Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/12/2002 12:21:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 12:22:51 AM EST by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 12:45:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 6:35:02 AM EST
My favorite...
Doesn't this then change the problem for hijackers of "How to get the guns past the metal detectors" to "How to get the guns off the pilots"? To me the fact that a terrorist could bank on knowing exactly where a gun is held on a plane doesn't make me feel any safer. Sure a pilot is going to be alert for the first few weeks, maybe months, after they get the gun but what about 18 months down the line? Contrary to the beliefs of many (but not all) Americans more guns do not mean more safety. Andy Pellew, Cambridge, UK
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 7:18:04 AM EST
Maybe we should pass on this idea. It frightens Ahmad! [>(] [b]Has anybody thought of all those incidents where people who fit a certain "profile" are shot by trigger happy cops? As it is, I feel extremely uncomfortable going to the back of the plane to stretch. Because of my Arab looks everybody eyes me suspiciously. Now, I have to deal with the additional possibility of being shot at, just in case somebody mistook any of my gestures as threatening! Ahmad, Cambridge, UK [/b]
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 7:25:48 AM EST
This one is really an annoying wanker. [b]So when the armed pilot who is facing a terrorist with a hostess as hostage, what decision is he to make? He is not an anti terrorist member of SWAT, he's a bus driver that flies. If a terrorist makes it onto the plane you've already lost. In America many people have guns to protect themselves against less dangerous people than terrorists and it doesn't seem to help reduce the violence or number of gun related deaths. Also the pilot being aware of the dangers of decompression is likely to be slightly more hesitant to shoot than a person ready to die and or kill many. The reasons are numerous why they shouldn't carry guns, even a small application of intelligence shows that. Warren Bonett, UK [/b] "Bus driver that flies." Condescending bastard. You don't have to be some elite member of a counter-terrorist team to use a gun properly in defense of your life or others. "If a terrorist makes it onto the plane you've already lost." Earth to moron! Richard Reid got tackled by passengers. The more lines of defense the better.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 7:32:05 AM EST
I've about given up participating in things like this. It comes down to a difference in mindset between the sheep and the the goats.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 12:16:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 12:38:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 12:39:51 PM EST by Matthew_Q]
Here was my reply: If on a plane that was hijacked, would you rather choose A: a pilot with a gun or B: a squadron of F-16s with Sidewinders ready to blow you all out of the sky? You Brits are a prime example that if you disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals trade becomes easier. I really feel pity for your naievete. I don't own or carry a gun so that the crime rate in my country goes down, I carry it so that MY crime rate stays at 0. It's a personal RIGHT. RIGHTS are something CITIZENS have, and you across the pond, as SUBJECTS, only have priveleges that your government deems acceptable. I do hope that collective heads get pulled out of the collective arses they are stuck in, or you guys are going to be victimized at unbelieveable rates!
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 9:46:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 10:02:17 PM EST by libertyof76]
Originally Posted By shooter69: This one is really an annoying wanker. [b]So when the armed pilot who is facing a terrorist with a hostess as hostage, what decision is he to make? He is not an anti terrorist member of SWAT, he's a bus driver that flies. If a terrorist makes it onto the plane you've already lost. In America many people have guns to protect themselves against less dangerous people than terrorists and it doesn't seem to help reduce the violence or number of gun related deaths. Also the pilot being aware of the dangers of decompression is likely to be slightly more hesitant to shoot than a person ready to die and or kill many. The reasons are numerous why they shouldn't carry guns, even a small application of intelligence shows that. Warren Bonett, UK [/b]
View Quote
What dangers of decompression???? There are none!!! Idiot. Edited to add my comments I sent them: I'd like to address some of the misinformed comments being posted. For starters, there is NO chance of decompression from a bullet. The engineers who design airplanes have already said that. An airplane is not completely sealed(there are small holes all over the place) and so the plane has air compressors keeping a constant pressure. A bullet would just be one more small hole that the compressors would easily adjust for. There is also special bullets that are available that won't penetrate windows or the frame of the plane. Second, some are worried about the gun being taken from the pilot. Is that really any worse than either the plane being flown into a building or the plane being shot down by an F-16? No, of course not. Another suggestion is stun guns. They are very flakey and don't work most of the time. Finally, some suggest a armed guard instead of the pilot being armed. The major problem with that is the number of flights and the number of air marshals, not to mention the cost. There are currently 1500 air marshals, but 35000 flights daily in the US. It really is cost prohibitive to have air marshals on all those flights. Why not just use the pilots, which are already on every flight. Remember, there are two pilots anyway. Plus, most planes are very advanced, and rarely need human intervention anyway. The pilot could easily take 30 seconds or a few minutes to take out some terrorists.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 10:21:45 PM EST
I sent this in: People who say the pilots will be overpowered make no sense since there are normally 2 pilots in the cockpit. Not to mention there are smart guns in development, which can only be fired by the owner of the gun, and there are special holsters that only the owner can draw his gun from. Police can carry guns due to the danger related to their job, how many more people must die before a pilot’s job is dangerous enough to merit it?
Link Posted: 7/13/2002 4:56:26 AM EST
try this on them. Some people object to arming the pilots because "they need to concentrate on flying the airplane." I wonder, should pilots be allowed to have fire extinguishers in the cockpit? If the cockpit caught on fire, wouldn't it be better for the pilot to "concentrate on flying the airplane" instead of trying to put out the fire? TXLEWIS
Link Posted: 7/13/2002 9:07:14 AM EST
IF you can be sure that the terrorists are not armed, I think that arming the pilots is a good strategy – not the best, but at least cost-effective. But, unless you can be certain that there are no ARMED terrorists on board, I don't see arming the pilots as the answer. If the terrorists have firearms, they have the advantage: They know their targets (the pilots) and from where the pilots must launch their counter-attack – from the cockpit door. And once that door is opened, they have access to the controls. Unless the pilots have video of the entire fuselage, they do know who the terrorists are or where they are. They probably would be unaware that an hijack was in progress until the terrorists told them. Hence, the terrorists also have the advantage of surprise. Furthermore, the terrorists can use the passengers as shields – not an option for the pilots! I do not see this scenario playing out too well for the pilots and I do not see the inevitable gunfight turning out too well for the passengers. But I do see terrorists getting into the cockpit. Given this scemario (terrorists onboard with FIREARMS), I can only come to the conclusion that the emphasis and the dollars must go to prevention rather than this so-called cure – i.e., arming the pilots. Prevention, unarmed pilots behind a reinforced door (they are ordered not to open if an attack occurs) and armed, unidentified security on every flight, is the EL AL approach – and it seems to work. I know that the EL AL model is expensive. I also know that they are a small airline with relatively few flights to protect. But Israel, with relatively far less resources to devote to passenger safety, has choosen to spend (relatively far more money than the U.S.) on an effective system to protect its citizens. Having to check-in three hours before your flight (like EL AL) require, is a ball-aching imposition. Furthermore, it would create far larger crowds (and a great terrorist target) all congregated into airport terminals never designed for so many people. Unless, more effective and efficient methods of confirming passenger ID (and yes, profiling) can be developed – and quickly – I don't have some miracle solution. However, a recent audit showed that 25% of airline passengers can get through security carrying firearms. Given that, I do not think that we should regard handing out a Sig Sauer and giving a few hours weapons training to every pilot, as anything more than a simplistic, band-aid approach to passenger safety.
Link Posted: 7/13/2002 11:42:47 AM EST
Ah, good old stcyr, reiterating the wanker's position. The minute I saw the name in the email I had a feeling of the direction the post would go. Where to begin. There are no silver bullets, but you seem to be under a number of misconceptions.
Originally Posted By stcyr: If the terrorists have firearms, they have the advantage: They know their targets (the pilots) and from where the pilots must launch their counter-attack – from the cockpit door. And once that door is opened, they have access to the controls.
View Quote
This is has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. First off, should the terrorists only have box-cutters (hello! sound familiar?) then it is an advantage. Secondly, where do you get this idea that the pilots are going to LEAVE THE COCKPIT AND LAUNCH A COUNTER-ATTACK!! In light of 9/11 they are supposed to remain [u]in the cockpit[/u] AND LAND THE PLANE ASAP (before it gets shot down by CAP that is!) - not risking it by going off on some foolhardy heroics. Clearly you are trapped in some pre-9/11 mindset where the hijackers want to fly to Havana and negotiate. The days of taking the sanity of hijackers for granted is over.
Originally Posted By stcyr: Prevention, unarmed pilots behind a reinforced door (they are ordered not to open if an attack occurs) and armed, unidentified security on every flight, is the EL AL approach – and it seems to work.
View Quote
Read below to find out THAT IS THE POLICY SHOULD THE GUNS IN THE COCKPIT PLAN BE ADOPTED ANYWAY. So it is that [b]and more[/b].
Link Posted: 7/13/2002 11:44:15 AM EST
Herb Hunter, a United pilot and Chicago area spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, said it makes no sense to arm pilots and then require them to intervene if there's a problem in the cabin. "If they have to come out to intervene in the cabin, then you risk losing the whole airplane," he said. "I appreciate the position of the flight attendants, they're entitled to their position. This is ours: If you lose the cockpit, you lose the airplane. You can't bring the weapon out of the cockpit, that's our position right now."
View Quote
You're just as bad as that other English twit who assumes that the pilots are going to be negotiating with the hijackers on behalf of some "hostess." Even the flight attendants are not under that illusion...
Dawn Deeks, an AFA spokeswoman, said Friday that airlines have an "attitude problem" toward flight attendants, who she said are far more than flying waiters and waitresses. "People get bogged down in visible things like serving drinks, but don't underestimate cabin crew," she said. "We know that any threat to the cockpit comes from the cabin. Since Sept. 11, we know flight attendants don't sit quietly, they fight. "Before somebody even gets to the cockpit, passengers and flight attendants are going to fight, there are going to be dead and injured people in the back."
View Quote
Firearms are a [u]last ditch defense[/u] (and not the first) assuming any perps can get past the reinforced door. That's it. Should both your scenario and proposal play out and the hijackers have firearms, break through the door, the pilots are totally defenseless. This way they have a chance WHATEVER IT MAY BE. Passengers today are also ready to go hand to hand - even if the hijackers have weapons - because they know if they get control of the cockpit they're dead anyway.
Originally Posted By stcyr: However, a recent audit showed that 25% of airline passengers can get through security carrying firearms. Given that, I do not think that we should regard handing out a Sig Sauer and giving a few hours weapons training to every pilot, as anything more than a [u]simplistic[/u], band-aid approach to passenger safety.
View Quote
Better than nothing, Einstein. Do you even have an ar-15 down there?
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 11:38:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By shooter69: Ah, good old stcyr, reiterating the wanker's position. The minute I saw the name in the email I had a feeling of the direction the post would go. Where to begin. There are no silver bullets, but you seem to be under a number of misconceptions.
Originally Posted By stcyr: If the terrorists have firearms, they have the advantage: They know their targets (the pilots) and from where the pilots must launch their counter-attack – from the cockpit door. And once that door is opened, they have access to the controls.
View Quote
This is has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. First off, should the terrorists only have box-cutters (hello! sound familiar?) then it is an advantage. Secondly, where do you get this idea that the pilots are going to LEAVE THE COCKPIT AND LAUNCH A COUNTER-ATTACK!! In light of 9/11 they are supposed to remain [u]in the cockpit[/u] AND LAND THE PLANE ASAP (before it gets shot down by CAP that is!) - not risking it by going off on some foolhardy heroics...
View Quote
Well, I'm pleased to hear that my post met your expectations, shooter69. However, it seems that the rabid fury of your response may have blinded you to what I actually said. To begin with, I said that I thought that arming the pilots was a good idea. My main point was that it was a stop-gap measure designed to treat the symptoms rather than the desease. And I advocated the intense screening approach and prevention philosophy that has worked so well for EL AL (who have armed guards aboard, but do not arm the pilots). I freely admit to the misconception that (during a attack in the cabin) pilots were supposed to do something, apart from hide in the cockpit and fondle their pistols. But, I would suggest that many people are similarly misguided, for instance: Libertyof76 – "...The pilot could easily take 30 seconds or a few minutes to take out some terrorists." Thanks to your input, I am now clear on the issue: The policy is that the unarmed passengers and cabin crew are to be left to their own resources in dealing with however many suicidal terrorists manage to get on board with their firearms. The expecation being that these brave (unarmed) passengers and cabin crew will sell their lives dearly in order to buy time for the (armed) pilots, safe behind their armoured door, while they check their mags and land the plane. I will frankly admit that this way of looking at passenger safety/security had never occurred to me. It transforms the whole idea of flying from mere a ho-hum experience into an exciting episode of extreme violence, hand-to-hand conflict with armed fanatics and invitation to engage in the ultimate in self-sacrifice. Once public awareness of this novel approach to their safety becomes more widespread (the enticing opportunity to "See Venice, and die!" – as it were), I can see it having quite an effect on the traveling public and do wonders for the airline travel industry in particular. If you think that my comments are, "...the stupidest thing (you) have ever heard."; then, clearly, you have not been reading your own posts! P.S. I leave all the wanking, name-calling and juvenile ranting to you!
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 5:12:45 PM EST
I'll take it then you don't actually have an ar-15 down there. Just here for the chats. [:P]
Originally Posted By stcyr: To begin with,[u] I said that I thought that arming the pilots was a good idea[/u]. My main point was that it was a stop-gap measure designed to treat the symptoms rather than the desease. And I advocated the intense screening approach and prevention philosophy that has worked so well for EL AL (who have armed guards aboard, but do not arm the pilots).
View Quote
Bullshit. First thing out of your keyboard:
IF you can be sure that the terrorists are not armed, I think that arming the pilots is a good strategy – not the best, but at least cost-effective. [red]But, unless you can be certain that there are no ARMED terrorists on board, I don't see arming the pilots as the answer.[/red]
View Quote
Everything you wrote after followed that same premise against arming pilots. I don't know who you think you're fooling here; anyone can read your comments for themselves, but PLEASE backpedal away!
I will frankly admit that this way of looking at passenger safety/security had never occurred to me. It transforms the whole idea of flying from mere a ho-hum experience into an exciting episode of extreme violence, hand-to-hand conflict with armed fanatics and invitation to engage in the ultimate in self-sacrifice.
View Quote
That's right. Thank god for our five heroes on flight 93. Let's roll! Nor would replicating the El-Al model change that, as you have stated that 100% certainty is required or you must assume terrorists will get onboard armed! Nothing is that certain. If that is the case, and following the 9-11 flights example there are 6 armed islamaniacs onboard, armed guards will still require help from the passengers/attendants. You are the one assuming all this - even though they couldn't pull it off on the laxer security 9-11.
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 5:14:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/14/2002 5:27:03 PM EST by shooter69]
Once public awareness of this novel approach to their safety becomes more widespread (the enticing opportunity to "See Venice, and die!" – as it were), I can see it having quite an effect on the traveling public and do wonders for the airline travel industry in particular.
View Quote
It has, but you wouldn't know that. Everyone here is more than aware of it and (sadly) ready to take action when they fly. Ticket sales are down and pilots have even addressed their passengers on the subject of passenger involvement to both prepare and even assure them that no handful of terrorists will bring down their flight. Only tax-conscious (let's be kind and phrase it that way) British ex-pats, firmly ensconced in sunny Mexico are blissfully out of touch. Going back to what you originally said...
Prevention, unarmed pilots behind a reinforced door (they are ordered not to open if an attack occurs) and armed, unidentified security on every flight, is the EL AL approach – and it seems to work.
View Quote
How would arming the pilots (still under your orders to not open the door) change your above prescription, or alleged hysterical outcome of the same arming proposal leading to an "exciting episode of extreme violence?" Answer: it wouldn't. Either way they still stay behind the door SO YOU ARE JUST BEING A WHINEY LIBERAL. The El-Al model works well because they can be selective. If suspicious passengers are refused service they go to a different airline (hey, let's take security notorious Olympic Airways Athens to Tel-aviv flight!). The Israelis set up their security model to prevent THEIR PLANES from being in hostage situations. If every airline here adopted the model (which sadly they will not - and is outside of the narrow scope of arming pilots in this topic anyway) it couldn't possibly work the same. Too many people would be refused service with subsequent cries of discrimination. We are only RANDOMLY doing pat-downs now to avoid "victimizing" arabs/muslims. Stick to the topic. No one is against armed guards on planes either. Nor are the two mutually exclusive or guarantors of 100% defense in themselves. We have additional sky marshals allocated now, but it is somewhat inadequate. Unless you can convince the adminstration to go further then the only issue to be resolved WITH THE PRESENT SYSTEM IN PLACE is whether the pilots will have access to firearms in the cockpit. That's it. Everything else for the time being is pie in the sky fantasy -- something that you seem well aquainted with.
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 9:53:56 PM EST
I really don't know what your problem is, but, if you can persuade someone to read my post to you again, you might find that what I said was predicated on whether or not the terrorists had firearms. If terrorists are armed with box-cutters etc., I would expect that (especially in light of 9/11) many passengers would try to stop them. Good for them! I might even be amongst those who would – I know you don't believe that but, given your responses, do you really think I give a fuck about what you believe? Anyway, let's turn to the terrorist with firearms scenario: Even if I were the (ignorant, tax-dodging, wanking, English twit of your festered imagination) terrorist holding the pistol, I doubt that even you to try confront me with nothing more in your arsenal than adrenaline and a plastic teaspoon. I'm sure you realize that (as a terrorist) I wouldn't hesitate to blow your head off – and consider it no great loss to mankind. And that was the the pivotal point of my post: There is a BIG difference between handling a situation involving terrorists armed with box-cutters (compass dividers, or glass-cutters) and those armed with firearms! So, given that reinforced doors can be designed that will effectively isolate the pilots from a terrorist threat, and since the pilots are not allowed to intervene (no matter what the threat), why arm the pilots. I have no problem with the idea, it's just an irrelevant issue – and it's NOT a solution to the terrorist threat! You may well ask, what's the harm in it? None as such! However, although it sounds good, it is not the answer to airline safety. It creates an illusion that the airlines and the Gov. are doing something about passenger safety; but, in reality, after all the dust settles, they are not! If the U.S. cannot, or will not, spend the money on prevention and Air Marshalls, why not allow CCW passengers to also be armed? While the pilots are safe behind the armoured door, it's the passengers who are the ones lookiing down some fanatic's gun barrel, not the pilots! Yet, shooter69, you persist wiith this " solution". And it is your defence of such that apparently justifies your vindictive, personal attacks and name-calling that have characterized your responses from the get-go? This is what prompts you to write, in support of your beliefs, such gems as: shooter69 – "How would arming the pilots (still under your orders to not open the door) change your above prescription, or alleged hysterical outcome of the same arming proposal leading to an "exciting episode of extreme violence?" Answer: it wouldn't. Either way they still stay behind the door SO YOU ARE JUST BEING A WHINEY LIBERAL." – Perhaps that was the intellectual highpoint of your argument, then again, who could possibly tell? To delude ourselves that arming pilots is the answer to today's terrorist threat is an exercise in self-delusion – and an over-simplistic, band-aid approach that you appear to be promoting with an irrational degree ferocity. P.S. I have no firearms whatsoever. For a non-Mexican to own one legally is virtually impossible. So yes, I am here for the chat on the "General Discussion Forum" – so what's your (you should really seek professional help for it) problem with that?
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 10:11:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 10:32:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Installation of a reinforced bulkhead behind the cockpit, FAMs and armed pilots ensure that civilian airliners become extremely hard targets. The terrorists will simply go elsewhere, or die trying - and failing - what is now virtually suicide. And for what? The price of a pistol. For the price of a pistol, airliners become OFF LIMITS.
View Quote
But guns are scary. Shouldn't we leave our security in the hands of high-school grads at the checkpoints and catering and baggage handlers? Well, once the federal government takes over those tasks, I'll feel a lot safer.
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 10:39:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 10:49:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 11:11:36 PM EST
DoubleFeed – Sorry about "hijacking" the thread. I agree that if you aim is to CONTROL the plane and direct it to a specific target (9/11 scenario), then the reinforced doors will prevent that and armed pilots are an inexpensive extra level of surety. I have no problem with that point of view, when it is directed to that specific scenario. But 9/11 was a very new tactic. Before, that it was usually about landing someplace and holding passengers hostage in exchange for the release of some other bunch of jailed terrorists. As long as airport security is as ineffectual and misdirected as it is, then armed, suicide terrorists can still board a plane and cause it to crash without need to access to the cockpit . My point is that arming pilots sounds good and will play well in the media, but in reality it does virtually nothing to improve airline safety. Ask EL AL what they think of U.S. airport :security: A former head of EL AL security recently announced that since 9/11, he booked flights on three (it might have been five) on major U.S. carriers at JKF. Although he never took ANY of the flights, ALL the pieces of luggage (potential bombs) he checked arrived at their destinations – no problem. What makes this even more troubling is that when bookiing the flights, in each instance, he booked in the names of internationally known, wanted terrorists – again, no problem.
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 11:14:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/14/2002 11:22:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 1:28:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2002 1:48:56 AM EST by shooter69]
Originally Posted By stcyr: I really don't know what your problem is, but, if you can persuade someone to read my post to you again, you might find that what I said was predicated on whether or not the terrorists had firearms.
View Quote
Yes, that's right, you said unless you can be certain otherwise, they would; and my problem would be in letting your anti-BS go by unchallenged. As I didn't, I don't have a problem.
If terrorists are armed with box-cutters etc., I would expect that (especially in light of 9/11) many passengers would try to stop them. Good for them! I might even be amongst those who would – I know you don't believe that but, given your responses, do you really think I give a fuck about what you believe?
View Quote
Yes, or you wouldn't be asking me all these stupid questions, equivocating in response, and manufacturing new diversionary hypotheses for my benefit. You have the anti mentality. If you didn't you would have understood from the beginning that there is no harm in arming the pilots, that they can defend themselves, and it adds another line of defense. It is not the either/or situation that you continue to insist upon.
Anyway, let's turn to the terrorist with firearms scenario:
View Quote
That's been your premise all along. No need to turn to it.
Even if I were the (ignorant, tax-dodging, wanking, English twit of your festered imagination) terrorist holding the pistol, I doubt that even you to try confront me with nothing more in your arsenal than adrenaline and a plastic teaspoon. I'm sure you realize that (as a terrorist) I wouldn't hesitate to blow your head off – and consider it no great loss to mankind.
View Quote
[b]I'm sure you don't realize[/b] that the mentality of the airline passenger today has changed dramatically, and they assume that terrorists intend to kill them all in fiery crash so they have nothing to lose. A great many would take action. Why don't you take a poll?
And that was the the pivotal point of my post: There is a BIG difference between handling a situation involving terrorists armed with box-cutters (compass dividers, or glass-cutters) and those armed with firearms!
View Quote
That's right, that was the premise you were operating under. For the sake of arguement I accept this assumption. As you said: "unless you can be certain that there are no ARMED terrorists on board, I don't see arming the pilots as the answer." You can never be THAT CERTAIN, therefore you don't think the pilots should be armed. Or am I misrepresenting your position once again. Seems to me you are trying to have the circumstances of the terrorists and security both ways... and either way you come down on the "no" side for arming pilots. Do the Clinton two-step now.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 1:31:44 AM EST
So, given that reinforced doors can be designed that will effectively isolate the pilots from a terrorist threat, and since the pilots are not allowed to intervene (no matter what the threat), why arm the pilots. I have no problem with the idea, it's just an irrelevant issue – and it's NOT a solution to the terrorist threat!
View Quote
Finally some common sense! Of course you only agreed because you have now concluded that it is an "irrelevant issue" due to "effectively isolating" reinforced doors that "can be designed." Bad news: The reinforced doors that are onboard now (reinforced after 9-11) can still be breached! So until your magic doors will be on every flight stick with the "I have no problem with the idea" of arming the pilots part. When the terrorists, armed or not, have no possibility of getting in, as you suggest, you may find this a non-issue. At the moment the pilots think it is still a relevant issue, and that's good enough for me and apparently 99% of the rest of this board. You of course patronizingly know better than the pilots themselves.
You may well ask, what's the harm in it? None as such! However, although it sounds good, it is not the answer to airline safety. It creates an illusion that the airlines and the Gov. are doing something about passenger safety; but, in reality, after all the dust settles, they are not!
View Quote
Sure, why not. As you do care about what I believe, I'll ask: "what's the harm in it?" FYI: IT DOES NOT create such an illusion. The Gov. has been against the idea from almost the beginning, and the airlines (beneficiaries of a Gov. bail-out) these days are following their sugar daddy. I could make a career out of correcting you, you are so misinformed, yet opinionated.
If the U.S. cannot, or will not, spend the money on prevention and Air Marshalls, why not allow CCW passengers to also be armed? While the pilots are safe behind the armoured door, it's the passengers who are the ones lookiing down some fanatic's gun barrel, not the pilots!
View Quote
You'll do anything to divert the topic, won't you. At least you now express some confidence that guns in the right hands could shut down the hijackers from ever taking control of the cockpit.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 1:33:23 AM EST
I've agreed to your assumption of armed terrorists, now accept the fact there is no El-Al level security in the US, or impregnable doors on every flight flying now, and stop looking to avoid the issue as it now stands: Guns in the cockpit with the way things are now... or not?
Yet, shooter69, you persist wiith this " solution".
View Quote
That's the topic being debated, not every pie in the sky fantasy, [b]or how you would like our airline security to be[/b]. You keep losing track of that. You may also need a new eye exam and glasses. Go get a magnifying glass... this is how I characterized it: [b]Firearms are a last ditch defense (and not the first) assuming any perps can get past the reinforced door. That's it. Should both your scenario and proposal play out and the hijackers have firearms, break through the door, the pilots are totally defenseless. This way they have a chance WHATEVER IT MAY BE.[/b]
And it is your defence of such that apparently justifies your vindictive, personal attacks and name-calling that have characterized your responses from the get-go?
View Quote
Hey, I didn't call you a twit or a wanker. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference. With an English public school education you might have been able to. Those are the breaks. [:D]
[red]To delude ourselves[/red] that arming pilots is the answer to today's terrorist threat [red]is an exercise in self-delusion[/red]
View Quote
Where the fuck did you go to school? Blimey it must have sucked! Dan Quayle couldn't have done worse. My condolences on your education.
P.S. I have no firearms whatsoever. For a non-Mexican to own one legally is virtually impossible. So yes, I am here for the chat on the "General Discussion Forum" – so what's your (you should really seek professional help for it) problem with that?
View Quote
I know you don't have any. I picked that up before this topic came along. Obviously it's not something you value highly. I thought you might just be lost and I would guide you to a more suitable chat page, but obviously you are deluding yourself in an excercise of self-delusion. *LOL* Should you change your mind the chat here might be more up your alley: [url]http://www.lhj.com/[/url]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 3:07:36 AM EST
Jeez, shooter, there is no need to insult people who disagree with you. stcyr is entitled to his opinion. You are entitled to try to change it, but vitriol isn't likely to make that happen. Anyways, here is the latest APSA update: http://[url]www.secure-skies.org/Bi-Monthly%20Update.htm[/url] The House has passed armed pilots legislation by a 3/4 vote. We need to work on our Senators to make this happen. Methinks that it will happen and Bush will look stupid.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 3:09:26 AM EST
One interesting tidbit from the APSA alert: [b]MORE ATTACKS IMMINENT? [/b] Suspected terrorists now riding in our aircraft cabins. APSA has learned that the Federal Air Marshal (FAM) organization has begun noting a number of unusual events occurring in airline cabins. All these events are being perpetrated by individuals who fit the description of the 9/11 terrorists (Attention Norm Mineta: these are not grandmothers from Syracuse or 4-year-old kids on their way home from Orlando), and we are told that a pattern is emerging. The events themselves range from individuals explicitly acting suspiciously, to running toward the cockpit door, stopping just short. In some instances, a well-dressed individual entered the 1st class lavatory, then emerged dressed in combat fatigues. The latest word is that there have even been attempts to open the cockpit door. Air Marshals believe these incidents are intended to elicit a reaction from them so that they can be identified. Why? No one knows for certain of course, but the supposition is that the perpetrators are trying to determine the probability of encountering FAMs — in preparation for more hijackings. Dovetailing well with this is, remember, the TSA’s clear warning to APSA some months ago: "The clock is ticking…we are on borrowed time for more 9/11-style terrorist hijackings." We think this is huge news, and remain outraged that President Bush, Norm Mineta, John Magaw, the ATA, many airlines, and opposing members of Congress are STILL not serious about air security.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 3:29:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By ckapsl: Jeez, shooter, there is no need to insult people who disagree with you. stcyr is entitled to his opinion. You are entitled to try to change it, but vitriol isn't likely to make that happen.
View Quote
His original post was so dismissive (and typical of him with his phony intellectual arrogance) cordiality went out the window. If you think those are insults...
Anyways, here is the latest APSA update: http://[url]www.secure-skies.org/Bi-Monthly%20Update.htm[/url] The House has passed armed pilots legislation by a 3/4 vote. We need to work on our Senators to make this happen.
View Quote
You are not kidding; I've been keeping up with it too. The Senate was always the problem. Thirty four will sustain the veto. [:(]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 11:24:40 AM EST
Okay shooter, it's obvious that I am no match for your immense intellect and mastery of the English language. I am weary of this battle and leave spoils of victory to you. Reading through this thread, I am astonished by my affrontery. I foolishly tried to persue my own pathetic opinion – promoting preventative security rather than reactive security – even when you kept telling me how stupid and uninformed I was and how you knew better. I guess it was my "phoney intellectual arrogance" that led me astray. It's no doubt my lousey education (as you had the good grace to point out) that made me think remarks like "...WHINEY LIBERAL" etc. were in some way meant as personal slights. Little did I realize that they were subtle ploys from your arsenal of sophisticated debating techniques. My childish attempt to mask my true colors (liberal, anti-gun, U.N.-loving etc) didn't stand-up to your x-ray vision for a minute. But then, why am I surprised? You know so much and I so little. Anyway, I got to go and light a couple of candles in front of my Bill & Hilary altar, send Rosie some e-mails and ask all my BAFT buddies if I can get in on this new "spy on your neighbor" thing. Then I'll go to the beach and try to devise some more tax dodges before tonight's anti-NRA lovefest. But, I guess you already knew all that.
Top Top