RE: Airline safety...would this work?
I don't know, I'm asking...
Had a conversation with my Dad the other day about airline safety, hijackings, post 9/11 flying concerns, new security measures, etc. (see my other thread about my first post-9/11 flying adventure this past weekend).
I know that there was talk of some Air Marshal program. Did it ever fully get going? I don't think it did, and I also remember LOTS of talk about the cost of it and how even at that particular cost, there STILL wouldn't be enough to go on every flight.
My Dad said something that kinda astonished me in its simplicity (and his trust in the nature of good, law-abiding and qualified citizens):
How many people do you think fly everyday who are one (or more) of the following: police, military, hunters, Federal law enforcement, retired military or police, etc. I'd be willing to bet than on most every plane that takes off and lands, SOMEONE on it fitting that description is on it.
Is it not possible that we might already have a ready, willing and inexpensive solution right in front of us.
My Dad says this: when you buy your plane ticket, you can mark a section that states you are one of the above (some sort of proof - badge number, military ID, government clearance code, etc.) would have to be given, of course. And that by marking this section and providing proof, you would have the option of being given a .45 or whatever in some separate office somewhere that you carry on the flight with you and simply turn back in when you reach your destination.
There would be criteria you'd have to meet and eventually a sort of database would be built-up from people who match the above qualifications (no criminal record, good law enforcement or military service, honorable discharges, proven profiency with an automatic handgun, etc.) who would - secretly - be on flights.
Here's the thing: psychologically, what would this do to a terrorist or anyone attempting anything stupid like a hijacking or other illegal behavior? In my way of thinking, sitting there not quite sure if the leggy blonde or pencil-neck in wingtips sitting across the aisle from you is a member of the Denver S.W.A.T team or a highly decorated retired Air Force Colonel and COULD be packing heat would HAVE to be some sort of massive deterrent.
Here's the thing: guns don't scare me. Criminals with guns do. But the thought of sitting on a plane with perhaps 2-10 people throughout the plane (depending on plane size, destination, type of plane, length of flight, etc.) potentially armed (but not quite sure who it is) doesn't bother or scare me in the least. Quite the contrary, I would probably feel 10x SAFER in this sort of environment.
There's probably a 98% chance that NONE of these people would EVER have to draw their weapon, but the mere idea that if you're thinking about getting on a plane and starting trouble or attempting to take it over might get you killed by the "regular Joe" type sitting next to you would, to me, act as a very strong deterrent.
Again, it's a secret. No one, except the people actually carrying the guns would know.
I know some people are simply anti-gun, but I'd like to think that they're more "anti BAD person with a gun" rather than harboring some sort of weird, unreasonable fear and loathing of an inanimate hunk of metal.
Guns in the hands of law enforcement, military and other trained, qualified and LAW-ABIDING citizens doesn't scare me in the least.
So you'd get: a) in-flight safety b) no outlay of money c) citizens protecting citizens d) an ongoing, growing database/pool of people to do this
My Dad for instance: former Marine, worked in the government sector for years, no criminal record, currently owns two guns and shoots for sport/hobby at firing ranges, etc.
Why couldn't he - if he chooses - be given a gun, put under his coat, a small shoulder holster, a calf holster, etc. and board the plane as just an ordinary citizen. Chances are, NOTHING is going to break out, but how differently might 9/11 have gone if - at the first sign of one of those idiots wielding a box cutter and attempting to slit the throat of a passenger or flight attendant - three or four automatic pistols were immediately produced and shoved into his face, with the kind request to "drop your weapon and raise your hands NOW" (I guess a pair of handcuffs might also be issued along with the firearm so the offender can be cuffed and rendered harmless).
I've thought about this over the past few days. While on the plane cross-country, I looked around quite a bit, trying to imagine what it would be like.
The thought doesn't bother me at all. I'd feel quite safe, to be honest.
It would be qualified, honorable citizens VOLUNTARILY protecting their fellow travelers. It's actually kinda beautiful in its simplicity and lack of expense.
I'd support something like this in a heartbeat. I really would. It would get to where a) no one would EVER attempt to hijack an American plane again b) idiots who like to get drunk and show their asses on planes MIGHT think twice after this program was implemented.
You reach the destination, go to a little office somewhere and turn the gun back in, sign a form to show that it's been returned or whatever and go about your business.
Some front-end checking and screening would be done, of course, to ensure that the right people are given this responsibility, but beyond that I can't think of too many downsides. These people are already flying, all we're doing is - if they're willing and meet the stringent qualifications - is packing them with heat to quell any terror or nonsense that may erupt on board. And since nobody truly knows who is and isn't packing, the troublemakers couldn't take them out first because they simply wouldn't know.
What are your thoughts? I see it more as a psychological deterrent and I simply don't see a situation where "gun-toting cowboys will be popping caps off in the skies over America".
If your argument against this sort of thing sounds like the one in the previous sentence, don't bother wasting anyone's time here with some lunkheaded "guns = evil" response. These AREN'T "cowboys" and no one is going to be walking up and down the aisles, twirling the gun on their fingers and practicing quick draw techniques on the drink cart.
Approach this with SOME level of reason and maturity, please. Re-read, if you must, the type of people this would be done with. Not high school kids, college students, people with misdemeanor or felony records, people with mental problems, people on medication, celebrities, those with poor eyesight and/or reflexes, frail senior citizens who can barely walk or stand up, etc.
But law-abiding members of military or law enforcement, active or retired, with impeccable records and qualified to use a handgun.
Had a conversation with my Dad the other day about airline safety, hijackings, post 9/11 flying concerns, new security measures, etc. (see my other thread about my first post-9/11 flying adventure this past weekend).
I know that there was talk of some Air Marshal program. Did it ever fully get going? I don't think it did, and I also remember LOTS of talk about the cost of it and how even at that particular cost, there STILL wouldn't be enough to go on every flight.
My Dad said something that kinda astonished me in its simplicity (and his trust in the nature of good, law-abiding and qualified citizens):
How many people do you think fly everyday who are one (or more) of the following: police, military, hunters, Federal law enforcement, retired military or police, etc. I'd be willing to bet than on most every plane that takes off and lands, SOMEONE on it fitting that description is on it.
Is it not possible that we might already have a ready, willing and inexpensive solution right in front of us.
My Dad says this: when you buy your plane ticket, you can mark a section that states you are one of the above (some sort of proof - badge number, military ID, government clearance code, etc.) would have to be given, of course. And that by marking this section and providing proof, you would have the option of being given a .45 or whatever in some separate office somewhere that you carry on the flight with you and simply turn back in when you reach your destination.
There would be criteria you'd have to meet and eventually a sort of database would be built-up from people who match the above qualifications (no criminal record, good law enforcement or military service, honorable discharges, proven profiency with an automatic handgun, etc.) who would - secretly - be on flights.
Here's the thing: psychologically, what would this do to a terrorist or anyone attempting anything stupid like a hijacking or other illegal behavior? In my way of thinking, sitting there not quite sure if the leggy blonde or pencil-neck in wingtips sitting across the aisle from you is a member of the Denver S.W.A.T team or a highly decorated retired Air Force Colonel and COULD be packing heat would HAVE to be some sort of massive deterrent.
Here's the thing: guns don't scare me. Criminals with guns do. But the thought of sitting on a plane with perhaps 2-10 people throughout the plane (depending on plane size, destination, type of plane, length of flight, etc.) potentially armed (but not quite sure who it is) doesn't bother or scare me in the least. Quite the contrary, I would probably feel 10x SAFER in this sort of environment.
There's probably a 98% chance that NONE of these people would EVER have to draw their weapon, but the mere idea that if you're thinking about getting on a plane and starting trouble or attempting to take it over might get you killed by the "regular Joe" type sitting next to you would, to me, act as a very strong deterrent.
Again, it's a secret. No one, except the people actually carrying the guns would know.
I know some people are simply anti-gun, but I'd like to think that they're more "anti BAD person with a gun" rather than harboring some sort of weird, unreasonable fear and loathing of an inanimate hunk of metal.
Guns in the hands of law enforcement, military and other trained, qualified and LAW-ABIDING citizens doesn't scare me in the least.
So you'd get: a) in-flight safety b) no outlay of money c) citizens protecting citizens d) an ongoing, growing database/pool of people to do this
My Dad for instance: former Marine, worked in the government sector for years, no criminal record, currently owns two guns and shoots for sport/hobby at firing ranges, etc.
Why couldn't he - if he chooses - be given a gun, put under his coat, a small shoulder holster, a calf holster, etc. and board the plane as just an ordinary citizen. Chances are, NOTHING is going to break out, but how differently might 9/11 have gone if - at the first sign of one of those idiots wielding a box cutter and attempting to slit the throat of a passenger or flight attendant - three or four automatic pistols were immediately produced and shoved into his face, with the kind request to "drop your weapon and raise your hands NOW" (I guess a pair of handcuffs might also be issued along with the firearm so the offender can be cuffed and rendered harmless).
I've thought about this over the past few days. While on the plane cross-country, I looked around quite a bit, trying to imagine what it would be like.
The thought doesn't bother me at all. I'd feel quite safe, to be honest.
It would be qualified, honorable citizens VOLUNTARILY protecting their fellow travelers. It's actually kinda beautiful in its simplicity and lack of expense.
I'd support something like this in a heartbeat. I really would. It would get to where a) no one would EVER attempt to hijack an American plane again b) idiots who like to get drunk and show their asses on planes MIGHT think twice after this program was implemented.
You reach the destination, go to a little office somewhere and turn the gun back in, sign a form to show that it's been returned or whatever and go about your business.
Some front-end checking and screening would be done, of course, to ensure that the right people are given this responsibility, but beyond that I can't think of too many downsides. These people are already flying, all we're doing is - if they're willing and meet the stringent qualifications - is packing them with heat to quell any terror or nonsense that may erupt on board. And since nobody truly knows who is and isn't packing, the troublemakers couldn't take them out first because they simply wouldn't know.
What are your thoughts? I see it more as a psychological deterrent and I simply don't see a situation where "gun-toting cowboys will be popping caps off in the skies over America".
If your argument against this sort of thing sounds like the one in the previous sentence, don't bother wasting anyone's time here with some lunkheaded "guns = evil" response. These AREN'T "cowboys" and no one is going to be walking up and down the aisles, twirling the gun on their fingers and practicing quick draw techniques on the drink cart.
Approach this with SOME level of reason and maturity, please. Re-read, if you must, the type of people this would be done with. Not high school kids, college students, people with misdemeanor or felony records, people with mental problems, people on medication, celebrities, those with poor eyesight and/or reflexes, frail senior citizens who can barely walk or stand up, etc.
But law-abiding members of military or law enforcement, active or retired, with impeccable records and qualified to use a handgun.
Comments
A question of my own-do a lot of police, military, etc. already travel with their weapons, or do they have to jump through hoops to get them on board?
Jeff
However, what about disgruntled people? They may have become disgruntled and there would be no evidence to support it. I would much rather have no one on the plane have a gun (except the official air marshals) than have some possibly disgruntled person from the services.
I don't know too much what happened aboard the 2001-09-11 flights, but would it have been possible for the people to swarm the terrorists and regain control?
Think about it: NO ONE on board could've ever imagined they were about to ride these planes into downtown Manhattan and straight into the Trade towers.
That's why the flight in Pennsylvania went the way it did. Once word got out what was going on, those people - in an amazing show of courage and defiance that still brings a tear to my eye - basically said "not this plane, pal..." and fought back, saving untold numbers of lives.
Amazing.
In this post-9/11 world, I'd like to think that we've all had our attitudes and beliefs majorly adjusted and that the next time someone is trying to pull that kind of stuff, he won't get too far.
Didn't that idiot shoe bomber guy get his ass whipped by other passengers? Good! I would've helped.
About the "disgruntled" types, there would have to be records of performance, psychological test results be known, etc. People with low or questionable marks on this type of stuff would be considered "not qualified".
I don't know. Surely there would be a way to ensure that the possibility of someone with a screw loose or a bone to pick wouldn't even get the chance.
No postal workers are eligible.
Even on the ground, are there many (any?) cases of cops or soldiers snapping and doing something like this? I don't mean some mentally deficient 19-year-old PFC straight out of boot camp who's never been in the real world much or only has a few months of firearm experience.
Maybe there would have to be something like: NCO's and commissioned officers and law enforcement with so many years of the job without incident or any sort of blemish on their duty OR personnel files?
Surely there's a way. Smarter people than I could devise a way to make sure that only the best, most qualified and capable people are eligible for this. In theory, I still believe it's quite a good idea. Not because people are carrying guns, but because of the message it sends and the fact that anyone planning on causing trouble would probably change their plans.
Flying would probably become safer than it's EVER been, just because of the mere psychological deterrent of "if I stand up and attempt to storm the cockpit, I'm probably going to get shot or otherwise stopped before I make it halfway there...".
Maybe as a "last line" or "final barrier", it could always be seen to that at least one of these armed citizens was seated in first class, near the cockpit door? Maybe a reduction on his fare or some other incentive (double frequent flyer miles for that trip or something)? If a commotion broke out and someone was running from coach towards the cockpit, they'd have to get through this guy, who'd be standing there with a automatic pistol trained on his chest.
By this time, the other gun-carriers back in coach would be up and in position, covering the guy from behind. Unless he's just a complete psycho, he'd HAVE to give up.
I honestly don't think a single shot would truly ever be fired. Just the NOTION of "I'm going to get shot and killed if I try something stupid" would probably deter the majority of scum. The others? Well, they seem to want to die for their cause anyway.
Help 'em out and put about 3 or 4 in him, center mass, if he doesn't drop his weapon or otherwise stop whatever illegal, violent act he's committing.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>
Here's the thing: psychologically, what would this do to a terrorist or anyone attempting anything stupid like a hijacking or other illegal behavior? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Psychologically this would make ME crap my pants and never want to fly again.
I just don't trust the general populous of America with a gun. Not that Air Marshalls might go nuts and start shootin up people, but having more people with guns = more bad.
But thats just my own anti-gun paranoia speaking. Move along...
People from the army are probabiliy good people, but their job is not to do the police, nor the job to the police is to make war. Retired people , are retired for a good reason, it's because they have done their time, and that it would not be a good thing to make them work more (there is always exception, but you cannot take risk in a plane).
My advice is : well trained people in plane with a gun (well traned means especially trained) or nobody with gun.
<strong>But thats just my own anti-gun paranoia speaking. Move along...
Well, at least you're big enough to cop to it and be honest.
<strong>this would not be a good idea. Management of attack of airplaine are difficult, you need well trained people. At 30 000 feet a shot in the plane can produce a disaster due to the sudden depressurisation.
People from the army are probabiliy good people, but their job is not to do the police, nor the job to the police is to make war. Retired people , are retired for a good reason, it's because they have done their time, and that it would not be a good thing to make them work more (there is always exception, but you cannot take risk in a plane).
My advice is : well trained people in plane with a gun (well traned means especially trained) or nobody with gun.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aren't there bullets that are made to not penetrate airplane hulls? Or did I dream that or see it on "CSI"? If there aren't, then perhaps someone should step up and invent them.
Regarding the "retired" thing, I'd have no problem with a retired cop or soldier. Yeah, they're "retired", but think of what that means: they spent a damn long enough time doing their job that they DID retire from it, making them - in my opinion - hugely qualified in many ways.
And remember: I don't think there's really going to be serious chance of there being ongoing gunfights in the sky. I simply think that the KNOWLEDGE of qualified, professionals placed throughout the plane would be a great deterrent.
Hell, take that a step further: we could bluff the entire thing. The government would just have to come out and SAY they've implemented this program and that it starts immediately.
The mere appearance would probably be enough?
As far as army not being police and police not doing war, that doesn't really fit here in my mind. Both of those jobs require dealing with shitheads and potential shitheads and stopping them from committing further shitheaded activity, either on a domestic or foreign front.
You don't need to be some law scholar or an expert in military matters to subdue an idiot, cuff him and guard him until the plane lands and he can be picked up by authorities on the ground. The soldier doesn't have to know every nuance and quirk of law enforcement...he's just there to stop someone from acting like an idiot and trying to hijack or destroy an airplane full of his fellow countrymen.
Ask the passengers if they're rather have a fighting chance with armed off-duty soldiers and law enforcement or not.
Maybe the situation isn't bad enough right now to warrant it, but if things ever got really crappy to where in-flight incidents were happening at an alarming rate, this might be something to consider.
<strong>
Aren't there bullets that are made to not penetrate airplane hulls? Or did I dream that or see it on "CSI"? If there aren't, then perhaps someone should step up and invent them.
Regarding the "retired" thing, I'd have no problem with a retired cop or soldier. Yeah, they're "retired", but think of what that means: they spent a damn long enough time doing their job that they DID retire from it, making them - in my opinion - hugely qualified in many ways.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure you will have no problems with a 80 years cop suffering the Alzeihmer disease
[quote] You don't need to be some law scholar or an expert in military matters to subdue an idiot, cuff him and guard him until the plane lands and he can be picked up by authorities on the ground. The soldier doesn't have to know every nuance and quirk of law enforcement...he's just there to stop someone from acting like an idiot and trying to hijack or destroy an airplane full of his fellow countrymen. <hr></blockquote>
That's why during Hijacking, we sent special police troops. Do you think that a guy could hijack a plane simply with his fists ?
And cops are not soldier. They are not trained to do this job, no more anyway than any hunters. It's not because you know how to use a weapon, that you are ready for a police job. Ask a policeman, if he could be replaced by soldier.
. Anyway if this idea is so genius, why Bush admin did not think about it already ?
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
Retired military doesn't mean anything either. My grandfather is retired military and probably hasnt fired a gun in decades, he cant hear and he has arthritis.
Secondly, active military is questionable. Most military people do not work with small arms in the same way that that police do. But maybe.
Police have a little more potential, as the job most matches theres. However even when Police are hired into the marshall program, they don't just hop on planes. They go through all sorts of training. They use different weapons, they work in very confined spaces, they take on certain risks, etc. But if you want to narrow it to active police then it becomes a more palatable suggestion though there are still some issues.
<strong>First of all, you need to remove hunters from your group. All it takes to be a hunter is enough money to buy a gun and buy a permit at Walmart. It doesn't demand any sort of firearms skills, unlike the other positions. Many many hunters are inept amateurs out for a good time, to pretend that they are skilled marksmen just because they hunt is not realistic. And no one hunts with a handgun anyway, well almost.
Retired military doesn't mean anything either. My grandfather is retired military and probably hasnt fired a gun in decades, he cant hear and he has arthritis.
Secondly, active military is questionable. Most military people do not work with small arms in the same way that that police do. But maybe.
Police have a little more potential, as the job most matches theres. However even when Police are hired into the marshall program, they don't just hop on planes. They go through all sorts of training. They use different weapons, they work in very confined spaces, they take on certain risks, etc. But if you want to narrow it to active police then it becomes a more palatable suggestion though there are still some issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
CoD , i am sorry for you to say this, but you are .... the voice of reason
Similarly, I believe more guns on planes would prevent very few terrorist acts (how common are they really?), but cause deaths due to mistakes, accidents, grabbing a gun in a fight, and all the other unpredictable things that could occur during all those millions of flights with no terrorists.
What is needed (if you are going on to put armed personnel on planes) is a dedicated team who know each other, and have worked together, that are strategically placed throughout the aircraft and have trained extensively in various airplane hijack scenarios.
A madman with explosives needs to be handled differently to one with a knife or a gun or even one who wants to bring the plane down. Off duty law enforcement/military personnel will not have the correct training to deal with these situations.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Happy Camper ]</p>
That way no one gets shot and everyone gets a nice nap
<strong>Anyway if this idea is so genius, why Bush admin did not think about it already ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I´ll let this one pass
But like the Doc I´ll have to say that CoD is on the money with this single issue. There is a reason why it is expensive to train Air Marshalls.
<strong>I have a better idea. How about a "panic button" for the pilot and co-pilot? If they hit the button, gas is released outside the cockpit so that all of the flight attendants and passengers are knocked out and put to sleep.
That way no one gets shot and everyone gets a nice nap
Or do it survivor-style. Everybody have a vote button and if more than ten people vote for a person he is electrocuted in his chair.
<strong>I have a better idea. How about a "panic button" for the pilot and co-pilot?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do, it's called squawk 7500 either verbally or on the mode 3 transponder.
<strong>I think the Russians tried that gas thing recently. Didn't work so well, unless you consider having 20% of the people dying after they choke on their own vomit an acceptable result.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, how about the stuff you get when you go to the dentist?
how about a bunch of tazers... less likely to puncture the cabin and/or accidentally terminate the wrong person... if you zap the air marshal by mistake, it ain't permanent.
or maybe instead of armed air marshal-wannabes, we could put jackie chan and jet li types on most planes... not only disarming the potential highjackers with zero risk to passengers or cabin pressure, but with plenty of cool tricks to completely strip the weapon in the bad guys hands before he knows it...
then they could sell extra tickets on the flights for the UFC crowd to cheer for the security forces and issue cans of whoop ass martial arts instead of concealed glocks
less risk and more entertainment in one swoop
do british air marshals have the same no-handgun policy as bobbies? "stop or i'll yell stop again"