Should TSA agents be armed?
Nov 3, 2013, 7:38 am
#17
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 77
Should TSA agents be armed?
Unless you have been in the armed service, you have NO idea the amount of red tape that comes along with putting weapons in people's hands. Not only is there training, maintenance, proficiency and other requirements and expenses, but you can't just give your gun to the next person on duty. There is a whole turnover process that has to be supervised.
In the navy, the on watch person would have to place the muzzle in this large can thing (incase of an accidental discharge) then the supervisor would read a step by step procedure about how to transfer the belt and holster, remove the magazine, eject the chambered round (using a special catch tool, of course, to prevent loss of the ejected round which also probably cost the nave $1000 to buy) and ultimately transfer the weapon. Huge PITA!
In the navy, the on watch person would have to place the muzzle in this large can thing (incase of an accidental discharge) then the supervisor would read a step by step procedure about how to transfer the belt and holster, remove the magazine, eject the chambered round (using a special catch tool, of course, to prevent loss of the ejected round which also probably cost the nave $1000 to buy) and ultimately transfer the weapon. Huge PITA!
Nov 3, 2013, 8:20 am
#19
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Texas
Programs: Many, slipping beneath the horizon
Posts: 9,859
Given the 2 TSA agents whom I have known personally and the duties/responsibilities/displayed levels of cognizance of TSA agents whom I have encountered in the last 12(?) years.....NO!
Generally speaking, I'd be far more comfortable providing straight razors to 14 year old girls.
Generally speaking, I'd be far more comfortable providing straight razors to 14 year old girls.
Nov 3, 2013, 8:29 am
#20
Join Date: May 2013
Programs: NEXUS/GE
Posts: 521
No. TSA agents are not LEOs, they have no arrest authority and are not authorized to use force.
Most airports have an airport division or at the very least have a LEO on site. Station a LEO at each checkpoint or give each TSA agent an alarm button that would alert the LEO to a problem.
Most airports have an airport division or at the very least have a LEO on site. Station a LEO at each checkpoint or give each TSA agent an alarm button that would alert the LEO to a problem.
Nov 3, 2013, 9:13 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: south of WAS DC
Posts: 10,131
what's a LEO?
i can recall heavily armed military in bygone times at muc,fra. fco.mxp. each person had an automatic weapon, and a big dog. the soldiers looked like kids to me, under 20 years old. probably were under 20. lots of armed military in cairo airport and all through the central american airports.
i can recall heavily armed military in bygone times at muc,fra. fco.mxp. each person had an automatic weapon, and a big dog. the soldiers looked like kids to me, under 20 years old. probably were under 20. lots of armed military in cairo airport and all through the central american airports.
Nov 3, 2013, 9:14 am
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
LEO=law enforcement officer.
TSA screening clerks in the main are not LEOs; nor should they be IMO.
^^
Having more TSA employees armed is unnecessary and counterproductive. They should focus on contraband WEI interdiction and stop with the rest of the useless dog and pony show that wastes resources.
There are enough armed LEOs, especially at LAX which has a very large airport police force -- some say it is the largest in the country.
TSA screening clerks in the main are not LEOs; nor should they be IMO.
Not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin.
Should workers at McDonald's be given weapons?
Should school bus drivers be given guns?
Postal workers?
All of these have had assaults, murders and other stuff happen in the work place. I know of no way to totally eliminate violence in any of these locales. Arming workers would only lead to more killings, in my opinion.
Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that half the police officers who have guns now, might be better without them.
Should workers at McDonald's be given weapons?
Should school bus drivers be given guns?
Postal workers?
All of these have had assaults, murders and other stuff happen in the work place. I know of no way to totally eliminate violence in any of these locales. Arming workers would only lead to more killings, in my opinion.
Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that half the police officers who have guns now, might be better without them.
^^
Having more TSA employees armed is unnecessary and counterproductive. They should focus on contraband WEI interdiction and stop with the rest of the useless dog and pony show that wastes resources.
There are enough armed LEOs, especially at LAX which has a very large airport police force -- some say it is the largest in the country.
Nov 3, 2013, 9:22 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: south of WAS DC
Posts: 10,131
Unless you have been in the armed service, you have NO idea the amount of red tape that comes along with putting weapons in people's hands. Not only is there training, maintenance, proficiency and other requirements and expenses, but you can't just give your gun to the next person on duty. There is a whole turnover process that has to be supervised.
In the navy, the on watch person would have to place the muzzle in this large can thing (incase of an accidental discharge) then the supervisor would read a step by step procedure about how to transfer the belt and holster, remove the magazine, eject the chambered round (using a special catch tool, of course, to prevent loss of the ejected round which also probably cost the nave $1000 to buy) and ultimately transfer the weapon. Huge PITA!
In the navy, the on watch person would have to place the muzzle in this large can thing (incase of an accidental discharge) then the supervisor would read a step by step procedure about how to transfer the belt and holster, remove the magazine, eject the chambered round (using a special catch tool, of course, to prevent loss of the ejected round which also probably cost the nave $1000 to buy) and ultimately transfer the weapon. Huge PITA!
Nov 3, 2013, 9:24 am
#24
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 537
Unless you have been in the armed service, you have NO idea the amount of red tape that comes along with putting weapons in people's hands. Not only is there training, maintenance, proficiency and other requirements and expenses, but you can't just give your gun to the next person on duty. There is a whole turnover process that has to be supervised.
In the navy, the on watch person would have to place the muzzle in this large can thing (incase of an accidental discharge) then the supervisor would read a step by step procedure about how to transfer the belt and holster, remove the magazine, eject the chambered round (using a special catch tool, of course, to prevent loss of the ejected round which also probably cost the nave $1000 to buy) and ultimately transfer the weapon. Huge PITA!
In the navy, the on watch person would have to place the muzzle in this large can thing (incase of an accidental discharge) then the supervisor would read a step by step procedure about how to transfer the belt and holster, remove the magazine, eject the chambered round (using a special catch tool, of course, to prevent loss of the ejected round which also probably cost the nave $1000 to buy) and ultimately transfer the weapon. Huge PITA!
But yeah, that will never happen. The expense and bureaucracy involved is too great...
Nov 3, 2013, 10:31 am
#28
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
NFW!
(No Freakin' Way)
TSA employees should be removed from our airports and TSA dismantled, rendering the original question moot.
(No Freakin' Way)
TSA employees should be removed from our airports and TSA dismantled, rendering the original question moot.
Nov 3, 2013, 10:34 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PEK
Programs: A3*G, UA Gold EY Silver
Posts: 8,949
Just because one or two people got killed it doesn't mean you should arm many thousands "officers". You either make a national gun control reform (never gonna happen, too many idiots and no bold politicians who are willing to take a stand, unlike in Australia), or you face the risk of this happening again, which is not greater than getting killed in road traffic.
Nov 3, 2013, 10:35 am
#30
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,629
The flip side of that is if there is greater scrutiny and training for armed personnel, the general quality of the TSA might go up, and you'll get less of those surly but useless morons who could'nt get any other job sign up for the TSA...
But yeah, that will never happen. The expense and bureaucracy involved is too great...
But yeah, that will never happen. The expense and bureaucracy involved is too great...
I'd like to see some evidence. It doesn't appear to be playing out that way with police across the country, particularly the full-on SWAT teams serving warrants for non-violent offenders at the wrong addresses at 0200 or firing on two women delivering papers in a car that didn't even fit the description of the offender's vehicle (wrong color, make, no plate check before firing). Plenty of scrutiny and training, little or no accountability, more mistakes and innocent people killed.
No thanks.
