Their weapons are loaded -- at least at SFO. It's stupid to be carrying weapons that aren't.

So far the only one shot by the airport National Guard forces seems to be one of their own. A Guard member at SFO accidentally shot a bullet into his hip while handling his sidearm at the end of a shift.


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 02-18-2002).]

you'd be right if ammunition weren't a factor. i contend that i could do more damage with my ten round clip in a handgun that i could with an auto. the standard clips are 30 round, which runs out very fast and is hard to disperse over a wide target range before it runs out (think crowd of people).

also, i wasn't envisioning these being used as rifles in an assault (the accuracy factor). they would be far more deadly if used that way. i was thinking more of someone spraying a crowd from the hip with automatic fire.

No need to get over excited. In my visits to German airports there have always been teams of military looking people with guns in hand roaming around the airport.

In my visits to US airports, there have been two or three National Guard troops at each security checkpoint, and I have seen few of them roaming the airport.

Regardless, the Germans and a lot of other countries have had people roaming the airports with automatic weapons for lots of years. They certainly have a longer history and larger number of gun-hours in the airports than we have and I'm not familiar with any incidents happening.

terenz- I don't know if I'm implying something here that you didn't, are you implying that in the German airports if one person went crazy someone would stop him or her, but in the US there isn't such a safeguard?

d

The question could have become moot. Tulsa, Dallas, and New Orleans guards were NOT carrying automatic weapons today, at least when I came through this morning. Side arms only. This is a change from Friday. Anybody notice the same thing?

Actually there is a lot of misinformation here. The national guard troops called up so far are supposed to have been all military police troops. Therefore they do actually train with a sidearm. Next some units might not have the M16's loaded but that would be by unit and is a very stupid decision, I might add. The only reason that it is logical to have the NG at airports is to counter a Rome type incident where the terrorists attack the airport because they doubt that they would clear security. If that is the case then M16s are logical. If that is the case, then the fact that body armor and upgraded communications have not been bought on an expedited basis is insane. I have also failed to see much of what I would expect if they were serious about this type of scenario.

Next nearly all of the M16s at the airport would be semi automatic/ 3 round burst capable, not automatic. They would result in many more casualties than what a side arm would do.

Finally to answer the main point of this thread. We have already had this happen since 9-11. A NG soldier from Virginia requested to be called to active duty. He was transfered to New Jersey. While being processed in and before being assigned to an airport, the new unit commander felt that he was acting unusual. He requested a mental eval of him, when other MPs arrived to escort him he attacked them. Final result was several injured MPs and NJ police, I believe 1 or 2 dead but would have to do a search from september/october to find exact figures.

About the same time two AF guards at a Wyoming nuclear launch bunker were arrested trying to sneak into mexico with M16s and a M60 machine gun. This is really no different than some police officers that have been killed after standoffs with other police though. The rate would be less than among the general population.

------------------
Robert

Since when is something being stupid a disqualification from it being done in the name of post-9/11 security?

So, if the story above is correct, more people have been killed as a result of our security efforts than from the bad guys.

And we have wasted hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars on the effort.

Sounds like a good idea.

Interesting timing ...

(02-18) 17:56 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) --

An Army National Guardsman was arrested Monday at Los Angeles International Airport after trying to pass a security checkpoint with an explosive device in his bag, authorities said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...648EST0078.DTL

I wouldn't count on that training being worth much. My cousin was recently called up from the marine reserves to be an MP. Aside from the fact that he has always had a huge disdain for low enforcement, he's receiving two weeks of training to be an MP. That's about the same amount of training that the dopes operating the x-ray machines get. I would hardly imagine training is better in the Natl guard.

dudstar, Changing specialty is actually common in the national guard. I am guessing from the information provided that your cousin is switching units. In most cases a reserve/NG trooper would go through his 2 week course and be assigned to his new unit. He would then have to be trained in his individual skill tasks during weekend drills. The majority of the soldiers in the unit would have completed there normal individual training after basic. The soldier who is cross training would in a normal unit be paired with someone experienced if called to active duty, or most likely the whole unit would be required to meet both individual and unit minimums. Also many prison guards and even some small police forces put people on duty after being hired and don't send them to school until the next class would start. By keeping them paired with someone experienced or giving them non essential duties.


------------------
Robert

That's a good point. I do believe that he is changine units.

The decision to deploy and what types of weapons the national guard troops carry is up the Govoner of each State. This is why you see some troops with only side arms and others with the M-16's.

This brings up the issue that the only reason why they were called up is not to enhance security but to make the public think that flying is safer. In reality, very little has changed since 9/11. If armed robbers can rob $6,500,000 within a secure area at Heathrow, then we still have a long ways to go.

I think we should have packs of hundreds of trained German Shepards roaming the airport without supervision. That way everyone would get screened by someone who knows what they are doing, and all bags could be screened by our four footed friends as well.

If someone sets off a doggie's nose alarm, the dog would simply immobilze them in .3 seconds. If someone ran away to get a camera, some of the pack would chase and tackle the idiot, ripping out his or her throat. We wouldn't have to shut the terminal down.
This would also cut down on cost.

Instead of hiring people to operate expensive machines that they have no idea how to operate, we could hire half as many people simply to scoop poop in the terminal.
No need for pimply, sexually frustrated 18-year-olds with machine guns.

This is, of course, a joke. Although more trained dogs and handlers would drastically cut down on screeing costs and make screening more effective.

Additionally, few things in life are more chilling than a German Shepard. We have a nice 90 pound alpha female. She is a sweetheart who licks us to wake us up every morning, but just the sight of her scares the living bejeezus out of everyone but my immediate family or those she knows well. Plus, she could probably break any bone in my body with one bite, so I'm kept in line. I'm also pretty sure that the she prevents any potential home intrusion better than any gun or security system.

I do think dogs are grossly underused in airport security. Ask a K-9 handler how useful his or her dog is.

You know something funny, dogs get bored, too. So after a while, even well trained dogs would be like, **** it, I haven't busted anyone for drugs or explosives all day. Maybe I should bite that guy because he smells bad.

And if you think that there's groping going on now, ever been around an excited male dog? You'll just double the population of people who get groped. Right now, it's only women. Let the place go to the dogs, and men will get it, too.

Someone mentioned in another thread that they were asked to carry drugs in the airport to help test out a new dog. They also mentioned that the typical dogs, which jump all over people who are carrying drugs or bombs couldn't be used on citizens like us, they needed specially trained dogs that would stare you down (or something) if they suspected something was wrong, rather than doing what Marjorie Knoller's dogs did.

d