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."
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."
Ain't nothing more entertaining than the play that is security theater.
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
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
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.
It would easily fit in your underwear.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
On top of all that, it's not a gun.
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!
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.
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