Michael Moore is being sued!

[tony emerson]

Ok CB I have a Beretta 92g Brigader it is about 21 cm long and the barrel is about 12 cm so lets do some math

21-12=9
9/2.54=3.54

wow If I take off the barrel it will be only 3.5 inches by CB math! some times the barrel is not the only thing that goes out in front of the reciver.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No Shartly you are wrong, that is your belief, and that is fine. You believe you are right, I believe I am right. You do not have experience with the situation we are talking about and do not have experience with the minds of terrorist, though you say you have talked to one, so have many people in this world, depending on how you stretch the definition.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
And you look at best case and worst case scenarios in the way I said. You exam the best case and see if that is the result you want, you examine the worst case and see if you can live with it, you then make your decision off of that. Anything in-between is irrelevant for too many variables are involved to be of any real use.

[spazzed]

Where's Sachmo when ya need him..hehe :)

[Target Practice]

If you can count on the passengers rising up then you do not need an air marshal with a gun.

This quote, CB, shows why your entire agrument is moot. The terrorists know as well as anybody else that the passengers are going to quell any attempt to take over the plane. The actions of the passengers combined with the reinforced cockpit doors make the odds of a successful takeover by a group, whatever their level of armament, silm to none. The terrorists cannot afford to gamble on such long odds. Basically, if the terrorist were going to attempt any kind of operation on a plane, the objective would be to kill passengers.

Your entire argument so far has been that the only concern would be to stop the terrorists from using the plane as a weapon. Because the passengers are aware of this objective, it is no longer viable. The terrorists also know this, therefore, it will not be there goal. Your response to this argument has been that if it is true, no more security is required. If you believe that, then you have no place in this discussion. Everyone else has been concerned about the protection of the passengers. Your argument seems to regard this as a secondary concern, and you have in fact presented plans which virtually guarantee passenger death, and therefore (at least patial) success for the terrorists.

Co-written by davidb

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Konigballer
How in gods name did you WIN the AK debate?!?!?! You didn't PROVE anything.

All you did, just like you always do, was refine and add to your original statement until YOU thought, and only you, that your original statement could still hold up. Your mini AK theory quickly crumbled in front of others who could actually back their posts up with facts from books, not their own guesstimations like the kind you provided.

You almost certainly did'nt know that disassembling the AK-47, 74, or whatever variant you want to fall back on, would leave the weapon completely useless no matter how small the package. You then did not make any mention about how terrorists would be able to reassemble the weapon on a crouded airliner WITH the presesne of an armed air marshall why........Because you never knew they would have to in the first place when you first "revamped" your original moronic statement. Your wrong, and its so abundently evident to everyone here that you have no one to take your side in the matter. Your hopeless, no one can carry on a debate with people like you. Its like proving to someone that the world is round and having them just shut their eyes and shake their head saying "no its not, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, blah blah blah".

If after several pages of debate you are still convinced that you have won any points in this debate durring this whole thread, and ESPECIALLY your magical mini AK theory, then I feel so bad for your parents who have probably dropped god knows how much money on your "college education" Collegeboy.

To you and 1de. My statement was that you can make an Ak down to 10 inches. I have proven that you can make one down to ten inches. I never said that the gun will have to be able to fire. I wasn't using that as an example of what a terrorist is likely to sneak on board as a weapon. The AK debate on that side is a totally different debate all together that was raised when i thought someone said that the terrorist would shoot 50 calibers.

You have no proof that says that an armed air marshal can take out 6 terrorist on a one aisle plane?
How can an air marshal shoot all six when he can only hit the first two or so, throw a hostage up front that makes it one terrorist and one hostage.

No Spazzed I am not arguing that the terrorist will use these disabled Ak's. No spazzed I didn't mean it as my number. If you want to continue to say that, that is your problem, but don't tell me I am sticking my head in the sand, for you are the one falling to realize the obvious.

A terrorist isn't a common street criminal; he will not be deterred by a pistol.

That is why you will be able to use his body as a shield, you will plan for that and more then likely hold him up.

Good for your tony, and what does that have to do with the argument at hand.

Depending on your definition of terrorist Shartly. You might have terrorist training, you might have arrested some terrorist, but you ideas of how to deal with terrorist in the manner of there thought process and what makes them want to throw their life on the line is lacking. The shear idea that you think that by dropping bombs on them we are dealing with terrorism, you show that you know not what you are talking about. Maybe you need to go take a better class.

Wrong, again you show how stubborn you are. When you have a group of terrorist on a plane, the only thing that is good to happen is the best case scenario, and that is the terrorist is taking out, anything short of that is a complete failure for the terrorist is still alive or in control.

I do not think I could count on the passengers rising up, for even now there is doubt for the plane in Pennsylvania, with how it broke in half, and the idea of seeing something streaming towards it, either mentions a missile hit it, or more likely an airplane flew into it.

No Target Practice, I am trying to put forth ideas that will work, giving the terrorist a free gun is what I do not want to happen. IMO the people arguing against me are only assuring the deaths of everyone on the plane.

If you decompress the chamber, oxygen mask will drop, the terrorist will either drop and grab a mask, or will die from lack of air, when that happened other actions can be taken. That is just a rudimentary idea to throw around.

A rapid decent on the hands of the pilot enough to throw the terrorist to the ground is another idea.

If they have mask on for the lose of oxygen, you can target the mask they have and release some gas into it to kill them, or you can attack some sort of device to it that once triggered would kill the terrorist.

There are many ways in which you can handle this situation without giving the terrorist a free gun.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


To you and 1de. My statement was that you can make an Ak down to 10 inches. I have proven that you can make one down to ten inches. I never said that the gun will have to be able to fire. I wasn't using that as an example of what a terrorist is likely to sneak on board as a weapon. The AK debate on that side is a totally different debate all together that was raised when i thought someone said that the terrorist would shoot 50 calibers.

More of the same. Changing around what you say/said, and your stance on issues just so you can be "right". Moron.

Originally posted by Collegeboy


You have no proof that says that an armed air marshal can take out 6 terrorist on a one aisle plane?
How can an air marshal shoot all six when he can only hit the first two or so, throw a hostage up front that makes it one terrorist and one hostage.

Do you have any proof to the contrary? What the hell do you call the combined, or individual experience of Army & Shartley? Masturbatory delight?

Again, you HAVE NOT, I repeat in the hopes of you not being such a damned tool, YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY, *ANY*, ANY TRAINING, *WHATSOEVER* IN THIS ISSUE!! YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!! It's like Ted Bundy claiming he's a vegan.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

No Spazzed I am not arguing that the terrorist will use these disabled Ak's. No spazzed I didn't mean it as my number. If you want to continue to say that, that is your problem, but don't tell me I am sticking my head in the sand, for you are the one falling to realize the obvious.

Well if you're not arguing it, why don't you make that point known in the first place, instead of leading us all to believe otherwise. You little pissant, the only thing I'm failing to realize is how scumbag morons like you are still around on this planet. People like *you* and you're irresponsible debating tactics, pasifistic values, and shear stupidity are why this country is in such a bind now. Why don't you go back to Michael Moore's place & get back on your knees in front of that punk where you belong.

Originally posted by Collegeboy


A terrorist isn't a common street criminal; he will not be deterred by a pistol.

And you know this, how? You hang out w/ terrorists often? A pistol is still a firearm. A bullet from a pistol will still turn your insides into a wall painting. Now care to tell me why it's not a deterrant to a terrorist?

Originally posted by Collegeboy

That is why you will be able to use his body as a shield, you will plan for that and more then likely hold him up.

huh?

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Depending on your definition of terrorist Shartly. You might have terrorist training, you might have arrested some terrorist, but you ideas of how to deal with terrorist in the manner of there thought process and what makes them want to throw their life on the line is lacking. The shear idea that you think that by dropping bombs on them we are dealing with terrorism, you show that you know not what you are talking about. Maybe you need to go take a better class.

Again, other than the general subject of Shartley's training, you don't know a single thing about what he learned in said training. Furthermore, how the hell are they lacking? Huh? Dropping bombs on terrorists & nations harboring them is not the entire solution as you so adamently seem to want to believe, it is merely a piece of the puzzle. Do I really ahve to comment on the last two lines? That shows more ignorance than I thought even you could possibly have. What a bafoon.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Wrong, again you show how stubborn you are. When you have a group of terrorist on a plane, the only thing that is good to happen is the best case scenario, and that is the terrorist is taking out, anything short of that is a complete failure for the terrorist is still alive or in control.

BS, and you're an idiot if you don't realize that.
Even better if the little punk is still alive. That way we can fry his butt for all to see. Or let him & Bubba live happily ever after

Originally posted by Collegeboy

I do not think I could count on the passengers rising up, for even now there is doubt for the plane in Pennsylvania, with how it broke in half, and the idea of seeing something streaming towards it, either mentions a missile hit it, or more likely an airplane flew into it.

As you shouldn't. People are unpredictable in those types of situations. Which brings us back to one of the original questions. If the passengers can't be relied upon to subdue/eliminate the threat, then what do you recommend we do?

Originally posted by Collegeboy


No Target Practice, I am trying to put forth ideas that will work, giving the terrorist a free gun is what I do not want to happen. IMO the people arguing against me are only assuring the deaths of everyone on the plane.

I, nor anyone else in this thread have any problem w/ you putting forth idea's that will work, but you have yet to do any such thing. As many have said, an armed (and armored? hehe ) Marshall aboard the plane is currently the best defense against attack. Until something new & better comes along, then it will stay.

Originally posted by Collegeboy


If you decompress the chamber, oxygen mask will drop, the terrorist will either drop and grab a mask, or will die from lack of air, when that happened other actions can be taken. That is just a rudimentary idea to throw around.

Who praytell, is going to take these actions when there is no oxygen in the cabin? Incase you don't know, they masks which drop don't exactly have an unlimited range of motion. Not to mention, that any smart terrorist will steal a mask from a passenger. Are you going to be the one responsible for the uneeded death/s of innocent passengers?

Originally posted by Collegeboy


A rapid decent on the hands of the pilot enough to throw the terrorist to the ground is another idea.

Perhaps..but last time I checked, that's standard procedure in an emergency situation. More inability of yourself to produce these mysterious alternatives of yours.

Originally posted by Collegeboy


If they have mask on for the lose of oxygen, you can target the mask they have and release some gas into it to kill them, or you can attack some sort of device to it that once triggered would kill the terrorist.

Ok, and who the hell's gonna do this? The fairy godmother? Even on a cost basis, I seriously doubt this would work, not to mention the scale of actually executing the plan.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

There are many ways in which you can handle this situation without giving the terrorist a free gun.

Well how about you finally name a feasible solution? Everything you've mentioned so far has either been someone elses idea, or completely stupid.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by hitech

That was 20 years ago dude. It is not easy to get something like that on a plane anymore. Sure, the occasional box cutter like that kid (I forget his name), but actually a firearm (especially an assault rifle like CB is talking), that's not going to be easy.

But, by the same token it would be foolish to say that it's impossible to do it.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
First off got to respond to the stupidest one. I have shown that an AK 74 in the version of a short can be made down to 10 inches (between ten and 11), so I have proven that debate.

Yeah, but you fail to take into account the effort that goes into that AND you fail to mention how someone exactly gets half a dozen "mini" assault rifles into the plane in the first place.

Second, the 100 is not my number it is Army's, the time I used it was in mention to his previous mentioned notion that one guy can take out 100's of guys. Something other people here laughed at him, yet if I would have made it, I would have been made fun of, oh well. The shear fact that you are pushing this on me, despite proof, speak wonders for your view point.

Army was exagerating a number to prove a point that the marshal can kill a lot more people then you give him credit for. Of course you have to take him literally in a futile effort to embarras him

No Shartly you are wrong, that is your belief, and that is fine. You believe you are right, I believe I am right. You do not have experience with the situation we are talking about and do not have experience with the minds of terrorist, though you say you have talked to one, so have many people in this world, depending on how you stretch the definition. And you look at best case and worst case scenarios in the way I said. You exam the best case and see if that is the result you want, you examine the worst case and see if you can live with it, you then make your decision off of that. Anything in-between is irrelevant for too many variables are involved to be of any real use.

That's so idiotic. The way you REALLY plan your response is to see what you limitations and resources are first and then to come up with the most encompassing soltution that you can using what you have available to you. In this case the armed marshal is technically feasible, politically feasible, and realtivly affordable. And that is why it is currently the best option.

No you have not provided me with an example of an air marshal handling a situation like 911. If you can count on the passengers rising up then you do not need an air marshal with a gun. (last statement goes to davidb too).

Well, I'd like to think the passengers are going to rise up, but that's hardly an iron clad security procedure. I would rather show more cuation then less.

How do you know the air marshal acts as a deterrent. Do you think that 6 guys will be scared of one guy with a gun on a plane with one aisle. I think not. I posted what I said and what I did not, if you refuse to believe that, that is your problem, but do not say that I am sticking my head in the sand. See what I mean about not reading someone's post, no where did I say we should nuke ourselves to stop terrorism.

Tell ya what CB. I know a place where they have a grounded 727. You bring a few dozen people and I'll bring a few dozen people to all act as passengers. Then you and 5 friends can play terrorists and I'll play the Marshal. I will carry live ammo and I'll shoot to kill.

You willing to do it? Or is that too much of a deterrent?

It doesn't have to be a deterrent in the way you are (not) thinking. It can be a strategic deterrent, as in the guys planning the attack don't want to commit resources to a hardened target. Maybe the jihadis aren't afraid but that doesn't mean that the coordinator is willing to keep blowing resources on a target that has a reduced chance of success.

The El AL group stops terrorist before they even get on board, they practically disallow any Muslim from ridding their plane hence stopping the terrorist that will affect Israel.

I'd love to do that, but it is not politically feasible, so men with guns will have to suffice.


http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

There doesn't appear to be too many really decent regional, let alone world wide, non-muslim groups in there. So the threat level is still reasonably higher with Muslims then non-Muslims.

[davidb]

CB, you can take an AK down to any miniscule size you want, but what the hell does it have to do with the discussion? A gun that can't shoot, or even intimidate, has about as much utility as a heavy book. If that was really what you meant, then why would you have brought it up?

A terrorist may or may not be deterred by a pistol. They probably WILL be deterred by almost certain failure.

Please explain how having an armed cop present on is "assuring the deaths of everyone on the plane".

Trust me, you COULD count on the passengers rising up. After 9/11, do you think that they are going to sit meekly back and let the terrorists do as they please? Is that what YOU would do? I know what I would do, and I'm certain that there would be more people like me on the plane than there would be terrorists.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


To you and 1de. My statement was that you can make an Ak down to 10 inches. I have proven that you can make one down to ten inches. I never said that the gun will have to be able to fire. I wasn't using that as an example of what a terrorist is likely to sneak on board as a weapon. The AK debate on that side is a totally different debate all together that was raised when i thought someone said that the terrorist would shoot 50 calibers.

Actually you still lose. Army stated that the smallest size it could be disassembled is still 12 inches!

You have no proof that says that an armed air marshal can take out 6 terrorist on a one aisle plane?
How can an air marshal shoot all six when he can only hit the first two or so, throw a hostage up front that makes it one terrorist and one hostage.

Well then by your logis an armed police officer could not stop a motivated gang of rapists from having their way with an innocent on the street cornor so why bother?

A terrorist isn't a common street criminal; he will not be deterred by a pistol.

Of course not. However the bullet the air marshall puts in his cranium will ususally do the trick!


I do not think I could count on the passengers rising up, for even now there is doubt for the plane in Pennsylvania, with how it broke in half, and the idea of seeing something streaming towards it, either mentions a missile hit it, or more likely an airplane flew into it.

STFU!!!!

Don't go there. You have no idea what you are talking about. I guess Todd Beemers wife lied when she said his last words were "Let's Roll"!


If you decompress the chamber, oxygen mask will drop, the terrorist will either drop and grab a mask, or will die from lack of air, when that happened other actions can be taken. That is just a rudimentary idea to throw around.

Only until the plane deceends to a lower altitude where pressurization doesn't matter!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
To you and 1de. My statement was that you can make an Ak down to 10 inches. I have proven that you can make one down to ten inches. I never said that the gun will have to be able to fire. I wasn't using that as an example of what a terrorist is likely to sneak on board as a weapon. The AK debate on that side is a totally different debate all together that was raised when i thought someone said that the terrorist would shoot 50 calibers.

Dude, that's such a cop out. Why don't you just keep changing your story until you get it right.

Never mind, that's what you plan on doing

You have no proof that says that an armed air marshal can take out 6 terrorist on a one aisle plane?
How can an air marshal shoot all six when he can only hit the first two or so, throw a hostage up front that makes it one terrorist and one hostage.

I know from the combat course that I can hit 5 targets in rapid succession. I know I can do it. So I am VERY confident that a guy that trains 10 times more then I do will be able to replicate my results in real life. If he couldn't do it he would not be a sky marshal.


No Spazzed I am not arguing that the terrorist will use these disabled Ak's. No spazzed I didn't mean it as my number. If you want to continue to say that, that is your problem, but don't tell me I am sticking my head in the sand, for you are the one falling to realize the obvious.

What was the point of talking about the terrorists having Ak's if they weren't going to use them?

A terrorist isn't a common street criminal; he will not be deterred by a pistol.

What, are the terrorists werewolves now? They're not affected by bullets anymore?

That is why you will be able to use his body as a shield, you will plan for that and more then likely hold him up.

Have you ever tried to charge a guy while holding a dead guy up and deflecting incoming fire?

Me neither, but it doesn't sound easy.

Depending on your definition of terrorist Shartly. You might have terrorist training, you might have arrested some terrorist, but you ideas of how to deal with terrorist in the manner of there thought process and what makes them want to throw their life on the line is lacking. The shear idea that you think that by dropping bombs on them we are dealing with terrorism, you show that you know not what you are talking about. Maybe you need to go take a better class.

You have no idea how to be respectful to a person do you? At least when I argue with Shartley (or anyone frankly) I have the decency to take them at their word when they talk about themselves and their training. HAve any of us questioned whether or not you fired an AK at a base? No, none of us have, so why call us liars and not extend the courtesy we show you?

Wrong, again you show how stubborn you are. When you have a group of terrorist on a plane, the only thing that is good to happen is the best case scenario, and that is the terrorist is taking out, anything short of that is a complete failure for the terrorist is still alive or in control.

Best case we stop them. Worest case, we don't. There isn't really a middle ground.

I do not think I could count on the passengers rising up, for even now there is doubt for the plane in Pennsylvania, with how it broke in half, and the idea of seeing something streaming towards it, either mentions a missile hit it, or more likely an airplane flew into it.

Boy, you really don't know when to shut up do you?

No Target Practice, I am trying to put forth ideas that will work, giving the terrorist a free gun is what I do not want to happen. IMO the people arguing against me are only assuring the deaths of everyone on the plane.

That's because you opinion is completely biased and based only on a fantasy world. In reality you are assuring their deaths by doing NOTHING to prevent what it going to kill them. The marshal will give his life to protect those passengers and all you have to say about it is that he's useless and actually a detriment.

If you decompress the chamber, oxygen mask will drop, the terrorist will either drop and grab a mask, or will die from lack of air, when that happened other actions can be taken. That is just a rudimentary idea to throw around.

Its not possible, politically, to rely on that though. To accept a regulation that virutally guarantees killing innocents is just something that will never sit well with people and won't ever be allowed. Even if it could be proven that it would work (which my guess is it's a 50/50 concept at best) it simply wouldn't be allowed. You have to think more realistcally in all apects.

A rapid decent on the hands of the pilot enough to throw the terrorist to the ground is another idea.

Scarey, and temporary, but not a bad idea as a stop gap while waiting to implement the real plan.

If they have mask on for the lose of oxygen, you can target the mask they have and release some gas into it to kill them, or you can attack some sort of device to it that once triggered would kill the terrorist.

Or you could use your voice activiated phaser and set it to terrorist seeking to kill them all instantly.

Get real.

There are many ways in which you can handle this situation without giving the terrorist a free gun.

Sure, problem is of the things you've talked about the only useful one is very temporary. But it is useful, it just needs to be finished.

[davidb]

Having an air marshall on the plane is no more "giving them a free gun" than having a button to decompress the cabin is giving them an easy way to suffocate everybody.

That is why you will be able to use his body as a shield, you will plan for that and more then likely hold him up.

There will hardly ever be one terrorist, and if one passenger gets up and starts to make a move the terrorist will open fire onto the guy. It will not be a 50 caliber shot, more then likely a 7.2 mm or a 5.62 mm (depending on if it is a 47 of 76)

You used the same incorrect wording for each of these statements. From what else you have written, though, it seems that we were supposed to take the first as meaning that a situation is likely, and the second as meaning that a situation is rediculous. Why?

[tony emerson]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


To you and 1de. My statement was that you can make an Ak down to 10 inches. I have proven that you can make one down to ten inches. I never said that the gun will have to be able to fire. I wasn't using that as an example of what a terrorist is likely to sneak on board as a weapon. The AK debate on that side is a totally different debate all together that was raised when i thought someone said that the terrorist would shoot 50 calibers.

Good for your tony, and what does that have to do with the argument at hand.

Somehow you prooved that you can make a Ak 10 inches long by a flawed idea of subtracting the leingth of the barrel from the overall length. On the same baretta thet can "mathmatically" get to 3.5 inches long the smallest it gets is about 7.5 with the barrel removed. I figured that you would notice how silly that 3.5 inches was but you did not.

[Army]

Dear Dimwit,

I want to see your letter of explanation to Joe Citizen, telling him how you had to kill his Grandma, who was flying to the hospital for the new respiratory surgery, in order to save the lives of the bad guys for future prosecution.

Can you show me ONE instance of a plane being taken over by AK wielding terrs....ever? Handguns, or small explosives, have been norm since 1972. The only time AK's show up, is when the terrs land the aircraft, and their comrades join them.....carrying AK's.

You cannot take any AK variant down to less than the receiver length....CAN'T (that means cannot, that means no) without TOOLS. You cannot make the recevier less than 10.5", and expect any parts to fit or work. The AK is not designed to be modified from it's basic design. Even the Krinkov will be 29" long in firing status. Your feverish backstroking from your earlier statement is amusing.

Hold a dead body in front of him for a sheild? What moronic movie did you get that one from? A Steven Segal weekend marathon? Ever tried to hold a limp body of at least 140lbs? How about 160lbs? 180lbs? Big fat *** like my 210lbs? Can you hold ME high enough to block someones view of you? Much less to stop or deflect bullets? Carry me down a very narrow aisle filled with the bodies of your comrades? Even a lousy shot could hit someone in the head at 20', a well trained shooter will shoot you through the eyes for the hell of it.

Who are YOU, to say that Shartley doesn't have the training to take out bad guys in high stress situations? He was a sworn POLICE OFFICER for pete's sake! He trained in just that sort of thing; take out the bad guys, before the good guys get hurt!

Bounce the plane, roll the plane, remove the air, gas only the bad guys, rely on the passengers to revolt, slip them a mickey when they aren't looking...

Your fantasy land may be bright and cheery for you, but it scares us that you actually believe your own tripe.

You are correct one one tiny point; terrs are not going to be afraid of an Air Marshall.

They ARE frightened, of a highly trained and dedicated Air Marshall, who will do all he can to kill them before they can hurt anyone. I have watched their training, I have watched their skills, I have spoken with many hundreds of them, and to a man (and 2 women) they all vow to stop the bad guys, or take out as many as possible while they can. They DO INDEED train for the worst case scenario, it would be stupid not to. If anything less happens, their training would easily surpass that of any bad guy. How about you? What are YOUR credentials? What has been YOUR training or experience, from which all this wisdom you profess to have comes from? Let's see your dissertations on terminal ballistics, presented to the Pentagon. You do know what terminal ballistics are, right? That's the study and effect of projectile impact. I've done three, four if you want to count the one I did at Yuma Proving Grounds for the Air Force.

What weapons have you actually fired...other than on your Sega "Duck Hunting" game? There is not a small arm made anywhere in the world, that I have not fired or studied in depth. What materials have you destroyed to find their abilities to withstand force?

Just for fun, I shoot IPSC competitions on weekends that I don't play paintball. IPSC is the International Practical Shooting Confederation. This is speed shooting at it's finest. Scenarios are set up, that will usually consist of up to 20 seperate targets that must be taken down in sequence, all against the clock. Targets can be steel plates, steel "pepper Poppers", and are usually mixed in with cardboard Torso targets which must be hit in vital areas for the higher score. 20-50 shots per scenario is normal, and will require multiple reloads. This is fast and furious shooting, designed to create stress and confusion. Now, if I can do this just for fun, quite sucdessfully, imagine how good the Air Marshalls are as they train for the REAL THING.

Oh yeah, I was NOT kidding about taking out 100 terrs coming down an aircraft aisle. The aisle is less than 27" across on most planes, there is no where to go but down to the deck (remember, the seats are full of people, the terrs can't duck into a row and not be still exposed). Give me enough ammo, and I will easily shoot down the aisle, taking out the baddies one by one as they fall and expose the next baddie behind them. It's not rocket science, even by your bizarre standards. I have a clean lane to shoot down. They have a cluttered, slippery with blood, chaotic position to attempt return fire from. Yep, fat chance they will stop me, before all 100 are dead.

I'm done with this "discussion". CB will never admit he is a fool, and will only present more invisible facts to back up his fallacies.

Why do I get a sneaky hunch, that YOU are Michael Moore?

[Collegeboy]

Well Army is wrong. I showed you exact numbers from Kalashnikovs sight that said an ak 74 short without the barrel is right at ten to eleven inches.

Dear Mod who acts like a child.

I want to see your explanation to the grandchild of a grandmother who needlessly died at the hands of terrorist because some people thought that a guy armed with a gun could take out a group of terrorist. I want to see you explain to her that the government ended up giving the terrorist a gun that they could now use to kill his grandmother.

I never said a plane will be taking down by Ak welding fellows. That was in the debate with another person about a terrorist shooting a 50 caliber, I said more then likly it would be a shot from an Ak 47 or 74. TO believe that I said the terrorist would shoot the AK 47 or 74, you have to believe the other guy thinks they could get a 50 caliber on. Since that is ludicrous, your belief of my statement has to be ludicrous also. My statement was made in the context of the Ak47 and 74 being the most widely used weapons of terrorist, so they would have more of a chance to get one, then a 50 caliber. Never did I say they will use this to take over a plane.

Take up your idea with the designer, he says that an Ak 74 Shorty without a barrel is like 10 and a half inches long.

Shartly doesn't have the training in dealing with radical terrorist aboard a plane against 6 guys charging at you with nothing to lose.

You would be amazed at what you can do when you are running down an aisle of an airplane with your life hanging in the limbs, and the idea of a happy afterlife or a unhappy after life, and the idea of respect after to you, all hanging by a thread.

Your fantasy land of a guy with a gun taking out 6 crazed terrorist might be bright and cheery for you, but it scares people that you and other actually believe this.

No they are not frightened, who in there right minds would be in their mind set.

And what does firing a gun have to do with the tactical ineffectiveness of a one man going against 6 or so. ( to Answer your question I have fired alot, but that adds nothing to this conversation)

All good if you have a target. And you will not even take out but the first two.

DavidB and others on this idea. The button will not be in the cabin, but in the cockpit that the captain can hit whenever he feel necessary from info he gathers on a camera. Once he hits that button the mask will fall out, the terrorist will either be confined to one area or die, for I doubt they will get air tanks on board. This will leave the incapacitated for a time until the others can do their job.