Britain to Put Armed Marshals on Some Jets - - ( feel safer now ? )

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.

Britain to Put Armed Marshals on Some Jets

LONDON - Sun, Dec 28, 2003

Britain plans to deploy armed sky marshals on some passenger flights in response to the heightened terrorism alert in the United States, the government said Sunday.

The Department for Transport did not specify when or where the marshals might travel.

"Security is kept constantly under review and it is essential that we take all reasonable steps to deter terrorist activities," Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said in a statement. "Our aviation security program works on many levels, with measures for all stages of the process, from check-in through to the flight itself. Not all of the measures are obvious and a lot goes on behind the scenes."

The United States is currently on its second-highest alert level, orange.

The British government said in early December that it was considering putting undercover armed marshals on some flights to prevent terrorist hijackings.



GREAT idea, the hijackers won't need to bring a gun, it'll already be on the plane !!

We all feel safer now ? ?

[mbperrin]

1. Hey, maybe they can provide the stun

grenades, too!

[private_ryan]

2. do you really think passangerswill let another terrorist take over a plane

and I have nothing against arming pilots...maybe because I don't have a hate for guns in good hands. How are the terrorists going to get those guns from the marshals or pilots, ever thought of that?
You trust them with hundreds of lives already. If they wanted to do something stupid, they'd just crash the plane into a building.

[mbperrin]

3. "A hate for guns in good hands?"

Why do you suppose every jail and every prison has a no-weapons policy in place?

I've owned many a gun over the years, and all that's really happened is that when they were stolen while I was at work was that the other side gained a few arms.

Never have and never knew anyone personally who ever used a gun to foil a crime, although I did know a guy who killed himself with one, and another guy who killed his girlfriend with one.

What happened to no access to the cockpit?

[ixion]

4. of the two, no cockpit access makes much more sense

than having weapons on planes. That will not solve anything.

[private_ryan]

5. why are people in jail to begin with?

that should answer your question. Secondly, they have nothing else to do but to start fights and kill people over toothpaste or looking the wrong way. To compare pilots with prisoners is 2 notches below being .......

Like I said before, if the pilot wanted to kill himself, he'd do it by crashing the plane and wouldn't need the gun.

[mbperrin]

6. I do believe that you've missed the boat.

I'll try again.

"Bad people" like terrorists or prisoners would like to have weapons of any sort. If the "authorities" wear weapons, they are giving access to those desperate to have them.

Armed prisoners and armed terrorists are bad things.

Why not just have no access to the cockpit? That way, no weapons are needed at all and nobody can get one when things go wrong. And things do from time to time go wrong. The first assumption of any plan must be that the plan will fail, so think to step 2.

And if no one can get into the cockpit, no one is gonna crash the plane.

You do what you like, of course. I haven't flown since Reagan scabbed the traffic controllers. And won't.

[private_ryan]

7. why don't you have both?

There's no access to banks' vaults either, yet thieves manage to break in. If you can manage not to fly, more power to you, some don't have a choice.

[yellowcanine]

8. Haven't they heard that Saddam is in U.S. custody?

So why do they keep acting like the threat is increasing? I guess they must think that Dean was right when he said capturing Saddam would not make us any safer.