Newsstand - TSA at MCO finds a loaded .22 inside 10 year old's teddy bear

View Full Version : TSA at MCO finds a loaded .22 inside 10 year old's teddy bear

FWAAA

Jul 17, 03, 8:14 am

If anyone wonders why they need to hassle the young and the elderly, here's why:

Airport screeners find loaded gun in teddy bear

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Screeners at a passenger checkpoint at the Orlando International Airport last Friday found a loaded handgun hidden inside a stuffed teddy bear belonging to a 10-year-old boy, the Transportation Security Administration has told CNN.

The boy was part of a family of five that had been on vacation in Orlando and was returning home to Ohio, the TSA said.

"The family reported it had been given to the child at a hotel in Orlando two days earlier," TSA spokesman Robert Johnson said.

The .22-caliber Derringer, according to another TSA official, was "artfully hidden" inside the bear.

"We are critized a lot for screening grannies and babies: 'Why are they checking this? My two-year old isn't a terrorist.' This underscores the need to screen everyone and everything," said Johnson.


www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/07/17/gun.teddy.bear/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/07/17/gun.teddy.bear/index.html)

Doesn't this sound similar to an urban legend from a couple years ago?

My guess is that the TSA will report similar "finds" in the coming weeks to try to convince us that "anyone and everyone is dangerous and may be a terrorist."

Robert Johnson is the terrorist.

hauteboy

Jul 17, 03, 8:36 am

Probably given to the boy by a TSA employee...

FWAAA

Jul 17, 03, 8:49 am

Now I remember - that teddy bear reminds me of the "teddy bear bomb" scare of a couple years ago - where strangers were reportedly giving kids teddy bears containing a bomb. There's something fishy about this story.

biggs

Jul 17, 03, 10:18 am

Rats! Now this means they are going to start asking questions about "did anyone give you a teddy bear" at the counter.

FWAAA

Jul 17, 03, 10:34 am

Found the story about the teddy bear bombs from last year:

Alert Issued for Potential Teddy Bear Bombs

February 14, 2002

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The FBI has issued an alert to 350 law enforcement agencies in the southwest and Salt Lake City for potential Valentine teddy bear bombs after a suspicious transaction at a Wal-Mart last month.

Law enforcement sources said authorities also were on the alert at airports in case the suspected bear-bombs might be carried onto airplanes on Valentine's Day.

The FBI said a clean-shaven male, possibly of Middle Eastern descent, purchased nine Valentine teddy bears, 20 inches tall, and 14 canisters of propane, 9 inches tall, small enough to fit inside the teddy bears. The man also bought 12 packets of BBs -- small, round projectiles usually fired from air guns.

He paid in cash on January 15 at the Wal-Mart in Stevenson Ranch, California, about 25 miles north of Los Angeles. He left in a white GMC or Chevrolet delivery truck.

www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/13/inv.teddy.bear.terrorist/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/13/inv.teddy.bear.terrorist/index.html)

The bears aren't identical, but something still smells fishy here . . .

Plato90s

Jul 17, 03, 10:55 am

Originally posted by FWAAA:
My guess is that the TSA will report similar "finds" in the coming weeks to try to convince us that "anyone and everyone is dangerous and may be a terrorist."

Robert Johnson is the terrorist.

And on 9/11 the 2 planes were flown into the WTC via ground control by the CIA, with no muslims involved at all. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

BearX220

Jul 17, 03, 10:57 am

Are there any independent witnesses to this, or is this just TSA asserting to CNN that it happened? Is there a real family willing to come forward and confirm their kid was given a teddy bear with a loaded gun in it?

I'm sorry -- this sounds like just the sort of urban legend/apocryphal anecdote the TSA would love to have hanging in the air to reduce the average Joe's resistance to invasive searching... I'm not sure I believe it unless an independent witness comes forward.

Doppy

Jul 17, 03, 11:02 am

But why do they have to screen children and the elderly? And white people?

Clearly none of these groups could ever do anything wrong or being unwitting accomplices. Just look at this story for proof.

d

clacko

Jul 17, 03, 12:02 pm

why was the family sent on its way? i think they should be in jail! do you suppose that this excuse would be accepted from me?

GUWonder

Jul 17, 03, 12:30 pm

Unwitting mules exist in lots of cases, but ignorance is no protection from a violation of the law.

Now for my sarcasm:

Throw the 10-year old in jail for 20 years! After all, it's for the children and 10-year old's should not have teddy bears. They are too old for them. ;-)

And anyway, would most 10-year old boys want to be seen with a teddy bear in public or would they rather shoot themselves if forced to carry a teddy bear in public? ;-)

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 07-17-2003).]

richard

Jul 17, 03, 12:45 pm

Even if this story is "true" , so what?

What if someone was actually smuggling a .22 into an airplane?

So what?

What are they going to do that they can't do on the ground?

They can shoot passengers, but they can do that on the ground.

They're not going to hijack the airplane because the pax won't let them.

Take this to the logical conclusion and you end with nothing much.

xyzzy

Jul 17, 03, 12:56 pm

Originally posted by clacko:
why was the family sent on its way? i think they should be in jail! do you suppose that this excuse would be accepted from me?

I think they should be strip-searched and deported to Belgium!

...oops, wrong thread. Nevermind.

Plato90s

Jul 17, 03, 4:14 pm

Originally posted by clacko:
why was the family sent on its way? i think they should be in jail! do you suppose that this excuse would be accepted from me?

Since the FBI questioned the family (presumably searching the rest of their belongings as well) and knows where they live, it's pretty much a case of "innocent until proven guilty".

TakeScissorsAway

Jul 17, 03, 7:10 pm

Originally posted by richard:
Even if this story is "true" , so what?

What if someone was actually smuggling a .22 into an airplane?

So what?

What are they going to do that they can't do on the ground?

They can shoot passengers, but they can do that on the ground.

They're not going to hijack the airplane because the pax won't let them.

Take this to the logical conclusion and you end with nothing much.

No problem Dick. Everyone should be armed. That way they can kill each other instead of having to watch it on the in-flight movie !! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Get a f!@#$ing grip.

dlombard

Jul 17, 03, 7:21 pm

Originally posted by richard:
Even if this story is "true" , so what?

What if someone was actually smuggling a .22 into an airplane?

So what?

What are they going to do that they can't do on the ground?

They can shoot passengers, but they can do that on the ground.

They're not going to hijack the airplane because the pax won't let them.

Take this to the logical conclusion and you end with nothing much.

F that! I'm not getting shot. I'd much rather the gun get confiscated by the TSA than risk a bullet from some armed lunatic while trying to play cop and detain him until we can land.

You wanna let pax on with firearms, they better start handing out free kevlar vests along with the inflight drink.

Sheesh!

------------------
Best regards,
Dairenn Lombard
Los Angeles, CA

[This message has been edited by dlombard (edited 07-17-2003).]

richard

Jul 17, 03, 8:51 pm

When you are on the ground you can get shot quite easily -- what's the difference between that and on a plane?

Or you could be mowed down by a driver of a car.

If pax were armed there would be no more problems. There could be a certification course and mandatory use of frangible ammo.

In states that allow people to easily carry guns, violent crime has dropped significantly.

The insanity is thinking that searching and confiscating a teddy bear makes you any safer.

Doppy

Jul 18, 03, 9:30 am

Originally posted by richard:
In states that allow people to easily carry guns, violent crime has dropped significantly.

But what does that do for freedom?

Seems like you have to walk around on eggshells all the time when you have to assume everyone is armed and could go crazy at any moment.

I've seen tons of people on the streets of NYC blow up at the drop of a hat. I have no doubt that if a lot of these people had guns, they'd come out.

As for guns on the plane, everyone having one wouldn't necessarily solve any problems. What happens when terrorists buy up a lot of seats on a plane and just mow people down before they have time to react, then take control of the plane?

Or, of course, all of these ridiculous air rage cases. The last thing I need is to have some jerk businessman who's upset he didn't get his meal choice pull out a gun.

d

richard

Jul 18, 03, 10:40 am

Originally posted by Doppy:
But what does that do for freedom?

Seems like you have to walk around on eggshells all the time when you have to assume everyone is armed and could go crazy at any moment. 

That's not my experience. Virginia is one of over 30 such states. I live 12 miles out of Washington DC which has amongst the strictest gun control anywhere in the USA.

Guess where I "walk on eggshells"? Give up? Ha ha. Washington DC, like much of NYC which also has very strict gun control, offers me very little freedom -- I have a feeling of justifiable paranoia whenever I turn off of one road and suddenly end up in a "bad" area. What kind of freedom is that?

I've seen tons of people on the streets of NYC blow up at the drop of a hat. I have no doubt that if a lot of these people had guns, they'd come out. 

How do you know? As I said, NYC has very strict gun control. But I am sure that lots of people have guns in NYC although maybe illegally. Do you really think that just because of the law, people don't have guns?

As for guns on the plane, everyone having one wouldn't necessarily solve any problems. What happens when terrorists buy up a lot of seats on a plane and just mow people down before they have time to react, then take control of the plane? 

I didn't say "everyone" should have them. It only takes a small percentage, around 2 - 3%, to make everyone much, much safer. That's the experience in the USA with states that have "shall issue" gun laws.

Unlike many people in our government, I don't terrorize my own mind by believeing that there are people lurking everywhere who will just "mow people down". There are a few on occasion, and they make the headlines, but they are 1 out of 500,000,000.

Or, of course, all of these ridiculous air rage cases. The last thing I need is to have some jerk businessman who's upset he didn't get his meal choice pull out a gun.

How many air rage cases are there, really? A small handful. And they make the news, especially post -9/11.

The idea of someone taking a .22 aboard being such a threat that hundreds of millions of us must have our basic constitutional rights suspended is insane.

We just had some old guy in Santa Monica mow people down with a car. That can happen anywhere, anytime.

What's so special about an airplane or an airport? Stop and think -- are you safe anywhere?

I would prefer having people bring guns aboard who have had a bit of training, no police powers, frangible ammo, just citizens. Stop this sky marshall insanity. Stop this constitutional rights violation frenzy.

Let the teddy bears in!

rufus102

Jul 18, 03, 12:33 pm

I'll tell you what's so special about an Airport/Airplane, DICK.

Historically, they have been targets for terrosist attacks. They contain large groups of people in a vunerable situation - The perfect target for cowards.

Not many stories about buses or trains being blown up by a bomb in the luggage. Probably because a hole in the side of the train doesn't cause it to fall 40,000 feet instantly killing all aboard. I don't recall a hijack of a train or a bus ending in the death of hundreds of people.

Your comments are ludicrous, and rather than call you an imbecile, I'll assume you are being deliberatly inflammatory, just for your own small amusement.

FWAAA

Jul 18, 03, 1:36 pm

Originally posted by rufus102:
I'll tell you what's so special about an Airport/Airplane, DICK.

Historically, they have been targets for terrosist attacks. They contain large groups of people in a vunerable situation - The perfect target for cowards.

Not many stories about buses or trains being blown up by a bomb in the luggage. Probably because a hole in the side of the train doesn't cause it to fall 40,000 feet instantly killing all aboard. I don't recall a hijack of a train or a bus ending in the death of hundreds of people.

Your comments are ludicrous, and rather than call you an imbecile, I'll assume you are being deliberatly inflammatory, just for your own small amusement.

Welcome to FlyerTalk, I think. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

In case you haven't noticed, this ain't no Yahoo! message board, so conduct yourself accordingly.

MIKESILV

Jul 18, 03, 1:51 pm

Originally posted by FWAAA:
Welcome to FlyerTalk, I think. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

In case you haven't noticed, this ain't no Yahoo! message board, so conduct yourself accordingly.

I wish I could find it in me to be as magnanimous as you are. My take is to get tell him/it to get lost.
mike

NoStressHere

Jul 18, 03, 3:18 pm

Human nature and the Press are to blame for planes for being such a target.

Take an airplane crash. Small or large, when they happen, the news folks stop everything to tell every little detail. So, a few, or even a hundred day. Yet, thousands upon thousands die daily due to car wrecks, household accidents, murders and the like. We are missing the big picture here, and paying very dearly for it.

rufus102

Jul 18, 03, 3:23 pm

Originally posted by FWAAA:
Welcome to FlyerTalk, I think. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

In case you haven't noticed, this ain't no Yahoo! message board, so conduct yourself accordingly.

Never been to Yahoo boards, so can't comment on that.

I'm sorry if my reaction to the idea of letting the public carry guns on planes offends you. (and Mike).

My initial reaction is that you are joking, but I fear not...

Did I wander into a private club by mistake?

FWAAA

Jul 18, 03, 3:32 pm

Originally posted by rufus102:
Never been to Yahoo boards, so can't comment on that.

I'm sorry if my reaction to the idea of letting the public carry guns on planes offends you. (and Mike).

My initial reaction is that you are joking, but I fear not...

Did I wander into a private club by mistake?

No, not a private club. You wandered into a friendly internet community where we don't call anyone "DICK" unless invited. Even if their screen name is richard.

And you're right, I'm not joking.

Your opinions don't offend me, but your manner of expressing them comes mighty close. Isn't it possible to disagree with others without name-calling?

rufus102

Jul 18, 03, 6:28 pm

Noted.

I apologize for calling richard by that name.

beergut

Jul 18, 03, 6:48 pm

Originally posted by FWAAA:
Isn't it possible to disagree with others without name-calling?

I've seen a lot worse from old hands on here !

Nigel

beergut

Jul 18, 03, 6:53 pm

Factotum

Jul 18, 03, 10:47 pm

Originally posted by NoStressHere:
Human nature and the Press are to blame for planes for being such a target. ... We are missing the big picture here, and paying very dearly for it.

Oh, I agree. Unfortunately the entire world has bought into the insanity with a fervor second only to that behind similarly disastrous drug laws. The discussion on this thread has focused on the USA, which historically has been one of the less fanatic countries with regards to the airports-as-fortresses mindset. TSA notwithstanding, by many measures it still is. (Next time you're annoyed by all the TSA paranoia surrounding laptop computers, for example, remember it's the Europeans who started that nonsense.)

Will humanity stop running around like a chicken with its collective head cut off in our lifetime when it comes to "airport security"? I sure hope so, but at the same time I don't hold out much hope for it. Quitting being so uptight about the possibility of a gun finding its way onto a plane would be a good start - worse things happen every minute of every day that people in general don't think twice about. Keeping the bombs off the planes, however, is a security issue that may not be so easy to tackle - in terms of both actual and perceived risk.

CATSA Screener

Jul 19, 03, 3:59 am

Originally posted by FWAAA:

Your opinions don't offend me, but your manner of expressing them comes mighty close. Isn't it possible to disagree with others without name-calling?

How about you do like-wise then and dial down the nasty rhetoric when talking about TSA, its employees and its leaders?

anrkitec

Jul 19, 03, 9:31 am

Originally posted by CATSA Screener:
How about you do like-wise then and dial down the nasty rhetoric when talking about TSA, its employees and its leaders?

This suggestion is both irrelevant and unnecessary as the rules of this board unequivocally allow posters to attack the "TSA, its employees and its leaders."

Conversely, they specifically prohibit attacking other FTers.

Why is this difference not perfectly clear?

CATSA Screener

Jul 19, 03, 1:35 pm

Originally posted by anrkitec:
This suggestion is both irrelevant and unnecessary as the rules of this board unequivocally allow posters to attack the "TSA, its employees and its leaders."

Conversely, they specifically prohibit attacking other FTers.

Why is this difference not perfectly clear?

I wasn't addressing the rules of the board. I was pointing out hypocrisy.

Doppy

Jul 20, 03, 10:34 am

Originally posted by richard:
I didn't say "everyone" should have them. It only takes a small percentage, around 2 - 3%, to make everyone much, much safer. That's the experience in the USA with states that have "shall issue" gun laws.

OK, so 2-4 regular citizens are carrying guns on the plane. The terrorists have 5-10 people with guns. Sounds like it's going to be a fun flight. I know I'd feel safe.

Terrorists, if they're going to terrorize, aren't going to scared by a couple blokes with guns.

Unlike many people in our government, I don't terrorize my own mind by believeing that there are people lurking everywhere who will just "mow people down". There are a few on occasion, and they make the headlines, but they are 1 out of 500,000,000.

But the benefit to taking this risk is so minimal. The WSJ reported the other day that Al Queda trained as many as 120,000 terrorists. I'm not interested in letting these people get onboard planes with guns. What are there, less than 5,000 planes in the air on a weekday at any one time? Spread those 120,000 people around, and you're talking about enough people to hijack every plane in US airspace at the same time. 20-some hijackers per flight.

The cost (having to check your gun for a short while) is to minimal compared to the risks.

 How many air rage cases are there, really? A small handful. And they make the news, especially post -9/11.

I don't have an exact number, but it was, even before 9/11, certainly enough to make the news and get Congress talking about it. It wouldn't take more than a couple air rage shootings to get people worked up. It's too expensive to society to take this risk.

The idea of someone taking a .22 aboard being such a threat that hundreds of millions of us must have our basic constitutional rights suspended is insane.

Dozens of planes were hijacked in the US before we had security checkpoints. Those were mostly peaceful "take us to Cuba" hijackings, but is the right to not have to check your gun for a couple hours during a flight really more important than not having dozens or hundreds of planes hijacked every year? The cost would be amazingly high, even if none of the planes were crashed into buildings.

We just had some old guy in Santa Monica mow people down with a car. That can happen anywhere, anytime.

And the response (perhaps more licensing testing for the elderly) seems reasonable. Doing nothing, when we know there is a problem, would be foolish.

What's so special about an airplane or an airport? Stop and think -- are you safe anywhere?

More airplanes tend to be hijacked than pedestrians on the street. More airplanes are crashed into buildings than pedestrians. Airplanes have historically been big targets for hijackings, even in the US. We had around 30 per year before security checkpoints. Today, with air travel being so much more popular, we're talking about millions or tens of millions of people being inconvenienced, and tens or more millions of dollars in direct costs, excluding losses to the economy (less demand for air travel as number of hijackings increases).

I would prefer having people bring guns aboard who have had a bit of training, no police powers, frangible ammo, just citizens. Stop this sky marshall insanity. Stop this constitutional rights violation frenzy.

Why would you trust the average person off the street more than air marshals? Doesn't seem like either of them are particularly trustworthy.

Let the teddy bears in![/b]

If you don't see a problem with 10 year olds carrying guns, this discussion is pointless.

d

richard

Jul 20, 03, 11:09 am

Armed citizens can be far more numerous than marshalls can be.

It is far cheaper and more practical to train willing responsible citizens than it is to attempt to disarm everyone except a trained, bored "elite".

Back to the original thread, a gun on board does not alarm me the way it alarms many others. I live with guns and I am sure my neighbors live with guns. Why would I be alarmed that there are armed people on board?

It is no different than armed people anywhere else.

It boils down to the people, not the guns. I doubt this 10 year old or his/her family were going to open fire and "mow" down anyone.

I am more alarmed at being disarmed and having to submit to a search by government agents on a fishing expedition just because I choose to fly.

elCheapoDeluxe

Jul 20, 03, 11:09 am

Originally posted by Doppy:
If you don't see a problem with 10 year olds carrying guns, this discussion is pointless.

d

Well said.

GUWonder

Jul 20, 03, 11:16 am

According to one report, up to 120,000 people passed through Al-Qaeda's camps in the post-Soviet pullout of Afghanistan period. Of that, the overwhelming majority were oriented toward conflicts in the Middle East and Asia (Chechnya, Phillipines, Sudan, Kashmir, Israel/Palestinian territories, etc.) that would never have directly affected us. Most were oriented toward civil insurgency fighting and not trained specifically as terrorists to strike in areas not already affected by civil insurgency. Of course, the damage even 19/20 people can do is quite awful, so figuring out who those 120,000 people are is important. But the threat must be put in proper perspective without creating mass hysteria.

Plato90s

Jul 20, 03, 9:19 pm

Originally posted by richard:
Armed citizens can be far more numerous than marshalls can be.

It is far cheaper and more practical to train willing responsible citizens than it is to attempt to disarm everyone except a trained, bored "elite".

....

I am more alarmed at being disarmed and having to submit to a search by government agents on a fishing expedition just because I choose to fly.

By the same token, the western US during the 19th century should have been the most peaceful period in the history of the United States. Many citizens were armed. Far more of these armed citizens than there were policemen, who were bored and poorly trained anyways.

When things needed to be done, posses formed up to do it.

Surely that was a period of paramount civil virtue and justice. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

The practical reality is that the vigilantism richard is describing is about as workable as a theocratic state advocated by religious people. Given a choice, I would want a small number of trained policemen than depend on vigilantes with guns.

richard

Jul 20, 03, 9:24 pm

Originally posted by Plato90s:
The practical reality is that the vigilantism richard is describing is about as workable as a theocratic state advocated by religious people. Given a choice, I would want a small number of trained policemen than depend on vigilantes with guns.

Labeling it vigilantism is an ad hominem attack.

The Founding Fathers disagree with you. "A well regulated militia" meant all able bodied men, not just a few select elite.

If people are armed, bad guys don't want to mess with anyone because they don't want to mess with people who are armed and they don't know who is and who isn't.

I am afraid when we are forcibly disarmed. I am not concerned with being around people who are armed -- it is the natural state for people to be equipped to defend themselves.

Plato90s

Jul 21, 03, 12:00 am

Originally posted by richard:
Labeling it vigilantism is an ad hominem attack.

The Founding Fathers disagree with you. "A well regulated militia" meant all able bodied men, not just a few select elite.

If people are armed, bad guys don't want to mess with anyone because they don't want to mess with people who are armed and they don't know who is and who isn't.

I am afraid when we are forcibly disarmed. I am not concerned with being around people who are armed -- it is the natural state for people to be equipped to defend themselves.

Attack? I thought it was just a dictionary definition.

vig·i·lan·te ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vj-lnt)
n.
One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

After all, any willing/responsible citizen can be trained to be an air marshal. But you've already stated that non-air marshals should be allowed to bear arms on board a plane and that they should be allowed to shoot terrorists.

That would be citizens taking law into their own hands. After all, if they were authorized to shoot people in the air - they'd be air marshals.

Call it what it is - vigilantes in the air. Posses being formed on the spot, handing out "justice" the same way it was handed out in the Old West.

PW1P

Jul 21, 03, 7:51 am

So what you are saying is that self-defense is "taking the law into your own hands". It is perfectly legal to defend yourself. It's just basic human nature to want to cotinue to live. In many states you may shoot to kill anyone who has broken into your house. Whilst some are content to ring 911 and watch whilst their wives/daughters are raped and butchered in front of them, there are others who will defend themselves and their loved ones by any means necessary. If you choose the 911 option that is fine, but don't then deny those who would try to fend for themselves. If you attempt to do the same in the UK, more likely the homeowner will be going to jail, whilst the criminal would get some counselling and be sent on his merry way.

Reminds me of the times when criminals were targetting rental cars with stickers, because they knew that these out-of-state visitors would be unlikely to be carrying a concealed weapon (due to lack of reciprocity of pistol permits). Soon enough the stickers came off.

Plato90s

Jul 21, 03, 8:25 am

Originally posted by PW1P:
So what you are saying is that self-defense is "taking the law into your own hands". It is perfectly legal to defend yourself. It's just basic human nature to want to cotinue to live. In many states you may shoot to kill anyone who has broken into your house. Whilst some are content to ring 911 and watch whilst their wives/daughters are raped and butchered in front of them, there are others who will defend themselves and their loved ones by any means necessary. If you choose the 911 option that is fine, but don't then deny those who would try to fend for themselves. If you attempt to do the same in the UK, more likely the homeowner will be going to jail, whilst the criminal would get some counselling and be sent on his merry way.

Reminds me of the times when criminals were targetting rental cars with stickers, because they knew that these out-of-state visitors would be unlikely to be carrying a concealed weapon (due to lack of reciprocity of pistol permits). Soon enough the stickers came off.

Self defense is fine by me. If you can legally carry weapons and use them, you should feel free.

But the point isn't whether you have the right to defend yourself. It's whether we should allow firearms on to planes.

richard is arguing in favor of letting any random person who possess a gun carry it on a plane. The logic is that they can act as vigilantes to protect us all.

We've had incidents since 9/11 like Richard Reid in which the whole plane was in danger. Then we also have nutcases who were contained without killing them.

If you pull out your gun and shot someone on the plane thinking he's a terrorist, you should also be prepared to be arrested if you were wrong. That's because the line between self defense and vigilante action is very thin.

BTW, unless you own a federal firearms permit that allows you to carry a gun across state lines - you could also be violating state laws.

richard

Jul 21, 03, 9:00 am

Originally posted by Plato90s:
richard is arguing in favor of letting any random person who possess a gun carry it on a plane. The logic is that they can act as vigilantes to protect us all.

There can be some simple type of qualification procedure as there is with concealed carry permits.

Imagine a job where you are trained in law enforcement perhaps as your lifetime dream job, and all you do is sit on a glorified bus day after day after day after day.

Now instead, imagine that every plane contains citizens who may or may not be armed. Any teddy bear could be loaded http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Where are you safer?

Where do you have greater peace of mind?

If you are really worried, you can carry a piece yourself.

If you pull out your gun and shot someone on the plane thinking he's a terrorist, you should also be prepared to be arrested if you were wrong. 

Well, yeah.

Plato90s

Jul 21, 03, 9:32 am

Originally posted by richard:
Where are you safer?

Where do you have greater peace of mind?

If you are really worried, you can carry a piece yourself. 

Compare the Old West of the 19th century to the current situation in the same cities/towns.

Was it safer and more peaceful when a high percentage of people carried firearms and was willing to shoot anyone they considered a danger?

Then take a look around the world and see how many countries there are in which the same conditions prevail. Lots of people with weapons don't make for peace and security.

I don't trust vigilantes, and have both historical and current-event proof to the effect that a bunch of people who like to shoot guns isn't a good thing. Trained and accountable police/military is what makes for a peaceful and secure nation - not a bunch of armed citizens with their personal firearms.

Doppy

Jul 21, 03, 9:36 am

Originally posted by richard:
Imagine a job where you are trained in law enforcement perhaps as your lifetime dream job, and all you do is sit on a glorified bus day after day after day after day.

Now instead, imagine that every plane contains citizens who may or may not be armed. Any teddy bear could be loaded

Where are you safer?

Where do you have greater peace of mind?

If you are really worried, you can carry a piece yourself.

Well, in one case we're trying to keep weapons off the planes so they can't be used by the bad guys.

In the other case, bad guys can waltz right on board with guns and use them at will.

I guess this would make Richard Reid's job a lot easier. Rather than having to fumble with matches or a lighter and a fuse, he could have just brought a gun onboard and shot the plane and windows up pretty good.

By the time some air marshal or ordinary citizen wakes up, realizes what is happening, then tries to fire off a couple shots at the terrorist in a crowded cabin that would undoubtably be bouncing all over the place at this point, the damage would be done.

d

kb0fhp

Jul 21, 03, 9:52 am

I support our right to carry tactical nuclear weapons - we have to keep our neighborhoods safe from malcontents and other "suspicious activity".

Doesn't the second amendment guarentee the right to arm bears?

This thread has degenerated into a 2nd Amendment debate - not about TSA finding a Teddy bear with a .22.

Close the thread......

Spiff

Jul 21, 03, 2:03 pm

Big deal.

The x-ray machine worked and the person working the x-ray was paying attention. There wasn't any special dilligence needed or performed here.

Let's throw Admiral Loy a big fish for this and get on with replacing this agency with private security and hopefully tossing Admiral Loy into the brig for the criminally negligent job he's done to date.

In the meantime, the x-ray machine deserves a gold star for doing what it was supposed to do and the screener a pat on the back for reading the x-ray correctly.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 07-21-2003).]

Jul 21, 03, 11:14 pm

Kill the teddy bear.

Plato90s

Jul 22, 03, 8:55 am

Originally posted by Spiff:
Big deal.

The x-ray machine worked and the person working the x-ray was paying attention. There wasn't any special dilligence needed or performed here.

If the TSA-employed screener catches weapons being smuggled on board, it's because the individual's efforts (and the machine's)

If the same TSA-employed screener fail to catch the contraband, the entire agency and the government is at fault.

Imagine the time savings if we simply stipulate for the benefit of Spiff (and others who share his opinion) that the TSA is automatically to blame for anything which goes wrong while the agency hs absolutely nothing to do with anything that goes right.

Because the TSA can do no right, according to Spiff.

Spiff

Jul 22, 03, 9:01 am

The x-ray found a gun in a teddy bear. Let's throw that barking seal idiot James Loy a fish because something actually worked. We still have no idea whether an actual terrorist was caught. And the pre-9/11 screeners would probably have caught this one as well.

Credit where credit is due? The TSA has a long way to go there. Lots of pointy objects stolen, civil liberties trampled, billions of dollars squandered... but still no terrorists caught and no evidence that any of this smokescreen has prevented a single terrorist act.

Originally posted by Plato90s:
If the TSA-employed screener catches weapons being smuggled on board, it's because the individual's efforts (and the machine's)

If the same TSA-employed screener fail to catch the contraband, the entire agency and the government is at fault.

Imagine the time savings if we simply stipulate for the benefit of Spiff (and others who share his opinion) that the TSA is automatically to blame for anything which goes wrong while the agency hs absolutely nothing to do with anything that goes right.

Because the TSA can do no right, according to Spiff.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Occupationalhazard

Jul 22, 03, 11:44 pm

Originally posted by RS:
Kill the teddy bear.

It's being held at 'Gitmo.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

O/H

Raven 1

Jul 23, 03, 8:59 am

Time to stop beating this "dead horse!

alanw

Jul 24, 03, 9:56 pm

Can anyone tell me where to get one of these teddy bears? I fear that I might need to "protect" my home in FC. What if a terrorist is on the plane? Or worse yet, a Y pax trying to use the lav in F?

------------------
-alan in sitges, home of Si-Do (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum95/HTML/003150.html)