OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

Martin Hotze opined

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

2) Most of the EU nations
(and people raises in them) are VERY anti-gun (to the point of being
afriad of guns, that is fear of the object itself).


I see no reason for the US to cater to the mental diseases of Europeans. And

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

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

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

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

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

they awakend?

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

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

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


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

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

#m

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

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

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


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



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

or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)

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

#m

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"John Roncallo" wrote in message
. com...

1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
guns on board.


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

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

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

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

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

- Andrew

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

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

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


Well, you'll probably get your wish.

Wdtabor wrote:

In article ,
(StellaStar) writes:

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

It doesn't matter.

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

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

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

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

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

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


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



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


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

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


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

Don

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

- Andrew