OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:07:23 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

However, what would occur if one unarmed terrorist popped up yelling "I'm
the air marshal". The marshal would subdue him/her, yes?

No.

Hmm. Marshals would have to be trained to interfere only in extreme
cases...which means that the first terrorist might have to be a little more
extreme.

Bingo!

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dylan Smith" wrote

There are dozens of ways. It's sort of like solving an equation

The bottom line is, no terrorist will ever again take over a passenger
flight. The crowd will overcome them, or crash the plane, well short of
its
objective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1936942.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2035546.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2228720.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2330021.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2374061.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2486935.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2502033.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2520069.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2676081.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2738993.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2897727.stm

Some hijackers taken by crew, some by air marshals, some
were landed safely under orders of the hijackers. Not sure
about any hijackers taken by passengers, I think I saw that
it happened in one of them.

All since 11/9/2001. So you can't say the crowd would
overcome them all the time and none would be successful.
You also can't say no one would try to hijack a plane in
the old sense any more.

Another take on sky marshals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2144133.stm

Paul

Wdtabor wrote:

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

You'd better check those statistics again. Robbery and assault rates
have been about the same, and the rate of rape is about 1/3 that of the
US. There are variations by year, and whether you use police statistics
or victim surveys.

There are enough statistics on the subject on this site to choke a
horse:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/htm...6/contents.htm

More significantly, the US murder rate is about 8 times that of England.

It therefore doesn't appear that having guns has been a significant
factor in the occurrence of rape, assault, or robbery. By your
argument, since the US has one of the highest per capita gun ownership
rates in the world, there should be a huge difference, with the
advantage to the US, which there isn't. In fact, the stats show that the
rates of some serious crimes are far higher in the US than in England.

The statistics don't prove the need for gun ownership to deter personal
crimes such as robbery or rape, but show there isn't much effect either
way.

However, since the murder rate is 6 times as high in the US, and the
chance of being murdered with a gun is ten times as high, it sure looks
like the statistics suggest exactly the opposite of what you are trying
to say about the benefit of guns.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

And while they're trying to do that, the second air marshall shoots all
three of
them.


What prevents the first air marshal from shooting them?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
You might wish to know that civilian "gun toters" are about one SEVENTH as
likely to have a "bad shoot" than their "highly trained" brethren that tote
guns AND badges.

That's an excellent point, and precisely the reason I don't care for
the idea of a special class carrying weapons in areas/situations where
the ordinary citizen may not. If airplanes are too dangerous for
weapons carrying, then they're too dangerous for anyone to carry a
weapon. Certainly if the PIC can't have one, then nobody can. The
argument that the air marshalls are "highly trained" does not impress
me, for the exact reason you cited.

This is a matter of survival and we're talking about survival
strategy, not politics. Politics are all about compromise; strategy
can't be. If you have two diametrically opposed stategies (for
example - everyone is armed, or no one is armed) either strategy may
be right. They may even BOTH be right. But a compromise solution
(only arming those who are "highly trained" for example) is guaranteed
to be wrong.

For extra credit, try to identify the political figure, author, and
aviator I am paraphrasing.

Michael

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:
You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Really? I didn't know that. I can believe that burglaries and
stealing car stereos are more prevalent - it's much softer and
easier for unarmed criminals over here to do that than hold up
petrol stations/shops which seems to be more prevalent over
there.

Assault and rape, well, I don't know about those. Have to look
them up.

First google search came up with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm

Apparently, rape is 3 times higher in the US than the UK.
Murder is 5.7 times higher. Shootings (no surprise) are 60
times higher. 68% of murders in the US are shootings, 7%
in England and Wales. The report agrees that burglary,
assault and car crime is higher in the UK.

Maybe with the assault figues it's a case of more pub/
neighbour/whatever brawls get away with being assaults
whereas in the US they end up as murder rather than
assault statistics! :-) (I'm semi-joking here, please don't take
offence!)

Burglaries often (mostly?) happen when there's no one
home. Arming people wouldn't change anything. And just
because people don't have guns in their homes, it doesn't
mean they don't have big D-cell torches, hockey sticks, etc,
with which to defend themselves and their property. It's
catching the b*gg*rs at it that's the problem.

I caught someone breaking into my car once. Didn't need
any weapons, I just held him by his outstretched arm until
the police arrived.

Oh, and someone said New York was the worst place in
the US...I think it's long ceased to be that. I believe that title
now goes to Washington DC. According to the web page,
the murder rate in NY is 8.6 per 100,000, whereas in
Washington DC it's 49.15 per 100,000. England and Wales
as a whole is 1.4, London is 2.9. US average is 6.3.

During my (on average) once a year (for 1 or 2 weeks) visits
to Winter Haven in Florida, a pretty smallish town, I've
arrived a day after a policeman was shot dead on one
occasion, and on another, turned up at the Winn Dixie just as
the police were laying out the tape after a drive-by shooting.
Other friends of mine were inside the shop! But no one locks
their cars when they go shopping.

Paul

In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:


Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is death".
Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then get
the gun off the air marshal.

I don't have an opinion on this, just thought I'd throw that in! In reality
I
would guess that the air marshal wouldn't draw his weapon if the attackers
were unarmed, and the penalty wouldn't be death.


Agreed, that is why I prefer simply letting passengers with Concealed Carry
Permits carry anywhere, including airplanes. Thatg way there is no way for a
terrorist to know how many are on board, who they are, and if all have revealed
themsleves in response to a provocation.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Paul Sengupta wrote:

Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is
death".
Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then
get
the gun off the air marshal.

And while they're trying to do that, the second air marshall shoots all
three of
them.

manifest: 250 air marshals, 20 pax, 4 terrorists

"Jack Davis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your
two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?

He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

Fortunately, it's not that simple. They don't all sit in first
class...

and they don't all not drink

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
the business". The general population can go about their business
without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.

You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.


Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

yes but we don't get guys shooting four people, kidnapping three girls and
be being sought by a jackass of a sheriff like the one in Georgia County.
Whose retard son is he and which retards voted him into office?