Slashdot Mirror
TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords
An anonymous reader writes The TSA has gathered an impressive pile of confiscated weapons this year. In early November the agency had already discovered 1,855 firearms at checkpoints. In addition to guns, they've also collected machetes, hatchets, swords, giant scissors, brass knuckles, cannonballs, bear repellent and, this past October, an unloaded cannon. "Maybe someone has a lucky inert grenade they brought back from some war, or a nice cane was given to them and they forgot that the thing is actually a sword," said Jeff Price, author of Practical Aviation Security, "It's the people that are carrying stuff like chainsaws that make me wonder."
You mean people who work for tree removal services? That makes you wonder?
We had a bad ice storm here last year, I personally know about a dozen people who flew in with their chainsaws to help with cleanup, and pocket sacks of cash since just about every tree in town was damaged.
These were items confiscated, i.e. stolen from citizens. Heaven forbid that American citizens think they have a right to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms is the mark of a terrorist. Not the kind of terrorist who actually blows up buildings or shoots people, mind you, rather just one who plays the part of "Terrorist" in the Security Theater.
Confiscating a canon as a weapon is pants-on-head retarded. Is it filled with powder? Then it's harmless. It's too heavy to even use a club.
Wow. I mean, I travel a ton and get annoyed by the TSA as much as the next guy, but you really think it's OK to take a gun onto an airplane? Agree to disagree. People who need to transport their legally owned firearms can do so through the simple act of checking them. There isn't an airline or country the world over that would allow firearms, not to mention loaded _with rounds chambered_ (FTFA) onto a plane.
We can argue all we want to about the cannon (I'm with the anon who thinks if you manage to hijack a plane with it... congrats!), but guns, grenades, large knives... just check it! This isn't a terrorism thing. It's basic safety 101, especially in an already stressful, crowded environment.
--------------------- -me, Crusher of those who are Foolish (don't be foolish)
zero.
And a cannon ball? Well - you can of course cause some injuries with it if it starts to roll around, but so can a bowling ball.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
you really think it's OK to take a gun onto an airplane
Not much worse than taking a gun to a shopping mall or movie theater, actually.
I know what you mean. Just why the hell can't we bring chainsaws onto the 747!? Have they gone mental? When is the last time that a terrorist with a chainsaw took over an aircraft? Please! Anyone with half a brain knows there is no way you could really run with it either, the isles are too narrow. Besides, who would notice it in operation over the crying babies? What on earth happened to our freedom!?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
We can argue all we want to about the cannon (I'm with the anon who thinks if you manage to hijack a plane with it... congrats!)
You know nothing. You put the cannons at the windows, and shoot at the wings of the other planes. Once they are hit, you throw hooks to hijack and loot! That's how to pirate an airship.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
You're welcome to your opinion that the 2nd Amendment was a mistake.
Shopping malls don't tend to depressurize when punctured.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Great! You've got that one covered!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The movie depressurizing is not real.
fear: Americans were once again this year permitted to take their uncodifiable fear of terrorism along each and every flight.
compliance:unquestioned, lock step obedience to a national travel policy thats done nothing to reduce or eliminate terrorism, as domestic events like the Aurora and giffords shooting have simply been redefined as tragedies. Anders Brevik's christian crusade of bloodshed was not stopped by the inability to bring nail clippers onto a plane.
poverty: americans got to take their looming debt, foreclosures, and reposessions along for the ride while dutifully shuffling sixty billion dollars to the department of homeland security, an agency that failed to stop terrorism like the benghazi bombing, or the boston marathon bombing, at all.
Good people go to bed earlier.
From the paternalist, condescending article: Beyond firearms, of course, TSA officers encounter an extremely wide variety of other prohibited items at airport checkpoints, including ... an unloaded cannon.
Because archeologist or collectors should absolutely check in priceless historical artifacts! It's not like baggage handler would steal anything, or the airlines would lose luggage, ho ho, how silly.
Hey, this thing was a firearm once, right? So it's totally justified, innit? Even though the picture even shows that the thing is rusty, unable to fire, and very old.
Do you know how funny it is in Dilbert cartoon when the PHB adopts a tone of condescending smugness to assert misinformed, ill-reasoned opinions? Well, somehow, these bureaucrats don't manage to make it funny.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
If someone had a gun on September 11, 2001 perhaps the history would be different. In Soviet Russia all pilots were armed, and rightly so.
I travel and every day I see pocket knifes, souvenir knifes being stolen at the checkpoints. The other day my credit card size stainless steel multi-tool (ruler, screwdriver, wrench and a 2 centimeter cutting edge) has been confiscated because it had a less than one inch "blade". Yikes.
Every single day passengers bring bottles of whiskey and other alcohol in the glass bottles, which is essentially a ceramic blade/knife, if the bottle is broken. Heck, you can buy alcohol in the airplane.
I have interviewed several airport security directors and directors supplying security solutions. All of them, in private, agreed that this is a security theater.
I agree that most of what the TSA does is BS. That being said, it's perfectly reasonable to restrict weapons onboard flights. It's also not up to the TSA as to whether the weapons are confiscated. That is up to local laws and law enforcement.
Shopping malls don't tend to depressurize when punctured.
Neither do aircraft.
The pressurisation pumps are more than capable of keeping up with the amount of air leaking through a thumb-sized hole.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Could we forego the TSA click-bait hate-mongering till after the holidays or something?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Most airports let you mail the items back home now. It's only confiscated if it's not worth the cost to mail it back.
The stuff on their prohibited list is pretty silly though. They wouldn't let me bring a piano tuning wrench in my carry on. It's basically a fixed socket wrench about 12 inches long, no sharp edges or points so can't be used for jabbing/prying like a screwdriver, and designed to be lightweight so you couldn't use it like a hammer. But there's some rule prohibiting tools over 8 inches, so they refused to let me bring it aboard. Unfortunately you can't just pick one up at the local hardware store, so I had to pay 25% of what a new one cost to check in my carry-on bag.
People who need to transport their legally owned firearms can do so through the simple act of checking them.
There is about the same chance of a gun getting discovered by the TSA at checkpoint as there is of getting your gun discovered in luggage. However, the chances of them confiscating it if discovered at the checkpoint is 100%, while the chance of TSA stealing it out of your luggage is probably only about 1/4 or an 1/8th of that. Statistics say that you should check your gun, because 80% or so of the time, it will not get stolen.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, you really should carry on anything worth more to you than a pair of jeans. Since you can no longer lock your luggage, and the TSA agents have stolen billions of dollars of items out of luggage, you are a fool to check anything valuable.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
That must be why Mythbusters always drive to their remote sites.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
I look forward to the movie "Bears on a Plane"
These people are generally not bringing their gun on an airplane because they want to shoot someone (I can't vouch for everyone's intent). These are people that probably have a valid conceal carry permit, don't normally fly, and just worked out of habit only to have their stuff confiscated. Meaning, that while it was an error they can't get their stuff back.
Do I find an inert hand grenade paperweight to be a terribly frightening weapon? Nope, but the TSA does and confiscates those too. Gag items like giant scissors are not a threat either, well maybe if they were sharpened in in the hands of Chuck Norris (who would be a threat without the giant scissors). A "cannon ball" is not a threat without, well.. a cannon and a good amount of black powder.
Maybe the term "mens rea" is lost on you, but it has been a critical part of western legal systems for centuries. At least until recently anyway. IMHO this is just the TSA trying to A) Justify their job. and B) Attempt to humor us in that attempt.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I have actually had my round ended paper cutting scissors taken, you know the ones that have a difficult time cutting paper... i certainly felt safer without them.
IMO all adults (with exemptions for handicapped and/or mentally disabled) should be *required* to carry a handgun on an airplane. If everyone is armed, the terrorists have no standing at all.
Rentals should be made available at the terminal, for people who don't own guns or forgot to bring theirs.
I'd just be concerned with the amount of air trying to escape through a small opening and demanding an increase in throughput by pressure at a weakened structure, potentially leading to getting its way and creating an opening large enough to let objects larger than bullets pass.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are valid circumstances to fire a gun there. AFAIK there are no valid circumstances for firing a normal pistol in an airborne airplane.
>so I had to pay 25% of what a new one cost to check in my carry-on bag.
Bingo! That's why people carry stuff on that they would otherwise check. Airlines started charging for checked bags.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The danger is not depressurisation, the danger is damage to the flight control systems, damage to the electrical systems, punching holes in fuel tanks (and probably making a bit of sparking and friction heat while at it), puncturing a landing wheel and the like. There are many, many ways a small hole in a vital part can endanger or even disable a modern airliner. Add to that the danger of a sleep deprived, stressed out person on a red-eye shooting an innocent he believed to be a terrorist, or just that f-ing annoying kid who keeps crying and kicking his seat... Also; seeing as there is no such things as a clear shoot inside the anxiety tube that is an airplane, you are going to hit something (or someone) that would be better off with no holes in it - even if you're firing at a legitimate target.
I much prefer if those who can legally carry check their guns on boarding - over here in Europe at least there used to be (might still be) a strong box up front where you could store such things as guns.
And honestly; if you're so attached to your weapon that you can't be separated from it while flying, perhaps driving might be a better solution for everyone involved?
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
An airliner isn't going to depressurize from something like a bullet hole either. Now if a large bomb blows a 3 meter hole in the fuselage, that'll depressurize and people's ears will pop painfully. The pressurization air is the same compressed air that provides 85% of the forward thrust of provided by it's two 54,000 lb thrust engines.
Here's how much air is available:
http://code7700.com/videos/top...
If the airliner is at maximum altitude when the large chunk of fuselage is removed and the cabin loses pressure, the pilot should descend to 8,000 feet or below because the passengers will get dizzy after a few minutes and may pass out.
Pretty much what I thought. Let's compare that to how many of these things would have gotten on a plane pre-security theater.
Guns? Nope. Metal detector. ... heavy. Not dangerous.
Hatchets, Chainsaws and the like? Nope. Metal detector, not to mention that these things are frickin' bulky.
Cannonballs? Erh... Metal detector, but without a cannon they're just
Bear repellant? Oh. No. You could have gotten that on board. Using it would have been a different issue, since yes, you could have maced the whole crew and some passengers... before the rest of the passengers pile up on you and KILL you because they're afraid you might be a 9/11 attacker.
Folks, the 9/11 attacks are like the old trojan horse story (the real one, not the malware). It worked once. ONCE. It will never ever work again. Nobody will ever again go "oh look, a horsie, our enemies made us a present, let's haul it into our fortress!". And neither will people sit down quietly and hope that the hijacking will be over soon. The reason people did that was simply that until 9/11, that's how hijacking worked. You hijack a plane, you demand to fly to some godforsaken country where you trade the passenger hostages against some "political" prisoners. That's how this spiel worked. 9/11 changed that.
I promise you, if there are ever again 4 idiots with carpet knifes trying to hold up a plane, they have exactly ZERO chance of survival. What's the worst that could happen to you if you attack them? Well, they could ... cut you... What WILL happen if you don't? Plane -> Building -> fiery death.
What's the logical thing to do?
CHARGE!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
with some being shot out windows?
The multi-layered laminated windows on aircraft don't "shoot out".
[People have shot up planes before, you know. Both in actual acts of terrorism and in testing.]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Disappointed my slingshot did not make the list this year. Piss.
Fuck the TSA and FUCK the government
Until there are 4 or 5 thumb sized holes, or a hole the size of a window
Plus no one has ever piloted a shopping mall into a building
I get what you mean, but an airflow of 10-12psi through metal holes generally doesn't "erode" like that. The metal would have to be extremely weak and brittle already, say pre-fatigued to the verge of failure, in which case the aircraft was already a death-trap.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Still, it's not catastrophic. All that will happen is the masks dropping, the pilots having to don theirs quickly, lowering the altitude, and that's about it. Nobody should die if you merely shoot out through the fuselage.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Then it's settled. Guns on planes are a good idea. Maybe they could be handed out instead of peanuts?
Well if there are more than 6 holes, we know the plane didn't originate in NY, and if more than 10, the plane didn't originate in California...
Err, you know you are not only allowed to lock luggage containing a gun, but you are required to do so? It's spelled out explicitly in the rules.*
While it was a few years ago and the laws may have changed, I read somewhere that you should travel with a starter pistol. The TSA considers them guns, which means you are allowed (required) to securely lock your checked baggage, but (most) states don't consider them weapons, so you can travel with them to different states without multiple concealed carry permits.
* this is with a real lock, not a TSA lock
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
You put the cannons at the windows, and shoot at the wings of the other planes. Once they are hit, you throw hooks to hijack and loot!
Similar to how Peter used cannons to loot this poor mans sugar cane, tobacco and spices.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
that motherfukers confiscated my pliers (2 times)
People took guns on planes for DECADES without incident. It wasnt until some jackasses with box cutters that guns were banned.
Good-bye
I travel and every day I see pocket knifes, souvenir knifes being stolen at the checkpoints. The other day my credit card size stainless steel multi-tool (ruler, screwdriver, wrench and a 2 centimeter cutting edge) has been confiscated because it had a less than one inch "blade". Yikes.
To be fair, John Pistole (the TSA head) tried to drop this restriction and permit knifes with blades <= 2.36 inches, but transportation workers, victims groups, and various congressmen thru a hissy-fit, so he was forced to drop it.
2.36 inches!! Land of the brave, my arse.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
People who need to transport their legally owned firearms can do so through the simple act of checking them.
WHOOOOOSH!!!
That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.
Who says they're going to fire the gun ? Most gun carrying folks in the US rarely fire it in public.
Every window on a large passenger aircraft are multi-layered laminated glass and plastic, not just the cockpit windows. They don't explode out when punctured.
As I said, people have shot up planes before. This is not a new thing.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Bear spray is quite nasty stuff. It's meant to stop something big and mean, or at least pursuade it to look toward less-equipped hikers.
Would you have had the "is ... a weapon?" response had it been tear gas instead of bear spray?
The last hike of the vacation was the Grinnel Glacier Trail, and at the end I gave my can to someone headed up that didn't have one. Wasn't going to do me any good, didn't need it at home even if I could get it on the plane, and they weren't properly equipped to hike in Glacier N.P. without it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Err, you know you are not only allowed to lock luggage containing a gun, but you are required to do so? It's spelled out explicitly in the rules.*
While it was a few years ago and the laws may have changed, I read somewhere that you should travel with a starter pistol. The TSA considers them guns, which means you are allowed (required) to securely lock your checked baggage, but (most) states don't consider them weapons, so you can travel with them to different states without multiple concealed carry permits.
* this is with a real lock, not a TSA lock
I've heard the same suggestion in reference to a flare gun. In both cases, don't bother buying flares or starter caps; all you need is the appropriate suitcase, gun case, and lock.
Note that TSA will search your bag that contains a declared firearm. Unlike all the other bags they open in the luggage caverns, they will search yours right in front of you, before you lock it. Implied is that they will not be able to take anything out of the luggage, while you are watching them.
Myth busters did that years ago. They pressurized a plane and shot a bullet through a window. It wasn't that bad.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
US Marshalls carry on planes, some airlines have firearms in the cockpit.
http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/law-enforcement-officers-flying-armed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service
So it would seem for someone that travels a ton you are blissfully unaware that there is a high probability that flights you are on have a firearm inside the cabin with you.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Please. I'd just download one.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
If someone had a gun on September 11, 2001 perhaps the history would be different. In Soviet Russia all pilots were armed, and rightly so.
I travel and every day I see pocket knifes, souvenir knifes being stolen at the checkpoints. The other day my credit card size stainless steel multi-tool (ruler, screwdriver, wrench and a 2 centimeter cutting edge) has been confiscated because it had a less than one inch "blade". Yikes.
Every single day passengers bring bottles of whiskey and other alcohol in the glass bottles, which is essentially a ceramic blade/knife, if the bottle is broken. Heck, you can buy alcohol in the airplane.
I have interviewed several airport security directors and directors supplying security solutions. All of them, in private, agreed that this is a security theater.
No it wouldn't. It wasn't a problem to fight against the hobby knives unarmed either, no one expected the hijackers to be suicide terrorist, and the only thing that would make a difference is hind-sight.
Will the owner of that private property try you in a private courtroom and sentence you to a privately owned prison for attempting to bring a gun onto the plane?
let's also consider that there have been no successful terrorist activity on US airlines since all these measures were put in place.
However, all non-successful attempts were stopped by passengers on the aircraft, not TSA.
TSA cannot point to a single example of a terrorist being stopped by them. Not one.
(And you know they would be shouting it from the rooftops, given that they brag about stealing items from non-terrorists as if their agents had done something good.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
In Soviet Russia all pilots were armed, and rightly so.
Citation needed.
Well, they were often loaded. Not sure about the armed part.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
After 9/11, people aren't going to let anybody take over a plane, even if they're carrying a gun.
Leaking gas for one thing. Same reason you shouldn't carry propane stoves, gas fueled lanterns or any number of potentially hazardous devices.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
OK. I can see cannon or swords as weapons. That's the point of them. But why is bear repellent a weapon? Are bears secretly part of the anti-terrorist program?
A bottle of bear spray is 10 oz of 2% capsaicin. If that accidentally or purposely was released it could incapacitate an entire plane. Given that there is no reasonable use for said spray while flying, it makes abundant sense to pack it away so the chances of release are minimized. All it takes is one half crazed passenger to put a whole lot of people in serious jeopardy. And we all know that a typical flight carries more than one half crazed person.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Anyone who tries to take a gun or chainsaw on a plane is a moron, but making people leave their nail clippers etc is bullshit.
What about martial artists who's hands alone are far more lethal than some stupid pointy keyring? How come they dont stop them from flying? I'm surprised that the TSA hasn't already tried to make everyone fly in handcuffs.
Archie Bunker said it best. 'When you get on the plane, the stewardess should hand out pistols. When you land she should collect them.'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Pre-911 being hijacked meant "If you sit down and be quiet, we fly this plane to Cuba, protest for a bit and then everyone goes free. An inconvenience, but nobody gets hurt. If you try to fight back, you'll be killed." So even if someone had a gun in the first two planes, they would have likely kept quiet until it was too late.
The passengers in the third plane did try to shoot back when they found out what happened to the first two planes, but a passenger with a gun might not have made much of a difference. At that point, the terrorists had control of the airplane and even a gun wouldn't have given the passengers the upper hand quick enough to keep the terrorists from crashing the plane.
Nowadays, if someone tries to hijack a plane - even if they intend the "flight to Cuba" kind of hijacking - the passengers are going to rise up, guns or no guns.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
you know the ones that have a difficult time cutting paper... i certainly felt safer without them
Reminds me of a sign I once saw at one of the area surplus stores for one of those camping survival tools, except these were really cheaply made ones that looked like they were sand cast. The sign read:
Warning extremely dangerous!!!
Not because it is sharp
Because it is cheap crap
Time to offend someone
Why do you keep repeating facts? You're interfering with story-time.
I promise you, if there are ever again 4 idiots with carpet knifes trying to hold up a plane, they have exactly ZERO chance of survival.
That's because the next time it won't be with carpet knives.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You just gave some RIAA lawyer a brain aneurysm.
i'd be more concerned with turbulence. you're going to stow that chunk of solid metal in the overhead? that thing ever pops out of that bin, and it will kill someone, no might or maybes about it. also, what kind of lunatic would think that that would pass muster?
That report comes pre-printed on every blank sheet of paper there is.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
TSA trying oh so very hard to appear effective.
:) that's right, bringing is a gun into an airplane is no more dangerous than bringing a gun into a school.
As we all know, there have never been any school shootings. ergo, guns on planes are perfectly safe.
Don't forget the bicycle tools they stole.
Why do you think it's okay to confiscate people's property?
Even if a particular item isn't allowed on carry-on, why is it just assumed to be acceptable to permanently steal it from the passengers unless their was a suspicious of malice and it was evidence in the criminal case against them?
This is particularly true of the cannon and chainsaw. Unless the cannon had gunpowder and the chainsaw fuel, both are useless as weapons. (At best really clumsy bludgeons.) Even if you decide to not allow them in carry-on, because... {handwave} reasons... why is it necessary to permanently steal it from the passenger to use as a trophy, rather than put it in the baggage hold or allow the owners to make arrangements to reclaim their property later? (Hell, it's an airport, there's going to be a freight company like FedEx nearby. Given the number of items being taken from passengers, returning them seems a pretty simple thing to standardise.)
But look it another way, this is the cream of the crop, gathered from nationwide, the trophies the TSA puts on show to justify their existence and try to deflect criticism. And yet most of the items seem to many of us to be hysterical overreactions, that few of the items should have actually been confiscated from the passengers, and even fewer permanently.
So if that's the best of the best, how bad is the rest of the haul?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The windows don't shoot out, they get thumb sized holes.
If you put enough holes in the plane, then the pilot will have to descend until the cabin pressure stabilizes. Of course since there is an in-flight emergency, hel'' be descending for a landing at the nearest airport anyway. Once on the ground, the coroner will pick up the broken and desecrated corpse of the shooter, police will interview the passengers, and they can be on their way.
That's because the next time it won't be with carpet knives.
No, it's because hijacking of airplanes ended on 9/11. Unless you can get more hijackers than passengers onto a plane (or at least enough hijackers to physically overpower the passengers) it can no longer work. It only worked before because passengers figured if they just went along all would end well and they would be - at worst - inconvenienced. That changed on 9/11/2001.
There have been people try to hijack planes since then. Here's one story:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-...
6 people tried to hijack a plane - 4 of them survived. I probably don't have to explain it but the other 4 didn't exactly "meet their objectives" if you know what I mean.
Here's a guy who actually had a gun on the plane - I think he was the one who's life was saved by the police who stormed the plane after it landed. He had boiling water thrown on him before the beating:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Again, he had two guns, it didn't matter.
Hijacking was ruined by Mohammed Atta and friends 13 years ago. Since then we had the shoe bomber (failed) and Smokey the Terrorist who set fire to his own penis (brilliant) before being subdued by the other passengers. Even on Flight 77 over Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001 the passengers found out what was going on, but the hijacker was able to ditch the plane before they breached the cabin door. The sap that they had left out to keep an eye on the passengers was burned with boiling water and beaten with a fire extinguisher - keep that in mind in case you have stupid hijacking friends and they want to lock you outside the cabin.
Do you have ESP?
Now build the same dam out of aluminum and repeat the experiment.
He didn't claim they are bullet proof, he claimed that they don't blow out.
Because his facts are evolving.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
... the only thing you listed where you are not actually trespassing is your car. everything else is subject to the good will the proprietors.
That's because the next time it won't be with carpet knives.
It will be knitting needles, but those are permitted on flights now.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And if the plane crashes, your laptop could take someone's head off but it's just fine even though it might "vent with flame".
Right to carry arms is in the constitution. Right to bear arms on a plane is not. Actually I don't think right to be on a plane was mentioned either.
Private property which means that the owners can restrict it all they want. The limitations in the bill of rights applies to the government.
so they tied last year's record at zero terrorists caught, and you are pissed at this expensive, invasive, delay-causing theater, so am I, so what ? The frequent-travelers who have to put up with this crap are such a small part of the electorate that we simply don't matter. The vast majority see this as valuable insurance against people they have been told to fear.
Nullius in verba
If they were terrorists, the TSA probably should have done something like stopped them from getting on the airplane and calling law enforcement. It's somewhat ridiculous to think that there are potential terrorists getting on planes and all we're doing about them is throwing their bombs in the trash before the board.
Wow. I mean, I travel a ton and get annoyed by the TSA as much as the next guy, but you really think it's OK to take a gun onto an airplane? Agree to disagree. People who need to transport their legally owned firearms can do so through the simple act of checking them.
And if someone accidentally forgets to check in their weapons then they can be politely reminded that they need to do so and have their bags sent to check-in instead of having their property confiscated.
Amen...
There have been various such events over the past 12 years, most not reported by the media which has a message to sell.
One such event was on Southwest Airlines in 2006, a passenger started acting crazy and stood up and started yelling in a foreign language and scared the crap out of everyone.
Turns out he was just off his meds and off his rocker, but he was tackled by the passengers and arrested when the plane landed. They actually broke two rows of seats knocking him down, must have been 15 people on him.
Never saw anything on the news about it, but a friend of mine is a flight attendant at Southwest and the event is well known inside the company.
Such things just don't get reported because it doesn't match the message being sold.
Security Theater indeed...
---------------
So yes, a gun won't help you, you can't really hijack a plane anymore, the terrorists would be outnumbered and they can't shoot everyone.
In Soviet Russia all pilots were armed, and rightly so.
So are about 12,000 US commercial airline pilots.
Federal Flight Deck Officer program.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
well are the overheads designed with those kinds of loads in mind? i said turbulence not a crash. laptop won't take someone's head off... might crush someone's throat, cause a serious concussion if it was moving really really fast. flesh and bone are pretty resilient. also might help if it were aluminum...
13 lbs of laptop falling 2-3 feet won't be pleasant if it lands on your head, but i don't think it'll kill you too easily unless you're unlucky. 50-60 lbs of metal falling 2-3 feet is pretty lethal anywhere near the head.
If you put enough holes in the plane, then the pilot will have to descend until the cabin pressure stabilizes.
No, he'll have to descend until it reaches a partial pressure of oxygen that will not kill anyone. You can have a "stabilized" cabin pressure of "very low" at 35,000 feet, but once the short-term oxy generators run out people will be passing out and some may die.
And if the holes are in the pilot and co-pilot, and they're behind a locked door, you'll eventually descend until ground level.
Of course since there is an in-flight emergency, hel'' be descending for a landing at the nearest airport anyway.
Really? The aircraft is still flying, the cabin pressure has "stabilized", and there may be casualties, so he'll choose to land at the 5000 foot asphalt strip that's 2 miles away instead of going 30 or even 300 miles to a larger airport with on-site emergency facilities? "Closest" is not always "right" just because there is an emergency.
In both cases, don't bother buying flares or starter caps; all you need is the appropriate suitcase, gun case, and lock.
All you need is ammunition. Buy a cheap box of 22 or shotgun shells.
Implied is that they will not be able to take anything out of the luggage, while you are watching them.
I don't know why you think that is implied. I think you infer it incorrectly.
I'd guess you could successfully hijack a plane with a cannon that was small enough to hand-hold, provided someone else smuggled the shot and powder onboard. Presumably we're talking about a very light cannon here, otherwise it'd exceed the passenger's carry on weight allowance, which is usually about 20-30 pounds.
But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the balance between the thought and expertise we're willing to pay for in an inspector and the common sense you expect from passengers. You *could* in theory pay enough (both in salary and delay) to hire inspectors with the training and education to make a determination whether a historical firearm presents a potential threat, or you can have a simple rule of "if it looks like it can shoot, you can't carry it on," and expect the public to figure out that they should ship their cannon rather than stuff it into their
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.
What is the point of this argument? Are you saying that it's ok to allow people to carry guns onto a plane because those who forget to check their weapons aren't much of a threat? Are you saying that TSA agents who paw through your carry-on should be making judgement calls to differentiate between those who were just too stupid or forgetful to check a gun and those who are saying they forgot to check it when caught? I don't know why it matters if some people could be forgetful or stupid in this matter. What difference should it make in the process?
And if someone accidentally forgets to check in their weapons then they can be politely reminded that they need to do so and have their bags sent to check-in instead of having their property confiscated.
You want a TSA officer in the security checkpoint line having enough discretion to try to differentiate between someone who actually forgot he had a weapon and someone who is trying to sneak one past because he wants to use it on board? How many attempts should someone get to sneak a gun through the line so he can finally succeed when it isn't detected? If all that happens when he's caught is the gun is politely handed back to him and he's told to go to check it, what stops him from trying again, and again?
Presumably we're talking about a very light cannon here, otherwise it'd exceed the passenger's carry on weight allowance, which is usually about 20-30 pounds.
I have never once had my carry-on weighed. And once I carried on about 40 pounds specifically so I could meet the 50 pound checked limit.
You are clearly doing your best to mis-interpret literally everything I typed. Helpful tips:
Trimming one's fingernails does not generally mean with a lawn mower nor does it involve amputation above the elbow. Filling the car with gas doesn't mean farting nor does it involve fuel in the passenger compartment. By 'gas', the writer probably does NOT mean sulfur hexaflouride.
I would suggest that a cannon should go under the seat.
You are clearly doing your best to mis-interpret literally everything I typed. Helpful tips:
Here's my helpful tip to you: write accurate statements and don't try to pretend there are multiple meanings for the phrase "cabin pressure stabilizes" or "closest airport". And then when you get caught in multiple mistakes in one posting, don't try killing the messenger, use it as a reminder to preview what you write before you submit.
They're almost handing out guns on the plane...like the air marshal who got suspended for leaving his weapon in the lavatory.
Uh. No. at 35+ thousand feet that hole would get much bigger fairly quickly. (Granted, not as quickly as the movies make it out to be). And the packs on your average commercial airliner will most certainly NOT be able to maintain pressurization if someone starts shooting holes in the damn plane.
Source: Am airline pilot.
You guys are just plain nuts. Here's how it it meant to work. Excuse sir/madam you are not allowed to carry that item onto the aircraft, allow me to check it in for you. Either arrest them for an illegal item or if it is not illegal check it in for them. Why the bloody hell do you just allow them to steal your legal stuff, the items that you are not allowed to carry on should just be checked in. The crap cowardly people are willing to put up with is just amazing.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about terrorists - how many of them nailed?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What a strange world you must live in where jumbo jets land on Apple WiFi products in an emergency!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
True.
But pressurizing and then shooting holes in the walls and windows is simple enough to test, pressure drop/time shows everything you need to know.
Then they would blow it up for boredom's sake as teaching science to idiots is dull and repetitive.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
This is why we can't hijack nice things.
Not only does it let you lock the gun, but there is no way in hell any airport or airline is going to let themselves be "the one who lost a passenger's gun", because that means some criminal somewhere just got their hands on a firearm that they were responsible for transporting safely. If you want your luggage to arrive safely, a starter pistol or flare gun or similar are probably among the best insurance options you can buy.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
and pilots that don't like being punctured either.
What's the difference. the last thing we need is either one of these idiots acting like an idiot on a plane, or feeling like Rambo when another person decides to act like an idiot.
It wouldn't be so bad if they would just let people mail or ship the banned items back home, but the TSA insists on keeping them.
I guess all those weapons will either wind up at some TSA agent's home or be shipped to drug lords south of the border.
I think you have that backwards. If you have fewer than 6 holes, it didn't originate in California. If you have fewer than 10, it didn't originate in NYC. If you have fewer than a hundred or if the hubcaps are still intact, it didn't originate in East St. Louis.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
They don't weigh, not because the rule doesn't apply, but because people don't go very far above the limit often enough to bother breaking out the scales. Take a look at the thing. Even if it weren't a cannon, I think they'd break the scales out for that.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Actually this is what he wrote initially:
The multi-layered laminated windows on aircraft don't "shoot out".
Not quite what you wrote either in words or meaning.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yes. Unless there is some manifest criminal/terrorist intent.
This is why we can't hijack nice things.
Wish I could mod you up.
Do you have ESP?
To be far, the FAA wouldn't let them fly a plane to altitude and then shoot out a window. (or as they ramped up, blow holes in it with gun powder.) Not that Discovery would've approved the 50mil$ for the plane :-)
Wal-mart Greeter
Janitor
Oh yes, because those of us who carry guns just cannot refuse pulling them and shooting holes in the walls that surround us just because it seems so much fun.
Not exactly true... They may ask you to open it so they can search it and you will have to do so if asked but they do not always do so.
It is not murky at all when the airlines are not given the choice because of federal regulations and most commercial airports are government-owned and are, therefore, not private property.
I'm not sure which world you are living in that thinks otherwise.
if 13 lbs of falling laptop won't kill, how will 1.5 lbs of handgun? And why would a concealed handgun be in an overhead bin instead of in somebodies pocket or waistband? Have you not figured out that concealed means not seen and pulling it out to set in on the shelf above your head for everyone to see is not exactly concealing it?
Then everyone of them should have been arrested and the gun entered into an evidence locker and charges filed and when it was discovered that no criminal intent was meant and charges dropped, then the confiscated gun should be returned.
After all, if the TSA agent I not qualified to assess that risk, then the passenger should be arrested so it can all be sorted out later.
intellectually, I agree that business owners should have the right to make the decision about whether to allow concealed carry on their premises and whether to allow smoking as well. However, as long as liberals demand that private business owners not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment right of association by refusing to serve or hire someone based on whatever prejudice the business owner may hold, I'll fight for the business owner to be denied the right to refuse service to me based on whatever I choose to carry in my pocket.
It was covered in the part about "anything else we didn't specifically mention is reserved to the people or states" (to paraphrase) part that you must have skipped. IOW, the Constitution was written to explicitly state what the federal government was allowed to do and what powers it was able to take away. The Bill of Rights were only examples of a few specific things that some thought were such awful abuses that they needed specific mention.
Terrorists have smuggled (small) bombs onto post-9/11 aircraft. The TSA hasn't caught a single would-be bomber.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
On the other hand there have been various flights hijacked internationally that haven't had that response.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
On the contrary, I think that the cannon should have been allowed onboard despite the hijack risk.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Oddly enough, it's only when the guns are solely in the hands of the mass murderers that kill counts ever breach the 5 count. Anytime other guns are present the kill count is almost always kept under 4
you literally just argued for racism. Congrats.
there's something fundamentally different about refusing service for something that can be changed compared to something that cannot. Also, you are not being refused service, you are being offered service with terms and conditions.
... ... ... ... still waiting for a point?
Same defense against knitting needles: Big ass magazine that can be found in the back of the seat in front of you.
Besides, screw the needle. Screw a GUN for god's sake! If you shoot at me, I might get killed. If you get your way, I WILL get killed. My odds can NOT improve by NOT attacking you!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Eh still don't want bullets flying while being a thousand of feet in the air
Except that the restrictions on carrying stuff aboard planes are made and enforced by the Federal government. The owners of the private property have no say in this.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
True, but the owners can place additional restrictions if they like. If the feds allow chainsaws the airlines can still forbid them.
Source: Am airline pilot.
That is not authoritative on the subject. If you were an aircraft engineer designing cabin fuselage for Boeing, that would be different.
While in pilot training I'm sure you learned a lot of things about air pressure and air flow over the wings, I seriously doubt you are an expert on the exact changes involved for bullet holes in the fuselage. Flight school won't have you spending time memorizing the material properties of the compounds used in the fuselage, won't have you studying the formulas for airflow through tiny holes and the stresses it places on them. Flight school certainly won't have you analyzing assorted styles of bullet-hole punctures to see how it affects metal fatigue and stress.
And as for maintaining pressurization, as a pilot you should already know that ECS compressors are running all the time. Some of the air exits through an outflow valve, but quite a lot is constantly escaping through small leaks all over the fuselage. While the design attempts to build an air-tight fuselage, in practice there are many small holes and air escaping everywhere. Yet the aircraft doesn't explosively decompress from those small holes. "Miraculously" everything from a small Cesna to a jumbo jet remain intact despite the pressure differences and small leaks around the craft.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Err, you know you are not only allowed to lock luggage containing a gun, but you are required to do so? It's spelled out explicitly in the rules. [tsa.gov]*
Well, I know NOW, but I did not know before. Most people don't go to TSA.gov and read all of the rules, they just go by what they see at the airport, where it says don't lock your luggage or they will blow it up.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Every capable passenger should have an airline-approved gun with airline-approved ammo, and be forced to fire anything they brought with them into a test cabinet at the airport to make sure it is the right stuff. It should be small caliber, FMJ, subsonic. It should be carried openly where it can be accessible.
This will cause would-be terrorists to stick to external methods, like missiles.
Think of the money and hassle we would save over the TSA.
I can understand why they are forbidden, but if I read your post correctly they are utterly useless for a terrorist attack. If it incapacitates the attacker itself, it better be a (suicide) bomb, i.e. the attack itself being carried out by the time the device is set off. You don't accomplish much in terms of terrorism by incapacitating a plane full of people (hint: the pilots don't really get any of it, so the plane keeps flying, though I could be inconvenienced if the flight attendants are out of order and I can't get my soda, oh the humanity!).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This, and a billion times this.
9/11 would NOT have worked out if the drill for hijackings had not been "cooperate and nobody gets hurt". Today the pilot's capsule is locked. And no matter what kind of threat you would bring to the table, the pilot will NOT unlock it. Kill a hostage? Do it. If I open, you kill us all. Kill ALL hostages? Do it. If I open, I die too.
There is NOTHING you could threaten a pilot with to make him open the door. He actually has the ORDER not to cooperate with you, so there is not even going to be any kind of repercussion against him if you skin everyone in the back alive.
9/11 worked once, because the safety procedures concerning hijackings operated on a false premise. They don't anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
True.
But pressurizing and then shooting holes in the walls and windows is simple enough to test, pressure drop/time shows everything you need to know.
Then they would blow it up for boredom's sake as teaching science to idiots is dull and repetitive.
I didn't watch the episode (or think explosion from depressurization is the primary concern of bullets on airplanes), but... just tell me Myth Busters actually took a plane to altitude and did this? Because I don't think testing at ground level, not moving, in much hotter air, is valid. And from the comments here, that is the impression I am getting of their test.
Personally, I'm much more worried that stray bullets will take out electrical systems, hydraulics/control surfaces, lead to fires, or somehow damage bleed air systems. And any of these can set the conditions for a crew to react inappropriately.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling