• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MSNBC AIRPORT CARRY POLL

John

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
62
Location
, ,
imported post

It would depend on who owns and operates the airports.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

rlsst30 wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25480902

this poll is pretty close at the moment, hit it up!


[line]

Gun rights advocates have filed a lawsuit challenging the 'gun free' zone declared at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. What do you think?17253 responses

Bearing arms is every American's right
52%
dotRed.gif


Allowing guns in the terminal would only endanger more people
48

.....not to mention the way they word it...%

This poll is a farce. The 2 questions are barely related.



www.txcdl.org
 

smash29

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
A few months ago, this was proven wrong when a pilot had an AD in the cockpit (albeit while on the ground).
If you're talking about the USAirways incident, they were in the air when the gun was discharged.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

smash29 wrote:
Phoenixphire wrote:
Uh...

Just a small point for your consideration, even though the probability of it every occurring is low.

Do not fire a standard round on a high-altitude aircraft. The overpressure could actually cause a rupture in a seal, and create a rapid depressurization. The Air Marshall's actually carry specialized rounds, and are trained to use their firearm only as an absolute last resort.
I have about 5000 hours flying "high altitude aircraft" and I'malways amused when I readstuff like this. Where exactly are you getting your info, and do you have any idea how the pressurization system works on a jet? It's not like in the movies.
I thought the real concern was that the round could damage electrical or hydraulic lines, not depressurization?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

smash29 wrote:
imperialism2024 wrote:
A few months ago, this was proven wrong when a pilot had an AD in the cockpit (albeit while on the ground).
If you're talking about the USAirways incident, they were in the air when the gun was discharged.
I remember that now that you mention it. Myth Busters pressurized an airliner fuselage with air and had a heck of a time getting anything of significance to happen until they set off a fairly large explosive charge right next to the wall. They used pistols, rifles, and a shotgun. Just a hole in the wall the size of the caliber. I think hydraulics and electrical lines may be a problem, as mentioned. But with theredundency they have on airliners, I wouldn't think it would be too much ofa problem either. Really don't know that much about it.
 

Sea_Chicken

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
204
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

I am an airframe mechanic on naval aircraft and a bullet wouldent do as much damage as people think even to the hydrolic lines if they were hit. if you start to lose hydrolic pressure it is normaly diverted from another system or a backup system to sustain flight.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Airplanes are very tough machines, especially jetliners. In any case, I'll take my chances with a bullethole in the fuselage over being a helpless hijack victim (riding in a giant target for USAF Sidewinder missiles to boot) any day.

And I'll take armed passengers providing their own security in airports over costumed tax parasites doing strip searches as well, please.
 

smash29

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA
imported post

My plane has 3 independant hydraulic systems and is flyable with2 of 3 inopso unless you had very bad luck with 3 separate shots severing 3 separate lines you should survive.

"Costumed tax parasites doing strip searches". I like it, Tomahawk. Did y'all hear they're getting real badges to go with the uniform? Seems they feel that they aren't getting the respect they deserve.Apparently a hunk of metal will change that. :quirky
 

buzzsaw

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
189
Location
Sneads Ferry, ,
imported post

I think I have a solution. All passengers must fly naked and we hand everyone a 9mm at the door and take it back when deplaneing. Apologies to Archie Bunker. OOPs showing my age.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/bracelet-sends-shock-waves-through-blogosphere/

Shock bracelet for airlines?
The Department of Homeland Security two years ago considered the use of "safety bracelets" that can deliver a debilitating shock similar to that of a Taser for controlling prisoners during transport.
The inventor of the magnetically secured wristbands — Per Hahne of Toronto — has proposed that his electro-muscular disruption (EMD) devices be fitted on all airline passengers as a safeguard against terrorist attacks. But Homeland Security officials in July 2006 focused on the potential use of the bracelets only for transporting prisoners.
"Our interest was to detain with less-than-lethal means an apprehended suspect," said Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa.
Nothing came of the Homeland Security meeting with Mr. Hahne, despite a lengthy letter to the inventor expressing interest in the device, but his bracelet has since attracted the attention of aviation and security fans in the blogosphere.
CrankyFlier.com and TravelSecurity.blogspot.com both questioned earlier this spring whether the bracelet could achieve widespread usage.
A blog post Wednesday on The Washington Times' Web site, http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs, drew thousands of hits and resulted in more than 1,000 e-mails to the bracelet's marketing company, Lamperd Less Lethal, based in Toronto. A video on the company's Web site shows how the bracelets can be used to control all airline passengers.
Jeffrey Denning, a blogger who moderates the Aviation Security community on The Times' site, said he cringed at the thought that the government might mandate that all passengers wear the tracking devices for flights.
But Ms. Kudwa said the Homeland Security Department never considered the technology as a terrorist-stopping measure.
"At the end of the day, this was never funded and followed up on," she said. "Nor do we support the asserted use in the video, and we have never pursued the development of such technology."
Mr. Hahne and Lamperd Less Lethal say airlines could augment security by fitting all passengers with the bracelets, which could be programmed to contain a passenger's travel data, such as identification information and seat number.
In addition, flight crews would be able to shock any terrorists who took troubling action once a plane was airborne, the bracelet maker says.
"I've tried to convey to everyone my interest is aviation and terrorist hijackings," Mr. Hahne said in a telephone interview. "It's not really for me to say what the U.S. government wants to do with a patent of mine. The idea can be left or taken."
The video on the company's Web site cites the security breaches that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and explains how the bracelet could hold a passenger's identification and allow him or her to be tracked through an airport and onto a plane.
In case of a terrorist threat, a flight attendant or pilot could shock the passenger by use of a remote control and debilitate the person from further action.
"This device is not meant to be an onerous, punitive measure for passengers," said Mr. Hahne. "It is meant to save their lives. It is something meant to be used only when the plane is being hijacked."
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/bracelet-sends-shock-waves-through-blogosphere/

Shock bracelet for airlines?
The Department of Homeland Security two years ago considered the use of "safety bracelets" that can deliver a debilitating shock similar to that of a Taser for controlling prisoners during transport.

For you Star Trek fans, remember the episode "Gamesters of Triskelion"? I wager 40 qualoos these things become reality!

I think there was a thread about these things a while back. Everyone has their limit to what they would put up with. Where is your line? Would you ever let somebody put one of these things on you or yours?
 

falcon1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
124
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/bracelet-sends-shock-waves-through-blogosphere/

Shock bracelet for airlines?
The Department of Homeland Security two years ago considered the use of "safety bracelets" that can deliver a debilitating shock similar to that of a Taser for controlling prisoners during transport.

For you Star Trek fans, remember the episode "Gamesters of Triskelion"? I wager 40 qualoos these things become reality!

I think there was a thread about these things a while back. Everyone has their limit to what they would put up with. Where is your line? Would you ever let somebody put one of these things on you or yours?
Yes, I remember that episode. You know, I currently know of no reason I ever need to board another aircraft, unless I get reactivated in the military (and boy, are we in trouble if things are that desperate). So, no, not on me or mine.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/bracelet-sends-shock-waves-through-blogosphere/

Shock bracelet for airlines?
The Department of Homeland Security two years ago considered the use of "safety bracelets" that can deliver a debilitating shock similar to that of a Taser for controlling prisoners during transport.
UH, excuse me but, what about people with, UH, pacemakers? They don't wear one, I don't wear one. Then again, I won't wear one anyway.
 
Top