BS: Guns on planes

Subject: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 10:20 PM

The UK news is currently reporting the introduction of "armed marshalls" on some USA bound flights from UK.

The BALPA (pilot's union) are unhappy with the fact that guns will be on board planes. I can see the pros and cons of both sides of the argument.

But what I have been wondering is, now don't shoot me down (no pun intended), I have never been to the States, and am ignorant in gun law, but how do people travel with their guns in USA? If you are going from one state to another by air, and can legally have a firearm in both states, where do you put it when you board? Do they go in the hold?

I'm sure they must, but would appreciate knowing from them that know.Or are they just not allowed? I know I will feel a complete fool when I find out, but if I don't ask I will never know?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: MarkS
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 10:29 PM

Mostly the air carriers require firearms to be unloaded, declared, and checked as baggage. Some carriers allow licensed police officers to carry their weapons aboard, but these circumstances are rare and even then they must be declared.
Thats as best as I know - hope it helped
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 10:32 PM

Unloaded!!!!!!!! knew I'd feel a fool,thanks for the logical reply, makes sense.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Guns on planes
From: JWB
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 10:32 PM

Sian, travelers can transport firearms as checked baggage. I'm sure one needs to have a permit for same, and I'm pretty sure that you're not allowed to carry ammunition at all.

Some states, so I've heard, are strict on ground transport of guns, too. In Massachusetts, for example, if you are found to have a gun in your car and no permit on hand, you are in deep guacamole. Of course there are parts of the country where folks carry their long arms in plain view in their trucks.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 10:51 PM

Aha, you have made me wonder about something else now, please bear in mind that this is from a purely Starsky and Hutch based knowledge of street shooting --- but are the majority of USA gun crimes carried out by people without license/permit?

Is the reason behind the high death by shooting rate, due to the fact that guns are so accessible, not that so many people have permits for them?


Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 10:59 PM

Unloaded, checked as baggage, declared, and some want them 'broken down'. As with instruments, check the appropriate federal and airline websites. PRINT OUT the info. and carry it along to show people if you are questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:07 PM

You notify the airline that you will be transporting a firearm (pistol or long gun). It must be shipped in a locked case, airline approved for durability. It cannot, not ever, be shipped loaded. You cannot ship bullets or any ammunition.

For example, suppose I wanted to take a .338 rifle to Alaska for hunting (yeah, right, like I could afford it). I'd ship it in a heavy-duty aluminum gun case, locked. It would be declared to the airline, and possibly inspected before shipment.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:10 PM

Thanks, but I wouldn't even know how to hold a gun, the last time I did it had Silver Star written on the handle in red plastic, and shot paper caps.

But I did wonder why the British pilots objected to having armed sky marshalls. The safety aspect is obvious, but is it also because we are not accustomed to the whole gun culture thing, would the majority of US citizens welcome the idea, or be appalled by it, or not think it any big deal?

My gut reaction is that I would feel safer with an armed bod aboard.
And I know security needs to be tightened on ground level, but things do go wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:16 PM

Yes, the US does require licenses and permits for certain firearms things. Concealed carry, for instance, here in Idaho (and in other states) requires a demonstrated proficiency in care and use of a handgun, a clean background check, and classes in safety and such. Most states now require "Hunting Safety Courses" before young whippersnappers can get a hunting license (I'm exempt 'cause I'm so old).

Certain classes of firearms are forbidden: machine guns, machine pistols (submachine guns here), anything with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, for examples. You CAN own them, but to do so requires a Federal registration and in most (all?) states a state and possibly local registration as well.

As for the baddies using guns -- well, the good guys follow the laws and obtain the required permits, etc. But on a per capita basis, both Switzerland and Israel have firearms more readily available than in the US. The US crime rate is a cultural thing, fed (in my opinion) by the media showing the gun as a Solution instead of as a Tool.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:20 PM

First of all there are other ways of taking the steam outta someone other than shooting them.

Second of all, shooting guns in airplanes is not a good idea at all and... Presurized cabins, etc.

Thirdly, how friggin' stupid to target *just* airplanes as weapons when there are in infinate number of ways for anyone to inflict lots of damage without them. I won't go into details here for fear of plantin' any ideas since the last time I gave a couple of examples I got lots of PM's from folks telling me that I shouldn't be giving out any ideas.... But if you're nice and PM me, I'll just give you a scope of just how impossible it is to stop terrorism withe the absolutely stupid and laughable stuff that the Bush administration is doing to, ahhhh, stop terrorists! What a joke!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM

Many US pilots are military reserve or ex-military. They trained with firearms.

If the concern is bullets punching a hole in the fuselage of the plane, that's possible, but even if it happened the plane wouldn't come apart in mid-air. If you doubt this, look at the number of fighter and other military aircraft that return shot full of holes.

Besides, the armed officers would probably be using "frangible" bullets -- bullets that are made from compressed metal powder. They'll drop a bad guy like a rock and leave a very ugly wound, but they won't penetrate an airplane's hull. (Don't ask me why they work, but they do.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: MarkS
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM

Sian, your gut reaction is quite probably right.

Evildoers today can board an airliner secure in the knowledge that nobody else on board will be armed. If they would have even the slightest fear that anybody else, a sky marshall, crew member, etc, could possibly be armed, I rather think they might have second thoughts about attempting to do their deeds.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,LadyJean
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:25 PM

My suitcase was searched at the Cinncinatti airport. Someone took the yarn needle out of my knitting bag. I'm still trying to figure that one out. I didn't have a gun. I never do. But I nearly always have my knitting. For non knitters, a yarn needle is a big, blunt, sewing needle, used to finish projects.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:35 PM

Mark, thats exactly what I thought. It struck me as odd that some British pilots have raised objections.

The appointed marshalls would pressumably be highly trained, and would only use the gun as a desperate last ditch means to gain control of a situation, that was currently being controlled by a lunatic with a gun?

And the frangipan bullets sound just the ticket. I am not at all trigger happy, quite the opposite, but I did think we are so helpless flying through the air, that this was a welcome deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:36 PM

You ARE armed on a plane. Your belt or shoelaces can become effective garrottes, a ball point pen or a pencil makes a nice stabbing weapon, a rolled newpaper can be used against the throat. And there is the most deadly weapon anyone can possess ready at hand -- your brain.

Anyone interested can find information on make-shift weapons quite readily, both in the US and abroad. I'd suggest Fairbairn and Sykes classic book, "Hand-to-Hand Combat" or the manuals used by the US military as starting points.

It's not the lack of weapons, it's the lack of knowledge and will -- and how quickly you can overcome the shock of terror tactics that might be employed. Consider: a terrorist grabs a child, says his bit about hijacking, and cuts the child's throat. THAT'S intimidation, intended to strike terror into the minds and hearts and make the terrorist's job easier. How quickly you can recover and what you do next is the key, not whether you are carrying a bazooka, a grenade, and two atom bombs.

Weapons are tools. It's the WILL to use them that make them dangerous. And the Will resides in people, not in metal and plastic and chemicals.

Actually, you're never unarmed unless you allow yourself to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:47 PM

Rapaire:

That is the most sensible thing anyone has ever said on that subject. hanks, man!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: JedMarum
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:48 PM

it's worked well for El Al.

One security check point would not allow my harmonicas on-board. No problem. I checked the shoulder bag I used to carry them.

Very very few crimes are commited by legal firearms. Most firearm crimes by far in the US are committed by illegal, oftem stolen weapons.

Firearm regulation varies dramatically from state to state. It may be legal for me to carry a concealed hand gun in Texas, but I would not bring across the state line without knowing the laws of the next state. Massachusetts has mandatory one year prison sentence for anyone being in possession of a firearm that is not registered in that state. Most other states are more liberal.

It is common to have firearms, (most often hunting rifles) on passenger aircraft. They must be shipped in approved firearm cases, inspected, locked.

I am much happier knowing that armed marshalls may be on board my flights.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 12:47 AM

I once read a book by someone allegedly expert in counterintelligence. Supposedly he at one time was an assassin or something of the sort, on the theory of 'it takes one to know one'. He made the same point that Rapaire makes above, that the first thing a hijacker will do- is trained to do- in an effort to gain the compliance of the passengers the most quickly and with the least bloodshed is to grab one person and cut his/her throat.

In today's world it probably would not be as reliably effective- they say that passengers today get involved immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: mg
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 12:52 AM

Sometimes I wonder what planet people are on....bad ladies and gentlemen exist and we need to prepare against them as much as we can. True, as we tighten up here they just go there but that is how it is. And remember how the stewardesses on one of the hijacked planes started to boil water...don't know if they had a chance to use it but that is using your noggin...people have also thrown jackets etc. over the bad guys to blind them...also started throwing shoes etc. to distract them and give others a chance to jump them....any more ideas? Any of us could be in this type of situation..doesn't have to be a plane..could be a city bus...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:12 AM

I think it is possibly the nature of air travel, that may necessitate security measures that would not be appropriate on the ground.

A plane in the control of armed hi jackers is a lot further from armed help than a city bus.

And although the public have attempted to overthrow hi jackers in the past, I would rather a professionally trained person took on that responsibility. I would hate to think an innocent have a go hero lost his life because he felt he had no alternative.

I would love to think I would act in a quick thinking effective way in the event of such, but I think my instinct would be to protect my children, who are usually travelling with me, and I would be sheltering them.

I know it's probably a huge cop out, but I am all for the sky marshalls.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: open mike
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:37 AM

perhaps the concern about a gun being on board is that it might end up in the wrong hands....and goodness knows you would NEVER want a harmonica to end up in the wrong hands---or mouths....very dangerous!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Sian
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:58 AM

Good point, hadn't thought of that scenario. It doesn't sway me though.

But perhaps it isn't right to place the marshalls on the flights unknownst to the passengers, if some people do have objections to this sort of security they probably shouldn't have it thrust upon them.

But the only way I can see around that one, is to sell "marshalled" and "non marshalled" flights. And that sounds awful, but would give people a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 07:37 AM

Dear, dear friends:
This whole nonsense is not about safty or terror, it is about control. This morning on the news, we were told that police are on the lookout for people with almanacs, as they could be used for targeting. Well, if that is true, now all the "evil doers" know to leave their almanacs at home when they go to be evil and bad. However, we now have Americans getting used to look at what books people are carring, begining with the most mundain things... Now, they are putting mettle detectors and snipers at Times Square for New Years. Ever been to Belfast in the seventies? Had to go through turn styles, mettle detectors and yes that really stopped the war (NOT!) Well, we now find, as BBC reports, that the war in the norther counties of Ireland was much more complex than Britan was admitting ... is it possible we few nuts are right, these wars are not about evil wogs out to get us, but about US trying to control the dwindling resorses of the world?
Oh my aching head.
Larry
PS My modest proposal (every anglo Irishman makes at least one a year) is to have one plane for luggage and clothes and one for people. Let's all fly in the nude. I think the world would be a happier place if we all got to know that undernieth it all, we are pretty much alike.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 08:31 AM

Lady Jean, maybe they were afraid you were going to knit an "Afghan"

I'm licensed to carry concealed in Maine, that license is recognized in Florida. I wrote to the head of the Mass. state police to ask how I could drive through Mass. legally with a gun, and they referred me to the chief of police in some dink town near the NY border. They obviously either didn't know, or were trying to pull a practical joke on the chief of Podunk. He didn't answer.

As far as the head of the pilots union in the UK goes, if it reaches the point where a pilot or a marshal needs to fire his weapon, the danger from that weapon is far less than the danger from whoever he is about to shoot. That argument is a no brainer.

The reason so many gun crimes are committed here is not the number of guns, it's the number of whackos. Over population is a factor; places like Vermont and Maine have very few gun crimes compared to other states. Living in a large city, like NY is an unnatural act. Even rats will kill each other if overcrowded.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 08:44 AM

I should, in fairness, point out that I too am licensed to a concealed weapon. I don't, but I could if I felt the need to. Of course, the argument can be made that if I need a weapon I shouldn't be wherever I am.

Why? Because I target shoot, on a range, and have firearms at home (no kids!). Renewing the permit to carry concealed forces me to periodically review safety procedures and make sure mine are current.

It is interesting, though, that the statement "A armed society is a polite society" seems to be true. Outside, that is, of Unnatural Environments.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: The O'Meara
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 09:10 AM

I think there's a couple of factors in the pilot's unions objections to armed skymarshals aboard planes. (Bear in mind that arguments about guns tend to become irrational pretty fast, since both sides percieve it as a gut-level survival issue.)

First there's the notion that guns are just pure evil by themselves and allowing one on an airplane is the same as selling your soul to the devil, no matter what kind of reasonable rationale is behind it.

Second, unions and associations tend to expound the views of the people running them rather than the membership. For instance, every street cop I know is in favor of average citizens being trained and armed, but many police associations are opposed to the idea, usually because the leadership is politically oriented.

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 09:23 AM

I, like Kendal, am a gun carrying Liberal. I am exceedingly well trained, would likely never pull unless all other options had been exhausted, or someone's life was in danger. If there is one problem with the conceal carry laws in many states, it is that the training component is not comprehensive enough. In my home state, one need only take a weekend class which involves a couple of hours of range time. My personal view is that any citizen should be allowed to carry providing they pass the appropriate background check. But they should also have to go through very comprehensive training, much the same as a Police Officer, with extensive range time and requalification on the range at regular intervals. This would insure that if one pulls in an urban area, they would be well trained in the skills of target acquisition and surgical shooting necessary to minimize shooting of innocent bystanders. This ain't a game, kids!! I resolve this problem by spending a great deal of time at the range shooting target and combat.

Let me point out that the folks that brought you 9-11 hijacked the planes using boxcutters. As tough as it is to contemplate (and I would have hated to have been the one to have to make the decision), do you suppose that we would have rather had to sacrifice one hostage to save the thousands that perished? Had there been an armed sky marshall on those planes, we would likely be debating the loss of something less than 30 people. Never mind all the impact that that day has had on our society and economy. As a society, the USA has a short memory. There was a time when we had armed sky marshall's on many flights. This is one air traveller that will be very happy to have trained professionals on those flights again. Admittedly this is 20/20 hindsight, but to not learn from past events is to insure they will happen again.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:29 AM

Terrorism is enslavement.

"You can never enslave a free man or woman; you can only kill them." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

"Those who seek peace and security deserve neither peace nor security." -- Benj. Franklin, I think.

"Greater love no one has than this: to lay down their life for their friends."

"It's better to be a dead lion than a live hyena, but better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier." -- W. W. Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peg
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:42 AM

But Kendall, are you factoring in the number of gun crimes per capita when you compare Vermont to New York City? I hope so. I have heard of plenty of shootings in small towns; they just don't occur as frequently as in cities because there are fewer people.

I think armed sky marshals are a pretty good idea. I do NOT think arming pilots is a good idea. Pilots (with the exception of ex-military) do not become pilots because they want to learn how to kill people in an emergency situation; they want to fly the plane. Their ability to do so would, in my opinion, be seriously impeded if they were also trying to use firearms. Their temperaments are thoseofpeople who chose piloting for a living; not shooting. It's like asking a crossing guard to learn judo to use on the job.   It's not really appropriate.

I think it's also on some level a move to placate those citizens who think it is now their right and obligation to carry guns everywhere and be ready to use them to "fight terrorism." We have seen a lot of racially-motivated attacks and unlawful violation of civil rights after 9-11 and this must not be encouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:51 AM

Kendall.... "Living in a large city, like NY is an unnatural act. Even rats will kill each other if overcrowded. " ????? New York is far safer from gun crime than most of the rual mid west! I might remind you, we get a bad rap... NY is one of the centers of the anti war movement and one million marched for peace!

Cheers (and no guns in ANY presurized cabins please... ) Larry

Any question of the above, see the last scene of Goldfinger.... POP

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:53 AM

With respect, Peg, I need cites for your assertion that "We have seen a lot of racially-motivated attacks and unlawful violation of civil rights after 9-11 and this must not be encouraged." The violations of civil rights I have seen have, in the main, been the result of legislation such as the supposed Patriot Act. I don't believe that the data shows any spike in other attacks that could possibly be attributed to the carrying of firearms.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Midchuck
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:54 AM

I am not licensed to carry, because Vermont has no provision for handgun licensing. At all. If you want to carry, you just do it.

As I've said before, I own handguns, and like to shoot them, at tin cans mostly, but I don't carry them around. In Vermont I don't feel any need. In the cities, I feel a strong need, but I can't because it's illegal.

I do have a speedloader with some of the frangible rounds discussed above, although I don't think I'll try to take it on a plane. It's a good idea if a goblin is coming in the front door, but you want to keep on friendly terms with the people in the house across the street.

One point nobody has made about guns in the US is that it's illegal to even own or possess, much less carry in public, if you have a felony conviction, or even a misdemeanor involving violence. For life. Severe jail time, at the federal level.

One of the problems law enforcement in the US has is the number of police officers who beat up their wives or concubines - or, in some cases, husbands, I suspect -, get assault convictions, and then can't work as police officers because they can't carry weapons.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:58 AM

Larry, my friend, same challenge. Could you offer cites for the assertion "New York is far safer from gun crime than most of the rual mid west!"

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 11:35 AM

I'd be happier if these guys had crossbows. Equally lethal, but not so likely bring down the aeroplane. I don't trust the sound of these frangipani bullets that can't do any damage except to the baddies.

Up until September 11th the sensible thing to do in any hi-jacking was to do absolutely nothing. It wasn't cowardice or apathy, it was commonsense. So, you get hi-jacked to some place you hadn't meant to go to, but that's just a few hours delay. If some hero is trying to shoot the hijackers you could end up dead from a stray bullet or a de-pressurised plane. Heroes were more of a danger than hi-jackers.

September 11th changed all that. I would think that the likelihood of getting away with a hijacking in mid-air, just by slitting a few throats or threatening to slit them, is probably absolutely zero.

The danger that still very much exists is that someone might smuggle some kind of explosive on to a plane, and blow everything up. Like Bobert I can think of a few ways of doing that which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere; and I'm not going to mention them here. But I can't see how "marshalls" with guns significantly reduces the danger of that happening. Only much better security checks before loading people and baggage can hope to do that.

I think the pilots who've said they don't like the idea of "marshalls" are worried that this is just a PR exercise, and that it will be accompanied by a slackening-off of the security checks which matter, but which cause delays that cost money, and are a bit of a nuisance.

And why "marshalls" - why not "guards"? Wyatt Earp belongs on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 11:42 AM

InOBU, please remember that "Goldfinger" is a movie, based on a novel -- both fiction, not fact.

If a pressurized cabin has the wall punctured -- by a bullet or anything else (and as has happened from both the inside and from the outside) -- cabin pressure falls and the oxygen masks descend, the pilot descends to lower altitude and declares an emergency. Nobody is going to be sucked out of a bullet hole. You'd need a hole big enough to suck you out of, and THAT would take explosives.

I've read estimates somewhere that say that one in every four NYers carries a pistol. I doubt it, though.

(Come to think of it, you could probably stop the air leak with a plastic bag or something similar -- even your hand.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 11:43 AM

Sorry, Kevin, but I must disagree. The Air Marshalls were a regular part of flights that were discontinued due to budget cuts. But the security screenings for weapons in checked luggage came into play after Lockerbie and the suspicion of explosives in the Long Island sound crash. If explosives were so easy, you may rest assurred that the terrorists that planned 9-11 would have used them and saved the extra assets for other terrorist attacks. They could just as easily have used explosives in the cargo as the threat to take over the plane and then crashed it, with only one or two persons onboard. Nope, it seems to me that they knew that with nothing more than a boxcutter, due to no security in the cabin, they could accomplish the destruction of thousands. We must institute these security measures and never drop them.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: open mike
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 12:28 PM

does "pull" mean pull out the weapon, or pull the trigger?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 12:37 PM

Hi open mike. It means both. If I pull a weapon, there is a virtual certainty that I will use it. Otherwise I would leave it where it belongs. I don't want to mislead you, I rarely carry a weapon, but I train with it religiously. There are very few instances where one would pull a weapon without the intent to use it. Those that think they can wave it and the threat of it keeps you safe have watched to much TV. There are very few times one should ever pull the weapon.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:17 PM

The crucial thing that allowed September 11th to take place was that people on the plane weren't tuned in to the possibility of hijackers who intended to use the planes as bombs. If people had been thinking in those terms there is no real possibility that the hijackers would have been able to do it.

Armed guards on planes makes sense, but they'd be there essentially to minimise the number of casualties who would be caused in overcoming the hijackers. And they will need to be well trained and carefully recruited guards, and making sure that is the case will not be easy or cheap.

The main danger is still from explosives, and the thing here is that, when bombers are prepared to blow themselves up, rather than just set things in motion and watch what happens from safety, it makes it a lot more complicated and harder to stop them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:21 PM

I agree, in the main, with your last post, Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:40 PM

Old Maine proverb:

A sword, in its scabbard, keeps another so."
Florida used to be very dangerous until they passed a "Right to carry" law. Now, anyone who wants to commit a crime knows that his intended victim may also be armed. Criminals don't like a fair fight.

Actually, according to what we have been told recently, the bigger danger now is pilots who are also terrorists, and S.A.Ms. There are about 5000 of these things unaccounted for, and they have been used. Sooner or later, one will be used here.

Peg, I believe the facts I stated were per capita. Furthermore, most of the gun killings in small towns are committed by people who know the victim. I don't ever recall a killing in Maine that was mugging related, or random violence.

We are a cowboy society, and it is the attitude that must change, not the tools.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: MudGuard
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 02:13 PM

McGrath, as you suggest crossbows, I guess you have not yet seen a bolt shot from a crossbow go through a 3mm thick piece of high qualitiy steel (I have seen that - very impressing)...

Shortly after the invention of the crossbow, the then-current pope said: this weapon will lead to mankind exstinguishing itself.
It was the first weapon with which you could kill a knight from a distance, even if the knight wore full armour.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 02:19 PM

Here are the preliminary figures on violent crime in the US for the first six months of 2003, according to the National Crime Statistics of the FBI.

Overall, violent crime in the Midwest declined 6.2%, compared to a decline of 4.4% in the Northeast, 3.2% in the South, and 1.1% in the West. Murder declined 1.9% in the Midwest, compared to an increase of 4.3%, 1.8%, and 0.3% in the Northeast, South, and West, respectively.

You still stand a statistically better chance of being murdered or the victim of violent crime in the Northeast than elsewhere in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 02:57 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: DougR
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 03:52 PM

I welcome having the Marshalls back in the air. I think they are an effective deterent to Terrorists. They are armed but their weapons are concealed. It would be a might difficult to conceal a cross-bow, I believe.

Rapaire: p-u-leeze, do not confuse my old buddy Bobert with facts! It muddles his brain. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 04:38 PM

From a cite called the "Welsh View" the top 25 most dangerous US cities, in order of most dangerous... NY does not even make the list...
Cheers Larry
1 Detroit, MI
2 St. Louis, MO
3 Atlanta, GA
4 Camden, NJ
5 Washington, DC
6 Compton, CA
7 Dayton, OH
8 Baltimore, MD
9 Tampa, FL
10 Gary, IN
11 Memphis, TN
12 North Charleston, SC
13 New Orleans, LA
14 Richmond, VA
15 Trenton, NJ
16 Jackson, MS
17 Cincinnati, OH
18 Youngstown, OH
19 Cleveland, OH
20 Springfield, MA
21 Oakland, CA
22 Birmingham, AL
23 Miami, FL
24 Richmond, CA
25 Reading, PA

By the way, in the cross bow vs. gun airplane debate... I still prefer nudity on airplanes for safe flying... Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peg
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 04:53 PM

Mick; you seem to be twisting my words. First, the increase in violations of civil rights occurring after 9-11 certainly may be connected to the Patriot Act but I was referring to those people who were unlawfuylly detained based on wearing traditional Muslim garb or just looking like they might be Saudi Arabian etc. Law enforcement was guilty of this but also many civilians attacked and assaulted people of mideast ethnicity in the wake of 9-11. There are dozens of news stories of attacks in all sorts of places, mosques,    parking lots, schools, etc. so feel free to look them up.
also:   I did not suggest this had any connection whatsoever to   carrying guns. If you look at the context of my earlier comments, you will see what I was trying to suggest was that encouraging pilots to carry guns on planes increases the likelihood that trigger-happy civilians will feel justified in acts of vigilantism.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 07:25 PM

The only safe thing to do is this: give all passengers loaded guns when they board the aircraft.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 07:53 PM

That is precisely the leap that I was questioning, Peg. I am not trying to twist your words, and I am sorry you took it that way. It was not my intent to cause offense. Arming pilots, or having Sky Marshalls in planes, has absolutely no correlation to the issue of "trigger happy civilians". Further, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that civilians who have the ability to legally carry firearms are more trigger happy. That is why I was questioning the point. I agree that pilots should not be required to be armed, but I do believe that if they choose to be, and they can demonstrate appropriate training, as well as rigorus periodic competency testing, they should be allowed to carry.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Midchuck
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 09:21 PM

...I was referring to those people who were unlawfuylly detained based on wearing traditional Muslim garb or just looking like they might be Saudi Arabian etc...

But Peg...Todd said that was all right!

Peter