Transportation Security Administration hard at work

[AZhitman]

admit it greg, you want to move to the Agrabah, with me and Jasmine.

Sounds good to me. But then I'd have to go all infidel and knock off that wannabe "prince" guy...

Purina Monkey Chow cool with you?

[IBCoupe]

I'm late to this (because NICO got re-blocked at work today), but I have read that it was never a fear of explosive decompression that kept guns off of planes. Cramped crowded space is just asking for trouble when you consider that ricochets aren't all that unlikely. As for your question, Greg, buses, trains, trolleys and ferries aren't sealed the same way that a 737 is.

This came up when the mayor of Jackson, Mississippi admitted to carrying firearms onto commercial airliners:

Melton is not a certified law enforcement officer. He also does not have the kind of specialized training required of U.S. air marshals, who must pass rigorous tests regarding discharging weapons inside the delicate environment of a commercial airliner. It is unclear whether his bodyguards have such training.

"My question is: Do Marcus Wright and Michael Recio have the training?" demanded local NRA instructor Cliff Cargill. "We know that Melton isn't a certified law enforcement officer and would not be eligible for the special training to go on board a plane carrying a firearm in the first place, but do Michael Recio and Marcus Wright have it? If they have gone through that training, that paperwork would be on file with the Department of Public Safety. If they haven't, then they're putting the public at risk. That, to me, is a lot of the issue."

Cargill also has concerns about the ammunition in guns carried by Melton and his entourage. U.S. Air Marshals load special frangible, or "soft," rounds (also known as AET or Advanced Energy Transfer) rounds, that are designed to break apart when they hit walls or other hard surfaces. Air Marshals use the rounds extensively in training and in the field because traditional bullets often ricochet in the closed environment of a commercial airline.

I don't know if the Mythbusters link addressed that, or if they just tested whether a window could be shot out.

[srellim234]

Which is why I proposed only sworn law officers with proper training/certification and proper ammo be allowed. Allowing the general public, even if they have weapons permits, is just asking for trouble.

I don't know if anyone has done a serious study on it but anecdotal stories indicate crime went way down on local buses and trains when they started letting all law enforcement personnel ride for free. They just had to wear something identifying themselves as a cop. Thugs and gang members quit hassling passengers.

Advertise that there may be an unknown number of undercover, armed cops on any given flight and the terrorists will have to find other means.

[AZhitman]

Way cool with that.

Also, I'm unconcerned about "ricochets", and anyone who IS is being a persnickety little b****.

Fire at will if there's some douche trying to take my plane down. I'll chance a stray round.

[IBCoupe]

You best not get on a plane with my kids, then.

[stebo0728]

This came pretty quick...

[srellim234]

Leave it a satire site, the Daily Squib, in the UK to come up with that joke. Good satire site:

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=124&a=2389

They have some fun satirical stuff to read for a good laugh.

Side note: How long before Fox reports it as fact and fails to retract the story in order to whip up more hysteria?

[stebo0728]

Ya I figured it was probably fake is why I posted the actual fail blog image instead of chasing down the actual story....

But they are now dealing with this TSA guy that abducted the little girl after his shift, though Im sure other issues will be discovered with him regardless of the TSA thing, but still it begs the question of how well are these folks trained/screened/scrutinized before hired.

Side Note: I really see things shaping up for another TSA Union hostage situation like the Traffic controllers tried to pull in the 80's. Only problem is Obama wont have the cahones to fire them if they try it like 'ol Reagan did.

[srellim234]

I assume this guy that worked at Logan in Boston is the one you're referring to:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO137343/

Had nothing to do with his actual job, he passed all the background checks and had no prior record. Those people exist in all walks of life. Background checks don't stop those who haven't done anything YET. "After his shift" could just as easily been a cop, pastor, teacher, grocery bagger or CEO on Wall Street.

[AZhitman]

You best not get on a plane with my kids, then.

Why not?

Here's the deal - I, and countless other hairyassed, red-blooded patriotic Americans are STILL pissed off about 9/11. We're ITCHING for an opportunity to beat some clown into a pulp for pulling a shenanigan on a flight. And if someone on a flight is trying to take down 185 passengers plus whoever's unlucky enough to be on the ground below, then I don't mind a trained professional pumping a few rounds into said a$$, if it means 184 passengers will be alive when that plane touches down.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

[AZhitman]

Side Note: I really see things shaping up for another TSA Union hostage situation like the Traffic controllers tried to pull in the 80's. Only problem is Obama wont have the cahones to fire them if they try it like 'ol Reagan did.

If the TSA unionizes, it's all over.

[stebo0728]

If the TSA unionizes, it's all over.

Headed there fast....

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/201 ... /11150302/

[heliochrome85]

This came pretty quick...

pun intended?

[BusyBadger]

My proposal from day one when security concerns started years ago (re: hijackings to Cuba) was for any law enforcement officer properly trained, certified and equipped with proper ammo be allowed to bring his/her weapon on board.

In theory this is sounds like a great idea...

Hijacker/terrorlst will never know whether there's no guns or an entire police convention on board...

...and neither will other LEO's. If an incident happens mid-flight and there are multiple LEO's on board that are unaware of each other there is a high probability of friendly fire. Even if they don't shoot each other there will still be crucial moments lost for threat analysis - a gunfight is not the place to multitask. Then there's the problem of dealing with the close confines of the aircraft where few people have ever gone armed or had a live fire/immediate action drill.

Additionally, I know of no non-military organization, except perhaps the FBI's HRT, that does as much firearm training and qualification as a FAM (Federal Air Marshal) and at such a high standard. They walk through the plane before boarding takes place, introduce themselves to the crew and are most certainly aware of another FAM on the same flight. There's a skill set and procedure in place that just won't be the same for anyone else with a badge and gun.

It'd be better to just expand the FAM program and have reciprocal duties with other nations for international flights.

[srellim234]

We are already allowing regular law enforcement to carry guns on planes when conducting extraditions. They, too, are identified and introduced to crew (at least my wife is all the time). No problem requiring additional training to get certified, whether it's through the FBI's HRT or someone else. As each is identified to crew, also no problem letting the officers know others on board and maybe identifying them to the other officers.

[stebo0728]

We are already allowing regular law enforcement to carry guns on planes when conducting extraditions. They, too, are identified and introduced to crew (at least my wife is all the time). No problem requiring additional training to get certified, whether it's through the FBI's HRT or someone else. As each is identified to crew, also no problem letting the officers know others on board and maybe identifying them to the other officers.

There is the conundrum. I understand Badgers point about friendly fire when no one knows whos packing. But then also, when you have law enforcement and marshals on, who are easily identifiable, then they can be pacified. If anyone can be a potential gun carrier, then its much harder to figure out who to neutralize to perpetuate any plot. Someone mentioned specialized rounds that will not puncture the hull, but can neutralize biologicals. Maybe we should stipulate that anyone can carry but when on a plane only those specialized rounds are allowed.

Point is I see both sides of the gun issue, but I think we can get to a sensable middle ground that would help to mitigate terrorlst plots.

[AZhitman]

Frangible rounds aren't the issue. No one gives a damn if the fuselage is penetrated.

The way it works now, none of the AM's are "easily identifiable" - I like that. Needs to stay that way, just MORE of them.

[srellim234]

stebo- they are only easily identifiable to each other. Not to the rest of the passengers. Just as is done now on extraditions, the airline is made aware of what is going on when the tickets are booked. The airlines know it ahead of time; that info can be easily shared with the marshal. Marshal remains undercover; other trained officers only need be told that there is or is not a marshal on board. Or identified to each other. I don't care. I'm not the law enforcement expert. I'd leave the nitty gritty details to them. Law enforcement agencies in general have a pretty good track record of working those types of things out on joint operations.

[stebo0728]

Well thats all good info, i could spell out some huge master plot that would pry that apart, but I suppose no matter what measure you take theres always SOME way around it, the trick is to stay at least 1 step ahead i guess

[srellim234]

Nothing is ever 100% foolproof. They will always come up with a new and improved fool.

[IBCoupe]

Why not?

Because you're willing to chance a stray round, and I'm not willing to let you?

[stebo0728]

Why not?

Because you're willing to chance a stray round, and I'm not willing to let you?

What would we do without government to take care of us, we are so weak, frail, and helpless...

[AZhitman]

Why not?

Because you're willing to chance a stray round, and I'm not willing to let you?

Good thing that's not up to you.

Make sure you sit in a window seat if you're on a flight with me. I'll be the alert, on-point passenger ready to fight dirty if it means increasing our survival chances by 1%.

You may want to take your concerns to the Air Marshals.

[IBCoupe]

What would we do without government to take care of us, we are so weak, frail, and helpless...

Accidentally shoot each other in sealed, densely-populated, confined spaces, permaybehaps, I'm thinkin'.

You may want to take your concerns to the Air Marshals.

I have no problems with having air marshals, trained for in-flight gun combat and with the proper equipment, carrying loaded weapons on board an airplane. I have a problem where every Tom, d!ck & Harry who's capable of getting a carry permit is allowed to carry a loaded weapon on board an airplane. Chances are, the amount of bodily damage you'd do with a handgun on board the airplane vastly outspends your insurance coverage and net worth combined.

[AZhitman]

I have no problems with having air marshals, trained for in-flight gun combat and with the proper equipment, carrying loaded weapons on board an airplane. I have a problem where every Tom, d!ck & Harry who's capable of getting a carry permit is allowed to carry a loaded weapon on board an airplane. Chances are, the amount of bodily damage you'd do with a handgun on board the airplane vastly outspends your insurance coverage and net worth combined.

Uh, you're preachin' to the choir, homey. I already said I was fine with that. The following is the post I agreed with:

Which is why I proposed only sworn law officers with proper training/certification and proper ammo be allowed. Allowing the general public, even if they have weapons permits, is just asking for trouble.

I don't know if anyone has done a serious study on it but anecdotal stories indicate crime went way down on local buses and trains when they started letting all law enforcement personnel ride for free. They just had to wear something identifying themselves as a cop. Thugs and gang members quit hassling passengers.

Advertise that there may be an unknown number of undercover, armed cops on any given flight and the terrorists will have to find other means.

So, I'm wondering why you're not wanting to fly with me - we want the same thing.

[IBCoupe]

Must have been my mistake, then. I think it was the not-caring-about-ricochets thing that threw me off.

[AZhitman]

Yeah. If I'm on a plane, and some douchenozzle is trying to take over, I'm more than happy to have 1 or more trained marksmen unloading their clips in my presence.

A ricochet in a plane cabin is incredibly unlikely - but I'd still rather chance a stray round (low percentage of fatality, even on the off-chance that I'm somehow hit) than let said hijacker execute his plan (100% percentage of fatality).

[RobPaulson]

hope this isnt a repost... but, ya, who knew this'd happen? lulz.

http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573

Basically the govt was fondling this sexually disturbed man, he blasted, got thrown to the ground and arrested . . . for sexual assault... waitwut? Govt felt this dude up and arrested HIM for sexual assault!?

[audtatious]

Uhm....you may want to validate that news source.

[RobPaulson]

Uhm....you may want to validate that news source.

oh cmon, they are dead serious, y0. kinda like you. right now. super cerial.