[url]http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/the_effectivene.html[/url]
[release]Actually, there have been many more arrests of Federal air marshals than that story reported, quite a few for felony offenses. In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.
We now have approximately 4,000 in the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet they have made an average of just [B]4.2 arrests a year since 2001[/B]. This comes out to an average of about [B]one arrest a year per 1,000 employees[/B].
Now, let me make that clear. Their thousands of employees are not making one arrest per year each. They are averaging slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. Let me repeat that: [B]we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest[/B].[/release]
So? I would rather them being on the plane and not arresting anyone. Than some withdrawing meth head with a gun start shooting everyone, and no air marshal to be present.
An Air Marshall arrested both of those guys in Due Date.
Ever consider the possibility that maybe the air marshals aren't arresting anyone, because, you know, people aren't commiting crimes because they know the air marshals are around?
We could save a lot of money by firing the entirety of the TSA, but I'd hold onto the air marshals.
Unlike the TSA security fuckwads, they are an intelligent method of combating terrorism. They are unseen and do not affect the every day life of your average citizen in any real capacity unless things go horribly wrong. In which case they could very well save your life.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26271237]We could save a lot of money by firing the entirety of the TSA, but I'd hold onto the air marshals.
Unlike the TSA security fuckwads, they are an intelligent method of combating terrorism. They are unseen and do not affect the every day life of your average citizen in any real capacity unless things go horribly wrong. In which case they could very well save your life.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better myself.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26271237]We could save a lot of money by firing the entirety of the TSA, but I'd hold onto the air marshals.
Unlike the TSA security fuckwads, they are an intelligent method of combating terrorism. They are unseen and do not affect the every day life of your average citizen in any real capacity unless things go horribly wrong. In which case they could very well save your life.[/QUOTE]
We could save a lot of money by finding alternative transportation methods. Like those vacuum tubes they got at those bank drive through. Except the size to fit an average size american at speeds over 3M.
I don't mind that Air Marshals don't arrest anyone. If you get rid of them you'll just end up missing their presence when some nutjob is flying your plane into the capitol building.
Phase out Air Marshalls, let people with CCW licenses carry on the plane.
Policemen that are traveling are actually allowed to have sidearms on the plane, they instantly end up becoming Air Marshals by being given a quick lecture just before they flew.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;26270900]So? I would rather them being on the plane and not arresting anyone. Than some withdrawing meth head with a gun start shooting everyone, and no air marshal to be present.[/QUOTE]
The air marshals are the methheads you dolt.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26273342]Phase out Air Marshalls, let people with CCW licenses carry on the plane.[/QUOTE]
uhhh, why?
[QUOTE=JDK721;26273603]uhhh, why?[/QUOTE]
Private sector is always better because freedoms 9/11 America democracy baby Jesus.
great guns on a plane
will go great if it causes explosive decompression and kills everyone on board
[QUOTE=GunFox;26271237]We could save a lot of money by firing the entirety of the TSA, but I'd hold onto the air marshals.
Unlike the TSA security fuckwads, they are an intelligent method of combating terrorism. They are unseen and do not affect the every day life of your average citizen in any real capacity unless things go horribly wrong. In which case they could very well save your life.[/QUOTE]
This I can agree with, the TSA hasn't really done much to prevent actual crime or acts of terror, but have only really made the airport process long and aggravating. I would still like to have a Marshall on board for any REAL threat.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26273790]great guns on a plane
will go great if it causes explosive decompression and kills everyone on board[/QUOTE]
It will take far more than a quarter sized hole to kill everyone on a plane. Besides, you can plug it with a babies Binky or some cloth or something.
Except a bullet hole isn't enough to cause explosive decompression.
Ed breaking my automerge. :argh:
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;26273989]Except a bullet hole isn't enough to cause explosive decompression.[/QUOTE]
if it hits something that can easily break then yes it will
a window hit will certainly cause explosive decompression at high altitudes
[QUOTE=thisispain;26273790]great guns on a plane
will go great if it causes explosive decompression and kills everyone on board[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Just FYI, you're achieving a whole new level of idiocy there.
[editline]24th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274069]if it hits something that can easily break then yes it will
a window hit will certainly cause explosive decompression at high altitudes[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexan[/url] Please stfu.
[QUOTE=Lenni;26274075]Seriously? Just FYI, you're achieving a whole new level of idiocy there.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Just FYI, stop talking, read, and educate yourself.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274116]Seriously? Just FYI, stop talking, read, and educate yourself.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence that can back up your explosive decompression theory or are you just going to blindly defend it.
And telling someone to stop talking isn't a great way to get your message across.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274172]Do you have any evidence that can back up your explosive decompression theory or are you just going to blindly defend it.[/QUOTE]
what, this is quite simple, if a window is knocked out at a high altitude, air pressure will be forced to equalize at rapid speeds
[editline]24th November 2010[/editline]
explosive decompression doesn't actually mean something explodes btw
I still need some actual sources for your information, I can't just take what you say as fact.
And just so you don't post some wikipedia article, I need a RELIABLE source.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274172]Do you have any evidence that can back up your explosive decompression theory or are you just going to blindly defend it.
And telling someone to stop talking isn't a great way to get your message across.[/QUOTE]
well saying someone is reaching an new level of idiocy isn't a great way to continue a discussion
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274298]well saying someone is reaching an new level of idiocy isn't a great way to continue a discussion[/QUOTE]
There's no discussion over whether a tiny bullet hole will cause explosive decompression.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274284]I still need some actual sources for your information, I can't just take what you say as fact.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_decompression[/url]
here have a wikipedia article
note the Fallacies section:
"3. A bullet shot through the hull of a pressurised aircraft will cause a violent explosive decompression."
the hull of an aircraft is not what we are talking about here, we're talking about windows
[editline]24th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lenni;26274330]There's no discussion over whether a tiny bullet hole will cause explosive decompression.[/QUOTE]
for fucks sake pay attention
it's not the "tiny bullet hole" that causes anything
it's not a "tiny bullet hole" that kills you when you get shot, it's the results of it
hit any location that is weak or prone to becoming weak and you'll create a hole that is bound to expand as air travels through it
what will kill or injure the passengers on board is the rapid drop in air pressure
[editline]24th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26274284]
And just so you don't post some wikipedia article, I need a RELIABLE source.[/QUOTE]
which wikipedia has
Mythbusters tested the windows, and it did not cause explosive decompression.
Also, because civilians with CCW tend to practice with their weapon more than police officers, because they aren't limited to what the department can afford for training ammo and range time.
[QUOTE=thisispain;26274331]hit any location that is weak or prone to becoming weak and you'll create a hole that is bound to expand as air travels through it[/QUOTE]
Multi-layered specially designed polymer plastics are not weak nor fragile nor prone to give in to rapid air-flow.
and if a plane is plagued with metal fatigue, then i'm certain a bullet can cause it to crumple, which is another danger
Wikipedia is about as reliable a source as 4chan, anybody can edit the articles. Shit, I edited an article a year ago and only just recently did they change it back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.