Weapons at Worldcon
BetNoir
>
> In article <35A94993...@pacbell.net>,
> The Polymath <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >BetNoir wrote:
> >>
> >> This is for anyone who will be attending WorldCon in Baltimore this
> >> year.
> >>
> >> Please be advised that the weapons policy for this Con is very strict.
> >> No weapons....no realistic looking props....no toys that evoke weapons
> >> in their design or function.
> >
> >Let me guess ...
> >
> >They couldn't come up with a definition of Real(tm) weapons that didn't
> >include some harmless props, so they decided to ban everything rather
> >than force some poor security guard to actually think.
> >
> >This is just another instance of a "zero tolerance" ruling. I hate that
> >phrase. It roughtly translates to "we're too stupid/lazy to think about
> >anything on a case by case basis." I'm shocked and disappointed to find
> >such an attitude in charge of something like WorldCon.
> >
> >Do they seriously think a Real(tm) criminal or terrorist would wear
> >their gun on their hip or put a "high explosive" label on their bomb?
>
> They may think that one of the things WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT SF
> CONVENTIONS might happen.
>
> For example, some idiot pointing a realistic-looking handgun at a cop.
When? Where? Times and places at which CONVENTIONS this occurred?
Read my post again. Yes, no real weaps....yes, no REALISTIC looking
props. Neither of these I have any particular disagreement with at a
con.
But are you going to tell me that Dr.Bill's eight-year-old son cannot
carry a neon green plastic light saber around because someone MIGHT --
not will, but MIGHT -- mistake it for a real weapon? And not some Con
Security boffin, but an honest-to-Ghod-trained-and-everything Baltimore
City Police Deparment officer might goof on?
If that's the case, the Baltimore Police Department is in a sorrier
state than I had originally suspected.
If a WorldCon committee thinks, even for a moment, that a neon green
plastic light saber could be construed as a weapon, than that speaks
less to safety matters than deeper political agendas regarding their
personal opinions of what does and does not constitute a weapon.
--
BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
'Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats' -- H.L. Mencken
'We close our eyes...and the world has turned around again' -- D.
Elflman
Elspeth Kovar Burgess
>
> In article <35A94993...@pacbell.net>,
> The Polymath <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip ranting>
> >Do they seriously think a Real(tm) criminal or terrorist would wear
> >their gun on their hip or put a "high explosive" label on their bomb?
> They may think that one of the things WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT SF
> CONVENTIONS might happen.
> For example, some idiot pointing a realistic-looking handgun at a cop.
Baltimore is the same town where, about a decade or so ago, someone in a
Princess Leia costume -- not the white dress job -- decided to go for a
stroll on a hotel roof.
>From the distance, and in the dark, all that was clear was that there
was someone in a jumpsuit with what appeared to be a gun up there. The
Baltimore police responded accordingly. That's when we, local fandom,
started taking another look at our weapons policies.
There are people out there who aren't fans. And there are people out
there who do deal with real weapons and real nut cases and who have to
make quick judgments about what is what. And, most importantly, there
are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
about the possible repercussions of their actions.
Elspeth
The Polymath
> There are people out there who aren't fans. And there are people out
> there who do deal with real weapons and real nut cases and who have to
> make quick judgments about what is what. And, most importantly, there
> are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
> about the possible repercussions of their actions.
Contrasting experience:
A few years ago, Greater L.A. Mensa held their Regional Gathering
(annual con) at a major hotel in Pasadena. The theme of the event was
the mythical Wild West. Costumes were encouraged. I, among others,
attended the entire con with a Real(tm) cap-and-ball revolver on my hip
and a Real(tm) Bowie knife in my boot -- both peace bonded. We got some
strange looks from the mundane hotel guests, but there were no problems,
no incidents and a good time was had by all.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CCP, CFI)
http://www.babcom.com/polymath
(818) 882-6309
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
Leonard Erickson
> In article <35A94993...@pacbell.net>,
> The Polymath <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>BetNoir wrote:
>>>
>>> This is for anyone who will be attending WorldCon in Baltimore this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Please be advised that the weapons policy for this Con is very strict.
>>> No weapons....no realistic looking props....no toys that evoke weapons
>>> in their design or function.
>>
>>Let me guess ...
>>
>>They couldn't come up with a definition of Real(tm) weapons that didn't
>>include some harmless props, so they decided to ban everything rather
>>than force some poor security guard to actually think.
>>
>>This is just another instance of a "zero tolerance" ruling. I hate that
>>phrase. It roughtly translates to "we're too stupid/lazy to think about
>>anything on a case by case basis." I'm shocked and disappointed to find
>>such an attitude in charge of something like WorldCon.
>>
>>Do they seriously think a Real(tm) criminal or terrorist would wear
>>their gun on their hip or put a "high explosive" label on their bomb?
>
> They may think that one of the things WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT SF
> CONVENTIONS might happen.
>
> For example, some idiot pointing a realistic-looking handgun at a cop.
Our patron tells the tale of a con he attended with his wife Jeanne,
where they were on an elevator with some fans in costume. The door
opend to show the lobby containing a SWAT team (some bystander had seen
some costume weapons and caused the police to think there was a majore
incident taking place).
As the doors opened, the cops automatically covered the occupant with
various weapons (automatic rifles included). One of the fans actually
drew his "gun" and pointed it at the cops!!!
Spider stated that he was about to throw hoimself on top of jean for
the slim protection that his body might provide. Luckily the cops
figured things out.
He quotes the one in charge as saying to his men "It's ok, they're just
a bunch of idiots with toys".
This sort of thing is *not* rare. <sigh>
I recall a con where the person checking badges at the entrance to the
dance was blinded by a guy in a wookie suit who stuck his "blast rifle"
in her face and fired the strobe light built into it at a range of
about 6 inches.
And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
tape.
I walked into one of the gaming rooms to see a kid pointing a pistol at
another player and then I heard the unmistakeable sound of an air
pistol being dry-fired. I went and grabbed the head of con security
(the fan security types, not some sort of security guards). He grabbed
another guy. Both were rather bear-like people. They walked up behind
the kid, and informed him that he could pick up the pistol on his way
out of the con.
Heck, we've even had people with swords (how shouldn't have been
allowed near them) wearing them stuck thru their belts and paying *no*
attention to where the point was or who was behind them. I've seen an
idiot with a rapier almost put out the eye of a child that way.
And then there are the idiots with whips...
I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do. Just *one*
irresponsible person can get a *lot* of people hurt. Just consider that
incident Spider witnessed.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
"Nature abhors an atmosphere.
Check your suit.
Check your buddy's suit."
Dan Goodman
The Polymath <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>BetNoir wrote:
>>
>> This is for anyone who will be attending WorldCon in Baltimore this
>> year.
>>
>> Please be advised that the weapons policy for this Con is very strict.
>> No weapons....no realistic looking props....no toys that evoke weapons
>> in their design or function.
>
>Let me guess ...
>
>They couldn't come up with a definition of Real(tm) weapons that didn't
>include some harmless props, so they decided to ban everything rather
>than force some poor security guard to actually think.
>
>This is just another instance of a "zero tolerance" ruling. I hate that
>phrase. It roughtly translates to "we're too stupid/lazy to think about
>anything on a case by case basis." I'm shocked and disappointed to find
>such an attitude in charge of something like WorldCon.
>
>Do they seriously think a Real(tm) criminal or terrorist would wear
>their gun on their hip or put a "high explosive" label on their bomb?
They may think that one of the things WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT SF
CONVENTIONS might happen.
For example, some idiot pointing a realistic-looking handgun at a cop.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Vicki Rosenzweig
Not only is Dan's scenario possible--and maybe this time the cop wouldn't
realize in time that it was a toy, and the idiot wouldn't hear, or wouldn't
respond appropriately to, "Police! Freeze! Drop the gun!"--but the line
between "realistic looking imitation sword" and "dangerous weapon"
can be hard to draw, given that it's possible to injure or even kill someone
with a wooden sword. (For that matter, even a lightweight plastic imitation
sword can be dangerous if the wearer doesn't stop to think before
sticking it out in front of him where people are walking.)
In other words, the concern is probably not that a "real" criminal or
terrorist (which I suspect means "a lawbreaker who poly...@pacbell.net
doesn't know") would use the con weapons policy as a way to sneak
a real weapon into the con (I'm inclined to agree that such a person would
hide the weapon), but that someone connected with fandom would bring
in something dangerous without thinking the matter through. I'd far rather
the con had a simple, easy to abide by rule than that they required
everyone to take a test of our intelligence or common sense before
entering convention space. (All else aside, even many of us who could
pass such a test right now would probably have trouble by Day 4 of a
Worldcon. And such a test would probably be far more subjective than
any "is this a weapon?" question, though I was a bit annoyed by the
staffer at a regional who borrowed a Swiss Army knife for con set-up,
then said "you know, that violates the weapons policy"--immediately
after demonstrating that they found it to be a tool useful at the con.)
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning."
-- Susanna Sturgis
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Dan Goodman wrote:
: >
: > In article <35A94993...@pacbell.net>,
: > The Polymath <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: > >BetNoir wrote:
: > >>
: > >> This is for anyone who will be attending WorldCon in Baltimore this
: > >> year.
: > >>
: > >> Please be advised that the weapons policy for this Con is very strict.
: > >> No weapons....no realistic looking props....no toys that evoke weapons
: > >> in their design or function.
: > >
: > >Let me guess ...
: > >
: > >They couldn't come up with a definition of Real(tm) weapons that didn't
: > >include some harmless props, so they decided to ban everything rather
: > >than force some poor security guard to actually think.
: > >
: > >This is just another instance of a "zero tolerance" ruling. I hate that
: > >phrase. It roughtly translates to "we're too stupid/lazy to think about
: > >anything on a case by case basis." I'm shocked and disappointed to find
: > >such an attitude in charge of something like WorldCon.
: > >
: > >Do they seriously think a Real(tm) criminal or terrorist would wear
: > >their gun on their hip or put a "high explosive" label on their bomb?
: >
: > They may think that one of the things WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT SF
: > CONVENTIONS might happen.
: >
: > For example, some idiot pointing a realistic-looking handgun at a cop.
: When? Where? Times and places at which CONVENTIONS this occurred?
It did occur.
: Read my post again. Yes, no real weaps....yes, no REALISTIC looking
: props. Neither of these I have any particular disagreement with at a
: con.
Not what I got from your post. What I got from your post is a
hostile attitude that said there was no possible reason for the
policy, and nothing you say can tell me any different.
: But are you going to tell me that Dr.Bill's eight-year-old son cannot
: carry a neon green plastic light saber around because someone MIGHT --
: not will, but MIGHT -- mistake it for a real weapon? And not some Con
: Security boffin, but an honest-to-Ghod-trained-and-everything Baltimore
: City Police Deparment officer might goof on?
No, but some putz can and likely will say, "If you let him carry
that, which is obviously intended to look like a weapon, you have
no right to stop me from carrying what I like." The policy, I
suspect, isn't to keep security guards from thinking -- it's to
stop pointless arguments with putzes who want what they want, and
won't listen to any reasons why they cannot have it.
: If that's the case, the Baltimore Police Department is in a sorrier
: state than I had originally suspected.
That's not a very good argument; it proceeds with your acknowlegement
that you don't think much of the police to begin with, which suggests
more about you than about the police. I'm guessing here.
: If a WorldCon committee thinks, even for a moment, that a neon green
: plastic light saber could be construed as a weapon, than that speaks
: less to safety matters than deeper political agendas regarding their
: personal opinions of what does and does not constitute a weapon.
Why are you so hip on the idea of this neon green plastic lightsaber,
and why do you think the choice is between "a real or realistic gun"
on one side and "a neon green plastic lightsaber" on the other?
-- LJM
mike weber
Goodman) opined:
>In article <35A94993...@pacbell.net>,
>The Polymath <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Do they seriously think a Real(tm) criminal or terrorist would wear
>>their gun on their hip or put a "high explosive" label on their bomb?
>
>They may think that one of the things WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT SF
>CONVENTIONS might happen.
>
>For example, some idiot pointing a realistic-looking handgun at a cop.
The version of this that i have heard is that the incident occurred at
a DC-area con ((Disclave preferred)) in a hotel near Sensitive Parts
of town. Someone saw people in paramilitary garb with apparent
weapons running around and called in the police, saying that
terrorists had taken over the hotel. ((Again, this is my memory of
what i was told.))
When the SWAT team rolled up, some fool inside the hotel saw them
through a plate-glass window and pointed a dummy gun at them. If that
fool wouyld have been the only victim if the cops had opened fire, i
would just have put him down as a Darwin Award nominee -- but, accto
my informant, there was a sheet-rock wall right behind him, on the
other side of which was either the Art Show or Dealers' Room.
Cops these days are more and more jumpy and less an less likely to be
patient.
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
"He thanked his friends in Houston town -- he thanked his
fellow mates; he thanked his God and the makers of
Tang and then he thanked his Chief of State -- D.Previn
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
Forget the blade. Slash with the woodsaw. MUCH more damaging and painful.)
that therefore, my SAK is banned from the con, as would be the pocket
knives of all and sundry?
And how are the techies who put the con together and tear it down supposed
to do their jobs, sans the universal tool?
As it stands now, my SAK, my Gerber multi-tool, my Boker Top Lock folder,
the two artists knives, the glass-filled plastic "CIA Letter opener" I use
for poking around inside things full of AC and DC, and who knows whatall I
may have in the pouch at any one time (with benign intent) could be
proscribed at Bucconeer, simply because I have them hanging off my belt,
well sheathed?
This is NOT a flame! (more flint & steel, actually) Seriously, _would_ this
be the case were I to attend Bucconeer?
Yet, if this is like virtually every other worldcon I've attended, there
WILL be people selling steel in the dealer's room, and I KNOW that Tullio
and Amy Proni will be there, peddling their lucite ray guns. What of them?
--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"
I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing
<A HREF="HTTP://WWW.GIS.NET/~CHT"/A>
Dr. Bill
> Baltimore is the same town where, about a decade or so ago, someone in a
> Princess Leia costume -- not the white dress job -- decided to go for a
> stroll on a hotel roof.
>
> >From the distance, and in the dark, all that was clear was that there
> was someone in a jumpsuit with what appeared to be a gun up there. The
> Baltimore police responded accordingly. That's when we, local fandom,
> started taking another look at our weapons policies.
So, perhaps, we in fandom should take a hard look at any future bid
centered in Baltimore?
Went to Westercon... in San Diego, land of the hijacked tank... and there
didn't seem to be any problems with the police making such mistakes
there. Went to LosCon last year in Burbank... and the Starship Troopers
were patrolling the LOBBY with Moritas and battle armor... and none of the
Burbank PD, or LA County sheriffs' office, lost any sleep over it.
> There are people out there who aren't fans.
Not one of those... ::wry grin::
> And there are people out
> there who do deal with real weapons and real nut cases and who have to
> make quick judgments about what is what.
Do that all the time in the ED...including weapons incidents in the shop.
And your point? (curious)
> And, most importantly, there
> are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
> about the possible repercussions of their actions.
Ummm... how about the fen who are mature, responsible, who do concern
themselves with the repercussions of what they do... personally and
professionally... who find being lumped in with children annoying at
best, and suspiciously PC at worst?
curious, Bill Ernoehazy, Jr, MD, FACEP
former LCDR, MC, USNR
--
Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons
For You Are Chewy
And Would Taste Great Dipped In Chocolate
Dr. Bill
> The version of this that i have heard is that the incident occurred at
> a DC-area con ((Disclave preferred)) in a hotel near Sensitive Parts
> of town. Someone saw people in paramilitary garb with apparent
> weapons running around and called in the police, saying that
> terrorists had taken over the hotel. ((Again, this is my memory of
> what i was told.))
Mike, anyone else out there, did this actually happen? Or is it an urban
legend, like the infamous microwaved poodle, or the Good Times virus?
Note to the easily annoyed: I like Mike, from what I've read. Never met
him in person, but like the Mike of his e-mail. I am *NOT* impugning him.
I am simply asking for verification... because the fellow who told Mike
this story may have BELIEVED it, because "he heard from someone"....
>
> When the SWAT team rolled up, some fool inside the hotel saw them
> through a plate-glass window and pointed a dummy gun at them. If that
> fool wouyld have been the only victim if the cops had opened fire, i
> would just have put him down as a Darwin Award nominee -- but, accto
> my informant, there was a sheet-rock wall right behind him, on the
> other side of which was either the Art Show or Dealers' Room.
>
> Cops these days are more and more jumpy and less an less likely to be
> patient.
Ummm... the HRT and SWAT types I know are, if anything, more cautious,
more patient. Tactics and doctrine have evolved somewhat in the last
decade.
Doctor Bill
Dr. Bill
> : (BetNoir) When? Where? Times and places at which CONVENTIONS this
occurred?
>
> It did occur.
Umm... please. Times, dates, names, and places. As I have noted
elsewhere, lots of well-meaning folks believe in the existence of the Good
Times virus--they tell me so every six months. ::wince::
> : If a WorldCon committee thinks, even for a moment, that a neon green
> : plastic light saber could be construed as a weapon, than that speaks
> : less to safety matters than deeper political agendas regarding their
> : personal opinions of what does and does not constitute a weapon.
>
> Why are you so hip on the idea of this neon green plastic lightsaber,
> and why do you think the choice is between "a real or realistic gun"
> on one side and "a neon green plastic lightsaber" on the other?
It's known as a "reductio ad absurdum". Legitimately used in logical
discourse. If someone's argument, reduced to its fundamental premises,
proves ridiculous and false-to-fact... it's well to junk the argument, no
matter how plausible it may seem prima facie.
It further denotes a willingness to consider other people's legitimate
concerns. IF there is sufficient concern, based on numerous REAL
incidents, about realistic prop weapons at Conventions, Bet is showing a
willingness to consider that a policy based on THAT objection might be
sensible. But such a concern should not address props which are unlikely
to be mistaken for plausible weapons.
I should note here that when asking Con staff, in corrspondence and
personal conversation, about this policy, that...if anything... the
_Buconneer staff_ were the ones who were unwilling to discuss, consider,
explain... or even acknowledge the irony of their policy, given all the
guns and cutlasses depicted in the hands of GoHs and staffers in all their
pirate-themed progress reports and handouts. Of course... in *your*
dealings with them, YMMV.
> No, but some putz can and likely will say, "If you let him carry
> that, which is obviously intended to look like a weapon, you have
> no right to stop me from carrying what I like."
Well, yes they do. The convention is, after all, a members-only private
party. And the ConCom is perfectly capable, given its stated rules, of
throwing out anyone wearing a sheathed Swiss Army Knife. They may not
choose to do so... but they MAY, as the rules are currently written.
Further, the decision on what is a weapon becomes even MORE subjective
given current Bucconeer policy. Let us say I wear a plastic faux cutting
torch as part of a search-and-rescue spacesuit, for hall costuming. The
Con security bounces me because it looks like a weapon to THEM... even
though it is not one, is not intended to BE one, and does not even portray
one.
This policy is actually just as...intellectually demanding? to Convention
security... as one which says "no realistic weapons". And FAR more
insulting to the vast majority of fen who carry themselves responsibly,
and have done so for the nearly 60 years' worth of Worldcons.
Dr Bill
Perrianne Lurie
Report #2:
Bucconeer's Weapons Policy
Be it known to all present that the celebration known as Bucconeer,
being held in the Fenzance-controlled port named for Lord Baltimore in
the Land of Mary, is a peaceable celebration and there will be no need
to carry arms of any nature. To this end, any celebrant found to be in
violation of this proclamation may be removed from the celebration
forthwith by the Queen' guard, the constabulary, or any appropriately
commissioned member of th Bucconeer Crew.
During the revelry commonly referred to as the Masquerade, arms may be
displayed as an integral part of a participant's fancy dress with the
prior explicit written approval of the Lady of the Masque. This
weaponry may be transported from the owner's lodging to the Masque and
subsequently returned forthwith.
To foster the economy of the port city, however, weaponry may be
displayed using appropriate safeguards in the Den of Thieves commonly
called the "Dealers' Room" with the prior explicit written approval of
the Chamberlains of the Dealers' Room. Any sales made shall include
packaging for transportation that renders the item ineffective as a
weapon. Items packaged in this manner may be transported in the
environs of Bucconeer only for the express purpose of placing them in
the owner's lodging.
Perrianne Lurie
BucCONeer, the 56-th World Science Fiction Convention
August 5-9, 1998, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
P.O. Box 314, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
bucc...@bucconeer.worldcon.org
http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org
Personal E-mail: bucc...@pipeline.com
Perrianne Lurie
>> The version of this that i have heard is that the incident occurred at
>> a DC-area con ((Disclave preferred)) in a hotel near Sensitive Parts
>> of town. Someone saw people in paramilitary garb with apparent
>> weapons running around and called in the police, saying that
>> terrorists had taken over the hotel. ((Again, this is my memory of
>> what i was told.))
>Mike, anyone else out there, did this actually happen? Or is it an urban
>legend, like the infamous microwaved poodle, or the Good Times virus?
Yes, this actually happened. Ask Joe Mayhew, who was running the Art
Auction at the time. (No, I wasn't there, but it was the infamous
"Hostility House" Disclave -- several years before my time in
Balto-Wash.)
I find it odd that this discussion is going on now, when we announced
the weapons policy in Progress Report #2 in September, 1997 (and
posted it on the Web page before that). You can read it for yourself
at the URL in my .sig.
Keith Wood
Elspeth Kovar Burgess <ebur...@radix.net> wrote:
[There are people out there who aren't fans. And there are people out
[there who do deal with real weapons and real nut cases and who have to
[make quick judgments about what is what. And, most importantly, there
[are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
[about the possible repercussions of their actions.
[
And there are people who need to grow up instead of trying to nerf
the whole world.
Enjoy your convention. I'm glad I heard about this before I sent in
my money. I would rather be around people who consider instead of
simply reacting.
bet...@earthlink.net
kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
> I recall a con where the person checking badges at the entrance to the
> dance was blinded by a guy in a wookie suit who stuck his "blast rifle"
> in her face and fired the strobe light built into it at a range of
> about 6 inches.
And that weapon should have been pulled on the spot. Right then. Clear the
holster with a blast rifle....pick it up at the end of the con.
> And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
> weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
> holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
> tape.
I have no problem with a peace-tie policy at cons. Yes, the Dreaded Pyrate
Queen, She Who Plays with Swordy Thingies says "She Has No Problem With a
Peace Tie Policy." Just for those folx in the back row who didn't hear me
the first time.
Why? Because, while people like Dr.Bill, Tivar and myself have spent years
working with weapons and know how to be safe while handling them, not
everyone has that experience. But that does NOT mean that they are stupid,
or irresponsible. So let them wear the weapon, but *tie it in place*. If
they are the good, responsible people they would like to think themselves to
be, they will leave it in place. And if not, they will be treated in an
appropriate fashion for their actions.
> I walked into one of the gaming rooms to see a kid pointing a pistol at
> another player and then I heard the unmistakeable sound of an air
> pistol being dry-fired. I went and grabbed the head of con security
> (the fan security types, not some sort of security guards). He grabbed
> another guy. Both were rather bear-like people. They walked up behind
> the kid, and informed him that he could pick up the pistol on his way
> out of the con.
Now me, I would have gone straight to hotel security. Do not pass go. Do
not collect $200. Hotel security has just as much a vested interest in
weapons NOT being unholstered as the ConCom does. And they are more likely
to call in the REAL Boys in Blue if that is warranted. And I have no problem
with calling in the police if it comes to that.
You want to carry weapons, fine. But understand that if you dick up, you will
get more than just your badge pulled and membership revoked. Real Life will
come pay you a visit.
> Heck, we've even had people with swords (how shouldn't have been
> allowed near them) wearing them stuck thru their belts and paying *no*
> attention to where the point was or who was behind them. I've seen an
> idiot with a rapier almost put out the eye of a child that way.
Not sheathed? Oh, so sorry...not allowed. That shuts down that argument.
> I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
> idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do. Just *one*
> irresponsible person can get a *lot* of people hurt. Just consider that
> incident Spider witnessed.
And if you crack down harder on that ONE irresponsible person -- as opposed to
everyone -- you CAN allow weapons at cons.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Keith Wood
[And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
[weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
[holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
[tape.
[I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
[idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do.
These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
Keith Wood
blackw...@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) wrote:
[
[> The version of this that i have heard is that the incident occurred at
[> a DC-area con ((Disclave preferred)) in a hotel near Sensitive Parts
[> of town. Someone saw people in paramilitary garb with apparent
[> weapons running around and called in the police, saying that
[> terrorists had taken over the hotel. ((Again, this is my memory of
[> what i was told.))
[
[Mike, anyone else out there, did this actually happen? Or is it an urban
[legend, like the infamous microwaved poodle, or the Good Times virus?
The first time I heard of one of these tales it was from Bjo Trimble,
telling about a "Logan's Runner" who drew down on a SWAT team in
California about 15 - 20 years ago.
I know Bjo and do not believe that her politics would drive her to
lie about something like this. Period. However, they might permit
her to accept a rumor without checking up on it.
I have never seen anyone who could tell me a date or location where I
could contact the law enforcement agency involved. And I know of no
professional law enforcement agency which, faced with a report of
heavily armed people running around a hotel, would not contact the
hotel management (who, one can assume, would probably mention the
presence of an SF convention).
Keith Wood
bucc...@pipeline.com (Perrianne Lurie) wrote:
[Here's the full text of our "Official Proclaimation" from Progress
[Report #2:
[
[Bucconeer's Weapons Policy
[
[Be it known to all present that the celebration known as Bucconeer,
[being held in the Fenzance-controlled port named for Lord Baltimore in
[the Land of Mary, is a peaceable celebration and there will be no need
[to carry arms of any nature. To this end, any celebrant found to be in
[violation of this proclamation may be removed from the celebration
[forthwith by the Queen' guard, the constabulary, or any appropriately
[commissioned member of th Bucconeer Crew.
Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due
adults.
Keith Wood
[In my experience, the people who really cause
[hassles over being asked not to carry a weapon in a con are exactly the
[sort of people who've caused the problems which led to the need for the
[weaposn policy in the first place.
Then we can pretty much discount your level of experience, can't we?
Rebecca Schoenberg
: [There are people out there who aren't fans. And there are people out
: [there who do deal with real weapons and real nut cases and who have to
: [make quick judgments about what is what. And, most importantly, there
: [are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
: [about the possible repercussions of their actions.
: And there are people who need to grow up instead of trying to nerf
: the whole world.
: Enjoy your convention. I'm glad I heard about this before I sent in
: my money. I would rather be around people who consider instead of
: simply reacting.
"You know, I've been reading through this thread, looking at all of the
different sides to the issue, and I can only come up with one question -
why is your enjoyment of the convention dependent on being allowed to bring
toy weapons?
"I go to cons to meet interesting people, look at pretties, engage in
interesting conversations, dance until my feet fall off (and then staple them
on and dance some more), flirt, sing, smog, and about a dozen other things,
but none of them are in the least bit hindered by not being allowed to carry
a fake plastic gun.
"Why are toy weapons so important to you that you can't enjoy yourself
at a convention without one? About the only purpose I could consider them
serving is part of a hall costume, and even then that shouldn't be enough
to ruin an entire convention...."
-banshee, not that interested in props of any sort, usually
Doug Berry
blackw...@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) issued forth:
>> And, most importantly, there
>> are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
>> about the possible repercussions of their actions.
>
>Ummm... how about the fen who are mature, responsible, who do concern
>themselves with the repercussions of what they do... personally and
>professionally... who find being lumped in with children annoying at
>best, and suspiciously PC at worst?
Pity we don't wear labels.. At a San Jose TimeCon several years
back, I was admiriring the job a teenager had done on his "Future
Warrior" costume, based on the brief glimpses of the future in
Terminator. Then I saw his pistol. It looked very real, so I
asked to see it. It was a .45 cal Colt. When I expressed my
displeasure at the presence of the gun, the kid told me it was
alright, he had unloaded it. Anybody want to guess what happened
next? I worked the action and a round of hollow-point hit the
carpet.
You can't assign people to the category of trustworthy and
untrustworthy without inviting a lot of trouble. The are 14 year
olds I'd trust to carry a loaded firearm through a crowd, and 35
year old veterans who shouldn't let near butter knives.
--
Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net
San Francisco Eccentric-in-Training
http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/
"There is something quintessentially satisfying
in being damned by Goofy."
-Loren Joesph MacGregor
Doug Berry
kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) issued forth:
>Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
>adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
>with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
>gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
>attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due
>adults.
So your only reason for not going to WorldCon is that they won't
let you walk around armed to the teeth? Hint: Viagra is cheaper
than costuming, and more fun.
Tom Galloway
Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com> wrote:
>Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
>adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
>with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
>gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
>attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due adults.
So far, my impression of you in this thread is that you're a child pitching
a tantrum because someone who would be in a position of responsibility for
your behavior with weapons said "No".
Adults are not "due" respect. They have to earn it.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Avram Grumer
kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com wrote:
> Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
> adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
> with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
> gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
> attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due
> adults.
Keith, I'm sympathetic to your side of the argument. I'd much rather that
the concom just trust the attendees to behave in a responsible manner.
But your "children's party" article makes me glad that you won't be
attending, and makes me want to side with BucConeer.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
The plight at the end of the carpal tunnel may be an oncoming strain.
Avram Grumer
(Rebecca Schoenberg) wrote:
> "You know, I've been reading through this thread, looking at all of the
> different sides to the issue, and I can only come up with one question -
> why is your enjoyment of the convention dependent on being allowed to bring
> toy weapons?..."
Who are you quoting?
Look, I'm not a costumer. I'm not even a fan of costuming, I generally
don't even bother to attend convention masquerades as an audience member.
But I'm aware that there are a great many fans who _do_ enjoy dressing up
in costumes at cons, both at the masquerade and in the halls. I'm aware
that they often put a great deal of creative effort into those costumes.
And I'm aware that the costumes sometimes involve faux-weaponry, and that
being forbidden from bringing that faux-weaponry will reduce their
enjoyment of the con as much as being forbidden from singing certain songs
would reduce the filkers' enjoyment of the con.
Arguments of the form "I don't enjoy X, so I don't see why you should
suffer for being deprived of X" are always flawed. People differ, and not
everyone enjoys the same things you do.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
"Oh my God! They killed Kennedy! You bastard!"
John Lorentz
<Glhq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>...
>
> I have never seen anyone who could tell me a date or location where I
> could contact the law enforcement agency involved.
Disclave, the year that some friends from here in Portland attended the
con. Since it was in their pre-bookstore years (now, they don't have
enough free time to travel to out-of-town cons) but it was after they got
married, my guess is in the range of '83 to '86. (If their store was open
today, I'd be able to check on it by e-mail fairly quickly, but Monday's
their day off.)
> And I know of no
> professional law enforcement agency which, faced with a report of
> heavily armed people running around a hotel, would not contact the
> hotel management (who, one can assume, would probably mention the
> presence of an SF convention).
And of course, *nothing* strange or illegal ever happens at sf
conventions... (Certainly not a suspect fleeing from police running into a
crowd at OryCon in 1982, or gang members upset with the hotel that evicted
them earlier in the week setting off a tear gas bomb in the lobby during
the 1996 OryCon or gun-toting gang members joining the crowd at one of the
Tacoma-era Norwescons.)
A cop who, when confronted in the dark with someone carrying a weapon, who
automatically assumes it's A-OK since just because there's an SF con nearby
could very well become an ex-cop (in the "ex-parrot" sense).
--John
Werehatrack (Russ Ault)
>Leonard Erickson wrote:
>
>[And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
>[weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
>[holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
>[tape.
>
>[I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
>[idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do.
>
>These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
>strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
>argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
>want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
>sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
>
Not sufficient. In some major metropolitan areas, merely having such an
item in your possession in a visible manner is grounds for detention and
questioning even if the item is both nonfunctional and
inoperable/disabled/tied down. This goes for both realistic and fantasy
items; to them, if it looks like a weapon, it can be regarded as *being*
a weapon unless and until proven otherwise, and while they *might* have
to let you go if you can prove it's an inoperable stage prop item (this
doesn't *ever* work with blades!), you can still be detained for *many*
hours while they shunt you through the unpleasant arrest process...and
you have *no* recourse in point of fact. When that's the fact that must
be dealt with, the *only* reasonable response on the part of the con is
a "NO WEAPONS" policy, though I do think that it's also wise to detail
exactly *why* such a policy is in force, since it would help to prevent
the kind of envelope testing that some con goers will engage in
(foolishly) if the policy is stated as "no weapons at the con" without
other qualifiers. I recall one incident where a patron at a Worldcon
wanted to show off his blade to a friend, and they agreed to meet at the
McBarf nearby. It was on a Friday. Early afternoon. The owner of the
blade was staying at a hotel not affiliated with the con, and so was not
challenged by hotel or con security on the way out...but got less than a
block before being arrested. Oh, he *eventually* got the item back, but
I was told that he had to make three trips back to that city, at his own
considerable expense, and pay a hefty fine before his property was
restored to him. Oh, yes, the blade *was* in a scabbard. Didn't
matter. (Now, if the concom publications had been more explicit about
the draconian local rules, perhaps the victim would have had the
presence of mind to carry the item fully covered, or to simply invite
the acquaintance up to the room to see it in a safe setting...but the
concom left out that little bit of vital information. Not all concoms
provide it, though some do.)
John Lorentz
>
> And if you crack down harder on that ONE irresponsible person -- as
opposed to
> everyone -- you CAN allow weapons at cons.
>
We've found it a lot easier to ban _all_ weapons at OryCon ten years ago
(because of incidents like Leonard described), and we'll never go back. It
drastically cut down on behavior problems, and--unlike some conventions--we
don't have to look for a new hotel every few years. (This year's OryCon is
the 13th straight at the same hotel.)
Considering that we have to turn people away at the door, because we've hit
our 1600-person limit each of the last two years, I don't think our weapons
ban has hurt our attendance.
--John
Dan Goodman
No, we can't.
It's _possible_ that you know more about Worldcons and sf cons in general
than the people who've put in a lot of time running them. But it's
unlikely.
bet...@earthlink.net
bucc...@pipeline.com wrote:
> Here's the full text of our "Official Proclaimation" from Progress
> Report #2:
>
> Bucconeer's Weapons Policy
>
> Be it known to all present that the celebration known as Bucconeer,
> being held in the Fenzance-controlled port named for Lord Baltimore in
> the Land of Mary, is a peaceable celebration and there will be no need
> to carry arms of any nature. To this end, any celebrant found to be in
> violation of this proclamation may be removed from the celebration
> forthwith by the Queen' guard, the constabulary, or any appropriately
> commissioned member of th Bucconeer Crew.
>
> displayed as an integral part of a participant's fancy dress with the
> prior explicit written approval of the Lady of the Masque. This
> weaponry may be transported from the owner's lodging to the Masque and
> subsequently returned forthwith.
>
> To foster the economy of the port city, however, weaponry may be
> displayed using appropriate safeguards in the Den of Thieves commonly
> called the "Dealers' Room" with the prior explicit written approval of
> the Chamberlains of the Dealers' Room. Any sales made shall include
> packaging for transportation that renders the item ineffective as a
> weapon. Items packaged in this manner may be transported in the
> environs of Bucconeer only for the express purpose of placing them in
> the owner's lodging.
Thank you, Perrianne for posting the exact and full weapons policy.
The statement which I find ambigous and unclear, and leads to my objection to
the policy is as follows:
'arms of any nature'
Please define what you mean by this. Swords? Guns? The ever-popular
neon-green plastic light sabers?
*This* is what I mean when I say that the rule is so ambigous as to border on
the absurd. You want to tell me I can't have my schlager? Fine..that's a
real weapon. You want to tell the Starship Trooper guys they can't have
their prop Moritas'? OK...a prop weapon that looks like the real thing. But
when you start delving into the realm of what are quite clearly and obviously
toys, without separating them out from either real weapons, or
realistic-looking props, then you have gone overboard.
All that Dr.Bill and I wanted was to open some sort of reasonable discourse
with the ConCom about this policy, to make them aware of it's ambiguity, and
perhaps find some sort of solution that would ensure safety, and yet not be
so unclear as to raise questions as to what is and is not a weapon.
We DON'T want to run around waving our blades. We certainly don't advocate
that the Starship Trooper guys do that with their Moritas. But what we want
is a better-defined policy that makes it *perfectly clear* what is, and is
not considered a weapon in the minds of the ConCom, rather than a fuzzy
blanket which could very easily rule out such things as a Swiss army knife, a
neon green plastic light saber or even Dr.Bill's trauma shears, if he had
need to use them (and for anybody who does not think they are
sharp...consider what their primary function is).
Personally, I feel much safer with a policy that quite CLEARLY defines what
is considered an unacceptable weapon in the eyes of the ConCom than leave it
up to individual Con Security volunteers to have to make a judgment call on
the issue.
And, unfortunately, we were not able to open such a discourse.
My only hope at this point is that future WorldCon's look at the policy
Bucconeer has set, and perhaps use it as a guide for making their weapons
policies less ambiguous.
Dan Goodman
Perrianne Lurie <bucc...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>blackw...@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) wrote:
>
>>> The version of this that i have heard is that the incident occurred at
>>> a DC-area con ((Disclave preferred)) in a hotel near Sensitive Parts
>>> of town. Someone saw people in paramilitary garb with apparent
>>> weapons running around and called in the police, saying that
>>> terrorists had taken over the hotel. ((Again, this is my memory of
>>> what i was told.))
>
>>Mike, anyone else out there, did this actually happen? Or is it an urban
>>legend, like the infamous microwaved poodle, or the Good Times virus?
>
>Auction at the time. (No, I wasn't there, but it was the infamous
>"Hostility House" Disclave -- several years before my time in
>Balto-Wash.)
Anyone who's having trouble believing that this actually happened is going
to notice that 1) you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is
secondhand.
>I find it odd that this discussion is going on now, when we announced
>the weapons policy in Progress Report #2 in September, 1997 (and
>posted it on the Web page before that). You can read it for yourself
>at the URL in my .sig.
1) Someone mentioned it in alt.callahans, for the benefit of people there
who might be affected by it. 2) A discussion started there. 3) I thought
that cross-posting to rec.arts.sf.fandom, where there were more likely to
be people on the concom and conrunners in general, might add useful
information and viewpoints.
That aside -- I find it odd that you find it odd. There are _always_
people who take a while to find out about any particular con policy.
>Perrianne Lurie
>BucCONeer, the 56-th World Science Fiction Convention
>August 5-9, 1998, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
>P.O. Box 314, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
>bucc...@bucconeer.worldcon.org
>http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org
>
>Personal E-mail: bucc...@pipeline.com
>
Eugenia
[Incidents at cons...]
>I have never seen anyone who could tell me a date or location where I
>could contact the law enforcement agency involved. And I know of no
>professional law enforcement agency which, faced with a report of
>heavily armed people running around a hotel, would not contact the
>hotel management (who, one can assume, would probably mention the
>presence of an SF convention).
But what does a SF convention got to do with "heavily armed people"?
And is the hotel management going to equate the "SF geeks" with
someone carrying a weapon (fake or otherwise).
The law enforcement people I knew kind of like to know AHEAD of
time whether or not to worry about sightings of "armed people
running around". It's one thing if it's a gun show and people
are walking in and out of a hotel with real weapons in open daylight;
it's another if it's some LARP with players sneaking around a
hotel. The body language is totally different to a casual
observer.
In this area, someone carrying a rifle is usually not a cause for
alarm. Particularly during hunting season. I wouldn't try it in
an urban area. I knew high school colorguard members in Los Angeles
stopped by police to check out the wood "rifles" they were carrying
home or to school. (This was before the David Horowitz incident.)
Why not give the Concom one less thing to worry about? Just check the
cutlass at the door.
Matthew T. Russotto
} Why not give the Concom one less thing to worry about? Just check the
} cutlass at the door.
Catering to every demand of the police because it's the path of least
resistance merely leads to more and stricter demands.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Albert Haddock, Esq.
bucc...@pipeline.com "Perrianne Lurie" writes:
> To foster the economy of the port city, however, weaponry may be
> displayed using appropriate safeguards in the Den of Thieves commonly
> called the "Dealers' Room" with the prior explicit written approval of
> the Chamberlains of the Dealers' Room. Any sales made shall include
> packaging for transportation that renders the item ineffective as a
> weapon. Items packaged in this manner may be transported in the
> environs of Bucconeer only for the express purpose of placing them in
> the owner's lodging.
Excuse me, young lady. Does this mean I am forced to retain a lodging
until the conclusion of Bucconeer, should I wish to purchase such a
craftsman-made item? Or can one, perchance, leave one's lodging without
passing through the above-mentioned environs of Bucconeer?
And, one must enquire, given the parlous state of the management of
lodgings in your fair city, how does one ensure that one has a lodging?
Should I secure the package in my personal automotive transportation, do
I also have to sleep therein? What if, in compliance with all the
pertinent laws and administrative regulations, I choose to immediately
dispatch this package to my home address?
In anticipation of your reply, a crossed cow is in the post.
--
Albert Haddock, Esq.
Doug Wickstrom
Howard) modulated the bit stream to say:
>I am attending partly because Cherryh and her husband
????
--
Doug Wickstrom
E-mail replies go to a seldom checked mailbox. To ensure a
timely response, remove "X" and replace "aol.com" with
worldnet.att.net. AOLers reply to nimshubur. Mail from "Free"
e-mail domains goes straight to the bit bucket.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: I am attending partly because Cherryh and her husband are among my
: favorite people(ok so is Larry Niven to whom I owe some good scotch)
: but that is the ONLY reason I will keep my membership. It seems that
: worldcons are getting to be less atractive and local cons(Orycon)
: are providing more and more relief.
If you've previously attended an Orycon, you might want to consider
that Orycon has had this policy or its equivalent for about ten
years. (I'm sure John L. will correct me if I misstate.)
-- LJM
mike weber
blackw...@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) opined:
<quoting me>
>> Cops these days are more and more jumpy and less an less likely to be
>> patient.
>
>Ummm... the HRT and SWAT types I know are, if anything, more cautious,
>more patient. Tactics and doctrine have evolved somewhat in the last
>decade.
>
It is believed in many circles that Chapter Seven of the Atlanta
Police Training Manual at least -uesd- to be entitled "BANG BANG BANG
Stop or I'll Shoot!"
=======================================
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
"If you ordered a carload of sons of bitches, delivery
of him alone would constitute substantial performance"
((Richard Haas, attorney, about a government lawyer))
John Lorentz
<sRrq1.1747$IA2.7...@ptah.visi.com>...
> Anyone who's having trouble believing that this actually happened is
going
> to notice that 1) you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is
> secondhand.
>
supposed to have occurred from 1939 to 1945, since I wasn't there either?
(Having not been born until 1952.)
If you'll notice carefully, those of us mentioning this incident aren't
using the usual urban legend pattern of "my friend had a cousin who...",
we're saying talked to people who were actually *there* at the time. This
is known as "history", not legend.
--John
mike weber
<jlor...@spiritone.com> opined:
>Keith Wood <kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com> wrote in article
><Glhq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>...
>>
>> I have never seen anyone who could tell me a date or location where I
>> could contact the law enforcement agency involved.
>
>Disclave, the year that some friends from here in Portland attended the
>con. Since it was in their pre-bookstore years (now, they don't have
>enough free time to travel to out-of-town cons) but it was after they got
>married, my guess is in the range of '83 to '86.
Earlier -- i think i began hitting DisClaves pretty regularly about
'84 or so, and the story set the occurence earlier.
mike weber
kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>I have never seen anyone who could tell me a date or location where I
>could contact the law enforcement agency involved. And I know of no
>professional law enforcement agency which, faced with a report of
>heavily armed people running around a hotel, would not contact the
>hotel management (who, one can assume, would probably mention the
>presence of an SF convention).
>
For curiosity's sake -- where are you located? Anywhere near the DC
area?
Depending on the substance of the report made and exactly who by, i
can easily see DC area cops rolling everything they have to a hotel in
certain parts of town -- say, the ones that tend to be full of
embassies.
mike weber
(Matthew T. Russotto) opined:
>In article <6odiqa$t02$1...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>
>} Why not give the Concom one less thing to worry about? Just check the
>} cutlass at the door.
>
>Catering to every demand of the police because it's the path of least
>resistance merely leads to more and stricter demands.
Defying reasonable and legal police requests merely leads to selective
enforcement and general harassment
If the cops really want to, they can assign two or three officers to
write citations for various violations at the convention insted of
parking tickets... and, even if your weapon -is- plastic, i can
assure you that the cop can make the process of his checking your
weapon and your ID -- oh, not carrying photo ID? Hmmm -- do you have
anyone who can ID you? -- and making sure you're not carrying anything
else that -is- illegal, and that you're not crossing the street
illegally and so on -- to the point of checking for wants and warrants
and making you wait while he does -- is going to be a -lot- more
unpleasant than just giving up the "weapons" ((of all types)).
I hung out on and lived on the infamous "Peachtree Strip" in Atlanta
in the early '70's. If you stood still for more than about thirty
seconds you got a ticket for "blocking sidewalk traffic" -- $25
dollars in 1972. It was the only place in Atlanta where you could get
a $6 jay-walking ticket. If you carried -anything- that caused a
bulge in your pockets -- even a paperback book in a back pocket -- you
could count on being stopped and searched.
And that was just because the cops didn't like a bunch of hippy
weirdos with long hair hanging out in one place.
They have even better and more efficient ways of legally harassing you
today.
mike weber
(Leonard Erickson) opined:
>I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
>idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do. Just *one*
>irresponsible person can get a *lot* of people hurt. Just consider that
>incident Spider witnessed.
>
Sounds like we're closing in. An actual checkable name attached to an
actual incident.
Incidentally -- we had an incident at the late unlamented Atlanta
Fantasy Faire where a hotel security psycho ((more stories on tap
about this guy)) pulled his .38 on a room-party when the host told him
that they had a right to ap rivate party in their room...
Werehatrack (Russ Ault)
>
> But what does a SF convention got to do with "heavily armed
people"?
At Dragoncon a couple of years back, the situation was typical; there
were not one but *three* groups of people strolling over from the hotel
to the convention center in some form of militarily-based garb with
stage weapons. The only thing that made it obvious that these were, in
fact, *not* a paramilitary insurgency force was the presence of three
Imperial Stormtroopers, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, and a bunch of
other miscellaneous obviously fantasy characters. Had either of the two
groups in what amounted to slightly teched-up camo or fatigues been on
the street alone, they might well have freaked a mundane into thinking
they were some kind of urban assault team or terrorist group easily
enough, and there are *lots* of people around who will readily believe
that such is the case and go running credibly off to the cops...
> And is the hotel management going to equate the "SF geeks" with
> someone carrying a weapon (fake or otherwise).
To be blunt, direct from the managers of three different hotels and the
AV Director of a third, in the hotel industry, SF cons are the second
lowest form of life known to exist, positioned directly between the
lowest (dog shows) and the third lowest (cat shows) in terms of their
overall undesirability. The two major reasons cited are the penniless
nature of the average attendee (we never eat in the hotel restaurant if
there's a cheaper place within an hour's walk), and the way we alarm the
mundanes with our antics.
> The law enforcement people I knew kind of like to know AHEAD of
> time whether or not to worry about sightings of "armed people
> running around". It's one thing if it's a gun show and people
> are walking in and out of a hotel with real weapons in open
daylight;
> it's another if it's some LARP with players sneaking around a
> hotel. The body language is totally different to a casual
> observer.
That's fine if the event is a single-site deal, but a Worldcon spills
out into the street over a wide area, and the cops *don't* like that one
bit because it destroys their ability to define the territory in which
they can partially ignore the weirdness.
> In this area, someone carrying a rifle is usually not a cause for
> alarm. Particularly during hunting season. I wouldn't try it in
> an urban area. I knew high school colorguard members in Los
Angeles
> stopped by police to check out the wood "rifles" they were carrying
> home or to school. (This was before the David Horowitz incident.)
>
> Why not give the Concom one less thing to worry about? Just check
the
> cutlass at the door.
Three major problems: First, the Concom doesn't have a single door to
worry about, it's more like fifteen or twenty widely separated entrances
to as many as ten actual facilities; staffing all those secure lockups,
even if you cut it to one lockup per major locality, would still exhaust
their ability to staff the stuff that *must* be done; concoms aren't
noted for being overrun by volunteers in the best of times, and trying
to staff such a project would boggle the mind. Second, the liability
factor is too high; providing a checkpoint to stash weapons requires
that there be some way to keep them secure and readily identified, and I
have little doubt that there would be things that got released
improperly and/or damaged by simple inexperienced handling while in the
lockup room's possession. Third, as noted above, it's not just the
problem with the presence of weapons in the con proper, but the presence
of beweaponed congoers in the surrounding vicinity that creates major
problems for the con. Once again, unless the con is in a city with an
*incredible* tolerance for weapons, the only practical approach for a
Worldcon is "No Weapons". Smaller cons with a more limited and
controlled environment have less of a problem and can be more lenient.
mike weber
kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
>strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
>argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
>want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
>sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
>
I have never seen a "peace bond" policy work -- no matter how strictly
enforced -- unless con personnel do -nothing- but check peace bonds.
When the worst possible punsihment is being tossed out of ((this
year's)) con, many jerks are willing to bet on mot getting caught.
If amputation of a finger, without anesthesia, were the penalty, i
could believe it would work.
mike weber
opined:
>And if you crack down harder on that ONE irresponsible person -- as opposed to
>everyone -- you CAN allow weapons at cons.
>
To (mis) quote Old Lodge Skins: There seems to be a near-infinite
number of irresponsible idots, but there is a very limited supply of
Reasonable People.
Back when some Southern Conventions i attended regularly ((my
attendance is the factor that has dropped off, i dunno what their
policies currently are)) had peace-bond rules.
Never a year went by without about the same number of the same sort of
incidents involving idiots pushing the envelope didn't occur.
((While not associated at all with the con, i personally as part of a
group or by myself closed down idiots with live steel in the parking
lot three years running at one particular con -- fresh idiots each
year, same innocent bystanders at risk each year.))
Good idea in theory, but the penalties that make it plausible in a
piece of Conanism can't be imposed by a concomm
mike weber
kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>In article <35A9C4...@logica.com>, "David Power." <pow...@logica.com> wrote:
>
>[In my experience, the people who really cause
>[hassles over being asked not to carry a weapon in a con are exactly the
>[sort of people who've caused the problems which led to the need for the
>[weaposn policy in the first place.
>
>Then we can pretty much discount your level of experience, can't we?
No, i don't think so. The really noisy ones are the real
troublemakers in my experience, also, which includes committee-level
work on two DSCs ((one as Chair)) and a couple smaller regionals and
being generally an associate/buddy with the people who run/have run a
lot more cons.
mike weber
kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>And there are people who need to grow up instead of trying to nerf
>the whole world.
>
>Enjoy your convention. I'm glad I heard about this before I sent in
>my money. I would rather be around people who consider instead of
>simply reacting.
>
I have a policy!! To force conventions to change their policies i
won't bother to discuss them, i just won't attend the con!!
That'll show 'em!
If i were going to be there, i'd probably appreciate the
marginally-greater breathing room.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Certainly being the only Con in between L.A. and Seattle has nothing
: to do with attendance(I beg forgiveness of the BayconCom, I'm trying
: to make a point here)
Excuse. Potlatch. Don't forget Potlatch!
: John I appreciate the position of OryCon on Weapons and bow to the
: ruling of the Com. I would like to see other changes though.
: Start with the Hotel, then perhaps, the City(Eugene is soo Beautiful),
: then perhaps the time of Year it's held(Oregon is very WET).
: So, though I thoroughly enjoy OryCon, it isn't without some give and
: take I attend.
Actually, the last couple Orycon's I've attended (not in consecutive
years, in case anyone is counting) have had fairly good weather.
Eugene is beautiful at the moment, but between the developers and
the city council, it looks as if we're fast going the way of New
Jersey.
If you'd like to try a small convention without a masquerade,
without an art show, and with a minimal dealers' room focussing
primarily on science fiction and fantasy books, may I recommend
Potlatch 8, to be held January 21, 22 and 23, 1999, in Eugene,
Oregon? Write me or potl...@efn.org for details.
-- LJM
mike weber
kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
>adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
>with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
>gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
>attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due
>adults.
I also avoid "children's parties" I shall definitely make it a point
to avoid any planned by you.
PS: It is unnecessary and a wast of bandwidth to quote the totality of
along post to append a couple lines of disagreement to the end.
Assume that you readers are at least intelligent enough to follow back
up the thread a post or two.
mike weber
Berry) opined:
>On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:34:05 +0100, an evil AI named
>kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) issued forth:
>
>
>>Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
>>adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
>>with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
>>gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
>>attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due
>>adults.
>
>So your only reason for not going to WorldCon is that they won't
>let you walk around armed to the teeth? Hint: Viagra is cheaper
>than costuming, and more fun.
>
Nah -- a little cotton batting in the cod-piece is at least as useful
and cheaper in cases like this.
Podkayne Fries
<poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[...]
>........I, among others, attended the entire con with a Real(tm)
>cap-and-ball revolver on my hip and a Real(tm) Bowie knife in
>my boot -- both peace bonded.
What is "peace bonding"? And in another post, someone mentioned
"smogging" - what's that? Color me curious.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
Necrophilia means never having to say you're sorry.
mike weber
ahad...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("Albert Haddock, Esq.") opined:
>In article <6octf9$r2c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
> bucc...@pipeline.com "Perrianne Lurie" writes:
>
>> To foster the economy of the port city, however, weaponry may be
>> displayed using appropriate safeguards in the Den of Thieves commonly
>> called the "Dealers' Room" with the prior explicit written approval of
>> the Chamberlains of the Dealers' Room. Any sales made shall include
>> packaging for transportation that renders the item ineffective as a
>> weapon. Items packaged in this manner may be transported in the
>> environs of Bucconeer only for the express purpose of placing them in
>> the owner's lodging.
>
>Excuse me, young lady. Does this mean I am forced to retain a lodging
>until the conclusion of Bucconeer, should I wish to purchase such a
>craftsman-made item? Or can one, perchance, leave one's lodging without
>passing through the above-mentioned environs of Bucconeer?
I'm not sure of the exact legalese, but i believe that one's
automobile is considered adjunct to one's lodging, with roughly the
same rights and duties appropriate thereunto, and similar civil rights
and protections thereof.
John Lorentz
<6odlfm$191$2...@haus.efn.org>...
> : favorite people(ok so is Larry Niven to whom I owe some good scotch)
> : but that is the ONLY reason I will keep my membership. It seems that
> : worldcons are getting to be less atractive and local cons(Orycon)
> : are providing more and more relief.
>
> If you've previously attended an Orycon, you might want to consider
> that Orycon has had this policy or its equivalent for about ten
> years. (I'm sure John L. will correct me if I misstate.)
>
Yup, since OryCon 10--and this year is OryCon 20.
We went from peace-bonding to fairly-strict-limitations to "no weapons"
over a span of two years (three consecutive OryCons) because we couldn't
people to act like adults and we didn't want to lose our hotel. (The
fellow wearing the crossed swords on his back in the 'fancy' hotel
restaurant in 1986 was *not* amusing to the hotel, and nearly got the con
shut down.)
--John
Dan Goodman
John Lorentz <jlor...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in article
><sRrq1.1747$IA2.7...@ptah.visi.com>...
>> Anyone who's having trouble believing that this actually happened is
>going
>> to notice that 1) you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is
>> secondhand.
>>
>So I assume I can discount any reference to this big world war that was
>supposed to have occurred from 1939 to 1945, since I wasn't there either?
>(Having not been born until 1952.)
1) In both cases, I am _not_ predisposed to suspect it never happened.
2) For an incident which took place _in less than a year_ within a
particular year, one should be able to give the particular year. For WW
II, of course, one needs to give the years during which it occurred --
perhaps with some mention that there are peace treaties yet to be signed,
and that a Sinocentric historian might consider WW II to have started a
bit earlier.
>If you'll notice carefully, those of us mentioning this incident aren't
>using the usual urban legend pattern of "my friend had a cousin who...",
>we're saying talked to people who were actually *there* at the time. This
>is known as "history", not legend.
In _this_ particular case, I believe that it happened.
However -- I know someone who's absolutely certain that the winners of one
Worldcon bid had no real intention of winning and were dismayed when it
happened. This person is well-informed in general, and has much
experience in running conventions. And the information came right from
someone on that bidding committee, I'm told.
I don't believe it.
And -- at least one person was convinced in 1972 that The Fix Was In --
that one particular fan-writer nominee was going to win, because the LA
fans who'd bloc-voted him the nomination were also going to make sure he
won. He knew this was true, because he'd had it confirmed by someone in
Los Angeles.
Funny thing -- I was attending LASFS fairly regularly then, and had never
heard this.
And I'm trying to remember who explained to me that the Boondoggle's sole
purpose was to gain votes for Bill Donaho's TAFF candidacy.
John Lorentz
<35b260af...@news.alt.net>...
> As to the constant use of the same hotel, I would rather the ConCom
> find someplace new. The new owners of the Red Lion chain are low
> paying, non-union and the level of service and quality of same has
> deteriorated. Maybe some place closer to Troutdale or the Dalles?
>
We move to Troutdale or The Dalles only if we want to drop from 1600 to
maybe 300 attendees. We're already in one of the largest hotels in the
state.
There are five hotels in the Portland area that could hold OryCon--and
three are Doubletrees. (The other two, the Marriott and the Hilton
downtown, would raise the sleeping room rates about 50%, add in
pay-for-parking and are logistically more complicated--in addition to us
having to go back a 'dry' con suite if we returned to the Hilton.)
>
> John I appreciate the position of OryCon on Weapons and bow to the
> ruling of the Com. I would like to see other changes though.
> Start with the Hotel, then perhaps, the City(Eugene is soo Beautiful),
> then perhaps the time of Year it's held(Oregon is very WET).
There aren't hotels in Eugene that are large enough.
But if you want a convention that's not in Portland, and is held a
different time of the year, it sounds like what you want is a *new*
convention. To which I'd say "Great!" and you'll probably get some of the
OryCon folks to work on it for you. (Seriously, we'd like to see
additional fannish outlets so that the population pressure on OryCon might
decline. We started hitting our limit when Dreamcon--the con usually held
a couple of weeks before OryCon--died.)
--John
Bernard Peek
writes
>This* is what I mean when I say that the rule is so ambigous as to border on
>the absurd.
If there is a problem with the rule, it is that there is no ambiguity.
If any thinks it looks like a weapon, it's banned. There's litle
ambiguity.
> You want to tell me I can't have my schlager? Fine..that's a
>real weapon. You want to tell the Starship Trooper guys they can't have
>their prop Moritas'? OK...a prop weapon that looks like the real thing. But
>when you start delving into the realm of what are quite clearly and obviously
>toys, without separating them out from either real weapons, or
>realistic-looking props, then you have gone overboard.
All you need to do to solve the problem is come up with a clear and
unambiguous definition of what constitutes a weapon.
It's OK, we'll wait.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
(Note the new address.)
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>Sometime around Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:24:19 +0100,
>kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>
>
>>These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
>>strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
>>argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
>>want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
>>sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
>>
>I have never seen a "peace bond" policy work -- no matter how strictly
>enforced -- unless con personnel do -nothing- but check peace bonds.
>
>When the worst possible punsihment is being tossed out of ((this
>year's)) con, many jerks are willing to bet on mot getting caught.
>
>If amputation of a finger, without anesthesia, were the penalty, i
>could believe it would work.
This nearly happened at a Minicon a few years back. Attendee A has a
very sharp sword. Attendee B tries to draw A's sword. A feels tug,
grabs for sword. Ouch.
Doug Wickstrom
Fries) modulated the bit stream to say:
>On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:50:06 -0700, The Polymath
><poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>>........I, among others, attended the entire con with a Real(tm)
>>cap-and-ball revolver on my hip and a Real(tm) Bowie knife in
>>my boot -- both peace bonded.
>
>What is "peace bonding"? And in another post, someone mentioned
>"smogging" - what's that? Color me curious.
Peace bonding is the process of so tying a weapon in place that it
cannot be drawn. Doesn't work for a lot of them, and it's impossible
to get all of those it _does_ work for.
"Smogging," I took to be a typo for "smoffing."
Ben Yalow
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>In article <6ocsl7$7bi$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
>Perrianne Lurie <bucc...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>blackw...@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) wrote:
>>
>>>> The version of this that i have heard is that the incident occurred at
>>>> a DC-area con ((Disclave preferred)) in a hotel near Sensitive Parts
>>>> of town. Someone saw people in paramilitary garb with apparent
>>>> weapons running around and called in the police, saying that
>>>> terrorists had taken over the hotel. ((Again, this is my memory of
>>>> what i was told.))
>>
>>>Mike, anyone else out there, did this actually happen? Or is it an urban
>>>legend, like the infamous microwaved poodle, or the Good Times virus?
>>
>>Yes, this actually happened. Ask Joe Mayhew, who was running the Art
>>Auction at the time. (No, I wasn't there, but it was the infamous
>>"Hostility House" Disclave -- several years before my time in
>>Balto-Wash.)
>
>Anyone who's having trouble believing that this actually happened is going
>to notice that 1) you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is
>secondhand.
>
OK -- I *was* there, and my knowledge isn't second-hand.
It was the "Hostility House" (real name: Hospitality House Hotel) Disclave,
just about across the parking lot from the Pentagon in Crystal City. The year
was 1980, since it happened during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
<snip>
Ben
------
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
WareWolf
Werehatrack (Russ Ault) wrote in message ...
<Among other things>
>To be blunt, direct from the managers of three different hotels and the
>AV Director of a third, in the hotel industry, SF cons are the second
>lowest form of life known to exist, positioned directly between the
>lowest (dog shows) and the third lowest (cat shows) in terms of their
>overall undesirability. The two major reasons cited are the penniless
>nature of the average attendee (we never eat in the hotel restaurant if
>there's a cheaper place within an hour's walk), and the way we alarm the
>mundanes with our antics.
'Well, thank God they didn't include the Academy of Trial Lawyer's
Convention," WareWolf mutters into his drink...
<<snip>>
>Three major problems: First, the Concom doesn't have a single door to
>worry about, it's more like fifteen or twenty widely separated entrances
>to as many as ten actual facilities; staffing all those secure lockups,
>even if you cut it to one lockup per major locality, would still exhaust
>their ability to staff the stuff that *must* be done; concoms aren't
>noted for being overrun by volunteers in the best of times, and trying
>to staff such a project would boggle the mind. Second, the liability
>factor is too high; providing a checkpoint to stash weapons requires
>that there be some way to keep them secure and readily identified, and I
>have little doubt that there would be things that got released
>improperly and/or damaged by simple inexperienced handling while in the
>lockup room's possession. Third, as noted above, it's not just the
>problem with the presence of weapons in the con proper, but the presence
>of beweaponed congoers in the surrounding vicinity that creates major
>problems for the con. Once again, unless the con is in a city with an
>*incredible* tolerance for weapons, the only practical approach for a
>Worldcon is "No Weapons". Smaller cons with a more limited and
>controlled environment have less of a problem and can be more lenient.
Okay, not being much of a con-goer, I don't really have a dog in this
fight, nor do I seem to find it as emotional an issue as some, but, how does
a "no weapons in the con" policy keep people from wearing them in the
surrounding vicinity?
And with all those entrances, how DO they expect to enforce this?
Dusty, just curious
Eleri
"The carrying and wearing of weapons(or anything that looks
like a weapon) will not be permitted, except as part of a Masquerade
[the con Masquerade, not V:t M! I had to explain that to a congoer one
year... El] contestant's costume, or as part of other designated
events, and then only during the event, or in transit to and from
theevent. The use of a weapon as part of the MAsquerade must be
aproved by the MAsquerade Director prior to the event. Failure to
comply is grounds for immediate expulsion from the convention.
Any weapon purchased in the dealers room must be securely
wrapped.
"Weapons" includes (but is not limited to):guns, blasters,
swords,knives,spitwads, flame throwers, nuclear or non-nuclear
devices, squirt guns, whips, slingshots, peashooters, rubberbands, or
unpleasant looking devices. (The committee reserves the right to
define what is a weapon" Keep them in your room. Period."
So does the list of 'weapons' sound facetious? The point is, if it
looks like a weapon, or you're using it as a weapon, then it stays in
your room. I think it has very little to do with secrity being lazy,
it has to do with them being *BUSY*. I would much rather them deal
with the drunken idiots or fights, then with chasing down everyone
wearing a fake sword. And has anybody mentioned that it might be HOTEL
policy? Would you lose a good site just because you wouldn't follow
hotel rules?
Eleri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The very first thing necessary to anyone who's weird
is a place where they dont give you a hard time just
beacuse you're weird" --- Mike Callahan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
remove "spamless" to e-mail me
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Okay, not being much of a con-goer, I don't really have a dog in this
: fight, nor do I seem to find it as emotional an issue as some, but, how does
: a "no weapons in the con" policy keep people from wearing them in the
: surrounding vicinity?
It lessens the chances a bit if, in order to go outside with one's
pseudo-weapons of choice, it is necessary to (1) go to the room and
gete them, (2) hide them about one's person until outside. Most won't
bother.
Besides, outside the convention is not really anyone's issue but the
people involved. If someone wants to go outside in (for example)
Washington, D.C., looking armed and ready for battle, well, that's
their choice.
Sorta like the days when Dixie Lee Ray volunteered to take all the
nuclear slag, claiming it had never caused a problem and never would.
Several states immediately made plans to ship waste to Washington
State, until the surrounding states and British Columbia said,
"Sure, but you can't drive it, fly it, bus it, truck it, barge
it or ship it by train over our territory."
: And with all those entrances, how DO they expect to enforce this?
Set up an atmosphere where enforcement is diminishingly necessary.
-- LJM
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:21:24 GMT, ch...@buckeyenet.net (Podkayne
: Fries) modulated the bit stream to say:
: >On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:50:06 -0700, The Polymath
: ><poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
: >[...]
: >
: >>........I, among others, attended the entire con with a Real(tm)
: >>cap-and-ball revolver on my hip and a Real(tm) Bowie knife in
: >>my boot -- both peace bonded.
: >
: >What is "peace bonding"? And in another post, someone mentioned
: >"smogging" - what's that? Color me curious.
: Peace bonding is the process of so tying a weapon in place that it
: cannot be drawn. Doesn't work for a lot of them, and it's impossible
: to get all of those it _does_ work for.
: "Smogging," I took to be a typo for "smoffing."
Heh. I took it to be a typo for "snogging."
-- LJM
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
Were I to attend WorldCon. Would my Swiss Army Knife be considered a
proscribed weapon?
Would my lock blade folder, used as an adjunct to my SAK, be considered a
proscribed weapon?
Given my modest karate skills, would my closed fist/open hand, elbows,
knees and feet, be considered proscribed weapons?
--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"
I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing
<A HREF="HTTP://WWW.GIS.NET/~CHT"/A>
The Polymath
> ... At a San Jose TimeCon several years
> back, I was admiriring the job a teenager had done on his "Future
> Warrior" costume ... Then I saw his pistol. It looked very real, so I
> asked to see it. It was a .45 cal Colt. When I expressed my
> displeasure at the presence of the gun, the kid told me it was
> alright, he had unloaded it. Anybody want to guess what happened
> next? I worked the action and a round of hollow-point hit the
> carpet.
That kid was in violation of state and federal statutes. The gun should
not have been allowed in the door in that condition.
I frequently attend gun shows where _many_ people show up with and carry
guns on their persons. They are met at the gate by a guard who confirms
the guns are unloaded and applies wire ties to be certain they stay that
way.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CCP, CFI)
http://www.babcom.com/polymath
(818) 882-6309
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
Richard Brandt
> No, Tom, _I_ am in the position of responsibility for myself. I
> understand that this is a hard concept for many people to grasp, but
> nonetheless the rest of us understand it well.
Oh well, then, you're willing to accept responsibility for all of
those thousands attending a convention who will have armed
strangers wandering around in their midst. How generous of you to
relieve the committee of that responsibility.
>
> [Adults are not "due" respect. They have to earn it.
>
> Then you had probably better start. You can start by assuming that
> not everyone is as stupid as you think they are.
Based on what evidence?
--
===Richard Brandt is at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8720/ ===
"Morality's lease has run out and Science has been handed the keys
to the apartment!" -- from THE TICK (by Ben Edlund)
Richard Brandt
>
> Yes, but the way this story goes is always:
Oh do tell.
> A) Fans are running around with weapons
> B) Mundanes call "the SWAT Team" (how do they get the number?)
> C) SWAT Team shows up with ABSOLUTELY NO INTEL ABOUT THE EVENT and
> draws down on congoers
> D) Stupid fan draws back
> E) Cops don't shoot, because in that split-second finally figured out
> that there is an SF convention running there and SF fans have fake
> weapons
> F) there is nothing in the papers, newswires or on TV
> G) nobody ever thinks to get a copy of the incident report from the
> cops
>
> Come on, people. If this happened it would be in BIG PRINT in the
> local papers and on the Six O'Clock Follies. It would find its way
> into SWAT Magazine and the copzines around the country. So WHERE IS
> THE COVERAGE?
Oh yes, the first thing the hotel's and the convention's respective
publicity arms would want to do is make sure this incident got big
press.
In any case, the canonical version I hear has nothing to do with
a SWAT team being called to the scene, but with a fan pointing a
realistic-looking weapon at a cop who happens upon the scene.
> Yes, this COULD have happened. But until I have something more than
> "I heard . . ." or "I think it was . . ." I just don't buy it.
In addition to the first-hand eyewitness testimony of those who know
of this happening at Discalve, it seems to me a story quite like this
but happening at a Canadian convention circulated in the fannish press
a few years back; maybe Garth Spencer would recall.
Leonard Erickson
> In article <980712.205309...@krypton.rain.com>,
> kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>
>> I recall a con where the person checking badges at the entrance to the
>> dance was blinded by a guy in a wookie suit who stuck his "blast rifle"
>> in her face and fired the strobe light built into it at a range of
>> about 6 inches.
>
> And that weapon should have been pulled on the spot. Right then. Clear the
> holster with a blast rifle....pick it up at the end of the con.
Sure. But *she* was the only "security" person in sight and she was blinded.
I saw it, but I didn't know where I'd be able to find someone who could
spare the time to go looking for the jerk before he wandered off to
some other part of the con,
BTW, as I was later informed, if the concom had found out, he'd have
been thrown out of the hotel shortlyu after they canceled his
membership in the con.
>> And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
>> weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
>> holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
>> tape.
>
> I have no problem with a peace-tie policy at cons. Yes, the Dreaded Pyrate
> Queen, She Who Plays with Swordy Thingies says "She Has No Problem With a
> Peace Tie Policy." Just for those folx in the back row who didn't hear me
> the first time.
>
> Why? Because, while people like Dr.Bill, Tivar and myself have spent years
> working with weapons and know how to be safe while handling them, not
> everyone has that experience. But that does NOT mean that they are stupid,
> or irresponsible. So let them wear the weapon, but *tie it in place*. If
> they are the good, responsible people they would like to think themselves to
> be, they will leave it in place. And if not, they will be treated in an
> appropriate fashion for their actions.
Yeah. Alas, the next year the con picked a different bunch to do
security and went to a "no weapons" policy rather than continuing the
peace tie policy. :-(
>> I walked into one of the gaming rooms to see a kid pointing a pistol at
>> another player and then I heard the unmistakeable sound of an air
>> pistol being dry-fired. I went and grabbed the head of con security
>> (the fan security types, not some sort of security guards). He grabbed
>> another guy. Both were rather bear-like people. They walked up behind
>> the kid, and informed him that he could pick up the pistol on his way
>> out of the con.
>
> Now me, I would have gone straight to hotel security. Do not pass go. Do
> not collect $200. Hotel security has just as much a vested interest in
> weapons NOT being unholstered as the ConCom does. And they are more likely
> to call in the REAL Boys in Blue if that is warranted. And I have no problem
> with calling in the police if it comes to that.
>
> You want to carry weapons, fine. But understand that if you dick up,
> you will get more than just your badge pulled and membership revoked.
> Real Life will come pay you a visit.
It was a kid. Young enough that grabbing con security seemed like the
best bet. He still got the "you *really* screwed up" feeling, but
didn't have to deal with the authorities.
>> Heck, we've even had people with swords (how shouldn't have been
>> allowed near them) wearing them stuck thru their belts and paying *no*
>> attention to where the point was or who was behind them. I've seen an
>> idiot with a rapier almost put out the eye of a child that way.
>
> Not sheathed? Oh, so sorry...not allowed. That shuts down that argument.
True enough. But there are a lot of *scabbards* that are just as
dangerous. :-(
>> I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
>> idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do. Just *one*
>> irresponsible person can get a *lot* of people hurt. Just consider that
>> incident Spider witnessed.
>
> And if you crack down harder on that ONE irresponsible person -- as opposed
> to everyone -- you CAN allow weapons at cons.
The problem is finding them to crack down on *before* they hurt someone
or get "the real world" involved.
See my other post about the problems with peace ties.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Nemo) kal...@krypton.rain.com
"Nature abhors an atmosphere.
Check your suit.
Check your buddy's suit."
Leonard Erickson
> On 13 Jul 1998 05:01:51 GMT, an evil AI named
> blackw...@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) issued forth:
>
>>> And, most importantly, there
>>> are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
>>> about the possible repercussions of their actions.
>>
>>Ummm... how about the fen who are mature, responsible, who do concern
>>themselves with the repercussions of what they do... personally and
>>professionally... who find being lumped in with children annoying at
>>best, and suspiciously PC at worst?
>
> Pity we don't wear labels.. At a San Jose TimeCon several years
> back, I was admiriring the job a teenager had done on his "Future
> Warrior" costume, based on the brief glimpses of the future in
> Terminator. Then I saw his pistol. It looked very real, so I
> asked to see it. It was a .45 cal Colt. When I expressed my
> displeasure at the presence of the gun, the kid told me it was
> alright, he had unloaded it. Anybody want to guess what happened
> next? I worked the action and a round of hollow-point hit the
> carpet.
I've had the *distinctly* unpleasant experience of someone pointing a
weapon at me, "joking" that "It'd be *so* easy" and pulling the trigger
(I could hear the hammer fall). Shortly after that he popped out the
magazine and live rounds appeared. It was a luger, and the only reason
that I *didn't* wind up dead is that there wasn't a round in the
*chamber*.
> You can't assign people to the category of trustworthy and
> untrustworthy without inviting a lot of trouble. The are 14 year
> olds I'd trust to carry a loaded firearm through a crowd, and 35
> year old veterans who shouldn't let near butter knives.
Amen.
The guy that pulled the stunt above was around 25-30. On the other
hand, I have watched a 10 year old kid chew out his *dad* for not
handling a weapon properly.
I'd trust the 10 year old with a real weapon. I wouldn't trust the
"adult".
Leonard Erickson
> Sometime around Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:53:09 PST, kal...@krypton.rain.com
> (Leonard Erickson) opined:
>
>
>>I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
>>idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do. Just *one*
>>irresponsible person can get a *lot* of people hurt. Just consider that
>>incident Spider witnessed.
>>
> Sounds like we're closing in. An actual checkable name attached to an
> actual incident.
As I recall, he said the con was in DC. But I could be wrong. And this
was a number of years back. He told us this at the Orycon he attended
*many* years back (it was possibly Orycon 3). So that puts it around 15
years ago.
Leonard Erickson
> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:50:06 -0700, The Polymath
> <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>........I, among others, attended the entire con with a Real(tm)
>>cap-and-ball revolver on my hip and a Real(tm) Bowie knife in
>>my boot -- both peace bonded.
>
> What is "peace bonding"? And in another post, someone mentioned
> "smogging" - what's that? Color me curious.
Peace bonding is simply using something *conspicuous* to to tie weapons
into their holsters/scabbards.
It supposedly goes back to a *real* practice in the middle ages, where
they'd avoid the problem of someone impulsively drawing their sword at
a peace conference or the like by using stout cord to tie the sword to
the scabbard. You could still get at your weapon by untying the cord or
by cutting it with a knife, but that would require that you stop and
*think* for a moment. By which time you'd realize it was a bad idea.
Leonard Erickson
> In article <980712.205309...@krypton.rain.com>,
> kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>
> [And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
> [weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
> [holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
> [tape.
>
> [I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
> [idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do.
>
> These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
> strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
> argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
> want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
> sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
Please go back to my original post and note that the incident involving
the air pistol occured *at* the con that used peace ties!
Unless the peace ties are something that takes a fair amount of *work*
to remove, the idiot types *will* draw the weapon anyway. And peace
ties that secure are going to involve things like wire or heavy duty
plastic cable ties, both of which can *damage* scabbards and holsters,
as well as weapons finishes. People are *not* going to take kindly to
tens (or even *hundreds*) of dollars of damages to their "collectors
item" weapon.
I'm not kidding about the damages. I know folks who wear *real* katanas
and wakazashis to events where they can. And any peace tie that's more
than symbolic will do *serious* damage to the lacquer on the scabbard.
And you *don't* want to know what restoration work on such pieces
costs. A lot of the "prop" weapons also easy to damage and expensive to
repair.
If you can come up with a "peace tie" that *won't* damage expensive
finishes on both antique weapons and on expensive "prop" weapons *and*
that won't let the owner draw the weapon without substantial effort I
know some folks who'd be *very* interested. Oh yeah, it's got to be
*cheap* enough to give away in the *thousands*.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <980712.205309...@krypton.rain.com>,
>kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>
>[And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
>[weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
>[holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
>[tape.
>
>[I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
>[idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do.
>
>These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
>strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
>argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
>want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
>sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
>
>
It's only "contradictory" because you snipped the part in between, where
he explained how the "weapons must be peace-tied" policy he described
had problems, in particular someone dry-firing an air rifle. If they can do
that, they could also have been carrying something more dangerous and
succeeded in firing a projectile into a crowd before con security grabbed
and removed them. I don't know how long it would take to tear or cut
through the designated tape--but I suspect it's short enough that you
couldn't *count* on con security getting there between the time someone
started cutting and the time the weapon was drawn.
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning."
-- Susanna Sturgis
Dale Farmer
City of Baltimore, county of Baltimore, and State of Maryland
have some rather restrictive weapons policies too, only they call theirs
'The law.'. The Bucconeer weapons policy is a fairly close appoximation
of all those stupid laws that stupid politicians have voted into place
to fight the "war on crime", "War on Drugs", and "War on gang violence"
to name a few. Since I have no desire to take an involuntary tour
of the local pokey, I guess I'll just have to refrain from bringing
any weapon-like objects with me. Just remember not to go anywhere
but the hotels and convention center, since the various wars are
still being waged only a short distance away. I have no intention of
going anyplace else in the city but the convention.
--Dale
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale Farmer Dale at accessdotdigex.net Personal opinion. Sudbury, Mass.
"Free the ISO 9000!" --Nomi Burstein
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <35A9C4...@logica.com>, "David Power." <pow...@logica.com>
> wrote:
>
>[In my experience, the people who really cause
>[hassles over being asked not to carry a weapon in a con are exactly the
>[sort of people who've caused the problems which led to the need for the
>[weaposn policy in the first place.
>
>Then we can pretty much discount your level of experience, can't we?
>
>
Ah, a nice, well-reasoned refutation. You've found out exactly what
experience he has, demonstrated that yours is greater, and given
examples of people who have carried weapons safely for years and
then protested being asked not to, as well as those who said "sure,
no problem, mate" when told con A had a no-weapons policy, then
caused real trouble with their weapons at a later con with a different
policy.
Too bad all this detailed explication appeared as white space in my
newsreader. I thought Interport had fixed its newsfeed.
Keith Wood
si...@hotblack.gweep.net (Rebecca Schoenberg) wrote:
[Keith Wood (kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com) wrote:
[
[: [There are people out there who aren't fans. And there are people out
[: [there who do deal with real weapons and real nut cases and who have to
[: [make quick judgments about what is what. And, most importantly, there
[: [are fans who are too self-involved and self-centered to think or care
[: [about the possible repercussions of their actions.
[: And there are people who need to grow up instead of trying to nerf
[: the whole world.
[
[: Enjoy your convention. I'm glad I heard about this before I sent in
[: my money. I would rather be around people who consider instead of
[: simply reacting.
[
["You know, I've been reading through this thread, looking at all of the
[different sides to the issue, and I can only come up with one question -
[why is your enjoyment of the convention dependent on being allowed to bring
[toy weapons?
Why is your need to control the attendees so great that even TOY
weapons are a threat to your authority?
[ "I go to cons to meet interesting people, look at pretties, engage in
[interesting conversations, dance until my feet fall off (and then staple them
[on and dance some more), flirt, sing, smog, and about a dozen other things,
[but none of them are in the least bit hindered by not being allowed to carry
[a fake plastic gun.
This proves that you are unaware that the vast majority of weapons at
cons are hand-crafted, either by their owners or by a very few
crafters (such as Ed Kline) who put a lot of time into their design
and creation. Some of these weapons represent a greater expense of
time and money than the whole rest of the costume worn by the bearer.
[ "Why are toy weapons so important to you that you can't enjoy yourself
[at a convention without one? About the only purpose I could consider them
[serving is part of a hall costume, and even then that shouldn't be enough
[to ruin an entire convention...."
Depends on the costume. How about a rule requiring all hall costumes
at the con to include a propeller beanie with flashing strobe lights?
Kind of ruins the effect, doesn't it?
Keith Wood
emsh...@aol.com (mike weber) wrote:
[Sometime around Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:27:18 +0100,
[kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
[
[
[>I have never seen anyone who could tell me a date or location where I
[>could contact the law enforcement agency involved. And I know of no
[>professional law enforcement agency which, faced with a report of
[>heavily armed people running around a hotel, would not contact the
[>hotel management (who, one can assume, would probably mention the
[>presence of an SF convention).
[>
[For curiosity's sake -- where are you located? Anywhere near the DC
[area?
No, until the Horsethief showed up, I had a wife and family in
Arizona. I grew up in California. My dad was a cop for nearly 3
decades, BTW, and has never heard any version of this tale.
[Depending on the substance of the report made and exactly who by, i
[can easily see DC area cops rolling everything they have to a hotel in
[certain parts of town -- say, the ones that tend to be full of
[embassies.
I used to tell people I lived in AZ because that was as far as I
could drive from DC without having to be in California! ;)
Keith Wood
emsh...@aol.com (mike weber) wrote:
[Sometime around Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:24:19 +0100,
[kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
[
[
[>These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
[>argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
[>want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
[>sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
[I have never seen a "peace bond" policy work -- no matter how strictly
[enforced -- unless con personnel do -nothing- but check peace bonds.
Try it the way GUN SHOWS do it with REAL weapons -- by using
cable-ties. You could also get high levels of compliance by making
attendees sign a statement that if they are caught violating the
policy, the weapon become property of the con-com, to be destroyed or
sold at auction.
Keith Wood
"John Lorentz" <jlor...@spiritone.com> wrote:
[Keith Wood <kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com> wrote in article
[<Glhq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>...
[>
[> could contact the law enforcement agency involved.
[Disclave, the year that some friends from here in Portland attended the
[con. Since it was in their pre-bookstore years (now, they don't have
[enough free time to travel to out-of-town cons) but it was after they got
[married, my guess is in the range of '83 to '86. (If their store was open
[today, I'd be able to check on it by e-mail fairly quickly, but Monday's
[their day off.)
Interesting. Bjo told of this in 1981, at a California convention.
[> And I know of no
[> professional law enforcement agency which, faced with a report of
[> heavily armed people running around a hotel, would not contact the
[> hotel management (who, one can assume, would probably mention the
[> presence of an SF convention).
[
[And of course, *nothing* strange or illegal ever happens at sf
[conventions... (Certainly not a suspect fleeing from police running into a
[crowd at OryCon in 1982, or gang members upset with the hotel that evicted
[them earlier in the week setting off a tear gas bomb in the lobby during
[the 1996 OryCon or gun-toting gang members joining the crowd at one of the
[Tacoma-era Norwescons.)
[
[A cop who, when confronted in the dark with someone carrying a weapon, who
[automatically assumes it's A-OK since just because there's an SF con nearby
[could very well become an ex-cop (in the "ex-parrot" sense).
Yes, but the way this story goes is always:
A) Fans are running around with weapons
B) Mundanes call "the SWAT Team" (how do they get the number?)
C) SWAT Team shows up with ABSOLUTELY NO INTEL ABOUT THE EVENT and
draws down on congoers
D) Stupid fan draws back
E) Cops don't shoot, because in that split-second finally figured out
that there is an SF convention running there and SF fans have fake
weapons
F) there is nothing in the papers, newswires or on TV
G) nobody ever thinks to get a copy of the incident report from the
cops
Come on, people. If this happened it would be in BIG PRINT in the
local papers and on the Six O'Clock Follies. It would find its way
into SWAT Magazine and the copzines around the country. So WHERE IS
THE COVERAGE?
Yes, this COULD have happened. But until I have something more than
Keith Wood
[In article <drhq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>,
[Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com> wrote:
[>Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
[>adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
[>with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
[>gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
[>attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due adults.
[
[So far, my impression of you in this thread is that you're a child pitching
[a tantrum because someone who would be in a position of responsibility for
[your behavior with weapons said "No".
No, Tom, _I_ am in the position of responsibility for myself. I
understand that this is a hard concept for many people to grasp, but
nonetheless the rest of us understand it well.
[Adults are not "due" respect. They have to earn it.
Keith Wood
[
[> Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
[> adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
[> with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
[> gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
[> attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due
[> adults.
[
[the concom just trust the attendees to behave in a responsible manner.
[But your "children's party" article makes me glad that you won't be
[attending, and makes me want to side with BucConeer.
Make up your mind -- either you want con attendees to act
responsibly, or you want them to not be afforded the opportunity.
When someone is doing something wrong with a REAL weapon, we put them
in jail or simply disarm them. When someone is doing something wrong
with a PROP, whether it's a weapon or a feather boa, eject them from
the con or simply take the prop away.
The con committee has decided that there is such an item as an "Evil
Thing," banning items based on the APPEARANCE of evil. I'm old
enough to remember when libraries banned SF for a similar short-
sighted belief.
If the con decided that no hard object longer than 6" would be
permitted, then this would be different. But they have decided that
if they don't like the APPEARANCE of the thing, it is to be banned.
Will we also see the pornography banned from the Art Show or the
Hucksters' Rooms? And who decides that "pornography" is?
Vicki Rosenzweig
>Sometime around Mon, 13 Jul 98 16:58:30 GMT,
>ahad...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("Albert Haddock, Esq.") opined:
>
>>In article <6octf9$r2c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
>> bucc...@pipeline.com "Perrianne Lurie" writes:
>>
>>> To foster the economy of the port city, however, weaponry may be
>>> displayed using appropriate safeguards in the Den of Thieves commonly
>>> called the "Dealers' Room" with the prior explicit written approval of
>>> the Chamberlains of the Dealers' Room. Any sales made shall include
>>> packaging for transportation that renders the item ineffective as a
>>> weapon. Items packaged in this manner may be transported in the
>>> environs of Bucconeer only for the express purpose of placing them in
>>> the owner's lodging.
>>
>>Excuse me, young lady. Does this mean I am forced to retain a lodging
>>until the conclusion of Bucconeer, should I wish to purchase such a
>>craftsman-made item? Or can one, perchance, leave one's lodging without
>>passing through the above-mentioned environs of Bucconeer?
>
>I'm not sure of the exact legalese, but i believe that one's
>automobile is considered adjunct to one's lodging, with roughly the
>same rights and duties appropriate thereunto, and similar civil rights
>and protections thereof.
>
Not entirely. In particular, recent Supreme Court rules have the effect
that neither a moving vehicle nor any of its occupants has any
protection against arbitrary search and seizure if a police officer
should order the vehicle to stop.
I don't think, however, that this is relevant to Bucconeer weapons
policy. If nothing else, it seems clear that what they mean is
"you will take the wrapped weapon to wherever you're staying,
and home with you later, without unwrapping it in convention space."
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <6odjd1$o4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bet...@earthlink.net
>writes
>>This* is what I mean when I say that the rule is so ambigous as to border on
>>the absurd.
>
>If there is a problem with the rule, it is that there is no ambiguity.
>If any thinks it looks like a weapon, it's banned. There's litle
>ambiguity.
>
>> You want to tell me I can't have my schlager? Fine..that's a
>>real weapon. You want to tell the Starship Trooper guys they can't have
>>their prop Moritas'? OK...a prop weapon that looks like the real thing. But
>>when you start delving into the realm of what are quite clearly and obviously
>>toys, without separating them out from either real weapons, or
>>realistic-looking props, then you have gone overboard.
>
>All you need to do to solve the problem is come up with a clear and
>unambiguous definition of what constitutes a weapon.
>
>It's OK, we'll wait.
>
>
ObSF: <paraphrasing from memory> "weapons, when examined as a
class, turned out to be devices to manipulate energy"...."We can throw
rocks at them, Mike!"
In other words, I suspect any attempt at precise definition would
require all con-members to carry nothing and spend the weekend
naked, as a reductio ad absurdum. (I suppose applying sunscreen
might be acceptable--but not carrying the tube of sunscreen with
you.)
John Yaskowich
Haddock, Esq.") wrote:
>In article <6octf9$r2c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
> bucc...@pipeline.com "Perrianne Lurie" writes:
>
>> To foster the economy of the port city, however, weaponry may be
>> displayed using appropriate safeguards in the Den of Thieves commonly
>> called the "Dealers' Room" with the prior explicit written approval of
>> the Chamberlains of the Dealers' Room. Any sales made shall include
>> packaging for transportation that renders the item ineffective as a
>> weapon. Items packaged in this manner may be transported in the
>> environs of Bucconeer only for the express purpose of placing them in
>> the owner's lodging.
>
>Excuse me, young lady. Does this mean I am forced to retain a lodging
>until the conclusion of Bucconeer, should I wish to purchase such a
>craftsman-made item? Or can one, perchance, leave one's lodging without
>passing through the above-mentioned environs of Bucconeer?
>
>And, one must enquire, given the parlous state of the management of
>lodgings in your fair city, how does one ensure that one has a lodging?
>Should I secure the package in my personal automotive transportation, do
>I also have to sleep therein? What if, in compliance with all the
>pertinent laws and administrative regulations, I choose to immediately
>dispatch this package to my home address?
I am willing to bet that it is exactly this sort of nit-picking that
prompted the blanket ban in the first place:
"This is not a 'weapon' - it is a 'prop' for this costume" [Left
unsaid is that when he takes it to the range tomorrow it will be
called a fully functional AK-47]
"I am transporting this from here to home" [ and I will be going home
in about 5 days]
"That Con security person over there said it was OK" [Yeah, that 16
year old who was so busy looking at my tits that I could have used
this sword to remove several major organs and he wouldn't have
blinked]
Yes, blanket bans can be unfair to those who are responsible. But
until a definite way is found to 1) identify those who are responsible
*before the fact*, 2) ensure that those who have proven themselves
idiots through past behaviour do not carry, and 3) ensure that those
in catagory 1 who "lose it" due to drink, fatigue or other factors are
disarmed until it is proven that they are responsible again, I am sure
that a blanket ban keeps the arguements down.
I do agree with BetNoir that they must clearly define the difference
between a tool (the indispensible Swiss Army Knife) and a weapon (a
Bowie Knife). This difference must be defined, published, taught to
the security staff and strictly followed.
Question: If someone is wearing a ridged scabbard with just the hilt
of a sword peace-bonded to the top (no blade - maybe just a two inch
wooden stub for stability), how do the rules address this? It would
give the illusion of a sword, not be a weapon, and be a lot lighter.
(purists can stop screaming now)
---
Censorship dictates that adults must eat Pablum
because babies can't handle steak.
jya...@istar.ca John Yaskowich
Lee S. Billings
> Okay, not being much of a con-goer, I don't really have a dog in
this
>fight, nor do I seem to find it as emotional an issue as some, but,
how does
>a "no weapons in the con" policy keep people from wearing them in the
>surrounding vicinity?
By itself, it doesn't; but the main reason for it happening (people
staying in an offsite facility or going out for a meal, on their way
to/from the con) drops *way* down if the weapon has to be put away
inside the convention facility.
> And with all those entrances, how DO they expect to enforce this?
Mostly by putting the word out and trusting the honor of the average
convention attendee, who may bitch long and loud but will leave the
plastic blaster at home. More to the point, by reserving the right to
eject violaters from the con.
Some years ago, at a Chattacon, I got into a disagreement with another
attendee and he drew live steel on me. This was *not* some newbie kid
with an attitude, it was someone who'd been winning masquerade awards
for at least 5 years at that point. But he was also rather drunk, and
carrying. Fortunately, I was neither. If I'd been able to find a concom
member at 3AM, I'd have had him thrown out on his ear!
Celine
--
"It is perhaps one of life's more interesting ironies that, of the many
who beseech the Goddess to send them love, so few will accept it when
it comes, because it has come in what they consider the wrong shape, or
the wrong size, or at the wrong time. Against our prejudices, even the
Goddess strives in vain." -- Diane Duane, _The Door Into Fire_
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Why is your need to control the attendees so great that even TOY
: weapons are a threat to your authority?
*sigh* I know you've got an axe to grind. Why not grind it at
home, where at least you might be able to cut some trees with it?
: This proves that you are unaware that the vast majority of weapons at
: cons are hand-crafted, either by their owners or by a very few
: crafters (such as Ed Kline) who put a lot of time into their design
: and creation. Some of these weapons represent a greater expense of
: time and money than the whole rest of the costume worn by the bearer.
Proves nothing of the kind. Most throwaway lines are intended to
be taken in the spirited in which they are offered.
Still: What difference does it make? Hyperrealistic fake plastic
guns are still hyperrealistic fake plastic guns. Do you feel
somehow incomplete if you're not allowed to carry your fake
plastic gun?
: Depends on the costume. How about a rule requiring all hall costumes
: at the con to include a propeller beanie with flashing strobe lights?
: Kind of ruins the effect, doesn't it?
Depends, of course, on the effect you're trying to achieve. It
would certainly improve some paramilitary costumes I've seen,
by bringing in the wearers in on the joke.
-- LJM
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Sometime around Mon, 13 Jul 1998 04:57:46 +0100,
>kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com (Keith Wood) opined:
>
>
>>And there are people who need to grow up instead of trying to nerf
>>the whole world.
>>
>>Enjoy your convention. I'm glad I heard about this before I sent in
>>my money. I would rather be around people who consider instead of
>>simply reacting.
>>
>won't bother to discuss them, i just won't attend the con!!
>
>That'll show 'em!
>
>If i were going to be there, i'd probably appreciate the
>marginally-greater breathing room.
And the lower level of selfish, whiny attitude as well, I'll bet...
Keith Lynch
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is secondhand.
I was there, and have the con badge to prove it. It was at Disclave
in May 1980, at the grossly misnamed "Hospitality House". Now
generally known amongst fandom as the "Hostility House". Needless
to say, neither Disclave nor any other con has ever gone back there.
I wonder how many years until people start to doubt last year's
Disclave sprinkler incident.
(Posted and mailed.)
--
Keith F. Lynch -- k...@clark.net -- http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: [
: [So far, my impression of you in this thread is that you're a child pitching
: [a tantrum because someone who would be in a position of responsibility for
: [your behavior with weapons said "No".
: No, Tom, _I_ am in the position of responsibility for myself. I
: understand that this is a hard concept for many people to grasp, but
: nonetheless the rest of us understand it well.
"The rest of us" includes several people who are offerring reasonable
explanations to you which you choose to ignore -- and that is not
responsible. You may choose to say, of course, that you believe
their arguments don't hold merit. You can respect other peoples'
viewpoints, though they may be different from your own.
Instead, you respond with rudeness and childish insults, a behavior
pattern Tom called you on.
: [Adults are not "due" respect. They have to earn it.
: Then you had probably better start. You can start by assuming that
: not everyone is as stupid as you think they are.
As witness. He said nothing about you being stupid. He said his
impression of you in this thread was of a child pitching a tantrum.
I'd have to say that he appears to be right.
-- LJM
Podkayne Fries
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:21:24 GMT, ch...@buckeyenet.net (Podkayne
>Fries) modulated the bit stream to say:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:50:06 -0700, The Polymath
>><poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>........I, among others, attended the entire con with a Real(tm)
>>>cap-and-ball revolver on my hip and a Real(tm) Bowie knife in
>>>my boot -- both peace bonded.
>>
>>What is "peace bonding"? And in another post, someone mentioned
>>"smogging" - what's that? Color me curious.
>
>Peace bonding is the process of so tying a weapon in place that it
>cannot be drawn. Doesn't work for a lot of them, and it's impossible
>to get all of those it _does_ work for.
>
>"Smogging," I took to be a typo for "smoffing."
>
Ah, that explains a lot; thank you. Now - what's smoffing?
Can you tell that I've never been to a con?
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
Necrophilia means never having to say you're sorry.
Keith Wood
v...@interport.net (Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:
[In article <pfhq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>, kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com wrote:
[>In article <35A9C4...@logica.com>, "David Power." <pow...@logica.com>
[> wrote:
[>
[>[In my experience, the people who really cause
[>[hassles over being asked not to carry a weapon in a con are exactly the
[>[sort of people who've caused the problems which led to the need for the
[>[weaposn policy in the first place.
[>
[>Then we can pretty much discount your level of experience, can't we?
[>
[>
[
[Ah, a nice, well-reasoned refutation.
More reasoned than ad hominem deserves.
Keith Wood
v...@interport.net (Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:
[In article <Tihq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>, kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com wrote:
[>In article <980712.205309...@krypton.rain.com>,
[>kal...@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
[>
[>[And another, where, because of inceidents like the above, we allowed
[>[weapons but had a "peace tie" policy. All weapons were required to be
[>[holstered or sheathed, and tied in place with this brightly colored
[>[tape.
[>
[>[I don't like the "no weapons" policy at cons. But until we can prevent
[>[idiots from attending cons, I don't know what else to do.
[>These two paragraphs are contradictory. You DO know what to do -- a
[>strict peace-bonding regulation is one that I have absolutely no
[>argument with. Provide a designated area for people to go when they
[>want to show off their weaponry, with a guard at the door to make
[>sure that nobody accidentally gets back out with an unbonded weapon.
[>
[>
[It's only "contradictory" because you snipped the part in between, where
[he explained how the "weapons must be peace-tied" policy he described
[had problems, in particular someone dry-firing an air rifle. If they can do
[that, they could also have been carrying something more dangerous and
[succeeded in firing a projectile into a crowd before con security grabbed
[and removed them.
For that matter, a congoer could have a real, loaded firearm
concealed, unless you put them all through metal detectors.
Then let's consider that some people are skilled martial artists, who
are dangerous without weapons.
[I don't know how long it would take to tear or cut
[through the designated tape--but I suspect it's short enough that you
[couldn't *count* on con security getting there between the time someone
[started cutting and the time the weapon was drawn.
True. This is why there have been so many people maimed and killed
in just the 30 years I've been attending conventions like that one
con in . . .uh . . .just give me a moment here, I'm sure to think of
one . . .uh . . .hmmmm . . .I'll have to get back to you . . .
People have the potential to be dangerous . . .it's built into the
species. Most people choose to not be dangerous, but no rule can
eliminate the possibility -- it can only focus attention on it.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <tygEw1...@netcom.com>, t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
>[Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com> wrote:
>[>Be it known that I, Captain Keith Wood, choose to associate with
>[>adults and to avoid childrens' parties (except for those children
>[>with whom I am personally acquainted). A "childrens' party" is a
>[>gathering organized by children or by someone who assumes that all
>[>attendees are children, thus not to be accorded the respect due adults.
>[
>[a tantrum because someone who would be in a position of responsibility for
>[your behavior with weapons said "No".
>
>No, Tom, _I_ am in the position of responsibility for myself. I
>understand that this is a hard concept for many people to grasp, but
>nonetheless the rest of us understand it well.
>
>
>Then you had probably better start. You can start by assuming that
>not everyone is as stupid as you think they are.
>
>
What I'm assuming, actually, is that this is in fact a party for adults.
As such, most of the attendees have nobody telling them "it's your
bedtime," and some of them may be consuming alcohol. And I'd
rather not have tired, intoxicated people carrying weapons in a
crowded space in which I, also tired, am going to be spending time.
If it comes to the choice between staying up half the night, talking
or singing or the like, possibly with alcohol, and being able to
carry weapons but having a curfew and strict limits on the use of
intoxicants, I'd rather go to the former party. Not that the latter
is Evil--just that sitting up late talking is more my idea of a good
time than being able to dress up in an outfit that includes a
weapon. YMMV, of course, but it's worth considering that not
everyone wants the same things from a party, and that some of
those desires may not be entirely compatible. Thus, the concom
has to make choices.
Werehatrack (Russ Ault)
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>> you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is secondhand.
>
>I was there, and have the con badge to prove it. It was at Disclave
>in May 1980, at the grossly misnamed "Hospitality House". Now
>generally known amongst fandom as the "Hostility House". Needless
>to say, neither Disclave nor any other con has ever gone back there.
>
>I wonder how many years until people start to doubt last year's
>Disclave sprinkler incident.
It's probably already being questioned. I've met people who deny the
existence of the incident in which the Renegade Piper nearly caused a
mass fan uprising against the Evil Hilton Empire at DragonCon a couple
of years back, so the sprinkler incident is probably already on the
discount table.
Werehatrack (Russ Ault)
>
>Werehatrack (Russ Ault) wrote in message ...
>
><Among other things>
>
>>...as noted above, it's not just the
>>problem with the presence of weapons in the con proper, but the
presence
>>of beweaponed congoers in the surrounding vicinity that creates major
>>problems for the con. Once again, unless the con is in a city with an
>>*incredible* tolerance for weapons, the only practical approach for a
>>Worldcon is "No Weapons". Smaller cons with a more limited and
>>controlled environment have less of a problem and can be more lenient.
>
>
> Okay, not being much of a con-goer, I don't really have a dog in this
>fight, nor do I seem to find it as emotional an issue as some, but, how
does
>a "no weapons in the con" policy keep people from wearing them in the
>surrounding vicinity?
It doesn't prevent it, but it makes the carrying so inconvenient that
the hope is to eliminate it as a problem indirectly...and perhaps the
loal constabulary will either make a conspicuous example of an egregious
violation, or look the other way if there aren't any bad ones.
> And with all those entrances, how DO they expect to enforce this?
One security droid on a door (two on busy doors, more on important ones)
to check badges and visually scan for weapons; violators are turned back
or backup is summoned via radio. The entrances almost never have any
way to accommodate a lockup.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Ah, that explains a lot; thank you. Now - what's smoffing?
: Can you tell that I've never been to a con?
"SMOF" is an acronym for "Secret Masters of Fandom"; by extension,
smoffing consists of nefarious people sitting in smoke-free rooms
and plotting the future of fandom. Many of them are notorious.
I dare not speak their names for fear of my life.
"Snogging" is one of those things two or more fans do together.
-- LJM
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: v...@interport.net (Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:
: [In article <pfhq1wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>,
: kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com wrote:
: [>In article <35A9C4...@logica.com>, "David Power." <pow...@logica.com>
: [> wrote:
: [>
: [>[In my experience, the people who really cause
: [>[hassles over being asked not to carry a weapon in a con are exactly the
: [>[sort of people who've caused the problems which led to the need for the
: [>[weaposn policy in the first place.
: [>
: [>Then we can pretty much discount your level of experience, can't we?
: [>
: [>
: [
: [Ah, a nice, well-reasoned refutation.
: More reasoned than ad hominem deserves.
You seem to be the person who is most often engaging in ad hominem
attacks here, Keith.
-- LJM
Dan Goodman
> In article <sRrq1.1747$IA2.7...@ptah.visi.com>,
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> > you didn't give the year; 2) your knowledge is secondhand.
>
> I was there, and have the con badge to prove it. It was at Disclave
> in May 1980, at the grossly misnamed "Hospitality House". Now
> generally known amongst fandom as the "Hostility House". Needless
> to say, neither Disclave nor any other con has ever gone back there.
Thank you.
> I wonder how many years until people start to doubt last year's
> Disclave sprinkler incident.
Oh, just until 1) someone comes along who's convinced that BDSM people
_never_, ever, do anything that stupid and 2) several other people
cite that instance -- but can't remember which year it was, and
weren't actually there, and can't cite any written evidence that it
happened....
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
David E Romm
> In article <35A9C4...@logica.com>, "David Power."
<pow...@logica.com> wrote:
>
> [In my experience, the people who really cause
> [hassles over being asked not to carry a weapon in a con are exactly the
> [sort of people who've caused the problems which led to the need for the
> [weaposn policy in the first place.
>
> Then we can pretty much discount your level of experience, can't we?
Having just slogged through 85 messages, including reports from two
eyewitnesses to an event you poo-poo'd, I think you have demonstrated
David's point. Rather convincingly.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"Prostitution isn't the only profession to be ruined by amateurs."
-- Charlton Heston, Counterpoint