ThinkGeek Umbrella Brings Police to College Dorm

[blackbeastofaaaaagh]

"Last I checked, even carrying a sword in most places isn't against the law. In fact, in many places in the US, lawful citizens can carry whatever they wish. For instance, slung rifles, or legally licensed hand guns, swords, knives, and tasers. If you're running around like an idiot every time you see a weapon, then the only thing that's really happened is the fact that you've proven to everyone else that you're an idiot. "

Actually there are a whole lot of restrictions. It pisses me off, as a knife enthusiast, that while you are allowed to carry guns in the US you can't carry, in most states: any knife with a blade longer than 3.5'' (unless you can prove that you are taking it to a work/leisure place), a switch-blade/silhouette (a federal crime to even own), a dirk or dagger (i.e. any blade that is sharpened on both sides), a knife who's total length (blade + handle) exceeds 8'', throwing stars/blades (in most states), ballistic knives (my foreign cousin own an official Spetsnaz issue - man is it sweat!!!, a Federal crime to own in the USA), any gravity or motion assisted opening blade.

Recently Congress tried to ban one-handed opening blades which would have made most high-end Leathermans and Victorinox multi-tools illegal.

The switch-blade is the most useful type of knife to carry in any emergency situation. When most people are panicky or stressed they inadvertently end up dropping the knife or cutting themselves trying of open typical pocket folding knives. Switch-blades or idiot-proof to open and give the user a firm grip once it's taken out of the pocket.

 

[irh_1974]

At one time I read a story written by an American journalist about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, that the level of violence in the country was directly attributed to the population having access to a huge amounts of weaponry. Old AK47s left over from the Russians and such. Even if the country had a new Government nothing would really change until the number of guns was removed from a population who had no moral qualms about killing people under certain circumstances. The primary upshot of this was for a US military commander to state that systematic removal of weaponry was the only way to increase safety and stability.

Great story.

Shame you can't do the same for your own country, i'm sure the next comment will be some demented NRA freak thumbing this comment down, but I don't care what you think. We need less weapons, not more.

Anyone who thinks a fully automatic shotgun, a pintel mounted .50 cal, a rocket launcher and a flamethrower are perfectly acceptable for home defence needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the nearest mental hospital.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]jungleboogiemonster[/nom]I work on a college campus and I can attest to the fact that colleges and universities take student safety very seriously. While this may seem extreme to some, it really isn't. It would have been extreme if the police wanted to press charges or otherwise harass the students after it was proven there was no safety risk, but that did not happen. Just keep in mind that students are watching you, for their own safety's sake, when you're on a college campus.[/citation]

1984...

I can take care of myself.

 

[victomofreality]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]while you can get a cane sword and won't even raise a eyebrow...http/www.swordsdirect.com/sword_canes.html[/citation]

Hrmmm there appears to be an umbrella sword in that list too lol...

I thought the police where over reacting till I read the part about Georgia tech, didn't know about that story

 

[r0x0r]

I have one of these. I stopped carrying it in the sheath after I got pulled over by 4 police wearing armoured vests (with a chopper on standby)...I wish I was kidding about that.

Now I just walk around with it where people can easily see the umbrella part rather than just the handle.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]At one time I read a story written by an American journalist about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, that the level of violence in the country was directly attributed to the population having access to a huge amounts of weaponry. Old AK47s left over from the Russians and such. Even if the country had a new Government nothing would really change until the number of guns was removed from a population who had no moral qualms about killing people under certain circumstances. The primary upshot of this was for a US military commander to state that systematic removal of weaponry was the only way to increase safety and stability.Great story.Shame you can't do the same for your own country, i'm sure the next comment will be some demented NRA freak thumbing this comment down, but I don't care what you think. We need less weapons, not more. Anyone who thinks a fully automatic shotgun, a pintel mounted .50 cal, a rocket launcher and a flamethrower are perfectly acceptable for home defence needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the nearest mental hospital.[/citation]

I agree, pump shotguns are much more reliable in a home defense setting. But your comment is ridiculous, the point of having weapons is to be able to do an insurgency if need be.

 

[wawa sxm]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]We have turned into a country full of p*ssies.[/citation]

Because pussies have poorly educated parents and wont hesitate to shoot up everybody because he was picked on

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Understood, but try walking around Columbine or Virginia Tech whilst packing heat and see how far you get before people start crapping themselves and calling for SWAT.[/citation]

The classification for a "weapon" is pretty broad and includes not only handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. but all sorts of long bladed weapons like swords. And with good reason, they are decidedly only used as a weapon (as opposed to, perhaps, preparing dinner).

Many places, like public buildings, schools, churches, etc (including any place self-appointed as such) are designated weapon-free and weapons (including swords) are patently NOT allowed on the premises. We can debate the fairness and efficacy of this law, but nevertheless in the US it is *the law*.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]joebob2000[/nom]The classification for a "weapon" is pretty broad and includes not only handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. but all sorts of long bladed weapons like swords. And with good reason, they are decidedly only used as a weapon (as opposed to, perhaps, preparing dinner).Many places, like public buildings, schools, churches, etc (including any place self-appointed as such) are designated weapon-free and weapons (including swords) are patently NOT allowed on the premises. We can debate the fairness and efficacy of this law, but nevertheless in the US it is *the law*.[/citation]
And like everywhere else in the world, laws are made by people and people are prone to errors.
I read an article a while back about a guy who tried to rob a church during collection plate pass around. Some dude in the service pulled out a concealed gun to shoot the robber, missed and blew the head off a choirboy instead.
He got off scott-free because by LAW the church was required to have a sign posted inside stating that concealed weapons were not permitted.
What are you doing taking a gun to church in the first place?
The system is freakin' broken.
There has got to be a better way.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]I agree, pump shotguns are much more reliable in a home defense setting. But your comment is ridiculous, the point of having weapons is to be able to do an insurgency if need be.[/citation]
That arguement is as ridiculous as it gets.
You seriously think that having a population with a few small arms is going to beat a Government controlled military with stealth bombers, tactical nukes, spy satellites and the NSA listening in on every phone call and email whilst the "resistance" is trying to get organised?
The domestic gun industry is worth billions in sales, taxes and jobs and that is the reason the archaic gun laws haven't been reviewed, just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean new amendments can't be added.
"It's the law" is an excuse, laws are written and repealed every day, blaming the law is just obfuscating responsibility.

 

[gm0n3y]

Isn't it legal to carry swords in public? At least in Canada I'm pretty sure you can carry a long blade as long as it is visible. Concealing longer blades is illegal.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]That arguement is as ridiculous as it gets.You seriously think that having a population with a few small arms is going to beat a Government controlled military with stealth bombers, tactical nukes, spy satellites and the NSA listening in on every phone call and email whilst the "resistance" is trying to get organised?[/citation]

Yeah, look at Iraq...

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]At one time I read a story written by an American journalist about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, that the level of violence in the country was directly attributed to the population having access to a huge amounts of weaponry. Old AK47s left over from the Russians and such. Even if the country had a new Government nothing would really change until the number of guns was removed from a population who had no moral qualms about killing people under certain circumstances.[/citation]

I think the latter half of the last sentence was the real reason there were so many deaths. If somebody doesn't value life and wants to kill somebody, there are a bunch of ways to do so. You'd just read about people getting run over by cars, killed by diesel fuel bombs, or getting stabbed or bludgeoned to death if there were no guns over there.

The primary upshot of this was for a US military commander to state that systematic removal of weaponry was the only way to increase safety and stability.Great story.Shame you can't do the same for your own country, i'm sure the next comment will be some demented NRA freak thumbing this comment down, but I don't care what you think. We need less weapons, not more.

I have to say that Switzerland disagrees with you. Every house with an adult male has a military service rifle in it, and they have a very low crime rate. Crime has to do with how stable society and the individuals in that society are or aren't, not what objects people have lying around that they can use to kill each other with.

Anyone who thinks a fully automatic shotgun, a pintel mounted .50 cal, a rocket launcher and a flamethrower are perfectly acceptable for home defence needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the nearest mental hospital.

First of all, all but the flamethrower are NFA weapons and are very, very difficult for a civilian to legally acquire and possess. Thus you're not going to see your neighbor out back practicing hitting 300m targets with a Ma Deuce. Secondly, you need to read the writings of the founders of the Constitution as to why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. It isn't for defense against other civilians, it's for defense against a government gone awry. Those kinds of weapons are what the government would use against civilians who oppose it, so the civilians absolutely should have them. If they use those weapons against others, who's to say that they wouldn't have used something that wasn't banned instead? The person wanted to kill somebody anyway, so what's to stop them from running them over with a car or jabbing a screwdriver into somebody's head instead of shooting them? (Some gangs are notorious for using screwdrivers to kill enemies.) You'd be just as dead either way.

 

[jacobdrj]

This story is both Epic Win and Epic Fail all wrapped into 1...

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]Skid[/nom]You know "There's no place like 127.0.0.1" is technically incorrect, 127.0.0.1(localhost) is a computers reference to its self, which would translate as "There's no place like myself". It should be one of the most common ips for routers, something like 192.168.1.1.[/citation]

I think it's supposed to mean there's no place like home, technical analysis aside.

 

[Guest]

I was in Ontario Canada for a flight to L.A. last year when this chick in line with me pulled the same umbrella for X-ray... No response from the gestapos.

 

[jlefebre6001]

[citation][nom]70camaross396[/nom]In Arizona you can openly carry a gun to just about any where. if i remember right, I think schools and goverment buildings are the only things off limits. You can go the the 7-11 with a gun on your hip and no one will say a word. also people know not to screw with you when everyone is packing a gun on your hip. Still a getting the cops call on you for having a sword is just dumb. excluding the georgia tech incident, how many people are really kill by sword in the us? it would be diffrent if they were fighting or had some other kind of demestic disterbance thier eairler in the day. but dude was just going to see his girl. next thing you know they will be taking away our pocket knifes.... oh wait.....[/citation]

well this WAS at a school so I don't get your point... someone called the police and said they saw a geek with a samurai sword. what were they supposed to do? not show up? "sorry little girl, but it's probably just one of those sword umbrellas." also, no one was charged.

 

[blurr91]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Understood, but try walking around Columbine or Virginia Tech whilst packing heat and see how far you get before people start crapping themselves and calling for SWAT.[/citation]

Notice Columbine and Virginia Tech are GUN FREE ZONES. Kinda interesting how the students weren't able to protect themselves from criminals who just happened to NOT OBEY THE LAW.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]Notice Columbine and Virginia Tech are GUN FREE ZONES. Kinda interesting how the students weren't able to protect themselves from criminals who just happened to NOT OBEY THE LAW.[/citation]
So you are saying that the students that panicked and called the police should have instead been armed, because putting guns in the hands of people who are already freaked out is a good idea. Right. What if they decided to just blow the guy away then realise it was an umbrella when it was too late.
No amount of debate will ever convince me that it is right to encourage carrying firearms in school.
[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]Yeah, look at Iraq...[/citation]
You realise you just compared the USA to Iraq for being full of guns and dangerous.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]So you are saying that the students that panicked and called the police should have instead been armed, because putting guns in the hands of people who are already freaked out is a good idea. Right. What if they decided to just blow the guy away then realise it was an umbrella when it was too late.No amount of debate will ever convince me that it is right to encourage carrying firearms in school.You realise you just compared the USA to Iraq for being full of guns and dangerous.[/citation]
Possible false causality: Would it be any different in Iraq were there no guns? Last time I checked, a lot of the violence is coming from IEDs... Same goes for Israel, which actualy has fairly low domestic violence because of the pervasiveness of guns. People wanting to cause harm have resorted to IEDs and the like to cause harm, and they seem to ultimately cause less than a single guy with a gun did in VT because there was nobody else with a gun around to stop him...

Not saying you are wrong, but comparing Iraq and the US in terms of violence based on gun ownership is not an argument for causality... Particularly in terms of domestic violence.