U.S. to Add 5,000 Armed Air Marshals

My Way ^ | Sept 2nd, 2003 | By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

[xrp]

Why don't they just allow the pilots to arm themselves.

DUH! That's government for you.

[JohnGalt]

What a joke.

Government agency pretends to cut politically sensitive service. Congress delivers more funding to hire gumbint workers, meanwhile pilots can't get armed.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/082603w1.htm
TSA, pilots wage war of words over gun program
Aug 26,2003
By Matthew Weinstock
GovExec.com


Transportation Security Administration officials say they are moving “full speed ahead” with a program to train and arm commercial airline pilots. But pilots organizations accuse the agency of dragging its feet and, in some cases, deterring pilots from volunteering to carry weapons


9/11 changed nothing with the idiots who rule us.

[zarf]

Must be elections coming up.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Come on now, it's only been two years and there are already, I think, four armed pilots.
In no time at all we'll be up to five, and then in a few more years, six!

What's another five thousand salaries? Barely $400,000,000 a year. Arming pilots is sooo expensive and time consuming.

Whiners!

[JohnGalt]

Why do I get the feeling that 5000 new air marshalls is as real as 100,000 new cops?

I suspect the gubmint means 5000 new positions will be funded, but mostly they will hire paper shufflers or purchase computers. Or maybe they will behave as cynically as the DARE people; they buy sports cars.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Why do I get the feeling that 5000 new air marshalls is as real as 100,000 new cops? ...

Hmmm. Your chip must be loose. You appear to be thinking freely again.

Better report to HQ and get that fixed.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Yes. And I simply do not understand the Bush admin on this one. Arming pilots is far and away the most expeditious means of improving aircraft security.

By cowing to the anti-gun crowd they are setting themselves up to be brutalized in the event of another domestic hijacking by terrorists. The Marxists will hammer the Bush admin for "not doing enough to protect US citizens" -- and the accusers will be absolutely right! There is NO cry among the populace against arming the pilots. In fact the issue is being largely ignored by the media. What's that old saying: "If your opponent is committing suicide, sit back and watch." (or something like that).

The Bush admin is setting themselves up for potential disaster. For what? To please the anti-gun Left? I just don't get it.

[JohnGalt]

You are being too kind. Bush signed a bill to allow for pilots to become armed, but his extra-Constitutional agencies are making it impossible for pilots to become certified.

It's just horrible posturing.


What you are missing is that the state (those people we hire to protect us) was revealed to be a trillion dollar boondoggle on 9/11 (to date, not one resignation, not one pension stripped) and thus the mere notion out in the public that a well armed citizenry is worth a hundred thousand Pentagon paper shufflers or 32 neoconservative columnists clamoring for global hegemony between cocktail parties and speaking engagements, is dangerous to their livelyhoods.

[UCANSEE2]

Although it might not be a bad idea to allow the pilot's to carry a gun, I am for the adding of the Air Marshall's.

Just the FACT that it is being done is a discouragement to terrorists and hijackers of any bent.

Maybe by adding these Air Marshall's, we can quit confiscating fingernail clippers, and doing body searches of 80-year old women.

[UCANSEE2]

I would rather have the Air Marshall stopping a would-be terrorist, and getting wounded in the process while the pilot continues to fly the plane, than the other way around.

[xrp]

Maybe by adding these Air Marshall's, we can quit confiscating fingernail clippers, and doing body searches of 80-year old women.

Hah, dream on.

[taxed2death]

....since they're all part of the "homeland insecurity dept", Big Gub-mint probably just pulled them off of the borders. We need those drugs coming in unimpeded to get this economy on a roll, after all.

[chimera]

This is just more taxpayer money being used for show, to convince the flying public that they're safer, when in fact they're not. Terrorists know how to take out an air marshal. One of them starts a minor disturbance. The air marshal reacts. This "fingers" him for the real muscle, who take him down.

Better to have pilots armed in the cockpit to defend it against intrusion. They can have video surveillance of the cabin to see what they're up against. Then the armed pilots keep the barbarians out of the flight deck while they get the plane on the ground fast. That takes out the threat of using the aircraft as a missile. And once on the ground it gives the passengers a chance to escape and the pilots/passengers a chance to fight the barbarians without worrying about crashing.

That's the simplest solution. No need to waste a half-billion dollars or so of the public's money trying to lull them into thinking that someone is "doing something".

[iconoclast]

I would rather have the Air Marshall stopping a would-be terrorist, and getting wounded in the process while the pilot continues to fly the plane, than the other way around.

Pretty silly.

There is more than one person in the cockpit, and they ALL should be armed. Then all planes would be safer, not just the few with Marshalls.

And, with no new increase in federal payroll.

[UCANSEE2]

I don't see it as silly, and I fly planes. Disturbing or involving the pilot and possibly the co-pilot is not the best way to get to the ground in one piece. The autopilot doesn't land the plane. Neither do Air Marshalls.

The pilots that want ARMS should have them, after qualifying and taking intensive safety training with them. Should the Air marshall fail to be there or halt any attack, then the pilot might have the ability to stop the terrorist, or might provoke the terrorist to go ahead and blow them all up. I would want the weapon, myself. I also don't want pilots handling guns that are unskilled in gun use/care, and safety. Or ones that are afraid to use them.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle of our viewpoints, don't you?

[UCANSEE2]

Funny how everyone has this '20-20 hindsight' on how to prevent the next 9/11 takeover of planes. You would be on-spot were it not for the fact that they won't do the same thing again.

Have you ever thought of the 'have a cake/bake a cake' theory of managing problems?

[ArrogantBustard]

Why don't they just allow the pilots to arm themselves.

That would make sense. Can't have that.

Let CCW permit holders go armed, too, while we're at it.

[UCANSEE2]

OK. Give everyone on the plane a gun, and in case of trouble, may the best man(woman or child) win.

[UCANSEE2]

I understand your take on this, but do you know how many pilots would WANT to carry and have the responsibility for a gun? How many wouldn't? And since one can't enforce that Every pilot must carry a gun and be willing to kill with it, how is this supposed to be a long term solution that the public finds acceptable?

(Conversations at the airport: "Uh, don't take flight 2134, the pilot doesn't CCW".
Yeah, the airlines want that for a solution!)