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

[shrubber]

Air marshalls are properly trained. Pilots have actually been able to be certified to carry firearms in teh cockpit since 2002.

It's actually interesting that you brought up pilots. In 2008, a US Air pilot accidently shot a hole in his plane. If pilots with Federal Flight Deck Officer training are accidentally discharging their weapons, do we really need regular passengers to be armed?

The program to arm pilots has recently been defunded by the present administration.

 

[kaytieeldr]

On all three of the 9/11 hijackings, passangers knew that the palne had been hijacked, and at least two of the fights, the passengers had made plans to thwart the attempts.
Ya think a gun might have come in handy?

Excuse me? Where are you getting your so-called 'facts'?

The passengers on the first two - of four - planes had little to no idea the planes were being hijacked. Of course, we'll never know, since it all happened so suddenly nobody had the chance to contact anyone on the ground.

The third plane, it seems the pilot - the passengers again having no idea of the hijacking or, if they did, then no idea that two planes had already crashed into buildings -may have foiled the hijackers' intended target by hitting part of the Pentagon instead.

Only on the fourth flight - the one that crashed in a Pennsylvania field - had the passengers been alerted (by family members on the ground) of the morning's events. Knowing that the hijackers' goal was to crash the plane anyway, they were at least able to overpower the hijackers and save whatever the target was - and the people in that target as well.

I admit, all the above is from memory - so some of my facts may not be completely accurate.

But, no - all hijackings were already in progress, i.e. the cockpit had already been breached, so, no, having guns would NOT have helped. To what end? The hijackers all knew they were going to die. Do you really think a gun would have changed their minds?

 

[TinklednPants]

Maybe Shrubber could open his own airline?
Instead of Northwest or Southwest it could be Wild West Airlines

As for me....I prefer to enhance the screening methods and fly on a plane where only a few properly trained and qualified individuals are armed.

 

[sbell111]

I have not read thru the entire thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the only concern I have with this is radiation exposure, I have read all about it and know what backscatter does, and I know what they say is the exposure,
they initially said it was a bit higher than what they are saying now.
So I worry that they may say oops we were wrong again, you are being exposed to more than we thought, and what does this mean for the person that flies constantly, for their job for instance?

this machine will expose major organs to radiation, whether they say its negligible or not it is still radiation from one source, we get it from many sources so its just one more to add on to our burden of exposure imo.

plus kids have a smaller body mass so it will add up quicker for them

First, measuring the radiation that such a device puts off is fairly simply, so I seriously doubt that they would be off by much. However, let's say that they are off by half. The machine puts out twice as much radiation as previously thought. That would mean that the radiation exposure is teh same as flying in the airplane for four minutes, instead of two. It's still negligible.

Regarding the issue of smaller body mass, I don't think that would equate to a higher exposure. The exposure would still be the same.

 

[FireDancer]

I am very pro gun and 2nd amendment and agree that in many situations an armed citizenry is good for safety. There are situations though that don't lend themselves to armed conflict.

In close quarters where the friendly targets outnumber the hostile a gun is not the best option. Air Marshalls are specially trained for close quarters combat as is my friend in the Secret Service. The training that goes along with CCW permits is good but it isn't sufficient to arm the public on an airplane.

The accuracy of the shooter isn't the only variable in this kind of an environment. In most situations on a plane there will be commotion and friendly passengers moving around. It is too easy for one of them to get in the path of even a perfectly aimed and fired bullet.

As was demonstrated on September 11th and again on the Christmas incident a gun isn't needed to stop an attack.

Here in Ohio a private business owner can forbid a fully licensed person from carrying a weapon into their business even though they have a permit. I think a private business has the right to dictate the carry conditions on their private property and a plane is private property owned by the airline. Even if the law allowed for the carrying of weapons the airlines could still forbid it on their private proptery, as they should be able to. The 2nd amendment applies to the government, not to private business.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Maybe Shrubber could open his own airline?
Instead of Northwest or Southwest it could be Wild West Airlines

As for me....I prefer to enhance the screening methods and fly on a plane where only a few properly trained and qualified individuals are armed.

this machine will expose major organs to radiation,

I don't think it will. I think the only major organ - really, the only organ - that will be exposed to any radiation will be the skin.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Thankfully in the pantybomber case he was subdued and noone was hurt.
Sadly in the case of flight 175 and 93, the unarmed passangers died themselves along with over 3000 others, remember?

And hindsight is 20/20 and we also cannot make a determination if a weapon would have changed anything, and most likely it would have either made matters worst or ended close the same result.

Remember, those with an intent to harm others will seek out any method that would help make that happen. Offering the opportunity for those seeking to harm an easy way to carry a weapon onto the plane is a bad idea.

 

[Aisling]

My thoughts:

Scan my "naked" body, I don't care. I just want them to be sure to scan EVERYONE and not just randomly so that the method does what it's supposed to do, which is to catch terrorists. I can swallow my dignity for a few seconds if it means me and my family, and everyone else, will be safe on the plane.

 

[shrubber]

But it could injure or intimidate passengers, correct?

Injure and intimidate, of course. That ammo is meant to be lethal.

 

[shrubber]

And hindsight is 20/20 and we also cannot make a determination if a weapon would have changed anything, and most likely it would have either made matters worst or ended close the same result.

.

WORSE? How in God's name could it have been worse????

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Injure and intimidate, of course. That ammo is meant to be lethal.

So you're willing to accept the risk of someone shooting an innocent person, a person with malintent boarding a plane with a weapon and shooting innocent people, intimidating them?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

WORSE? How in God's name could it have been worse????

I can think of 1,000s of ways it could have been worst (the terrorists could have been those with the weapons) and they could have subdued the passengers further, completing the attack on ALL of their targets.

Remember, offering the ability to bring weapons on a plane (even with a permit) opens the doors to both the good and the bad. And remember, the bad, usually have less concern with their own safety as completing their objective, where the good are going to look to save lives.

 

[WDWKOOK]

Nor did I suggest that it did. However, just because all CCW holders are not terrorists does not mean that some terrorists may not obtain CCWs. For this very reason, allowing CCW holders to fly armed is a very bad idea.

You are not only suggesting it, you have just written that some CCP holders are terrorists. Why would a TERRORIST obtain a CCP? Why would a terrorist
concern him or herself with following the laws of this country prior to committing acts of terrorism/Jihad?

I find it interesting that since 9-11 some pilots have chosen to carry a firearm onto the plane now that they have the option. If I had to fly, and I were given the choice, I would certainly choose the armed pilots' plane over the unarmed.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Thankfully in the pantybomber case he was subdued and noone was hurt.
Sadly in the case of flight 175 and 93, the unarmed passangers died themselves along with over 3000 others, remember?

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact, I do. MOST of those deaths occurred when the FIRST two planes crashed - with no advance notice - into office skyscrapers.

 

[sbell111]

Frangible ammo will not penetrate a window or the fusealge of an airliner

That isn't true. A frangible bullet at close range certainly has the ability to possible pierce the thin aluminum fuselage of an airplane. (As previously addressed in teh case of the accidental discharge in the US Air cockpit.)

These bullets are used by air marshalls because they are less likely to exit the person who is shot, thereby limiting teh chance of shooting Aunt Edna or piercing the fuselage. That being said, just because an air marshall should be able to hit his target doesn't mean that every CCW holder can. Most people (under the stress of the situation, motion of the aircraft, panic of the other passengers, the fact that the bad guys might be shooting at you) would miss their target as much or more than they hit it. This results in increased chances of passengers being shot of the fuselage being punctured if your plan was implemented.

 

[kaytieeldr]

You are not only suggesting it, you have just written that some CCP holders are terrorists.

No, he said 'may be'. Big difference between 'may be' and 'are'.

Why would a TERRORIST obtain a CCP? Why would a terrorist
concern him or herself with following the laws of this country prior to committing acts of terrorism/Jihad?

If the laws of this country (and all countries from which terrorists may depart) were changed to allow CCP holders to bring guns onboard a plane, why wouldn't the informed terrorist obtain such a permit?

 

[shrubber]

I can think of 1,000s of ways it could have been worst (the terrorists could have been those with the weapons) and they could have subdued the passengers further, completing the attack on ALL of their targets.

Remember, offering the ability to bring weapons on a plane (even with a permit) opens the doors to both the good and the bad. And remember, the bad, usually have less concern with their own safety as completing their objective, where the good are going to look to save lives.

The Terrorists were the only ones with weapons !!!! That's the point!

 

[shrubber]

No, he said 'may be'. Big difference between 'may be' and 'are'.
If the laws of this country (and all countries from which terrorists may depart) were changed to allow CCP holders to bring guns onboard a plane, why wouldn't the informed terrorist obtain such a permit?

The proccess of getting your conceal carry permit is a lot more invloved than a body scan.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

The Terrorists were the only ones with weapons !!!! That's the point!

They had rudimentary weapons (plastic knives and box cutters), not weapons that you are referring to. Bringing a projectile shooting weapon would have made it much, much worst.

 

[shrubber]

They had rudimentary weapons, not weapons that you are referring to.

And.......???

Never bring a knife to gun fight comes to mind