[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:03:54 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:
Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
if ya' know what I mean.

Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
be there regardless?

Having been through a few passenger screenings for transatlantic flight
recently, how are "bad guys" meant to get aboard with available
firearms? If my belt buckle sets off the alarms then a handgun will do
so. (Please no foolishness about Glocks being 'undetectable', I owned
one and the frame is barium-filled plastic with metal inserts, the slide
solid steel - superb handguns but fully compliant with security
requirement)

Barium filled ?

I own two, and I've never heard anything about Barium.

Can you provide a cite? I'm interested.

Harry Andreas
Engineering Raconteur

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I've proved I'm a half-decent shot with ... called
indirect fire; so where do I apply for some armament?

"Drop two seat rows and fire for effect !"



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
if ya' know what I mean.

So if you suspected that your wife would become more unsettled about
travel due to my remarks...why upset her more? [shaking head
curiously] Tell her, that airline crews and FAMs are at a heightened
state of readiness. We are!

asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
right?" They nodded.

Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

Given the options presented by those islamist ****s, what is YOUR
solution?

Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

Look, if your wife is offended by somebody writing ****, don't let her
read this. Filter my response for her.

Lots of folks are nervous fliers, I get it, I understand that. Lots of
folks are nervous about terrorists right now, I get that too.

Islamist ****s are out there "testing" the system, I know this
personally. You don't hear about it...but these ****s are getting
arrested when airplanes land.

Juvat

Juvat wrote:
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
Mike Marron blurted out:

Heh.

Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
if ya' know what I mean.

So if you suspected that your wife would become more unsettled about
travel due to my remarks...why upset her more? [shaking head
curiously]

See my response to Ed (for the most part, I was just funnin' with ya).

Tell her, that airline crews and FAMs are at a heightened state of readiness.
We are!

And I respect and salute folks like you for safely transporting folks
like me and my loved ones around the country and across
vast continents via efficient "high-speed transportation." Thanks
again!

asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
right?" They nodded.

Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

Given the options presented by those islamist ****s, what is YOUR
solution?

Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
you!

Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

Look, if your wife is offended by somebody writing ****, don't let her
read this. Filter my response for her.

Lots of folks are nervous fliers, I get it, I understand that. Lots of
folks are nervous about terrorists right now, I get that too.

Islamist ****s are out there "testing" the system, I know this
personally. You don't hear about it...but these ****s are getting
arrested when airplanes land.

Most excellent, thanks for the help, sir. Seriously.

Juvat
^^^^^^^^

Salute!

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:15:58 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
you!

Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
good, but there is a limit.

Or were you planning on loading those little supposedly-nonlethal bean
bags? I don't think I like that any better.

How about a flammenwerfer if you don't want a handgun?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

From: Mary Shafer
Date: 12/25/2003 2:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:15:58 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
you!

Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
good, but there is a limit.

Or were you planning on loading those little supposedly-nonlethal bean
bags? I don't think I like that any better.

How about a flammenwerfer if you don't want a handgun?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Mary, you have to think big. All airliners should have built in bombs. If
someone hijacks the airplane destroy it. Potential hijackers will get the hint.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Mary Shafer" wrote...

Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
good, but there is a limit.

As in most things, "it depends"...

If you are thinking about a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 buck or larger
in normal loads, you are probably right (though I haven't done or seen any
analysis). With "bird shot" (#7 or 8 lead), though, the trade-off would be the
close-range "column of shot" effect vs lesser penetration. Even with a cylinder
bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel, the shot
does not disperse significantly until some finite distance from the barrel.
Until then, the shot is effectively a .72 cal (for 12 gauge) slug with muzzle
energy of 2000-3000 ft-lb.

OTOH, a short .410 gauge shotgun will likely have less muzzle energy (650 ft-lb
typical for slugs) than a max .45 Colt (410-840 ft-lb -- using comparative
figures for a multi-purpose [.45 Colt/.410 shotshell] Thompson/Center Contender
handgun) or typical .44 magnum (1100-1600 ft-lb) load, and slightly more than a
..45 auto (350-530 ft-lb). A 16 or 20 gauge shotgun will, obviously, be
somewhere in between (1400-2000 ft-lb).

I suppose I would worry most about a short-range "clean miss" with a 12-gauge
and buckshot -- it would make a BIG hole. Also, I would worry about ANY miss
with ANY firearm -- the potential for injuring innocent passengers is high
(though more acceptable than crashing the airplane and killing everyone).
However, longer-range "misses" with smaller-size shot would be less likely to be
lethal or damage-producing, and may be stopped by a seat back or partition.

OTOOH, I have seen evaluations of shotshells in .357 and .45 Auto caliber in
handgun loads. They are much less effective than any solid bullet load against
clothed bodies.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "John R
Weiss" blurted out:

OTOH, a short .410 gauge shotgun will likely have less muzzle energy (650 ft-lb
typical for slugs) than a max .45 Colt (410-840 ft-lb -- using comparative
figures for a multi-purpose [.45 Colt/.410 shotshell] Thompson/Center Contender
handgun) or typical .44 magnum (1100-1600 ft-lb) load, and slightly more than a
.45 auto (350-530 ft-lb). A 16 or 20 gauge shotgun will, obviously, be
somewhere in between (1400-2000 ft-lb).

What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?

Just curious...and out of pocket for five days.

Juvat

From: "John R Weiss"

snip

With "bird shot" (#7 or 8 lead), though, the trade-off would bethe
close-range "column of shot" effect vs lesser penetration. Even with a
cylinder bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel,



Under federal law the minimum barrel lengths are 18" for shotguns and 16" for
rifles. I know of no state law that furthe restricts length.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

See my response to Ed (for the most part, I was just funnin' with ya).

No problem. No offense taken.

Juvat