Honest Mistake: Order A TV From Amazon, Receive An Illegal Assault Rifle

from the might-have-been-a-mistake dept

Thu, Aug 9th 2012 10:44am — Timothy Geigner

With guns and violence in the news lately, you would think that everyone involved in the chain of the firearms business would be a teensy-weensy bit more careful, from manufacturers, to retailers, all the way up to those handling the shipping and distribution. As with any other business, you have to expect to deal with some human error, but one would imagine that the firearms industry would have the tightest of controls in place right now.

As it turns out, such notions are exactly that: imagination. Or, at least that appears to be the case in the Wired story of a man from Washington D.C. who ordered a television on Amazon and was shipped a Sig Sauer 716 Patrol Rifle. For anyone keeping score at home, that's a military grade weapon. Seth Horvitz, the guy who is guilty of attempted TV-buying, is not a military grade citizen.

“When I saw some metal parts inside the box, I thought, ‘Maybe this is a TV stand or mount or something,’” Horvitz said in a phone interview with Wired. “When I realized it was an assault rifle, it was pure shock and disbelief.”

The Wired interviewer chooses not to ask Horvitz if he attempted to point the weapon at his wall and pull the trigger to see if flat-panel televisions shot out, which is disappointing. In any case, Horvitz did the responsible thing and immediately called the D.C. police, who informed him that the weapon is illegal to own in the District of Columbia. There is no word yet on whether flat-panel displays are also illegal, but I'm guessing not.

The story then details how the mistake happened, which essentially appears to boil down to a lovely bit of insight into the shipping warehouses of UPS, in which the Label Fairy made a mistake and put two shipping labels (only one of which was correct) on the box-'o-death and allowed the box to be shipped anyway. Everyone from the guy who let it leave the warehouse to the guy who delivered the rifle to Horvitz's door apparently decided to play the new hit game "Shipping Address Coin Flip", resulting in Horvitz getting his new Rambo Halloween costume accessory. Amazon, predictably, disavowed any responsibility for the mistake, which it's looking like it has every right to do. On the other hand, when Horvitz tried to post a review of his purchase, Amazon blocked it. Admittedly, the review was hillarious, and guns and funny just don't mix:

I'm not sure what pretending all this didn't happen accomplishes from Amazon's end, other than to perhaps flip open the cover to the Streisand Effect alarm, press it, and wait for the derision to ensue.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: guns, mistakes, shipping, tv
Companies: amazon, ups

180 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

weneedhelp (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 10:51am

I would have shut my mouth
and kept it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpObama McBinLadenBurton, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:28pm
  
  Funny Girl
  I deride Amazon for their pressing of the Streisand Effect alarm button.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 10:54am

Have to wonder
Did sales of that TV spike after this got out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vog (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: Have to wonder
  Dang, looks like you beat me to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re: Have to wonder
    True, but there's now a non-zero chance you could get an assault rifle is a better line.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 10:54am

At least he was not arrested
From what I have read about how things are currently on the USA, I would not be surprised if he were arrested for receiving an illegal item, even if it was not his fault. Was pleasantly surprised reading the article that the police was polite and did not arrest him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: At least he was not arrested
  Wouldn't stand up in court, if it even got that far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re: At least he was not arrested
    That's not much consolation given how shitty things can get immediately after the arrest and how long it can take not to stand up. It really does come down to if the police are polite enough not to arrest you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: At least he was not arrested
      You're right, the police in the U.S. will likely stomp on your head and knee you, etc... Just look at the Anaheim riots (and footage from it of police assaulting perfectly detained people for no good reason) and listen to what they allegedly did to Kim Dotcom (and it wouldn't surprise me if they did, especially given how their language when questioned about their use of force against him is very elusive). By the time the police receive any punishment, if they receive any punishment, from the courts they would have retired and the punishment will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It's not even worth pursuing here. But don't you dare lift a finger on a police officer here, the courts will be all over you with all sorts of sanctions. The double standard here is sickening.
      
      Like the first comment said, you're probably better off keeping it and saying nothing, or simply shipping it back (at their expense) or reselling it.
      
      Or, make sure you are not at the premises while the weapon is being confiscated and ensure you have live cameras streaming over the Internet for all to see in the event the police come and wreck your house (with uninterrupted power supplies in case they cut the power? But what if they cut the Internet? It's not beyond our corrupt police force to confiscate or destroy any footage you store on site. Maybe a wifi-signal to your neighbors, assuming you have a good relationship with them?). It's unbelievable that, if this were in the U.S., we would have to take all this nonsense into account.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: At least he was not arrested
        (well, this was in Washington D.C., which I guess does make it surprising)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jesse (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: At least he was not arrested
  https://xkcd.com/325/
  
  "Instead of office chair, package contained bobcat."
  
  "Would not buy again."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: At least he was not arrested
  I do not know why everyone thinks the police are out to get you...of course they didn't arrest the guy! He did the RIGHT thing by calling the police and explaining his situation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jesse (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:03am
    
    Re: Re: At least he was not arrested
    Tell that to all the people facing charges or arrest after reporting that they stumbled upon child porn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re: At least he was not arrested
  I was actually surprised that the police contacted the guy who was supposed to receive the rifle and told him that he could come and pick it up. I expected to read that they would have it destroyed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re: At least he was not arrested
    Watch the rightful recipient turn out to be a terrorist.
    
    "Do you want any bombs to go with that rifle?"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 10:55am

I'm sorry. You aren't Mike Masnick, and are therefore not allowed to use the term "Streisand Effect."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  *SIGH*
  Really? That all you got?
  The troll quality is really really poor since SOPA died.
  
  boB! Show this amateur how its done please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - boB, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Something something big search, pirate apologist. Conspiracy theory, rant, something something.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have this nagging suspicion your heart isn't in it...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re:
  I'm throwing you a bone of kindness troll.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vog (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am

I have to wonder if Amazon will see a jump in their TV sales as a result of this.

I mean, look, there's now a non-zero chance you could get an assault rifle. One trip to Tor later, you could be swimming in Bitcoins. And in the event that doesn't happen, you still have a TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:00am

the rifle itself is not illegal to own. To transfer custody from one owner (have it be a person, gun store, etc) the firearm has to be transferred through federally licensed dealers and is highly regulated. It is the method shipping/delivery that would make it a federal crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  My understanding is that assualt rifles like this are actually illegal to own in the District of Columbia...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    That law, if challenged, would be immediately overturned. That is the reason why the DC people don't try that shit anymore and just do a little 'I don't see anything!' when something like this comes up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean the DC cops?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's also not an assault rifle. A+ sensationalist journalism here from Geigner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have to disagree. This is what most people would refer to as an assault rifle. As a gun owner and defender of the 2nd amendment, I would call this an assault rifle too. In fact, I am going to order two Sigs, er TVs, right now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. This is what most people refer to as an "assault weapon" when they want to make it sound scary. It was a civvy version of the Sig 716 - semi-auto only.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Logically speaking, if it's an assault weapon AND a rifle, then it really should be called an assault-class rifle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can invent whatever word/phrase you want for a rifle to make it sound scary. Brady campaign pulled it off with "assault weapon," after all. Which is really just a collection of aesthetics, but let's not let that get in the way of some good FUD. This thing's no more dangerous (and really not very different, operationally speaking) than a Ruger Mini-14, and I don't think anyone here would be ready to call the Mini-14 an "assult-class rifle."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't you think you're getting overly caught up on the phrasing in an article that's actually about getting shipped a gun when you ordered a TV? Fully automatic vs. semi-automatic seems like minutia in that scenario.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's akin to an article about torrents that constantly refers to "copyright infringement" as "digital theft."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know, I read the comment section starting at the top and, having read more now than I did when I first posted, I really wish I could retract it. It is a bigger deal than I gave it credit for and your observation is more than fair.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joshua Bardwell (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. "Assault rifle" has a very specific definition, one quality of which is that the weapon is select-fire. "Assault weapon" is a bullshit made-up term, that anti-gunners created in order to confuse the public and conflate regular, semi-automatic rifles with true, military-grade assault rifles. And it worked. The analogy to "IP theft" and "copyright infringement" is 100% on the mark.
        
        Also, to the author: this is not a "military grade" weapon because it is not select-fire. It is functionally equivalent to your apocryphal father's deer rifle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        FIFY:
        
        State Department: Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. "Fisson bomb" has a very specific definition, one quality of which is that the weapon uses nuclear fission. "Atomic bomb" is a bullshit made-up term, that anti-nukers and commie librul atheist OWS hipsters created in order to confuse the public and conflate regular, fission bombs with true, military-grade fusion bombs. And it worked. The analogy to "IP theft" and "copyright infringement" is 100% on the mark.
        
        Also, to the author: this is not a "military grade" weapon because it is not fusionable. It is functionally equivalent to your historical government's Hiroshima-grade bomb.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guns are to nuclear weapons as mp3s are to cars. That is to say, not at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        JD, he's actually correct. Technically any assault rifle needs to be full-auto for the term to apply. This is what is commonly referred to as an assault WEAPON, which has more to do with asthetics than performance or specs.
        
        On the other hand, given that I didn't take a pro or anti gun stance in this article, sounds like a bunch of butthurt over nothing....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't all weapons fall into the "assault" category? That's what they're designed to do, whether they're knives, guns, tasers, or whatever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Time for me to end the debate. An "Assult Weapon" is classified under US law as a rifle or submachingun that carries the features of an "Assult Rifle" except they are semi-automatic or burst round shots.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice. Pick on the typo. Nice and safe. Not like politically motivated groups can invent words and phrases and use them to affect the political process, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Curmudgeon, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed, just about every pub to review this story has called it an assault rifle. Wired even put it in the damn URL.
        
        http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/tv-amazon-assault-rifle/
        http://www.myfoxdc.com/st ory/19221052/dc-man-orders-television-online-receives-rifle-instead
        
        So beating up on the author for "sensationalism" here is unjustified.
        
        While we're flagging everyone's mistakes, however, this was fulfilled by a third party e-commerce vendor, so Amazon never took title of the object. Blaming Amazon is worse than blaming the Postal Service for what you get in the mail, because at least your mailman handles the letter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Meh, so by strict definition it's an assault WEAPON, not an assualt RIFLE, because it's only semi-auto. Forgive me for not looking up its action specs prior to writing the piece based on a story in which everyone calls it an AR.
      
      Any other meaningless quips?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Assault weapon" is a phrase invented by the Brady campaign to scare people into joining their side of that issue. No more, no less. It's a semi-automatic rifle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        droslovinia, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's good to know. So, back in WWII, when the Germans came out with the Sturmgewehr-44, did they call it the "lollipop gun?" What's the term for an AK-47? "Friend-maker?" A little political bias is to be expected, but claiming that the term was made up for some political purpose veers right on off into "insipid."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is a rifle (tech a carbine). "Assault" means nothing, I can assault you with a grapefruit spoon does that make it an assault weapon?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My assault spoon has a shoulder thing that goes up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beta (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So that's how you defend yourself against an assailant armed with a banana...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Droslovinia, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But what if they have a pointed stick?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ike, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not meaningless because it's the basis of incorrect claims in the article that it's military grade and can't legally owned by an ordinary citizen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The gun-huggers love their definitions. They're not silencers, they're suppressors. So this is not an Assault Rifle but a Battle Rifle. It can fire a military load cartridge. Doesn't matter semi or full auto capability. So most hunting rifles can fall into the category. Even bolt action, for the sniper classification.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joshua Bardwell (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're so dumb, you don't even know how dumb you are. "Military load cartridge"? What does that even mean? The intermediate cartridges fired by infantry in modern armies are smaller, less powerful, and have less range than the typical cartridges used for hunting deer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the typical deer hunting rifle is the magnaum category, the winmags, rums or the darling of the party lapua, you are correct. But they are making their way in with the new Barret and Cheytac. Are you surprised that an industry that supplies equipment to the military will market to civilians with as little tool change as possible? What sense does it make to harden and temper different bolts to work in the same rifle?
        
        Don't get you panties in a twist when you harp about using the correct term.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gimmer, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you even know what the AR stands for in AR-15? Doubtful. You don't seem like the intellectually curious type.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gimmer, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, that was over the line. Nevermind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh master of the artillery. Tim was just reporting on the article:
      Man Orders TV Through Amazon, Gets Assault Rifle.
      
      So to blame Tim for not knowing is asinine. Not everyone has in depth knowledge of firearms.
      
      Just because it is not fully automatic and switchable has nothing to do with the average Joe's perception. It looks like a duck.
      
      Either its semantics so you can be an ass toward Tim.
      2 outta 10.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Its semantics so you can be an ass toward Tim.
        
        Scratch either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 9:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let me guess, it's actually a "sporting rifle". Y'know, for sport...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    No... they just make it REALLY hard to go through the process and get the license.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glen, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:03am

Was the rifle 1080p and 120 Hz? If not, he has a right to be pissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:08am

Owning that rifle in DC is almost certainly illegal. Owning anything more lethal than a cap gun is illegal in DC. He is probably lucky he wasn't arrested when he called it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re:
  I can only think the only reason he was not arrested was because he did the right thing and called it in. He proved a there was gaffe in the mailing process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew LeCody, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:08am

Not An Assault Rifle
The rifle in question is NOT classified as an assault rifle[1], as it has no selective fire[2] capability.

The Sig 716 is a typical .308 Winchester (also known as 7.62x51 NATO) semi-automatic rifle, based off of the popular AR-10 platform.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:11am

Iran is placing orders for thousands as we speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mischab1, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am

I'm guessing that Amazon's spam filter blocked the review because about half of it is a link, not because of what happened.

My question is, if this mix-up happened with the shipper, what happened to the TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- varagix, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  Having once worked at an Amazon warehouse, and currently working for another company in their warehouse, I'm fairly certain that it's probably sitting in UPS. Assuming someone didn't just walk out with it.
  
  Though I have to wonder how this happened... Amazon prints its own packages labels, at least where I worked. Best I can figure, someone down the line damaged the label to the point a new one needed to be placed by UPS (for sorting machines to scan at each stop), and the person responsible slapped it on the wrong case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You raise a good point. As a frequent user of Amazon, I have had absolutely no shipping issues. So we know the seller wasn't the issue, but I think it is safe to say the gaffe smells absolutely rank of a UPS stuffing in the process.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:22am

Calling the Streisand Effect on Amazon seems a misfire here. It was UPS's mistake, not Amazon's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  I'm sorry, I was looking for techdirt but I must have accidentally type in shippingdirt.com.
  This story doesn't belong here. Amazon did nothing wrong. Perhaps they could have posted an addendum to the review but it was not Amazon's problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am

1) It's not an assault rifle.

2) What do you mean "military-grade weapon?" What makes it "military-grade?" The fact that it doesn't fall apart when you fire it?

If you were going for overblown sensationalism here, you really nailed it. So long, techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  "2) What do you mean "military-grade weapon?" What makes it "military-grade?" The fact that it doesn't fall apart when you fire it?"
  
  Um, no, I mean that the manufacturer refers to it as Mil-spec and Mil-STD throughout its description and specs.
  
  http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sig716-patrol-rifle.aspx
  
  Wow, you gun folks take such minor things seriously. You did note, I hope, that at no point did I take a position for or against gun ownership here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    >You did note, I hope, that at no point did I take a position for or against gun ownership here?
    
    Aside from perpetuating the FUD, that is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Meh, whatever. If you really think I had some agenda here despite what I've put in the comments, you'll never be convinced, so I won't waste my time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not saying you have an agenda. I'm saying it was a poorly-researched article full of FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joshua Bardwell (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whoops. Looks like I'm behind the times. You corrected. Nevermind...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lurk-a-lot (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm saying you're being a dick about it.
        
        Hey! I see how that works now - I might try that a little more in future.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pleaese re-read the article several times over and stop hassling the Techdirt staff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Techdirt staff wouldn't be getting hassled if they'd bother to research shit instead of copy/pasting inflammatory and misleading articles from elsewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Joshua Bardwell (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think you had an agenda. I think you ignorantly parroted FUD created by people who have an agenda. EXACTLY like when a journalist says, "copyright theft" or confuses trademark law with copyright with patent. And these things DO matter, no matter how trivial they might seem to those on the outside of the issue. So guns isn't your issue. Fine. Surely you can understand the parallels though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beta (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:40am
    
    it's like "theft" vs. "infringement"
    I think gun folks are touchy about such trivial distinctions because a) they've seen a lot of their fellows sent to prison on the basis of such trivial distinctions, and b) they've heard a lot of ill-informed and consequential public discourse built up on sloppy language and bad terminology (much of it deliberate).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: it's like "theft" vs. "infringement"
      I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: it's like "theft" vs. "infringement"
        Then rather than being a fucking asshole with insults, why didnt you try to let TD know their error?
        
        Because ya know, they NEVER update articles when corrected. /s
        
        Who the fuck cares except gun nuts? I have quite a few myself.
        
        To my fellow TD community. An assault rifle is classified by having 5 distinctive features:
        1) Must be able to be fired from the shoulder
        2) Must have the ability to switch from fully automatic to semi
        3) It has more power than a handgun but less than a standard rifle.
        4) Its ammo must come from a magazine that is removable
        5) Should have a range of 1000 ft.
        
        There asshole see how easy that was?
        
        It is mean and scary and can kill a hole bunch of shit quickly.
        
        Semantics.
        Silly gun nut.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason Still (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think what we gun folks often take issue with is the same issue many of us here have with the copyright debate: specific words have specific meanings, and misusing them, even unintentionally, only serves to muddy the waters and make it harder to have meaningful discussion. Much like copyright infringement is not theft, the firearm this guy received is not an assault rifle. You definitely did better than the cNet article, where it was referred to as a "high definition murder weapon", and I can't fault you for not knowing the specifics when that detail wasn't that important to the point. However, I think we can both agree that it makes sense to point out such mistakes to people so that they have the facts going forward.
    
    As for the "military-grade" part, just some info for anyone who might be curious why that might matter to non-crazy people purchasing firearms: if I'm going to drop $1000+ for a gun, I want to be sure that it is high quality and will last (especially when I'm bad about keeping it clean). The fact that something meets the standards of the military and may even be pretty much the same firearm our men and women trust their lives with every day speaks a lot to the quality of the gun. Arguments about *actual* quality and reliability of said weapons are a matter for discussion somewhere other than TechDirt. :P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Jason, I understand the point that language matters, believe me. Which is why I think in the comments I was pretty clear that I trusted Wired to have the distinction correct and didn't look up the action spec on the weapon as I wrote this up. Ultimately it wasn't meaningful to the article, but as someone who hates equating theft and infringement, I understand the argument completely and acknowledged my mistake.
      
      I'm not sure what more there is to be said about it at this point....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jason Still (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By the time I read the article, the comments it had when the page loaded, and got my comment typed and submitted, things had already gotten a little out of hand.
        
        Unfortunately, many of my compatriots get fired up enough about this stuff that they jump immediately to the "hey douchenozzle, get your facts straight you idiot!" phase and skip the "oh hey, you might not know this, and I just want to make sure you have all the facts" phase. Its understandable (again, that cNet headline was just too intentionally ignorant and incendiary) but regrettable. Just as with the IP law debates, I think we'd all be better off if all sides approached things in a more polite, respectful, logic, and truthful manner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >Unfortunately, many of my compatriots get fired up enough about this stuff that they jump immediately to the "hey douchenozzle, get your facts straight you idiot!"
        
        Count me among them. Today, at least. It's easy enough to overreact when I see it so often done on purpose, I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 6:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My appologies to all if I was rash in any way during this article. I tried to stay on task but it bugs me when people become trolls and point out a simple clerickle error. Even I can get sucked in -_- and I profusely apologize to you Other Jason and Dark Helmut.
        
        Here is my chance to be polite and respectful:
        
        I want to add that anything sold as military grade is simply that. ASUS makes a motherboard that is military spec/grade. The fact that a weapon is military grade as Other Jason clearly stated. The fact that it is military standards are accepted in this weapon is quite amazing it's availible at all for sale in my eyes (I'm from rural Central Ohio). To me it makes no difference in wording or terminology to me, that debate is for the trolls.
        
        My only real thoughts to this WHOLE situation is that I'm thanking God this weapon did not arrive in the hands of a psycho.
        
        As I mentioned before, I avidly use Amazon. I have never had any incident unless it was UPS's or the seller's fault. I think that this is the single biggest gaffe in UPS shipping I have ever seen. Furthermore, UPS has not yet commented on the error. I hope that UPS is at least reprimanded and if found ultimately responsible for the misshap, will own up to it and investigate the matter thoroughly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - varagix, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Quick look at the description and specs, "Mil-spec" refers to the type of trigger: http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=11405/learn/
    
    and Mil-STD is referring to the railings, which are used to attach accessories like scopes and dot sites.
    
    It doesn't have to do with the gun itself, just a few select aspects, having little to do with whether its a military rifle or not.
    
    Also, to the other gun rights people on this blog, please, if you want to make a point, at least try to be calm, rational, and informative.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - greenpuma (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm a little nervous to chime in because it's getting a little rough in here, but mil spec isn't just the trigger. Bottom line is that if buy a 'mil spec' part it should fit with little or no effort with all of the other mil spec parts. Just an effort to standardize so they can buy parts from any manufacturer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In my experience, all 'Mil-Spec' means is that the probability of some nit-wit covering it in a billion pieces of anti-zombie lights/lasers/grips/rails then making a YouTube video uploaded under the name (noun)Sl4r(digits) is > 99%
    
    *Bonus points for including a scope the size of a Pringles can picked up for $90 bucks on eBay*
    
    **Triple score if it also is shot in a bedroom with a sports motif bedspread or wallpaper*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Argonel (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually mil-spec mostly means that there is most likely a pile of paper in a warehouse somewhere detailing the each step of the manufacturing process with someone's signature on it. When the pile of paper exceeds the weight of the part it may be ready to ship.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RD, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Um, no, I mean that the manufacturer refers to it as Mil-spec and Mil-STD throughout its description and specs."
    
    But DH, EVERY single gun manufacturer touts theirs as being "mil spec." Whomever is making an issue of that is blowing that terminology use way out of proportion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joshua Bardwell (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mil-spec has a specific meaning. The author translated that to "military grade" which does not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re:
  What do you mean "military-grade weapon?" What makes it "military-grade?"
  
  I'm just guessing here, but I assume that something is "military grade" when it is built to whatever specifications the military has set.
  
  I don't know guns, but I know integrated circuits, and you can buy "military grade" ICs, meaning just that. As it happens, military grade ICs are hardier, have a wider acceptable temperature range and can withstand rough handling (vibration & impact) a lot better. They also cost 2-3 times more than consumer grade.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:30am

This may classify as a carbine and not even a rifle, I'd have kept quiet and added it to my collection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zos (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:32am

I hate to be the one to point this out...
Your lead in makes it sound like this was a screw up by the gunseller somewhere.

but the rest of the story (and the version i saw on boing boing two days ago) make it pretty obvious that this was a garden variety shipping mix up, and that is was UPS's fault. GUn was supposed to be headed to Penn, where it would have been perfectly legal.

so yeah, the lead in felt like you had an agenda that you were trying to push at the expense of the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: I hate to be the one to point this out...
  "so yeah, the lead in felt like you had an agenda that you were trying to push at the expense of the story."
  
  Wow, really!?!?! I went out of my way to say mention only that everyone involved in the process would have been thought to be even more vigilant than they already were. Christ, I can't see how the lead in blames gun owners at all?
  
  And, by the way, I should mention that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter as well. Well, actually, I can't believe that I have to mention that since this piece was written to be a-political....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re: I hate to be the one to point this out...
    I am greatly amused by these nitpicky attacks on you, particularly since nothing about the article is an attack on gun ownership. The vehement comments are exhibiting exactly the kind of behavior that makes the pro-gun crowd look awful.
    
    Personally, I'm ambivalent about gun ownership in general, but I admit to getting nervous about these particular people being in possession of them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 6:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I hate to be the one to point this out...
      Just adding the fact I'm also very amazed that the nitpicky people failed to grasp the problem at hand. Instead of seeing a bunch of comments about a shipping gaffe by UPS, I see bunch of people debating the wording used. I do admit i got sucked in. But then I thoroughly read the article and looked at the link you gave. I began to understand the conundrum the poor fellow was in.
      
      In all, I thought it was well reported.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re: I hate to be the one to point this out...
    "As with any other business, you have to expect to deal with some human error, but one would imagine that the firearms industry* would have the tightest of controls in place right now."
    
    "Your lead in makes it sound like this was a screw up by the gunseller* somewhere."
    
    "Christ, I can't see how the lead in blames gun owners* at all?"
    *words count. lol
    
    Out of their hands once shipped.
    Firearms would have to be hand delivered from factory for them to tighten control.
    
    You have to admit though, the side view of the tv looks like it could be an assault weapon!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zos (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am

edit- might have been wired not boing boing, my mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edison Franklin, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:34am

Did anyone else think...
Send lawyers, guns and funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:34am

life imitates art imitating dada
I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:51am
  
  Re: life imitates art imitating dada
  Or this
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:45am

"Sig sauer 716"

What a sweet gun, I would have kept it. As has been pointed out already this was NOT a military grade weapon in any sense of the word, just a sandard semi-auto ar15.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  "As has been pointed out already this was NOT a military grade weapon in any sense of the word"
  
  Then why does the gun manufacturer refer to it as Mil-Spec?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    That refers to the receiver being mill-spec, able to accept barrels and parts designed for military m16 or civilian ar15. The trigger group is the part of the gun that would make it a full-auto, hence military/let only weapon. This one has the civilian trigger group on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    All that means, essentially, is that it's "built Ford tough," as it were.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The desire for journalistic integrity and accuracy is absolutely dripping from your article and comments. The misinformation repeated in this slight-remanufacture of someone else's poorly researched article seems like exactly the thing most of the articles and comments on this site tend to focus on. The "Meh"ing is just unbelievable.
    
    You just reworded someone else's almost-fact-free article and dumped it here. What were you expecting? A "mil-spec" commendation and lauding in the comments?
    
    About Mil-Spec.. I won't bore you with the details about the difference between a mil-spec AR15 clone and a weapon that is intended and ready for use in the armed services since you clearly don't give a shit about the actual subject, you're just trying to cash in on the publicity surrounding it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *bows*
      
      You, sir, are a master of the art of being opportunistically offended. I commend you.
      
      Meh.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you seem to be saying here is "fuck the readers that want journalistic integrity; I'm doing things my way." That about sum it up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Close. I'll fix it for you.
        
        "Fuck you and your definition of journalistic integrity; I'm doing things my way."
        
        Glad we could clear that up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think producing an article loaded with FUD that you don't understand constitutes "journalistic integrity" even under the loosest definition of the phrase.
        
        If your definition of journalistic integrity does allow for such things, I regret to inform you that you have none. Though this is becoming painfully obvious anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think producing an article loaded with FUD that you don't understand constitutes "journalistic integrity" even under the loosest definition of the phrase.
        
        If your definition of journalistic integrity does allow for such things, I regret to inform you that you have none. Though this is becoming painfully obvious anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think producing an article loaded with FUD that you don't understand constitutes "journalistic integrity" even under the loosest definition of the phrase.
        
        If your definition of journalistic integrity does allow for such things, I regret to inform you that you have none. Though this is becoming painfully obvious anyway.
        
        But let's not let silly things like "facts" and "accuracy" get in the way of sensationalism.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think producing an article loaded with FUD
        
        Whaaa? Where's the FUD? I don't see anything in the article that generates fear, uncertainty, or doubt about anything except, perhaps, UPS's ability to correctly track packages.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        except, perhaps, UPS's ability to correctly track packages.
        
        As if that's a surprise to anyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't see how equating an "illegal assault rifle" to something that's legal to own and functionally identical to any other civilian rifle is FUD?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Curmudgeon, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see how reporting that the guy possessed a rifle that DCMPD said was illegal to possess as an "illegal assault rifle" perpetuates any more FUD than the word "assault," which has been adequately covered above.
        
        He had not license. The designated law enforcement authorities said it was illegal. It was a rifle. "Illegal rifle" is not FUD. Those are facts. "Assault" might have been FUD, but then you should be vomiting all over the comments sections of all the other media who called it an assault rifle too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't see how equating an "illegal assault rifle" to something that's legal to own and functionally identical to any other civilian rifle is FUD?
        
        Do you see that inaccurately referring to the weapon as an assault rifle is about as relevant to the subject of the story as if he'd incorrectly described it as black when it's actually gray? The point of the story isn't that the Sig Sauer 716 is an assault rifle. The point is it was supposed to be a TV.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally, 9 Aug 2012 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The wording doesn't matter. The point of the bleeding article, you obtuse stupid little troll, is that it was mistakenly shipped. Word terminology doesn't matter so I will break my promise (no thanks to you asshole) means absolutely shite when you look at the article. Let me break it down for you nice and easy.
        
        Article:
        Guy orders TV off of Amazon.
        
        Guy gets small package with his address and the gun maker's address on TWO different labels.
        
        Guy innocently assembles object inside thinking its a wall mount which turns out to be a gun. An illegal one where he lives.
        
        Guy does right thing and calls police to get it taken away with no harm no fowl.
        
        Majority of Comments
        1. Differences in terminology used in article by Dark Helmut.
        2. What constitutes illegal and legal gun ownership.
        3. Trolls being nitpicky about the article.
        
        Can anyone tell me what a large majority of us missed here (including me even)?
        
        Now you see the real issue, please shut up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's as relevant as referring to copyright infringement as "theft" in stories about how the music industry is dying. Choose your poison.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's as relevant as referring to copyright infringement as "theft" in stories about how the music industry is dying.
        
        I see, so you completely missed the point of the story. Despite having it explained repeatedly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "seems like exactly the thing most of the articles and comments on this site tend to focus on."
      
      This right here is what's known as arguing from a specific case to the general case aka a hasty generalization.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 9:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "About Mil-Spec.. I won't bore you with the details about the difference between a mil-spec AR15 clone and a weapon that is intended and ready for use in the armed services..."
      
      Actually, instead of acting like an asshole, why don't you contribute something useful and bore us with exactly those details, because some of us do give a shit about the facts and would much rather have an informed debate.
      
      Personally I doubt there's as much difference between a mil-spec AR15 clone and a weapon that is intended and ready for use in the armed services as you imply, beyond the lack of full-auto capability, so here's your chance to educate us all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:47am

"Military grade weapon?"
In AZ you could buy one from your buddy without even a background check. And it doesn't even go full auto.

Though this story is pretty funny, I'm tired of hearing every black weapon referred to as an 'assault'-something or a 'military'-something.

People who around guns get irritated at references like this because they're tired of people who know nothing about firearms responding emotionally to stupid.

Not that I mean to suggest that the weapon isn't suitable for some sort of military use. It quite possibly is.

But so are many hunting rifles. Even excluding the bubba guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  Though this story is pretty funny, I'm tired of hearing every black weapon referred to as an 'assault'-something or a 'military'-something.
  
  Then, as Tim noted above, maybe the manufacturers should stop doing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Mil-spec" != "assault"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - r. walden, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mill spec just means the specs the military has for something. As a buyer for a government contractor, I often buy Mil spec components and these components have nothing to with weapons or weapon systems. It is just the way the military ensures that the component they get is consistent in quality, form, fit and function.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Mil-spec" != "assault"
      
      That's why I was talking about his "military-something" comment. Good try though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mil-spec has a specific meaning. Your point continues to not exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Curmudgeon, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Source?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:50am

Concealed Flat Panel Permit?
So do I have to rush down to the courthouse & apply for one of these just in case UPS delivers that rocket propelled grenade launcher I ordered from Barnes & Noble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:34pm

Flat Panel TV Kit
He probably accidentally ordered a DIY kit.

Step 1: get rifle

Step 2: find someone with a tv

and so on until you have a flat panel tv on your wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: Flat Panel TV Kit
  Atleast he didn't take the weapon and go to UPS looking for his tv.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Don't Do It, 10 Aug 2012 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Flat Panel TV Kit
    That thought apparently never crossed his mind, like it did yours..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
J Rock, 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:36pm

What A Waste
I think this guy was a gunaphobic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason Still (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:40pm
  
  Re: What A Waste
  FYI, hoplophobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobe) is the term often used. And yeah, it does seem that way based on several articles I've read.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ShellMG, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:41pm
    
    Re: Re: What A Waste
    It probably wasn't the gun he feared, but what DC law enforcement would DO to him if he didn't handle the situation perfectly. As the Fox article said, he couldn't transport it in his car OR return it to the supplier without getting wampum big trouble.
    
    I think that's why the picture shows him holding up the receipt with the wrong address and the fact the gun was still in it's packaging.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Curmudgeon, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: What A Waste
  Personally, I'd be -phobic of having an unlicensed article whose possession DCMPD considers a felony. I really don't think that's unreasonable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:06pm

5 Stars
He should've given it 5 stars in his review. It might not have gotten deleted then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JM, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:09pm

Assault TV
First, the Sig 716 is not an assault rifle, since it lacks full-auto capability. Second, in places where the 2A is actually followed, it's legal. It may be a black rifle, and therefore scary (to the uneducated), but it's really no different, in the larger sense, than any other .30 hunting rifle, which is the kind of cartridge millions of people use on hunting trips every year. Just because the media likes FUD, doesn't mean you have to fall for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:09pm

Everyone stop for a second and... breath!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:11pm

This article is sensationalist garbage and a joke. This journalist is a joke. There is nothing illegal whatsoever about the sporting rifle in the article. It is not even an assault rifle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re:
  Can you list the sports it's used in?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Uh...shooting. Not like that's in the olympics or anything. Oh, wait...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They use Sig Sauer 716's in the Olympics? I think not...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:13pm

Jesus Christ
I wish UPS had shipped the guy a handgun so I could have all the time these comments took up back....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re: Jesus Christ
  Lol. Don't think you can get away with even the slightest of inaccuracies in a post about handguns either. There are plenty of misconceptions out there about all types of weapons. As both a frequent purveyor of TD and a lover of weaponry I would be forced to call you out on it. Unlike some others I do recognize and appreciate that you didn't go the crazy anti-gun route, but I think many people who don't know much about guns could read your article and assume, based on the language you chose to use, that you were talking about a full-auto weapon. That's what I think pissed a lot of people off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Curmudgeon, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Jesus Christ
    It's odd, because no one went postal (ahem) on Fox News, or DCist.com, or Wired, when they all referred to this object (which clearly only fires nerf darts) as a military grade assault rifle.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 4:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Jesus Christ
      Are you kidding? Just read the comments on any of those anti-gun articles that went up recently. The authors and publications are getting flamed out of existence for posting that rubbish. I'm glad this place doesn't push the anti-gun agenda, and that's not what I was accusing the author of doing. I was merely pointing out the error of describing this weapon as "military grade weapon."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re: Jesus Christ
  What does Jesus Christ have to do with this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vidiot (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:14pm

Side view
Quick glance at the product thumbnail next to that Amazon review image... profile view of the TV looks more than a little like a weapon. Wondered how he got that image into the review. (D'oh!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:21pm

I haven't read Amazon's ToS for posting reviews, but my guess is that the review may have been blocked automatically for containing a URL.
OTOH, one would think that the block would have happened almost immediately if that were the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  After looking at the screenshot again, it's apparent that the review WAS rejected immediately. It was never posted. Again, most likely because of the URL, not because Amazon tried to censor it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dustin, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:33pm

do some research
This article is horribly researched and full of innacuracies. If you are going to write about guns and gun laws, look into them before you lose a reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:52pm
  
  Re: do some research
  What? You mean there is no Label Fairy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:36pm

wow

I hate everyone who is not Mike that posts here.

"box-'o-death"

Could he be any more bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:41pm

Military grade citizen?
What exactly is a "military grade citizen"? Someone willing to kill, torture, and rape in the service of his imperialistic government? Someone who is willing to invade a smaller, weaker country and kill its men, women, and children, and expect to be called brave and treated like a hero for doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free to make this assessment, 10 Aug 2012 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re: Military grade citizen?
  What starship did you just climb off of. We are on planet earth here. There are cowardous factions alive and well threatening the peace on this planet 24/7. Countering there dispicable cowardly merciless acts has become a neccessary evil. Don't be such a coward.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Military grade citizen?
    "There are cowardous factions alive and well threatening the peace on this planet 24/7". Indeed there are, and one of them is the U.S. government.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 3:08pm

Pay Back
One is not allowed to posses such a weapon. One is not allowed to mail such a weapon. How does one return it to Amazon? How does one get their money back or the TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 4:58pm

I pointed this out above, but in case anyone missed it, the Streisand Effect does not apply to this situation. As much as I hate to agree with the the trolling crowd, I'm afraid Mr. Geigner jumped the shark with the Streiand Effect remark.

Seth's review was NOT censored by Amazon. It was rejected before it was even posted. No one at Amazon ever read his review. Therefore there was no deliberate attempt to hide it. It was automatically flagged and rejected for containing a URL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2012 @ 7:36pm

I wonder which tv i'd have to buy to get a SIG50
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 11:57pm

Missing a TV
This was clearly UPS's fault who did a shit job that badly changed the labels. Both Amazon and this 3rd party seller are fully innocent when they never handled or shipped this assault rifle.

I only find it sad that the receiver did not keep his mouth shut when no one would have known he received it. He could then have sold this rifle on to someone who could lawfully use it for up to $1500. As his lost TV only cost $300 then he would have been $1200 richer.

Still I doubt that would be lawful when while you can lawfully keep items sellers send you by mistake, clearly in this case this package was addressed to another, and it only ended up at his address due to a courier mistake. So in the end he did do the lawfully correct thing even if he missed that $1200 profit.

I can only wonder if this rifle will ever arrive at the correct address when the Police want this store owner to travel across half the country to collect it. They should ideally have slapped around UPS for losing two packages and to have them fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:36am
  
  Re: Missing a TV
  I only find it sad that the receiver did not keep his mouth shut when no one would have known he received it.
  
  Do you find it sad when people don't cheat on their taxes even though they could get away with it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just a thought, 10 Aug 2012 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re: Missing a TV
  You don't consider for a second that the tv went to the gun purchaser? Any half-witted investigation would have sent the ATF, FBI, DHS, CIA and we all know who else reeling to the doorstep of this receiver of the rifle, don't you think? Life isn't so simple sometimes. Sure, who couldn't use $1200.00 for lyposuction, but this is a bit tricky. (I just made up the lyposuction part)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 4:14am

So that's what they call 3D eh? Maybe this specific TV was specifically built to display 3D movies containing army/tactical footage?

And of course Amazon had to suppress his comment, he's a terrorist after all, ordering assault rifles and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zilberfrid (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 4:23am

A lot of right things to do were done.
Someone receives a package containing something illegal for him to have, he calls the police. (I, for one, would not risk keeping the thing as well)
Police arrives, does not charge the one who called.
Receiver is dissatisfied with the product, and posts a negative review.
Amazon does not allow links in reviews, so does not post it.

The fuck-up is at UPS, in essence, they should be charged for "tampering with the post" because it is an awesome charge (yeah, of course, criminal negligence or illegal carrying could be charged, but "tampering with the post" is more accurate and sounds better).

For the most part, the correct procedures were followed, and the results thus are not very bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: A lot of right things to do were done.
  The fuck-up is at UPS, in essence, they should be charged for "tampering with the post" because it is an awesome charge (yeah, of course, criminal negligence or illegal carrying could be charged, but "tampering with the post" is more accurate and sounds better).
  
  Is that a UK crime? I'm thinking so since we don't call it "the post" in the US, we call it "the mail". At any rate, UPS is a private delivery company, so they could not be charged with any crime for messing up their delivery services (unless there is some gun-specific law they violated).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Niall (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:14am

Well, it's really instructive seeing how a relatively gun-neutral article in a primarily American media environment manages to bring out the pro-gun nuts (as opposed to regular gun-owners), the labelling nazis (becaue whether or not this thing fires spuds, bullets or nukes automatically, semi-automatically or singly is irrelevant to the story) and manages to generate a whole load more unnecessary comments than most articles of general import. Most of which are really off-topic, which is that just after a big gun-related 'disaster' someone gets a gun through the post instead of some totally unrelated product, and with zero checks on himself.

Sheesh, talk about compensating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Definitely Not Neutral, 10 Aug 2012 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, it sounds like you are quite qualified to distinguish between pro-gun nuts and regular gun owners. Lets face it, there are powerful forces at work that want to strip all gun owners of their right to be a gun owner. You can't make a comment, attempting to make yourself neutral with such a monumental issue as rightful gun ownership by responsible American citizens. You'll get everyone fired up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:18am

Quick! EVERYONE start buying TV's from AMAZON.

I am with the sensible - If I got that, well, I would have first hit Google to make sure it was not something cheap, and then kept it. In fact, I shot television out of my life after 9/11, the lies surrounding that story DID IT FOR ME.

So yeah, I'd rather have the gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rangefinder, 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:23am

Wake up morons
First of all, pull your collective heads out of the sand. This was a STAGED EVENT by the left-wing Libtard agenda. You CANNOT buy firearms on Amazon. They do NOT handle, sell, distribute, or ship complete firearms that require FFL licensing. Accessories, yes. Firearms, NO. Wake up people---this is a BS political media move to strike the whiny nerve of stupid people who can't think for themselves and realize what is or is NOT possible. Libtard socialists--go home, shut up, and pull your heads out of the Disney-like fantasy you all live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:39pm
  
  Re: Wake up morons
  I don't think you know what libertarian means if you think they're for gun control.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rangefinder, 11 Aug 2012 @ 12:47am
    
    Re: Re: Wake up morons
    First, READ. I said LIBERAL, not Libertarian. ;) Second... Well, just go with the first and we'll see if anything else surfaces.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rangefinder, 11 Aug 2012 @ 12:53am
    
    Re: Re: Wake up morons
    Actually, I suppose I did say "Libtard"---so I guess I can see your misinterpretation. Point being, there is a vast difference between the two, as I'm sure you would point out if I hadn't already. Libtard=Liberal, as in "oh, it's all the evil black guns' fault our sparkly world has violence..." and other such left-coast delusional behavior. And pencils are responsible for bad spelling.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: Wake up morons
  This was a STAGED EVENT by the left-wing Libtard agenda. You CANNOT buy firearms on Amazon.
  
  Did you read some other article? Because I didn't see anyone mentioning buying firearms on Amazon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally, 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:24pm
  
  Re: Wake up morons
  "They do NOT handle, sell, distribute, or ship complete firearms that require FFL licensing. Accessories, yes. Firearms, NO."
  
  Did you even read the article? NO.
  
  Did you see that it had a UPS SHIPPING LABEL for the gun with the return address from gun shop from Pennsylvania?? NO.
  
  Did you see the report was talking about how dangerous the situation is that UPS fucked up the the shipping? NO.
  
  Did you assume that this article was political instead of reading the subject header? YES.
  
  Are you a big huge idiot who has no basis for your opinion? HELL YES.
  
  Does this make you a devient troll? NO. But you did fail to grasp certain concepts of reading and comprehensive study pertains to the article.
  
  There was no real need to explode or rant like that so maybe it's wrong of me to assume you're NOT a troll.
  
  That folks is the danger of assumption.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Military Grady, 10 Aug 2012 @ 12:41pm

One Step Closer
It sure seems like this is just another step in someone's agenda to further along that federal firearms registration..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2013 @ 7:31pm

It's the UPS what can brown do for you Logistics fuck up, nothing to do with amazon or the dealer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]