Man Robs Convenience Stores With Klingon "Batleth" 579
mnovotny writes "Colorado Springs police are looking for a man who hit two 7-Eleven convenience stores, armed with a Klingon 'Batleth' sword inspired by the Star Trek science fiction series.
They did appear more human in the original series."
There is no honor in theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no honor in theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
That punishment is too lenient for such a p'tahk! He should face discommendation!
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:1, Insightful)
Real weapons of this kind are already generaly illegal in many areas.
If you go wandering about with a real Katana you are likely to be
arrested just as if you were waving a pistol around.
Re:There is no honor in theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
This honorless p'tahk will be sent to work the mines on Rura Penthe!
Re:When they outlaw batleths.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this geek is clearly breaking the rules... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that Sikhs have a religious mandate to carry a sword with them at all times- something about always being ready to fight for God. In India they even allow them to carry the swords onto airplanes.
Probably wouldn't go over so well here in the good old USA though... too many paranoid morons.
Re:There is no honor in theft. (Score:0, Insightful)
(insert another geeky reference post naseum)
Re:There is no honor in theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:4, Insightful)
Box cutters and pocket knives were legal at the time. Too bad the other 100 plus passengers on those planes were not carrying box cutters or pocket knives. The world would be a very different place today.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:4, Insightful)
9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane.
9/11 happened because:
a) US government secret services and law enforcement agencies failed to do their job.
b) because the entire plane of passengers just sat there and allowed it to happen.
c) because they were able to just waltz in into the cockpit.
d) because Arnold, Bruce, Sly and Steven were busy elsewhere.
The terrorists could have just as well held a large clock and claim that they have a bomb.
Forget the clock - they could have held a bag and claim there is a bomb inside.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:1, Insightful)
Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.
Yeah, much better to disarm the general public and announce this fact to those that seek to do harm. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes ... but notice that the one plane where people knew what they were going to do crashed into the middle of PA?
It doesn't matter anymore. Anyone trying to hijack a plane is going to run into the "problem" that people will remember the 9/11 modus operandi now and will most likely actively rebel.
Darn good thing too, at least there is a chance of them NOT being sheep in ALL situations.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.
Box-cutters make terrible weapons, unless your target is unarmed or can't fight back.
Actually, I suspect if people were less cowed by authorities and were allowed to carry self-defensive equipment, 9/11 would never have happened. 4 box-cutters vs 100 known-to-be-unarmed victims is far different than 4 box-cutters vs 100 potentially-armed freemen.
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. It would be fairly trivial to kill someone with what you call a "kid's knife". A box cutter is a razor blade with a handle. Would you like to be slashed with a razor?
Re:I believe stealing slurpees (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
e) nobody before had ever hijacked a plane with the suicidal intent to crash it, and the standard response to hijackings had been to land wherever the hijackers said to land.
Once the passengers on Flight 93 heard about what happened on the other planes, they changed their response.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.
9/11 happened because of intelligence failures, plain and simple. It won't happen again, not because of better intelligence, but because the hijacker-passenger contract was ripped up. People know now that they may not survive if they don't fight back. Previously people knew that if they just went along eventually they were likely to be released unharmed in some random foreign land.
Now people will fight back hard and fast when something happens. That alone is the safest thing we have in our favor preventing another 9/11 attack.
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. It would be fairly trivial to kill someone with what you call a "kid's knife". A box cutter is a razor blade with a handle. Would you like to be slashed with a razor?
As opposed to being smashed into a skyscraper? Yes.
But hindsight is 20/20, and they didn't know it just a typical "take the plane to cuba" deal until it was too late.
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes down to the information available to the respective passengers. The standard approach is to assume that the hijackers want money or the release of prisoners and probably won't kill the passengers. With that in mind you just sit in your seat, shut up, and hope that when the SWAT team kills the hijackers you don't get injured. When the passengers realized those people were going to turn them into a missile (because of phone calls informing them of their impending deaths) they weren't going to have any of that shit. The passengers of the other planes would have clawed the eyes out of their attackers if they had any idea what was going to happen. People will readily die for a higher purpose (see soldiers, religious crazies, people that try to rescue children/pets/the elderly from fires), they just have to see the purpose of dying.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the reason why the 9/11 hijackers were successful is because the 100 plus passengers were not armed you are badly mistaken.
On average 20-30 people armed with stuff readily available on a plane should be able to take down 4 average guys with box cutters. Box cutters don't even penetrate inflight magazines well. You can kill people with pens. Heck if people started throwing their shoes and coins at the hijackers it would hurt them badly.
Why they didn't try was the passengers didn't realize what the hijackers were _really_ up to.
Back then the "general understanding" was the passengers and crew cooperate with hijackers, the plane lands somewhere and the hijackers either a) eventually get something they can accept and nobody gets hurt, b) or the Special Forces storms the plane and some people die.
In fact it seems that after passengers in one of the 9/11 planes found out what happened to the other planes, they stopped the hijackers from achieving their objectives. Sure that plane still crashed (just not at the target), but perhaps if they knew earlier things would have been different.
I'd actually argue that if you can really prevent "teeth and claws" getting on board, it's harder for 4 wolves to overpower 100 sheep in a fight to the death. Whereas if you allowed everyone to carry deadly weapons, it just makes things worse. Most "sheep" won't bring swords on board. And a skilled person with a sword can defeat very many unarmed people (a decent sharp sword has pretty good "stopping" power). In contrast a skilled unarmed martial artist will find it harder to fight off many unarmed people at once (some poor bastard may have to be the shield, but too bad).
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with bravery or "averageness". Prior to 9/11 the best thing a hostage could do was stay calm and obedient -it ensured not only your own safety, but the safety of others. Hostage-taking was nothing new and almost always resolved safely on the ground. Going cowboy was an act of foolish endangerment.
The reason the passengers on the flight over PA fought back was because they heard what happened with the other planes and realized the previous rules didn't apply this time. I have little doubt the people on the early flights would've tried the same thing if they had known.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
If he manages to survive then I'll tell the 911 dispatcher to send an ambulance along with the cops.
You're more compassionate than I. The fucker would probably sue you and win.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:4, Insightful)
the people deserve laws that are clear and easy to understand. Otherwise, how can they follow them?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail"
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:0, Insightful)
The only problem with that logic is, what if the terorrists are planning on landing in some foreigh land like old times. But, because of the 9/11 incident, the passengers fight back and the plane crashes killing everyone on board. The problem is, you usually won't know the intent of the hijackers.
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so I'm bad at sarcasm. I'm mocking the "logic" of the proposed "assault weapons" ban on the following points:
(Regarding pistol grips) Apparently, changing the angle at which your hands hold the gun makes it "more deadly and able to spray fire from the hip". Tilting my hand twenty degrees more vertical just means my hand is at a different angle, no more. It's like arguing that changing the steering wheel and gearshift on your bone-stock Honda Civic (or holding your hands at 3 and 9 instead of 2 and 10) makes it a racecar that corners better.
(Regarding the "high powered" claim) Apparently, using smaller, less powerful rounds makes a gun "high powered" and "more deadly" than a gun that fires a bigger, more powerful, standard hunting round. Or, the same bullet fired from a "normal"-looking rifle is less deadly than one fired from a scarier-looking AK-47--even though it's the same bullet moving at the same speed. To use a car analogy again, putting a smaller engine with less horsepower and less torque makes the car more powerful and have better acceleration.
(Regarding the "no legitimate use" claim) Apparently, the thousands and thousands of AR-15s, SKSs, M1As, and 10/22s that law-abiding Americans use for hunting, target-shooting competitions, and defense of the home have no legitimate uses like hunting, target-shooting, and defense of the home.
(Regarding the "collapsible stock" claim) Apparently, changing a stock's length by a few inches makes it bad, evil, and easy to conceal. Yet a fixed stock equal in length to the fully collapsed one would still be legal, as would removing the stock entirely (provided the minimum overall length of 26 inches is maintained).
Also ignored is the fact that the previous ban had no effect on criminal violence whatsoever. I'd suggest that a much better approach to crimefighting is to keep violent offenders in prison doing hard time, and help keep people from turning to violence in the first place. Make decisions based on facts rather than "ZOMG it's scary looking!!1!" emotions.
Remember, the government will tell you to rely on it to protect you and defend you from criminals--but then it will turn right around and claim it had no obligation to do so.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm certainly going to change my evil liberal response to gun control and start following the constitution
Fixed that for you ;)
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason that the UK has a low violent crime rate (at least compared to the USA) is because they have very strict firearm policies and very few people are allowed to carry a gun.
In Northern Europe, the reason they have much lower crime rates, is simply because they are more socially oriented, there is much less unbalance both economically and socially and so people have less motives to commit crimes.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas if you allowed everyone to carry deadly weapons, it just makes things worse.
Given the number of cases where passengers panic over someone they think is acting funny or who have Arabic script on tee shirts, I'd really hate to see some of those passengers armed.
"Really officer, I saw him praying, and everyone knows those terrorists always pray before blowing themselves up. So of course I shot him."
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. 'Box cutters' has no basis in reality whatsoever. There is absolutely no evidence or reports of 'box cutters'.
Box cutters was picked by the airlines because it was one of those things that it actually was legal to bring on an airplane, and they wanted it to be a failure of regulations.
In reality, they probably, indeed, had combat knives. But the airlines didn't like that, because it would be their failure to keep illegal weapons off airplanes.
In fact, there's not actually any evidence they didn't have guns. The passengers on Flight 93 thought they only had knives, but considering their attack failed, it's entirely possible it failed because, duh, they got shot. And even then, no guns on 93 didn't mean there weren't guns elsewhere.
But 'box cutters' is now ingrained on American mythos.
Re:Enact the assault sword ban! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The heroes of 911 are afraid of box cutters. (Score:3, Insightful)