pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

[nick]

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

[Bogart]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:

>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
US Sky Marshals? :)

[Chris Morton]

In article >, nick says...
>
>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

[Little John]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"nick" > two-fingered to all:

|>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
|>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
|>
|>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
|>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
|>
|>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
|>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
|>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
|>
|>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

Bunch of pussies.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Bogart]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>
>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>
>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>
>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>
>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)

[Shaun]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>
>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>
>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>
>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>
>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>US Sky Marshals? :)

Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

[Mongo Jones]

>In talk.politics.guns "nick" > wrote:

>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

Cool! Euro-trash can stay the **** home, then.

[Mongo Jones]

>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:

>In article >, nick says...
>>
>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>
>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
precautionary measure.

[Bogart]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:

>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>precautionary measure.

Heh, that's essentially what we've told them in not so many words, ie
diplomatically.

[Bill Smith]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>
>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>
>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>
>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>
>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

Remember the shoe bomber? He didn't look at all well after the
passengers were finished with him. I actually pity the next guy that
pulls a knife and tries to hijack an airliner.

Bill Smith

[Bill Smith]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:

>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>
>

LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
and tragically stupid.
Bill Smith

[Bill Funk]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:52:27 -0700, Little John
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
>once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
>"nick" > two-fingered to all:
>
>|>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>|>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>|>
>|>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>|>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>|>
>|>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>|>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>|>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>|>
>|>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>
>Bunch of pussies.

Well, now, wait a sec...
Nick's complaining that the British pilots aren't sure abou the
efficacy of having BRITISH marshals on board.
I can see that. They have so little actual experience with guns, you
know. There's no telling whether they actually know what to do with
them.

"We want to hear that the captain will be the one in command of the
aircraft at all times, we seek reassurances about the weapons to be
used and the training given."

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

[Mongo Jones]

>In talk.politics.guns Bill Smith > wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>
>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>
>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>
>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>
>>
>
>LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
>and tragically stupid.

Sounds like the British Space Program.

"Scientists fear barkless Beagle 2 might be inside Mars crater"
http://tinyurl.com/2clgt

[Thomas Heide]

I can´t believe what I just read.
Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some school-events
just popped into my mind)?
It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
protect them from potential terrorists.
What kind of logic is that?
You won´t stop terrorists from trying to hijack planes by simply having
armed sky marshalls on the aircraft.
You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how an
unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing tour
around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you think
about arming sky marshalls.
And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.
It plays in the same league like the major of London who explicitly allowed
demonstrations against Bush in the vicinity of his whereabouts.
Without making the attacks less horrible, but America gets more and more
paranoic.

Thomas
Berlin, Germany

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>
>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>
>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>
>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>
>>
>
>LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
>and tragically stupid.
> Bill Smith

Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
chap.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[Bert Hyman]

In "nick"
> wrote:

> "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

I wouldn't want to fly with armed Brits aboard either.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Scout]

"nick" > wrote in message
...
> "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
> "Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
> "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

No problem.

I feel our response should be: "No armed air marshal, no entering/flying in
US airspace". The companies can then decide which is more important to their
continued existence.

[John Gaquin]

"nick" > wrote in message news:NQjIb.282

So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

[Bill Smith]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>
>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>
>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
>>and tragically stupid.
>> Bill Smith
>
>Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
>chap.

"Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
remedies to try before then?

It's whining.

Bill Smith

[Andrew Gideon]

Thomas Heide wrote:

> You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how
> an unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing
> tour around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you
> think about arming sky marshalls.

Since that's not what occurred, why should we try to figure that out?

The pilot was "noticed" very quickly. In fact, the "problem" was that he
flew into a tightly controlled airspace (class B, in case you're familiar
with this) w/o clearance from the controlling agency. By definition, he
was seen as soon as he did that.

Separate from that - actually, he was probably outside of the controlled
airspace at this point, but it depends upon his altitude - he circled the
statue. Scores of pilots, commercial and private, do this every [fair
weather] day. I did it myself a few hours after this fellow, in fact.



I'm by no means excusing his incursion into the airspace w/o a clearance.
That's a "no no", and somewhat dangerous besides (there's a reason why this
airspace is more tightly controlled than other airspace). But he was
noticed, he was intercepted, and there's not a damned thing wrong with
circling the statue.
[i]
> And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?

Each nation is free to regulate its own airspace. This amendment isn't a
law that affects anything outside our airspace, so I'm not sure why you
think of this as "impertinent". Your country can mandate clowns on flights
through its airspace, should you wish.

> I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.

From what I've read, the pilots merely want to have established certain
protocols involving C&C. To my mind, that seems like a smart idea. I
assume that the nations already putting armed officers aboard aircraft
already have these established.

- Andrew

[Martin Hotze]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones wrote:

>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>precautionary measure.

oh-yeah. You are representing the average American viewpoint. And _you_
wonder why you face such reaction all over the world?

sheeeesh.

you deserve to be isolated from the civilized world as long as you thing
and speak like that.

#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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Heide" > wrote in message
...
>
> What kind of logic is that?
>

Sound.

[Richard Hertz]

There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes when
people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent crime.

Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice to be
able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.

One would think that the history lesson is on your side - one of the first
things the fascists did was to disarm the people so that they could not
defend themselves...

"Thomas Heide" > wrote in message
...
> I can´t believe what I just read.
> Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some
school-events
> just popped into my mind)?
> It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
> protect them from potential terrorists.
> What kind of logic is that?
> You won´t stop terrorists from trying to hijack planes by simply having
> armed sky marshalls on the aircraft.
> You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how
an
> unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing tour
> around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you
think
> about arming sky marshalls.
> And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
> I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.
> It plays in the same league like the major of London who explicitly
allowed
> demonstrations against Bush in the vicinity of his whereabouts.
> Without making the attacks less horrible, but America gets more and more
> paranoic.
>
> Thomas
> Berlin, Germany
>

[Little John]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:04:54 -0700, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
Bill Funk > two-fingered to all:

|>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:52:27 -0700, Little John
> wrote:
|>
|>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
|>>once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
|>>"nick" > two-fingered to all:
|>>
|>>|>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
|>>|>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
|>>|>
|>>|>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
|>>|>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
|>>|>
|>>|>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
|>>|>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
|>>|>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
|>>|>
|>>|>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
|>>
|>>Bunch of pussies.
|>
|>Well, now, wait a sec...
|>Nick's complaining that the British pilots aren't sure abou the
|>efficacy of having BRITISH marshals on board.
|>I can see that. They have so little actual experience with guns, you
|>know. There's no telling whether they actually know what to do with
|>them.

Like I said... :-)


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Andrew Rowley]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote:

>There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes when
>people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
>Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent crime.
>
>Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice to be
>able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.

This is a load of crap. Handguns are very rare in Australia. The
papers here are talking about a gangland war that has broken out here.
Large rewards are being offered by the police to catch the people
involved. This is a result of something like 24 people being killed in
the last 6 YEARS. When 24 people in 6 years is significant, I don't
think the rate of violent crime is high.

Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

[Nick Cooper]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>
>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>
>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>
>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>
>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>
>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)

The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
mornign a couple of years back
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Nick Cooper]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:

>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>
>>In article >, nick says...
>>>
>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>
>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>>
>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>
>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America>>>?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Mongo Jones]

>In talk.politics.guns (Nick Cooper) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:
>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, nick says...
>>>>
>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>
>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>>>
>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>>
>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>>precautionary measure.
>
>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>opinion of America>>>?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
> largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
> that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
> before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
> pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

I do, Andrew, but then again I lived in Canberra for 15 months... an no
Canberra jokes! Yes, it is a bush capital, and yes, they do close all the
restaurants at something around 8:00 PM, but we really liked it there!

I understand what you are saying, but it's pointless to explain it to most
U.S. citizens. The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into our very
constitution when our nation was founded. Which would be fine, except they
authors quite frankly put enough additional and vaugely-worded verbage into
the second ammendment that their true intent will never be fully understood.
As a result, there are fewer hot-button issues for Americans than this one.
It's bigger and far more passionate than Pauline Hanson ever even tried to
be.

You are correct in many of your assertions, of course. Australia, and the
UK, and nearly all other western nations have very strict gun control, and
yet they have basically the same crime rates at the United States. In fact,
total violent crime rates in all these nations is more or less at the same.
People attack one another just as much in Australia as they do here. The
only noticible difference between these nations relates to the number of
deaths caused by such attacks. You are just as likely to be attacked here
in Pittsburgh as you are in Melbourne, but you are far more likely to die as
a result of your wounds. Firearms are the reason behind this difference, of
course, but a good 50% of my fellow citizens will dispute this relationship
until thier dying breath. If you don't believe me, watch what happens in
the replies to this posting.

I must admit that there is a certain logic to the belief that having an
armed populace will reduce crime. The theory beind this belief is obvious
and from all outward appearances, quite sound. But theories have to be
supported by scientific data to be valid, and the data have never really
supported this one.

[Ray Bengen]

Thank you Andrew. Saved me from having to post exactly the same message.

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Thomas Heide wrote:
>
> > You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out
how
> > an unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing
> > tour around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before
you
> > think about arming sky marshalls.
>
> Since that's not what occurred, why should we try to figure that out?
>
> The pilot was "noticed" very quickly. In fact, the "problem" was that he
> flew into a tightly controlled airspace (class B, in case you're familiar
> with this) w/o clearance from the controlling agency. By definition, he
> was seen as soon as he did that.
>
> Separate from that - actually, he was probably outside of the controlled
> airspace at this point, but it depends upon his altitude - he circled the
> statue. Scores of pilots, commercial and private, do this every [fair
> weather] day. I did it myself a few hours after this fellow, in fact.
>
>
>
> I'm by no means excusing his incursion into the airspace w/o a clearance.
> That's a "no no", and somewhat dangerous besides (there's a reason why
this
> airspace is more tightly controlled than other airspace). But he was
> noticed, he was intercepted, and there's not a damned thing wrong with
> circling the statue.
>[i]
> > And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
>
> Each nation is free to regulate its own airspace. This amendment isn't a
> law that affects anything outside our airspace, so I'm not sure why you
> think of this as "impertinent". Your country can mandate clowns on
flights
> through its airspace, should you wish.
>
> > I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.
>
> From what I've read, the pilots merely want to have established certain
> protocols involving C&C. To my mind, that seems like a smart idea. I
> assume that the nations already putting armed officers aboard aircraft
> already have these established.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Morton Davis]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>
> >>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
British
> >>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >>>>
> >>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
advice
> >>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> >>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
carried."
> >>>>
> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >>>
> >>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
> >>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >>
> >>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
> >>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >
> >What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>
> The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> mornign a couple of years back

Thosew were box cutters. Box cutters are rectangular metal devices wherein a
single-edged razor blade forms the blade. Carpet knives have fixed wooden
handles over a steel blade shank and have a 2" to 3" hooked, curved,
blade. That's only one thing you got wrong out of many.

-*MORT*-

[Heico Lorenz]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones >
wrote:

> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

Please correct me if I got it wrong, but have it really been the Brits
failing in protecting their property (inefficient intelligence etc.) and
losing planes because of terrorist action? I don't think so, but to be
fair: maybe this could have happened anywhere else as well.

But much more important: don't you realize that you play exactly the game
desired by those crappy terrorists? They sit in their stinking holes and
laugh about the western world seperating through opinions like yours.
Really sad!

SCNR,
HL

[Andrew Rowley]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote:

>I understand what you are saying, but it's pointless to explain it to most
>U.S. citizens. The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into our very
>constitution when our nation was founded. Which would be fine, except they
>authors quite frankly put enough additional and vaugely-worded verbage into
>the second ammendment that their true intent will never be fully understood.
>As a result, there are fewer hot-button issues for Americans than this one.
>It's bigger and far more passionate than Pauline Hanson ever even tried to
>be.

Yes, I understand how Americans feel about this (many of them anyway)
and I don't really expect to convince them. I guess trying to push the
view that everyone needs guns onto other countries is one of my hot
buttons, and I couldn't resist responding :-)

[David Reinhart]

That's an extremely unfair comment. The hijacking policy at that time was still
based on the "Take me to Cuba" scenarios. Until 9/11 no one had hijacked an
airliner to use as a weapon. On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and died trying
to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe bomber) passengers
reacted swiftly and decisively. You should be ashamed of a statement like that.

Dave Reinhart


Shaun wrote:

>
>
> Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
> with four arabs armed with carpet knifes

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:26:26 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:
>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, nick says...
>>>>
>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>
>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>>>
>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>>
>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>>precautionary measure.
>
>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>opinion of America>>>?

You just don't get it do you? We don't give a ****, now do as your
told or get shot down. :)

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>
>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>
>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>
>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>
>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>
>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>
>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>mornign a couple of years back

You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)

[Teacherjh]

>On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
>inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and died
>trying to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe bomber)
>passengers reacted swiftly and decisively.

Which goes to show how silly it is to take weapons away from passengers. Now
tell me, if you were a terrorist, which airplane would you prefer to board -
the one with security, or the one without?

Jose


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

[LIBassbug]

John Gaquin wrote:

> "nick" > wrote in message news:NQjIb.282
>
> So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

Those are Nick's imaginary pet birds.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

Groggy No-cite on the job site.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/gregatnicks.jpg

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2003, Teacherjh wrote:

> >On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
> >inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and died
> >trying to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe bomber)
> >passengers reacted swiftly and decisively.
>
> Which goes to show how silly it is to take weapons away from passengers. Now
> tell me, if you were a terrorist, which airplane would you prefer to board -
> the one with security, or the one without?

Obviously the one without security is far more vulnerable.

However, you seem to be equating pax-with-guns with security, with no
evidence to back you up. Last week someone posted the "Archie Bunker
security plan" (give every pax a handgun) which made the same error...

Frankly, given a choice between flying commercially on a plane where
everyone had a gun, and a plane where nobody had a gun, I'd run, not walk,
to board the gun-free aircraft. Flying seems to turn some people into
real a**holes - do you really, really want these folks to be drunk *and*
armed?

You'll note that in the shoe-bomber incident, the pax & crew managed quite
well without firearms. Given how crowded commercial flights are, the
chances of a friendly-fire incident (someone hitting another passenger)
seem far too high.

I'm not at all opposed to armed sky marshals, though. The difference being
that the marshals will be *professional* law enforcement officers, not
just random passengers with sidearms. Similarly, whatever the marshals are
armed with will hopefully be appropriate - frangible bullets, etc.

The American ideal of "safety through arming everyone" really is alien to
most of the rest of Western civilization. Thankfully.

Brian.

[MRQB]

They will never get rid of firearms anyware as long as they sell mills and
lathes they will be made.


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> > Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
> > largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
> > that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
> > before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
> > pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.
>
> I do, Andrew, but then again I lived in Canberra for 15 months... an no
> Canberra jokes! Yes, it is a bush capital, and yes, they do close all the
> restaurants at something around 8:00 PM, but we really liked it there!
>
> I understand what you are saying, but it's pointless to explain it to most
> U.S. citizens. The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into our
very
> constitution when our nation was founded. Which would be fine, except
they
> authors quite frankly put enough additional and vaugely-worded verbage
into
> the second ammendment that their true intent will never be fully
understood.
> As a result, there are fewer hot-button issues for Americans than this
one.
> It's bigger and far more passionate than Pauline Hanson ever even tried to
> be.
>
> You are correct in many of your assertions, of course. Australia, and the
> UK, and nearly all other western nations have very strict gun control, and
> yet they have basically the same crime rates at the United States. In
fact,
> total violent crime rates in all these nations is more or less at the
same.
> People attack one another just as much in Australia as they do here. The
> only noticible difference between these nations relates to the number of
> deaths caused by such attacks. You are just as likely to be attacked here
> in Pittsburgh as you are in Melbourne, but you are far more likely to die
as
> a result of your wounds. Firearms are the reason behind this difference,
of
> course, but a good 50% of my fellow citizens will dispute this
relationship
> until thier dying breath. If you don't believe me, watch what happens in
> the replies to this posting.
>
> I must admit that there is a certain logic to the belief that having an
> armed populace will reduce crime. The theory beind this belief is obvious
> and from all outward appearances, quite sound. But theories have to be
> supported by scientific data to be valid, and the data have never really
> supported this one.
>
>

[MRQB]

Ok, like they think a terrorist is to dumb to become an air marshal or
better yet what happens if your at 30,000' and a terrorist is on the plane
and the air marshal is an officer that trained to empty his magazine or else
be repromanded like most law enforcement officials are or the marshal is
subdued by the terrorist that came aboard the airplane with out any weapons
but his hands? Humm False Sense Of Security idd say. I know i were PIC
carrying passengers idd not let anyone aboard with a firearm especially law
enforcement that are not trained properly how to use fire arms especially
aiming them.





"nick" > wrote in message
...
> "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
> "Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
> "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>
>
>

[John Gaquin]

"MRQB" > wrote in message news:yFrIb.493

>.....the air marshal is an officer that trained to empty his magazine or
else
> be repromanded like most law enforcement officials are

> .....idd not let anyone aboard with a firearm especially law
> enforcement that are not trained properly how to use fire arms especially
> aiming them.

The depth and breadth of your ignorance is truly stunning.

[Jeff Franks]

> you deserve to be isolated from the civilized world as long as you thing
> and speak like that.

we have a freedom of speech that tends to prevent that from happening.
thank God.

[Jeff Franks]

> Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
> largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
> that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
> before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
> pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

Our second amendment is there not for the personal protection (thats a by
product), but specifically to keep our government from growing so corrupt
that the people can't defend themselves against it. Our founding fathers
were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another tyrannical
government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
Brit's to understand.

[Morton Davis]

"MRQB" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, like they think a terrorist is to dumb to become an air marshal or
> better yet what happens if your at 30,000' and a terrorist is on the plane
> and the air marshal is an officer that trained to empty his magazine or
else
> be repromanded like most law enforcement officials are or the marshal is
> subdued by the terrorist that came aboard the airplane with out any
weapons
> but his hands? Humm False Sense Of Security idd say. I know i were PIC
> carrying passengers idd not let anyone aboard with a firearm especially
law
> enforcement that are not trained properly how to use fire arms especially
> aiming them.
>
>
>
The air marshalls spend many hours training how to handle situations inside
a passenger aircraft. They are extremely good shots.

-*MORT*-

[Webzpider]

"Mongo Jones" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>
> >In article >, nick says...
> >>
> >>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> >>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >
> >Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
> >buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >
> >They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>
> We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> precautionary measure.

What's the name of your terrorist group?


Webzpider

" I found alligator a bit chewy, but not bad."
-*MORT*-

[Ed]

"Thomas Heide" > wrote in message
...
> I can´t believe what I just read.
> Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some
school-events
> just popped into my mind)?
> It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
> protect them from potential terrorists.
> What kind of logic is that?

Logic that works. The school tragedies wre at DISARMED schools. Many if
not most of the episodes were brought to a halt by ARMED CIVILIANS who got
their own guns from cars, homes, etc... This is also true of a Texas fast
food episode where a woman lost her father because, true to pussy Brit/Euro
numbnuts pansieism, she reluctanctly left her legal gun in her car. Had she
had it about her person, perhaps only 1 or 2 victims might have been scored
until she could have defeated the miscreant. Remember, Britain is now
jailing anyone who defends themselves. See overlawyered.com, find the
professional burglar suing the homeowner for injuries which "keep him from
plying his trade". Now, if even one of four teachers/janitors/staff had gun
training, and the will to use one, then the multiple murders would stop.
Note that the Columbine shooters surrendered to late arriving guns, not to
pleas or wishful thinking.
EGB

[Teacherjh]

>Obviously the one without security is far more vulnerable.

This is not obvious to me. The one without security will have passengers who
carry almanacs, ball point pens, letherman tools packaged in transparant
neutronium, nail clippers, Swiss army knives, steak knives, pottery, tool kits
(including hammers and screwdrivers), odd shaped metal things nobody can
identify except for the price tag, and maybe even the odd firearm or two (with
bullets). Any terrorist who tries anything will have to face all that in the
hands of an angry mob. Given that terrorists haven't done well lately with
even unarmed passengers, I'd say they haven't a chance.

The one with security will have a bunch of unarmed passengers eating squeeze
food with plastic utensils, who are used to being told what to do and when to
do it, and expect somebody else to dispense security for them. The terrorist
of course will be fully armed, because he (or she) knows how to get stuff on an
airplane. Granted an unarmed angry mob is nothing to sneeze at, but if I were
the terrorist, this is still the plane I'd pick to be on.

>>
However, you seem to be equating pax-with-guns with security, with no
evidence to back you up. Last week someone posted the "Archie Bunker
security plan" (give every pax a handgun) which made the same error...
<<

You state it's an error, with no evidence to back you up.

I'm not advocating giving everyone a machine gun. But I am advocating letting
them keep their ballpoint pens, almanacs, Swiss Army knives, and leathermen.

Jose


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

[Yardpilot]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
>
> >>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >
> >>In article >, nick
says...
> >>>
> >>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>
> >>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly
into
> >>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >>
> >>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >
> >We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> >any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> >precautionary measure.
>
> And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> opinion of America>>>?

It's no wonder America holds so much of the world in contempt.

[Martin Hotze]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:17:41 -0600, Jeff Franks wrote:

>Our second amendment is there not for the personal protection (thats a by
>product), but specifically to keep our government from growing so corrupt
>that the people can't defend themselves against it.

it seems the time is coming closer to use them (?)

> Our founding fathers
>were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another tyrannical
>government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
>quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
>Brit's to understand.

96% tax bracket? where? and sources, please.

#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]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones wrote:

[quoting trimmed, at least in r.a.p there is such a thing like nettiquette]

(...)
>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>>>precautionary measure.
>>
>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>>opinion of America>>>?
>
>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?


Please! Please reduce the cross-posting as there are only crawling up some
short-minded wackos from other caves to 'our' group.

f-up2 r.a.p.

#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]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:12:19 -0600, Jeff Franks wrote:

>
>> you deserve to be isolated from the civilized world as long as you thing
>> and speak like that.
>
>we have a freedom of speech that tends to prevent that from happening.

I am not so sure about that.

>thank God.

whom?
;-)

#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.

[nick]

"LIBassbug" > wrote in message

> > So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?
>
> Those are Nick's imaginary pet birds.

They do tweet alot...

[Cub Driver]

>It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
>protect them from potential terrorists.
>What kind of logic is that?

There's only one kind of logic, and arming the police when the
criminals are armed certainly fits the framework.

Note that no one is "making" more people carry guns. The European
airlines can always detour around the continental U.S. It is up to
them whether they want to follow American regulations or not.

Do you also believe that if sky marshals had been a regular thing on
American airliners in 2001 that the 9/11 terrorists would have still
have tried to hijack those planes?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Shaun]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>
>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>
>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>
>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>mornign a couple of years back
>
>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)

No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK

[Shaun]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:

>>In talk.politics.guns (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:
>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, nick says...
>>>>>
>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>
>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>>>>
>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>>>
>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>>>precautionary measure.
>>
>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>>opinion of America>>>?
>
>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>
You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

[Shaun]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:

>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>
>>In article >, nick says...
>>>
>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>
>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>>
>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>
>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>precautionary measure.

That could only happen with the permision of the President.

Will he be too busy reading about the goat this time ?

[Morton Davis]

"Shaun" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
British
> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
advice
> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
carried."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
trained
> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >>>>
> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >>>
> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >>
> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >>mornign a couple of years back
> >
> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>
> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK

Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find the
box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter is
about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big stick
of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as the
cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
wounds that are all the way to the bone.

-*MORT*-

-*MORT*-

[Morton Davis]

"Shaun" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
>
> >>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >
> >>In article >, nick
says...
> >>>
> >>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>
> >>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly
into
> >>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >>
> >>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >
> >We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> >any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> >precautionary measure.
>
> That could only happen with the permision of the President.

The order has already been given.
>
> Will he be too busy reading about the goat this time ?

Too busy obfuscating?

-*MORT*-

[Eddy_Down]

Mongo Jones wrote:
>>In talk.politics.guns "nick" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>
>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>
>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>
>
> Cool! Euro-trash can stay the **** home, then.
>

Who wants to go to your thirld world country anyway?

[ShawnD2112]

Ah, I love the smell of mature, educated debate in the morning!!

Shawn :-)
"Yardpilot" > wrote in message
news:zevIb.18963$xX.69546@attbi_s02...
>
> "Nick Cooper" > wrote in
> message ...
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article >, nick
> says...
> > >>>
> > >>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
> union
> > >>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> > >>
> > >>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather
fly
> into
> > >>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> > >>
> > >>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> > >
> > >We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> > >any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> > >precautionary measure.
> >
> > And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> > opinion of America>>>?
>
> It's no wonder America holds so much of the world in contempt.
>
>

[J. Hall]

> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
something.

Kind of reminds me of one of those stupid Hollywood movies where a 747
gets depressurized and for some reason, plummets out of the sky, as if
letting the pressure out of a plane had the same affect as letting the
pressure out of a hot air balloon.

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:25:21 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>>
>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>>
>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>
>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>
>No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
>advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK

You use box cutters to cut your carpeting? Rather thin carpets then?
:)

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>"Shaun" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
>> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
>union
>> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>British
>> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
>advice
>> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
>received,
>> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>carried."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
>trained
>> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>> >>>
>> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>> >>
>> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>> >>mornign a couple of years back
>> >
>> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>
>> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
>> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
>
>Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find the
>box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter is
>about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big stick
>of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as the
>cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
>members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
>wounds that are all the way to the bone.

Shaun doesn't understand box cutters are not very useful at cutting
carpeting. One of two cuts and the blade goes dull.

>-*MORT*-
>
>-*MORT*-
>

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:
>
>>>In talk.politics.guns (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, nick says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>
>>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly into
>>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>>>>>
>>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>>>>
>>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>>>>precautionary measure.
>>>
>>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>>>opinion of America>>>?
>>
>>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>>
>You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
>effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:30:23 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:

>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>>precautionary measure.
>
>That could only happen with the permision of the President.

And?

>Will he be too busy reading about the goat this time ?

You think _every time_ the military fires a missile they stop to ask
for the President's permission? Bwahaha...etc.

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:43:53 GMT, Eddy_Down
> wrote:

>
>
>Mongo Jones wrote:
>>>In talk.politics.guns "nick" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>
>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>
>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>
>>
>> Cool! Euro-trash can stay the **** home, then.
>>
>
>Who wants to go to your thirld world country anyway?

Hopefully people who can spell better than you, Jude Girl.
Spell checker not working or did you mistype during another nasty
rogering? :)

[Bogart]

On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, (J. Hall) wrote:

>> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>
>I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
>later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
>shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
>that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
>tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
>the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
>likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
>something.
>Kind of reminds me of one of those stupid Hollywood movies where a 747
>gets depressurized and for some reason, plummets out of the sky, as if
>letting the pressure out of a plane had the same affect as letting the
>pressure out of a hot air balloon.

Who are you, and why are you interjecting facts into this
conversation? :)

[Andrew Gideon]

Teacherjh wrote:


> The one with security will have a bunch of unarmed passengers eating
> squeeze food with plastic utensils, who are used to being told what to do
> and when to
> do it, and expect somebody else to dispense security for them. The
> terrorist of course will be fully armed, because he (or she) knows how to
> get stuff on an
> airplane. Granted an unarmed angry mob is nothing to sneeze at, but if I
> were the terrorist, this is still the plane I'd pick to be on.

There's another relevant point. If we assume that security would prevent
boarding with weapons (not a safe assumption at all, but let's go with it
for the moment), then what's a terrorist to do? Why, just identify and
overpower the lone armed officer on the aircraft.

Even an armed officer can be overpowered if it's done quickly and from close
range (and perhaps involving multiple attackers).

Thus, by putting weapons aboard, we're providing another attack vector for
terrorists.

Keeping the officer's identity secret is an obvious attempt to address this.
In the computing business, we call this "security through obscurity". It
doesn't work against any but the most casual of attackers.

- Andrew

[Jeff Franks]

> >
> >> you deserve to be isolated from the civilized world as long as you
thing
> >> and speak like that.
> >
> >we have a freedom of speech that tends to prevent that from happening.
>
> I am not so sure about that.
>

well, lets say it works for a liberal. If you want to see our first
amendment thrown out the window, have a conservative start talking in a
group of liberals. "freedom of speech" tends to go down the tubes and the
conservative is labeled an ignorant bigot.

[Ash Wyllie]

Michael Nouak opined

>"Richard Hertz" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. net...
>> snip
>> Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent crime.

>ROFLMFAO!!!

>Mike

Take a careful look at the crime rates in France and England. Except for
murder they are higher than the US.

And the murder rate is going up...



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Kevin McCue]

I'd prefer the flight w/o any guns. The trained law enforcement officers
frequently demonstrate less than decent aim when firing a weapon. Locally we
had a not to recent shooting., 42 LE rounds expended, perp was wounded and
taken to a hospital. Hate to think what would happen to the people sitting
in a line of sight along to either side of a hijacker. Hell even if the
hijacker had a gun the passengers could beat him to death before he could
get off enough rounds to do equivalent damage. Everyone assumes that the Air
Marshal won't miss!

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= 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! =-----

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> >It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
> >protect them from potential terrorists.
> >What kind of logic is that?
>
> There's only one kind of logic, and arming the police when the
> criminals are armed certainly fits the framework.
>
> Note that no one is "making" more people carry guns. The European
> airlines can always detour around the continental U.S. It is up to
> them whether they want to follow American regulations or not.
>
> Do you also believe that if sky marshals had been a regular thing on
> American airliners in 2001 that the 9/11 terrorists would have still
> have tried to hijack those planes?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I believe that the airlines' (and FAA's) policy of acquiescense to
hijackers' demands lies at the root of the 9/11 problem.

If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

The first one who came through the door would have gotten a splitting
headache (via fire axe) and that would have been the end of that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd prefer the flight w/o any guns.
>

Oh, I think we all would. But given that a terrorist may get a weapon
aboard, would you prefer that he be the only one aboard with a gun?

[Kevin McCue]

Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather deal
with the terrorist.
Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them when
they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
If the threat is supposed to be an intercontinental flight hijacked and
crashed into Vegas enroute to LAX, Why is the Vegas airspace only closed to
GA and charters?

The alert seems to be another bunch of no common sense, knee jerk reactions

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= 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! =-----

[Kevin McCue]

Because the DHS said they are likely trained airline pilots. They would
be behind the door because they were incontrol of the flight since take off
as the crew.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= 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]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather deal
> with the terrorist.
>

Then you are a fool.


>
> Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them when
> they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
>

Why do you believe the DHS thinks terrorists are likely trained ATP's? How
could the terrorists become locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof
cockpit door?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because the DHS said they are likely trained airline pilots. They would
> be behind the door because they were incontrol of the flight since take
off
> as the crew.
>

The DHS said foreign air carriers are hiring or have hired terrorists? Why
don't they just alert the air carriers?

[Martin Hotze]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:21:30 -0700, Kevin McCue wrote:

>Everyone assumes that the Air
>Marshal won't miss!

yeah. or the terrorist sitting in one of the seats at the end of the plane
and having about 400 people between him and the guy (in the event he is
sitting in the front of the plane (or vice versa)

M (mashall): Mr terrorist, drop your gun!
T (terrorist): drop yours or I'll shoot this *pointing* guy!
M: no way!
T: *bammm* - drop it now? or I shoot this *pointing again* kid here!
M: nooooo!
T: *bamm*

what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a heart?

#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.

[Morton Davis]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
...
> Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather
deal
> with the terrorist.
> Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them when
> they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?

Most ailiners don't have them yet.

> If the threat is supposed to be an intercontinental flight hijacked
and
> crashed into Vegas enroute to LAX, Why is the Vegas airspace only closed
to
> GA and charters?
>

Ask Tom Ridge.

> The alert seems to be another bunch of no common sense, knee jerk
reactions
>

Seems to be, but then, you don't have access to all the information, do you?

BTW: There's a new collision avoidance system coming that will make 9-11
type attacks harder. Won't keep them from blowing up a plane full of fuel
and raining fire on a target below though.

-*MORT*-

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> yeah. or the terrorist sitting in one of the seats at the end of the plane
> and having about 400 people between him and the guy (in the event he is
> sitting in the front of the plane (or vice versa)
>
> M (mashall): Mr terrorist, drop your gun!
> T (terrorist): drop yours or I'll shoot this *pointing* guy!
> M: no way!
> T: *bammm* - drop it now? or I shoot this *pointing again* kid here!
> M: nooooo!
> T: *bamm*
>
> what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a heart?
>

Right. It's far better that the marshal drop his gun so the terrorists can
then take control of the airplane and kill several hundred or several
thousand than to have a terrorist kill a passenger.

Is there not a single rational voice among the anti-gun crowd?

[Scout]

"Shaun" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
British
> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
advice
> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
carried."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
trained
> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >>>>
> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >>>
> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >>
> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >>mornign a couple of years back
> >
> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>
> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK

Just because those in the UK misuse them doesn't make them carpet knives.

[Scout]

"Shaun" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
>
> >>In talk.politics.guns (Nick
Cooper) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article >, nick
says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>
> >>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather
fly into
> >>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >>>>
> >>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >>>
> >>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> >>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> >>>precautionary measure.
> >>
> >>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> >>opinion of America>>>?
> >
> >And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> >who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >
> You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
> effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Yea, I remember all those hijacking you claim didn't take place.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>In talk.politics.guns
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, nick
says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather
fly into
> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >>>>
> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> >>>>precautionary measure.
> >>>
> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> >>>opinion of America>>>?
> >>
> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >>
> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
>
> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)

Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?

Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?

[Jeff Franks]

>
> >Our second amendment is there not for the personal protection (thats a by
> >product), but specifically to keep our government from growing so corrupt
> >that the people can't defend themselves against it.
>
> it seems the time is coming closer to use them (?)

But....if we only let the "professionals" have them, where does that leave
us? Seems Europe shoulda learned that lesson about twice last century.

>
> > Our founding fathers
> >were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another
tyrannical
> >government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
> >quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
> >Brit's to understand.
>
> 96% tax bracket? where? and sources, please.
>

I was referring to the UK. I can't find any print to back it up. Where I
got it from was a news report (Dan Rather/Tom Brokaw National news type)
from a few years back. The report stated that at the time the "Spice Girls"
were moving out of the UK to avoid the high tax rate. The numbers they used
were that they were already in the 40% tax bracket and if their movie "spice
world" did well at the box office, then they would be up in the 96% bracket.
I about fell out of my chair, but they said it twice. I will allow the
possibility that they were completely wrong, but this is my source.

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 at 22:46:28 in message
>, Thomas Heide
> wrote:

I am British and live in the UK but I have spent time in the USA.

>I can´t believe what I just read.
>Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some school-events
>just popped into my mind)?

Irrelevant and objectionable.

>It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
>protect them from potential terrorists.

On what evidence do you base that statement? The Israeli's have been
doing this for years. Seems to me a terrorist might well think twice if
he thought there was a high chance of unknown numbers of armed law
enforcement agents on board. Are all the armed police in UK major
airports a waste of time then?

>What kind of logic is that?

A reasonable hypothesis I would say.

>You won´t stop terrorists from trying to hijack planes by simply having
>armed sky marshalls on the aircraft.

Again on what do you base that wild statement?

>You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how an
>unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing tour
>around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you think
>about arming sky marshalls.

Nothing wrong with good security as a first line defence, but the rest
of the above is just nonsense.

>And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
>I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.

I can understand they might have reservations about the powers of
marshals over their own authority, but if we have them I don't want them
to have to ask the captain before they act! However I do want them to be
trained and to understand the risks.

>It plays in the same league like the major of London who explicitly allowed
>demonstrations against Bush in the vicinity of his whereabouts.

Nothing what ever to do with it as far as I can see. The right to
protest is not connected to the rights of terrorists to kill people.

>Without making the attacks less horrible, but America gets more and more
>paranoic.
>
A few people in America may be paranoid about being criticised for not
doing something but your generalisation is not justified by the
American's I know that I respect and count as my friends.

--
David CL Francis

[Eric Pinnell]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:24:41 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:


>yeah. or the terrorist sitting in one of the seats at the end of the plane
>and having about 400 people between him and the guy (in the event he is
>sitting in the front of the plane (or vice versa)
>
>M (mashall): Mr terrorist, drop your gun!
>T (terrorist): drop yours or I'll shoot this *pointing* guy!
>M: no way!
>T: *bammm* - drop it now? or I shoot this *pointing again* kid here!
>M: nooooo!
>T: *bamm*
>
>what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a heart?
>
>#m

Where are the marshalls? Do you even know if one's one the flight?
Assume there's a pair of them. They're likely to be able to cover each
other.
So, what do you do? Draw your weapon? Marshall pulls his and fires
at you. Assuming the passengers don't swarm the terrorist to prevent
another 9/11.


Eric Pinnell

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

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

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>In talk.politics.guns
>(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>In article >, nick
>says...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
>union
>> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather
>fly into
>> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>> >>>>precautionary measure.
>> >>>
>> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>> >>>opinion of America>>>?
>> >>
>> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>> >>
>> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
>> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
>>
>> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
>> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
>
>Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
>security"?

No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?

>Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
>security was inadequate?

If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?

Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.

[Dave]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
a.tc.ca...
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2003, Teacherjh wrote:
>
> > >On the one aircraft where the passengers had an
> > >inkling of what was really going on they apparently did fight back and
died
> > >trying to take control of the aircraft. In the case of Reid (the shoe
bomber)
> > >passengers reacted swiftly and decisively.
> >
> > Which goes to show how silly it is to take weapons away from passengers.
Now
> > tell me, if you were a terrorist, which airplane would you prefer to
board -
> > the one with security, or the one without?
>
> Obviously the one without security is far more vulnerable.
>
> However, you seem to be equating pax-with-guns with security, with no
> evidence to back you up. Last week someone posted the "Archie Bunker
> security plan" (give every pax a handgun) which made the same error...
>
> Frankly, given a choice between flying commercially on a plane where
> everyone had a gun, and a plane where nobody had a gun, I'd run, not walk,
> to board the gun-free aircraft. Flying seems to turn some people into
> real a**holes - do you really, really want these folks to be drunk *and*
> armed?
>
> You'll note that in the shoe-bomber incident, the pax & crew managed quite
> well without firearms. Given how crowded commercial flights are, the
> chances of a friendly-fire incident (someone hitting another passenger)
> seem far too high.
>
> I'm not at all opposed to armed sky marshals, though. The difference being
> that the marshals will be *professional* law enforcement officers, not
> just random passengers with sidearms. Similarly, whatever the marshals are
> armed with will hopefully be appropriate - frangible bullets, etc.
>
> The American ideal of "safety through arming everyone" really is alien to
> most of the rest of Western civilization. Thankfully.
>
> Brian.

American law enforcement professionals - that is an oxymoron if ever I heard
one.

Are these the same type of law enforcement professionals who beat up guys
like Rodney King.

Are these the same type of law enforcement professionals who when told of
terrorist plans before 911 ignored the warnings.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/bluewall/links.html

No the answer is to make sure that planes cannot take off if there is any
risk of hijack. It may be more inconvenient but hey, far less inconvenient
than being hijacked or worse still have some trigger happy loon firing off
and shooting the plane down.

Dave

[Dave]

"Eric Pinnell" <see my web site> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:24:41 GMT, Martin Hotze >
> wrote:
>
>
> >yeah. or the terrorist sitting in one of the seats at the end of the
plane
> >and having about 400 people between him and the guy (in the event he is
> >sitting in the front of the plane (or vice versa)
> >
> >M (mashall): Mr terrorist, drop your gun!
> >T (terrorist): drop yours or I'll shoot this *pointing* guy!
> >M: no way!
> >T: *bammm* - drop it now? or I shoot this *pointing again* kid here!
> >M: nooooo!
> >T: *bamm*
> >
> >what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a
heart?
> >
> >#m
>
> Where are the marshalls? Do you even know if one's one the flight?
> Assume there's a pair of them. They're likely to be able to cover each
> other.
> So, what do you do? Draw your weapon? Marshall pulls his and fires
> at you. Assuming the passengers don't swarm the terrorist to prevent
> another 9/11.
>

What's to say that the passengers don't swarm over the marshal when they see
his gun.

What's to say a terrorist doesn't claim to be a marshal when he pulls his
weapon. Are all marshals going to be white?

Sorry but the who idea is fu*king stupid dreamed up by a whole load of
as*hole rednecks who have brains no bigger than pin heads and still have
their minds stuck in the pioneer days.

Dave

[Dave]

"Mongo Jones" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>
> >In article >, nick
says...
> >>
> >>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >
> >Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly
into
> >buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >
> >They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>
> We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> precautionary measure.

So what new? In both Gulf wars the British lost more aircraft to so called
friendly fire than enemy action. So why change the habits of a life time. If
it moves shoot it.

[Dave]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
>
> > you deserve to be isolated from the civilized world as long as you thing
> > and speak like that.
>
> we have a freedom of speech that tends to prevent that from happening.
> thank God.

That freedom of speech also confirms what a bunch of assholes most Americans
appear to be. Freedom of speech is not always your best friend. You need to
think be fore you speak.

[Dave]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > >> you deserve to be isolated from the civilized world as long as you
> thing
> > >> and speak like that.
> > >
> > >we have a freedom of speech that tends to prevent that from happening.
> >
> > I am not so sure about that.
> >
>
> well, lets say it works for a liberal. If you want to see our first
> amendment thrown out the window, have a conservative start talking in a
> group of liberals. "freedom of speech" tends to go down the tubes and the
> conservative is labeled an ignorant bigot.

The conservative is an ignorant bigot.

[Dave]

"Mongo Jones" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >In talk.politics.guns (Nick
Cooper) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, nick
says...
> >>>>
> >>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> >>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>
> >>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather
fly into
> >>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >>>
> >>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >>
> >>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> >>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> >>precautionary measure.
> >
> >And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> >opinion of America>>>?
>
> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

We don't need some gung ho ******s telling us how to organise security in
aviation.
911 and Pan Am 101 need I say more!

[AH#49]

Dave wrote:
>
> "Mongo Jones" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > >In talk.politics.guns (Nick
> Cooper) wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>In article >, nick
> says...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
> union
> > >>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> > >>>
> > >>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather
> fly into
> > >>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> > >>>
> > >>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> > >>
> > >>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
> > >>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
> > >>precautionary measure.
> > >
> > >And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> > >opinion of America>>>?
> >
> > And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> > who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>
> We don't need some gung ho ******s telling us how to organise security in
> aviation.
> 911 and Pan Am 101 need I say more!

Name one plane that was hijacked with a sky marshal aboard.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's to say that the passengers don't swarm over the marshal when they
see
> his gun.
>

If they were of a mind to do that, wouldn't they swarm over the first person
to draw a weapon, which would be the terrorist?


>
> What's to say a terrorist doesn't claim to be a marshal when he pulls his
> weapon. Are all marshals going to be white?
>

Well, if he doesn't shoot the terrorist upon pulling his weapon, it woulb be
pretty clear he's not actually a marshal.


>
> Sorry but the who idea is fu*king stupid dreamed up by a whole load of
> as*hole rednecks who have brains no bigger than pin heads and still have
> their minds stuck in the pioneer days.
>

Actually, it's those that oppose armed marshals that are brainless.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> That freedom of speech also confirms what a bunch of assholes most
Americans
> appear to be. Freedom of speech is not always your best friend. You need
to
> think be fore you speak.
>

And you should think before you write.

[Morton Davis]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>In article >,
nick
> >says...
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
pilots'
> >union
> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
board."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
rather
> >fly into
> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
that
> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as
a
> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
> >> >>
> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >> >>
> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
> >>
> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
> >
> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
> >security"?
>
> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?

I know it's been a long time.
"In 15 minutes on Tuesday, the US suffered more hijackings than it had in
the previous 10 years combined."
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/hijacking.asp
>
> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
> >security was inadequate?
>
> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?

It never payed off?

-*MORT*-

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>In article >,
nick
> >says...
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
pilots'
> >union
> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
board."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
rather
> >fly into
> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
that
> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as
a
> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
> >> >>
> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >> >>
> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
> >>
> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
> >
> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
> >security"?
>
> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?

"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
limited to US airliners alone.

> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
> >security was inadequate?
>
> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?

Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was NEVER
stopped.


> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.

Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead, thousands
of lives lost, many more injured.

And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.

Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we need
sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
>> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>In article >,
>nick
>> >says...
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>pilots'
>> >union
>> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>board."
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
>rather
>> >fly into
>> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
>that
>> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as
>a
>> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>> >> >>
>> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
>> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
>> >>
>> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
>> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
>> >
>> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
>> >security"?
>>
>> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
>> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?
>
>"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
>limited to US airliners alone.
>
>> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
>> >security was inadequate?
>>
>> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
>> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
>
>Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was NEVER
>stopped.
>
>
>> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
>> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
>> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
>
>Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead, thousands
>of lives lost, many more injured.
>
>And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
>
>Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we need
>sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.
>

Oh look, the inmates are attacking each other.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[Nick Cooper]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:34:30 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
>union
>> >>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>British
>> >>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
>advice
>> >>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
>received,
>> >>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>carried."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>> >>>
>> >>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>> >>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>> >>
>> >>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>> >>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>> >
>> >What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>
>> The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>> mornign a couple of years back
>
>Thosew were box cutters. Box cutters are rectangular metal devices wherein a
>single-edged razor blade forms the blade. Carpet knives have fixed wooden
>handles over a steel blade shank and have a 2" to 3" hooked, curved,
>blade. That's only one thing you got wrong out of many.

Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
pretended not to understand.

--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Nick Cooper]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>
>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>
>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>
>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>mornign a couple of years back
>
>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)

Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Shaun]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:43:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:25:21 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>>>
>>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>>>
>>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>>
>>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>
>>No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
>>advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
>
>You use box cutters to cut your carpeting? Rather thin carpets then?
>:)

We make carpets to support OUR weight

[LIBassbug]

Shaun wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:43:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:25:21 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>>>
>>>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>>
>>>No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
>>>advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
>>
>>You use box cutters to cut your carpeting? Rather thin carpets then?
>>:)
>
>
> We make carpets to support OUR weight

You must have some big-ass box cutters over there!

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

Groggy No-cite on the job site.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/gregatnicks.jpg

[Nick Cooper]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>"Shaun" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
>> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
>union
>> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>British
>> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
>advice
>> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
>received,
>> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>carried."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
>trained
>> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>> >>>
>> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>> >>
>> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>> >>mornign a couple of years back
>> >
>> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>
>> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
>> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
>
>Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find the
>box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter is
>about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big stick
>of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as the
>cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
>members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
>wounds that are all the way to the bone.

"Stanley Knife" is pretty much a generic term in the UK for any heavy-
or medium-duty retractable (although some aren't) utility or craft
knife. It's one of those cases where the brand name that came to
prominence first becomes the generic, even when it's not appropriate.
E.g. Walkman, Frisbee, Hoover, etc.

"Box cutter" was a term unknown in the UK pre-11 Sept., and certainly
from the specific decription on Wikipedia, we don't have anything that
matches it exactly, certainly not in respect of using a single-edged
razor blade. In fact, that type of razor blade isn't even
particularly common here, either, since the double-edged type is more
prevalent. You will note that Wikipedia does say that a "Stanley
Knife" is the nearest equivalent in British English usage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-cutter_knife




--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Bill Funk]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> wrote:

> Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather deal
>with the terrorist.
> Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
>terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them when
>they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
the pilots open that door is a really good idea.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

[AH#49]

Shaun wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:43:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:25:21 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> >>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> >>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> >>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
> >>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
> >>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
> >>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >>>>
> >>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >>>>mornign a couple of years back
> >>>
> >>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> >>
> >>No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> >>advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
> >
> >You use box cutters to cut your carpeting? Rather thin carpets then?
> >:)
>
> We make carpets to support OUR weight

Then you meant EXPLOSIVES!

[AH#49]

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> > wrote:
>
> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather deal
> >with the terrorist.
> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them when
> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
>
> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
> door is for someone to open it.
> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.


"Candy-gram"

[Morton Davis]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Shaun" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
pilots'
> >union
> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
board."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
> >British
> >> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
"Our
> >advice
> >> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
are
> >received,
> >> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
> >carried."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
> >trained
> >> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
deal
> >> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >> >>>
> >> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >> >>
> >> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >> >>mornign a couple of years back
> >> >
> >> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> >>
> >> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> >> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
> >
> >Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find
the
> >box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter
is
> >about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big
stick
> >of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as
the
> >cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
> >members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
> >wounds that are all the way to the bone.
>
> "Stanley Knife" is pretty much a generic term in the UK for any heavy-
> or medium-duty retractable (although some aren't) utility or craft
> knife. It's one of those cases where the brand name that came to
> prominence first becomes the generic, even when it's not appropriate.
> E.g. Walkman, Frisbee, Hoover, etc.
>
> "Box cutter" was a term unknown in the UK pre-11 Sept., and certainly
> from the specific decription on Wikipedia, we don't have anything that
> matches it exactly, certainly not in respect of using a single-edged
> razor blade. In fact, that type of razor blade isn't even
> particularly common here, either, since the double-edged type is more
> prevalent. You will note that Wikipedia does say that a "Stanley
> Knife" is the nearest equivalent in British English usage:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-cutter_knife
>
The single-edged razor blade is produced mainly for use in box cutters,
certain scrapers used in removing decals and paint-over on glass.
This is a box cutter: http://store6.yimg.com/I/olfablades_1750_89859 It
costs $2.00 and will open you up real good.

Box cutter replacement blade:
http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/749611_sk_md.jpg Many newer box
cutters and utility knives use long, single-edged blades that can be snapped
off when the point gets dull or broken.
http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/a8/f3/7d_1.JPG

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/13/7e/Stanley_Utility_Knife_Blade_Shop_T
ool_Accessories.jpg This is a USA Stanley knife blade. This is a Stanley
Utility Knife: http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/550467_sk_md.jpg

It's quite a bit bigger, uses a different blade, but will also open you up
real good. Box cutters and Stanley knifes are used as slashing weapons. I
used to use Stanley utility knives to score aluminum coil sheeting so it
could be snapped apart to make facial coverings when I ran a sheet metal
brake.

-*MORT*-

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
>> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>In article >,
>nick
>> >says...
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>pilots'
>> >union
>> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>board."
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
>rather
>> >fly into
>> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
>that
>> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as
>a
>> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>> >> >>
>> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
>> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
>> >>
>> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
>> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
>> >
>> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
>> >security"?
>>
>> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
>> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?

>"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
>limited to US airliners alone.

>> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
>> >security was inadequate?
>>
>> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
>> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
>
>Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was NEVER
>stopped.

>> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
>> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
>> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
>
>Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead, thousands
>of lives lost, many more injured.
>
>And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
>
>Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we need
>sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.

We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
well take the hijackers with you. Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
be mistaken for a hijacker himself.

The plane which went down in PA was a perfect example of the mindset
passengers have once they know they are cannon fodder. Everyone
knows, no hijacker will ever again get into the cockpit from the
passenger cabin. Al Queda knows it too. That's why they are
attempting to bring airline employed licensed pilots onto the cockpit
prior to the flight ever taking off.

That is my opinion. I know yours as misguided as it is. :)

[Bogart]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>>
>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>>
>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>
>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>
>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.

And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
terminology it's none of my concern. :)

[Cub Driver]

>If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
>never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

This is no doubt true, but it likely would have led to unnecessary
deaths. Until 9/11, hijackers weren't interested in killing
themselves, but had other agendas. So I think that the pre 9/11
protocol was the correct one.

I also think that most of the changes following 9/11 were also
correct, including the use of armed sky marshals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[IBM]

"nick" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
> advice to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
> are received, flight crew should not operate flights where sky
> marshals are carried."

[snip]

Hmmm, they certainly have a right to their opinions as they are
after all "master under god" of their vessel. However the competent
authorities in the US have the right to take their behaviour under
advisement and impose sanctions.
I wonder if having their ability to fly into the US pulled would
affect the opinion of these pilots. The TSA or FAA could do that if
necessary.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[IBM]

" Bogart " > wrote in
s.com:

[snip]

> Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
> US Sky Marshals? :)

Brits already have some folks trained to do that sort of thing.
Maybe the SAS would like to have free trips to the US on a random
basis. Trying to take over an aircraft carrying an armed bunch
of SAS members would be distinctly problematic.
Trouble is there aren't many of them but even the threat of such
an eventuality might give the skunks pause to reflect.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Yardpilot]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> Ah, I love the smell of mature, educated debate in the morning!!

Can you even recognize it?

[Webzpider]

"Morton Davis" > wrote in message news:jMJIb.24610$xX.91833@attbi_s02...
>
> "Nick Cooper" > wrote in
> message ...
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Shaun" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> > >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> > >> >>>>wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
> pilots'
> > >union
> > >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
> board."
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
> > >British
> > >> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
> "Our
> > >advice
> > >> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
> are
> > >received,
> > >> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
> > >carried."
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
> > >trained
> > >> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
> deal
> > >> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> > >> >>mornign a couple of years back
> > >> >
> > >> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> > >>
> > >> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> > >> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
> > >
> > >Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find
> the
> > >box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter
> is
> > >about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big
> stick
> > >of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as
> the
> > >cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
> > >members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
> > >wounds that are all the way to the bone.
> >
> > "Stanley Knife" is pretty much a generic term in the UK for any heavy-
> > or medium-duty retractable (although some aren't) utility or craft
> > knife. It's one of those cases where the brand name that came to
> > prominence first becomes the generic, even when it's not appropriate.
> > E.g. Walkman, Frisbee, Hoover, etc.
> >
> > "Box cutter" was a term unknown in the UK pre-11 Sept., and certainly
> > from the specific decription on Wikipedia, we don't have anything that
> > matches it exactly, certainly not in respect of using a single-edged
> > razor blade. In fact, that type of razor blade isn't even
> > particularly common here, either, since the double-edged type is more
> > prevalent. You will note that Wikipedia does say that a "Stanley
> > Knife" is the nearest equivalent in British English usage:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-cutter_knife
> >
> The single-edged razor blade is produced mainly for use in box cutters,
> certain scrapers used in removing decals and paint-over on glass.
> This is a box cutter: http://store6.yimg.com/I/olfablades_1750_89859 It
> costs $2.00 and will open you up real good.
>
> Box cutter replacement blade:
> http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/749611_sk_md.jpg Many newer box
> cutters and utility knives use long, single-edged blades that can be snapped
> off when the point gets dull or broken.
> http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/a8/f3/7d_1.JPG
>
> http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/13/7e/Stanley_Utility_Knife_Blade_Shop_T
> ool_Accessories.jpg This is a USA Stanley knife blade. This is a Stanley
> Utility Knife: http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/550467_sk_md.jpg
>
> It's quite a bit bigger, uses a different blade, but will also open you up
> real good. Box cutters and Stanley knifes are used as slashing weapons. I
> used to use Stanley utility knives to score aluminum coil sheeting so it
> could be snapped apart to make facial coverings when I ran a sheet metal
> brake.
>
> -*MORT*-
>

So, when are you going to <cut> the crap?

Webzpider

" I found alligator a bit chewy, but not bad."
-*MORT*-

[Richard Hertz]

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote:
>
> >There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes when
> >people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
> >Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent
crime.
> >
> >Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice to
be
> >able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.
>
> This is a load of crap. Handguns are very rare in Australia. The
> papers here are talking about a gangland war that has broken out here.
> Large rewards are being offered by the police to catch the people
> involved. This is a result of something like 24 people being killed in
> the last 6 YEARS. When 24 people in 6 years is significant, I don't
> think the rate of violent crime is high.

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
subject.
If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.


>
> Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
> largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
> that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
> before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
> pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.

[Richard Hertz]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . net...
> > snip
> > Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent
crime.
>
> ROFLMFAO!!!

Why? It is true. If I were a criminal I would move to a place where I knew
that my victims would be unarmed.

See John Lott's book and studies.

>
> Mike
>
>

[Jeff Franks]

clipped a bunch of nonsensical rambling here ......

> You need to think be fore you speak.

You might WANT to think, but its not a requirement. Hence your post.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
> an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
> protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
> receiving end of justified defense?

What on earth makes you think that criminals somehow pick and choose where
they are going to commit a crime? Most of them don't have a whole array of
transportation options. They more or less have to commit their offenses
within walking distance of wherever they wake up in the morning. They don't
consult the internet, the census bureau, or even the World Almanac to
analyze handgun ownership patterns across various zip codes. Based on
interviews with offenders, it rather appears that most of them don't even
have any firm plan of committing an offense until maybe 10 seconds before
they actually do it, and they simply aren't bright enough to weigh all the
costs and benefits in those 10 seconds. Most of them wouldn't be able to
form a coherent thought if you gave them 10 hours.

I agree that, for you and -- both reasonable people -- it makes sense to
avoid areas that are well protected by an armed citizenry. But the guy who
is desperately looking for $20 to get his next blast isn't all that
reasonable, and will go for the next open window he sees. If he had the
ability to think about things, he would be concerned with the pressence or
absence of an armed homeowner. But he isn't thinking about that, and
nothing is going to make him think about it.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> >If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
> >never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.
>
> This is no doubt true, but it likely would have led to unnecessary
> deaths. Until 9/11, hijackers weren't interested in killing
> themselves, but had other agendas. So I think that the pre 9/11
> protocol was the correct one.


No, I don't think so! If only one of the pre-911 hijackers had
encountered a splitting headache, the whole hijacking nonsense from ca
1965 on would have stopped cold. It was the policy of acquiesense that
emboldened the 9/11 hijackers. Had they known that the penalty for
storming the flight deck was sudden death, the problem would never have
occurred.




> I also think that most of the changes following 9/11 were also
> correct, including the use of armed sky marshals.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Richard Hertz]

Interviews with criminals show that many pick and choose. Evidence has
shown that violent crime decreased in counties that changed their handgun
laws to allow people to carry. (in the US - See Lott) Areas that imposed
handgun control saw increased violent crime. Clearly, if you outlaw guns
only those who obey the laws will be unarmed. The handgun bans have been
ineffective in the US and I suspect elsewhere. Criminals will keep using
them until more effective deterrence is used.

The bottom line is that I would prefer to be allowed to defend myself
legally.

Luckily I am not as ripe a target for some violent crimes as other people.
I certainly would not refuse a 110 lb woman the right to defend herself
against a 220lb rapist.

Firearms are just tools. They will be used for evil by bad people and for
good by good people, just as other tools are used.


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> > If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you
choose
> > an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
> > protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
> > receiving end of justified defense?
>
> What on earth makes you think that criminals somehow pick and choose where
> they are going to commit a crime? Most of them don't have a whole array
of
> transportation options. They more or less have to commit their offenses
> within walking distance of wherever they wake up in the morning. They
don't
> consult the internet, the census bureau, or even the World Almanac to
> analyze handgun ownership patterns across various zip codes. Based on
> interviews with offenders, it rather appears that most of them don't even
> have any firm plan of committing an offense until maybe 10 seconds before
> they actually do it, and they simply aren't bright enough to weigh all the
> costs and benefits in those 10 seconds. Most of them wouldn't be able to
> form a coherent thought if you gave them 10 hours.
>
> I agree that, for you and -- both reasonable people -- it makes sense to
> avoid areas that are well protected by an armed citizenry. But the guy
who
> is desperately looking for $20 to get his next blast isn't all that
> reasonable, and will go for the next open window he sees. If he had the
> ability to think about things, he would be concerned with the pressence or
> absence of an armed homeowner. But he isn't thinking about that, and
> nothing is going to make him think about it.
>
>

[Little John]

On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
(J. Hall) two-fingered to all:

|>> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
|>> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
|>
|>I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
|>later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
|>shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
|>that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
|>tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
|>the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
|>likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
|>something.

They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls. If
you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through both
sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But, they
pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.

http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1979


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> wrote:

>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>

Who was too stupid to safeguard their planes on 911, causing those
office workers in those ugly buildings to do their Superman
impressions? Wasn't the ****-whiskered Brits, seems to me that it was
the gormless merkins. Please feel free to continue to go about things
arse-up - you've never learned a thing from your past mistakes,
there's no reason you should now.
Found Bin Laden yet?


--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[Eddy_Down]

Bill Smith wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>
>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>
>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
>>>and tragically stupid.
>>> Bill Smith
>>
>>Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
>>chap.
>
>
> "Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
> personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
> the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
> their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
> remedies to try before then?
>

It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.

> It's whining.
>
> Bill Smith

[Andrew Rowley]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote:

>It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
>subject.

I don't know of the papers, I am just speaking from the experience of
living in a country where guns are uncommon.

>Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
>are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.

In the US, yes. I think that is largely a result of the fact that so
many people have guns, and therefore they are easy to come by. In
Australia, very few people have guns so they are much more difficult
to come by. Since no-one is likely to have a gun, your common or
garden criminal is unlikely to carry one either. If you interrupt
someone robbing your house, the likely result is that you scare the
**** out of each other and the criminal runs away.

I read that because of the rarity, a black market gun here sells for
about 4 times the price of the same gun through a gun dealer.
Guessing, a gun is probably about $1000 which would make the "street
price" $4000. How many criminals are going to pay that for something
they don't really need? Most criminals are desperate for cash for
drugs etc, if (guessing again) a hit of heroin is $20 the gun would
buy 200 hits of heroin. I think your average criminal here would be
more likely to sell the gun for the cash.

A while back the "weapon" of choice for armed robberies seemed to be
the syringe. "Give me your money or I'll prick you" :-)

Of course there are criminals with guns here. Mostly however they seem
to be higher up in the chain, and are unlikely to be robbing people on
the street or in their houses.

[Morton Davis]

"Little John" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once
> again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
> (J. Hall) two-fingered to all:
>
> |>> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
> |>> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> |>
> |>I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
> |>later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
> |>shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
> |>that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
> |>tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
> |>the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
> |>likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
> |>something.
>
> They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls.
If
> you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
> jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
both
> sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But,
they
> pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.
>
> http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1979
>
>
Even if they fired 9MM rounds, danger to the aircraft, and the passengers,
would be extremely slight.

-*MORT*-

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:13:34 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>"Little John" > wrote in message
...
>> On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
>once
>> again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
>> (J. Hall) two-fingered to all:
>>
>> |>> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
>> |>> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>> |>
>> |>I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
>> |>later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
>> |>shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
>> |>that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
>> |>tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
>> |>the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
>> |>likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
>> |>something.
>>
>> They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls.
>If
>> you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
>> jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
>both
>> sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But,
>they
>> pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.
>>
>> http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1979
>>
>>
>Even if they fired 9MM rounds, danger to the aircraft, and the passengers,
>would be extremely slight.

CITE!

>
>-*MORT*-
>


--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[Martin Hotze]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:50:52 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a heart?
>>
>
>Right. It's far better that the marshal drop his gun so the terrorists can


let's assume YOU are the marshall? what would _you_ do in *this* situation?
You are that cool? Yes? My respect.

>then take control of the airplane and kill several hundred or several
>thousand than to have a terrorist kill a passenger.

The risk of life ... as life itself is one of the riskiest things itself.
Every life ends with death.

About arming: Do you know when I saw the last weapon in real life? Tell you
what: I can't remember if it was in a shopping center about 1,5 years ago
in the US or at the airport when returning from the US (the security
personnel).

#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]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:36:02 -0000, Dave wrote:

>What's to say a terrorist doesn't claim to be a marshal when he pulls his
>weapon. Are all marshals going to be white?

for sure. clean races, you know. and of proper religious mindset. at least
he will not look like a so called "camelfuc*er"

ah well. :-/(

#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.

[Nick Cooper]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:23:43 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Shaun" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
>> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>pilots'
>> >union
>> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>board."
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>> >British
>> >> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
>"Our
>> >advice
>> >> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
>are
>> >received,
>> >> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>> >carried."
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
>> >trained
>> >> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
>deal
>> >> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>> >> >>mornign a couple of years back
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>> >>
>> >> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
>> >> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
>> >
>> >Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find
>the
>> >box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter
>is
>> >about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big
>stick
>> >of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as
>the
>> >cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
>> >members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
>> >wounds that are all the way to the bone.
>>
>> "Stanley Knife" is pretty much a generic term in the UK for any heavy-
>> or medium-duty retractable (although some aren't) utility or craft
>> knife. It's one of those cases where the brand name that came to
>> prominence first becomes the generic, even when it's not appropriate.
>> E.g. Walkman, Frisbee, Hoover, etc.
>>
>> "Box cutter" was a term unknown in the UK pre-11 Sept., and certainly
>> from the specific decription on Wikipedia, we don't have anything that
>> matches it exactly, certainly not in respect of using a single-edged
>> razor blade. In fact, that type of razor blade isn't even
>> particularly common here, either, since the double-edged type is more
>> prevalent. You will note that Wikipedia does say that a "Stanley
>> Knife" is the nearest equivalent in British English usage:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-cutter_knife
>>
>The single-edged razor blade is produced mainly for use in box cutters,
>certain scrapers used in removing decals and paint-over on glass.
>This is a box cutter: http://store6.yimg.com/I/olfablades_1750_89859 It
>costs $2.00 and will open you up real good.

First time someone's actually been able to point to a picture before.
I'm a not infrequent visitor to DIY/hardware stores, but it's
certainly not something you see on sale, even in the most well-stocked
place.

>Box cutter replacement blade:
>http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/749611_sk_md.jpg Many newer box
>cutters and utility knives use long, single-edged blades that can be snapped
>off when the point gets dull or broken.
>http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/a8/f3/7d_1.JPG

As I said, that type of single-sided blade isn't seen much in the UK.
In fact, just about the only purpose you'd see them used for would be
in audio tape splicing.

>http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/13/7e/Stanley_Utility_Knife_Blade_Shop_T
>ool_Accessories.jpg This is a USA Stanley knife blade. This is a Stanley
>Utility Knife: http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/550467_sk_md.jpg

Yes, the former is generally the sort of thing (from that basic type
up to the restractable or even those new weird-shaped ones) that would
come to mind if someone says "Stanley Knife," but the term is so
generic that it it would also be applied to the latter break-odd type
- even if it's not Stanley-branded - as well as most other heavy craft
knives.

>It's quite a bit bigger, uses a different blade, but will also open you up
>real good. Box cutters and Stanley knifes are used as slashing weapons.

Yeah, they were used a lot by football hooligans in the days when that
sort of thing was more prevalent, although I think they were more
likely to use a disposable type that doesn't appear on the Stanley
website:

http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?TYPE=CATEGORY&CATEGORY=RETRACTABLE

The closest would be the blade on the 10-127 in the bottom in a fixed
minimal plastic handle. I think they're still sold in packs of three
and are pretty much "use and throw-away".

>I used to use Stanley utility knives to score aluminum coil sheeting so
>it could be snapped apart to make facial coverings when I ran a sheet metal
>brake.

If got about five of the larger type (mixture of metal and plastic,
some Stanley, some not) lying around here, mostly because they show an
inability to stay in my toolbox. Just about the only one that seems
to be usually where it should be is the one that's in the rucksack
that goes pretty much everywhere with me.

Shaun was right to a certain degree, because thinking back to my most
recent experiences of seeing carpet-fitters at work, they're as likely
to use the larger-type Stanley knife as the more traditional (if
strcitly accurate) carpet knife.

The fact is, though, that after 11 Sept., when all the news was coming
in, people were saying, "er... what's a 'box cutter'?" and you
actually had reporters having to divert to quick explanations of
exactly what they were.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Nick Cooper]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>>>
>>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>>>
>>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>>
>>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>
>>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
>>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
>>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
>>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
>
>And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
>cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
>terminology it's none of my concern. :)

I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
"unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
would have to similarly "translate."
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Morton Davis]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:23:43 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Shaun" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> >> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
> >pilots'
> >> >union
> >> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
> >board."
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board,
the
> >> >British
> >> >> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
> >"Our
> >> >advice
> >> >> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
> >are
> >> >received,
> >> >> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
> >> >carried."
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
> >> >trained
> >> >> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
> >deal
> >> >> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >> >> >>mornign a couple of years back
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> >> >> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
> >> >
> >> >Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find
> >the
> >> >box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box
cutter
> >is
> >> >about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big
> >stick
> >> >of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as
> >the
> >> >cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
> >> >members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
> >> >wounds that are all the way to the bone.
> >>
> >> "Stanley Knife" is pretty much a generic term in the UK for any heavy-
> >> or medium-duty retractable (although some aren't) utility or craft
> >> knife. It's one of those cases where the brand name that came to
> >> prominence first becomes the generic, even when it's not appropriate.
> >> E.g. Walkman, Frisbee, Hoover, etc.
> >>
> >> "Box cutter" was a term unknown in the UK pre-11 Sept., and certainly
> >> from the specific decription on Wikipedia, we don't have anything that
> >> matches it exactly, certainly not in respect of using a single-edged
> >> razor blade. In fact, that type of razor blade isn't even
> >> particularly common here, either, since the double-edged type is more
> >> prevalent. You will note that Wikipedia does say that a "Stanley
> >> Knife" is the nearest equivalent in British English usage:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-cutter_knife
> >>
> >The single-edged razor blade is produced mainly for use in box cutters,
> >certain scrapers used in removing decals and paint-over on glass.
> >This is a box cutter: http://store6.yimg.com/I/olfablades_1750_89859 It
> >costs $2.00 and will open you up real good.
>
> First time someone's actually been able to point to a picture before.
> I'm a not infrequent visitor to DIY/hardware stores, but it's
> certainly not something you see on sale, even in the most well-stocked
> place.
>
> >Box cutter replacement blade:
> >http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/749611_sk_md.jpg Many newer
box
> >cutters and utility knives use long, single-edged blades that can be
snapped
> >off when the point gets dull or broken.
> >http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/00/a8/f3/7d_1.JPG
>
> As I said, that type of single-sided blade isn't seen much in the UK.
> In fact, just about the only purpose you'd see them used for would be
> in audio tape splicing.
>
>
>http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/13/7e/Stanley_Utility_Knife_Blade_Shop_
T
> >ool_Accessories.jpg This is a USA Stanley knife blade. This is a Stanley
> >Utility Knife: http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/SK/MD/550467_sk_md.jpg
>
> Yes, the former is generally the sort of thing (from that basic type
> up to the restractable or even those new weird-shaped ones) that would
> come to mind if someone says "Stanley Knife," but the term is so
> generic that it it would also be applied to the latter break-odd type
> - even if it's not Stanley-branded - as well as most other heavy craft
> knives.
>
> >It's quite a bit bigger, uses a different blade, but will also open you
up
> >real good. Box cutters and Stanley knifes are used as slashing weapons.
>
> Yeah, they were used a lot by football hooligans in the days when that
> sort of thing was more prevalent, although I think they were more
> likely to use a disposable type that doesn't appear on the Stanley
> website:
>
> http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?TYPE=CATEGORY&CATEGORY=RETRACTABLE
>
> The closest would be the blade on the 10-127 in the bottom in a fixed
> minimal plastic handle. I think they're still sold in packs of three
> and are pretty much "use and throw-away".
>
> >I used to use Stanley utility knives to score aluminum coil sheeting so
> >it could be snapped apart to make facial coverings when I ran a sheet
metal
> >brake.
>
> If got about five of the larger type (mixture of metal and plastic,
> some Stanley, some not) lying around here, mostly because they show an
> inability to stay in my toolbox. Just about the only one that seems
> to be usually where it should be is the one that's in the rucksack
> that goes pretty much everywhere with me.
>
> Shaun was right to a certain degree, because thinking back to my most
> recent experiences of seeing carpet-fitters at work, they're as likely
> to use the larger-type Stanley knife as the more traditional (if
> strcitly accurate) carpet knife.
>
> The fact is, though, that after 11 Sept., when all the news was coming
> in, people were saying, "er... what's a 'box cutter'?" and you
> actually had reporters having to divert to quick explanations of
> exactly what they were.
> --
> Nick Cooper
>

It took one google search to find a picture of one. They should have tried
that, but it likely made too much sense. Box cutters could easily be
concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina , in small items like checkbooks
or wallets. They're not easy to take away from an assailant because they are
so compact and sharp.

-*MORT*-

[nobody]

In article >,
"nick" > wrote:

> "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
> "Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
> "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
> flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm



They're Brits, what do you expect?

[Rob Perkins]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:54:01 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>for sure. clean races, you know. and of proper religious mindset. at least
>he will not look like a so called "camelfuc*er"

Good grief. Are you even worth taking to?

Rob

[Dave]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > >Our second amendment is there not for the personal protection (thats a
by
> > >product), but specifically to keep our government from growing so
corrupt
> > >that the people can't defend themselves against it.
> >
> > it seems the time is coming closer to use them (?)
>
> But....if we only let the "professionals" have them, where does that leave
> us? Seems Europe shoulda learned that lesson about twice last century.
>
> >
> > > Our founding fathers
> > >were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another
> tyrannical
> > >government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
> > >quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
> > >Brit's to understand.
> >
> > 96% tax bracket? where? and sources, please.
> >
>
> I was referring to the UK. I can't find any print to back it up. Where I
> got it from was a news report (Dan Rather/Tom Brokaw National news type)
> from a few years back. The report stated that at the time the "Spice
Girls"
> were moving out of the UK to avoid the high tax rate. The numbers they
used
> were that they were already in the 40% tax bracket and if their movie
"spice
> world" did well at the box office, then they would be up in the 96%
bracket.
> I about fell out of my chair, but they said it twice. I will allow the
> possibility that they were completely wrong, but this is my source.

Totally wrong asshole. The top rate of tax is 40%, the bottom rate is 20%.

30 years ago there was a top rate of 98% on unearned income over £1m (i.e.
investment income) but who would be worrying about them.

[Scout]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:00:25 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Shaun" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
pilots'
> >union
> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
board."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
> >British
> >> >>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
"Our
> >advice
> >> >>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
are
> >received,
> >> >>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
> >carried."
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
> >trained
> >> >>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
deal
> >> >>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >> >>>
> >> >>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >> >>
> >> >>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >> >>mornign a couple of years back
> >> >
> >> >You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> >>
> >> No, I meant guys carrying Stanley Knifes, but I didn't want to
> >> advertise the number one carpet cutting tool in the UK
> >
> >Stanley knives? Made by Stanley Tools, of the USA? I think you'll find
the
> >box cutters used on 9-11 to be about 1/1o the overall size. A box cutter
is
> >about 5" long, by 1" wide, by 1/8" thick. Closed, it looks like a big
stick
> >of chewing gum, but it holds a single-edged razorblade that is used as
the
> >cutting blade. Box cutters are the weapon of choice for some teen gang
> >members. They're a nasty slashing weapon that can create nasty, gaping
> >wounds that are all the way to the bone.
>
> "Stanley Knife" is pretty much a generic term in the UK for any heavy-
> or medium-duty retractable (although some aren't) utility or craft
> knife.

I accept your admission that the knives used were NOT carpet knives even by
the meaning used in the UK.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> s.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns

> >> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>In article >,
> >nick
> >> >says...
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
> >pilots'
> >> >union
> >> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
> >board."
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
> >rather
> >> >fly into
> >> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
> >that
> >> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down
as
> >a
> >> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
> >> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered
Brits
> >> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved
stunningly
> >> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
> >> >>
> >> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in
the
> >> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
> >> >
> >> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
> >> >security"?
> >>
> >> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
> >> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?
>
> >"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
> >limited to US airliners alone.
>
> >> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show
that
> >> >security was inadequate?
> >>
> >> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
> >> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
> >
> >Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was
NEVER
> >stopped.
>
> >> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
> >> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
> >> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
> >
> >Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,
thousands
> >of lives lost, many more injured.
> >
> >And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
> >
> >Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we
need
> >sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.
>
> We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
> mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
> passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
> wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
> After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
> that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
> tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
> meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
> matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
> situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
> you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
> well take the hijackers with you.


Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
passengers have died twice?

> Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
> cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
> individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
> subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
> assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
> problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
> Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
> be mistaken for a hijacker himself.

Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening manner
without cause then, wouldn't it.

Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover officers on
the ground because they might be criminals.

In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was attacked
because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or otherwise a
threat to the craft?

Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.

[Scout]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
pilots' union
> >>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
board."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
British
> >>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
"Our advice
> >>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> >>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
carried."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
trained
> >>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
deal
> >>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >>>>
> >>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >>>>mornign a couple of years back
> >>>
> >>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> >>
> >>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
> >>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
> >>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
> >>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
> >
> >And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
> >cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
> >terminology it's none of my concern. :)
>
> I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
> Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
> and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
> that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
> "unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
> would have to similarly "translate."

Except by your own admission such knives are NOT known as carpet
knives....even in the UK

[Scout]

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> > wrote:
>
> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather
deal
> >with the terrorist.
> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them
when
> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
>
> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
> door is for someone to open it.
> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.

Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:24:41 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>M (mashall): Mr terrorist, drop your gun!
>T (terrorist): drop yours or I'll shoot this *pointing* guy!
>M: no way!
>T: *bammm* - drop it now? or I shoot this *pointing again* kid here!
>M: nooooo!
>T: *bamm*
>
>what do you think? will the marshals all be little Rambos without a heart?

No, Martin. If T moves his gun towards any civilian he gets one in the
head and heart. Hardly Rambo style; only two bullets.

Rob

[Eddy_Down]

Morton Davis wrote:

> Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,

It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

>
> -*MORT*-
>
>

[LIBassbug]

Eddy_Down wrote:

>
>
> Morton Davis wrote:
>
>> Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
>
>
> It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[nick]

"LIBassbug" > wrote in message

> >> Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
,
> >
> >
> > It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>
> On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.

Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...

[nick]

"Eddy_Down" > wrote in message

> > Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
,
>
> It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.

[nick]

"Eddy_Down" > wrote in message

> > Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
,
>
> It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:25:22 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly trained
>>>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to deal
>>>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>>>
>>>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>>
>>>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
>>>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
>>>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
>>>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
>>
>>And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
>>cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
>>terminology it's none of my concern. :)
>
>I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
>Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
>and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
>that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
>"unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
>would have to similarly "translate."
>--
>Nick Cooper

Actually Nick, it's you being a twit in not recognizing Shaun is
posting from antu. :)

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> >> s.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns

>> >> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>In article >,
>> >nick
>> >> >says...
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>> >pilots'
>> >> >union
>> >> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>> >board."
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would
>> >rather
>> >> >fly into
>> >> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice
>> >that
>> >> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down
>as
>> >a
>> >> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
>> >> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered
>Brits
>> >> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved
>stunningly
>> >> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in
>the
>> >> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
>> >> >security"?
>> >>
>> >> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
>> >> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?
>>
>> >"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
>> >limited to US airliners alone.
>>
>> >> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show
>that
>> >> >security was inadequate?
>> >>
>> >> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
>> >> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
>> >
>> >Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was
>NEVER
>> >stopped.
>>
>> >> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
>> >> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
>> >> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
>> >
>> >Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,
>thousands
>> >of lives lost, many more injured.
>> >
>> >And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
>> >
>> >Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we
>need
>> >sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.
>>
>> We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
>> mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
>> passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
>> wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
>> After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
>> that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
>> tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
>> meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
>> matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
>> situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
>> you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
>> well take the hijackers with you.
>
>
>Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
>having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
>passengers have died twice?

How would having a SM on board have helped? The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?


>> Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
>> cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
>> individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
>> subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
>> assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
>> problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
>> Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
>> be mistaken for a hijacker himself.
>
>Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening manner
>without cause then, wouldn't it.
>
>Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover officers on
>the ground because they might be criminals.

Faulty attempt at comparisons. Draw a gun in the middle of Times
Square New Years Eve and start pointing it at everyone and see how
many people jump you. You won't have anyone asking you to show your
police badge or credentials. Only after you're beaten to a pulp will
they'll look in your pockets. :)

>In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was attacked
>because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or otherwise a
>threat to the craft?

There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
before he ever gets a chance to do anything.

>Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.

Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.
:)

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather
>deal
>> >with the terrorist.
>> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
>> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them
>when
>> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
>>
>> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
>> door is for someone to open it.
>> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
>> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
>
>Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people armed
>with nothing more than a drink cart.

How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?

[Gregory Procter]

Eddy_Down wrote:

> Morton Davis wrote:
>
> > Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
>
> It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

Errr, isn't Floriduh a completely different planet?

[Gregory Procter]

"John A. Stovall" wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> > wrote:
>
> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather deal
> >with the terrorist.
>
> In over 85% of all persons shot with a hand gun of any caliber
> survive.

What percentage of hand gun bullets are actually deliberately fired with the
intention to kill said persons?

[AH#49]

Bogart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:

> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
> >passengers have died twice?
>
> How would having a SM on board have helped?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."


> The 4th plane didn't know
> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Yup... Rambo always burns off the entire clip...

Denny's Airline - Where passengers are strongly encouraged to bear arms...

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in If T moves his gun towards
any civilian he gets one in the
> head and heart. Hardly Rambo style; only two bullets.
>
> Rob

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> s.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> >> s.com...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
>
> >> >> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton >
wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>In article
>,
> >> >nick
> >> >> >says...
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
> >> >pilots'
> >> >> >union
> >> >> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
> >> >board."
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots
would
> >> >rather
> >> >> >fly into
> >> >> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on
notice
> >> >that
> >> >> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot
down
> >as
> >> >a
> >> >> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a
low
> >> >> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered
> >Brits
> >> >> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved
> >stunningly
> >> >> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked
in
> >the
> >> >> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper
"airline
> >> >> >security"?
> >> >>
> >> >> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
> >> >> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?
> >>
> >> >"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
> >> >limited to US airliners alone.
> >>
> >> >> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to
show
> >that
> >> >> >security was inadequate?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to
my
> >> >> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
> >> >
> >> >Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was
> >NEVER
> >> >stopped.
> >>
> >> >> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct
answers
> >> >> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it
relates
> >> >> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
> >> >
> >> >Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,
> >thousands
> >> >of lives lost, many more injured.
> >> >
> >> >And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
> >> >
> >> >Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we
> >need
> >> >sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.
> >>
> >> We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
> >> mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
> >> passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
> >> wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
> >> After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
> >> that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
> >> tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
> >> meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
> >> matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
> >> situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
> >> you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
> >> well take the hijackers with you.
> >
> >
> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
how
> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
> >passengers have died twice?
>
> How would having a SM on board have helped? The 4th plane didn't know
> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

Well, see unlike the passengers who are basically taught not to interfer,
the sky marshals have a slightly different objective, and probably would
have taken action prior to their complete takeover.

However, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a SM onboard would have
made things worse.


> >> Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
> >> cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
> >> individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
> >> subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
> >> assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
> >> problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
> >> Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
> >> be mistaken for a hijacker himself.
> >
> >Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening
manner
> >without cause then, wouldn't it.
> >
> >Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover officers
on
> >the ground because they might be criminals.
>
> Faulty attempt at comparisons. Draw a gun in the middle of Times
> Square New Years Eve and start pointing it at everyone and see how
> many people jump you. You won't have anyone asking you to show your
> police badge or credentials. Only after you're beaten to a pulp will
> they'll look in your pockets. :)

Speaking of faulty comparisons.....are you really suggesting that a SM is
going to suddenly jump up in the plane and start waving his gun around and
pointing it at everyone?

Seems like the only faulty comparison is yours.



> >In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was
attacked
> >because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or otherwise
a
> >threat to the craft?
>
> There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
> attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
> the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
> before he ever gets a chance to do anything.

Perhaps, but very unlikely, since the people will know who the terrorists
are long before the SM takes action.

So tell me, how often is an undercover officer jumped while trying to stop a
mugging? Seems people are pretty well able to tell who is the real threat,
and who is protecting everyone else.


> >Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.
>
> Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.

Cite please, that SMs feel they are more likely to be seen as a threat than
as an aid.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
rather
> >deal
> >> >with the terrorist.
> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them
> >when
> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
> >>
> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
> >> door is for someone to open it.
> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
> >
> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people
armed
> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
>
> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?

They rammed the door with it.

[Colin Kingsbury]

Reminds me of an old Patton quote- "Fixed defenses are tributes to the
stupidity of mankind."

Guns or no, the best defense against hijackers will be the pax themselves-
of course if the hijackers manage to get some weapons on board first then
more pax will be killed than necessary, but I don't see terrorists being
able to do anything more than down the plane. 9/11 succeded only because of
its novelty.

-cwk.

"Scout" > wrote in message
. ..
> > The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
> > door is for someone to open it.
>
> Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people
armed
> with nothing more than a drink cart.
>
>
>

[Gregory Procter]

LIBassbug wrote:

> Eddy_Down wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Morton Davis wrote:
> >
> >> Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
> >
> >
> > It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>
> On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.

You have (5) very small fingers?

[Nick Cooper]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:02:55 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
>> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
>> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >>>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>pilots' union
>> >>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>board."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>British
>> >>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
>"Our advice
>> >>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
>received,
>> >>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>carried."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
>trained
>> >>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
>deal
>> >>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>> >>>>mornign a couple of years back
>> >>>
>> >>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>> >>
>> >>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
>> >>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
>> >>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
>> >>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
>> >
>> >And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
>> >cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
>> >terminology it's none of my concern. :)
>>
>> I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
>> Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
>> and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
>> that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
>> "unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
>> would have to similarly "translate."
>
>Except by your own admission such knives are NOT known as carpet
>knives....even in the UK

Although to be fair, as I've said, they are used by carpet fitters.

--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[pacplyer]

Bill Funk > wrote
>
> Well, now, wait a sec...
> Nick's complaining that the British pilots aren't sure abou the
> efficacy of having BRITISH marshals on board.
> I can see that. They have so little actual experience with guns, you
> know. There's no telling whether they actually know what to do with
> them.
>
> "We want to hear that the captain will be the one in command of the
> aircraft at all times, we seek reassurances about the weapons to be
> used and the training given."

Finally, someone understands what this is really about. You can only
have one Captain on the ship. Good post Bill. Appologies to my
friends across the Atlantic for the poor behavior of some of the
posters here. As you can see there are drawbacks to supplying cheap
computers and flight simulators to the common masses...

pacplyer

[Mongo Jones]

>In talk.politics.guns "Dave" > wrote:

>
>"Mongo Jones" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> >In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, nick
>says...
>> >>
>> >>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
>union
>> >>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>> >
>> >Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather fly
>into
>> >buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>> >
>> >They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>>
>> We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
>> any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
>> precautionary measure.
>
>So what new? In both Gulf wars the British lost more aircraft to so called
>friendly fire than enemy action. So why change the habits of a life time. If
>it moves shoot it.

<Picard>
Make it so.
</Picard>

[LIBassbug]

Gregory Procter wrote:

>
> LIBassbug wrote:
>
>
>>Eddy_Down wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Morton Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
>>>
>>>
>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>
>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>
>
> You have (5) very small fingers?

Is that a proposition?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[Scout]

"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:02:55 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
> >> >>>>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
> >pilots' union
> >> >>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
> >board."
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
> >British
> >> >>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
> >"Our advice
> >> >>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
are
> >received,
> >> >>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
> >carried."
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
> >trained
> >> >>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
> >deal
> >> >>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
> >> >>>>mornign a couple of years back
> >> >>>
> >> >>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
> >> >>
> >> >>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
> >> >>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
> >> >>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
> >> >>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
> >> >
> >> >And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
> >> >cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
> >> >terminology it's none of my concern. :)
> >>
> >> I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
> >> Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
> >> and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
> >> that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
> >> "unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
> >> would have to similarly "translate."
> >
> >Except by your own admission such knives are NOT known as carpet
> >knives....even in the UK
>
> Although to be fair, as I've said, they are used by carpet fitters.

So are many other tools, but that doesn't make them carpet knives. Your
inability to admit to error is noted.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Bill Funk > wrote
>
> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked,
> bullet proof door is for someone to open it.
> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think
> that having the pilots open that door is a really good idea.

Wouldn't the pilots have to open the door at some point
to go to the bathroom or for the stewardess to serve them
food and coffee?

[Nick Cooper]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:18:26 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:02:55 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>> >message ...
>> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
>> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
>> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>> >> >>>>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>> >pilots' union
>> >> >>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>> >board."
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>> >British
>> >> >>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
>> >"Our advice
>> >> >>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
>are
>> >received,
>> >> >>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>> >carried."
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
>> >trained
>> >> >>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
>> >deal
>> >> >>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>> >> >>>>mornign a couple of years back
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
>> >> >>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
>> >> >>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
>> >> >>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
>> >> >
>> >> >And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
>> >> >cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
>> >> >terminology it's none of my concern. :)
>> >>
>> >> I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
>> >> Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
>> >> and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
>> >> that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
>> >> "unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
>> >> would have to similarly "translate."
>> >
>> >Except by your own admission such knives are NOT known as carpet
>> >knives....even in the UK
>>
>> Although to be fair, as I've said, they are used by carpet fitters.
>
>So are many other tools, but that doesn't make them carpet knives. Your
>inability to admit to error is noted.

Your inability to work out exactly who said what is noted.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk

[Little John]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:25:56 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, Dave
Whitmarsh > two-fingered to all:

|>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:13:34 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:
|>
|>>
|>>"Little John" > wrote in message
...
|>>> On 31 Dec 2003 07:39:33 -0800, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
|>>once
|>>> again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
|>>> (J. Hall) two-fingered to all:
|>>>
|>>> |>> And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
|>>> |>> who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
|>>> |>
|>>> |>I love that phrase "**** whiskers". I'll have to make a note of it for
|>>> |>later use...which brings us on to another point- there is a fear that
|>>> |>shooting in a plane might accidently depressurize the plane. The fact
|>>> |>that the 7000 series aluminium alloys modern planes are made of have a
|>>> |>tensile strength similar to mild steel does not count. I don't think
|>>> |>the marshalls will be firing armour peircing rounds in the plane; most
|>>> |>likely they will be using those JHP ones that flatten when they hit
|>>> |>something.
|>>>
|>>> They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls.
|>>If
|>>> you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
|>>> jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
|>>both
|>>> sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But,
|>>they
|>>> pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.
|>>>
|>>> http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1979
|>>>
|>>>
|>>Even if they fired 9MM rounds, danger to the aircraft, and the passengers,
|>>would be extremely slight.
|>
|>CITE!

Go to the link above. It's not difficult to glean that the real concern when
using standard bullets is hydraulic lines and power/control cables. The chances
are quite slim, considering the routing of these lines, for a bullet fired at a
would be hijacker to hit one of them. Slight, but not totally beyond concern.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Little John]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, AH#49
<"Asshole™#49"@ your.net> two-fingered to all:

|>Bogart wrote:
|>>
|>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
|>> > wrote:
|>
|>> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
|>> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
|>> >passengers have died twice?
|>>
|>> How would having a SM on board have helped?
|>
|>Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
|>gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
|>Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
|>
|>
|>> The 4th plane didn't know
|>> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
|>> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
|>> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
|>
|> He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
|>to get inside.
|>After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
|>enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?
|>
|>And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
|>passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
|>"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

14 psi will barely give 'em a hickey if they stick their neck on it.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:02:54 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> >> s.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> >> >> s.com...
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
>>
>> >> >> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton >
>wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>In article
>,
>> >> >nick
>> >> >> >says...
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>> >> >pilots'
>> >> >> >union
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>> >> >board."
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots
>would
>> >> >rather
>> >> >> >fly into
>> >> >> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on
>notice
>> >> >that
>> >> >> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot
>down
>> >as
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a
>low
>> >> >> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered
>> >Brits
>> >> >> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved
>> >stunningly
>> >> >> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked
>in
>> >the
>> >> >> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper
>"airline
>> >> >> >security"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
>> >> >> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?
>> >>
>> >> >"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
>> >> >limited to US airliners alone.
>> >>
>> >> >> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to
>show
>> >that
>> >> >> >security was inadequate?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to
>my
>> >> >> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was
>> >NEVER
>> >> >stopped.
>> >>
>> >> >> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct
>answers
>> >> >> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it
>relates
>> >> >> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
>> >> >
>> >> >Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,
>> >thousands
>> >> >of lives lost, many more injured.
>> >> >
>> >> >And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we
>> >need
>> >> >sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.
>> >>
>> >> We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
>> >> mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
>> >> passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
>> >> wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
>> >> After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
>> >> that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
>> >> tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
>> >> meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
>> >> matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
>> >> situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
>> >> you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
>> >> well take the hijackers with you.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
>how
>> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
>> >passengers have died twice?
>>
>> How would having a SM on board have helped? The 4th plane didn't know
>> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
>> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
>> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
>
>Well, see unlike the passengers who are basically taught not to interfer,
>the sky marshals have a slightly different objective, and probably would
>have taken action prior to their complete takeover.

That's an assumption on your part.

>However, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a SM onboard would have
>made things worse.

I thought you understood by my counterpoint that I feel they would
have made no difference in that 4th plane. One hijacker claimed he
had a bomb. Until the passengers were allowed to use their cell
phones, the other hijackers being already in the cockpit with the
pilots dead, they thought the plane was returning back to the
Washington DC area. The SM now kills the hijacker with the bomb, or
supposed bomb and they all rush the cockpit. Hijackers in cockpit
crash the plane intentionally or they fly around until the plane runs
out of fuel and they crash then. The SM didn't makes things worse,
no was he of any assistance.

>> >> Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
>> >> cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
>> >> individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
>> >> subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
>> >> assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
>> >> problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
>> >> Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
>> >> be mistaken for a hijacker himself.
>> >
>> >Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening
>manner
>> >without cause then, wouldn't it.
>> >
>> >Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover officers
>on
>> >the ground because they might be criminals.
>>
>> Faulty attempt at comparisons. Draw a gun in the middle of Times
>> Square New Years Eve and start pointing it at everyone and see how
>> many people jump you. You won't have anyone asking you to show your
>> police badge or credentials. Only after you're beaten to a pulp will
>> they'll look in your pockets. :)
>
>Speaking of faulty comparisons.....are you really suggesting that a SM is
>going to suddenly jump up in the plane and start waving his gun around and
>pointing it at everyone?

Is that what you really got from what I wrote? At some point if the
SM is to take action he has to use some sort of force. How do you
suggest he draw out a gun or other weapon and not be jumped by
passengers in the post 9/11 era without announcing he's the SM. At
that point he loses the advantage of surprise.

>Seems like the only faulty comparison is yours.

You're not reading it correctly.


>> >In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was
>attacked
>> >because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or otherwise
>a
>> >threat to the craft?
>>
>> There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
>> attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
>> the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
>> before he ever gets a chance to do anything.
>
>Perhaps, but very unlikely, since the people will know who the terrorists
>are long before the SM takes action.

Really? You honestly think that now with SM's on board it hasn't
occurred to the hijackers to bring an extra man on for the purpose of
taking out the SM?


>So tell me, how often is an undercover officer jumped while trying to stop a
>mugging? Seems people are pretty well able to tell who is the real threat,
>and who is protecting everyone else.

You seem less than adept at figuring it out.

>> >Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.
>>
>> Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.
>
>Cite please, that SMs feel they are more likely to be seen as a threat than
>as an aid.

Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.

Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 06:27:48 +1300, Gregory Procter
> wrote:

>
>
>Eddy_Down wrote:
>
>> Morton Davis wrote:
>>
>> > Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
>>
>> It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>
>Errr, isn't Floriduh a completely different planet?

You claim the moon is a planet too, Socky. :)

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:54:36 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:18:26 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>>message ...
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:02:55 GMT, "Scout"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Nick Cooper" > wrote in
>>> >message ...
>>> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:27:48 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:06:46 GMT,
>>> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:32:14 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>> >> >>wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:25:04 GMT,
>>> >> (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:06:08 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>> >> >>>>wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:12:56 +0000, Shaun
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:06:55 GMT, " Bogart " >
>>> >> >>>>>>wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline
>>> >pilots' union
>>> >> >>>>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on
>>> >board."
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
>>> >British
>>> >> >>>>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said:
>>> >"Our advice
>>> >> >>>>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances
>>are
>>> >received,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
>>> >carried."
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>Maybe you 'fraidy cats would like us to loan you some properly
>>> >trained
>>> >> >>>>>>>US Sky Marshals? :)
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>Are they as cowardly as the US passengers who were too scared to
>>> >deal
>>> >> >>>>>>with four arabs armed with carpet knifes
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>What 4 Arabs armed with Carpet knives? :)
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>The ones on three out of four planes that took off one September
>>> >> >>>>mornign a couple of years back
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>You mean the guys carrying BOX CUTTERS? :)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Maybe you should have read the thread properly. I merely pointed out
>>> >> >>what Shaun was obviously refering to when Bogart either didn't or
>>> >> >>pretended not to understand. Incidentally, not everyone calls them
>>> >> >>"box cutters" - the term was certainly unknown in the UK beforehand.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >And Mort twice took the time to point out the difference between box
>>> >> >cutters and carpet knives. If neither Shaun nor you understand the
>>> >> >terminology it's none of my concern. :)
>>> >>
>>> >> I think it was more a case of you making a mountain out of a molehill.
>>> >> Neither the term nor the item itself is generally familiar in the UK
>>> >> and Shaun - perhaps imperfectly - simply used the nearest equivalent
>>> >> that _is_ recognised here. I'm sure we could come up with lots of
>>> >> "unfamiliar" terms for things that you don't have in the US that you
>>> >> would have to similarly "translate."
>>> >
>>> >Except by your own admission such knives are NOT known as carpet
>>> >knives....even in the UK
>>>
>>> Although to be fair, as I've said, they are used by carpet fitters.
>>
>>So are many other tools, but that doesn't make them carpet knives. Your
>>inability to admit to error is noted.
>
>Your inability to work out exactly who said what is noted.

His grasp of what someone has actually written seems to conflict with
his set pre-concieved agenda.

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
>rather
>> >deal
>> >> >with the terrorist.
>> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
>> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them
>> >when
>> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?
>> >>
>> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
>> >> door is for someone to open it.
>> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
>> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
>> >
>> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people
>armed
>> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
>>
>> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
>
>They rammed the door with it.

You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
drink cart? Cite please.

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"Asshole™#49"@ your.net>
wrote:

>Bogart wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
>> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
>> >passengers have died twice?
>>
>> How would having a SM on board have helped?
>
>Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
>gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
>Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.


>> The 4th plane didn't know
>> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
>> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
>> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
>
> He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
>to get inside.
>After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
>enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself. Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

>And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
>passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
>"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

[Dave]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Thomas Heide wrote:
>
> > You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out
how
> > an unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing
> > tour around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before
you
> > think about arming sky marshalls.
>
> Since that's not what occurred, why should we try to figure that out?
>
> The pilot was "noticed" very quickly. In fact, the "problem" was that he
> flew into a tightly controlled airspace (class B, in case you're familiar
> with this) w/o clearance from the controlling agency. By definition, he
> was seen as soon as he did that.
>
> Separate from that - actually, he was probably outside of the controlled
> airspace at this point, but it depends upon his altitude - he circled the
> statue. Scores of pilots, commercial and private, do this every [fair
> weather] day. I did it myself a few hours after this fellow, in fact.
>
>
>
> I'm by no means excusing his incursion into the airspace w/o a clearance.
> That's a "no no", and somewhat dangerous besides (there's a reason why
this
> airspace is more tightly controlled than other airspace). But he was
> noticed, he was intercepted, and there's not a damned thing wrong with
> circling the statue.
>[i]
> > And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
>
> Each nation is free to regulate its own airspace. This amendment isn't a
> law that affects anything outside our airspace, so I'm not sure why you
> think of this as "impertinent". Your country can mandate clowns on
flights
> through its airspace, should you wish.
>
> > I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.
>
> From what I've read, the pilots merely want to have established certain
> protocols involving C&C. To my mind, that seems like a smart idea. I
> assume that the nations already putting armed officers aboard aircraft
> already have these established.
>
> - Andrew
>

The text of the letter outlining the protocol principles is below. as pilots
we should be supporting fellow pilots in wanting to remain in command.
http://www.balpa.org/intranet/Letter2.pdf

after all Part 91 says the pilots is solely responsible. all I can see is
the commanders of aircraft discharging their legal duties.

[Dave]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Richard Hertz" > wrote:
> >
> > >There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes
when
> > >people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
> > >Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent
> crime.
> > >
> > >Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice
to
> be
> > >able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.
> >
> > This is a load of crap. Handguns are very rare in Australia. The
> > papers here are talking about a gangland war that has broken out here.
> > Large rewards are being offered by the police to catch the people
> > involved. This is a result of something like 24 people being killed in
> > the last 6 YEARS. When 24 people in 6 years is significant, I don't
> > think the rate of violent crime is high.
>
> It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
> subject.
> If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
> an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
> protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
> receiving end of justified defense?
>
> As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.
>
> Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US).
Criminals
> are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.
>
>
> >
> > Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
> > largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
> > that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
> > before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
> > pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.
>
> No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
> crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.

Ignorance abounds. In Switzerland they have a very small standing army and
every man is basically a reservist. By law he is required to have easy
access to his gun in case of mobilisation. Hence it is kept at home but it
is strictly for national defense.

Is that not the original reason for the second amendment. The right to bear
arms was a national defensive measure not an excuse for every jerk to own a
gun and play cowboys and indians.

[Dave]

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote:
>
> >It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying
the
> >subject.
>
> I don't know of the papers, I am just speaking from the experience of
> living in a country where guns are uncommon.
>
> >Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US).
Criminals
> >are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.
>
> In the US, yes. I think that is largely a result of the fact that so
> many people have guns, and therefore they are easy to come by.

In the UK handguns are used by criminals and Americans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3360577.stm

The criminals tend to use them for shooting each other as they compete.

[Bill Smith]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:38:54 GMT, Eddy_Down
> wrote:

>
>
>Bill Smith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>>>>>
>>>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
>>>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>>>>>
>>>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
>>>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
>>>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>>>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
>>>>and tragically stupid.
>>>> Bill Smith
>>>
>>>Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
>>>chap.
>>
>>
>> "Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
>> personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
>> the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
>> their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
>> remedies to try before then?
>>
>
>It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.
>

Sure, all they have to do now is get enough of them and then actually
use them. All that deals with is weapons brought on by passengers, not
those stashed by aircraft "service" workers.


Bill Smith

[LIBassbug]

nick wrote:

> "Eddy_Down" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
>
> ,
>
>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>
>
> When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.

What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[LIBassbug]

nick wrote:

> "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
>
> ,
>
>>>
>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>
>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>
>
> Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...

Florida.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[AH#49]

Bogart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"Asshole™#49"@ your.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bogart wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
> >> >passengers have died twice?
> >>
> >> How would having a SM on board have helped?
> >
> >Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
> >gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
> >Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
>
> Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
> slaughter all the first class passengers first.


Let them try then.
I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!
Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
just in case.


>
> >> The 4th plane didn't know
> >> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
> >> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
> >> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
> >
> > He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
> >to get inside.
> >After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
> >enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?
>
> You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
> of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
> control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
> bomb strapped to himself.

Like terrorists are trustworthy?
Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

> Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
> don't know.

Exactly.
Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
I say we arm the people to the teeth.



> >And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
> >passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
> >"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.
>
> I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
> inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
> fuselage.

I am sure there is.
But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
plant below, so be it!
The flight is doomed or survivable.
I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

[juan fandango]

"nick" > wrote in message
...
> "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
> "Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
> "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
> flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
>
That's fine with us. BTW, President Bush won't let you into US airspace
without a marshal on board.
Happy (local) flying.

[AH#49]

Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
> > Bill Funk > wrote
> >
> > The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked,
> > bullet proof door is for someone to open it.
> > The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think
> > that having the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
>
> Wouldn't the pilots have to open the door at some point
> to go to the bathroom or for the stewardess to serve them
> food and coffee?

Why not?
Your point?
With SIMPLE safe guards, that is a SUPER simple and easy task to
accomplish without risk to passengers or the flight crew, let alone any
target below even IF that system was breached.

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 at 17:22:56 in message
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

>I believe that the airlines' (and FAA's) policy of acquiescense to
>hijackers' demands lies at the root of the 9/11 problem.
>
>If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
>never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.
>
>The first one who came through the door would have gotten a splitting
>headache (via fire axe) and that would have been the end of that.

I tend to agree with that, but the root of the problem goes back a long
way. It began when we at first almost welcomed those who hijacked
aircraft to escape form East Berlin and made jokes about people ordering
airline crews to 'Take me to Cuba' or away from it - same things apply.
9/11 brought an abrupt end to 'peaceful hijacking'.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 at 09:04:34 in message
>, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>> Our founding fathers
>>were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another tyrannical
>>government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
>>quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
>>Brit's to understand.
>
>96% tax bracket? where? and sources, please.

Back in the 1950s we had tax brackets like that but they have long since
gone. The top tax bracket is now 40% but other taxes of various kinds
are involved.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 at 02:05:34 in message
>, Richard Hertz
> wrote:
>If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
>an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
>protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
>receiving end of justified defense?
>
>As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.
>
>Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
>are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.

Indeed. Since all hand guns were banned in the UK only the police and
criminals have them. The latter seem to have no trouble obtaining them.
There are now more gun crimes than ever before. The British police are
not routinely armed but you will see armed police at Heathrow airport on
a regular basis. And armed police are rapidly available. Most UK forces
have ARV (Armed Response Vehicles) out on the streets.
--
David CL Francis

[Morton Davis]

"juan fandango" > wrote in message
news:Oc3Jb.45072$m83.25249@fed1read01...
>
> "nick" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
> > called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >
> > "Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> > Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >
> > "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
advice
> > to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
> received,
> > flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >
> That's fine with us. BTW, President Bush won't let you into US airspace
> without a marshal on board.
> Happy (local) flying.
>
> Yes, he will, spread out in tiny pieces along a stretch of coastline.

-*MORT*-

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:02:54 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> s.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> >> s.com...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> >> >> s.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>>In talk.politics.guns
> >>
> >> >> >> >(Nick Cooper) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton >
> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>In article
> >,
> >> >> >nick
> >> >> >> >says...
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the
airline
> >> >> >pilots'
> >> >> >> >union
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals
on
> >> >> >board."
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots
> >would
> >> >> >rather
> >> >> >> >fly into
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>buildings than have armed POLICE on board.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on
> >notice
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >> >> >>>>any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be
shot
> >down
> >> >as
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >> >>>>precautionary measure.
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such
a
> >low
> >> >> >> >> >>>opinion of America>>>?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>And you honestly think we give a **** about some
****-whiskered
> >> >Brits
> >> >> >> >> >>who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved
> >> >stunningly
> >> >> >> >> >effective at stopping planes being hijacked
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked
> >in
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking? :)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper
> >"airline
> >> >> >> >security"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner
was
> >> >> >> hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?
> >> >>
> >> >> >"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking
aren't
> >> >> >limited to US airliners alone.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to
> >show
> >> >that
> >> >> >> >security was inadequate?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly
to
> >my
> >> >> >> second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking
was
> >> >NEVER
> >> >> >stopped.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct
> >answers
> >> >> >> which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it
> >relates
> >> >> >> to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,
> >> >thousands
> >> >> >of lives lost, many more injured.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether
we
> >> >need
> >> >> >sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.
> >> >>
> >> >> We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11
the
> >> >> mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
> >> >> passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
> >> >> wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
> >> >> After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
> >> >> that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
> >> >> tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
> >> >> meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
> >> >> matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with
this
> >> >> situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft
otherwise
> >> >> you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might
as
> >> >> well take the hijackers with you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
> >how
> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
those
> >> >passengers have died twice?
> >>
> >> How would having a SM on board have helped? The 4th plane didn't know
> >> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
> >> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
> >> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
> >
> >Well, see unlike the passengers who are basically taught not to interfer,
> >the sky marshals have a slightly different objective, and probably would
> >have taken action prior to their complete takeover.
>
> That's an assumption on your part.

True, but since that was pretty much SOP for SM even prior to 9/11. I think
it's a fairly safe assumption to make.

> >However, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a SM onboard would have
> >made things worse.
>
> I thought you understood by my counterpoint that I feel they would
> have made no difference in that 4th plane.

In short, they wouldn't have done any harm. So why NOT have SM's then? I
mean on one hand they could save everyone, on the other they couldn't make
things any worse. So what's your beef?


> One hijacker claimed he
> had a bomb. Until the passengers were allowed to use their cell
> phones, the other hijackers being already in the cockpit with the
> pilots dead, they thought the plane was returning back to the
> Washington DC area. The SM now kills the hijacker with the bomb, or
> supposed bomb and they all rush the cockpit. Hijackers in cockpit
> crash the plane intentionally or they fly around until the plane runs
> out of fuel and they crash then. The SM didn't makes things worse,
> no was he of any assistance.

True, or he could have taken action to prevent the cockpit from being taken
over, and thus saved everyone.

I'm still looking for the problem you claim exists.


> >> >> Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
> >> >> cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
> >> >> individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were
either
> >> >> subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
> >> >> assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
> >> >> problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
> >> >> Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he
could
> >> >> be mistaken for a hijacker himself.
> >> >
> >> >Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening
> >manner
> >> >without cause then, wouldn't it.
> >> >
> >> >Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover
officers
> >on
> >> >the ground because they might be criminals.
> >>
> >> Faulty attempt at comparisons. Draw a gun in the middle of Times
> >> Square New Years Eve and start pointing it at everyone and see how
> >> many people jump you. You won't have anyone asking you to show your
> >> police badge or credentials. Only after you're beaten to a pulp will
> >> they'll look in your pockets. :)
> >
> >Speaking of faulty comparisons.....are you really suggesting that a SM is
> >going to suddenly jump up in the plane and start waving his gun around
and
> >pointing it at everyone?
>
> Is that what you really got from what I wrote? At some point if the
> SM is to take action he has to use some sort of force. How do you
> suggest he draw out a gun or other weapon and not be jumped by
> passengers in the post 9/11 era without announcing he's the SM. At
> that point he loses the advantage of surprise.

Well, let's see, a bunch of terrorists have/are taking over the plane, a
well dressed man is attempting to quitely draw a gun without attracting the
attention of the terrorists.....why exactly should anyone assume that he is
a terrorist himself?

I mean according to you an undercover officer shouldn't take action during
an armed robbery, after all, someone might mistake him for a criminal,
except that I don't think you can come up with any cases of this happening.

Seems people are pretty clear on who the real threats are.


> >Seems like the only faulty comparison is yours.
>
> You're not reading it correctly.

Right, I should wrongfully assume that people are so stupid that they can't
differentiate between criminals and law enforcement.


> >> >In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was
> >attacked
> >> >because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or
otherwise
> >a
> >> >threat to the craft?
> >>
> >> There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
> >> attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
> >> the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
> >> before he ever gets a chance to do anything.
> >
> >Perhaps, but very unlikely, since the people will know who the terrorists
> >are long before the SM takes action.
>
> Really? You honestly think that now with SM's on board it hasn't
> occurred to the hijackers to bring an extra man on for the purpose of
> taking out the SM?

I will note your inability to show a single case where the SM was jumped by
passengers who thought he was a threat.

Further I still fail to see how the presence of the SM can make things any
worse.


> >So tell me, how often is an undercover officer jumped while trying to
stop a
> >mugging? Seems people are pretty well able to tell who is the real
threat,
> >and who is protecting everyone else.
>
> You seem less than adept at figuring it out.

On the contrary, you are the one that seems to feel that anyone with a gun
is automatically a criminal and a threat.


> >> >Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.
> >>
> >> Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.
> >
> >Cite please, that SMs feel they are more likely to be seen as a threat
than
> >as an aid.
>
> Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
> they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
> I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
> personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.
>
> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)

So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be seen
as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part of
the problem?

Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
they hold.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 06:27:48 +1300, Gregory Procter
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Eddy_Down wrote:
> >
> >> Morton Davis wrote:
> >>
> >> > Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
vagina ,
> >>
> >> It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >
> >Errr, isn't Floriduh a completely different planet?
>
> You claim the moon is a planet too, Socky. :)

Actually, there has been some serious consideration to the notation that
it's really a pair of planets in mutual orbit, which would mean the moon
really isn't a moon, but a planet. There are also notions that at least one
currently "planet" should be reclassified as something else.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"AssholeT#49"@ your.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bogart wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
how
> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
those
> >> >passengers have died twice?
> >>
> >> How would having a SM on board have helped?
> >
> >Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
> >gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
> >Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
>
> Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
> slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free fire
zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.

Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the air
have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change in
attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...

< snip>

>> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)
>
>So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be seen
>as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
>people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part of
>the problem?

I've explained it to you twice. That's it.

>Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
>they hold.

You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
personal contacts.

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:34:21 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"AssholeT#49"@ your.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bogart wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
>how
>> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
>those
>> >> >passengers have died twice?
>> >>
>> >> How would having a SM on board have helped?
>> >
>> >Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
>> >gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
>> >Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
>>
>> Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
>> slaughter all the first class passengers first.
>
>Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free fire
>zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.
>
>Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the air
>have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change in
>attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
different in the air as opposed to on the ground. I've explained this
to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
time. You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature. You're
in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
subdued. I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
passengers took care of the threat immediately.

I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.
I don't intend to argue it further with you.

[Gregory Procter]

LIBassbug wrote:

> Gregory Procter wrote:
>
> >
> > LIBassbug wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Eddy_Down wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Morton Davis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >>
> >>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
> >
> >
> > You have (5) very small fingers?
>
> Is that a proposition?

No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.

[Bogart]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:45:03 GMT, AH#49 <"Asshole™#49"@ your.net>
wrote:

>Bogart wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"Asshole™#49"@ your.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bogart wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
>> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
>> >> >passengers have died twice?
>> >>
>> >> How would having a SM on board have helped?
>> >
>> >Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
>> >gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
>> >Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
>>
>> Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
>> slaughter all the first class passengers first.
>
>
>Let them try then.
> I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
>faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
> After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!

You and every other able bodied passenger are going to handle the
situation as the passengers on three planes have done since 9/11.

>Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
>just in case.

I have no objections, as long as they're trained to handle the gun
they're issued.

>> >> The 4th plane didn't know
>> >> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
>> >> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
>> >> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
>> >
>> > He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
>> >to get inside.
>> >After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
>> >enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?
>>
>> You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
>> of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
>> control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
>> bomb strapped to himself.
>
>Like terrorists are trustworthy?
> Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

Again, prior to learning about the other three planes, why would those
on the Pennsylvania flight doubt they had a bomb on board? Why would
think they were not returning to the airport? Remember, prior to 9/11
domestic hijackings ended up in Cuba, passengers and plain unharmed.
No one knew they were on a suicide mission on 9/11.

>> Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
>> don't know.
>
>Exactly.
>Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
>I say we arm the people to the teeth.

Well, I'd like to make sure those armed are qualified to carry, but I
really don't think we need everyone armed to the teeth on airliners.

>> >And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
>> >passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
>> >"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.
>>
>> I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
>> inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
>> fuselage.
>
>I am sure there is.
> But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
>the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
>plant below, so be it!
>The flight is doomed or survivable.
> I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
>while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

I think one way or another there will never be another domestic
hijacking where the passengers will just sit there like sheep,
regardless of what the hijackers are armed with for weapons. If you
know you're probably going to die if you don't act, then you take the
necessary steps to either prevent the hijackers from executing their
plan where you'll die anyway, or you all die trying.

[LIBassbug]

Gregory Procter wrote:

>
> LIBassbug wrote:
>
>
>>Gregory Procter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>LIBassbug wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eddy_Down wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Morton Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have (5) very small fingers?
>>
>>Is that a proposition?
>
>
> No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.

Is that when you told me you self fist?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[Teek]

" Bogart " > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"Asshole?#49"@ your.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bogart wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
> >> >passengers have died twice?
> >>
> >> How would having a SM on board have helped?
> >
> >Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
> >gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
> >Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
>
> Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
> slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Like that will be an easy task, especially in light of your own
suggestion that the passengers wouldn't sit by while something like
this is going on.
>
>
> >> The 4th plane didn't know
> >> their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
> >> terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
> >> does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?
> >
> > He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
> >to get inside.
> >After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
> >enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?
>
> You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
> of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
> control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
> bomb strapped to himself. Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
> don't know.

The passengers who acted above the fields of Pennsylvania knew what
happened to the Trade Center Towers, and knew they were going to die
if they did nothing. Whether the air marshal takes a shot or not is
his call, based on circumstances no one anywhere can predict, but
given an opportunity with a hijacker in control of the cockpit
threatening to detonate a bomb, maybe a double-tap to the head would
do the trick.
>
> >And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
> >passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
> >"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.
>
> I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
> inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
> fuselage.

I love the idea of frangible ammo, but the problem with it has been
its lack of penetration before it fragments. The ammo needs to
penetrate reliably through the skull wall before it fragments into the
brain. Same with a torso shot; it needs to penetrate a heavy jacket,
sweater, shirt, undershirt, and breast bone and *then* fragment into
the thoracic cavity. Frangible ammo is a lot better in this regard
than it was several years ago, but it occasionally suffers from
fragmenting on contact, which diffuses the kinetic energy that should
be used to penetrate the target. The risk of damaging electrical
systems and hydraulics is real, but limited - likelihood of causing
terminal damage is minimal. The risk of hitting another passenger is
also real and much more likely. Frangible ammo reduces the likelihood
of causing an unintentional fatal injury due to overpenetration and
ricochet, but the danger of an unintentional death or dismemberment
still exists in the dynamics of an actual shooting. A piece of advice
for the air marshals, or anybody else carrying on board: Don't act
until you are damn sure you have to, and confront the situation with
enough force to end it as quickly as possible.

Teek

[Gregory Procter]

LIBassbug wrote:

> Gregory Procter wrote:
>
> >
> > LIBassbug wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Gregory Procter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>LIBassbug wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Eddy_Down wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Morton Davis wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You have (5) very small fingers?
> >>
> >>Is that a proposition?
> >
> >
> > No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.
>
> Is that when you told me you self fist?

No, when you told me you have a five finger arsehole.

[Teek]

" Bogart " > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:02:54 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:

>
> Is that what you really got from what I wrote? At some point if the
> SM is to take action he has to use some sort of force.

Agreed.

How do you
> suggest he draw out a gun or other weapon and not be jumped by
> passengers in the post 9/11 era without announcing he's the SM.

He simply acts. Quickly and decisively. Against the terrorists. It
won't take long for the passengers to figure it out once they regain
their senses from a handgun being fired in closed-in, close quarters.
However, there is a danger of the passengers jumping the air marshal
*before* shots are fired, and as the good guy's weapon is being
brought on target. This likelihood is directly proportional to the
stealth, speed and smoothness upon which the weapon is deployed. This
is done with training and practice. Lots of it.

At
> that point he loses the advantage of surprise.

Not necessarily. If he makes his presence known a tad too
early...maybe. But see my above comments.
>
> >> There hasn't been, to my knowledge, an incident involving a terrorist
> >> attempt since 9/11 when a SM was on board. If ever there is, you have
> >> the potential of having the SM attacked and subdued by the passengers
> >> before he ever gets a chance to do anything.

There has been a case of a guy with a very weak bladder that decided
to try and rush the front restroom. Two air marshals deployed
unhindered and unmolested, cuffed the "offending person", and took him
into custody. The toilet remained safe and intact from any
"internally stored, biological fluids". Both officers perhaps
deployed early. One should have been able to handle the situation,
while the other remained incognito but alert. It was sort of an
embarrassment for all parties involved, but the officers actions were
not entirely unwarranted.
> >
> >Perhaps, but very unlikely, since the people will know who the terrorists
> >are long before the SM takes action.
>
> Really? You honestly think that now with SM's on board it hasn't
> occurred to the hijackers to bring an extra man on for the purpose of
> taking out the SM?

You don't think AMs know this? I don't know if they commonly travel
in pairs, but I do know that sometimes there is more than one on
board, and not necessarily sitting together. Also, some airlines
don't have a problem with law enforcement officers carrying while
enroute to their destinations. Where are *they* sitting?
>
>
> >So tell me, how often is an undercover officer jumped while trying to stop a
> >mugging? Seems people are pretty well able to tell who is the real threat,
> >and who is protecting everyone else.
>
> You seem less than adept at figuring it out.
>
> >> >Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.
> >>
> >> Talk to a SM. There are whole lot of them who don't agree with you.
> >
> >Cite please, that SMs feel they are more likely to be seen as a threat than
> >as an aid.
>
> Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
> they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
> I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
> personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.

So what are you saying, then? That they feel like they are not needed
and feel like they aren't doing much good?

Teek
>
> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)

[Teek]

Eddy_Down > wrote in message >...
> Bill Smith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> >>>>called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
> >>>>
> >>>>"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> >>>>Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
> >>>>
> >>>>"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> >>>>to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
> >>>>flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."
> >>>>
> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
> >>>and tragically stupid.
> >>> Bill Smith
> >>
> >>Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
> >>chap.
> >
> >
> > "Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
> > personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
> > the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
> > their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
> > remedies to try before then?
> >
>
> It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.

Not everything that can be used as a weapon is detected by X-ray
machines. And not all the detectable weapons are caught. Bad guys
can be real sneaky.

Teek
>
> > It's whining.
> >
> > Bill Smith

[Richard Hertz]

> >
> > No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
> > crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.
>
> Ignorance abounds. In Switzerland they have a very small standing army and
> every man is basically a reservist. By law he is required to have easy
> access to his gun in case of mobilisation. Hence it is kept at home but it
> is strictly for national defense.

What ignorance do you see in those statement?

>
> Is that not the original reason for the second amendment. The right to
bear
> arms was a national defensive measure not an excuse for every jerk to own
a
> gun and play cowboys and indians.
>

The other ammendment discuss PERSONAL rights - thus the the right to bear
arms is given to the individual. No one is advocating playing "cowboys and
indians." It is the gun control morons who are the jerks - those who would
have us give up our rights and liberties.

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:53:05 GMT, " Bogart " >
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>< snip>
>
>>> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)
>>
>>So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be seen
>>as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
>>people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part of
>>the problem?
>
>I've explained it to you twice. That's it.

Sable sulks...

>>Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
>>they hold.
>
>You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
>personal contacts.

ie anecdotal garbage - there is no evidence to support any of your
whacky theories. you never change do you Sarah.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:


On his sexual habits:
"Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina"

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[Yardpilot]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
> >rather
> >> >deal
> >> >> >with the terrorist.
> >> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> >> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop
them
> >> >when
> >> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit
door?
> >> >>
> >> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
> >> >> door is for someone to open it.
> >> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
having
> >> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
> >> >
> >> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people
> >armed
> >> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
> >>
> >> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
> >
> >They rammed the door with it.
>
> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
> drink cart?

I don't see why it couldn't happen. A bullet proof vest won't sto0p an
icepick.

[Little John]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:50:13 +0100 (CET), in a fit of unbridled digital
verbosity, once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the
keyboard, Nomen Nescio ]> two-fingered
to all:

|>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>
|>From: Little John >
|>
|>>They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air marshalls.
If
|>>you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin copper
|>>jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through both
|>>sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left. But,
|>>they
|>>pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.
|>
|>While I like the Glasers and my wife swears by them for her .38 snubby, the US
Sky Marshalls
|>are not using them in airliners. They are now using the .357 Sig round in FMJ.

That's not what my sources say. Where'd you hear this?

The reason
|>that I've heard is that it's very effective for shooting through a hostage and
still having enough
|>energy to drop a terrorist. It makes sense, but I wouldn't want to be the
hostage.

If that's the "reasoning", it will also go through on a clean shot and damage
the airliner or an innocent passenger, something that is entirely contrary to
the mission.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Brian Burger]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Rob Perkins wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:54:01 GMT, Martin Hotze >
> wrote:
>
> >for sure. clean races, you know. and of proper religious mindset. at least
> >he will not look like a so called "camelfuc*er"
>
> Good grief. Are you even worth taking to?

Martin doesn't use smileys or <sarcasm> tags, but I'm 99.9% certain he's
being deeply, utterly sarcastic in the above comment, given some of his
past statements about current US policy and his dislike of it...

Brian.

[nick]

"LIBassbug" > wrote in message

> >>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
> >
> > ,
> >
> >>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.
>
> What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?

That's where he keeps his little chopper.

[nick]

"LIBassbug" > wrote in message

> >>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
vagina
> >
> > ,
> >
> >>>
> >>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >>
> >>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
> >
> >
> > Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
>
> Florida.

From VA downwards people get weirder.

[Eddy_Down]

nick wrote:

> "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
>
> ,
>
>>>
>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>
>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>
>
> Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
>
>

That reminds me of a show I saw in Thailand. I'm still spooked after
being hit by an airborne banana at the same venue.

[Eddy_Down]

nick wrote:

> "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
>>>
>>>,
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.
>>
>>What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?
>
>
> That's where he keeps his little chopper.
>

Reminds me of another Mort quote:

Quote from Mort on t.p.g.

What test do you have to pass before you buy a car, have sex, get
married, light a gasappliance or any of the thousands of other
activitiesthat can have dire results? NONE.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> < snip>
>
> >> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)
> >
> >So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be
seen
> >as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
> >people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part
of
> >the problem?
>
> I've explained it to you twice. That's it.
>
> >Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
> >they hold.
>
> You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
> personal contacts.

In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is so
well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
reporter?

I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:34:21 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 <"AssholeT#49"@ your.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bogart wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know
is
> >how
> >> >> >having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
> >those
> >> >> >passengers have died twice?
> >> >>
> >> >> How would having a SM on board have helped?
> >> >
> >> >Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
> >> >gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
> >> >Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."
> >>
> >> Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
> >> slaughter all the first class passengers first.
> >
> >Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free
fire
> >zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.
> >
> >Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the
air
> >have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change
in
> >attitude? Is it a function of altitude?
>
> What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
> different in the air as opposed to on the ground.

Right. Sure. Except it doesn't happen.

> I've explained this
> to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
> time.

No, you made strange assertions which make no sense.

> You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature.

And having a plane load of unarmed people is BETTER to stop them, than
having a SM on board?

Interesting how given this human nature you prefer the victims to have NO
defense.

> You're
> in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
> draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
> subdued.

So, since we have had SM on board planes since 9/11 you can show me of at
least one case of a SM being jumped like this. Seems like it doesn't happen
in reality, now does it?

> I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
> passengers took care of the threat immediately.

Yep, and they did so at extreme risk, and in every case they managed NOT to
jump the SM by mistake.

> I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.

Really?

Please present your creditials that you have any experience and personal
knowledge about airline security, self defense, and terrorists response to
have your opinion matter in the least.


> I don't intend to argue it further with you.

Then go away.

[Scout]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Little John >
>
> >They use Glasers, a bullet designed specifically for use by air
marshalls. If
> >you're unfamiliar with them, they're compressed lead shot in a thin
copper
> >jacket with a plastic tip. They're so frangible, they won't go through
both
> >sides of the typical house's drywall walls with any real force left.
But,
> >they
> >pack a helluva whollop when they hit a former bad guy.
>
> While I like the Glasers and my wife swears by them for her .38 snubby,
the US Sky Marshalls
> are not using them in airliners. They are now using the .357 Sig round in
FMJ. The reason
> that I've heard is that it's very effective for shooting through a hostage
and still having enough
> energy to drop a terrorist. It makes sense, but I wouldn't want to be the
hostage.

Given the alternative, I'm willing to accept that risk.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
> >rather
> >> >deal
> >> >> >with the terrorist.
> >> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
> >> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop
them
> >> >when
> >> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit
door?
> >> >>
> >> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
> >> >> door is for someone to open it.
> >> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
having
> >> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
> >> >
> >> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people
> >armed
> >> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
> >>
> >> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
> >
> >They rammed the door with it.
>
> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
> drink cart? Cite please.

Already provided.

Oh, and I will note your vast experience and personal knowledge is
somewhat..........limited.

[Morton Davis]

"Yardpilot" > wrote in message
news:TX8Jb.38992$xX.133717@attbi_s02...
>
> " Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
> > >rather
> > >> >deal
> > >> >> >with the terrorist.
> > >> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that
the
> > >> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop
> them
> > >> >when
> > >> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit
> door?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet
proof
> > >> >> door is for someone to open it.
> > >> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
> having
> > >> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
> > >> >
> > >> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of
people
> > >armed
> > >> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
> > >>
> > >> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
> > >
> > >They rammed the door with it.
> >
> > You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
> > drink cart?
>
> I don't see why it couldn't happen. A bullet proof vest won't sto0p an
> icepick.
>
>
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html

" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
even less protection."

-*MORT*-

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>"Yardpilot" > wrote in message
>news:TX8Jb.38992$xX.133717@attbi_s02...
>>
>> " Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> > s.com...
>> > >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
>> > >> ...
>> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd
>> > >rather
>> > >> >deal
>> > >> >> >with the terrorist.
>> > >> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that
>the
>> > >> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop
>> them
>> > >> >when
>> > >> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit
>> door?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet
>proof
>> > >> >> door is for someone to open it.
>> > >> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
>> having
>> > >> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of
>people
>> > >armed
>> > >> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
>> > >>
>> > >> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
>> > >
>> > >They rammed the door with it.
>> >
>> > You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
>> > drink cart?
>>
>> I don't see why it couldn't happen. A bullet proof vest won't sto0p an
>> icepick.
>>
>>
>http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
>
>" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
>constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
>summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
>crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
>one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
>broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
>even less protection."
>
>-*MORT*-
>

A tripod webpage as a cite? C'mon Mort, you can't truly be serious
here boy.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:


On his sexual habits:
"Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina"

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:28:35 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
> wrote:

>A tripod webpage as a cite? C'mon Mort, you can't truly be serious
>here boy.

You fail to mention: Published Friday, January 2, 2004, in Wall Street
Journal Europe

[LIBassbug]

nick wrote:

> "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
>
> vagina
>
>>>,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
>>
>>Florida.
>
>
> From VA downwards people get weirder.

I was going to move to Vagina but the houses were ugly.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[Morton Davis]

"LIBassbug" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>
> nick wrote:
>
> > "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
> >
> > vagina
> >
> >>>,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
> >>
> >>Florida.
> >
> >
> > From VA downwards people get weirder.
>
> I was going to move to Vagina but the houses were ugly.
>


Nick, is ignoirant. But then, he's a Brit, so that's redundant. Drug
smugglers have been using body cavities to smuggle drugs for decades. Not
far-fetched for a determined terroist to put a closed box cutter up her
vagina.

-*MORT*-

[LIBassbug]

Morton Davis wrote:

> "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>
>>nick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"LIBassbug" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
>>>
>>>vagina
>>>
>>>
>>>>>,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
>>>>
>>>>Florida.
>>>
>>>
>>>From VA downwards people get weirder.
>>
>>I was going to move to Vagina but the houses were ugly.
>>
>
>
>
> Nick, is ignoirant. But then, he's a Brit, so that's redundant. Drug
> smugglers have been using body cavities to smuggle drugs for decades. Not
> far-fetched for a determined terroist to put a closed box cutter up her
> vagina.

That's very true, Mort. All utility knives close safely and a simple box
cutter can be fashioned safe enough to insert into anus or vagina. In
fact, Nicks anus can hold enough box cutters for every passenger on the
plane to use.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[Jeff Franks]

> Totally wrong asshole.

er, I was just quoting one of your lefty pals. I know what they said,
twice. And, BTW, at what point did this discussion collapse to the point
that name calling was brought in. Do I get to say neener-neener-neener
next? Zygote.

> 30 years ago there was a top rate of 98% on unearned income over £1m (i.e.
> investment income) but who would be worrying about them.

I can't believe ANYONE could feel this way. This means that it would take
$5000 in order to KEEP $100. Socialism at its best. Screw the rich so that
the poor can leech. Last time I checked I never got a paycheck from a bum.

[LIBassbug]

nick wrote:

> "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina
>>>
>>>,
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.
>>
>>What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?
>
>
> That's where he keeps his little chopper.

Black knee socks?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[Richard Hertz]

Hmmm. I had not seen that before. It sort of raises some questions -
thanks for those links.

I still believe strongly in the individual's right to defend oneself.
There are many incidents that show that crime was stopped by and lives were
saved by individuals with firearms. Also - due to the lack of people
carrying firearms and lack of familiarity with them, lives have been lost.
A particularly good example is the (approx) 1993-1994 Colin Ferguson (sp?)
attack on innocent people on the Long Island railroad. Due to the ignorance
of handguns, people remained cowed while he was reloading. Also, if anyone
had been armed then, the loss of life most likely would have been much less.

Additionally, the press in the US is so liberal and anti-gun that they
usually neglect to report (or downplay) when bystanders with firearms subdue
criminals and almost always use big scary sounding terms when a crime
involves a firearm.


"Carl Nisarel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Hwæt! Richard Hertz, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe:
>
> > It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and
> > book(s) studying the subject.
>
> Better yet, see:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
> http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
> http://tinyurl.com/bkp2
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
>
> Lott's MGLC research is no longer considered valid by the
> academic research community and Lott is considered a fraud.

[LIBassbug]

Gregory Procter wrote:

>
> LIBassbug wrote:
>
>
>>Gregory Procter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>LIBassbug wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gregory Procter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>LIBassbug wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Eddy_Down wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Morton Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You have (5) very small fingers?
>>>>
>>>>Is that a proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.
>>
>>Is that when you told me you self fist?
>
>
> No, when you told me you have a five finger arsehole.

Why do you care so much about how many fingers I can fit in my asshole?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

[Dennis O'Connor]

The one statistic I noted was the sharp increase in forcible invasions of
occupied homes in Britain immediately after the gun ban... The criminal
types KNOW that no one in the house has a gun to deal with them - so smash
the bloke in the face with a club, and kick granny into the corner, whilst
you rifle the vanity... Pity, that..

Here in the hew hess of hey, the antigunners are ranting and raving but
haven't been able to totally ban ownership of guns... The statistics on gun
violence here are skewed by the inner cities, of course... As usual, every
gang banger out in the streets has an illegal gun of some sort, while the
law abiding citizen is left helpless...

In the rural area where I live we don't lock the doors at night... Of
course, any home invader will have to deal first with the dog, and secondly
with a load of buck shot to the chest... As a result, home invasion of an
occupied dwelling is a non event around here..

Denny

> >If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you
choose
> >an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
> >protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
> >receiving end of justified defense?

[J. Hall]

" Bogart " > wrote in message >...

> Who are you, and why are you interjecting facts into this
> conversation?

Have I blinded everyone with science ? Sorry, I won't do it again.
Okay, yes I will, just for you (tensile stength) :

7075-T6 aluminium = 76,000 psi
Mild Steel = 50,000 psi

I think that's about right.

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:29:27 GMT, Eddy_Down
> wrote:

>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
>>
>>
>> Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
>>
>>
>
>That reminds me of a show I saw in Thailand. I'm still spooked after
>being hit by an airborne banana at the same venue.

Felching can be dangerous, eh Jude Girl? :)

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>> I don't intend to argue it further with you.
>
>Then go away.

From where? :)

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:02:05 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>>
>> < snip>
>>
>> >> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)
>> >
>> >So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to be
>seen
>> >as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show? That
>> >people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not part
>of
>> >the problem?
>>
>> I've explained it to you twice. That's it.
>>
>> >Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you assert
>> >they hold.
>>
>> You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
>> personal contacts.
>
>In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is so
>well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
>reporter?

Why would something discussed among a group of professionals
necessarily become front page news?

>I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.

Suit yourself. :)

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...

>> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
>> drink cart? Cite please.
>
>Already provided.

Finally, by Mort.

>Oh, and I will note your vast experience and personal knowledge is
>somewhat..........limited.

You seem to think repeating this over and over is somehow going to
affect or offend me. Why? :)

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:


>http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
>
>" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
>constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
>summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
>crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
>one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
>broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
>even less protection."

Thanks Mort. Scout seems too lazy to provide the cite himself.

>-*MORT*-

[Bogart]

On 1 Jan 2004 20:44:46 -0800, (Teek) wrote:

>" Bogart " > wrote in message >...

>> Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
>> they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
>> I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
>> personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.
>
>So what are you saying, then? That they feel like they are not needed
>and feel like they aren't doing much good?

SM's I've talked with have expressed some genuine concerns about being
jumped by passengers in certain situations. That is all. They will
do their jobs and will do a good job, regardless of the fact _I_ don't
think they are necessary on domestic US flights.

>Teek
>>
>> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)

[photographer]

"LIBassbug" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>
> nick wrote:
>
> > "LIBassbug" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or
> >
> > vagina
> >
> >>>,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...
> >>
> >>Florida.
> >
> >
> > From VA downwards people get weirder.
>
> I was going to move to Vagina but the houses were ugly.
>

And the houses don't have enough wombs;-)

[Jim Austin]

nick wrote:

> "Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
> called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."
>
> "Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
> Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."
>
> "Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
> to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
> flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

It's apparent that the pilots' union prefers that British planes be
available to terrorists to crash into buildings and kill Americans,
and that "nick" shares the same sentiments.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

This is the same news organization that refuses to use the term,
"terrorist," to describe terrorists.

[Eddy_Down]

Morton Davis wrote:

>
> Nick, is ignoirant. But then, he's a Brit, so that's redundant. Drug
> smugglers have been using body cavities to smuggle drugs for decades. Not
> far-fetched for a determined terroist to put a closed box cutter up her
> vagina.
>

That's right Mort. You tell those naughty terrorists where to stuff
their weapons.


> -*MORT*-
>
>

[Gregory Procter]

LIBassbug wrote:

> Gregory Procter wrote:
>
> >
> > LIBassbug wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Gregory Procter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>LIBassbug wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Gregory Procter wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>LIBassbug wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Eddy_Down wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Morton Davis wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You have (5) very small fingers?
> >>>>
> >>>>Is that a proposition?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.
> >>
> >>Is that when you told me you self fist?
> >
> >
> > No, when you told me you have a five finger arsehole.
>
> Why do you care so much about how many fingers I can fit in my asshole?

You keep bringing the subject up - I'm waiting for some punch line.

[Ken Ehrett]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the
>air have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change
>in attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

You are one thick dumb son of a bitch.

>> What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
>> different in the air as opposed to on the ground.
>
>Right. Sure. Except it doesn't happen.

What does it take for you to understand the difference between a
situation where you are between a rock and a hard place verses a
situation where you have choices that don't involve being killed. If
you see someone being mugged on the street you have at least three
choices. You can just ignore the situation and mind your own
business, you can go look for a policeman or you can risk your life by
intervening to help the victim. Two of those choices do not involve
personal risk. If you are on an airplane that is being commandeered
by lunatics hell bent on killing everyone on board you have little to
lose attacking the hijackers.
>
>>I've explained this to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a >>waste of time.
>
>No, you made strange assertions which make no sense.

They obviously don't make sense to a disfunctional troglodyte like
yourself who seems to like having an argument just for the sake of
arguing. ****ing moron.
>
>> You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature.
>
>And having a plane load of unarmed people is BETTER to stop them, than
>having a SM on board?

In this era that is probably true. Rest assured, the passengers are
not going to sit around like sheep these days against some turd with a
box cutter and a sky marshal could easily end up shooting a hole in
the plane. Guns are extremely dangerous on a pressurized aircraft.
>
>Interesting how given this human nature you prefer the victims to have NO
>defense.
>
>> You're
>> in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
>> draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
>> subdued.
>
>So, since we have had SM on board planes since 9/11 you can show me of at
>least one case of a SM being jumped like this. Seems like it doesn't happen
>in reality, now does it?

We have also had at least three cases where there was no sky marshal
and the passengers took care of the threat without the possibility of
a gun endangering the aircraft, so what's your point?
>
>> I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
>> passengers took care of the threat immediately.
>
>Yep, and they did so at extreme risk, and in every case they managed NOT to
>jump the SM by mistake.
>
>> I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.
>
>Really?
>
>Please present your creditials that you have any experience and personal
>knowledge about airline security, self defense, and terrorists response to
>have your opinion matter in the least.

Oh my, well I guess we are going to have to see your credentials as
well aren't we dip ****?

>> I don't intend to argue it further with you.
>
>Then go away.

**** off Scout. You're an idiot.

[Morton Davis]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> >> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
> >> drink cart? Cite please.
> >
> >Already provided.
>
> Finally, by Mort.
>
> >Oh, and I will note your vast experience and personal knowledge is
> >somewhat..........limited.
>
> You seem to think repeating this over and over is somehow going to
> affect or offend me. Why? :)
>

I found the info in another post.

-*MORT*-

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:02:05 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:30:34 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> s.com...
> >>
> >> < snip>
> >>
> >> >> Feel free to argue your " theories " with someone else. :)
> >> >
> >> >So what are you claiming? If they don't feel they are more likely to
be
> >seen
> >> >as a threat rather than an aid, what exactly are you trying to show?
That
> >> >people are most likely to feel and know they are a solution, and not
part
> >of
> >> >the problem?
> >>
> >> I've explained it to you twice. That's it.
> >>
> >> >Oh, and I'm still awaiting your presentation of this "opinion" you
assert
> >> >they hold.
> >>
> >> You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
> >> personal contacts.
> >
> >In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is
so
> >well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
> >reporter?
>
> Why would something discussed among a group of professionals
> necessarily become front page news?

Well, I would think an opinion that SM felt they were unnecessary, useless,
and a danger to passengers would be headline news. Don't you?


> >I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.
>
> Suit yourself. :)

I will.

[Scout]

"J. Hall" > wrote in message
m...
> " Bogart " > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Who are you, and why are you interjecting facts into this
> > conversation?
>
> Have I blinded everyone with science ? Sorry, I won't do it again.
> Okay, yes I will, just for you (tensile stength) :
>
> 7075-T6 aluminium = 76,000 psi
> Mild Steel = 50,000 psi
>
> I think that's about right.

Actually mild steel is usually around 36,000 psi, by the time you get in
the range of 50,000 psi you are into the high strength steels.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On 1 Jan 2004 20:44:46 -0800, (Teek) wrote:
>
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>...
>
> >> Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
> >> they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
> >> I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
> >> personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.
> >
> >So what are you saying, then? That they feel like they are not needed
> >and feel like they aren't doing much good?
>
> SM's I've talked with have expressed some genuine concerns about being
> jumped by passengers in certain situations. That is all. They will
> do their jobs and will do a good job, regardless of the fact _I_ don't
> think they are necessary on domestic US flights.

So how founded is this concern? Can you document even a single such event
taking place?

I mean we've had SM for decades, if this were going to happen, then isn't it
likely that it has already occurred at least once?

[Scout]

"Ken Ehrett" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the
> >air have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the
change
> >in attitude? Is it a function of altitude?
>
> You are one thick dumb son of a bitch.

Well, I'm trying to understand why you feel everything is going to change
because the "building" happens to be airborne.


> >> What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
> >> different in the air as opposed to on the ground.
> >
> >Right. Sure. Except it doesn't happen.
>
> What does it take for you to understand the difference between a
> situation where you are between a rock and a hard place verses a
> situation where you have choices that don't involve being killed. If
> you see someone being mugged on the street you have at least three
> choices. You can just ignore the situation and mind your own
> business, you can go look for a policeman or you can risk your life by
> intervening to help the victim. Two of those choices do not involve
> personal risk. If you are on an airplane that is being commandeered
> by lunatics hell bent on killing everyone on board you have little to
> lose attacking the hijackers.

Yep, even on the ground people do help out, and oddly I'm not aware of any
cases where the undercover officer trying to arrest the criminal is the one
who is jumped by bystanders.



> >>I've explained this to you twice already and explaining it to you again
is a >>waste of time.
> >
> >No, you made strange assertions which make no sense.
>
> They obviously don't make sense to a disfunctional troglodyte like
> yourself who seems to like having an argument just for the sake of
> arguing. ****ing moron.

Well, you make claims about their opinions, can't support those claims, and
those claims seem contrary to established facts....so tell me again why I
should blindly accept your unsupported claims?


> >> You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature.
> >
> >And having a plane load of unarmed people is BETTER to stop them, than
> >having a SM on board?
>
> In this era that is probably true. Rest assured, the passengers are
> not going to sit around like sheep these days against some turd with a
> box cutter and a sky marshal could easily end up shooting a hole in
> the plane. Guns are extremely dangerous on a pressurized aircraft.

Oh, God, not the utterly ignorant and stupid assertion that a bullet hole
will cause an explosive decompression of the aircraft.

Ok, at this point, it is quite clear that you don't have any idea what
you're talking about. Even a person that has done even the least amount of
research, much less one that knows all the SMs you claim, would know that a
bullet hole in a modern airliner is NOT, repeat NOT, a problem.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

[Scout]

"Dave Whitmarsh" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Yardpilot" > wrote in message
> >news:TX8Jb.38992$xX.133717@attbi_s02...
> >>
> >> " Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> s.com...
> >> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> >> > s.com...
> >> > >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> >> > >> ...
> >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> >> > >> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't.
I'd
> >> > >rather
> >> > >> >deal
> >> > >> >> >with the terrorist.
> >> > >> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think
that
> >the
> >> > >> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal
stop
> >> them
> >> > >> >when
> >> > >> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof
cockpit
> >> door?
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet
> >proof
> >> > >> >> door is for someone to open it.
> >> > >> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that
> >> having
> >> > >> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of
> >people
> >> > >armed
> >> > >> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
> >> > >
> >> > >They rammed the door with it.
> >> >
> >> > You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
> >> > drink cart?
> >>
> >> I don't see why it couldn't happen. A bullet proof vest won't sto0p an
> >> icepick.
> >>
> >>
> >http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
> >
> >" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
> >constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
> >summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
> >crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
> >one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
> >broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
> >even less protection."
> >
> >-*MORT*-
> >
>
> A tripod webpage as a cite? C'mon Mort, you can't truly be serious
> here boy.

Fine, then go to the source.

According to a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine,a
cleaning crew 'tested' a new reinforced cockpit door by ramming it with a
beverage cart,and knocked the door off it's hinges.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> >> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
> >> drink cart? Cite please.
> >
> >Already provided.
>
> Finally, by Mort.

No actually the message I refer to is by Jim Yanik. Which was posted almost
24 hours before your reply. However, perhaps you hadn't gotten to that
message yet. I do note that you have chosen not to respond to his message to
date.

[Scout]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
> >
> >" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
> >constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
> >summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
> >crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
> >one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
> >broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
> >even less protection."
>
> Thanks Mort. Scout seems too lazy to provide the cite himself.

Why repeat something that has already been presented?

Oh, and you might check out the message by Jim Yanik as well.

[Ken Ehrett]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:02:05 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>> You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
>> personal contacts.
>
>In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is so
>well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
>reporter?
>
>I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.

We've noted that about you ever since you typed your first line in
this news group you stupid blowhard.

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:04:36 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

Bwahaha. Nice try, Ken. It's like trying to reason with a moron.


>"Ken Ehrett" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:09:02 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the
>> >air have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the
>change
>> >in attitude? Is it a function of altitude?
>>
>> You are one thick dumb son of a bitch.
>
>Well, I'm trying to understand why you feel everything is going to change
>because the "building" happens to be airborne.
>
>
>> >> What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
>> >> different in the air as opposed to on the ground.
>> >
>> >Right. Sure. Except it doesn't happen.
>>
>> What does it take for you to understand the difference between a
>> situation where you are between a rock and a hard place verses a
>> situation where you have choices that don't involve being killed. If
>> you see someone being mugged on the street you have at least three
>> choices. You can just ignore the situation and mind your own
>> business, you can go look for a policeman or you can risk your life by
>> intervening to help the victim. Two of those choices do not involve
>> personal risk. If you are on an airplane that is being commandeered
>> by lunatics hell bent on killing everyone on board you have little to
>> lose attacking the hijackers.
>
>Yep, even on the ground people do help out, and oddly I'm not aware of any
>cases where the undercover officer trying to arrest the criminal is the one
>who is jumped by bystanders.
>
>
>
>> >>I've explained this to you twice already and explaining it to you again
>is a >>waste of time.
>> >
>> >No, you made strange assertions which make no sense.
>>
>> They obviously don't make sense to a disfunctional troglodyte like
>> yourself who seems to like having an argument just for the sake of
>> arguing. ****ing moron.
>
>Well, you make claims about their opinions, can't support those claims, and
>those claims seem contrary to established facts....so tell me again why I
>should blindly accept your unsupported claims?
>
>
>> >> You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature.
>> >
>> >And having a plane load of unarmed people is BETTER to stop them, than
>> >having a SM on board?
>>
>> In this era that is probably true. Rest assured, the passengers are
>> not going to sit around like sheep these days against some turd with a
>> box cutter and a sky marshal could easily end up shooting a hole in
>> the plane. Guns are extremely dangerous on a pressurized aircraft.
>
>Oh, God, not the utterly ignorant and stupid assertion that a bullet hole
>will cause an explosive decompression of the aircraft.
>
>Ok, at this point, it is quite clear that you don't have any idea what
>you're talking about. Even a person that has done even the least amount of
>research, much less one that knows all the SMs you claim, would know that a
>bullet hole in a modern airliner is NOT, repeat NOT, a problem.
>
>Come back when you know what you're talking about.
>

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:17:38 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>>
>> >> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
>> >> drink cart? Cite please.
>> >
>> >Already provided.
>>
>> Finally, by Mort.
>>
>> >Oh, and I will note your vast experience and personal knowledge is
>> >somewhat..........limited.
>>
>> You seem to think repeating this over and over is somehow going to
>> affect or offend me. Why? :)
>>
>
>I found the info in another post.

I got your post but not the other. Oh well, I appreciate you
reposting the link again, Mort.

>-*MORT*-
>

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:09:14 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >" Bogart " > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>>
>> >> You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from a
>> >> drink cart? Cite please.
>> >
>> >Already provided.
>>
>> Finally, by Mort.
>
>No actually the message I refer to is by Jim Yanik. Which was posted almost
>24 hours before your reply. However, perhaps you hadn't gotten to that
>message yet. I do note that you have chosen not to respond to his message to
>date.

Never heard of Jim Yanik. Was it posted to alt.nuke.the.usa? If not,
I didn't see it. Mort took care of Jim's oversight.

[Morton Davis]

"Scout" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Dave Whitmarsh" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Yardpilot" > wrote in message
> > >news:TX8Jb.38992$xX.133717@attbi_s02...
> > >>
> > >> " Bogart " > wrote in message
> > >> s.com...
> > >> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:33 GMT, "Scout"
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >" Bogart " > wrote in message
> > >> > s.com...
> > >> > >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
> > >> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
> > >> > >> ...
> > >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
> > >> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> > Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't.
> I'd
> > >> > >rather
> > >> > >> >deal
> > >> > >> >> >with the terrorist.
> > >> > >> >> > Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think
> that
> > >the
> > >> > >> >> >terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal
> stop
> > >> them
> > >> > >> >when
> > >> > >> >> >they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof
> cockpit
> > >> door?
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet
> > >proof
> > >> > >> >> door is for someone to open it.
> > >> > >> >> The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think
that
> > >> having
> > >> > >> >> the pilots open that door is a really good idea.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of
> > >people
> > >> > >armed
> > >> > >> >with nothing more than a drink cart.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >They rammed the door with it.
> > >> >
> > >> > You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming from
a
> > >> > drink cart?
> > >>
> > >> I don't see why it couldn't happen. A bullet proof vest won't sto0p
an
> > >> icepick.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
> > >
> > >" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
> > >constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
> > >summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
> > >crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
> > >one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
> > >broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
> > >even less protection."
> > >
> > >-*MORT*-
> > >
> >
> > A tripod webpage as a cite? C'mon Mort, you can't truly be serious
> > here boy.
>
> Fine, then go to the source.
>
> According to a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine,a
> cleaning crew 'tested' a new reinforced cockpit door by ramming it with a
> beverage cart,and knocked the door off it's hinges.
>
>

Angkor can't be bothered to actually click on a link.

-*MORT*-

[Morton Davis]

" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
> >
> >" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
> >constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
> >summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
> >crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
> >one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
> >broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
> >even less protection."
>
> Thanks Mort. Scout seems too lazy to provide the cite himself.
>

Actually, I found it in a post by Cole Firearms in another thread.

-*MORT*-

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:17:39 GMT, Ken Ehrett > wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:02:05 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:
>
>>> You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
>>> personal contacts.
>>
>>In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is so
>>well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
>>reporter?
>>
>>I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.
>
>We've noted that about you ever since you typed your first line in
>this news group you stupid blowhard.

Scout thinks we're all from his aviation newsgroup. Bwahaha...etc.

[Bogart]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:48:40 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> wrote:

>
>" Bogart " > wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:23:00 GMT, "Morton Davis"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/ArmedMarshalsWSJE.html
>> >
>> >" Reinforced cockpit doors are now in place, but because of engineering
>> >constraints few experts have much faith in their effectiveness. Last
>> >summer, on a bet to test the doors' strength, an overnight cleaning
>> >crew at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C. rammed a drink cart into
>> >one of the new doors on a United Airlines plane. The door reportedly
>> >broke off its hinges. The doors for European airlines generally provide
>> >even less protection."
>>
>> Thanks Mort. Scout seems too lazy to provide the cite himself.
>>
>
>Actually, I found it in a post by Cole Firearms in another thread.

Interesting. Scout claims a Jim Yanik posted it. Either way, thanks
again as I saw neither post.


>-*MORT*-
>

[Dave Whitmarsh]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:17:39 GMT, Ken Ehrett > wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:02:05 GMT, "Scout"
> wrote:
>
>>> You'll have a long wait. As I said, it's from personal experience and
>>> personal contacts.
>>
>>In short, you're telling me that this personal, and "popular" opinion is so
>>well known and prevalent that not a single SM has EVER told it to a
>>reporter?
>>
>>I will simply note that your 3rd person testimony means nothing.
>
>We've noted that about you ever since you typed your first line in
>this news group you stupid blowhard.
>

Snout has already spanked your Bogart sock, Sable, is your Kensock
feeling a little masochistic as well? Snout has always been lame, but
you, Sarah dear, are even lamer.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On Empathy:
"Nick is ignoirant."
On his sexual habits:
"Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina"

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

[Bogart]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:37:12 GMT, AH#49 <"Asshole™#49"@ your.net>
wrote:

>Bogart wrote:
>
>>
>> Never heard of Jim Yanik. Was it posted to alt.nuke.the.usa? If not,
>> I didn't see it.
>
>Then THAT proves that you are indeed a mental midget, as all you do is
>watch and post to that retarded, newsgroup!

I've posted in tpg. Does that make _you_ a mental midget? :)