OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 at 20:16:01 in message
, Wdtabor
wrote:
What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?

They grew old.

--
David CL Francis

ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote
I live in Virginia, I am often in the company of people I do not know who are
armed

And I live in Texas. When I moved to Texas, they stopped me at the
border to check for firearms. It was OK, though - I had some, so they
let me in. OK, that was a joke - but realize that it's reflective of
Texas culture, and I'm a Texan by choice. Most of the pilots at my
home airport are armed, and I feel safer because the right to carry
arms is available to the populace, not limited to a special class.

I also accept that certain environments, due to their very nature, are
too dangerous for anyone to be carrying guns. Chemical plants are a
perfect example - the risks from accidental discharge or misuse are
just too great. Even in Texas, nobody carries a gun in a chemical
plant, and that includes security. Whether a passenger airplane
constitutes such an environment is debatable - I personally don't
think it does but I'm willing to go along with the majority if it
decides otherwise. What I will not accept is the existence of a
special armed class. That way lies the social model of lords and
peasants.

There is another aspect to this - as PIC, I am responsible for the
safety of the flight. If a person I know nothing about is armed, and
I'm not, then I don't have any way of assuring that safety.
Therefore, I'm not interested in accepting the responsibility. It's
that simple.

I trust the honest people around me to share in our mutual defense against
those who are unlawful.

That's great, but we're not talking about letting ordinary citizens
board the plane armed. We're talking about making it a special
privilege, available to only a special class.

Michael

Wdtabor wrote:

Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there is an
armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
pressurized airliner.

Which is understandable.

But what puzzles me is, that the DHS now REQUIRES all planes to have
ARMED passengers (Air Marshals are just that: non-rev Pax.) on Board.

I wonder how difficult it might be to become an Air Marshal on Saudia,
Emirates, EgyptAir, SaudiArabAir, PIA, Biman Bangladesh, Royal Maroc,
Royal Jordanian or whatever other Airline from the middle-to-far-east
flies to the US.

Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:44:02 GMT, John Roncallo
wrote:

All this article states is that people have some concerns about having
guns on board. These are legitimate concerns. It does not mean it will
or will not happen.

1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
guns on board. Now they just have to get the ones that were carried on
board by sky marshals.

How, pray tell? the air marshalls are undercover. Moreover, they're
trained to fight. Tough to identify the marshalls, let alone overpower
them.

2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin.

Impossible. The pressure systems on an airplane could literally
keep the cabin pressurized even if an entire window were to disappear.
A few bullet holes would make no difference in cabin pressure.

When you live in a society (British) where police officers dont carry
guns, and do so quit successfully. Having concerns is only natural.
Addressing all concerns and using a carefully thought out plan is highly
advisable.

John Roncallo

No, arming the pilots and putting air marshals on board is the ONLY
option. Anything else is catering to the terrorists.


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around the
throat while the other goes for the weapon.

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? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

Of course, if my plan were adopted, allow all Concealed Weapons Permit holders
to carry at will on any flight, there might be anywhere from zero to dozens.

Don

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

Wdtabor wrote:


Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
the throat while the other goes for the weapon.

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? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

Sigh In you pop up this thread a few messages, you'll see that I wrote:

Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon something
called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.

If nothing else, it's yet another "weak point" against which an "attack" can
be attempted. It means that the terrorist doesn't need to get a weapon on
board, but just get access to the marshal's identity on a flight. That is,
there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
before there was just one.

So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.
That's fine...until/unless they do learn the secret. In that
case, security is actually *reduced* as they now have access to
a weapon on board (assuming, again, that it's not easier to simply
smuggle something on board than it is to discern this secret).

Of course, if my plan were adopted, allow all Concealed Weapons Permit
holders to carry at will on any flight, there might be anywhere from zero
to dozens.

Your plan has a couple of advantages: the secret changes, making
(1) it tougher to discern for a given case (ie. flight) and (2)
making the cost of a "lost" secret lower, as it would impact only
a single flight.

However, it also has a major weakness: the assumption that all the
carriers are "safe". As you widen the population of people permitted
to carry weapons on board, you make it more likely that this population
includes your attackers (either as actual members or through impersonation).

Finally, your personal values are reflected in your comment "the penalty
for guessing wrong is death". That matters to you. That might even matter
to at least some of the actual attackers (I seem to recall reading that some
of the 2001/9/11 attackers didn't know it was a suicide mission). But
it doesn't need to matter to the attack planners.

I've no doubt that those planners - sitting safely on the side - would be
perfectly willing to send attackers into battle with falsified information.
The likelyhood of success drops, of course. But then they've plenty of
victims waiting for martyrdom.

- Andrew

"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? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

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


Of course, if my plan were adopted, allow all Concealed Weapons Permit holders
to carry at will on any flight, there might be anywhere from zero to dozens.

Or they could just issue guns to all the passengers before the flight...pillow? blanket?
pistol?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it (!)
nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my
car.
And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing
too
close to cops carrying a weapon.


What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
decide?

You mean Americans then - tell them to **** off.

"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-BCCAC6.20445730122003@shawnews...

What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?

most of them are have passed away.

Those that haven't have been made airmarshalls.
apart from being 90 years old, suffering from Alzheimers and wearing
diapers they fill the role (and the diaper) very well.

So - are we all feeling safer yet?
I would be very comfortable knowing that one of them was on my flight -
as long as he wasn't sitting next to me

Why is everyone scared of being on the same plane as a guy wirth a gun?
A guy with an Almanac - that is reallllly scary.
Two Almanacs? Run - it's Billy The Kid.
They used to ask if you packed your own bags, or if you had a suitcase
bomb or a pair of nailclippers.
Now they ask the best date to plant wheat in Idaho.
If you answer it correctly they send in the swat team.

Isn't it just slightly possible, that at some time, someone, somewhere
lost their direction? Sure as hell seems like it from where I'm sitting.

Me too. Interesting when a book seems more powerful than the "greatest
nation on earth", the country where it is so difficult to make a telephone
call from a payphone where to dial a 10 digit number you have to key in 30
digits.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
the
throat while the other goes for the weapon.


While they're doing that the other marshal shoots and kills them.

How did the terrorists identify the marshal?