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

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:16 PM

Like it or not, racial profiling is a valuable tool for the cops.
If you were waiting in line to board a plane, and the inspectors pulled an 80 year old woman aside to search her while allowing a dark skinned shifty eyed young man through, you would question their sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Metchosin
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 03:39 AM

Rapaire, Franklin's words were, I believe "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". Franklin's words bear little resemblance to your quote, perhaps you were paraphrasing someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:38 AM

I'm in favour of the nudity thing as well:-)

I think the whole argument here is equaly valid in any walk of life. Do we want armed 'protection' from criminal activity? I am quite liberal and peaceful and do not wish to carry a gun myself. At the end of the day however I feel that as long as criminals are armed the law enforcement agencies should be as well. In all walks of life.

The alternative is to make sure that no-one is armed but how do we do that? In the UK hand guns are banned outright but gun crime is on the increase. So the alternative is not working here. Or is not yet? Or is not being effectively enforced? I don't know the answers I'm afraid so I can only stick with what I do know. Armed criminals need armed police to deal with them. Otherwise it is just unfair.

Slight off topic but mentioned point - The crossbow was not the first projectile weapon to kill an armoured knight, Andy! It was the longbow equiped with an armour piercing tip called a bodkin. See Robert Hardys excelent work 'Longbow' for details.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:33 AM

Agincourt proved that, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:48 AM

There's also the misericord, a thin-bladed knife slipped through the joints of the plate armor to kill the wearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:53 AM

Not a projectile weapon though is it Rapaire?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peg
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:39 AM

Peter; who is Todd?

Kendall: racial profiling by law enforcement is one thing; racial profiling by some angry stupid vigilante is quite another...

Mick; I happen to diagree that the practice of arming pilots has no connection to trigger-happy civilians. I do believe that the acceptance of the practice of arming pilots could indeed lead to an increased sense of justification and impunity in at least *some* people who think they need to carry arms in order to fight some vaguely-defined 'terrorist threat.' I don't think, without being a psychic or personally interviewing every single gun owner in this country, that you can comfortably claim otherwise. The possibility is certainly within the realm of likelihood, and the unprovoked attacks on people of Arab ethnicity in this country after 9-11 corroborates this likelihood.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:51 AM

Ideological battles are a bitch, aren't they? Vietnam...the SPanish Inquisition...The "communist under your bed" sacares of the 50's....it is so hard to know who to shoot, when you can't read their minds. You end up shooting at others on the basis of your readiing of your OWN mind, and that really confuses things. WIsh I had a better way to suggest, but I don't. I think the existing security knee-jerk methods in place are ludicrous in the extreme. "Take off your shoes, please...no, you can't have nail clippers or knitting needles.... no, 80-year old WASP grandmothers are not exempt..." and so on. Maybe arming the pilot is a good idea, as long as he has to pass a sobriety test first!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 12:19 PM

That's exactly my earlier point: you don't NEED projectile weapons if you use your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 12:48 PM

Hehehe - Nice one, Raptor. Good turn back to the original thread and humour! 10/10:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 01:00 PM

Sorry - Rapaire.

Hangs head in shame. But it's OK if you want to call me Dave the Giant instead of Dave the Gnome:-0

Cheers

Rave the Scone

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Midchuck
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 01:22 PM

Why, Peg, you've edited the whole breaking-camp scene at Old Songs out of your memory...Well, I can't entirely blame you...

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:08 PM

I hate racism, ignorance,mysogeny, violence and stupidity. That said, I'm afraid many cops are not very highly evolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peg
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:29 PM

OMG Peter!
How could I forget that?? I did forget his name, however...

Kendall, no one understands better than me how important our police force is....but I am afraid it is one of those occupations that draws the best and worst of society to its ranks...sadly, valour and good old-fashioned common sense goes unnoticed and swaggerng machismo gets tyhe glory...

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:30 PM

Mark, I sincerely wish that I could agree with you.

"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."

The nature of the fanatacism that causes these nutcases to do their deeds is not fear of retribution. They would do it anyway because
they get their rewards "in heaven". The problem is that those armed might intentionally do the wrong thing. A sky marshall might receive some training to deal with a terrorist but it can't be just
retributive. It would have to include the ability to assess behavioral patterns and predict when these actions might occur.

Pilots carrying weapons might be a prescription for disaster. A division of duty would make it hard to control an aircraft.

The only way to solve the big picture is to eliminate the effectiveness of this kind of terrorism by making it irrelevant.
Perhaps releasing chemical anesthetic gas into the area might be a deterrant. Locking bullet-proof cockpit doors is certainly important.

Preparing the passengers with the awareness of what to do in case
a terrorist strikes might be another possibility.

But the idea of terrorism as defined by 911 calls for not just a band-aid on cancer. We need to examine the root of the problem and counter-act the effects of the madrasas that are prevalent today in many Muslim countries that advocate ideological violence.

There's no quick fix to this horrendous problem. But working on the big picture rather than the small bits would help, ie: international cooperation and education.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:39 PM

"racial profiling" - which means Gandhi gets strip searched, while Timothy McVeigh walks straight through. And who's to say that that 80 year old woman mightn't be getting ready to blow the plane up in vengeance for her slaughtered grandchildren?

The only think that makes sense is search everyone, no matter how innocent they mighty appear to be. It's not very hard to look innocent. So it slows things down? Death slows things down a lot more/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:52 PM

The one point that may be in the pilots minds is that the Sky Marshalls would be carrying guns!

(Yeah, I noticed that!)

But this means a source of arms on the plane. Terrorists who can't get a weapon through security know that they only have to overpower one person to get a loaded weapon. And their intelligence will surely allow them to identify the marshalls in advance!

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:25 PM

The key is not to allow guns on the plane. Period. That does not however prevent commando types from snapping the odd neck or two. Nor does it do away with the hostage scenario. We are so accustomed to guns being the weapon of choice that we neglect the fear factor brought on by a few pounds of PBX, octal or C4 strapped to a person's body. Prevention beats a cure (which may decimate the patients).

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

Guest Frank, your point is well taken. However, like other kinds of deadly virus', the terrorists have also evolved. You could put a dozen marshals in a plane, but if the cockpit is manned by pilots who are also terrorists, the jig is up.
Sky Pigs are no protection from a surface to air missle either.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 06:41 PM

Please, don't think that someone having a gun has power over a planefull of people!

Yes, some might be shot and even killed, but there simply aren't enough bullets to in the gun to shoot everyone! Even a plane with a barely profitable load of people -- say, 20 -- could overcome one or more terrorists even armed with submachine guns IF they can overcome fear and have the will to do it. And recent passengers have demonstrated that they have it.

A gun -- say, a 14 round Smith and Wesson 9mm -- can damage and kill. But when the 14 shots are exhausted -- and firing a pistol in combat is completely different from firing it on a training range! -- it has to be reloaded.

Think about it: the terrorists have to watch their front and their rear, protecting each from attack. If one turns to help another, he's vulnerable to attack himself. If he doesn't help, he's still vulnerable. I hit 'em high from the front, you hit 'em low from the rear.

I have not stated whether or not I think there should be guns on planes, and this is deliberate. I want folks to think about the issue and realize that guns are TOOLS, not Answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 07:32 PM

I hear that, Rap.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Phot
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:27 PM

Explosive decompression at 32000 Ft! High velocity rounds and pressurised airframes do not mix!
I was only an aircraft engineer for only 16 years, but in my book some things just don't add up. Get real guys!

Time to buy shares in P and O!

Chris

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:49 PM

Okay, then.

Read this. And this.
And this one, from Canada. Or here. Or from the Lutherans.

Bullet holes in modern aircraft DO NOT cause explosive decompression. Even a huge piece coming off the aircraft, as happened on the Aloha Airways flight some years ago, didn't prevent the plane from landing safely.

I can fire a .30-06 rifle bullet through a tank of propane. The propane leaks out, but it doesn't explode (unless I cause a spark, of course).

Please, folks, think this through. Airplanes are already full of holes.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:39 PM

Hi Raparie... You may be able to fire a 30-06 bullet through a tank of propane, but I wish you wouldn't. Call me risk adverse, but I think this may not be the best thing to do... Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:53 PM

"Airplanes are already full of holes.",/I>

That's the kind of thing they never tell you when they want you to buy a ticket...

"Time to buy shares in P and O" says Phot - but don't forget that was the company in charge when - car ferry, called appropriately enough the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 turned turtle in the English Channel -

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:57 PM

"Airplanes are already full of holes.",

That's the kind of thing they never tell you when they want you to buy a ticket...

"Time to buy shares in P and O" says Phot - but don't forget, that was the company in charge when a car ferry, called appropriately enough the Herald of Free Enterprise, turned turtle in the English Channel in 1987, with the loss of 500 lives.

That was without the involvement of any terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:36 PM

If rapaire spends his free time shooting holes in tanks of propaine perhaps we should regard regard his views with the same degree of seriousness as someone who plays a banjo and asks you to "squeal piggy squeal". Guns are more often the problem than the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Ely
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:38 PM

My brother flew from Houston to Philly with his reproduction Enfield (US Civil War) rifle. He had to buy a full-size gun case and take the stock off the barrel to get the thing to fit (even in Texas, people clear a path if you come into an airport with a full-size gun case). The woman who inspected it--which included peeking down the barrel to see if it was loaded--was immensely relieved to see that it was disassembled.

He could not, however, check his can of black powder and had to buy a new one at Gettysburg.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:42 PM

Larry, there are many, many things I *could* do, but which I ain't about to. Shooting propane tanks is one of the many. Here's another.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:48 PM

Van, that's what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:51 PM

So rapaire you can shoot holes in tanks of propane but don't. How do you know it would work. Did "King of the hill" tell you.

A freind met a guy in hospital who believed it was possible to douse a match in a bucket of petrol if you were fast enough - he wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM

OK Rapaire - read your earlier post and apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:16 PM

You can buy gunpowder at Gettysburg?   That seems a bit sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:32 PM

McG, the fellow was obviously (to me, anyway) a Civil War reenactor. He would need gunpowder (which is sold in one pound, non-sparking tins) for a reenactment of the battle. Such sales are rather closely monitored.

Besides, it's not like gunpowder is unknown to battle sites, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: LadyJean
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:35 AM

One of the more useful things I learned in grade school is that a purse with a hard backed book in it makes a first rate weapon. Especially if it has a really long strap, and can build up some serious momentum on the back swing. I always figured if anyone tried to hijack the plane I was on, my purse would beat their box cutter. There was an article in the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" about a young woman who almost had to flush her pet beta, because security wouldn't let him through. And somebody took the yarn needle out of my checked suitcase. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: leprechaun
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 03:21 AM

When you do carry a gun on a plane, they let you right through in front of everybody. No metal detectors, no waiting in line to board. (if you're special and you've made all the arrangements) It's almost as fast when you have a prisoner in custody. Some airlines won't let you on board with a prisoner unless you have a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 04:25 AM

Dear Rapaire:
I like the BBQ plans... I could see that being a new July 4th tradition... or even better, fireworks BBQ, everyone could tie steaks to rockets, and with a similar instant grilling, this time at 1,000, it could rain BBQ on the neibhors, thereby creating a pot luck sort of event... a nation that grows up in such a tradition would be so innuered to danger that guns on planes would be no issue at all!
I still like the less is more approach, I think the idea of nudity on planes is not completely practical, folks could be issued pajamas, as they go through the process of checking in... in stead of lining up to be searched, a practice which led to my dear wife Genie getting cracked by accedent on the head - which gave her a big yellow bump on her forehead, and made for some very worried and concerned English airport guards... well, we could check our duds at one end of a cubical, don P.J's at the other... and well, there you are, comfy and safe air travel, throw in a complimentery Teddy Bear - and world peace.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:27 AM

Letter about this in the Guardian today that seems to make a lot of sense:

Picture the scenario. An unarmed terrorist creates a diversion on an aircraft. It will soon be obvious who the armed sky marshal is. Other terrorists seated elsewhere overpower him and take his gun. Consider the large percentage of US police officers killed with their own guns.

Brian Moss
Tamworth, Staffs

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:37 AM

But, as I've said before, the traveling public has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, at least the Americans. If the unarmed terrorist isn't taken down by the sky marshal, the other passengers will do it as they have taken down others who have caused disruptions recently. I think you'd have one hellacious brawl on your hands, one that four, five or six terrorists wouldn't win.

By the way, as part of the "new security regulations" the cabin attendants have to point out that the "flight deck" is at the front of the aircraft. I have no idea why this is necessary -- I was never unaware of its location before and assumed that it hadn't changed -- but I'm certainly glad that it's still up there where it always was. Unless, perhaps, members of the crew are wandering around the plane, looking for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 08:06 AM

Another thing: don't assume that these marshals are untrained or badly trained louts. I'm certain that there are some -- good cops don't like those any more than you do -- but the vast majority of cops are good people and good at their job. Trained sky marshals are cops, but given more training so that they can act independent of backup and a base of support. They travel incognito, in civilian clothes. They might be on your flight or they might not.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Fedupanpeedoff
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:52 AM

Is it entirely inappropriate to ask why terrorists feel it necessary to take over and destroy 'planes in the first place?   I think I'd feel safer in a world where no-one thought it was actually necessary to blow themselves up along with a few hundred other people they have never met and know nothing about.      

For most of my life this has largely been the case. What's changed? The old adage 'Prevention is Better Than a Cure" springs to mind, particularly as the world seems to me to be sick, and getting sicker by the day.

It is also entirely logical that every time a new strategy is developed and publicised for preventing one type of terrorism, it merely invites the development of new, more desperate and despicable acts by the terrorists. These are not people with whom you fight a pitched battle on predetermined ground. After all, which bombing produced the greater 'Shock and Awe' worldwide, Bagdad/Iraq or the Twin Towers?

Are Air Marshalls a diversion, or are we really trying to think our way out of the wrong problem (once again), thereby leaving a door open elsewhere to the terrorists.   

F

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:00 PM

I couldn't agree more, Guest F.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 05:54 PM

But whose job is it to ensure that all the huge range of very varied airlines all over the world, and the charter flight companies working on a basis of trying to cut all the costs to a minimum, are going to employ well-trained and reliable people to carry out this job?

That's not a rhetorical question. If it isn't the job of someone to ensure that, it's going to go horribly wrong - but it is going to be very difficult indeed to do it. Just saying "Just make sure they employ cops" isn't good enough. Even in well-run police forces there are some bad cops - and there are probably some police firces around the world where the bad cops are not the exception, but the norm. And the impression I have got is that bad cops very often end up working in the private security business on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:11 PM

Air marshals in the US are employed by, and part of, the federal government, just as the US Marshal's Service is. They are hired and work for the Transportation Security Administration; they used to be under the Federal Aviation Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:44 PM

If left to the airline companies the marshals would be mimimum wage "Barney Fife" doofus types.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 08:27 PM

Or Rambos. Both types shouldn't even have one bullet.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 08:43 PM

Air marshals in the US are employed by, and part of, the federal government - does that mean Air Marshalls on all planes, including charter flights, with destinations within the USA, or on routes which could pass over USA territory?

It could well be, and there might be a lot to be said for doing it that way - but it would be pretty complicated as well as expensive. I have a suspicion it won't be done that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 08:49 PM

Considering that back in, I think, September the Feds were going to lay off a bunch of Air Marshals AND at the same time raised the Alert Status, I wonder if the left hand knows what the right is doing.

I've met an Air Marshal and she seemed quite capable, well trained, and mature.

My problem isn't so much with the Marshals as it is with the politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: leprechaun
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 09:35 PM

Right after 9-11, they needed a whole bunch of Sky Marshalls. They recruited from several Federal agencies. Some folks I know got to take a break from their regular duties and be "Sky Marshall for the Month."

I got to transport a prisoner last March. It was fun. It felt strange to be carrying a gun on a plane and through the airports. It was like we were getting away with something, even though on the ground I carry one every place except the shower. It's sort of goofy that I left my knife behind because I wasn't sure whether they'd freak out about it. Turns out we never had to go through a metal detector. We just showed our credentials and they escorted us through in front of everybody else. We looked pretty shaggy, too.

We were sort of sad there weren't any terrorists on any of our planes. Especially on the last leg, we could have made a big impression on the UCLA Women's Tennis Team. Maybe if we were more evolved we wouldn't have felt that way.

ee ee ee oo oo ah ah

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM

The left hand does know what the right is doing. Bush wants to pretend that he is doing something without actually doing anything. If there was a profit to be made, Halliburton would be in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 08:54 AM

I must say, having been in a town involved in unusually high security, Belfast at the hight of the "Troubles"... all the listening posts and turnstyles and stripsearching did not put a dent in the urban war... the US has been, for the most part, at peace at home since the Trade Center event... could it be our government is tell us a fib?
Seems to me, that we may be involved in the pantomime of security to take from the American people the right to protest against a war made in the ecconomic interests with a very very small segment of the American public. Sure, we need airport security, but I'd trade good government and liberty for extrodinary security anyday.
I think those who think it is the different colored allerts which keep us safe, well, they haven't traveled much,
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 09:13 AM

A while ago, not long after Sept 11, I saw TV footage bragging about the types of guns that would be carried on planes. It fired a shot whose name I don't remember, but was basically ratshot. A "pellet" of tiny balls that disintegrated when it hit the piece of cardboard prodly held by the guys demonstrating it... so it wouldn't penetrate the presurised hull.

Plance may be full of holes, but when the luggage door fell off a plane some years ago, several passengers got sucked out due to the decrompression.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 10:12 AM

There is a big difference between a bullet hole and a cargo door!
Larry, right on!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 10:19 AM

what about getting them equipped with stun guns (or whatever you call them) darts that inject something that will put any attackers to sleep immediately. the crew could probabl;y have access to these as well..

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 10:34 AM

Darting, as is done with animals, is NOT immediate. The medicine has to get into the blood stream and circulate. Moreover, the dosages are best determined by body weight and can be affected by adrenaline, activity, and so on. It often takes more than one dart to bring an animal down, as placement of the dart is critical -- a shot into muscle, such as a hip, will work far more slowly than one into a vein.

What is never discussed on nature programs is the death rate. It depends upon a lot of factors of course but up to one third of darted animals die from the darting.

Tasers -- the "stun guns" that fire a barb into someone and then jolt them with a huge amount of electricity -- were discussed early on after the events of Sept. 11. I think they were ruled out because they have a very limited range and are quite inaccurate beyond a few feet. The other type of "stun guns" need contact to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 02:05 PM

Hire El Al. They never have problems with hijackers.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 02:40 PM

PAJAMA'S FOLKS!!!!!! Just think, instead of a cold search through a magnetic door way, you pad into the big heated pool, have a nice soak, then don your flight jammies and off you go... Wouldn't that make for a better world?!?! Who would want to crash an airplane after a nice soak with everyone,I bet the flight attendants would endorce that... nice relaxed fuzzy little passingers... Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 03:37 PM

Early on in the current Era of Paranoia someone suggested that all passengers be anethestized and shipped that way. A little sleepy gas, they load you on the plane, you awaken in the terminal at the other end with your baggage right next to you.

The airlines would love it -- no complaining passengers, no screaming babies, and passengers could be stacked efficiently instead of the current inefficient "seats."

Considering how boring most flights are, it strikes me as a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Gareth
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 04:54 PM

Fools'T - An adjustors coment. I think you may be refering to the crash of a Turkish Airways DC10 on a flight between Paris and London in the 1974.

One of the cargo doors burst open due to the application of "Murphys Law". The violent decompression was such that the cabin floor collapsed destroying control lines, and puting the aircraft in a fatal dive, and ejecting several passengers.

A synopsis of the enquiry including probable causes, and that this type of incident was not designed for with presure equalizing vents etc. may be found Click 'Ere

Do not go digging for photographs, they are not for the squeamish. I can still recall my nausea when the general report passed my desk nearly 30 years ago.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 05:39 PM

If those pellets won't get through a piece of cardboard, it shouldn't be hard improvising some effective body armour against them. A decent Leather Jacket should do the job fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 06:28 PM

gareth, was think of the one that was not fatal - to the plane - was caused by the door locking catches bending back as the closer motor came on due to a short - some Aussie guy worked it out after his son died in one of the crashes.

Rapaaire - would save on food in flights too...

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:24 AM

So now we know why the US needs sky marshalls:

Guy boards plane in Washington with live ammo.

But I bet this plane didn't have a marshall. I would have thought that, in the present climate, searching people properly before they board planes would make a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns on planes
From: GUEST,Hannah Elliott
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:43 PM

I dont kno what ur all talking about but i think we should just leave Iraq alone