pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart "
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart "
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

Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
US Sky Marshals?

Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives?

The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
mornign a couple of years back

Thosew were box cutters. Box cutters are rectangular metal devices wherein a
single-edged razor blade forms the blade. Carpet knives have fixed wooden
handles over a steel blade shank and have a 2" to 3" hooked, curved,
blade. That's only one thing you got wrong out of many.

-*MORT*-

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?

Please correct me if I got it wrong, but have it really been the Brits
failing in protecting their property (inefficient intelligence etc.) and
losing planes because of terrorist action? I don't think so, but to be
fair: maybe this could have happened anywhere else as well.

But much more important: don't you realize that you play exactly the game
desired by those crappy terrorists? They sit in their stinking holes and
laugh about the western world seperating through opinions like yours.
Really sad!

SCNR,
HL

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote:

I understand what you are saying, but it's pointless to explain it to most
U.S. citizens. The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into our very
constitution when our nation was founded. Which would be fine, except they
authors quite frankly put enough additional and vaugely-worded verbage into
the second ammendment that their true intent will never be fully understood.
As a result, there are fewer hot-button issues for Americans than this one.
It's bigger and far more passionate than Pauline Hanson ever even tried to
be.

Yes, I understand how Americans feel about this (many of them anyway)
and I don't really expect to convince them. I guess trying to push the
view that everyone needs guns onto other countries is one of my hot
buttons, and I couldn't resist responding :-)

That's an extremely unfair comment. The hijacking policy at that time was still
based on the "Take me to Cuba" scenarios. Until 9/11 no one had hijacked an
airliner to use as a weapon. On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and died trying
to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe bomber) passengers
reacted swiftly and decisively. You should be ashamed of a statement like that.

Dave Reinhart


Shaun wrote:



Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:26:26 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article , nick says...

"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."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

You just don't get it do you? We don't give a ****, now do as your
told or get shot down.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart "
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart "
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

Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
US Sky Marshals?

Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives?

The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
mornign a couple of years back

You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS?

On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and died
trying to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe bomber)
passengers reacted swiftly and decisively.

Which goes to show how silly it is to take weapons away from passengers. Now
tell me, if you were a terrorist, which airplane would you prefer to board -
the one with security, or the one without?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

John Gaquin wrote:

"nick" wrote in message news:NQjIb.282

So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

Those are Nick's imaginary pet birds.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

Groggy No-cite on the job site.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/gregatnicks.jpg

On Tue, 31 Dec 2003, Teacherjh wrote:

On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and died
trying to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe bomber)
passengers reacted swiftly and decisively.

Which goes to show how silly it is to take weapons away from passengers. Now
tell me, if you were a terrorist, which airplane would you prefer to board -
the one with security, or the one without?

Obviously the one without security is far more vulnerable.

However, you seem to be equating pax-with-guns with security, with no
evidence to back you up. Last week someone posted the "Archie Bunker
security plan" (give every pax a handgun) which made the same error...

Frankly, given a choice between flying commercially on a plane where
everyone had a gun, and a plane where nobody had a gun, I'd run, not walk,
to board the gun-free aircraft. Flying seems to turn some people into
real a**holes - do you really, really want these folks to be drunk *and*
armed?

You'll note that in the shoe-bomber incident, the pax & crew managed quite
well without firearms. Given how crowded commercial flights are, the
chances of a friendly-fire incident (someone hitting another passenger)
seem far too high.

I'm not at all opposed to armed sky marshals, though. The difference being
that the marshals will be *professional* law enforcement officers, not
just random passengers with sidearms. Similarly, whatever the marshals are
armed with will hopefully be appropriate - frangible bullets, etc.

The American ideal of "safety through arming everyone" really is alien to
most of the rest of Western civilization. Thankfully.

Brian.

They will never get rid of firearms anyware as long as they sell mills and
lathes they will be made.


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
news
Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

I do, Andrew, but then again I lived in Canberra for 15 months... an no
Canberra jokes! Yes, it is a bush capital, and yes, they do close all the
restaurants at something around 8:00 PM, but we really liked it there!

I understand what you are saying, but it's pointless to explain it to most
U.S. citizens. The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into our
very
constitution when our nation was founded. Which would be fine, except
they
authors quite frankly put enough additional and vaugely-worded verbage
into
the second ammendment that their true intent will never be fully
understood.
As a result, there are fewer hot-button issues for Americans than this
one.
It's bigger and far more passionate than Pauline Hanson ever even tried to
be.

You are correct in many of your assertions, of course. Australia, and the
UK, and nearly all other western nations have very strict gun control, and
yet they have basically the same crime rates at the United States. In
fact,
total violent crime rates in all these nations is more or less at the
same.
People attack one another just as much in Australia as they do here. The
only noticible difference between these nations relates to the number of
deaths caused by such attacks. You are just as likely to be attacked here
in Pittsburgh as you are in Melbourne, but you are far more likely to die
as
a result of your wounds. Firearms are the reason behind this difference,
of
course, but a good 50% of my fellow citizens will dispute this
relationship
until thier dying breath. If you don't believe me, watch what happens in
the replies to this posting.

I must admit that there is a certain logic to the belief that having an
armed populace will reduce crime. The theory beind this belief is obvious
and from all outward appearances, quite sound. But theories have to be
supported by scientific data to be valid, and the data have never really
supported this one.