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

[shrubber]

]I despise political correctness and base my want to profile based on behavior strictly on logic. When you profile base on something superficial it is too easy to change. A name can be changed easily and no one will ever know. While you can't easily change race or skin color there are people who may be one race but look like another. Also, as John Walker proved there are people who don't fit the convenient stereotype of terrorist. If we are too busy looking at at the right hand the left will slap us in the face.

You mean Hamza Walker Lindh ? He never tried to blow up a plane did he?

There is also the misguided logic that the only people who would take down a plane are Muslim terrorists.

Well, they are the only ones so far ( in this context of course ) Misguided? you should really rethink that.

Even if every time the past that was the case it doesn't mean that in the future it will be. We can not base our security solely on what happened in the past because the next time it may be completely different. The next hijacking may be by a militia group or a cult like the Branch Davidians. If we look for suspicious behavior instead it can be found regardless of the skin color, religion, or country of origin of the would be hijacker/terrorist/bomber.

I don't think anyone here ever said solely? As a matter of fact, no person on this discussion has said that. Your comment is interesting, yet irrelevant.

All of those are behaviors and would be some of the things I want looked for. If we only concentrate on people of a certain race or religion though doing those behaviors and ignore the others it is too easy to use on of those people who fit the "other" category to perpetrate the offense. Again, even if we consede that only Muslims are taking the planes down (which may or may not be the next attack) there are plenty of Muslim people who when shaved don't look Muslim. What about white or black American's that convert and don't change their names or people who change their names back to a "John Smith"?

I agree, however, none of these peple has changed their name, albiet from an anglo name to a mulslim name.

If you profile someone standing on a drug corner it is that behavior that you profile, not the race. Heck, if that is the case and I am the boss I would just hire white people to sell drugs. Problem solved.

?

The same reason that only certain people are allowed to pilot and fire a tank...specialized training. And I don't mean a one hour class to get a permit. I am talking hours of specialized training and tactical maneuvers to be able to safely fire a weapon in a confined area where friendly targets out number the unfriendly. A pilot is also only armed in case the cabin door is breached. They are not going to open a sealed door to fire into the passenger compartment.

Well, getting a CCW permit takes a little more than an hour....

 

[shrubber]

Of course there is and yes I would know. I am a Phd. Chemist for Dupont chemicals 20 years this April. (undergraduate degree from University of Pittsburgh, graduate degrees from Carnagie Mellon) I've had a few physic course in my time. So if you want to discuss averages and probability, fire away (excuse the pun).
But the simple laws of Physics governing whether or not a successful shot ( and I'd like to think actually hitting the target and not bringing down a plane full of innocent bystanders would be a good measure of success) are most definitely influence by skill. Skill is obtained from training.

Even for you, this is not rocket scientist (but I know a few of them at Dupont who can break it down for you.)

My personal favorite would be Newtons 3rd law of Motion.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when Joe Public misses his shot, I don't want to be the one who has to handle the "opposite" reaction.

And on that note, I think we've have crossed the barrier into the twighlight zone so I'll simply wish every one happy and safe flying.

Are you aware of the procedure to handle a plane hijacked over US airspace in effect now?

 

[shrubber]

[QUOTEThe best case scenario is to stop the terrorists before they make their play. As seen on 7/7/05, that's not always possible. Therefore, you come up with better and better ways to stop them all along the way.

This body scanner is good technology that can help stop these terrorists from their killing.[/QUOTE]

Can you find one instance where a terrorist has been prevented from getting on a US flight by being stopped at an airport security checkpoint? From x ra machines, scanners, puffers, dogs or anything else?
Asumming you can't, why make that your last line of defense? They obviously get through.

 

[shrubber]

Do you really need to ask this question???? Have you ever admitted you were wrong?

Not when I am correct
The premise that guns are inheritly dangerous aboard an aircraft is incorrect.
If they were, then air marshalls would not be armed.

 

[shrubber]

Of course there is and yes I would know. I am a Phd. Chemist for Dupont chemicals 20 years this April. (undergraduate degree from University of Pittsburgh, graduate degrees from Carnagie Mellon) I've had a few physic course in my time. So if you want to discuss averages and probability, fire away (excuse the pun).
But the simple laws of Physics governing whether or not a successful shot ( and I'd like to think actually hitting the target and not bringing down a plane full of innocent bystanders would be a good measure of success) are most definitely influence by skill. Skill is obtained from training.

Even for you, this is not rocket scientist (but I know a few of them at Dupont who can break it down for you.)

My personal favorite would be Newtons 3rd law of Motion.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when Joe Public misses his shot, I don't want to be the one who has to handle the "opposite" reaction.

And on that note, I think we've have crossed the barrier into the twighlight zone so I'll simply wish every one happy and safe flying.

"Joe Public" or anyone else missing a shot in an airplane will not cause an airplane to go down.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html

You might want to ask a few WWII pilots about flying with bullet holes in the aircraft rather than somebody from Dupont

 

[kaytieeldr]

CC permit holders are trained.

Really? With the same thoroughness that air marshalls and other professional law enforcement officers are? And their judgment, response time, and - frankly - sanity are examined with the same degree of concern?

 

[declansdad]

Not when I am correct
The premise that guns are inheritly dangerous aboard an aircraft is incorrect.
If they were, then air marshalls would not be armed.

When have you ever proven one of your points to be correct?

Perhaps you could admit that you would argue that black is white and we can all move on.

 

[kaytieeldr]

shrubber actually makes a lot of sense and I agree with him. There are some Americans that actually care about the safety of other americans in this country and could care less about offending people from other countries. I don't care if we hurt someones feeling because

But do you care about the great potential risk to your fellow Americans of allowing every passenger to carry firearms onboard a plane?

We are fighting the Last war and in no way planning for the next attack using new methods.

Well, first, it'd be the CIA and Homeland Security, not the TSA; and second, unless you're a high-ranking government official, you have no idea what plans are being made. Have you read all these other posts about how, if the public knows about something, so will the bad guys?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Are you aware of the procedure to handle a plane hijacked over US airspace in effect now?

No. Please expound.

 

[kaytieeldr]

"Joe Public" or anyone else missing a shot in an airplane will not cause an airplane to go down.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters_explosive_decompre.html

You might want to ask a few WWII pilots about flying with bullet holes in the aircraft rather than somebody from Dupont

Joe Q. Shrubber will, however, tend much more strongly to snap judgments and killing innocent passengers when there was no actual threat on the plane - again, please see LisaR's clear reasoning.

And you can't reasonably compare small, relatively low-altitude fighter planes not even from this century (your argument, remember) with today's passenger aircraft flying at about 30,000 feet.

 

[maddmike]

No. Please expound.

Those F-16's we hear about escorting planes back to an airport are NOT there to provide escort service. They are there to blow the plane out of the sky should it veer out of its intended path.

How much safer do you feel now?

 

[shrubber]

Really? With the same thoroughness that air marshalls and other professional law enforcement officers are? And their judgment, response time, and - frankly - sanity are examined with the same degree of concern?

With less than 1% of flights having an air marshall aboard, it hardly matters how well they are trained does it?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html

 

[shrubber]

When have you ever proven one of your points to be correct?

Perhaps you could admit that you would argue that black is white and we can all move on.

Well, all of them are. Which ones do you think are not?
Our opinions can differ of course, but all of the facts I have stated are true.

 

[shrubber]

Joe Q. Shrubber will, however, tend much more strongly to snap judgments and killing innocent passengers when there was no actual threat on the plane - again, please see LisaR's clear reasoning.

Opinion of course, and wrong at that.

And you can't reasonably compare small, relatively low-altitude fighter planes not even from this century (your argument, remember) with today's passenger aircraft flying at about 30,000 feet

.

THe service ceiling of the B52 was 50,000 feet ......

 

[shrubber]

Those F-16's we hear about escorting planes back to an airport are NOT there to provide escort service. They are there to blow the plane out of the sky should it veer out of its intended path.

How much safer do you feel now?

Hey it took maddmike to offer up an answer. Wonder why that is?

What has been utterly incomprehensible is that the federal government considers destroying a hijacked airliner, and thereby killing every single passenger, more palatable than allowing the arming of passengers.

 

[Anjelica]

Been watching this thread on and off for several days and I have to commend Shrubber. You've been getting "lobbed" at by numerous folks but have certainly stood your ground and "represented" folks like myself's thoughts and opinions.

 

[shrubber]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/national/02WIRE-PLAN.html

Heck, they practice every week

 

[declansdad]

Hey it took maddmike to offer up an answer. Wonder why that is?

What has been utterly incomprehensible is that the federal government considers destroying a hijacked airliner, and thereby killing every single passenger, more palatable than allowing the arming of passengers.

Shooting an airliner out of the sky would be the last resort. Could you say the same thing with an plane full of unarmed "Clint Eastwoods" when they are facing what may or may not be a terrorist?

 

[shrubber]

Shooting an airliner out of the sky would be the last resort. Could you say the same thing with an plane full of unarmed "Clint Eastwoods" when they are facing what may or may not be a terrorist?

You mean ARMED 'Clint Eastwoods" I think.

So you've been worried about the unlikely possibility of an innocent bystander being hurt if someone misfires a gun on a plane, but shooting the whole plane out of the sky, killing everyone aboard, let alone the people on the ground, is pretty much ok as a last resort.?
And again, I'll ask....Can you find one instance where a terrorist has been prevented from getting on a US flight by being stopped at an airport security checkpoint? From x ray machines, scanners, puffers, dogs or anything else?
Asumming you can't, why make that your last line of defense? They obviously get through.
Why make being shot down by a fighter plane your last resort? I would think people would rather have another option or two available to them , no? I sure would.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Shooting an airliner out of the sky would be the last resort. Could you say the same thing with an plane full of unarmed "Clint Eastwoods" when they are facing what may or may not be a terrorist?

Were the general public allowed to bring guns onboard, the victim is much more likely to be someone listening to music so loud it can be heard several rows away, despite headphones; or an armrest-hog; or a passenger moving another passenger's overhead luggage to fit her/his own in; or any of dozens of scenarios - i.e. the normal, everyday little annoyances of air travel - than to ever be a hijacker. No, it's not opinion. These incidents occur daily on flights. How many domestic flights have been attacked by terrorists in this century? Compare that to the over 100,000,000* domestic flights in the last ten years.

*not opinion http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/34532