pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

"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?

"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.

"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.

" 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?

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.

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

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"

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


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.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.

"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

"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