Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Games

Police Swarm Bungie Office Over Halo Replica Rifle 746

Posted by Soulskill
from the armed-and-nerdy dept.
sv_libertarian writes 'A panicked person in Kirkland, WA called local police on Wednesday, claiming they saw someone walking down the street with an AK-47. It was actually a Bungie employee carrying an overgrown model of a Halo sniper rifle, which resembles an AK-47 as much as a Volkswagen resembles a Formula 1 racer.' Halo 3: ODST is set to launch on September 22nd, and fans got some new details and early looks at the game during PAX.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Swarm Bungie Office Over Halo Replica Rifle

Comments Filter:
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:11AM (#29340413)

    Win!

  • Risk Assessment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:26AM (#29340563)

    And while they called out the SWAT team for a replica gun, people shrug their shoulders at Labor Day traffic, which kills a lot more people than any shooting spree. Human beings are absolutely terrible at risk assessment.

  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:39AM (#29340701)

    Maybe Congress can attempt to pass an "Assault Replica" bill.

    What, exactly, went wrong here?

    If Bungie staff were holding a barbeque on the roof, and somebody dialed 911 because they saw the smoke coming off the roof, would this be newsworthy? The firetrucks would have pulled up, and the staffers would have been quickly told, "Um, please don't do that...you wasted the department's time and money." Nobody would be charged with anything.

    Instead, you have the police responding to a call and saying, "Um, please don't do that" and leaving. This is exactly what should happen.

    Besides isn't this the same police department that responded to the Aqua Teen Hunger Force stunt by saying, "Yeah, we found some Lite-Brites scattered around the city. We had Sanitation remove them.". They are certainly ahead of Boston PD in the rationality department.

  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:50AM (#29340833)

    And it's frickin fun to shoot targets, sadly the AK-47 is not very accurrate. The AR-15 is though (civilian version of the m-4 military assault rifle), that gun is sweet, accurate and holds a lot of ammo.

  • by zippthorne (748122) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:55AM (#29340899) Journal

    There were plenty of parties that "acted stupidly" in that case, but they were all the president's cronies. That's one of the few examples where the police weren't morons.

    Unless you think that the idea that an officer should, upon deciding that the man he's speaking to really is the owner of a house that someone reported a possible break-in at, and which man is shouting at him to leave the house, leaves the f'ing house.

    No, Gates, a Harvard Professor, who did, in fact, break into his own house* decides that the best course of action would be to get all indignant that the serfs in the police department would deign to check upon his well being. Of course, the fact that getting himself arrested would give the African Studies professor some kind of "street cred" if pulled off correctly never entered into this intellectual giant's mind.

    *Actually owned by Harvard's Housing Dept. Which makes the whole thing triply dumb because he was apparently too lazy or impatient to call up housing to get an extra key and instead forced his way in, possibly causing damage to Harvard property.

    I'm don't want to suggest that gates should be punished for his reprehensible behavior, but I'm sitting here wondering why Harvard is allowing their good name to continue to be tarnished by his ongoing employment as a professor

    That's a terrible example. Especially when not two hours drive to the south the police are conducting raids and arresting women for stripping and prostitution despite neither of those activities being illegal in the state and particular circumstances.

  • by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:57AM (#29340929)

    Whatever you think about gun control, you surely don't think they aren't dangerous.

    Actually, I know for a proven, unmistakable fact that guns by and of themselves are not dangerous. I have two loaded handguns in my house right now, and two small children as well. The guns are safely locked away and my kids know about the Three Rules [nrahq.org].

    A gun is fundamentally an inanimate object and has no will and purpose of it's own. Guns by and of themselves are not dangerous: Guns in the hands of people who use them carelessly or for illegal uses are dangerous. It always amazes me that people who would recoil in horror at the thought of judging a person by their colour or appearance have no problem judging the intent of an inanimate object by it's colour and appearance.

  • Re:Death of the 2nd (Score:2, Interesting)

    by misexistentialist (1537887) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:04PM (#29342409)
    Since it's common for 4 cars to show up for a fist fight, 2 for a car accident, 3 for an angry wife, I wouldn't call the police response for an armed man surprising. There are a hell of a lot of bored cops working at any time, so it would be silly not to use them.
  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MartinSchou (1360093) on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:00PM (#29342897)

    Well, try comparing the US with the EU and look at firearm related deaths per 100,000 [wikipedia.org]

    They aren't entirely comparable as they are very different culturally, and comprised of nations that have recently had wars fought on their own soil, come out from under the boot of military dictatorships or have had relative peace for a few hundred years. And you need to piece together the EU numbers yourself. Even better, that list doesn't contain all EU members either.

    It seems there are no available combined statistics for the EU, which I find rather sad and slightly disturbing, considering the amount of pressure for even tougher weapon laws. Denmark is currently in an uproar because a 19-year-old kid has been sentenced to the mandatory 7 days in prison for having two box cutters in the front door of his car, when he was picking up a friend from a club.

    Best I could come up with was simply averaging across the 14 available EU member countries and I came up with this:
    [Firearm homicide rate];[Non firearm homicide rate];[total] (all per 100,000) between 1998 and 2000.
    USA - [2.97];[1.58];[4.55]
    EU - [0.85];[3.73];[4.58]

    Austria, Belgium, The Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Romania, Sweden aren't listed. I'm also missing a country but I can't figure out which one.

    It should be noted that while none of the listed EU countries have a higher firearm rate than the US, five countries have higer homicide rates (highest was 12.3/100,000).

    And while Eurostat [europa.eu] does have some info, it doesn't seem to allow you to separate whether or not firearms were involved.

    Generally speaking firearms doesn't stop people getting killed. It just means they'll be killed in a different way. At least that's what the '98 to '00 statistics seem to say.

    But finding usable data on non-homicide crimes that (doesn't) involve guns is going to be even trickier.

  • Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr@nOspAm.mac.com> on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:12PM (#29343525) Journal

    I've never understood the logic of banning a gun because it looks scary.

    It has nothing to do with logic. It's all about politicians pandering to those of their constituents who know exactly squat about guns, and think that a label like "assaut rifle" actually means something. Diane Feinstein does a lot of bragging about how her utter contempt for the second amendment "gets assault rifles off the streets."

    -jcr

  • by tftp (111690) on Monday September 07, 2009 @05:05PM (#29343991) Homepage

    But in my house, there won't be guns. If there is going to be a gun in the house, it will belong to an Adult, and it will be with them at all times till they leave my house.

    In my house there are guns. They belong to an adult, as it is the only way to be (you were somewhat redundant) and they are kept locked at all times, except when they are used.

    I have a kid in the house, my kid might get curious, and though I will teach her about gun safety, I'm not going to risk her forgetting what she knows so she can get a good look at the business end.

    The safest thing for you to do is to not only teach your kid the gun safety, but also to teach her how to shoot. This is an important factor in reducing the curiosity of children about guns. If you say "never touch" they will want to touch when you are not around (or when it's someone's else gun.) If you say "never touch without me" it's a different story. Once the child learns how guns work the curiosity will drop quick, and many children will never want to shoot a gun again, even when they get a chance. There is a web site [corneredcat.com] all about this, and you might want to read it all.

    Only now, if we had no guns, I won't have a deterrent for that kid, I can't tell them I have a gun, and I will shoot them if they enter my home.

    The police, if promptly called, will need 20 minutes to get to my home. If someone decides to invade my home I have to keep that number in mind. If you have a child in the house you need to consider who and how will protect the child if an unlikely event happens.

    But she won't even know I have a gun until (big IF) I have to use it to defend my family, or she is older

    There is a reason to do it differently. What if she is to come across a gun outside? The safety rules will be probably too much for her to remember, especially if she is too young. A knowledge of a gun would do better. First, the gun will be recognized as such instantly (and not seen as a strange toy without a name.) Second, if you shoot a gun with a child she will remember that loud report that happens, and it will be a deterrent from exploring further. It will be a good deterrent because it will be in a different kind of memory - the memory that children use best. Safety rules, though important, depend on logical interpretation of what's happening, and we all know how good children are at that. Again I suggest reading that link above, it explains things better than I do.

    I don't think gun control would work well in the US, mostly because of our combined 'I'm above the law' mindset, that makes the mass think they can do what ever they want.

    Yes. The cat is not just out of the bag, it was never in the bag. And if you *magically* make all guns disappear overnight, the gangs will switch to knives. It's actually scarier than a gun. A gun works even in lightly trained hands of a housewife, but she would be a sitting duck against a knife-wielding attacker. The UK banned all guns, so knives are all the rage there.

  • Re:Replica guns (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hitmark (640295) on Monday September 07, 2009 @05:09PM (#29344025) Journal

    we humans sure love our rights, but those obligations that come with them seems to be a different matter...

  • by kklein (900361) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @07:39AM (#29349351)

    As a graduate of the "teach them to shoot and they'll be bored" school of gun safety, let me say that this works. I don't own any guns, because to me, here's what that means:

    1) Go spend a lot of money at the sporting goods store (AFTER buying the gun, which ain't cheap) for a bunch of non-reusable crap (ammo).

    2) Drive out to the boonies.

    3) Plunk away at things for no good goddamned reason, gun oil staining whatever you're wearing that day.

    4) Get bored or run out of ammo.

    5) Drive back home.

    6) Spend the rest of the goddamned day taking guns apart, cleaning and oiling them.

    I actually kind of like shooting, but only if I am spared the ownership part. Oh, and I hate the noise, and the ear protection you have to wear because of it.

    Now, if you're going out hunting, I can see that tracking something could be fun, but then let's say you bring something down. Now what? You're out their field-dressing a big bloody mammal, pulling out guts and lugging the carcass around. No thanks. Just bring me back some if you get anything, how's that?

    I never played with the guns in the house, and they weren't even locked up until my dad inherited so many we needed a gun case. Why should I play with them? I'd shot all of them, and it was not that interesting.

    And there is probably the heart of why I think pro-control people are kinda crazy. If they had any idea how mundane firearm ownership and use was, they would shrug their shoulders and move on as well.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...