Gun carrying Passengers
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally have no problem with any of these good gentlemen and gentleladies carrying weapons on board, and would offer to you that since this has been going on for many years already, and that this has not caused any problem to the general public nor has it constituted a safety problem, why get all hot and bothered about it?
BTW, if there are more than one armed passengers on board, they are notified of the presence of each other, so there should be no problem with misidentification in the event of an incident.
If only one of these people had been on board the airplanes taken over on Sep 11, many thousands of persons in the US and Afghanistan would not have had to die.
Guns are tools, they can be used for good or evil. Treating the good guys as part of the problem is not the way to go.
BTW, if there are more than one armed passengers on board, they are notified of the presence of each other, so there should be no problem with misidentification in the event of an incident.
If only one of these people had been on board the airplanes taken over on Sep 11, many thousands of persons in the US and Afghanistan would not have had to die.
Guns are tools, they can be used for good or evil. Treating the good guys as part of the problem is not the way to go.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gent, Belgium
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead,
I couldn't agree more :
Quote "I personally have no problem with any of these good gentlemen and gentleladies carrying weapons on board, and would offer to you that since this has been going on for many years already, and that this has not caused any problem to the general public nor has it constituted a safety problem, why get all hot and bothered about it?"
Crew carrying pocket knives & nailclippers, grandmothers with knitting-gear, or zillions of passengers who've taken 'tools' or objects on board that COULD have been made to use for a purpose it wasn't intended for in the first place - as a weapon - haven't caused any problem or constituted a safety problem either.
So why are governments, security, airlines making such a fuss about it now?
Because they have to do 'something'...that's why.
Are those extra security-measures going to prevent it from happening again in the future? No way... ANYONE with mal intent has ample of tools at his disposal to achieve his goals... Whether you be using a plastic knife to cut up your F/A, driving your jeep through your local kindergarten playground, or hitting your ex-wife's lover over the head with a bottle of whiskey at your local pub.
What's the police for? They usually keep an eye on things... They notice your light on your bike doesn't work and fine you for it, so you'll remember that being a safety-hazard doesn't pay off. Or they notice that there's some money missing from a bank and they go investigate & find the wrong-do-ers.
They are your every-day professional profilers ! Think you can get away with it? Not! There's always something 'unusual' you didn't think about or plainly forgot, and guess what? They notice!
Morale of the story: there will always be good and bad!
You can only hope for the good guys to notice what the bad guys are up to... in time!
O_B_S
PS: English isn't my mothertongue... so pardon my 'french' if i made any mistakes regarding grammar and spelling.
I couldn't agree more :
Quote "I personally have no problem with any of these good gentlemen and gentleladies carrying weapons on board, and would offer to you that since this has been going on for many years already, and that this has not caused any problem to the general public nor has it constituted a safety problem, why get all hot and bothered about it?"
Crew carrying pocket knives & nailclippers, grandmothers with knitting-gear, or zillions of passengers who've taken 'tools' or objects on board that COULD have been made to use for a purpose it wasn't intended for in the first place - as a weapon - haven't caused any problem or constituted a safety problem either.
So why are governments, security, airlines making such a fuss about it now?
Because they have to do 'something'...that's why.
Are those extra security-measures going to prevent it from happening again in the future? No way... ANYONE with mal intent has ample of tools at his disposal to achieve his goals... Whether you be using a plastic knife to cut up your F/A, driving your jeep through your local kindergarten playground, or hitting your ex-wife's lover over the head with a bottle of whiskey at your local pub.
What's the police for? They usually keep an eye on things... They notice your light on your bike doesn't work and fine you for it, so you'll remember that being a safety-hazard doesn't pay off. Or they notice that there's some money missing from a bank and they go investigate & find the wrong-do-ers.
They are your every-day professional profilers ! Think you can get away with it? Not! There's always something 'unusual' you didn't think about or plainly forgot, and guess what? They notice!
Morale of the story: there will always be good and bad!
You can only hope for the good guys to notice what the bad guys are up to... in time!
O_B_S
PS: English isn't my mothertongue... so pardon my 'french' if i made any mistakes regarding grammar and spelling.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]U.S. Postal inspectors rightly carry firearms, because one of their duties is investigating the movement of contraband via the mails, i.e. narcotics, weapons, "anthrax", and as a consequence arrest these suspects and also serve search warrants. <hr></blockquote>
No no no no no....
Postal workers carrying guns, this has just gone too far. But that is probably cause and effect. Why - for instance- are these people serving search warrants? Surely that is the job of the law enforecent agencies.
Very few of these agencies actually NEED to carry guns. They need backup that carries guns in certain circumstances.
You guys need to sort your priorities out quickly before it becomes a case of having to register if you arent carrying a gun on a Aircraft.
I really do love America, but I just dont think I will ever understand America fully. (I am happy to be corrected on the above however)
And this from a Brit who would happily see his Police force armed as a matter of course....but thats another story.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: Man-on-the-fence ]</p>
No no no no no....
Postal workers carrying guns, this has just gone too far. But that is probably cause and effect. Why - for instance- are these people serving search warrants? Surely that is the job of the law enforecent agencies.
Very few of these agencies actually NEED to carry guns. They need backup that carries guns in certain circumstances.
You guys need to sort your priorities out quickly before it becomes a case of having to register if you arent carrying a gun on a Aircraft.
I really do love America, but I just dont think I will ever understand America fully. (I am happy to be corrected on the above however)
And this from a Brit who would happily see his Police force armed as a matter of course....but thats another story.
[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: Man-on-the-fence ]</p>
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing like to be known as such and have since they were formed during the Civil War.
Don't forget that the Smithsonian has a number of small valuable objects (including the Hope diamond) and I assume where such items are in transit to other museums, armed guards would be carried. Many of the other agencies are mystifying - why would a chicken inspector/ schools inspector need to be armed at all, let alone when in transit. It would seem to be sensible that most of the above agencies should travel disarmed, and if their duty requires them to be armed in flight they should require special permits or even escort by other agencies. However in the current case it would appear that the agent followed proceedure in notifying the crew that he was armed, and his duties require that he be armed at all times (if the above list of agencies was to be severely cut, the Secret Service would probably be the last to be disarmed).
Note that the above list includes several sub-agencies, ie both the Secret Service and BEP come under the Department of the Treasury and in the majority of agencies listed, very few of the personnel would be required to be armed at all (I believe that regulations actually prohibit members of the Federal Prison Service travelling armed, even on active duty)
Don't forget that the Smithsonian has a number of small valuable objects (including the Hope diamond) and I assume where such items are in transit to other museums, armed guards would be carried. Many of the other agencies are mystifying - why would a chicken inspector/ schools inspector need to be armed at all, let alone when in transit. It would seem to be sensible that most of the above agencies should travel disarmed, and if their duty requires them to be armed in flight they should require special permits or even escort by other agencies. However in the current case it would appear that the agent followed proceedure in notifying the crew that he was armed, and his duties require that he be armed at all times (if the above list of agencies was to be severely cut, the Secret Service would probably be the last to be disarmed).
Note that the above list includes several sub-agencies, ie both the Secret Service and BEP come under the Department of the Treasury and in the majority of agencies listed, very few of the personnel would be required to be armed at all (I believe that regulations actually prohibit members of the Federal Prison Service travelling armed, even on active duty)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter why these people carry guns; that is their business. What matters is that they are trained to carry a weapon and are an asset to the flight crew if they are on board.
I noticed the usual mention of how guns are a problem in the US compared with the UK, where guns are banned. Yet the usual blindness is showed toward the rapidly rising and out-of-control crime rate in the UK and Aus, where the government successfully removed all legal guns, leaving only the criminals to be armed. Aus and the UK now have the industrial world's highest crime rate as a result. One crime that is particularly heinous is Home Invasion robberies, often involving physical harm and death. The rate of this type of crime is way higher than it is in the US, where the crim knows he may be facing an armed householder.
What type of crime is similar to home invasion? Why airplane hijacking of course! Methinks that the authorities are setting us up!
I noticed the usual mention of how guns are a problem in the US compared with the UK, where guns are banned. Yet the usual blindness is showed toward the rapidly rising and out-of-control crime rate in the UK and Aus, where the government successfully removed all legal guns, leaving only the criminals to be armed. Aus and the UK now have the industrial world's highest crime rate as a result. One crime that is particularly heinous is Home Invasion robberies, often involving physical harm and death. The rate of this type of crime is way higher than it is in the US, where the crim knows he may be facing an armed householder.
What type of crime is similar to home invasion? Why airplane hijacking of course! Methinks that the authorities are setting us up!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have any problem with gun ownership in principle, boofhead. The point is not why do all these agencies require to carry weapons, but why they must be carried ON MY AIRPLANE?
I have never seen a US postal/prison/poultry inpectors/zookeepers service ID card and would have no idea whether it had just been run up on an apple-mac. Nor do I suspect have many airport security staff.
I have never seen a US postal/prison/poultry inpectors/zookeepers service ID card and would have no idea whether it had just been run up on an apple-mac. Nor do I suspect have many airport security staff.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check 6 :
"We have an expression in the U.S.:
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.""
Obviously this doesn't apply to U.S. Immigration, see other post on subject
"We have an expression in the U.S.:
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.""
Obviously this doesn't apply to U.S. Immigration, see other post on subject
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I assume our colonial cousins' rationale is that the INS know that you are not armed and hence they don't need to be polite.
Clearly the answer is to have in-bound duty-free firearms shops at all US airports, thus ensuring that everyone is polite to each other as soon as possible.
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Clearly the answer is to have in-bound duty-free firearms shops at all US airports, thus ensuring that everyone is polite to each other as soon as possible.
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead, very interested in your comment that UK and Aus are now have the largest crime rate in the industrail world so did a bit of digging.
You might want to take a look at
<a href="http://www.un.org/cgi-bin/pubs/infonatn/dquery.pl?rtype2=on&lang=e&unk=on&usa=on&areak=on&poptt=on&p opdn=on&crime=on&%20SUBMIT=View+Info" target="_blank">link</a>
But if you dont want the trouble, result ares:
Country UK Aus USA
Area 242900 7741220 9363520
Total Pop ('000) 58744 18705 276219
Pop Density 240 2 29
Homicides Per 100k 1 2 9
Hmmm, seems by the end of'99 the US were winning not Aus of UK.....
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]</p>
You might want to take a look at
<a href="http://www.un.org/cgi-bin/pubs/infonatn/dquery.pl?rtype2=on&lang=e&unk=on&usa=on&areak=on&poptt=on&p opdn=on&crime=on&%20SUBMIT=View+Info" target="_blank">link</a>
But if you dont want the trouble, result ares:
Country UK Aus USA
Area 242900 7741220 9363520
Total Pop ('000) 58744 18705 276219
Pop Density 240 2 29
Homicides Per 100k 1 2 9
Hmmm, seems by the end of'99 the US were winning not Aus of UK.....
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Julian,
It is traditional for Americans to claim that their burglary rate is lower than the UK's whilst forgetting the statistics on murder and robbery. Nothing new here.
But I'd be interested in some hard data on the burglary rates - are we sure that the same thing is being measured in each case?
It is traditional for Americans to claim that their burglary rate is lower than the UK's whilst forgetting the statistics on murder and robbery. Nothing new here.
But I'd be interested in some hard data on the burglary rates - are we sure that the same thing is being measured in each case?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The violent crime rates quoted show that for rape, burglary, robbery with violence, assault, etc, the worst industrialised country is Aus, followed by the UK. For murder, the US is the worst.
Personally I have doubts, since the reporting methods differ. I spend a lot of time in both the US and Aus, and have never suffered any crime in either country, but the point of the study is that since Aus and the UK took guns away from the honest citizens, the rates of all type of crime soared, including the use of guns.
In those States of the US where permits are routinely issued for concealed carry of handguns, crime has dropped in all categories. It seems logical to me that what works should be adopted and what does not work should be dropped.
Unless all guns can be confiscated, something that the UK government, for example, never intended to do, disarming the victims merely makes the crims' work easier.
If the flightcrew and passengers are also emasculated, the terrorist will find his work easier too.
Personally I have doubts, since the reporting methods differ. I spend a lot of time in both the US and Aus, and have never suffered any crime in either country, but the point of the study is that since Aus and the UK took guns away from the honest citizens, the rates of all type of crime soared, including the use of guns.
In those States of the US where permits are routinely issued for concealed carry of handguns, crime has dropped in all categories. It seems logical to me that what works should be adopted and what does not work should be dropped.
Unless all guns can be confiscated, something that the UK government, for example, never intended to do, disarming the victims merely makes the crims' work easier.
If the flightcrew and passengers are also emasculated, the terrorist will find his work easier too.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhm... so a postal worker will be allowed on board an aircraft with a gun and he will be told if there are any other gun-carrying passengers on board. Or, what worries me more, he will know if there aren't other armed individuals on board.
Now... what I wonder is... how good is the screening of postal workers?
This doesn't make sense. Must be politics. Ah, the land of the free, where everyone is free to tell everyone else what they can't do and where everyone has the right to arm bears.
Cheers,
/ft
Now... what I wonder is... how good is the screening of postal workers?
This doesn't make sense. Must be politics. Ah, the land of the free, where everyone is free to tell everyone else what they can't do and where everyone has the right to arm bears.
Cheers,
/ft
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All, repeat, all federal LEO are sworn to enforce all federal laws, whether the law falls under their department or not. Postal worker are NOT armed. Only postal inspectors are allowed to be armed. Postal inspectors make felony arrest and escort valuable mail shipments. I know for a fact that all U.S. Marshals and all deputy U.S. Marshals are required to be armed at all times because they considered to be on duty at all times. The only exception being on leave in a foreign country, by the way even I had to get permission to leave the U.S. on leave and I was just a pilot.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The use of weapons onboard of aircraft needs extensive and high quality training in this field, plus the right equipment (gun, ammo). Therefore I will not accept any armed person on board except our "sky marshalls".
My opinion
christian
My opinion
christian
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Guns are a tool”, absolutely, but so is a hammer, but the hammer is only one of many tools in a kit. How many of the LEO’s mentioned in the approved list by the FAA are also qualified experts in confrontation management, hand-to-hand combat and martial arts?
Reading into the many posts on this thread, you cannot help but get the impression that all LEO’s are super cops and if they have a side arm will ultimately save the day. A sidearm is a last resort tool in a properly trained LEO’s kit. An armed LEO on an aircraft has introduced a weapon into a secure environment; he/she not only needs to be an expertly qualified shooter, but also expertly qualified to be able to retain that weapon through other means in the event of being overwhelmed by intruders or expertly trained terrorist(s). Look at that LEO list again, and I think you will recognize that only a small portion of the list has the qualifications as mentioned above. If you happen to know a Sky Marshall, ask him/her if they would like to have one or several “generally trained” LEO’s packing loaded side arms on their flights.
It’s also interesting to note that according to the criminal code and Federal Law, the Pilot In Command holds powers as peace officer from the time the final aircraft door is closed until the time the first door is opened upon arrival. Some of my colleagues have extensive backgrounds in military (some special forces), and law enforcement, yet the policy makers and public are dead set against arming any of these individuals as arming “pilots is dangerous”. Arm every pilot? Absolutely not, logistics prevent that. Arm some pilots? Why not, it creates an extra layer of security, therefore on any given flight, your crew may or may not be armed, and you guess which flight. The whole idea folks, is prevention!
As an Airline Captain, I find it extremely disturbing that our policy makers and security continually run airline crews through the most idiotic searches and bans (nose hair trimmers, nail clippers etc.), and doubt our ID, Licenses etc. (they issued them!). Yet we are supposed to accept any armed LEO’s ID as legitimate.
The Secret Service Agent in the AA case is no doubt expertly qualified, however, it appears his professional demeanour could use some brushing up.
The Captain of the flight is the final check in the system when that last aircraft door is closed and is given the AUTHORIZATION & RESPONSIBILITY by LAW to achieve this. As any good LEO will attest, sometimes it comes down to experience and gut instinct in assessing a situation. The easiest thing for the AA Captain to do would have been to ignore this gut instinct, processed the paperwork and carried on, hoping for the best and thereby saving himself a load of paperwork.
If crews are going to be continually questioned and harassed for these decisions, the public can expect the quality of future critical decision-making to take a turn for the worse.
----------------------------------------------
Reading into the many posts on this thread, you cannot help but get the impression that all LEO’s are super cops and if they have a side arm will ultimately save the day. A sidearm is a last resort tool in a properly trained LEO’s kit. An armed LEO on an aircraft has introduced a weapon into a secure environment; he/she not only needs to be an expertly qualified shooter, but also expertly qualified to be able to retain that weapon through other means in the event of being overwhelmed by intruders or expertly trained terrorist(s). Look at that LEO list again, and I think you will recognize that only a small portion of the list has the qualifications as mentioned above. If you happen to know a Sky Marshall, ask him/her if they would like to have one or several “generally trained” LEO’s packing loaded side arms on their flights.
It’s also interesting to note that according to the criminal code and Federal Law, the Pilot In Command holds powers as peace officer from the time the final aircraft door is closed until the time the first door is opened upon arrival. Some of my colleagues have extensive backgrounds in military (some special forces), and law enforcement, yet the policy makers and public are dead set against arming any of these individuals as arming “pilots is dangerous”. Arm every pilot? Absolutely not, logistics prevent that. Arm some pilots? Why not, it creates an extra layer of security, therefore on any given flight, your crew may or may not be armed, and you guess which flight. The whole idea folks, is prevention!
As an Airline Captain, I find it extremely disturbing that our policy makers and security continually run airline crews through the most idiotic searches and bans (nose hair trimmers, nail clippers etc.), and doubt our ID, Licenses etc. (they issued them!). Yet we are supposed to accept any armed LEO’s ID as legitimate.
The Secret Service Agent in the AA case is no doubt expertly qualified, however, it appears his professional demeanour could use some brushing up.
The Captain of the flight is the final check in the system when that last aircraft door is closed and is given the AUTHORIZATION & RESPONSIBILITY by LAW to achieve this. As any good LEO will attest, sometimes it comes down to experience and gut instinct in assessing a situation. The easiest thing for the AA Captain to do would have been to ignore this gut instinct, processed the paperwork and carried on, hoping for the best and thereby saving himself a load of paperwork.
If crews are going to be continually questioned and harassed for these decisions, the public can expect the quality of future critical decision-making to take a turn for the worse.
----------------------------------------------
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been in this business for years and I have never seen a U S Federal statute that states that the PIC of an aircraft is also a law enforcement officer. Don't recall taking that oath or getting that training. Don't confuse Part 91 of the FARs that says PIC is final authority on the safe operation of the aircraft as making the PIC a demigod or even a deputy marshall.
There are some state laws that may get into this, but if they are contrary to federal law I wouldn't want to hang my hat on them as aviation is federally regulated. I believe there may be a few state laws conferring some kind of status on PICs. Alaska has a state law that requires that a rifle, among other things, be carried as survival equipment in aircraft operated in that state. Neat trick when they go across the border to Canada.
There are some state laws that may get into this, but if they are contrary to federal law I wouldn't want to hang my hat on them as aviation is federally regulated. I believe there may be a few state laws conferring some kind of status on PICs. Alaska has a state law that requires that a rifle, among other things, be carried as survival equipment in aircraft operated in that state. Neat trick when they go across the border to Canada.