There Should Be No Airport Security At All

Is this thread to simply pet the EGO or are you serious that you want a plane full of uncomfortable armed passengers rather then a luggage search? seriously this is the concept i dont really think any of the brave typers have any idea the stress that occurs in a situation where your happy and content then two seconds later some guys screaming with a gun and a bomb. Myself included . It took everything i had to just stop a fight beween strangers cause i didnt know them or what their capable of and i m an amatuer kickboxer i get hit a lot. Theirs more to difussing a situation then having a weapon theres the drive to wanna use it and it doesnt come from cleaning your gun in a back room and shooting targets wich is fun. Dont get me wrong but to have people with firearms on a plane is assanine in a pressurized cabin are you loopy planes would be dropping out of the sky left and right.

I don't mind having a few trained armed men on aircraft with weaponry suitable for use in flight, I do object to poorly trained yahoos with whatever firearm they want getting on board aircraft.

Explosives placed in baggage or cargo is as likely to be detected as that strapped to a person - both are x-rayed and checked for explosives before loading. In any case the detonator carried on the person would be detected by scanners.

If it was easy to blow up an airliner it would be happening much more often.

reply to post by triplescorpio


Statistically speaking, your safer with armed passengers.

Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of your plane getting blown up by a lightning strike, bird strike, or mid air collision than a terrist.

Statistically speaking, armed citizens are better shots than cops and are more restrained in their use of armed force than the police.

Statistically speaking, almost all terrist attacks occur in gun free zones.

Statistically speaking, terrist attacks are staged events. Real terrorists don't carry bombs in their panties and shoes if they really want to blow up a plane - and they certainly aren't going to sit in their seat and light the bomb while attracting the attention of everyone on board when there is a bathroom near by even if they did bring it on board.

Statistically speaking, going to a restaurant in Florida with dozens of people around you that may be carrying a loaded weapon is safer than going to a restaurant in New York where no one but the criminals is armed.

Totally agree OP...

No airport security.

Only passengers with CCW permits could carry onboard the flight... since they would be trained and restrained in their use...

They would also have to have special bullets for in the plane so it doesn't go through the fuselage if they miss their target.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Totally agree OP...

No airport security.

Only passengers with CCW permits could carry onboard the flight... since they would be trained and restrained in their use...

They would also have to have special bullets for in the plane so it doesn't go through the fuselage if they miss their target.

Yeah I could see them saying you need frangible low velocities if you're going to carry on a plane.

I think simply mandating this would be enough.

People would do it on their own since they wouldn't want to kill themselves if they had to shoot.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Safer with armed passengers? Because nearly 200 personnel equipped with small arms of varying type and calibres of ammunition and no central control is better than one or two trained individuals operating to strict rules of engagement? Yeah right.

Statistically speaking armed citizens are better shots than cops? Firstly armed cops should have similar weapon proficiency to the wider population because they are drawn from the wider population. On top of this the police are given specific, rigorous training, psycholgical profiling and exposure to training scenarios to train them not just in marksmanship, but in the management of high-stress, rapidly developing situations. You will need to produce several very well conducted, wide ranging studies to back up the claim that amateur gunmen are better then trained professionals.

Almost all terrorist attacks occur in gun free zones? What aout Northern Ireland during the troubles when security was run by armed police and the military. What of areas where gun control is limited or non-existent? Pakistan's North-West frontier for example, or Kabul, Sangin or Lashkar Gar? What of Northern Yemen, Somalia, Chechnya or the Balkans? Once again several rather in-depth studies will be needed to back that claim up.

Terrorist attacks are staged events? No they aren't. 9/11 and 7/7 may have been, but the vast majority of terrorist events in Northern Ireland during the troubles were targets of opportunity, as is insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan or piracy around the Horn of Africa.

A situation where only the criminal is armed is unlikely to provoke bloodshed, disorganised armed resistance will result in bloodshed when the criminal fights to defend himself and several highly-stressed, poorly trained amateurs start spreading the lead.

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


I've provided the stats and I can provide hell of a lot more where those came from.

Making random claims with no data to support your position isn't going to win me over to your argument.

I'm not talking about northern ireland or anywhere other than the US, although I feel all countries would be safer with this policy.

In the US, nearly all terrorist and mass shooting attacks have occurred in gun free zones.





[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


What random claims? Terrorist activity is considerably higher in areas of the world with little or no gun control - Afghanistan, Iraq, North West Pakistan, Northern Yemen and Somalia have considerably higher incidences of terrorism than any western country: Wikipedia and you will notice that few of them bear the hallmarks of "grandstanding". And then there is the Piracy.

We train armed policeman and soldiers because trained personnel are considerably more effective than the untrained - see Marshall, S. L. A (1947), Men Against Fire, University of Oklahoma Press.

[edit on 8/1/10 by Naboo the Enigma]

Originally posted by triplescorpio
Is this thread to simply pet the EGO or are you serious that you want a plane full of uncomfortable armed passengers rather then a luggage search? seriously this is the concept i dont really think any of the brave typers have any idea the stress that occurs in a situation where your happy and content then two seconds later some guys screaming with a gun and a bomb. Myself included . It took everything i had to just stop a fight beween strangers cause i didnt know them or what their capable of and i m an amatuer kickboxer i get hit a lot. Theirs more to difussing a situation then having a weapon theres the drive to wanna use it and it doesnt come from cleaning your gun in a back room and shooting targets wich is fun. Dont get me wrong but to have people with firearms on a plane is assanine in a pressurized cabin are you loopy planes would be dropping out of the sky left and right.

Hello , back in the 1970 people carried on planes all the time. This need to disarm us even more makes us more unsafe.

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


do you really think "terrorists" give a flying crap about gun control?

do you think that if the US suddenly banned all guns that suddenly "terrorists" wouldn't be a problem?

do you think that real terrorists that actually want to kill people would bother jumping through 20 thousand hoops to blow up a plane by carrying a bomb into a secured passenger compartment when they could simply baggage check it with a timer or remote detonator?

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Totally agree OP...

No airport security.

Only passengers with CCW permits could carry onboard the flight... since they would be trained and restrained in their use...

They would also have to have special bullets for in the plane so it doesn't go through the fuselage if they miss their target.

Putting a hole in the plane would hardly be noticed right away if at all. Stop believing what you see in the movies.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by 22-250]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Exactly, also a terrorist could bomb and kill anyone any time, why does it have to be a plane!? lol

If the threat REALLY was that big, you would see terrorist attacks EVERYDAY, anywhere! in your hometown.

No your more likely to die choking on your own spit than a terrorist attack haha.

The media is the biggest terrorist of them all, they have the world in their hands, and they change peoples views with negativity and fear. The media is VERY dangerous this way. They overexaggerate and use a LOT of propaganda to mold the way people think.

They are the main reason the world is the way it is now.

IF the media tried ignoring terrorism just a little bit, then the terrorists would fail at what they are trying to achieve, which is FEAR and control. We are basically giving the terrorist what they want by making the whole world WORRY about them.

So it seems the terrorists have already won! There is no war! They are getting what they want. All the attention they can imagine.

Stop giving in to the fear.

Stay positive people. Peace.



[edit on 8-1-2010 by _Phoenix_]

USA in 2005

Deaths by firearms: 11,346 - 0.0037% of the population.
Victims of gun crime: 477,000 - 0.153% of the population.

UK in 2006/7

Deaths by firearms: 59 - 0.0001% of the population.
Visctims of gun crime: 18,489 - 0.03% of the population.

In the UK I am almost as likely to be killed by the construction industry as by firearms: Linkage.

Originally posted by 22-250

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Totally agree OP...

No airport security.

Only passengers with CCW permits could carry onboard the flight... since they would be trained and restrained in their use...

They would also have to have special bullets for in the plane so it doesn't go through the fuselage if they miss their target.

Putting a hole in the plane would hardly be noticed right away if at all. Stop believing what you see in the movies.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by 22-250]

Do you seriously believe that the risk of a puncture in the skin of pressurised aircraft at 30,000 feet is an acceptable alternative to stopping a terrorist from boarding the aircraft in the first place? It might not bring the aircraft down, but it would be an extremely serious flight safety incident.

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


Your gun violence statistics have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the drug / gang culture. Gang violence != terrorism

Vermont for instance basically has no gun control laws at all yet one of the lowest gun murder rates in the country. The statistics I'm presenting show civilian gun owners to be more accurate and more restrained than cops. Which means your safer having a civilian gun owner on the plane than a cop!

As to your fears about puncturing an aircraft, there is certainly risk involved. Of course, its far less risk than if a "terrorist" lit off a panty bomb or attempted to hijack the aircraft. Therefore statistically speaking, you're better off risking the puncture and shooting the terrorist than letting him continue with his plans to hijack or blow up the aircraft.






[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Unless the terrorist succeeds in blowing up the aircraft, in which case you wouldn't have the chance to shoot him.

The statistics I have presented show that relaxed gun control does not lead to a safer society, thus allowing armed passengers on aircraft would not improve security, it would in fact jeopardise it.

Edited for clarity.



[edit on 8/1/10 by Naboo the Enigma]

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


If a terrorist really wants to blow up a plane, no security is going to stop them short of total nude strip searches and dismantling every piece of luggage piece by piece.

You can't secure a plane.

Its impossible.

And even if you did, terrorists would simply blow up a bus.

reply to post by alien


The risk would be stray bullets striking passengers surely, but I can assure you that a bullet hole will not explosively decompress an aircraft. It takes a much more substantial hole to do so and I tell you that as a pilot. Believe it or not most people wouldn't fire if they didn't have a clean line of sight to the target. That's basic marksmanship and hopefully armed passengers would undergo the neccesary training.

We could even do a sort of Federal Flight Deck Officer program for passengers. The FFDO allows pilots to carry a weapon in the cockpit in case of intrusion and are issued a TSA approved handgun. Could be a good program for frequent fliers and could do the usual background checks ect. to ensure we're not giving firearms to persons that would wish to attack aircraft enroute.

Once the captain is satisfied that his plane is under attack - he hits the RED BUTTON which releases a gas ,subdueing all but those in the cockpit .


Upon viewing video play-back of the `incident`, the co pilot investigates ......

...to be continued .


`Bomb proof pods` replace seats ......

Please Sir get back in your pod , or i will have to get the captain to gas you !
=============================================



Flying anywhere for me - is now the last resort . But people are correct in stating if you don`t like the safety measures, take alternative transport .

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'd like to see some proper security and some serious responsibility and proactive involvement from the airlines rather than the immature
lack-a-dazical engagement you receive from, in my encounters, poorly trained self important tsa wannabees, and the constant reactive over the top measures that keep failing.
Do I want you or myself armed 6 miles up in a pressurized cabin, relying on too many judgement calls being made with minds and eyes full of suspects in every seat? No sir that's not a good place to be.
I do not approve of the see thru scanner, I dont even approve of the random do it for quota count pat downs they do on little old ladies and kids.
There can be a happy medium reached and we dont need to visit either end of the extremes.