2150 Firearms
 

Since the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was signed into law on November 19, 2001, the TSA has found 2,150 firearms. Kind of scary isn't it?

Not one bit, since NONE of those guns would have been used in anyway on board...what is scary is how we as innocent passengers are being treated since this sad date.

Give me a break. Are you a psychic? You may not like the invasive screening, but most don't mind. The numbers speak for themselves.

Most cattle don't mind being herded into the slaughterhouse. What's your point?

Ho hum. Yawn. Not scary at all. Unless you're selling snake oil security to the masses. Then you have to dress it up and make it real scary. :rolleyes:

How many guns were found in the prior three year period (11/19/98 thru 11/19/01) by the contract screeners?

And even more relevant: How many guns were used in the USA on board airliners in the last 6 years?

Oh, and how many guns has the TSA failed to find in its 30 months or so of searching? Given the test results from EWR announced in the press recently, the number must be staggering.

The legislation providing for the TSA was enacted three years ago, but the first TSA screeners didn't appear until the spring of 2002, nearly 6 months after the law was passed.

That is scary (not kind of) -- anyone bringing a firearm through a checkpoint needs more than a civil fine. They need criminal charges pressed against them. Accident/mistake or not, there is no excuse for this one... It should be explained to the Judge (or Jury) if any excuses exist -- including any "VIPs", which I've noticed prosecutors haven't gone after in some cases because they felt it was an "honest mistake".

I agree with you completely on this. I don't own a gun, but if I did, you can be certain I wouldn't be bringing it to the airport with me. A gun is something you just don't "forget". I have friends and co-workers with a conceal and carry permits (this is Kentucky) -- I don't see them as the type who would bring a gun to an airport, and if they did (even though I doubt they would have ill intent), they would have consequences to face... mistake or not.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

SDF Traveler, It's nice when I come across a rational person on this forum. I agree with you 100%.

To begin, I will try to make this as objective as possible.

If we have found 2150 firearms in 3 years, that is about 717 firearms per year. In FY 2004, the TSA budget was $4.4 billion. We can subtract the $385 million spent for cargo and we see the budget for passengers was about $4 billion. The TSA receives roughly 49% of its budget from passenger fees. Therefore, for every weapon found in FY 2004:

The taxpayers of the United States of America paid $2,845,188.22 for every ONE firearm found.
The civilian passengers paid $2,733,612.27 for every ONE firearm found.

I have left out the innumerable tweezers, fingernail clippers, bookmarks, sewing needles, and butter knives that have been confiscated at checkpoints, making us infinitely safer.

What a bargain!! :( :(

All facts are from the TSA website, I can provide a link to a .ppt presentation.

FWAAA,

While you raise good points, I respectfully disagree with respect to the place of guns in airports/aircraft.

Guns have no place in an airport or on an airplane. I'm not a gun owner, but I know many responsible gun owners. They're good people and I doubt they would bring a gun to an airport. However, even if they did, there should be consequences.

The person may be good, with no ill intentions, but we don't need people taking guns on-board through security. I'm sure people have made honest mistakes and gotten guns through security as well -- good people making mistakes.

However, the bottom line is guns don't belong in aiports or airplanes. If caught, there must be consequences. I'm not saying charge one with terrorism and throw away the key, but we would have to re-evaluate how responsible one is as a gun owner if they forget and take a gun to the airport.

Added: I am not aware of any guns being discharged on aircraft lately; OTOH, I do know of at least one incident where a FAM left a gun in the aircraft lav, and another incident where FAMs pointed guns towards pax on a DCA bound flight because someone left their seat.

Of these guns found, who is to say one of these individuals wouldn't lose their gun on the aircraft (an FAM did) or do something causing it to accidently discharge in flight? Again, these are likely good people - but what they're doing is stupid. Of the guns which have likely made it through security, we're probably lucky an accident at minimim hasn't happened.

The way I see it, screen passengers for guns and explosives (credible weapons) and then leave us the heck alone when it comes to screening.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

Thanks, TSAJohn. It's not often I agree with TSA screeners :D

As I pointed out in my post to FWAAA, an airport & aircraft is not a place for guns. Gun owners who take a gun to an airport by mistake, which is likely the case in most of these incidents (speculation, but I'm sure it's often the case), need to face consequences.

Common sense, along with intelligence and the duty of care a gun owner has indicates one does not take a gun to an airport. People make mistakes but there are often consequences to mistakes. I don't think locking the person up and throwing away the key is the answer, but hold these individuals accountable. Perhaps they shouldn't have a conceal and carry permit.

The part that's scary is so many individual's are making this mistake or don't see what the problem is with taking a gun to an airport. If a gun gets onboard, other than an accident (i.e. gun discharging, being left behind where someone else can get it), chances are it's a good person who made a mistake. However, this may not always be the case. Just because a gun hasn't been used on an aircraft in recent years doesn't mean one won't be used tomorrow or next week.

A gun, like an explosive, is a credible threat. Of the homicides in most major cities, what is the primary cause? Here in Louisville, it's shootings. That is what guns do when discharged. Explosives are made to go boom. Credible threats? Yes.

Now, I disagree when it comes to other pointy objects and many of the other TSA procedures. I disagree with a lot of TSA procedures and things the upper management is up to (i.e. SecureFlight) -- see www.unsecureflight.com

I'm open to debate and conversation on this. We all have different viewpoints, which I feel should be respected. I'm sure you've made postings, TSAJohn, which I've disagreed with -- and likewise I'm sure you've disagreed with me.

BTW: CVG, I presume? Great airport -- I transfer there when flying DL, but haven't cleared a security checkpoint there lately.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

I don't get it. It sounds like you are making an argument, but you're not. Argument by assertion?

The fact is, there are guns on aircraft today, and they seem to be doing fine just sitting there. Do you have a real argument?

I was making a statement of personal opinion.

As there are guns on aircraft today, "fine, just sitting there":

How long until one accidently discharges?

How long until one passenger gets drunk and uses it for air rage?

How long until one passenger leaves it in the lav? (an FAM has done this) Or how about a passenger dropping it, the gun falling out of a bag? Speculation, yes, but:

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.

Given time, it is likely to happen, as long as they continue to get through checkpoints. This shouldn't be happening and is a reflection of problems in the system.

Now, there have been no known incidents in recent years (that I am aware of) with someone discharging a firearm in a US aircraft. Being some are slipping through checkpoints, does that mean this trend will continue and they'll continue to be "fine - just sitting there"?

Last, what is scary is that individuals are still bringing firearms to airports. Of the ones caught, what's scary is the number of irresponsible gun owners. Any responsible gun owner should know not to take their gun to an airport (unless checking it as luggage, declared).

Best,

SDF_Traveler

P.S. Do you actually believe guns should freely be allowed on aircraft? (setting FAMs, armed pilots, or off-duty officers legally traveling with firearm aside)

Congrats to TSA. But... who cares?

Here are some assumptions I'll make:

Passengers are no more likely now than pre 9-11 to bring guns on planes (whether or not guns belong at airports is irrelevant to the mindset of folks who "forget" they were packing).

There was likely an equal number of guns attempted to be brought on board pre 9-11; but likely fewer were caught due to laxer screening. (Someone could have smuggled an uzi in their shoe back then!).

So... I'll assume more guns were brought on board pre 9-11 than now. Yet there weren't any major incidents with guns onboard pre 9-11. It is likely that the 2150 guns seized were not going to be used in a terrorist attack and it is likely that their seizure had minimal impact to overall passenger safety.

Good job finding them, but put this in perspective. Next question: how many guns still slip through?

For heaven's sake, we are talking about 1 or 2 out of a million passengers. That number of so-called "irresponsible gun owners" is vanishingly small. There are probably more than 700 child molestors on a plane each year, and I would be more worried about that than a forgetful gun owner.

We all know that guns don't belong on planes, so I don't know why you kept repeating that with bolded type. Of course, if guns don't belong on planes, why do we have FAM's? :rolleyes:

Summary -- Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

But, of course it's worth spending a mere 5 million dollars to find one gun. That's only five million dollars - aren't you worth it? Are you trying to put a price on life?! Think of the children! Protect the empire! Never forget! Insert more meaningless trumpery here!

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who is saying (five million dollars could have provided your community with dozens of full-time police officers to secure the mall and the bridge and hunt down anti-terror clues and guard borders and ....) : at least we found that one gun!

It's scary to think that people haven't gotten the message yet that you can't bring a gun on the plane. :confused: They are few and far between when you consider the millions of people who fly, but still?

We could swear in and deputize the TSA screeners as dual roles: customer service/security screening and Law Enforcement. Make them IRS agents too; that way when they see something valuable in your luggage and choose to liberate it, it will be "for the good of the country."

How many guns were found pre-TSA? We can then compare.

A critical piece of data missing is the subset (anywhere from 0 - 2150) of those guns pre-9/11 screening would have found. To do this right, you could take the number of guns found during the period mentioned above, calculate the guns-to-passengers ratio, throw in a fudge factor to account for the number of passengers who didn't show for their flights, and make a predictive apples-to-apples judgment to compare TSA versus pre-9/11.

I suspect the TSA did this type of statistical analysis, but they didn't get the answer they wanted.

Well the theory that there are weapons present and they "may" go off is great but in everyday life they have not to this point. When you look back over the last 10 years noone has left a gun on board a plane EXCEPT A FAM, no one has left a gun in an airport bathroom EXCEPT A FAM, the only incidents with weapons were cased by those who were suppose to have them and use them to "protect" the flying public (what a joke...just makes those who fly once/twice a year feel warm and fuzzy)
Maybe we are screen the wrong people...Let's screen those who are allowed to carry guns onboard.

Exactly. There is no evidence that the TSA has found more, or fewer guns at screening checkpoints. There is no data pre-TSA, so any claims the TSA makes to support its success are nonsensical. Audits conducted by the news media have shown the number of guns and knives missed by TSA screeners to be similar to the number missed by pre-9/11 private screeners.

I agree, we do not want guns onboard aircraft - however, again, the TSA cannot demonstrate any improvement over pre-9/11 security contractors when it comes to finding guns. The 'prohibited item' statistics are equally nonsenical, because the definition of a 'prohibited item' has been extended to such ridiculous extremes, almost anything at the discretion of the screener can be reported as a prohibited item and counted.

To get a good idea of TSA's efficiency, lacking pre-TSA data, we could try to calculate the number of credible threat to a flight (gun ok, because they can discharge, since visibly their owner is prone to forget important things, but microscopic pointy objects that can be found inside a plane, no) caught at an airport, divide it by the total cost of screening, divide it again per pax, and calculate the same ratio for other countries. The system with the lowest dollar spent/incident/pax is the most efficient.

If you don't think people should be forbidden to carry a gun in an airplane, another calculation is possible. To discount the case of forgetful pax who happen to carry their gun on them, let's not take into account the case where people were not prosecuted with criminal charges after the gun was found. If it was only a mistake, they were just fined, apparently. So calculate the number of charged pax divided by total pax divided by the amount paid.

Then again, I suck at statistics.

Grad girl - very good point, but it sort of misses the issue.

The TSAJohn should not be proud of spending so much and yielding so little, but plain and simple GUNS ARE DANGEROUS ON AIRPLANES. PERIOD. If one goes off accidently, or otherwise, it can pierce the body of the plane and kill many, many people.

It's not a matter of putting a price on life, its sadly the high cost of living

Hollywood Hype
 

Guns are only as dangerous as the person exercising control over them. PERIOD. A gun has no ability to discharge itself, someone must exercise an action in order to discharge a gun.

More appropriately, IGNORANT PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE DANGEROUS. PERIOD. :D

This is just not true. Hollywood hype has caused this misconception, piercing the outer skin of a pressurized aircraft with a bullet WILL NOT cause the airplane to come apart and kill many, many people. It will cause rapid decompression, freezing cold temps, and lack of oxygen depending on the altitude of the plane at the time. However if you had listened to the safety dance in the beginning, you would know how to survive rapid decompression, and the lack of oxygen. Although I'll give you the fact that there is nothing to do about the well below zero outside air tempurature. Your single shot pierces skin, downs passenger jet scenario is survivable, although undesirable. :rolleyes:

I think (I hope) everyone is in agreement that guns do not belong on airplanes, except as empty and declared checked baggage. Screening for firearms should continue to be a major priority of any passenger screening regimen.

The question is: does the TSA making yet another declaration of 'success' provide any supporting evidence that its screening methods and procedures have 1) found more firearms than pre-TSA screeners, and 2) the firearms confiscations by the TSA resulted in an intended threat to passenger safety being averted

I would say 'no' to the above. Let the private screeners with some improved training and oversight continue to use pre-9/11 passenger screening methods to find the guns - and - let a significant fine be levied against any dingbat passenger who decides to try and carry their gun onboard (which would preclude a good number of entertainment celebrities from flying)

If the time comes when statistics are collected from private screeners to compare to the TSA's results, I am sure the number of confiscated and missed weapons will be about the same. The number of angry and frustrated travelers will be far less without the TSA, though.

Fly4Food is correct - a firearm discharge is unlikely to result in an airframe failure unless the bullet ends up piercing the wing fuel tanks in a bad way - highly unlikely - however, we still don't want guns on board.

Yes, guns are transported legally on airplanes
 

Quite the contrary, guns do go on airplanes. I fly regularly with a shotgun to the National Sporting Clays match, the US Open clays match, and numerous shoots on a national scale. And the drill is

Desk agent: Good morning
Me: good morning, and I'm traveling with a firearm.
Me: significant look at the Americase containing the shotgun.

DA: Is the ammunition separate from the firearm?
Me: I'm not carrying any (with 2 + cases for a typical shoot, I buy it there)
DA: gives me the the declaration that it's unloaded to sign
Me: sign the declaration and put in case.

These days, I have to hand carry the unlocked case to the security screening area and wait until they've cleared it.

Which lead to the this exchange:

The screener does the explosives test and says 'you don't take this to the range, do you?'

and I'm thinking: 'it's a bloody gun case! what do YOU think?' but say yes I do. So the gun case gets the intimate screening. Luckily, the guy appear to have a clue or two and didn't give me a really bad time. I may not always be that lucky.

This is all perfectly legal and defined by the Feds. Take a look at any airlines rules for baggage. This is all defined. The only restriction the airlines add is, generally you can only take 5 kilos of ammunition. For a hunting trip, that's fine. For a clays shoot, it's not even close.

Given sufficient time, nearly anything one can imagine can and will probably happen. But is this sufficient reason to strip everyone of both their dignity and also anything deemed potentially dangerous? Like the OP’s said, it’s the intent that is much more important than the object.
Let a Coke bottle through security, sooner or later some dude is going to use it as a weapon. Same thing applies to knitting needles, pencils, a rolled-up magazine, a pair of hands on a black belt karate master and thousands of other things I could list.
IMO, if we try to plan for every single eventuality then the whole travel system in the US comes to a screeching halt.

Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but I think that the real problem is that guns have become wicked voodoo talismans to many people. Sure, guns can cause problems but they don't seem to so far, and neither have wine bottles on board been broken to form makeshift weapons, no one has slammed their laptop over anyone's head or strangulated anyone with a power cord. I'm really at a loss to know why you concerned about the one thing and not the other.

Wicked voodoo talisman, that's the problem I think. People think that guns are "evil" and they can't get beyond the visceral fear they've built up culturally.

Your travels go smoother than mine:

Desk Agent: Godd morning!
Me: Good morning, I'm on flight XXX final destination YYY. I need a declaration or a firearm.
DA: Very well <<hands over form>> do you have any bags to check?
Me: <<look at form>> No, I'm sorry, I need the *other* declaration form. Yes I have items to check.
(You see they almost--except once--always give me the armed LEO form)
DA: Oh okay <<hands over correct form/card>> do you have any ammunition in the case?
Me: The ammunition and firearms are in separate, hard-sided, double-locked cases all housed in a locked military/NATO/ATA transport case.

Only twice was I asked to actually show the ammo and firearms were segregated. And one of those times they called a TSA weenie to come do the inspection...unfortunately this meant taking the UNLOCKED guns and ammo into the back for them to process. The other time they tried doing that I screamed bloody murder and made the DA call over the airport police officer flirting with another DA to ask why it's okay for the TSA screener with no apparent weapons training (he picked up the gun and looked into the barrel) to walkaround airside with MY unsecured firearms AND ammunition?!?! The APO looked at the firearms and locks laying on the counter and the transport case they go in, glared at the TSA guy and then told me to pack it all up. He would personally see to it that they all got to the plane intact and then he was going have a talk with his chief.

In airports where TSA is in the ticket lobby, I've only had to open the cases twice and each time they just looked--no touching, then locked them back up and sent them on their way. Other times they clearly saw the image on the CTX, saw the slides locked back or they were broken down, asked if I signed the firearm card and then sent them along. No muss, no fuss.

Let's just do away with all forms of screening. All forms of any kind of checks and balances, security, everything. Citizens can carry anything, anytime, anywhere in this country. Airline, on the street, in the mall, whatever.

What violence could or would or might occur can just be considered the cost of doing business. Lets just make it a take your chances kind of system. Odds are it wont be you, or anyone you know so whats the big deal.

In reading some of the posts here it seems like this is what people want.

I have major objections to many of the screening methods the TSA has trotted out. But for me it boils down to this: all I want is to get on a plane without fearing that my body will be sexually violated. Is that too much to ask? I need a rule that says strangers will not be grabbing my breasts and fondling my labia. Is that really, really too much to ask, bbc1969?

it seems to be a matter of convenience.

That is not too much to ask. I work in aviation security, and have been a peace officer for many years, as I have said before. Having said that I too believe certain aspects of our current system need to change, or revert back to the "way they were before". Some of the current mandatory "pat-downs" in certain situations being among them.

However it does seem to me that quite often some of the threads here end up "chasing their tails" so to speak. They become soap boxes with plenty of opinion, and rhetoric which if you read multiple posts by the same people over a cross-section of the threads in the safety/security forum, seem to indicate my previous point.

Those responsible need to strive for a good, reasonable system. Changes need to be made. But I think that no matter how much improvement is made
the complaints will continue to pour in.

Oh, shame on me! I want air travel to be convenient. How could I forget that "everything changed on 9/11/01"? :rolleyes:

Bruce

Now I am just being pedantic, but firearms do have their place in airports and airplanes -- It may just be urban legend, but I remember reading several times that a firearm and ammuntion of some sort are required for small (< 15 pax) aircraft operating within the state of Alaska, as part of a comprehensive survival kit.... a good idea if you asked me.

Your correct. Canada has similar rules, with constraints on what kind of firearm.

Thanks, bbc1969. I am glad that you are sympathetic to at least this much of my complaint. I may have said it before, but the day, the very day, that the TSA institutes a rule that protects my sexual areas from being violated is the day I will quit being an anti-screening gadfly. I suspect I'm not the only one frequenting these boards who really actually is here because of a "screening" that felt like an assault. Whatever else we complain about is secondary to the feeling that somebody attacked our bodies and we couldn't fight back and we don't know what to do with all that pent-up adrenaline rage.

No problem. Things do need to change at the checkpoint. Even those of us working in the system question these things. We do our jobs, but we continue to question. I have pointed out many times that on 9-11 the checkpoints did not fail. Those people who committed these crimes came through, were screened and allowed to continue with items not prohibited at that time.

Deploy the technology that is already available, keep a comprehensive but logical list of "no-fly" items, and have specific procedures for those who alarm/or have specific information connected with them. We are supposed to be using a "layered defense" type of system. That is logical, and can work well. Each layer should be as user friendly as possible, while complementing each other layer of security, that way there are checks and balances in the system. Nothing is ever 100 percent...

Thanks again, bbc1969.