Man Forgot Loaded Handgun in His Carry-On, TSA Forgot To Notice

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
Wait... he made it through the airport with the name Farid Seif? That is a miracle in itself.

buy teh haloz said:
Shame on him. I'd have shot the whole fucking TSA myself with that handgun. I'd like to see them try to "ensure their safety" through the holes in their heads.
Which is why you are on the no fly list.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
justcallmeslow said:
I find it worrying enough that people can wander around with loaded handguns, let alone take them on planes. Every part of this story is silly.
Yes, I too worry a lot about people with guns who mean me harm.

Thankfully by making such a thing illegal then only err... criminals are armed... with guns. And the general population is completely unarmed.

Our police don't even carry guns.

Shit.
 

trophykiller

New member
Jul 23, 2010
426
0
0
Treblaine said:
trophykiller said:
Treblaine said:
CannibalRobots said:
shootthebandit said:
this doesnt surprise me at all a) its in america b) it in texas

you crazy yanks and your guns, youre all too lazy for a bit of melee ;)
Never bring a whiskey bottle to a gunfight.
>UK bans guns
>Brits act like they didn't want guns anyway
>top selling games and movies in UK consist mainly of Americans using guns

Ha, too true. I think it's funny how taking away the guns doesn't actually do anything about crime.
Guns weren't banned for crime reasons anyway. It was a "feels right" ban.

Yet 10 years later, another shooting spree with similar numbers killed.

Only in this case more than ever before the failings are with our ineffective and unarmed police while the "rapid" armed response team didn't find him till his body was cold. He took his own life, in his own time, the police may as well not have even been there.

But still the police refuse to get into an "arms race" while gangs are in an arms race WITH EACH OTHER while police and innocent civilians suffer the most. I think British coppers don't want guns because that means the next time there is a shooting they won't have an excuse to run away and hide.
See, that's the thing, I understand why one might think disarming civilians is a good idea(even though I am highly against it) but when you disarm law enforcement, it seems like you want people dead. Think of it this way, if an armed gang decides to hold up a gas station, police can't really do anything about it without guns. This means military gets involved, and then a whole mess of political issues arrises all because police don't have firearms.(plus, military draws a croud of people who could get hurt in the crossfire)

Also, aren't police supposed to protect people? After all, criminals don't listen to officer's "authority" unless that authority has some weight behind it.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Broken Orange said:
You are more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. God bless America.
Especially if you are an armed robber, oh the police are always targeting them. Actually if you are a career criminal who likes to pull your gun on police then watch out for those cops, they are sooo prejudiced against that group.

Seriously now, are you trying to be sardonic that a lot of criminals are killed in shoot-outs by police? Whose fault is that? Hmm, the criminals...

Actually you are more likely to be killed by anything than a domestic terrorist act because there has not been a domestic terrorist attack that has killed anyone in the past 9 years. Zero. You are dividing by zero.

Still, with one out-of-context statistical fact you are able to turn all the efforts and achievements of your country's Law Enforcement around into a crushing negative. I mean by your metric it would be better if the police ran away from armed suspects (as in the UK) to let them kill and escape and also not do such a good job foiling so many terrorist attacks directed at the US!
 

Pyode

New member
Jul 1, 2009
567
0
0
ReverendJ said:
Holy crap, you mean the man had a gun and didn't shoot anybody? But... but... but I thought that if you had a gun you HAD to shoot someone. I am confused by this report of responsible gun ownership. It doesn't mesh with the alarmist rhetoric telling me to be afraid of the things and the people who own them.
And he even turned himself in when he realized the mistake! The universe is unraveling at the seams!

Anyway... pretty crazy stuff. The funny thing is just before reading this article I had just finished watching Aliens with the audio commentary and they tell a story about how Lance Henriksen (Bishop) brought a bunch of knives through customs and didn't get busted either. Granted, this was waaaaay before 9/11 but it was customs. They are supposed to be way stricter and more thorough.
 

deth2munkies

New member
Jan 28, 2009
1,066
0
0
They noticed it, they just knew he was a Texan and so were cool with it.

But seriously, that's my hometown airport, I'm not happy about this and the buddy I know that works at the airport (not in security, but still) is gonna get a headslap for this one.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
trophykiller said:
See, that's the thing, I understand why one might think disarming civilians is a good idea(even though I am highly against it) but when you disarm law enforcement, it seems like you want people dead. Think of it this way, if an armed gang decides to hold up a gas station, police can't really do anything about it without guns. This means military gets involved, and then a whole mess of political issues arrises all because police don't have firearms.(plus, military draws a croud of people who could get hurt in the crossfire)

Also, aren't police supposed to protect people? After all, criminals don't listen to officer's "authority" unless that authority has some weight behind it.
Nope. British police are to fill much the same role as teachers; passive aggressive nagging, belittling and petty law enforcing. Their job isn't to protect us, they're just there to keep people in line. One thing you will find is they will run their mouth like no other, they are professional shit talkers as their talk and their legal superiority are the only powers they have.

Watch the UK version of COPS and what are they doing? Tracking drug dealers? High speed chases? No, show-after-fucking-show it is them endlessly pulling over random motorists who have done NOTHING just to check they have the full legal requirement of insurance and their car meets exacting safety standards. What... the... fuck. And the barely containable glee on these Policemen's faces when they pull these people over on a road - in the middle of no where - and tell them they car is going to be confiscated and crushed. For not having ze proper Documents!

Thank you Mr Police man, nothing worries me more in the community than uninsured drivers![/sarc]

We do have "Armed Police Response" but they are de-facto military. They are trained by the military, they have military weapons, they are not on regular law enforcement duty. That means they can be called into a shooting in an area they have never patrolled, they know nothing about, and have no understanding of the people there. Same problem with sending in the army.

There have been so many examples of these "highly trained" units giving terrible performance by failing to stop nor even impede really dangerous threats, then killing people who are utterly innocent and posed no threat at all.
 

Ldude893

New member
Apr 2, 2010
4,114
0
0
They tighten security to the point of banning liquids, full-body screening and using pat-down searches, and yet they let a GUN through security. If that passenger was a terrorist, airport security would have blood on their hands.
Shame on them.
 

Cartman2nd

New member
May 19, 2009
213
0
0
Plurralbles said:
and yet they have to molest young children and women...

FUCK the TSA. Those lazy good for nothing bastards need to go straigth to hell.
Yes, because patting down makes us manly men feel very comfortable. That's logic for you!
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
kael013 said:
Csae said:
Also, why are you guys suggesting everyone on a plane carry a gun... do you have any idea of the logistical damage a single discharge could cause on a plane ? Air pressure, electrical shortages, etc etc. Last i remember the Air Marshalls need special hollow bullets to try and reduce as much damage as possible in the case the bullet misses its target.

The Terrorist wouldn't even need a weapon anymore, the panic and histeria alone would destroy the plane when a bunch of people start firing at someone, who misses, who hits someone else, who gets shot Back at...

Reality check please guys.
THANK YOU! 'Bout time someone mentioned this. Though I think they have the right idea, just replace gun with something else like a meat cleaver or a kunai (and for the kids, a serrated hunting knife). That would fix the colateral damage problem and no one would get groped unless they want to be.
Yeah, but then again, Mythbusters took this one. It turns out you can't cause explosive decompression with a handgun, you need a shape charge.
 

Varrdy

New member
Feb 25, 2010
875
0
0
Like most people working such jobs in the USA (the ones I have encountered anyway), they have no common sense at all and, as such, cannot think freely as it might hurt. They're also usally the type of person who, when given a tiny bit of authority, will throw their weight around as much as they can get away with.

Wardy
 

trophykiller

New member
Jul 23, 2010
426
0
0
Treblaine said:
trophykiller said:
See, that's the thing, I understand why one might think disarming civilians is a good idea(even though I am highly against it) but when you disarm law enforcement, it seems like you want people dead. Think of it this way, if an armed gang decides to hold up a gas station, police can't really do anything about it without guns. This means military gets involved, and then a whole mess of political issues arrises all because police don't have firearms.(plus, military draws a croud of people who could get hurt in the crossfire)

Also, aren't police supposed to protect people? After all, criminals don't listen to officer's "authority" unless that authority has some weight behind it.
Nope. British police are to fill much the same role as teachers; passive aggressive nagging, belittling and petty law enforcing. Their job isn't to protect us, they're just there to keep people in line. One thing you will find is they will run their mouth like no other, they are professional shit talkers as their talk and their legal superiority are the only powers they have.

Watch the UK version of COPS and what are they doing? Tracking drug dealers? High speed chases? No, show-after-fucking-show it is them endlessly pulling over random motorists who have done NOTHING just to check they have the full legal requirement of insurance and their car meets exacting safety standards. What... the... fuck. And the barely containable glee on these Policemen's faces when they pull these people over on a road - in the middle of no where - and tell them they car is going to be confiscated and crushed. For not having ze proper Documents!

Thank you Mr Police man, nothing worries me more in the community than uninsured drivers![/sarc]

We do have "Armed Police Response" but they are de-facto military. They are trained by the military, they have military weapons, they are not on regular law enforcement duty. That means they can be called into a shooting in an area they have never patrolled, they know nothing about, and have no understanding of the people there. Same problem with sending in the army.

There have been so many examples of these "highly trained" units giving terrible performance by failing to stop nor even impede really dangerous threats, then killing people who are utterly innocent and posed no threat at all.
May I ask how in the world the UK doesn't have a rebellion on it's hands? Honestly, taking away our guns is enough to make 80% of everyone I know(including me) rebel against the government. Heck, some here in america even think that the president who illegalizes guns is the antichrist and must be overthrown in the name of god.(you have never seen a violently enraged mormon, and trust me, it aint pretty)

Seriously, with everything I've seen, it's unbelievable that no revolution is taking place. I think the new anti-porn bill will push things over the edge(imagine that in a history book).
 

thejboy88

New member
Aug 29, 2010
1,515
0
0
If your source is true it shows a frightening picture of the ineptness of some airport security personell. It's bad enough that airport security is getting over-the-top, now it runs out they're not even paying attention to the most basic fundamental aspects of it.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
ReaperzXIII said:
Well the new scanners can be fooled with pancakes so I'm just gonna say the TSA sucks and leave
You know what they say

"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me with pancakes... well at least I got pancakes"
 

Kair

New member
Sep 14, 2008
674
0
0
Broken Orange said:
This shows that this TSA crap is just theatrics. Gives the illusions of security. You are more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. God bless America.
And you are even more likely to be killed by a firearms-enthusiast or "Patriot" living nearby.

And even more likely than that, you'll be killed by a member of your family wielding firearms for 'protection'.