That Loaded Gun in My Carry-On? Oh, I Forgot
Source: New York Times
In fact, the T.S.A. says the number of guns found at airport security checkpoints has been steadily rising for the last couple of years. Through Friday, 1,105 guns have been found this year, a pace that is higher than last year’s. In 2011, the total was 1,320, up from 1,123 in 2010, the agency says.
Security experts attribute the increase to two factors: a rise in gun sales and the sharp growth of so-called right-to-carry laws across the country that significantly relax regulations on carrying guns in many areas of public life, from colleges to hospitals.
Invariably, according to the T.S.A., travelers at airports with guns in their carry-on bags say they simply forgot they had them. “It’s almost always inadvertent rather than intentional,” said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the agency
Like other professionals in security, law enforcement and firearms safety, Mr. Castelveter was baffled by how anyone could forget that they were carrying a gun. “I’m a Vietnam vet, and when I went through training I was taught that my gun was my best friend — and God forbid you should ever lose sight of that fact. I would never, ever not know that I have a gun in my bag.”
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/business/tsa-is-finding-more-guns-at-airport-security-checkpoints.html
Because they are largely dickless idiots who don't understand what a gun is and are a threat to society.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:41 AM - Edit history (1)
weather they cary a gun or not.
psychopomp
(4,668 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,018 posts)Not a fan of the TSA, but they were able to catch weapons like these before the TSA. Those thousands of flights are safer because of plain old airport security.
We don't need the windows opened because of gunfire at 35,000feet!:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Every high school graduate should understand the importance of keeping deadly weapons secured, and always being mindful of where they are.
HankyDub
(246 posts)is that solving problems with guns is always wrong.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)We could start by pointing out a gun is not a kitchen gadget.... or the like.
Bocks Car
(25 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)Response to pscot (Reply #41)
Post removed
pscot
(21,024 posts)or to anyone I've ever known. No. I take that back. I knew a guy who the cops kicked down his door. They, of course, were heavily armed. You must live in a really rough neighborhood.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it's a standing refrain.
And once you realize that a "thug" is a dog whistle...
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And then go back to constantly pretending you have no fucking clue what anyone is talking about when they mention the standard tropes and propaganda of the Gun Nuts. 
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)People who have often had violence directed at them or their loved ones. Its not talking points or propaganda for them. They are pretty clued in too.
I read the standard memes here...NRA talking points, gun nuts, etc. It pales when you read of TGs shot down, gays/lesbians harassed and attacked, home invasions or rapes where the woman lacked the capability to resist. Those are the reasons I teach...real people with real incidents of violence.
Those who want fewer guns, particularly self defense weapons, in society need to solve the violence problems. Then those at risk will voluntarily disarm. Carrying a gun is a hassle that most would dispense with if they thought it unneeded.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's very unfortunate when such incidents really happen. No one's arguing otherwise.
But then we have people like "Bocks Car" exploiting and sensationalizing those crimes, turning htem into talking points and trying to create the image that absolutely everyone everywhere is in constant danger of having their home invaded and daughters raped by "thugs."
If you want to ignore the dog whistling, you go right ahead. Looks like at least six DU jurists are more aware of the reality than you are, though.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)and I won't paint those who support CCW with as broad a brush as you do.
There are more than enough ideologues on both sides. I have no problem with those who choose to arm themselves and those who don't, as long as it is a reasoned risk analysis and not ideological crap.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Oh right. We didn't. Thanks for proving another gun nut trope though
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)
I saw a British policeman (in Cambridge, specifically), take down a thief with his stick from half a block (small block, this is England). You don't need a gun all the time.
Bocks Car
(25 posts)
oldsarge54
(582 posts)I did see it happen, twice. Once in person, once on the news that evening.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Gun safety is much better and more useful.
Though we should have ongoing conversations about power...
Lightbulb_on
(315 posts)Superlatives in any statement are usually wrong...
HankyDub
(246 posts)Dumbass gun nuts.
Lightbulb_on
(315 posts)Not all.. likely not most...
There are some situations however, that could potentially call for deadly force or the use of a firearm.
Bocks Car
(25 posts)Sauce for the goose, etc.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)is doing exactly the opposite, it is putting more guns, and more lethal guns, in the hands of idiots who carry everywhere.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)How do you explain FALLING crime rates?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)neither side can claim the crime rate as evidence for their position. You know that.
By deregulation I mean the relaxation of concealed carry regulations. I thought that was obvious.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...what's the problem?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)
that gun proliferation does not correlate with the crime rate is a fact, but I never claimed that it did or that this is the problem. Note also that your argument works against your position the same way: if the proliferation of guns does not make us safer, why support SYG, deregulation of concealed carry laws etc.?
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)In fact, there has been a reduction in crime.
Where is your evidence that "the proliferation of guns does not make us safer"?
RC
(25,592 posts)Worsening economy, crime goes up. Good economy, crime goes down.
Paranoia through scare mongering, gun ownership goes up. That is what we are seeing now.
Anything else is diddling with the symptoms for personal reasons.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Because the ones I've seen don't agree with your assertion.
RC
(25,592 posts)Goggling crime and economy or some such, brings up lots more.
It only stands to reason that people need to do what they need do to survive and in a bad economy crime may be the last resort.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And, interestingly, no U.S. data is presented. I am guessing that's because we didn't fit the trend they wanted to show....
Corporal Carrot, is that you?
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)Where is the evidence that we're less safe with laws that allow things like CCW?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Where is the evidence that proliferation of guns makes us safer?
My only claim regarding crime rates in this thread is that they are not correlated to gun proliferation.
Guns are a public health issue. 30,000 deaths annually.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The statistical evidence shows that overall crime rates are not highly associated with guns, either way. But, more guns have the effect of making crime more lethal, since gun crimes are much more likely to end up in death.
This is why the overall violent crime rates in the US are comparable to those of Canada, Western Europe, Australia, etc., but our homicide rate is around 5X higher.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)If your only claim is that crime rates are not correlated to gun proliferation, why is this gun "proliferation" a bad thing?
Also, by your measure, CARS are an even bigger "public health issue" than guns.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Cars kill slightly more people than guns, and yes, car accidents are a very serious public health issue. There are major differences, of course. One of them is that cars are highly regulated in ways that guns are not, and a lot of this is the result of public health research into how cars and roads can be made more safe.
But another major difference is that cars are essential part of life. Without cars, the country would immediately grind to a halt and society would collapse. Without guns, not much would change, except of course for a great reduction in death and injury.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)They're not regulated by law and they're a serious public health issue.
Society would not grind to a halt if we legislated healthy lifestyle choices. Is the potential gain worth the benefit at the loss of freedoms?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The thing with guns is that a lot of the victims are innocent people. Not so with most lifestyle choices.
But, in areas where the threat extends to other people besides those making the choice, there is much stricter regulation. Drunk driving, for example.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)They must meet certain federally-regulated specifications. Only certain people with certain licenses who pay for certain tax stamps are allowed to own certain guns. Purchases from gun dealers require a federal background check. There are additional legal penalties for many crimes if they involve the use of a gun.
How are lifestyle choices regulated in any even close to the manner in which firearms are regulated?
hack89
(39,171 posts)so it is clear that more guns have not made America more dangerous.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Not correlated with crime rates. Any claim that they are is suspect, for either side of the debate.
What is factual is that there are 30,000 deaths annually from firearms. That is a public health issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)or do you have different standards for guns?
Half of that number is due to suicides so it is more accurate to call it a mental health issue. Why not implement single payer health care with good mental health care? If it is a health issue then lets fix it with health care.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And it is a fact that there will be even fewer next year and the year after for the foreseeable future.
And it is also a fact that there are more guns.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I believe that freedom of choice is inherently good. If you can't provide an affirmative reason to prohibit people from owning, saying, or doing something, then creating arbitrary restrictions is inherently wrong.
Note also that your argument works against your position the same way: if the proliferation of guns does not make us safer, why support SYG, deregulation of concealed carry laws etc.?
IMO the burden is on someone who opposes these things to explain why they shouldn't be allowed.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)well spiking downward.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)If someone doesn't have the common sense to not bring an undeclared loaded gun in a carry on bag through an airport security checkpoint, they should not even be in high school.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)each firearm and a two week waiting period on every firearm sold. And, no personal firearm sales without a mediator to track the weapon.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...It's worth doing.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)My history class will solely deal with history/government and economics, not how to safely use a glock.
Let the parents have some responsibility. They want to give their kids a gun, let them teach the little bastard how to use it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'd agree if half the course is presented by those who see the proliferation of more and more guns, in more places, does not bode well for our society.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)There are plenty of qualified people available in any community.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)"steeped in"? That's a little harsh.
I'm just curious...who would you consider proficient enough to teach an effective gun safety class yet not "steeped in guns"?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)accumulate guns designed and marketed to appeal to gun cultist's baser instincts? There is a big difference.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)I have friends who are more into guns than I am. They love the precision, the workmanship. They appreciate all of the little nuances of how a firearm works. They buy new stocks at gun shows to replace the ones they already have because the grain in the wood is more attractive. They have libraries of the history of weapons and warfare, they have collector-grade historical items from WW1 and WW2, they have individual rounds of ammunition in odd calibers simply because that round hasn't been made in 100 years.
They also own 20, 30, 40 guns.
Are they "gun cultists?
I'm not a competitive shooter, but I also have friends who competitively shoot. For them, shooting is a sport (compare it to archery). They are meticulous about the mechanics of firearms and how to improve a firearm's performance. They shoot hundreds of rounds per practice session and they regularly stock thousands of rounds because they stock up when they find deals.
They own a dozen or so guns.
Are they "gun cultists"?
I'm not a hunter, but I have friends who hunt. For most of them, it's a family tradition that's passed down from generation to generation. All of the hunters I know use the meat. None of them take an iffy shot because they don't want the animal to suffer. I know one hunter who got off of work at 5:00pm, sat in the woods for seven hours, shot a deer, dressed it and then drove the carcass to a butcher the next morning on the way to work for the sole purpose of donating the meat to a homeless shelter.
They typically own 3-10 guns.
Are they "gun cultists"?
I'm an air traffic controller. I'm not a historian, I'm not a competitive shooter, I don't hunt. I enjoy some target shooting and primarily own guns for home defense. I don't have a CCW, but have considered getting one.
I own three guns.
Am I a "gun cultist"?
All of us are rabid about gun safety. All of us have used guns regularly and are very familiar with what a gun can do.
So, are any of us qualified to teach kids about gun safety, or are we all "gun cultists"?
Bocks Car
(25 posts)Are you Rick Santorum?
Paladin
(28,267 posts)Most school systems and parents are already strapped for cash. Any potential instructors volunteering to do the job for free would probably show up with pro-gun agendas on their sleeves. Oh, and I love your "Even if it saves just one life" sales pitch; how receptive are you to that argument when gun control advocates use it?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Including people who have no children, and parents who opt their own children out of sex education.
Oh, and I love your "Even if it saves just one life" sales pitch; how receptive are you to that argument when gun control advocates use it?
I think it's a great argument, and I've often cited it as a reason that all children should have access to publicly funded swimming lessons. I only oppose that reasoning when there is no rational reason to believe that something actually would save one or more lives.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)But both sides would probably have deep differences on what neutral would mean. The goal is to stop accidental shootings, so some basics on firearms handling would be required, something the "neutral VPC or Brady Bunch cannot do.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I encounter high school graduates all the time that can hardly speak a complete sentence, write anything other then LOL, BFF, etc. and have to have a calculator to decide if they have $1.00 and want to purchase a pack of gum that costs $.35 and a gumball that costs $.55 if they have enough money.
We have, in many cases, not all, dumbed down our students to the point they are incapable of competing in the 21st century.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...they can afford an hour or two dealing with firearm safety.
Kids respond well to breaks from their school routine. I believe most of them would find it enjoyable and entertaining, and they might learn something that could prevent needless injuries or deaths.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)If you are too stupid to remember you are carrying a gun, you can't be trusted to own one.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)
petronius
(26,602 posts)stupid errors. In the absence of criminal intent or a harmful outcome, it would be improper to apply severe legal penalties to an innocuous screw-up. I'll assert that as a general principle, by the way, not something specific to firearms...
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)That's all we need to know in this case.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Then they should pay for that stupidity. You know, Darwin and company.
Personally, I would like to see DC vs Heller overturned.
petronius
(26,602 posts)does not rise to the level of a felony or anywhere close, and does not merit harsh legal penalties. I hold that opinion in general, and apply it equally to any genuine and ultimately harmless error.
As for the people in this specific example, they can 'pay' for the error by forfeiting the item in question or missing the flight, just like everyone who accidentally carries a prohibited item to a TSA checkpoint...
Bocks Car
(25 posts)
exactly.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"Now...where'd I leave that gun... silly me!"
(BTW "& # 8734; shows up as an infinity sign on my PC, but apparently not in bold.... watch, I'll type it sans spaces: ? )
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)...and they all must be 3oz or less.
If one forgets to comply with this TSA regulation do you support charging them with a felony and revoking their right to use shampoo?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Just turn them back, or make them put it in checked luggage. How difficult is that? There is no reason to, literally, make a federal case out of it.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Bocks Car
(25 posts)in the back seat of the car and leaves the kid there to die in summer heat? This happens frequently and actually results in tragedy unlike a gun in some luggage that did nothing but sit there.
petronius
(26,602 posts)unharmed 20 minutes later...
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)They should be permanently stripped of their right to procreate.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)accidentally goes off on carry on. out the window it goes. (oh I forgot) as you see the plane getting smaller and smaller
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Got to be ready for any crisis, right? 
Toothbrush - check
iPad - check
Extra underwear - check
Pistol and ammuntion - check
Bunch of jerkwads..............
Bocks Car
(25 posts)I'm trying to figure out which people, if any, are exempt from the shitbrush.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)
Bocks Car
(25 posts)I occasionally run into people in person who think like the anti=gun nuts who seem to post here.
I treat them exactly the same way I treat members of KKK.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Be careful, hoss.
drm604
(16,230 posts)While this is probably true, how do they know this? They just take people's word?
Notice they said "almost always". That would seem to indicate that in some small number of cases it's intentional. How do they know which is intentional and which isn't? It seems to me the everyone would claim that it's unintentional, whether it is or not.
Maybe if your skin's a little too dark or you have a funny accent, then it's intentional.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,177 posts)The TSA should detain these travelers to ensure they are not a real threat. At very least they should be fined if the transgression appears unintentional and jailed/prosecuted if intentional.
Gun owners are responsible their actions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)For example, just because one has the right to carry a gun into public parks, restaurants, etc. -- why do it?
Or, just because the right wing NRA helps push through right wing "stand your ground" type laws, gun owners wouldn't view it as justification to shoot an unarmed teenager who "scares" them.
Any private citizen who carries a gun into an airport -- intentionally, or "inadvertently" -- should be subject to imprisonment.
aikoaiko
(34,177 posts)I don't have a problem with them being in expressed lawfully in public.
If someone breaks the law they should be punished. I agree with that, but I'm sure we disagree on the level of punishment.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)That's news to me.
Or, just because the right wing NRA helps push through right wing "stand your ground" type laws, gun owners wouldn't view it as justification to shoot an unarmed teenager who "scares" them.
Because literally all 150 million gun owners did this. That's why we have no teenagers left.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Real progressive of you there...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)However the pendulum is certainly swinging against you at this point and rightly so.
Solve the violence problem to reduce the risk and those who carry/own for self defense will not feel the need. Do that and much of your concerns will be addressed.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)would work better. Besides, folks with overblown fears - and carrying guns in public to allay them -- ain't good for 99+ % of us and, of course, those who profit from guns and accessories.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Meet those I teach on the weekends...almost all of them are there due to violence directed at them or a loved one. Their fears are not overblown. Several have moved out of CA since the law prevents them from having what they need to be safe.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And, there are a few.
But to let and promote almost anybody with irrational fears, the callousness to shoot an unarmed teenager, and perhaps a chip on their shoulders, carry just about anywhere, anytime, is not in our best long-term interest. Guns cause a lot of crud that our current policies don't address. We let too many people pollute our society with all things guns, just to appease the few.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are also far too many gun fanatics who feel naked or vulnerable without a gun, and think it is their god-given right to carry a gun wherever they want, no matter what the law says. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117275348#post13
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117275348#post18
aikoaiko
(34,177 posts)Oh yes, we catch them and punish them like everyone else.
MADem
(135,425 posts)01/23/2003 - Updated 12:55 PM ET
Dobbs' wife arrested for having handgun at Newark airport
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — The wife of CNN "Moneyline" host Lou Dobbs was arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport on Wednesday for having a loaded handgun in her handbag, authorities said.
Debi Dobbs, 49, of Sussex, was arrested at the security checkpoint at Terminal C after the gun was discovered, according to Allen Morrison, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the airport.
She was arrested at 3:15 p.m. without incident, Morrison said. Debi Dobbs was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and released on her own recognizance.
...
Debi Dobbs was at the airport to board a flight to Florida, authorities said. Christa Robinson, a CNN spokeswoman, confirmed that Debi Dobbs is the wife of Lou Dobbs, the host of that network's nightly business show "Moneyline." ....
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)they're just playing dumb and hoping the tsa goes along with the routine.
ignorance of the law is no excuse--arrest them and maybe they'll learn to take some ginko biloba to help their "memory loss" the next time they travel.
Bocks Car
(25 posts)
(Who are 'they' in your last sentence?...)
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)What does the comment in your title line mean, exactly?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)If these folks don't have the common sense to remember they have a gun prior to going through a security check point, they are certain to lack the common sense to remember they have one when they might actually need one.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But you forget that you packed your gun along with your change of underwear and your toothbrush. Sure. I can understand how that can happen.
pscot
(21,024 posts)You pack you're carry-on bag, putting in a gun. Stop right there. Have you forgotten you're about to go through airport screening? Maybe you're just too stupid to be trusted with anything more dangerous than a pencil.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"just another thing in your pocket or purse" sort of thing. Like many people I know carry leathermans or pocketknives.
It doesn't mean it is in any way ok, but it becomes a common item and people just don't think.
To a poster upthread, sure, take them away from most of the police. That'd help the over use of them. Or have them in cop cars but make them fill out a shitload of paperwork if they ever even draw one on anyone. There are cops in other countries that don't routinely carry and have to figure out ways to work WITH people they encounter and in most cases it works. Of course there are incidents when a gun is needed. Also times when a can opener is needed. But do cops run around with can openers just in case they need one?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I wonder how often that's the case though. How can you walk up to a security checkpoint at an airport and not remember where you left your LOADED gun? If you're a CC type you'd want to know where that weapon is at all times, else there's no point in carrying it. As to flying, the relatives I have who fly with guns are very careful to understand the regulations because they don't want the TSA to confiscate them.
I smell something else going on here. I wonder if there is an organized effort to test TSA or test the ability to restrict carrying. I know that there has been an effort by small government right wingers to discredit the publicly-run TSA in order to transfer security back to private companies for example.
valerief
(53,235 posts)of kids. They simply get all "absent-minded professor" 
about the guns.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Just a big ol' misunderstanding.
If they want people to stop "accidentally" leaving guns in their luggage, they should treat them like they would if it were a Muslim that had done it. That'd put an end to this shit in a hurry. I guaran-goddamned-tee you the people doing this are mostly old white dudes.
The first time they see one of their own treated the way everyone else is treated, they'll scream about tyranny for weeks, but they'll knock that shit off.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)That all those militia members are well trained and well regulated. Remember, courtesy of that 5/4 decision in DC vs Heller, the second amendment has NOTHING to do with militias.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Screw these idiots. Let them take a bus or taxi next time.
Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #78)
Post removed
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Poor dears!
I am sorry, you do not forget you are packing. If you do, you are too much of an idiot to pack!
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Evildoer: Stick 'em up or I'll blow your fuckin' head off.
You: Give me just a second, please. I know I have a gun here somewhere. Maybe it's in my bag next to my underwear. Hang on. I'll be right with you.
Bocks Car
(25 posts)Evildoer: "Okay all you airline passengers, you better sit down and shut up because I'm in charge here as I will demonstrate right after I dig through my bag in that there overhead compartment and find my Assault .22 caliber pistol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Skittles
(153,170 posts)and they are allowed to carry guns 
Bocks Car
(25 posts)which were found by their own kids and "accidentally" went off? Ban kids, I suppose.
Skittles
(153,170 posts)gun nut logic
Incitatus
(5,317 posts) Bocks Car
(25 posts)
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)Maybe I find it silly because I consider myself a more responsible gun owner than that.
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)people forget their kid on top of the car in the car seat, so maybe!
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/mother-drives-5-week-old-top-car-164426051--abc-news-topstories.html
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)at a man. Otherwise you'd be banned immediately.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)For example, it happened to Maurice Hinchey, one of the best Congressmembers, whose retirement this year is a real loss and who is hardly brainless or whatever other insults are being so casually tossed around in this thread.
I think his situation was that he put the gun in his suitcase with some clothes and other things that he thought he might need, then put the suitcase in his car and drove from his home to Washington. As it turned out, he didn't have need of anything in the suitcase, and he didn't even open it. Later, he was flying back to New York. He grabbed that suitcase and brought it to the airport without opening it and without remembering that it had a gun in it.
I've never owned a gun but I can totally see this happening. It's just human nature, folks.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The problem seems to be the every-day/"personal" bags: the purse, the briefcase, the backpack. The contents of these bags have become so common that they are no longer conscious thought for the owner.
The "carry-on" bags are purposely packed with the stuff needed for daily convenience normally left at home when not traveling by air. This seems to be where the guns normally are NOT found.
At least the way I read lots of these news reports.
