Slashdot Mirror


Airline Passenger Walked Past Security With a Loaded Gun Magazine (apnews.com)

An airline passenger "passed a security checkpoint with a loaded gun magazine," reports the Associated Press, citing information from an airport duty manager: Bob Rotiski said the passenger who apparently had visited a shooting range packed a loaded magazine in his carry-on bag. He said an officer identified the magazine during security screening, but the wrong bag was pulled from the line. By that time, the passenger had already left the checkpoint with the bag containing the magazine....

Security lines were closed and flights were temporarily grounded at a San Francisco International Airport terminal...for nearly an hour, and United Airline flights out of Terminal 3 were grounded Saturday morning as TSA officers looked for the passenger.

"Rotiski said the lines reopened after officers located the passenger and brought him back for re-screening."

171 comments

  1. Theater by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ain't nothing more entertaining than the play that is security theater.

    1. Re:Theater by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Well, at least as long as you are not a passenger waiting for a flight.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Theater by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or the reality TV that is politics.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not theater. TSA takes this stuff very seriously. It's sad people also don't take it seriously.

    4. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that bullets without a gun don't really DO anything, right?

    5. Re:Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have billed the value lost for the terminal halt and the additional search from the passenger. Must..privatize..all..security..and..the air-traffic system..for great justice!

    6. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're spot on!
      It would only take one kid to make a pop tart gun on the plane to raise this to crisis level...
      THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

    7. Re:Theater by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine the carnage if that guy decided to start throwing cartridges at people!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uneducated, easily distracted, minimum wage people playing security is pretty funny.

    9. Re:Theater by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That's not what I meant. But in a security fuckup all planes are grounded until it is resolved.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone smuggling a firearm into an airport with the intent to use it might as well smuggle ammo with it too. There's no reason to make it more complicated than that.

    11. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This kind of scenario is quite rare. The vast majority of breaches take place without anyone ever realising.

    12. Re: Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of actors take their work seriously, but still work in a theatre.

      The seriousness the TSA staff takes while working wasn't in question. The effectiveness of it is.

    13. Re:Theater by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ain't nothing more entertaining than the play that is security theater.

      LOL.. Ain't that the truth. The TSA is basically "feel good" theater that pretends they are making you more secure. Any determined attacker is not stopped by their efforts.

      The only real way to do security in airports is to do things that TSA simply cannot do, profile, run background checks on everybody and making sure to positively ID everybody. Americans wouldn't stand for such invasive searching and as a result, the TSA can only put on a show.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:Theater by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Ain't that the truth. The TSA is basically "feel good" theater that pretends they are making you more secure. Any determined attacker is not stopped by their efforts."

      Yet they will still cost the tax payers billions and piss us all off with tremendous inconvenience in the process.

      >"The only real way to do security in airports is to do things that TSA simply cannot do[...]Americans wouldn't stand for such invasive searching"

      We can hope they [we] will continue to not stand for it, too. But I fear those days are numbered.

    15. Re:Theater by SimonInOz · · Score: 2

      The funny thing is that what a terrorist wants is a large collection of people, all crowded together, in a place where no security checks occur.

      Like, you know, the queue for the security checks.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    16. Re:Theater by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"The funny thing is that what a terrorist wants is a large collection of people, all crowded together, in a place where no security checks occur. Like, you know, the queue for the security checks."

      Yep. Criminals and terrorists also love so-called "gun-free" zones for the same reason- very low chance of anyone fighting back (because the law-abiding "good" people are stripped of their arms but not the "bad" people), sensitive area, lots of people and often children.

    17. Re: Theater by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      if I point an unloaded gun at you, you will do what i say ( unless you realize it's unloaded). If I point bullets at you, you'll laugh at me.

  2. FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one cares about a loaded magazine as there is no firearm.
    Ship them all day long in the belly of the plane as well.
    Govenment security is no security, all they do is clean up after, so stop begging for them.
    Protect yourselves instead, openly carry your own defensive arms to discourage maldoers.
    Choose insured airlines that have their own private security that you can inspect and audit freely publicly at will without top secrets.

    THEN and ONLY then will you ever have actual security.

    1. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security against ... what? We live in the least violent time in human history, especially in the US where we have a generally trustworthy justice system. You are much more likely to be hit by lightening than need to use a gun to defend yourself during air travel. Does your firearm secure you against lightening strikes? Stop living in fear. Stop giving the politicians power by listening to their fear mongering.

    2. Re:FUD by ledow · · Score: 1

      If your last sentence is true, I hereby opt out of "actual security".

    3. Re:FUD by geoskd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      THEN and ONLY then will you ever have actual security.

      Yes, but who is going to defend me from you?

      I have my own gun, and I use it to defend myself from you. I shoot you, you shoot me. In the end, I'm still dead. Now, if neither of us had a gun in the first place, we would both still be alive.

      The second amendment does not permit you to carry gun to defend yourself from violent crime. If that were the case, the best defense would be banning weapons altogether. The second amendment is there so that you can defend yourself against tyranny. The part you missed is that the defense of liberty must be paid with blood, and that invariably includes the blood of the defenders.

      Put another way, you have the right to bear arms, only in so far as that right is exercised in defense of liberty, but there is no guarantee that the process wont kill you. A weapon can't protect life, only take it

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    4. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know how I can tell you are white?

    5. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The had to report it as a âoeloaded gunâ magazine but to scare people to read. Bullets are as safe as a gun. Itâ(TM)s people that are dangerous.

    6. Re:FUD by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No one cares about a loaded magazine as there is no firearm.

      So, literally, no one?

      Security lines were closed and flights were temporarily grounded at a San Francisco International Airport terminal...for nearly an hour ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid argument. Give everyone guns, let them hijack the plane if they wish and then an article gets written by a newspaper on what happened to a gifted young child that turned them insane - and offering more thoughts and prayers.

      This is classic shitty America for you, and the NRA are a bunch of irresponsible jackasses who don't know how to stop selling firearms and assault rifles.

    8. Re:FUD by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      This.

      CaptainDork's Corollary: "Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but they don't have the right to use them."

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he used proper grammar.

    10. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass.

    11. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If that were the case, the best defense would be banning weapons altogether. "

      Because violent criminals are well renowned for their respect of the law.

    12. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now, if neither of us had a gun in the first place, we would both still be alive.

      No. The larger, stronger person more skilled in hand to hand combat would be alive. Your statement ignores thousands of years of history which clearly identifies people killing each other before guns came along.

    13. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are hit by lightning it wonâ(TM)t do very much if you are in a plane. If you are hit by a bullet however...

    14. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I carry a gun you have no reason to defend yourself from me unless I'm threatening your life.

      Most people are not criminals. Fact is that more guns = less crime. Lookup the FBI stats.

      An armed populace is a polite populous.

    15. Re:FUD by cstacy · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're one of those people who believe that the preamble in the 2A makes the right limited and conditional.. Fortunately, you are dead wrong.

      DEAD wrong.

    16. Re:FUD by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      The second amendment does not permit you to carry gun to defend yourself from violent crime.

      DC v. Heller explicitly states that carrying a firearm for self-defense is a purpose of the 2nd Amendment; the Supreme Court held that 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re: FUD by rfengr · · Score: 1

      You mean gun violence is very low? I totally agree.

    18. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As in spelling "lightning" incorrectly twice?
      That post has SJW written all over it.

    19. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guessed it, I am white. Are you suggesting that the best strategy for non-whites is to carry guns?

    20. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The second amendment does not permit you to carry gun to defend yourself from violent crime. ....
      The second amendment is there so that you can defend yourself against tyranny.

      But that's not what the supreme court has actually ruled. The Supreme Court ruled against the DC handgun ban, and specifically mentioned self defense.

      The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

    21. Re:FUD by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Are you in your home as mentioned in the 2008 Supreme Court Heller self-defence decision? If not, are you part of a well regulated militia?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    22. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eyeroll

    23. Re:FUD by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I'm anti-guns but this must be some of the crappiest arguments I've heard. People get stabbed, bludgeoned, hacked and strangled to death without guns too. Your average "family tragedy" doesn't take anything more than kitchen knifes or a tool rack. Short of a very few protected individuals very few could survive an outright assassination attempt, even the celebrities with bodyguards aren't equipped like the Secret Service. And even they have problems if someone comes in guns blazing. The main arguments I have against it is:

      a) Escalation: In Europe it's rare that a burglary/robbery ends up being an unplanned murder. I mean in that swatting case we saw a SWAT team in full gear shoot a guy lit up by a floodlight because one of the cops thought he might be reaching for something. What's the risk a lone cat burglar/mugger thinks you were reaching for a gun? Nobody outruns bullets. With knives it'll default towards getting the fuck out of there.
      b) Amplification: We have killers but we rarely have killing sprees, people kill those they're extremely angry with but not everyone in sight. It actually takes effort to chase down and kill a victim, while with a gun it's easy to take as many people with you as possible, with very little time to escape.
      c) Collateral: You often hear tragic cases of little kids and other bystanders hit by stray bullets and such, that just doesn't happen with melee weapons. Heck, sometimes it's not even the attacker's bullets it's those trying to defend themselves or the cops. It's just messed up for everybody.
      d) Asymmetry: Western-style duels are pretty damn rare. If you have the time and chance to retreat you often have the time to lock the door, block the door and call 911. If you're already at gunpoint the gun on your hip doesn't do much good. They always get to pick the time and place and come prepared, you don't.

      In 1786 I would have preferred my own gun too, it's not like they had a cell phone to call the police. The sheriff was somebody you could ride into town to tell about it hours after the fact, if you were still alive. Also they didn't exactly have much in the way of fingerprints and DNA, wear a mask and you were an anonymous bandit. The militia that was supposed to be all able-bodied men who kept their own guns, it pretty clear if you read the history they did not want the government to be able to disarm the population. But in the 18th century you'd be pretty crazy to think that's the only thing it was for.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    24. Re:FUD by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      While I agree completely in your assessment of the 2A; What makes you so sure that if neither of us, in a hypothetical fight, would both be alive? If you attack me I play for keeps. I gouge eyes, I can crush your trake with my index finger and middle finger, I shatter elbows, and if tour down I will stomp your cervical vertibrae with combat boots. The fight isnt over until I am certain the threat is neutralized. Which means your not getting up. A gurney or body bag, either will suffice. This is how Ive been trained for more than 30yrs. The nearest object becomes a weapon. I can generate enough snapping force from the end of a child size aluminum bat to shatter a skull with one strike to the temple. Why does everyone think nobody ever killed eachother before firearms came around? Never put all your eggs in one basket. This includes personal defense.

    25. Re:FUD by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Would poison gas pass as an arm as it is illegal in a militia setting unlike most weapons.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns don't kill people, they just make it a whole lot easier to do so.

    27. Re:FUD by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Ah, nothing more free than enforced politeness at the point of gun.

      Much better than having to pay taxes, which libertarian tossers like you keep telling us is also a form of violence.

      Nice to see libertarians showing their true colours once again - you only care that you get to exercise a freedom to intimidate other people. Politeness backed by threat of death. So FREE!

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    28. Re:FUD by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      But but but you don't get to pretend to be a hero going down with an awesome soundtrack when they play your story in the theatre!

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    29. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âA weapon can't protect life, only take itâ(TM)

      Lies. One of the best home defense deterrents is the unmistakable sound of chambering the shotgun shell.

    30. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A weapon can't protect life, only take it"

      False. Just the mere display of a weapon can, and is, a deterrent to violent acts every fucking day. Educate yourself.

    31. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We know you are white because you called the US justice system "generally trustworthy". The only time the US justice system is generally trustworthy is if you are white, and appear to be above the poverty line. Also helps if you look like you might be well connected.

    32. Re:FUD by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Yes, but who is going to defend me from you?

      I have my own gun, and I use it to defend myself from you. I shoot you, you shoot me. In the end, I'm still dead. Now, if neither of us had a gun in the first place, we would both still be alive.

      No. You would be dead by a knife on your belly, as the assassin would be pretty sure you are defenseless, and he would walk away from it easily.

      Guns are no a life insurance. Guns are deterrences. And on your example, you take the bastard with you - one less criminal walking on the streets.

      But this doesn't concerns you, as all you are worried about is on your own survival, with complete disregard of anyone else, right?

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    33. Re:FUD by Lisias · · Score: 1

      The first two sentences were from the parent post. Somehow, the quoting failed on me here.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    34. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is, in the US we start from the premise that a secure society requires a trustworthy justice system. This is better than most previous history where the starting point was, explicitly, that you get the security you can buy. This still exists in many places, where bribery is a daily fact of life. I know our system has serious flaws. But you do not need a gun here to keep the police thugs from taking your livelihood. In fact, the vast majority of people in the US do not *need* a gun ever. So the discussion of gun ownership, thankfully, does not need to start from a premise of security. We can discuss whether people should have guns in planes, but security does not realistically factor into it.

    35. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are you in your home as mentioned in the 2008 Supreme Court Heller self-defence[sic] decision?

      The Heller decision didn't say you had to be within your home for self-defense with a firearm to be lawful. The only reason it restricted itself to use within the home is because that was the question before the court. Self defense uses outside the home simply weren't addressed.

      > are you part of a well regulated militia?

      Well, that's an argument that has been going on since the 2nd amendment was crafted. Some of the founding fathers described the militia as the whole body of the American people (George Mason, James Madison, Richard Henry Lee, for example). Others described militias as up to the states to form and regulate (John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and other early federalists).

    36. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to believe that while the rest of us carry concealed longbows.

      Also, you know how many people have not been killed because I don't have a gun? None. Because I'm not a raging psychopath who wants to kill people, who is stopped only by the law and fear of retaliation.

      So if you beat up my friend, I and the rest of our friends will go and beat you up. Could get busy. We can delegate the revenge beat ups to a group of people. Maybe some others could be delegated exactly what is a beatupable offense. Different degrees of beating. Some other stuff too. We could call it government. There might be a few psychos left though, so in my version we would fund mental asylums for for, to treat or at least keep them away from us before actual prison is necessary.

    37. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context matters.

      Nothing in the second amendment says you can have guns. It says "bear arms". Hunting was big back in the day, so if you killed something and a beast tried to steal your kill and you fight it off, you were allowed to keep those bear arms/paws as a trophy.

    38. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes! An internet tough guy talks about how violent he would become, using words that he thinks makes him sound dangerous. Truly a manly specimen posting from his totally NOT budget housing, in an area that isn't impressive from the outside, but ain't that bad, all-in-all.

      Truly, you have cowed me, oh great warrior. Now back to the original question. Yes, I want fries with that.

      -E4manlier

    39. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An attorney who represented McDonald in McDonald v. City of Chicago states that self defense IS an affirmative justification under the 2A. Me thinks you're talking out your ass.

    40. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree completely in your assessment of the 2A; What makes you so sure that if neither of us, in a hypothetical fight, would both be alive? If you attack me I play for keeps. I gouge eyes, I can crush your trake with my index finger and middle finger, I shatter elbows, and if tour down I will stomp your cervical vertibrae with combat boots. The fight isnt over until I am certain the threat is neutralized. Which means your not getting up. A gurney or body bag, either will suffice. This is how Ive been trained for more than 30yrs. The nearest object becomes a weapon. I can generate enough snapping force from the end of a child size aluminum bat to shatter a skull with one strike to the temple. Why does everyone think nobody ever killed eachother before firearms came around? Never put all your eggs in one basket. This includes personal defense.

      Because generally a melee weapon does not make collateral damage (good guy missed and hits a kid for instance) and also as they are generally not a ranged weapon one could get away from the bad guy a little easier if one was so inclined.

      I've seen arguments against banning guns that only the good guys hand back guns and then all you have is a lot of armed bad guys.
      While this is true in a sense it is also a strawman.
      While the normal law abiding citizen has less access to guns if they were banned there would be less guns for the criminals as well as they couldn't get access in legal avenues and there would be less around to steal.

      Why haven't you gun loving Americans used your 2nd amendment rights to overthrow the tyrannical governments we have had since 2001, especially over the last 6 or so years.
      With all the power going to the police and all the invasion of privacy (stingrays, NSA, CIA etc).
      because you can't, you don't have the power.

    41. Re: FUD by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      You know how I can tell you are a dumb fucking woketard?

    42. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll probably get modded into oblivion, but you're spot on.

    43. Re:FUD by cstacy · · Score: 1

      The main finding ot Heller was that the 2A describes an "individual right", not some kind of state-sponsored organizational right. The framers specifically said that the only individuals who might be excluded were "some Government officials". It's easy to go back and read what the intentions and meanings of the words were in their historical context. Including "shall not be infringed". Gun control is purely a modern invention, and most gun control rhetoric is simply nonsense.

    44. Re:FUD by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Would poison gas pass as an arm as it is illegal in a militia setting unlike most weapons.

      Not sure where you get this "militia setting" idea; are you referring to the fact
      that international "law" has banned poison gas? In general, the idea of the
      2A was that the individuals should have the same capability as the army,
      because that's who they might have to fight in the next revolution.
      (And of course the usual deterrent effect is in play here.)

      They had weapons at the time that might surprise you, including high
      rate of fire guns, and of course they had cannons and so forth.
      In any event is the principle of keeping up with the army.

      They didn't have nuclear weapons, but those aren't commonly
      thought of as "arms". The scale of effect that is intended by the
      2A rights is that of soldier versus citizen. An "arm" is something
      that can be wielded by a man or a group of men against each other.
      So, generally any kind of projectile weaponry that is aimed at individuals.
      Poison gas, nuclear weapons, biological or radiological devices,
      are not usually considered "arms" under this concept.

      Whether a state government should have things like nuclear weapons
      is less a question of scale, and more a question of whether you think
      New York is going to nuke Kentucky to prevent succession.
      (The answer is "No" for a variety of reasons.)

      It is easy to go back and read all about wha they were thinking.
      You don't have to take my or any else's word for it.

    45. Re:FUD by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm referring to poison gas being banned in international law (treaty) and that the preamble was to make it clear that the 2nd was as much about the militia as the usual reasons to bear arms (Bill of Rights of 1689 only gave the right to bear arms for self defence), which leads to the idea that the arms allowed are similar to the standing armies arms. A wide category but not unlimited.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    46. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By calling people names?

    47. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to defend yourself from violent crime.

      I was given to understand that police in some US cities instruct residents to protect themselves by using a gun (but not compulsory 'carry'): A consequence of budget-cuts. Or, residents decide police are incapable of providing protection and use a gun.

      ... defend yourself against tyranny.

      The mantra of 'evil government' means everything is an act of tyranny. This is why many political-right activists choose to 'fight it with guns'.

      "They have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance; they get angry, they get scared.", David Hemenway.

    48. Re: FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the stats that show that States with looser gun laws have more crimes? Those stats? What are you, stupid?

    49. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two issues with your argument:

      > A weapon can't protect life, only take it

      Not true. Not only is it difficult to measure the effectiveness of a deterrent, but there are crimes prevented by a CCW holder every month where a gun was used to hold the criminal at bay.

      The other issue is the fact that criminals will have access and exercise that access whether guns are banned or not. The only people that suffer under a gun ban are law-abiding citizens. If you don't think this is the case, consider how trivial it is to get your hands on illicit substances. They may be illegal, and you can't walk somewhere to easily grab some, but a determined individual can get their hands on them with [not too much] effort.

    50. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to limit ownership to only those in a militia, then we should really make things totally consistent and allow militia members to have everything they would normally have. Back then, private gunships and canons were a thing because militias were expected to wield the full might of a military. So I think it's fair that we get to own and use mortars and other artillery, as well as automatic weapons.
      All I have to do now is join a well regulated militia. Oh wait, I'm already in one, ever since I turned 18 and signed up for the selective service as I'm required to do. M-16 now, please!

    51. Re:FUD by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      define "free state".
      Also, Weapons protect life all the time.

    52. Re:FUD by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So that large criminals can freely intimidate the smaller members of society. got it.

    53. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled color, and used the term "tosser" .
      I gather you're British, or one the variants.
      We get it, you're still upset you lost cause of the guns.
      But you lost India too, and they didn't have any guns at all. So, there is that...

  3. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

    "Rotiski said the lines reopened after officers located the passenger and brought him back for re-screening."

    By which time he could have passed off anything else he was carrying to anyone else in the departure lounges who were already "past security" and they could have easily taken it onto a plane.

    Well done guys.

    1. Re:Sigh. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The (short) story doesn't say if the TSAs were able to find the loaded magazine. This is a key point, though.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Sigh. by PPH · · Score: 2

      This.

      If you want to get a weapon by security, you smuggle it in a piece at a time. Over many weeks. And hide the pieces somewhere inside the secured area. If one courier gets stopped, you just repeat the process until a complete set of parts gets in. Assemble and walk onto an airplane.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Sigh. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      There are much easier, lower risk strategies that security can't address that there is no point in this type of complexity. Anything can be brought onboard for a price.

    4. Re:Sigh. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      In 'murica, you just buy a new gun at the other end.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Sigh. by Megane · · Score: 1

      Nah, he wasn't finished reading his magazine yet, no way would he give it to someone else!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  4. Big surprise by geoskd · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not surprised that this happened. I am surprised that they actually figured out who it was *before* he got on a plane. That level of competence is a little out of character for the TSA.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    1. Re:Big surprise by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Funny

      Announcement: "Will the passenger with the loaded gun magazine that already made it past security please return to security, thank you"

    2. Re:Big surprise by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I am surprised that they actually figured out who it was *before* he got on a plane.

      You emphasize *before* as if people don't need to stand around for 40 minutes before getting on a plane, and as if they weren't in control of the time they had to find him: "flights were temporarily grounded"

    3. Re:Big surprise by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Well, FWIW, SFO does private screening, so it isn't actually TSA.

    4. Re:Big surprise by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Well, FWIW, SFO does private screening, so it isn't actually TSA.

      Really? It said TSA on the badges the last time I went through.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that the traditional British solution?

    6. Re:Big surprise by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      No, check the letters carefully. While the logo looks like TSA’s it is CAS.

    7. Re:Big surprise by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      OK. I will in May when I next go through SFO.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  5. Firearm or air pistol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't say... I could have loaded .22 pellet magazines in my luggage, who does that bother?

    1. Re:Firearm or air pistol by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I could have the wooden handle from a trench knife hidden in my sock.

    2. Re:Firearm or air pistol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst thing is, even after they dragged him back to the checkpoint they still didn't confiscate his trigger finger. What a fucking joke these people are.

    3. Re:Firearm or air pistol by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would easily fit in your underwear.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  6. I'll be glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll sure be glad when they finally catch all the terrorists & we can go back to normal.

    Any day now.

  7. No the system actually worked here by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. They did identify the clip
    2. But they searched the wrong bag.

    WOuld you, as a hijacker, think that was a great way to smuggle in a gun? No. while (2) happened it's a low probability event. Not something you would count on.

    Thus as a deterrent for overt attacks this is worked. Not saying the process can't somehow be subverted in some other way but this particular example is not a good one to point at and yell "security theater".

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: No the system actually worked here by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      They also realized their mistake, grounded the plane, and tracked him down. So it sounds like the process worked.

    2. Re:No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The TSA is security theater, though. From a year and a half ago:
      https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188

      The TSA's tactics does not deter any would be wrong-doer, and inconveniences everyone. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber plots, for example, were uncovered despite of the TSA, not because of them. The additional screening were implemented after the fact, which further suggests it's all security theater.

    3. Re:No the system actually worked here by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      Oh no, you said clip instead of magazine! That invalidates your entire argument!

    4. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Protected the public from nothing. Wasted time and money. Job well done.

    5. Re: No the system actually worked here by markdavis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >"Protected the public from nothing. Wasted time and money. Job well done."

      +1 exactly

    6. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people put security as a priority above all else. Some don't. It is what it is.

    7. Re:No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knee jerk asshole in the house. Fuckin Slashdot.

    8. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had bag X-ray machines well before the TSA started searching bodies. I agree the TSA is useless.

    9. Re:No the system actually worked here by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well as it turns out, (1) is also a low probability event, as their own internal tests show that it's quite easy to walk right on through with dangerous items. They fail 80-95% of the time. Locking the cockpit doors and changing passenger attitudes is what stopped more terror attacks, not sexually assaulting little kids and old women in wheel chairs, making everyone take off their shoes, conducting virtual strip searches, or any other of ridiculous security theater they've got going.

    10. Re:No the system actually worked here by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      I recently took a trip to the UK, and their airport security system would have prevented this particular mistake. At Heathrow, there are two conveyor belts past the scanner, and the person viewing the scanned images can send the item to the cleared belt or the belt for further inspection. Absent this system, the TSA procedure should have been to stop the belt completely until the scanning person points out that item for further inspection.

    11. Re:No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is precisely what should be pointed to as security theater - it's the performance and shenanigans that the public sees. The more predictable ways of someone getting a weapon or firearm inside the security checkpoint will never be seen until it's too late. I know people that have carried unauthorized, loaded firearms into the secured area and the public doesn't know ... because the everyone is too entertained by the security theater that has the appearance for being effective.

    12. Re: No the system actually worked here by sjames · · Score: 1

      And some put fake security above all else. What was he going to DO with a matgazine? TSA again burned a pile of other people's money for no gain in safety.

    13. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there is no option in the US for people who think it's security theater. I wouldn't give two fuck if I were flying on an airline where people's with a concealed carry permit were carrying.

    14. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is some other guy going to do with a gun with no magazine?

      Or 6 other dudes with bomb parts, but no bomb?

      Obviously from your conclusion, nothing, it would be impossible.

    15. Re:No the system actually worked here by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      With their success rate for finding shit for every mag they find 4 make it through. So to say the system works is pretty moronic. That would be like saying that a fire suppression system that goes off for 1 out of 5 fires is a working system.

    16. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in hind sight

    17. Re: No the system actually worked here by sjames · · Score: 1

      The answer is to try not to screw up 2 or 3 times within a critical window.

    18. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Protected the public from nothing. Wasted time and money. Job well done.

      This is by far not nothing. Ever heard of a zip gun? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm The movie "Munich" has a perfect example where a zip gun is disguised as a bicycle pump.

      It would be trivial to get a pipe through diguised as a cane or anything else that will contain and direct the firing of ammunition to where the shooter is intended. Combine that with the threat of multiple people working together and the ammunition could have been handed off to another party, I think the right call was made to shut down the terminal and make sure they had accounted for every round that was seen in that bag through security.

    19. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone smuggling a zip gun through airport security wouldn't carry the ammunition in a magazine though.

    20. Re: No the system actually worked here by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 2

      This is by far not nothing. Ever heard of a zip gun?

      Yep. My dad and his buddies used to make them back in the 1930s. They're slow, unreliable, easy to spot on an airplane, and as likely to kill the shooter as whomever he's aiming at.

      And, of course, on an airplane, you'd only get one shot (passengers would take you down while you try to reload--assuming they don't do it far earlier). The best you could hope for is shooting a hole through a window (which, depending on caliber, might not even happen.) This assumes that a person could A) assemble the parts of the zip gun B) handle and load the ammunition, and C) aim and fire the weapon--all without anyone else noticing.

    21. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually the cartridges are the more dangerous part. Plenty easy to make an undetectable polymer firearm, much harder to do the same for ammo.

    22. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting out a window wouldn't do anything. It certainly wouldn't bring down the plane.

    23. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are free to travel on a private plane if you want the firearm carry-on option. Or are you suggesting that your preferences should dictate what the other 200 people on the plane need to put up with from you?

      May you forever be in a middle seat between two fatties.

    24. Re: No the system actually worked here by sjames · · Score: 1

      Easier still to make an ABS stiletto and hide it inside a hair brush.

      Less likely to blow up in your hand as well.

    25. Re:No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'd been on the "secure" side of the checkpoints for an hour before they found him. If he had malicious intent and possibly an accomplice, simply re-screening this guy is insufficient, they would also need to re-screen everyone he interacted with in case he passed contraband to them, and check places he had been that he might have been able to hide anything.

      While not a complete fail, as they did identify the item and eventually recover it from the passenger, they didn't do what was needed to ensure everyone's safety, and their fuckup in pulling the wrong bag caused significant inconvenience to many other passengers.

    26. Re: No the system actually worked here by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Agreed that this is security theater that offers very little real protection. But I disagree that it's wasted time and money (aside from some of the people doing it taking their jobs way too seriously). If you've lived through a riot, you realize that the "protection" offered by the police is mostly an illusion. And that if things really get out of hand, there is really nothing that the police can do. The role of the police is more to calm the public and create the self-fulfilling prophecy of the illusion of peace, so that people don't go nuts looting and destroying stuff because they have no fear of retribution.

      Likewise, the role of TSA is security theater. But while it is theater, it is effective in keeping the traveling public calm about the safety of air travel. The threat itself is minuscule (air travel is the safest for of travel, and yet many more people are killed by random airliner accidents than by terrorists blowing up planes). The threat is just exaggerated in people's minds by disproportionate media coverage and media hype.

      So security theater is the proper response - illusionary safety measures for assuaging people's illusionary fears.

    27. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without a metal barrel, it's going to blow up in the shooter's hand.

      Even then, it still needs a metal firing pin. You can't make that such that it won't show up on x-ray.

    28. Re:No the system actually worked here by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      The real trouble is finding 1,000 out of 10 guns.

      False positives. It's a pain.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    29. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might if they wanted a plausible excuse if caught or a distraction.

    30. Re:No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for all those bullets that they lost in a crowded airport, yep worked great!

    31. Re: No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be able to make an undetectable polymer firearm that could handle the breech pressures of any but the smallest and least effective of today's modern pistol cartridges would be incredibly bulky, and just as easy to detect as a normal pistol. if you could some how magic up a new kind of material or process to overcome the first issue, using it to then create the undetectable cartridge would be easy.

      But keep believing in "ghost guns" that are printed on the average person's $300 3D printer. The security theater is happy you are so easily distracted and controlled.

    32. Re: No the system actually worked here by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Is it? What if you used compressed air instead of gunpower to pass the sniff test and some other high resistance material other than metal on the slugs?

    33. Re:No the system actually worked here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's put it this way: someone makes a clumsy mathematical argument using algebra quite poorly, and then refers to their method as geometry. Does that give you a great deal of faith in, or respect for, their point of view?

    34. Re: No the system actually worked here by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The best you could hope for is shooting a hole through a window

      No, the best you could hope for is just the threat of shooting a flight attendant gets the pilot to divert or open the door and your associate takes control of the aircraft.

      Likely, you shoot someone, and your associate then covers the rest with his zip gun while you reload.

      Worst is you kill someone and then get taken down. But you've still killed someone, you'll be headline news, and you'll scare people out of flying. This is a major goal of terrorists.

      Which of those three results is "good" for the public? I think they all rate as "bad", and trying to prevent all of them is good.

      This assumes that a person could A) assemble the parts of the zip gun B) handle and load the ammunition, and C) aim and fire the weapon--all without anyone else noticing.

      They're called "lavatories", and someone can go inside and close the door. They'll be out of sight of everyone else for as long as they need. I can tell, you've never been on an airplane, have you?

    35. Re: No the system actually worked here by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Less likely to blow up in your hand as well.

      You know, there are terrorists who strap bombs to themselves and deliberately blow themselves up. I don't think the danger of a zip gun blowing up in their hand is going to stop someone like that.

      Easier still to make an ABS stiletto and hide it inside a hair brush.

      Yeah, because so many more people will be scared by what amounts to a plastic letter opener than by a zip gun. Sure.

    36. Re: No the system actually worked here by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'll bet more people would recognize a stiletto as a dangerous weapon (especially if it's held to someone's throat) than a zip gun.

      If the gun blows up in your hand, mission fails. I'm pretty sure they care about that.

  8. Not a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless its being used as an improvised 'brass knuckle' to punch someone with. Without the firearm that fits it, a magazine (i.e. 'clip'), is useless...loaded or not. Duh.

  9. Nothing to see here by ebonum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reality: He would have gotten on the plane had a crappy meal, a fraction of a can of Coke(tm) and arrived at his destination. A disaster was not averted. 100's of lives were not saved. A government rule was enforced. Nothing more.

    TSA headline: Our agent heroes saved you AGAIN! Countless lives saved and counting. btw. We demanddeserve another 10 billion in funding.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      A disaster was not averted

      A bit amplified. What would the guy do with a "loaded magazine"? Throw the bullets at the crew?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA headline: Our agent heroes saved you AGAIN!

      More likely headline:

      Contractors fail again! TSA needs to take over the responsibility!

      For those not aware, SFO is one the two dozen airports (almost all small regional airports) using a contractor force for screening (under the SPP), and the TSA management has never liked contractor screening, and would like nothing more than point out they could do better with their own staff.

    3. Re:Nothing to see here by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The real problem is all those people in the world that create hyperbole by making up news headlines that don't exist and make claims that weren't presented anywhere in the source materials.

      Now how the fuck you were voted +5 Insightful instead of -1 Offtopic is beyond me.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Four cars rolled up to the four-way stop sign. They departed in the order they rolled in. No one crashed. No life was in danger. All the car occupants went on to continue their miserable pathetic existence, some traffic rule was observed. Nothing more.

      STOP signs saved your life? Another 2 billion spent on traffic rule signage? All waste of money.

      Right buddy?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lives were not saved, but they were greatly inconvenienced by an airport shutdown which probably also cost millions of dollars.

    6. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit amplified. What would the guy do with a "loaded magazine"?

      I would assume he'd read it.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless he took the cartridges apart, he would have to through cartridges at the crew. :)

    8. Re:Nothing to see here by piers_downunder · · Score: 1

      Alternative reality: he got on the plane destined to a different international airport in a country where guns and ammo are severely restricted; gets discovered in immigration customs and is thrown in jail awaiting trial and weapons smuggling charges. It's not that far-fetched either, it's exactly what happened to my father-in-law.

  10. ... and it's not a gun by raymorris · · Score: 2

    On top of all that, it's not a gun.

    1. Re:... and it's not a gun by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      A gun is just a tube, a few rubberbands, and a small nail. The part that is hard to build anywhere, and is the most important part, is the ammunition. Without the ammunition, the best a gun is, is just a weirdly-shaped club.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:... and it's not a gun by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A gun is just a tube, a few rubberbands, and a small nail. The part that is hard to build anywhere, and is the most important part, is the ammunition.

      If your gun is that primitive, then why not have it be a black powder weapon that shoots balls? Then your ammo is just anything spherical and closely-sized. Flintlocks aren't even considered weapons in kit form, you can order them right through the mail direct to your door.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: ... and it's not a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, go ahead, start dismantling a trash bin's (or some other mobile equipment's) caster wheel for its ball bearings at the airport. No one will notice... SMH.

    4. Re: ... and it's not a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just walk through security with a bag of ball bearings. Your grandma can't bring her knitting needles through though.

    5. Re:... and it's not a gun by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And percussive caps... Unless you want a flintlock? The reality is that a firearm can be disassembled to the point where the pieces are unrecognizable (I know, I have many of them). Ammunition is MUCH harder to leave in parts because pressing the pieces together is near-impossible without a good press tool.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:... and it's not a gun by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And percussive caps... Unless you want a flintlock? The reality is that a firearm can be disassembled to the point where the pieces are unrecognizable (I know, I have many of them).

      I've got several, too. They might be unrecognizable to an untrained [read: typical] TSA agent, but no semi-automatic pistol's pieces break down to anything not immediately recognizable to anyone who has cleaned a gun before. So why not a flintlock?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:... and it's not a gun by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If your gun is that primitive, then why not have it be a black powder weapon that shoots balls?

      For the same reason that cartridges replaced black powder weapons in general: convenience.

    8. Re:... and it's not a gun by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that cartridges replaced black powder weapons in general: convenience.

      Powder and ball wrapped in paper is called...?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:... and it's not a gun by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Powder and ball wrapped in paper is called..

      You know very well that comparing black powder to cartridges is not referring to black powder "paper cartridges", and that the "cartridges" in this discussion isn't.

    10. Re:... and it's not a gun by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You know very well that comparing black powder to cartridges is not referring to black powder "paper cartridges", and that the "cartridges" in this discussion isn't.

      They do the same job, albeit one much better than the other. That's why they have the same name.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Why do you seek to disarm the powerless by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    if neither of us had a gun in the first place, we would both still be alive.

    If someone really wanted to shoot you, why would they not figure out a ways to kill you otherwise?

    The myth that without guns there are not deaths is especially absurd. It just means you are less likely to be able to defend yourself, especially if you are weaker physically than your attacker.

    That has been the great boon of firearms - it equalizes your ability of defense in cases where others that seek you harm either outnumber you physically or numerically. It helped bring true freedom to blacks across the U.S. and it helps prevent tens of thousand of rapes per year today. That's why you should support the second amendment, not because it prevents others from doing YOU harm, but it prevents others from doing the powerless harm.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Breaking news: nothing happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid non-story.

  13. If TSA doesn't have access to ticketing informatio by dknj · · Score: 1

    how did they figure out who this passenger was? timestamps on video correlated to the ticket scan at the TSA agent at the start of the security line? sounds like TSA can monitor every passenger that passes through any airport at any time.

    And you thought China was bad.

    -dk

  14. Re: If TSA doesn't have access to ticketing inform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try security camera aimed at the X-ray machine's output end; where people actually take their belongings back. Would be nice to know, in other situations, who the someone is that stole my laptop. In this situation, they know which bag they really wanted (an off by one error) and saw who took it.

  15. Sigh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The response was moronic. What could he have done with it? Hit someone over the head? A pocket knife is more of a threat. It's like our entire society is being reduced to the level of children.

  16. A magazine is not a gun by Nocturrne · · Score: 1

    It's not even dangerous ffs. You could do more damage bludgeoning someone with an iphone.

    1. Re:A magazine is not a gun by imperious_rex · · Score: 1

      *Exacty* A loaded magazine is relatively harmless (no more dangerous than a notebook PC). A gun without a loaded magazine is relatively harmless (no more dangerous than a hardwood bat). Ammunition without a magazine or gun is harmless (well, I guess one could get hit in the eye with a hurled round, but that's about it). Only when all three are put together do you have something that's dangerous.

    2. Re:A magazine is not a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of magazines are made of plastic, so metal detectors won't set them off.

      I don't know how well metal detectors work on copper (bullets are fairly thin and small, so I don't know). Lead probably won't trigger it.

      Police dogs are usually trained to detect bombs, not gunpowder.

    3. Re:A magazine is not a gun by Drethon · · Score: 1

      *Exacty* A loaded magazine is relatively harmless (no more dangerous than a notebook PC). A gun without a loaded magazine is relatively harmless (no more dangerous than a hardwood bat). Ammunition without a magazine or gun is harmless (well, I guess one could get hit in the eye with a hurled round, but that's about it). Only when all three are put together do you have something that's dangerous.

      So no point to prevent one from making it through. Not like a group of three people could separately try to board, one with an unloaded gun, one with an unloaded magazine and one with bullets.

    4. Re:A magazine is not a gun by imperious_rex · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. The majority of troublemakers are "lone wolves" but real security does need to protect against a team of 2-4 bad guys boarding the same plane. That's what happened on 9/11.

    5. Re:A magazine is not a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but imagine this scenario. Two terrorists, working together, get through security. One gets a magazine on board, the other gets a gun on board. The magazine is "harmless" until you combine it with a working gun.

      But they'd never get the gun on board, right? Wrong. We already know that the TSA misses stuff all the time. Furthermore some of the gun nuts have been working relentlessly on plastic, 3D printed guns that are hard to detect. Or simply go with a plastic Glock.

      Even part of a weapon is useful to a terrorist mindset. It's progress towards a functioning weapon and the pieces are less likely to attract attention and alarm than the whole weapon would. The pieces are also easier to conceal or disguise.

  17. Re: If TSA doesn't have access to ticketing inform by Code+Herder · · Score: 1

    Youâ(TM)re pretty naive if thatâ(TM)s news to you. I figure thatâ(TM)s the least of what theyâ(TM)re doing to track people.

  18. Re: If TSA doesn't have access to ticketing inform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is my only problem with NSA/TSA. They will use their powers for the children, and their jobs, and terrorists - but mostly seem unwilling to use their powers to help us out.

    I know the NSA could've cracked down on ransomware harder. Just throw us a fucking bone. And give this guy his laptop back.

  19. Re: If TSA doesn't have access to ticketing inform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is the downside of all of this tracking?

    -dk

  20. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's gajillions of things more dangerous, ounce-per-ounce... brake fluid, gallium, several solvents.

  21. Muzzleloader is what I've built by raymorris · · Score: 1

    When I was going to build a primitive gun, I did a muzzleloader. I made my black powder from scratch, starting with wood.

  22. Re: If TSA doesn't have access to ticketing infor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loss of civil liberties and freedom.

    Just because you don't care doesn't mean that many of us care a great deal about these things.

  23. At least they noticed this time by Grimoire · · Score: 1

    Back in 2006 when we still had the color coded threat levels, I flew from PHX to LAS and back to PHX during a red/severe period. Because it was a quick day trip I only had a carry on bag and that bag happened to be a backpack I had used the week before to go shooting. In that bag was a full 19 round magazine of 9mm FMJ that I had stuffed into a side pocket and forgotten to remove before the trip. I made it through 2 different airport security lines and xray machines without it being noticed or stopped. I didn't even notice I had left it in there myself until I got home and unpacked. However they damn sure got the bottle of contact lens cleaner I had in the same bag.

    --
    To misquote Churchill, never has an operating system (FreeBSD) used by so many been administered by so few. - NetCraft
    1. Re:At least they noticed this time by cstacy · · Score: 1

      The only guns (and other weapons) that have ever been detected and confiscated by TSA were the ones people accidentally left in their bags, like yours. But as you report, they don't even get all of those!

      They run tests to try smuggling guns and knives onto the planes through these checkpoints. The rate of success -- that is FAILURE of security is well above 95^ every time.

      Security Theatre.
      j

  24. This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testing show that lots of guns walk thru tsa checkpoints never being found.

  25. A few years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had been to the firing range the day before and had rented a .50 cal hand cannon. I also purchased the bullets at $1.50 a pop. I bought 2 boxes of 10. But after firing 15 of them down range, my wrist could not take firing any more. I turned the gun in and put the 5 bullets in my coat pocket as the firing range is not heated and this was during winter time.

    The next day I was taking a trip and made it to the airport. I walked though the scanner with my coat on with no problems. As I am walking through the terminal to the gate, I take my wallet out of my back pocket so I am not sitting on it the entire plane ride and put it in my coat pocket. I notice I still have 5 bullets from the previous day. I start to panic as I see all types of police rushing me and tackling me to the ground in my mind. I casually make my way to the men's room and dump the bullets in the trash.

    I never heard any word about the janitorial staff finding bullets in a major airport bathroom....