Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA

dmccormack said:
As a Major in the Army medical field he would have known that medical and induction/ processing facilities are gun-free zones.
Click to expand...
They couldn't be that gun-free if he had a gun and so did the person who shot him.

I think you are completely missing the point. We are not talking about the situation on the ground which is hard to control. We are talking about the situation on an airliner when people go through metal detectors in order to board. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember the hijackings in the 1970s. There were so many that it got to be pretty routine news. Since the metal detectors were instituted we have been successful at preventing hijackings with guns. Why change that?
 
dmccormack said:
Good grief, Scott. :rolleyes2:

What's so hard about understanding my point?
Click to expand...
That your point makes no sense.

Here is the scenario you laid out.

There are no guns on airplanes.

Lets get guns on airplanes to shoot bad guys with lessor weapons. We will qualify those with guns. Even though people with those qualification have been shown to also be terrorists.

Now there are guns on airplanes. Both in the hands of terrorists and trustworthy citizens who will shoot the terrorist after he starts shooting the citizens.

The thing you keep missing is that the shooting would not have started in the first place because the metal detectors were keeping the terrorists form having the gun on board in the first place! Is that so hard to understand?

I think letting pilots and air marshals be armed on board is fine. That would be a solution to the terrorists who do manage to get some weapon on board. Why do you think it would not be enough and want to run the risk of letting terrorists on board with guns?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
One thing going unanswered - is a gun really the best solution for a terrorist on an airplane? My question about structural damage was answered, seems like a low risk. But what about the risk of...missing, in an area where there are plenty of people, all within the same plane (of view), who stand a pretty good chance of eating that bullet?

I've met very few people who can shoot with the kind of accuracy that might be necessary, particularly when under stress, particularly in unsettled situations, etc., etc. I'm not exactly sure your a CCW-holder, regardless of how well he punches holes in paper pictures of OBL, is going to be able to hit what he means to, particularly when you look at the windshield of the cars that were sitting still during traffic stops and realize that those bullets came from people who have to meet certain standards as a part of their jobs.

I know, I know, the response is "well, how do you know your average CCW-holder doesn't practice more than those yokel police officers." Shooting at people ain't shooting at paper targets, no matter what kind of practice you do for it. I'm just not particularly confident that your average...anyone...would be able to get it done, and I'm not particularly hopeful for people in the line of sight or out of it by a considerable margin.

In other words, I frankly don't like the idea that some guy with a gun might shoot me accidentally (though out of the very best of intentions) when I'm sitting next to a guy intent on hijacking the plane, when I could just punch him in the jimmy and he's got no significant weapons because no one can get on the plane with a gun or knife. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the problem.

Which is why I asked the question about why a taser is not an option. Is there some reason that tasers are practical for ordinary law enforcement use, but not on an airplane?
Click to expand...

Lots of questions there, but a few answers:

If the permitted carry class was expanded (certain LE and federal agents already carry on airplanes -- surprise!), there may need to be a higher level of competence demonstrated. Nevertheless, the distances and accuracy required are not Jason Bourne stuff -- it's fairly easy to put 3 rounds into a man-sized taget at 10 yards.

There are many cases of bad shooting by LE in various situations, but these are typically 20-30-40 yard shots with handguns fired by officers who qualify once or twice a year on paper ranges.

But there are also well-placed shots by LE in high stress situations, so I don't think you can assume all stressful situations will produce bad shooting.

As far as tasers -- We're talking about a potential multi-ton missile carrying hundreds of people -- why do I want to gently take down a perp? By the way -- what if the hijackers have significant hand to hand fighting training? Who will get close enough to tase?

The possibility of collateral damage is always there, but who gets hurt when a planeload of unarmed civilians tries to re-take the cockpit?
 
Everskyward said:
They couldn't be that gun-free if he had a gun and so did the person who shot him.
Click to expand...

He had a gun in direct defiance of the laws and orders that prevented law-abiding people from having firearms in that facility.

oops.

And the person that shot him was an LE that took him out as he was leaving the facility.

Keep in mind the lesson of Columbine -- LE establishes a cordon and eventually goes in in a slow, deliberate manner.

What happens in the meantime?

Ask the folks at Virginia Tech...


Everskyward said:
I think you are completely missing the point. We are not talking about the situation on the ground which is hard to control. We are talking about the situation on an airliner when people go through metal detectors in order to board. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember the hijackings in the 1970s. There were so many that it got to be pretty routine news. Since the metal detectors were instituted we have been successful at preventing hijackings with guns. Why change that?
Click to expand...


I remember them (B)) and while I agree that metal detectors identified guns before they were carried on airplanes, the fact is we are in a new era, when plastics and phenolics can be used to great effect and are not identified by any "detectors."
 
ScottM said:
The thing you keep missing is that the shooting would not have started in the first place because the metal detectors were keeping the terrorists form having the gun on board in the first place! Is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Oh! You're right! Our security measures have prevented all acts of in-flight terrorism!!

Yay for us!!
 
dmccormack said:
Oh! You're right! Our security measures have prevented all acts of in-flight terrorism!!

Yay for us!!
Click to expand...
Again you are putting word in my mouth. I never said that, in fact I said the opposite but you are refusing to acknowledge that. I think you are purposely trying to evade and evoke anger in your trolling.
 
dmccormack said:
He had a gun in direct defiance of the laws and orders that prevented law-abiding people from having firearms in that facility.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know yourself that laws don't necessarily stop people. You keep bringing up shootings which have happened on the ground in uncontrolled areas but that's like comparing apples and oranges.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm sure you know yourself that laws don't necessarily stop people. You keep bringing up shootings which have happened on the ground in uncontrolled areas but that's like comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...


OK, then what "controlled" areas have there been shootings in?

How about the Holocaust museum or the Capitol? Both shooters were immediately stopped by -- another shooter.
 
dmccormack said:
Are you absolutely certain no one on board an Israeli airliner is armed?

Think again.
Click to expand...
Think again? What is it that you think I thought wrong the first time?

El Al has their own equivalent of sky marshalls.

Are you urging a broadening deployment of the sky marshal program, or that passengers should be armed?

I don't think anybody is likely to argue against sky marshals (except maybe those who don't want to pay more for air travel), but it's pretty clear that you're arguing for armed passengers, and it's also pretty clear that our model of airport security, the Israelis, not only don't allow passengers to carry weapons on planes but don't allow them to carry them in the terminal.
-harry
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
OK, then what "controlled" areas have there been shootings in?

How about the Holocaust museum or the Capitol? Both shooters were immediately stopped by -- another shooter.
Click to expand...
Those were both outside the metal detector. I'm not even sure the Holocaust Museum has a metal detector but the shooting was at the entrance. And the other shooters were law enforcement personnel, not some members of the general public.

Fox News said:
Capitol Hill police (USCP) confirmed Friday one man was shot by officers after being seen brandishing a weapon within walking distance of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
​
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/17/gunman-taken-capitol-police-dc-shooting-incident/

CNN said:
Von Brunn allegedly entered the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum at 12:50 p.m. Wednesday and immediately shot Johns with a rifle, said Chief Cathy Lanier of the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department. Two other security guards returned fire, according to Lanier and the museum statement.
Click to expand...
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-10/...t-museum-von-brunn-security-guard?_s=PM:CRIME
 
dmccormack said:
Lots of questions there, but a few answers:

If the permitted carry class was expanded (certain LE and federal agents already carry on airplanes -- surprise!), there may need to be a higher level of competence demonstrated. Nevertheless, the distances and accuracy required are not Jason Bourne stuff -- it's fairly easy to put 3 rounds into a man-sized taget at 10 yards.

There are many cases of bad shooting by LE in various situations, but these are typically 20-30-40 yard shots with handguns fired by officers who qualify once or twice a year on paper ranges.

But there are also well-placed shots by LE in high stress situations, so I don't think you can assume all stressful situations will produce bad shooting.

As far as tasers -- We're talking about a potential multi-ton missile carrying hundreds of people -- why do I want to gently take down a perp? By the way -- what if the hijackers have significant hand to hand fighting training? Who will get close enough to tase?

The possibility of collateral damage is always there, but who gets hurt when a planeload of unarmed civilians tries to re-take the cockpit?
Click to expand...

All reasonable answers - I'm just throwing these things out for consideration.
 
mantakos said:
Think again? What is it that you think I thought wrong the first time?

El Al has their own equivalent of sky marshalls.

Are you urging a broadening deployment of the sky marshal program, or that passengers should be armed?

I don't think anybody is likely to argue against sky marshals (except maybe those who don't want to pay more for air travel), but it's pretty clear that you're arguing for armed passengers, and it's also pretty clear that our model of airport security, the Israelis, not only don't allow passengers to carry weapons on planes but don't allow them to carry them in the terminal.
-harry
Click to expand...

The Israelis also do extensive profiling. Ready to add that to the equation?
 
dmccormack said:
The Israelis also do extensive profiling. Ready to add that to the equation?
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to profiling on ethical grounds, though I question a philosophy of "let's make screening a breeze, and only put those who fail profiling through the ringer", because I don't buy the idea that profiling is that trustworthy, and it isn't clear to me that the Israelis view it that way either (as in "if you pass the profiling, then we don't really need to screen you, we've already figured out you're safe").

The Israelis spend 10x what we do on airport security, so I question whether travelers are eager to add $50 to their ticket prices.
-harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top