Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   GA lawmakers introduce bill to protect gun owners who "accidentally" carry a gun into an airport. "A lot of people carry a weapon. It's almost like it's just a second nature to them. And sometimes they forget where they have {it}"   (politico.com) divider line 97
    More: Scary, carrying a firearm, Fort Worth International Airport, Chicago O'Hare, x-ray machines, airports  
•       •       •

2592 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2014 at 12:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-18 11:16:57 AM  
28 votes:
"I would tell you that a lot of people carry a weapon," said state Rep. Alan Powell, a Republican who supports the bill. "It's almost like it's just a second nature to them. And sometimes they forget where they have, you know, they basically forget they've got it in a briefcase or a suitcase."

If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.
2014-02-18 11:21:11 AM  
10 votes:

Serious Black: If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.


This. Your right to a gun does not absolve you from your responsibility for it.
2014-02-18 12:25:11 PM  
9 votes:

dittybopper: So, define "responsible" for me.


I'd have thought "knowing you have a gun on you" would have gone without saying, but here we are.
2014-02-18 11:22:40 AM  
9 votes:

Serious Black: If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.


If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.

If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.

If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.
2014-02-18 11:51:10 AM  
7 votes:

dittybopper: inadvertently carry


Much like the "accidental discharge" that I am positive only exists in the realm of unicorns and leprechauns, I don't think inadvertent carrying of a gun exists. We are talking about a tool whose sole purpose is to annihilate anything and everything that the business end is pointed towards. I believe a responsible gun owner should know where their potentially deadly firearms are at all times. If that's too much for you to handle, you shouldn't own a gun.
2014-02-18 11:24:33 AM  
6 votes:
Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.
2014-02-18 12:26:24 PM  
5 votes:

dittybopper: So, define "responsible" for me.


It includes: knowing where your gun is at all times, knowing the loaded/unloaded status at all times, and knowing if you're carrying one when you go to a zone where "no guns allowed" is made abundantly clear.

Maybe it's like porn and I'd know if it I saw it, but "forgetting I have a weapon in my jacket pocket" screams "irresponsible" to me.  That sounds like someone has taken for granted the fact he's carrying a deadly weapon, and as a result has gotten careless.  Carelessness isn't "responsible".
2014-02-18 12:02:17 PM  
5 votes:

dittybopper: What about in a bag you carry for other purposes (like car trips, etc.)?

Generally, that's what happens, not the one in the pocket, the one in the bag you use for other things besides airline flights.


I make sure there's no "too big bottle of contact lens solution" in that bag before I go to the airport, because I'm aware enough to know THAT I AM GOING TO THE AIRPORT
2014-02-18 12:01:23 PM  
5 votes:

dittybopper: Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE


The article mentions how they face possible fines and prison time, but charges are typically dismissed against first time offenders if they take a class. Sounds like the exact opposite of zero tolerance.
2014-02-18 11:40:38 AM  
5 votes:

Trivia Jockey: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.


Nothing in this thread could be said better than this.


How about ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE.

The current policy is largely "zero tolerance", with the rare and sane exception being news:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-29/news/os-sanford-airpo rt -holds-passenger-gun-20140129_1_orlando-international-airport-conceale d-weapon-permit-holders-armed-passenger

Why not just make a "gun check" part of the process?  If you have a gun, and are legally permitted to carry it, why not just provide people who inadvertently carry into an airport security zone a way to store their guns on the premises until they return?

That would accomplish the goal of a "gun free zone" in the passenger terminals and by extension on the aircraft, so what harm would be done?

Really, other than making carrying a gun as legally dicey as you possibly can in as many situations as you possibly can in order to make people shy away from it, what possible opposition can you have to something like that?
2014-02-18 11:33:49 AM  
5 votes:

dittybopper: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.

Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE


"Oops, I broke the law"
2014-02-18 11:30:43 AM  
5 votes:

Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.


Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE
2014-02-18 12:27:41 PM  
4 votes:
In this thread, we learn that respobsible gun owners SOMETIMES DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY HAVE THEIR WEAPON!

Wow. Such responsibility. Much careful. wow.

dittybopper: Trivia Jockey: Again, if the goal is to incentivize responsible gun ownership (which the basis for the gun lobby opposing ANY gun restrictions), then you have to make sure the law has the power to so incentivize.

So, define "responsible" for me.

I have a feeling that you're going to use it in the same sense that the phrase "common sense" is often used by people who want to pass laws to dis-incentivize gun ownership and lawful carrying to the fullest extent possible.  Those are the people responsible for laws like it being a felony to have an expended cartridge casing or shotgun shell without a permit.

To *ME*, responsible gun ownership is basically following the four rules of safe gun use, and making sure that unauthorized people like criminals don't get access, and that children only have well-supervised age-appropriate access, that sort of thing.  That's responsible gun ownership.

Maybe you're somewhere in the middle.


If you don't remember you have your gun with you, how can you exactly be sure to keep unauthorized people from getting access to it? YOU FORGOT YOU HAD IT.
2014-02-18 12:25:59 PM  
4 votes:

dittybopper: So, define "responsible" for me.


Knowing where your guns are at at all times is pretty close to the top of the list of being a responsible gun owner for me.
2014-02-18 12:12:37 PM  
4 votes:

dittybopper: BunkoSquad: dittybopper: What about in a bag you carry for other purposes (like car trips, etc.)?

Generally, that's what happens, not the one in the pocket, the one in the bag you use for other things besides airline flights.

I make sure there's no "too big bottle of contact lens solution" in that bag before I go to the airport, because I'm aware enough to know THAT I AM GOING TO THE AIRPORT

And you think that's rational?

You think that should be the norm?


I think it should be the norm that you know what's in your luggage.
2014-02-18 11:55:11 AM  
4 votes:
On one hand, a "gun check" service, for a whopping fee (this is an airport after all) seems like a fine business decision.  A significant slice of the population is unable to leave the house without their firearms, and yet do so without killing people at every stop.  The irony is of course that they're uncomfortable in their home town without weapons but will fly to strange cities without them.  Whatever... fine.  Gun check it.

On the other hand: KEEP TRACK OF YOUR F*CKING WEAPONS
2014-02-18 01:16:10 PM  
3 votes:
We can't really expect responsible gun owners to be responsible. That would be a violation of their rights.
2014-02-18 01:06:31 PM  
3 votes:
I guess i can sort of see his point, after a while it just becomes routine, leaving the house; keys, wallet, phone, gun. I have a small leatherman on my keychain all the time that i never really give any thought to...

EXCEPT WHEN IM GOING TO THE farkING AIRPORT.


I dont know about anyone else, but i generally try to avoid doing things that have the potential to get me anally fisted by a high school drop out.
2014-02-18 12:07:05 PM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: What about in a bag you carry for other purposes (like car trips, etc.)?


When you're not on a car trip, is that bag locked up in a safe where only you and other authorized persons can get to it like the NRA suggests? While on car trips, can you correctly tell me the location of your potentially deadly firearm at all times and ensure that nobody unauthorized can get to it like the NRA suggests? If the answer to either question is no, then you're an irresponsible gun owner.
2014-02-18 12:00:50 PM  
3 votes:

Trivia Jockey: dittybopper: Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

Forgetting you have a loaded pistol in your pocket is a pretty f*cking big unintentional and inadvertent mistake.  Especially when you go to a high-security area like an airport.


What about in a bag you carry for other purposes (like car trips, etc.)?

Generally, that's what happens, not the one in the pocket, the one in the bag you use for other things besides airline flights.
 
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm all for laws that disincentivize gun owners from being less than hyper-careful with their guns.

So, you're of the mind that people should be strictly punished when they have no ill intent, merely because they are gun owners.

Are you of the same mind for people who drive cars?  Do you think drivers who exceed the speed limit in school zones should have their driving privileges permanently revoked for the the first offense, and have their car seized, even though it was inadvertent?  After all, it's a farkin' *SCHOOL ZONE*.  They could kill a kid by going 30 MPH instead of 20.

Is that the sort of thing you are generally agreeable with, or is it just because *GUNZ!*?
2014-02-18 11:52:28 AM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: Trivia Jockey: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.


Nothing in this thread could be said better than this.

How about ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE.

The current policy is largely "zero tolerance", with the rare and sane exception being news:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-29/news/os-sanford-airpo rt -holds-passenger-gun-20140129_1_orlando-international-airport-conceale d-weapon-permit-holders-armed-passenger

Why not just make a "gun check" part of the process?  If you have a gun, and are legally permitted to carry it, why not just provide people who inadvertently carry into an airport security zone a way to store their guns on the premises until they return?

That would accomplish the goal of a "gun free zone" in the passenger terminals and by extension on the aircraft, so what harm would be done?

Really, other than making carrying a gun as legally dicey as you possibly can in as many situations as you possibly can in order to make people shy away from it, what possible opposition can you have to something like that?


Because

a) anyone who forgets they're armed when entering an airport is already being irresponsible
b) you have a place to check it. It's called your car or your house.
c) why just guns? How about my bottle of water, razor blade, and leatherman?
d) and you now want to extend the reach of the TSA by letting them hold on to your 2nd amendment sticks. Brilliant!
2014-02-18 11:49:40 AM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: Trivia Jockey: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.


Nothing in this thread could be said better than this.

How about ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE.

The current policy is largely "zero tolerance", with the rare and sane exception being news:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-29/news/os-sanford-airpo rt -holds-passenger-gun-20140129_1_orlando-international-airport-conceale d-weapon-permit-holders-armed-passenger

Why not just make a "gun check" part of the process?  If you have a gun, and are legally permitted to carry it, why not just provide people who inadvertently carry into an airport security zone a way to store their guns on the premises until they return?

That would accomplish the goal of a "gun free zone" in the passenger terminals and by extension on the aircraft, so what harm would be done?

Really, other than making carrying a gun as legally dicey as you possibly can in as many situations as you possibly can in order to make people shy away from it, what possible opposition can you have to something like that?



So now the airport has to build lockers for gun storage and I guess the TSA is responsible for making sure those don't get raided.

How about people just learn what the law is?
2014-02-18 11:44:23 AM  
3 votes:

James!: dittybopper: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.

Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE

"Oops, I broke the law"


"Oops, my inspection sticker expired two weeks ago.  Lifetime revocation of drivers license..."
2014-02-18 11:43:31 AM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.

Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE


First time offender is unlikely to do prison time. The gubbamint may just take their guns away -which is a suitable punishment for being that irresponsible.
2014-02-18 11:35:25 AM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.

Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE



"I accidentally ran over that baby."
2014-02-18 01:39:02 PM  
2 votes:
I'm with the majority here: if you can't remember to leave your gun home before you fly out, then you don't deserve to carry a gun.

On a different, but gun related note, I keep hearing "an armed society is a polite society", but evidence is disproving that. It seems that carrying a gun has empowered countless azzholes to truly be themselves in all sorts of situations.

Three quarters of etiquette is about defusing situations or avoiding giving offense. To many gun owners seem to think that carrying a gun exempts them from those rules of polite society. They feel entirely free to give as much offense as they want to, and they don't feel obligated to back down, apologize or swallow their pride. Ever.

Instead of becoming more polite, the arming of society had made it belligerent and confrontational.

/real life trolls and itgs rejoice! With a gun, you're a God of annoyance made corporeal!
2014-02-18 01:38:19 PM  
2 votes:
I leave the house with a pocket full of change every day. I've been carrying it so long that I never even give it a second though... except when I'm going to the FARKING AIRPORT.

Anyone who's so clueless and unaware of their surroundings shouldn't be carrying anything more dangerous than a spork.
2014-02-18 01:06:45 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: To *ME*, responsible gun ownership is basically following the four rules of safe gun use, and making sure that unauthorized people like criminals don't get access, and that children only have well-supervised age-appropriate access, that sort of thing.  That's responsible gun ownership.


And a fifth rule of "Never take your weapon somewhere it is unlawful to possess it" is somehow unreasonable?


I've carried a leatherman in my pocket as a matter of course from freshman year in high school to present with the sole exception of basic training and the first four weeks of AIT.  It comes with me to work, on dates with my wife, babysitting for friends, to the movie theatre, to everywhere I go.

EXCEPT when I am getting on an airplane or entering another area where it is expressly forbidden.  The night before it goes into my checked luggage if I am taking a bag.  If I am not checking luggage it goes on my nightstand.  On arrival as soon as I get my checked bag if I'm exiting the airport it goes directly into my pocket again.  I have never had it confiscated at an airport, and I fly fairly frequently (On average around once a month between business and pleasure over the last few years, less often before that).

I recognize as a responsible knife owner that it is not allowed past that point, and that it should not be on my person as I pass that point.  I recognize as a responsible knife owner that I am carrying something that can be used as a weapon even though it is pretty expressly a tool.  I recognize that as such there are some places where it won't be allowed in and that I may be barred from entry or have it confiscated if I try to carry it in.


I have zero sympathy for the idea of forgetting that you are carrying a weapon.

I have zero sympathy for the idea of entering a airport security checkpoint without complete knowledge of everything on your person and in your carry on luggage.

If you can't tell me whether or not you are currently in possession of a deadly weapon, you shouldn't be carrying them.  Especially in areas where it is so expressly well known that it is unlawful to do so.


If I can remember to put my knife in checked luggage or leave it at home without the motivation of being charged with a crime for failing to do so, you can leave your weapon at home or check it properly.  Zero sympathy.


/also keeps a checklist of times the leatherman would have been useful but wasn't present due to lack of checked luggage
//current record is 4 hours from time of landing to realizing having it would have been useful
2014-02-18 12:40:22 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: So you are saying that yes, you want to make gun ownership as legally risky for the gun owner as you possibly can


No, I want to make irresponsible gun ownership as legally risky as possible.
2014-02-18 12:40:01 PM  
2 votes:

KidneyStone: I carry and more than once I've gone somewhere I shouldn't have gone while carrying.  Nobody got shot.  Shocking!


And you should have been arrested, (ir)responsible gun owner.
2014-02-18 12:34:57 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Constantly, or just that one time because you were in a rush? Because they'd both be punished exactly the same.


Except, as others have pointed out, they aren't in court.  Which is where punishment occurs.

You have your sh*t together on gun rights, Ditty, but you don't need to take the idiot gun-owner's side just because both of you happen to own guns.  I don't take idiot car-owners' sides in things, nor idiot parents' sides, nor idiot liberals.  Is the group that lives by the philosophy "I'm too preoccupied to have a clue where my gun is" really the team that deserves your support?

Or is it that you're in that group?  If so, then by all means fire away.
2014-02-18 12:33:49 PM  
2 votes:
This bill is a stupid attempt to curry favor from the state's lowest common denominators.  Before I had to move to Canada, I never once "forgot" I was carrying concealed.  Something like that is no accident, just stupidity.
2014-02-18 12:29:30 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Constantly, or just that one time because you were in a rush? Because they'd both be punished exactly the same.


They should be.  My god, allowing someone to be irresponsible with a gun because they're in a hurry is the f*cking definition of stuff I don't want.
2014-02-18 12:28:13 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: but what about the inadvertent exceptions?


There are certain things so inherently dangerous that we've placed strict liability on them.  That's so we don't have to try and determine someone's subjective intent.  Guns are one of those things.  There should not be any exceptions for inadvertence.
2014-02-18 12:13:01 PM  
2 votes:
If you forget that you are carrying a weapon designed to kill people, you're a dipsh*t.

Case closed.

Good day, sir.
2014-02-18 12:11:28 PM  
2 votes:
Obviously Airports need to get into the business of gun storage because gun owners can't be bothered to know where their guns are.
2014-02-18 12:05:14 PM  
2 votes:

BunkoSquad: I make sure there's no "too big bottle of contact lens solution" in that bag before I go to the airport, because I'm aware enough to know THAT I AM GOING TO THE AIRPORT


Sorry, but if you think that requiring people to put the same level of thought into CCW and packing toiletries is reasonable restriction, then you are a f*cking commie pinko gun-grabbing, lily-livered, ummm....

Oh!  Hoplophobe!
2014-02-18 12:03:17 PM  
2 votes:

exick: The article mentions how they face possible fines and prison time, but charges are typically dismissed against first time offenders if they take a class. Sounds like the exact opposite of zero tolerance.


Quiet now, you're upsetting his paranoia.  He has graphs, sir!
2014-02-18 11:55:28 AM  
2 votes:

Because People in power are Stupid: dittybopper: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.

Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE

First time offender is unlikely to do prison time. The gubbamint may just take their guns away -which is a suitable punishment for being that irresponsible.


Permanently.   It is a felony, right?

It's akin to any number of other things that would be accommodated normally.

For example, I occasionally go to family court, because I'm a foster parent.  On the odd occasions that I forget it's in my pocket (which has happened), the bailiffs at the metal detector will hold on to my pocket knife until I come back out of the court room.

That's how it *SHOULD* be.

I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an "irresponsible knife owner".

If society accepts the fact people can legally carry weapons, and most of the people in the United States live in places where that is the norm:

i62.tinypic.com

Then why should we make it as legally risky as possible for them, if for no other reason than you want to discourage them from carrying as much as you possibly can get away with?
2014-02-18 11:48:56 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: How about ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE.


Counterpoint:

www.quickmeme.com
2014-02-18 11:47:28 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: "Oops, my inspection sticker expired two weeks ago. Lifetime revocation of drivers license..."


If you are seriously equating this with the carrying of a loaded weapon, then your priorities are more skewed than a Fox News poll.
2014-02-18 11:46:05 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.


Forgetting you have a loaded pistol in your pocket is a pretty f*cking big unintentional and inadvertent mistake.  Especially when you go to a high-security area like an airport.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm all for laws that disincentivize gun owners from being less than hyper-careful with their guns.
2014-02-18 11:31:07 AM  
2 votes:

Serious Black: "I would tell you that a lot of people carry a weapon," said state Rep. Alan Powell, a Republican who supports the bill. "It's almost like it's just a second nature to them. And sometimes they forget where they have, you know, they basically forget they've got it in a briefcase or a suitcase."

If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.


Thread done.  Turn out the lights please.

/well said
2014-02-18 11:29:27 AM  
2 votes:

markie_farkie: If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.


Agreed.

Now this for no reason.

imageshack.com
2014-02-18 11:28:25 AM  
2 votes:

BunkoSquad: Please, like each of you brainiacs knows exactly where all the paperclips you own are located at any given time


Only a handful of us can take over an airplane with a paperclip.
2014-02-18 04:25:29 PM  
1 votes:

James10952001: Sometimes it's involuntary manslaughter, sometimes it's negligence, other times it's just a tragic accident


For one thing, it's never an accident when some random citizen brings a gun in an airport. It's always negligence. Kids can run out in front of drivers who are doing everything right. Nobody's gun ever got up and jumped in their briefcase.

For another, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There are degrees of charges for running over children and their are degrees of charges for gun-in-airport incidents. If you run over a kid by mistake because you were going too fast, you get involuntary manslaughter. If you're a numbnut who doesn't take care with where his firearm is, you also get a lesser charge.

Now, if you aim your car at a group of schoolchildren and run them down, you're probably going to get a little bit stiffer sentence. Likewise, if you take your gun out in the damn terminal and start shooting people, you probably aren't just getting a fine.

Guns don't make you immune from the law or common sense. The same principals at play in virtually every other aspect of the law apply here. Crimes of "honest" negligence carry lighter penalties and crimes of malice carry stiffer penalties. This is true whether those crimes involve some nitwit with a gun or not. Why should negligent gun owners get mulligans? Generally speaking, negligent drivers don't. People who start a fire that gets out of control generally don't get an "oops my bad". Just because it's a gun owner doing something irresopnsible suddenly we're supposed to start making eceptions though?

How about no. A thousand dollar fine seems like a perfectly fine way to reinforce the notion that if you're going to carry a dangerous weapon around in public that maybe you should pay a little bit more attention to where it is. Some time in prison sounds like a perfectly fine way to reinforce that idea on repeat offenders. If you're that stupid you shouldn't be running around in public with a gun anyway.
2014-02-18 03:49:40 PM  
1 votes:

The_Sponge: DrBenway: le.

And I'm NOT disagreeing that it's stupid to forget that you have a firearm in your carry-on bag or luggage.

This tells me that your cut-off for what is and isn't stupid is not an acceptable one.

FARK!

/FTFM.
//And if you don't believe me, see my earlier posts in this thread.


Ah, well then you can disregard my post above.  I'm not suggesting lengthy prison sentences.  Doing stupid shiat with guns has major consequences.  Forgetting where your gun is leads to these stories about kids shooting and killing themselves accidentally because daddy forgot he left his gun out.  So yeah, if somehow, such as during airport screenings, the authorities find out you had no idea where your gun is, that should be punishable by spending a few days in jail.  It's not so outrageous to suggest you should always know where your gun is at.
2014-02-18 02:58:16 PM  
1 votes:

Mentalpatient87: No, not that. That's not it. I meant the part where you're equating yourself to Rosa Parks. Like you are similar in any way at all. That's just farking stupid. But please, continue flailing.



I used an example of somebody standing up to an unjust law.

Fine....you guys want to rip on me for wanting to disobey an unjust law?  Fine.  Then I hope you guys "keep it real" by not smoking weed if it is illegal in your state.
2014-02-18 02:58:15 PM  
1 votes:
To be clear,

Most of these people did not forget where they had their gun.  What they forgot was that they aren't allowed on their person or in carry-on bags through the security checkpoint.  To them, its no different than having a pocket knife or a pair a clippers.  It's pretty easy to get into a routine where you know every place you go it's okay, but forget when going somewhere new.  I forgot I had a pocket knife when I walked into a Federal Building once.  Didn't even occur to me that it wasn't allowed until the security guard saw it in the objects dish as going through the screening.

Irresponsible yes, but I think the punishments are overly harsh for something that should simply be "I'm sorry sir/madam, but you need to store that firearm in your vehicle or other secure location.  We can't let you through with it."
2014-02-18 02:53:42 PM  
1 votes:

Sin_City_Superhero: sugar_fetus: if you yell "fire" in a theatre and no one panics, will you be arrested?

I don't know about yelling, but if you pull out a cell phone, and text "FIRE" in a theater, you will rightfully get your ass kicked.


Or shot.

www.trbimg.com
2014-02-18 02:50:08 PM  
1 votes:
It is responsible to have a loaded gun on your person and not know it, or have one in your bag or in your car or you could leave it in the movie theater when it drops out of your pocket or better yet take it with you to the playground and drop it next to the jungle gym.  This is what we've learned on fark today.
2014-02-18 02:26:24 PM  
1 votes:
If you own a gun, and you forget where it is, you should be forced to give that gun away to somebody who will responsibly care for it like an adult.
2014-02-18 02:24:26 PM  
1 votes:
Again, in this very thread, we were told that there were only a few tenants of responsible gun ownership, and one of those was "Making sure that unauthorized people do not get access to your gun."

I am still sort of waiting for an explanation for how one does this when *they are ignorant that they have the gun with them*

Perhaps they used some sort of 2nd amendment warding spell, or something.

Then again, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS (or at least one) think folks shouldn't be charged when a loaded gun is left out, and a 5 year old kills a 2 year old with it, so whatever.
2014-02-18 02:24:23 PM  
1 votes:

dericwater: I don't know how others do it, but when I go to the airport, I know each and every item I have in my baggage hold bag, every item in my carry-on, and every item in my briefcase. Because I check through each and every bag and packed each and every one of them.


Here too.  I know the f*cking thread count of the sheets in my luggage.  I know the guy damn RPMs my electric shaver has.  I know I have $2.38 in change in my carry-on.

So, not only are they irresponsible, THEY'RE SH*TTY AIRPORT PATRONS too!

//holdin-up-the-TSA-line motherf*ckers!
2014-02-18 02:23:17 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: Sin_City_Superhero: mbillips: The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose

Bombs have no legal purpose? Really?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 299x168]

[worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 640x511]

Those aren't bombs. Those are industrial demolition charges. Bombs are portable anti-personnel devices. Now, if you wanted to argue that people who inadvertently carried a block of C4 on a plane were endangering us all, you'd have a worse argument than the one about guns in luggage, because that stuff is inert if you don't have a detonator attached. You can throw it in a fireplace and it'll just burn.


Face it, your argument is flawed on the surface. I don't know your intent, but you are trying to give guns a separate category than many other similar and dissimilar items that use the same logic you have attempted.

They all fail for the same reason; intent is not obvious and subject to interpretation.
2014-02-18 02:11:40 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: justtray: mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.

We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.

The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose. Guns are completely legal to possess in Georgia and many people routinely carry them around. I DON'T CARRY A GUN, OR LIKE PEOPLE WHO DO. I also don't like living in a police state where people are arrested for looking at a cop wrong, or violating the rules of airport security theater.


Ultimately you're just proving my point. The law as it stands makes it illegal to bring the gun through security. The law also makes it illegal to carry bombs around. You argued intent. As did I. You cannot logically be for not being responsible for breaking the law in one case, and not the other with your rationale, which is why it's faulty. Hopefully now you understand why we don't attempt to legislate based on intent. We legislate based on risk. Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient.
2014-02-18 02:04:18 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: Being irresponsible is not a crime. If you DELIBERATELY flout the signs that say, "Hey, don't do this," then, yeah, you should be charged with a misdemeanor (or felony, depending on the actual danger you're posing to other people). But if you accidentally do something dumb, and no one is harmed by your action, why should you spend the night in jail? It's not like the proposed bill gives carte blanche to try to carry weapons through security, it just makes it a non-arresting offense if you can reasonably claim lack of intent. I'd be fine with pulling people's carry licenses and confiscating their guns (which the current law doesn't do EVEN IF YOU'RE CONVICTED MULTIPLE TIMES), but I'm not OK with jailing people who didn't intend to commit a crime, and did not hurt anyone.


You are deliberately flouting the signs by doing it, even accidentally.  You should be asking yourself "Hey, I'm in a security line at an airport, I frequently carry a gun, am I carrying right now?  Where is my weapon?  Let me pat my jacket pocket where it frequently is in my normal life."  by not doing that you are deliberately failing to follow the law.

I get that you're arguing about proportional response/punishment based on intent.  But we have that already, the first time offender who intended to carry it past isn't going to get a slap on the wrist, safety class, and confiscation of the firearm.  The first time offender who did intend to carry it past is going to get the slap on the wrist.  The first night in jail is part of establishing which class of idiot you are, the intentionally idiotic, or the unintentionally.  In either case, you're an idiot that broke the law.
2014-02-18 02:00:37 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.

We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.


The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose. Guns are completely legal to possess in Georgia and many people routinely carry them around. I DON'T CARRY A GUN, OR LIKE PEOPLE WHO DO. I also don't like living in a police state where people are arrested for looking at a cop wrong, or violating the rules of airport security theater.
2014-02-18 01:58:38 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: Private_Citizen: I'm with the majority here: if you can't remember to leave your gun home before you fly out, then you don't deserve to carry a gun.

On a different, but gun related note, I keep hearing "an armed society is a polite society", but evidence is disproving that. It seems that carrying a gun has empowered countless azzholes to truly be themselves in all sorts of situations.

Three quarters of etiquette is about defusing situations or avoiding giving offense. To many gun owners seem to think that carrying a gun exempts them from those rules of polite society. They feel entirely free to give as much offense as they want to, and they don't feel obligated to back down, apologize or swallow their pride. Ever.

Instead of becoming more polite, the arming of society had made it belligerent and confrontational.

/real life trolls and itgs rejoice! With a gun, you're a God of annoyance made corporeal!

Yeah, those elaborate rituals of courtesy that were practiced when men carried swords and were expected to be touchy about their honor were pretty much useless in controlling bullies who were good at sword fighting. An armed society is a generally polite (except for bullies) society, but also usually a VIOLENT society.


The code of chivalry was supposed to control the little lordlings running around with too much testosterone and an overgrown sense of entitlement. As you pointed out, the code was not that successful, and eventually carrying swords was banned.

Most rules of etiquette/polite society are more concerned with making people feel comfortable, and not offending others than preventing stabbings.

But there is no new code of chivalry. Even the rules carry keep getting relaxed. And the rules of polite society? As I pointed out, to many people think caring a gun means they take no one's crap and they hand out as much as they want.

And that's why I believe arming society has made it far less polite.
2014-02-18 01:50:11 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.


We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.
2014-02-18 01:40:50 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: NkThrasher: mbillips: I can see you've never carried a gun. I had to wear an M9 around for a year when I was in Iraq (a more useless paperweight was never inflicted on anyone; I worked in an office in the Green Zone, so if the hajjis got inside the wire to the point where I had to shoot at them, I was dead, pistol or no). Within a month, you forget you have the thing on. I left mine lying around (unloaded, because the military isn't as stupid as most Armed Citizens) more than once when I took it off to work out.

...I can see you were in need of corrective training.  Your failure to properly follow lawful orders is hardly a good argument against requiring citizens to properly follow the law.

I'm OK with requiring them to follow the law. I'm just saying they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for disobeying this particular law without criminal intent (which is a requirement for conviction of any criminal offense, btw). Taking a gun to the airport, unless a reasonable person would conclude you had criminal intent in doing so, should be a civil offense punishable with a fine. My personal experience is that the sort of people who think they need to carry a handgun around all the time reasonably could wind up at the airport with a gun without meaning to break any laws. You can give them a ticket for that, but you shouldn't arrest them and charge them with a crime.


Certainly they don't *mean* to break the law, however that is very different than the reality that they *are* breaking the law, and a law that is not unreasonable.  Attempting to carry a firearm past a security checkpoint, with plenty of signs saying "Hey dumbass, don't bring weapons in here", and forty someodd years of it being the case that firearms are unlawful to take past the checkpoint, whether it is intentional or unintentional, is ridiculous.  It flies in the face of any claims about "Responsible" ownership, a "Responsible" owner would not do that, it makes you expressly "Irresponsible" to attempt it, even if it is unintentional.

As has been cited repeatedly in thread, and from TFA:

Those convicted of a misdemeanor for carrying a gun into the secured areas of Georgia's airports could face a $1,000 fine or up to a year of probation or prison time. However, charges are dismissed against most first-time offenders if they attend gun safety classes, surrender the firearm they illegally brought to the checkpoint and stay out of further trouble. They do not lose their license to carry a weapon in Georgia. TSA officials can separately fine them up to $11,000.

The system already accepts that a person can make a mistake and not need excessive punishment for it.  It identifies that a person screwed up, may need retraining, and provides a punishment of confiscation of the firearm.
2014-02-18 01:35:32 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: BunkoSquad: dittybopper: What about in a bag you carry for other purposes (like car trips, etc.)?

Generally, that's what happens, not the one in the pocket, the one in the bag you use for other things besides airline flights.

I make sure there's no "too big bottle of contact lens solution" in that bag before I go to the airport, because I'm aware enough to know THAT I AM GOING TO THE AIRPORT

And you think that's rational?

You think that should be the norm?

I think it should be the norm that you know what's in your luggage.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but what about the inadvertent exceptions?


You may want to back off of this one, it's really making you stretch and sound silly.  You are typically a very reasonable and thoughtful person even when I disagree with you, this just comes off as a knee-jerk defense of an utterly insane law.  It's already been said, and in the "initial text offering" of the thread:   If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.
2014-02-18 01:34:52 PM  
1 votes:
So imagine if you will, an innocent man traveling to a business meeting in Cleveland. It's been a busy day, and he's rushed and rather stressed. He gets to the airport, takes off his shoes, puts his toiletries in a bucket and then realizes he's left a loaded gun in his carry on.

Now should this man, this a law abiding, upstanding citizen, this responsible gun owner be charged for this crime? OF COURSE NOT? It's a silly mistake. One anyone could make.

Now.

Imagine he's black.
2014-02-18 01:33:02 PM  
1 votes:
I don't think this measure is at all necessary, wise, or even ok.

How on earth can you honestly forget you're carrying a weapon into security screening at an airport? I check twice to make sure I haven't absentmindedly brought open containers of mouthwash or too much toothpaste.

The people who want a pass on this sort of thing...it isn't really about firearms, I don't think, it's more akin to the mentality of the people (yes, plural) who I've seen walk to the front of a line we've been waiting in for an hour and say, "is there a line for people who got here late so they don't miss their flight?" No, ma'am, there's not, that's why we're all got here earlier to wait in line. Ffs.
2014-02-18 01:31:04 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: If those inadvertently packed guns wound up on the plane, nobody would ever know the difference.


I know this is going to come as a very profound shock to a lot of gun owners, but you don't get to be above the law just because the law in question wasn't written specifically about you. That's how laws work. You don't get to just declare yourself exempt from them because you pinky-swear you're not going to do whatever bad thing the law is aimed at preventing.
2014-02-18 01:21:48 PM  
1 votes:

Corvus: Is this were all the gun nuts say "Well this guy was a irresponsible gun owner! Don't lump him with other gun owners" but then when someone suggests then that people should have training or the most basics of background checks the same people go "No no no! you can't do that!! They should be able to have guns and make mistakes!"


Nope. The gun nuts in this thread are arguing that you can be a responsible gun owner while having no idea where your gun is, and that trying to board a flight with a gun should be treated as a minor infraction like breaking the speed limit.

Seriously; what the fark, dittybopper? Did you forget to take your meds today?
2014-02-18 01:15:10 PM  
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: dittybopper: Because nothing says "Common Sense Gun LawsTM" than sending people to prison for unintentional and inadvertent mistakes.

Forgetting you have a loaded pistol in your pocket is a pretty f*cking big unintentional and inadvertent mistake.  Especially when you go to a high-security area like an airport.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm all for laws that disincentivize gun owners from being less than hyper-careful with their guns.


If only there were some way to train gun owners into double checking just exactly where their gun is when they know they're heading to a place where they aren't allowed.

/but that's just crazy talk
2014-02-18 01:14:48 PM  
1 votes:

RickN99: Because People in power are Stupid: dittybopper: I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an "irresponsible knife owner".

False analogy. A gun is not a knife.


In Georgia, the "illegal to carry in this location" state law (16-11-129) prohibits the carry of weapons.  Knives and firearms are both included under the definition of weapon for this law.

So the analogy is good: in the eyes of this law, a knife and gun are the same.  Yet if you have a knife, you can take it back out to your car, have someone come pick it up from you, let it be confiscated, etc, etc.  You are not automatically cuffed and taken to spend the night in the Clayton County Jail.



Here is the law that you are citing:

http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=11&section=12 9

Note that this is about a "weapons carry license" that is guns and knives with blades over 5" in length. The original story is that some Hillbilly forgot about his pocket knife while going into court. This is not the same as forgetting about the Samurai sword that you have tucked under your jacket.


http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=11&section=12 5. 1

"  (2) "Knife" means a cutting instrument designed for the purpose of offense and defense consisting of a blade that is greater than five inches in length which is fastened to a handle. "

So, um, you are wrong.
2014-02-18 01:13:53 PM  
1 votes:
How about this  - Make it a $2000 fine + confiscate gun, but it's a misdemeanor(no Jail).
That way, gun owner who is being irresponsible is now not a gun owner.
2014-02-18 01:09:53 PM  
1 votes:

mbillips: Serious Black: dittybopper: inadvertently carry

Much like the "accidental discharge" that I am positive only exists in the realm of unicorns and leprechauns, I don't think inadvertent carrying of a gun exists. We are talking about a tool whose sole purpose is to annihilate anything and everything that the business end is pointed towards. I believe a responsible gun owner should know where their potentially deadly firearms are at all times. If that's too much for you to handle, you shouldn't own a gun.

I can see you've never carried a gun. I had to wear an M9 around for a year when I was in Iraq (a more useless paperweight was never inflicted on anyone; I worked in an office in the Green Zone, so if the hajjis got inside the wire to the point where I had to shoot at them, I was dead, pistol or no). Within a month, you forget you have the thing on. I left mine lying around (unloaded, because the military isn't as stupid as most Armed Citizens) more than once when I took it off to work out.


That's funny, because the only dudes who ever lost track of their weapons in my unit were the biggest fark-ups and retards.
2014-02-18 01:07:15 PM  
1 votes:

Serious Black: "I would tell you that a lot of people carry a weapon," said state Rep. Alan Powell, a Republican who supports the bill. "It's almost like it's just a second nature to them. And sometimes they forget where they have, you know, they basically forget they've got it in a briefcase or a suitcase."

If you forget where your gun is, you are an irresponsible gun owner. Period.


Yup. Just wanted to make sure someone had said this. And seconded it. And continued to second it. And said "this" a few times.

Regardless of what laws anyone wants to pass, it's pretty stupid to say that the basis is that it's normal to forget you're carrying a weapon around with you.
2014-02-18 01:03:56 PM  
1 votes:

Serious Black: dittybopper: inadvertently carry

Much like the "accidental discharge" that I am positive only exists in the realm of unicorns and leprechauns, I don't think inadvertent carrying of a gun exists. We are talking about a tool whose sole purpose is to annihilate anything and everything that the business end is pointed towards. I believe a responsible gun owner should know where their potentially deadly firearms are at all times. If that's too much for you to handle, you shouldn't own a gun.


I can see you've never carried a gun. I had to wear an M9 around for a year when I was in Iraq (a more useless paperweight was never inflicted on anyone; I worked in an office in the Green Zone, so if the hajjis got inside the wire to the point where I had to shoot at them, I was dead, pistol or no). Within a month, you forget you have the thing on. I left mine lying around (unloaded, because the military isn't as stupid as most Armed Citizens) more than once when I took it off to work out.

People need to realize on both sides of this argument that concealed carry pistols are almost NEVER used. It's a piece of really heavy, really stupid jewelry; an anti-gorilla amulet designed to protect against a largely nonexistent threat. Your odds of using it in a situation where no gun would make for a worse outcome are lotteryesque. Heck, most police detectives never pull out their pistols, let alone Armed Citizens. So if you're silly enough to be in the habit of constantly going armed, you're going to quit thinking about it after a few months or years of it never being necessary.

Also, loaded guns are in no way a hazard to other fliers, so freaking out over the "danger" of inadvertently leaving a loaded handgun in your luggage is just that, a freakout. People who want to hijack airplanes or commit other crimes are a problem; idiot wannabes with guns in their carryons have yet to hurt anyone in an airport or on a plane.
2014-02-18 12:53:18 PM  
1 votes:

Jocktopus: Stupid arguments are stupid.

People (in general) aren't "forgetting they have a gun."  They simply don't connect "carrying a gun" with "is illegal in the airport."

How many people do you think walk into a courthouse with their cellphone, or a small pocketknife?  Did they "forget they had a cellphone?"  No, they just neglected to make the mental connection between "jury duty" and "no cellphones."


Not only that, the majority of the airport guns seized were in their carry-on luggage, not in a holster on their person.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where you forget you are *WEARING* a gun, but much easier to imagine one where it's in a bag that you use for other purposes, and you forgot or missed it when packing for your trip.
2014-02-18 12:50:53 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: Trivia Jockey: Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.


Nothing in this thread could be said better than this.

How about ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE.

The current policy is largely "zero tolerance", with the rare and sane exception being news:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-29/news/os-sanford-airpo rt -holds-passenger-gun-20140129_1_orlando-international-airport-conceale d-weapon-permit-holders-armed-passenger

Why not just make a "gun check" part of the process?  If you have a gun, and are legally permitted to carry it, why not just provide people who inadvertently carry into an airport security zone a way to store their guns on the premises until they return?

That would accomplish the goal of a "gun free zone" in the passenger terminals and by extension on the aircraft, so what harm would be done?

Really, other than making carrying a gun as legally dicey as you possibly can in as many situations as you possibly can in order to make people shy away from it, what possible opposition can you have to something like that?


Short answer? because that gives all would be highjackers and criminals an "out" if they are caught in the boarding process "oops, meant to check that BRB"  leading to a much higher probability of gun violence in or around airplanes.   Better public policy it to put the onus on people who choose to carry deadly weapons to maintain situational awareness at all times.


I say this as someone who DID forget a deadly weapon in my carry on luggage once and was caught by security.  Now in my case it was a custom forged 9-in wrought iron dagger a blacksmith friend had given me as a present, and I was able to convince the guard it was a "letter opener" (whereupon she re-packed my luggage and sent me on my way-pre 9/11 of course), but had I gotten in trouble i would have been nobody's fault but my own.   I think the penalties for such thing should be pretty mild if was truly an accident and no nefarious intent can be proven (Forfeiture of the weapon and a small fine for a first offense), but there should be a strong societal disincentive for carry weapons in that environment
2014-02-18 12:50:26 PM  
1 votes:

factoryconnection: You have your sh*t together on gun rights, Ditty, but you don't need to take the idiot gun-owner's side just because both of you happen to own guns.  I don't take idiot car-owners' sides in things, nor idiot parents' sides, nor idiot liberals.  Is the group that lives by the philosophy "I'm too preoccupied to have a clue where my gun is" really the team that deserves your support?


Everyone of us is an idiot sometimes.

*EVERY*farkING*ONE*OF*US*.

Even you.

I don't care if you think you are Mr. McCool, never, ever, makes a mistake or forgets something.  You do.  More often than you think.  But that doesn't necessarily make you irresponsible, it makes you *HUMAN*, not a robot.

Approximately 1.8 *MILLION* people fly commercial flights every day in the US.  The TSA seized about 5 guns per day in US airports in 2013.  This in a country where 65% of the people live in areas where it's legal to carry a firearm.

So why are we so set on punishing the 0.0003% of people who make an honest mistake with no ill intent?

Why *NOT* make it so that they can legally check their guns if they inadvertently forgot them in a bag?  Why the urge to punish something like that?
2014-02-18 12:49:09 PM  
1 votes:
The problem with gun shills is that they just don't understand that this is the crap that will ultimately give gun grabbers what they want and yet, you defend the irresponsible idiots.
2014-02-18 12:48:13 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: Trivia Jockey: It includes: knowing where your gun is at all times,

I'm 50 miles away from my guns, and have been for several hours.  I can't guarantee with 100% certainty where they are.  Am I irresponsible?


Then how do you know your 50 miles away from them?
2014-02-18 12:42:49 PM  
1 votes:
CSB:

My gym bag has multiple uses....the gym (duh), and I occasionally use it to transport handguns to my local range, and use it as my carry-on bag when flying.

I never leave firearms in it once I'm home, but when I'm about to fly somewhere, I double-check it to make sure there isn't any loose ammo inside.
2014-02-18 12:42:49 PM  
1 votes:
You would think this would be one of those no brainier things where everyone would be on the side of "WTF tard, how about keeping track of your deadly weapon and use some personal responsibility". But it looks like there's a few farkers who don't believe being responsible with your gun is necessary, your extremist views are noted so I can dismiss what you have to say on this subject in the future.
2014-02-18 12:42:39 PM  
1 votes:
Is this were all the gun nuts say "Well this guy was a irresponsible gun owner! Don't lump him with other gun owners" but then when someone suggests then that people should have training or the most basics of background checks the same people go "No no no! you can't do that!! They should be able to have guns and make mistakes!"

If you have no problem allowing irresponsible gun owners to have access to guns without even trying to weed them out to some degree you can't also pretend that they shouldn't count as normal gun owners. Because in your world you have no problem with them having easy access to guns.

Either you have to accept them as normal gun owners, or you can support laws for more responsible gun ownership - Saying they shouldn't be considered normal gun owners while be against anything to do make it harder for them to be gun owners is just not honest.

And shut up with the "Well if you pass these laws irresponsible people will still access guns" that's a BS argument only used for guns. Could you imagine someone saying "We should get rid of rape and murder laws because people can still rape and murder even after theses laws are in place!" The reason for laws is not to stop 100% of the activity it's too reduce it.
2014-02-18 12:38:58 PM  
1 votes:
COOL STORY TIEM!!

So for my 10th birthday my mom let my friends and I make a campfire in our sandpit.

This is about 6 acres of sand, nothing flammable, my mom was the secretary to the Fire Chief. The only reason this was allowed was to celebrate that fact that all four of us had recently received our "fire safety" Girl Scout badges. We had a bucket of water, a fire circle and adult supervision.

My neighbors called the police anyway, and the big dumb cop showed up all blustering and angry- because of the serious threat the four little girls were to his manhood or something- and took his gun out and put it on the hood of his car.

After my mom showed him her permit he drove off. With his gun and badge still on the top of his car.
When we found it, we were smart enough to leave it where it was and get my mom, because even though we were 10 year old children, we were smart enough to understand that fire arms are dangerous.

My mom tore an absolute strip off that cop.
GBB
2014-02-18 12:38:57 PM  
1 votes:
So, I'm thinking about hijacking a plane.  My plan is, I'm going to sneak a gun on-board and storm the cockpit.  The gun will come in handy to either force the pilot/co-pilot to open the door, or shoot the lock on the door.

Of course, the easiest way to sneak the gun on-board is to slide it through security and if they catch it, I'll just claim I forgot about it.

mikeandvalblogging.files.wordpress.com
Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding.   Criminals mock society's laws
2014-02-18 12:34:26 PM  
1 votes:

Russ1642: I hate laws that don't take into account intent.


But intent is subjective.  It's why so many people hate "stand your ground".  If I'm intending on committing a crime and I'm caught with a gun where I shouldn't have one, can't I just say it was an accident?  How do we decide?

Intent has it's place in criminal law, but it's not here.
2014-02-18 12:32:07 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: I'm 50 miles away from my guns, and have been for several hours. I can't guarantee with 100% certainty where they are. Am I irresponsible?


Did you leave the house with them locked in your safe?  Then no.  Are your guns are just as likely to be in your safe as they are to be lying on your kitchen table?  Then yes.

But your argument is irrelevant anyway, because we're talking about people who forget they have guns on their person.  When they go into a public place.
2014-02-18 12:27:39 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: I'm not disagreeing with that, but what about the inadvertent exceptions?


They take your gun away and toss it in the "shiat you will never see again" bin like everything else you're not supposed to bring to the airport.  They might also fine you.
2014-02-18 12:27:09 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: How about ZERO TOLERANCE = ZERO INTELLIGENCE.


I'm with this guy.  What's with our zero tolerance policies on rape and murder?  THINK THIS SHIAT THROUGH PEOPLE.
2014-02-18 12:23:30 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: To *ME*, responsible gun ownership is basically following the four rules of safe gun use, and making sure that unauthorized people like criminals don't get access, and that children only have well-supervised age-appropriate access, that sort of thing. That's responsible gun ownership.


Is one of those "constantly forget where you've stashed your weapons?"  That seems pretty common-sense to me.
2014-02-18 12:19:29 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: enry: Because

a) anyone who forgets they're armed when entering an airport is already being irresponsible

Because you've never forgotten you had something in a bag.

b) you have a place to check it. It's called your car or your house.

OK, how about this:  Make money off it by charging like they do for parking.  It could be a revenue stream for the airports.  Say, a $25 initial charge, and a dollar a day after that, with guns not claimed after 6 months being auctioned off.

Alternatively, have a vendor that sells TSA-approved gun cases.  Charge a premium for those, and a surcharge to have them placed in the baggage compartment so you can retrieve it at your destination.

c) why just guns? How about my bottle of water, razor blade, and leatherman?

Well, when you have a leatherman that costs hundreds of dollars like even the most cheap handgun, I'd be fine with that.

d) and you now want to extend the reach of the TSA by letting them hold on to your 2nd amendment sticks. Brilliant!

Are you saying I can't trust the government?


I'm saying you don't trust the government. I don't trust the TSA.

When I leave the house for the airport I double check to make sure I'm bringing only what I can bring on the plane. The only time I got stuck with something was a bottle of hot sauce I should have put in my checked bag. The TSA person let me run back to the counter and have it put back in. If I can do that for the past 12 years with things that are way less dangerous and liable to cause problems than a gun, I think you can be a bottle thoughtful about what you're carrying and where you carry it.

IOW, just take your [ohsnap.jpg] and stuff it.
2014-02-18 12:15:20 PM  
1 votes:

James!: I think it should be the norm that you know what's in your luggage.


Yeah but if you own 75 bags and only 61 of them have guns in them, who has time to keep track of that
2014-02-18 12:14:21 PM  
1 votes:
Before I head to the airport, I give myself a thorough pat-down just to be sure that I *don't* inadvertently go in with a weapon.
2014-02-18 12:09:50 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: So, you're of the mind that people should be strictly punished when they have no ill intent, merely because they are gun owners.


Yes.  The more dangerous the subject matter, the move severe the punishment.  Intent just makes things too subjective.

Again, if the goal is to incentivize responsible gun ownership (which the basis for the gun lobby opposing ANY gun restrictions), then you have to make sure the law has the power to so incentivize.  If you can get away with being careless because you had no ill intent, well then the laws are just promoting carelessness.  Or at least permitting it.  I do NOT want that.


Are you of the same mind for people who drive cars?

Depends on what you're talking about.  DUI?  Yes, absolutely.  Now you're talking a danger on par with gun possession.


Do you think drivers who exceed the speed limit in school zones should have their driving privileges permanently revoked for the the first offense, and have their car seized, even though it was inadvertent?  After all, it's a farkin' *SCHOOL ZONE*.  They could kill a kid by going 30 MPH instead of 20.

False equivalence.  The difference in speed from 20 to 30, even in a school zone, is not a clear and present danger.  At least when you consider causality.  Now if you're talking about going 100 in a school zone, yes, you might be in the same territory.
2014-02-18 11:53:37 AM  
1 votes:

Serious Black: I believe a responsible gun owner should know where their potentially deadly firearms are at all times. If that's too much for you to handle, you shouldn't own a gun.


THIS THIS THIS THIS
2014-02-18 11:39:04 AM  
1 votes:
True CSB time:

The last restaurant I worked at, there was a loaded gun found on the back of the toilet in the men's room.

It was an off duty officer's weapon.

/end CSB
2014-02-18 11:37:23 AM  
1 votes:
"Sorry I drove over your grandma, but my phone buzzed and I had to see who the text was from, could have happened to anybody"
2014-02-18 11:36:27 AM  
1 votes:

Blues_X: "I accidentally ran over that baby."


"I forgot armed robbery was illegal."
2014-02-18 11:29:51 AM  
1 votes:

Rev.K: Nothing to see here folks, just more Responsible Gun OwnershipTM

Because nothing says Responsible Gun OwnershipTM  quite like passing laws to protect negligent gun-owners.



Nothing in this thread could be said better than this.
2014-02-18 11:23:32 AM  
1 votes:
Sure, they'll just take it from you and donate it to needy children.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report