 
|
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:18 Post subject:
| Ms. Jenn wrote: | For the most part in the United States, you should be more worried about driving to work, cancer, and whether or not you're going to be shot at a convenience store in the middle of the night than terrorism.
The attack on the USS Cole, the WTC bombings, 9/11, the Anthrax mailings and the Unibomber mailings are pretty few and far between than living in countries were terrorist attacks happen several times a day.
Terrorists are not only middle easterners. Terrorists don't only use airplanes. Terrorists can be anybody and to just about any degree. Unless there is a unamimous agreement for everyone to live in peace and harmony, making your life entirely safe from terrorism (much less an entire country) is absolutely ludicrous. |
Timothy McVeigh was an American.
On a slightly different talk, do you find some of the talk about a safer America, or less safe America with that candidate, to be fear mongering more than the truth?
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:29 Post subject:
fear can promote change. Do Israeli planes ever get hijacked???? Crimes can happen anywhere, yet how many people in small town USA have alarm systems versus a city dwelling? I set my alarm vigilantly in TX......I don't own one here in small town. When crime is so random, does that really make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:29 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | | Timothy McVeigh was an American. |
So are Yaser Hamdi, the Portland Six, and "Taliban John". I would argue the ALF as well.
| Quote: | | On a slightly different talk, do you find some of the talk about a safer America, or less safe America with that candidate, to be fear mongering more than the truth? |
That's ALL I see it as.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:50 Post subject:
A few observations on this topic:
1. A secured, heavy-duty bulletproof cockpit door would be just as effective as armed pilots, with a lot less potential for accidents.
2. 9-11 essentially blew the 'hijack racket' for at least our lifetimes, maybe longer. If someone ever pulled a knife or gun or threatened a bomb on a plane from 9-12 on you can be sure that every person who's physically able would jump them and literally tear them to shreds rather than be a human missile aimed at some unknown target. Sadly though, I fear that when the next attack comes we will be scratching our heads in wonder about how they thought of something so diabolically awful in its simplicity and brilliance once again.
3. El-Al doesn't get hijacked because they have far more (self-imposed) rigorous security measures than most Americans would stand for. The searches are intense and nobody is immune, and just for fun they throw in strip searches randomly, too. It doesn't matter of you're a 24 y.o. Jordanian guy who looks kinda nervous or a 65 y.o. Jewish matron from Long Island visiting Jerusalem with a group from her Synagogue.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:56 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | So if someone smuggled a gun onboard a plane, you wouldn't want the pilot to have a gun to defend the cockpit as a last line of defense. (That isn't flight safety?)
Else, the plane becomes a giant missle aimed at a large building ala 9/11. |
Why haven't we come up with impenetrable cockpit doors?
I think that would work better and avoid a shoot out type scenario.
| RexRacer wrote: | A few observations on this topic:
1. A secured, heavy-duty bulletproof cockpit door would be just as effective as armed pilots, with a lot less potential for accidents.
2. 9-11 essentially blew the 'hijack racket' for at least our lifetimes, maybe longer. If someone ever pulled a knife or gun or threatened a bomb on a plane from 9-12 on you can be sure that every person who's physically able would jump them and literally tear them to shreds rather than be a human missile aimed at some unknown target. Sadly though, I fear that when the next attack comes we will be scratching our heads in wonder about how they thought of something so diabolically awful in its simplicity and brilliance once again.
3. El-Al doesn't get hijacked because they have far more (self-imposed) rigorous security measures than most Americans would stand for. The searches are intense and nobody is immune, and just for fun they throw in strip searches randomly, too. It doesn't matter of you're a 24 y.o. Jordanian guy who looks kinda nervous or a 65 y.o. Jewish matron from Long Island visiting Jerusalem with a group from her Synagogue. |
agree with all of the above
Last edited by Wicked Flea on 10/21/04 - 11:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:57 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
No, I'd want the pilot to be flying the plane. |
And when a terrorist takes over the aircraft because the pilot had no means to defend the cockpit and a Air Force plane shoots down the commerical aircraft, what would you do then?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 11:59 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | And when a terrorist takes over the aircraft because the pilot had no means to defend the cockpit and a Air Force plane shoots down the commerical aircraft, what would you do then? |
That's the problem. No one should be able to get into the cockpit.
And if the commercial aircraft gets shot down, does it really matter if the pilot can shoot anybody? They're all dead anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:01 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
That's the problem. No one should be able to get into the cockpit.
And if the commercial aircraft gets shot down, does it really matter if the pilot can shoot anybody? They're all dead anyway. |
If you can prevent the aircraft from being shot down by the military by arming a pilot, why wouldn't you want to give them option?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:04 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | If you can prevent the aircraft from being shot down by the military by arming a pilot, why wouldn't you want to give them option? |
No. A pilot's job is to get the plane from point A to point B. TSA should staff planes with someone whose sole job is safety and protection and arm THAT PERSON.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:09 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
3. El-Al doesn't get hijacked because they have far more (self-imposed) rigorous security measures than most Americans would stand for. . |
It's true; I've flown it. But if you think that's bad, try the strip search to get into the Knesset.
It was quite literally--> 
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:17 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
No. A pilot's job is to get the plane from point A to point B. TSA should staff planes with someone whose sole job is safety and protection and arm THAT PERSON. |
So you still don't want to give them that option even if they are fully trained on how to use a gun? (For the record, most pilots are ex-military types.) It is another option to help defend the cockpit and provide airline safety (regardless of what the TSA does or does not do).
When the next commercial plane is hijacked and is heading toward NYC, Phily, DC, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, LA, Miami, San Fran, Denver and an Air Force plane blows it out of the air, I will sleep easier at night know that some folks in this country want to argue semantics. 
If I was on that particular plane, I would pray that the pilot has someway to defend the cockpit.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:19 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | So you still don't want to give them that option even if they are fully trained on how to use a gun? |
Once again, no. No means no.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:22 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Once again, no. No means no. |
The logic of the anti-gun lobby on this particular issue is simply amazing to me. They would rather see a hijacked plane get shot out of the sky by our military then give a weapon to a full trained pilot to help defend the cockpit.
I don't own a gun and don't plan to, but this is so irrational to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:23 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
The logic of the anti-gun lobby on this particular issue is simply amazing to me. They would rather see a hijacked plane get shot out of the sky by our military then give a weapon to a full trained pilot to help defend the cockpit.
I don't own a gun and don't plan to, but this is so irrational to me. |
You're clearly seeing what you want to see here. That isn't what she or RAS has said. They've said to arm and train someone, but not the pilot. Why do you keep not addressing that part of it? Why is it so important to you that it be the pilot and no one else? Why don't you address the suggestion of the stronger doors?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/21/04 - 12:24 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | The logic of the anti-gun lobby on this particular issue is simply amazing to me. They would rather see a hijacked plane get shot out of the sky by our military then give a weapon to a full trained pilot to help defend the cockpit.
I don't own a gun and don't plan to, but this is so irrational to me. |
No, the logic is arm someone else who is solely trained to do the job, allowing the pilot to do his/her own job. I fail to see how this is either illogical or irrational.
BTW, I think the hijacked plane approach has a certain "been there, done that" feel to it. I would think the next attack would have a more original MO.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
| Page 2 of 3 |
Related topics: | |
|
|
