Pilot, Co-pilot, and Gunner: that ought to be the operative slogan. Not only would it make air travel safer, but it would also make the terrestrial prolegomenon a lot more pleasant. Just think: no more interminable lines; no more snarky “agents” who spend their days palpating the public and relieving little old ladies of their knitting needles and chaps like me of the Swiss army knives, nail files, and cuticle scissors. How many people do you reckon the TSA employs? I couldn’t find out on a quick search but it must be many thousands. Their budget, according to Wikipedia, is about $7 billion. Surely we could get (if I may so put it) more bang for the buck by following some version of Dr. Workman’s plan. Ultimately, I believe, airport security should be an airline, not a government, responsibility. The worst thing about the TSA is not its ineffectiveness or even its nuisance value. Rather, the worst thing about it is its statist coerciveness. You cross those moronic agents at your own peril, but why should that be? It’s because they, like so many bureaucrats today, are invested with the ineluctable power of the state. I always find it disturbing to witness the security lines at an airport: how like herding cattle or sheep it seems: a timid, passive, compliant crowd on the one side, an arrogant and officious corps of bureaucrats on the other. “Take off your jacket, take off your shoes, let me feel behind your belt, open up your sponge bag, throw away that water, that toothpaste, that shampoo.” And we do, grateful if only we escape closer scrutiny and are allowed to continue on our way. It is, as Glenn Reynolds observed, “just pathetic.”
That’s the real reason to despise the TSA: they soften us up and accustom us to passivity and compliance exactly as Tocqueville warned in his famous passages about democratic despotism. Andy McCarthy wondered whether someone had brought a Constitutional challenge against the TSA on the grounds that they treat everyone as a prospective criminal and subject the public indiscriminately to unreasonable searches and seizures. Someone certainly should. In the meantime, it is worth meditating on something Friedrich Hayek said in The Road to Serfdom: “Who can doubt,” Hayek asked, “. . . that the power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionnaire possess who wields the coercive power of the state on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work?” Or, I might add, whether and where you’ll be allowed to fly. The TSA is itself an admonitory tale whose toxic significance far transcends its quotidian inconveniences. It is a model of a certain form of bureaucratic tyranny. It should be resisted and dismantled wholesale at the first opportunity.
Some very useful suggestions here. And my, TSA story, going down to Georgia a couple of years ago. Having misplace my driver’s license I carried an expired U.S. passport for identification. A South Boston lady old enough to be wise in the ways of government glanced at my host and his two children—all blond—and judging me to be the very picture of semi-senile respectability passed me through with a grin and an exchange of quips.
Coming back through Savannah Airport I had to deal with a greenhorn who couldn’t make up his mind about an expired passport, but decided that an expired Princeton University library card with a photo was enough to allow me aboard.
A lot of suggestions on this page center around stopping muslim terrorists in planes with guns. But that is absolutely not necessary. I got this idea by seeing my wife put a small can of pepper spray into her purse.
Just issue each boarding passenger a small spray can of pig blood, and if anyone jumps up and yells Allah Akbar, just give him a jolly good squirt and watch him melt down into a messy puddle, just like the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz. Problem solved, & the plane won’t even depressurize.
“Andy McCarthy wondered whether someone had brought a Constitutional challenge against the TSA on the grounds that they treat everyone as a prospective criminal and subject the public indiscriminately to unreasonable searches and seizures.” What do you think would happen if they did? Reasonable questions about government abuses are usually tossed out of court before they’re ever heard.
I’ve been hearing folks scream about unreasonable searches and seizures since the TSA started standing around….it’s not that it hasn’t been pointed out. The public speaking up, complaining and addressing issues doesn’t help anymore because all of this is ok with Congress. Our representatives are not representing us. We are no longer a nation of laws. Congress is ok with what’s happening….keep that in focus and it will all make sense. It won’t make it ok, but it will make it make sense.
How about we make it mandatory for all federal employees and their dependents (basically, anyone eligible for that gold-plated federal health care, whether they take it or not) to go through the porn scanner. First and second offenses (failure) a misdemeanor, third time is a felony. True, we can’t catch the congress-critters going to and from a session (see Art. I, Section 6), but we could catch their spouses, staff, etc. Congress would never pass such a law, but why can’t the states pass them, making it a state crime?
But…. but…. but….
I distinctly remember, “To Professionalize, you MUST Federalize!”
I like the idea of allowing those that have carry permits/licenses from being able to board a plane with a concealed handgun. Those terrorists on 9/11 may have injured one or two people before they were sent to hell by an armed carry holder. I have a carry permit which allows me to carry either openly or concealed and I will tell you that I only carry openly at the gun range the rest of the time my weapon(s) are concealed which in the case of 9/11 would have been quite a shock to one of those with box cutters as I started to unload my first magazine (17 rounds + 1 in the chamber) and carry three full magazines at all times!
Instead of hearing Allah Ackbar what would have been heard was Allah Ackbar Pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,…pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,…pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow,pow!
The problem is that a homegrown terrorist might be the one carrying HIS gun on board.
Remember Major Hasan?
He had the advantage of knowing that he would be the only armed person in the room. Allowing CCW permit holders to carry on planes would remove that certainty.
Correction: Major Mohammed Hassan.
The only way to improve that would be: “what would be heard was Allah Ack…pow, pow, pow, (etc.)”
Fewer US military folks would’ve died if Hassan had been facing armed personnel.
The biggest problem I see with armed passengers is the danger of getting caught in the crossfire, which is why I vote for the “gunner” option.
You might be surprised how unlikely it is that some innocent bystander would be caught in the crossfire. A few years ago, some idiot decided to rob a store for money to support his illegal drug habit. He simply walked into the first store he came to, after he made this decision; BAD CHOICE! He walked into a sporting goods store, which did have a weapons department. Several customers there were CCW and both salespersons behind the counter knew how to use every one of the weapons they had for sale; a couple of other employees in the store were also CCW. If I read correctly, after the perp pointed his weapon at the clerks head and demanded money or he would shoot….there were quite a few shots. None of the shots hit anyone in the store BUT the robber, and he was quite dead.
It seems like you need to trade your combat plastic in for a pistol in a real caliber, something that begins with .4, and it sounds like you really need to work on some marksmanship and practical shooting. I highly recommend a course at Thunder Ranch or a similar training facility. Most peace officers, soldiers, and marines only carry three loaded pistol magazines. In daily concealed carry, where do you hide all those magazines?! Enquiring minds want to know…if it’s not X-rated…
Even considering a Mozambique technic, it should still only sound like: pop-pop–pop; pop-pop–pop; pop-pop–pop; pop-pop–pop; pop-pop–pop; Five Islamist scumbags, fifteen rounds expended.
Cheers!
Armageddon Rex, Master Sergeant, Retired
Well it seems that with Federal Premium 124 grain Hydra Shock Law Enforcement ammunition or Magtech Guardian Gold 124 grain JHP or Speer Gold Dot GDHP 124 grain ammunition with two well placed shots one close to the heart and another in the head would do with a 17 round cap plus one in the chamber there would have to be a plane full of jihadists as I understand there were 19 aboard 3 flights so I would now have already have picked them out from the rest so with 51 rounds I figure that they will all be gone and add another 17 the mag in my pocket not the pouch which I can conceal easily and they are a done deal!
Do’t bring a box cutter to a gunfight!
If you’re talking about some .45 Umcle Clem carried in WW Twice as something good I’ll take the plastic. Do you still crank your car to start it? Demand pistin powered aircraft? Careful you’ll shoot your eye out.
We, here in the good ole Soviet Socialist Republic of NY, would have to import some CCW holders to ride our outgoing flights. With all the anti-gun liberals here, we don’t have enough CCW holders here to populate those flights :’(
We have a few hear in NY.
Go ahead and ask your judge to remove any restrictions on your permit. The worst he can do is say no.
While I generally agree that armed citizens are a good thing, I am not so sure that an airplane at altitude is the best place for gunfire. While I have no personal experience in the matter, I have read that blowing even little 22 caliber holes in an airplane can lead to big problems. Also, airplanes are very crowded. Would you really like a seat alongside the firing lane at the local range?
I think the more important point to be made here is that no airliner has been hijacked since they reinforced the cockpit doors. It is simply a non-problem. And no one has blown up an airplane either, although one idiot tried. He got on in Europe. Now, think about this;
1 – The TSA has never claimed to have stopped a terrorist.
2 – There have been no successful acts of airborne terror since 9/11.
Conclusion – There are no terrorists in America’s airports. Not one. Those idiots wandering around the airport in shades, “behaviorally profiling” everyone, might just as well be out in the desert hunting mermaids. There are lots of nervous people in airports, but not because they are planning to blow up an airplane.
The bullet simply goes through the aluminum skin of the plane and punches a small hole as it exits.
The bullet hits a window and blows it out.
The bullet hits wiring hidden in the walls or the floor.
The bullet hits a fuel tank.
If the bullet simply punctures the skin of an airplane, then it’s no big deal. The cabin of the airplane is pressurized and the hole creates a small leak, but the pressurization system will compensate for it. A single hole, or even a few holes like this, will have no effect.
If the bullet blows out a window, that’s a problem. When the window blows, the plane will depressurize over the course of several seconds. Since all of the air in the cockpit is rushing toward the missing window, a lot of debris will be heading in that direction with it. If the person sitting next to the window is not strapped in, then it’s possible that he or she will get sucked out — another good reason to wear your safety belt at all times!
Most all bullets if fired at a potential bad guy if hitting the target at all will stop in his body, however there is the possibility of wild shots, but most of those would hopefully not hit the intended target and at most pierce the aluminum skin of the fuselage which as stated about would cause a leak but not a real problem.
It is all an if then situation but yes it is unlikely to cause an aircraft to explode simply because a bullet but the outcome would be better than if a terrorist took over the cockpit and crashes the plane into his intended target not only killing all aboard the plane but those in the target of said terrorists choice!
The whole “sucked out a window” thing is a myth. A depressurizing aircraft will not generate that much wind velocity. Ain’t happenin’.
If the “whole ‘being sucked out the window’ thing is simply a myth….those three women who were sucked out the window of an airliner above Greece, about 25 years ago were some weird material, physical myth. A window blew out of a jet, a mother, daughter and granddaughter were sucked out and found later in a field below the flight path of the airplane.
I’m sure they would LOVE to have had the whole idea of being sucked out the window of a depressurizing plane BE a myth.
I hope to be sitting next to that busted window. I wish I were skinney enough to be “sucked out,” but at least I could plug the hole for the rest of you – maybe even go feet first and survive the experience!
A bullet into a window will simply punch a small hole in the window, same as into the skin. Hydraulics and wires are for the most part redundant, would take a miracle to hit accidentally, and jet fuel won’t ignite from a pistol strike.
In the back of the plane there is an opening about a foot square which is opened and closed to regulate cabin pressure; punch as many pistol caliber holes as you want into an aircraft and you A) won’t equal that square footage, and B) will not do enough structural damage to physically harm the person sitting next to them (though I suppose the wind noise and chill would get annoying after a bit).
Don’t get your science from “Goldfinger”. After all, until 1971 it was legal to carry onto aircraft (only airline policy applied but no one would have dared to actually pat down a paying customer without probable cause and a police officer present) and it wasn’t until 1973 that magnetometers were placed by Fed regulation at all airports.
Regardless, if plan A is the terrorists win, take control and crash the plane killing all on board and plan B is the Air Force shooting the plane down to prevent that, killing all on board, Plan C of the risk of a “good guy” taking a round is not a bad trade-off.
That said, no need to allow carry as a defensive measure. Armored cockpit doors which will not be opened regardless of what’s going on in the cabin and perhaps an armed flight deck behind that door make another 9/11 incident impossible. Particularly now that the passengers know what’s at stake. Go back to just magnetometers and tests for explosives by private companies and disband the TSA and we’d be as or more safe with less inconvenience.
One assumes that the airlines are down w the whole TSA bit, since they could presumably get their pet congressfolk to kill it if they wanted to. I refuse to fly now, so they’ve lost my business. I had to go to Houston from the Appalachians recently on the company dime; I drove. And I like to fly. But I refuse to submit to the soi-disant ‘security’ process. Arm the passengers. Arm the crew. Hire the Israelis to do airport security. Anything other than the current grossly unConstitutional idiocy.
Reason number one that the airlines are “down with it” is the simple fact that they cannot be sued in the event a hijacking or worse occurs. They have no responsibility whatsoever for the security of their aircraft beyond being sure the door to the cockpit is locked and that the crew members on board are theirs.
Another alternative, and one that more and more (but not enough) are choosing, is simply – don’t fly. And tell the airlines exactly why.
One Thanksgiving with nobody going to see Grandma would give all the airlines’ Board members strokes. They can’t force customers to purchase their service. (After all, it’s not like running a government health system.) They would have to do one of two things: either demand the removal of the TSA (along with accepting their responsibility for the safety of their airplanes and passengers which, as you have noted, really is their responsibility), or demand a bailout to keep them operating. No points for guessing which is more likely.
(BTW, I’m still waiting for someone with deep pockets and huge cojones to start up Second Amendment Airlines, offering 25% discounts to any American citizen flying with his sidearm holstered.)
Lord Flea, the airlines couldn’t care less about the family going once per year to see Grandma; the people you would have to persuade are the business travelers that fly once a week or more 35 weeks a year.
I always figured opening Infidel Airlines would also work. All the seats are covered in pigskin and all snacks/meals are pork based. I understand that there are non-muslims that may object, but if they can tolerate Christmas without making a fuss, they can sit on a pigskin seat. But the swinophobic islamist fanatics would refuse to fly since they can’t get into heaven if they die wrapped in pigskin. At least that’s my understanding of it. and they are so crazy about it, the muslim in GB are offended by the term piggy bank.
I find it funny, no, outright hysterical, that conservatives are now bemoaning the police state and the overblown security apparatus they were more than willing to setup under Dubya. Well this is a continuation of that, and once you begin to erode the rights of citizens under one guy you establish a precedent to continue those practices. Patriot act? Thanks Georgie boy, sounds like a great idea, better double down on it! Says Obama. Declaring the world a war zone? fantasic idea! Supsension of habeas corpus? Hell, why not? its not like the constitution is worth the paper it’s written on; and besides, article 1 section 9 is vague enough that we can just declare america unsafe and get our way! I suggest you get a clue kimball. Conservo-fascists have been selling our liberty to the government wholesale since 2001 and before. They are even worse than, gasp, the dems who at least have enough shame to not wear their tyranny as a badge of honor. “Counter-terrorism, (read police state apparatus and techniques) I’m afraid, is here to stay” – Rick santorum. The enitre GOP you and your fascist friends have convinced a less than informed public of voting in, are stupid little tyrants who want to continue the police state for eternity and now the dems are copying their policies.
Not all of us Conservatives were happy with the creation of the TSA. As I recall, Rush was quite vocally against it, for example. Not all of us were supporters of the Patriot Act either. Furthermore, not all of us were supporters of the ‘war on drugs’.
I find it funny that Liberals always cut history to fit their world view.
Let us go back to 2001. George was President, and yes there was a slight majority in the House, but Tom Dashell was the Senate Majority Leader and the only way to get any legislation passed was to include the Senate in the mix.
Tom Dashell was the one who said, “To Professionalize, you must Federalize.” It was the Democrat Controlled Senate (2000 to 2002) that guided the creation of “the police state and the overblown security apparatus” that is the TSA.
Bush Originally wanted to ste standards for the Airlines to use the Private Sector and create a Professional security force. However, with Dashell there was no way that was going to happen. It had to be a Federal Agency and the Republicans went along with that (In a Bipartisan manner – gee I thought that was supposed to guarentee a good outcome) in order to get a better grip on preflight screening.
I suggest you engage a memory of longer than 45 minutes before spouting the nonsense you state so eloquently.
Every single time we compromise with the democrats we lose more and more of our liberties. EVERY TIME! And going back through our country’s history it’s always been the democrats who violated the constitution and the weak kneed in the republican “establishment” who have compromised away our freedom and liberty.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Someone please stop compromising. You CANNOT compromise with evil.
It is Leftist Political Pedagogy and Political Correctness that has the TSA searching nuns and old ladies. This is, thanks to the Left, the greatest fear of the average American bureaucracy is to be accused of not liking the hordes of people from the Third World that are a fact of life now. It is PP and PC that has allowed the immigration of failure in the first place.
A common sense conservative would not have a zillion Muslims to screen in the first place. We would’ve banned them from coming to America til they straightened themselves out in their own countries.
Yet another progressive that actually thinks GWB is/was a conservative.
When will you guys get it?
Cut them some slack. On their political scale anyone to the right of Bill Clinton is a rightwing extremist…
So in their mind, GWB was indeed an ultra-conservative president.
Half these clowns think King Putt is a conservative. Proving once again — as if we needed further proof — that you can’t cure Stupid.
Funny, the DHS wasn’t Bush’s idea; he wasn’t insisting that a pile of govt union workers would “professionalize if you Federalize”. No, that was the Copperheads’ price for allowing the country to be defended.
You liberals are insane. The only reason you didn’t like George W Bush was because of that silly R after his name. Except for the tax cuts he was a liberal all the way. The patriot act/creation of the tsa? All of it was a liberals wet dream.
I find it funny, no, outright hysterical, that conservatives are now bemoaning the police state and the overblown security apparatus they were more than willing to setup under Dubya. Well this is a continuation of that, and once you begin to erode the rights of citizens under one guy you establish a precedent to continue those practices. Patriot act? Thanks Georgie boy, sounds like a great idea, better double down on it! Says Obama. Declaring the world a war zone? fantastic idea! Suspension of habeas corpus? Hell, why not? its not like the constitution is worth the paper it’s written on; and besides, article 1 section 9 is vague enough that we can just declare america unsafe and get our way! I suggest you get a clue kimball. Conservo-fascists have been selling our liberty to the government wholesale since 2001 and before. They are even worse than, gasp, the dems who at least have enough shame to not wear their tyranny as a badge of honor. “Counter-terrorism, (read police state apparatus and techniques) I’m afraid, is here to stay” – Rick santorum. The enitre GOP you and your fascist friends have convinced a less than informed public of voting in, are stupid little tyrants who want to continue the police state for eternity and now the dems are copying their policies.
Posting it twice doesn’t make you any less the useful idiot.
The first post had typos. What I’ve said is completely true. Your moronic one liner does you no favors…
No, you are just a useful idiot of the people who would enslave or kill you if they had the choice.
BTW Bambi has killed more people via drones (not you) than Bush ever did.
The TSA is an affront to any free thinking person and it should be dismantled. The grip of a police state is a left wing “thing”.
I think you all missed my point. Conservatives will more openly support tyranny than democrats, in my opinion. Dont confuse this with me being for democrats I just think democrats are more “quiet” about their support for tyranny. I don’t understand your point about me being the useful idiot who will be enslaved, seeing as how I never claimed to be for any ” side” in the first place. I still find it funny how many rights were eroded under bush and now conservos are getting mad as Obama is president. Not that anyone shouldnt be upset at the egregious assaults on our liberty under Obama – especially considering his weak objection to the unconstituitional military detainment act the senate voted on – Its just funny there was nary a peep from conservos when bush was systematically revoking our rights.
IFIF, says: “…Conservatives will more openly support tyranny than democrats…”
But how does he square that with the apt saying that “Fascism is always descending upon America, but landing on Europe”?
That bugaboo “police state” he is so worried about is a child of the Leftist-Socialism that Progressives want to give us; never of a Conservative society predicated on Freedom & Liberty where the individual is sovereign, and the State is the servant not the master.
“Its just funny there was nary a peep from conservos when bush was systematically revoking our rights.”
You must have had your ear buds on, then, if you think there was “nary a peep” from the conservative peanut gallery.
Why is it liberals are never honest and always rewriting history?
Go play on dKos or HuffPo; discussions with lefty useful idiots are like trying to teach a pig to sing: it frustrates me and it irritates the pig.
Your moronic post does you no favors.
Your ignorance does you no favors.
1) Conservatives never wanted the TSA. That was the Democrats.
2) Conservatives constantly worry about the over-reach of government. That you missed it during the Bush years says more about you than about us.
3) Your ignorance of the definition of “fascist” is pathetic.
Robby boy, there was nothing to pay attention to because conservatives, and dems for that matter, weren’t concerned. very few were. TSA was mostly a conservative thing; engage with reality. conservatives don’t care about big government– they love it! They want to regulate our sex lives, tell us who we can and can’t marry, prevent abortions, etc etc. Wake up kid! Where have you been? The only time conservatives care about big government is when it is regarding welfare; but then again, that is just a disingenuous political move to attack the other side because they (conservos) are suddenly for those policies when elected. Stop drinking the kool aid.
Hey, hey, hey! That was uncalled for! Abortion needs to be banned because it is an affront to life and liberty. Period. Legalized abortion is legalized murder.
AD, the keyword was more openly. Not that democrats aren’t complicit. I just think conservatives do a better job of announcing the policies that limit our freedoms, while dems, skirt around the issues. Conservatives and republicans openly announce that the inane war on drugs must be fought tooth and nail lest we “cut and run” and let the drug dealers win. Of course their are democrats that will openly say that as well, I just feel that they usually don’t and instead vote for the draconian drug laws anyway. Let’s look at Afghanistan, and IRAQ for example. Who is more likely to openly use the language of cut and run? A dem or a rep? I have noticed republicans use that language more openly because for the most part conservatives and republicans support the wars. Dems know that their is opposition to the wars from their side so they don’t openly use that language; however, they voted for policies that ratcheted up both wars. It’s all a sideshow for the most part and their are few honest and righteous dems and republicans in government compared to the amount of apathetic or outright bad people in government. Dems for example will try to get the union vote and openly support unions without ever mentioning downsides to unions. Republicans and conservatives in general will speak out against unions, but it’s only been very recently that the have actually supported the outright gutting of unions, think Wisconsin and examples like that.
So basically the dems and reps as a whole play political games with few differences in between. There are some really outstanding individuals on both sides but we don’t have enough of them.
Nor does your moronic one liner make my post any less true
Or any less false.
The TSA was created with very strong bipartisan support from BOTH parties. You can blame Bush if it makes you feel better, but it doesn’t change history.
The problem with TSA is that it is an agency designed to make policy all over another agency and industry to “securify” things. Security needs to be baked in from the start. It is not an ingredient that you can add after the cake is made.
TSA is renown for their lack of understanding of aircraft and aviation systems in general, for their ridiculous “no-fly” list, for their bizarre and arbitrary inspection of passengers, and for the ridiculous additions to the regulations that they force down the FAA’s throat.
This is what happens when asked to secure something that is not understood and that one has no stake in promoting. Many used to think the FAA was the evil government agency until the TSA came along and showed us that they were so big and bad that the FAA looked good by comparison.
As for the rest of your post, you haven’t justified or cited any sources. It is name calling and political grand-standing. You haven’t explained yourself, so I choose to ignore you. Your views are knee jerk foolishness. Learn to justify your thoughts with fact and reason and people will stop dismissing your point of view as ignorant twaddle.
You’re arguing with a troll- granted, it’s good to have the history stated, but still- he’s trolling. It’s also very much a progressive debating tactic to scream ‘yeah, you’re upset, but it’s all Bush’s fault, you hypocrite!’ and cite just enough ‘fact’ to make it seem so.
As it is- it’s amazing how many people forget that it’s congress that sets the laws, whether they be financial, health care, tax, security, etc. The president sets the tone or pushes an agenda, but at the end of the day, it’s the congress. This also means the president doesn’t always get what he was wanting (i.e., a set of guidelines for privatized security vs. a federal behemouth).
Now, that would have been funny- OWS actually occupying capitol hill- maybe it could have been “OSC” occupy the steps of congress. That way, they could have annoyed congressmen AND lobbyists.
Yep! And we have one of the worst congress in history. They don’t do anything, and the senate passed and indefinite military detention bill. The nerve of them! What an assault on liberty!
Yes, a Harry Reid, Democrat/Progressive controlled Senate that impinges upon the Freedom & Liberty of Americans, in America!
It doesn’t get anymore representative than that.
Does anyone remember which president we have to thank for establishing the TSA, and who demanded all of them be federal employees? It was the same one who called the 9/11 terrorists by the ridiculous term “homicide bombers”, rather than the much more accurate “suicide bombers”.
The reason why Bush wanted to federalize security was because of the disastrous lapses caused by such private firms as Argenbright Security.
http://tinyurl.com/7ewdq8c
Argenbright ran the security screening at Boston’s Logan Airport–from which al-Qaeda hijacked two of the planes on 9-11.
And they didn’t learn anything from that experience. About a month later, a passenger got through security with a whole bunch of expensive top-quality Ginsu knives. Fortunately he wasn’t a terrorist, he had a legitimate reason to have those knives. Not only did the guards let him through without questioning him, but they actually stole his knives!
So far, neither government nor private security seems to have figured out how to be secure without being obtrusive.
“The reason why Bush wanted to federalize security…”
Wrong.
Democrats wanted to make them all government workers so they could funnel more taxpayer money to their campaign coffers.
Wrong. GWB kept them non-union during his tenure. Of course, Comrade Obama made them union so the Democrats could collect rent.
Tell me again what Argenbright did wrong? If you remember, those planes were hijacked using box cutters, which at the time, were completely legal to carry onto an aircraft. After the intial hiring of new, federalized, security screeners, the TSA went right back to hiring basically the same kind of people that Argenbright had employed. The security screeners initially hired by the TSA were mainly ex-military or law enforcement, I was one of them. Many of us didn’t last long because we saw the PC farce that was to be the “new” airline security.
I prefer homicide bombers. Suicide makes it sound like they are some sort of victim. We are also in a war against islam – not terror. Terror is just a tactic, but muslims are the ones using it.
Interesting perspective although I’m not sure I agree with the “everyone armed on every flight” proposal. Recently I spent 3 weeks in China. Here’s an excerpt fro a blog I wrote commenting about the cultural differences:
One more observation. Once we were in mainland China there was a dramatic difference in airline accessibility. When we boarded our flight this morning here are some actions we did not have to perform:
We did not have to remove our shoes.
We did not have to take off our belts or wristwatches.
We did not have to hand carry liquids through the line.
We did not have to extract our computers from briefcases.
Jackets and heavy sweaters had to be removed but getting through security was a breeze. This was common in each of the intra-country airports. Either there is less of a threat here or the Chinese are just better at screening. Regardless, it was a pleasure to participate!
Now, unlike our current president I don’t wish to be part of the Chinese government but it seems to me that in a country with almost no personal civic freedom they’re more flexible about flight security than we are!
The first thing to be understood about Thousands Standing Around (TSA) is that it was spun up when there was virtually no unemployment in America, and less than zero unemployment amongst those who could pee in a bottle and pass a background investigation. I was contacted by a TSA recruiter who wanted to directly solicit my government’s law enforcement and corrections employees, a request we not very politely declined. I don’t know that we lost many if any COs or cops to them, but we did lose some cop and CO management, some of whom we were happy to see go.
Basically, at the time the TSA was hiring, every government in the Country was scratching in the dirt under the barrel to find people who could pass a drug test and a background investigation. At best TSA got the dregs and malcontents, and the only real MQ was passing the drug test and BI, no room for determining other qualifications. Every government has plenty of problems with law enforcement employees under the best of circumstances and in times when it is easy to recruit. TSA was spun up at a time of tremendous recruiting difficulty so mostly they got the dregs.
One of my first tasks after I’m made the czar of this nation will be to call the current leader of Saudi Arabia and explain to him his new job.
That job will be securing our airline industry.
We will not tollerate failure. If we lose an airliner, he loses Mecca. If we lose another plane, he loses Medina. Easy.
And of course my very next task would be to un-employ the TSA.
Excellent idea!
…..but, be sure the Saudi’s understand that there will be no second chances…it’s Mecca AND Medina….first off….. and no margin for error. No “misunderstandings”.
Tell them also that the Oil Card no longer applies…..Google tells me that we’re becoming a net EX-porter of oil….can’t remember if that’s crude or refined, at any rate the Saudi’s, Iranians et al must know that the handwriting is on the wall.
Stutter Much 7 & 8?
http://youtu.be/M8Q4IxITJZ4
My suggestion is a combination of Mr. Kimball’s ideas and the existing TSA. Break airports in two. Airlines who want security run by the existing TSA go to one set of gates. Airlines that believe an armed society is a polite society, and private gun owners can carry firearms on board flights, go to another set of gates.Then let customers decide.
Not only does it take advantage of the free-market system, it offers an interesting real-world test of a “more guns, less terrorism” theory.
If my idea were enacted, I know with what airlines I’m choosing to fly.
How does more guns less terrorism automatically make sense? It assumes people with guns know how to use them- which is a precarious argument to hedge your bet on, especially when the number of people with guns increases. why not have armed and highly trained air marshals on every flight? That would seem to make more sense.
Dear not so much Common Sense…
Your comment, “It assumes people with guns know how to use them- which is a precarious argument to hedge your bet on” is really based on nothing more than your own personal ignorance.
According the the FBI; in those states that are ‘Shall Issue’ for Concealed Carry permits…
Police Officers shoot the wrong person 11 times more often than Civilian holders of CCW permits.
Civilian holders of CCW permits use a Firearm to PREVENT a crime 16 times as often as Criminals Commit a crime with a Firearm.
I suggest you try reading “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. You might learn something.
I dont believe your stats are right. But you don’t need to resort to name calling and ad hominem to make your point; it just shows how weak of an argument you have. I think it’s patently obvious that the more untrained people with guns you have in such an enclosed space the more dangerous that space can become. So you want to board a plane with several people with guns who may or may not have the discretion to know when to shoot someone?
Dear Not So Much Common Sense,
Your clear Anti Gun mentality masquerading as Common Sense does not fool me. You like to think that your “Logic” is somehow common sense, but it’s nothing more than your personal opinion, period. And the FACTS don’t bear it out.
Anyway, since you don’t beleive my numbers I’ll give you some sources!
Now then, since I cannot list the FBI statistical links with a Highlighter so you can glean the information and run it through a calculator yourself, I’ll provide the link but I know you aren’t going to take the time to investigate since you are so busy employing your so called common sense that you have no time to find out the facts.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/state-totals_1998-2010
For purposes of our discussion be sure to take only crimes committed in Shall Issue states and compare them to Defensive Gun Usage in Shall Issue states to derive the proper ratios. Using all 50 states will garner different ratios (albit the police are still more likely to shoot the wrong person and the guns are used defensively more often, but since crime is Higher in Heavy Gun Control and conditional Issue states than in Shall Issue states that’s to be expected.)
Now I know the first criticism of what is below will be that none of this is Mainstream Media. Since they are uninterested in Facts that don’t support their liberal dogma it’s no surprise that none of this information makes it into their lexicon.
Please note that the following article is of overall states with civilians able to carry a firearm, and not Just Shall Issue States…
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/
Please note that this study shows the use of guns in America for defensive purposes occur over 2 million times.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
In this follow-up, please note that all of the 2 million defensive Gun Uses are strictly personal defenses; there are Zero of the cases where a civilian prevents a crime for someone else. The FBI statistics also include the number of times a crime is deterred by the criminal becoming aware of the Armed Citizen without an overt action on the part of the Citizen, which the study also does not include.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
A couple more statistical overviews…
http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
with a skeptics view as well
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
And Finally, a look at your “Common Sense” Applied!
http://geekpolitics.com/top-40-reasons-to-support-gun-control/
Dear JD, do you understand how to interpret data? It seems you never learned this skill; what on God’s green earth does FBI background checks in 1998 have to do with random people carrying guns on an airplane? Are you foolish enough to think I wouldn’t check out your links? Lol, this is a pathetic attempt: “These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not, in any way, represent the number of firearms sold. Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale.”
Your second link is obviously biased, but let’s pretend for a minute it is being objective. What does it have to do with multiple individuals carrying guns on an airplane? it’s not a relevant comparison. You even admit that there isn’t a lot of data on people using guns to defend other people: “In this follow-up, please note that all of the 2 million defensive Gun Uses are strictly personal defenses; there are Zero of the cases where a civilian prevents a crime for someone else. The FBI statistics also include the number of times a crime is deterred by the criminal becoming aware of the Armed Citizen without an overt action on the part of the Citizen, which the study also does not include.” bottom line is: why would anyone want random people with gods knows how much training armed on an airplane? I don’t even feel that I need a gun to defend myself in such a situation. But I would rather have a Marshall, I just would. None of these stats prove anything about how people will react in a situation.
Dear One Without Common Sense,
You ask, “Are you foolish enough to think I wouldn’t check out your links?”
Of course not. But you did do Exactly as I expected and predicted and didn’t bother to follow the link provided to the follow up links that would lead to the Crime Statistics Raw Data by state because that would require Effort on your part. And I know you aren’t going to expend effort to see that you are wrong.
Then in the next post you say, “What does it have to do with multiple individuals carrying guns on an airplane? it’s not a relevant comparison.”
Which is absolutly WRONG!
You see, You said, “I think it’s patently obvious that the more untrained people with guns you have in such an enclosed space the more dangerous that space can become.”
However, the article, which is based on FBI statistics, shows clearly that for some unknown reason the Untraind person is LESS Likely to shoot the wrong person than the Trained Person.
So 1) it is Relevant, and 2) It counters your intuitive common sense which is not obvious at all when you look at the data.
You said “However, the article, which is based on FBI statistics, shows clearly that for some unknown reason the Untraind person is LESS Likely to shoot the wrong person than the Trained Person.” let’s consider that from here on out. I just didn’t come to this conclusion based on the information you linked to. Help me out here? What makes you conclude that?
I don’t know, maybe its my completely irrational assumption that 2 is less than 11.
Or perhaps it is the sentence that reads, “The fact is that armed citizens are about 5.5 times less likely than the police to accidentally shoot the wrong person.”
(keep in mind this is nationally and not limited only to Shall Issue states.)
Since the Police are Trained, and armed citizens are Untrained by your own definition, I actually reach the conclusion that the Untrained Armed Citizen is Less Likely to shoot the wrong individual than the Trained Person.
Aside from the article, please explain to me the complete and total lack of any kind of violence what-so-ever at Gun Shows wherein you have the largest concentration of ‘untrained’ individuals with firearms anywhere? Based on your ‘common sense intuition’ there should be news reports coming out the Yin-yang regarding violent outbursts at thes gatherings.
Is this some sort of press coverup?
How are THEY keeping this news under wraps all this time?
jd
I don’t know, maybe its my completely irrational assumption that 2 is less than 11.
Or perhaps it is the sentence that reads, “The fact is that armed citizens are about 5.5 times less likely than the police to accidentally shoot the wrong person.”
(keep in mind this is nationally and not limited only to Shall Issue states.)
Since the Police are Trained, and armed citizens are Untrained by your own definition, I actually reach the conclusion that the Untrained Armed Citizen is Less Likely to shoot the wrong individual than the Trained Person.
Aside from the article, please explain to me the complete and total lack of any kind of violence what-so-ever at Gun Shows wherein you have the largest concentration of ‘untrained’ individuals with firearms anywhere? Based on your ‘common sense intuition’ there should be news reports coming out the Yin-yang regarding violent outbursts at thes gatherings.
Is this some sort of press coverup?
How are THEY keeping this news under wraps all this time?
JD. I am not so sure I would trust a website that has NRA links all over, (which has a huge lobbying base btw) to be completely objective. But if this “fact” that citizens are 5.5 times less likely to accidentally shoot another person makes sense to you, I may never understand why. This is nothing more than an assertion, JD. You even mentioned earlier the data wasn’t that complete. But if citizens never have to use their guns, or use them much less, that stat isn’t at all surprising or impressive. Think about what an officers Job is. They put their lives in the path of danger more frequently than your average citizen. Therefore, it is more likely they will need to use their guns. If they are using guns more, it is more likely they will end up shooting the wrong person. If you place normal citizens in a position where they actually have to use their guns, who really knows the results? If citizens have to shoot their guns the same amount or more than the average officer, and that 5.5 stat still holds, I would trust it. The average officer uses their gun more than the average citizen. The point is, I will take experience and rigorous standards over a basic course in gun training any day.
As for your gunshow example, it makes no sense. Why would people randomly shoot each other because they are at a gunshow? You are making a false equivalent between a dangerous situation and a gunshow. When people are armed and shoot at the threat, is the point we were arguing. Don’t throw in nonsensical red herrings.
No!
The point of the discussion is that you employ the flawed logic that, “Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy,” and I’ve pointed out the falicy of your conclusions.
There are NO red Herrings as the way people will act is the way people will act, putting them on an airplane doesn’t change that. Of course you are unable to see the point of the evidence I’m putting forth because you also employ the fallicy, “Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.”
“No!
The point of the discussion is that you employ the flawed logic that, “Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy,” and I’ve pointed out the falicy of your conclusions.
There are NO red Herrings as the way people will act is the way people will act, putting them on an airplane doesn’t change that. Of course you are unable to see the point of the evidence I’m putting forth because you also employ the fallicy, “Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.”
JD, you are grasping at straws my friend. Creating strawmen and then tearing them down does not a strong argument make. You made up everything in that entire quote about my so called flawed logic. I am beginning to wonder if you are even competent enough to engage in a rational debate? You seem a bit delusional. Let me explain it to you as I would a five year old. Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous. Get it? Do you understand…………. JD? not everyone is qualified to have guns or use them with discretion. And being on a plane changes a lot of things, are you so dense that you can’t understand that? You are in an enclosed space with tons of innocent bystanders all around you. That’s a pretty important detail; how that is lost on you is beyond me. Now let’s add a terrorist to the mix. So now we have the added stress of a terrorist. You are telling me you trust a bunch of people that have probably never shot anyone in their life to defend you? You are telling me you trust random people with guns to shoot directly at the target on the airplane? You are telling me that in such an enclosed space defending yourself without using a gun my be more Intelligent and practical? You are telling me that there is no other way to defend yourself? You are telling me that shooting someone you perceive as a threat is the first and best choice?
I’m sorry if I put more trust in myself without using a gun in close quarters such as an airplane. I’m sorry I am concerned about shooting innocent people when there could be a better way to incapacitate someone. And finally, I am sorry that I trust someone who is more likely to have better training and more experience than your average Joe blow.
No solution is ever going to work 100 percent of the time. We take risks in everything we do from the moment we step outside of our homes. I believe in myself more than random people with guns. But if we must have armed people on an airplane, I want it to be a professional. What the hell is wrong with that?!
JD, you are grasping at straws my friend. Creating strawmen and then tearing them down does not a strong argument make. You made up everything in that entire quote about my so called flawed logic. I am beginning to wonder if you are even competent enough to engage in a rational debate? You seem a bit delusional. Let me explain it to you as I would a five year old. Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous. Get it? Do you understand…………. JD? not everyone is qualified to have guns or use them with discretion. And being on a plane changes a lot of things, are you so dense that you can’t understand that? You are in an enclosed space with tons of innocent bystanders all around you. That’s a pretty important detail; how that is lost on you is beyond me. Now let’s add a terrorist to the mix. So now we have the added stress of a terrorist. You are telling me you trust a bunch of people that have probably never shot anyone in their life to defend you? You are telling me you trust random people with guns to shoot directly at the target on the airplane? You are telling me that in such an enclosed space defending yourself without using a gun my be more Intelligent and practical? You are telling me that there is no other way to defend yourself? You are telling me that shooting someone you perceive as a threat is the first and best choice?
I’m sorry if I put more trust in myself without using a gun in close quarters such as an airplane. I’m sorry I am concerned about shooting innocent people when there could be a better way to incapacitate someone. And finally, I am sorry that I trust someone who is more likely to have better training and more experience than your average Joe blow.
No solution is ever going to work 100 percent of the time. We take risks in everything we do from the moment we step outside of our homes. I believe in myself more than random people with guns. But if we must have armed people on an airplane, I want it to be a professional. What the hell is wrong with that?!
Only to you. Anyone who actually knows the numbers, human nature, and reality understands that your beliefs are exactly wrong.
Great argument Doug, oh wait, you didn’t say anything. I’m wrong? Really Doug I’m wrong? You want Joe blow with a gun shooting at a terrorist in an enclosed space, on an airplane? Now imagine 10 Joe blows or 20. That sounds pretty stupid to me. You have cited no facts yet you are most confident that you are right. Well, please, enlighten me. and if they just have box cutters, the terrorist that is, why do you need a gun at all?
It is amusing that you think your speculations are more reliable than actual experience with civilian permit holders.
Amusing but wrong.
Evidently you’ve missed what a joke the Air Marshall program has become.
I am sorry, but as far as I can tell, civilian permit carrying stats don’t translate into thwarting criminals. If you give me some stats on how successful civilians are at thwarting criminals I’ll begin to believe you. I just don’t trust a bunch of random people with guns to defend me. I trust myself, but if guns had to be brought on an airplane, I would want them to be used by professionals. I don’t want just anybody to carry a gun on an airplane. That seems pretty obvious too me.
Dear NO Common Sense whatsoever and Blind.
I did give you a stat. 2 Million! At the bare bones minimum!
Dear man-child dopey face who is probably twice my age, what does the 2 million refer to? I missed that.
Dear Hypocrate who calls himself Common Sense,
The 2 million referred to Defensive Gun Usage in the links I provided which you lied and said you looked up and read, which you clearly did not.
Since you were provided with that information before the post you have proven that you are impervious to facts and adhere only to your own inherient thoughts for forming your own opinions.
You also admonish others for “Name Calling” and “Ad Hominem” attacks then Ehgage them Your Self. Hypocrate MUCH.
So, since you are unable to understand Facts when presented to you, I provided you with a link that substantiated over 2 Million Defensive Uses of Guns in the Hands of “Untrained” individuals every year. That number was a limited number consisting of only actual usage (that is to say the gun was in some manner engaged, not left in a holster) and only for Individual Self Protection and not the instances where an Individual aids another in having a crime prevented.
This establishes the baseline as a minimum of 2 million instances of “how successful civilians are at thwarting criminals”.
Since you said you checked all my links, and since you missed that figure it is clear to me that you do not understand how to interpret data. “It seems you never learned this skill.”
Or you lied and didn’t follow anything but the first link – which had links to all of the other data that you were looking for but too lazy to look up because it required effort and you are not curious about the truth but wish to spout your liberal dogma without providing any evidence that what you say has foundation other than your own personal conclusions.
JD. It’s dumb for multiple retards to carry guns on an airplane end of discussion. Lol! All it takes is one idiot to ruin it. You don’t need a gun on an airplane. Any statistic regarding how people used guns to defend themselves has nothing to do with being on an airplane in an enclosed space with a bunch of people around. You said that those stats didn’t include cases of people defending other people. The underwear bomber was stopped by a Dutch man, no gun. Flight 93, the passengers and crew stopped the terrorists without guns, granted the plane still crashed. But it could have been worse, as you and others have said.
I though that firing a pistol inside an aircraft wereby the bullet(s) pierced the pressurized cabin-skin would cause an explosive decompresion which would be more dangerous than than that swarthy, bearded terrorist with the boxcutter cutting up passengers.
Why do we have such a resistance, and where does this resistance come from, to have a contingent of Israeli airport guys (or, El-Al staff) come over here and show us how things should be done.
Nobody messes with those guys….they profile, profile, profile.
Flying since the advent of Islamist terrorism and high-jacking has been shown to be deadly business; and the old fashioned idea of petite, attractive Stewardesses is long, long past. Burly, alert, no nonsense guys in the passenger cabin would do away with the preliminary fondling of prospective passengers genitals and breasts in long lines before nearing any gates. I suspect that those TSA agents don’t like doing that either, but have not been trained in subtleties.
We’ve let the A.C.L.U. and the C.A.I.R. call the shots (no pun intended)….this is “the world turned upside down”.
That’s what seat belts and oxygen masks are for. Loss of cabin pressure will neutralize a terrorist, while the passengers and crew will be fine if they follow protocol.
Yeah, everybody will be fine AFTER they stop screaming from the pain of their eardrums being blown out and other damage from rapid decompression. That’s the part they don’t tell in that soothing message about making sure others have their mask on before donning yours. A single bullet hole in the fuselage probably wouldn’t be that dramatic, but multiple holes or a window being blown out would definitely be dramatic at high altitude.
Have NONE of you ever seen the Mythbusters episode where they prove that the myth of “Explosive Decompression” is FALSE. To start with, the atmospheric pressure at 35,000 feet is about 1/4th that at sea level. It’s still breathable, except that the air is very cold and the oxygen level is low enough that you will pass out.
This isn’t Hollywood and it isn’t the vacuum of outer space! An airliner contains about 10,000 cubic feet of air. However, planes pressurize to the equivalent of 8000 feet while in flight, so the pressure inside is really about 1/3 higher than at 35,000. A gunshot puncturing the skin will create a small hole, less than 1 inch – and by the way, that’s true whether it is through the aluminum skin or the PLASTIC windows (not glass!). Through that hole has to pass 2/3 of the air in the plane (around 6700 cubic feet). It does not happen quickly, there is only about 10 pounds per square inch (less than one inch hole, remember?) air pressure at the equivalent of 8000 feet.
So, the air doesn’t “explosively* decompress. In fact, it doesn’t even *quickly* decompress! And there is certainly not going to be catastrophic failure of the skin of the airplane from a <1 inch hole!
Finally, for those who will ignore everything I said because I mentioned Mythbusters, that was just to give the example. I found all of the numbers and calculations on my own searching the internet and consulting a science textbook. You know, science, not Hollywood, not politics.
That’s very reassuring……but I thought that this “explosive decompression” is what caused the early B.O.A.C. commercial Comet’s “exploding” at altitude when weaknesses in the skin around the windows could not take the stress of the different pressure inside/outside the passenger cabin. It wasn’t the initial size of the cracks, which I think were hairline, it was those cracks widening so very suddenly under pressure-stress.
Here’s some additional information. I remember when these sudden tragedies happened, I was a Pan American Airways employee and we were all following this very carefully.
Here’s the paste I found via Google….
Metal fatigue
The recovered (shaded) parts of the wreckage of G-ALYP and the site (arrowed) of the failure.Initial examination and reconstruction of the wreckage of G-ALYP revealed several signs of inflight break-up:
Shreds of cabin carpet were found trapped in the remains of the Comet’s tail section
The imprint of a coin was found on a fuselage panel from the rear of the aircraft
Smears and scoring on the rear fuselage were tested and found to be consistent to the paint applied to the passenger seats of the Comet
When most of the wreckage was recovered, investigators found that fractures started in the roof of the cabin, a window then smashed into the elevators, the rear fuselage then tore away, the outer wing structure fell, then the outer wing tips and finally the cockpit broke away and fuel from the wings set the debris on fire.
To find out what caused the first failure, BOAC donated G-ALYU (“Yoke Uncle”) for testing. The airframe was put in a large water tank, the tank was filled, and water was pumped into the plane to simulate flight conditions. The experiment occurred 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It could possibly have taken as long as five months. A Seconds From Disaster documentary episode described this task as “grueling.” If the hypothesis was tested in the 2000s, investigators would have used computer technology to determine the effect of pressurization.[2]
After the equivalent of 3,000 flights investigators at the RAE were able to conclude that the crash had been due to failure of the pressure cabin at the forward ADF window in the roof. This ‘window’ was in fact one of two apertures for the aerials of an electronic navigation system in which opaque fibreglass panels took the place of the window ‘glass.’ The failure was a result of metal fatigue caused by the repeated pressurisation and de-pressurisation of the aircraft cabin. Another fact was that the supports around the windows were riveted, not glued, as the original specifications for the aircraft had called for. The problem was exacerbated by the punch rivet construction technique employed. Unlike drill riveting, the imperfect nature of the hole created by punch riveting caused manufacturing defect cracks which may have caused the start of fatigue cracks around the rivet. The investigators examined the final piece of wreckage with a regular microscope.[2]
The Comet’s pressure cabin had been designed to a safety factor comfortably in excess of that required by British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (2.5x P as opposed to the requirement of 1.33x P and an ultimate load of 2x P, P being the cabin ‘Proof’ pressure) and the accident caused a revision in the estimates of the safe loading strength requirements of airliner pressure cabins.
The fuselage roof fragment of G-ALYP showing the two ADF ‘windows’, on display in the Science Museum in London.[3]In addition, it was discovered that the stresses around pressure cabin apertures were considerably higher than had been anticipated, especially around sharp-cornered cut-outs, such as windows. As a result, future jet airliners would feature windows with rounded corners, the curve eliminating a stress concentration. This was a noticeable distinguishing feature of all later models of the Comet.
52 years after the incident, Paul Withey, an aviation expert, went to the Science Museum in London to examine the aircraft parts with 2000s technology. The aircraft piece was mounted on a plate. Withey received an impression of the aircraft part using a silicone-based putty. At Imperial College London in London Withey used an electron microscope to examine the putty impression of the fatigue crack. He found a manufacturing defect when zooming to 800 times and confirmed that Sir Arnold Hall’s investigation was correct.[2]“…..end paste.
Here’s a bit more about “ruptured lungs”….
….”The ruptured lungs were a sure indicator that the air cabin depressurised because the sudden decrease in pressure would cause the lungs to expand until they rupture. In order to support the theory and also to confirm the cause of the skull fractures, the crash was simulated at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough, using the same conditions of the actual plane prior to crash. To do this experiment, a model fuselage was constructed similar to that of the Comet.
Dummies were also seated within the fuselage to simulate possible movements of passengers during the crash. To simulate the crash, the investigators deliberately ruptured the model by increasing the air pressure within it until it exploded. The movement of the dummies within the air cabin at the moment of explosion was conclusive of skull fracture as they were thrown out of their seats and slammed head-first into the ceiling.”
…end paste from Google.
…here’s another fact that bears being empahasized from the longer paste….note that rivet-holes “exacerbated”….
….”The problem was exacerbated by the punch rivet construction technique employed. Unlike drill riveting, the imperfect nature of the hole created by punch riveting caused manufacturing defect cracks which may have caused the start of fatigue cracks around the rivet. The investigators examined the final piece of wreckage with a regular microscope.[2]…”
The myth of explosive decompression by a bullet fired on an airplane was tested by Mythbusters, and they busted the myth: firing a weapon inside an airplane will simply create a slow leak of air from the cabin, rather than explosively decompressing the cabin.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html
We are living in a world so enlightened, so unwillingly to kill even the most dedicated evil-doer, that shipping vessels are not permitted to carry arms to prevent primitive pirates in inflatable boats powered with outboard motors from boarding them. In the good old pre-PC days, a decoy sip would have dropped its side and blown them into a virgin-populated nirvana. Today a few bullet-riddled copses washing ashore would surely keep shipping lanes freer of blackmailing piracy.
I believe I would be more nervous on an aircraft knowing that half the men on board were carrying pistols that could fire off 17 automatic rounds rounds than I would be with the realization that, just possibly, there might be closet Muslin with a box-cutter seated near me. Almost certainly. one of the pistol-packers would a patriotic nut case who could start firing at a bearded Russian orthodox priest getting up to go to the lavatory. I propose that the Airline Industry be given the responsibility of protecting their customers from onboard terrorists by a) arming ALL crew and attendants with at least tasers, and, b) equipping all planes with TSA funded equipment to fill the cabin with pepper spray or some alternative deterrent fumes activated by either cabin crew or attendants. There would probably be an occasional mishap, but nothing that would place passenger life at risk. The only downside would be that the airlines, of course, would add a “TPS” – terror Prevention Surcharge. Better than being harassed by anal-retentive TSAuthoritarians.
“…pistols that could fire off 17 automatic rounds…”
You obviously have only the most rudimentary knowledge on the operation of pistols that are classified as “semi-automatic”, firearms that discharge only one round with each squeeze of the trigger.
It wouldn’t matter what the capacity of the magazine is, you still only get one “bang” per squeeze.
Remember, one terrorist with a “box cutter” will put your aircraft into the ground. A half-dozen travellers with concealed firearms, on the other hand, will – in the absence of any threat – just be walking around with lumps of steel under their jackets.
I have coined a “law” for discussing issues involving American politics, and I feel it appropriate to quote it here:
“We judge the level of our compassion in this country by the amount of money we’re willing to waste failing to solve a problem.”
Mind you, what the problem is is irrelevant. Solving the problem (actually being good at keeping terrorists off planes, for instance) is actually not a preferable outcome. If you solve the problem, then the Federal agency involved doesn’t need more money next year; that clearly is a failure of the system. Federal agencies *always* need more money, lots of it. If a terrorist does slip through, and launch an attack that results in–God forbid–fatalities, clearly the problem was that we didn’t *care* enough, and waste more money on the problem. If you devise a solution to the problem, even one that will clearly have 100% chance of success, if it’s cheaper than our current system, it displays your lack of compassion, and your mindless adherence to those evil rich Koch brothers and their plutocrat friends. Rights are meaningless; the only thing that matters is the growth of the bureaucracy. The only thing left is to get them into a union, regardless of what was promised when the agency was formed.
I’d rather spend that $7billion on hiring, training and arming more Air Marshals. What happened to them, anyway?
I agree, I would rather do that if my only other option is Joe blow plus 8 get to bring their guns on board.
Problem is you do not know who Joe Blow is or the Sky Marshall now do you, most who legally carry are just regular people that have been trained like myself and will only use the weapon in the worst of circumstances, pretty much the same as would a LEO I carry daily and have never had to use my weapon bout if the circumstance arises then so be it!
Evidently you are a liberal and have never been robbed or had your house burglarized or in my case been beaten and left for dead so when any of these things happens to you you will change your mind right quick in the meantime keep up with your liberal I give up ideas and they will not hurt me attitude it might just kill you!
I’m sorry you had bad life experiences. But you are making huge leaps in logic. Who is going to jump me on an airplane? And why do you assume a gun is the only way to defend yourself? What if you get disarmed? Then what? I hope you don’t become a victim. You can’t take your gun with you everywhere you go; that’s just reality. Take some self defense classes. I’m far from an expert in self defense but if you are in such an enclosed space on a plane I do not think a gun would be the most effective weapon. A Marshall would probably want to taze someone first and shoot only as a last resort. As for your liberal comments– I wont dignify idiotic statements with a response. You are clearly upset and need to calm down. Read my comments and responded intelligently please. I am interested in your point of view, but you will respect mine if you want this discussion to continue.
AFAIK they’re doing their jobs, flying all over the place as an effective deterrent.
As long as they don’t have to expose themselves and break their cover identities, you can sit next to one a thousand times and you’d never know they were there.
That’s the entire point of having them in the first place, creating uncertainty about whether there’s an armed presence on board to counter any terrorist or other criminal move by a passenger or crewmember.
Let the airlines run security, and let people choose the airline. The airlines would be accountable to customers traveling safely. Customers would not travel with an airline that gropes your junk. No doubt a second hijacked or downed plane would put the company out of business. TSA is a typical government agency accountable to nobody.
Thankfully the terrorists have low numbers in America. I find it incredible that we have had no major attacks considering the number of high ranking people we have killed. Sadly this is not due to our security.
My fear after 911, was a flurry of small attacks the type that Israel had to deal with in the past. People who just walk into a pizza joint and go boom. The loss of Liberty in New York is a disgrace, just walking on the street is enough to get stopped and frisked. Your baggage can be searched if you ride the subway. Which i could almost accept if the could not arrest you when the find non terror related contraband. My good friend was arrested for pain pills, that he had an rx for. Since he did not have them in the bottle.
The current spending levels will lead to an economic 911. There is almost zero will to stop it. Our only chance to stop it would be electing someone like Ron Paul. But like 9/11 it wont happen until things blow up.
There was a series of small attacks after 911 if you recall: It was called the Washington Sniper. A Muslim-Gay-Black-Illegal alien team had the nation’s capital in a tizzy, as an incompetent police chief looked for angry white men.
There was no ‘airport security’ problem on 9/11 but rather a ‘national security’ issue which, left unattended, worsened, festered then resulted in (another)successful attack, this time on US soil. Federal sphincters accross the country slammed shut before the second jet hit the towers and by days end, damage-control was in full swing as those whose mission it was to protect our nation from such an attack were faced with their own criminal negligence and dereliction. The DHS, TSA and associated agencies were the result of the same poisoned and treasonous minds that allowed the attack and they responded with their own brand of retribution, obfuscation and misdirection carefully cloaked in the faux patriotism and sickening rhetoric of yellow 9/11 ribbons, two soon-to-be-lost causes, Iraq and Afghanistan, and what can only be called a coup, the statist act of terror that now reigns and does nothing more than add insult to injury. Talk about your tragic ironies. Everyone needs to WTFU.
I repeat, my dignity is not up for grabs. After departing JFK two years ago and observing the TSA at work, I have not flown again. I have discovered the joy of driving and met some nice people as I progressed slowly about the country. One can catch a freighter if an ocean is in one’s way. I bought a BMW R1200 RT for my 75th birthday and rode it to Alaska. I enjoyed every day. Parenthetically, I wonder what American Airlines thinks of the TSA? I can’t be the only one who refuses to fly. The subset of retired persons is growing and perhaps the number of people who will not be subjected to TSA groping will grow as well.
I actually dont mind the screens much. I would mind them less if I thought they were effective.
My son actually got on 2 US flights with a 6″ switchblade knife he forgot about in his backpack. It was found by Israeli security just before we were getting on the plane to come home. Thankfully they let him go after a stern warning.
Those who think we should have Israeli style screening just beware that it is more intense and time consuming. There may be some methods we could adapt here but would be too cumbersome for the much more massive US system.
Anyway, by the way they enforce the rules all you have to do to crash an airplane is turn on your iPod during takeoff.
I wonder what air travel would be like, if we closed down the TSA and had 357 magnum vending machines in every airport and in every concourse.
Beware the power of the state… TSA is now expanding its grip to the highways and truck stops.. Just remember hitlers brown shirts started out as a passive security force getting the population used to state power enchroachmenrs on personal liberties… We all know what they evolved into… TSA is not done evolving yet… Bush said they should be temperary and the airports will eventually take over with federal oversite… So nows the time to hold our legislaters to their word…
My family no longer flies, and every so often, I write the airlines and remind them why.
What if we turned the table on the TSA? We could peaceably occupy the terminals, if we could coordinate with people all over the country to rush as many people we can pasted the TSA. You know like the kids rush a store and take what they want without paying for the merchandise. The airlines may step in over this action or you will truly see the police state America has become!
Why would anyone think that the TSA is increasing security at airports? For any new policy or procedure, the terrorists will circumvent it. The best security will be provided by an intelligent and informed public. Get up on an airplane that I am flying on and yell allah akbar and you won’t make it to the landing.
Also, the TSA only concentrates on the upper half of the airplane. Any convict or terrorist can gain access to the baggage compartment. In fact they do, I have lost many valuables from my luggage since 911, something that never happened before the TSA.
No, convicts and terrorists can not access the hold. The Airlines have a multimillion dollar investment in that aircraft, and control access to it. If you have a valuable in your luggage, you are not following their example.
I would suggest shipping your valuables using a bonded carrier, with insurance.
How about 1 airline decides instead of TSA we could see a passenger list of everyone on the flight, names, religion, nationality, recently visited countries, preferably a photo. Then we could decided if we want to spend any time locked into a tube with everyone else on that flight, or wait for the next one.
And just what do you propose to actually DO about it?
This is not a “suggestion”, it is wishful thinking. You know as well as I that anyone who actually tried to implement something like this would find the full weight of regulatory bureaucracy coming down on them, complete with violations of code and ordinances and mandatory fines and probably some prison time just to be on the safe side. Merely having airports try to run the screening via private agencies instead of the TSA got shut down hard – and that was still going to be implementing TSA policies, just not with TSA personnel. Where in earth or heaven do you see how to get the TSA to actually back down and renounce some of its power?
What do you propose to actually DO?
All I see here is impotent snark from the sidelines, with zero effect.
Simple- Congress passes a law disbanding the TSA and declares sovereign immunity against being sued over it. The TSA would then cease to exist, and its unions would lack any ability to seek redress.
Where is this Congress that would act in such a fashion?
The one we currently have is right now in the middle of declaring that the continental USA “part of the battlefield” and that American citizens anywhere within it can be declared enemy combatants and locked up purely on the executive branch’s or military’s say-so, in utter defiance of everything the rule of law is supposed to represent. From the votes recorded, this is a bipartisan movement.
So, your Congressional action is mythical, and my question remains. How do we get there from here?
We’re withdrawing from Iraq and standing down in Afghanistan because the WOT has been so successful to allow that to occur, so why aren’t we also cutting back TSA for the same reason?
Re: Boxcutters. People seem to have forgotten that the 9/11 hijackers subdued the crews and passengers of their planes by claiming to have explosives. The boxcutters were only used after they got the cabin crew tied up and helpless.
In reality, their “explosives” were just mockups made of plastic and other non-metallic bits in order to get through airport security. This is why airport bag scanners now look for more than just metal.
Any “shoot ‘em dead” idea will need to have a ready response for the terrorist who either claims his bomb is a dead-man switch, or who grabs another passenger to hide behind.
(Personally, I think the best anti-hijacking safety feature that resulted from 9/11 was simply locking the cockpit door before takeoff.)
I have a few practical reservations about gunfire on planes, but a 16 inch wooden ‘courtesy cudgel’ tucked into every seatback pocket would probably serve the same end admirably.
This is an old idea. If we listened to Archie Bunker, those towers would still be standing, thousands of people would still be alive, and we would have saved trillions of dollars.
Listen to All In The Family, season 3, episode 1, about 3 minutes into this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6q658dGVws
Of course Norman Lear makes Archie’s point sound ridiculous, but they used to like government control of everything back then too.
Funny how this bunch finds themselves agreeing with the likes of Alex Jones and dismissing Rand Paul as a libertarian extremist, yet this article looks like it was pulled off Infowars.com, especially the last paragraph about training the American people to getting groped and being passive.
TSA, another affirmative action hiring program.
Minorities keeping whitey in line.
I will never give up my liberties for security. For to do so is to bow to the collective!
I quit flying 8 years ago. I drive. Wonder how long before they set up checkpoints along the roads like in early Russia. YOUR PAPERS PLEASE! Mach Schnell!
In reality, they already have. As a law abiding citizen, I get seriously pissed off at them when they do. Respect for authority has hit a new low in my life.
A fight is coming, and we will win. Because, we will win!
I have been taken to the woodshed.
TSA gets security exactly backwards:
They try to keep bad things out of the passenger compartment, and they try to keep suspect shippers from shipping in the cargo compartment.
They should keep bad people out of the passenger compartment.
If you are here illegally, or from a state sponser of terror country, or can’t pass the preflight database check, you can’t fly.
If you don’t have proper ID, you can’t fly.
If you are here on a student visa, better show up early to pass your check and database background.
STOP INCONVIENCING EVERYONE, JUST TO MAKE SOME THINK WE ARE SAFE.
YOU ARE WASTING TOO MUCH TIME AND TOO MUCH EFFORT FINDING NOTHING.
Keep bad people off the planes and inspect all cargo, no matter who ships it, where to or where from, or for what purpose.
These IDIOTS are profilng CARGO, and inspecting people!
Try it the other way around, like the Israelis.
Also, if you have ever been security cleared by the Federal Government (like former military, defense industry or Law Enforcement), or passed a federal background check ( Doctor, Nurse, submited an adoption refferal, etc), all you need is a quick look in the carry on and you are good to go.
Why keep bothering people that the Government already knows are no problem?
Just to find the sheep!
The Donks set it up, and it makes as much sense as they do.
But the R’s ley them do it.
That is really the difference between the two systems. The US is concerned with what gets on the aircraft, the Israelis focus on who gets on the aircraft. Not exclusive though. At Ben gurion you will be asked about everything in your luggage including checked luggage. Even stuff like Ahava beauty products most tourists bring Back. “where did you get this? Who sold it to you? We’re you offered a special price?”
There is no way we could have a system like that here. it works ok in a small country with one major airport.
Also I hope people advicating conceled carry on airplanes are not serious. I like guns just fine but I have met my share of angry idiots on planes who would draw because their carry on didn’t fit in the rack or something. No thanks. Air marshal is fine but expensive program.
I gotta admit the armed citizen idea Seems attractive and, presently everyone I’ve encountered at the range has been responsible and courteous. Matter of fact at the Range you meet the friendliest and most careful folks around But there’s such a thing as the law of large numbers and as more and more citizens get CCW’s eventually the aholes and morons will get’em too. It’s inevitable. Of.course they won’t come to the Range cuz they’ll be thrown out or worse if they cause trouble.
It’s human nature that that in any large gathering you an asshole or two and that’s the problem.
Remember the Westerns where the stagecoach had a driver and a guy riding Shotgun? He was there to shoot the bad guys and protect everyone while the driver drove the horses. Course the passengers could shoot out the windows too but they weren’t eight miles in the air.
I think a sky marshall or two equipped with frangible ammo so the depressure problem goes away is the best solution.
Although iadmit the idea of a Louisville Slugger as a standard component on every seat is also a good idea.
One more thing, when it’s all over and done you wrap the POS in a pigskin suit and mail what’s left back to Mama, COD.
My sentiments exactly!
Sure the regulars at the range are awesome and help newbies (I was one) learn proper safety etiquette. But those are not the folks we would worry about. To get a permit where I live is a simple course which might include an hour or two at the range. My instructor had many tales of people who were offering a couple hundred just to get out of that.
If we are making comparisons to Israel there are plenty of firearms evident but much more difficult to get permits. Even those with military experience (near everyone) has to go through extensive testing including psychological, proof that your job qualifies (tour bus operator for example), and proficiency testing at the gun range. Also more open carry there so you know more who is armed.
So the situation there is very different than US. The threats are different but by the numbers ordinary crime is still a bigger concern than terrorism.
So for me it is not so much an issue of rights. Very easy to purchase guns and ammunition here and I do. I know vast majority of us are very responsible. At the same time I do not want to live in a modern Dodge City where I feel I need that level of security to run out to Costco with my wife.
Still I prefer ths to the draconian bans elsewhere. Works out ok where I live. That is why I want the federal government to defer to state and local law.
I agree with everything you just said.
In the 1960s NYC was plagued by armed robberies of Lofts candy stores. Lofts had dozens of tiny stores where a gent could drop in and buy a box of bonbons for the little woman before catching the train to Scarsdale. In each store was one employee, almost always a woman.
NYPD’s response to the plague of armed robberies was to place two policemen in the rear of selected stores each a sharpshooter and each armed with a rifle. If a robber entered the store and pointed his pistol at the clerk demanding money the police would — very loudly — demand that he drop the gun. If he did that he was arrested. If he so much as began to turn toward the rear of the store he was killed.
I happened to pass by a Lofts on Lexington Avenue where there was a heavy police presence and what looked like a small puddle of blood near the entrance. I asked a cop “Whose blood?” His answer: “The perp’s”.
After New York Magazine wrote about this practice the usual molly coddlers squawked and it was terminated.
I keep saying…..the first GOP candidate for POTUS who declares that he/she will make an iron-clad promise to dismantle the TSA, fire its bureaucrats and send Janet Incompetano packing, and distribute whatever valid functions & procedures it has to other law-enforcement agencies, will win in all 57 states!
p.s. to andrew, who asked:
“Wonder how long before they set up checkpoints along the roads like in early Russia. YOUR PAPERS PLEASE! Mach Schnell!”
They are already doing that!! In Tennessee, at least — though they deny it. they say they’re only engaging in “cooperation” with state and local authorities. Yeah, right — like they are X-raying you at airports with the cooperation of the airlines…
19. Rob
“Let the airlines run security, and let people choose the airline. The airlines would be accountable to customers traveling safely. Customers would not travel with an airline that gropes your junk. No doubt a second hijacked or downed plane would put the company out of business.”
I disagree with this, for the simple reason that only the US government has the intelligence apparatus to detect incipient terrorists threats. Yes, they bungle their job from time to time (the underpants bomber comes to mind), but imposing absolute liability on air carriers against acts of WAR makes no sense.
National DEFENSE is one of the valid roles of government, after all. And don’t forget, you are demanding the airlines be driven out of business, when the TSA and other government agencies just tootle on, no matter how negligent, how incompetent they are. The government works for the airlines too, doesn’t it?
The TSA’s functions don’t have to be performed in a ham-fisted and incompetent fashion. I say, dissolve and re-form the agency, fire its half-witted drone employees and managers, and let serious adults start afresh.
I would rather risk the occasional terrorist attack, than be strip-searched, x-rayed, and fondled by bureaucrats, both literally and figuratively.
Do they fondle mohammed’s beard?
The problem with Air Marshalls is the same problem as with the police. When you need them, they are usually not in your exact location, no matter how well-trained and heroic they may be.
It is a far better solution to have all passengers armed. The knowledge that all passengers are armed would have tremendous deterant value. I was thinking knives would be the best, because I there are sensitive wiring and oxygen systems in a plane. There will always be the passengers who are really good at throwing them. However, someone above in the comments made the suggestion of “curtesy cudgels,” and that is very good also, just in case you have forgotten your knife.
During the Cold War Americans were often ‘dumbfounded’ at what appeared to be similarly ridiculous Soviet regulations/rules/procedural idiocy. Their pilots drinking jet fuel, barracks falling down, administrative gaffs that had ‘us’ rolling in the isles. Socialism breeds this kind of behavior and what we now observe and comment about are just harbingers of worse to come. It is not only the TSA but the administration behind which must be done away with and a return to intellectual honesty seeking excellence and proficiency in all the outreaches of government. But I don’t think we can recover those halcyon days. BTW, JamesG, good recollection but it was two in the store and a ‘few’ outside. But you are correct, robberies quickly subsided! Good Luck America! But I don’t think we can stop this downward spiral without great bloodshed.
Just an ‘afterthought’ … Over the past twenty years those groups and movements we would call ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ have made remarkable inroads towards their goals. Why? How is it that such fundamentally different groups as PETA and Code Pink or NAMBLA and Green Peace can advance their causes and gain ground so rapidly? They are but a few examples of a mindset that is missing in many conservative groups and obviously exampled within these comments. Progressive groups have been able to find that ‘tiny, small’ common ground agreement and build upon it and ignore out of expediency all their differences. I just read all the comments here and realize conservatives seem more bent on destroying each other or proving their own point(s) than gaining lost ground. Of course PJ is not the only arena for discussion but it seems a common attitude. Doesn’t bode well.
“I just read all the comments here and realize conservatives seem more bent on destroying each other or proving their own point(s) than gaining lost ground.”
.
I REJECT your premise that what you read were Conservatives destroying each other.
There is no way on earth the person using the monicar “Common Sense” is a conservative. He exhibits a Clear Progressive attitute about guns which is founded on the concept that regardless of any facts to the contrary his inate feelings regarding armed people are the foundation upon which policy must be based. He also assumes that because he sees things a certain way, behaviors will alter to match his opinion in specific situations because they are different than all of the other situations that exist.
Many discussions such as this one have “Seminar” posters, which is to say, Liberals disguised as “Common Sense” or “Reasonable” Conservatives.
JD, I reject the fallacy of false dichotomy. You assume because I am not conservative; I am a liberal. That’s is bad reasoning. But what’s worse is, you only assume I’m not conservative because I don’t think its smart for people to have guns on airplanes unless they are professionals. I think most people in the U.S. agree with that, so welcome to the real world JD. I am done debating you. You make straw man arguments and put your deluded thoughts into my own head. There is nothing wrong with guns you f-ing moron! I shoot guns, I know people that own guns, I have family members that own guns. I will be getting a gun at some point. Stop being an a-hole.
After I gave you the following links;
.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/
On December 4 at 11:50 am
You said,
“do you understand how to interpret data? It seems you never learned this skill”
and
“Are you foolish enough to think I wouldn’t check out your links?”
On December 4 between 2:00 and 3:00 pm.
Well apparently I wasn’t that foolish after all. Since the first two links above Establish that at the very minimum civilian use of Guns at 2,000,000 incidents vs roughly 490,000 incidents of criminal activity involving guns, making the Ratio a minimum of 4 to 1…
and the Third link establishes that the “Professional” as you define them are 5.5 times more likely to use a gun on the wrong person than the “So Called” Untrained Individual, and yet you somehow determine that since it happens everywhere else in the world, when on an airplane that ratio will by its very nature change because it’s on an airplane….
(No straw men here, no words in your mouth here, everything you said is on the record and can be read by anyone looking)
Yet on December 5 at 8:42 am (Here’s a hint, December 5 comes AFTER December 4 That is to say, that just like 2 is less than 11 4 is less than 5) you then actually said, “If you give me some stats on how successful civilians are at thwarting criminals I’ll begin to believe you.”
Looks like you are someone who cannot remember something for more than 24 hours to me.
In my experience a lack of memory in order to make situations fit a world view is a Liberal Tendency.
Following on, it is YOU who said on December 4 at 9:49 am, “But you don’t need to resort to name calling and ad hominem to make your point; it just shows how weak of an argument you have.”
Yet on December 5 at 10:29 pm you say, “There is nothing wrong with guns you f-ing moron! I shoot guns, I know people that own guns, I have family members that own guns. I will be getting a gun at some point. Stop being an a-hole.”
So, not only are you uneable to understand the Application of Statistical Data in broad situations, and unable to remember arguments from day to day, you are also a total and complete Hypocrate!
Hypocracy is also a Liberal Trait.
No straw men here, just the facts.
Game Set and Match to JD!
Dear JD and uh, JD (“Observer” lol!) I already disputed your 5.5 stat and gave you reasons for why I don’t think it’s credible. Number one was that it was from an obviously biased website where you are trying to confirm your bias and present it to me as of you are being objective. Get that stat a from a more legit place with sources and notes and I’ll believe the number. Even if that number is true, the point I was making that, the number of police shooting at people on average should be higher than the number of civilians shooting people. You even said that the 2 million stat was defined as the gun being SOMEWHAT engaged. You went further and said as long as it left the holster it counts. So now you need to tell me how many people in that 2 million actually shot people and how many simply drew their weapons.
Cops are in dangerous situation where they may need to shoot people more often, so even if that 5.5 number is correct, is it really that surprising? How many civilians actually have to make the life or death choice on the fly? How many of them will be in dangerous situations frequently? Your stat proves nothing other than guns scare people away sometimes. And once again I am not opposed to have a few trained individuals on the plane with guns. Random people who’s can just decide to bring guns aboard is not a comforting thought. So you are correct, in that I may not be able to provide you with numbers, other than the majority of people and law enforcement officers that would probably agree with me. Plus, I feel like the risk is so low that it is hardly necessary to have a gun in the first place.
JD, for your edification, it’s moniker bud. And I reject your either or/ false dichotomy fallacy. You assume because I am not a conservative that I am a liberal. That is bad reasoning. What’s worse is you only assume that I am not a conservative because I don’t believe everyone and his mother should bring a gun on a plane. That’s pathetic and it makes conservatives look bad.
Quite right Roger! But then again pj seems to be a radical, almost right wing anarchist forum than anything conservative. But in general conservatives don’t like to be wrong so they spend so much time fighting battles they lost years ago, desperately attempting to prove they were right.
Some things to note –
1) TSA, yes, should be abolished. The regime and it’s trappings are insufferable.
2) Nobody is going to hijack a plane with a boxcutter ever again. That strategy of taking over an airplane to use as a weapon had a 90 minute window of success. It didn’t even work on every plane – United 93 showed the past expiration date of that strategy. For this to work, someone is going to have to stow away on a regional freight airliner. You will be unable to take over a plane – even with a gun. You might end up shooting a couple people, but you won’t take the plane, and you likely won’t make the landing – once the passengers have you, street justice will be swift.
3) The security theater of not having knives and other implements is aimed at boarding with explosives, not knives. They know point #2, they really just don’t want your drunk uncle stabbing the stewardess when they won’t serve him another 7&7. Since #2 is known to us and the terrorists, they have been just trying to blow them up using underwear and shoes. That’s the only real security measure in play.
4) When the TSA is outlawed, it will be important that whatever federal guidelines are set up include a hold harmless clause to make the airlines and security groups immune to lawsuit for terrorist acts. THAT is one of the big reasons the airlines don’t complain so much about TSA, because if the government does it, then they won’t be sued when something goes wrong.
4) And no, it’s not likely a good idea to have concealed carry on board – and I do carry, and agree that a responsibly armed society is a generally polite and secure society. The gun in the cockpit and 125 pissed off passengers is enough to control any situation, nobody is so good a shot they don’t have to worry about overpenetration, missing, or collateral damage in a space that can tolerate none of those. I don’t need a bullet hitting the hydraulics or ILS power line when a human horde of savage hand to hand death will accomplish the same thing.
As much as I believe in the Second Amendment, the thought of multiple bullets being randomly fired on an airflight is unsettling. Maybe a better solution is to allow any off-duty law enforcement office to carry his/her weapon on flights; they are trained to deal with difficult situations, to keep control and not over react. Furthermore, most law enforcemnt agencies require their officers to qualify with their firearms, meaning they can hit their intended targets accurately.
If a terrorist pops up on a flight, does it matter whether he’s taken out by an FBI agent, Deputy sheriff from Polk County, NJ State Trooper, or Philadelphia cop who happened to be on the plane?
A system that armed off-duty officers would place a threat in the hands of trained professionals so we’d all be safer. Except the terrorist.
Hey Roger,
I am sure this is going to get lost down here, but: I just read an old article (2001?) of yours on Nietzsche’s philosophy in modern culture. Enjoyed it and resolved to send you an email telling you so. Of course at this point I still thought you were some semi-anonymous yahoo who happened to pen the most literate thing ever run by CBN. Probably wouldn’t have bothered if I’d known you picked up hundreds of comments on a regular basis, but now that I am here: I really enjoyed reading your article.