Arming pilots makes no sense

[Xaroc]

Was going to throw this in the other gun control debate but figured it needed it's own thread:

The whole arming pilots thing is dumb. So now there is a gun on board the terrorists don't need to smuggle on. All they do is take a hostage, threaten to hurt them, get the gun from the pilot, and they are in control. If the pilots are going to ignore hostages and let them die anyway just put a super reinforced door on the cockpit and never open it.

Arming pilots. Dumbest idea, EVAR!

-- Xaroc

[Midnight Son]

I don't know if it's the dumbest Idea EVAR, but I pretty much agree with you. Pilot might say "Hell no, I ain't opening this door" and the terrorists start killing folks... The first line of defense has to be on the ground. No easy solutions.

[Tyjenks]

Arming pilots. Dumbest idea, EVAR!

-- Xaroc

I have heard a lot of crazy leftist ideas thrown about here, but objecting to pilots having arms is crazy!

[ElRavager]

Well how do you expect pilots to steer the plane without arms?

:shock: :shock: :shock:

[Midnight Son]

I think we should object to drunk pilots too, damnit!

[awdougherty]

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I don't think it will be so easy to get the gun from the pilot. First, if the terrorists take and kill hostages, so what? You still don't open the door and let them take control of the plane. Even if they kill everyone on board the plane, I would imagine the policy is to not let them gain control of the aircraft.

I think the whole purpose of the gun is to defend the cockpit. If the terrorists have hijacked the plane, they already have some form of weapons on board and the obtaining of a gun is probably secondary. Controlling the cockpit is the primary objective and I don't see how putting a handgun there helps terrorists achieve that. But I can see how it might help prevent that.

[hermyhermit]

All they do is take a hostage, threaten to hurt them, get the gun from the pilot, and they are in control. If the pilots are going to ignore hostages and let them die anyway just put a super reinforced door on the cockpit and never open it.


This is sound logic up until the point that they breach the reinforced door somehow.

Chances are, that would never happen, but in the rare instance that it might (the guy snuck a shaped charge onboard in his rectum) then you have a situation with unarmed pilots and armed terrorists and guess who is going to be controlling the aircraft?

Reinforced door that is NEVER opened should certainly be the first line of defense, and that will probably work 99% of the time, but when it fails having a pistol w/ frangible rounds available is certainly a nice backup.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I flew four flights in the last month, including two transcontinental ones.

The door was open through both short legs (1.5 hours each) and for much of the transcontinental flights.

So much for reinforced doors. If pilots won't respect this rule, why are we arming them?

Troy

[Midnight Son]

Let's give the pilots the benefit of the doubt. They may have had diarrhea or a hot stewardess on board. Still, I think keeping the bad guys OFF the plane has to be the most important thing.

[Woolen Horde]

Sadly, the days of hot sexy stews on board planes seems long gone. Damn equal employment laws. :(

[Timemaster Tim]

Sadly, the days of hot sexy stews on board planes seems long gone. Damn equal employment laws. :(

You need to fly JAL.

[bago]

Xaroc: you seem to be unclear on exactly what the term "hijacked" means. If the terrorist is already in a position to force the pilot to hand over the gun, then they've already hijacked the plane without the gun, making the whole gun thing somewhat irrelavant.

Of course if the pilot has a gun in a hostage situation, he's not exactly hijacked, now is he? That whole last chance bit. Shoot the passenger and the hijacker... Pilot wins, plane wins, no hijack.

I mean, this argument is retarded. (Why do they bother to arm SWAT units? You just are adding more weapons for the criminals to use!)

[Xaroc]

Xaroc: you seem to be unclear on exactly what the term "hijacked" means. If the terrorist is already in a position to force the pilot to hand over the gun, then they've already hijacked the plane without the gun, making the whole gun thing somewhat irrelavant.

Of course if the pilot has a gun in a hostage situation, he's not exactly hijacked, now is he? That whole last chance bit. Shoot the passenger and the hijacker... Pilot wins, plane wins, no hijack.


Ok but what pilot is going to have the intestinal fortitude to shoot an innocent? We would like to think they would but wouldn't it be easier to just be barricaded in the cockpit and try to put the plane down at the nearest air field?



I mean, this argument is retarded. (Why do they bother to arm SWAT units? You just are adding more weapons for the criminals to use!)

Got strawman?

-- Xaroc

[Lizard_King]

Ok but what pilot is going to have the intestinal fortitude to shoot an innocent? We would like to think they would but wouldn't it be easier to just be barricaded in the cockpit and try to put the plane down at the nearest air field?
As opposed to having the intestinal fortitude to allow passengers to be killed outside their locked door until they give in? I think we can all agree pilots are in a shit situation no matter what; personally, I think they should be able to judge for themselves whether they have the "fortitude" to make that decision. Remember, we are not talking about requiring them to carry, but simply giving them the option, along with the locked door.

I think if 9/11 made anything clear it is that passivity is not a viable option in terms of hijacking...I think that is what pilots are seeking to stack in their favour.

[bmulligan]

I'm torn on this one. Thre are 2 pilots in my family. One doesn't want to have anything to do with a firearm in the cockpit (doesn't want the extra responsibility as he's already responsible for 200+lives every flight) and the other says he would carry one if required by federal policy.

They both tell me that the reinforced door policy is a good idea, but useless as they are human too, and often need to take a piss like the rest of us and maybe get some coffee or stretch their legs , leaving ample opportunity for a 'breach' of security when the door opens.

I know other pilots, too and let me tell you they are just like anyone else in different stages of their career, some are just waiting to retire, some ornery, jumpy, piss off easily, some apathetic, while a vast majority would handle the responsibility just fine many of them being ex-millitary. But you can bet they'll want a pay raise for the added training, time and responsibility.

It would make more sense to 'deputize' one of the flight attendants on every trip. A federal air marshall cost per flight would be enormous, but a security guard flight attendant specifically trained for the job with a minor duty of attending to passengers would be a more modest expense and more feasible to coordinate within each seperate airline. Even arming the FO's would take the burden off the pilots who are mostly the 'old timers' while FO's are mainly new hires.

From what I've heard though, policy dictates the firearm to be unloaded, in a locked safe until such time that it is needed. So it seems to be a moot point in case of a sudden door breach.

[quatoria]

My father is an airline pilot, a captain, now retired. He was definately in favor of having a firearm in the cockpit, providing it had ceramic ammo. 9/11 made it clear to him (and most pilots, I imagine) that there can be absolutely no negotiation with hijackers from this point forward. The old rules have to be thrown out, and you have to assume that if they've taken control of the passenger cabin, all the passengers are dead if they can't bring them down.

[Nellie]

you have to assume that if they've taken control of the passenger cabin, all the passengers are dead if they can't bring them down.

If they've killed/subdued 200+ people already a pistol is going to do how much good? I took a flight a couple of days after the WTC gubbins and was asked by numerous people if I felt afraid. My response then as now was "no". My reasoning is simple. If a bunch of guys stand up on your plane now and state "we are taking control, sit still and no-one gets hurt" are you gonna think "ok" or "fuck this, lets get the bastards, I'm not being flown into a building without a fight"? The rules changed on that day, you cannot sit there anymore thinking that if you sit still and dont cause trouble you will walk away at the end of it all.

[ElRavager]

I think they should have a gas system, like the cabbie in Heavy Metal. A fatal mist takes out everyone in the passenger compartments (ok, maybe sleeping gas). A pilot w/gun is just dumb, having experienced plainclothes professionals on board w/gun (ceramic bullets) makes sense.

[quatoria]

Unfortunately, nearly the entire alotment of the plainclothes security agents were almost immediatly reassigned to private congressional flights. Great work there, folks. Way to protect America.

[Alan Au]

Can't they just have airline personnel take self-defense classes? Heck, they should just replace PE in schools with self-defense. heh

- Alan

[TimElhajj]

Can't they just have airline personnel take self-defense classes? Heck, they should just replace PE in schools with self-defense.

Or weapons class. See you out on the range after history.

[Machfive]

You make it sound like teaching children effective methods of unarmed and armed defense is a bad thing.

I think if every kid had a real idea about what a firearm could do, they'd respect them a lot more, and we wouldn't be having the occasional Columbine.

By and large, the kids who perpetrate these crimes are not Johnny Farmboy who's spent his whole life around guns and treats them with the respect and reverence they deserve, but rather McDonald's fed sociopaths out of touch with reality, who've never handled a firearm in their life.

One of my acquaintences, who's an avid firearms and sword collector, told me a story about when he was 6 years old.

His father took him out into a field, set a watermelon up on a tree stump, and fired a single .357 magnum round into the watermelon, immidiately obliterating it.

"That's what a gun does when it goes off," his father said. He then learned the 4 golden rules of gun safety and hasn't had a mis-fire or shot up any schools yet.

I'd love to see kids learning Tae Kwon Do and marksmanship in school. The former would teach them self-discipline and keep them in good physical form, and the latter would teach them respect for life and proper armed self-defense skills. Combine that with a revamping of the study curriculum, eliminating the constant repetition of the same boring classes a dozen times, and putting more emphasis on world history, foreign language skills, and career selection, and I think we'd be on our way to a greater next generation.

But I could be wrong. I've been known to have some pretty wacky ideas.

Addendum - I'd expand the art and music programs, too, especially at the elementary level. Art, music, and writing aren't necessarily skills used by many, however, utilizing them earlier in life has a drastic effect on the way the brain is wired, in a VERY positive way.

[Brad Grenz]

Have you guys seen that new show on Comedy Central, Reno 911? It's from the folks that brought you Viva Variety! Funny stuff.

S.A.F.E:

Steady.
Aim.
Fire.
Everyone's okay.

[TimElhajj]

Yes, I hear it is similar to the effect of obliterating fruit with a high caliber weapon at a young age.

[Jason McCullough]

You make it sound like teaching children effective methods of unarmed and armed defense is a bad thing.

I think if every kid had a real idea about what a firearm could do, they'd respect them a lot more, and we wouldn't be having the occasional Columbine.

By and large, the kids who perpetrate these crimes are not Johnny Farmboy who's spent his whole life around guns and treats them with the respect and reverence they deserve, but rather McDonald's fed sociopaths out of touch with reality, who've never handled a firearm in their life.


I have no real opinion either way on teaching children about guns, but I don't think the columbine killers really match your description. They had a history with guns, right?

[Machfive]

If playing Doom constitutes a history with firearms, then yes.

But as far as I know, they purchased their guns (illegally) at a gun show prior to the shooting, and didn't have any past use of them IRL. Not even a trip to the shooting range to work on their accuracy.

They chose semi-automatic Tec-9's. That tells me a lot about their knowledge of firearms; namely, they didn't know anything. The gun is prone to jams, notoriously difficult to clean, and cost them much more than a 1911-style pistol.

I won't bother to detail the advantages of such a gun to a Tec-9, because it's fairly irrelevant.

Fact is, simple that enforcement of the current laws would've stopped them from getting the guns, and parents who recognized the warning signs of teenagers who want to die and kill people could have prevented the whole thing.

[hermyhermit]

If playing Doom constitutes a history with firearms, then yes.

But as far as I know, they purchased their guns (illegally) at a gun show prior to the shooting, and didn't have any past use of them IRL. Not even a trip to the shooting range to work on their accuracy.

They chose semi-automatic Tec-9's. That tells me a lot about their knowledge of firearms; namely, they didn't know anything. The gun is prone to jams, notoriously difficult to clean, and cost them much more than a 1911-style pistol.


Exactly.

The Tec-9 is a piece of shit and in the hands of an untrained shooter you are hitting mostly nothing but putting lots of lead downrange. This is why I hate these types of weapons because they tend to hit EVERYTHING but what you are aiming at and since its cheap and cheaply made its a gangbanger favorite.

Not to mention, the Columbine kids fired upwards of 900 rounds that day and only killed 12 people, had that been 2 farm boys out there and they had expended 900 rounds you'd see a body count upwards of 100+ instead of 12. Maybe the Columbine kids were firing just for effect and not to actually hit but from the videos that I saw they were indeed trying to hit targets and just didn't have the training to do so. Farmboys would have turned that into something far more horrible.

Contrary to popular opinion, computer games teach you approximately nothing about hitting a target with a real firearm. I can almost always tell "computer game kids", they come into the range every now and then and beyond about 25 feet with a pistol they are lucky to hit the paper at all much less a ring. Effective pistol shooting takes years of practice.

[nutsak]

If them being inexperienced reulted in 12 kills nto 100+ wouldn't it be a good idea then to NOT teach kids how to shoot. I'd like to see more Kung Foo in schools though.. .. Everybody was kung foo fighting! HUH! those kids were fast as lightning HOO!

.. uh yeh.. anyways

For the plane safetly thingo. No, I wouldn't arm the pilots. The gas idea would be cool, but then you get the terrosits smuggling gas masks aboard and you'd probably only end up taking out a few asthmatics.That and with every body asleep you wouldn't have panic.

"give me the plane or I'll kill this here unconcious person!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I'd have the door re-inforced. To remain locked at all times. For the toilet and drink issue, extend the cabin to accomodate another toilet and maybe a water machine thing... surely it wouldn't be that hard to do (fuck, if they can put that shit in trains they can put it in planes). And maybe it'd cost a bit to re-furnish the plane , and maybe youd have to sacrafice a few seats... but what would the ailines prefer? A few seats not filled during a flight, or having more people lost due to unsafe aircraft design and management.
I'd also have civilian dressed units randomly seated in a flight. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to figure out.

OR
you could go in a COMPLETLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

Instead of handing out headphones at the start of the flight. Hand out fully loaded Desert Eagles. If a terroist pops up. BAM! old grand-dad neo in seat A2 pops the mother fucker before he gets a chance. Awesome.

[Ben Sones]

I think all planes should have equipment on board that could flood the cabin with sleeping gas at the touch of a button in the cockpit.

Also: robots armed with lasers.

[Machfive]

I think all planes should have equipment on board that could flood the cabin with sleeping gas at the touch of a button in the cockpit.

Also: robots armed with lasers.

Yes, because we all know how perfect the knockout gas worked for the Russians in that theater debacle.

::cough::

And fuck robots. We need sharks with lasers. They'd be in aquariums located in each section of the plane, so they'd have to be tiny, foot-long sharks. With lasers, of course.

Nothing stops terrorism in its tracks like sharks with lasers attached to their heads.

[Brian Koontz]

I think all planes should have equipment on board that could flood the cabin with sleeping gas at the touch of a button in the cockpit.

I can see this accidentally going off on a mundane flight and the airline getting sued to the moon. Other than that and smart terrorists bringing gasmasks the idea sounds fine.

Perhaps a waiver... "The airline shall not be held responsible for malfunctioning or mistaken use of the sleeping gas system..."

[Alan Au]

Hey, I know, let's allow people to carry nail clippers and sewing needles on planes again. That way, if anyone tries to wrest control from the pilot, the passengers can arm themselves and retaliate. :roll:

- Alan

[Rywill]

I think all planes should have equipment on board that could flood the cabin with sleeping gas at the touch of a button in the cockpit.

Also: robots armed with lasers.
What a fucking dumb idea. Robots with buzzsaws for hands, now that would rock.

[ElRavager]

I think trapdoors might be a good idea... "These are our demaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuughhhh!" <sniggers from the cabin>. Well i guess they might smuggle parachutes onboard. Back to the drawing board..

[Rywill]

Trapdoors and underbelly turrets, then.

[Ben Sones]

What a fucking dumb idea. Robots with buzzsaws for hands, now that would rock.

My mother has one of those robot vacuum cleaners. Last time I visited, I really wanted to reprogram it to chase her dog around the house (he's already pretty wary of the thing). Possibly, this technology could be adapted to combat terrorists aboard an aircraft. The ones that are afraid of vacuum cleaners, that is.

[Jason McCullough]

I stand corrected on Columbine. I was probably thinking of Kip Kinkel (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/4077/kinkel.html).

[Xaroc]

I like the idea of an armed air marshall on each flight but the cost is probably too high. I think the thing that struck me about the whole issue is it was just going to go forward with no real debate as to if it were a good idea or not.

-- Xaroc

[Lizard_King]

I like the idea of an armed air marshall on each flight but the cost is probably too high.
It's not just that, although there is no way there is ever going to be enough funding to have one on every plane, or even a third of them. What's even more glaring as a defect in that solution is the difficulties in keeping what few of them they have. Their job is awful, and even with pay raises the job retention is abysmal.
The trained stewardess would seem to be a better choice, but again the cost factor and the practicality factor are not in favour of it. Why not go with the pilot, who is far more likely to have prior military experience? If they don't want it, fine, but at least give them the chance, since they will be the primary decision makers anyway.

The big advantage is that the pilots are on the plane anyway. At the very least, I can't see providing the pilot with more options as a bad thing.


I think the thing that struck me about the whole issue is it was just going to go forward with no real debate as to if it were a good idea or not.


Considering the pilot's union's wholesale support for it, I find it amazing how little progress the idea has made. While Israeli foreign policy is nothing to emulate, certainly their handling of El Al's security bears some thought.

[quatoria]

I was talking to my father about this issue again last night, just to make sure I had a clear read on his position. Not only was he fully in favor of having a loaded handgun with him at all times when flying, every pilot he knows had the same position.

[XPav]

Considering the pilot's union's wholesale support for it, I find it amazing how little progress the idea has made. While Israeli foreign policy is nothing to emulate, certainly their handling of El Al's security bears some thought.

Everyone always talks about El Al security.

El Al has a total fleet of 30 aircraft (http://www.elal.co.il/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=640). All international flights are to Tel Aviv only. There isn't much need for air travel inside Israel, because its just a very small country.

In comparison, Jet Blue has 46 aircraft. United Airlines has over 500.

So before you start seriously thinking about El Al security, realize that they operate in a completely different environment that we have here in the United States.

[Woolen Horde]

And don't forget that the Israeli's and El Al get to do things that would get an American airline into shitloads of PR trouble with civil rights groups here. The Israeli's just don't give a damn, security trumps someone's feelings every time out.

You wanna talk about profiling? El Al does it to the max. And all passengers are closely scrutinized. My father is a minister and once made the mistake of wearing his collar on his flight... that was a HUGE red flag for the El Al security. They took him to a private room and interrogated him until they were convinced that he was absolutely no threat.

Hell, at European airports, it's not unknown to have APC's escort El Al flights on the tarmac. Which is obviously not an option for US airports.

[Lizard_King]

So before you start seriously thinking about El Al security, realize that they operate in a completely different environment that we have here in the United States.

A valid point. Nonetheless, I think there are valuable lessons that can be learned from the absence of recent disasters on El Al flights. For instance, that pretending profiling 1. isn't happening anyways and 2. isn't one of the most effective means of preventing terrorist attacks is absurd. I think it was Bill Maher in a twilight zone moment recently that praised John Ashcroft (sort of) by saying that the only reason America has not been subject to even more attacks recently is because while important structural reforms have been sidelined, and everyone is talking PC 24/7, Ashcroft has been quietly profiling the hell out of the country.

There is potential, as noted by Woolen, to go to far and start actually interfering with civil rights even more would be of questionable value. But to pretend a primary investigative tool from being used in the name of some false pretense that all passengers are equally likely to be terrorists is plainly foolish.

And getting back to the topic at hand, while El Al is a small sample size, they have had no problems with armed pilots in addition to all the other security. If it does not seem to cause harm, why not take a chance on it helping, especially if we can't afford to take all the other measures.

[quatoria]

No twilight zone moment there - Maher has always been in favor of profiling. I've heard him come out in support of it at least half a dozen times since 9/11.

[Jason McCullough]

To be fair to Isreal, their "profiling" system isn't stupid like ours is. It's interview-based, not "flag them in a computer based on data mining, and then kick them off with no recourse."

Of course, once you start, there's no end to it. Should we focus on rounding black suspects for a drug murder first? After all, they're statistically more likely to have done it.

How about profiling christian nuts to prevent the killing of abortion doctors?

[XPav]

And once again, I'd just like to point out the huge number of agents that would be required to implement any sort of scheme like the Israelis use.

[quatoria]

Our "profiling" system currently has hundreds of people flagged (without their knowledge) as "no-fly" based on nothing more than political affiliation or participation in activist groups. Groups that don't have the first fucking thing to do with the middle east. Brilliant stuff.

[Ben Sones]

A valid point. Nonetheless, I think there are valuable lessons that can be learned from the absence of recent disasters on El Al flights.

Yeah. Namely, that spending a fortune on airline security just means that terrorists will find some other venue for their weekly suicide bombings. I'm all for security, but it's a game of diminishing returns. You can't buy absolute safety, or anything close to it, and I think a sound cost/benefit analysis should be a part of every new safety regulation implemented.

You know--that and that little matter of passing Constitutional muster.

[Lizard_King]

Our "profiling" system currently has hundreds of people flagged (without their knowledge) as "no-fly" based on nothing more than political affiliation or participation in activist groups. Groups that don't have the first fucking thing to do with the middle east. Brilliant stuff.

It's also one of the more important reasons that terrorism has been curtailed. Could it be refined? Sure.


To be fair to Isreal, their "profiling" system isn't stupid like ours is. It's interview-based, not "flag them in a computer based on data mining, and then kick them off with no recourse."

Right. And as noted above, they are dealing with a whole hell of a lot less people as well; that allows them the luxury of such an intensive approach. As usual, fair to you means something altogether different.


Of course, once you start, there's no end to it. Should we focus on rounding black suspects for a drug murder first? After all, they're statistically more likely to have done it.

How about profiling christian nuts to prevent the killing of abortion doctors?

Argument ad absurdum, slippery slope style...truly, a masterful irony in light of other recent threads. The throwaway comment at the end premised around me finding a comparison between christian fundamentalist psychopaths and Islamic fundamentalist psychopaths something reprehensible is a nice touch.

And if you think cops don't practice profiling in criminal cases, you are wrong. The difference is whether it is a matter of personal judgement on the part of the operative in question or an institutionalized mechanism for singling out blacks or other minorities for certain crimes. Obviously, the reasonableness of profiling would be situation-dependent.



And once again, I'd just like to point out the huge number of agents that would be required to implement any sort of scheme like the Israelis use.

And I'd like to reiterate that I am talking about using their example to adopt the most practical countermeasures that can be shown to be demonstrably free of problems (ie driving tanks on runways=No;guns for the pilot=Yes). You know, like the one that was the topic of the thread.

[Midnight Son]

It's well known that guns can solve all problems in America.

[Jason McCullough]

So your official positions is, what? That Arabs, who in general have a chance of hijacking an airline of, oh, 1/100,000,000, should be the only people intensively profiled by security? What about Indian guys, who've hijacked a few planes there? If some white supremacist hijacks a plane, do we start profiling white people?

If there's a consistent principle behind this beyond "durr, them Arabs are the only people to hijack, and that 20 of them total have done it over the years means we can harass the rest of them however we want," I haven't seen it.

The point of the cop analogy: when doing their jobs properly, cops have to pick up people based on description and evidence of someone know to have already committed a crime. The proper analogy to airline profiling would be if cops started shaking down black men every time, say, they cross city boundaries, because they're statistically more likely to commit once they're in the city.

[Midnight Son]

Don't forget those Irish folks!! They have some bomb experience too! Can't trust those Kennedys, no siree!

[Jessica]

To be fair to Isreal, their "profiling" system isn't stupid like ours is. It's interview-based, not "flag them in a computer based on data mining, and then kick them off with no recourse."

If you pass through Heathrow or Gatwick on the way to Europe, you'll probably be interviewed in this manner. Those people seem very well trained to recognize out-of-place elements. I was pretty impressed.

[Lizard_King]

So your official positions is, what? That Arabs, who in general have a chance of hijacking an airline of, oh, 1/100,000,000, should be the only people intensively profiled by security?
Not the "only" but certainly more attention should be paid to, say, young Arab males who purchase one-way tickets.


What about Indian guys, who've hijacked a few planes there? If some white supremacist hijacks a plane, do we start profiling white people?

Yes. White supremacist white people would then fit the profile for a potential hijacker, moreso than 80 year old Asian grandmothers or pregnant black women, just to name two of the spectacles I have witnessed in the egalitarian approach to terrorism prevention.


If there's a consistent principle behind this beyond "durr, them Arabs are the only people to hijack, and that 20 of them total have done it over the years means we can harass the rest of them however we want," I haven't seen it.
That could be because you continually ignore material results as a factor unless you agree with the person proposing the methodology to begin with.


The point of the cop analogy: when doing their jobs properly, cops have to pick up people based on description and evidence of someone know to have already committed a crime. The proper analogy to airline profiling would be if cops started shaking down black men every time, say, they cross city boundaries, because they're statistically more likely to commit once they're in the city.
Nice try. There is a vast difference in probability at that level, even if we ignore the common sense distinctions. The subset of Arabs that travel, have possible terrorist links, and are young males that has a higher probability of being a terrorist is exponentially higher than blacks who cross city limits being murderers. Would that criminals were that simple to profile.
But I eagerly await the next vague allegation of racism.

In any case, it is not the lack of focus on the likely profile targets that bothers me so much as the egalitarian horseshit that drives the focus on wholly unlikely targets in equal amounts.

[Midnight Son]

"Egalitarian horseshit." : asserting, promoting, or marked by egalitarianism

egal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1905
1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges
2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

Your position is clear.

[Woolen Horde]

To be fair to Isreal, their "profiling" system isn't stupid like ours is. It's interview-based, not "flag them in a computer based on data mining, and then kick them off with no recourse."

If you pass through Heathrow or Gatwick on the way to Europe, you'll probably be interviewed in this manner. Those people seem very well trained to recognize out-of-place elements. I was pretty impressed.

That's because European airport security people are paid more than twice what ours are. So it's not some dead-end job like burger flipping, it's an actual career with benefits and such. As such, they tend to be very-well selected, trained, and paid. They're also trained in behaviorial skills, so they can anaylyze you very expertly.

[Jason McCullough]

The subset of Arabs that travel, have possible terrorist links, and are young males that has a higher probability of being a terrorist is exponentially higher than blacks who cross city limits being murderers.

"Has possible terrorist links" is doing all the heavy lifting here. No one is objecting to people with possible ties to Islamic Jihad coming in for extra scrunity. I just fail to see what the rational basis is for singling out someone strictly based on a weak statistical link to skin color.

For reference, it's perfectly accepted to "profile" people with possible connections to drug dealers in various ways, to elaborate on the previous analogy. It's not perfectly acceptable to do so strictly because they're black.

Note I didn't use "country where they were born"; everyone I've heard suggest profiling is a good idea wants to extend it to native-born US citizens of Arab descent. Namely, they want to just profile every Arab guy who tries to get on a plane, regardless of where they came from, their history, or an other relevant detail. There's an mild form of racism behind this; "why, Arabs shouldn't mind being harassed as a class of people, no matter how marginal the benefits to us and strong the costs to them."

[Lizard_King]

Your position is clear.

OHNOS. I've been kicked out of the closet, by a man with a dictionary no less. What other thing that I've been abundantly obvious about would you like to clarify for the slower members of the audience? :roll:

But just so we don't lose momentum, your position is clear as well. The balance between equality and liberty in priorities is always an interesting one.


"Has possible terrorist links" is doing all the heavy lifting here. No one is objecting to people with possible ties to Islamic Jihad coming in for extra scrunity. I just fail to see what the rational basis is for singling out someone strictly based on a weak statistical link to skin color.

Then I suppose I should have been more clear that I meant "rational basis", not "my vehicle of choice for manhandling minorities". But I fear there's a slight chance we might end up agreeing in principle, and that would be disastrous.

[Midnight Son]

It's a delicate balance that is needed. Can we agree on that?

[Lizard_King]

It's a delicate balance that is needed. Can we agree on that?

Delicate only with reference to what version of equality we are talking about. Regardless of Webster's opinion of its universality, it is different things to different people in terms of where it should be in society. But I don't really want to hijack this thread into one of those debates.

Besides, I'd probably get demoted in my official capacity as a high ranking lackey/capitalist running dog of the vast rightwing conspiracy if I agreed with you.

[Midnight Son]

What the hell was this thread about anyway?

[Linoleum]

What the hell was this thread about anyway?

Arguing about whether or not men and women who: learned to operate immensively complicated machines, go through constant training to handle crisis requiring split-second life or death decisions, are entrusted with the lives of hundreds of people on a daily basis, regularly go through psychological evaluations are competent to take responsibility for a little device that throws metal really fast.

[Xaroc]

What the hell was this thread about anyway?

Arguing about whether or not men and women who: learned to operate immensively complicated machines, go through constant training to handle crisis requiring split-second life or death decisions, are entrusted with the lives of hundreds of people on a daily basis, regularly go through psychological evaluations are competent to take responsibility for a little device that throws metal really fast.

I never said they weren't competent I just thought having a gun available in a known location might give the terrorists a weapon that they didn't have to smuggle on board. Also, in last ditch mode once the terrorists have the cockpit and the gun there will be no rushing the cockpit by the passengers. If it is a box knife or some other hand to hand weapon passengers might have a chance but with a gun it is game over.

-- Xaroc

[quatoria]

What the hell was this thread about anyway?

Arguing about whether or not men and women who: learned to operate immensively complicated machines, go through constant training to handle crisis requiring split-second life or death decisions, are entrusted with the lives of hundreds of people on a daily basis, regularly go through psychological evaluations are competent to take responsibility for a little device that throws metal really fast.

I never said they weren't competent I just thought having a gun available in a known location might give the terrorists a weapon that they didn't have to smuggle on board. Also, in last ditch mode once the terrorists have the cockpit and the gun there will be no rushing the cockpit by the passengers. If it is a box knife or some other hand to hand weapon passengers might have a chance but with a gun it is game over.

-- Xaroc

If a terrorist is in the cockpit and able to disarm the pilot, presuming said pilot has a gun, the situation is already FUBAR, wouldn't you say?

[Xaroc]

What the hell was this thread about anyway?

Arguing about whether or not men and women who: learned to operate immensively complicated machines, go through constant training to handle crisis requiring split-second life or death decisions, are entrusted with the lives of hundreds of people on a daily basis, regularly go through psychological evaluations are competent to take responsibility for a little device that throws metal really fast.

I never said they weren't competent I just thought having a gun available in a known location might give the terrorists a weapon that they didn't have to smuggle on board. Also, in last ditch mode once the terrorists have the cockpit and the gun there will be no rushing the cockpit by the passengers. If it is a box knife or some other hand to hand weapon passengers might have a chance but with a gun it is game over.

-- Xaroc

If a terrorist is in the cockpit and able to disarm the pilot, presuming said pilot has a gun, the situation is already FUBAR, wouldn't you say?

My worry is the door wouldn't be closed and the terrorists would get to the cockpit quickly unopposed and get the gun. If there is no gun they have the cockpit but the passengers would have a chance to fight back and at least force the plane down.

My basic overall worry is that once terrorists knew there would be a gun on board they would craft a plan around getting the gun easily and it would make it easier for them to hijack airplanes.

-- Xaroc

[quatoria]

Which is nearly impossible. First, unless the pilot is grossly flauting regulations, the door is never "just open". Nobody gets back there without the pilot or co-pilot knowing about it.

[Xaroc]

Which is nearly impossible. First, unless the pilot is grossly flauting regulations, the door is never "just open". Nobody gets back there without the pilot or co-pilot knowing about it.

There are many people here who say they have seen pilots fly with the cockpit doors open. Also, they have to come out on long flights every once in a while to use the bathroom. Maybe once pilots do have guns they follow all the regulations.

-- Xaroc

[Linoleum]

Which is nearly impossible. First, unless the pilot is grossly flauting regulations, the door is never "just open". Nobody gets back there without the pilot or co-pilot knowing about it.

There are many people here who say they have seen pilots fly with the cockpit doors open. Also, they have to come out on long flights every once in a while to use the bathroom. Maybe once pilots do have guns they follow all the regulations.

-- Xaroc

I'm kind of surprised you think the gun would be lying out on the dashboard instead of being in a locked box. Keeping the gun secured in a keypad lockbox at all times (unless there was an emergency where the cockpit was still secure) is not exactly rocket science.

[Jason Levine]

I was talking to my father about this issue again last night, just to make sure I had a clear read on his position. Not only was he fully in favor of having a loaded handgun with him at all times when flying, every pilot he knows had the same position.

As someone who does a lot of flying on business, I'm inclined to agree with your father. I can see the opposing arguments, but in the end, it's just one more bit of reassurance.


Which is nearly impossible. First, unless the pilot is grossly flauting regulations, the door is never "just open". Nobody gets back there without the pilot or co-pilot knowing about it.

I've heard storie too, but on dozens of flights since 9/11, I've never seen the cockpit door open during flight, even for one of the crew to use the bathroom. The longest flight I've taken has been Chicago-LA, so maybe it's different on a coast-to-coast or international flight. But again, I've never seen the door just left open.

[Rywill]

I think the gun should be pointed at the cabin with a string between the doorknob and the trigger.

[Ben Sones]

That crazy contraption would be entirely unneccesary if you went with my robot idea. Just give the gun to the robot, and we wouldn't have to worry about arming pilots.

[Brad Grenz]

What if the terrorist hack the robot using a wifi capable laptop? Then they have the gun AND A KILLER ROBOT!!! See, this is why the wings need to be detachable when you pull a cord like the emergency brake thing on old trains! Anything goes bad, and all you need is one person to send the plane harmlessly to the ground in someone's backyard.

[Ben Sones]

Harmlessly?

[Jason McCullough]

I hope Ridge is reading this thread.

[Rywill]

That crazy contraption would be entirely unneccesary if you went with my robot idea. Just give the gun to the robot, and we wouldn't have to worry about arming pilots.
Good luck getting the robot to hold the gun with its buzzsaw hands, you dumb fuck.


What if the terrorist hack the robot using a wifi capable laptop? Then they have the gun AND A KILLER ROBOT!!!
You obviously don't fly very much. You're not allowed to use wifi laptops on planes. :roll:


See, this is why the wings need to be detachable when you pull a cord like the emergency brake thing on old trains! Anything goes bad, and all you need is one person to send the plane harmlessly to the ground in someone's backyard.
Yeah, but those wings could kill somebody. So I think they should be made out of Styrofoam.

You might think it's crazy, but I had a model plane with Styrofoam wings and it flew just fine. Side benefit: rubber bands instead of those ridiculous "jet engines."

[Brad Grenz]

You obviously don't fly very much. You're not allowed to use wifi laptops on planes.

You're not "allowed" to hijack planes, either. I doubt the terrorists will be going out of their way to observe the rules about wireless devices.

[Rywill]

You obviously don't fly very much. You're not allowed to use wifi laptops on planes.

You're not "allowed" to hijack planes, either. I doubt the terrorists will be going out of their way to observe the rules about wireless devices.
Excellent point. If only I had thought to make a joke about it!

[XPav]

I say we strap every passenger on the plane into their seats and don't let them get up. Ever.

Need something else to read and can't get out of the seat? BLAME THE TERRORISTS.
Crap your pants? BLAME THE TERRORISTS.

For long flights, you attach a catheter, and can't eat the day before.

For extra security, each seat on the plane is individually jettisionable. If the passenger undoes the belt, the passenger is ejected from the plane.

Its perfect.

[bago]

Xaroc: Again, at the point where they are able to wrest control of a gun away from pilots who are actively struggling against them, having already gotten past all existing security procedures designed to thwart them, they are probably already able to wrest control of the plane. At which point having one gun PLUS one plane seems kind of silly.

On the one hand, we have security measures
On the other we have security measures + armed pilots.

Which side of the equation is more likely to ensure security? Lets give Xaroc some fairly even odds and assume that a terrorist would be able to get the gun in 4 out of ten cockpit breakins. That means 6 times out of ten he won't. which is a sum total of 2 times out of ten that the terrorist was thwarted by the presence of the weapon. Which is STILL larger than the zero out of ten if there were no weapon.

Do the math. Or better yet, As the insurance companies to do the math. They're good at this sort of thing.

[Xaroc]

I hope it turns out to be a good idea. I think it has flaws as I have mentioned and I will leave it at that. We will have to just agree to disagree.

-- Xaroc