San Mateo Sheriff Threatens Open Carriers

inbox485 wrote:

Gundude wrote:

Livermoron wrote:

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

Click to expand...

Look at the stupid Army regulations that won't let the soldiers carry. It would have been over lots quicker, with a dead maniac. I've said this before, "911 would never have happened if some of the passenger were armed."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you had in mind by armed, but seeing as a single bullet through the window could cause explosive decompression, I'm good with no guns on board. As for the type of arms the hijackers had, they didn't break any laws boarding with box cutters. The couple of times I flew pre 911, I carried a folding knife on board. Had I been on one of those flights, I would have better armed than the hijackers. Any other person on those planes could have been armed likewise. Any group of them could have overwhelmed the hijackers. It wasn't a lack of being able to be armed, it was the attitude of staying quiet and keeping your head down until the professionals fixed your world for you. Thankfully at least on planes that line of thinking is no longer. A number of related plane incidences have resulted in a dirtbag getting beaten the hell up until the plane landed. Unfortunately it will not likely be until after a Mubai style attack on US soil that people will realize the same mentality applies off the plane as well.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure myth busters busted that one.

Click to expand...

SNIP...Sheriff! Why do you hate freedom anyways?

Click to expand...

Is that the aloha airlines flight? Lost a stewardess I beleive and that had to do with metal fatigue, inter island flight companies didn't take into consideration the added stress of repeatedly taking off and landing

Click to expand...

Thundar wrote:

SNIP...Sheriff! Why do you hate freedom anyways?

Click to expand...

Our freedom gets in the way ofsome of hisfreedom.

Heloves freedom, for himself, of course.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Is that the aloha airlines flight? Lost a stewardess I beleive and that had to do with metal fatigue, inter island flight companies didn't take into consideration the added stress of repeatedly taking off and landing

Click to expand...

Good call, I said it was Hawaiian Airlines, but of course you're right.

Click to expand...

inbox485 wrote:

Gundude wrote:

Livermoron wrote:

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

Click to expand...

Look at the stupid Army regulations that won't let the soldiers carry. It would have been over lots quicker, with a dead maniac. I've said this before, "911 would never have happened if some of the passenger were armed."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you had in mind by armed, but seeing as a single bullet through the window could cause explosive decompression, I'm good with no guns on board. As for the type of arms the hijackers had, they didn't break any laws boarding with box cutters. The couple of times I flew pre 911, I carried a folding knife on board. Had I been on one of those flights, I would have better armed than the hijackers. Any other person on those planes could have been armed likewise. Any group of them could have overwhelmed the hijackers. It wasn't a lack of being able to be armed, it was the attitude of staying quiet and keeping your head down until the professionals fixed your world for you. Thankfully at least on planes that line of thinking is no longer. A number of related plane incidences have resulted in a dirtbag getting beaten the hell up until the plane landed. Unfortunately it will not likely be until after a Mubai style attack on US soil that people will realize the same mentality applies off the plane as well.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure myth busters busted that one.

Click to expand...

That Hawaiian air flight killed a flight attendant, but it was caused by using the plane past its design lifetime, not by a bullet.

Fortunately, we know from first-hand experience, as well as physics, that "explosive decompression" cannot happen from one, or any number of bullets being fired through the fuselage of an airplane. It requires, you know, "explosive" force.

Like, it the case of that Hawaiian air flight, the force of 600mph wind on a buckled piece of fuselage, suddenly acting like a sail. Enough force to lift a woman into flight, unlike one or any number of bullets.

Guns on a plane are a million times safer than even a single terrorist. A gun is just about the only tool that has any possibility of stopping a terrorist in the event one of them actually brings a working bomb on the plane. So far, self-defense has been the only thing to save the day. Security theater is less than useless. The only problem is, what happens when a terrorist figures out how to build a bomb functional enough that unarmed self-defense won't be fast and decisive enough?

Click to expand...

"If that bullet had compromised the shell of the airplane, i.e., gone through a window, the airplane could have gone down," he said.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner wrote:

inbox485 wrote:

Gundude wrote:

Livermoron wrote:

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

Click to expand...

Look at the stupid Army regulations that won't let the soldiers carry. It would have been over lots quicker, with a dead maniac. I've said this before, "911 would never have happened if some of the passenger were armed."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you had in mind by armed, but seeing as a single bullet through the window could cause explosive decompression, I'm good with no guns on board. As for the type of arms the hijackers had, they didn't break any laws boarding with box cutters. The couple of times I flew pre 911, I carried a folding knife on board. Had I been on one of those flights, I would have better armed than the hijackers. Any other person on those planes could have been armed likewise. Any group of them could have overwhelmed the hijackers. It wasn't a lack of being able to be armed, it was the attitude of staying quiet and keeping your head down until the professionals fixed your world for you. Thankfully at least on planes that line of thinking is no longer. A number of related plane incidences have resulted in a dirtbag getting beaten the hell up until the plane landed. Unfortunately it will not likely be until after a Mubai style attack on US soil that people will realize the same mentality applies off the plane as well.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure myth busters busted that one.

Click to expand...

Here is one. Lots of ppl still alive. No skyscrapers falling.

Click to expand...

If a bullet were to penetrate a pressurized airplane, the passengers would not be sucked out the windows from "explosive decompression." That is a persistent urban myth originating with the 1964 movie, Goldfinger, starring Sean Connery as James Bond.

Airplanes already have holes. Air is constantly pumped into... and out of... the plane. (Otherwise, the passengers would suffocate.) The size of the hole (the "outflow valve") depends on the size of the plane, but it is a big hole. A 9mm/.357 caliber bullet makes a hole with an area of 1/10th of a square inch. (Area = pi R squared.) The effect of a bullet hole on cabin pressure is not enough to be measurable.

Explosive decompression only occurs with huge holes. In 1986, a bomb blew a 20-square-foot hole in a TWA 727 over Athens, and 4 passengers were killed. In 1988, an 18-foot section of the roof came off an Aloha Airlines 737 mid-flight, and one flight attendant was killed. (Both planes landed safely.)

If the Goldfinger Syndrome were true, the Airline Pilots Association would not have voted to arm pilots, and the FAA would not be talking about armed sky marshals.

It's a myth, OK? It was just a movie.

Click to expand...

Outflow valves are over a square foot on the 737, up to two square feet on the 757, and so on. You can lose three windows and still keep the cabin pressurized.

Click to expand...

[O]ur opponents claim that a bullet piercing the pressure vessel of the aircraft will cause a catastrophic loss of the hull. There's simply no evidence to support these claims. In fact, the Israelis have had a number of incidents where terrorists have discharged small arms in the cabins of their aircraft without causing catastrophic damage to the airframe. A study by Boeing aircraft agrees. It found that one or numerous small caliber rounds piercing the vessel would not cause a catastrophic loss.

Click to expand...

On 22 March 2008, a pistol belonging to the un-named pilot of US Airways Flight 1536 discharged as the aircraft was on approach to land in Charlotte, North Carolina, purportedly the first time a weapon issued under the Federal Flight Deck Officers program to arm pilots, was fired.

In the media rush to report this event, the ABC affiliate in Denver (where the flight originated) contacted an area aviation consulting firm, The Boyd Group, and elicited the following from its principal:
(Mike) Boyd said Saturday's incident could have been much worse.

"At that altitude, you puncture the skin of an airplane, it's going to go down. They were very lucky," Boyd said.

A subsequent AP report offers this version of the quote:

If that bullet had compromised the shell of the airplane, i.e., gone through a window, the airplane could have gone down….’’

Marginally better, and suggestive that those reported and edited this story, have been playing fast and loose with the truth in an attempt to sensationalize the incident, but we fear that we have not done enough in bringing down the myth.

Click to expand...

Gundude wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

inbox485 wrote:

Gundude wrote:

Livermoron wrote:

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

Click to expand...

Look at the stupid Army regulations that won't let the soldiers carry. It would have been over lots quicker, with a dead maniac. I've said this before, "911 would never have happened if some of the passenger were armed."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you had in mind by armed, but seeing as a single bullet through the window could cause explosive decompression, I'm good with no guns on board. As for the type of arms the hijackers had, they didn't break any laws boarding with box cutters. The couple of times I flew pre 911, I carried a folding knife on board. Had I been on one of those flights, I would have better armed than the hijackers. Any other person on those planes could have been armed likewise. Any group of them could have overwhelmed the hijackers. It wasn't a lack of being able to be armed, it was the attitude of staying quiet and keeping your head down until the professionals fixed your world for you. Thankfully at least on planes that line of thinking is no longer. A number of related plane incidences have resulted in a dirtbag getting beaten the hell up until the plane landed. Unfortunately it will not likely be until after a Mubai style attack on US soil that people will realize the same mentality applies off the plane as well.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure myth busters busted that one.

Click to expand...

Here is one. Lots of ppl still alive. No skyscrapers falling.

Click to expand...

personally i think its crazy that a couple of guys with box cutters took over a plane full of people and no one stood up and fought these guys.

Click to expand...

Gundude wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

inbox485 wrote:

Gundude wrote:

Livermoron wrote:

:? On CH5 tonight I also noticed that the producers chose to followup the UOC story with the Ft. Hood Shooting update story. They had to follow the lawful use of firearms story with LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO USED AN EVIL GUN TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS !!!

Click to expand...

Look at the stupid Army regulations that won't let the soldiers carry. It would have been over lots quicker, with a dead maniac. I've said this before, "911 would never have happened if some of the passenger were armed."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you had in mind by armed, but seeing as a single bullet through the window could cause explosive decompression, I'm good with no guns on board. As for the type of arms the hijackers had, they didn't break any laws boarding with box cutters. The couple of times I flew pre 911, I carried a folding knife on board. Had I been on one of those flights, I would have better armed than the hijackers. Any other person on those planes could have been armed likewise. Any group of them could have overwhelmed the hijackers. It wasn't a lack of being able to be armed, it was the attitude of staying quiet and keeping your head down until the professionals fixed your world for you. Thankfully at least on planes that line of thinking is no longer. A number of related plane incidences have resulted in a dirtbag getting beaten the hell up until the plane landed. Unfortunately it will not likely be until after a Mubai style attack on US soil that people will realize the same mentality applies off the plane as well.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure myth busters busted that one.

Click to expand...

Here is one. Lots of ppl still alive. No skyscrapers falling.

Click to expand...

personally i think its crazy that a couple of guys with box cutters took over a plane full of people and no one stood up and fought these guys.

Click to expand...

Decades of hijackings that generally ended on the ground with the majority of passengers unharmed as long as they kept their head down and mouth shut and didn't try to resist come to mind. Pre 911 everybody was told not to resist or be a hero and once the plane landed professionals would take care of things. Post 911, the instructions were dog pile and tear the SOB limb from limb with every last once of life you have in you. Things change.

Click to expand...

http://www.thegunzone.com/091101/goldfinger.html

If a bullet were to penetrate a pressurized airplane, the passengers would not be sucked out the windows from "explosive decompression." That is a persistent urban myth originating with the 1964 movie, Goldfinger, starring Sean Connery as James Bond.

Airplanes already have holes. Air is constantly pumped into... and out of... the plane. (Otherwise, the passengers would suffocate.) The size of the hole (the "outflow valve") depends on the size of the plane, but it is a big hole. A 9mm/.357 caliber bullet makes a hole with an area of 1/10th of a square inch. (Area = pi R squared.) The effect of a bullet hole on cabin pressure is not enough to be measurable.

Explosive decompression only occurs with huge holes. In 1986, a bomb blew a 20-square-foot hole in a TWA 727 over Athens, and 4 passengers were killed. In 1988, an 18-foot section of the roof came off an Aloha Airlines 737 mid-flight, and one flight attendant was killed. (Both planes landed safely.)

If the Goldfinger Syndrome were true, the Airline Pilots Association would not have voted to arm pilots, and the FAA would not be talking about armed sky marshals.

It's a myth, OK? It was just a movie.

Click to expand...

Outflow valves are over a square foot on the 737, up to two square feet on the 757, and so on. You can lose three windows and still keep the cabin pressurized.

Click to expand...

On 8 May 2003 during hearings on the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, Dan Graves of Oviedo, Florida, a DC-8 First Officer for Airborne Express, and Executive Director for the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, testified before the House Subcommittee on Aviation:

[O]ur opponents claim that a bullet piercing the pressure vessel of the aircraft will cause a catastrophic loss of the hull. There's simply no evidence to support these claims. In fact, the Israelis have had a number of incidents where terrorists have discharged small arms in the cabins of their aircraft without causing catastrophic damage to the airframe. A study by Boeing aircraft agrees. It found that one or numerous small caliber rounds piercing the vessel would not cause a catastrophic loss.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed this criticism of the AP which is all over the internet:

On 22 March 2008, a pistol belonging to the un-named pilot of US Airways Flight 1536 discharged as the aircraft was on approach to land in Charlotte, North Carolina, purportedly the first time a weapon issued under the Federal Flight Deck Officers program to arm pilots, was fired.

In the media rush to report this event, the ABC affiliate in Denver (where the flight originated) contacted an area aviation consulting firm, The Boyd Group, and elicited the following from its principal:
(Mike) Boyd said Saturday's incident could have been much worse.

"At that altitude, you puncture the skin of an airplane, it's going to go down. They were very lucky," Boyd said.

A subsequent AP report offers this version of the quote:

If that bullet had compromised the shell of the airplane, i.e., gone through a window, the airplane could have gone down….’’

Marginally better, and suggestive that those reported and edited this story, have been playing fast and loose with the truth in an attempt to sensationalize the incident, but we fear that we have not done enough in bringing down the myth.

Click to expand...

Here is a recap of the mythbusters episode:
http://gadgetopia.com/post/2606


My advice is to get your "impressions" from somewhere other than Bond movies and the AP. Try Boeing engineers. Let me give you a hint: a fuselage is not made of latex.

Click to expand...

So, myth busted. However, they didn’t address one thing: the drop in air pressure caused by the velocity of the air outside the plane. You see, the entire concept of flight is based on the fact that air pressure goes down as the speed of the air goes up.
So when a hole gets blown in the side of the plane, even after all the air rushes out and the pressue of the plane is equal to the ambient air pressure at that altitude, you now have 600 m.p.h. air rushing past the hole, which would have a much lower air pressure than the stationary air inside the plane. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Click to expand...

[O]ur opponents claim that a bullet piercing the pressure vessel of the aircraft will cause a catastrophic loss of the hull. There's simply no evidence to support these claims. In fact, the Israelis have had a number of incidents where terrorists have discharged small arms in the cabins of their aircraft without causing catastrophic damage to the airframe. A study by Boeing aircraft agrees. It found that one or numerous small caliber rounds piercing the vessel would not cause a catastrophic loss.

Click to expand...

yea its a change for the better. but even with the dont be a hero thing of the past my issue is that these guys had box cutters anyone who even had a pen or pencil would have been on an equal level to inflict injury or death. imagine shoving a pencil into the guy's eye straight into the brain, or even straight through the neck hitting a major artery.

Click to expand...

inbox485 wrote:

Decades of hijackings that generally ended on the ground with the majority of passengers unharmed as long as they kept their head down and mouth shut and didn't try to resist come to mind. Pre 911 everybody was told not to resist or be a hero and once the plane landed professionals would take care of things. Post 911, the instructions were dog pile and tear the SOB limb from limb with every last once of life you have in you. Things change.

Click to expand...

In this case its a change for the better (minus the tragic impetus which drove the change).

Finally a circumstance where teaching people to be sheep is simply not worth the collateral.

Click to expand...

leoffensive wrote:

yea its a change for the better. but even with the dont be a hero thing of the past my issue is that these guys had box cutters anyone who even had a pen or pencil would have been on an equal level to inflict injury or death. imagine shoving a pencil into the guy's eye straight into the brain, or even straight through the neck hitting a major artery.

Click to expand...

The general populace had been so indoctrinated into not resisting hijackers, the type of person who would have fought back would easily have been less than 1 in 1000. So of the 4 planes only having a struggle on one of the planes is not surprising.

While we are so far off topic, how was it that we know they had box cutters? I remember that being all over the news, but I don't recall the source of that detail.

Click to expand...