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.”

23 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. Not surprising by snorris01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Is that because... by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More people are bringing guns or the TSA is getting better at finding them?

  3. Bullshit by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Women are the majority of gun owners

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...

    Gun ownership among men: 45%
    Gun ownership among women: 12%

    1. Re:Bullshit by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've made your bed, time to enjoy your nap while the adults clean up the mess liberal Democrats made yet again.

      I stand amazed at the projection coming from the Right. The Bush Administration spent 8 years nearly ruining this country; starting unnecessary wars, curtailing civil liberties, and implementing irresponsible tax cuts. By the end of his presidency even hardcore Republicans were running away from him and the whole country couldn't wait to elect a different president. Yet you still write sentences like that above and expect to be taken seriously.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  4. Responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It happens, it does not make one irresponsible, maybe a bit too complacent, but not necessarily irresponsible.

      I would argue that leaving a weapon such as a gun in an unsecured/uncontrolled location* and not knowing where that weapon is, is the epitome of being irresponsible.

      *You may consider it safe while it was in his own home, but once he left that location and was out and about with no clue he was carrying a weapon - well that is a different story all together.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, by Yunzil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forgets in his rush to remove the firearm. It happens, it does not make one irresponsible, maybe a bit too complacent, but not necessarily irresponsible.

      Um, being too forgetful to properly store your deadly weapon is, by definition, irresponsible. Sorry.

    3. Re:Responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > but the mistake is understandable in that example

      No it's not. You don't get to have mistakes with deadly weapons. That is how things like three year old's shooting themselves with your gun happen. It is irresponsible to not know where your firearm. You decide to own one your are responsible for it 24/7.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, by driblio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a properly holstered pistol in the hands of a qualified carrier isn't any more dangerous [than a bottle of water].

      Please hand in your weapons. For the safety of your family and all those around you.

      Liquids are banned from planes because they may be liquid explosives. Not because water is dangerous. People have every right to forget they are carrying a bottle of water. A pistol is not the same.

      Maybe you're joking... i hope so.

  5. Re:Women are the majority of gun owners by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:And shootings on airplanes are... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. A mystery by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:A mystery by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without the guns, we'd still be the Colonies.

  8. Re:Women are the majority of gun owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:2212 guns being "smuggled" into airports by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. It is all about the spin in the question by Trachman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

     

  11. You've already accepted a roll-back by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re: You've already accepted a roll-back by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Attempts to block gay marriage. Supporting public officials illegally refusing to grant marriage licenses based on their own religious beliefs. Denying employees medical coverage for types of treatments that are just fine by the employees beliefs but not by the employers.

      All of those are things which actually deny others their rights but somehow were twisted into the person trying to limit another being denied their right to religious freedom.

  12. "I forgot" by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:"I forgot" by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many people were intentionally or accidentally killed with a bottle of water last year? How may with guns.

      There's the justification for the difference in the severity of the penalty.

      By the way - if you get caught with a bottle of anything over 3 ounces, you must forfeit the bottle and it is destroyed (thrown away or dumped out). I suspect that was not the case with the firearms in question.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:"I forgot" by offrdbandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm [insert BS disenfranchised class here]" as an excuse for not having an ID should mean you are instantly put on a no-vote and no-welfare list, and any property you own must be turned over to the authorities. If you're so irresponsible that you can't take the time to get an ID, let alone a free one from your state, then you're far, far, far too irresponsible to be trusted to make decisions that impact our national laws under any circumstance. It very likely means you are too "disenfranchised" to have coherent opinions on meaningful issues, or simply vote for whomever will dis-"disenfranchised" you buy giving you free crap, or who the hell knows what. I could go on, but I think you get the idea...

  13. Re:Women are the majority of gun owners by rockout · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  14. Re:Women are the majority of gun owners by harrkev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."