pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

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.

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

"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

" 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

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

Can you even recognize it?

"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/...9611_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/...e_Blade_Shop_T
ool_Accessories.jpg This is a USA Stanley knife blade. This is a Stanley
Utility Knife: http://www.officedepot.com/pictures/...0467_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*-

"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.

"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

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.

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.