Slashdot Mirror
TSA: Gun Discoveries In Baggage Up 20% In 2015 Over 2014 (networkworld.com)
coondoggie writes: There was a 20% increase in firearm discoveries at TSA airport checkins from 2014's total of 2,212. It's an astounding number really, but the details get worse. The TSA goes onto say 2,653 firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the country, averaging more than seven firearms per day. Of those, 2,198 (83%) were loaded. Firearms were intercepted at a total of 236 airports; 12 more airports than last year. Last year a TSA spokesman, when asked of the TSA has a theory on why so many more guns are being brought onboard airlines, Tweeted “The vast majority of passengers just tell law enforcement, ‘I forgot.’ We continue to remind passengers they can check them.”
It is not surprising that there are ths many attempts, or that most of them are accidental. There are a staggering number of people flying, and a high number of guns in the US.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/) says there were 689 million passenger enplanements. You can do the math, but approximately 2,000 guns found is nowhere near a concerning number. It sounds shocking on the face of it, but with a decade of record gun sales and a strong movement for people to carry concealed, I expected for more to be found.
More people are bringing guns or the TSA is getting better at finding them?
Women are the majority of gun owners
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...
Gun ownership among men: 45%
Gun ownership among women: 12%
But so forgetful that you leave it in your carry-on accidentally?
It's not like they changed the rule about firearms on planes recently. That kind of irresponsibility should get you on some ATF no-buy list. If you can't be bothered to be cognizant of carrying a weapon, you shouldn't carry one.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Getting a gun on board isn't really very useful any more. The cabin door will be locked, and threatening to kill people isn't going to get them to open it. Shooting up the plane is unlikely to do enough damage to bring it down, especially since other passengers will immediately intervene. Maybe you could put a hole in a window, and force the aircraft to descend to a lower altitude and deploy oxygen masks, but that's about it.
The real reason to keep guns off aircraft is to stop morons being a pain in the arse with them, not terrorism. The last long haul flight I was on they gave me a metal knife to cut my dinner up with, because realistically what could I do with it?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually, the top 5 cities for violent crime are all cities lack gun control (4 of which are legally banned, by state law, from enacting gun control).
and cities like New York, with its strict gun control, is actually ranked one of the safest cities in the country.
Damn.
So much for your BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/07/07/chicagonola.jpg
What's interesting to me is how stunningly higher the murder rates are than the gun-only murder rates: less than 18% of Detroit's murders were committed by a gun.
We should ban whatever they use the other 82% of the time.
Damn those peskier facts.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Not really a scare article. It's just the TSA issuing press releases trying to make it sound like they're doing a good job despite the fact that they fail 95% of the their own tests of their system.
As a European, I continue to be utterly bemused/scared by America's obsession with owning guns. I know all the arguments that usually get trotted out, they just sound like crazy talk to me.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Getting a gun on board isn't really very useful any more.
But on second thoughts, while shooting up a single plane wouldn't do much, think about how much terrorism you could do by shooting up an airport - although you don't need to go through security to do that.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments can be rolled back just as easily, especially once precedents are set.
They already have. The second is protected because people want their toys, not because they worry about the constitution.
In fact, the security line itself would make a great target for a terrorist. Pick a busy airport at a very busy time of year. Get a suitcase so it looks like you're going on a flight, walk to the security line and wait until you're in the middle of it. Once you've completed your task (and presumably you are dead, but that's not a problem for most terrorists), flights will be messed up for days in that airport. Time this with a couple of people in other airports and you'd mess up flights all over the country as people panic. (And then will come the "we've got to do something" legislation from politicians stripping away more of our freedom to "protect" us from everything.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There is approximately one billion of passengers in United States, an approximate number which includes domestic, international and private aviation helicopters and planes.
Let's crunch some numbers: 2,700 handguns were discovered for one billion boardings equals to approximately one gun per 370,000 passengers.
Let's take into the prospective:
On average, statistically, in this country there is 1.1 weapon per every person. We do not break down by the type of gun or passenger, but three forgetful citizens out of one million is a really really low number.
Here are some sobering conclusions:
1. None of the passengers had intention of using the weapon. Why? Because nobody used. Because if they wanted to they would have.
2. Even if there would be no TSA, the safety would not deteriorate or decrease. Metal detectors manned by the private screeners could detect all the forgotten weapons. More: currently cockpit doors are locked as such, a handgun inside the plane is pretty much useless. Yes: you can shoot a hole or kill a passenger or two, but the rest of passengers will tear you apart.
So it all boils down to how the question is presented:
" Why so many guns were brought to the airport".
The real questions should have been following:
Question: "In a country with 400 million guns only less than 3,000 guns are brought to the airport. All of the owners meant to leave the gun in a checked in bag? Is existence, the cost, and the false sense of security of TSA justified?"
The real answer: "No. One segment fee of $5.60 is an evidence of mind boggling waste and incompetence. This $5.60 will only increase in the future. TSA should be disbanded and handling of the security should be up to the airports and the carriers".
Based on your comments, like most people, you believe that in order for citizens to have a right, it must be granted by the constitution. In fact, it is just the opposite. The constitution grants rights and responsibilities to the government and any responsibility not explicitly granted to the government remains the right of the people. Many of the founders specifically objected to the Bill of Rights for this reason because it made it seem like if the constitution wasn't giving a right to the people, then they didn't have that right. You don't only have the rights in the bill of rights. You have ALL rights unless a specific limitation is put in place in the constitution granting the government dominion over a particular activity. Do not fall into the trap of saying that if it isn't in the Bill of RIghts, it's not a right.
"I forgot" as an excuse for bringing a firearm on a plane should mean you are instantly put on a no-buy and no-fly list, and that any other guns you own must be turned over to authorities.
If you're so irresponsible that you can't remember that you're carrying a firearm, let alone a loaded one, onto a plane, then you're far, far, far too irresponsible to be trusted with a firearm under any circumstances. It very likely means you "forget" to put the guns properly in a safe or "forget" rules of responsible use, or "forget" who the hell knows what.
If you're so paranoid about terrorists that you'll try and sneak a firearm onto a plane "just in case" (and then cowardly enough to lie about why you did it, to boot) then you're probably not mentally stable enough to be a responsible firearm owner and the same rules should apply - no-buy, no-fly and your guns are confiscated.
I don't have a problem with responsible, sane gun ownership, but in no way, shape, or form does bringing a firearm onto a plane in your carry-on unless you're an air marshal, intersect with either "responsible" or "sane."
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I can see that you extrapolated based on those three columns, but the graphic isn't exactly clear on how they're arriving at those numbers - they could be pulled from two totally different sets of data for all we know. In a clearer statement, "data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders" in 2011.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crim...
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I thought the mantra was that gun owners are responsible. If they forget they have a loaded gun on them, they are clearly not responsible, by the very definition of the word.
... we could all just fly naked. Think of the advantages! No more worries about concealed weapons that are any larger than will comfortably fit in an orifice. An opportunity to really get to know your neighbor. Necessarily improved climate control -- no more flights that are too cold or too warm. And a complete lack of literalist religious folk on the aircraft, because for most of them appearing naked in public is an even bigger sin than allowing infidels to spread lies about the one true faith or failing to bring on the apocalypse so Jesus can return to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.
The merely prudish would, of course, take the train, which would be a welcome burst of new business for alternative transportation. Throw in a little alcohol and a whole new meaning of "in-flight entertainment" could emerge as a new cultural norm. The increased happiness among fliers could lead us to world peace!
It's the perfect solution. At least as long as they have one of those boxes that say "your body must fit inside of this box in order to take this flight" -- for humans...
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
The funny thing about guns in cities is that they are only loosely related.
Chicago. Last year. Same laws for the entire city. Some zip codes had NO shootings, and others had around 100. What is the difference? Poverty.
No surprise, but zip codes with no shootings have money. Zip codes with dozens of shootings have poverty. So, instead of focusing on the guns, why not focus on the REAL problem?
Does anybody think that lax gun laws would actually create shootings in areas with money? Chicago already HAS strict gun laws, and that does not seem to help much.
And before anybody says "The criminals get their guns from cities with looser laws," compare Chicago with Dallas. About the same size, but Dallas has more lax laws, and less homicide.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So given that there are 7 guns on airplanes everyday, can we assume that in years prior that was a good rule of thumb?
Why then are there not 7 highjackings every day?
Why are there not 7 air rage shootings everyday?
Could it be because most people carrying weapons aren't bad guys? They just want protection and don't mean to cause any harm? Certainly if they wanted to cause harm they could have.