European armed guards on board
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF? - don't care to have a loaded gun onboard? You'll never know for sure if there are, or aren't, armed individuals onboard.
Flight crew? - good luck bucking the system if it's approved.
Far from being a gun nut, but today's schedule includes sending rounds downrange with my child.
Flight crew? - good luck bucking the system if it's approved.
Far from being a gun nut, but today's schedule includes sending rounds downrange with my child.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been in the UK forces and fully trained in the use of firearms and now having spent a very large amount of my own money getting my backside into the flight deck for one of the best careers in the entire world.
I find it compleatly insane that there are people who want a firearm onboard an aircraft. The money that would go to financing the training, the salaries, the purchasing of the weapons themselves should go into better training for the 'happy' security guards and better screening for any threats that could possibly arise.
Prevention is better than cure.
259
I find it compleatly insane that there are people who want a firearm onboard an aircraft. The money that would go to financing the training, the salaries, the purchasing of the weapons themselves should go into better training for the 'happy' security guards and better screening for any threats that could possibly arise.
Prevention is better than cure.
259
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
You are not so far....
Ages ago I was on a Air France plane with destination Luanda.
Just at the end of embarking ... a fight begin between two white men and a black man.....
Peoples on near seats take the defense of the blackman and fight with the two others....
At end of story it was a legally expulsed allien accompanied by two policemen
The captain call the "Police de l'Air et des Frontières" (and come in situ!)for put manu military black man and policemen out the plane and apologise for the inconvenient.
Two passangers were with bruises and some blood ........
One old women filled a complain.....
A nice delay of course....
Regards.
Mr.XXX showing his federal badge might not help him too much in such a confusion.(or he might also have requested the help of other passengers from other rows too,leading to a more profound confusion and a two sided battle,each party growing bigger and bigger depending on the mouth to mouth information sharing)
I've been a bit far i know
..........just to say that...in anycase,in any situation,there is far more greater possibility that guns may create more trouble than solutions.
I've been a bit far i know
..........just to say that...in anycase,in any situation,there is far more greater possibility that guns may create more trouble than solutions.
Ages ago I was on a Air France plane with destination Luanda.
Just at the end of embarking ... a fight begin between two white men and a black man.....
Peoples on near seats take the defense of the blackman and fight with the two others....
At end of story it was a legally expulsed allien accompanied by two policemen
The captain call the "Police de l'Air et des Frontières" (and come in situ!)for put manu military black man and policemen out the plane and apologise for the inconvenient.
Two passangers were with bruises and some blood ........
One old women filled a complain.....
A nice delay of course....
Regards.
Dusan
Quite right.
However there are two of us up there. at least there is a fighting chance.
So are there going to be two guards incase one goes loopy? Prehaps 3 incase the other two are in a conspiracy?
This is a nuts idea. Anyone who wants to carry a loaded weapon on an aircraft is also nuts with a Rambo affliction.
Therefore they should be dicounted from the selection process.
Therefore there should be nobody carry a weapon and we would all be safer from this insane paranoia that has gripped the US and UK.
Quite right.
However there are two of us up there. at least there is a fighting chance.
So are there going to be two guards incase one goes loopy? Prehaps 3 incase the other two are in a conspiracy?
This is a nuts idea. Anyone who wants to carry a loaded weapon on an aircraft is also nuts with a Rambo affliction.
Therefore they should be dicounted from the selection process.
Therefore there should be nobody carry a weapon and we would all be safer from this insane paranoia that has gripped the US and UK.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spenky
There were two on Egypt Air. One went for a wiz, the other went berserk.
What irks me is that all the opponents of guns and "gun culture" immediately assume, that just because they don't like guns, those that do must be somehow mentally unbalanced and could not be trusted. There are millions of law abiding, normal, citizens that have and love guns. Just like people like books, or model airplanes, or cars, we love guns. That does not automatically makes us loony and unstable. I don't like cats, but I don't think that people who do are mental. I accept their admiration for something I have no interest in. I let them be. Please don't psychoanalyze me (us) based on my ability and desire to use a perfectly legal object when circumstances dictate.
However there are two of us up there. at least there is a fighting chance.
What irks me is that all the opponents of guns and "gun culture" immediately assume, that just because they don't like guns, those that do must be somehow mentally unbalanced and could not be trusted. There are millions of law abiding, normal, citizens that have and love guns. Just like people like books, or model airplanes, or cars, we love guns. That does not automatically makes us loony and unstable. I don't like cats, but I don't think that people who do are mental. I accept their admiration for something I have no interest in. I let them be. Please don't psychoanalyze me (us) based on my ability and desire to use a perfectly legal object when circumstances dictate.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dushan,
I think your rhetoric is inaccurate, missed the point, and allows you to be hoisted on your own petard. As follows.
Obviously not true. There are plenty of people who oppose civilian uses of firearms who do not consider their neighbor untrustworthy or unbalanced because he (and it is predominantly males) is a licensed hunter. Even in Europe.
One difference is that domestic cats do not kill 20,000 people a year in the U.S. Indeed, except for cars and guns, everything that might do so is highly restricted or banned in the U.S. And some of us don't tolerate these kinds of figures with cars, either.
We are not talking on this thread about recreational use of firearms. We are talking explicitly about civilian use of firearms as anti-personnel weaponry. No one talks of cars or cats as anti-personnel weaponry. But the firearm on a law enforcement officer's belt has one and only one purpose, as an anti-personnel weapon. As does the the truncheon (or night-stick, as you might prefer to call it).
If you are pleading for tolerance, live-and-let-live, then you could apply this attitude yourself to those who have a different attitude to the role of firearms in civil society than you do.
For example, the reaction of the British to a school massacre in Dunblane in the 1990's was to ban all civil ownership of almost all firearms. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Germany allows civil possession of recreational firearms, and has had a couple of mass shootings recently. In the U.S., it went from 4 kids killed in a Stockton schoolyard shooting in the 70's to repeated massacres of dozens thirty years later. Such events should worry anybody, and they are obviously related to whatever the civil culture of firearms may be in a particular country.
There are lots of Brits who are now unable to pursue their hobby (there are no British participants in the shooting events at the Olympics, for example, unless they have moved out of the country), but many, even of those, consider it a worthy price to have paid to break the chain of availability that led to thirty of my former neighbors losing their family. So one might say: it seems to work. Why not try it?
Hence the argument that the appropriate approach is to eliminate anti-personnel weapons entirely from aircraft cabins and cockpits.
It may not be possible to ensure that perfectly, but equally one should consider the number of incidents in the U.S. in which law enforcement officers have been injured or killed with their own weapons and ask whether that would happen on civil aircraft also. As a hijacker, you might want to use a metal detector to identify who is carrying heat and then two of you incapacitate himher and take the gun. What's the likelihood of that happening? You don't know and neither do I, so we might well reasonably come down on different sides.
PBL
I think your rhetoric is inaccurate, missed the point, and allows you to be hoisted on your own petard. As follows.
Originally Posted by Dushan
What irks me is that all the opponents of guns and "gun culture" immediately assume, that ...... those that do must be somehow mentally unbalanced and could not be trusted.
Originally Posted by Dushan
I don't like cats, but I don't think that people who do are mental. I accept their admiration for something I have no interest in. I let them be.
We are not talking on this thread about recreational use of firearms. We are talking explicitly about civilian use of firearms as anti-personnel weaponry. No one talks of cars or cats as anti-personnel weaponry. But the firearm on a law enforcement officer's belt has one and only one purpose, as an anti-personnel weapon. As does the the truncheon (or night-stick, as you might prefer to call it).
If you are pleading for tolerance, live-and-let-live, then you could apply this attitude yourself to those who have a different attitude to the role of firearms in civil society than you do.
For example, the reaction of the British to a school massacre in Dunblane in the 1990's was to ban all civil ownership of almost all firearms. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Germany allows civil possession of recreational firearms, and has had a couple of mass shootings recently. In the U.S., it went from 4 kids killed in a Stockton schoolyard shooting in the 70's to repeated massacres of dozens thirty years later. Such events should worry anybody, and they are obviously related to whatever the civil culture of firearms may be in a particular country.
There are lots of Brits who are now unable to pursue their hobby (there are no British participants in the shooting events at the Olympics, for example, unless they have moved out of the country), but many, even of those, consider it a worthy price to have paid to break the chain of availability that led to thirty of my former neighbors losing their family. So one might say: it seems to work. Why not try it?
Hence the argument that the appropriate approach is to eliminate anti-personnel weapons entirely from aircraft cabins and cockpits.
It may not be possible to ensure that perfectly, but equally one should consider the number of incidents in the U.S. in which law enforcement officers have been injured or killed with their own weapons and ask whether that would happen on civil aircraft also. As a hijacker, you might want to use a metal detector to identify who is carrying heat and then two of you incapacitate himher and take the gun. What's the likelihood of that happening? You don't know and neither do I, so we might well reasonably come down on different sides.
PBL
I find it difficult to be persuaded that in the current security situation an armed guard is appropriate.
Prior to 9/11 I think I could agree that it could have been ...
Since then both the threat and the methods used to counter it have changed.
The current premise must surely be that any potential terrorist cannot have a ballistic weapon and is unlikely to have a significant sharp weapon ?
With cockpit doors more secure the ability to influence the route/result of the flight is reduced.
Given the current focus on preventing liquids etc. if we accept that this is because it really is the highest threat then succesfully getting them on board is surely unlikely to provide a potential target for an armed skymarshall??
Will they open fire on anyone shaking that baby's bottle to mix the contents - if they don't it will be too late....
It seems unlikely that the armed guard is there to counter a similarly armed bad guy(s) .... so what are they there to do??
I've always understood that a premise of security was that as you improved control/protection in one area by improvment of perimter control the threat actually moved further out ..... this would seem to validated by the UK experience where driving a vehicle into the terminal building became the next step.
Prior to 9/11 I think I could agree that it could have been ...
Since then both the threat and the methods used to counter it have changed.
The current premise must surely be that any potential terrorist cannot have a ballistic weapon and is unlikely to have a significant sharp weapon ?
With cockpit doors more secure the ability to influence the route/result of the flight is reduced.
Given the current focus on preventing liquids etc. if we accept that this is because it really is the highest threat then succesfully getting them on board is surely unlikely to provide a potential target for an armed skymarshall??
Will they open fire on anyone shaking that baby's bottle to mix the contents - if they don't it will be too late....
It seems unlikely that the armed guard is there to counter a similarly armed bad guy(s) .... so what are they there to do??
I've always understood that a premise of security was that as you improved control/protection in one area by improvment of perimter control the threat actually moved further out ..... this would seem to validated by the UK experience where driving a vehicle into the terminal building became the next step.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 42psi
I've always understood that a premise of security was that as you improved control/protection in one area by improvment of perimter control the threat actually moved further out
PBL
Guest
Posts: n/a
PBL,
Many good points regarding the guns and marshals on flights. Some I agree with, some I don't. That was not the point of my original post, which was in response to Spunky Monkey's statement:
I said, we don't. Not any more than knowing the guy sitting next to you (left or right) hasn't lost the plot...
He then came back with:
That is what I said irks me. That anyone who wants to be associated with guns, in the eyes of those that don't, must be nuts, loopy etc.
It is equally irresponsible to say that, as it would be to say, that anyone who wants to fly a plane is nuts with Chuck Yeager affliction, constantly attempting to push the envelope and should be immediately be discounted from the selection process.
Many good points regarding the guns and marshals on flights. Some I agree with, some I don't. That was not the point of my original post, which was in response to Spunky Monkey's statement:
How do you know that they havent lost the plot through marriage difficulties etc?
He then came back with:
This is a nuts idea. Anyone who wants to carry a loaded weapon on an aircraft is also nuts with a Rambo affliction.
Therefore they should be dicounted from the selection process.
Therefore they should be dicounted from the selection process.
That is what I said irks me. That anyone who wants to be associated with guns, in the eyes of those that don't, must be nuts, loopy etc.
It is equally irresponsible to say that, as it would be to say, that anyone who wants to fly a plane is nuts with Chuck Yeager affliction, constantly attempting to push the envelope and should be immediately be discounted from the selection process.
