OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits? [Archive]

Andrew Rowley

December 30th 03, 10:51 PM

Cub Driver > wrote:

>I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and
>listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of
>air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security
>consultant. He said in effect:
>
>"You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
>frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
>getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
>frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
>airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
>unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."
>
>The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.

What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board?
The possibility of explosive decompression?

I have seen it said that a bullet hole through the skin would not
cause explosive decompression. I can believe that is true if it is a
small hole, from relatively perpendicular to the skin. What if the
bullet was at a shallow angle to the skin however, as if it had been
fired along the cabin? Then I would imagine the hole would be more
like a long tear, and explosive decompression seems more likely. There
is a lot of pressure there, remember Comets, JAL, Aloha airlines etc.

Teacherjh

December 31st 03, 12:01 AM

>>
I have seen it said that a bullet hole through the skin would not
cause explosive decompression. I can believe that is true if it is a
small hole, from relatively perpendicular to the skin. What if the
bullet was at a shallow angle to the skin however, as if it had been
fired along the cabin? Then I would imagine the hole would be more
like a long tear, and explosive decompression seems more likely.
<<

If the bullet hits the s in at a shallow angle, there will be much less force
perpendicular to the skin, and it will be less likely to be punctured. The
bullet will just ricochet.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Michael

December 31st 03, 12:05 AM

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

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

Michael

Bob Noel

December 31st 03, 12:05 AM

In article >,
(Wdtabor) wrote:

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

most of them are have passed away.

--
Bob Noel

Andrew Rowley

December 31st 03, 12:14 AM

(Teacherjh) wrote:

>If the bullet hits the s in at a shallow angle, there will be much less force
>perpendicular to the skin, and it will be less likely to be punctured. The
>bullet will just ricochet.
>
>Jose

My impression is that the skin is not that strong, if you apply a
force to a single point like that. It's more like a balloon or an egg
- strong enough for the forces it is designed for, but vulnerable to
other things. I would be surprised if the skin would deflect a bullet
without sustaining enough damage that a puncture is possible.

G.R. Patterson III

December 31st 03, 03:55 AM

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> If the bullet hits the s in at a shallow angle, there will be much less force
> perpendicular to the skin, and it will be less likely to be punctured. The
> bullet will just ricochet.

I think you've confused the skin of an aircraft with that of an armoured personel
carrier. It won't ricochet off a car, much less a plane. Still, the usual pistol
round is unlikely to do much damage unless it hits a structural frame just right
or hits equipment (such as an engine) outside the cabin.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

tony roberts

December 31st 03, 04:44 AM

> > What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?
>
> most of them are have passed away.

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

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

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

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

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

December 31st 03, 04:54 AM

Check out skin thickness on a passenger jet as you enter the door. Jose's
answer is more likely correct. But in any case I'd rather take a chance on
that than knowing the terrorist controls the p lane and we will all be blown
to bits against his target, or shot down by a fighter. No other options,
old chap, unless some of the passengers are armed. There, I prefer air
marshals or myself.
EGB
"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> I have seen it said that a bullet hole through the skin would not
> cause explosive decompression. I can believe that is true if it is a
> small hole, from relatively perpendicular to the skin. What if the
> bullet was at a shallow angle to the skin however, as if it had been
> fired along the cabin? Then I would imagine the hole would be more
> like a long tear, and explosive decompression seems more likely.
> <<
>
> If the bullet hits the s in at a shallow angle, there will be much less
force
> perpendicular to the skin, and it will be less likely to be punctured.
The
> bullet will just ricochet.
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

StellaStar

December 31st 03, 06:31 AM

> armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
>> pressurized airliner.
>
>Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where a passenger
>who is absolutely unknown to you is armed while you yourself are
>unarmed?
>

Michael has a point; are the armed security guards going to be of the quality
of mall rent-a-cops and other police academy failed wannabes?

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 02:35 PM

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

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

That works only so long as you do not encounter anyone who doesn't care what
you decide. But from that point on, you are either his slave or dead.

Don

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

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 02:35 PM

In article >, Andrew Rowley
> writes:

(Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>>What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?
>
>Are you saying those who do not carry guns are afraid, and those
>carrying guns brave? It seems the other way round to me.
>
>

Those who will defend their lives and those of others are brave and those who
depend on the good will of monsters or the bravery of others for their safety
are cowards.

Don

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

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 02:35 PM

In article >,
(Michael) writes:

>
(Wdtabor) wrote
>> Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there is
>an
>> armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
>> pressurized airliner.
>
>Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where a passenger
>who is absolutely unknown to you is armed while you yourself are
>unarmed?
>

I live in Virginia, I am often in the company of people I do not know who are
armed, and others are often in my company when I am armed. When I am not armed,
I find the company of my fellow honest citizens who are armed to be comforting.

I trust the honest people around me to share in our mutual defense against
those who are unlawful. To do otherwise, and fear your fellow citizens enough
to disarm them, leaves you at the mercy of those who have no regard for law.

Getting into an airplane does not change anything, I would rather the stranger
beside me be one of many on the airplane who are armed than take the chance
that only those who would do me harm are armed.

Of course, ME being armed is even better, but even then, it is better that I
not be the ONLY one armed.

Don

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

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 02:35 PM

In article >, "Ed" >
writes:

>Check out skin thickness on a passenger jet as you enter the door. Jose's
>answer is more likely correct. But in any case I'd rather take a chance on
>that than knowing the terrorist controls the p lane and we will all be blown
>to bits against his target, or shot down by a fighter. No other options,
>old chap, unless some of the passengers are armed. There, I prefer air
>marshals or myself.

I am surprised so many people cannot see that.

They are so concerned about the unlikely possibility that a stray bullet might
hit them, or something critical, in a shootout with a terrorist, but they are
oblivious to the fact that if that shootout does not take place and the
terrorist succeeds, their death, and many others, are certain.

They give firearms magical powers not supported by reason.

Don

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

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 02:35 PM

In article >,
(StellaStar) writes:

>Michael has a point; are the armed security guards going to be of the quality
>of mall rent-a-cops and other police academy failed wannabes?
>

It doesn't matter.

Their presence makes the planning of a hijacking impractical. So long as the
impression is that they are there, unidentified, somewhere in the cabin, there
is no way to successfully plan a takeover, so there will be no attempt.

The rent-a-cop can then snooze away on the flight and we are safe by way of
deterence. The best deterrents never are activated and those used have already
failed.

Don

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

Jonathan Goodish

December 31st 03, 02:48 PM

In article >,
Andrew Rowley > wrote:
> >"You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
> >frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
> >getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
> >frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
> >airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
> >unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."
> >
> >The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.
>
> What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board?
> The possibility of explosive decompression?

What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?

JKG

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 02:53 PM

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
> slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
> control of the airplane?
>

Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
strike a US target?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 03:01 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and
> listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of
> air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security
> consultant. He said in effect:
>
> "You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
> frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
> getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
> frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
> airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
> unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."
>
> The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.
>

And yet it raises several questions in rational minds. The question, "But
what's to stop the terrorist from getting into a shootout with the air
marshal?", concedes that terrorists can get weapons aboard aircraft. That
being the case, what's the downside of having an armed air marshal aboard?
That it may cause passengers to be sucked out of the aircraft? Please. If
the terrorists gain control of the aircraft to use as a weapon the
passengers are all doomed anyway.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 03:02 PM

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
>
> What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board?
> The possibility of explosive decompression?
>
> I have seen it said that a bullet hole through the skin would not
> cause explosive decompression. I can believe that is true if it is a
> small hole, from relatively perpendicular to the skin. What if the
> bullet was at a shallow angle to the skin however, as if it had been
> fired along the cabin? Then I would imagine the hole would be more
> like a long tear, and explosive decompression seems more likely. There
> is a lot of pressure there, remember Comets, JAL, Aloha airlines etc.
>

Are the passengers better off if the terrorists gain control of the aircraft
to use as a weapon?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 03:06 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where a passenger
> who is absolutely unknown to you is armed while you yourself are
> unarmed?
>

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

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 03:15 PM

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

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

John Roncallo

December 31st 03, 03:44 PM

Wdtabor wrote:
> Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there is an
> armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
> pressurized airliner.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017,863275,00.html
>
> What?
>
> Are they using "Goldfinger" as a training film there now?
>
> Or has hoplophobia just turned their minds to goo?
>
> Don
>

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

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

2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin.

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

John Roncallo

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 04:02 PM

"John Roncallo" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> 1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
> guns on board.
>

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

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

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

>
> 2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin.
>

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

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 04:20 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again.
Putting the
> air marshals on board protects them in both directions.
>

But aren't they protected at the US end by the TSA? If terrorists are able
to get weapons aboard aircraft in the US it means federal screeners are no
more effective than private sector screeners, and we all know that's not the
case.

Ash Wyllie

December 31st 03, 04:48 PM

Martin Hotze opined

>On 30 Dec 2003 20:16:01 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

>>> 2) Most of the EU nations
>>>(and people raises in them) are VERY anti-gun (to the point of being
>>>afriad of guns, that is fear of the object itself).
>>>
>>
>>I see no reason for the US to cater to the mental diseases of Europeans. And

>what is the mental disease here? I can't follow you there.
>Or do you mean you are only sane when carrying a weapon?

>>fear of an inanimate object carried by an officer of the law *is*
>>delusional.

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

Men with guns, cops and criminals, will make the decision for you.

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

>they awakend?

No, they have gone to sleep, and left the superstitious in charge.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Martin Hotze

December 31st 03, 06:26 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:40:21 -0800, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again. Putting the
>air marshals on board protects them in both directions.

You mean: when departing again in the USA heading home? Well, who was
responsible for security at the airport then?

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Martin Hotze

December 31st 03, 06:30 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it (!)
>> nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my car.
>> And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing too
>> close to cops carrying a weapon.
>>
>
>What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you decide?
>

aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but give me
one nuke more than him.

or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)

to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first shoot,
then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

G.R. Patterson III

December 31st 03, 06:40 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
> for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
> flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
> strike a US target?

The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again. Putting the
air marshals on board protects them in both directions.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 06:43 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "John Roncallo" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> 1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
>> guns on board.
>>
>
> Wouldn't the terrorists have to know which flights carried air marshals?

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

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

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

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

- Andrew

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

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 06:44 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first shoot,
> then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.
>

Well, you'll probably get your wish.

G.R. Patterson III

December 31st 03, 06:46 PM

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> In article >,
> (StellaStar) writes:
>
> >Michael has a point; are the armed security guards going to be of the quality
> >of mall rent-a-cops and other police academy failed wannabes?
>
> It doesn't matter.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if I could forget the fact that two of
the University of Tennessee police force detectives accidentally shot themselves
(one in the foot) during my tenure there as an undergraduate. They were considered
to be better quality than rent-a-cops.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 07:10 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
> you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon
something
> called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.
>
> If nothing else, it's yet another "weak point" against which an "attack"
can
> be attempted. It means that the terrorist doesn't need to get a weapon on
> board, but just get access to the marshal's identity on a flight. That
is,
> there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
> before there was just one.
>
> Of course, for this to matter we have to assume that it is impossible (or
at
> least very difficult) to smuggle a weapon on board. I find myself
> unwilling to make that assumption. If some kid could do it - and multiple
> times at that - then why not a collection of savvy terrorists?
>
> The risk of having a known weapon on board has to be balanced against the
> possibility of having an unknown weapon on board.
>

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

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

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

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 07:18 PM

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

There are weapons, and then there are weapons. A half dozen guys with large
knives or small clubs is pretty formidable against a group of unarmed
passengers hampered by the width of the aisle on an airliner, but add one guard
(or passenger with a permit) and a handgun, and they are dead meat.

Don

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

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 07:48 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

- Andrew

David CL Francis

December 31st 03, 07:49 PM

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

They grew old.

--
David CL Francis

Michael

December 31st 03, 08:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Jens Krueger

December 31st 03, 08:23 PM

Wdtabor > wrote:

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

Which is understandable.

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

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

Jens

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

Eric Pinnell

December 31st 03, 08:33 PM

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

>All this article states is that people have some concerns about having
>guns on board. These are legitimate concerns. It does not mean it will
>or will not happen.
>
>1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
>guns on board. Now they just have to get the ones that were carried on
>board by sky marshals.

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

>2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin.

Impossible. The pressure systems on an airplane could literally
keep the cabin pressurized even if an entire window were to disappear.
A few bullet holes would make no difference in cabin pressure.
>
>When you live in a society (British) where police officers dont carry
>guns, and do so quit successfully. Having concerns is only natural.
>Addressing all concerns and using a carefully thought out plan is highly
>advisable.
>
>John Roncallo

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

Eric Pinnell

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

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

Wdtabor

December 31st 03, 09:07 PM

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

Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

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

Don

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

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 09:28 PM

Wdtabor wrote:

>>
>>Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
>>from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
>>the throat while the other goes for the weapon.
>
> Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
> terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
> penalty for guessing wrong is death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Andrew

Ron Natalie

December 31st 03, 09:37 PM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message ...
]> Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
> terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
> penalty for guessing wrong is death.

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

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

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

Dave

December 31st 03, 09:49 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it (!)
> > nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my
car.
> > And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing
too
> > close to cops carrying a weapon.
> >
>
> What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
decide?

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

Dave

December 31st 03, 09:53 PM

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-BCCAC6.20445730122003@shawnews...
>
> > > What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?
> >
> > most of them are have passed away.
>
> Those that haven't have been made airmarshalls.
> apart from being 90 years old, suffering from Alzheimers and wearing
> diapers they fill the role (and the diaper) very well.
>
> So - are we all feeling safer yet?
> I would be very comfortable knowing that one of them was on my flight -
> as long as he wasn't sitting next to me :)
>
> Why is everyone scared of being on the same plane as a guy wirth a gun?
> A guy with an Almanac - that is reallllly scary.
> Two Almanacs? Run - it's Billy The Kid.
> They used to ask if you packed your own bags, or if you had a suitcase
> bomb or a pair of nailclippers.
> Now they ask the best date to plant wheat in Idaho.
> If you answer it correctly they send in the swat team.
>
> Isn't it just slightly possible, that at some time, someone, somewhere
> lost their direction? Sure as hell seems like it from where I'm sitting.

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

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 09:56 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
> from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
the
> throat while the other goes for the weapon.
>

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

How did the terrorists identify the marshal?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 09:57 PM

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

Only those that wish to fly to the US.

Morgans

December 31st 03, 10:11 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > Please explain how having an armed marshal aboard is a "weak point".
How
> > do the terrorists get the weapon away from the marshal?
>
> Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
> from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
the
> throat while the other goes for the weapon.

AAAAHAAAA

How did the terrorists identify who the air marshal was?
--
Jim in NC

Jonathan Goodish

December 31st 03, 10:13 PM

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
> > slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
> > control of the airplane?
> >
>
> Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
> for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
> flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
> strike a US target?

So Britain isn't a terrorist target anymore?

JKG

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 10:15 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> <Sigh> In you pop up this thread a few messages, you'll see that I wrote:
>
> Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
> you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon
something
> called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.
>

So what? You never did explain how the terrorists identify the marshals.

>
> If nothing else, it's yet another "weak point" against which an "attack"
can
> be attempted. It means that the terrorist doesn't need to get a weapon on
> board, but just get access to the marshal's identity on a flight.
>

But how does the terrorist get access to the marshal's identity on a flight?
It's not enough to just state that's all he has to do, you have to explain
how he does it.

>
> That is,
> there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
> before there was just one.
>

How does the terrorist get the gun from the marshal?

>
> So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.
>

How would they learn it?

>
> That's fine...until/unless they do learn the secret.
>

How would they learn it?

>
> In that
> case, security is actually *reduced* as they now have access to
> a weapon on board (assuming, again, that it's not easier to simply
> smuggle something on board than it is to discern this secret).
>

But if they don't know who the marshal is security is *increased*.

Jonathan Goodish

December 31st 03, 10:15 PM

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 10:17 PM

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
> So Britain isn't a terrorist target anymore?
>

Britain is not part of the US.

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 10:20 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

You're assuming secrets staying secret, again.

> How did the terrorists identify the marshal?

The usual ways: security leak, observation, information intercept, etc.
These are all the usual ways that generic secrets may be compromised. I'm
sure that someone with knowledge of how the program works would have more
specific ideas.

But *my* knowing how to do this isn't important. What's important is that
nobody with security experience would assume that the secret would stay
secret. They don't.

You keep trusting the secrecy of the secret for your security. Worse, you
ask questions which indicate that someone needs to prove to you that the
secret can be compromised. Security starts by assuming a "failure" (ie.
the secret is out, someone smuggles a weapon aboard, etc.) and addressing
it.

After all, that's precisely the point of the air marshal program: to handle
the case where the perimeter security fails. So what handles the case
where the air marshal program fails?

- Andrew

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 10:21 PM

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
> And, the bottom line is I don't think it matters if the airplanes are
> are fuel full or empty, a jumbo jet is going to make a big mess if it's
> crashed into a populated area. That's the real point.
>

But not nearly the damage that a fully fueled jumbo jet would make.
Remember, the WTC towers withstood the impact, they were brought down by the
fire.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 03, 11:13 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> You're assuming secrets staying secret, again.
>

You're assuming they don't.

>
> But *my* knowing how to do this isn't important.
>

It is if you want your messages to be taken seriously.

>
> What's important is that
> nobody with security experience would assume that the secret would stay
> secret. They don't.
>

How do you know?

>
> You keep trusting the secrecy of the secret for your security. Worse, you
> ask questions which indicate that someone needs to prove to you that the
> secret can be compromised.
>

Well, if nobody can explain how the secret can be compromised, and nobody
has, then the secret appears to be pretty safe.

>
> After all, that's precisely the point of the air marshal program: to
handle
> the case where the perimeter security fails. So what handles the case
> where the air marshal program fails?
>

Well, if all programs fail, there's nothing we can do.

But you're not saying the marshal program MIGHT fail, you're saying the
,arshal program WILL fail. It's clear you're against armed marshals on
airplanes, but it appears to be just an emotional issue with you. You have
not presented a cogent argument against them.

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 11:24 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>>
>> <Sigh> In you pop up this thread a few messages, you'll see that I wrote:
>>
>> Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
>> you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon
> something
>> called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.
>>
>
> So what? You never did explain how the terrorists identify the marshals.

Yes, I did. I provided a few common examples of how a secret can be exposed
which would work in this case. I also pointed out that my ability to
explain this has no bearing on whether or not they can do this.

You can ask questions about what I've written, or even disagree. But you
look silly claiming I never wrote it.

>
>>
>> If nothing else, it's yet another "weak point" against which an "attack"
> can
>> be attempted. It means that the terrorist doesn't need to get a weapon
>> on board, but just get access to the marshal's identity on a flight.
>>
>
> But how does the terrorist get access to the marshal's identity on a
> flight? It's not enough to just state that's all he has to do, you have to
> explain how he does it.

I don't have to do this any more than I have to explain how a weapon would
be smuggled on board. The TSA doesn't wait for someone to demonstrate that
it is possible. They assume it is possible, and try to counter that
failure mode.

[Well...in fact I don't think the TSA is actually working this well. The
above is what they should do. It occurs to me to wonder why the TSA is run
by a politician as opposed to (for example) an intelligence specialist (or
some other person with a security background).]

Knowing the details of how a layer will fail is remarkably unimportant when
determining how to deal with that failure.

>
>
>>
>> That is,
>> there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
>> before there was just one.
>>
>
> How does the terrorist get the gun from the marshal?

Exactly as I described before, or in some other way.

>
>>
>> So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.
>>
>
> How would they learn it?

Exactly as secrets are always broken, or in some other way.

>>
>> That's fine...until/unless they do learn the secret.
>>
>
> How would they learn it?

You sound remarkably like a toddler.

>>
>> In that
>> case, security is actually *reduced* as they now have access to
>> a weapon on board (assuming, again, that it's not easier to simply
>> smuggle something on board than it is to discern this secret).
>>
>
> But if they don't know who the marshal is security is *increased*.

As long as the secret is safe, you're right. Nobody would ever assume so,
however, any more than they'd assume no weapon could be smuggled on board.
Instead, they assume that the secret will be broken, and create yet another
layer.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 11:37 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>>
>> You're assuming secrets staying secret, again.
>>
>
> You're assuming they don't.

Yes. Welcome to the world of security.

[...]

>
> Well, if nobody can explain how the secret can be compromised, and nobody
> has, then the secret appears to be pretty safe.

That is a silly assertion. It assumes because nobody has done something
before, or has described how it can be done, that it will never be done.

It's akin to someone having said "man has never flown, and nobody can
describe how many will fly, so man will never fly." (just to stay on topic
{8^).

[...]
> Well, if all programs fail, there's nothing we can do.

That is true. But each time you add a layer - and assuming that the layers
have independent failure modes, which is a simplification - you decrease
the likelyhood of *all* layers failing concurrently.

That's precisely the point: we make the case were "all programs fail" less
likely by increasing the universe of programs.

>
> But you're not saying the marshal program MIGHT fail, you're saying the
> ,arshal program WILL fail.

Correct. If I'm wrong, then there's no problem. If I'm right, then we'd
better have something else ready to handle that case.

> It's clear you're against armed marshals on
> airplanes,

That reflects your reading skills; not my beliefs. As I wrote, it is a
balancing act. If we assume that it is less than P likely that someone can
smuggle a weapon on board, then putting an armed marshal on the aircraft
increases risk. If we assume that it is more than P likely, then putting
an armed marshal on board decreases risk.

The choice of P reflects the chances of the identity of the marshal(s)
getting out.

Personally, I believe that the chances of smuggling a weapon on board are
high, but that the chances of the identity of the marshal being released
are also high. This reflects not the nature of the problem, but my low
opinion of the people working to solve these problems...or perhaps their
paymasters.

In other words, I'd have more faith if the TSA weren't cutting budgets for
security staff and wasting time on ineffective ideas like flight
restrictions which effect only GA.

> but it appears to be just an emotional issue with you. You
> have not presented a cogent argument against them.

That's not true, but it is apparent I've not presented an argument that you
can follow. I'd be sorry for that were it not apparent that you've no
interest in following any argument which disagrees with your opinion.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

December 31st 03, 11:47 PM

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>>
>> Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
>> you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon
>> something
>> called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.
>
> It doesn't have to work in the long term. It has to work for the duration
> of that flight.

If there were no pattern to the marshals used, you'd be right. For example,
if we randomly selected a couple of police officers for each flight, the
chances of this information being abused would be relatively small.

If, however, there's a relatively small population of marshals, then even
the release of one identity can cause a problem.

But don't ignore the possibility that an entire class, or even the entire
population, will become known to some terrorist group. How many people
will have access to this information? How well vetted are they?

You'd think, for example, that we'd be sure about the people permitted to
speak to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Wups.

Does nobody remember Robert Hanssen?

Further to keep in mind is that we're not speaking only of TSA staffers.
We've "marshals" from other nations handling security as well. More, some
of these nations aren't taking this program terribly seriously.

How well secured are the identities of those "marshals"?

- Andrew

John Harlow

December 31st 03, 11:57 PM

> So what? You never did explain how the terrorists identify the
> marshals.

Lol - they train for the job! ;)

Jürgen Exner

January 1st 04, 12:02 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> Please explain how having an armed marshal aboard is a "weak
>>> point". How do the terrorists get the weapon away from the marshal?
>>
>> Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking
>> back from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the
>> guy around the throat while the other goes for the weapon.
>
> How did the terrorists identify who the air marshal was?

Trivial:
A third terrorist just attacks the cockpit door or assaults a cabin crew
member and pretends to strangulate him with shoe laces or a belt. The one
person who jumps up, draws a gun, and arrests the assailant is the air
marshal.

jue

G.R. Patterson III

January 1st 04, 01:02 AM

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

Not all, just a random sample.

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

Good point. There was some discussion in the news recently to the effect that
AlQuaida is suspected of having managed to get some of their members positions
as airline pilots. It would probably take even less time to infiltrate the air
marshal program in Saudi Arabia, India, or the Philipines.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

G.R. Patterson III

January 1st 04, 01:55 AM

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

It doesn't have to work in the long term. It has to work for the duration of
that flight.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Bob Noel

January 1st 04, 06:17 AM

In article >, "Ron
Natalie" > wrote:

]> Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do
your
> two
> > terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?
> > The
> > penalty for guessing wrong is death.
>
> He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

oh crap, now people will think I'm an air marshall.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel

January 1st 04, 06:19 AM

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Well, if nobody can explain how the secret can be compromised, and nobody
> has, then the secret appears to be pretty safe.

the secret can be compromised just like any other secret. Give enough
$$$$$ to the right people and you can found out anything.

--
Bob Noel

Martin Hotze

January 1st 04, 12:36 PM

On 31 Dec 2003 21:07:01 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

>
>Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
>terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
>penalty for guessing wrong is death.

on the long run it will let the terrorists succeed. More "security" will be
established to the point where nobody trusts nobody else. Don't you see
that _you_ made them win the game already?

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Martin Hotze

January 1st 04, 01:26 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:02:44 -0800, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>Good point. There was some discussion in the news recently to the effect that
>AlQuaida is suspected of having managed to get some of their members positions
>as airline pilots. It would probably take even less time to infiltrate the air
>marshal program in Saudi Arabia, India, or the Philipines.
>

It would even be easier (as I believe that "Al Queada" has almost unlimited
financial ressources) to found their own airline, operate unsuspect for
some time and then .. well .. you get the picture ...

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Martin Hotze

January 1st 04, 01:27 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:33:10 -0500, Eric Pinnell <see my web site> wrote:

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

OK, I buy that. Are the bullets also good enough to prevent cutting off the
wiring that runs back and forth along the cabin?

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Martin Hotze

January 1st 04, 01:31 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

>> terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
>> penalty for guessing wrong is death.
>
>He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

this would make him beeing the guy on upper deck on a 747 and having about
300 or so passengers and a handful of terrorists on the lower deck. for
sure, the cockpit door is accessed through the upper deck ....

If it is me beeing a terrorist in this situation and I can't get control of
the plane itself (and ramming it into a building, ...) then I will be happy
by killing the 300 or so passengers.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Martin Hotze

January 1st 04, 01:36 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:37:56 -0500, Andrew Gideon wrote:

>>> You're assuming secrets staying secret, again.
>>>
>>
>> You're assuming they don't.
>
>Yes. Welcome to the world of security.

You have to state that you are a computer nerd. This explains very much. At
least to me. :-)

All (at least most) of your statements are portable to almost any other
security concept - be it networking or airline security.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

Brien K. Meehan

January 1st 04, 05:45 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...

> I would be more inclined to agree with you if I could forget the fact that two of
> the University of Tennessee police force detectives accidentally shot themselves
> (one in the foot) during my tenure there as an undergraduate. They were considered
> to be better quality than rent-a-cops.

They were. I mean, c'mon, it's Tennessee!

Dylan Smith

January 1st 04, 06:27 PM

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
> slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
> control of the airplane?

Do you really think that these days that a typical B747 load of people
(over 200) would allow a handful of hijackers to live long enough to try
crashing the plane?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Andrew Gideon

January 1st 04, 06:46 PM

Michael Nouak wrote:

> Simply become an air marshal. On the day you get the call from Osama,
> simply board your flight, maybe with another air marshal. At the
> appropriate time, get up, scream "US Marshal, freeze!" and shoot the other
> marshal, or any random passenger if you're alone, in the head.

<Sigh> And I thought I was devious.

This doesn't even require knowing the other Marshal(s). They'll pop up
immediately.

This is an interesting problem. The solution to your scenario is to have
marshals all know about one another (at least on a single flight). But
that increases the risk of all marshals' identities being exposed at once
by a single security failure.

I have to admit: I'm glad I'm not in the business of formulating these
plans.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

January 1st 04, 06:47 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:

> It would even be easier (as I believe that "Al Queada" has almost
> unlimited financial ressources) to found their own airline, operate
> unsuspect for some time and then .. well .. you get the picture ...

You know...El Al's just had *too* good a record.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

Dylan Smith

January 1st 04, 06:49 PM

In article >, Steven P.
McNicoll wrote:
>> So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.
>
> How would they learn it?

There are dozens of ways. It's sort of like solving an equation - from
the knowns you can derive the value of x. The IRA (nothing to do with
pensions, but republican terrorists in Northern Ireland used to spy
quite frequently to find the identity of their enemies and kill them),
and the IRA weren't on suicide missions. Someone determined enough to
face the certainty of death will probably be even more determined.

A brute-force way of doing it would be to have two terrorist cells on
board. The first one begins the hijack. The sky marshall takes charge
and does his job *instantly identifying himself and where he keeps his
gun* to the second cell. The second cell then swing into action some
time later, first seizing control of the sky marshal and his weapon, and
then continuing with their plan. And now they are armed with a gun.

Since flight attendants are allowed on the flight deck, where there is a
crash axe available, what security vetting are we doing of flight
attendants? What does the sky marshal do when an FA incapacitates the
crew with a crash axe and locks the reinforced cockpit door behind him?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dan Luke

January 1st 04, 06:50 PM

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

I don't.

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

I'm a gun owner. I'm also a licensed driver. I don't expect any better
judgment from my fellow gun owners than I do from my fellow drivers.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Andrew Gideon

January 1st 04, 07:07 PM

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Michael Nouak wrote:
>
>> Simply become an air marshal. On the day you get the call from Osama,
>> simply board your flight, maybe with another air marshal. At the
>> appropriate time, get up, scream "US Marshal, freeze!" and shoot the
>> other marshal, or any random passenger if you're alone, in the head.
>
> <Sigh> And I thought I was devious.
>
> This doesn't even require knowing the other Marshal(s). They'll pop up
> immediately.

After reconsideration...

This requires that the terrorists smuggle weapons on board. Most of our
discussion of determining the marshals' identities was aimed and not
smuggling weapons, but grabbing theirs.

So this doesn't really apply to the discussion of how putting marshals on
board might decrease security (by making weapons available).

However, what would occur if one unarmed terrorist popped up yelling "I'm
the air marshal". The marshal would subdue him/her, yes? The other
terrorists would then know the identity.

Hmm. Marshals would have to be trained to interfere only in extreme
cases...which means that the first terrorist might have to be a little more
extreme. But this does appear to be a potential vector for breaking the
identity of the marshals.

- Andrew

Eric Pinnell

January 1st 04, 07:48 PM

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:27:48 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>OK, I buy that. Are the bullets also good enough to prevent cutting off the
>wiring that runs back and forth along the cabin?
>
>#m

Aircraft have redundant flight control systems. It's highly
unlikely that controls could be severed. Besides, if you're worried
about a jetliner being shot out of the sky, equip the plane with a BRS
parachute.

Eric Pinnell

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

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

Morgans

January 1st 04, 08:17 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote
>
> There are dozens of ways. It's sort of like solving an equation
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man

The bottom line is, no terrorist will ever again take over a passenger
flight. The crowd will overcome them, or crash the plane, well short of its
objective.
--
Jim in NC

Ron Natalie

January 1st 04, 09:11 PM

"Eric Pinnell" <see my web site> wrote in message ...

> Aircraft have redundant flight control systems.

Unless you're on a DC-10 :-)

>. Besides, if you're worried
> about a jetliner being shot out of the sky, equip the plane with a BRS
> parachute.
>
That's going to be one big parachute.

Andrew Gideon

January 1st 04, 09:40 PM

Morgans wrote:

> The bottom line is, no terrorist will ever again take over a passenger
> flight. The crowd will overcome them, or crash the plane, well short of
> its objective.

I tend to agree with you, assuming insufficient weapons in the hands of the
terrorists, but then this doesn't explain the efforts towards which the TSA
is going in that regard.

However, it does explain why the TSA has expressed concern about cargo
flights. After all, these are just as large and fueled as passenger craft
but w/o a cargo that fights back.

Thinking along those lines: how long from first lesson to "freight dog"?
What's done to secure the cargo handlers? The cargo? I seem to recall
reading that certain shippers could bypass security, and that the threshold
for being one of those shippers wasn't terribly high.

- Andrew

Tom Sixkiller

January 1st 04, 11:58 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Wdtabor" wrote:
> > I find the company of my fellow honest citizens who are armed to be
> comforting.
>
> I don't.
>
> Many of my fellow honest citizens don't have sense enough to pour water
> out of a boot. Anyone who can vote can carry a gun in many states:
> considering the quality of elected officials, how comforting is that?
>
> I'm a gun owner. I'm also a licensed driver. I don't expect any better
> judgment from my fellow gun owners than I do from my fellow drivers.
> --

Always the positive, right Dan?

Andrew Gideon

January 2nd 04, 12:43 AM

Michael Nouak wrote:

> I think you slightly misunderstood my point. I was talking about the
> terrorist actually becoming an air marshal, as in: get a job as a marshal.
> Marshals obviously don't have to smuggle their guns on board. It's by far
> the easiest and safest method for terrorists to wreak havoc in/with a
> plane at this time.

Ah. Yes, I did misunderstand.

- Andrew

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 03:50 AM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >> I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it (!)
> >> nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my
car.
> >> And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing
too
> >> close to cops carrying a weapon.
> >>
> >
> >What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
decide?
> >
>
>
> aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but give me
> one nuke more than him.

Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?

>
> or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)
>

How profound.

> to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first shoot,
> then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.
>

Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on the
goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It really
seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 03:53 AM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Dec 2003 20:16:01 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:
>
> >> 2) Most of the EU nations
> >>(and people raises in them) are VERY anti-gun (to the point of being
> >>afriad of guns, that is fear of the object itself).
> >>
> >
> >I see no reason for the US to cater to the mental diseases of Europeans.
And
>
> what is the mental disease here? I can't follow you there.
> Or do you mean you are only sane when carrying a weapon?

If you had read the next line of his post, you would see.

"Fear of an inanimate object carried by an officer of the law *is*
delusional."
Do you disagree? Of course you do. You are a moron.

>
> >fear of an inanimate object carried by an officer of the law *is*
delusional.
>
> I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it (!)
> nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my car.
> And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing too
> close to cops carrying a weapon.
>
> >What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?
>
> they awakend?
>

So what you are essentially saying here is that the Battle of Britain should
never have been fought, and Hitler should have been given whatever he
wanted, including England, so long as it prevented more of those evil guns
from being used.

Genius.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 03:56 AM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it
(!)
> > > nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my
> car.
> > > And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing
> too
> > > close to cops carrying a weapon.
> > >
> >
> > What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
> decide?
>
> You mean Americans then - tell them to **** off.

Another brilliant answer from the xenophobic and powerless europeans.
Dismantling your military and banning guns is really paying off for you
guys, no?

Lets see, rampant crime and absolutely no say in world affairs. Good job.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 03:59 AM

"H.J." > wrote in message
...
> Didnt you know? When a bullet punctures a window, it blows out and all the
> people get sucked out - unless they hang on to a chair, in which case you
> flap like a flag in the wind until your fingers give out...

Except that air marshalls are issued plastic frangible bullets that cannot
puncture the cabin of an aircraft.

>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there
is
> an
> > armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
> > pressurized airliner.
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017,863275,00.html
> >
> > What?
> >
> > Are they using "Goldfinger" as a training film there now?
> >
> > Or has hoplophobia just turned their minds to goo?
> >
> > Don
> >
> > --
> > Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> > PP-ASEL
> > Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG
>
>

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 04:12 AM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> > What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
> > slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
> > control of the airplane?
>
> Do you really think that these days that a typical B747 load of people
> (over 200) would allow a handful of hijackers to live long enough to try
> crashing the plane?

Depends on what country the plane originated from. On an Air France flight,
the passengers would probably appease terrorists, subdue any Americans on
the plane trying to fight back, and curse the USA all the way into whatever
target the terrorists had planned for them.

A British Airways flight, maybe not, but I wouldn't expect miracles from
them either.

John Harlow

January 2nd 04, 04:12 AM

>> It would even be easier (as I believe that "Al Queada" has almost
>> unlimited financial ressources) to found their own airline, operate
>> unsuspect for some time and then .. well .. you get the picture ...
>
> You know...El Al's just had *too* good a record.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> - Andrew

....you forgot <nervously> ;)

Brooks Hagenow

January 2nd 04, 04:41 AM

"H.J." > wrote in message
...
> Didnt you know? When a bullet punctures a window, it blows out and all the
> people get sucked out - unless they hang on to a chair, in which case you
> flap like a flag in the wind until your fingers give out...
>

That is awesome! Made me laugh. Except I believe air marshals use
amunition that is "aircraft friendly." It is the ammunition the terrorists
are using that you may have to worry about. But in that case, I would
welcome an airmarshal being on board my plane.

Dylan Smith

January 2nd 04, 12:49 PM

In article >, Thomas J.
Paladino Jr. wrote:
> "Fear of an inanimate object carried by an officer of the law *is*
> delusional."

Fear of what officers of the law might do with the inanimate object
isn't irrational. Let's take a look at what this esteemed law
enforcement officer did one day:

http://www.alioth.net/tmp/Negligence.mpg

Not all of them are particularly good at handling firearms safely.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dan Luke

January 2nd 04, 05:26 PM

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

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

Dave

January 2nd 04, 07:49 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
> > >> I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it
(!)
> > >> nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my
> car.
> > >> And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing
> too
> > >> close to cops carrying a weapon.
> > >>
> > >
> > >What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
> decide?
> > >
> >
> >
> > aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but give me
> > one nuke more than him.
>
> Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?
>
> >
> > or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)
> >
>
> How profound.
>
> > to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first shoot,
> > then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.
> >
>
> Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on the
> goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It really
> seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
> firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.

It is all relative and with hand guns being outlawed completely possessing a
gun became a crime. With gun crime being so low any increase looks big.

Funnily enough gun related crime tends to be restricted to the criminals
shooting each other not the public. The main problems in London tend to be
Russian mafia against Albanian mafia, blacks against blacks (Yardies), drug
dealers against drug dealers.
What we don't get are kids killing each other by accident because Dad left
his gun lying about and we don't get wacko kids going into school blasting
everyone in sight and we don't get guys sniping away at the public either.

The police here take a firm view with anyone with what looks like a gun.
They shoot them. The assumption is that as there can be no lawful purpose to
be waving a gun around then shooting dead someone with a gun who refuses to
surrender is legitimate.
Therefore the only ones who need to worry are the nuts who like guns and
criminals. Even a toy gun risks getting the holder shot if the police are
uncertain of the weapon.
Thank fully our police tend to finish gun business with the odd bullet
rather than a shootout.

There was a hostage situation in London last Christmas where the gunman held
a hostage for a week and after he released the hostage the gunman continued
to resist the police. After a couple of more days and with the threat of him
setting fire to the premises the police shot him with one bullet to the
head.

Its that type of police officer I would like as a sky marshal, someone with
restraint and control as well as skill and judgement.

Unfortunately there are probably not enough to go around.

Dave

January 2nd 04, 07:57 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it
> (!)
> > > > nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in
my
> > car.
> > > > And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid
beeing
> > too
> > > > close to cops carrying a weapon.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
> > decide?
> >
> > You mean Americans then - tell them to **** off.
>
>
> Another brilliant answer from the xenophobic and powerless europeans.
> Dismantling your military and banning guns is really paying off for you
> guys, no?
>
> Lets see, rampant crime and absolutely no say in world affairs. Good job.

Compare that with being despised by most of the world and the target of
terrorists (freedom fighters) and incapable of doing anything about it.

Has Afghanistan made any difference? No
Has Iraq made any difference? No

Just look at the US body count since 911.

Nearly 1000 US service men have been killed. That's 40% of the number who
perished on 911.

About 20,000 nationals of Afghanistan and Iraq who were non combatants have
also been killed.

911 was a tragedy but the real tragedy is that the US has not learned a
single lesson from it. I hope that the next lesson will be learnt and
understood.

Dave

January 2nd 04, 08:05 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> > > What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
> > > slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
> > > control of the airplane?
> >
> > Do you really think that these days that a typical B747 load of people
> > (over 200) would allow a handful of hijackers to live long enough to try
> > crashing the plane?
>
> Depends on what country the plane originated from. On an Air France
flight,
> the passengers would probably appease terrorists, subdue any Americans on
> the plane trying to fight back, and curse the USA all the way into
whatever
> target the terrorists had planned for them.
>
> A British Airways flight, maybe not, but I wouldn't expect miracles from
> them either.

I would not expect much from a US carrier either. The flight attendents are
all geriatric women, or nancy boys, and most of the US nationals on the
plane are so stupid they dont know what day it is.
(asking whether they need to have their passport stamped going from England
to Scotland. Some smuck will be sitting in his car ready to hand over his
passport at the Scottish and wondering what has happened when no one has
check it.
(asking why they dont speak English in France all the time - doh - maybe its
because they speak French. (I wonder why I could not understand the
accent)).

Believe it or not these are true and I have great fun taking the ****. Again
the "Don't know what the day it is ers" don't understand the joke. Thick as
****.

Have a nice day y'all

C J Campbell

January 2nd 04, 09:51 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
|
| >Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there is
an
| >armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
| >pressurized airliner.
|
| I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and
| listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of
| air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security
| consultant. He said in effect:
|
| "You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
| frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
| getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
| frangible bullets.

Yes. It is much better to allow the terrorist to take over the airplane and
deliberately kill everybody on board while causing as much death and
destruction on the ground as possible. What an idiot.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 10:27 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide
it
> > (!)
> > > > > nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in
> my
> > > car.
> > > > > And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid
> beeing
> > > too
> > > > > close to cops carrying a weapon.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
> > > decide?
> > >
> > > You mean Americans then - tell them to **** off.
> >
> >
> > Another brilliant answer from the xenophobic and powerless europeans.
> > Dismantling your military and banning guns is really paying off for you
> > guys, no?
> >
> > Lets see, rampant crime and absolutely no say in world affairs. Good
job.
>
> Compare that with being despised by most of the world and the target of
> terrorists (freedom fighters) and incapable of doing anything about it.
>
> Has Afghanistan made any difference? No
> Has Iraq made any difference? No
>
> Just look at the US body count since 911.

The US civillian body count is at zero. Sure seems like we're making a
difference to me.

As for the military body count; that's their job, which they volunteered
for. I would prefer the terrorists engage the 4th Infantry in Baghdad,
rather than jetliners and schoolbuses in New York or Atlanta.

Our plan is working well.

>
> Nearly 1000 US service men have been killed. That's 40% of the number who
> perished on 911.
>
> About 20,000 nationals of Afghanistan and Iraq who were non combatants
have
> also been killed.
>
> 911 was a tragedy but the real tragedy is that the US has not learned a
> single lesson from it.

The lesson we learned is that we can't sit back and wait for an attack here,
we need to use our military to engage those who want to hurt us before they
have a chance to even make their plans.

> I hope that the next lesson will be learnt and
> understood.
>

Is that a threat? Sure sounds like it to me. For your sake, I hope not
because I just reported you to the FBI. Good luck entering the country if
you should ever have to.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 10:29 PM

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
> > snip
> > Too late; you already do.
>
> Actually, we don't. You do, though.
>

Actually you do, and your crime statistics prove it. You just choose to bury
your head in the sand and hope the allmighty government will take care of
you like a good parent. For the record, that's how dictatorships are
started.

> I feel your pain.
>

The only pain you are going to feel is the one where you wake up 10 years
from now and realize that you no longer have any individual rights because
you chose to allow your government to disarm it's population.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 2nd 04, 10:33 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it
> (!)
> > > >> nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in
my
> > car.
> > > >> And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid
beeing
> > too
> > > >> close to cops carrying a weapon.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
> > decide?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but give
me
> > > one nuke more than him.
> >
> > Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?
> >
> > >
> > > or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)
> > >
> >
> > How profound.
> >
> > > to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first
shoot,
> > > then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.
> > >
> >
> > Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on
the
> > goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It
really
> > seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
> > firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.
>
> It is all relative and with hand guns being outlawed completely possessing
a
> gun became a crime. With gun crime being so low any increase looks big.
>
> Funnily enough gun related crime tends to be restricted to the criminals
> shooting each other not the public. The main problems in London tend to be
> Russian mafia against Albanian mafia, blacks against blacks (Yardies),
drug
> dealers against drug dealers.
> What we don't get are kids killing each other by accident because Dad left
> his gun lying about and we don't get wacko kids going into school blasting
> everyone in sight and we don't get guys sniping away at the public either.
>
> The police here take a firm view with anyone with what looks like a gun.
> They shoot them. The assumption is that as there can be no lawful purpose
to
> be waving a gun around then shooting dead someone with a gun who refuses
to
> surrender is legitimate.
> Therefore the only ones who need to worry are the nuts who like guns and
> criminals. Even a toy gun risks getting the holder shot if the police are
> uncertain of the weapon.
> Thank fully our police tend to finish gun business with the odd bullet
> rather than a shootout.

And you see nothing wrong with this scenario? It dosen't strike you as maybe
a bit tyrannical that owning a toy gun may get you shot by a police officer?
You surrender your rights far too easily, and I am afraid that if a majority
of your population feels similarly, you days as a free people are numbered.

Dave

January 2nd 04, 11:09 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > ...
> > > snip
> > > Too late; you already do.
> >
> > Actually, we don't. You do, though.
> >
>
> Actually you do, and your crime statistics prove it. You just choose to
bury
> your head in the sand and hope the allmighty government will take care of
> you like a good parent. For the record, that's how dictatorships are
> started.
>
>
> > I feel your pain.
> >
>
> The only pain you are going to feel is the one where you wake up 10 years
> from now and realize that you no longer have any individual rights because
> you chose to allow your government to disarm it's population.

You don't have many rights now despite your guns. The Feds can do as they
please and as long as shmucks like you keep encouraging them on they are
gonna continue grabbing more power.
The lamest excuse and the rational of all tyrants is "National Security".
Its been used time and time again to curtail individual freedoms.
That's the lesson - but the dumbasses that elect politicians like we have
are too stupid to realise that they are giving away their freedoms.

The politicians are not dumb. They will let you keep your guns but strip you
of everything else. Whilst the "kids" have their "toys" they will be happy.

The politicians love you. You make it so easy for them.

Dave

January 2nd 04, 11:17 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide
it
> > (!)
> > > > >> nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting
in
> my
> > > car.
> > > > >> And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid
> beeing
> > > too
> > > > >> close to cops carrying a weapon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what
you
> > > decide?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but
give
> me
> > > > one nuke more than him.
> > >
> > > Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)
> > > >
> > >
> > > How profound.
> > >
> > > > to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first
> shoot,
> > > > then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on
> the
> > > goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It
> really
> > > seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
> > > firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.
> >
> > It is all relative and with hand guns being outlawed completely
possessing
> a
> > gun became a crime. With gun crime being so low any increase looks big.
> >
> > Funnily enough gun related crime tends to be restricted to the criminals
> > shooting each other not the public. The main problems in London tend to
be
> > Russian mafia against Albanian mafia, blacks against blacks (Yardies),
> drug
> > dealers against drug dealers.
> > What we don't get are kids killing each other by accident because Dad
left
> > his gun lying about and we don't get wacko kids going into school
blasting
> > everyone in sight and we don't get guys sniping away at the public
either.
> >
> > The police here take a firm view with anyone with what looks like a gun.
> > They shoot them. The assumption is that as there can be no lawful
purpose
> to
> > be waving a gun around then shooting dead someone with a gun who refuses
> to
> > surrender is legitimate.
> > Therefore the only ones who need to worry are the nuts who like guns and
> > criminals. Even a toy gun risks getting the holder shot if the police
are
> > uncertain of the weapon.
> > Thank fully our police tend to finish gun business with the odd bullet
> > rather than a shootout.
>
>
> And you see nothing wrong with this scenario? It dosen't strike you as
maybe
> a bit tyrannical that owning a toy gun may get you shot by a police
officer?
> You surrender your rights far too easily, and I am afraid that if a
majority
> of your population feels similarly, you days as a free people are
numbered.

Nothing wrong with it at all. Guns are illegal. We voted for it, after a
Columbine type incident. We surrendered our licenced sporting guns.
Therefore anyone still with a gun or making out that they were using what
looked like a gun to rob or frighten people must bear the consequences. It
is about personal responsibility and choices.

Having a gun is no big deal. It does not make you a better person. It might
make you feel a bit more secure when there are loads of loonies around with
guns.

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.

If our police don't see the need to be constantly armed then why should the
population at large.

Wdtabor

January 2nd 04, 11:34 PM

>
>Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
>worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people who
>carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.
>

Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?

What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in Norfolk, VA.

Don

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

Wdtabor

January 2nd 04, 11:34 PM

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

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

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

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

Don

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

Dan Luke

January 2nd 04, 11:59 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

January 3rd 04, 12:47 AM

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
> > snip
> > Is that a threat? Sure sounds like it to me. For your sake, I hope not
> > because I just reported you to the FBI. Good luck entering the country
if
> > you should ever have to.
>
> Boy, if I was Dave, I'd be ****tin' my pants now.
>
> NOT!
>
> Mike
>

Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US (then
again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the US
aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war (which
will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............

Glad I don't live in the states!

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113779&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

Dave

January 3rd 04, 12:59 AM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
> >worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people
who
> >carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.
> >
>
> Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?
>
> What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to
the
> pub?
>
> Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in Norfolk,
VA.
>
Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened yet.

Joe Young

January 3rd 04, 02:27 AM

>
> Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US (then
> again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the
US
> aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
> warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war (which
> will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............
>
>
> Glad I don't live in the states!

We are very glad about that fact as well.... We already have our quota of
passivist assholes. If your daddy or granddaddy saw the world the way you
do we could have saved a bunch of American lives and you and the pussies
from France would all be speaking German today. At least your current
leadership has some balls and is willing to stand against EVIL.
Unfortunately your neighbors across the channel have chosen to be
insignificant, third-world countries that no longer matter in world
affairs....

Let's see if you boys have the same attitude if one of those camel jockeys
plows one of your beloved British Airways 747s into the Parliament Building.

Wdtabor

January 3rd 04, 02:29 AM

In article >, "Dave"
> writes:

>>
>> What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to
>the
>> pub?
>>
>> Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in Norfolk,
>VA.
>>
>Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened yet.
>
>

If you think that is an acceptable outcome, then I guess your people are beyond
hope.

England will always be our mother country, but it is sad to see Mom grow old
and senile.

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

Wdtabor

January 3rd 04, 02:29 AM

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>
>> Responsible use of a handgun simply requires leaving it in its holster
>until
>> something so bad happens that anything you do with the gun will be
>better.
>
>Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Are we to assume that all gun toters
>can judge such situations so nicely?
>--

It just isn't that hard. It is a lot easier that driving a car, and I bet my
life on the competence of other drivers every day.

Beyond that, the requirements for getting a Concealed Weapons Permit are far
more restrictive than that for a drivers license. A single act of ill temper,
getting the attention of the police, will bar you from getting a CWP forever.
Drivers licenses are far easier to get and keep.

I really feel safer in the company of armed CWP holders than without them. But
then guns are just tools to me, I do not assign them magical powers.

Don

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

C J Campbell

January 3rd 04, 05:44 AM

They continue to be Brits -- like quirky, but beloved cousins.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 3rd 04, 10:30 AM

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US
(then
> > again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the
> US
> > aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
> > warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war
(which
> > will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............
> >
> >
> > Glad I don't live in the states!
>
> We are very glad about that fact as well.... We already have our quota of
> passivist assholes. If your daddy or granddaddy saw the world the way you
> do we could have saved a bunch of American lives and you and the pussies
> from France would all be speaking German today. At least your current
> leadership has some balls and is willing to stand against EVIL.
> Unfortunately your neighbors across the channel have chosen to be
> insignificant, third-world countries that no longer matter in world
> affairs....
>
> Let's see if you boys have the same attitude if one of those camel jockeys
> plows one of your beloved British Airways 747s into the Parliament
Building.

.....which you know is bound to happen sooner or later.

Of course, I believe that the attitude that they will then adopt will be to
blame the USA, rather than the terrorists. Their logic already dictates that
the world would be a peaceful and utopian dream-come-true if the USA wasn't
around to muck it all up; so it only stands to reason that terrorists can't
acually be blamed for their own actions when they are obviously and justly
responding to the world represented by the Great Satan of America.

They are nothing more than useful idiots for the tyrants and terrorists who
want to kill them anyway, as are all appeasers. If these people were around
60 years ago, Hitler would have easily realized all of his dreams.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 3rd 04, 11:29 AM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
> > >worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people
> who
> > >carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?
> >
> > What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to
> the
> > pub?
> >
> > Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in
Norfolk,
> VA.
> >
> Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened
yet.
>

'Yet' being the operative word. And what happens when they want your car? Or
your house? Or your girlfriend? Or your daughter? If armed rapists break
into your house and have their way with your wife or daughter, who is going
to protect you then? Or are you going to self-rightously explain to your
loved ones how they need to just comply with the wishes of the criminals,
because you no matter how bad it will be, nothing justifys gun ownership?

And mind you, this scenario is FAR more likely to occour if the criminals
are 100% assured that the people in the house have no way to defend
themselves.

Do you see the problem with abject pascifism? No, probably not. So go ahead
and allow criminals to have their way with you and your family, weather it's
a $20 stickup or a gang rape. And as they rape your daughter or beat you
with baseball bats for whatever little cash you may have, you can rest easy
knowing that your pascifist ideals are intact.

Dave

January 3rd 04, 12:09 PM

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US
(then
> > again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the
> US
> > aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
> > warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war
(which
> > will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............
> >
> >
> > Glad I don't live in the states!
>
> We are very glad about that fact as well.... We already have our quota of
> passivist assholes. If your daddy or granddaddy saw the world the way you
> do we could have saved a bunch of American lives and you and the pussies
> from France would all be speaking German today. At least your current
> leadership has some balls and is willing to stand against EVIL.
> Unfortunately your neighbors across the channel have chosen to be
> insignificant, third-world countries that no longer matter in world
> affairs....
>
> Let's see if you boys have the same attitude if one of those camel jockeys
> plows one of your beloved British Airways 747s into the Parliament
Building.
>
>
Our leadership is a sick joke, that's why he is so matey with your
leadership.
He has no balls at all. He is stupid vain and arrogant - ideal qualities for
a politician.

Like Bush he was elected with less than a majority of the popular vote.

Dave

January 3rd 04, 12:28 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > >Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do
we
> > > >worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with
people
> > who
> > > >carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?
> > >
> > > What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way
to
> > the
> > > pub?
> > >
> > > Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in
> Norfolk,
> > VA.
> > >
> > Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened
> yet.
> >
>
> 'Yet' being the operative word. And what happens when they want your car?
Or
> your house? Or your girlfriend? Or your daughter? If armed rapists break
> into your house and have their way with your wife or daughter, who is
going
> to protect you then? Or are you going to self-rightously explain to your
> loved ones how they need to just comply with the wishes of the criminals,
> because you no matter how bad it will be, nothing justifys gun ownership?
>
> And mind you, this scenario is FAR more likely to occour if the criminals
> are 100% assured that the people in the house have no way to defend
> themselves.
>
> Do you see the problem with abject pascifism? No, probably not. So go
ahead
> and allow criminals to have their way with you and your family, weather
it's
> a $20 stickup or a gang rape. And as they rape your daughter or beat you
> with baseball bats for whatever little cash you may have, you can rest
easy
> knowing that your pascifist ideals are intact.

Maybe its just that people behave differently here that the risk is so small
that the chances of violent assault are so small that the solutions you
propose are out of proportion to the risk -the first rule of insurance.

Secondly if I was to be held up the aim is to not get in a fight but to
survive. Not about being a pascifist, its about being smart and knowing when
to fight and when not to fight.

I was held up at knive point in South Africa last year by two black youths.
The main aim was to get the guy with the knive as far away from me as
possible. So I let him have the camera and threw 100 rand ( $10) on the
floor. He dropped the camera, which I picked up and then fled empty handed.
No point having a fight.

FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
Florida than we do in our own country. On your hypothesis we should all be
issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.

And also FWIW Europeans dont fear guns. As was pointed out earlier they are
inanimate objects absolutely useless until a persons picks on up. The fear
is about who can and who has access to guns and their attitute to using
them.
The gun is never the problem its the person.

As for the Americans war on terrorism, they were pretty absent when we were
fighting the Irish terrorists in fact many of them were funding Irish
terrorist organisations. Not exactly a consistent policy.

Tom Sixkiller

January 3rd 04, 01:11 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wdtabor" wrote:
> > It must be niced to be so sure of your superiority over your fellow
> citizens.
>
> I said many, not all. Are you telling me you don't feel your judgement
> is superior to that of many of your fellow citizens? If so, how then do
> you account for the fact that you hold political views that place you in
> a minority?
>
> > I must point out that operating a car responsibly requires a great
> deal more
> > skill and judgment than operating a handgun.
>
> Requires it, maybe, but does it always get it?
>
> > Responsible use of a handgun simply requires leaving it in its holster
> until
> > something so bad happens that anything you do with the gun will be
> better.
>
> Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Are we to assume that all gun toters
> can judge such situations so nicely?

You might wish to know that civilian "gun toters" are about one SEVENTH as
likely to have a "bad shoot" than their "highly trained" brethren that tote
guns AND badges.

Tom Sixkiller

January 3rd 04, 01:13 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> They continue to be Brits -- like quirky, but beloved cousins.
>
Cousins? Are they from Britain...or 'Bama?

Tom Sixkiller

January 3rd 04, 01:14 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe Young" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US
> (then
> > > again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed
the
> > US
> > > aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
> > > warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war
> (which
> > > will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............
> > >
> > >
> > > Glad I don't live in the states!
> >
> > We are very glad about that fact as well.... We already have our quota
of
> > passivist assholes. If your daddy or granddaddy saw the world the way
you
> > do we could have saved a bunch of American lives and you and the pussies
> > from France would all be speaking German today. At least your current
> > leadership has some balls and is willing to stand against EVIL.
> > Unfortunately your neighbors across the channel have chosen to be
> > insignificant, third-world countries that no longer matter in world
> > affairs....
> >
> > Let's see if you boys have the same attitude if one of those camel
jockeys
> > plows one of your beloved British Airways 747s into the Parliament
> Building.
>
> ....which you know is bound to happen sooner or later.
>
> Of course, I believe that the attitude that they will then adopt will be
to
> blame the USA, rather than the terrorists. Their logic already dictates
that
> the world would be a peaceful and utopian dream-come-true if the USA
wasn't
> around to muck it all up; so it only stands to reason that terrorists
can't
> acually be blamed for their own actions when they are obviously and justly
> responding to the world represented by the Great Satan of America.

Quite!! http://www.prophetofdoom.net

Tom Sixkiller

January 3rd 04, 01:16 PM

Tom Sixkiller

January 3rd 04, 01:22 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Do you see the problem with abject pascifism? No, probably not. So go
> ahead
> > and allow criminals to have their way with you and your family, weather
> it's
> > a $20 stickup or a gang rape. And as they rape your daughter or beat you
> > with baseball bats for whatever little cash you may have, you can rest
> easy
> > knowing that your pascifist ideals are intact.
>
> Maybe its just that people behave differently here that the risk is so
small
> that the chances of violent assault are so small that the solutions you
> propose are out of proportion to the risk -the first rule of insurance.

Famous last words!!

>
> Secondly if I was to be held up the aim is to not get in a fight but to
> survive.

That's probably not YOUR aim, but in words of the old cliche, "It takes two
to tango".

> Not about being a pascifist, its about being smart and knowing when
> to fight and when not to fight.

You're confusing "when" with the ability TO fight.

> I was held up at knive point in South Africa last year by two black
youths.
> The main aim was to get the guy with the knive as far away from me as
> possible. So I let him have the camera and threw 100 rand ( $10) on the
> floor. He dropped the camera, which I picked up and then fled empty
handed.
> No point having a fight.

You were lucky...that time. Many others are not so fortunate.

> FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
> Florida than we do in our own country.

Care to support that claim? You know you can't. AAMOF, you're in more danger
in your own country than in our worst place (New York). (Other than when
criminals targeted tourists KNOWING that they, unlike the locals, were
DEFINITELY unarmed).

> On your hypothesis we should all be
> issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.

Non-sequitur.

> And also FWIW Europeans dont fear guns. As was pointed out earlier they
are
> inanimate objects absolutely useless until a persons picks on up. The fear
> is about who can and who has access to guns and their attitute to using
> them.

Non-sequitur #2.

> The gun is never the problem its the person.
>
> As for the Americans war on terrorism, they were pretty absent when we
were
> fighting the Irish terrorists in fact many of them were funding Irish
> terrorist organisations. Not exactly a consistent policy.

Non-sequitur #3.

Damn...is your Public Indoctrination ...I mean Education, System as screwed
up as our?

Tom Sixkiller

January 3rd 04, 01:23 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> Our leadership is a sick joke, that's why he is so matey with your
> leadership.
> He has no balls at all. He is stupid vain and arrogant - ideal qualities
for
> a politician.

Like Winston Churchill.

> Like Bush he was elected with less than a majority of the popular vote.

He (Blair) is about the only thing you've done right lately, even with all
his statist faults.

Wdtabor

January 3rd 04, 01:26 PM

In article >, "Dave"
> writes:

>
>FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
>Florida than we do in our own country. On your hypothesis we should all be
>issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.
>

Not true.

Muggings and especially home invasions are far more prevalent in Britain,
Germany and France than here in the States.

Murders, usually one gang banger shooting another, are the only violent crime
more prevalent here.

Don

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

Dave

January 3rd 04, 02:03 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Wdtabor" wrote:
> > > It must be niced to be so sure of your superiority over your fellow
> > citizens.
> >
> > I said many, not all. Are you telling me you don't feel your judgement
> > is superior to that of many of your fellow citizens? If so, how then do
> > you account for the fact that you hold political views that place you in
> > a minority?
> >
> > > I must point out that operating a car responsibly requires a great
> > deal more
> > > skill and judgment than operating a handgun.
> >
> > Requires it, maybe, but does it always get it?
> >
> > > Responsible use of a handgun simply requires leaving it in its holster
> > until
> > > something so bad happens that anything you do with the gun will be
> > better.
> >
> > Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Are we to assume that all gun toters
> > can judge such situations so nicely?
>
> You might wish to know that civilian "gun toters" are about one SEVENTH as
> likely to have a "bad shoot" than their "highly trained" brethren that
tote
> guns AND badges.

And you want to put these guys on planes? Madness

Paul Hamilton

January 3rd 04, 03:41 PM

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

Nothing. As demonstrated during the above-mentioned Battle of Britian
and, even more so, by civilian behavior during the Blitz, the Brits
appear to lack the capacity for hysteria that is so well developed
among today's Americans.

Paul

(proud to be an American; less so to be an American of this
generation)

Dave

January 3rd 04, 04:47 PM

"Paul Hamilton" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?
> >
> > Don
>
> Nothing. As demonstrated during the above-mentioned Battle of Britian
> and, even more so, by civilian behavior during the Blitz, the Brits
> appear to lack the capacity for hysteria that is so well developed
> among today's Americans.
>
> Paul
>
> (proud to be an American; less so to be an American of this
> generation)

Likewise the lack of hysteria when the Irish were bombing our shopping
centers, the center of London etc and had no compunction in killing kids
either. Real heroes they were. Over the troubles we have had a few thousand
killed in many incidents which did not even get onto the horizon in the US
media. That which did tended to be sympathisers for the terrorists.

The British tend to have a wider view on the world. Nearly every person in
the country has a passport (approx 10% of US citizens have a passport) most
have been abroad too. Our newspapers probably feature 50 -60% of news from
around the world.
US "national" newspapers are pretty thin on world news. US regional papers
have even less. For them news from another state is foreign. In Ft Myers
this Christmas, in the NewsPress, the disaster in Iran got two sentences in
the paper of the lines
"Earthquake in Iran, 6.5 on the Richter scale. Its estimated that 20,000
people may have died.

The earthquake in Paso Roubles (rubbles) got about three sentences. The
Mudslide got about the same.

But hey, the crap written when the Vikings lost to Arizona in the final 3
seconds of regular season seems to show a sense of inappropriate values.
Afterall it was only for a place in the playoffs not the Super bowel (sic)
itself.

An observation that's all.

Dennis O'Connor

January 3rd 04, 06:22 PM

Just a comment Dave...
Yes, the majority in europe have passports and have crossed country
borders... Remember, many of what you call Countries over there we call
Counties here, and we have States bigger than all but the very biggest of EU
Countries and we don't need passports to cross the borders, so there is a
significant difference for US citizens... One fine Sunday this past summer I
took the wife and we flew in a straight line (twin engine plane) for four
and a half hours, had lunch, did some sight seeing, flew four and a half
hours back, and never crossed the state borders...
Also, up to 9/11 we did not need a passport to go to Canada, Mexico, most of
latin america and south america, and all of the carribean that caters to
tourists... I do not have a passport because I have not needed one before..

And as far as colloquialism in the news, I skim a number of EU papers almost
daily, and other than the international news section they are no different
than the USA media... This or that politician caught in bed with someone,
Pictures of bare boobed babes, and page, after page, after page, about
soccer (whatever the hell that is!)

Cheers, eh wot ... Denny

"Dave" > wrote in > Afterall it was only for a
place in the playoffs not the Super bowel (sic)
> itself.
>
> An observation that's all.
>
>

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

January 3rd 04, 09:14 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote
do
> we
> > > > >worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with
> people
> > > who
> > > > >carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?
> > > >
> > > > What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the
way
> to
> > > the
> > > > pub?
> > > >
> > > > Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in
> > Norfolk,
> > > VA.
> > > >
> > > Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened
> > yet.
> > >
> >
> > 'Yet' being the operative word. And what happens when they want your
car?
> Or
> > your house? Or your girlfriend? Or your daughter? If armed rapists break
> > into your house and have their way with your wife or daughter, who is
> going
> > to protect you then? Or are you going to self-rightously explain to your
> > loved ones how they need to just comply with the wishes of the
criminals,
> > because you no matter how bad it will be, nothing justifys gun
ownership?
> >
> > And mind you, this scenario is FAR more likely to occour if the
criminals
> > are 100% assured that the people in the house have no way to defend
> > themselves.
> >
> > Do you see the problem with abject pascifism? No, probably not. So go
> ahead
> > and allow criminals to have their way with you and your family, weather
> it's
> > a $20 stickup or a gang rape. And as they rape your daughter or beat you
> > with baseball bats for whatever little cash you may have, you can rest
> easy
> > knowing that your pascifist ideals are intact.
>
> Maybe its just that people behave differently here that the risk is so
small
> that the chances of violent assault are so small that the solutions you
> propose are out of proportion to the risk -the first rule of insurance.

????!

I've been to the UK -- home of the soccer riot -- several times, and I can
assure you that it's not all tea and crumpets over there, despite the facade
you all try to put on. There is just as much crime, the streets are just as
dirty, the air is just as polluted and the people and culture are every bit
as violent as anything you can find in the USA (and I grew up and currently
live in New York City). Period.

The difference is that you people are all beginning to believe your own
bull**** about the sophistication and high-mindedness of your society. This
of course serves to no ones advantage more than the criminal element, who,
while you all walk around patting each other on the back for that utopian
accomplishment of 'banning guns', the criminals gleefully bask in their
newfound freedom to take whatever they need from you.

You said it yourself, if a criminal with a pipe asked for your wallet, you'd
gladly hand it over. To you, it's only 20 pounds, but to the criminal, it's
a great way to make a living. Do that a mere 4 or 5 times a day, and he's
doing alright for himself, especially compounded with the welfare he's
undoubtably on.

So you see, you've managed to create a wonderful new criminal class.

And by the way, any society in which a large number of citizens beat each
other into a bloody pulp on a regular basis over a sporting event (much less
soccer) has no right to call themselves 'nonviolent'.

When was the last time anyone was killed at a baseball game?

>
> Secondly if I was to be held up the aim is to not get in a fight but to
> survive. Not about being a pascifist, its about being smart and knowing
when
> to fight and when not to fight.
>

But again, you are leaving that choice -- one of your very survival -- in
the hands of a criminal. If you are unable to defend yourself, and he knows
that for a 100% fact, then like it or not, HE is the one calling the shots,
not you. Even if you cheerfully comply with every single demand he makes,
there is no guarantee that he won't kill you or your family just for the
hell of it. You have removed any option for fighting back, and have adopted
pasifism by default.

> I was held up at knive point in South Africa last year by two black
youths.
> The main aim was to get the guy with the knive as far away from me as
> possible. So I let him have the camera and threw 100 rand ( $10) on the
> floor. He dropped the camera, which I picked up and then fled empty
handed.
> No point having a fight.
>

So you got mugged by two incompetant criminals. And in most situations, the
best move is probably to just give the guy the lousy $10 and hope he chokes
on it. BUT, your country has eliminated any means for the citizenry to
defend itself against anything at all, thus swinging the doors wide open for
criminals to take advantage of the population in ways far more numerous and
egregious than a random petty theft.

> FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
> Florida than we do in our own country.

That is simply not true.

> On your hypothesis we should all be
> issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.
>
> And also FWIW Europeans dont fear guns. As was pointed out earlier they
are
> inanimate objects absolutely useless until a persons picks on up. The fear
> is about who can and who has access to guns and their attitute to using
> them.
> The gun is never the problem its the person.

Well, yes, that is in fact true. However, all you have done by making guns
illegal is to ensure that the only people who don't have them are the
law-abiding citizens. Criminals who are going to commit a crime anyway
simply disregard the gun laws as well.

> As for the Americans war on terrorism, they were pretty absent when we
were
> fighting the Irish terrorists in fact many of them were funding Irish
> terrorist organisations. Not exactly a consistent policy.
>

That is not exactly the same thing, although I would probably say that if
the level of Irish terrorism was, today, at the same level it was in the
80's, the American attitude towards it would be far, far different, as 9/11
has changed everything.

Joe Young

January 4th 04, 12:27 AM

> ????!
>
> I've been to the UK -- home of the soccer riot -- several times, and I can
> assure you that it's not all tea and crumpets over there, despite the
facade
> you all try to put on. There is just as much crime, the streets are just
as
> dirty, the air is just as polluted and the people and culture are every
bit
> as violent as anything you can find in the USA (and I grew up and
currently
> live in New York City). Period.
>
> The difference is that you people are all beginning to believe your own
> bull**** about the sophistication and high-mindedness of your society.
This
> of course serves to no ones advantage more than the criminal element, who,
> while you all walk around patting each other on the back for that utopian
> accomplishment of 'banning guns', the criminals gleefully bask in their
> newfound freedom to take whatever they need from you.
>
> You said it yourself, if a criminal with a pipe asked for your wallet,
you'd
> gladly hand it over. To you, it's only 20 pounds, but to the criminal,
it's
> a great way to make a living. Do that a mere 4 or 5 times a day, and he's
> doing alright for himself, especially compounded with the welfare he's
> undoubtably on.
>
> So you see, you've managed to create a wonderful new criminal class.
>
> And by the way, any society in which a large number of citizens beat each
> other into a bloody pulp on a regular basis over a sporting event (much
less
> soccer) has no right to call themselves 'nonviolent'.
>
> When was the last time anyone was killed at a baseball game?
>
> >
> > Secondly if I was to be held up the aim is to not get in a fight but to
> > survive. Not about being a pascifist, its about being smart and knowing
> when
> > to fight and when not to fight.
> >
>
> But again, you are leaving that choice -- one of your very survival -- in
> the hands of a criminal. If you are unable to defend yourself, and he
knows
> that for a 100% fact, then like it or not, HE is the one calling the
shots,
> not you. Even if you cheerfully comply with every single demand he makes,
> there is no guarantee that he won't kill you or your family just for the
> hell of it. You have removed any option for fighting back, and have
adopted
> pasifism by default.
>
> > I was held up at knive point in South Africa last year by two black
> youths.
> > The main aim was to get the guy with the knive as far away from me as
> > possible. So I let him have the camera and threw 100 rand ( $10) on the
> > floor. He dropped the camera, which I picked up and then fled empty
> handed.
> > No point having a fight.
> >
>
> So you got mugged by two incompetant criminals. And in most situations,
the
> best move is probably to just give the guy the lousy $10 and hope he
chokes
> on it. BUT, your country has eliminated any means for the citizenry to
> defend itself against anything at all, thus swinging the doors wide open
for
> criminals to take advantage of the population in ways far more numerous
and
> egregious than a random petty theft.
>
>
> > FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
> > Florida than we do in our own country.
>
> That is simply not true.
>
>
> > On your hypothesis we should all be
> > issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.
> >
> > And also FWIW Europeans dont fear guns. As was pointed out earlier they
> are
> > inanimate objects absolutely useless until a persons picks on up. The
fear
> > is about who can and who has access to guns and their attitute to using
> > them.
> > The gun is never the problem its the person.
>
> Well, yes, that is in fact true. However, all you have done by making guns
> illegal is to ensure that the only people who don't have them are the
> law-abiding citizens. Criminals who are going to commit a crime anyway
> simply disregard the gun laws as well.
>
> > As for the Americans war on terrorism, they were pretty absent when we
> were
> > fighting the Irish terrorists in fact many of them were funding Irish
> > terrorist organisations. Not exactly a consistent policy.
> >
>
> That is not exactly the same thing, although I would probably say that if
> the level of Irish terrorism was, today, at the same level it was in the
> 80's, the American attitude towards it would be far, far different, as
9/11
> has changed everything.
>

Great post Thomas....................

Steven P. McNicoll

January 7th 04, 07:43 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> Compare that with being despised by most of the world and the target of
> terrorists (freedom fighters) and incapable of doing anything about it.
>

If most of the world chooses to despise the US because we choose to take
action against terrorism instead of being helpless victims to it then I am
quite content to be despised.

>
> Has Afghanistan made any difference? No
> Has Iraq made any difference? No
>

No difference? Well, I don't know what was down the path not taken, but
apparently you do. There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since
9/11/01. Would that have been true had the US not chosen to take the
offensive against terrorism?

>
> Just look at the US body count since 911.
>

Well, the body count on US soil since 9/11/01 is zero. Compare that to the
body count on 9/11/01.

>
> About 20,000 nationals of Afghanistan and Iraq who were non combatants
have
> also been killed.
>

What's your source for that figure?

>
> 911 was a tragedy but the real tragedy is that the US has not learned a
> single lesson from it. I hope that the next lesson will be learnt and
> understood.
>

What lesson should the US have learned?

Steven P. McNicoll

January 7th 04, 07:46 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US (then
> again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the
US
> aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
> warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war (which
> will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............
>

Illegally elected president? You need to find better sources of
information.

>
> Glad I don't live in the states!
>

I'm glad you don't live in the states too.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 7th 04, 07:48 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't have many rights now despite your guns.
>

But we have more rights than you do.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 7th 04, 07:49 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nothing wrong with it at all. Guns are illegal. We voted for it, after a
> Columbine type incident. We surrendered our licenced sporting guns.
>

Was the vote unanimous?

Steven P. McNicoll

January 7th 04, 07:51 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> And also FWIW Europeans dont fear guns.
>

Fear and ignorance are the reasons for banning guns.

Dave

January 7th 04, 08:08 PM

> > Haven't the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US
(then
> > again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the
> US
> > aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck
> > warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war
(which
> > will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............
> >
>
> Illegally elected president? You need to find better sources of
> information.
>
Oh well , Ex King George Bush I fixed it for the new King George Bush II
with the help of Prince Jeb Bush the brother. I understand the Prince is the
ruler of Florida where the result of the election is "what ever you want it
to be bro", "well done son"
Tyrany of the kings - what the betting on King Jeb Bush.

No argument about the rest though.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 7th 04, 08:20 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh well , Ex King George Bush I fixed it for the new King George Bush II
> with the help of Prince Jeb Bush the brother. I understand the Prince is
the
> ruler of Florida where the result of the election is "what ever you want
it
> to be bro", "well done son"
> Tyrany of the kings - what the betting on King Jeb Bush.
>

What a shame. Until now you seemed reasonably intelligent, although
obviously misguided.

Dave Stadt

January 7th 04, 10:51 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Nothing wrong with it at all. Guns are illegal. We voted for it, after a
> > Columbine type incident. We surrendered our licenced sporting guns.
> >
>
> Was the vote unanimous?

Next week they are all turning in their automobiles. Week after that their
bicycles and roller-skates. Week after that all the bathtubs get torn out.

Paul Sengupta

January 8th 04, 04:13 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Yes. It is much better to allow the terrorist to take over the airplane
and
> deliberately kill everybody on board while causing as much death and
> destruction on the ground as possible.

Of course, they could just want to fly to Cuba and let everyone
off.

More likely they'll be coming from Cuba and want to land safely
in the US!

Paul

Paul Sengupta

January 8th 04, 04:37 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
> It really
> seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
> firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.

I don't know why people from the US persist in this belief.

I refer to my posts
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L22C42007
and
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I3AC21007
and
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E6EB52007

Gun crime has risen sharply over the past couple of years. Nothing
to do with banning handguns as people have never kept handguns
for protection like in the US. Gun club members could keep them
at home (locked away), after 1997 they can't, they have to keep
them locked at the club. In either case, these were for competition
use only, and as such, licenses were only given for such use.

The ban on keeping handguns at home only ever affected the
sporting gun owner. All it did was prevent such a person from
"going postal". It had no effect on the protection of individuals,
one way or the other.

As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
the business". The general population can go about their business
without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.

You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.

Paul

Steven P. McNicoll

January 8th 04, 04:53 PM

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course, they could just want to fly to Cuba and let everyone
> off.
>

Oh, I think those days are over.

Dave

January 8th 04, 05:14 PM

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> > It really
> > seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
> > firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.
>
> I don't know why people from the US persist in this belief.
>
> I refer to my posts
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L22C42007
> and
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?I3AC21007
> and
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E6EB52007
>
> Gun crime has risen sharply over the past couple of years. Nothing
> to do with banning handguns as people have never kept handguns
> for protection like in the US. Gun club members could keep them
> at home (locked away), after 1997 they can't, they have to keep
> them locked at the club. In either case, these were for competition
> use only, and as such, licenses were only given for such use.
>
>

Even gun clubs have been shut down. In the south of England some people
chose to take their guns to France and keep them there for sporting use
only.

The new rules made it difficult for our Olympic shooting team who now train
abroad.

Paul Sengupta

January 8th 04, 05:19 PM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
> >from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
the
> >throat while the other goes for the weapon.
>
> Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
> terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
> penalty for guessing wrong is death.

Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is death".
Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then get
the gun off the air marshal.

I don't have an opinion on this, just thought I'd throw that in! In reality
I
would guess that the air marshal wouldn't draw his weapon if the attackers
were unarmed, and the penalty wouldn't be death.

Paul

Jack Davis

January 8th 04, 05:22 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message ...
>> Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
>> terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?

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

Fortunately, it's not that simple. They don't all sit in first
class...

-J

Jack Davis
B-737

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jack Davis

January 8th 04, 05:26 PM

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:49:52 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>A brute-force way of doing it would be to have two terrorist cells on
>board. The first one begins the hijack. The sky marshall takes charge
>and does his job *instantly identifying himself and where he keeps his
>gun* to the second cell. The second cell then swing into action some
>time later, first seizing control of the sky marshal and his weapon, and
>then continuing with their plan. And now they are armed with a gun.

The good news is, the folks in charge of the US FAMs are way ahead of
you and I. This contingency has already been planned and trained,
along with a few hundred other scenarios we can't even imagine.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Steven P. McNicoll

January 8th 04, 05:39 PM

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is
death".
> Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
> for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then get
> the gun off the air marshal.
>

How simple. Just take the marshal's gun away from him. Tell me, given that
the marshal has already drawn his gun, how do the other 3 terrorists get his
gun without getting shot in the process?

Jack Davis

January 8th 04, 05:40 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:37:56 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Correct. If I'm wrong, then there's no problem. If I'm right, then we'd
>better have something else ready to handle that case.

We do, in the form of armed pilots flying our passenger aircraft.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jack Davis

January 8th 04, 05:43 PM

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:02:21 GMT, "Jürgen Exner"
> wrote:

>A third terrorist just attacks the cockpit door or assaults a cabin crew
>member and pretends to strangulate him with shoe laces or a belt. The one
>person who jumps up, draws a gun, and arrests the assailant is the air
>marshal.

Of course. Now, where are the rest of them (the FAMs, I mean)?

-J

Jack Davis
B-737

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Wdtabor

January 8th 04, 05:49 PM

In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> writes:

>As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
>the business". The general population can go about their business
>without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.
>
>You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.
>

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

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

Jack Davis

January 8th 04, 05:51 PM

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 03:11:24 +0100, "Michael Nouak"
> wrote:

>Simply become an air marshal. On the day you get the call from Osama, simply
>board your flight, maybe with another air marshal. At the appropriate time,
>get up, scream "US Marshal, freeze!" and shoot the other marshal, or any
>random passenger if you're alone, in the head. Scream "Nobody move!", make
>your way up front and demand to see the captain so you can explain the
>"situation." Kill the flight crew and crash the plane at a place of your
>choosing.

There are a couple of major problems with that scenario - it would
never get that far.

(Sorry for the cryptic reply but it's probably not a good idea to go
into the specifics of what's wrong with your scenario, as you might
imagine.)

-J

Jack Davis
B-737

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jack Davis

January 8th 04, 05:53 PM

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:07:23 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>However, what would occur if one unarmed terrorist popped up yelling "I'm
>the air marshal". The marshal would subdue him/her, yes?

No.

>Hmm. Marshals would have to be trained to interfere only in extreme
>cases...which means that the first terrorist might have to be a little more
>extreme.

Bingo!

-J

Jack Davis
B-737

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Paul Sengupta

January 8th 04, 06:06 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote
> >
> > There are dozens of ways. It's sort of like solving an equation
>
> The bottom line is, no terrorist will ever again take over a passenger
> flight. The crowd will overcome them, or crash the plane, well short of
its
> objective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1936942.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2035546.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2228720.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2330021.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2374061.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2486935.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2502033.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2520069.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2676081.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2738993.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2897727.stm

Some hijackers taken by crew, some by air marshals, some
were landed safely under orders of the hijackers. Not sure
about any hijackers taken by passengers, I think I saw that
it happened in one of them.

All since 11/9/2001. So you can't say the crowd would
overcome them all the time and none would be successful.
You also can't say no one would try to hijack a plane in
the old sense any more.

Another take on sky marshals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2144133.stm

Paul

James Robinson

January 8th 04, 06:45 PM

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and battery,
> and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

You'd better check those statistics again. Robbery and assault rates
have been about the same, and the rate of rape is about 1/3 that of the
US. There are variations by year, and whether you use police statistics
or victim surveys.

There are enough statistics on the subject on this site to choke a
horse:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/contents.htm

More significantly, the US murder rate is about 8 times that of England.

It therefore doesn't appear that having guns has been a significant
factor in the occurrence of rape, assault, or robbery. By your
argument, since the US has one of the highest per capita gun ownership
rates in the world, there should be a huge difference, with the
advantage to the US, which there isn't. In fact, the stats show that the
rates of some serious crimes are far higher in the US than in England.

The statistics don't prove the need for gun ownership to deter personal
crimes such as robbery or rape, but show there isn't much effect either
way.

However, since the murder rate is 6 times as high in the US, and the
chance of being murdered with a gun is ten times as high, it sure looks
like the statistics suggest exactly the opposite of what you are trying
to say about the benefit of guns.

Steven P. McNicoll

January 8th 04, 06:52 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> And while they're trying to do that, the second air marshall shoots all
three of
> them.
>

What prevents the first air marshal from shooting them?

Michael

January 8th 04, 07:08 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> You might wish to know that civilian "gun toters" are about one SEVENTH as
> likely to have a "bad shoot" than their "highly trained" brethren that tote
> guns AND badges.

That's an excellent point, and precisely the reason I don't care for
the idea of a special class carrying weapons in areas/situations where
the ordinary citizen may not. If airplanes are too dangerous for
weapons carrying, then they're too dangerous for anyone to carry a
weapon. Certainly if the PIC can't have one, then nobody can. The
argument that the air marshalls are "highly trained" does not impress
me, for the exact reason you cited.

This is a matter of survival and we're talking about survival
strategy, not politics. Politics are all about compromise; strategy
can't be. If you have two diametrically opposed stategies (for
example - everyone is armed, or no one is armed) either strategy may
be right. They may even BOTH be right. But a compromise solution
(only arming those who are "highly trained" for example) is guaranteed
to be wrong.

For extra credit, try to identify the political figure, author, and
aviator I am paraphrasing.

Michael

Paul Sengupta

January 8th 04, 08:04 PM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > writes:
> >You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.

> Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
> and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Really? I didn't know that. I can believe that burglaries and
stealing car stereos are more prevalent - it's much softer and
easier for unarmed criminals over here to do that than hold up
petrol stations/shops which seems to be more prevalent over
there.

Assault and rape, well, I don't know about those. Have to look
them up.

First google search came up with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm

Apparently, rape is 3 times higher in the US than the UK.
Murder is 5.7 times higher. Shootings (no surprise) are 60
times higher. 68% of murders in the US are shootings, 7%
in England and Wales. The report agrees that burglary,
assault and car crime is higher in the UK.

Maybe with the assault figues it's a case of more pub/
neighbour/whatever brawls get away with being assaults
whereas in the US they end up as murder rather than
assault statistics! :-) (I'm semi-joking here, please don't take
offence!)

Burglaries often (mostly?) happen when there's no one
home. Arming people wouldn't change anything. And just
because people don't have guns in their homes, it doesn't
mean they don't have big D-cell torches, hockey sticks, etc,
with which to defend themselves and their property. It's
catching the b*gg*rs at it that's the problem.

I caught someone breaking into my car once. Didn't need
any weapons, I just held him by his outstretched arm until
the police arrived.

Oh, and someone said New York was the worst place in
the US...I think it's long ceased to be that. I believe that title
now goes to Washington DC. According to the web page,
the murder rate in NY is 8.6 per 100,000, whereas in
Washington DC it's 49.15 per 100,000. England and Wales
as a whole is 1.4, London is 2.9. US average is 6.3.

During my (on average) once a year (for 1 or 2 weeks) visits
to Winter Haven in Florida, a pretty smallish town, I've
arrived a day after a policeman was shot dead on one
occasion, and on another, turned up at the Winn Dixie just as
the police were laying out the tape after a drive-by shooting.
Other friends of mine were inside the shop! But no one locks
their cars when they go shopping.

Paul

Wdtabor

January 8th 04, 08:11 PM

In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> writes:

>
>Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is death".
>Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
>for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then get
>the gun off the air marshal.
>
>I don't have an opinion on this, just thought I'd throw that in! In reality
>I
>would guess that the air marshal wouldn't draw his weapon if the attackers
>were unarmed, and the penalty wouldn't be death.
>

Agreed, that is why I prefer simply letting passengers with Concealed Carry
Permits carry anywhere, including airplanes. Thatg way there is no way for a
terrorist to know how many are on board, who they are, and if all have revealed
themsleves in response to a provocation.

Don

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

Dave

January 8th 04, 08:15 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Paul Sengupta wrote:
> >
> > Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is
death".
> > Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
> > for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then
get
> > the gun off the air marshal.
>
> And while they're trying to do that, the second air marshall shoots all
three of
> them.

manifest: 250 air marshals, 20 pax, 4 terrorists

Dave

January 8th 04, 08:16 PM

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> >>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >> Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your
two
> >> terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?
>
> >He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.
>
> Fortunately, it's not that simple. They don't all sit in first
> class...
>
and they don't all not drink

Dave

January 8th 04, 08:19 PM

Dave

January 8th 04, 08:27 PM

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dylan Smith" > wrote
> > >
> > > There are dozens of ways. It's sort of like solving an equation
> >
> > The bottom line is, no terrorist will ever again take over a passenger
> > flight. The crowd will overcome them, or crash the plane, well short of
> its
> > objective.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1936942.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2035546.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2228720.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2330021.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2374061.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2486935.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2502033.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2520069.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2676081.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2738993.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2897727.stm
>
> Some hijackers taken by crew, some by air marshals, some
> were landed safely under orders of the hijackers. Not sure
> about any hijackers taken by passengers, I think I saw that
> it happened in one of them.

If they were American planes then it is more likely that SLF would get
involved

besides which none of these hijackings were Al Quaida

> All since 11/9/2001. So you can't say the crowd would
> overcome them all the time and none would be successful.
> You also can't say no one would try to hijack a plane in
> the old sense any more.
>
> Another take on sky marshals:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2144133.stm
>
> Paul
>
>

Geoffrey Barnes

January 8th 04, 09:26 PM

> If they were American planes then it is more likely that SLF would get
> involved

What the devil is SLF?

Geoffrey Barnes

January 8th 04, 09:32 PM

> Maybe with the assault figues it's a case of more pub/
> neighbour/whatever brawls get away with being assaults
> whereas in the US they end up as murder rather than
> assault statistics! :-) (I'm semi-joking here, please don't take
> offence!)

Actually, you are really more or less right about this. The total amount of
violence in western nations is more or less the same no matter where you go.
But in the US, a gun is much more likely to be involved in a violent crime,
and gun injuries are simply more deadly. So while the combined rate of
murder and aggravated assault (i.e., grevious bodily harm in the UK) are
about the same in our two nations, the ratio between these two rates is very
unequal. More assaults result in death here in the US than is the case in
the UK.

> Oh, and someone said New York was the worst place in
> the US...I think it's long ceased to be that. I believe that title
> now goes to Washington DC. According to the web page,
> the murder rate in NY is 8.6 per 100,000, whereas in
> Washington DC it's 49.15 per 100,000.

Every year, it's like a race between DC, New Orleans, and Detroit to see who
can come out on top.

Newps

January 8th 04, 09:36 PM

We had a Northwest flight make an emergency landing here Tuesday because
someone tried to forcefully enter the cockpit. Turned out it was a
drunk woman who wanted to complain to the captain about being denied
more booze. She will remain in Billings recuperating for a lengthy
period of time after nearly being torn limb from limb. We were told by
the local cops that the FA's had to protect her from the passengers.

Jack Davis wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:49:52 -0000, Dylan Smith
> > wrote:
>
>
>>A brute-force way of doing it would be to have two terrorist cells on
>>board. The first one begins the hijack. The sky marshall takes charge
>>and does his job *instantly identifying himself and where he keeps his
>>gun* to the second cell. The second cell then swing into action some
>>time later, first seizing control of the sky marshal and his weapon, and
>>then continuing with their plan. And now they are armed with a gun.
>
>
> The good news is, the folks in charge of the US FAMs are way ahead of
> you and I. This contingency has already been planned and trained,
> along with a few hundred other scenarios we can't even imagine.
>
> -J
>
> Jack Davis
> B-737
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

G.R. Patterson III

January 8th 04, 09:42 PM

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> Just playing Devil's wotsit here, "the penalty for guessing wrong is death".
> Right. So. They grab someone randomly. The air marshal draws his gun
> for issuing said penalty. He's identified. The other 3 terrorists then get
> the gun off the air marshal.

And while they're trying to do that, the second air marshall shoots all three of
them.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

ShawnD2112

January 9th 04, 12:25 AM

I'd be interested to know where those statistics come from (and please don't
quote the NRA as a credible source).

Shawn

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > writes:
>
> >As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
> >the business". The general population can go about their business
> >without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.
> >
> >You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.
> >
>
> Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
> and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Dave

January 9th 04, 12:53 AM

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > If they were American planes then it is more likely that SLF would get
> > involved
>
> What the devil is SLF?
>
Passengers aka Self Loading Freight

Dave

January 9th 04, 01:28 AM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > writes:
>
> >As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
> >the business". The general population can go about their business
> >without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.
> >
> >You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.
> >
>
> Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
> and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
>
> Don

Don't think so.

This is quoted from a Home Office Report (Like Justice Dept)

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat. Two thirds of these
offences (6950), involved the firearm being used as a 'threat', but in
around 17% (1750) the firearm was fired at a person and an injury resulted.
Three quarters of these cases the injury was slight, but in one quarter it
was more serious, including 80 incidents where the injury proved fatal (down
from 95 recorded in 2001-2). Nearly two thirds of firearms offences occurred
in just three metropolitan forces, The Metropolitan Police, Greater
Manchester Police and West Midlands Police.

In most parts of England and Wales the incidence of firearm offences is very
low, and the chances of becoming a victim of a shooting are very low. The
risk of a fatal shooting in England and Wales is still one of the lowest in
the world.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/1sectionone.pdf

Dave

January 9th 04, 01:34 AM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
> > >the business". The general population can go about their business
> > >without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.
> > >
> > >You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
> battery,
> > and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
> >
> > Don
>
> Don't think so.
>
> This is quoted from a Home Office Report (Like Justice Dept)
>
> a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
> fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat. Two thirds of these
> offences (6950), involved the firearm being used as a 'threat', but in
> around 17% (1750) the firearm was fired at a person and an injury
resulted.
> Three quarters of these cases the injury was slight, but in one quarter it
> was more serious, including 80 incidents where the injury proved fatal
(down
> from 95 recorded in 2001-2). Nearly two thirds of firearms offences
occurred
> in just three metropolitan forces, The Metropolitan Police, Greater
> Manchester Police and West Midlands Police.
>
> In most parts of England and Wales the incidence of firearm offences is
very
> low, and the chances of becoming a victim of a shooting are very low. The
> risk of a fatal shooting in England and Wales is still one of the lowest
in
> the world.
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/1sectionone.pdf
>
Murder Victims USA

by Weapon, 1998-2002

Weapons
1998
1999
2000
20011
2002

Total
14,209
13,011
13,230
14,061
14,054

Total firearms:
9,220
8,480
8,661
8,890
9,369

Handguns
7,405
6,658
6,778
6,931
7,176

Rifles
546
400
411
386
480

Shotguns
626
531
485
511
476

Other guns
16
92
53
59
74

Firearms, type not stated
627
799
934
1,003
1,163

Knives or cutting

instruments
1,890
1,712
1,782
1,831
1,767

Blunt objects (clubs,

hammers, etc.)
750
756
617
680
666

Personal weapons (hands,

fists, feet, etc.)2
959
885
927
961
933

Poison
6
11
8
12
23

Explosives
10
0
9
4
11

Fire
132
133
134
109
104

Narcotics
33
26
20
37
48

Drowning
28
28
15
23
18

Strangulation
213
190
166
153
143

Asphyxiation
99
106
92
116
103

Other weapons or

weapons not stated
869
684
799
1,245
869

Dennis O'Connor

January 9th 04, 01:24 PM

Dave, you forgot to mention Automobiles.. USA = 110 deaths per day, times
365 days a year, times however many years you want to compare...
You are orders of magnitude more likely to die just crossing the street for
a newspaper at noon than you are to get shot walking through the worst part
of town at 3AM...
denny

Tom Sixkiller

January 9th 04, 03:02 PM

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> I'd be interested to know where those statistics come from (and please
don't
> quote the NRA as a credible source).
>

But HCI, CDC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc., are a credible sources?

In case you haven't noticed, the NRA studies usually refer to GOVERNMENT
sources. That means they're not too friendly to their to begin with....

Tom Sixkiller

January 9th 04, 03:05 PM

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> I'd be interested to know where those statistics come from (and please
don't
> quote the NRA as a credible source).
>

I can guarantee that there have been several INDEPENDANT studies all
reaching that conclusion inclduding several that are normally quite HOSTILE
to the NRA (ABC News for one...).

So...when he proves his point will you change your mind, or your diaper?

I'll bet you evade it, spin it, or ignore it.

> Shawn
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
> > >the business". The general population can go about their business
> > >without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.
> > >
> > >You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
> battery,
> > and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > --
> > Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> > PP-ASEL
> > Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG
>
>

Tony Cox

January 9th 04, 04:04 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
> battery,
> > and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
> >
> > Don
>
> Don't think so.
>
> a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether...

Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
a shotgun on the other side.

What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Wdtabor

January 9th 04, 04:34 PM

In article >, "Dave"
> writes:

>
>> Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
>battery,
>> and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
>>
>> Don
>
>Don't think so.
>
>This is quoted from a Home Office Report (Like Justice Dept)
>
>a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
>fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat.

So?

I specified strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assault and battery,
and stranger rape. None of those involve firearms and all are more common in
Britain and Europe than here. (NOTE: possible language barrier, home
invasion=/=burglary. Home invasion robberies are specifically forcefull
robberies in an occupied dwelling)

Also note that rape overall is more common here, but stranger rape is not.
There might be a reporting difference involved as I do not know how statutory
and date rape are defined and reported in europe.

Don

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

G.R. Patterson III

January 9th 04, 05:47 PM

Dave wrote:
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and battery,
> > and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
> >
>
> a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
> fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat.

What does that have to do with Don's statement?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Dennis O'Connor

January 9th 04, 09:40 PM

We do not lock our doors... Any invasion of my house requires the purp to
get past the dog... After that I may point out to him that invading my home
is viewed with extreme prejudice...

"Wdtabor" > wrote in

Dennis O'Connor

January 9th 04, 09:44 PM

Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob tar
and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is terrible
to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

Denny
"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
> > battery,
> > > and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.
> > >
> > > Don
> >
> > Don't think so.
> >
> > a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used',
whether...
>
> Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
> crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
> about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
> likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
> a shotgun on the other side.
>
> What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
> slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
> owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
> rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
> to me.
>
> But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
> was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
> with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
> manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
> "a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
> 37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
> to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
> may well change for the better.
>
>

Andrew Rowley

January 10th 04, 12:39 AM

"Tony Cox" > wrote:

>Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
>crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
>about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
>likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
>a shotgun on the other side.

From what I have seen of New York, it has a large number of high rise
apartment buildings. They would be a big deterrent to burglars in
themselves - anything without a ground floor exit directly to the
outside would make many burglars think twice. My impression is that
London has less of these.

I could be wrong - I haven't lived in either city - but my point is
that you can't draw conclusions like this from the figures, without
knowing whether they have been corrected for this sort of factor. This
is why statistics have a reputation of being deceiving - you can prove
almost anything if you ignore the right factors.

Assuming that the figures and reasons are correct, I don't think that
I like the tradeoff anyway. You may be less likely to be burgled
overall, but it is still much more likely that you will be burgled by
someone with a gun - which makes it much more likely that you will be
killed by a burglar.

David Brooks

January 10th 04, 12:59 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> They continue to be Brits -- like quirky, but beloved cousins.

Awww, thanks, CJ. That's nice.

-- David Brooks

Tom Sixkiller

January 10th 04, 02:12 AM

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > They continue to be Brits -- like quirky, but beloved cousins.
>
> Awww, thanks, CJ. That's nice.
>

The key word here is "quirky".

Tony Cox

January 10th 04, 02:11 PM

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob
tar
> and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is
terrible
> to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

It's not the magistrates so much as the liberal judges. Anyway,
the Brits aren't doing badly in Iraq, so there's still fire there.

>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
> > was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
> > with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
> > manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
> > "a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
> > 37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
> > to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
> > may well change for the better.
> >

Peter Stokes

January 10th 04, 06:43 PM

Arguing over gun control and calling each other names doesn't help the
conversation, does it? The US does things their way, the UK does
things their way - what's right for one isn't necessarily right for
the other.

On the question of the sky marshals, the main reason for the UK pilots
opposing them is not, as I understand, a fear of guns per se. The
government has said the sky marshals will only be used on flights
where there is a perceived threat to that flight; the pilots are
saying that if there's a known threat, they're not going to fly with
or without marshals, which is, they say (and I tend to agree) the
safest option for all concerned.

Now some might say fly anyway and let the marshals take care of
things, but they're not the ones (the aircraft captains) who are
responsible for several hundred lives in the air and, as per 9/11,
thousands on the ground.

Peter Stokes

Paul Sengupta

January 12th 04, 03:39 PM

> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
> > slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
> > owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
> > rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
> > to me.

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.
Not before, not after. The law didn't come in and make everyone
give up their handguns. We didn't have them before. This is not
the reason for burglary figures.

In fact (repeating again)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/975561.stm

Since handguns were banned in 1997, crime went down by
10%, with burglary down by 21%. I don't know where people
keep getting the idea that burglaries, etc, went up, let alone
be "vastly enhanced". I'd be the first person to say that the
drop had absolutely nothing to do with banning handguns
though.

> > But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
> > was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
> > with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
> > manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
> > "a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
> > 37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
> > to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
> > may well change for the better.

Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

As for what's happened since WWII, I think you'll find people
didn't have guns in the house back then either. But you'll find the
British forces are just as good as they ever were.

Paul

James Robinson

January 12th 04, 05:20 PM

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> Which basically means that if they get in trouble again (like WW II),
> they'll have to beg us "gun toting Americans" to save their asses, again.

What a bizarre view of history. Prior to the welcome arrival of
American troops, the British had fought for three years, managing to
rebuff the numerically superior German Air Force in the Battle of
Britain, and endured devastating bombing of their cities during the
Blitz. Don't downplay their accomplishments by chest-beating
nationalistic pride. That's how wars start in the first place, and an
attitude that most people hopefully outgrow in high school.

Paul Sengupta

January 12th 04, 06:38 PM

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> > Which basically means that if they get in trouble again (like WW II),
> > they'll have to beg us "gun toting Americans" to save their asses,
again.
>
> What a bizarre view of history.

Well, it's difficult to fight over 60 years of Americans being taught a
rather Ameri-centric view of WWII and of world affairs in general,
both through schools and through the American media. History
continues to be re-written by Hollywood to this day.

America's role in WWII in Europe shouldn't be underplayed though.
To do so would be a disservice to those who participated. The US
kept Britain fed with the Atlantic convoys. Without the US, the
counter attack on the Germans may have been rather different, and
the latter half of the 20th century may have been rather different, with
at best the USSR coming further west in their German invasion.
Would the UK have been able to drive anywhere into mainland
Europe without the help of the US?

Paul

David Dyer-Bennet

January 12th 04, 06:38 PM

Nomen Nescio ]> writes:

> From: "Paul Sengupta" >
>
>>As for what's happened since WWII, I think you'll find people
>>didn't have guns in the house back then either. But you'll find the
>>British forces are just as good as they ever were.

> Which basically means that if they get in trouble again (like WW
> II), they'll have to beg us "gun toting Americans" to save their
> asses, again.

I'm as supportive as pretty much anyone of gun rights and self-defense
(I'm an NRA certified instructor for basic pistol and personal
protection in the home and an aacfi certified instructor for Minnesota
carry, and I have a Minnesota carry permit), but I really don't see
that our ability to own guns privately had much of anything to do with
our ability to fight in WWII. That was mostly our industrial capacity
-- and the fact that our productive areas were out of reach of both
opponents didn't hurt any either.

Anecdotally, I hear the army found it easier to teach people to shoot
who *didn't* have previous experience; they didn't have anything to
unlearn.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Wdtabor

January 12th 04, 07:34 PM

In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> writes:

> When
>he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
>support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?

Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
error.

Don

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

Ron Natalie

January 12th 04, 08:14 PM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message ...
> In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > writes:
>
> > When
> >he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
> >support for him.
>
> The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?
>
> Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
> second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
> error.
>
The principle of the prohibition on double jeopardy in the U.S. Constitution was
actually based on British law. Britain does have a prohibition against trying someone
anew for the same crime he has previously been acquitted. However, in certain cases
the prosecution does have avenues to appeal the acquittal (sort of an extension of the
first prosecution, not a second trial).

There has been move afoot both in the UK and in some other areas of the commonwealth
(such as Australia) to further broaden the cases where prosecution appeals could be made.
Some of this is internally generated by an attempt to increase the ability to combat serious
crime in the light of new evidence such as DNA testing. Part is also that bringing British
law in line with the EU law considerably weakens the double jeopardy and certain other
long standing principles of British law.

Tony Cox

January 13th 04, 01:42 AM

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
> in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.

My grandfather did. So did most of his friends. As I remember,
the restrictions started shortly after the "Red letter scare" in the
20's when the government became worried about communists.

>
> Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
> anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
> before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
> acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
> I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
> shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
> he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
> support for him.
>
> The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
> because of a huge public outcry.

The other burglar was going to sue because Martin allegedly
disabled him. He dropped the case only because a some tabloid
newspaper reporter caught him doing press-ups in the gym.
His 'case' was financed by legal aid (free for the poor). Martin
had to pay his own costs for defense.

Tony Cox

January 13th 04, 01:46 AM

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Sengupta"
> > writes:
>
> > When
> >he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
> >support for him.
>
> The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?
>

Not as far as I'm aware. Same double jeopardy rule.

But Paul is wrong. Martin was convicted of murder, not
acquitted. He appealed and the conviction was reduced to
manslaughter. He is right about the substantial public
support, especially in the shires where (as it happens) my
parents live.

StellaStar

January 13th 04, 06:05 AM

> Don't downplay their accomplishments by chest-beating
>nationalistic pride. That's how wars start in the first place, and an
>attitude that most people hopefully outgrow in high school.

Good heavens. A thoughtful post on Usenet. Begone with ye -- this is the
province of the argumentative, not the realm of facts! :-)

Corky Scott

January 13th 04, 03:52 PM

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:30:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
]> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>From: David Dyer-Bennet >
>
>>Anecdotally, I hear the army found it easier to teach people to shoot
>>who *didn't* have previous experience; they didn't have anything to
>>unlearn.
>
>And I've heard that when the WW II GI got into combat, he had to unlearn what the
>Army had taught him. That comes from my father, a kid from Bennington, Vermont that,
>as a 2nd LT, had to do some of the unteaching to his "green" troops before they
>landed at Iwo Jima and Okinowa.

I can't comment on retraining, it's just that actual combat is nothing
like training and never is. It doesn't matter how well you trained
back in the states or wherever, real combat isn't training and
training isn't real combat. Suffice to say that those who survived
the first day or so, learned VERY quickly.

> Also during WW II, the military noticed that 10% of the fighter pilots were scoring
>90% of the kills. What did they find when they studied it? That 10% were almost invariably
>rural kids who carried a gun since they were old enough to walk. They knew how to
>properly lead a target 'cause they'd been doing it since childhood with birds, rabbits, etc.
>and just carried it over in their flying.

Carrying a gun and knowing how to lead weren't necessarily what made a
good fighter pilot. Those guys who got 80% of the shootdowns got them
because they aggressively sought the enemy. Not every fighter pilot
did that.

In addition, most fighter pilots didn't do very much "leading" when
shooting at an enemy aircraft, they just pulled in directly astern and
blasted away. No need to lead when you are directly astern. This is
what Erich Hartmann claimed he did most often as he self
depreciatingly called himself a lousy shot. Surprising the enemy from
directly behind is what got him the majority of his 352 shoot downs,
that and a "target rich" environment.

The Navy actively taught deflection shooting and promoted the
procurement of fighter aircraft from which deflection shooting was
possible. Both the F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat had steeply sloping
noses allowing the pilot to see over the nose at the target. When you
are pulling lead, this is an important consideration: you have to be
able to see the target over the nose. Being able to use the fighter
for deflection shooting wasn't the main reason for the good over the
nose visibility though, the Navy felt then needed that in order to
properly land aboard a carrier.

Several in-line engine fighters were nearly impossible to use for
deflection shooting because of the long nose in front of the cockpit.
The Bf 109 was one such airplane and the Spitfire another. This
didn't stop Hans-Joachim Marseille from using deflection shooting
anyway but he was pretty unusual. He used to practice his attack
approaches on his squadron as they were patroling, pulling off and
then coming in from all angles, sometimes inverted just to practice
getting the proper lead.

In actual combat, he wrote that he sometimes had to pull so much lead
that his target literally was out of sight below his nose. But for
him this was a matter of timing and situational awareness.

Getting back to the US Navy, the fighter pilots practiced full
deflection attacks constantly, pulling up parallel and above the
target, then banking in to the target and instantly having to bank the
opposite way to be able to pull lead. As you approached the target,
the lead was constantly changing so your angle of bank had to change
constantly. It was extremely difficult to achieve properly and not
every fighter pilot got real good at it. Butch O'Hare was one who WAS
very good at it as he proved in 1942 when he defended his carrier
against approaching twin engined bombers single handedly. His attacks
were all the highside method, which greatly complicated return fire
from the bomber's gunners. His shooting was so accurate that he
actually shot an engine off on of the bombers. This bomber fell out
of the formation and nosed down toward the carrier. It was
photographed close aboard the fantail in it's attempt to crash the
carrier in what was likely the first attempt of it's kind. It missed.

You can see this photo and read of O'Hare and his mentor James (Jimmy)
Thach in the book "The First Team" by John Lundstrom. An excellent
read.

Corky Scott

Dennis O'Connor

January 13th 04, 05:23 PM

Given that american constitutional law has it's roots in British common law
there are far more similarities than differences... A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms... That the federal government, and
many state governments, have almost from the moment of the signing of the
Constitution denied that such a guarantee exists, and given that our
Supreme Court chooses to persue it's own social agenda and make gun rulings
that are nothing less than a slap in the face of the framers of the
constitution, this is an issue that is not going to go away...

denny

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message

Tony Cox

January 13th 04, 06:44 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > A major difference is
> > that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
> > government from banning our firearms...
>
> A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights
existed
> under British law at the time, and some still do not.
>

Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

This is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that
it imposes rather more discipline on the legislature than is
present in the US -- less grandstanding over laws that are
clearly unconstitutional (although popular) and likely to be
tossed out later (Homeland security comes to mind). The
curse is obvious, although the monarch occasionally steps
in to provide the 'brakes' that the SC does in the US.

Whether the right to bear arms exists in 50 years time I
rather doubt. The SC could interpret the clause any way
it cares to. If that happens, remember that the UK only
needs an act of parliament to reverse it. In the US, it needs
a new act + 80% of the states too.

As I say. A blessing and a curse, that bill of rights thing.