So if guns don't stop crime, why is the government putting armed officers

[moroni]

on some commercial aircraft? This is so wrong. There is no trust left in the world. They are even requiring officers from originating country to be aboard certain flights. Armed alien peacekeepers no less. This is disturbing. The international "officers" could be considered felons in this country. They might even be former residents of a prison. Who knows what they have done.

Just kidding.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031229/ap_on_re_us/airline_security

U.S. Orders Armed Officers on Some Jets

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid a heightened state of alert for terrorists, the U.S. government said Monday it will require international air carriers in certain cases to place armed law enforcement officers on flights over the United States.

The Homeland Security Department said the directive, which is effective immediately, will further enhance security on commercial and cargo aircraft flying to, from and over the United States.

"We are asking international air carriers to take this protective action as part of our ongoing effort to make air travel safe for Americans and visitors alike," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in a statement.

"I have said that we will take specific steps to increase security whenever necessary, and with this action we are doing just that," he added.

Homeland Security spokesman Dennis Murphy said the move will apply to specific flights "based on specific information" whenever it surfaces.

"We will then notify the carrier that based on information we received, we require a law enforcement officer to be on the plane," Murphy said. The directive contemplates that armed officers from the country of the airline's ownership would be aboard.

<snip>

[Dr. Wu]

1. Guns only stop crimes if government approved people

are allowed to carry them. Right?

[MrSandman]

2. It's a temporary measure

Until they are trained in UK on tasers and hancuffs.LOL

[MrSandman]

3. OUTCRY OVER AIR MARSHALS

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12962556,00.html



British airline pilots are strongly opposing the use of armed marshals on passenger jets.

The Government announced on Saturday that undercover guards will be placed on some planes in response to the "heightened state of alert in the USA".


I thought I was joking

[Romulus]

4. I heard this on NPR

But NPR was completely and repeatedly spinning the story as "British pilots are opposed to air marshals because the pilots are against having weapons on their aircraft." :eyes:

In reality, when they had a real British pilot give an opinion, the pilot (rightfully) stated that he and other pilots were against the idea of putting air marshals on specifically selected flights deemed to have a high terrorism risk. The pilot's point was that, if the risk was so high to that specific flight, then the plane shouldn't be taking off in the first place.

Either NPR intended a hit piece on the "PC-ness" of British pilots, or it was a hit piece against having US air marshals on US flights. Some mention was made by NPR of having "innocent people injured" because of armed air marshals during an incident.:eyes:

I would rather take the 10% chance of me getting shot (and surviving) during a terrorist take-down over the 100% chance of my dying when that Lockheed-Martin air-to-air missile blows the whole damn plane out of the sky.

[MrSandman]

5. The plane not taking off

in a high risk situation was in the last paragraph or two.

But if a bank(for example) is not targeted, then should they have armed gaurds. Bailiffs in courtrooms. Deputies in midddle-high schools (as here)???

It doesn't stop.