https://ca.news.yahoo.com/is-i...id-it-173401866.html

This will make it harder to travel with firearms.

Didn't make the news here but another hunter brought one and, when showing the female ticket agents that it was unloaded, he proceeds to eject a live round from the chamber. That didn't phase the ticket agents, they became enraged when he blamed his wife (who was present)for the loaded rifle! They were laughing when she laid into him in front of them. Good for her.

Stupid actions that do nothing for us at all!

So it's legal but what statement was he making other than saying "hey Mr terrorist shoot me first, I'm armed" what a complete dimwit and that's putting it mildly.

Everything he did was legal.

Nothing he did had anything to do with hunting or Africa.

What is the purpose of posting this here?

IIRC, about 3 years ago, somebody discharged a rifle at the New Orleans airport when demonstrating it was "unloaded" to the bag check folks.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
Everything he did was legal.

Nothing he did had anything to do with hunting or Africa.

What is the purpose of posting this here?

Yes, it is legal, but some nut case walking around the airport with a loaded AR will soon be made illegal. This kind of stupidity will make it more difficult for hunters traveling with firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
Everything he did was legal.

Nothing he did had anything to do with hunting or Africa.

What is the purpose of posting this here?

Because some people can't scroll, been that way for the entire time the board has been alive.

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch44:
Didn't make the news here but another hunter brought one and, when showing the female ticket agents that it was unloaded, he proceeds to eject a live round from the chamber. That didn't phase the ticket agents, they became enraged when he blamed his wife (who was present)for the loaded rifle! They were laughing when she laid into him in front of them. Good for her.

Reminds me of the idiot a few years back at DFW that demonstrated a rifle was unloaded by pulling the trigger. It wasn't.
http://www.travelok.net/4_d20192c8b1f50f19_1.htm

Happened again this afternoon at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston (firearm was not just loaded but discharged) with a passenger trying to check in at Frontier Airlines. Absolutely inexcusable. First time someone gets hurt in one of these incidents and our ability to travel with firearms will be history. Man was charged with a misdemeanor, I hope he is convicted. Incredibly stupid.

http://www.khou.com/videos/new...ter-at-iah/29484783/

might be his right to take it to na airport and carry it like that..

just as it is my right to feel he is fuc..ing idiot

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Happened again this afternoon at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston (firearm was not just loaded but discharged) with a passenger trying to check in at Frontier Airlines. Absolutely inexcusable. First time someone gets hurt in one of these incidents and our ability to travel with firearms will be history. Man was charged with a misdemeanor, I hope he is convicted. Incredibly stupid.

http://www.khou.com/videos/new...ter-at-iah/29484783/

Bloody amazing!

This sort of idiot should never be allowed to carry a gun!

I remember being at a gun show in Colorado where a rifle was discharged. Quite an awakening!!

Morons like this will ruin it for all of us

There is no excuse for a negligent discharge, anywhere, let alone in a crowded facility like an airport.

However, the example cited in the OP was not that. It was an American exercising his second amendment rights under state and local laws. Would I do the same? No, but I am very aware of what the RTKBA means to all Americans, not just we hunters. The 2nd wasn't written for hunters. We should be very careful of where we place criticism of RTKBA issues v. NDs. I will never criticize anyone for lawful open carry. And if you do, you are risking the loss of your 2nd amendment rights. You could wake up one morning like the Australians and Canadians did and find some very bad news; just ask one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by shotgun46:
Morons like this will ruin it for all of us

Completely agree. We will all pay for this type of stupidity.

So ........... does the "right to bear arms" and the "right to carry" really make the US a better, safer place?

I don't live there and never will - but reading this sort of XXXX makes me seriously wonder if its a safe place to even visit?

You septics may scoff at our (UK) overbearing gun laws - but I can walk down any street knowing that no-one is going to shoot or threaten me. I am no way anti-gun (hell I have two cabinets full!) but just don't see the sense in living anywhere I need to carry one around in case I get mugged. Even when I lived in Africa (for ten years) I would never have dreamed of carrying a gun for protection.

Must be something in the water.......

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda:
So ........... does the "right to bear arms" and the "right to carry" really make the US a better, safer place?

I don't live there and never will - but reading this sort of XXXX makes me seriously wonder if its a safe place to even visit?

You septics may scoff at our (UK) overbearing gun laws - but I can walk down any street knowing that no-one is going to shoot or threaten me. ...

Must be something in the water.......

You might not get shot, but you can get stabbed with a knife and bleed-out before the paramedics arrive. Apparently that happens quite a bit in your country ... at least in London ... so I am told. Several years ago I received private, after-hours, tours of the Tower of London and the Houses of Parliament. The tours were conducted by very high ranking police officials. Naturally, the topic of U.S vs UK gun laws and gun violence came up for discussion. And, you are right ... since firearms, especially handguns are more difficult to own and possess in the UK, the police officials I talked to said gun violence and gun-related crime is not as common as in the U.S. (but they were emphatically clear that the bad guys would always find a way to have a gun, no matter what). What was the surprising to me was the claim by the police officials that, while shootings and gun-related crimes were less (than the U.S.) knife-related crimes or stabbings were quite high. I was told that cops on the street in London wear protective vests primarily to protect themselves from knife assaults. A well-placed blade can kill you just as dead as a bullet.

Must be something in that warm beer ...

quote:

Originally posted by ftbt:

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda:
So ........... does the "right to bear arms" and the "right to carry" really make the US a better, safer place?

I don't live there and never will - but reading this sort of XXXX makes me seriously wonder if its a safe place to even visit?

You septics may scoff at our (UK) overbearing gun laws - but I can walk down any street knowing that no-one is going to shoot or threaten me. ...

Must be something in the water.......

You might not get shot, but you can get stabbed with a knife and bleed-out before the paramedics arrive. Apparently that happens quite a bit in your country ... at least in London ... so I am told. Several years ago I received private, after-hours, tours of the Tower of London and the Houses of Parliament. The tours were conducted by very high ranking police officials. Naturally, the topic of U.S vs UK gun laws and gun violence came up for discussion. And, you are right ... since firearms, especially handguns are more difficult to own and possess in the UK, the police officials I talked to said gun violence and gun-related crime is not as common as in the U.S. (but they were emphatically clear that the bad guys would always find a way to have a gun, no matter what). What was the surprising to me was the claim by the police officials that, while shootings and gun-related crimes were less (than the U.S.) knife-related crimes or stabbings were quite high. I was told that cops on the street in London wear protective vests primarily to protect themselves from knife assaults. A well-placed blade can kill you just as dead as a bullet.

Must be something in that warm beer ...

I think it would be stretching the truth (a lot) to say it happens a lot - but I guess violence is somewhere in all large cities of the world.

You can get into all sorts of arguments with statistics but there is no doubt in my mind that this is a far less violent society than the US - bit of a generalisation that I realise, but its my experience anyway. Wherever they are the bad guys will be bad and will find some way of letting their badness out.

The point I was making was that anyone over here who is "carrying" (whether it be a handgun or a blade) is breaking the law and will if they are stopped by the police be imprisoned pretty much for certain. That fact I find rather comforting. Anyone walking into an airport carrying a gun openly would be shot pretty much on sight.

Anyway if it makes you happy that its quite legal for this nutter to walk into Atlanta airport "bearing arms" then carry on.

You won't be seeing me for while......

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda:

You won't be seeing me for while......

. . . and we won't be missing you for a while either.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... I think it would be stretching the truth (a lot) to say it happens a lot - but I guess violence is somewhere in all large cities of the world.

If it is "stretching the truth" then I guess Scotland Yard is guilty of "stretching the truth." But ... what do I know ... I was just relating what a very senior official at Scotland Yard told me. I guess you know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: You can get into all sorts of arguments with statistics but there is no doubt in my mind that this is a far less violent society than the US - bit of a generalisation that I realise, but its my experience anyway. ...

Gross generalization.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: You won't be seeing me for while......

Good bye. No great loss.

Yes no great loss

quote:

Originally posted by ftbt:

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... I think it would be stretching the truth (a lot) to say it happens a lot - but I guess violence is somewhere in all large cities of the world.

If it is "stretching the truth" then I guess Scotland Yard is guilty of "stretching the truth." But ... what do I know ... I was just relating what a very senior official at Scotland Yard told me. I guess you know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: You can get into all sorts of arguments with statistics but there is no doubt in my mind that this is a far less violent society than the US - bit of a generalisation that I realise, but its my experience anyway. ...

Gross generalization.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: You won't be seeing me for while......

Good bye. No great loss.

quote:

Originally posted by ftbt:

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... I think it would be stretching the truth (a lot) to say it happens a lot - but I guess violence is somewhere in all large cities of the world.

If it is "stretching the truth" then I guess Scotland Yard is guilty of "stretching the truth." But ... what do I know ... I was just relating what a very senior official at Scotland Yard told me. I guess you know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: You can get into all sorts of arguments with statistics but there is no doubt in my mind that this is a far less violent society than the US - bit of a generalisation that I realise, but its my experience anyway. ...

Gross generalization.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: You won't be seeing me for while......

Good bye. No great loss.

Gross generalisation? This isn't:-

http://www.nationmaster.com/co...ed-States/Crime#2009

or this:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tional_homicide_rate

Of course you need to be very careful in comparing statistics - for example "violent crime" has very different definitions and 70-80% of the offences classed as "violent" in the UK are not so classified in the USA.

But a stiff in a body bag is a pretty emphatic statistic - and you got us well beat there bud.... I've seen enough stiffs in the dark continent to do me forever.

A "very senior official" at Scotland Yard ??? like any politician (for that is what any police officer is above the rank of inspector, my father was a cop for over 30 years) they are programmed to make crime important and "big" - I guess the pitch worked...

The statistics tell us otherwise - crime levels are falling and last year violent crime was at its lowest recorded level ever, despite adjustments to what constitutes this.

Any road - thought this was a hunting forum???

I had a pleasant evening last night and took a decent roe buck out of cover crop field.

And if you ask real nice I might even show you a pic of the 59 1/2 kudu I took in Nam in April?

I am sure your father was a good cop. I have no idea what he did or what rank he rose to in his 30 year career. However, since you have no idea in the world who I dealt with at the Yard, and what their rank(s) was (were), any comment to the effect that they were merely "politicians" who were "programmed" to make "crime big" has no basis in fact. You can believe what you want, based upon your father's 30 year career, or whatever else suites your whim or fancy, but I can assure you that my contacts at the Yard were far different than the objects of your imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... Of course you need to be very careful in comparing statistics - for example "violent crime" has very different definitions and 70-80% of the offences classed as "violent" in the UK are not so classified in the USA.

It is not only the definitions, but what and how the crimes are reported. For instance, in the UK, your Home Office takes the position that it is "unfair" to label someone a murderer until they have been tried, convicted, and all of their appeals have been exhausted. Much different in the United States. If we used your definition of murder, that would cut the number of murders in the US by a significant amount. My point: Not all violent crimes are reported the same. And, just a few years back, the Daily Telegraph claimed that the UK actually had a worse crime rate than the US. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...s-Civitas-study.html

And, about the time when I was receiving my briefings in London, the Telegraph went on to claim that the UK was the violent crime capital of Europe. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...pital-of-Europe.html

I could understand why my contacts were concerned at the time.

Now, I have no idea if your crime rates are currently falling or not. If so, that is good, assuming your crime numbers are fully and completely reported. As Shane D. Johnson, a professor in the University College of London Department of Security and Crime Science, has stated, "Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns."

Now getting back to my initial comments about knife attacks. In 2013 the Evening Standard reported that there were 1,000 victims of knife attacks in London each month.

See: http://www.standard.co.uk/news...es-show-8681511.html

And the Guardian (and even the Mirror ... which you might expect) even have dedicated sections that deal exclusively with daily-weekly knife attacks that are so common in the UK. See:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/knifecrime
http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/knife-crime

The Daily Mail has reported that a knife attack occurs every 4 minutes in the UK, with roughly 130,000 per year, while your politicians continue to insist that crime rates are falling. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...e-rates-falling.html

And one commentator has even suggested that you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

See: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but taken as a whole I will stand by my initial comment, "You might not get shot, but you can get stabbed with a knife and bleed-out before the paramedics arrive. Apparently that happens quite a bit in your country ... at least in London ..."

I find it utterly bizarre that you prefer to rely on anecdote, hearsay and the press rather than hard facts and the point you make re crime statistics is totally untrue - the Home Office has nothing to do with such data and what is recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS)is actual crime reported to the police, nothing to do with convictions, - see here:-

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_352260.pdf

As I said above (and I think you agree?) trying to compare statistics is problematic - but how do you rationalise the US homicide rate being 19 times that of the UK?? Doesn't really matter whose figures you look at its around that rate + or - - and note that UK homicides include "Corporate Manslaughter".

Also bear in mind that "knife crime" includes "weapons" of whatever stamp recovered on the person by the police during stop and search or other actions - so in fact the only offence may have been the carrying of the weapon - which may not have been a knife but a screwdriver or WHY. This is controversial and contentious - on one occasion several years ago a grandfather stopped by the police for a minor traffic offence was convicted of a knife crime - because he had a Swiss Army knife in his glove box.

Most of the press data you quote is very dubious at best - more likely highly doubtful. I may be a cynic but I would not on the face of it believe anything I read in the press - or anything uttered by any politician.

Enough - 'tis a fine day and I am off to make some muzzle music.

quote:

Originally posted by ftbt:
I am sure your father was a good cop. I have no idea what he did or what rank he rose to in his 30 year career. However, since you have no idea in the world who I dealt with at the Yard, and what their rank(s) was (were), any comment to the effect that they were merely "politicians" who were "programmed" to make "crime big" has no basis in fact. You can believe what you want, based upon your father's 30 year career, or whatever else suites your whim or fancy, but I can assure you that my contacts at the Yard were far different than the objects of your imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... Of course you need to be very careful in comparing statistics - for example "violent crime" has very different definitions and 70-80% of the offences classed as "violent" in the UK are not so classified in the USA.

It is not only the definitions, but what and how the crimes are reported. For instance, in the UK, your Home Office takes the position that it is "unfair" to label someone a murderer until they have been tried, convicted, and all of their appeals have been exhausted. Much different in the United States. If we used your definition of murder, that would cut the number of murders in the US by a significant amount. My point: Not all violent crimes are reported the same. And, just a few years back, the Daily Telegraph claimed that the UK actually had a worse crime rate than the US. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...s-Civitas-study.html

And, about the time when I was receiving my briefings in London, the Telegraph went on to claim that the UK was the violent crime capital of Europe. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...pital-of-Europe.html

I could understand why my contacts were concerned at the time.

Now, I have no idea if your crime rates are currently falling or not. If so, that is good, assuming your crime numbers are fully and completely reported. As Shane D. Johnson, a professor in the University College of London Department of Security and Crime Science, has stated, "Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns."

Now getting back to my initial comments about knife attacks. In 2013 the Evening Standard reported that there were 1,000 victims of knife attacks in London each month.

See: http://www.standard.co.uk/news...es-show-8681511.html

And the Guardian (and even the Mirror ... which you might expect) even have dedicated sections that deal exclusively with daily-weekly knife attacks that are so common in the UK. See:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/knifecrime
http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/knife-crime

The Daily Mail has reported that a knife attack occurs every 4 minutes in the UK, with roughly 130,000 per year, while your politicians continue to insist that crime rates are falling. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...e-rates-falling.html

And one commentator has even suggested that you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

See: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but taken as a whole I will stand by my initial comment, "You might not get shot, but you can get stabbed with a knife and bleed-out before the paramedics arrive. Apparently that happens quite a bit in your country ... at least in London ..."

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda:
I find it utterly bizarre that you prefer to rely on anecdote, hearsay and the press rather than hard facts and the point you make re crime statistics is totally untrue - the Home Office has nothing to do with such data and what is recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS)is actual crime reported to the police, nothing to do with convictions, ...

If that is truly the case, then how do you explain Mr. Colin Greenwood's Report to your Parliament's Select Committee on Home Affairs where he states in relevant part,

"35. ... Crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides ...

36. Many countries, including the United States, do not adjust their statistics down in that way and their figures include cases of self defence, killings by police and justifiable homicides."

So ... it seems that you Brits are adjusting your figures downward. Hmmm ... Go look it up yourself ... it is part of your official public record, if you care to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... but how do you rationalise the US homicide rate being 19 times that of the UK??

Very simply. See above. Moreover, we are not comparing apples to apples. You and your government statistics reporting agency have both fallen into the same definitional trap. In the U.S. the "murder rate" is simply based upon a body count. Got a body, death isn't by natural causes or suicide, then it must be murder of one sort or another, and it gets counted. End of story. Get it? Your statistics on the other hand are based upon "recorded" homicides or murders. What about all those murders which were not solved? The ones where a conviction wasn't gotten? The ones where the appeals are still on-going? The statistical report you cite even goes on to tell us:

"Homicides are often complex and it can take time for cases to pass through the criminal justice system (CJS). Due to this, the percentage of homicides recorded in 2010/11 (and, to a lesser extent, those recorded in earlier years) to have concluded at Crown Court is likely to show an increase when the next figures from the Homicide Index are published in 12 months‟ time. Conversely, the proportion of cases without suspects or with court proceedings is expected to decrease as police complete investigations and as cases pass through the CJS."

Not only that, but when exactly were these homicides actually performed? To confuse things even further (and further distort the relevant numbers) your data is based upon when a homicide or murder is "recorded" vs. when is is "performed." We count it when it gets "performed" ... you count it when it gets "recorded." Big difference if you think about it. The same statistical report you cite admits that fact when it states:

"Homicide Index data are based upon the year when the offence was first "recorded", not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court ... Caution is needed when looking at longer-term homicide trend figures, primarily because they are based on the year in which offences are recorded by the police rather than the year in which the incidents took place. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith‟s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during 2002/03. Also, where several people are killed by the same principal suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Cumbrian shootings on 2 June 2010 are counted as 12 homicides rather than one incident in the 2010/11 data."

It should be obvious that when one discusses the relative homicide rates between 2 countries, we should be comparing "apples to apples." However, in this case we are comparing "apples to lumps of coals." To repeat what Professor Johnson has stated, "Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns."

The bottom line: when comparing the homicide/murder rates of our 2 countries, we count and report crimes based on initial data. You count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial.

Now, go out and shoot something ... hopefully a critter with 4 legs ...

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda:
I find it utterly bizarre that you prefer to rely on anecdote, hearsay and the press rather than hard facts and the point you make re crime statistics is totally untrue - the Home Office has nothing to do with such data and what is recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS)is actual crime reported to the police, nothing to do with convictions, ...

If that is truly the case, then how do you explain Mr. Colin Greenwood's Report to your Parliament's Select Committee on Home Affairs where he states in relevant part,

"35. ... Crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides ...

36. Many countries, including the United States, do not adjust their statistics down in that way and their figures include cases of self defence, killings by police and justifiable homicides."

So ... it seems that you Brits are adjusting your figures downward. Hmmm ... Go look it up yourself ... it is part of your official public record, if you care to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kuwinda: ... but how do you rationalise the US homicide rate being 19 times that of the UK??

Very simply. See above. Moreover, we are not comparing apples to apples. You and your government statistics reporting agency have both fallen into the same definitional trap. In the U.S. the "murder rate" is simply based upon a body count. Got a body, death isn't by natural causes or suicide, then it must be murder of one sort or another, and it gets counted. End of story. Get it? Your statistics on the other hand are based upon "recorded" homicides or murders. What about all those murders which were not solved? The ones where a conviction wasn't gotten? The ones where the appeals are still on-going? The statistical report you cite even goes on to tell us:

"Homicides are often complex and it can take time for cases to pass through the criminal justice system (CJS). Due to this, the percentage of homicides recorded in 2010/11 (and, to a lesser extent, those recorded in earlier years) to have concluded at Crown Court is likely to show an increase when the next figures from the Homicide Index are published in 12 months‟ time. Conversely, the proportion of cases without suspects or with court proceedings is expected to decrease as police complete investigations and as cases pass through the CJS."

Not only that, but when exactly were these homicides actually performed? To confuse things even further (and further distort the relevant numbers) your data is based upon when a homicide or murder is "recorded" vs. when it is "performed." We count it when it gets "performed" ... you count it when it gets "recorded." Big difference if you think about it. The same statistical report you cite admits that fact when it states:

"Homicide Index data are based upon the year when the offence was first "recorded", not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court ... Caution is needed when looking at longer-term homicide trend figures, primarily because they are based on the year in which offences are recorded by the police rather than the year in which the incidents took place. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith‟s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during 2002/03. Also, where several people are killed by the same principal suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Cumbrian shootings on 2 June 2010 are counted as 12 homicides rather than one incident in the 2010/11 data."

It should be obvious that when one discusses the relative homicide rates between 2 countries, we should be comparing "apples to apples." However, in this case we are comparing "apples to lumps of coals." To repeat what Professor Johnson has stated, "Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns."

The bottom line: when comparing the homicide/murder rates of our 2 countries, we count and report crimes based on initial data. You count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial.

Now, go out and shoot something ... hopefully a critter with 4 legs ...

I think we're going to have to agree - to disagree, because I'm loosing the will to live here.

No critters today - only paper. Checking the zero on the 243 with/without the mod (doesn't work), re-zeroing the 308 after its trip to Namibia (different bullets) and burning off a box of 22 (fun??). Buck on Wednesday and a fox last week. Quiet time of year.

I don't stay in London.......

yep, repressive handgun laws work well in stopping gun violence. NY was one of the most repressive handgun laws in any state when I as there. I bet you could walk through any street in the burroughs with a hand full of cash and never have to worry about being robbed at gun point.

I am happy living in Norway
Norway Police
Except for of course Breivik!