[quote]Here's the thing: guns don't scare me. <hr></blockquote>
On a plane it's a bit different: if a bullet can take someone down there's a fair chance i) it'll go through the hull or damage it enough to start catastrophic depressurisation and ii) possibly even after it has gone through the target.
[quote]Ok, how about the stuff you get when you go to the dentist? <hr></blockquote>
That's what anaesthesists are for. Knocking people out with gas without doing them damage is not as easy as you might think.
Okay, fair enough, guys. If not actual guns, then, what about those Tazer things or zappers? Anything like that?
And some of you need to grab the reins a bit: when I say "retired military", I'm thinking about people maybe in the FIFTIES (if that), fresh out of the military, still sharp in their thinking and skills. Whoever honestly thinks that I'm advocating the use of 88-year-old retired Navy guys with Alzheimer's and connected to oxygen tanks (and who haven't touched a firearm since 1943) is being an idiot and intentionally throwing a wrench into the proceedings.
Wise up and don't be such a baiting dipstick/smartass and use some common sense, please.
The guys in their fifties who are recently retired career military are almost all officers who have spent the preceding two decades as supervisors and administrators not MPs. You're making the dubious correlation between use of any gun at some time and skill level in police tactics.
And no offense intended but your hunters idea was not the best. It is easier for a terrorist to get a hunting license than to get the visa to get into the US in most cases. I mean come on, use some sense please.
A bullet hole in an airplane will NOT cause depressurization ... in fact, many bullet holes will NOT cause depressurization !!!!
An airliner is not airtight to begin with, pressurization is achieved by pumping air into the cabin faster than it escapes (the cabin is designed to be CLOSE to airtight but it takes a continuous inflow to keep it pressurized)
Next ... the Air Marshal program has been in place since the late 60's or early 70's and has NEVER left us... the force has, however, grown significantly in the last 16 months.
And there are already provisions for law enforcement officers to carry their weapons on board ... I'd say there's a 50/50 chance on any given flight that there's a good-guy with an authorized weapon on board.
Cockpits are now much more secure ... a great deal of money has been spent by the airlines to retrofit the airplanes with new door / access systems. Sort of the "Panic Button" that was mentioned earlier. (and this $$ had to come out of the airlines pocket ... the gov isn't paying for any of this mandeted stuff)
So while the origional idea sounded good... it's just not necessary, and poses way too many problems to be a viable solution.
I think the biggest problem with this plan, or the plan to put guns in a cockpit, are that allowing guns on a plane puts readymade weapons on a plane for attackers. They wouldn't have to sneak box cutters or shoe bombs on to a plane anymore because all they'd have to do is figure out which passenger had the gun and force it from the 'marshall.'
It is a bad idea for the general public, but Air Marshall's are specifically trained for airplanes ... that's all they do ... Weapons are very concealed and the bad-guys have no way of knowing who they are.
As for pilots, I don't really care either way... I'd carry one if it were allowed, but I do that when I'm not flying anyway. Changes made since 9/11 will keep the bad guys out of the cockpit.
<strong>Sort of the "Panic Button" that was mentioned earlier. (and this $$ had to come out of the airlines pocket ... the gov isn't paying for any of this mandeted stuff)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about just throw 'er into around 2 negative g's?
<strong>Pscates stop being silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're one to talk. What have I said that was "silly"? You might disagree with my idea, but I don't think I've been "silly" about anything. Whoever above (and it might've been you, so I understand your tone now) who suggested "80 year olds with guns..." or whatever was what I was responding to and irked at. "Silly" isn't a word I've heard often to describe me. Might I suggest a good thesaurus?
[quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:
<strong>The guys in their fifties who are recently retired career military are almost all officers who have spent the preceding two decades as supervisors and administrators not MPs. You're making the dubious correlation between use of any gun at some time and skill level in police tactics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm making the sensible correlation that anyone in the military - MP or not - has, as part of their whole damn reason to exist, training in firearms, hand-to-hand combat, self-defense tactics, training to not "freak out" or freeze up at the type of situations most of us civilians would piss our pants over, etc. Whether or not someone has been a "desk jockey" for a while, fact is every military person I know who is chained to a desk or in an administrative position is STILL a) in impeccable physical condition b) is routinely testing/qualifying with firearms to maintain some level of proficiency. All the retired military people I know (co-workers, family, etc.) still - from the things instilled in them during their time in the military - seem to be more inclined to take care of themselves physically, own and shoot guns for sport or hobby (pistol ranges and entering marksmanship contests). You don't just suddenly turn into some know-nothing, "afraid to handle a gun" type as soon as you get put into an office/administrative job, or retire from active duty. I'd put a 55-year-old retired Marine with a clean record and good performance marks against anyone here when it came to making me feel safe or secure. I've spent 10 years in and around that life, so I might have a different perspective on it than you. Not being "silly", just talking about what I know and see.
[quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:
<strong>And no offense intended but your hunters idea was not the best. It is easier for a terrorist to get a hunting license than to get the visa to get into the US in most cases. I mean come on, use some sense please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, out of all your other stuff, this one I will grant you. Hunters, not having any sort of law or military backgrond, probably not. They're using rifles and I guess a deer or duck doeesn't present the psychological factor that cops and soldiers have to deal with when on the job. Fine. However, if a hunter is a retired cop or military, well...
I AM using sense. Did you not read my post when I said (at least twice) that there would be extensive record-checking, personal profile evaluation, security clearances, etc. In other words, you couldn't just walk up to the airline on the day you fly and go "yeah, listen...I spent three years in the army in 1981. Uh, can I have a gun for this flight?".
It's not like that. It would be a tad more set up and well-implemented than that. Not any schlub off the street would be eligible. Yes, military or law enforcement service would be merely the FIRST requirement one would have to meet.
Then from that, you'd have to weed out or dismiss the ones with shitty records, evaluations, reviews, grades, performance assessments, etc. Cops who've been suspended for illegal or unethical behavior, soldiers dishonorably discharged, whackjobs who spazzed out in the mess hall and attacked their platoon leader because "voices told him to", etc. would ALL not even make it past the first tier of eligibility.
I still think there mere idea that their MIGHT be someone on board a) armed and knows how to use it b) isn't afraid to get his hands dirty with thugs and criminals c) has spent a chunk of his life doing this type of work is - by default - just as much, if not more, qualified and able to do this type of thing than anyone else I know.
If you don't dig the idea, that's fine. But I've not said anything outrageous or "silly". I'll give you (and renounce) the "hunter" idea, but that's it. My other views still stand.
Hijackings (of airliners) are pretty much off the table now for terrorists. Sept 11 was its swan song. To make it official, airline policy should change so that if there were a hijacking, every man, women and child on the airplane must repel the hijacking at the cost of their lives. Future jumbo jets will probably have armored cockpits and electronic measures to ensure that airplane only goes to its destination. If not, they should.
The other thing is to make sure no explosives get on board.
I think we have to worry about other weak spots. The energy grid is easy to knock out, for instance.
As for guns on planes: A would-be marshal would be reacting to a terrorist who had already pulled a gun, not getting a jump on them, so the act might prompt a firefight. The terrorist has nothing to lose if the airplane is compromised or passengers are shot, and the current crop don't seem to fear death, so that's not a deterrent. So unless the marshal has the good luck to be behind one without being in the sights of another, a gun won't do much. If passengers take advantage of the fact that somebody is guaranteed to be right behind any given terrorist, plain old subdual is a great option (and, it seems, a common one for dealing with trouble on airplanes). There's always at least one NCAA heavyweight wrestler/football lineman/300 pound guy willing to sit on a jerk for the remainder of the flight.
Comments
On a plane it's a bit different: if a bullet can take someone down there's a fair chance i) it'll go through the hull or damage it enough to start catastrophic depressurisation and ii) possibly even after it has gone through the target.
[quote]Ok, how about the stuff you get when you go to the dentist? <hr></blockquote>
That's what anaesthesists are for. Knocking people out with gas without doing them damage is not as easy as you might think.
And some of you need to grab the reins a bit: when I say "retired military", I'm thinking about people maybe in the FIFTIES (if that), fresh out of the military, still sharp in their thinking and skills. Whoever honestly thinks that I'm advocating the use of 88-year-old retired Navy guys with Alzheimer's and connected to oxygen tanks (and who haven't touched a firearm since 1943) is being an idiot and intentionally throwing a wrench into the proceedings.
Wise up and don't be such a baiting dipstick/smartass and use some common sense, please.
The guys in their fifties who are recently retired career military are almost all officers who have spent the preceding two decades as supervisors and administrators not MPs. You're making the dubious correlation between use of any gun at some time and skill level in police tactics.
And no offense intended but your hunters idea was not the best. It is easier for a terrorist to get a hunting license than to get the visa to get into the US in most cases. I mean come on, use some sense please.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
A bullet hole in an airplane will NOT cause depressurization ... in fact, many bullet holes will NOT cause depressurization !!!!
An airliner is not airtight to begin with, pressurization is achieved by pumping air into the cabin faster than it escapes (the cabin is designed to be CLOSE to airtight but it takes a continuous inflow to keep it pressurized)
Next ... the Air Marshal program has been in place since the late 60's or early 70's and has NEVER left us... the force has, however, grown significantly in the last 16 months.
And there are already provisions for law enforcement officers to carry their weapons on board ... I'd say there's a 50/50 chance on any given flight that there's a good-guy with an authorized weapon on board.
Cockpits are now much more secure ... a great deal of money has been spent by the airlines to retrofit the airplanes with new door / access systems. Sort of the "Panic Button" that was mentioned earlier. (and this $$ had to come out of the airlines pocket ... the gov isn't paying for any of this mandeted stuff)
So while the origional idea sounded good... it's just not necessary, and poses way too many problems to be a viable solution.
I think the biggest problem with this plan, or the plan to put guns in a cockpit, are that allowing guns on a plane puts readymade weapons on a plane for attackers. They wouldn't have to sneak box cutters or shoe bombs on to a plane anymore because all they'd have to do is figure out which passenger had the gun and force it from the 'marshall.'
It is a bad idea for the general public, but Air Marshall's are specifically trained for airplanes ... that's all they do ... Weapons are very concealed and the bad-guys have no way of knowing who they are.
As for pilots, I don't really care either way... I'd carry one if it were allowed, but I do that when I'm not flying anyway. Changes made since 9/11 will keep the bad guys out of the cockpit.
<strong>Sort of the "Panic Button" that was mentioned earlier. (and this $$ had to come out of the airlines pocket ... the gov isn't paying for any of this mandeted stuff)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about just throw 'er into around 2 negative g's?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
If that don't knock them off their feet, they'll be puking for sure!
<strong>Pscates stop being silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:
<strong>The guys in their fifties who are recently retired career military are almost all officers who have spent the preceding two decades as supervisors and administrators not MPs. You're making the dubious correlation between use of any gun at some time and skill level in police tactics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm making the sensible correlation that anyone in the military - MP or not - has, as part of their whole damn reason to exist, training in firearms, hand-to-hand combat, self-defense tactics, training to not "freak out" or freeze up at the type of situations most of us civilians would piss our pants over, etc. Whether or not someone has been a "desk jockey" for a while, fact is every military person I know who is chained to a desk or in an administrative position is STILL a) in impeccable physical condition b) is routinely testing/qualifying with firearms to maintain some level of proficiency. All the retired military people I know (co-workers, family, etc.) still - from the things instilled in them during their time in the military - seem to be more inclined to take care of themselves physically, own and shoot guns for sport or hobby (pistol ranges and entering marksmanship contests). You don't just suddenly turn into some know-nothing, "afraid to handle a gun" type as soon as you get put into an office/administrative job, or retire from active duty. I'd put a 55-year-old retired Marine with a clean record and good performance marks against anyone here when it came to making me feel safe or secure. I've spent 10 years in and around that life, so I might have a different perspective on it than you. Not being "silly", just talking about what I know and see.
[quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:
<strong>And no offense intended but your hunters idea was not the best. It is easier for a terrorist to get a hunting license than to get the visa to get into the US in most cases. I mean come on, use some sense please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, out of all your other stuff, this one I will grant you. Hunters, not having any sort of law or military backgrond, probably not. They're using rifles and I guess a deer or duck doeesn't present the psychological factor that cops and soldiers have to deal with when on the job. Fine. However, if a hunter is a retired cop or military, well...
I AM using sense. Did you not read my post when I said (at least twice) that there would be extensive record-checking, personal profile evaluation, security clearances, etc. In other words, you couldn't just walk up to the airline on the day you fly and go "yeah, listen...I spent three years in the army in 1981. Uh, can I have a gun for this flight?".
It's not like that. It would be a tad more set up and well-implemented than that. Not any schlub off the street would be eligible. Yes, military or law enforcement service would be merely the FIRST requirement one would have to meet.
Then from that, you'd have to weed out or dismiss the ones with shitty records, evaluations, reviews, grades, performance assessments, etc. Cops who've been suspended for illegal or unethical behavior, soldiers dishonorably discharged, whackjobs who spazzed out in the mess hall and attacked their platoon leader because "voices told him to", etc. would ALL not even make it past the first tier of eligibility.
I still think there mere idea that their MIGHT be someone on board a) armed and knows how to use it b) isn't afraid to get his hands dirty with thugs and criminals c) has spent a chunk of his life doing this type of work is - by default - just as much, if not more, qualified and able to do this type of thing than anyone else I know.
If you don't dig the idea, that's fine. But I've not said anything outrageous or "silly". I'll give you (and renounce) the "hunter" idea, but that's it. My other views still stand.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
The other thing is to make sure no explosives get on board.
I can't imagine a plane full of Americans being hijacked without a huge fight. I don't see them being successful anymore.
As for guns on planes: A would-be marshal would be reacting to a terrorist who had already pulled a gun, not getting a jump on them, so the act might prompt a firefight. The terrorist has nothing to lose if the airplane is compromised or passengers are shot, and the current crop don't seem to fear death, so that's not a deterrent. So unless the marshal has the good luck to be behind one without being in the sights of another, a gun won't do much. If passengers take advantage of the fact that somebody is guaranteed to be right behind any given terrorist, plain old subdual is a great option (and, it seems, a common one for dealing with trouble on airplanes). There's always at least one NCAA heavyweight wrestler/football lineman/300 pound guy willing to sit on a jerk for the remainder of the flight.