BS: Guns on planes

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: kendall
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 02:05 PM

Hire El Al. They never have problems with hijackers.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:27 PM

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

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 - 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: 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 - 12:00 PM

I couldn't agree more, Guest F.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Van
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM

OK Rapaire - read your earlier post and apologise.

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: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:48 PM

Van, that's what I said.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 07:32 PM

I hear that, Rap.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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...