"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[shrubber]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so forgive me if this has been expressed. I personally, don't have an issue with the full body scanners. If it keeps us even a little safer, I'm all for it. I don't care who see's what. Yes..got kids, don't care who see's what's in their underwear either. If it prevents one nut job from turning his underwear into fruit of ka-booms then I'm all for it.

Just throwing this out there, but...
I know we are supposed to have air marshalls on some of the flights. How about allowing additional law enforcement officers (from local municipalities) to fly at discounted rates. We have law enforcement ride our rails and subways here in NYC. They don't pay the fare, but they are also expected to act when called upon in regards to unruly passengers, and crime that they encounter on the subways. (personally I'd rather pay the fare than deal with some of the scum of the earth they have to deal with..but that's another post) If properly certified and trained, it might be another added layer of protection to have law enforcement officers fly at discounted rates to help keep the skies a bit friendlier. Another set of trained eyes on board couldn't hurt. The incentive of a lesser fare, might generate interest by some for the position.

Fruit of Kabooms ! LOL

I agree with your post, I would take it a step further and allow anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm to board with their weapon. It seems as if the passangers have been the last, and quite frankly, the only line of defense that has worked. Give the passangers better tools by which to defend themselves.

 

[Jennasis]

Fruit of Kabooms ! LOL

I agree with your post, I would take it a step further and allow anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm to board with their weapon. It seems as if the passangers have been the last, and quite frankly, the only line of defense that has worked. Give the passangers better tools by which to defend themselves.

Yeah...that's what we need. Shootout at the Ok Corral at 30,000 feet.

 

[shrubber]

Yeah...that's what we need. Shootout at the Ok Corral at 30,000 feet.

Beats flying into a building

 

[LisaR]

Beats flying into a building

But please explain WHY it is necessary? Haven't passengers proven time and time again that they will stop someone that even looks like they might be up to no good? They have wrestled shoe bombers, underwear bombers and drunks successfully. 9/11 caught everyone off guard.

If 100 passengers on the Christmas flight would have had a gun, how would it have changed the situation for the BETTER? The passengers sitting next to the guy apparently weren't much help. It sounds like a guy sitting two rows back climbed over people, put out the fire and subdued the guy. Actually, everyone admits the guy didn't put up a fight at all. If someone would have shot him, they would have risked hitting another passenger or putting a hole in the plane. After he set himself on fire, shooting him would have prove to be nothing more than a feel good effort.

 

[Lanshark]

After the shoe bomber we all had to remove our shoes going through security.

Now, we should all have to remove our underwear. We'll put them in special plastic bins and have a dressing area to put them back on once we've been cleared. If anyone is caught going commando then cavity search them. Problem solved

 

[shrubber]

But please explain WHY it is necessary? Haven't passengers proven time and time again that they will stop someone that even looks like they might be up to no good? They have wrestled shoe bombers, underwear bombers and drunks successfully. 9/11 caught everyone off guard.

If 100 passengers on the Christmas flight would have had a gun, how would it have changed the situation for the BETTER? The passengers sitting next to the guy apparently weren't much help. It sounds like a guy sitting two rows back climbed over people, put out the fire and subdued the guy. Actually, everyone admits the guy didn't put up a fight at all. If someone would have shot him, they would have risked hitting another passenger or putting a hole in the plane. After he set himself on fire, shooting him would have prove to be nothing more than a feel good effort.

How might the passengers aboard flight 93 or flight 77 changed the situation for the better had they been armed?

 

[LisaR]

How might the passengers aboard flight 93 or flight 77 changed the situation for the better had they been armed?

Reality is, if those passengers would have been allowed to take guns on the plane, the terrorist would also have found a way to bring guns aboard. These guys managed to pull off a plot that nobody expected them to. I really don't think if guns were allowed on our planes, they would have said,

"gosh darnnit. We managed to take flying lessons, learn the best routes, get through security undetected and get box cutters aboard but now that some passengers may have guns, we are going to take our toys and head home because we just can't figure out how we would get our own guns on the plane."

I don't like these guys anymore than you do but they weren't complete idiots. If we come prepared for a gun battle, rest assure, they will come prepared for a bigger gun battle.

Again I ask, what would guns have done to change that shoe bomber and underwear bomber situations? Nothing. You keep referring back to 9-11. Americans were taken by surprise on 9-11. Nobody expected that. Most people flying today would do whatever was necessary to stop someone that was attempting to blow up a plane or cause trouble in the air - as has been proven multiple times since 9-11 and they did it all without guns.

 

[eliza61]

How might the passengers aboard flight 93 or flight 77 changed the situation for the better had they been armed?

Not a single thing would have changed. For one thing the procedure before 9/11 was pretty much to "not" engage highjackers. So I doubt if the passengers would have suddenly opened fire. The passengers on the flight in shanksville supposedly decided to fight back after the passengers were informed from loved ones of what was going on. Until then, they too were doing as they were told by the highjackers (once again according to reports, I of course have no way to know 100%)

Next no one had absolutely any idea they were going to fly the planes into buildings, even while it was happening. I am a NY'er and if you would have remotely suggested pre 9/11 you would have been labeled crazy.

So pretty much we would have had 2000 dead with guns. This ain't the movies where 200 people who are sniper qualify all of a sudden stand up and take out the bad guy while no one around them gets so much as a scratch.

 

[bettymae1121]

Taking away the inocent bystander and rapid decompresion side effects for a moment....

For the sake of arguement, guns are now legal on planes. Lets say you have a gun with you on a flight. You see the guy across the aisle from you trying to light something on fire. You stand up, pull your gun, and yell "Freeze!". I'm a few rows behind you. I don't see the guy trying to light something, I see a guy with a gun yelling "Freeze". I think you are a terrorist and I pull MY gun and shoot you. The guy with the match lights the bomb and we all go "boom".

Yeah, sounds like a great plan.

 

[eliza61]

LOL,
Not to mention the poor hispanic man who bends down to pull out his Iphone, but of course we're all armed (and I doubt highly trained) and paranoid so we can't tell a light skinned hispanic from a terrorist and he get his head blown to bits, all because he wanted to call his wife and let her know he was ok or the poor man from Jamaica who every one on the plane swears he looks exactly like the Christmas terrorist, who is simply returning home from a visit and goes to adjust his belt buckle. Of course, Paranoid Patty next to him swears she saw some thing shiny and decides to "make his day". I'm sure telling his family he looked like he was from Yemen is going to make them feel a lot better.

What do we say "oops my bad"?

 

[eliza61]

According to the National air traffic controllers association there are more than 27,000 flights in the air every day.
Multiply that by 356 days of the year. That's a lot of flights going off normally without incident.
That's a lot of people who I'd rather not start packing "heat" and blowing up the sky because they saw some one who looked "funny"

http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1

 

[LisaR]

We were waiting for our flight in October along with four drunk guys that had attended their alumni homecoming football game. The airline denied one guy boarding because he was truly hammered. They talked to the other three and told them they would have police waiting for them on the other end if they caused any problems at all. Lucky us, they were seated a few rows in front of us. One passed out immediately and stayed that way the entire flight. The other two were loud and obnoxious during the flight but didn't cause any trouble. Is this who we want to give a gun to at 30,000 ft while we are flying in a tin can? Maybe we could require those that want to bring a gun on the plane to submit to a breathalyzer first. Oh no, wait. That would stomp on those pesky civil rights again.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Beats flying into a building

Because, what - that's a common occurrence in the United States?

I agree with your post, I would take it a step further and allow anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm to board with their weapon.

We're back to that tired argument, huh? You think it's safer to have a plane full of Americans with American names in varying degrees of mental health with varying temperaments and varying reaction times, who've had the opportunity to imbibe varying quantities of alcohol, bring concealed weapons aboard a commercial flight? And you think we have to worry about terrorists? Really?

How might the passengers aboard flight 93 or flight 77 changed the situation for the better had they been armed?

We give up - how would the passengers aboard either of those flights have changed the situation if they'd been armed?

 

[auntie]

I see the discussion has turned to arming passengers. While that's fine...please know that was not my intent when I threw out the idea of having armed police officers be able to function in some capacity...say as an additional layer of protection while in flight. I was merely putting it out there for discussion. My personal feeling is that I've seen it work here in the subways and rails here in NY. I certainly wouldn't suggest that any yahoo with a gun should board a plane...or that any passenger register to carry should board with a gun. I meant that exsisting law enforcement personel..who obtain additional training in regards to airline/aircraft safety, may be a resource that we draw upon. I think it's possible they could bring some valuable skills to the table.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I see the discussion has turned to arming passengers. While that's fine...please know that was not my intent when I threw out the idea of having armed police officers be able to function in some capacity...

Don't worry. Only one person actually thinks it's a good idea, and one person thinks it's not bad. Everyone else disagrees with that 'plan'.

YOUR idea, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. Well-trained law enforcement officials carrying guns on a flight? Fine. Joe Shrubber? NO way.

 

[sbell111]

Fruit of Kabooms ! LOL

I agree with your post, I would take it a step further and allow anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm to board with their weapon. It seems as if the passangers have been the last, and quite frankly, the only line of defense that has worked. Give the passangers better tools by which to defend themselves.

Your comment reminded me of something:

All LEOs cannot fly armed. As I recall, the only LEOs that are allowed to be armed are federal agents and LEOs that were transporting a prisoner. All other LEOs must check their weapons. Why do you think that is?

 

[Wall-E1]

We live in dangerous times. Our freedoms and ways of life have come under attack by some. We must however remember what it means to be an American and what makes our country so great. We did not become America by responding to terror with fear. We did not gain strength as a country by denying some groups their civil rights. We have become the country that we are by working together with one another. By respecting and treating one another as equals. This is why I must disagree in the strongest of terms when I read posts such as this...

I have said all along we should profile based on name! Here, let me make it easy for you next time.
"We should profile passengers on airlines based on Muslim names."
Shrubber 1/8/10

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with basically the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

Racial profiling?!?!? If we start treating one group of people differently than other Americans because of name or appearance, than we are no longer equal. This is something that is done when fear outweighs reason. This will not strengthen us as a nation. This will make us appear weak. This will show the terrorists that our will can be broken. That if we become scared enough, we will go against the values that this nation was founded on. We should not go down this dangerous road as a country because we may not like where it leads us.

There are 5 - 8 million Muslims living in the U.S. today. They are citizens like you and me. Should they be treated differently, solely on the basis of their name, or color of their skin? These are contributing, peaceful members of our society. The terrorists who attacked our country on 9/11 were not Muslims. They may have called themselves that, but they were simply agents of evil. The Muslim religion and values are peaceful. It would be ridiculous to punish true Muslims who practice their faith in a peaceful manner, simply because of some crazed extremists who falsely described themselves as being of the Muslim faith.

If we are to go down this road of racial profiling, than we must consider this. America does suffer from domestic terrorism. There are many fringe groups that engage in attacks against abortion clinics. Whatever our own personal views on this issue are is not the subject here. These groups frequently identify themselves as Christians and claim that they are doing God's work in carrying out various bombings and killings. Should we then begin a practice of racial profiling of Christians? We could profile them based on their Christian sounding names and the color of their skin. This sounds ridiculous. I know. These terrorists are not Christians. They simply call themselves that. Should the good Christians of this country be racially profiled because of some terrorists that are claiming to be of the Christian faith? Of course not. True Christians, like Muslims, are peaceful. Yet, this type of action is exactly what is being suggested by the above poster.

Racial profiling was used with great success by the nazis. Do we really want to associate ourselves with nazi methods? We are far too great a country to go down that road. We do need to find better solutions to ensure the safety of our people. But we must not forget our own Declaration of Independence that states that we are all created equal. As soon as we begin profiling and treating others differently based on their name or skin color, then this country will have lost its greatest strength. I have faith that this country can find a solution to these latest attacks on us in a way that holds true the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. That is to say, the solution must hold true the values that this great nation was founded on, or else we are not who we believe ourselves to be.

What we need is better intelligence. We need our different agencies to communicate information effectively between one another. We need better intelligence infiltrating these terror cells. We need more sophisticated security systems at our airports. All of these solutions can be achieved without racial profiling.

 

[Art 1]

Not very many blued eyed old ladies are trying to blow up airplanes. The facts are that it's young muslim arab men. True or not. Racial profiling is highly accurate and should be used.

 

[LisaR]

Racial profiling was used with great success by the nazis. Do we really want to associate ourselves with nazi methods?

Please! What the Nazi regime did was not racial profiling. Those were hate crimes. Nobody is proposing that we gather up any and all Muslims, beat, torture, burn, mutilate them all and maybe let a few live to tell about it. Pulling aside young Arab looking men, asking them a few questions, double checking their carry-on and putting them through a body scan and pat down hardly puts us in the category of the Nazi's.

Racial profiling takes place in America everyday. If you don't think LEO practice it daily, you are fooling yourself. Black guys in a white neighborhood......they get questioned. Young white or black guys hanging out on known drug corners......profiled. Guy from a poor area driving a nice car........pull 'em over. Ugly chick on street corner.......assume she is a prostitute and talk to her. Grandma sitting at a bus stop on that same corner.......keep on driving. Do you honestly think this doesn't already happen in America? I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am simply saying it already happens everyday in America and it doesn't make us like the Nazi's.

 

[auntie]

If blonde haired, blue eyed men were flying planes into buildings..then I'd have NO problem with blonde haired, blue eyed men being screened more carefully. It's not profiling..it's common sense.
Why do we feel the need to be so politically correct so as not to offend anyone to the point of risking the lives of the flying public? Talk about "not connecting the dots".
I was watching a former Israeli airline official being interviewed regarding their security screening at airports..and you bet your rear end they profile. You better be able to answer any and all questions placed to you to the satisfaction of security, or you're not flying. ....and they make no apologies for it. I think we should be using more of their techniques and training and forget about who we offend.