I see an incredible amount of "shoot off mouth first think later" in this thread. But at least it's tempered by some folks with level heads.
Flash said:
: Typical Double-Standard when applying the law! You know the outcome if it were any of us sneaking a gun on board!
This is a fairly typical example of "if they can fly to the moon, why can't they cure cancer?" thinking. Who are "they"? And it's comparing apples and oranges big time. The guy who was jailed was jailed in the UK, which as Englishman explains below, has a draconian set of laws designed to severely punish anyone who has anything to do with guns. Laws in the US are rather different, and officials act according to freer standards. Perhaps the right answer is that UK officials shouldn't have jailed the guy.
Flash's statement implies that US officials ought to act according to UK standards. This is nonsensical.
It also ignores the simple fact that Simon didn't provide any information about the guy jailed in the UK. We have no information about the circumstances other than that a guy carrying ammunition into the UK was jailed. Not enough information to second-guess what officials did. Nor do we know anything about what US officials extracted from the Congressman. But it's not too likely that the Congressman was going to hijack the plane or do anything else nasty. At worst he's guilty of gross stupidity. If we jailed people for that, we'd being jailing everyone.
Flash also said:
: When I used to carry my (licensed) handgun, I knew at ALL TIMES its location.
Yes, and we can see that you never make mistakes in other areas.
Yerusalim said:
: Can you say IDIOT...apply the law.
Yeah, his oversight was idiotic alright. But do you know the law? Does the law have mandatory sentences for bringing a loaded gun onto airport property? Or do officials have leeway to apply common sense to a given situation?
This reminds me of some idiotic school officials I recently read about. Seems they expelled a little girl for bringing drugs onto school property. Turns out that the "drugs" were nothing more than an over-the-counter bottle of ibuprofin, which the girl's doctor had told her mother to give her to help with some medical condition. Upon questioning by news media, the school officials said, "Well, we treat all drug violations the same." Can you say, "stupid"?
Bryan said:
: I used to hunt a lot with my .22. I was always arriving places with my jacket having shot in the pocket.
Like the airport, I suppose.
: Didn't mean I put it there before I left for my destination.
You mean you put it there after you left for your destination?
Bryan also said:
: Isn't it illegal to cary a gun into an airport?
You tell me. If it was, then the Congressman should have been penalized for that.
Simon said:
: So, if someone is caught with a gun they should just be able to say "oops ... I forgot I had it" and everything shoudl be Ok ?
I said nothing of the kind. Your statement is a straw man. My point was that officials need to consider individual circumstances. How do they do that? By intense questioning of suspects. If the law provides penalties for such stupid mistakes, then by all means apply them. But you have no information about that in our example here, and so you have no business making judgments. You also have no business applying UK law to the US.
In comments you made to Englishman below, you said:
: I'm the first to criticise my own country but am also happy to accept criticisms that other people make as long as they are fair and accurate (but I'll dispute it if they are not).
Yes, the point is being fair and accurate, not only about political things but about everything else. Because you've made a judgment based on incomplete information, and compared apples and oranges, you've violated your good standard. And I'm disputing your claims.
The point about combatting terrorism and making flying safe is not to penalize people for making stupid mistakes. It's to stop terrorists from killing innocent people.
I read a comment recently from an Israeli security official about the poor methods US officials use for airport screening. US officials, trying to be Politically Correct and all, view everyone as a potential terrorist, because it wouldn't be PC to single anyone out based on group membership. His point was that normal people pose no threat, but statistically it's an almost certain bet that terrorists will be from a small number of groups. The point was to concentrate on passengers from those groups, in particular by intense pre-screening between the time they buy their ticket and when they get on the plane. Of course, screening at the point of check-in remains necessary.
: Yes, I'm sure that is a good deterant against people up to no good.
Point being, you do it intelligently. It would be stupid to automatically jail people for making even very stupid, but inadvertant, mistakes.
: Funny, people who joke that they have a bomb in their bag get thrown in jail
Examples, please. Also, tell us whether this happened in the UK or the US. I'm sure there's a difference. I know for a fact that US airport screeners will shake you down big time if you joke that way. But it's more of a means to stop people from creating large and unnecessary disturbances than to find real terrorists. I mean, a real terrorist isn't going to announce that he has a gun, right?
My young (and sometimes foolish) stepson made such a joke a couple of years ago, except it was a wisecrack about having a gun in his travel bag. They shook him down pretty good, and he learned a lesson. But it would have been stupid to jail him, wouldn't you agree?
: but someone with a REAL weapon walks away.
Once again, you don't have enough information to properly judge the actions of the officials. Or maybe you're God.
: Ah ... money and position talks eh?
Yeah. Fact of life.
But that's a different topic than making judgments about things you don't know enough about to judge.
Simon also said:
:: Simon, I'm afraid your hatred for all things American is coming out loud and clear here. So is your bias against gun ownership.
: Alan. This is rediculous.
I don't think so, Simon. I've observed your comments for years, and to me they boil down to one thing: extreme bias bordering on hatred for things American. You might not be that extreme in reality, but not having sat down with you over some good English beer, I can only go by your public comments. You want examples from memory?
: I'm all for improved security but it has to be applied consistently and fairly and this is just giving people a 'let off' for carrying weapons onto planes which has to be a *bad thing*.
Yes, but you're still comparing apples and oranges. I forgot to point it out in my first post, but I pointed it out above: one situation occurred in the US and the other in the UK. The laws and standards are quite different.
If you really want to make me believe you, then you should carefully consider my above comments, and comment substantively in return. If you don't, then I'll continue believing what I believe. You might not care, but that's another issue.
: Never mind the dope carrying a weapon around and not realising it ... that is so irresponsible.
I completely agree, and if there are laws penalizing that, the guy should have been penalized. But neither you nor I have enough information to judge this case.
I've read Englishman's comments about your real views (see below and please comment as you see fit), but I disagree with him based on my personal observation of your bias. Nevertheless, you told him:
: I just want a good world for my kids to grow up in and don't like to see their future being threatened by greed, corruption and incompetence. I also hate to see injustice and double standards applied.
I completely agree! My point in this post is to point out your own problem with standards. You need to develop a lot more objectivity.
: There seems to be a rediculous notion with some people that everyone must accept that their country is the best and most accomplished in every aspect and this is clearly a laughable notion.
All too true. But tribalism, provincialism, and fanatical nationalism is a fact of life. We have no choice but to deal with it. And to deal with it requires objectivity. You're never going to have a prayer of convincing someone who lives by "my country right or wrong" that his country is wrong if you commit the same fallacies of thinking that he does. The only hope is to be objective and low key, hoping that he'll see it and learn from it.
: There are a lot of good things about America but, infortunately, a lot of ills and it would be a shame if people stopped fighting for a better tomorrow and just accepted a slow decline.
In line with my comments to Englishman below, in terms of the long sweep of history, America will certainly decline. How long it will take is anyone's guess. But sure, we ought to fight for a better tomorrow. And just as surely, we ought to do it with facts and reasonableness, not by adopting Bushian tactics.
FMZ said:
: if you think taking a pocket full of ammo onto a plane is a blatant attempt at hijacking the plane or whatever, then you, my friend, have a problem.
I said nothing of the kind. Go back and reread my comments. When you understand them, then you can perhaps make a response that addresses what I actually said.
: As someone else mentioned, if you forget that you have a lethal weapon on your person, then you don't deserve to even carry it in the first place!
I agree. Who ever said that all US Congressmen are competent enough to carry weapons?
: Now this post is not to say that I support the idea of throwing this dumbass in jail just for being retarded. It is impossible to know someone's motive for doing anything, but I highly doubt that this man intended to cause problems on the plane. I say, just use common sense.
Precisely my point. And I think that that's exactly what the US officials did.
Avishai said:
: Yep. It's a double standard, and it sux. And I'll even throw simon a bone here.
Ah, so you think that US and UK officials ought to act according to the same set of laws. Well, I'm afraid you'll have to convince Congress and Parliament of that first.
: Why is it that clinton got so much hassle for smoking one J, and dubya hardly raised an eybrow for admittedly doing coke? And endangering people with his car while drunk?
Easy. Republicans control most of the media in the US. Take it from there.
: I'm conservative, but the republicans are real a--holes with their witchhunts, like monicagate. Especially the rabid senators who had affairs themselves. Disgusting.
I agree. But I hope you're not politically naive enough to think that these people really care about what Clinton or Bush have done in their personal lives. It's all part of the political game -- which is to use whatever means available to get elected, especially by deceiving naive people into thinking they really have a moral agenda.
Englishman, thanks for your advice:
: Don't bring in anything remotely associated with firearms, even replicas, ammo, anything at all, not only in hand baggage but in your main luggage too.
: Penalties are draconian and your chances of getting bail before coming to court are virtually zero.
You also said:
: Having known Simon for quite some time, I know for a fact that he is not anti-American.
Alright, I appreciate your opinion. But I'll only believe it if I see Simon himself explain his -- to me -- extremely biased comments made over a period of years.
: What he is, IMHO, is anti-anything that he sees as having an adverse or unfair effect on others.
I'm completely in agreement with such sentiments. But one needs to be fair in making judgments of situations. Take Michael Moore, for example. This muckraker has made quite a name for himself among liberals by digging up all sorts of dirt and publicizing it. No problem there, as long as he reports fairly. But I've observed that he constantly exaggerates things, sometimes to the point of outright distortion. Deliberately distorting things -- even for a supposedly good purpose -- makes Moore a liar. Having seen an abundance of such distortions in his writings, I now dismiss him as a self-serving muckraker.
Do you get my point?
: This does, again IMHO, make him anti-establishment in that he deplores the negative effect of some big businesses. He also deplores spin-doctor type politics as typified by Blair & Bush. Plus he loathes the harmful effects of pollution on our Earth.
I totally agree with all that. I think that Bush is a complete moron and is happily letting himself be used as a brainless puppet by the oil industry and other huge businesses. I sometimes give a sad chuckle when I see Richard Cheney pulling the strings. I think that history will judge Bush as the worst American president of all time.
But that doesn't give me an excuse to exaggerate and distort things. If I do, I'm not much better than Bush and Blair.
: The US is always going to be the worst offender in most of these areas, partly because of its size and partly because it's slow to implement greener policies, possibly due to the pressures imposed by big business.
I completely agree. Were it in my power, I'd do a lot more towards implementing green policies than any politicians have ever done or are ever likely to do.
: Personally, I like to consider many of the benefits that the US has given the world, which, IMHO (again!) does much to redress at least some of the balance against the negative points.
I'm with you there. While I usually stay away from making political comments, I'll tell you this: I tend to view the present world situation in terms of the long sweep of history. While the world is more dangerous in some ways (think nuclear here) than ever before, it's also in much better shape in some ways than ever before. Just look at the statistics about life expectancy and child mortality. In much of the Western world, mortality is so low compared to historical levels that traditional populations are shrinking because people no longer feel the need to bear huge numbers of children. Italy and some other European countries are good examples. The US, for all its faults, provides a massive force for economic and politicaly stability. It's the single most powerful engine for economic improvement on the planet. Take away the US, and the world would collapse politically and economically, and probably not recover for decades. There's no question that the US is the de facto head of an empire, but it's an empire unlike anything the world has seen before. It's extremely benign by historical standards (think of the massive slaughters that the British Empire committed in its earlier colonial days, or the way the Mongol Empire wiped out entire civilizations). Think of how the US, in one of the most astute political moves of all time, provided the foundation to rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II. I wish there were the political will today in the US to do similar things around the world, but that's one of the big faults that needs correcting.
: On the other hand, I too would get quite pissy if someone continually criticised my own countries policies over-much, even if they did keep telling me how much they liked English people.
I'm glad you understand.
: It's OK for me to criticise them BTW, but when foreigners do it, you'd better watch out!
Provincialism is a fault that few are not prone to.
AlanF
