Canadian airport security screener confiscates blocks tiny gun-shaped necklace charm

Discuss

102 Responses to “Canadian airport security screener confiscates blocks tiny gun-shaped necklace charm”

  1. Church says:

    I am SO going to get a little voodoo doll made up wearing little blue gloves.

    I bet they confiscate the pins.

  2. Takuan says:

    “phallic symbol” : any object longer than it is wide

    “TSA weapon”: any object

  3. Gilbert Wham says:

    INSOMNIA: Oh dear, obligatory, ‘well, they had it coming’ post, eh? We are grown-ups. That’s why when we see something like this happening, we say ‘that’s stupid’.

  4. tritium says:

    Man, I wish I were a TSA baggage checker. I would never, ever again have to do any Christmas shopping!

  5. Takuan says:

    so, if I board with a few totally unarmed accomplices, feign illness, have my team feign illness one by one until the more mentally susceptible passengers actually think they are getting ill, overwhelm the cabin crew with a few dozen “sick” passengers, work my way near the cockpit, take one hostage and keep it quiet until that levers to three hostages (all concealed in the galley), strangle one with my bare hands and get access to the cockpit, all so far with any “sky marshal” cowboys foundering in a sea of “sick” people, just how has all this security circus accomplished a bloody thing?

    As Bruce Lee said: “If a man is determined to bite your nose off, there is nothing you can do”. With or without toy gun jewelry.

  6. jleblang says:

    So does this mean that soldiers will get their combat infantryman’s badge confiscated?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Infantryman_Badge

  7. glycolized says:

    #85 – Isn’t pretty much everything in these threads opinions? I just chose to (kind of) side with an unpopular one here this time.

    I was kind of joking about “deserving it” (though I do think the necklace is ugly). Sorry that I wasn’t clear on that.

  8. insomma says:

    Gilbert

    I meant her. It’s like wearing a TSA SUCKS
    t-shirt to the airport. You’re asking for trouble. I agree that it’s stupid, but easily avoided.

  9. Dan Wineman says:

    Teresa (85) — the grenade-shaped perfume bottle example is taken directly from the official CATSA list we’ve been referring to.

    My point about terrorism was that you don’t even have to assume any malice on the part of the passenger with the fake weapon to see why the restriction is justifiable.

  10. Takuan says:

    you know the blockhead geek routine?
    http://www.evalsideshow.com/images/blockhead.jpg
    It seems to me that anyone who get a large spike up their nasal cavity should be able to conceal a small calibre gun barrel.

  11. Cpt. Tim says:

    Gilbert Wham, saying she had it coming is a bit strong, I agree. But to be fair everytime i have to fly i stop and think. “What am i carrying that a complete moron would mistake for a weapon?”

    I bet they have heart attacks when they see steampunk stuff.

  12. mkultra says:

    @ #69: Sounds like you’ve been watching too many Segal movies.

  13. Takuan says:

    speaking of, did Cory get probed yet for his rubber cockroach throwing wrist watch? Cory?

  14. Antinous says:

    Was it absolutely necessary to tip them off to telekinesis? That was my ace in the hole.

  15. Death of Cool says:

    This reminds me of when I was travelling in the States a few years back and one of the security guards made me CUT the wallet chain off my wallet – it wasn’t one of those easily detachable ones, so I had to snip clear through the leather to get it off. I’m still wondering exactly what sort of mayhem they thought me and my wallet would cause… perhaps I could have used it as the world’s most ill-conceived (soft leather) nunchuk.

  16. Takuan says:

    nah, it was a really old one, can’t even remember the title

  17. glycolized says:

    She deserves it for wearing such ugly jewelry.

    I know someone above was disemvowelled for suggesting it, but I also believe that her choice of jewelry to wear was to provoke a possible story (probably for her blog or something).

  18. jay radical says:

    If I could make a miniature gun that was 1.7″ long and contained no moving parts and could still fire bullets, I could also make it in shapes other than gun.

    Awesome. Well-said.

    What the hell would it shoot? A bead, maybe.

  19. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    @67:
    1) anybody that can keep a 30 year old Gremlin on the road is badly needed at NASA.
    2) Holland MI is smack in the reddest part of the red side of the state.
    3) Next time I want to ‘hide’ a gun I’ll spray paint it orange and leave it on the dash of my car like a toy.

  20. dustyrivers says:

    You could ban crucifixes using this rationale.

  21. The Unusual Suspect says:

    Regarding the Swiss Minigun, from their site:

    “Our Miniature Revolver ref. C1ST is legally classified as a “Deemed non-firearm” in Canada due to the low velocity of the 2.34mm cartridge that it discharges.”

    Not to mention the fact that the charm in question is 15% smaller still, and obviously has no moving parts. And even if it were functional, the bullets would have to be no bigger than grains of sand.

  22. Death of Cool says:

    #43 -

    It was a relatively thick, shorter than usual wallet chain (just meant to keep my wallet from being snatched out of my pocket while travelling – not one of those over the top, hang halfway to one’s knees things). Honestly, I don’t think it would have made it much more than halfway around a human neck (and at the thickness it was, it would have been a completely ineffectual garrote).

  23. Blue says:

    If the screeners use their judgement, and they’re wrong, they are fscked.

    If the screeners don’t use judgement, but ruthlessly apply the rules, to the point of absurdity even, beyond what is reasonable, there’s less chance of them screwing up and if something does go wrong, they can avoid responsibility because they were doing what they were told to do (not using their judgement).

    It’s not about our safety, it’s about theirs.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Bob Urso makes 2mm pinfire guns, he even has a book about them called “The Tiniest Guns”
    http://home.comcast.net/~boburso/piccolo/

    It even includes a “how to”.

  25. mkultra says:

    @ #39: I’m not saying it’s a reasonable response, but a thin, strong chain makes for a very passable garrote if it’s of a certain length.

    Anyway, what I was saying above is not meant to excuse the dumbness of this action, but you have to remember that these screeners are under an enormous amount of pressure to keep the flow of passengers going. For each individual passenger, they only have a few seconds to evaluate them, an evaluation that they are constantly reminded is a matter of life or death. Consequently, when a question comes up, they (probably on a subconscious level) revert to the strategy of Least Harmful Effect.

    The LHE of a false positive on a gun trinket is that a passenger gets pissed off, and needs to check the item. The LHE on a false negative is that someone could cause mayhem, death and destruction.

    It’s little surprise that screeners prefer to err on the side of a false positive. Again, I’m not saying this is the way it should be, but the first step to fixing something is understanding exactly how it’s broken in the first place.

  26. mego says:

    A few days ago I was waiting in the Sacramento airport for my girlfriend’s flight to arrive and was reading the paperback I brought along.

    It was a copy of “The Master Sniper” by Stephen Hunter and I was sitting there reading it a TSA guy walked by and gave me the eye and I briefly wondered if they would be so paranoid/stupid as to think that because I was reading a novel with that name I might be some sort of security threat. I figured even they were not that wacked.

    Now I’m not so sure.

  27. ill lich says:

    What’s next, PHOTOS of guns? The IDEA of a gun?

    “I’m sorry– we can’t let you on the plane. . . you’re thinking about guns right now.”

  28. mappo says:

    If we make it illegal to have gun-shaped jewelry, then only the criminals will have gun-shaped jewelry!

  29. Dan Wineman says:

    Niall de Buitlear (#68) — good catch, I missed that. So justice was not served, after all. Pass me a pitchfork.

  30. JeffersonJ says:

    Something similar happened to me at the Richmond, VA airport. I have a vintage belt buckle that features a brass gun with a similar size and shape to the one around the necklace.

    I took my belt off to pass through the metal detectors and a TSA minion noticed it through the X-ray machine. I was called to the side and spent five minutes telling her how ridiculous the situation was. Her manager came over, laughed in her face, and sent me on my way. I guess I got lucky.

  31. Xopher says:

    Ross 73: 3) Next time I want to ‘hide’ a gun I’ll spray paint it orange and leave it on the dash of my car like a toy.

    Full-sized things in the shape of guns are completely outlawed in NYC. They’re too easy to spray-paint black and use to hold up a bodega, for one thing, but I think the key thing was that it’s too easy to use one to commit suicide by cop.

  32. hubbledeej says:

    This is hilarious because I was in this airport recently and a teenager, who was wearing a belt with what was supposed to look like bullets all around it, walked ahead of me through security. The old gal just laughed and said, “crazy kids and their crazy getups!” or sumthin like that. Guess a new bozo was on the job today!

  33. Anonymous says:

    So by this logic an image of a weapon is a weapon? Seems that there should be some rudimentary test for becoming a security theatre agent? Perhaps being able to tie shoes…

  34. Dan Wineman says:

    They made her put it in checked baggage, but not in a locked hard-sided container?

    They’re not even applying their own illogical rules consistently.

  35. Rob Cockerham says:

    I hate to be a party-pooper, but I bluffed my way out of State prison with a tiny gun just like that.

    It wasn’t even real silver, I carved it out of hotel soap.

  36. foobar says:

    To be fair, it *could* have been an mp3 player.

  37. SteveM says:

    Wow! That pendant was made by my friend Dana, who runs/is Badass Jewellery:

    http://badassjewellery.com/

    He’s a craftsman/commie who will no doubt find this art being deemed dangerous by The Man hi-larious.

  38. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    @79: I read that three times and I’m still laughing!

  39. giveaphuk says:

    My friend, William, who makes fantastic jewellery has a few gun designs, which he suggests you not wear when planning to fly. Considering the cost & detail of his work, you really don’t want this stuff to be confiscated.

    Enjoy these images of his work.

    http://www.metalcouture.com/jewellery_enlarge.php?img=william2/LittleGun.jpg&caption=Silver%20Revolver%20set%20with%20Cubic%20Zirconia&id=CH1&price=380.00
    http://www.metalcouture.com/jewellery_enlarge.php?img=william2/GunBraclet2.jpg&caption=Silver%20UZI%20Bracelet&id=B3&price=2,300.00

  40. comrade raoul says:

    You know, from Guy’s reply, I’m really not sure they’re being so unreasonable.

    Suppose they have the general rule: “if it’s gun-shaped, block it.” This is not a crazy general rule. For TSA’s purposes, it’s probably a better general rule than the following variants: “if it’s gun-shaped and looks like it has moving parts, block it,” and “if it’s gun-shaped and about the size of most guns, block it.” The first rule reduces the number of judgment calls agents have to make–probably, again given TSA’s purposes, a good thing. It means you get unfortunate, rare exceptions like this one, which suck–and probably suck too for the agent doing the blocking, who presumably knew that this was a case in which the rule gave a false positive, but also knew that her job required that she not make common-sense exceptions to the rules.

  41. Takuan says:

    can you believe that list? You can’t even carry C-4!

  42. airshowfan says:

    When the TSA starts with cavity searches, I’ll start traveling by train. Can’t be too long now.

    PS: CBARRETO’s “ô meu, fala sério…” is an appropriate response to many BoingBoing posts, such as all the ones involving the TSA or anti-photographer paranoia. To be honest the slightly less polite “Caralho” sometimes finds its way out of my mouth when I read this site, typically during reports of particularly painful stupidity like the bigoted Ford dealer in Mojave.

  43. Takuan says:

    are pencils OK? (Trevanian’s Shibui)

  44. Kibble says:

    Doug Feith just had to surrender his crown and take the number 2 spot.

  45. freetardzero says:

    I lived in Kelowna. The CATSA (People, you keep saying TSA; I don’t think it means what you think it means!) agents there are among the worst I have encountered all over Canada. The only ones worse are the Vancouver (domestic) agents. Not sure why the domestics are so retarded, but they are. Case in point: A friend (nudge wink) travelled from Nepal to Kelowna, via LAX, with an ornamental bow in his carry-on. It had no string, and was made of a non-flexible wood- clearly an ornament. Too fragile to be used as a stabbing or poking weapon, it was allowed onboard by three different security screeners (one in Nepal, one in Hong Kong, and one in LA). When the time came to board the flight from Vancouver to Kelowna (literally a puddle-jumper), the CATSA goons said “nyet” and made him check it. Needless to say it arrived in several pieces.

    In spite of this, I have flown from one side of this continent to the other several times, even crossing international borders, with a boxcutter in my carry-on, that has never been confiscated. I guess I just look like a nice guy.

  46. arkizzle says:

    Maybe you should stop carrying a box-cutter in your carry on though..

  47. Dan Wineman says:

    Waitasec… scrolling down a bit on the list I just linked in #47, this probably counts under “Other Weapons / Items that look like weapons but are not weapons (e.g., perfume bottles shaped like a grenade)”.

    This is definitely an item that looks like a weapon, even if plausibly doesn’t look enough like one to fool anyone. So the baggage screener followed the rules precisely as written. The rule might be stupid and overbroad, but there’s nothing inconsistent, capricious, or arbitrary about this.

    This particular trade-off between liberty (the freedom to wear novelty accessories in-flight) and safety (the need to prevent mass hysteria on aircraft) is, I think, OK. (Many aren’t OK — but that’s why we’re supposed to put thought and effort into writing the rules.)

    Honestly, there are far more horrifying abuses of authority to get worked up about, and they happen every damn day.

  48. bonedad says:

    “If your security seriously contemplates defending against that level of technology (firing bullets out of a solid object less than 2″ long), then you’d better confiscate all metal objects, period.”

    For gawd’s sake, don’t be giving them ideas!

  49. Agent 86 says:

    do you hold it up to your ear to listen?

  50. CDMunroe says:

    Funny this all developed out of my shiny little pistol on a chain. I’ve one client that just flew internationally just recently wearing the cherry bomb pendant that can be found on the main site of
    http://badassjewellery.com

    It never occured to her that it would be problematic either…and it wasn’t on that count.

    The pistol is only represented on the blog site if you are interested.

    http://speakeasy.badassjewellery.com

  51. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    AirShowFan @51, what does ô meu, fala sério mean? Babelfish is lousy at translating Portuguese.

    Insomma @61, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. She does have a right to wear her pendant if she wants to, and she’s not responsible for the stupidity of the security guard. What are the implications of her wearing her pendant? There are none. It’s a piece of jewelry.

    It’s her responsibility to not bring anything onboard that would endanger her fellow passengers. It’s the guard’s responsibility to recognize what is and isn’t a dangerous object. She didn’t fail in her reponsibility. The guard did.

    Maybe you have to have been raised female in a very conservative time and place to dislike that line of reasoning as much as it deserves to be disliked. Short version: ‘If what I’m wearing is well within the range of what’s acceptable, I am not responsible for someone else’s ludicrous misreading of its implications.’

    Dan Wineman @63, where are you getting your example of the grenade-shaped bottle of perfume? No one’s allowed to fly with bottles that big. It also doesn’t work as a comparable case because your grenade-shaped perfume bottle is the size of a grenade. A perfume bottle to the scale of that necklace would look like a single bead.

    Note that terrorism isn’t even a part of this argument.

    Aside from the fact that no one made arguments like that before 9/11?

    Glycolized @72:

    She deserves it for wearing such ugly jewelry.

    And what do you deserve for saying something that stupid?

    I know someone above was disemvowelled for suggesting it,

    Talk about missing the implications! “Hi! My name is Glycolized, and I’m a slow learner.”

    but I also believe that her choice of jewelry to wear was to provoke a possible story (probably for her blog or something).

    An assertion for which you have zero evidence. You know that’s a wholly unsubstantiated opinion. We know it too. Toads rain from your lips when you talk like that.

    So what are you actually trying to say? My theory is that this story makes you feel bad, and therefore she must somehow be at fault for making you feel that way.

  52. jimh says:

    #50: Exactly!
    How long does it take before “How do we know it’s not a real gun?” turns into “How do we know she doesn’t have a really small cowboy hiding in her butt?”

  53. clairelizabeth says:

    I grew up in Kelowna and my mother and brother still live there.

    Having regularly flown out of the Kelowna airport for over a decade, I can attest that the airport security services are particularly, uh, vigilant.

    Security checks at Heathrow, Beirut, JFK, O’Hare and Frankfurt airports are a cake-walk compared to Kelowna where in the last year tin-pot tyrants have confiscated my wooden knitting needles, a magnifying glass, a 50 ml tube of toothpaste, tweezers, two sandwiches, and a plastic nail file.

    When the revolution comes to Kelowna, it will be of Lilliputian dimensions.

  54. David D. says:

    I’m sorry–”if it’s gun-shaped…” is a crazy rule, and there’s no excuse. If she’s wearing a gun-shaped solid pendant, then it’s a gun-shaped solid pendant.

    If she’s eating a gun-shaped cookie, has a gun-shaped purse, has various gun-shapes stenciled all over her expensive jeans and little gun-shaped stud earrings and the word “Gun” written in rhinestones across her ass, she is not asking for anything (except maybe a better stylist).

  55. Baldhead says:

    We know it wasn’t a real, functioning gun because we have IQs above 70. Because we’ve graduated High School. Because we’ve read an actual book in our lives. Blindly following rules is the first step on that road paved with good intentions we’ve been hearing about all our lives.

  56. Rotwang says:

    “Hey, I get to abuse my authority today!”

  57. noen says:

    Ohhhh shiny, Hulk like pretty necklace. Give it Hulk NOW!

  58. scottfree says:

    Kind of reminds me of that episode of Father Ted:

    ‘You see Dougal, this is a small toy cow. That cow in the field is just far away’

    ‘I still don’t get it, Ted.’

    This is an image of a gun, this is an actual gun, see?

    That said, if someone came at me with a gun that size, I think I would take my chances.

  59. cbarreto says:

    Again and again I remember my business partner words: “beware of the assholes because they are inventive”… For a security team not to be sure that a 1.7″ made of solid metal cannot shoot anything… well, as we say down south “ô meu, fala sério…”

  60. jonathan_v says:

    I’m truly amazed that they were this stupid.

    I expected to read that the gun was then confiscated (aka, the screeners liked it so they stole it). But they actually made her put it in checked baggage.

    Al Qaeda: 1000000000
    US: 0

  61. insomma says:

    David (and Graham)

    You know what I ultimately think as I revisit this thread? (And mind you I keep scrolling back up to look at the picture again) If I were the next person in line, trying to catch a flight, and I was held up and missed it because of this particular incident, I would be more frustrated with her way more than with TSA or CATSA or whoever. They’re doing their job, maybe they’re being jerks, maybe their protecting themselves, but this is her fault. What really kills me is that she’s writing a dissertation in social political thought and she can’t think twice about the possible implications of her little ‘statement’ necklace? WTF? I’m only annoyed because this actually happened to me in London for a ‘bullet belt’ in the carry-on luggage of another passenger. Friggin’ leave it at home! I don’t care if you miss your flight, but you’re screwing up everyone elses day too!
    /end of rant/

  62. fennylaise says:

    Hmm… with all this gun hub-bub in Toronto (The mayor is trying to ban all guns and gun related activities in the city), where I assume she was returning to… I’m surprised Mayor David Miller let her back into the city…

    A friend of mine was returning from Great Britain a few years ago (I can’t remember if it was pre or post 9/11). Her friend had made her a lighter with a shot shell cover. It was a spent shell and this was before the ban on disposable lighters on flights went into effect. It was a little hand made gift and it meant a lot to her.

    The guard that confiscated it from her said “It’s not that it’s dangerous, it’s what it represents.”

  63. Xopher says:

    I think those Kelownans had better start appreciating what we’ve done for ‘em! I mean, if it hadn’t been for SG-1…

    What?

    Oh.

    Never mind.

  64. Xopher says:

    I’m so tired of moronic airport screeners. I’m really not looking forward to my flight to Denver.

  65. AGF says:

    I think there is a very large difference between being gun shaped and looking like a gun. I can understand not being able to fly with a perfume bottle that looks like a grenade or a toy gun that is the same shape, size and color as a real gun. People might believe they are in danger from the objects and behave in a way that is dangerous.
    However – a tiny, very non threatening trinket – does not look like a real gun. At the same time – I put my machine guns print purse in my check baggage when I fly. I just don’t want to have the conversation.

  66. BCJ says:

    Cory, If you think that Canada is inadequately prepared for the ever present voodoo threat, you are sadly mistaken. Haven’t you ever wondered why so many airports “lose” your luggage? I’m sure in the name of security, they have already created tons of dolls which are being prodded by pins in surgical gloves.

  67. Takuan says:

    used to be,a folded leather jacket draped over one shoulder could deliver a neck breaking blow if snapped down hard on the unsuspecting head by a strong arm… but I digress

  68. Dan Wineman says:

    Freedom doesn’t mean anything unless you have the freedom to take responsibility for your actions.

    In the case of a plane erupting in chaos because you dropped your grenade-shaped perfume bottle in the aisle — well, the best-case scenario is probably something like an emergency landing and evacuation of an airport terminal. Even if no one is hurt, your poorly chosen accessory has cost millions of dollars in inconvenience and significantly disrupted local air traffic. We’re now well out of the realm of personal responsibility and heading toward “legitimate state interest.”

    Not much changes in this scenario if you substitute a real grenade.

    So, assuming that you accept the logic behind banning real grenades from planes, you must also accept banning fake ones. The right to carry fake weapons is, if anything, less defensible than the right to carry real ones.

    The only reason any of this applies to something as obviously non-dangerous as the gun necklace is that we try to avoid subjective standards. (Comrade Raoul’s comment, currently #49, makes this case well.)

    Note that terrorism isn’t even a part of this argument.

  69. Baldhead says:

    #7
    well whaddayaknow. But then, that micro firearm is still only likely as deadly as a nail file, and they don’t- oh wait.

  70. Santa's Knee says:

    “I’m not your buddy, guy!”

    “I’m not your guy, friend!”

    “I’m not your friend, buddy!”

  71. mkultra says:

    I think what we’re running into here is simply a misapplication of a general rule. These screeners go through many thousands of people per day, and when confronted with the high pace of the job and the vast variety of items and situations they must encounter, it looks like they’ve boiled the complex security needs into a series of easy-to-apply general rules.

    I imagine a few look like this:

    - If it looks like a gun, it’s gone.
    - It it’s any kind of knife, or something else sharp, it’s gone.
    - If it has exposed wires and batteries, it’s gone.

    Now, these seem perfectly reasonable in the abstract, but then you run into edge cases, like this charm: it’s shaped like a gun, but anyone can see that it’s solid and incapable of firing.

    (the size thing is less convincing, there are a few gunmakers out there who specialize in tiny, working revolvers not much bigger than this charm. http://www.swissminigun.com/gallery_steel.html)

    So the system breaks down, and a stupid decision is made. I imagine these guys are being told to ALWAYS err on the side of caution. Feeding into this is the natural belligerence that people in a position of power display when confronted with logic that contradicts their initial decision. Ever tried to argue your way out of a ticket? It never works, no matter wrong they are.

  72. Agent 86 says:

    That really kills your doo.

  73. retooned says:

    Jewelry theft under the cover of law.
    “We tossed it in the confiscation bin. Can’t you find it?”

  74. Takuan says:

    can’t blame them, with their wages they are like third world cops and have to steal or take bribes.
    Hey…bribes….a REAL terrorist would never be so low as to use a bribe,would he?

  75. badmofo says:

    The guards suspicions were correct. There are real guns that small, like the Swiss Mini Gun. http://www.swissminigun.com/home.html

  76. Takuan says:

    you could buy a sports car for the price of that Swiss miniature gun. Nah, any sane person handling a solid bit of jewelry like that would know instantly. It’s all about authority games and slave training.

    How about a crucifix that fires a .22 long? enough detailing and ornament and it’ll get through the x-ray. A group of “nuns” with zip guns? Better skin frisk anything that looks like a nun.

  77. Baldhead says:

    everyone should simply go through security screens naked, and be issued hospital gowns for the flight.

    No carry-ons. no food. no drinks.

    Of course then we’d have to worry about martial arts masters breaking necks, wouldn’t we?

  78. arkizzle says:

    BadMoFo

    But the swissminigun has obviously moving parts..

  79. SimeonW says:

    WOW! Thank you for posting a piece that makes the TSA look good (by comparison).

  80. Jupiter12 says:

    The headline to this article is misleading. They never confiscated her pendant, nor did they threaten to do so. They simply told her to put it her her checked baggage. I agree that it was stupid to ask her to remove it since it’s obviously a harmless pendant, but it’s simply a bad judgement call on behalf of the TSA agent rather than a civil rights issue. Cool pendant though. I wonder if she’s a gun collector or hunter.

  81. Xopher says:

    MKUltra, ALL hard-and-fast rules for conduct lead to inappropriate results sometimes. Unfortunately, airport screener is a job that fails to attract the thoughtful type of person that can rely one what (for reasons now lost to history) is called “common sense.”

  82. uwer says:

    Immediately this came to mind.

    Bill Hicks: Revelations
    A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he’s gonna want to see a fucking cross?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0152183/quotes

  83. Takuan says:

    if everyone would just agree to the government brain electrode implants there would be no need for travel. You could “fly” anywhere virtually. Trust me.

  84. insomma says:

    I wake up. I have to get on a plane today. I shower, get dressed, double-check my luggage. Hmm, which necklace should I wear today? How about by pistol charm necklace? That couldn’t POSSIBLY cause any problems at an airport security check pont, could it? Nah.

    Srry gys, I hate airport security too, and we can all write about how dumb they are, bt PhD grl hd t cmng. wld g s fr s t cnsdr hr chc f pprl fr tht prtclr dy ntgnzng, nd ‘m sr th cnfsctr flt xctly th sm wy. Grw p.

  85. jimh says:

    Please be advised that extending your index finger and thumb at a right angle to one another, mimicking a handgun, is a violation of TSA guidelines and an inappropriate, threatening gesture that will prevent you from flying and possibly result in the loss of your hand(s). Also, jewelry with miniature water bottle replicas are now banned on all flights.

  86. Ned613 says:

    What if a passenger had a gun tatoo on their arm? What is the standard operating procedure?

  87. Nur says:

    I agree here, the TSA does have a policy that if you let one thing through you are immediately fired, so I can see the person wanting to appease whatever supervisor is going to give her stick for letting someone through a scanner quickly (I mean, as if, right? ;) ).

    As soon as she says “It’s what it represents” she was wrong though, there’s no part of the TSA safety manual that says they should protect the innocent minds of the people who might see your necklace. It’s like being thrown out of McDonald’s for eating fruit… “because of what it represents”.

    Stick to keeping bombs off planes and letting them leave on time.

  88. nialldebuitlear says:

    The list in the link says I can bring on a safety razor which I can easily break to make a servicable weapon to slit someone’s throat. I can also bring 100ml of stain remover to squirt in someone’s eyes. Duct tape to restrain people with. Corkscrews, knitting needles, metal forks, whips, a lighter, matches, and dry ice.

  89. demidan says:

    My friend Alex who now works for NASA and I got pulled over in Holland MI a couple of years ago,(his AMC Gremlin’s tail light fell inside the car). On the dashboard was a plastic derringer pistol, it was very obviously a toy yet the Police drew their guns on us. It was not until a sergeant came down to check out the “gun” did they agree it was a toy and let us go. Police and security people it seems are the products of cousins marrying.

  90. Namdnal Siroj says:

    Reminds me of when customs would confiscate this perfume, because the bottle resembles a grenade:
    http://images.google.com/images?q=flowerbomb

  91. Takuan says:

    “Step up to the MRI Scanner please sir….”
    “No, no this won’t do! You won’t fly today sir!”

    “What’s the problem?”

    “You have the thought of a gun in your head, sir. Step over here please”

  92. Namdnal Siroj says:

    Oh, I see it’s in the comments already, this grenade bottle.
    I think this is the one that made it into the directives.
    Funny detail is that they sell Viktor & Rolf’s Flowerbomb on every airport.

  93. Anonymous says:

    Well now I have heard it all.Guy is every way to be laid off from his job because if he can’t do this right what will he screw up next?OK here is the brake down,#1 there is a tiny trigger guard,how would she pull the trigger? Ummm?. No. #2 even if it was only one bullet,the most Weight to size damage it could do is poke your eye really bad.Ummm? No. #3 Reloading would not be possible with out tools.Ummm? No. #4 If it could,like some are saying,there would be no good way to hold it,hello,star wars space guns in the 70s had them did not work then or now.Ummmm….no.So let me re-can’t If we have all the facts,Still NOOO!! Now some one will say bet he dose not know the first thing about guns.Ew theres a yes, on duty, Military, training and just for fun too.26yrs, +.

  94. Daemon says:

    My basic theory regarding typical TSA type people: They spend most of their breaks drinking confiscated liquor.

  95. nialldebuitlear says:

    Perhaps someone pointed this out already but this necklace is explicitly allowed according to the previously linked list which allowes “Small objects shaped like guns or handcuffs (e.g., pendants, charms)”

    http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/english/travel_voyage/list.shtml#firearmsandammunitions

  96. Anonymous says:

    Same thing happened to me and my Dad, before the new rules at our airport barring non-flyers from going past the check point, we went in to meet my mother at the gate.

    My dad had a plastic gun keychain, one of those 25 cent plastic capsule toys, and the TSA agent confiscated his keys for the duration of our stay.

    to be perfectly honest, the TSA agent was a good guy, he saw the keys when they went in, picked them up on the other side, and knowing that we were only there to meet someone at the gate he looked at my dad and said

    “Sir, im sorry about this, i know its just a plastic toy, but if i dont hold onto it, it’ll be my ass in a sling.”

  97. Takuan says:

    ah! you mean longshoremen!

  98. shutz says:

    #9: I find your theory on randomly-lost luggage compelling.

    By working with probabilities, you can determine the percentage of all luggage that you need to “lose” in order to reduce the effectiveness of any terrorist plots that require luggage as part of their plans.

    For instance, let’s say the average terrorist plot requires 10 separate pieces of non-carry-on luggage, and you have a 10% luggage loss rate, then the terrorists are somewhat likely to be missing at least 1 piece of luggage (and, one supposes, items essential to the terrorist attempt.) All this assumes a mostly uniform distribution of probabilities.

    This has similar effects on smuggling attempts, and similar conspiracies.

    Where it all falls apart is in how stupid an ineffective the TSA, and even the equivalent Canadian agency have been up until now. There’s no way these agencies, after all the stupidity we’ve witnessed, would be able to make all the logical leaps necessary to understand and implement my probabilistic airport security model.

Leave a Reply