TSA finds average of 4 guns each day at airports

[jwoody]

your math is wrong

Let's not trivialize how many idiots there are...remember less than 5% of americans carry a gun on their person, that would onlybe be 75,000 carriersmore that flywould each day, so there are actually 20 times more morons than your "small potatoes"...just sayin'

 

[6shootercarry]

I have serious concerns about someone who forgets they are armed or forgets their weapon is in their briefcase or luggage.

Perhaps they just aren't responsible enough to possess a weapon.

Perhaps the NRA's firearms safety list should be amended to include, as item number 1, the rule "Always know where your weapon is located. If you don't know where it is located then it isn't of any use to you anyway."

Most passengers caught say they 'forgot' they were carrying a weapon​

"I was going to shot the perp, but I forgot where my weapon was...."


​

I have serious concerns about A-holes such as yourself who believe they are perfect and beyond reproach... You would have the entire country take a test and prove valid cause to carry a firearm if you had the power to do so... Another dictator in the making... I bet you would vote for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would repeal the 2nd Amendment thereby fixing this "irresponsible people w/ guns" problem... I bet you would also force people to walk or take mass transit to fix the entire "distracted driver problem" What color is the sky where you exist? No matter how hard you try you will never be able to take all the sharp edges off the world and pad all of it's corners...

Be responsible for yourself and let the rest of the world exist with freedom and liberty... GFY...

 

[localgirl]

The picture shows 2 fake guns. I hope that wasn't meant to symbolize what the TSA considers a dangerous weapon. And why confiscate the empty casings?

That would actually be pretty sweet to witness. I would get in so much trouble for giggling.

 

[Black Dragon]

Ok the TSA finds 4 guns each day. What were the numbers before there was TSA?
If the numbers are the same then it's business as usual and it's another reason we don't need the TSA.

 

[jg1967]

Most people don't fly a lot ... some people live in places where carrying really isn't a big deal and they honestly stop thinking about it. Anyway, maybe everybody should be allowed to pack heat on a plane? I'd like to see the next skyjacking after that.

 

[B2Tall]

The picture shows 2 fake guns. I hope that wasn't meant to symbolize what the TSA considers a dangerous weapon. And why confiscate the empty casings?

I'm sure they would stop you from boarding with anything that could pass for a real gun. It's the threat of violence that gets planes hijacked. A reproduction, toy, etc. isn't likely to get you arrested but you can bet they're not going to let you on with it. Shortly after 9/11 I tried to board a plane with a small Swiss army knife that was in my toiletry kit. No alarms, no arrest....just a TSA guy telling me I can't take it on the plane. Since it was a gift from someone, I went to the post office that was in the airport (Reagan intl. in D.C.) and mailed it to myself.

 

[B2Tall]

Most people don't fly a lot ... some people live in places where carrying really isn't a big deal and they honestly stop thinking about it. Anyway, maybe everybody should be allowed to pack heat on a plane? I'd like to see the next skyjacking after that.

I don't think I'd want to be in a narrow aluminum tube that's packed with people, shoulder-to-shoulder, when a gun fight breaks out.....especially at 35,000 feet.

 

[Phillip Gain]

Standing by for Mr. Gain's reply as to what an a$$&*!@ I am....

I have no comment. Your nitpicky, self-righteous assholishness speaks for itself.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I have no comment. Your nitpicky, self-righteous assholishness speaks for itself.

I also happened to be right. I notice you left that out of your list.

I need to modify one of my universal rules:

The three biggest sources of misinformation regarding firearms laws continue to prove themselves to be LEO, gun store employees and firearms instuctors.

Heck, I didn't even put "instructor" in quotes when I posted the correct information from the authoritative sources.

If you don't want me to respond to your posts, then do some research and stop posting false information. We have enough restrictions that are real, and restrictions that the anti-gun crowd desires. We don't need to add any false restrictions upon ourselves from inside the gun community, and you seem to like to do that a lot.

 

[jg1967]

I don't think I'd want to be in a narrow aluminum tube that's packed with people, shoulder-to-shoulder, when a gun fight breaks out.....especially at 35,000 feet.

Me neither. But I would like it even less to be in a plane that gets hijacked because nobody can do nothing at all.

 

[Phillip Gain]

I also happened to be right. I notice you left that out of your list.

I need to modify one of my universal rules:

The three biggest sources of misinformation regarding firearms laws continue to prove themselves to be LEO, gun store employees and firearms instuctors.

Heck, I didn't even put "instructor" in quotes when I posted the correct information from the authoritative sources.

If you don't want me to respond to your posts, then do some research and stop posting false information. We have enough restrictions that are real, and restrictions that the anti-gun crowd desires. We don't need to add any false restrictions upon ourselves from inside the gun community, and you seem to like to do that a lot.

There is a big difference between "subject to interpretation" and "wrong." I'm not sure what makes YOU the defining authority, when highly-paid airline attorneys cannot seem to agree on the interpretation of the Federal law when writing policy for their clients.

Once again, your nitpicky, self-righteous assholishness speaks for itself. You are a small man, and your petty arrogance never ceases to astound me.

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't think I'd want to be in a narrow aluminum tube that's packed with people, shoulder-to-shoulder, when a gun fight breaks out.....especially at 35,000 feet.

Right, because everyone knows that wherever law abiding free men and women are "allowed" to exercise their 2nd Amendment "rights," gunfights break out on a regular basis. Link Removed Pfft.

Blues

 

[B2Tall]

Right, because everyone knows that wherever law abiding free men and women are "allowed" to exercise their 2nd Amendment "rights," gunfights break out on a regular basis. Link Removed Pfft.

Blues

My comment was with regards to a hypothetical attempted hijacking that another poster had alluded to, not a bunch of law-abiding citizens taking an uneventful flight.

 

[jg1967]

My comment was with regards to a hypothetical attempted hijacking that another poster had alluded to, not a bunch of law-abiding citizens taking an uneventful flight.

Since that was my comment, he is correct. But again, I would rather get shot up in a busted hijacking and 328 other people make it back home alive then the hijacking be a big hit and all 329 die.

 

[nogods]

I have serious concerns about A-holes such as yourself who believe they are perfect and beyond reproach... You would have the entire country take a test and prove valid cause to carry a firearm if you had the power to do so... Another dictator in the making... I bet you would vote for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would repeal the 2nd Amendment thereby fixing this "irresponsible people w/ guns" problem... I bet you would also force people to walk or take mass transit to fix the entire "distracted driver problem" What color is the sky where you exist? No matter how hard you try you will never be able to take all the sharp edges off the world and pad all of it's corners...

Be responsible for yourself and let the rest of the world exist with freedom and liberty... GFY...

We don't need to amend the 2nd to allow us to take firearms away from criminals - the 2nd already allows us to do that.

And no, we won't let idiots have the freedom to expose the rest of us to harm with their idiotic behavior.

 

[6shootercarry]

We don't need to amend the 2nd to allow us to take firearms away from criminals - the 2nd already allows us to do that.

What I wrote:"thereby fixing this "irresponsible people w/ guns" problem"... Not all people who are irresponsible are criminals. Seems you have lumped them together. I'm sure you would disarm them also...

And no, we won't let idiots have the freedom to expose the rest of us to harm with their idiotic behavior.

And to that statement I offer for examination: President of The United States of America, Barack Obama and Vice President, Joe Biden... And I bet if left unchecked, you could be added to that list also?

So what happens when they tell you "hand 'em over"? No more guns for citizens? Do you fight? You have to believe that the "right" is sacred and belongs to you... Else be just another subject...

 

[BluesStringer]

My comment was with regards to a hypothetical attempted hijacking that another poster had alluded to, not a bunch of law-abiding citizens taking an uneventful flight.

Yeah, I saw that. I presume then that the gunfight to which you alluded would be between at least one law-abiding armed citizen and a law-breaking hijacker armed with a gun? If so, between the previous post that I responded to and this one that I'm responding to here, can we reasonably assume that if you found yourself in a hijacking situation, you'd prefer the hijacker to be the only one armed with a gun?

Blues

 

[S&W645]

There is a big difference between "subject to interpretation" and "wrong." I'm not sure what makes YOU the defining authority, when highly-paid airline attorneys cannot seem to agree on the interpretation of the Federal law when writing policy for their clients.

Once again, your nitpicky, self-righteous assholishness speaks for itself. You are a small man, and your petty arrogance never ceases to astound me.

Part of the problem with airline attorneys is that they too inject thier ideas into the airline rules. What agenda do they have? You'll find the same thing happened on the petition to change the issue status in CA. The offical wording on the petitions is dead opposite of what the bill text says due to the State's Attorney having a hidden agenda that isn't so hidden anymore.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Part of the problem with airline attorneys is that they too inject thier ideas into the airline rules. What agenda do they have? You'll find the same thing happened on the petition to change the issue status in CA. The offical wording on the petitions is dead opposite of what the bill text says due to the State's Attorney having a hidden agenda that isn't so hidden anymore.

In addition, attorneys, like CCW instructors, will err on the side of caution, at the expense of person freedom and rights, in order to provide as much protection to their clients as possible. God forbid one of their clients should get hassled or even arrested for engaging in perfectly legal behavior. They might turn around and sue the lawyer/instructor because the lawyer/instructor did not warn them against engaging in perfectly legal behavior. Just like all those warnings and cautions you see in instruction manuals for anything.

 

[B2Tall]

Yeah, I saw that. I presume then that the gunfight to which you alluded would be between at least one law-abiding armed citizen and a law-breaking hijacker armed with a gun? If so, between the previous post that I responded to and this one that I'm responding to here, can we reasonably assume that if you found yourself in a hijacking situation, you'd prefer the hijacker to be the only one armed with a gun?

Blues

When's the last time a potential hijacker got a gun aboard a US commercial flight??

Don't like it? Don't fly. It's your option. Nobody is forcing you to put your gun down. They're just telling you to pick one or the other.