Police Swarm Bungie Office Over Halo Replica Rifle 746
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Funny)
If toy guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have toy guns. Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Funny)
"And now, they're looking at banning toy guns.... and they're going to KEEP THE FUCKING REAL ONES!" - George Carlin
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=50+cal
Pic of Barret M107 for reference (Score:3, Informative)
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/PORSCHER/BarrettM107.jpg [photobucket.com]
Bungie dials 911...Free Publicity... (Score:5, Interesting)
Win!
Re:Didn't Bungie used to be a Mac Game shop? (Score:4, Informative)
As for these days, not too many, but they've only been out from underneath Microsoft for about a year now. Not even really enough time to develop anything new that they could bring to Mac. Halo was actually the last game from them that I remember seeing for Mac (and it was ported by Gearbox, as I recall, not Bungie itself), but I haven't been paying as much attention to them in recent years since all they've been working on is Halo, and that franchise never really panned out the way I expected it to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They were never exclusively a Mac developer, but many of their games came first to Mac and then later to Windows, and they may have had one that was a Mac exclusive.
Uh... no, everything Bungie made prior to the Myth series was Mac exclusive, with the exception of Marathon 2 which was later ported to Windows but began with every intention of being Mac exclusive like everything that came from Bungie before it.
Granted, most people these days have never heard of and wouldn't care about those prior titles, but they were there for years before Bungie ever published a single Windows title: Gnop!, Operation: Desert Storm, Minotaur, Pathways into Darkness, and of course Maratho
Ah, paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Congress can attempt to pass an "Assault Replica" bill.
I've never understood the logic of banning a gun because it looks scary. American "assault rifles" are semi-automatic. Pull the trigger, and one shot comes out. Politicians want to ban them because they look intimidating next to, say, a standard bolt-action Ruger 30.06. This is like banning a V-6 equipped Camaro because "it looks fast".
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:4, Informative)
Don't joke, they have something similar to a 'replica ban' in the UK already.
The rational is not 'because its scary', its to make the bans rather vague in their coverage. You capture more weapons that way, with the general publics approval.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You go on believing that.. Its all about the disarming of America, little by little.
if they can stigmatize ownership enough people will be afraid to own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are already disarmed. The purposed of the clause in the constitution was to enable the general public to have equal ability to overthrow/control the government if it tried to overstep its boundaries. That is what our nation was founded on and that is what the founding fathers wanted to give the people. Now are are just like every other nation, ruled by our government and not the other way around. In terms of relative firepower the best a regular citizen can get might as well be a water pistol compare
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? You who didn't notice the "extremely large expansion in government power" during the Bush era deserve to get your playtoys taken away.
Didn't notice a one of you showing up to Bush's (few) public speaking engagements packin' 2nd amendment heat, not during the time he expanded the federal budget and deficit to new record levels, all the while crossing out sections of new law just cus his lawyers say he can.
Now that you got a Democratic president, you're all up in arms. Whoop-te-do, you're at least five years late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IF you didn't notice, it's because you weren't looking. Gun rights advocates have spoken out against attempts during the bush administration to take guns from us. Bush didn't exactly support those attempts either. It seems to be the democrats that are so scared of what they are doing, they only feel safe when they can take a mans means of protection away from him.
So we should just give up and lay
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama's anti-gun tendencies, eh? Go ahead and post your bullshit links to conspiracy fantasies on right wing blogs about that tired line. He's letting people bring guns into national parks but I guess thats anti-gun if you're a brainwashed ditto head. Not to mention the people who are bringing guns to protests outside his speaking venues with absolutely no retaliation, something Bush would have never allowed (hell, he wouldn't even allow protesters to be within sight of his travel routes, putting them in "free speech zones" as far away as he could manage). Hyperventilating right wing hypocrites sicken me.
Why do so many people refuse to accept that just because someone doesn't support Obama, they are automatically right-wing/republican/Bush fan?
It's quite possible (and is the case for me) that they support(ed) neither.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All you need to do is read Obama's own words about the Supreme court decision in the DC gun control case to get an idea of where he stands.
The President is not a King. He can have any opinion he wants, up to and including favoring a repeal of the 2nd amendment, and it doesn't matter jack shit until he can sell Congress on it. He also is on record as favoring a single-payer system, but if you notice that option wasn't even seriously considered for health care reform.
As for the free speech zones, they were originally implemented by the democrats and historically used by them until your selective memory singled out Bush.
Link, please. I've NEVER heard this before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not entirely correct. The reason for that clause is primarily because the military was mostly disbanded after the revolutionary war, and the signers of that amendment wanted to ensure that somebody had firearms available. Possession of firearms was clearly linked, for that reason, to membership in a militia.
Now you can argue about the purposes of the militia, your theory there is as valid as any other, but it was definitely not ever intended to be interpreted the way that the NRA interprets it.
Our Constitution was designed and intended to limit what the federal government CAN do, not what the states and people CAN'T do.
Once everyone understands this simple principle, it makes this part of the debate moot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even then it wouldn't make a lot of difference. The fundamental problem is with people, not [insert arbitrary weapon]. As long as there is anger, hate, jealousy, envy, prejudice, lust for power, and every other human emotion and failing that drives people to violence, nothing will change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem, the follow laws... They are the ones who sometimes stop crimes before the police arrive. They are the ones who have CCW permits and stop deranged sociopaths who are going on public murder sprees before they can kill or before they can kill as many people as they'd like to."
Do you have an example of this? I haven't done a lot of research, but it seems that when "deranged sociopaths" do go on "public murder sprees," they tend to have specific targets in mind, say C
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:5, Informative)
you mean like this????
Pearl highschool "However, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting [wikipedia.org]
or
Colorado church shooting. "Chief Richard Myers called the Colorado Springs church security staffer "a courageous security staff member who probably saved many lives." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/ [cnn.com]
Before you say that the church security office was a trained individual. please read about the story. as I remember it the church had some word that something might happen and they asked a few people to act as security guards. "
At this point, Jeanne Assam, a church member volunteering as a church security guard, opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings [wikipedia.org]
While I agree that these 2 incidents do not prove the value of CCW. they make a clear statement that not only professionally trained law enforcement officers stop these type of crimes. There are many under reported cases of private citizens stopping criminal behavior with a firearm.
Epi
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole gun arguement can be broken down like.. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) a gun is a weapon.
2) a weapon is a tool.
3) such tools can be used to directly influence life.
4) any tool that can directly influence life also effects the socio/political balance of power.
5) both the government and the people want/maintain power, usually for the same reasons.
6) almost anything can be used as a weapon.
Limiting how a tool is used is the right of any society. But forbidding access to such a tool is a sort-sighted attempt to effect the balance of power.
Short-sighted because
6) almost anything can be used as a weapon.
Guns are powerful tools, but certainly not the only tools which can be used to threaten the balance of power.
The kind of corny phrase 'guns don't kill people' is still as true as ever. People can and do use almost anything at their disposal to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, every single person in the world is either a perfectly law-abiding citizen who would *never* think of using his weapon for an illegal end (such as, say, intimidating his unarmed wife during a domestic dispute), or a hardened criminal ready to take anybody else's life as long as he can profit from it.
Personally, I believe that if you really wanted to be a "good samaritan" you'd be carrying a knife, not a gun. Not only is it infinitely more useful in everyday situations, but there's significantly less cha
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
*raises hands*
I like living in places where the majority owns guns. It's safer. I don't own one myself, and probably never will, but not out of any opposition to gun ownership.
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:4, Informative)
They are the ones who sometimes stop crimes before the police arrive. They are the ones who have CCW permits and stop deranged sociopaths who are going on public murder sprees before they can kill or before they can kill as many people as they'd like to.
The fantasy land of the gun proponent. There's a boogie man behind every corner out to get you, and the gun toting everyman hero saves the day. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Legal gun ownership leads to nothing more than more guns in the wild for the bad guys to get their hands on and more gun accidents in general. The number of crimes foiled by gun carrying good guys is so small in comparison that it can barely be counted.
Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not. Suggesting to someone that you are armed carries the same weight as being armed. It's like pretending to sell crack cocaine while passing moist sugar and talcum power off instead. You were mentally motivated to the same extremes and the people you committed the fraud on acted under the same conditions. It's the exact same technical aspect of the crime that gets you charged.
If I walked up to you on the street while you were unarmed and said give me your money, you would size me up and attempt to
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
That is because the police got very tired of the hassle and expense the massive inquiries that inevitably followed when some moron pointed a replica gun at someone, and a police marksman shoots them.
Personally if you point a replica gun at someone, especially a policeman don't whine when you get shot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ah, paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, almost all the people who actually know a thing or two about guns are on the anti-control side of the debate. When the people for gun control write laws, their experience is largely drawn from movies rather than any personal experience, so their laws end up being silly and ineffectual. They also tend to say things like this [phillyburbs.com]:
"As unnerving as the Fort Dix terrorism plot was, it could have been all the more worse if the weapons of choice for alleged assailants had been .50 caliber assault guns instead of AK-47s," said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer.
No, it wouldn't have. In a close quarters battle (which is what the Dix guys were planning), a 50 cal is far too bulky to be usable; we should wish the terrorist were that dumb. An assault rifle, like the AK-47, is ideal for this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny thing:doesn't happen in gun-control count (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
The police are morons (Score:3, Informative)
Washington is an open carry state.
http://opencarry.org/wa.html [opencarry.org]
Re:The police are morons (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 Informative, -1 Angry Ranting Nerd.
Washington may be an open carry State, but are fully automatic firearms legal there? Are weapons with a caliber larger than .50 legal? Google before answering, and look at the size of the 'weapon' in question.
Under Washington law, it is an offence to open-carry with the intent to cause alarm. A bystander was alarmed enough to dial 911. It's up to an officer to determine whether that alarm was intentional.
So the police investigated, determined that no crime had been committed, and left some sensible advice. Advice, not orders. Seems about right to me.
Next time you hear about some scruffy looking guy dragging a massive gun down the street, and you choose to move towards that person, then you get to armchair quarterback police response to firearms calls. M'kay?
Re:The police are morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Washington may be an open carry State, but are fully automatic firearms legal there?
An AK-47 is semi-auto, not full-auto, so your question is irrelevant.
Are weapons with a caliber larger than .50 legal?
Again, the AK-47 is *SMALLER*, so why are you asking?
Google before answering, and look at the size of the 'weapon' in question.
The police were called about an AK-47 - not a "big gun I don't know the name of", but (specifically) an AK-47. Seeing as the caller specifically said AK-47, the cop's response should have been "AK-47's are perfectly legal to carry in the open."
Re:The police are morons (Score:4, Informative)
There may be semi-auto versions available for hobbyists, but as a general statement that is just wrong. The AK-47 is definitely a proper assault rifle capable of emptying the 30 round magazine in 3 seconds if need be. In fact it is pretty much the mother of all assault rifles, copied dozens of times around the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
30 rounds in 3 seconds? I thought that was wrong, so I looked it up... and holy crap, you are right! 600 rounds/minute, that's 10 rounds per second!
Damn!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's highly unrealistic. They couldn't just ignore the call by replying that AK-47's are legal. As Rogerborg pointed out, even if it is lawful to openly carry such a weapon, it is not lawful to "cause alarm" with it, and the fact that someone called 911 shows that at least that person was alarmed, and thus investigation is required. Even if the gun is legal, the police are very much justified in at least advising the person how to carry it so as not to cause alarm.
And from the 911 call-taker's point of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the point of having a car that can go faster then the posted speed limit? In America, we work from the premise that we are free and can do things until prohibited otherwise. You can puchase a car that goes 200mph and have no legal way of driving it that fast, it doesn't mean that all cars will have a 55 or 70 MPH governor installed, it means that you can possess it and need to be legally responsible with it. Other countries may operate differently in which you can't do anything without getting permi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main point of getting a car that can go faster than the posted speed limit is it will have much more power and be able to get to any desired speed faster than a car with a lower top speed. There are also plenty of places to use that speed (disused airfields, etc). There are ~0 legitimate reasons for having a silencer attached on public land
Re:The police are morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, anyone in the USA can own a AK-47 providing they are willing to pay the money to buy one, and pay the tax stamp.
Or they could just drop 450 bucks and buy a semi-auto version without the hassle. I have friends who own multiple fully automatic weapons. We take them to the range all the time. The guy in question doesn't even carry a pistol day to day. It's a hobby for us, like fly fishing or building muscle cars.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This:
and this:
seem contradictory.
BTW, unless I missed something in the 911 call, the caller did not say anything about anyone being black. She said that one might have looked Hispanic, but she didn't get a look at the other. The police report says that she described two black men breaking in, but there's no
Re:The professor Gates case??? (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed, the situation could have been handled much better on both sides. Personally from what I've read I think Gates was just being a twit and the cop didn't do much to help the situation. Before you spew racial vitriol all over the internets, get your facts straight.
Since you apparently have not yet read the transcript I assume you're too lazy to look it up (it was posted on the front page of major news sites for some time after the incident). I'll save you the google time and provide a link:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/transcript_of_gates_call_1llqzVbjNMc0kloOxegLhO [nypost.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A point well taken, but there's a degree of normalcy shift you need to expect when you live around the corner from Bungie.
Yeah, knowing you live around some game developer studio is more usual to normal people than knowing what AK-47 looks like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least the cops reacted appropriately, both to the initial information they were given.....
Since Washington is an open carry state where it's legal to carry a firearm openly, how was their reaction appropriate?
Re:Perhaps not an AK47 (Score:5, Insightful)
In an age where it is not unheard of for a citizen to gun down schoolmates and coworkers, I think erring on the side of caution when someone is wielding a dangerous looking weapon in a populated area is appropriate no matter what the gun laws are. And I am not a fan of the police by any means.
Re:Perhaps not an AK47 (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that the article says the employee was 'carrying' the weapon, and that police advised Bungee to be more discreet in 'transporting' the replica. So although there are no guarantees, the article certainly implies that the replica was just being carried.
Me, I think the police should have advised the individual who called in not to be such a candy ass in the future. My personal, biased, unscientific risk assessment tells me we suffer far more from excess paranoia than we do from random shootings. I acknowledge that random shootings are a real problem in the U.S., but I think the paranoia we live under is a much bigger problem.
Re: (Score:2)
lets have 1000000 people call up the cops and claim someone is making a nuke in the back yard.
stupid people wasting cops time should be fined, more so than, people speeding 3% above limits or downloading stupid songs made by filthy rich coke addict so called artists, yeah like its ok for them to smoke coke but not ok to download the music? stupid hypocrits the artists and the execs who prob smoke more coke.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that thing has got the size of a WW2 antitank rifle. It dwarfs everything IzhMash has ever produced short of their aircraft cannon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From 30 feet (say, across the street), it probably looks real enough. Nothing like an AK, of course :)
Death of the 2nd (Score:2)
God forbid someone in the U.S. is seen having a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
The media has been stigmatizing and programming the public for decades. Sounds like its working rather well.
Are rifles legal in that part of the country? if so, id be suing for harassment.
Re:Death of the 2nd (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Americans are just scared of someone walking around. [msn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with your view is the fact that it is perfectly legal to carry an un-boxed assault rifle in Washington.
I would agree with you if he were brandishing it at people, that crosses the line, but just carrying it? Since when can you expect to be harrassed by the cops for doing something that is legal? I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but extrapolate that out to other situations and you've got yourself a big-brother style police state.
What should have happened is this:
Irrational s
Re:Death of the 2nd (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Nearly every major PD in America has carried AR-15's (civilian version of the M-16) in their patrol cars since shortly after the North Hollywood Shootout.
Considering you are incredibly unlikely to encounter someone carrying an actual assault rifle (no semi-auto EVIL BLACK RIFLES!!!!1111 are not assault rifles, most traditional hunting rifles are deadlier than "Assault Weaponsâ") and doing so is entirely legal, it is silly to send five cars after someone just carrying one. What next? Do you want the police to send five cars when someone sees a "hacker" (aka someone with glasses and a laptop) sitting outside an office building?
Well, to be fair, (Score:5, Informative)
However, it does look like a whole lot like a Barrett
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it's not that hard, basic safety rules and common sense make it perfectly fine to carry a rifle in a crowded city, if people weren't such dumbasses about seeing a gun anyway.
Unloaded, safety on, barrel pointed straight up or straight down (basically never pointed at anybody, unloaded or not), and hand nowhere near the trigger. Pointing down would probably be best in a city. They are the same rules you use when hunting (though hunting, it's loaded but nothing in the chamber).
Of course, you could a
Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:3, Insightful)
their way to the local farmer's market called 911 saying that they thought they saw someone walking down the street with an AK-47
I've seen people get paralyzed because a black beetle crawled across the kitchen counter. I suspect many people have the same irrational fear of guns, therefore if you carry ANYTHING that even resembles a gun their first instinct is to call for help (aka "call 911"). It's a phobia which is NOT rational, and it's no wonder they irrationally identified a toygun as an AK-47.
>>>officers advised Bungie officials to transport the gun more discretely in the future.
No. Read the Constitution mister cop (you know, that thing you pledged to protect, but apparently never read). Carrying a flag, sign, or other item is considered "symbolic speech" according to the Supreme Court and therefore protected.
Re:Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that makes the beetle phobia irrational is that the beetle involved is harmless (well, technically I'm probably making an assumption about what part of the world you're from there). Whatever you think about gun control, you surely don't think they aren't dangerous. What exactly would you consider a rational phobia?
Re:Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes being alarmed when a stranger walks down a city street with a huge gun not a phobia.
Re:Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:4, Insightful)
It always amazes me that gun owners fail to understand that when people talk about their feelings towards guns, they are really talking about their feelings towards gun-wielders. In this case, the Halo rifle was not walking down the street by itself. It was being wielded by a person. The 911 caller was alarmed by the person carrying what they thought was a powerful weapon.
So remember kids, when we're talking about guns and gun control, we're really talking about gun toters, not inanimate objects.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would have thought it made sense to carry it less discretely. If they split it into several pieces then it will be more discreet.
Re:Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:4, Insightful)
There's such a thing as being right, and there's such a thing as being stupidly right.
Sure, I have the right to do lots of things. I can stand up in a PTA meeting and say: "I think we ought to reconsider if sexual relationships between students and teachers are really such a bad thing." I can walk up to a group of Hispanics and say: "I really think this country would be better off if you moved to Mexico." According to the Constitution if have the right to do it, but having that right, and dealing with the consequences of exercising that right, are two entirely different things.
Walking down a street carrying what looks like an assault weapon to the average guy on the street is just begging for trouble. Notice that the cop didn't say "Don't carry the replica." He said: "Be discreet. Don't cause people to panic." There is a big difference between the two.
When it comes to exercising and fighting for your rights, choose your battles intelligently. A mature adult chooses discretion and consideration when dealing with his fellow man, not meaningless confrontation just to prove a point.
Re:Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:5, Informative)
Police are permitted to advise people that they would be generally better off doing things even when those things are not legally mandatory; of course, people are also free to ignore such advise, arouse suspicion in their neighbors, have the police called and have the police arrive to investigate. That something is Constitutionally protected doesn't mean it isn't suspicious to your neighbors, and it doesn't mean the police won't investigate when they get a report, and that both the report and the follow-up inquiry won't be perfectly legal.
Re:Some people fear guns like they fear bugs (Score:5, Funny)
Older games weapons (Score:5, Funny)
Risk Assessment (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The new math (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The full weight of Labor Day traffic deaths is borne by fifty states and a population of 300 million people.
The 2006 Amish school shooting spree occurred within a one-room schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania.
The body count doesn't tell you everything you need to know.
Risk assessment isn't me
Still looks like a big-ass gun to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it resembles an AK47 or not, it still looks like a scary looking piece of kit to the untrained eye. I know nothing about guns, and while it looks comically oversized, I wouldn't automatically assume it was fake.
As a part-time theatre tech, I sometimes have to transport fake guns for shows, and I always do it discreetly. Just because I know they are fake, doesn't mean other people will, or indeed should know. It's not like people take classes on gun recognition at school. Unless you have an interest in such things, I don't see why you would know what different guns look like.
Reminds me of that girl who strolled into an airport with circuit-boards, wires and blinking lights attached to her jumper, and was surprised when security got rather twitchy. It might not have looked like a bomb to you and I, but to the average person bought up on a diet of Hollywood films, where the bombs always have sticky out wires and flashing lights (and beep, just to let you know they are there), it certainly looked suspicious.
At least in this case the police were a bit more calm and restrained once they figured out what was going on.
Re:Still looks like a big-ass gun to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but in this instance the police acted appropriately... They were alerted to a potential threat, contained it, discovered it wasn't a threat at all and left. No charges were filed, and a suggestion was given that would result in a whole lot of police and Bungie staff not having their time wasted.
To the guy that said carrying the gun was political speech. Bullshit. In this instance, an employee was carrying a piece of equipment from point a to point b. That equipment just happened to be something that the general public took as a threat. The police suggested a way to alleviate time wasted in the future.
If they were to actually carry this item as political speech, it would be wise to alert the police that you are doing so _before_ you start marching around with a fake gun. Otherwise, you are _very_ likely to be looking down the barrel of a very real gun.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need to look up this case. There's an image of the artwork, and an article on it, at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html [boston.com]. When she was asked about it by an employee, she just walked away, and besides the circuit board she had a lump of what looked like putty in her hands. (Upon closer examination, it was flower shaped sculpture.) That raised the concerns of the airport security quite a lot. The object wasn't large, but it's not clear even to me at firs
Replica guns (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK, this could easily result in prosecution for carrying a replica gun. I'm not opposed to that law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet you're perfectly ok with people being able to allow knives, which are infinitely more dangerous? Glad I don't like in the U.K.
I may love the creative things that come out of the U.K., but good god you people are idiots when it comes to common sense and freedom. Brian Cox even said point blank in an interview on Top Gear about a year ago that since he moved from the U.K. to the U.S. he's realized just how horrible the U.K. is about violating people's rights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
we humans sure love our rights, but those obligations that come with them seems to be a different matter...
Washington State allows open carry (Score:3, Informative)
and concealed carry. In fact, it is a 'will issue' state meaning the local PD MUST issue a concealed carry permit within 60 days unless the background check reveals an issue. But the issue is a little more complex. This is how a Police Lieutenant explained it to me when I was taking a gun safety class here: Although 'Open Carry' is specifically allowed in Washington for anyone not otherwise prohibited from owning guns (such as felons), any other citizen can claim 'feeling intimidated' and call 911. If this happens, the PD MUST investigate and MUST send a report to the prosecutor, period. In fact, this Lt. reports being harassed by citizens for open carry when he was 'out of uniform' (meaning he had on a sweater and his badge was on a chain around his neck in full view, which is an authorized uniform in this jurisdiction.) If these people only knew. He carries three guns at once: One Glock in a holster, another mid-back, and a third J-frame .38 in his pocket (A J-frame is a fairly small revolver. The Glocks are, of course, semi-automatics.) The last two you'll never see unless he needs it.
The bottom line here is that a gun-o-phobic populace can claim 'intimidation' because they 'feel frightened' if someone else is simply carrying a gun and lodge a complaint that must be 'investigated.' In this case people cannot be expected to know that a) the gun wasn't real and b) that it was not an automatic, which is PROBABLY illegal here (Lots of rules for this kind of firearm.) How the investigation was carried out is another matter, but here it had to get to that point.
Re:AK47? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:AK47? (Score:5, Informative)
Note it is also completely legal in Washington to have a unconcealed firearm without a permit. There was a court case of a felon carrying two rifles to a pawn shop that got stopped and arrested for possession. It had to be thrown out (even though he was in illegal possession) because the cops had no probable cause to arrest him even though he was walking down the street in broad daylight with two rifles. That set the precedent for OC in Washington.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yea, I personally own a WASR-10. It's the lowest end possible semi auto AK-47 variant, but I love taking it out to the range. When I bought it at a gun show in indianapolis, IN. I had to walk it out without a case holding it in my hands 2 city blocks downtown to get to my car. Nobody called the police. In fact, my friend was carrying the other weapon I bought, a AR-15.
Or maybe the police were smart enough to realize there was a gun show in town.
Re:AK47? (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody called the police. In fact, my friend was carrying the other weapon I bought, a AR-15.
You're obviously a white guy
Re:AK47? (Score:5, Funny)
Years ago I was talking to a guy who was a civil war re-in-actor and he told me about traveling from Michigan to New York via Ontario. He pulled up to Canadian Customs and the agent asked him if he was bringing any weapons into Canada. He was kind of taken aback but answered" Well yes, there is a cannon on the trailer with 20 cannon balls and black power for ammunition" this was all in plain sight. The Customs agent then said "but no handguns or unregistered rifles or shotguns?" he replied "no. but I do have a saber in the trunk" to which the Customs agent replied Thank you have a nice trip."
Re:AK47? (Score:5, Funny)
black power for ammunition
So he was playing a yankee, huh?
Re:AK47? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:AK47? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:AK47? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, considering that my neighbors are all upstanding, law-abiding citizens, I'd be thrilled if they all carried AKs. That'd be one helluva deterrent for criminals thinking about causing trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AK47? (Score:4, Funny)
I briefly remember as a kid when you would think twice about "toilet papering" a house cause you might get shot. (even though deep down inside you knew there would be a warning shot first...) Kids today have no regard for their actions.
I'm not saying that the threat of death should be the only thing dissuading you from taking an action that you probably shouldn't, but it's a hell of a good one.
Have we gotten so afraid of each other today that we feel we need to rubberize the world? (rhetorical)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the following people should be excluded from gun ownership:
- People without full mental capabilities
- Criminals
- People who are paranoid about terrorism
- People who are paranoid about government
- People who are paranoid about guns
- People who are paranoid
- People who are just generally afraid
- Anyone who would actually buy a gun for themselves
- Pretty much everyone, really.
Unfortunately, the US is far too addicted to safely wean itself off guns. Now, the criminals truly do have the guns, and it's to
Re:AK47? (Score:5, Insightful)
why would you expect
I expect people to recognize the gun if they call it by name.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Brand recognition is a powerful thing. Now, will you hand me a Kleenex so I can wipe up the Kool-Aid I spilled earlier while using my Yo-Yo. Then I can get back to Googling the internet for a few more Genericized trademarks. ;)