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."
He should be stripped of his land and titles.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
9/11 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
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.
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.
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
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!"
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.
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; }
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.'"
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
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!"
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
Just to piss you off! That is why!
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."