OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Wdtabor" wrote:
I find the company of my fellow honest citizens who are armed to be
comforting.

I don't.

Many of my fellow honest citizens don't have sense enough to pour water
out of a boot. Anyone who can vote can carry a gun in many states:
considering the quality of elected officials, how comforting is that?

I'm a gun owner. I'm also a licensed driver. I don't expect any better
judgment from my fellow gun owners than I do from my fellow drivers.
--

Always the positive, right Dan?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Always the positive, right Dan?

I admit it: I'm getting more cynical with each passing year, but I plead
that the pressure of experience is irresistable.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article , "Dan Luke"
writes:

I find the company of my fellow honest citizens who are armed to be
comforting.

I don't.

Many of my fellow honest citizens don't have sense enough to pour water
out of a boot. Anyone who can vote can carry a gun in many states:
considering the quality of elected officials, how comforting is that?


It must be niced to be so sure of your superiority over your fellow citizens.

I must point out that operating a car responsibly requires a great deal more
skill and judgment than operating a handgun. Responsible use of a handgun
simply requires leaving it in its holster until something so bad happens that
anything you do with the gun will be better.

Don

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

"Wdtabor" wrote:
It must be niced to be so sure of your superiority over your fellow
citizens.

I said many, not all. Are you telling me you don't feel your judgement
is superior to that of many of your fellow citizens? If so, how then do
you account for the fact that you hold political views that place you in
a minority?

I must point out that operating a car responsibly requires a great
deal more
skill and judgment than operating a handgun.

Requires it, maybe, but does it always get it?

Responsible use of a handgun simply requires leaving it in its holster
until
something so bad happens that anything you do with the gun will be
better.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Are we to assume that all gun toters
can judge such situations so nicely?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Michael" wrote in message
m...

Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where a passenger
who is absolutely unknown to you is armed while you yourself are
unarmed?


Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where if a passenger
who is absolutely unknown to you is armed his purpose is something other
than counterterrorism?

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse...863275,00.html

What?

Are they using "Goldfinger" as a training film there now?

Or has hoplophobia just turned their minds to goo?

Don


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.

2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin.

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

"John Roncallo" wrote in message
. com...

1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
guns on board.


Wouldn't the terrorists have to know which flights carried air marshals?



Now they just have to get the ones that were carried on
board by sky marshals.


Wouldn't they have to identify the air marshals to do that? If they can't
identify the marshals or formulate a tactic to obtain the marshal's weapon,
wouldn't they be in the position of having to get their own weapons aboard?



2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin.


So what? That would just mean there's a bullet-sized hole in the cabin in
addition to all the other holes in the cabin.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"John Roncallo" wrote in message
. com...

1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
guns on board.


Wouldn't the terrorists have to know which flights carried air marshals?

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.

Of course, for this to matter we have to assume that it is impossible (or at
least very difficult) to smuggle a weapon on board. I find myself
unwilling to make that assumption. If some kid could do it - and multiple
times at that - then why not a collection of savvy terrorists?

The risk of having a known weapon on board has to be balanced against the
possibility of having an unknown weapon on board.

- Andrew

P.S. How do the marshals get through security? Even aircrew is scanned.
How obvious would the lone unscanned person be?

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

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.

Of course, for this to matter we have to assume that it is impossible (or
at
least very difficult) to smuggle a weapon on board. I find myself
unwilling to make that assumption. If some kid could do it - and multiple
times at that - then why not a collection of savvy terrorists?

The risk of having a known weapon on board has to be balanced against the
possibility of having an unknown weapon on board.


Please explain how having an armed marshal aboard is a "weak point". How do
the terrorists get the weapon away from the marshal?



P.S. How do the marshals get through security? Even aircrew is
scanned.
How obvious would the lone unscanned person be?


I've always thought it humorous that the flight crew was scanned. Why would
the flight crew need a weapon at all? They're already locked in the
cockpit. All the pilot or copilot would have to do is incapacitate the
other.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Please explain how having an armed marshal aboard is a "weak point". How
do the terrorists get the weapon away from the marshal?

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.

Certain to succeed? No. But a fair chance, and this doesn't even require
the terrorists to be armed with almanacs, fishing line, or anything else
"fancy".

[...]

I've always thought it humorous that the flight crew was scanned. Why
would
the flight crew need a weapon at all? They're already locked in the
cockpit. All the pilot or copilot would have to do is incapacitate the
other.

They'd be using the same techniques one terrorist might try against the
marshal, BTW. But let's not forget the possibility of the aircrew
colluding, or one pilot just waiting for the other pilot to hit the head.

Which, of course, begs the question of how pilots are being vetted by the
TSA. What type of clearance is required to be an ATP today? What about
working for a foreign airline?

I'm beginning to think that the real solution is to ban airliners, and force
everyone to take small aircraft. Some might be used as weapons, but they'd
be less effective.

No, I'm not serious. But since I prefer to fly small than large, why not do
what the US administration does: hide my own self-interest in the guise of
"national security".

- Andrew