pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

This is no doubt true, but it likely would have led to unnecessary
deaths. Until 9/11, hijackers weren't interested in killing
themselves, but had other agendas. So I think that the pre 9/11
protocol was the correct one.


No, I don't think so! If only one of the pre-911 hijackers had
encountered a splitting headache, the whole hijacking nonsense from ca
1965 on would have stopped cold. It was the policy of acquiesense that
emboldened the 9/11 hijackers. Had they known that the penalty for
storming the flight deck was sudden death, the problem would never have
occurred.




I also think that most of the changes following 9/11 were also
correct, including the use of armed sky marshals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Interviews with criminals show that many pick and choose. Evidence has
shown that violent crime decreased in counties that changed their handgun
laws to allow people to carry. (in the US - See Lott) Areas that imposed
handgun control saw increased violent crime. Clearly, if you outlaw guns
only those who obey the laws will be unarmed. The handgun bans have been
ineffective in the US and I suspect elsewhere. Criminals will keep using
them until more effective deterrence is used.

The bottom line is that I would prefer to be allowed to defend myself
legally.

Luckily I am not as ripe a target for some violent crimes as other people.
I certainly would not refuse a 110 lb woman the right to defend herself
against a 220lb rapist.

Firearms are just tools. They will be used for evil by bad people and for
good by good people, just as other tools are used.


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you
choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

What on earth makes you think that criminals somehow pick and choose where
they are going to commit a crime? Most of them don't have a whole array
of
transportation options. They more or less have to commit their offenses
within walking distance of wherever they wake up in the morning. They
don't
consult the internet, the census bureau, or even the World Almanac to
analyze handgun ownership patterns across various zip codes. Based on
interviews with offenders, it rather appears that most of them don't even
have any firm plan of committing an offense until maybe 10 seconds before
they actually do it, and they simply aren't bright enough to weigh all the
costs and benefits in those 10 seconds. Most of them wouldn't be able to
form a coherent thought if you gave them 10 hours.

I agree that, for you and -- both reasonable people -- it makes sense to
avoid areas that are well protected by an armed citizenry. But the guy
who
is desperately looking for $20 to get his next blast isn't all that
reasonable, and will go for the next open window he sees. If he had the
ability to think about things, he would be concerned with the pressence or
absence of an armed homeowner. But he isn't thinking about that, and
nothing is going to make him think about it.

On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
(J. Hall) two-fingered to all:

| And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
| who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
|
|I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
|later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
|shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
|that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
|tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
|the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
|likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
|something.

They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls. If
you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through both
sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But, they
pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.

http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.p...2665&page=1979


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?


Who was too stupid to safeguard their planes on 911, causing those
office workers in those ugly buildings to do their Superman
impressions? Wasn't the ****-whiskered Brits, seems to me that it was
the gormless merkins. Please feel free to continue to go about things
arse-up - you've never learned a thing from your past mistakes,
there's no reason you should now.
Found Bin Laden yet?


--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

Bill Smith wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
wrote:


"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm



LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
and tragically stupid.
Bill Smith

Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
chap.


"Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
remedies to try before then?


It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.

It's whining.

Bill Smith

"Richard Hertz" wrote:

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
subject.

I don't know of the papers, I am just speaking from the experience of
living in a country where guns are uncommon.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.

In the US, yes. I think that is largely a result of the fact that so
many people have guns, and therefore they are easy to come by. In
Australia, very few people have guns so they are much more difficult
to come by. Since no-one is likely to have a gun, your common or
garden criminal is unlikely to carry one either. If you interrupt
someone robbing your house, the likely result is that you scare the
**** out of each other and the criminal runs away.

I read that because of the rarity, a black market gun here sells for
about 4 times the price of the same gun through a gun dealer.
Guessing, a gun is probably about $1000 which would make the "street
price" $4000. How many criminals are going to pay that for something
they don't really need? Most criminals are desperate for cash for
drugs etc, if (guessing again) a hit of heroin is $20 the gun would
buy 200 hits of heroin. I think your average criminal here would be
more likely to sell the gun for the cash.

A while back the "weapon" of choice for armed robberies seemed to be
the syringe. "Give me your money or I'll prick you" :-)

Of course there are criminals with guns here. Mostly however they seem
to be higher up in the chain, and are unlikely to be robbing people on
the street or in their houses.

"Little John" wrote in message
...
On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
(J. Hall) two-fingered to all:

| And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
| who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
|
|I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
|later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
|shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
|that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
|tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
|the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
|likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
|something.

They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls.
If
you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
both
sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But,
they
pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.

http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.p...2665&page=1979


Even if they fired 9MM rounds, danger to the aircraft, and the passengers,
would be extremely slight.

-*MORT*-

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:13:34 GMT, "Morton Davis"
wrote:


"Little John" wrote in message
.. .
On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
(J. Hall) two-fingered to all:

| And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
| who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
|
|I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
|later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
|shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
|that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
|tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
|the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
|likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
|something.

They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls.
If
you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
both
sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But,
they
pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.

http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.p...2665&page=1979


Even if they fired 9MM rounds, danger to the aircraft, and the passengers,
would be extremely slight.

CITE!


-*MORT*-



--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:50:52 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a heart?


Right. It's far better that the marshal drop his gun so the terrorists can


let's assume YOU are the marshall? what would _you_ do in *this* situation?
You are that cool? Yes? My respect.

then take control of the airplane and kill several hundred or several
thousand than to have a terrorist kill a passenger.

The risk of life ... as life itself is one of the riskiest things itself.
Every life ends with death.

About arming: Do you know when I saw the last weapon in real life? Tell you
what: I can't remember if it was in a shopping center about 1,5 years ago
in the US or at the airport when returning from the US (the security
personnel).

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:36:02 -0000, Dave wrote:

What's to say a terrorist doesn't claim to be a marshal when he pulls his
weapon. Are all marshals going to be white?

for sure. clean races, you know. and of proper religious mindset. at least
he will not look like a so called "camelfuc*er"

ah well. :-/(

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.