ThinkGeek brought the SWAT down on us.
thinkgeek.com
thinkgeek.com
Some background might help: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/22465319/detail.html
GT had a guy slice two people Spring semester which explains why the police would be there.
All in all, the cops seemed to handle the GT situation well.
It is completely idiotic to walk around with something that looks like a samurai sword only few months after someone ran around the campus with the real thing injuring people.
Or, maybe it just shows that GT are pirates whose natural enemy is the ninja.
The freaking out is, I contend, more the result of fear-mongering (in this case by Liberals, but in other cases from the other side). The world didn't used to work that way. And in some places it's still more rational. I've got a cabin in the woods, and around there it's pretty much assumed that everyone owns firearms. One can frequently see someone walking around the grocery store with a knife on his belt, and (a) no one gives it a second thought, and (b) no one gets stabbed.
The NRA endorsed Senator Jim Webb's opponent. Webb subsequently got in trouble for accidentally taking a pistol into the capitol building. This guy is not anti-gun. The NRA is just running a donation scam.
"Won't someone think of the children!" is non-partisan, and if it has a label, it's most closely associated with NIMBY.
Now, victim disarmament (aka "gun control") is most certainly a Democrat talking point. For example, they were the ones that got the ridiculous assault weapon ban passed, and thought that its repeal was the end of the world. I know that Liberal and Democrat are only slightly closer to synonyms than Conservative and Republican.
As far as NIMBY goes, well, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein both carry concealed (see http://americandaily.com/article/9405 ), and they're very loud supporters of victim disarmament. Hypocrisy is par for the course in politics. Witness John Kerry's yacht.
Politics should not be confused with ideology. They dress it up and put ideological lipstick on it, but the vast majority of today's politicians are not fighting for any ideology, they're fighting to extend their careers and their power.
Of course the GOP is full of hypocrites as well. GWB talked about smaller government, but the government grew more under his watch than at any time in the history of the country.
Every time someone uses the word "democrat" as an adjective, they reveal themselves to be more concerned with focus-group phrase mongering and tribal loyalty than attempting to understand the truth of the situation.
Ditto for "victim disarmament". This isn't 1984, and changing the phrasing doesn't change the facts or your argument. You're not a victim, and there have not been serious efforts at disarming anyone since the assault weapons bill was allowed to expire.
I disagree, although I acknowledge some "prior art" for your claim.
"Democratic" is the adjective form of the noun "democracy", which denotes a political system characterized by voting. In my mind, recycling that term to refer to one political party would imply that the other (i.e, GOP) is not related to our democracy -- and that's false.
they reveal themselves to be more concerned with focus-group phrase mongering and tribal loyalty
I think if you look back at my politics-related comments here, you'll see that I'm an equal-opportuntiy complainer. My ideology certainly does not coincide with either the GOP or the Conservative movement. I'm simply looking for terminology that conveys my meaning better.
I have a huge problem with this line of thinking, not because I'm offended by the phrasing (I'm not), but because it shows a 1984-ish approach to politics and governing.
As far as your claimed independence and moderation -- what does John Kerry's yacht have to do with anything? That sounded awfully partisan to me. I'm a partisan. I own it. You should do the same.
If you scan my comments, you'll see that I never uttered the phrase "the Democrat party". My phrase was "a Democrat talking point", and I think this is quite consonant liguistically with a statement like "I am a Democrat". Nobody says "I'm a Democratic".
Specifically, had I said that "gun control is a Democratic talking point", that would indicate that the talking point of gun control is somehow characterized by democracy (but for the capital "D", which may help resolve it, I admit). That is nothing like what I meant.
"John Kerry's yacht" refers to a person who claims that we should all be paying our fair share to provide such democratic (note the lower-case D: I do mean that it's characteristic of democracy) funding for our government. Specifically, it refers to the recent discovery that he had moored his boat out-of-state in order to avoid sales tax, painting him as hypocritical.
Kerry was the first to come to mind because of its recency. One might also reference anti-immigration Republicans and their cleaning ladies, for example.
I'm a partisan. I own it. You should do the same.
I'm not partisan, at least not in the way that's typically used, in the polarization of American politics between left and right. I am a member of the Libertarian Party, so in a proper sense I am a partisan, but I'm not of the sort that mindlessly bashes the {GOP,DEM} while ignoring the faults of the {DEM,GOP}. For example, you'll see that just up-thread, I called the NRA "GOP stooges".
And there are precious few Libertarians in office for me to criticize.
Well, yeah, exactly. Around campus it's pretty much assumed that people don't walk around carrying samurai swords. That's unless they have malicious intent as it was demonstrated by a lunatic just few months ago. Given the circumstances this has very little to do with liberals, it's just basic common sense.
For example, my grandfather (still alive at 92) likes to talk about growing up in the Depression. He tells about going to school carrying his .410/.22 over/under. He'd leave the gun in the coat room for the day. While riding home, he'd hunt for rabbits or squirrels to take home for dinner. That was just common sense.
So what was perfectly natural for my grandfather would be looked at differently today. Now, a kid forming the shape of a handgun with his thumb and forefinger is considered evil behavior. But it's only a model of what was benign, civil behavior for my grandfather.
BTW, I despise the phrase "common sense". In current usage, it seems to have become a euphemism for "I can't provide a rational argument, so I'm just going to wave my hands". My usage above was sarcastic, for that reason.
EDIT: spelling, clarity
You are arguing that it's a pity that carrying a weapon is now an out of ordinary behavior, which is different and not directly related to the point I was making all along.
Even if your logic was correct, it would mean that most people would needlessly have to drag weaponry around in their daily lives.
You don't ask why I'd carry a book, or an MP3 player, or a peanut butter sandwich. Why is it any of your business why I'd carry my sidearm? But to be pedantic: * I'm on the shooting team, going to practice * My boyfriend threatened to kill me * My class project is to engineer a new trigger mechanism * I just like to * etc.
What I choose to carry is my own damned business. If I create a danger to others, that's a different story, but simply carrying a gun or a sword poses no more danger than countless other things that we constantly ignore (say, driving).
most people would needlessly have to drag weaponry around
Not true. First, the guns would have a deterrent effect even if only a non-trivial minority had them. So long as we're creating a good chance that a bad guy will be met with resistance, we're achieving something. It doesn't need to be a certainty.
Second, how many people lug around golf clubs in their trunk all the time? And, how many people are permanently attached to their cell phone? Heck, a sidearm is a whole lot smaller than a purse; a woman can just put it into her purse, so what's the big deal?
I think you mentioned the peaceful hunting village were everybody carried a knife to the supermarket. How would they look on a Samurai sword, I wonder?
You carrying a gun is my business because it endangers me. If I was allergic, maybe you could try to kill me with a peanut butter sandwich, but it would be much more difficult. (I am not only taking about you actively trying to kill me, but accidents or collateral damage).
Again, why would you want to carry a gun? It seems likely to me that if I see you with a gun, you have a paranoid or aggressive nature. Maybe if I accidentally cross in front of you in the canteen, you get angry and start a fight? Or if I look at you the wrong way? If you are on the shooting team, you would be kind of excused, but presumably after a while it would be known you are on the team and you would be excused.
Nobody calls the cops on a cop carrying a gun, because cops carrying guns is normal behaviour. Carrying guns into a classroom is not.
At a different level, inflicting pain with knives and other sharp things was a common practical joke and an accepted pastime. For instance, at one place, we had to wear these stupid name-tag pins, and had a part of the kitchen visible to the dining area. So the game was to use the pin on the name tag to stab people standing where customers could see them. It had to be done in a subtle way that you couldn't be seen stabbing. The stabee was not supposed to react visibly as that would not be good for business. It got vicious sometimes, but we still played and had fun with it.
It's totally the type of thing that lands people in jail for assult and harassment in most settings, but in the kitchen it was just normal.
More to the point, it seems like you're making fun of ThinkGeek for something that was not their fault.
Really, I think I'm just easily annoyed by clever nicknames and catch phrases which distort the issues at hand (blame "ground zero mosque" for that one I guess).
I read too many stories about police abuse. It is refreshing to read a story about them doing things right for a change.
Then some jerk invents these x-ray scanners and we're out even more money on the fiasco without any recognition of how silly we're being. Thanks a lot, x-ray guy.
It looks like a katana, especially if you are at a distance. Passes a sniff test, but surprise its an umbrella.
It ranks alongside "FIRE" in a theater, "Hi, jack!" In an airport, pointing gun-shaped objects at police, or bringing big weapons in dorms at college campuses.
All I can say is kudos to the person who called it in.
Having a Katana like handle sticking out of your backpack is not even in the same ballpark as malicious provocation. Yelling "fire" in a movie theater? Please.
Having the cops check out a guy with a sword is not 'chronic distrust of anything and everything'. It's a prudent move that is standard operating procedure around the world.
On top of that, this appears to have been at a school where there was a violent incident with a freaking samurai sword not so long ago. How can you reasonably maintain a position that in those circumstances it's irrational to go look for the reported sword carrying person?
People's judgments of situations are influenced by their previous experiences. Is a fear of flying of someone who survived a plane crash rational? No. Is it normal? Yes. Is a (heightened) fear of dark alleys normal for someone who was raped in one? No. Is it normal? Yes. So, when someone walks in an area where there was recently an attack with a sword, it's perfectly normal for people to be more jittery than they would have been had there not been a recent attack.
Apart from this, there is a different dynamic at work. After an attack, there is public pressure on the people in charge to make the area more secure. We can bicker about the measures they take and how it's token security blah blah blah - but when you get a signal that there is a guy walking around with a sword, as a security officer you'll run your ass off to get there and check this guy out, before it's another nut job who has come to vent his frustrations on his ex roommates or whatever. Rational? Not sure, may not - but irrelevant. Is it understandable? Yes.
You can argue now that you feel that these reactions are wrong because they are not rational (for a narrow definition of rational, i.e. based on facts and pure, logically sound reason). That's fine. However for you to not acknowledge that the reactions as they were in the present case (for as far as we know the facts from this thread) could not have been foreseen, or that they would come as a surprise, or even that they are not 'normal' reactions for the majority of the population, is plain intellectually dishonest.
I am not a criminology expert, so could not reliably say how much of an increase it would be. But it would probably be enough to justify unusually strict enforcing of an existing rule barring weapons on campus.
If someone called in a regular old umbrella as a weapon, sure, I'd call that paranoia - but this thing is designed to look like a weapon, and you're blaming people for thinking it was real?
"Handlebar fashioned specifically to look like katana assumed to be a katana" - is this really so unreasonable?
Do I think he has a right to have the umbrella in public? Absolutely. Do I think he should exercise a bit more discretion considering the circumstances? Yes. But there was some serious overreacting here, either by the person who reported it, or the police.
edit: My university has recently had several occurrences of 'alleged' gun sightings (that turned out to be cell phones), and each time the police has responded with one or two armed officers to investigate the situation. A measured, but conservative response.
The look on a neighbor's face when you've got a TRG-42 slung over your shoulder in the elevator is priceless...
OP does have a point, but could probably do with qualifying it with some discussion rather than just leaving it as a comic one-liner.
Was it a women's dorm? What would the story look like if it was an actually sword wielding maniac and they only sent 2 rent-a-cops?
I don't know what sort of thought-provoking commentary there is to provide around what's essentially an irresponsible advertisement for a thinkgeek product.
I have owned one of these umbrellas for about a year and regularly carry it onto the DC metro. I have been stopped by metro police once. They calmly asked to see it, were generally curious about where I got it, quickly returned it and went about their day.
I think it's a disgusting over-reaction to deploy more than one officer to investigate a report of someone carrying something that might be a sword. If they're running around clearly attacking people with a confirmed weapon, sure.. send in the necessary resources. If they might just be carrying an umbrella, send at most one person who can handle it even if it does turn out to be a weapon. And that's assuming weapons are banned in that area because it's a school or something. In other areas of the same country I think people have a constitutional right to own weapons in which case this wouldn't even need to be investigated.
I also had one person tell me they thought they saw me carrying a gun. People aren't just afraid of sword shaped items, they're afraid of any long black narrow item. Just like Boston is afraid of anything with batteries, wires and LEDs.