. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      (insert another geeky reference post naseum)

    5. Re:There is no honor in theft. by sorak · · Score: 5, Funny

      don't you mean that he should be stripped of his grandmother's basement and his MMORPG accounts?

    6. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's spelled "petaQ" and I can't believe I actually knew that.

    7. Re:There is no honor in theft. by LoadWB · · Score: 4, Funny

      (insert another dickhead buzz-kill reference...)

    8. Re:There is no honor in theft. by zerojoker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no. Such person would us then stab in the back.

    9. Re:There is no honor in theft. by troll8901 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll take his Batleth, thank you.

      If his grandmother bakes excellent cookies, I'll take her too.

    10. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *inserts*
      *winces in pain*
      Shouldn't have inserted it there...

    11. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      don't you mean that he should be stripped of his grandmother's basement and his MMORPG accounts?

      And he should be stripped of his "Chewbacca is my copilot" T-shirt immediately!

      Ugh! Oh God! That was a mistake. Put the shirt back on! Put it on! You can keep it, I'm sorry.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:There is no honor in theft. by philspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am glad but slightly nervous that got marked insightful. Glad that there are such nerds, but nervous that they might actually be klingons... which I now just insulted...

      sincerely,
      Bob Smith in montreal canada.

    13. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I never could get used to the new romanizations. I don't particularly like Pinyin, either.

    14. Re:There is no honor in theft. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      That's what I said about your mom last night.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    15. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what we needed, a grammar Khan!

    16. Re:There is no honor in theft. by harrkev · · Score: 1

      What is even worse, anybody who would use such a weapon probably reads /.. He will be coming for you soon.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    17. Re:There is no honor in theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's KHAAAN! to you mister.

  3. this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by thekm · · Score: 1

    ...and trying a little too hard to break the stereotype. And it still wont land him chix0r's

    1. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but armed robbery will land him in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    2. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      His survival depends on his ability to fashion a phaser from soap on a rope. I don't think Big Henry will be impressed, though.

    3. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by djrogers · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but armed robbery will land him in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

      No, it will land him in a county jail. If it were a repeat or significant enough offense, he would likely end up in a state prison. Federal prison is for thos who violate federal laws - armed robbery that doesn't cross state lines is a local/state crime.

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    4. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, but there are no awesome Office Space quotes that involve county jail!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    5. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but armed robbery will land him in a federal pound- me -in-the-ass prison.

      Talking from personal experience then?

    6. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, it will land him in a county jail. If it were a repeat or significant enough offense, he would likely end up in a state prison

      Umm, I dunno how they do it in Colorado, but here in New York armed robbery is a pretty serious offense and you are all but assured of receiving a sentence >1 year. Sentence >1 year generally equals a stay in state pound me in the ass prison, not a stay in clean up the roadside county jail......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Actually, criminals are quite popular with the ladies - even serial killers have loads of female fans. This geek's chances of scoring just went up a sizeable amount (of course, capture and incarceration damages those chances considerably, unless the 'scoring' is an all male affair).

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    8. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, wrong window.

    9. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by muzicman · · Score: 0

      Example: If caught the perpetrator will be sent to county jail where he will LOSE his anal virginity, and his arse will become as LOOSE as a clowns pocket.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    10. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      "Watch out for your cornhole" doesn't count?

    11. Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but there are no endlessly repeated and, quite frankly, by this point boring and not-at-all ironic, clever, subversive, or interesting Office Space quotes that involve county jail!

      There, fixed that for you.

  4. I believe stealing slurpees by joeflies · · Score: 5, Funny

    is one of the Rites of Ascension. While it is inevitable that a boy becomes a man, what is not inevitable is whether a man becomes a warrior. That is, until he robs a 7-eleven.

    1. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Eddi3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might think that's funny, but robbing gas stations is the exactly the kind of stuff that gangs use as initiation,

    2. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      They only steal Bloodwine Slurpees.

    3. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Sabz5150 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You might think that's funny, but robbing gas stations is the exactly the kind of stuff that gangs use as initiation,

      Since when do the Bloods have a trekkie clique?

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    4. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Klingon bar mitzvah
      Spooky! Scary!
      Boys becoming men
      Men becoming warriors!

    5. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bloodwine is for wimps. The drink of a true warrior comes from the juice of a prune.

    6. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      It's a new gang! Screw the crips and bloods, I'm joining the Klingons! Membership includes a free batleth!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    7. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have it sadly backwards. The Bloods were the activist wing of the Trekkie division of the Los Angeles Linux User Group.

      In the Denver LUG, infiltrating convenience stores has provided a reliable supply of Mountain Dew. But I fear this infighting may unravel the whole sweet deal.

    8. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep. Nothing screams warrior like not shitting your pants in the heat of battle after knocking back a gallon of prune juice.

    9. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by slackbheep · · Score: 4, Funny

      If mugged by a group of cosplayers I would feel nothing but shame.

    10. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly! It's the ultimate MO. Their crimes will almost never get reported because the victims will be too embarrassed.

    11. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God I cannot believe I get this reference to Worf's favourite drink and Whoopi Goldberg is the one who first gave it to him. I'm posting anonymous to hide my shame.

    12. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But I fear this infighting may unravel the whole sweet deal.

      How many times do I gotta say it? When guys are on the mattresses they aren't out there earning.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Way back in high school, we invented something we called the "Romulan Test of Manhood", which consisted of putting as many Atomic Fireballs in your mouth as you could stand.

    14. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While it is inevitable that a boy becomes a man, what is not inevitable is that a man becomes a sword.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    15. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I bet you got all the chicks. :)

    16. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by philspear · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, shitting your pants in battle is a semi-effective technique to distract your enemy.

    17. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by houghi · · Score: 1

      Bloods? Are those the ones in the red shirt?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      You have it sadly backwards. The Bloods were the activist wing of the Trekkie division of the Los Angeles Linux User Group.

      In the Denver LUG, infiltrating convenience stores has provided a reliable supply of Mountain Dew. But I fear this infighting may unravel the whole sweet deal.

    19. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd think so, but no :-(.

    20. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ah, but The rules of acquisition clearly demand payment for the slurpee.

      Talk about culture clash.

      If Worf taught us anything, it's that two beings the size of 11 year old human children can take a Klingon. Double so if the Klingon is armed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by agnosticanarch · · Score: 1

      Dr Pepper?

      --
      I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
    22. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by powerlord · · Score: 1

      God I cannot believe I get this reference to Worf's favourite drink and Whoopi Goldberg is the one who first gave it to him. I'm posting anonymous to hide my shame.

      Shame is for the honorless! ;)

      Yeah, I immediately got the reference too, and was surprised when it seems more didn't. Of course ST:TNG has been out of production for quite some time ... which only made me feel rather old. :(

      Today's geeks don't understand the trials and tribulations we older ones had to endure.

      When WE were young there was only ONE Star Trek, and Colonel Tigh was black.. and Athena was Adama's daughter... and Boomer and Starbuck were MEN!

      Why, in OUR day, there were only THREE Star Wars films ... and they were GOOD!

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    23. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the distraction that it would cause you would be much worse.

    24. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it sadly backwards. The Bloods were the activist wing of the Trekkie division of the Los Angeles Linux User Group.

      In the Denver LUG, infiltrating convenience stores has provided a reliable supply of Mountain Dew. But I fear this infighting may unravel the whole sweet deal.

    25. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      I hear they call themselves the Redshirts.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    26. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neal Stephanson, is that you?

    27. Re:I believe stealing slurpees by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

      Pooping your pants is distracting no matter the situation.

      Don't ask me how I know this...

  5. Poor reporting strikes again by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not a "Batleth", it's a "Bat'leth". Without the apostrophe it just looks ridiculous.

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    1. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you know? It was intentional.

    2. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not as ridiculous as this part of the story:

      A half hour later, police received a call from a 7-Eleven at 2407 N Union Blvd, where a male matching the previous description entered the store with a sword. He also demanded money from the store clerk. The clerk did not give him any money and the suspect transported himself out of the store on foot.

      The writer almost sounds disappointed that the suspect didn't beam himself out of the store ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by RevWaldo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I sure hope someone got fired for *that* one!

    4. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Its too bad he didn't manage to go out of phase and just walk out through the door invisibly.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by halcyon1234 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm just disappointed that he didn't do it in full makeup. I wouldn't want to be the clerk that had to talk to the sketch artist. It'd be a day you pray the security cameras didn't fail.

    6. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's not a "Batleth", it's a "Bat'leth". Without the apostrophe it just looks ridiculous.

      Have you seen your sig lately?

      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.

    7. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The writer almost sounds disappointed that the suspect didn't beam himself out of the store ;)

      Well, I'm kind of disappointed he didn't try to get away in a cloaked vehicle, or may be he did. Either way, this story would make good fodder for a Reno-Nevada 911 episode.

    8. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by LargeMythicalReptile · · Score: 1

      It's not a "Batleth", it's a "Bat'leth". Without the apostrophe it just looks ridiculous.

      Congratulations; you pass.

    9. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by supermies · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the tricorder just got infected with the downadup.k virus, effectively preventing using the transporter both down....ad...up....(slaps self)

    10. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's:

      "The Klingon word for this weapon is betleH, etymologically derived from batlh 'etlh ("honor blade"). "

      http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bat'leth

    11. Re:Poor reporting strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isnt it the sad part where the clerk knows what the weapon is?

  6. This is too much! by Ynsats · · Score: 1

    Sooo many jokes to make!

    Don't know where to start!

    WWAKD (What Would A Klingon Do?)

    1. Re:This is too much! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      four thousand 7-Elevens may be robbed in one night by a running man?

    2. Re:This is too much! by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      We can start with the delightful observation that both clerks (Clerks?) recognised it as a Bat'Leth, and better, that the second one had the nuts to tell this honourless p'tak to go screw a goat. Even Star Trek nerds aren't afraid of other Star Trek nerds.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:This is too much! by Sabz5150 · · Score: 4, Funny

      WWAKD (What Would A Klingon Do?)

      Rob a 7-11, apparently. How else does a warrior fund a Bird of Prey in this economy?

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    4. Re:This is too much! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      that the second one had the nuts to tell this honourless p'tak to go screw a goat

      Maybe he had a phaser? Phaser > Bat'Leth

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:This is too much! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      "I demand a free slurpee. It is a good day to die!"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:This is too much! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWAKD (What Would A Klingon Do?)

      http://klingonsforjesus.50webs.com/

    7. Re:This is too much! by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "screw a targ?"

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    8. Re:This is too much! by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1

      Rob a 7-11, apparently. How else does a warrior fund a Bird of Prey in this economy?

      Pimp My Bird Of Prey

    9. Re:This is too much! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear the 7-Eleven is going to start requiring all clerks to keep Tribbles behind the counter, in case of future attempts.

      (I blatantly plagiarized this from one of the comments below the article)

    10. Re:This is too much! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Chancellor Gorkon's pushing through a mining operation on Praxis that's going to reduce our dependence on foreign dilithium. If those Federation liberals would just shut up about the environment we'll have prices back down to 2285 levels in no time.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this in "Entertainment?" Is this some publicity stunt? Some TV show? No. It's a robbery. Crime. I am not entertained.

    1. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Come back in an hour. America is just waking up.

      Hab SoSlI' Quch!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, it's just a shame neither of the clerks were in red shirts!

    3. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, it's just a shame neither of the clerks were in red shirts!

      If they had been the headline would be: Man Commits Murder With Klingon Bat'Leth

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      It's a robbery. Crime. I am not entertained.

      This is my exact reaction in front of every publicity stunt.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Tony+Stark · · Score: 1

      The robbers never would've escaped if the clerks' phasers weren't just set to stun.

    6. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing he didn't try to rob a quik trip

    7. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      No, it would be:
      Clerk impales himself on easily avoidable Klingon Bat'Leth

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    8. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure about that?

      http://jpaulstores.com/7-eleven/productdetail.asp?Full=CH100R!Apparel

    9. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I was about to be shocked that a red shirt lived through an original episode, but then I saw this on the site you linked to:

      Not to be worn as a store uniform

    10. Re:Why is this in "Entertainment?" by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      From that article:

      "Upon surrenduring to police, the suspect laid down his large weapon. Unfortunately, the red-shirted clerk chose that moment to evacuate his bowels and, in the rush to the rest room, tripped over his shoelace and fell, face-first, onto the Bat'Leth, killing him instantly."

  8. Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, we must ban replica weapons that are only made for killing large numbers of people! Protect the children!

    These "assault swords" have features like extra cutting edges, and allow the evil person using one to swing it in both directions, thereby killing more people.
    The user's hands are placed a little differently than on traditional swords, meaning the user can swing with more power and hit more people at once.
    They're made of cheap metal, which is more dangerous than regular steel because it's more powerful and stronger than a real sword!
    And they have engravings in an unknown foreign terrorist language, which tells the user how to be deadly assassin. And there's obviously no need for engraving on a sword.

    And obviously, if we ban them, they'll all magically go away, because we know that criminals who like to commit acts of violence will be scared of the law that bans their swords. Nobody will ever make one themselves, or sneak one in through the black market, and there are no legitimate uses (such as movie props and reenactments) for these weapons.

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    1. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Real weapons of this kind are already generaly illegal in many areas.

      If you go wandering about with a real Katana you are likely to be
      arrested just as if you were waving a pistol around.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wooosh!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      If you are not trying to behead or otherwise hurt someone why not walk around with it? I could see you being stopped and questioned by police but if you are taking it home or some other normal (i.e. not trying to kill someone) function it shouldn't be illegal. People have rifles and shotguns on display in their cars (not all but many do) and no one thinks twice.

      If the sword becomes part of your wardrobe and you work in an office building I could see one being questioned. Think about it. How many people die from a sword accidentally beheading them on its own? I would believe that accidental sword deaths are very small.

    4. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It certainly depends on the location, but (at least in the US) there's a big difference between owning a weapon, carrying it around in a holster/scabbard/whatever, and brandishing/threatening with it.

      The first is generally legal, with a few exceptions or restrictions.

      The second is commonly legal too, with certain conditions. In Georgia, for example, one may carry any weapon (except a handgun) as described above, so long as it is done openly and in plain sight. To carry a handgun (openly or concealed) or to conceal a firearm in general, one must obtain a firearms license.

      The third will generally 9and rightly) get you arrested on felony charges everywhere; the name of the charge will vary, but they're generally equivalent. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone or threatening them with a deadly weapon in general will get you charged with aggrevated assault. Other states may classify it as "brandishing a weapon" or "attempted murder", for example.

      I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that owning and carrying a Klingon sword is legal in Colorado. Threatening someone with it is not, obviously.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    5. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe that Sikhs have a religious mandate to carry a sword with them at all times- something about always being ready to fight for God. In India they even allow them to carry the swords onto airplanes.

      Probably wouldn't go over so well here in the good old USA though... too many paranoid morons.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    6. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Microsift · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.

      --
      My other sig is extremely clever...
    7. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hork_Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having a concealed weapons permit, I had to take a class that focused a great deal on specific firearm laws.

      Louisiana allows for open carry, but the instructor (a state trooper) cautioned that all it takes is a complaint for you to get arrested for it. The reasoning is that "disturbing the peace" trumps the right to open carry.

    8. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mh1997 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane

      Box cutters and pocket knives were legal at the time. Too bad the other 100 plus passengers on those planes were not carrying box cutters or pocket knives. The world would be a very different place today.

    9. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by freefrag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The daggers the Sikhs carry is more of a challenge not to unsheath them unless Muslim tyrants (Mughals) return.

    10. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sometimes you'll get arrested for that in Georgia, too, but it almost always gets thrown out in court (assuming you were licensed and legal to carry in that location). Now, if you're in a private establishment, and the manager/proprietor decides he doesn't like it, that's a different matter; he has full legal right to ask you to cover up or leave.

      in general, though, firearms laws in Georgia are so convoluted and ambiguous that even the judges, lawyers, and police don't really know it well. Go up and ask five officers what the laws are, you'll get six different answers. We're trying to fix that, because regardless of the subject, the people deserve laws that are clear and easy to understand. Otherwise, how can they follow them?

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    11. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by curmudgeous · · Score: 5, Funny

      "...allow the evil person using one to swing it in both directions..."

      Well, obviously anyone who swings both ways is pure evil (according to the fundamentalists).

    12. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by qbzzt · · Score: 1

      The third will generally 9and rightly) get you arrested on felony charges everywhere;

      If you're lucky. Threatening somebody with a weapon isn't a capital crime. But shooting you on the spot is perfectly legal and rightly so.

      If you threaten my life, I have a right to make you stop. If you end up dead, well, that's too bad. At least that's the law in Texas.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    13. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Canazza · · Score: 1

      And then there's the Sgian dubh

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    14. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane.

      9/11 happened because:

      a) US government secret services and law enforcement agencies failed to do their job.
      b) because the entire plane of passengers just sat there and allowed it to happen.
      c) because they were able to just waltz in into the cockpit.
      d) because Arnold, Bruce, Sly and Steven were busy elsewhere.

      The terrorists could have just as well held a large clock and claim that they have a bomb.
      Forget the clock - they could have held a bag and claim there is a bomb inside.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    15. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *buzzz* wrong.

      LOL, go walk into a sporting goods store and just count up all the weapons that are legal to sell and own. Every which one of them is "real". And remember, a baseball bat can be a weapon too, just like the knives in your kitchen drawer. It's every bit as real when the person using it is bashing someone's brains in or stabbing you in the neck. Reminds me of that movie "The Principle" or something with Jim Belushi.

    16. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.

      Yeah, much better to disarm the general public and announce this fact to those that seek to do harm. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by powerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes ... but notice that the one plane where people knew what they were going to do crashed into the middle of PA?

      It doesn't matter anymore. Anyone trying to hijack a plane is going to run into the "problem" that people will remember the 9/11 modus operandi now and will most likely actively rebel.

      Darn good thing too, at least there is a chance of them NOT being sheep in ALL situations.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    18. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by isfry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful where you swing that thing.

    19. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Actually in most states with a license you can walk around waving a pistol around. I have yet to see a license for waving a katana around though :(

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    20. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      Careful where you swing that thing.

      I hope you are talking about Bat'Leths and not the recent footage that interrupted the Super Bowl ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by abbyful · · Score: 1

      In my state, it's perfectly legal to open-carry a weapon. (Although most places will likely request you leave if you are open-carrying.) I could walk down the street with a Katana strapped to my back or with a rifle strapped to my back, both are legal. (And the police may stop and question you to see *why* you're walking around with it, but it is legal.) You only need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

      There's a big difference between carrying a weapon on your person and waving around a weapon. The first is passive, the second is construed as a threat.

    22. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real weapons of this kind are already generaly illegal in many areas.

      If you go wandering about with a real Katana you are likely to be
      arrested just as if you were waving a pistol around.

      Ummm NO. (at least in the US, Europe is different)

      If you are waving a Katana around AND threatening people with it, that's a different offense.

      There is no law that can prevent you from carrying a Katana, Battle Axe, or any other type of hand weaponry in public, as long as it's not concealed.
      In most cases this is true of guns as well.

      There are laws which prevent such items inside schools, government buildings, libraries, schools, banks, and airports.

    23. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you threaten my life, I have a right to make you stop. If you end up dead, well, that's too bad. At least that's the law in Texas.

      That's generally the law everywhere although the specifics may vary. Here in New York the case law says that when out in public we have to make a reasonable effort to retreat first. In our homes we don't have to retreat although it's well advised -- personally I wouldn't shoot somebody over property (it's insured) if my life isn't in danger.

      If I feel like my life is in danger though all bets are off -- I'll be shooting to kill and will continue shooting until the threat has been negated. If he manages to survive then I'll tell the 911 dispatcher to send an ambulance along with the cops.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hordeking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.

      Box-cutters make terrible weapons, unless your target is unarmed or can't fight back.

      Actually, I suspect if people were less cowed by authorities and were allowed to carry self-defensive equipment, 9/11 would never have happened. 4 box-cutters vs 100 known-to-be-unarmed victims is far different than 4 box-cutters vs 100 potentially-armed freemen.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    25. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 1

      "Actually in most states with a license you can walk around waving a pistol around."

      Huh? Tell me, which states are those?

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    26. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by dpilot · · Score: 1, Funny

      NOW you've done it. Now TSA is going to start checking us all for clocks and bags in the security lines. Let's just hope nobody comes up with exploding underwear. (with a nod to one of the entries to Bruce Schneier's annual "Movie Plot Terrorist Threat" contest.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    27. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Daswolfen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sadly neither was Westley Snipes. If Passenger 57 had been in his seat rather than not paying his taxes.... ... well lets just say always bet on black.

      --
      Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
    28. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Megane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      e) nobody before had ever hijacked a plane with the suicidal intent to crash it, and the standard response to hijackings had been to land wherever the hijackers said to land.

      Once the passengers on Flight 93 heard about what happened on the other planes, they changed their response.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    29. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by fm6 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You NRA types are really bad at sarcasm.

    30. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I suspect if people were less cowed by authorities and were allowed to carry self-defensive equipment, 9/11 would never have happened. 4 box-cutters vs 100 known-to-be-unarmed victims is far different than 4 box-cutters vs 100 potentially-armed freemen.

      "The odds that one person is carrying a bomb on a plane are 500,000 to one. The odds that two people are each carrying a bomb on a plane are five billion to one. So to be safe, always carry a bomb with you when you fly."

    31. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by abbyful · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      My mom had to argue with TSA to let her carry on a set on fancy butter spreaders she bought for the bed & breakfast my parents own. I'm not sure how you're going to injure anyone with those!

    32. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree 9/11 wouldn't have likely happened if people were allowed to regularly carry weapons on planes.

      However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.

      9/11 happened because of intelligence failures, plain and simple. It won't happen again, not because of better intelligence, but because the hijacker-passenger contract was ripped up. People know now that they may not survive if they don't fight back. Previously people knew that if they just went along eventually they were likely to be released unharmed in some random foreign land.

      Now people will fight back hard and fast when something happens. That alone is the safest thing we have in our favor preventing another 9/11 attack.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    33. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.

      I'm not sure I get this. After all, if terrorists with knives try to take over a plane with a bunch of armed Sikhs aboard, it's not going to work our very well.

    34. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      If there'd been some Sikhs on board, the hijackers would have got their arses well and truly kicked.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by philspear · · Score: 1

      Probably wouldn't go over so well here in the good old USA though... too many paranoid morons.

      Too true, my religion requires to carry a cell phone jammer and bazooka at all times, you won't BELIEVE the trouble that gets me into.

      In all honesty, allowing people to carry swords on airplanes is a bad idea even if we were somehow sure that they would never be used in terrorism. Air rage and all.

    36. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mdrplg · · Score: 1

      Irony as an argument against the banning of assault weapons -- very convincing. I'm certainly going to change my evil liberal response to gun control.

      --
      Today is an ephemeron, doomed to the crypt of yesterday.
    37. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.

      Knives, kubotans and knuckledusters don't have triggers. Walkings sticks neither.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ubergamer1337 · · Score: 1

      Hijackings prior to 9/11 did not usually involve the plane being used as a weapon itself. It's easy now to say "stupid passengers should have stopped them, stupid government should have shot them down" but the reality is that before 9/11 the best way to handle a hijacking was to let the hijacker do whatever he wanted, because the plane would eventually land, and then they could be arrested. Go read about some hijackings before September 11th, and you will see why.

      Before 9/11 hijackers had goals that INVOLVED SURVIVING.

    39. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh the world was a different place then.

      If you think the reason why the 9/11 hijackers were successful is because the 100 plus passengers were not armed you are badly mistaken.

      On average 20-30 people armed with stuff readily available on a plane should be able to take down 4 average guys with box cutters. Box cutters don't even penetrate inflight magazines well. You can kill people with pens. Heck if people started throwing their shoes and coins at the hijackers it would hurt them badly.

      Why they didn't try was the passengers didn't realize what the hijackers were _really_ up to.

      Back then the "general understanding" was the passengers and crew cooperate with hijackers, the plane lands somewhere and the hijackers either a) eventually get something they can accept and nobody gets hurt, b) or the Special Forces storms the plane and some people die.

      In fact it seems that after passengers in one of the 9/11 planes found out what happened to the other planes, they stopped the hijackers from achieving their objectives. Sure that plane still crashed (just not at the target), but perhaps if they knew earlier things would have been different.

      I'd actually argue that if you can really prevent "teeth and claws" getting on board, it's harder for 4 wolves to overpower 100 sheep in a fight to the death. Whereas if you allowed everyone to carry deadly weapons, it just makes things worse. Most "sheep" won't bring swords on board. And a skilled person with a sword can defeat very many unarmed people (a decent sharp sword has pretty good "stopping" power). In contrast a skilled unarmed martial artist will find it harder to fight off many unarmed people at once (some poor bastard may have to be the shield, but too bad).

      --
    40. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I suspect if people were less cowed by authorities and were allowed to carry self-defensive equipment, 9/11 would never have happened.

      It's not that the folks on the planes lacked the ability to thwart the hijackers - see Flight 93. But those on the first three planes were expecting a standard hijacking.

      Back in the good old days a hijacking meant a hostage situation where, if all goes well, everybody gets out alive. In that situation, even if you've got a weapon, your best bet is usually to shut the fsck up and don't try to be a hero and get everybody blown up.

      But now, in these modern times, we assume a hijacker intends to kill us anyway, so, go for it.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    41. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by sukotto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, terrorists with weapons overpowered all those weaponless non-terrorists. Good thing those passengers weren't armed eh? ... they might have been more able to stop the dog fuckers who crashed those planes.

      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    42. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it depends on your local police department's policies. For instance, in Ohio it is legal to carry a weapon as long as it is NOT concealed. But, if you try to do so, many police departments will arrest you and charge you with inciting a riot or some such nonsense. Or, if you get in your car with the weapon, you are then concealing it.

    43. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.

      Pardon me, but WTF?

      First, unjustified shootings by people with carry permits are extremely rare. Second, why would one passenger shooting another on board an airplane cause a crash? Planes are not fragile - and no, "explosive decompression" will not cause a plane to tear apart if it's hull is pierced by a bullet.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    44. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by richardellisjr · · Score: 1

      Only the passengers of three of the four planes allowed it to happen. Once the passengers on the fourth heard what was going to happen they resisted. And I think up until 9/11 it not resisting was probably the best way to make it out alive. Most hijackers at that time didn't do it with the intent to kill everyone including themselves. Everything changed since then and I doubt any hijackers would be very successful now. Which is probably why they haven't tried it since.

    45. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he manages to survive then I'll tell the 911 dispatcher to send an ambulance along with the cops.

      You're more compassionate than I. The fucker would probably sue you and win.

    46. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by value_added · · Score: 2, Informative

      Louisiana allows for open carry

      IIRC, for alcohol as well as firearms. :-)

    47. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Sopor42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thank you for invoking Miller's Corollary. You lose. This conversation is now over.

    48. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also helps to remember the standard advice concerning hijackers at the time of 9-11: Give them whatever they want, take them wherever they want, and the authorities deal with it once they are on the ground.

      Which worked because most hijackers wanted money or to get someplace specific. So as long as there was no resistance, no one would get hurt. No need for the people in the plane to take chances, when chances may get the all killed due to accident, and just sitting still would have no one get hurt.

      This failed - obviously - on 9-11 because the hijackers wanted the plane itself as a weapon, and were planning on killing the people on it. (Including themselves.) So the standard response actually hurt the situation.

    49. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.

      If only there had been courageous Sikhs on board to fight off the terrrists...

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    50. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ewrong · · Score: 5, Funny

      Box-cutters make terrible weapons, unless your target is unarmed or can't fight back.

      or is a box

    51. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ewrong · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you have to drive along toting it out the window A-Team style?

    52. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't want anyone who is prepared to fight for someone who's existence is debatable to come anywhere near me. Preferable not into the same country as me, and definitely not flying on the same plane as me. The whole concept seems truly mad.

    53. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that this willingness to fight is a valid reason to let people travel with such weapons. Surely safety should come above any religious beliefs here?

    54. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by drerwk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I miss carrying my Swiss Army knife, but I only ever thought I would use it to fix the airplane in an emergency. Without a locking blade, I'd rather attack with my fist than risk cutting my thumb off.

    55. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't laugh. In ancient times in some cities swords were banned. People were only allowed knives up to a certain size.

      Back in the day, 100 Roman soldiers were a huge and powerful force. A Centurion, the man who commands only 100 men was allowed to make binding agreements and speak for the Roman government

      In a city where swords are outlawed 100 armed men could do as they wanted.

    56. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the people deserve laws that are clear and easy to understand. Otherwise, how can they follow them?

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by theskunkmonkey · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering what getting on an airplane would be like if they had caught someone with a bomb up their ass instead of their shoe.

    58. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by BotnetZombie · · Score: 2, Funny

      In contrast a skilled unarmed martial artist will find it harder to fight off many unarmed people at once (some poor bastard may have to be the shield, but too bad).

      Not true, just watch any Jackie Chan movie!

    59. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The only problem with that logic is, what if the terorrists are planning on landing in some foreigh land like old times. But, because of the 9/11 incident, the passengers fight back and the plane crashes killing everyone on board. The problem is, you usually won't know the intent of the hijackers.

      --
      "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
    60. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      The terrorists are a militant offshoot brand of the Muslim religion that thinks "either you become a Muslim or you are an infidel and I kill you here and now."

      They use junk like you are spouting as an excuse. And they have you fooled. Vegetable.

    61. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by loafula · · Score: 1

      right.. cause the people carrying the swords because they may be called to battle for God at any given moment obviously AREN'T the paranoid morons.

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    62. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.

      Hot-headed and/or drunk implies there is absolutely no premeditation. Making a plane crash usually takes some planning.

      Somehow I doubt a hot-headed/drunk passenger is going to be able to get into the cockpit and do anything to the pilot even if he wanted to. Generally, his target will be another passenger or a stewardess, not the pilot.

      If it means I'll be safer from intentional hijacking, I'll take the risk of 2 or 3 crashes a year over losing my freedom any day. Even if I'm on one of those crashing flights.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    63. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Your mom is worthless and wastes time at security checks. Just pay the 6 bucks and mail them, or was she really wanting to spread butter that badly ON THE PLANE.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    64. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.

      Actually it is both paranoid and moronic. Responsible gun owners don't turn into trigger happy terrorists just by having a seat on an airplane.

    65. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by powerlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do the media and your government present those passengers as heroes?

      Because, those passengers did something heroic.

      On United Airlines Flight 93, black box recordings revealed that crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers after learning through phone calls that similarly hijacked planes had been crashed into buildings that morning.[21] According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11
      (and the actual news item sourced by Wikipedia:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html)

      They were the only ones on any of the planes (besides the hijackers themselves), who knew the plan was to crash the plane into a building.

      They could have chosen to disbelieve the information ("Who is crazy enough to do that? We should just wait."), instead, they chose to make sure that the plane they were on could NOT be used in that way.

      I am sure they were all hoping they would live (who doesn't?), and they knew they were going to die if they did nothing, but their actions kept the terrorists from achieving their objective.

      Bluntly, they were the only ones who were in the position to do something, and they acted, even though that action cost them their lives.

      In that way they became Martyrs. Bitterly ironic given that they were the only way to stop other supposed "Martyrs" plans.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    66. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha, I bet if you fought it on Religious principles you would win.

      You used to be able to bring them onboard if they were in a case. When moving a 300 year old sword, I am not going to us UPS. Granted that was in the 80's.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    67. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Pull out the corkscrew (generally extends perpendicular to handle) and use the knife as "brass knuckles". Adds a bit of ouch to your punch, plus the ouch of the sharp pointy. You know, next time you find yourself in a life or death situation with nothing but your Swiss Army knife at hand. Man, I hate Tuesdays.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    68. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Alinabi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, yes. That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat. I guess I'll have to move to Baghdad or Mogadishu, which must be the safest places on Earth, since everybody there is armed to the teeth.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    69. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Real weapons of this kind are already generaly illegal in many areas.

      Citation needed.

    70. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by toiletsalmon · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I thought being able to commandeer a FUCKING AIRPLANE with a box-cutter was the real problem. Silly me.

      It might not be paranoid or moronic (says you), but it doesn't fix the REAL problem at all. Not even a little bit.

      And by the way, "4 guys with box-cutters" is NOT the reason "9/11 happened". It was a little more complicated than that...

    71. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My old roommate, a cop, has this advice when shooting an intruder:

      1) Fire as many shots as you want, but don't hit him more than 3x (looks bad to the cops/DA/jury).
      2) Regardless of #1 above, if all shots entered through the back then roll him over and shoot him at least once through the front and claim that as your first shot. CSI is just a TV show, they're not going to figure it out.
      3) If he falls outside your door, drag his ass back into your house before the cops get there and describe a "scuffle".

      The fact he had this list, and left his Glock on the coffee table while we watched Star Trek, always made me nervous...

      --
      My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
    72. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      fair enough, but take it a few steps down the road.

      You are going to have *multiple* shots fired as concerned citizens try to disarm/disable the hothead. some of these people will inevitably be seated behind the the hothead and shooting forward...a hole in the cockpit window at 300 mph can't exactly make flying easy

      We're talking about significantly increasing the number of weapons in the situation. Based on casual perusal of the news, this *will* increase the number of incidents.

      Yes I'm playing up the chances, but more weapons is not the answer. Passenger behavior and the hardened cockpit doors have done more than anything else.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    73. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Prior to... well... now... nobody tried to hijack an airplane putting all the passengers to sleep using colorless, odorless narcotic gas hidden inside laptops, then tying every single passenger to their seat, flying off to an island somewhere and eating passengers one by one.
      Properly storaged, passengers and crew of a 757 could last for over a year to a crew of 5 cannibals.
      If they choose to head North, beyond the arctic circle, they can just store them all on ice.

      Just because it didn't happen YET it does not mean that it can't happen.

      And if you are more in the mood for a boring old story...
      Prior to Pearl Harbor Japan never attacked and sunk most of the USA fleet with a surprise aerial attack.
      Then again... some say that the US government had prior knowledge about that.
      Some say they also let 9/11 happen just so they could invade Iraq.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    74. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by jbssm · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I got that part, the flight 93 passengers did something it may be considered heroic.

      But why do you (the USA media and government) also portray the passengers of the other flights as heroes if they did nothing?

    75. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      In a city where swords are outlawed 100 armed men could do as they wanted.

      I bet they'd have trouble finding a nice jumper though....sorry.

    76. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mrdoogee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if you can unload a whole clip toward the bad guys without hitting a single human, animal or public property. ...flipping their car is also a plus.

    77. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      Count me in with the paranoid morons please. The last thing I want on my flight is someone with a sword ready and willing to fight for God at a moment's notice. Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?

    78. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can say is this: Had there been one armed citizen, pilot, steward or sky marshal- none of it would have happened.

    79. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by powerlord · · Score: 1

      2) Regardless of #1 above, if all shots entered through the back then roll him over and shoot him at least once through the front and claim that as your first shot. CSI is just a TV show, they're not going to figure it out.

      When they pull the bullet from the floor, they might get a little suspicious.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    80. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by nycguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This discussion reminds me of a story a former Texas state trooper told me. (He claimed to have been on the scene and observed this personally in the 1970s):

      Apparently two deer hunters were walking toward an isolated rural road in west Texas, somewhere near Pecos. From a distance, they observed a state trooper standing next to a vehicle that he'd pulled over. They heard a bang and saw the trooper fall back away from the vehicle. A man stepped from the vehicle and fired a second shot at the trooper, who was apparently laying on the ground, now out of their sight.

      At this point, the two hunters knelt down in the brush. Not noticing them, the man dragged the trooper's body into the ditch, then walked over and started poking through the trooper's car. After a bit of whispered discussion, one of the hunters shot the man in the chest as he stood next to the trooper's car.

      They carefully came up to the car and found the man bleeding, but still alive, his handgun a few feet away. They took the gun and one of them got into the trooper's car and managed to radio for help. About 15 minutes later, another trooper arrived at the scene, and sometime thereafter an ambulance arrived.

      This in of itself is an interesting story. However, the paramedics examined both the shot trooper and the man from the car, and found the former to be dead and the latter still alive. After some discussion with the second trooper, they took the dead trooper to the hospital in their ambulance, returning to pick up the wounded man over an hour later, by which time he had died.

      The trooper who told me the story arrived after the ambulance had left with the first trooper, but before it returned to pick up the wounded man. That man, it turns out, was a prison escapee who'd been on the run for a week or so.

      Anyway, it's not entirely relevant to this discussion, but an interesting story nonetheless.

    81. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mshannon78660 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know you're being funny, but interestingly, in most (maybe all) states, you can not carry a sword or long knife in any way that would make it useful for protection. As a country, we have decided that firearms are much safer than swords. Here are a couple of links for discussions of this: http://askville.amazon.com/NYC-legal-carry-pocket-knife-attached-belt-plain-sight-concealed-weapon/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=9649382 http://askville.amazon.com/legal-carry-sword-self-defense/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8859178

    82. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have to make a reasonable effort to retreat first.

      We had some case law in Oregon that put a few people in prison for not trying to retreat first while accosted in public (I don't know how you retreat from someone wielding a shotgun, as one case went, but I guess not all judges are reasonable). The Oregon Supreme Court found that the original case that decided this had no legal basis to do so and that legislators had never written anything that indicated that this was a requirement. De facto there is no such requirement now to try to retreat now. Self defence and weapons possessions laws are so convoluted mostly because there's not just a large amount of disagreeing laws on the subject, but also some case law (some well founded on actual law and some very spurious as the above example shows).

      I wouldn't be surprised to find that the the need to try to retreat similarly had no legislative basis in other states as well.

      As for the posted story, wow, that guy is a nut. He got away alive, if he'd robbed some truckstop or non-franchise convenience store like that he'd likely be in the morgue. I know they'll charge him with armed robbery, but man, most of those junk things barely qualify as dangerous, and you'd be better armed with a baseball bat. I suspect he needs psychological help more than anything, though he may need to be removed from society until he receives it.

      Also, I'd give up property in a heartbeat too over taking a life, but anyone in my home gets no benefit of the doubt, if they came in while I was home it's just too dangerous to assume that they aren't completely deranged or desperate enough to do almost anything. A mugger can have my money, I can get more, I can't get my family back if something happens to them.

    83. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      to paraphrase you would be happy if the 9/11 guys had ak-47s and the passengers had guns as well?

      more weapons isn't the answer

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    84. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, so I'm bad at sarcasm. I'm mocking the "logic" of the proposed "assault weapons" ban on the following points:

      (Regarding pistol grips) Apparently, changing the angle at which your hands hold the gun makes it "more deadly and able to spray fire from the hip". Tilting my hand twenty degrees more vertical just means my hand is at a different angle, no more. It's like arguing that changing the steering wheel and gearshift on your bone-stock Honda Civic (or holding your hands at 3 and 9 instead of 2 and 10) makes it a racecar that corners better.

      (Regarding the "high powered" claim) Apparently, using smaller, less powerful rounds makes a gun "high powered" and "more deadly" than a gun that fires a bigger, more powerful, standard hunting round. Or, the same bullet fired from a "normal"-looking rifle is less deadly than one fired from a scarier-looking AK-47--even though it's the same bullet moving at the same speed. To use a car analogy again, putting a smaller engine with less horsepower and less torque makes the car more powerful and have better acceleration.

      (Regarding the "no legitimate use" claim) Apparently, the thousands and thousands of AR-15s, SKSs, M1As, and 10/22s that law-abiding Americans use for hunting, target-shooting competitions, and defense of the home have no legitimate uses like hunting, target-shooting, and defense of the home.

      (Regarding the "collapsible stock" claim) Apparently, changing a stock's length by a few inches makes it bad, evil, and easy to conceal. Yet a fixed stock equal in length to the fully collapsed one would still be legal, as would removing the stock entirely (provided the minimum overall length of 26 inches is maintained).

      Also ignored is the fact that the previous ban had no effect on criminal violence whatsoever. I'd suggest that a much better approach to crimefighting is to keep violent offenders in prison doing hard time, and help keep people from turning to violence in the first place. Make decisions based on facts rather than "ZOMG it's scary looking!!1!" emotions.

      Remember, the government will tell you to rely on it to protect you and defend you from criminals--but then it will turn right around and claim it had no obligation to do so.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    85. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what she said.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    86. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."

      Not if it is an open source government. :P

    87. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Weapon control in general public is one argument I'm not really sure I'm on the right side of, but I'm fairly certain whether your'e talking a knife, blunt object, mace, taser, pistol, whatever, in a confined space like a plane is going to end pretty poorly. Even if it's only the pilot who's armed.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    88. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Not in free countries. Where are you from, England?

    89. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ow my eye, I'm not supposed to get Bat'leth in it!

    90. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by KORfan · · Score: 1

      Prior to Pearl Harbor Japan never attacked and sunk most of the USA fleet with a surprise aerial attack.

      But the British did it to the Italians at Taranto before the Pearl Harbor attack.

    91. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      The only problem with that logic is, what if the terorrists are planning on landing in some foreigh land like old times. But, because of the 9/11 incident, the passengers fight back and the plane crashes killing everyone on board. The problem is, you usually won't know the intent of the hijackers.

      Well, passengers don't assume the plane is being taken for money or to another country anymore. Now the passengers automatically assume that their plane is being taken for use as a weapon. Therefore, they have two choices:

      1. Remain passive and be guaranteed to die when the plane makes contact with the target
      2. Fight back and hope that the hijackers don't detonate the bomb/scuttle the plane

      IANAM, but according to game theory, with those assumptions in mind, 2 is always the winning choice.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    92. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Were they? I once got on a plane with my Leatherman tool/knife in a pouch on my hip. I specifically asked if that was okay and the guys told me it was, so long as the blade was shorter than nine inches.

      This was back in the late 90s, in the USA. Imagine carrying an 8.5" knife on a plane today.

    93. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Joeyspecial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that were the case the baddies would have had more than a box-cutter. If they let people carry, say guns on a plane, even if the hijackers used another passenger as a shield, and put a gun to their head, would another armed passenger try a shot? In a pressurized plane? Maybe the flight that crashed in PA wouldn't have crashed, but I do think weapons on planes would cause more injuries and deaths over time.

    94. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If you go wandering about with a real Katana you are likely to be
      arrested just as if you were waving a pistol around."

      I'm sorry but that is wrong. The general law in most states is you may not CONCEAL a blade larger than a certain length, but you may certainly open carry a large blade as long as it is sheathed and secured. Some states don't allow certain weapons, like shuriken (CA and MA) but BLADES are considered mostly a tool.

      Seriously. I used to walk around Memphis with a katana. Open carry, plain sight, not trying to hide it, not in a position for easy draw and attack, either, just for toting. Not one fucking cop said shit to me except "Where ya going with that?" Now, were I wearing a trench coat and the katana was hidden inside, yes, I'd be busted in a heartbeat. Otherwise, I was just stopped, and asked what I was doing with the katana. "Going to kenjutsu class" or "Going out to a quiet spot to practice and meditate" were sufficient enough, and more often than not the truth.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    95. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Man, I hate Tuesdays.

      But it's Wednesday...

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    96. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a moron... would believe that 4 guys with a box cutter can hijack a plane....

    97. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Logical+Zebra · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of plane hijackings prior to September 11 ended with very little loss of life. The M.O. of hijackers was to get the plane and use the hostages to make some sort of demands.

      No one was expecting a suicide run at various American targets.

      That is why the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania and made the phrase "Let's roll" popular. The passengers knew what was going on, and they knew that they had nothing to lose.

      --
      I have a bad feeling about this...
    98. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      If they choose to look that intently. Depending on your local police/sheriff's department the fact that it's a stranger and in your own home negates much investigation.

      Then again, in most such locations the entry point of the bullet or number of hits isn't going to matter much anyways. Here in SC, if ANYONE enters your home without your permission, it's open season. Intent, number of hits, etc, all become irrelevant, and with the state pretty much supporting the spirit of this law you don't have to worry much about any DA or the like as they're not going to press the issue anyways, nor is it likely to go to trial.

      Personally though I keep a handgun nearby too (a SIG P6 9mm), I keep a Remington 870 loaded with 00 in my bedroom. That's 15 roughly .30 cal pellets per round. If anybody unknown walks through my door after dark there's going to be a whole bunch of hits regardless of how many times I actually shoot.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    99. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      to paraphrase you would be happy if the 9/11 guys had ak-47s and the passengers had guns as well?

      <sarcasm>I'm almost entirely sure Tex is going to whip out his trusty AK-47 (Named Bessie) because the stewardess told him he's too drunk and she isn't going to give him another shot of Jim if she'll please.</sarcasm>

      I wouldn't be happy. It was a bad situation to begin with. Those guys were ready to die.

      Who cares what weapons were used in those hijackings? Their goal was to use the planes as a weapon, not control passengers. If the hijackers could've gotten an airliner without the passengers and crew, I can guarantee they would have.

      Off point, but don't confuse bigger with better. An AK has a bigger bark than a Glock 9mm, but the bullets are just as effective. In a situation like an airplane, an AK would be unwieldly, whereas a knife would be quite practical.

      The way it is now, we're being systematically cowed down and conditioned to unconditionally look to arbitrary authority to save us from danger.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    100. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm bullshit. I don't care how well someone can use a sword, they will not defeat many or even a few unskilled people with swords. It's a fucking sword, you swing it and it cuts things. Anyone can do that.

      Likewise a martial artist wouldn't stand a chance in a real fight. Martial arts relies upon choreographed moves and fair play. In a real fight, those don't exist. Anything goes, throwing sand into someone's eyes, kicking them in the back, punching them in the nuts, ripping out their hair, eye gouges, stomping their neck while they are down, etc. A martial artist wouldn't stand a chance against a street fighter, that is someone who grew up on the rough streets having to fight just to get by.

    101. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget: they're also made of cheap metal, so they'll splinter and hit lots of unintended victims!

      (for anyone who doesn't get it: arguments on very similar topics often argue both sides like this)

    102. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ya know, all this would be irrelevant if all the convenience store clerks were armed with phasers. And not those wimpy models that only set to "stun" either!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    103. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you mean "if"

      you need to account for laziness of the investigators or the fact that a hollow point pistol round won't through-and-through that often.

    104. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hork_Monkey · · Score: 1

      We do have open container laws, but it's only not enforced in the French Quarter. That's also not the place that is indicative of true culture around here... Way too touristy...

      I was actually walking down the street to a neighbors house with a beer once, and a cop was driving by. He made me pour it out, even though I was only walking 50 years. Needless to say I was a little peeved.

    105. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We had some case law in Oregon that put a few people in prison for not trying to retreat first while accosted in public

      In NYS it's dependent upon the situation. Generally if you can retreat and don't you are going to have a much harder time making a case of self-defense. That said, I wouldn't turn my back on someone with a gun -- in that scenario you could make the argument that turning away would place you in even greater danger. There also generally has to be a disparity of force before you can shoot someone. This is one of the reasons why a woman will have an easier time getting away with shooting an unarmed assailant than a man will -- the man is presumed (right or wrongly) to be able to defend himself without resorting to deadly force.

      but anyone in my home gets no benefit of the doubt, if they came in while I was home it's just too dangerous to assume that they aren't completely deranged or desperate enough to do almost anything

      Well, what if it's just some drunk dumbass who lives down the street and thinks it's his house? That's one of the "scenarios" we had to go over in our pistol licensing class. I would be inclined to try and hold such a person at bay until the police arrived -- provided my family was behind me and not in danger. In the home invasion scenario (door kicked down, people storm in before you realize what's going on) I'm going to shoot first and ask questions later.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    106. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.'

      It is both and people commandeering a plane with box-cutters is evidence of that. Two passengers with knives could have stopped the whole affair.

      Firearms should be checked but only because of pressurization concerns.

    107. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      my choice of weapon type was obviously just a random one. small arms are better in close quarters as you say.

      As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.

      And my concept is the plane is never successfully hijacked because passengers intervene before control is gained.

      once the plane is controlled by the hijackers, it's over, they've won the battle and can crash it just as Flight 93 did.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    108. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by abbyful · · Score: 1

      Aren't you just a ray of sunshine?
      Hear that? Teacher blew her whistle, recess is over.

      FYI, she actually bought them in a store in the airport after she had already checked her bags, and was told by that store that they didn't need to be checked. Nail files are allowed in carry-on, a nail file is much easier to use as a weapon than a butter spreader. It's sharper and longer. There's no reason for someone to think that butter spreaders wouldn't be allowed on a plane when compared to the list of TSA's "permitted items". http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2002/press_release_0104.shtm

    109. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This in of itself is an interesting story. However, the paramedics examined both the shot trooper and the man from the car, and found the former to be dead and the latter still alive. After some discussion with the second trooper, they took the dead trooper to the hospital in their ambulance, returning to pick up the wounded man over an hour later, by which time he had died.

      Serves the SOB right, IMHO.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    110. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by freeweed · · Score: 1
      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    111. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by deathguppie · · Score: 1

      Ah, but I beg to differ. I was in Victoria BC back sometime in the mid 90's eating the free food they serve on weekends at a Sikh temple when suddenly a fight broke out between the conservative and reformist sects of the Sikh... and I can assure you they were not using daggers, they were freakin swords!

      I don't know how it ended I was went outside and waited while the cops showed up.

      --
      once more into the breach
    112. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Intent, number of hits, etc, all become irrelevant

      I've never heard number of hits really mattering much unless your reason for shooting someone was questionable to begin with. If it was questionable then why the hell did you shoot them? If it wasn't questionable (i.e: your life was in danger) then the law generally doesn't care about how many times you shoot them. I'd shoot them as many times as it took to end the threat to my life or the lives of my family.

      Personally though I keep a handgun nearby too (a SIG P6 9mm)

      9mm? Why don't you just throw it at them and save yourself the trouble? ;)

      I keep a Remington 870 loaded with 00 in my bedroom

      That's more like it ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    113. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The fucker would probably sue you and win.

      Only in America..... of course only in America are we actually allowed to defend ourselves so I suppose it's not all bad.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    114. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.

      <obligatory>A man who gives up his freedom for a little temporary safety deserves neither and forfeits both.</obligatory>

      It continues to happen.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    115. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.

      How does cowing people down make them any safer? Safer from who?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    116. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by abbyful · · Score: 1

      That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat.

      It would be less safe if there were no law abiding citizens with guns.

    117. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Weapon control in general public is one argument I'm not really sure I'm on the right side of, but I'm fairly certain whether your'e talking a knife, blunt object, mace, taser, pistol, whatever, in a confined space like a plane is going to end pretty poorly.

      More poorly than 9/11?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    118. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by rossz · · Score: 1

      b) because the entire plane of passengers just sat there and allowed it to happen.

      Because the government has crammed down the throat of everyone that they should, "never take the law into their own hands", but should just sit by passively until the trained professionals come riding over the hill to rescue them.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    119. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by lucif3r · · Score: 1

      Modern Sikhs typically carry just a dagger now and what they carry is a symbolic religious item. They are about as sharp as a butter knife.

      Also I am sure they still have to put them in their checked luggage on planes, but even if they don't these things are not weapons and have no cutting edge. Even box-cutters are more effective.

    120. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm certainly going to change my evil liberal response to gun control and start following the constitution

      Fixed that for you ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    121. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Call me when a Bat'Leth is 12 times more likely to accidentally kill the owner or a member of the owner's family than to serve it's intended purpose; then we'll talk.

      Call me when the gun control lobby can use statistics without distorting them to further their own agenda; then we'll talk

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    122. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snake? Snaaaaaaake!

    123. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Weapons is one thing, firearms and bombs are another. You still make people check their firearms (and probably pass on the explosives) because of pressurization issues. A bullet hole in the pressurized cabin is a bad thing m'kay.

      But knives and other edged weapons are pretty reasonable. 100 armed knife bearers would stop 3-4 knife bearers fairly easily and slaughtered 3-4 boxcutter wielders.

      Although people are ignoring the other factor, they likely had a steward(ess? half of them are ugly gay guys now) by the juggler with that box cutter.

    124. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I'm bad at sarcasm.

      Oh no, your sarcasm was absolutely brilliant. I wish I had some mod points for you :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    125. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Ceiynt · · Score: 1

      In America, it is LEGAL to wave a pistol around, as long as done so in a non-threatening manner. The police will be called and a scene will be made, but it IS legal to walk around with a pistol. If it is holstered in a visible way, no special permits required. If it is held, no special permits required. If it is concealed, permits may apply. Swords may be different, as they are "long knives" and there are laws limiting the size one can carry around. However, it is still an "arm" of sort, and should be legal to carry.

    126. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Hardened cockpits can stop bullets as well, basically taking the teeth from your own argument.

      But I actually agree that firearms shouldn't be carried on planes (by anyone, including law enforcement who can't be trusted any more than the average joe on the street and probably less). Crossfire is dangerous. There are plenty of weapons that don't require an explosive charge. Everything else can be checked.

    127. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your "12 times more likely" statistic only holds water when you include suicides. When you consider that over half of all firearm-related deaths in the coutry are suicides, and that people committing suicide with a gun are generally going to use their own, it makes sense.

      Second, the number of accidental firearm deaths per year is actually quite low. The number of successful defensive gun uses is much higher.

      I'd also suspect that people are more likely to die in a car owned by someone in their household than in anyone else's car.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    128. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering what getting on an airplane would be like if they had caught someone with a bomb up their ass instead of their shoe.

      Don't give the TSA or the terrorists any ideas ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    129. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by abbyful · · Score: 1

      Guess what? If you haven't been taught how to drive a car, it's dangerous too!

      The vast majority of accidental shootings are because the parents buy a gun, the parents don't teach kids about guns, and then the kid gets curious and decides to play with it.

      There are 4 easy rules to gun safety, if these are followed, chances of someone getting hurt accidently are very slim.
      1. Always treat the gun as if it is loaded.
      2. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy/kill.
      3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
      4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified.

    130. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d) because Arnold, Bruce, Sly and Steven were busy elsewhere.

      Busy elsewhere fighting and losing to Chuck Norris!

    131. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      There's a stark difference between "waving a pistol around" - which is brandishing and inherently threatening - and keeping one holstered, open or concealed.

    132. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes. That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat. I guess I'll have to move to Baghdad or Mogadishu, which must be the safest places on Earth, since everybody there is armed to the teeth.

      Maybe it comes down to society you want to live in. If I had a choice, I'd prefer a society where everyone had guns and the government didn't do anything but pave roads and wage war. Within that context, I am willing to take steps to increase the wealth and safety of myself and others.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    133. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The hole punch does better. The corkscrew is likely to bend. It is, indeed, a much sharper point, but it's not pointed directly out.

      I can stab the hole punch on my pocketknife through the top of an aluminum can, and it's a cheap three dollar pocketknife. (It's such a cheap knife I've had the big blade flip past 'straight' and bend backwards, which is slightly disconcerting.)

      The hole punch, BTW, is the blade on the back that doesn't have a hole in the middle of it (That's a 'needle' thingy) or a one with the file on it. The one with the file on it is almost as sharp as first, but gets wider faster, so isn't as good a weapon. On my knife, it's right next to the screwdriver.

      Of course, the other fun weapon on a pocketknife is the can opener. Open that up and swing it sideways. Slightly shorter range but it will tear into people. And you don't have to worry about it closing on you. (Well, you do, but it won't cut you.) Or, as the big blades can do on cheaper knifes, breaking off when it hits something hard.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    134. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In contrast a skilled unarmed martial artist will find it harder to fight off many unarmed people at once...

      I dare you to say this face-to-face with Chuck Norris.

    135. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whereas if you allowed everyone to carry deadly weapons, it just makes things worse.

      Given the number of cases where passengers panic over someone they think is acting funny or who have Arabic script on tee shirts, I'd really hate to see some of those passengers armed.

      "Really officer, I saw him praying, and everyone knows those terrorists always pray before blowing themselves up. So of course I shot him."

    136. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Prior to 9/11, if you waited things out eventually they hijackers let you go more often then not.

      So everybody plays along and gets out ok in the end. That's how cowing down makes you safer.

      After 9/11 that rule doesn't work anymore.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    137. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the sword... Short swords are particularly well suited to close quarter fighting and are not slashing weapons, they are stabbing weapons. (Please refer to Roman artifacts and strategy.)

      Some martial arts are meant for meditative purposes or have become highly ornamental (Judo, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido), however there are several that are specifically meant for close quarter combat. Krav Maga and Sambo are good examples... Also some of the more complete collection of Kung Fu includes a great deal of eye-gouging, nerve center override engagement (groin/solar plexus/throat). A highly skilled martial could do a great deal of damage to the first few attackers, after that... toast.

      As an MMA enthusiast I've kicked the teeth out of more than a few street-toughs (working the door and security for the girls at strip clubs in Vegas{Crazy Horse Too, Scores/Jaguars, Paradise Club, Spearmint Rhino}). They usually aren't prepared for someone who has already thought ahead of the fight.

    138. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by snspdaarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      "..swing it in both directions..."

      Wasn't he on Comcast in Tucson over the weekend?>/p>

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    139. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Now people will fight back hard and fast when something happens. That alone is the safest thing we have in our favor preventing another 9/11 attack.

      This is why I've always, even before 9/11, argued that, when people take hostages, police should just charge in and kill the hostage takers, regardless of any collateral damage. They get one phone call giving them one minute to surrender to police by walking out the front door with their hands up, and that's it. No 'demands', no nothing. At one minute, the police will storm the building and kill anyone hold a gun.

      Yeah, some people would die, but give it about two well publicized events where bank robbers took hostages and all of them, and three hostages, immediately ended up dead, and I suspect hostage takers would start...rethinking...their strategy.

      After 9/11, I realized that such a change in policy might result in differing behavior of hostages, too. Maybe not in crowd-situations, their best bet would still be to lay on the floor and wait for the inevitable gun-battle overhead.

      But for people who grab other people and hold guns to their head...the hostages might react a bit differently if they know the response of the police will be to shoot the person behind them, even if their body happens to be in the way.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    140. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      9/11 happened because:

      b) because the entire plane of passengers just sat there and allowed it to happen.

      Based on phone calls and pilot transmissions to ATC from the 9/11 planes, the hijackers killed at least one person on each plane with the box cutters to cow the other passengers and crew into inaction. Also, at the time, the recommended procedure for hijackings was to comply with their demands in the air, and negotiate when the plane landed at the destination or for refueling. The idea that hijackers would hijack a plane solely to crash it to kill the occupants and people on the ground was so unthinkable that the scenario had never even occurred to most people. You can't fight against that which you don't know will happen.

    141. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      In theory, you'd need to be close enough to plausibly injury someone with a weapon for it to be a threat. So, in theory, you probably could wave a sword around in places you couldn't wave a gun around, as a sword has a shorter reach.

      In practice, however, waving a sword around in a public park, even if you're fifty feet away from the nearest other person, would probably result in the police having a discussion with you. (Whereas waving a rifle around in the public park would immediately get you arrested.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    142. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      liberal response to gun control and start following the constitution

      "Liberal" response to gun control and a constitutional amendment are mutually exclusive. It would not matter if we pulled some fringe science out of our collective asses and resurrected the founding fathers, and they said:

      "That is exactly what we meant. Regular citizens should be able to arm themselves with weapons, specifically firearms, in order to protect their land, their property, and their families"

      A "liberal", or anyone supporting gun control, thinks the constitution is irrelevant. They may of course argue the language, but ultimately it is pointless to them. These people feel that weapons should not be in the hands of citizens PERIOD. That it is the governments job to protect us with the military, national guard, police, etc.

      A "gun nut" feels that we *should* have the rights to possess weapons, in particular firearms, but not limited to them. Protection from other citizens, and protection from government itself are the primary motivating factors. Hunting as a motivation is just bullshit. It's NOT hunting. That is just a coincidence and it sounds really good and wholesome, like Mom's Fresh Apple Pie. It's about protecting your land, property, and family from ANYONE.

      Both sides can mention the constitution, but at this point, it's all up to interpretation. The people that are really supposed to be doing that are the Supreme Court justices.

      When you mention that you have a right "granted" by the "state" a liberal will just tell you that you don't. Prove that you do, and they will just want it removed.

      Bottom line, is that constitutional rights are not a checkmate when arguing with a proponent of gun control.

    143. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Jackie Chan!?

      BRUCE LEE. Repeat it with me. B-R-U-C-E L-E-E

      Jackie Chan is great and all, don't get me wrong. However, Bruce Lee could stop 20 men coming at him in *real life*.

      Jackie Chan studied how martial arts could be used artistically in a movie. Bruce Lee studied how to kick your ass, then later decided he could make movies just kicking people assess.

    144. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      Thank you for taking me seriously. Never saw that coming.

    145. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More poorly than 9/11?

      A leap in logic. You're assuming that if they were handing out boxcutters and handguns at the airport, everything would be fine.

      The pragmatic question is: does the risk of more frequent, small-scale violence outweigh the risk of occasional, large-scale violence?

    146. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Never saw that coming.

      This is Slashdot. You never see it coming. Unless you bash Apple. Then you can hear it coming too.

    147. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to Uranus, Klingon!

      Because, you ain't livin on planet Earth!

      You would probably pee your pants, and denounce your atheism if you were on a hijacked plane - as sure as you would be someones bitch in prison.

    148. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chuck!!! Your forgot Chuck!

    149. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Technicality of wording, but it didn't really cost them their lives - and I'm sure that was part of what helped them decide.

      They lost their lives, but that was going to happen anyway. I do consider them heroes, because most people are gutless fools, but can you honestly say you wouldn't have done the same?

      I know I'd be the same as them. My first reaction in situations like that(bank robber - never been on a plane heist) is to attack/disable.

    150. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Frastolator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just to piss you off! That is why!

    151. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by eth1 · · Score: 1

      1) Fire as many shots as you want, but don't hit him more than 3x (looks bad to the cops/DA/jury).

      Unfortunately, in real life, when you hit someone with a bullet, they don't fly backwards and have a big red spot appear on their chest. If you hit them in the body, you probably won't be able to tell whether they're hit at all. Hell, if they're high on something, THEY might not notice, either!

      You keep shooting until the threat stops, not until you think you hit them. This is what police are taught, and results in the ignorant and sensational "shot 40 times by the police" headlines from people that don't know better.

    152. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Nooooooooobody expects the Slashdot Inquisition!!!!!!!!!

      Our two main weapons are Fear, Suprise and a nearly fanatical devotion to NRTFA!

    153. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mdrplg · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, right. The arguments in this particular case are spurious. Who is making them? On your point about keeping criminals in prison though, isn't that the MOST expensive and distressing thing a government can do? I'm always dumb-founded on the high recidivism and overall incarceration rates in this country, particularly in places like Texas. I can't say that I understand why. Easy access to deadly weapons is really peripheral to the fact that so many people want to use them to commit acts of violence. Reducing the number of guns reduces the number of accidental (or in rare incidents intentional) shootings in the commission some anti-social acting out. Taking away deadly weapons wouldn't change the fact that there is this element in our society, would it? I don't think so.

      --
      Today is an ephemeron, doomed to the crypt of yesterday.
    154. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by mdrplg · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      --
      Today is an ephemeron, doomed to the crypt of yesterday.
    155. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You need the lockspike I use for sailing. The spike locks in place and would make a better stabbing weapon than the blade on the other end. I keep it with me in my back pack, just in case I have a difficult knot to undo ;)

    156. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Mythbusters pretty much showed that a firearm isn't going to cause a plane to dangerously decompress. You will still need an oxygen mask but nobody is going to get sucked out of the plane. An explosive device could certainly do it though.

      The largest danger I'd see of having people with firearms on a plane is accidentally hitting woundign or killing another passenger that isn't your target. Or possibly damaging a control surface, engine or control device.

    157. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane.

      9/11 happened because:

      ... b) because the entire plane of passengers just sat there and allowed it to happen.

      Basically, that's it in a nutshell. The allowed continued existence of sheeple has caused great harm to full humans.

      I wish I could find the link of one specific failed hijacking attempt. IIRC, it was in the 90's. Some idiots tried to hijack a plane carrying a wrestling team. The threat was over as soon as the would-be hijackers passed within arms reach of part of the team.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    158. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Campbell or Bruce Lee, you need to be more specific so I can visualize the scenario

    159. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Maybe it comes down to society you want to live in. If I had a choice, I'd prefer a society where everyone had guns and the government didn't do anything but pave roads and wage war. Within that context, I am willing to take steps to increase the wealth and safety of myself and others.

      Why on earth would you want everyone with a gun? Surely it's much better for no-one to have guns? And seriously, why do you want your government waging wars? The world is in enough strife at the moment without more idiots with guns running into other countries yards.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    160. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the people deserve laws that are clear and easy to understand. Otherwise, how can they follow them?

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail"

      It sounds better in the original Klingon.

    161. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      I recently carried a 3 1/2 inch locking pen knife onto an airplane. I forgot it was in my hand luggage and didnt notice until I got to the other end of my international journey and my friend asked me for a bottle opener. When I produced it he immediately flipped out and went mad at me as he saw the bag I produced it from. He was scared that it would have screwed up our climbing holiday.

      I had sharpened the knife just before we travelled so it would cut through 10mm weather proof climbing rope should that have ever been necessary. A knife that sharp that also locks out (will not fold up on your hand if used in a stabbing motion) is certainly an offensive weapon since it would likely go through clothing, skin then vein like butter. Anyone who has ever tried cutting modern dynamic climbing rope will probably know it is pretty tough to cut. Should you ever be in a position where it is him or both of you, you want the knife to work on the first attempt since you may not get a second.

      I am guessing this was not noticed since I am white, middle aged and it was traveling in the same bag as my laptop. I do however have a past history of being arrested for stupid political disobedience. On my return journey I was asked to remove my laptop from its bag before it went through the scanner but I had learnt my lesson anyway, the knife was in the hold with the rest of my climbing gear.

      If anyone is interested, we were going to climb in a place called Argentiere in France, on the lower slopes of Mont Blanc. A truly wonderful place to go climbing with many different types of rock, all within easy reach of the village. I am very much looking forward to going again this May.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    162. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1, Informative

      UA93 was shot down by the Airforce, which was the right thing to do. Why people in the U.S. are still clinging to this bizarre "let's roll" pantomime is a mystery to most of the world's population.

      Someone made a tough call; someone else higher up decided the public wouldn't like it, so concocted an Alamo/Iwo Jima fantasy that would sit better with the masses. Trouble is, now the fairy-story is out there, it's going to be decades before they 'fess up.

      I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but ask yourselves which of the two scenarios seems more plausible - if you think the "let's roll" bollocks rings true, you've been watching far too many "Die Hard" movies.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    163. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too have a concealed carry permit -which by extension permits open carry- and had to take exactly zero classes to get it. Apparently GA is a little different than LA in that regard. Here, you only have to pass the FBI background check. Nobody teaches you the law or scenarios, and people panicking because they see a "man with a gun" is not likely to lead to charges. Open carrying might get you hassled, maybe, but if you have a permit and are not committing an actual crime, it's just not against the law to open carry.

      And geezus, open carry is not automatically bad. People carrying guns is not automatically bad. Look at the police, fer crying out loud. They open carry all the time and chaos does not ensue. Oh well, they're trained and the public isn't. So what.

      THAT does not make them inherently safer or better.

       

    164. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be two bombs?

    165. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw men are so much fun, aren't they?

    166. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. NEVER leave the robber alive. Wrongful death suits are CHEAPER than pain and suffering suits. Way to go, litigation, thanks for giving people an incentive to KILL.

    167. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by MoriaOrc · · Score: 1

      Technically boxes qualify under both his categories. Or at least I've yet to encounter an armed box or one that can fight back.

    168. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all shots entered through the back then roll him over and shoot him at least once through the front and claim that as your first shot.

      That list displays the cold, calculated logic of premeditated murder.

    169. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      Your "12 times more likely" statistic only holds water when you include suicides. When you consider that over half of all firearm-related deaths in the country are suicides...

      Oh, that's all right then, only SIX times more likely. Hard to see what these pinko liberals are whining about when you put it like that.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    170. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      Care to elaborate? When the facts support my position, it's hardly distortion for me to list them. =)

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    171. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are, of course, right. The arguments in this particular case are spurious. Who is making them?

      The Brady campaign, for one. I paraphrased the "anti" argument off their "assault weapon" page. There's also that one Congresslady (whose name I forget at the moment) who referred to "the shoulder thing that goes up". I assume she means the stock that every rifle and shotgun has?

      On your point about keeping criminals in prison though, isn't that the MOST expensive and distressing thing a government can do?

      It depends. Keeping a prisoner is rather expensive, but some of the expense is due to the idea that hardened criminals need ice cream and cable TV. (I shit you not; one inmate filed a lawsuit because he wasn't allowed ice cream, and the court awarded him damages.) As it stands now, many criminals view prison as just a couple months interlude before they can get back on the street. Just a thing they have to go through, in other words.

      I would suggest taking some hints from that sheriff in Arizona with the lowest recidivism rate in the country. No cable TV, no high-speed internet. You get three meals a day, but they'd be standardized vegetarian meals (avoiding religious issues over meats). Criminals will be occupied doing hard labor--if nothing else, making big rocks into little rocks. The idea is to keep them from conspiring/plotting/doing business behind bars, and making prison so unpleasant (not cruel torture or anything, but bad enough) that they would rather avoid crime altogether rather than risk going to prison.

      I'd also suggest that the violent types (rapists, child molesters, etc.) get life without parole, and actually mean it. Two felonies, same thing. I'm still shocked by the case of the man in Atlanta who was arrested a couple months ago... he had been convicted of 26 felony charges, and had been in and out of prison multiple times... yet he was still walking the streets. He was eventually arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and after his rap sheet became public, was finally put away for life.

      I'm always dumb-founded on the high recidivism

      See above. Prison is just a minor inconvenience to a lot of these guys.

      and overall incarceration rates in this country,

      Because we throw people in jail with hardened criminals for committing the horrible crime of smoking a joint or selling themselves on a street corner out of desperation. Prisons fill up with these nonviolent offenders, and displace the hardened criminals back out onto the street. Plus, the media glorifies thuggery and street violence. And I'm suspecting that a lot of people turn to gangs and street crime out of desperation; they see no better life ahead of them so they try to find some way to escape. Fixing that will take fixing communities, and I'm not quite sure how to do that.

      Easy access to deadly weapons is really peripheral to the fact that so many people want to use them to commit acts of violence.

      EXACTLY!

      Taking away deadly weapons wouldn't change the fact that there is this element in our society, would it? I don't think so.

      Precisely. We'd see a lot more "up close and personal" violence, and crime in general, and the law-abiding people would have one less thing to defend themselves with.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    172. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well this is the nice thing about the Leatherman (or Gerber if that's your bent) multi-tools. Not that I think of them as a weapon, other than in the sense that anything point/heavy and easy to grip can be a weapon. The locking part is actually a lot more handy when using the screwdrivers.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    173. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ross.w · · Score: 1

      You'd love Mogadishu then...

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    174. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Otherwise, I was just stopped, and asked what I was doing with the katana. "Going to kenjutsu class" or "Going out to a quiet spot to practice and meditate" were sufficient enough, and more often than not the truth.

      The other times, when you were on your way to battle the forces of the evil Tamagotchi Ryu school that was responsible for the death of your true love... well, the police would really rather not know about that anyway. "Let ninja problems stay ninja problems" and everyone is better off, they say.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    175. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by eof · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes. That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat. I guess I'll have to move to Baghdad or Mogadishu, which must be the safest places on Earth, since everybody there is armed to the teeth.

      Actually, it has nothing to do with safety, but rather the ability to defend one's liberty, and the fact that safety isn't worth the loss of liberty.

    176. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      well lets just say always bet on black... ..to be the first to die? This is the movie industry we're talking about here.

    177. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      I don't care how well someone can use a sword, they will not defeat many or even a few unskilled people with swords.

      Thank you for upholding the finest of Slashdot traditions by not reading the post you were replying to, which said:

      Most "sheep" won't bring swords on board. And a skilled person with a sword can defeat very many unarmed people

    178. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the British home office (not exactly an organization that I would describe as having a pro-gun agenda), 6% of robbery victims who used a gun in self-defense wound up injured somehow. Contrast that with 25% whom did nothing to resist and 40% who resisted with a knife.

      In any case, even if I bought your argument that's still not a justification to infringe on a constitutionally protected right. And if you think the victim is more likely to wind up wounded/dead if they resist with a firearm then why don't you go rob some people at the next gun show in your area? What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    179. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The pragmatic question is: does the risk of more frequent, small-scale violence outweigh the risk of occasional, large-scale violence?

      Actually a pragmatic question would be: Has gun control done anything to actually reduce crime?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    180. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Surely it's much better for no-one to have guns?

      Surely you realize that from a practical point of view this is impossible. The Government outlawing something has never once made it impossible to obtain said item. If you accept this basic fact then you should be able to see the folly of having armed criminals and unarmed citizens. If you don't accept that basic fact then take a look at the war on drugs and tell me I'm wrong.

      And seriously, why do you want your government waging wars?

      I think his point was that the only two jobs for government are protecting the citizenry from outside harm (generally done by waging war) and paving roads.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    181. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      so unthinkable that the scenario had never even occurred to most people

      Yeah, except Tom Clancy readers ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    182. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There's also that one Congresslady (whose name I forget at the moment)

      Carolyn McCarthy. She's a fucking nutjob and as a New Yorker (though not from Long Island or NYC) I feel the need to apologize to the rest of the country for her. Gun control is her sole issue and she is making rumblings about running against our new senator in the primary solely because she happens to be pro-gun rights.

      who referred to "the shoulder thing that goes up". I assume she means the stock that every rifle and shotgun has?

      If you want a good laugh check out this video :) I love when people who know nothing about firearms try and regulate them.

      I'd also suggest that the violent types (rapists, child molesters, etc.) get life without parole, and actually mean it

      You could make room for them by letting all of the people who are locked up for drug possession go, IMHO. I love seeing my tax dollars keep someone behind bars whose only crime was wanting to poison himself while kiddie rapists walk the streets....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    183. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Cernst77 · · Score: 1

      Every now and then I have wanted to get involved in some type of MA that is guaranteed to cause pain and injury because I feel froggy, angry, and stupid sometimes. Shouldn't be hard for me to get hurt, because I am untrained and out of shape, LOL. Where can I go when I feel so inclined? I would think any serious dojo would probably take measures to keep from getting sued and have all kinds of pads and stuff. =( I want the real thing. I won't be going to try this any time soon until I get my health insurance back!

    184. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      The Government outlawing something has never once made it impossible to obtain said item.

      Why does something have to be outlawed for no-one to have it? Yes, I am a utopian in that sense, but why does anyone need guns?

      I think his point was that the only two jobs for government are protecting the citizenry from outside harm (generally done by waging war) and paving roads.

      A country doesn't wage wars to protect it's citizenry. That's done by defending it's borders. Wars are waged against OTHER countries. It might have been context driven, but I read it as (apart from providing infrastructure) the role of the government was to go attack other countries. Given the US foreign policy of late, I might be excused for misreading it :)

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    185. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by tloh · · Score: 1

      You SEE! I am NOT crazy for sleeping every night with a phaser rifle under the pillow! Who's laughing now, Bitch!

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    186. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>so unthinkable that the scenario had never even occurred to most people

      Having worked in the WTC (in late 80's) and seeing small planes and helicopters fly by _below_ my floor, the concept of one of them crashing into the building wasn't so far fetched. Hell, it would even come up in conversation.

      So 9/11 was a shocking and terrible event, for sure. I don't mean to trivialize it, but I wasn't particularly surprised that someone thought that up.

      --
      Huh?
    187. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it depends on your local police department's policies. For instance, in Ohio it is legal to carry a weapon as long as it is NOT concealed. But, if you try to do so, many police departments will arrest you and charge you with inciting a riot or some such nonsense. Or, if you get in your car with the weapon, you are then concealing it.

      It is legal to carry concealed in Ohio if you have the appropriate license. Ohio, like most states, has a "shall-issue" licensing law, which requires the state to grant a license to every applicant not disqualified by a criminal conviction or the like, so this is generally not a problem.

      Unconcealed carry is legal in a lot of states, and while police generally don't like it and will often do their best to discourage the practice, in most places they would be treading on thin ice legally to actually attempt to charge you with anything.

    188. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first I read "The terrorists could have just as well held a large cock and claim that they have a bomb."
      But yes, it makes more sense now...

    189. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Why does something have to be outlawed for no-one to have it? Yes, I am a utopian in that sense, but why does anyone need guns?

      Because not everyone is as utopian as you are?

      A country doesn't wage wars to protect it's citizenry. That's done by defending it's borders.

      How do you think those borders are defended?

      It might have been context driven, but I read it as (apart from providing infrastructure) the role of the government was to go attack other countries.

      You read it wrong.

      Given the US foreign policy of late, I might be excused for misreading it :)

      How do you know the original poster was even an American?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    190. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there is a somewhat similar story/legend about a serial killer who found his victims out in rural Australia, backpackers and travellers and the type.

      He was the subject of a massive manhunt and apparently the story goes that he was found somewhere, was on the run from the police out in the middle of nowhere (there is a lot of that in Australia), and eventually was cornered, and with nowhere to go, got out of his vehicle, dropped his weapon and with his hands in the air and called out his surrender.

      Given that the only people around were chasing police and they were in the middle of nowhere, the police response was basically "you have to be joking", and the official report was that he was cornered and killed in a shoot out.

    191. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Which is why every flight should have a complementary bowl of derringers at the gate.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    192. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by daigu · · Score: 1

      Personally, if someone is in my home without my knowledge, I wouldn't assume they were there to take my property. You don't know why they are there, and the safe assumption is that your life and the life of the people that live with you is in danger.

    193. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      A country doesn't wage wars to protect it's citizenry. That's done by defending it's borders. How do you think those borders are defended?

      I am still saying that wars are waged outside your own country (short of a coup/civil war). Soldiers protecting a country within it's borders doesn't count as "waging war".

      Given the US foreign policy of late, I might be excused for misreading it :) How do you know the original poster was even an American?

      Well, it's mentioned in the grandparent post, he quotes it and makes reference to it, it was during a timezone that is US traffic heavy and a large number of visitors here are American. Given that, I would say the chances are above average. Does it make a difference if he is not? Does it make my point about US foreign policy any less accurate?

      Side note: What is this "war on drugs" you referred to before? I am unfamiliar with this term.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    194. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The War on Drugs is the term that the US Government uses to describe it's drug prohibition policy. The reason I mentioned it was to point out the utter failure of said policy to prevent people from using illegal drugs. When there's a demand for some product there will be somebody willing to supply it.

      For the same reason I'm opposed to gun control because all it does is make it harder for those who obey the law to obtain guns. Those who would break the law can still obtain them -- and now they know the rest of us are unarmed and easy pray.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    195. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1
    196. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by rockout · · Score: 1

      But why do you (the USA media and government) also portray the passengers of the other flights as heroes if they did nothing?

      Citation needed.
      You're really stretching in an effort to make your original point seem valid, in the face of a very good response that pretty much tore it to shreds in a rational manner. My advice is to quit while you're behind.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    197. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus negating all the defense arguments about owning guns. These guys could all have carried weapons and 911 still happened. Retarded gun nuts don't recognize that their argument holds no water - no amount of logic, statistics or other evidence will ever convince them that the prosthetic dick they carry around because they're ashamed of their own genitalia is not a good thing, and does not make you a man. It makes you a pathetic scared loser. Yes, I might get shot, but given that the odds are far higher that my gun will be used against a loved one, which is the braver and safer option?

    198. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm pretty sure that if you kill without being threatened you go to jail for murder

      and the police will know if your headshot was taken when the guy was standing up or lying on the ground.

    199. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by popmaker · · Score: 1

      The good news is that after killing two people with one blow, he won't be killing anyone else.

    200. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by basicio · · Score: 1

      They're also going to run into the rather more important problem of properly sealed cabin doors, preventing them from gaining access to the cabin (and thus preventing them from piloting the plane in the first place).

    201. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure Wooosh is appropriate here.

      And obviously, if we ban them, they'll all magically go away, because we know that criminals who like to commit acts of violence will be scared of the law that bans their swords. Nobody will ever make one themselves, or sneak one in through the black market, and there are no legitimate uses (such as movie props and reenactments) for these weapons.

      Sounds to me as someone arguing for no weapon (gun) control and rather a debate than total Wooosh.

    202. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "agree 9/11 wouldn't have likely happened if people were allowed to regularly carry weapons on planes."

      I think you're forgetting that the hijackers could have brought REAL weapons on the plane in that case, and it may very well have ended just as poorly.

    203. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Expect gun violence rates to jump since the DC Handgun turnover.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    204. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Two passengers with knives could have stopped the whole affair.

      Or indeed, started it.

      IMHO, the only way to make air travel safe from hijack, is to anaesthetise all the passengers.

    205. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Expect gun violence rates to jump since the DC Handgun turnover.

      Practically every published statistic that I've ever read disputes this. If gun accessibility caused gun violence then why isn't Vermont a war zone? In that state any adult without a criminal record can purchase a handgun and carry it openly or concealed without needing a permit. Funny how they have almost no gun violence while NYC and DC are infested with it.

      Maybe the big city mayors should look at the underlying causes of crime instead of attacking firearms?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    206. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by powerlord · · Score: 1

      They're also going to run into the rather more important problem of properly sealed cabin doors, preventing them from gaining access to the cabin (and thus preventing them from piloting the plane in the first place).

      True. Who here remembers when you could (usually as a child) ask to see the cockpit on the plane? :)

      Something to remember is that some doors used to be locked to the flight deck, but the usual terrorist "technique" was to take a member of the flight crew/passenger and threaten to kill them if the pilot didn't open the door.

      Pre-9/11 this usually worked, going back to the idea that you fly somewhere, and land, at which point the terrorist gets what they want and goes away, or SWAT boards the plane and you are rescued.

      Post-9/11 this will fail, since you are all doomed if you open the door. Best response is probably to land at the closest airport near a SWAT equipped city and hope they can storm the plane before the terrorists can injure/kill some/most/all of the passengers. Of course, since you can keep the radio (since you've got the flight deck), they SHOULD theoretically be able to be ready for you, and ready to storm the plane as soon as you land (although that still may be 15-20 minutes which can be an eternity in these situations).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    207. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's been my observation (as a recovering liberal) that liberals don't really care as much about the Constitution as they profess to. They can invent a "right to privacy" that isn't listed anywhere when it supports their agenda while denying the plain text of the 2nd or even 1st amendments when it suits their agenda.

      Time just ran an interesting story about how the Dems want to regulate direct to consumer drug advertising. Mind you, I tend to think the pharmaceutical industry has gone overboard with advertising (why do drugs need to be advertised? Shouldn't they sell themselves?) but I also tend to think that they have the right to advertise their product if they want. The money quote from that article is:

      Waxman takes a harder stance. "I think the First Amendment is not an absolute guarantee to say whatever [we want] under any circumstances," he says. "We often prevent free speech when it can do harm - such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater ... I think there's a balancing. A very limited restriction on the First Amendment right to advertise drugs, if there is such a right, is reasonable for the public safety."

      Unbelievable. He's comparing advertising to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. The former serves a legitimate purpose -- the latter has none. And how is public safety enhanced by regulating advertising? Because the sheep are so stupid that they'll try and get drugs they don't need if they see a fancy TV commercial? Why is that something the government needs to be involved in?

      Freedom means nothing to liberals if they think that freedom places us in the smallest amount of danger. We need the government to protect us from all sources of harm because we aren't grown up enough to do it for ourselves. If that means trampling on the Bill of Rights then so be it -- the founding fathers never could have anticipated repeating firearms or big pharmaceutical companies!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    208. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Mr. Bad Guy enters my house, I'm threatened. He takes one step towards the family's bedrooms, motherfucker is going to have lead poisoning before his foot hits the floor.

    209. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be two bombs?

      No, and just in case you don't hear it enough already, you are stupid.

    210. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you need to live in the great 'Live Free or Die' New Hampshire were an arrest for open carry would result in a lawsuit and police discipline. Even better, the Green Mountain state of Vermont. When you have an entire class of concealed carry named after your state, you know you're doing something right.

    211. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      On a plane, most swords would be worthless. You are in a very confined space. You have a very restricted range of motion and your opponents have ready access to many heavy objects to throw at you, ie suitcases. One bag gets tangled with the sword and the sword is useless. A large knife would be better, but the knife wielder would be overcome.

      The only true equalizer would be a gun.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    212. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure but there are probably very few "Bruce Lee" class people, and also little overlap between the "Bruce Lee" class people and the people willing to hijack planes.

      --
    213. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Because there are other factors at play such as population density. You seriously can not try to compare the same factors at play in a town like Burlington, with less than 40 thousand residents as those with say, Baltimore, which has a population of about 600k. New York is way more dense and it has strict gun control laws AND the crime rate is not nearly as high as it is in the Baltimore area, not by total volume OR per capita.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    214. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Because there are other factors at play such as population density.

      So what your saying is that the availability of guns has little to do with violence and there are other factors at play? Thank you for agreeing with me. <stephen colbert>I accept your apology</stephen colbert>

      New York is way more dense and it has strict gun control laws AND the crime rate is not nearly as high as it is in the Baltimore area, not by total volume OR per capita.

      The big difference I can think of between NYC and Baltimore is that poverty is much more rampant in Baltimore. It would seem to me that the big city mayors should be doing something about this instead of trying to infringe on a constitutionally protected right, wouldn't you agree?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    215. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      This conversation started glibly, but if you want to have a real conversation about gun control, I'm game.

      I see two arguments in your post. The first is that guns should be unregulated because the U.S. Constitution says so. I've always found this a puzzling suggestion; the Constitution I'm reading is pretty clear that, with respect to firearms, they are to be unrestricted _explicitly_ within the context of a _well regulated_ militia. How this has come to mean "anybody can have any kind of weapon anywhere at any time and do anything with it they choose" has always been perplexing to me.

      The second argument I see is that if firearms are unrestricted, robberies are more likely to be thwarted by violence. Having been robbed myself, I can say I'm glad that I didn't have a firearm available to me at the time... but even putting that aside and assuming that shooting robbers is a desirable outcome, I've never seen anything to convince me that a proliferation of firearms won't create more violent altercations than it prevents.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    216. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      the Constitution I'm reading is pretty clear that, with respect to firearms, they are to be unrestricted _explicitly_ within the context of a _well regulated_ militia.

      Is that a justification clause or a prefatory clause? SCOTUS seems to think it's a prefatory clause. Furthermore, the latter part of the amendment says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      How this has come to mean "anybody can have any kind of weapon anywhere at any time and do anything with it they choose" has always been perplexing to me.

      It's never meant "do anything with it you choose". The laws against assault/murder/menacing/etc don't magically cease to apply merely because you carry a gun. The 2nd amendment isn't a license to commit acts that you would otherwise be prohibited from committing if you were unarmed. To claim otherwise is to sow FUD to further your argument and I would hope that you are better than that.

      As far as "any kind of weapon" goes, the reason that the NRA and most sportsman are opposed to gun control aimed at specific types of guns (so-called "assault weapons") is because that gun control is typically written by people that don't understand firearms and the threats contained therein are typically manufactured. According to most crime statistics "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime (1% of homicides before the original ban took affect), so why do we need to regulate them?

      Having been robbed myself, I can say I'm glad that I didn't have a firearm available to me at the time

      What if he had opted to try and kill you instead of leaving you alive as a witness? Would you still be happy that you didn't have a firearm available?

      but even putting that aside and assuming that shooting robbers is a desirable outcome

      Shooting somebody is never a desirable outcome. It's simply more desirable than being murdered yourself. I would never shoot anybody over property -- but if I thought my life was in danger then I'd shoot them as many times as it took to remove that danger. Most gun owners would feel the same way. Talk to somebody in law enforcement or the military who has had to take a life to defend themselves -- it's a horrible thing to have to do and you have to live with it forever. Few people walk around with guns hoping they get a chance to shoot someone.

      I've never seen anything to convince me that a proliferation of firearms won't create more violent altercations than it prevents.

      Go read through this document when you get a chance and see if it changes your mind. Here's a few of the penitent facts, although you should consider reading all of it when you have the time:

      1) 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
      2) 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are âoehot burglariesâ which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a âoehot burglaryâ rate of only 13%.
      3) 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
      4) Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    217. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Or indeed, started it.'

      Assuming the rest of the passengers have been disarmed. But with 100 passengers all as likely as not to be carrying a knife, not so much.

    218. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is that the availability of guns has little to do with violence and there are other factors at play? Thank you for agreeing with me. I accept your apology

      high availability of guns + high population density + ineffective(overworked, underpaid, etc etc) police force = more gun related crimes. The point here, is that more guns, equals more gun violence. period. Illegal street guns get their start off somewhere else in the world as legal weapons.

      The big difference I can think of between NYC and Baltimore is that poverty is much more rampant in Baltimore. It would seem to me that the big city mayors should be doing something about this instead of trying to infringe on a constitutionally protected right, wouldn't you agree?

      No doubt that's a factor to the overall crime rate, but the availability of guns make the gun problem worse.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    219. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by bahamat · · Score: 1

      Whatever.

      What really concerns me is that now we've got Klingons attacking Earth establishments and we have no sign of Romulans. I fear that Enterprise was right all along.

    220. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Once again, no. People overwhelmingly use their own guns (or a family member's) to commit suicide. You're making the assumption that everyone dies by their own gun, and simply cutting the number in half. It doesn't work that way. I've bothered to do some research, unlike some other people. I admit I am forced to retract my previous statement; the statistic doesn't hold water even if you do include suicides.

      The Kellerman study you're referring to has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited. Kellerman himself admitted to cherry-picking his data and ignoring data that didn't suit his preconceived conclusion. He included primarily suicides, with the remainder of the deaths arising from criminal behavior among family members (drug deals gone bad, for example). And his "nationally-representative" study only included 43 cases. It's hard to draw far-reaching conclusions from such a tiny data set.

      Estimates of lawful defensive gun uses by private citizens range from 108,000 (NCVS 1993, conducted by the Census Bureau on behalf of the DoJ) up to 2,000,000 (1993 study by FSU criminologist Gary Kleck) per year. Less than 0.1% of these incidents result in the attacker dying; in most successful defensive gun uses, shots aren't even fired--the criminal flees at the sight of the gun. That counts as a win in my book.

      By contrast, accidental firearms deaths number less than 1,000 annually; gun-related suicides number about 18,000. To be quite cold about the numbers, and even using the low end of the numbers, guns prevent over 100 people from being victimized for every accidental death, or at least 5 for every suicide death. If we make the assumptions that all guns are equally likely to cause an accident (or be used defensively) as any other, that means a gun is actually 100 times more likely to be used for defense than be involved in an accidental shooting death (or 5 times more for defense than suicide).

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    221. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that all boxes want to be cut open?

      Just wait. Some day, you'll encounter a box that refuses to open without a fight, and you'll wish you had that box cutter.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    222. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Troll? Seriously?

      I guess intelligence isn't a prerequisite for mod points.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    223. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Illegal street guns get their start off somewhere else in the world as legal weapons.

      So your solution to this is to take away my legally owned weapons? I bet we could bring car thefts down a lot too if we outlawed cars.

      but the availability of guns make the gun problem worse.

      I would argue that the availability of guns to the population deters crime.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    224. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      I am still saying that wars are waged outside your own country (short of a coup/civil war). Soldiers protecting a country within it's borders doesn't count as "waging war".

      I said fight wars not wage them. If someone attacks me and I defend myself, then they are waging war against me, therefore I am fighting a war. Also, sometimes preemptive war is justified. For example, after Japan attacked us, it made sense to aide the allies attack of Germany even though they only declared war to reciporicate to our declaring war against japan.

      BTW I am American and a bit of googling would assure anyone of that fact.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    225. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you want everyone with a gun? Surely it's much better for no-one to have guns? And seriously, why do you want your government waging wars? The world is in enough strife at the moment without more idiots with guns running into other countries yards.

      I want a gun to be able to shoot someone thast wants to shoot me, preemptively. Its only fair to allow my neighbor the same.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    226. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      So your solution to this is to take away my legally owned weapons? I bet we could bring car thefts down a lot too if we outlawed cars.

      No, stopping the sale of legal guns now doesn't take away your current fire arms, unless you consider potential future weapons you may own yours anyway.

      I would argue that the availability of guns to the population deters crime.

      But it simply wouldn't.

      For one, having a heavily armed population in densely packed areas is basically asking for a shoot out, not likely but it's also the least of my concerns. It's a thought that if it weren't tragic it'd be pretty damn funny.

      Two, that just makes guns available to anyone who wants one. Like say, criminals who are out to commit murder or robbery. I don't want to be the hero to stop them. I don't have that kind of training. That's above my pay grade. Way above it. I don't, and I suspect many of my fellow citizens don't want, that kind of responsibility. What if I miss and kill an innocent bystander? I couldn't live with that. What if I kill the criminal? Another thing I couldn't live with. The reason why many people don't carry guns around now is this precise reason. Also, even if guns are highly available, criminals will still know that most people won't be armed AND guns will be easier to get. If not direct from a dealer, through an intermediary source.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    227. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, stopping the sale of legal guns now doesn't take away your current fire arms

      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard for you people to understand? Your solution is literally to shred the Constitution and take away a right that we've enjoyed since the dawn of the republic.

      Like say, criminals who are out to commit murder or robbery

      People with a criminal past are already barred from firearm ownership.

      Way above it. I don't, and I suspect many of my fellow citizens don't want, that kind of responsibility. What if I miss and kill an innocent bystander? I couldn't live with that. What if I kill the criminal? Another thing I couldn't live with.

      Nobody is forcing them to take that kind of responsbility. Just don't take away my ability to defend myself because you don't want to do the same.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    228. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard for you people to understand? Your solution is literally to shred the Constitution and take away a right that we've enjoyed since the dawn of the republic.

      The mark of the end of a now crashed logic train. I'm not arguing if it's constitutional or not, I'm arguing whether or not gun availability is even a good idea in the first place.

      People with a criminal past are already barred from firearm ownership.

      Cho Seung Hui was a completely innocent man until he murdered those he murdered. Or any number of other thugs who may not have an arrest record but could be pretty damn dangerous. Besides, until they're caught, people who funnel guns from legal sources to illegal sources are still eligible to purchase weapons from legal sources.

      Nobody is forcing them to take that kind of responsbility. Just don't take away my ability to defend myself because you don't want to do the same.

      Don't put me in harm's way because you've got a hard on for devices designed for MURDER.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    229. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm arguing whether or not gun availability is even a good idea in the first place.

      Then at least be honest about what you are purposing. To enact what you've suggested would require the assent of 38 US State Legislatures. That would seem to make it a non-starter.

      Don't put me in harm's way because you've got a hard on for devices designed for MURDER.

      I don't accept your conclusion that you are placed in harms way merely by my possession of a firearm.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    230. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Then at least be honest about what you are purposing. To enact what you've suggested would require the assent of 38 US State Legislatures. That would seem to make it a non-starter.

      That we repeal the 2nd Amendment? Sure. But that's an entirely different argument, with other viable alternatives. Why don't we amend the 2nd amendment to allow local and city governments to make individual decisions on the legality of certain kinds of firearms? it keeps the right in tact in other contexts to own your favorite murder device of choice, just don't do it in my town.

      I don't accept your conclusion that you are placed in harms way merely by my possession of a firearm.

      Yes, I am. Because if you're capable of purchasing a firearm so are other people. You are not a unique snow flake. You are not special. You will use your gun responsibly. But others will not. Many will not. many incidents where guns will be used against others will be more often than not be used for crimes. Not the prevention thereof.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    231. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But that's an entirely different argument, with other viable alternatives. Why don't we amend the 2nd amendment to allow local and city governments to make individual decisions on the legality of certain kinds of firearms?

      What makes you think that such an amendment would pass any easier than an outright repeal? You'd only need 13 states to stop it.

      Not the prevention thereof.

      Most statistics I've seen suggest that guns are used much more often for legitimate defense than they are for crime. In any case I can think of any number of other tools that are also used in crime and nobody is suggesting that we regulate them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    232. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Applekid · · Score: 1

      9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane.

      Not quite. 9/11 happened because the clock advanced one minute past 11:59pm on 9/10. Don't let the eeeeevil Republicans try to tell you different.

      I propose we make 9/11 the new leap year day.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    233. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that such an amendment would pass any easier than an outright repeal? You'd only need 13 states to stop it.

      Still doesn't make it a nonsequitor argument. I really don't care about the implication on the 2nd Amendment until I know whether or not this is actually a good idea.

      Most statistics I've seen suggest that guns are used much more often for legitimate defense than they are for crime. In any case I can think of any number of other tools that are also used in crime and nobody is suggesting that we regulate them.

      I'm willing to admit I was just guessing based on gut feeling, what about you? Cite your source please.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    234. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't make it a nonsequitor argument. I really don't care about the implication on the 2nd Amendment until I know whether or not this is actually a good idea.

      I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?

      I'm willing to admit I was just guessing based on gut feeling, what about you? Cite your source please.

      Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:

      * Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds
      * 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person
      * When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.
      * 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed
      * 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    235. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?

      Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.

      Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:

      * Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds

      Bad data is bad data. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm

      * 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person

      Obviously biased source with more bad data. They're citing data that's specific to residents of the state of Missouri. Not national data. Either they can't get good information or they're lying because the truth hurts.

      * When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.

      This time, old data is OOOOOOLD. this data is nearly 30 years old. I can't find good relevant data either, i'm guessing neither can they.

      * 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed

      The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here. Also typically psychopaths aren't that logical. if they were, they wouldn't be committing crimes they'd be getting easily caught for.

      * 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.

      this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason. It's many other factors. Not only that but the statistic is OLD. Can't these gunfacts guys find facts that are relevant to this decade?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    236. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you bash Linux you might smell it coming ;)

    237. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.

      If you want to change the 2nd amendment through the amendment process then all the power to you. But the gun control lobby doesn't want to do that because they know they could never pull it off. Instead they seek to erode it and kill the right via death by a thousand cuts. If they can do that with the 2nd amendment then they can do it with any of the other ones.

      The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here.

      I don't know what to tell you. You admit that your feelings are based on a "gut feeling" and then dispute the statistics that I provided because they are "too old". It seems to me that you aren't willing to even consider the other point of view. For the record I used to be in favor of gun control until I realized the folly of disarming people who follow the law and the hypocrisy of my position of shouting at the top of my lungs about civil liberties while simultaneously supporting gun control. I'm familiar with the arguments of the gun control position and I'm not convinced that they hold water.

      this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason.

      Statistics are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer to debate the merits of the particular position without resorting to statistics because they are invariably created by those with an agenda and easily dismissed by the other side. As far as the merits of gun control I would point to the stunning "success" of the War on Drugs as an example of the impossibility of beating the law of supply and demand.

      To each their own. From a political standpoint gun control in this country is a losing issue. If the Democrats opt to go there then they'll be handing the GOP an issue to beat them over the head with and will be signing the political death warrants of every single Democrat from a rural district or pro 2nd amendment state. I'm not even convinced they would have the votes to pass it -- as most of the aforementioned Democrats would probably vote against it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    238. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      If you want to change the 2nd amendment through the amendment process then all the power to you. But the gun control lobby doesn't want to do that because they know they could never pull it off. Instead they seek to erode it and kill the right via death by a thousand cuts. If they can do that with the 2nd amendment then they can do it with any of the other ones.

      I do not work for the Brady Campaign, why do you keep thinking I'm in line with these guys? Do I agree with what they've got to say a lot of the time? Sure. But i'm not a member, nor am I representing them. Stop bringing this *incredibly* moot point up. It's like you need a hook to somehow wedge this into your libertarian bullshit.

      I don't know what to tell you. You admit that your feelings are based on a "gut feeling" and then dispute the statistics that I provided because they are "too old". It seems to me that you aren't willing to even consider the other point of view. For the record I used to be in favor of gun control until I realized the folly of disarming people who follow the law and the hypocrisy of my position of shouting at the top of my lungs about civil liberties while simultaneously supporting gun control. I'm familiar with the arguments of the gun control position and I'm not convinced that they hold water.

      You mean to tell me statistics relating to crime and social issues that are nearly 30 years old are *still* relevant? I'd be surprised if they were. Do I really need to work out the logical steps as to what has changed in the last 30 years and why these statistics are most likely not relevant? Software piracy wasn't a problem in the seventies either, so this means we should not worry about IP violations? Despite what you may or may not believe, I am actually open to listening to the arguments of the pro-gun ownership crowd, which has lead me to believe that gun ownership is simply NOT a national issue. Gun ownership in Alabama is a far different issue than Gun ownership in say, Maryland or California. Gun ownership in say, Atlanta is going to be far different than say Macon. The same is true for a number of other issues, like water reclamation laws and speed limit jurisdictions. Could there be a comprehensive gun law that would fit every municipalities particular need? Sure. It'd be complex, but no one in the congress would want to write it, muchless be responsible for it's implications. Much less any lawyer want to take that case, or any judge to try it.

      I *was* pro gun, then I grew up and realized while these things are neat, they're also tools that are uniquely designed for MURDER. If my toaster oven was rated for it's ability to KILL A MAN, you couldn't get a slice of Rye in this ... okay I live in Nevada, so maybe this state, but not many. Our past or present feelings do not make our arguments more or less valid. Neither is pointing out hypocrisy. It makes me a hypocrite, sure, but on THIS issue I may not be wrong(doesn't make me wrong on the other issue either, it just means that I'm a jerk).

      Statistics are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer to debate the merits of the particular position without resorting to statistics because they are invariably created by those with an agenda and easily dismissed by the other side. As far as the merits of gun control I would point to the stunning "success" of the War on Drugs as an example of the impossibility of beating the law of supply and demand.

      But there's statistical research done *every day* in this country by firms and institutions that have no inherent bias. Like the Pew Charitable Trust. I worked for one on my local state university's campus. With out any real quantifiable way to determine exactly whether or not more guns in certain metropolitan areas will result in more crime, then all we're doing is appealing to fear. Fear that you'll get shot if you let guns be sold, fear that you'll get shot because you can't stop an

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    239. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's like you need a hook to somehow wedge this into your libertarian bullshit.

      I'm not a libertarian. Until recently I counted myself as a card carrying Democrat. Now I'm not sure what I am. I do tend to agree with the libertarians on civil liberties but I disagree with them on many other issues.

      I am actually open to listening to the arguments of the pro-gun ownership crowd, which has lead me to believe that gun ownership is simply NOT a national issue. Gun ownership in Alabama is a far different issue than Gun ownership in say, Maryland or California. Gun ownership in say, Atlanta is going to be far different than say Macon.

      The exact text from that platform paper, "We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."

      Translation: Your Constitutional rights change when you cross lines on the map. If gun rights change in different regions then why not free speech laws? What's offensive in South Carolina might be considered perfectly normal in San Francisco. Why not separation of church and state? NYC may not want that monument of the 10 commandments in Central Park but what about that Alabama town that does?

      You can't grow guns out of the ground. It takes careful machining, precision engineering and hours of manlabor to build that gun. What you forget about the part of supply and demand is the "Supply" part. Sure there's a demand for guns, but who's going to *make* them?

      Take a look at the experience of the Philippines sometime. Illegal gun manufacturing is the primary source of guns for criminals over there. They may not be built as precise as the latest offering from Smith & Wesson but they get the job done. Meanwhile the civilians are unarmed. In any case you've already undercut your own argument by pointing out that you are in favor of 'regional' gun laws. So if you accept the fact that gun production will still be going on in the United States and that sales will be legal somewhere you ought to realize the folly of trying to regulate the ownership thereof.

      I *was* pro gun, then I grew up and realized while these things are neat, they're also tools that are uniquely designed for MURDER.

      Operative word being "tools". Tools don't have a mind of their own. This idea that the availability of guns is going to cause violence strains creditability. There are a million other things that urban areas should be doing to reduce crime (starting with reducing poverty) that would be more effective than taking away guns.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    240. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Translation: Your Constitutional rights change when you cross lines on the map. If gun rights change in different regions then why not free speech laws? What's offensive in South Carolina might be considered perfectly normal in San Francisco. Why not separation of church and state? NYC may not want that monument of the 10 commandments in Central Park but what about that Alabama town that does?

      Actually many states have their own constitutional provisions on religion in the public square. So yes, you do have different church-state laws when you cross state lines, within that state's government.

      Take a look at the experience of the Philippines sometime. Illegal gun manufacturing is the primary source of guns for criminals over there. They may not be built as precise as the latest offering from Smith & Wesson but they get the job done. Meanwhile the civilians are unarmed. In any case you've already undercut your own argument by pointing out that you are in favor of 'regional' gun laws. So if you accept the fact that gun production will still be going on in the United States and that sales will be legal somewhere you ought to realize the folly of trying to regulate the ownership thereof.

      The kind of resources it takes to start that kind of operation are immense, it's also something that's hard to keep secret too. That's why they get away with it in countries like the Philippines where law enforcement just doesn't have the same kind of resources we do. There's also a huge home brew gun manufacturing cottage industry in places in the middle east and southeastern asia, but that doesn't mean it's going to go on here.

      yes, but if less legal guns are sold, less legal guns are funneled from the legitimate market place and into the black market. Period. It's not a problem we can stop but bringing down that number is something we *can* do.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    241. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The kind of resources it takes to start that kind of operation are immense, it's also something that's hard to keep secret too. That's why they get away with it in countries like the Philippines where law enforcement just doesn't have the same kind of resources we do. There's also a huge home brew gun manufacturing cottage industry in places in the middle east and southeastern asia, but that doesn't mean it's going to go on here.

      You have all the answers don't you?

      It's not a problem we can stop but bringing down that number is something we *can* do.

      Good luck with that. I can think of no better issue to give the GOP to beat the Democrats over the head with.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    242. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      You have all the answers don't you?

      I have google.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    243. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, a doctorate in Google and a Masters in speed-reading. That explains your ramblings :)

    244. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Krav Maga and (Russian)Sambo are often taught in most cities. Jiu-jitsu is also great for joint-locks and throws. However, the ground maneuvering is not suitable for a 'street' environment. When you choose the dojo ask the instructor(s) what there philosophy of teaching and sparring are. If all else fails... go to a boxing gym. The eye-gouging and what-not is self-explanatory. However, Shaolin Chin-Na has some interesting variations. You will need to add hand strength training to your complement of resources to make the small joint locks and gouging method effective.

    245. Re:Enact the assault sword ban! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice info! I may actually research in my area for some of that, once I get back in shape. I tend to fall into crap like smoking cigarettes and generally being unhealthy in the cold months, then get in shape (or try to) in the spring/summer

  9. Colorado Springs Crime Ring by jsd303 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Combining robbery and nerdery since '09!!!

  10. I've never trusted Klingons... by dreemernj · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and I never will. I can never forgive them...for robbing my 7-11.

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    1. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I, for one, found this funny, and worthy of mod points. Sadly mine are not available.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      7-11 We Will Never Forget!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    3. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent funny (already commented).

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by LordEd · · Score: 1

      ...and go and alter the slashdot code so it can get a +6

    5. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Songs will be sung of this day.

    6. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7-11 We Will Never Forget!

      lol

    7. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Quick! Run for president!

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    8. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by bartok · · Score: 1

      Oh man that was priceless!!

    9. Re:I've never trusted Klingons... by vaporland · · Score: 1

      ROTFLMAO. Oh, and Homeland Security wants a word with you...

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
  11. I wonder... by Foofoobar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if the investigating police showed up in Enterprise Uniforms. 'This is highly illogical, Leutenant'

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:I wonder... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the investigating police showed up in Enterprise Uniforms.

      I hope they weren't wearing red uniforms ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:I wonder... by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Thank $diety they wear blue or they wouldn't be at ease at all!

    3. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dammit Jim! I'm a police officer, not a psychiatrist!

    4. Re:I wonder... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Thank $diety they wear blue or they wouldn't be at ease at all!

      Thank $diety they could fit into their uniforms!

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  12. Need better QuickMart cashier training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody knows the way to stop a Klingon speaking geek is by applying an atomic wedgie.

  13. At least... by Demiansmark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it seems that the two clerks were big enough nerds to identify the weapon as a Batleth!

    Unfortunately it seems that the robber was masked so they weren't able to tell if he was a swarmy Klingon.

    Some great writing in the story: "The clerk did not give him any money and the suspect transported himself out of the store"

    So the suspect ummm.. "left" the store? Oh wait... "transported himself", dude got beamed up!

    1. Re:At least... by tweek · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. BOTH clerks knew it was a Batleth? Sounds like an inside job to me.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  14. *Both* Clerks Recognized It? by GammaKitsune · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does it seem surreal to anyone else that, according to the article, both clerks recognized what a Bat'leth was? Colorado Springs: where Trek nerds control all the local convenience stores. For best results, RTFA while listening to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U

    --
    Gamertag: WyleType
    1. Re:*Both* Clerks Recognized It? by jnaujok · · Score: 3, Informative

      One of the 7-11's I used to frequent here in Colorado Springs had a former CIO of an intenet bubble company as it's assistant manager. So yes, they're all run by nerds out here. The dot-com bubble broke big here.

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    2. Re:*Both* Clerks Recognized It? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Colorado Springs: where Trek nerds control all the local convenience stores.

      Where did you think they were going to find jobs?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:*Both* Clerks Recognized It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the 7-11 clerks are just laid-off C#-Java ubber-programmers. That was the only job they were able to find as the end of capitalism is happening around us...

    4. Re:*Both* Clerks Recognized It? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That explains why the robber used at bat`leth...he's a star trek nerd too. Even your common criminals are geeky there.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:*Both* Clerks Recognized It? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      We're talking about Star Trek: The Next Generation, not Blake's 7 or $YOUR_FAVORITE_NERDY_SHOW. It's not exactly obscure and only seen by geeks.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  15. Dante: You know what the worst part is? by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Randall: Worse than getting robbed by some f'n Star Trek geek?
    Dante: I'm not even supposed to be here today!

    1. Re:Dante: You know what the worst part is? by srobert · · Score: 1

      Klingons visit an alternate Askewniverse?

  16. Clerks were Trekkies by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

    Both clerks described the weapon as a Star Trek Klingon type sword, called a "Batleth."

    I'm not sure whether to think that since both guys knew a "Bat'leth" on sight, it indicates that geeks are more prevalent than previously thought... or that convenience store clerks tend to be geeks.

    1. Re:Clerks were Trekkies by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Obviously both store clerks are real Enterprise officers under disguise. They've probably settled down here after a slingshot around the sun.

    2. Re:Clerks were Trekkies by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know where the idea came from that watching Star Trek makes you a nerd? Yeah, nearly all nerds like Star Trek but I know a lot of non-nerds who would know what a batleth was. And I doubt I know anyone who's never heard the phrase "beam me up, Scotty!"

    3. Re:Clerks were Trekkies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nearly all nerds like Star Trek but I know a lot of non-nerds who would know what a batleth was.

      No... no you don't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Clerks were Trekkies by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah. There are a lot of non-nerds who might know what Klingons look like, and might recognize their swords, but, seriously, knowing the name of them?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Clerks were Trekkies by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Lets not get carried away. Its not like the reporter was the first one on the scene. By the time they got there dozens of people have put there 2 cents in. Chances are the first one may have recognized it and said it was one of those 2 handed sword things from star trek. Then one of the officers ran to his KIT squad car and did a google and found out what it was. By the time they got to the second robery and the guy started to describe it someone upped and said, 'you mean it was a balteth thing from star trek?' and the clerk said, ya! just like that.

  17. One mystery sovled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Buy Klingon Bat'leth
    2. ????
    3. Profit!

    Obviously the unknown in this algorithm is "Hold up a convenience store.

    1. Re:One mystery sovled... by julesh · · Score: 1

      1. Buy Klingon Bat'leth
      2. ????
      3. Profit!

      Obviously the unknown in this algorithm is "Hold up a convenience store.

      Except I'm pretty sure the average convenience store will likely have less in their till than the bat'leth cost. Those things are pricy. I managed an e-commerce site for a replica weapon shop once... their bat'leth was actually the most expensive sword in their inventory; I think it cost about £200 ($300).

  18. Wow by tuba_dude · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just me, but as amusing as it is that this guy robbed two stores with this thing, it's funnier that both of the store clerks knew exactly what it was!

    --
    "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    1. Re:Wow by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Amusing bit is that the second's store clerk refused to hand over the money. Death before dishonor.

      To his credit, I suppose, the Klingon warrior did not slay the peasant.

  19. Getaway Vehicle... by tsnorquist · · Score: 1

    100 Darsek says his getaway car was a cloaked FireBird of Prey.

    1. Re:Getaway Vehicle... by LoadWB · · Score: 1

      With an monogrammed bowling ball in the hatch.

    2. Re:Getaway Vehicle... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Firebird? You're on. They're nerds, so they're not going to be in a hotrod ship like that. More likely a SunBird of prey.

      One that's at least fifteen years old at that.

    3. Re:Getaway Vehicle... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Hey! I drive a fifteen year old Sunbird, and I'm not a nerd.

      Wait, damn, yes I am.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  20. Oh Great. by Tony+Stark · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was hoping to make a big impact when I start robbing stores with my lightsaber, but it looks like some trekkies stole my thunder.

    1. Re:Oh Great. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      they'll foul their britches and you'll all tremble when you see the security footage of me and my crystalline Whistler.

    2. Re:Oh Great. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The Bat'leth has a big advantage over a light saber: it actually works in the real world. Rick Curry, the effects dude who invented the Bat'leth, says it came from his disgust with futuristic weapons that look cool but couldn't possible work.

    3. Re:Oh Great. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The Bat'leth has a big advantage over a light saber: it actually works in the real world.

      That must be why almost every culture on Earth, from the Carthaginians to the Aztecs has evolved a weapon almost identical to it. Odd then that they had to invent a name for it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Oh Great. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Sword enthusiasts have told me this, though none of the examples stuck in my mind. (Please share!) Trekkie web sites such as Memory Alpha and Wikipedia all assume that the weapon is purely Curry's invention.

    5. Re:Oh Great. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What sound would one make if it missed your head by a fewinches and your brain by several feet?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Oh Great. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Ooh! A new insult! Aren't you clever!

  21. Editor strikes again by VShael · · Score: 1

    The line about transporting has been removed from the article.

    1. Re:Editor strikes again by LoadWB · · Score: 1

      That is pitiful. Why remove it?

    2. Re:Editor strikes again by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Well it's not very professional although it does seem kind of stupid to edit it after the article has been published. People have already seen it after all.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Editor strikes again by pluther · · Score: 2, Funny

      Threats from Paramount's legal department.

      They claim copyright on the word "transport" and all derivations thereof.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    4. Re:Editor strikes again by LoadWB · · Score: 1

      But technically correct. :)

  22. be CLear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most times you must have said weapon sheathed if it is not sheathed it is considered that you are ARMED, htus you WILL get arrested, unless your at a trek convention then by all means ATTACK

    1. Re:be CLear by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      How do you sheath a Batleth? It's not like it's a single bladed weapon that can just slip into a sheath. On the show, it seems the standard method is a case or simply wrapped in a cloth- but I've never seen one sheathed.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:be CLear by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The same way you sheath other oddly shaped weapons.

      One way is to roll it up in sturdy cloth (or carpet) and tie it off with cord. Another is a leather case that covers the blade and is secured with straps.

    3. Re:be CLear by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      How do you sheath a Batleth?

      You can keep it inside any convenient Romulan corpse.

    4. Re:be CLear by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Troll

      I suppose one could also use a very wide stiff leather sheath open at one end. Although the "clam-shell" style case seems like it would be practical as well.

      Most of the times you see a Batleth on the show they are either carried at the side, hung off of a body armor hook on the back, or hanging from pegs on a wall. I don't think the show writers ever though of having a sheath that you wear. For a weapon that large, any sheath big enough to contain it is also going to be too big to wear in most situations.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  23. Big, green and ugly by nojayuk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    From yesterday's local news on the BBC:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7864982.stm

    The police want to talk to his donkey. Afterwards, they want the donkey to shut the fuck up.

  24. Why has nobody said this yet? by pzs · · Score: 1
  25. Easy to find by sheepofblue · · Score: 2, Funny

    No problem look for the glow of video game screens coming from mom's basement and you will find the culprit.

  26. Re:This is too much!... I wonder if they told him: by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Kam'cha chime CHEK!"

    (If he were a TRUE Klingon, he could reply with, "You swear WELL in Klingon, human clerk...")

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  27. How recognizable is a bat'leh? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Both clerks described the weapon as a Star Trek Klingon type sword, called a "Batleth."

    2 out of 2 7-11 store clerks can recognize Star Trek paraphernalia. Michael Dorn should be proud.

    Also:

    The clerk did not give him any money and the suspect left on foot.

    I wonder if this clerk would have given the money to a guy with a gun? Or a guy with a human sword? I wonder if the average bat'leh wielder is more or less desperate or murderous than the average gun/sword wielder? Perhaps the robber didn't know the proper Klingon curse words.

    1. Re:How recognizable is a bat'leh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm betting the dude who did it recently lost his job in the IT field and needed some cash, so probably not the most hardened guy willing to cut someone who is refusing his demands.

    2. Re:How recognizable is a bat'leh? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm glad you linked to Michael Dorn because nobody on /. would have known who he was if you hadn't ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:How recognizable is a bat'leh? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If they're familiar with the "swords" then they might be familiar with the replicas.

      They're basically 3 or 4 mil thick blocks of aluminum. They're not even tapered towards the presumed edge, let alone sharpened. And they'd be extremely awkward to wield even if they were.

      No more dangerous than if the robber had used a baseball bat, if the bat had some curvy bits that forced him to hold it in the middle.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:How recognizable is a bat'leh? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Actual dangerous bat'leths, while they do exists, are very rare and fairly expensive.

      Just like swords, most of the ones that people purchase are dull replicas. Unlike swords, most of the replicas are aluminum, because, frankly, they're about three times as much metal as a sword, and steel would make them pretty damn heavy.

      Unlike replica short swords, which can be swung by anyone who can swing a baseball bat, there's no way in hell an average Star Trek fan could swing a 'real but dull' bat'leth in a realistic manner. Not even as a weapon, I just mean in play-fighting. You simply can't swing around that much metal. So most are made of a a lightweight metal. (Which is why they are more expensive. Aluminum is more expensive than cheap steel.)

      So there were three options:
      1) This was a lightweight fake bat'leth that, frankly, is less useful than a tree limb as a weapon. Or a heavy book.
      2) This was a 'real', but dull, bat'leth.
      3) This was a real, sharp, bat'leth.

      Either of the later two require a hell of a lot of strength to use as a weapon (Although it's worth pointing out that dull 'real' bat'leths are almost as good a weapon as sharp ones.), and it's possible that that the clerk simply figured that out.

      Bat'leths, as weapons for human beings, are slightly above two-hand broadswords in the amount of strength they require, and if I had some skinny guy trying to rob me using a frickin four-foot long broadsword I might be a little suspicious that their 'weapon' wasn't very effective either.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:How recognizable is a bat'leh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone keeps track of who is who in movies and their names...

      Who is the commander from a sci fi classic? Forbidden Planet?

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000558/

      Yes THAT guy...

      Shurly at this point you should know his name...

    6. Re:How recognizable is a bat'leh? by v1 · · Score: 1

      And they'd be extremely awkward to wield even if they were.

      I pondered that more than once watching Worf use his. Seeing someone swing a heavy sword-ish thing at him and him block it, look at how little leverage this gives the wielder, how easy it would be to flip the thing around in the wielder's hands (so the points nearly face the wielder and the wielder's fingers now totally exposed for the next attack) with anything but a dead even blow, etc.

      But would suck to get hit with it. Looks like you could easily get some serious speed (but not leverage) with it.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  28. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    *he* has brought nothing but *dishonor* upon his family and himself.

    his heart must not be *truly* klingon.

  29. Finally! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    A better class of criminal Joker promised us.

    At last someone with some style.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  30. More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just more proof that they charge too much for seasons of Star Trek. Perhaps he's starting early on getting money for the blue-ray releases...

  31. Re:This is too much!... I wonder if they told him: by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

    "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

    ...and This Complete Breakfast.

  32. You. Klingon. Bastard! You Stole. My. Slurpee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oblig

  33. So if he's caught and serves his time by mandark1967 · · Score: 5, Funny

    will he be considered and "Ex-KAHN!"?

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  34. Released Description ... by powerlord · · Score: 3, Funny

    When asked if he had a smooth or ridged forehead, they refused to comment.

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  35. Bat'etlh, not bat'leth by pmbasehore · · Score: 3, Funny

    Turn in your geek card and spell it correctly!

    And your mother has a smooth forehead!

    --
    $> man woman $> Segmentation fault. (Core dumped)
    1. Re:Bat'etlh, not bat'leth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dork != Geek

      Knowing pop culture television does not make you a geek. Learning more than is needed to accomplish some intellectual task makes you a geek, coming up with multiple solutions to the same problem makes you a geek but learning all the Star TWek lingo and episodes makes you a dork.

  36. Disappointing... by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm rather disappointed he just wore a plain black mask and regular clothes...
    The story would have sounded a lot better if he had gone in a full klingon costume.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  37. Worf by steelclash84 · · Score: 1

    "Perhaps today *is* a good day to die!"

  38. Who has a Wikipedia account with editing rights? by dronkert · · Score: 2, Funny
  39. They'll never catch him, either. by wireloose · · Score: 1

    We don't have the technology to track his outbound transporter trail.

    1. Re:They'll never catch him, either. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We don't have the technology to track his outbound transporter trail.

      Don't worry, I'm sure some young high schooler is on the case and will figure out the problem before the Feds do ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  40. And This is Why by twmcneil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every convenience store should have a few Tribbles around.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  41. What? by bracktra · · Score: 2, Funny

    No Lirpa?

  42. Insightful? FUNNY! by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

    The mods are without honor and should be stripped of their karma and titles, face discommendation, and sent to work the mines on Rural Penthe.

    1. Re:Insightful? FUNNY! by PMuse · · Score: 1

      If the mods are without honor, and should be stripped of their karma, and should lose their titles, and should face discommendation, and should be sent to work the mines on Rura Penthe, it may be time to find a new empire to serve.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  43. I think you misread the post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there's a size limitation to knives and similar weapons.

  44. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty easy to armchair quarterback in total safety what you think you would have done in the same situation, but the truth is you would never know until you were in that situation. I don't think the plane was full of extraordinarily "unaverage" people - they were average joes. Odds are you would have sat right there with them scared out of your wits as well. The funny thing is, if as many people who claimed they would be a hero in situations such as this actually did step up and be a hero, stuff like that would not happen as much as it does in reality.

    P.S. It would be fairly trivial to kill someone with what you call a "kid's knife". A box cutter is a razor blade with a handle. Would you like to be slashed with a razor?

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  45. Channeling Jack Thompson... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Funny

    *BEGINS CHANNELING JACK THOMPSON*

    This proves that watching Star Trek makes a person violent! We must ban all Star Trek in order to protect our children and our 7-11's.

    *ENDS CHANNELING JACK THOMPSON*

    And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to wash out my brain... with some hydrochloric acid.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Channeling Jack Thompson... by kat_skan · · Score: 1

      This proves that watching Star Trek makes a person violent!

      Well... there was Voyager...

    2. Re:Channeling Jack Thompson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to wash out my brain... with some hydrochloric acid.

      Sounds like Jack Thompson makes a person violent.

    3. Re:Channeling Jack Thompson... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to wash out my brain... with some hydrochloric acid.

      I thought that was *how* you channeled Jack...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  46. Next up: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Fat middle-aged woman dressed as Rikku robs a crispy creme

  47. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by joeytmann · · Score: 2, Informative

    The passengers of flight 93 certainly weren't afraid of the 4 guys with box cutters.

    --
    Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
  48. Re:Who has a Wikipedia account with editing rights by canonymous · · Score: 1

    Did you miss the part where Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

  49. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    P.S. It would be fairly trivial to kill someone with what you call a "kid's knife". A box cutter is a razor blade with a handle. Would you like to be slashed with a razor?

    As opposed to being smashed into a skyscraper? Yes.
    But hindsight is 20/20, and they didn't know it just a typical "take the plane to cuba" deal until it was too late.

  50. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It comes down to the information available to the respective passengers. The standard approach is to assume that the hijackers want money or the release of prisoners and probably won't kill the passengers. With that in mind you just sit in your seat, shut up, and hope that when the SWAT team kills the hijackers you don't get injured. When the passengers realized those people were going to turn them into a missile (because of phone calls informing them of their impending deaths) they weren't going to have any of that shit. The passengers of the other planes would have clawed the eyes out of their attackers if they had any idea what was going to happen. People will readily die for a higher purpose (see soldiers, religious crazies, people that try to rescue children/pets/the elderly from fires), they just have to see the purpose of dying.

  51. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by jbssm · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Why do you honour them as heroes then? Because they all sat there and their plane crashed against WTC killing thousands?

    At least your government should stop with the hypocrisy off calling those passengers "heroes" ... this is just media bullshit made to inspire some crappy patriotic feeling and use it to shut anyone that was against the subsequent invasions that USA did on behalf of those "heroes".

  52. Re:Who has a Wikipedia account with editing rights by Jaqenn · · Score: 1

    Who has a Wikipedia account with editing rights? Anybody? Anobody? Bueller? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek#Bat.27leth

    That would be you. And every other single person on the face of the planet with an internet connection. They don't even make you log in first.

    --
    You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
  53. tagged "kaplah" by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    But it should be "Qapla'"!!

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:tagged "kaplah" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot: Not only do we speak Klingon, we speak it better than you.

  54. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    You are making HUGE assumptions now. I never once called them "heroes" or thought anything along those lines. (Hint - a lot of Americans also think what their government says is mostly bullshit too.) I was merely pointing out it is easy to speculate what one might do in a similar situation, but that is all it is - speculation. Those people had no idea what was going on, and hindsight is 20/20. If they had all the information that you have now about what was happening, it may have turned out different.

    "this is just media bullshit made to inspire some crappy patriotic feeling"
    Sorry to have to inform you of this, but the USA doesn't have a monopoly on that market. If you really want to see how the pros do it, take a look China's way.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  55. The saddest part... by Dekortage · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The saddest part is that in both robberies, the clerk recognized the weapon as not just unusual, but specifically Klingon. Geeks fer sure. Hey guys, are you on Slashdot???

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  56. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has nothing to do with bravery or "averageness". Prior to 9/11 the best thing a hostage could do was stay calm and obedient -it ensured not only your own safety, but the safety of others. Hostage-taking was nothing new and almost always resolved safely on the ground. Going cowboy was an act of foolish endangerment.

    The reason the passengers on the flight over PA fought back was because they heard what happened with the other planes and realized the previous rules didn't apply this time. I have little doubt the people on the early flights would've tried the same thing if they had known.

  57. Many possibilities here by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    The other possibility (though admittedly, less likely) is that the star trek geeks are the ones who work in the 7-11; having a limited knowledge of other (earth) cultures' weapons, they saw something that wasn't a sword, and assumed it was a Batleth. If it REALLY was a batleth then I suspect it wasn't a star trek fan, but just someone who got hold of a batleth and liked it's potential as a weapon. I doubt there are many geeks so oblivious to their geekiness that they don't realise robbing a store with such an exotic and rare item might help police to track them down.

  58. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    damn laptop keyboard.

    "...didn't know it wasn't just a typical..."

  59. It's a *ceremonial* dagger by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Informative

    And it looks it would take a good bit of effort to "cut" a stick of butter with it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

    (Also see the legality section further down)

    I'd be surprised if these got a second look pre-9/11...but these days a picture of a giant cartoon robot with a cartoon gun on your T-shirt is too dangerous to take on a plane.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:It's a *ceremonial* dagger by retchdog · · Score: 1

      It would probably be easier to cut the stick of butter, if you unsheathed the kirpan first... ;-)

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  60. Impressed? by kandela · · Score: 5, Funny

    If someone came at me with a Bat'leth all I'd be thinking is 'Is today a good day to die?'

    --
    Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    1. Re:Impressed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be thinking today is a good day for someone else to die.

  61. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by philicorda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They were not afraid of 'box cutters'.

    The reason for this is that there are no reports or evidence of any kind anywhere that the hijackers had box cutters.

    It's far more likely they were carrying combat knives. The box cutter myth was started to explain how they carried the knives through airport security.

    See:
    http://edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm

  62. Stereotypes galore! by OldSoldier · · Score: 1

    Firstly, isn't it odd that the store clerks recognized it as a Batleth? That should help reinforce the nerdy 7-11 store clerk stereotype. Seriously... how would a bank teller have described this sword?

    Secondly, the choice to use the batleth was either inspired or insanely stupid. Inspired in that the batleth would draw attention to itself and away from other identifying characteristics of the robber. Insanely stupid in that... how many Colorado Springs residents own a batleth anyway? Kinda reduces the suspect list by a bunch.

    1. Re:Stereotypes galore! by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Insanely stupid in that... how many Colorado Springs residents own a batleth anyway?
      Well sword collecting tends to be popular among low income people. Bat'leths tend to show up in the cheap sword booths at Renaissance fairs and flea markets. They also look very exotic. You probably would be surprised at the number of replicas in people's collections, even people who don't have a clue it has anything to do with a nerdy hobby.

  63. Aamazing by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We actually have a good story on Idle. Well, I guess there's a first time for everything.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    1. Re:Aamazing by giuda · · Score: 1

      that's not idle :(

  64. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty bad laptop keyboard you have there :).

    --
  65. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, blame the keyboard for your brain-fart. You fit right in here in the US.

  66. Re:This is too much! Jonathan Archer Question: by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    "Why do aliens always pop up in corn fields?"

    Well, now, if Enterprise returns, they'll have to revise that history to:

    "There once was an intelligence report indicating a Xindi-dispatched Klingon imitation popped up in a convenience mart. He probably had reviewed archive footage of old-fashioned advertisements with what they called a "jingle": "Oh thank Heaven for 7-Eleven", and thought he could find a Xindi contact there... But, he found Daniels working the purchasing counter."

    (Damn, overworked)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  67. But why? by Amiralul · · Score: 1

    Why did he used a weapon to break-in? Was the transporter pad malfunctioning because of the non-calibrated Heisenberg compensators that were not alligned with the verteron matrix containment field? He should reversed the polarity, for crying outloud!

  68. Never bring a knife ... by Perf · · Score: 1

    It's a maxim of the old west,
    "Never bring a knife to a gun fight."

    In other words, he's OK until he runs into a clerk with a gun.
    He'll probably either get killed or arrested.

  69. Brain Freeze Initiation by sprior · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since pain sticks weren't available for his initiation he had to settle for brain freeze.

  70. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And armed with better knowledge, it's much easier to decide between doing nothing (which leads to death), and doing anything else (which has a slightly lesser chance of death). It's not 100% inconceivable that passengers could've retaken the plane and maybe even managed an assisted emergency landing.

  71. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Either one can cut/harm/kill you potentially. That was my point. It's like asking "Would you rather get shot by a .357 or a .44?" The only answer I could give would be "neither" because either option would not be pleasant.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  72. "No Weapons" evens the field some. by pentalive · · Score: 1

    I suppose there is one thing though. Preventing everyone from bringing on weapon-like objects disarms the terrorist to the point where they have to resort to silly match lit shoe bombs (and now we all have to submit to shoe inspection .. "No fuse - your fine, move on")

    Meanwhile we all keep our fists and our brains and there many of us to few of them.

    1. Re:"No Weapons" evens the field some. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      It also disarms us. I'd rather face 100 guys with fists than 100 guys with knives.

      But the reality is that the terrorist wouldn't be facing a 100 man mob. He'd be facing the one or two with the balls to try to act. I'd rather give those one or two the best odds possible.

      All matchlit shoe bombs demonstrate is that its always possible to come up with some kind of weapon, all anti-weapon rules do is disarm those who aren't willing or have no need to be so creative.

  73. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by loafula · · Score: 1

    thats because they were notified in flight that two hijacked planes slammed into the WTC

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  74. Re:Who has a Wikipedia account with editing rights by dronkert · · Score: 1

    Dudes, I know. I thought the over-the-top part "with editing rights" gave it away. Next time I'll use smilies again.

  75. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by mrdoogee · · Score: 2, Informative

    I thought I remembered that some of the cellphone transcripts from the hijacked planes said that the hijackers claimed to have bombs on board.

    If they were telling passengers that, coupled with the fact that most hijacked planes up to that point were just flown to a unfriendly nation and held for ransom, the passengers really had no way to know that risking their lives would have saved thousands.

  76. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    I don't get it honestly. I don't know if my hand is hitting the touchpad or what, but my cursor actually jumps backwards and I end up typing over what I just wrote.

    (An HP laptop, if anyone is wondering)

  77. Incorrect. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    4 guys with box cutters and a BOMB.

    granted the bomb turned out to be a fake. Why people insist on forgetting that part is beyond me.

    Not allowing the general public to carry weapons only mean criminals who get around security will have control.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Incorrect. by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Or vigilantism will occur... there is the fact that vigilantism comes from a root meaning to be vigilant. We can't have the general public being responsible for their own and the communities safety though. gah.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  78. Self protection in Texas by wsanders · · Score: 4, Funny

    Back in college, I had a friend who was into the Society for Creative Anachronism thing. He got burgled one night while he was home, and sent the intruder to the hospital with wounds from a broadsword. You don't see that every day.

    Apparently he was stark naked when he attacked, too. Dunno if he bothered to cover himself with woad before the battle.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  79. Take It,..I Dare Ya,. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can have my batleth,..
    But I'll be damned if you try to take away my
    T5 disrupter.

  80. Do we really know the whole story? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1
    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  81. The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by qazwart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you work in a convenience store, you never ever try to stop a robbery. It doesn't matter if the guy has a gun, a Bat'leh, or an attack gerbil.

    Your job is to get this guy out of your store as fast as possible with as few injuries as possible. I knew someone who worked in HR at Southland Corporation (the people who run 7-11s). They train their workers to help the robbers.

    Most robbers have little idea of what they should do once they run into a convenience store and demand all of the money. The clerks are trained to not make sudden moves and to keep their hands visible.

    The clerks ask the robber if they want their money in a sack and if the robber would like them to lie down behind the counter until they leave. The clerk's job at that point is to get the robber out of the store as quickly as possible.

    Most of the time, there is less than $50 in the till. If someone comes in with a bat'leh, you don't know if they may also have a gun on them. You have no idea what this person might be capable of doing or whether they have a few friends outside who may try to help out if you put up a fight.

    It simply isn't worth the fuss over $50. You give the money to your assailants, wish them a nice day, and hope they leave as quickly as they came.

    1. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Yea, it's not the guy with the Bat'leth you have to worry about. Those things aren't the most effectively balanced weapons. It's his two friends with lightsabers, waiting outside, that are the real threat...

      Seriously though, this is the smartest course of action in any robbery/mugging whether your a store employee or just walking down the street. No amount of money you have on you or in the til is worth risking your life over. Companies like 7-11 train their employees his way to, for the most part, to avoid liability but even if they didn't, your life is more important than your job.

      When I used to take Martial Arts classes, my instructors would define levels of self defence response, based on the seriousness of the situation, in a scale from 1 to 4. 1 was simple moves meant for a friend at a part that got drunk and rowdy (you don't want to injure them but you want to control the situation so they don't hurt you). 4 was for a serious situation where, for instance, you're cornered by an attacker/attackers with weapons and it's life-or-death. That was the "official" system. Unofficially, he would also describe what he called level 0 or "Nike-jutsu" to be used first if at all possible. It involved running away when you could be sure you wouldn't be caught/shot from behind.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    2. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Jeff Cooper came up with a similiar system.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      If you ever get a chance to attend Gunsite Ranch, do so....You won't regret it. (well, your bank account might!-but worth it IMHO)
      The skill levels and knowledge of the training staff are top notch and have to be seen to be believed.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Wow, they really aren't cheap are they? That sounds like it'd be an absolute blast though. Maybe some day :) At least I've already got the right pistol.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

      "The clerks ask the robber if they want their money in a sack"

      "Paper or plastic, sir?"

      --
      This sig is false.
    6. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I was lucky enough to go in the '80's not long after it was opened to the public.

      BTW, M1911 was/is my personal favorite. Good choice, and enjoy!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    7. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      BTW, M1911 was/is my personal favorite. Good choice, and enjoy!

      Yeah, I need to get into reloading though. .45 ACP costs too damn much when you buy it factory. I have a family member who does reloading and is going to teach me the ropes once I accumulate enough brass.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what prices are like now days, but IIRC, .45 used to set me back around a dime a round.
      If you have a shooting range nearby, you may be able to talk them into letting you gather brass up. Avoid old European brass*, and WW2 era US brass.
      They both used primers containing mercury, and on firing, the mercury compound reacts with the brass of the case- weakens it and makes it brittle....You don't know the meaning of 'too much fun' until you've had to remove what's left of the case from the barrel when the extractor rips the case rim off!

      * Czech surplus from the cold war era is fine- it will be stamped 'BRNO' and the year...good stuff.
      The other problem with a lot of European surplus ammo is they frequently used 'Berdan" primers that will cause grief in the reloading press.(easy to spot-instead of one central flash hole in the primer pocket, there will be two flash holes. These are not worth the effort messing with.)

      Hit any local gun shows in your area, frequently good deals can be had for brass and other components.

      I would recommend starting with a single-stage reloading press at first. Too much going on with a progressive press- easy to make mistakes with when first starting out. Don't take shortcuts, pay attention to detail, set up a procedure/protocol and stick to it.

      Good Times!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    9. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I don't know what prices are like now days, but IIRC, .45 used to set me back around a dime a round.

      Locally it seems to run around 40 cents a round. I've seen online deals that can bring that down to 35 or less if you buy in bulk. I haven't had the funds to buy in bulk lately though.

      I would recommend starting with a single-stage reloading press at first. Too much going on with a progressive press- easy to make mistakes with when first starting out. Don't take shortcuts, pay attention to detail, set up a procedure/protocol and stick to it.

      My relative made the same recommendation. He also said that you learn more about the process doing it with a single-stage press and can always upgrade later once you understand the concepts better.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Ah...sorry about the confusion...my .45 rounds cost about a dime to reload(not having to buy brass).

      Something else occurred to me seeing this: "I haven't had the funds to buy in bulk lately though."

      You can go with a lighter wt. recoil spring in the .45, enabling you to use 'milder' loads for just plinking- saves some cash. Well, no, it does not save some cash- you will just shoot more! :-)

      I think the standard recoil spring was rated at 10 or 11 pounds, you can drop to a 7 pound spring for the mild loads. (standard is a 230 grain bullet at around 810-830 feet per second- you can use 185-200 grain bullets at around 700-724 feet per second)

      Don't trust my faulty memory on the recoil springs ratings- been too long..:-(

      A good reloading manual is a fount of knowledge- invest in one or several.
      Hornaday, CCI/Speer, Nosler, and Sierra all are recommended.

      I'm also currently not overloaded with funds...so I'm with ya there.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    11. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ah...sorry about the confusion...my .45 rounds cost about a dime to reload(not having to buy brass).

      Well, no, it does not save some cash- you will just shoot more! :-)

      That sounds like the most likely outcome of getting into reloading for me ;) At least I'll get to shoot more though :)

      enabling you to use 'milder' loads for just plinking

      For plinking I'm debating the wisdom of getting either a rimfire conversion kit or even a separate .22LR target pistol. Have to decide on priorities first though for my limited funds. I'm just getting into the shooting sports and it might be a better bet to pick up a rifle and hone my skills with that instead. I started out with the handgun because A) It's more challenging, B) I wanted to pick up my NYS pistol permit before Albany decides that I shouldn't be able to.

      I'm also currently not overloaded with funds...so I'm with ya there.

      Seems like everybody is there these days :(

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      The Kimber conversion kits have had a good solid reputation since the mid 1980's. Hard to go wrong there. You might also like the Ruger .22 pistol. Very nice, and not a big change from the feel of the old .45. We used the Ruger for training and practice when I was in the US Army.

      Colt also made a .22 based on the M1911, I think it was called 'Ace' that duplicated the feel and recoil of the M1911. But I imagine if you could find an ace, it would be expensive.

      The Ruger 10-22 rifle is built like a vault, dependable, and provides hours of shooting fun. Don't turn your nose up at a .22- best way to get good with your shooting as you can actually afford to shoot them enough to get some crazy good skills!

      When I shot competitively, I would go through 1,000 rounds of .22 compared to only about 200-300 rounds of .45 a week when in training.

      Your striving for muscle memory and consistency...that takes a lot of shooting.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    13. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe I should think about making a long gun my next purchase then. The 10/22 looks pretty good and actually within my price range. Still can't decide on whether I want the conversion kit or a .22 pistol for cheaper handgun plinking. Guess I'll make that decision after I'm done with the break-in period on my .45 :)

      Your striving for muscle memory and consistency...that takes a lot of shooting.

      I've also debated picking up some snap caps and dry firing for this same purpose. Might make it more affordable and annoy the girlfriend less if I'm not spending every weekend daylight hour at the range ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Snap caps are an excellent idea. Had forgotten about them. :-P
      I went 'old school' back then and used silicone sealer in the primer pockets of 'dubious' brass.
      Most modern centerfire firearms can be safely dry fired, (so they say), but I like the extra insurance.
      Never dry fire a rimfire!

      "...annoy the girlfriend less if I'm not spending every weekend daylight hour at the range..."
      I've had astounding success over the years with getting gf's and wife (not at the same time!!!) interested into shooting. By far, the overwhelming majority of them really enjoy it if they are introduced to shooting correctly! (and don't be surprised if she gets to a skill level that allows her to outshoot you!!)

      Probably not needed here, but: Safety First!

      I've got stuff to do now, so if you don't hear from me until later, don't worry.

      I want to heartily thank you for one of my more enjoyable conversations on /.!

      *Arnold Voice* I'll be back!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    15. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Most modern centerfire firearms can be safely dry fired, (so they say), but I like the extra insurance.

      Snap caps are also additional insurance against negligent discharges. I figure that if I make chambering a snap cap part of my dry fire routine then that's extra insurance against doing something boneheaded like leaving a round in the chamber. I'd like to say that I'd never be this stupid but better safe than sorry as they say.

      By far, the overwhelming majority of them really enjoy it if they are introduced to shooting correctly! (and don't be surprised if she gets to a skill level that allows her to outshoot you!!)

      I could see my gf getting into it eventually. First I have to convince her that the gun isn't going to let itself out of the safe, load itself and then kill us in our sleep. Actually she's not that bad, she just hasn't ever been around guns. My family had them growing up so I'm more comfortable around them. I'll probably try and talk her into giving it a try when the weather gets nicer and I have a decent .22 for her to shoot.

      Probably not needed here, but: Safety First!

      What, are you telling me that I shouldn't try to Mexican carry my glock while wearing sweatpants and drinking? ;)

      I want to heartily thank you for one of my more enjoyable conversations on /.!

      Yeah, it's been fun. Thanks for giving me another excuse not to do anything productive ;) I'm around fairly often so I'll keep an eye out for you and will check this thread again later tonight :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      "Thanks for giving me another excuse not to do anything productive..."
      Heh! Heh! I'm off work awaiting surgery, and had to run errands today. I finished them far earlier than expected, so...I'm back!

      Snap caps are also additional insurance against negligent discharges. I figure that if I make chambering a snap cap part of my dry fire routine then that's extra insurance against doing something boneheaded like leaving a round in the chamber.

      Good idea again!...but always remember:
      Rule number one: The Gun Is Loaded!
      When in doubt, see Rule Number One!
      When not in doubt, see Rule Number One! This cannot be stressed enough! Sorry, but most of the 'accidental' shootings I've seen/heard about are due to forgetting Rule 1. (the basis for my comment about setting up a routine procedure/protocal for the reloading...and sticking with it.
      *climbs down from soapbox*

      When you start reloading, keep a logbook.
      1. bullet wt./type/composition. (cast lead, JHP, FMJ, Frangible, etc...
      2. Primer type/brand (yes, it can make a BIG difference)
      3. Powder charge, and type. and whether it was weighed or measured...(don't get too caught up in this debate. It has been documented that consistent volume measures provide slightly superior accuracy and consistency in muzzle velocity[1]) You will be amazed at how the variables in powder charge/type caan affect Muzzle Velocity, and accuracy!(see #4 also)
      4. case mfr, and weight of case. (heavier cases ==thicker case walls== lower internal volume==higher pressures for same powder wt.-this is one reason that 'volume' works best.
      5. Note indications of cartridge/load stress.ie:
        a. flattened primers
        b. difficult extraction of spent cases
        c. excessive recoil (note: this is subjective until 'you are experienced' as Jimi Hendrix said)
        d. separation of head/rim, leaving cartridge case walls firmly 'welded' to inside of chamber( Arhhgg!!)
      6. Perceived accuracy.( I used sandbags until I had access to a Ransom Rest. Just reat your wrists across the sand bags-not the pistol, and be consistent with your grip/hold/sight picture/ trigger control.

      [1] Talk to some 'Bench Rest' rifle target shooters about this. Almost none of them weigh the powder charges, they use volume based powder measures. What I would do while reloading when I worked up the load I was going to use was this:
      Set the measure for the desired wt.
      Double check.
      Thereafter only weigh every tenth powder charge. YMMV. With the logbook, and some experience, this will become second nature fairly quick.
      Just like following the rules for a programming language and proper documentation/comments in the code. Consistency Rules! :-)

      I'm familiar with the 'Mexican Carry', but not the Glock. (have read about them, seen them, but never interested enough to put hands on one) But what's life without a little humour? Ha! Ha!

      I can't imagine it would be fun to blow your own balls off due to a glitch in carrying/deploying!!!...but I don't suspect that I need remind you of that!

      I'm 'old school' enough that I prefer single action pistols and revolvers, though I'm not Luddite enough to dismiss the double action camp.
      To each their own, but I do like the Czech CZ75 that was the basis for the Bren 10. Nice pistol in spite of above statement.

      Feel free to email me at 'rts008@suddenlinkDOTnet'. I absolutely love helping people getting started with recreational shooting, and all modesty aside, I do have a lot of knowledge/experience to share. :-)

      *disclaimer*
      I don't have to use my email for work, so I might not check my inbox more than two or three times a week, But I Will reply for this!

        Is this where I reply that 'we have to stop meeting like this?' LOL!

      P.S. You wouldn't happen to be near Stillwater, Oklahoma?
        With Murphy hanging out in my back pocket, you may want to aanswer NO!!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    17. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      *climbs down from soapbox*

      Your absolutely right to be on that soapbox. I call them 'negligent discharges' because that's what they usually are. Dropping a gun and having it go off (is this even possible with modern firearms?) would be an 'accident', but leaving one in the chamber and/or shooting something you didn't intend to seems more like negligence to me.

      The reason I want the snap caps (in addition to extra protection for the firing pin) is to establish a procedure that reduces the likelihood of something like this happening. You can't ever be too safe can you? Plus they come in handy for demonstrating flinches -- load one up in the magazine after a few real rounds and don't tell the shooter that it's there -- then see if he/she flinches when they pull the trigger :)

      When you start reloading, keep a logbook.

      I'm actually going to try and keep a logbook for everything. How many rounds I fired on this visit to the range, which kind of ammo, how I did, etc, etc. As a geek I'm somewhat obsessed with data collection anyway, so this way I can combine two hobbies, help hone my shooting skills and keep track of how many rounds I've put through my guns.

      I'm 'old school' enough that I prefer single action pistols and revolvers

      That's another reason I like the 1911. That nice single action trigger pull. You don't have to worry about adjusting your shooting style for the first shot. I'll confess that I kind of got roped in by the mystique of Browning's creation but I actually shoot it better than all the other handguns I've tried so I don't feel too bad about buying one :)

      I don't have to use my email for work, so I might not check my inbox more than two or three times a week

      I'll shoot you an e-mail later. I can't access it from work, hence why I keep responding on /.

      P.S. You wouldn't happen to be near Stillwater, Oklahoma?

      Naw, Upstate New York here. I picked a great state to live in and get into the shooting sports, didn't I? I suppose it could be worse, I could be in California or Illinois. 90% of my shooting up to this point has actually been in Pennsylvania -- I live pretty close to the border and they actually have state sponsored gun ranges and liberal laws down there. I have a relative in PA who has showed me the ropes and helped me in my handgun selection process.

      Here in NYS you can't even legally hold a handgun without a permit. The only saving grace is that I reside upstate and most of the counties (including mine) are pro 2nd amendment so I'll actually be able to get one. They don't regulate long guns either, whereas in NYC you can't even buy a .22 rifle without a permit.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      "Dropping a gun and having it go off (is this even possible with modern firearms?) " M1911 can be subject to this, depends on model year/mfr.
      This is where it gets tricky. For example: if the pistol has an inertial firing pin*, then dropping it muzzle (with round in chamber) down can result in a discharge. Rare, but far from unheard of.
      Remember, you are trusting a fallible engineering and manufacturing process here. Examine the design, use your head.(note: don't be freaked out by my warnings, only trying to provide info for you to make informed decisions. Mechanical failure induced accidental discharges are far less common than negligence/carelessness...but can happen)

      Personal philosophies will vary greatly here, and I won't take sides. My personal tactic was chamber empty for normal carry. (easy to rack the slide when drawing weapon). Now at home (it's a long story, but I'm not as paranoid as this is going to sound-I had legitimate reasons back when!), the .45 slept under my pillow cocked, locked, and loaded with the safety on-I felt I had good reason for this!)

      Although it does not seem applicable in comparison, there was a good reason the venerable Colt model 1873 Single Action Army was typically carried with 5 rounds in the 6 shot chamber- hammer down on the empty chamber.(think hammer/trigger sear relationship...small contact area!)

      There have been improvements since I was current, so do some research!

      You can't ever be too safe can you?

      NO! (excellent attitude, BTW)

      "so this way I can combine two hobbies, help hone my shooting skills and keep track of how many rounds I've put through my guns."
      And also document your most beneficial loads, whatever your criteria. Afterall, gun control is all about putting your rounds on target! :-)

      That's another reason I like the 1911. That nice single action trigger pull. You don't have to worry about adjusting your shooting style for the first shot. I'll confess that I kind of got roped in by the mystique of Browning's creation but I actually shoot it better than all the other handguns I've tried so I don't feel too bad about buying one :)

      Browning HiPower?? (the only 9mm pistol I would stake my life on!!!) Always trust John M. Browning, and you can't go wrong. If IRC, the Czech CZ75(that became the Bren 10) was based on the Browning HiPower. Excellant pistol...for a 9 mm.(I have little faith in a 9mm, as I carry 4 of them in me, and those that put them there are long gone!...Thanks Stasi!

      Naw, Upstate New York here.

      Yeah, you did mention that early on. Sorry, I just got carried away!

      Pennsylvania is a good 'shooter' state. I lived there after I got out of the Army until I moved to Oklahoma. (Dec.1980- Jan. 1990 in Fulton County, PA) The only place I've ever lived that schools and most businesses shut down for the first several days of deer hunting season! LOL!

      I used to work commercial construction all over the mid eastern seaboard(NYC, Philly, NJ) and will have to say that I found 'brotherhood' in all areas of NYS, but NYC seemed like a foreign country at times. :-) I don't judge NYS residents by the ?whatever? that thrive in the city. Whole different class of people.

      *"Firearms that use long firing pins, such as pistols, will often use a firing pin that is too short to project when depressed flush by the hammer. This type of firing pin, called an inertial firing pin, must be struck by a full fall of the hammer to provide the momentum to move forward and strike the primer. If the hammer is down, resting on the firing pin, it is very unlikely that a blow to the rear will provide enough energy to the firing pin to detonate the primer. Most variants of the M1911 pistol use this type of firing pin.[2]"(from the wiki) It has been known to happen on rare occasions, but is a slight possibility.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    19. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Personal philosophies will vary greatly here, and I won't take sides. My personal tactic was chamber empty for normal carry. (easy to rack the slide when drawing weapon)

      The argument I've heard against that is that if you get ambushed and lose the use of one arm (it's pinned, you get shot in it, or whatever other reason) you have no way to bring your weapon into action. I'd tend to agree with you on not taking sides though -- ultimately it's up to the person carrying the weapon to decide the best method for themselves.

      Now at home (it's a long story, but I'm not as paranoid as this is going to sound-I had legitimate reasons back when!), the .45 slept under my pillow cocked, locked, and loaded with the safety on-I felt I had good reason for this!)

      That doesn't sound paranoid. I slept with a loaded shotgun next to my bed in my old apartment. I was in a good neighborhood and didn't have any particular reason to think that somebody was out to get me but with the floor plan of that apartment I had no escape route if somebody through the front door. For some reason that bothered me more than living in a crappy neighborhood but having an escape route (been there, done that as well)

      the only 9mm pistol I would stake my life on!!!

      I try not to pass judgment on the 'caliber wars' because people rarely agree. I've heard enough bad stories from friends in the military about the 9mm that I've thought twice of arming myself with one. Granted the military is limited to FMJ but I've also seen enough law enforcement agencies abandon the 9mm to make me remain skeptical about it. Even the New York State Police gave up on it and went to .45s (GAP not ACP, but still...)

      I have little faith in a 9mm, as I carry 4 of them in me, and those that put them there are long gone!...Thanks Stasi! [wikipedia.org]

      That sounds like it'd be quite the story over drinks..... Whatever the particulars were I'm glad you made it out :)

      The only place I've ever lived that schools and most businesses shut down for the first several days of deer hunting season! LOL!

      Businesses and schools don't close around here but we take deer season pretty seriously. Half of my co-workers will take the first week off work when it rolls around. The only thing that sucks about deer season around here is we are close enough to the city to get all of the assholes. Nothing gives hunting a worse image than some drunk city slicker bragging about the 70 pound doe he just bagged....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by rts008 · · Score: 1

      ...only thing that sucks about deer season around here is we are close enough to the city to get all of the assholes...

      LOL!! remind me to relate the ' ChipmunkChronicles to you!ROFLCOPTER!!!

      The argument I've heard against that is that if you get ambushed and lose the use of one arm (it's pinned, you get shot in it, or whatever other reason) you have no way to bring your weapon into action. I'd tend to agree with you on not taking sides though -- ultimately it's up to the person carrying the weapon to decide the best method for themselves.
      This can get complicated if you are lax. Be Aware of what's happening around you. You lapse, you lose!!(I formed my protocol from harsh and unforgiving circumstances.)

      My team supplied security for the CIA agents escorting defectors out of E. Berlin. It was not all in fun! People bitch about certain groups, but the STASI were in aa class by themselves. *shudder*

      but I've also seen enough law enforcement agencies abandon the 9mm to make me remain skeptical about it

      This may be my downfall...having been shot by 9mm weapons several times, I'm alive (aggressors are not around to contest the application of a .45 cal. response!) Frankly, I (foolishly laugh at a 9 mm having been shot several times by them.) I have never had a target survive a well placed .45 or 10 mm., but these 9 mm slugs I carry in me only make weather changes uncomfortable for me...and piss me off!! i AM LUCK!Y

      Let us get back on topic: Awareness and paying attention are the two caveats. Anything else is just icing on the cake. Live your life freely, but be aware of what happens around you....Sorry about the sermon!!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    21. Re:The Clerks did What They're Suppose to Do by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This can get complicated if you are lax. Be Aware of what's happening around you. You lapse, you lose!!(I formed my protocol from harsh and unforgiving circumstances.)

      Let us get back on topic: Awareness and paying attention are the two caveats. Anything else is just icing on the cake. Live your life freely, but be aware of what happens around you....Sorry about the sermon!!

      It's all moot if you don't know what's going on around you. I've learned this the hard way myself (thankfully not in a situation involving firearms). I find the Cooper color code to be a intuitive way of staying alert although there are other methods that people use.

      This might be a dumb comparison but Coopers system actually reminds me of the defensive driving classes that I used to teach when I worked in the insurance business. "If this driver does this then I'll do that to get out of the way". It's all about keeping your eyes moving around and having a plan for how to respond if something bad happens. Then if something bad does happen you can just respond without having to think about it.

      Maybe this is why the Cooper system seems so familiar to me. "If this guy does this I'm going to start thinking of him as a threat", or "If this guy does that I'm going to shoot him". I'd love to get to go to gunsite some day and see how the real professionals implement this type of thinking.

      My team supplied security for the CIA agents escorting defectors out of E. Berlin. It was not all in fun! People bitch about certain groups, but the STASI were in aa class by themselves. *shudder*

      I can imagine. My old boss emigrated from East Germany to the United States. She never talked much about it but when she did it was enough to make your skin crawl. Thank you for your service back then.

      Sorry about the sermon!!

      Keep preaching. I'm trying to soak up as much knowledge as I can :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  82. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're a fucking idiot. Bikers wear leather jackets, the value of a leather jacket is found when hitting the concrete at 60+ MPH or equally when getting into a knife fight. Many bikers/hookers and other street denizens carry straight blades (used for shaving) and razor blades, because they are practically guaranteed to get through the leather. Regular knives either have to be sharpened (knowledgeably) for long hours and saved for such occasions.

    Violence is no different than any other profession, you have to use the right tool for the job.

  83. Let's see the video by Animats · · Score: 1

    Officers are reviewing the surveillance tapes from inside the store but Lt. David Whitlock said he does not plan to release the video or photographs "at this time."

    The video will probably be on "America's Dumbest Criminals" soon, if not on YouTube.

  84. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by bdenton42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Passengers of the three planes which reached their objective are not normally referred to as heroes in the media, they are called victims. Certainly the rebelling Flight 93 passengers are rightly called heroes as are the firefighters and police who went up into the towers to rescue people, but I haven't noticed that label being liberally applied to the victims as well.

  85. "land wherever the hijackers said to land" by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    "So I have an adress at Liberty St & Church St, can you drop me there ?"
    "Sir ! Yes Sir !"

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  86. Wait... Colorado Springs?? by BattyMan · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one to notice that this is where Magic Mountain is?
    "Everybody" knows that the SGC is down in the bottom of that!
    So it's maybe just possible that the guy was a real Klingon, somehow spacially and literarially misplaced through some Stargate accident?

    --
    Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
  87. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Myopic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much does it happen in reality? I don't hear about it very often, in a country (USA) of 300 million. Of course, flying-jets-into-buildings only happened once, but even other large-scale (more than a few deaths) random violence only happens, what, annually? Less? That's very rare. We live in an exceedingly safe society, even as it is an open and free society (mostly). Other societies have even lower crime, but they have less freedom and openness (cf England or something).

    Me, I would have run to the back of the plane and browned my underwear.

  88. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by gknoy · · Score: 1

    That is precisely the reason why no airliner will ever again be usable as a weapon, so long as the passengers are able to get to and lay hands on the attackers. Every one of us will assume that the plane is on its way to be destroyed, and will fight hard to make sure it doesn't get used as a weapon. Bring a metal pen with you on your flights, or a mechanical pencil or two.

  89. No, it was fear by MazzThePianoman · · Score: 1

    It was fear, not the lack of box cutters that was the problem. 100 people, even a mix of unarmed women and children, could take down only four people armed with box cutters if they were so inclined. Some might die in the process but a good number would live.

    This is why if terrorist ever tried the same thing again it would likely not succeed now. Before 9/11 most similar cases were hijackings, not mass forced suicide.

    I am in now way trying to say any of the 9/11 victims were cowards. However there have been cases of housewives who draw enough adrenalin to lift a car off their child. With a mindset set more on group survival rather than personal injury I can not see how 4 people with box cutters would have a chance against that many people.

    --
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
  90. No honor by LeotheQuick · · Score: 1

    This man clearly has no honor. If I were to meet him I would not hesitate to disembowel him.

  91. I've always wondered... by nyvalbanat · · Score: 1

    ... how do you disarm people who are trained to kill with bare hands?

    --
    Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).
    1. Re:I've always wondered... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      ... how do you disarm people who are trained to kill with bare hands?

      With a gun and about 15 feet of distance ;) Duh :P

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:I've always wondered... by nyvalbanat · · Score: 1

      Is that before or after boarding the plane?

      --
      Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).
    3. Re:I've always wondered... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      ... how do you disarm people who are trained to kill with bare hands?

      With a gun and about 15 feet of distance ;) Duh :P

      Or you can do it the American way, by hiring a succession of poor people to do it for you until one of them is sucessful.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    4. Re:I've always wondered... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And then you fire that person after he's been with you for a year or two and gotten a few COLAs that make him too expensive to keep on the books ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:I've always wondered... by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      make them wear mittens?

    6. Re:I've always wondered... by nyvalbanat · · Score: 1

      No, they use mittens to choke the victim

      --
      Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).
  92. !idle, even though idleispants by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    This is actual news. Person attempting robbery is news. Police looking for person attempting robbery is extra newsworthy, because people might know something. That a Bat'leth was used makes this News for Nerds in two ways: It was neat to hear about (the idleispants way), and because nerds in the area might know someone who owns a Bat'leth and is hard up for cash, or maybe a nerd got a Bat'leth stolen from him recently and it's the same criminal (although the police might already know about that).

  93. And they both knew by uler · · Score: 1

    I like how both clerks knew exactly what type of weapon it was.

  94. The question is... by Digital+Mage · · Score: 1, Funny

    did he grab any prune juice while on the way out of the store.

  95. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why do you honour them as heroes then? Because they all sat there and their plane crashed against WTC killing thousands?
    At least your government should stop with the hypocrisy off calling those passengers "heroes" ... this is just media bullshit made to inspire some crappy patriotic feeling and use it to shut anyone that was against the subsequent invasions that USA did on behalf of those "heroes".

    Maybe you should shut your fucking mouth and stop nitpicking the manner in which we choose to honor the victims of that horrible day?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  96. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by jbssm · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Actually the societies that have lower crime rates are the ones in Northern Europe, were they also have more freedom and more openness.

    The reason that the UK has a low violent crime rate (at least compared to the USA) is because they have very strict firearm policies and very few people are allowed to carry a gun.

    In Northern Europe, the reason they have much lower crime rates, is simply because they are more socially oriented, there is much less unbalance both economically and socially and so people have less motives to commit crimes.

  97. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. 'Box cutters' has no basis in reality whatsoever. There is absolutely no evidence or reports of 'box cutters'.

    Box cutters was picked by the airlines because it was one of those things that it actually was legal to bring on an airplane, and they wanted it to be a failure of regulations.

    In reality, they probably, indeed, had combat knives. But the airlines didn't like that, because it would be their failure to keep illegal weapons off airplanes.

    In fact, there's not actually any evidence they didn't have guns. The passengers on Flight 93 thought they only had knives, but considering their attack failed, it's entirely possible it failed because, duh, they got shot. And even then, no guns on 93 didn't mean there weren't guns elsewhere.

    But 'box cutters' is now ingrained on American mythos.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  98. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the record, during the entire period of flight in which they alleged to have received and made calls, they were out of cell phone range and no passengers had satellite phones.

    The heroic story sounds great, but there is no way any of the calls in question could have been made. All we have to go by are the black box recordings. It is a very human desire to add a glimmer of hope to a tragedy, and we have extrapolated all kinds of meanings from admittedly cryptic and brief bursts of information that we do have.

    This is quite similar to the 'heroic' rescue of Jessica Lynch, in which all the heroism was fabricated to make an epic story that would boost morale and justify our position in the war.

  99. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the Compaq C712NR does the same thing... maybe you got the HP version of my laptop? It's frakkin' annoying.

  100. Is this Fark? by kiehlster · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, I was a bit confused. Somehow I thought /. was for stuff that matters. Now I will have to go Batleth crazy on your arse.

  101. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

    Or order a beer in the lounge once you past the security checkpoint, open the bottle (so it doesn't pop on you when the pressure changes) and drink it, and put the empty in your carry on. You've already passed the security checks so from there on it's good times.

    And yeah, they were still selling beer in bottles at the airport the last time I flew a few months ago.

    --
    The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
  102. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by eth1 · · Score: 1

    Higher purpose? They didn't even need that. Their choices were:
    1 - Do nothing and die
    2 - Do something and have a chance of living

  103. What if... by BatJeep · · Score: 1

    ...this was a *real* Klingon trying to raise some cash to repair his Bird of Prey?

    I just *knew* we would screw up our initial First Contact opportunity!!!!

  104. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Shihar · · Score: 1

    You are a moron.

    At 40,000 feet you are less than 8 miles away from the ground which is well in range of a cell phone tower. What limits most cell phone towers is obstructions to line of sight. The biggest reason why cell phones are not allowed on airplanes is that 1) they are fucking annoying and 2) it makes a mess of the cell phone companies because TOO MANY cell phone tower can see a single phone and they have to pass off the signal quickly as the airplane blasts on. They work just fine. For shits and giggles, try using one in an airplane bathroom some time.

    Jesus, you don't even need to be a crazy conspiracy nut... just try turning a fucking phone on in an airplane and see that you can take the tinfoil hat off.

  105. sgian dubhs get checked in by fantomas · · Score: 1

    As noted in your linked wikipedia reference, people check in their sgian dubh when travelling on planes even though its legal to wear one when dressed up in the full rig back home. Quite funny when you see wedding parties travelling out to USA or elsewhere checking in a dozen or more knives into a bag on the ticket counter, ready to be stashed on the flight deck for the duration.

    Mind you when you rent the whole wedding outfit the sgian dubh they put in is some little plastic and tin thing that you'd have a hard time opening letters with :-)

  106. shot down by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    My first reaction is that it was shot down. The small amount of official data does not rule that out. Unfortunately the investigation was blocked by splitting it into two parts and canceling the last one. So it will be a while before we find out what did go on, if ever.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  107. I for one... by Talgrath · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new Klingon overlords.

  108. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think they had halberds, specifically the Sempach model but with shortened hafts. And I have just as much evidence as you do for your crackpot theory.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  109. Dude.. by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Star Wars isn't even real, man.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  110. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

    He's not a moron. He's an asshole who should be put to death in front of his immediate family. He needs his mug of smug of the day otherwise he can't fulfill his OCD obligations of pointing out people wrong on the internet without doing basic fact checking. He's also probably one of the "towers imploded" cunts.

    I'd like to free up some jobs in America by implementing a federal extermination program of these inbred conspiracy wackos and historical revisionists. It's good for the country - it's good for the economy.

  111. I'm utterly amazed by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    That someone recognized it as a Klingon Bat'leth. Who was the trekkie who recognized it? A cop?

  112. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Box cutters was picked by the airlines because it was one of those things that it actually was legal to bring on an airplane, and they wanted it to be a failure of regulations. In reality, they probably, indeed, had combat knives. But the airlines didn't like that, because it would be their failure to keep illegal weapons off airplanes.

    Yeah, that seems sadly accurate.

    In fact, there's not actually any evidence they didn't have guns. The passengers on Flight 93 thought they only had knives, but considering their attack failed, it's entirely possible it failed because, duh, they got shot. And even then, no guns on 93 didn't mean there weren't guns elsewhere.

    Their attack did not fail. It was about to succeed, which is why the terrorists rolled the plane and made it crash rather than have the passengers regain control. If their attack had failed, the terrorists would have remained in control, and the plane would have reached its destination.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  113. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    I don't think I said I had any evidence at all for anything.

    I said there wasn't evidence that they had box cutters, or combat knives, or six Bismarck class battleships hidden in their socks. Nor was there any evidence they didn't have those things.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  114. Klingon What?? by jeddak · · Score: 1

    at first glance, the headline looked like 'Man Robs Convenience Store With Klingon Breath'.

    Boy, I've been accused of having bad breath in the morning, but I can't imagine how bad this guy's must have been!!

  115. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

    Sure, that knife/gun/whatever-wielding guy would only be able to hurt one or two people before they go down.

    It all looks straightforward until you realize that *no one* wants to be the one that gets stuck/shot/whatever.

  116. Hey! Thanks! :D by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I've read about that looong time ago.
    I even remember that they added wooden fins to the torpedoes which allowed their use in the shallow water.
    And that the torpedo nets were referred to as crinolines.

    I just couldn't for the life of me remember WHERE the battle took place. OR who was actually doing the fighting. XD
    Like I said... I was... maybe 10 when I read about it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  117. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Rakarra · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except that Edward Jay Epstein is wrong when he says that no witnesses reported the hijackers having box cutters.

    The 9-11 Commission Report states: "At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft."

    In fact, Epstein later says that Barbara Olson indeed did call her husband and tell him that the terrorists had knives and box-cutters.

    He also argues that since we've not found the remains of plastic knives and box cutters in the rubble (and how would we know that those weren't in the building and not the plane?) and that somehow casts doubt that the terrorists had them. Then he mentions how they may have had guns and bombs, but we didn't find the remains of those either, and yet the earlier doubts don't apply in that situation?

  118. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or is he holding that Bat'leth backwards in the picture?

  119. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Dammit, one misclick and i have to post and wipe out all my other moderations.

    Stupid web 2.0 shit. Give my my damn dropdown and confirmation box back!

    Rant over.

    Sorry, that redundant mod was not intentional.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  120. our decision at work today was by v1 · · Score: 1

    "OK... if you can say 'Give me all your money' in Klingon, you can have it!"

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  121. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    >>It comes down to the information available to the respective passengers.

    You are absolutely right. It does come down to the information that the passengers have.

    In the case of the heroes on Flight 93, they knew about the WTC - having gotten the information when calling for help or to say goodbye to their families.

    Once the people on that plane knew what the deal was, they set the example for how to deal with hijackers going forward.

    God bless them.

    --
    Huh?
  122. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Tycho · · Score: 1

    Well, with combat knives, and using these knives to grievously injure, but more likely ending up killing a flight attendant and IMO, most likely the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer were also killed. Also, there was the application of some kind of liquid noxious chemical agent in the first class section. I'm not sure if it was determined ever if this chemical was lethal, or just an irritant for instance something similar in effects to tear gas. This is what I vaguely remember from published sources when the recorded conversations were released a few years ago. The one much of this comes from I think was a conversation with a flight attendant from the second collision in the World Trade Center. I don't feel like finding sources right now, and may be wrong in places, so go to Wikipedia or get the transcripts from the FAA, NTSB, or whomever.

    --
    Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  123. Ban not needed, paint tips in day-glo orange by lpq · · Score: 1

    You are over-reacting... We don't need to ban all replica's... we can just require that all replica's have the tips painted with day-glo orange paint so they can be quickly determined to be replicas or real...

  124. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

    Why do you honour them as heroes then?

    Why don't you spell "honor" properly? We might take your half-baked opinion more seriously.

    NOT!

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  125. We do not speak of them... by gevantry · · Score: 1

    As Worf said, those more human-looking Klingons are a branch of the Klingon genome that other Klingons do not speak of... Still, they swing a mean batleth.

  126. Re:Enact the assault bag ban! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    My God! you're right! I'm petitioning Obama to outlaw these dangerous bags immediately! We must make our airways safe!

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  127. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It did fail - the passengers didn't regain control and land safely. But given that the terrorists did not reach their intended target, I think we can call it a tie.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  128. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by jbssm · · Score: 0
    Ahahaha.

    Thanks for showing your American ignorance to the world.

    In Europe we learn to write proper English you know, the one that is written and talked by the ones that actually "invented" the language?

    It's written honour not honor!

  129. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and everyone knows going to cuba tops being slashed with a razor.

  130. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Actually it's a Compaq F700 but since the merge I don't bother differentiating between them and HP. :)

    At least I know it's nomet just.

  131. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    At least I know it's nomet just.

    Motherfucker... ...not just me...

  132. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic, but mine does too. Can't figure out what's going on. Also HP.

  133. Just like Shakespeare... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    ...it sounds much better in the original Klingon.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Just like Shakespeare... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      If you're going to use Klingon insults, do it in Klingon. Otherwise I'll confuse your lame Star Trek references with lame attempts at originality.

      That "Klingon Shakespeare" thing was one of the silly trekkie memes that finally drove me away from Star Trek after decades of fanboydom. It's from the second-worst ("Final Frontier" was the worst) ST movie, "The Undiscovered Country". I hated it mainly for the endless mid-20th-century cultural references, including the title (which doesn't make any sense, except to make it sound more literary) and the Shakespeare thing, which was meant to echo the 60s notion (more stereotype than reality) that the Soviets were always saying "We invented it first." The premise that Federation/Klingon rivalry and reconciliation echoed 20th century history was not a bad one, but the way the script kept hitting us over the head with the idea ("don't wait for the translation!") ruined my enjoyment of what might have been a decent SF movie. And the way trekkies seized on the Shakespeare thing as if it were a serious plot point instead of a lame cultural references was the camel-back-breaking straw on a pile that took them a long time to build.

    2. Re:Just like Shakespeare... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you're going to use Klingon insults, do it in Klingon. Otherwise I'll confuse your lame Star Trek references with lame attempts at originality.

      Big hit to my ego, that a little twerp who can't recognise irony with a ten foot luminous sign on it will think I'm lame.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Just like Shakespeare... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm 6'8" you insensitive clod! And there's more to irony than making a Star Trek reference. Come to think of it, Star Trek is the opposite of irony.

  134. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's your touchpad/trackpad? Say while typing you accidentally brush the touchpad and thus move the cursor?

    Is it possible to turn it off and use a mouse instead, and then see if the problem still happens?

    --
  135. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    It is the touchpad, it's got crazy different sensitivity settings. Sometimes is VERY uber responsive, like his typing, and other times it's sluggish, skittish and in general pretty misbehaving. I think it's crap manufacturing, but maybe that's just me. It was a black friday $300 special. :-D

  136. Not a Batleth, a Valdris by Animats · · Score: 1

    The sword nerds have been heard from. After further analysis of the surveillance video, it's been determined that the weapon was not a Batleth, but a Valdris. It's not a useless two-handed sword like the Batleth, it's a large, single-handed, double-ended knife. Retails for $49. More for intimidation than actual use.

    This robber isn't a Trekkie. He's a knife nut.

  137. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Ahahaha.

    Thanks for showing your American ignorance to the world.

    In Europe we learn to write proper English you know, the one that is written and talked by the ones that actually "invented" the language?

    It's written honour not honor!

    I'm perfectly well aware of the variations between American English and Queen's English. My fiancee is African, as it happens: she's multilingual anyway, and she learned Queen's English in childhood. I, on the other hand, am an American and consequently learned American English. You're obviously one of those people who look down upon those who speak other than your "approved" dialect: that's just ridiculous and more than a little arrogant. I'd take pity on you, but you're just too unpleasant.

    In Europe we learn to write proper English you know, the one that is written and talked by the ones that actually "invented" the language?

    Other Europeans may but you do not, at least, not well. Language is written and spoken, for example, not "talked". You would do well to look to your own linguistic skills before deriding mine. Furthermore, it hardly matters who "invented" the language (it's not like languages are copyrighted.) Like most languages that are in widespread use over a significant amount of time, numerous variations appear. American English is one of them, and is arguably the most popular lingua franca ever introduced. My understanding is that China has more people learning American English than the entire population of the United States. That's kind of unnerving, actually, but it means that my variant of English isn't going away anytime soon.

    The fact that I spell honor without the 'u' does not make my language "wrong" or "unacceptable" unless you're a snob, or happen to be feeling inferior to Americans for some reason.

    But that's your problem.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  138. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by jbssm · · Score: 0

    The fact that I spell honor without the 'u' does not make my language "wrong" or "unacceptable"

    Well, I didn't say it, in fact you said the opposite:

    Why don't you spell "honor" properly? We might take your half-baked opinion more seriously.

    You would do well to look to your own linguistic skills before deriding mine

    It's ok, you just answer me in Portuguese, Spanish or French then (or even Italian), and we can all see who has linguistic problems here, ok? Were I come from, people tend to try and be educated ... that also means that you are supposed to learn other languages, not just for the sake of being able to communicate with other people from around the globe (otherwise we would just stick to English), but to actually try and understand a bit more about other cultures.

    unless you're a snob, or happen to be feeling inferior to Americans for some reason.

    And don't worry, nobody in Europe (or at least European Union) feels inferior to Americans in anyway possible, we may have our own problems, but pining to be like Americans would be the last thing in our mind ... we may not have as much money, but at least we have this thing called culture that goes along with another thing called history ... but you probably don't know what that is.

  139. Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh that is rich. Europeans don't try to emulate Americans. Good one.