Woman on Jet with Knife and Stun Gun

[evildave]

All of that "Home Security" legislation, and tax dollars spent, they make you stand in line to take off your shoes while checking in with a soldier holding an M16 watching you, and look what happens.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1913115,00.html


A Denver-bound woman managed to pass through security screening at LaGuardia Airport in New York with a stun gun and knife in her purse Saturday.

The woman first flew to Detroit, where she deplaned for a short period, according to Laura Bennett, a spokeswoman for Spirit Airlines. After her next flight was most of the way to Denver, she reached into her purse and realized she had brought weapons on board.

"She immediately went, 'Oh, my God, I'm not supposed to have these here,' and called the flight attendant over," Bennett said.


Kind of makes you wonder how often someone realised they had contraband and didn't wave for the stewardess, or got off the plane and realised it when they got home. After all, most people would know a big police hassle was the only possible outcome, and keep quiet.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by evildave
All of that "Home Security" legislation, and tax dollars spent, they make you stand in line to take off your shoes while checking in with a soldier holding an M16 watching you, and look what happens.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1913115,00.html



Kind of makes you wonder how often someone realised they had contraband and didn't wave for the stewardess, or got off the plane and realised it when they got home. After all, most people would know a big police hassle was the only possible outcome, and keep quiet.

stungun and knife? where does this woman socialize???

[Zep]

Was she thrown off mid-flight? Did the flight staff beat her senseless and then sit on her? What about the sky-marshall?

Joking...!

What it REALLY says is that the La Guardia security screening isn't worth a pinch of possum's poo. Which means that there's a gaping hole there to allow a repeat episode of 9/11...

What an unpleasant surprise.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hopefully they throw her in the slammer. To set an example.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
What an unpleasant surprise.

It's hardly a surprise. What we have in our airports is the illusion of security, not security itself. NOTHING that they are doing will stop an organized group of terrorists from executing a planned attack as they did on 9/11. The government is giving us a false sense of security, which is worse than no security at all.

[clk]

Originally posted by shanek


It's hardly a surprise. What we have in our airports is the illusion of security, not security itself. NOTHING that they are doing will stop an organized group of terrorists from executing a planned attack as they did on 9/11. The government is giving us a false sense of security, which is worse than no security at all.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what measures you would implement to improve the security situation at airports.
Thanks.

[Zep]

Originally posted by clk
Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what measures you would implement to improve the security situation at airports.
Thanks. I would suggest that they wake up the people who work at the X-ray and metal scanners for a start. The woman had a knife and stungun in her purse that somehow made it through either or both of these devices. My wife, who has a small metal plate and other assorted medical ironmongery in her body, sets these off every time and has to give long and detailed explanations, etc.

But even failing this, they could have at least LOOKED in the purse...

[fishbob]

But even failing this, they could have at least LOOKED in the purse... What? No major studies, no big policy changes, no extra bazillions of tax dollars? You just expect the screeners to do their jobs competently? Zep, Zep Zep - You obviously do not work in government.

[Zep]

Originally posted by fishbob
What? No major studies, no big policy changes, no extra bazillions of tax dollars? You just expec them to do their jobs competently? You obviously do not work in government. I have worked in the government, and I appreciate your humour! :)

But I think that other government employees with a modicum of responsible power already allocated, for example, people like Lt Col. H. Bidlack, could give these people a swift re-introduction to getting the job done right, today, first time through. Or find an alternate career path. I would have no problem with that use of "power" at all.

[shuize]

The screeners are still the same slovenly dregs who couldn't get a job at McDonalds. But now they're federalized.

I think I posted this story before. But it's been a while back, so here goes.

My wife used to work as a guide interpreter in Atlanta. Since she often worked late hours at the airport, I used to go out and meet her. One night while we were walking back through the terminal we came around the corner near one of the lesser used gates. Imagine our suprise upon discovering the metal detector unmanned and the two security officers rolling around on the floor in a knock-down drag-out fight.

Pre-9/11, of course. But still, those are the sort of people you're trusting to find the hidden weapons and explosives.

[c0rbin]

Claus immeadiatly stood up, yealped "Yippy Kai-Yeah, Mutherfuggah!", beat the woman to death.

[Tmy]

Another example of how profiling works!

What a stupid bim. First she forgets she has these things, then she rats on herself in midflight. YOU WERE HOME FREE! Im surprised she didnt think to herself "hey, Ive come this far. I might as well try to take over the plane."

[LW]

Sometime in early 90's one of my father's workmates did a 4-country worktrip around Europe: Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, IIRC. When he was in the final security check before flying back to Helsinki, a security guy noticed that he wasn't traveling with his own passport, but of his wife's.

He had succesfully boarded four planes with his wife's passport...

[shanek]

Originally posted by clk
Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what measures you would implement to improve the security situation at airports.
Thanks.

First of all, reverse most of the bull$#!7 accumulated over the last couple years. Get the government out of it and let the airports handle the security.

Second, get rid of the Single Point of Failure. There is a definite SPF at the security point because there's almost nothing else checking this stuff out. Sneak in a knife and a stun gun, which as we've just seen is entirely possible, and you get to keep it long enough to turn the plane into a flying bomb. The airlines must have the leeway to implement whatever security they believe is necessary at the gate and/or on the plane, including an extra search, armed pilots or air marshals, or whatever they think is necessary. But this instance, the guy they found stowed away (and dead) in the wheel casing, the guy who managed to get the boxcutters on board, and other issues show us that the current system just isn't working.

[Tmy]

Werent the airports handleing security before 911??? What did the private security do that was so great.

Is this story that big a deal. So she had a stun gun and a knife, theres no way she couldve taken over the plane. Sure some people couldve been hurt, maybe killed. But thats a far cry from "flying bomb".

[Thanz]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Claus immeadiatly stood up, yealped "Yippy Kai-Yeah, Mutherfuggah!", beat the woman to death.
It is very rare that I actually laugh out loud at something I read here. This is one of those times.

Thank you, c0rbin. That was hilarious.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is very rare that I actually laugh out loud at something I read here. This is one of those times.

Thank you, c0rbin. That was hilarious.
I agree, that was golden.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Claus immeadiatly stood up, yealped "Yippy Kai-Yeah, Mutherfuggah!", beat the woman to death.

That is about what I was thinking of as well.

It is a good thing for her that ever self-sacrificing CFLarsen was not nearby.

[Richard G]

Its not illegal to own and carry a knife, a stun-gun, or a gun in the U.S. It should not be illegal aboard a plane. Armed citizens can defend themselves. Airport security cannot.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tmy
Werent the airports handleing security before 911??? What did the private security do that was so great.

Is this story that big a deal. So she had a stun gun and a knife, theres no way she couldve taken over the plane. Sure some people couldve been hurt, maybe killed. But thats a far cry from "flying bomb".

The point is, if people can take ammunition, stun guns and knives onto planes by accident then others can do so on purpose and with malicious intent.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Richard G
Its not illegal to own and carry a knife, a stun-gun, or a gun in the U.S. It should not be illegal aboard a plane. Armed citizens can defend themselves. Airport security cannot.

Well then please write us a missive from jail when you insist on carrying a knife and a stun-gun into a state office building, police station, jail, federal building, military base, and so on.

[Richard G]

It is legal in Ohio to carry a firearm into both a State Office Building, and a Police Station. I have done both. (openly, not concealed). I'm not fond of knives, or stun guns. They are horribly inferior to a reliable handgun.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Richard G
Its not illegal to own and carry a knife, a stun-gun, or a gun in the U.S. It should not be illegal aboard a plane. Armed citizens can defend themselves. Airport security cannot.

Masterbation is also legal. The flight attendants still hassle me when I do it on the airplane! :p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Werent the airports handleing security before 911???

It was still government security. It was NEVER private.

Is this story that big a deal. So she had a stun gun and a knife, theres no way she couldve taken over the plane. Sure some people couldve been hurt, maybe killed. But thats a far cry from "flying bomb".

Um, boxcutters? Hello????

[Tmy]

Are you sure about the govt thing?? I couldve sworn it was private screening.


Bocutters will never be enuff after 911. THe passengers wont sit and be good hostages anymore.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bocutters will never be enuff after 911. THe passengers wont sit and be good hostages anymore.

That's the thing that I think most people overlook. Terrorists won't even try to hijack planes anymore. The 9/11 attacks were a plan that could only work once (hell, it had even stopped working by the time Flight 93 was hijacked).

I pity the next person who tries to hijack a plane. He'll be jumped immediately by at least 30 people. There's no reason to worry about knives, boxcutters, or the like. The most they would try to do is blow up the plane, which would most likely involve checked bags, not carry-ons.

Regardless of who is competent or not, there's simply no need for increased security.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Are you sure about the govt thing?? I couldve sworn it was private screening.

Government has performed security screening at airports since the early 1970s, if not earlier.

Bocutters will never be enuff after 911. THe passengers wont sit and be good hostages anymore.

But actually having the passengers take out the attackers should be a last-ditch effort, not something you just wave your hand and say will happen when your security measures fail. You want to do everything possible to prevent it from getting to that situation in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by toddjh
That's the thing that I think most people overlook. Terrorists won't even try to hijack planes anymore. The 9/11 attacks were a plan that could only work once (hell, it had even stopped working by the time Flight 93 was hijacked).

Yes and no. Before 9-11, we did not - could not - imagine the inhumanity of using passenger planes as missiles. Now, we have to accept that is not just a possibility, but a likelihood.

Originally posted by toddjh
I pity the next person who tries to hijack a plane. He'll be jumped immediately by at least 30 people.

Thank you. I would be one of them, and I would do my best to kill them. Strangely enough, I have been heavily criticized for this. Often from people, who advocate the possession of guns for the general public for self-defense. Go figure.

Originally posted by toddjh
There's no reason to worry about knives, boxcutters, or the like. The most they would try to do is blow up the plane, which would most likely involve checked bags, not carry-ons.

Not quite. Although shoes are pretty effective, if they come flying at you in hundreds, we cannot get guarantees. If someone tries to hijack a plane, that person - or those persons - has/have to be killed, in order to secure that the plane is not used as the planes on 9-11. We cannot even rely on them being unconscious. They go down, from being hit by hundreds of shoes? Great? You rely on them to stay down? I don't.

Originally posted by toddjh
Regardless of who is competent or not, there's simply no need for increased security.

I disagree, to a point. Although it is not likely that 9-11 would be copied, we will have to live with increased security for many, many years to come.

We simply cannot run the risk. And I hate that....I really do.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek
First of all, reverse most of the bull$#!7 accumulated over the last couple years. Get the government out of it and let the airports handle the security.



Just curious, but what makes you think that having security handled by the airlines themselves will make things any more secure?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes and no. Before 9-11, we did not - could not - imagine the inhumanity of using passenger planes as missiles. Now, we have to accept that is not just a possibility, but a likelihood.

I disagree. The plane-as-missile scenario simply will not happen again. It was a trick that could only work once. Before 9/11, passengers on hijacked planes were hostages. They knew it was in the hijackers' interests to keep them alive, so they just sat tight and waited it out. And it worked.

After 9/11, no one will think that. They won't be afraid to rush the hijacker, especially if all he has is a knife. I'd do it in a heartbeat. All it takes is one person to get locked with him before the rest will rush him too. He'll get torn to pieces.

Whatever people say, the people planning these things aren't stupid. They know a repeat of 9/11 will be doomed to failure, and so they won't even try. The next attack (assuming they're still organized enough to launch one) will come from a completely different direction.

Not quite. Although shoes are pretty effective, if they come flying at you in hundreds, we cannot get guarantees. If someone tries to hijack a plane, that person - or those persons - has/have to be killed, in order to secure that the plane is not used as the planes on 9-11. We cannot even rely on them being unconscious. They go down, from being hit by hundreds of shoes? Great? You rely on them to stay down? I don't.

Hmm, maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying that boxcutters aren't worth worrying about because no one will try to hijack a plane with one again.

I agree that you shouldn't hold back when taking a would-be hijacker down. If he dies in the process, good riddance. But I wouldn't go as far as killing him after he's already subdued. Stripped, restrained, sedated, sure. But it's not like people would beat the guy unconscious and then just leave him lying there while they go back to watching the in-flight movie. Every single person would be keeping an eye on him.

Jeremy

[evildave]

For "fool-proof" security measures, it's very, very simple.

All people check in for their flight OFF the airport grounds. At remote check-in points scattered around the region of the airport. These security stations are small, and never allowed to become crowded. Passengers (and airport staff) arrive here well before they are scheduled to be at the airport to be cleared in.

All passengers at the remote clearing stations will disrobe, their personal effects will be inspected and packaged up FOR THEM, and they will be given nice, safe, fire retardant cotton/nomex, form-fitting jump suit/jammies with no pockets to wear for their trip.

All luggage bigger than one or two cubic feet is shipped seperately via cargo. NO CARRY ON. Period. If passengers are clever, they'll pre-arrange shipment of their cargo to their hotel or wherever they're going, so it will be waiting at their room.

All passengers board the bus INDOORS. From check-in, they are never outdoors again (unless they have to get on the plane that way). The bus takes them to the airport terminal. They get on the plane. Nobody gets into the airport except by bus. If the bus has a mishap on the way, it goes back and gets re-cleared. Too bad.

At the airport, and on the aircraft, all your personal needs are catered to. There is an internet terminal at your seat, with movies. It has secure remote desktop software, so you can do work on your personal computer from here.

Upon arrival, passengers are bussed to remote (off-airport) arrival stations with their (inaccessible) personal effects.

At the remote arrival station, they can get out of their aircraft jammies, shower (if they like), get dressed and arrange to get where they need to go from there.

True security, and it eliminates the traffic congestion at airports, too. No throngs of people to wade through and stand in line with and attact attention as a target. No oceans of packages and junk. A terrorist would be far better off hitting a Wal*Mart.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by evildave
For "fool-proof" security measures, it's very, very simple.

All people check in for their flight OFF the airport grounds. At remote check-in points scattered around the region of the airport. These security stations are small, and never allowed to become crowded. Passengers (and airport staff) arrive here well before they are scheduled to be at the airport to be cleared in.

All passengers at the remote clearing stations will disrobe, their personal effects will be inspected and packaged up FOR THEM, and they will be given nice, safe, fire retardant cotton/nomex, form-fitting jump suit/jammies with no pockets to wear for their trip.

All luggage bigger than one or two cubic feet is shipped seperately via cargo. NO CARRY ON. Period. If passengers are clever, they'll pre-arrange shipment of their cargo to their hotel or wherever they're going, so it will be waiting at their room.

All passengers board the bus INDOORS. From check-in, they are never outdoors again (unless they have to get on the plane that way). The bus takes them to the airport terminal. They get on the plane. Nobody gets into the airport except by bus. If the bus has a mishap on the way, it goes back and gets re-cleared. Too bad.

At the airport, and on the aircraft, all your personal needs are catered to. There is an internet terminal at your seat, with movies. It has secure remote desktop software, so you can do work on your personal computer from here.

Upon arrival, passengers are bussed to remote (off-airport) arrival stations with their (inaccessible) personal effects.

At the remote arrival station, they can get out of their aircraft jammies, shower (if they like), get dressed and arrange to get where they need to go from there.

True security, and it eliminates the traffic congestion at airports, too. No throngs of people to wade through and stand in line with and attact attention as a target. No oceans of packages and junk. A terrorist would be far better off hitting a Wal*Mart.

if anything like that is implemented, the airlines would go out of business.

[evildave]

I'm sure they said that about lining people up for "security checks", too.

What would people do?

Take Amtrack?

Maybe "Go Greyhound"?

Spend 70 hours instead of seven getting there in conditions similar to the airplane, only bumpier and noisier, with random delays?

Of course, you still have your car. I know from experience it only takes 23 hours to drive from Oklahome to Los Angeles, if you don't stop. Of course, taking a car and driving like that, you're not likely to get anywhere but a hospital or morgue.

And what shall you do to get to international destinations? Swim to Australia? Certainly a boat would be more comfortable, but now we're talking weeks for a trip that was done in a day.

I don't think the airlines would go out of business. After all, look at the transparently bad security they have now, and people are still willing to fly, because EVEN WITH TERRORISTS PULLING OFF "BIG EVENTS" ONCE A MONTH, it's safer than driving yourself, and far faster than most modes of transportation.

Except maybe for the short hops. Between Fresno and Los Angeles, it's absolutely pointless to take a plane. You could've driven to LAX in 4 hours, and by the time you allow yourself extra "inspection" time, and get there early enough to guarantee you don't miss the flight, and deal with all the airport "fun", it is more than four hours.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by evildave
I'm sure they said that about lining people up for "security checks", too.

What would people do?

Take Amtrack?

Maybe "Go Greyhound"?

Spend 70 hours instead of seven getting there in conditions similar to the airplane, only bumpier and noisier, with random delays?

Of course, you still have your car. I know from experience it only takes 23 hours to drive from Oklahome to Los Angeles, if you don't stop. Of course, taking a car and driving like that, you're not likely to get anywhere but a hospital or morgue.

And what shall you do to get to international destinations? Swim to Australia? Certainly a boat would be more comfortable, but now we're talking weeks for a trip that was done in a day.

I don't think the airlines would go out of business. After all, look at the transparently bad security they have now, and people are still willing to fly, because EVEN WITH TERRORISTS PULLING OFF "BIG EVENTS" ONCE A MONTH, it's safer than driving yourself, and far faster than most modes of transportation.

Except maybe for the short hops. Between Fresno and Los Angeles, it's absolutely pointless to take a plane. You could've driven to LAX in 4 hours, and by the time you allow yourself extra "inspection" time, and get there early enough to guarantee you don't miss the flight, and deal with all the airport "fun", it is more than four hours.

a certain segment would still fly. however, look at how bad the airlines are doing right now. if even 20% of current passengers decided that your plan was going too far, you would see a lot of airlines going belly up.

[evildave]

Well, then the surviving airlines would gobble up the remaining market that the unadaptable businesses could not cope with, and continue. Or foreign airlines would come in. Free enterprise and all.

People just get used to things. They act pissed off when you introduce "shoe inspection", but really, they just end up accepting it.

It can be phased in, and you're putting the whole wrong spin on it.

Start with the remote check-in. That is actually a MAJOR convenience. Heck, in Los Angeles, the 405 would stop being a traffic jam every day because those thirty thousand cars criss-crossing at the last second to get into the airport lane would be replaced with nice, orderly busses and trains. There wouldn't be any direct airport access from any freeway. All you have to do is say "airport", and people get flashbacks and dread sinks in. They ready themselves for stress and trauma. The check-in could be done anywhere within 50 miles of the airport. So, why do it AT the airport? To give us that lovely cattle in the corral feeling?

The baggage shipment? ANOTHER HUGE CONVENIENCE! The MAJOR luggage simply gets picked up before you go, and delivered before you'll arrive. You can call ahead and ask if your luggage is there, yet. Just ship that bulky junk. Every hotel will be equipped to accept these deliveries. No hanging around the airport waiting for your stuff to (NOT) appear on the baggage carousel. If you checked it in ahead of time, it was picked up at your home, and will already be waiting for you in your hotel room when you get there. How convenient is THAT?

And if we got rid of all of the carry-on impediments to boarding, and all of the junk people might delay to make a grab for in the event of an emergency egress, we've boosted boarding and disembarking efficiency by a big margin. No long line of people wanting to strangle the moron who's wrestling with her NOT QUITE carry-on sized purse and bag and stuff, trying to wedge it all into the (dangerous) overhead compartments. Just get in your #&*@ seat, already!

Got a baby? Here's an airport standard baby carrier in bright, reflective orange, there'll be plenty of disposable diapers and such on the plane that won't muck up the potty, and blankets and such for baby that ALSO won't melt into their skin in the event of fire.

I can't stress enough about the nylon, spandex, etc. artificial fibers, and their scarring, detrimental effect when heat is applied. Where cotton, wool or nomex would singe and curl, the nylon MELTS and sticks to your skin. If you've ever been burned melting a nylon rope end, you know how that works, except it's your WHOLE BODY when it's clothing. Do you really want some woman in high heels to be tripping and bowling over three people on her way to the emergency exit when the smoke is beginning to pour in? How about some retard who's trying to save his notebook computer and her purse, encumbering themselves at the cost of precious seconds that can kill people?

If SAFETY is your goal, then people will wear standardized and approved air travel clothing, and won't have any extra junk to carry around with them.

Hence, passenger uniforms FOR SAFETY. Besides, it helps herd people in the right direction. Can't find the International TWA gate 4A? Look for the crowd of passengers dressed exactly like you.

[evildave]

Heh, just occurred to me: disposable paper airline suits with built-in depends.

After all, if the proposed regulations about NOT lining up to go to the bathroom are to be enforced, there's NOT a lot of options....

[Darat]

Originally posted by evildave
Heh, just occurred to me: disposable paper airline suits with built-in depends.

After all, if the proposed regulations about NOT lining up to go to the bathroom are to be enforced, there's NOT a lot of options....

Urrugh to the last idea, however I do support your other ideas.

If people want "absolute" security then there are wholesale changes required along the lines you have posted.

And please allow me to get on my hobby-horse for a moment. I am no longer allowed to take even a pair of tweezers into the cabin - yet I am encouraged to buy potentially lethal objects to take onto the plane i.e. glass bottles from the duty free!

The 11th September suicide hijacks were carried out with small craft blades, yet it isn't considered a security risk to allow glass bottles onto a plane! Incredible.

(Edited for a iffy if.)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...

Thank you. I would be one of them, and I would do my best to kill them. Strangely enough, I have been heavily criticized for this. Often from people, who advocate the possession of guns for the general public for self-defense. Go figure.

...

Hang on there killer Claus!

You were saying earlier that you would kill anyone you saw carrying a concealed firearm on a commercial flight. Now then I said that you were stupid doing such a thing.

So which is it now?

You will kill anyone you see with a concealed firearm,
OR
You will help to kill a hijacker?

I would appreciate it if you woul provide an answer.

[karl]

Originally posted by evildave
[...] If SAFETY is your goal, then people will wear standardized and approved air travel clothing, and won't have any extra junk to carry around with them.


Let's not forget that nearly all incidents have been caused by passengers getting out of their seats. A person not sitting down during flight is a safety hazard. Hence, all airplane seats, in addition to seatbelts, should be equipped with shackles that can only be unlocked by a flight attendant. But only for one passenger at a time, and all trips down the aisle have to be supervised by at least two air marshals.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Crossbow
So which is it now?

You will kill anyone you see with a concealed firearm,
OR
You will help to kill a hijacker?

I would appreciate it if you woul provide an answer.

Both, of course. Why are those opposites?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Both, of course. Why are those opposites?

OK then, I guess my orignal assessment was correct:

You are stupid!

Just because someone has a concealed firearm on a commercial airplane does not mean that person is a hijacker. The person could be a police officer, FBI agent, Sky Marshal, or any number of other people authorized to carry such weapons.

[c0rbin]

Thank you. I would be one of them, and I would do my best to kill them. Strangely enough, I have been heavily criticized for this. Often from people, who advocate the possession of guns for the general public for self-defense. Go figure.

Were you to attempt to take down someone in the process of hijacking a plane, I would call you a brave soul--hero even.

Were you to attack and kill a person with a concealed gun who was calmly sitting in his/her seat without digging any deeper, I would call you an idiot.

Go figure.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Crossbow
OK then, I guess my orignal assessment was correct:

You are stupid!

Just because someone has a concealed firearm on a commercial airplane does not mean that person is a hijacker. The person could be a police officer, FBI agent, Sky Marshal, or any number of other people authorized to carry such weapons.

Instead of resorting to namecalling, could you explain why these two are opposites?

Originally posted by c0rbin
Were you to attempt to take down someone in the process of hijacking a plane, I would call you a brave soul--hero even.

Were you to attack and kill a person with a concealed gun who was calmly sitting in his/her seat without digging any deeper, I would call you an idiot.

Go figure.

Perhaps you should read what I posted.

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Thank you. I would be one of them, and I would do my best to kill them. Strangely enough, I have been heavily criticized for this. Often from people, who advocate the possession of guns for the general public for self-defense. Go figure.

Haven't you read the criticism at all?

You aren't critized about attacking hijackers.

You are criticed for your proposed policy of immediately attacking and killing any person if you think you saw a concealed handgun in his or her possession.

See the difference? I highlighted the critical words.

Mind you, in my not-a-bit-humble-and-I'm-not-ashamed-of-it opinion that strategy would be utterly and absolutely stupid even if it was the case that all handguns aboard planes were in fact held by hijackers.

You yourself have argued before that if there is a hijacker, then there probably are also 3-5 more of them on the same plane. So, when you now attack one of them, you force the hands of the rest of hijackers who will immediately raise and try to get control of the plane while the passangers and cabin crew still don't have any idea what exactly is going on.

So, because of your attack the rest of the hijackers still have an element of surprise for their actions that they wouldn't have if you would have paused for a short while and actually told somebody about your observations.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Instead of resorting to namecalling, could you explain why these two are opposites?



Perhaps you should read what I posted.

In the first place, I am not calling them opposites, you are. So you define your own terms.

In the second place, you should read what you post when you say that you will kill anyone you see carrying a concealed firearm while on a commercial flight.

And in the third place, you have still not provided an answer to my question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
You are criticed for your proposed policy of immediately attacking and killing any person if you think you saw a concealed handgun in his or her possession.

Excuse me, but where do I do this? If I recall correctly, my posts were about people with guns on airplanes. Guns that I saw. You are simply misrepresenting my point.

That, however, is not my problem.

Originally posted by Crossbow
In the first place, I am not calling them opposites, you are. So you define your own terms.

No, you said "or". I took this as meaning "either or", especially from the way you posed the question.

Originally posted by Crossbow
In the second place, you should read what you post when you say that you will kill anyone you see carrying a concealed firearm while on a commercial flight.

I have.

Originally posted by Crossbow
And in the third place, you have still not provided an answer to my question.

Yes, I did: "Both, of course". Apparently, you cannot read. That, however, is not my problem.

[Crossbow]

Yep, you really are stupid all right and I hope that I never have the misfortune to be on the same plane with you. And if I did, then I would most certainly report your threats and do what I could to get you kicked out of the airport.

By the way, the only other person that I ever called stupid was 'Jedi Knight' so you are in good company.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33204&highlight=kill

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Think "Sky Marshalls"? Think that guns on a plane is a good idea?

Sorry, I don't have time for that. I don't have time to even contemplate the possibility of him being a "good guy". It takes less than 5 minutes to fly from any NY airport to WTC, and I do not have time to check with authorities to see if the guy with the gun is a "good guy" or not.

I'll kill the f*cker. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

What will you do?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Yep, you really are stupid all right and I hope that I never have the misfortune to be on the same plane with you. And if I did, then I would most certainly report your threats and do what I could to get you kicked out of the airport.

By the way, the only other person that I ever called stupid was 'Jedi Knight' so you are in good company.

Yes, that's nice. You don't want to discuss, you want to rant.

Have a nice day.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yes, that's nice. You don't want to discuss, you want to rant.

Have a nice day.

Oh that's rich!

You repeatedly threaten to kill people you know nothing about and then turn around and say that I am ranting.

[c0rbin]

Perhaps you should read what I posted.

I generally do, as you are usually an intelligent poster who is dedicated to the cause of skepticism.

You have a fastidious quality that irks the likes of SteveG and Lucianarchy and I find that amusing.

You're way off base here, though (and when you bash Americans).

Perhaps hubris is starting to get the better of you.

[Edited to add a comma and to fix a funky sentence.]

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Crossbow
So which is it now?

You will kill anyone you see with a concealed firearm,
OR
You will help to kill a hijacker?

I would appreciate it if you woul provide an answer.

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Both, of course. Why are those opposites?

I don't think you are stupid Claus, but this statement looks stupid to me. You are saying that everyone with a firearm on a plane is a hijacker, this is not the case. There is a possibility, even more so today I'd wager, that the person you saw with a gun is a sky marshal. The sky marshal would be the opposite of a would be hijacker, that person is there to preven hijacking.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by c0rbin
You're way off base here, though (and when you bash Americans).

That's an interesting comment. I don't think I "bash" Americans, but do you really consider people criticizing Americans as being "way off base", by default?

Originally posted by c0rbin
Perhaps hubris is starting to get the better of you.

Perhaps it is wise to remember that we cannot agree on everything. Just because we disagree on some points does not necessarily mean that hubris is getting the better of me. :)

Originally posted by LeFevre
I don't think you are stupid Claus, but this statement looks stupid to me. You are saying that everyone with a firearm on a plane is a hijacker, this is not the case. There is a possibility, even more so today I'd wager, that the person you saw with a gun is a sky marshal. The sky marshal would be the opposite of a would be hijacker, that person is there to preven hijacking.

I am not saying at all that everyone with a firearm on a plane is a hijacker. I am saying that there is no time to determine if someone with a gun on a plane is a hijacker. Considering the possible outcomes, I find it better to eliminate the threat of a gun altogether.

I wager somewhat different than you, that's all.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Crossbow (to Claus)

By the way, the only other person that I ever called stupid was 'Jedi Knight' so you are in good company.


LoL

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not saying at all that everyone with a firearm on a plane is a hijacker. I am saying that there is no time to determine if someone with a gun on a plane is a hijacker. Considering the possible outcomes, I find it better to eliminate the threat of a gun altogether.

A number of generally sensible posters have been trying to tell you that an immediate attack to kill the gun holder might not be the best way to remove the threat of the gun.

The reasons for this range from the possibility of the gun being a legitime to the increased chance of neutralizing the potential hijacker if there are more than one person participating in the attempt, among others.

Thus far, you haven't really addressed this reasoning. You keep repeating that:

(1) Everything has changed;
(2) You are in a missile; and
(3) You don't have time to do anything apart killing the person.

As you might have noticed, pretty much all posters are saying that most probably you do have time to alert the crew. I don't believe that you will ever convince anyone by just continuing to assert (3) without giving a better justifications for it.

I would like to paraphrase the old General Paul von Gerich who wrote the first textbooks for military training in the independent Finnish army [despite his German name he was an ethnic Finn]. He teached that when a commander is in a situation (military term of having something interesting happening), the said commander should first assess the situation, make a decision on how to act, and then act according to that decision [that, btw, shouldn't be changed unless absolutely necessary]. In particular, he was adamant that the commander shoudn't have a fixed set of standard responses as every real-life situation is different. [Sources: Päätä ja toimi and Taktiikan oppikirja]

In your airplane example you want to skip over the assessment and decision steps and jump directly from noticing being in a situation into action with a single pre-determined response. Something that the above-mentioned general who was a veteran of three wars (Russo-Japanese, WWI, and Finnish Civil War) condemned absolutely.

In my opinion, and judging from the posts also in the opinions of many other posters, your posting style in this subject bears a striking resemblance to the styles of many proponents of the paranormal. That doesn't suit you at all. Right now I'm seriously considering that I add to my informal "soft-ignore" list of poster-topic pairs that don't have to be taken seriously the entry "CFLarsen - guns, security, airplanes". [Other entries in that list include "Interesting Ian - mathematics", "Billiefan2000 - religion", "Richard G. - guns", and "Lucianarchy - everything" and several others].

Excuse me, but where do I do this? If I recall correctly, my posts were about people with guns on airplanes. Guns that I saw. You are simply misrepresenting my point.

Well, I have several times tried to get you to acknowledge that there might be a situation where the best response to perceived gun is not an immediate attack and also that you might not have to actually kill the gun holder to make him incapable of being any sort of danger. As you have ignored those attempts, I have had to come to the conclusion that your propsed plan still is to have an immediate attack that won't stop until the gun holder is dead.

I would also like to know how you are able to differentiate between the cases that "you think you see a handgun" and "you see a handgun" without having some sort of paranormal powers. For example, you may be 100% certain that the object that you saw for a fraction of a second is a gun but it still might be a cellular phone that some macho idiot carries around in a shoulder holster [they exist, when I was a summer intern in an unnamed large Finnish firm that used to specialize in making rubber boots, my boss carried his phone in one].

[c0rbin]

That's an interesting comment. I don't think I "bash" Americans, but do you really consider people criticizing Americans as being "way off base", by default?

I think you have, though I am not going to waste my time finding posts you have made that do so. I will happy knowing that you might think about it before you next post on the subject of Americans.

As for being "off base", the answer to your question is "yes" and "no." IMO, any gross generalization about people tends to be way off base and not a good basis for bashing. Criticism is always welcome in my house especially of the constructive sort, but there is a difference.


Perhaps it is wise to remember that we cannot agree on everything. Just because we disagree on some points does not necessarily mean that hubris is getting the better of me.


Glad to hear it. I look forward to humility in your coming posts :p

[CFLarsen]

LW,

You may hold a lot of opinions about me and that thread, but the premise is that I see a gun. Can we stick to that, please? It's not the first time that someone has tried to divert the discussion by inventing something I did not include in my premise.

c0rbin,

If you don't want to find evidence of your claim that I "bash" Americans, well...what can one say? :)

What is the difference between "criticism" and "bashing"?

[c0rbin]

One can see for themselves anytime by searching the records. We seem to be satisfied, therefore, it is up to the curious to satisfy themselves.

Like I said, at least now you are thinking about it.

In my opinion, criticism tends to be constructive (like literary criticism). Bashing is abusive.

Bashing = "You are stupid if you think X."

Criticism = "You should read more about Y and Z, before you say something stupid, stupid."

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by LW


A number of generally sensible posters have been trying to tell you that an immediate attack to kill the gun holder might not be the best way to remove the threat of the gun.

The reasons for this range from the possibility of the gun being a legitime to the increased chance of neutralizing the potential hijacker if there are more than one person participating in the attempt, among others.

Thus far, you haven't really addressed this reasoning. You keep repeating that:

(1) Everything has changed;
(2) You are in a missile; and
(3) You don't have time to do anything apart killing the person.

As you might have noticed, pretty much all posters are saying that most probably you do have time to alert the crew. I don't believe that you will ever convince anyone by just continuing to assert (3) without giving a better justifications for it.

I would like to paraphrase the old General Paul von Gerich who wrote the first textbooks for military training in the independent Finnish army [despite his German name he was an ethnic Finn]. He teached that when a commander is in a situation (military term of having something interesting happening), the said commander should first assess the situation, make a decision on how to act, and then act according to that decision [that, btw, shouldn't be changed unless absolutely necessary]. In particular, he was adamant that the commander shoudn't have a fixed set of standard responses as every real-life situation is different. [Sources: Päätä ja toimi and Taktiikan oppikirja]

In your airplane example you want to skip over the assessment and decision steps and jump directly from noticing being in a situation into action with a single pre-determined response. Something that the above-mentioned general who was a veteran of three wars (Russo-Japanese, WWI, and Finnish Civil War) condemned absolutely.

In my opinion, and judging from the posts also in the opinions of many other posters, your posting style in this subject bears a striking resemblance to the styles of many proponents of the paranormal. That doesn't suit you at all. Right now I'm seriously considering that I add to my informal "soft-ignore" list of poster-topic pairs that don't have to be taken seriously the entry "CFLarsen - guns, security, airplanes". [Other entries in that list include "Interesting Ian - mathematics", "Billiefan2000 - religion", "Richard G. - guns", and "Lucianarchy - everything" and several others].



Well, I have several times tried to get you to acknowledge that there might be a situation where the best response to perceived gun is not an immediate attack and also that you might not have to actually kill the gun holder to make him incapable of being any sort of danger. As you have ignored those attempts, I have had to come to the conclusion that your propsed plan still is to have an immediate attack that won't stop until the gun holder is dead.

I would also like to know how you are able to differentiate between the cases that "you think you see a handgun" and "you see a handgun" without having some sort of paranormal powers. For example, you may be 100% certain that the object that you saw for a fraction of a second is a gun but it still might be a cellular phone that some macho idiot carries around in a shoulder holster [they exist, when I was a summer intern in an unnamed large Finnish firm that used to specialize in making rubber boots, my boss carried his phone in one].

That was a great post LW!

:)