"Going postal"
 

First, with all deference to the generally great employees of the USPS, I use this as a generic term to represent day traders etc. that go ballistic and start shooting coworkers and customers.

The question is, how long will it be, if ever, before one of the National Guard types develops a brain tumor or just a bad attitude, and starts shooting??? What precautions are being taken?

Do they really need those automatic weapons? Unless they're expecting an armed brigade storming Security, wouldn't pistols allow them to cope with most any contingency?

I sure hope that I'm worried about nothing, but this happens often enough in the outside world that I hope that somebody has at least considered the possibility in Airports.

I think this is a silly worry. You could say the same about any Police Officer or anyone else in a similar position that is legally armed.

i agree... they could do just about as much damage with a 9mm beretta as with their M-16s.

and please don't say "M-16's are automatic and fire more bullets". the rate of fire on an automatic rifle is so high that you might actually get less casualties than with a handgun. this is because the bullet dispersement range would be narrow, whereas with a sidearm you can more easily fire in a variety of directions.

Uhh, I'd content that one can do a lot more damage with an M-16 than a 9mm 92F. Rate of fire and accuracy come to mind, here.

Which might explain why they are carrying the M-16s in some places to begin with.

------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

At one point someone on here said that the guns aren't even loaded. Not sure if that's true.

Go to a German airport. There are ten times as many military type guards carrying loaded weapons there. How many of them shoot up the airport for no reason?

d

Be aware that the 55 grain 5.56 mm full metal jacket rounds the M-16s fire are very high velocity and tend to ricochet (off walls, bones, and other hard surfaces ) a lot. I think the M-16s these days fire 2-3 round bursts instead full automatic. That'd cause more casualties than the slow 9mm rounds the Berattas (or the typical sub machine guns such as the Heckler & Kochs).

There's a built-in safe guard of sorts right there. There are others who will (or should) stop the potential shooter by lethal meansif necessary.

I have a friend in the natl guard who is a lawyer who got called up for airport duty. Its very scary to think of this guy with a gun. Anyway, his unit was issued M-16's and ammunition but they must keep the ammo in a belt pocket--not allowed to load their weapons until needed.

That's complete BS. I've been through German airports 12 times since 9/11 (including two airports yesterday) and the level of armed personnel is much higher now in most US airports than it is in German airports (at least FRA and MUC, the two largest).

I agree with Dudster. Other examples where elite troops are displayed with full "battle gear" that come to mind are HKG and SIN. In both airports they are walking around with automatic weapons.

[This message has been edited by Gaucho100K (edited 02-18-2002).]

(duplicate post)

[This message has been edited by Gaucho100K (edited 02-18-2002).]

But you all are missing something here. If you have watched any movies you should know that those weapons will not hit the good guys. You now the movies, 30 guys with automatic weapons can not hit the good guy. He pulls out a saturday night special and picks them off one by one.

See, there is a plan!

Nat Guard does not normally train with pistols, so this is not a short term option. M-16's tend to fire up rather than across unless done professionally. The risk of killing a bystander is quite low, especially when compared with a hijacker crashing a plane into a building. Probably better things to worry about.

For what it's worth, the M9/92Fs I've seen on the National Guard in various airports seem to be loaded (at least in the sense that there appears from a cursory glance to be a round in the chamber causing the indicatior "bump" to be "bumped up."

Disclaimer: my 92 is a 92G Elite-II, so the stainless slide allows easier viewing of the loaded chamber bump.

------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

The NG personnel at ORD do not carry M-16s, they only have a sidearm.

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

Everything prior to the last three paragraphs of my post was a joke, and so explicitly stated.

Packs of wild unsupervised dogs? And you thought I was serious?

But your comments about dogs and their utility is pretty ignorant. It is true, dogs get tired and bored. They can work only about 4 hours a day before they get bored. But they do work for free, and the handlers don't make that much.

And no, they don't let the dogs go a day without finding something. They ALWAYS plant something as a setup and let the dog find it so he or she thinks they have done their job and get tons of praise.

To avoid the "hump factor", I presume that the dogs both male and female would be fixed, as all law enforcement dogs are.

The comment about the SF situation was also inapporpriate. 99.999% of domesticated dogs would not do something like that. Those dogs were genetically bred and trained killers. The labrador retrievers and German shepards used in explosive or narcotic detection and other law enforcement are highly intelligent creatures with abilities we can't even comprehend.

One of these breeds' sense of smell is something like 60 times as strong as a human's. That sensory aspect of their brain is far more developed than any human or machine. Who is finding the bodies at the WTC?

I would rather have a K-9 unit or two at every checkpoint sniffing everyone down than some pimple-faced 19 year old with an automatic weapon telling jokes to his buddy.

If you are going to make accusations about an alleged violent or uncontrollable nature these wonderfully useful, unselfish, and intelligent creatures, back it up. Sure, my German Shepard would unleash all holy hell on anyone who attacked my wife or any other member of our family, but if I were there, I would too (although probably with a greater sense of self preservation than the dog), just as you would if someone attacked your family. She also obeys every command I give her as if she were a West Point cadet. Domesticated Dogs are not killing machines. In fact, there has never been a report of a WILD WOLF killing a human.

Show me an example- ONE - of a trained detection dog or K-9 police dog in America attacking anyone its handler did not intend for the dog to subdue.

The very fact that you are so terrified of the dog idea lends credence to to the deterrent affect. It's one thing to fear being shot - it's another thing entirely to fear be taken down by a pissed-off police dog. K-9 dogs subdue criminals with guns every day because they are often more terrified of the dog than of the officer's gun. Lord knows how many officer's lives these dogs save every year.

Don't take my word for it. Ask a cop who works with a dog.

Relax, man. I was kidding! It's a joke. I love dogs. I had two of them when I was a kid, including a German shepherd, so I know how intelligent and cool those dogs are.

Geez, try to inject a little humor into something and watch the fur fly.

Actually, according to the highly reliable Animal Planet, dogs have up to 10,000 times better senses of smell than humans.

BoSoxFan45-

I hope that post wasn't aimed at me. I think dogs in the airport would be a good idea, I just said they'd need to have some differently trained ones (like the dog trainers mentioned to the guy who was carrying the drugs for them).

I have seen plenty of shows talking about how great the dogs are for the Customs service. The only problem is, when they find what they're looking for, they're jumping and barking all over it.

If you think that's what we want dogs to do to citizens in airports, I don't know what to say. Maybe you support police brutality against innocent citizens.

We can't have dogs trained like that working with everyday law abiding citizens. People are complaining that screeners pat them down or they have to take their shoes off. Don't you think more people would complain about dogs jumping all over them and barking in their faces?

d

Gives new meaning to threatening someone w/ "an army of lawyers" ... tls

As for the weapons used, there has not been a military full auto rifle since the vietnam war. Too many cases of soldiers panicing and holding the trigger down and emptying their weapon. They are set to 3 round bursts. And yes they do tend to ride up as you fire due to the recoil. The 5.56 bullet was designed for less than 200 yards and was designed to tumble to cause the most damage. There are many documented cases of the bullet entering say a thigh and exiting say a shoulder carving a wide path of destruction along the way. So a guardsperson with an M-16 with a 30 round magazine could do much more damage than one with a 9mm sidearm. And with the 3 round burst there is no chance of a quick burst emptying the magazine.

Shockingly enough, I am against police brutality. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

But, frankly, if a dog smells and explosive on someone and goes nuts barking, I think that's a hell of a lot better reaction than some x-ray jockey missing it altogether.

I don't think innocent citizens would be barked at, slobbered on, jumped on, etc. If they are looking for explosives, etc., and thye find someone with traces of explosives, having a dog bark at them is not something I would worry too much about. If you are worried about a dog biting someone, you absolutely can train a Shepard not to bite or jump- just to bark, and you could also just use a less threatening dog like a Lab or Golden retriever.

Unless an innocent citizen is carrying explosives, I don't think we have to worry much about them being barked at.

Frankly, having guys with big guns scares me, an innocent civilian.

I love dogs. Use more dogs. One time, I went to HKK for a week. I had an apple in my backpack to eat on the plane on the way over. I forgot about it and it was still in my pack a week later. My friend and I were standing by the bag carousel in SFO when a customs agent (or maybe FDA? can't recall) with a beagle came by and made a beeline right for me. My friend went completely pale, certain that I had smuggled in some heroin or something. I myself was a bit scared, wondering if someone had planted something in there. Boy, was I glad when they found that apple.

Another time, I was in SYY waiting to go through passport control when I felt a gentle weight on my shoulders and just a tad of warm breath on my neck. A sweet black lab had both paws on my shoulders and was sniffing my backpack. I swear I have no idea why. It didn't drool on me or anything, nor did it ever bark, and reminded me that I must get another lab when I quit traveling so much. I felt much less intimidated by that than I do by people with guns.

I did wonder why I still did not get any extra scrutiny after that and why the dog's handler didn't want to look in my pack. Maybe the dogs start barking or something if they find anything really interesting?

Dogs have better judgement and more discipline than the current crop of homo sapiens working airport security, IMHO, and just as importantly, better breath!

JD

[This message has been edited by JoeDoakes (edited 02-21-2002).]

As an fyi, most of the Nat Guards I've seen are plainly for show.

Unlike their German, Austrian, French and British counterparts I've seen in european airports they have no body armor on and are carrying the wrong type of rifle for the job at hand.

They should be using 9mm/10mm or HK MP5 type weapons which are much more suited for use in that environment. They should have laser mounts on their rifles and pistols. They should also be on a pistol/rifle range every **mn day they work the airport for an hour or so before their shift starts.

You wanna be serious about it, then by god be serious about it. If they ever DO have to engage they will ALREADY be surrounded by both civilians and potential hostiles. They need to be very accurate in their fire and they need to be wearing full ceramic battle armor. I work with the military every day, I respect them very much, but everyone here knows that this truly is a feel good visible measure and not a real, viable quick reaction force.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 02-21-2002).]

Why bother wasting money on body armor and guns when the National Guard is at the airports primarily for window dressing?

Aside from chasing the occasional idiots like the guys who breeched security in Atlanta, they're at the airport to make us feel better. Since 45% of the population is still afraid of flying, the goal seems to make sense.

d