Michael Moore is being sued!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Marek


Yea, teachers do do that to invoke the thought process. The reason that this is so effective is because they have to think with the limited knowledge that has been presented by the teacher. Sorry, but it seems like everyone that is against you has thought about this for a good while. So this age old tactic is irrelevant in this case.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Well then tell me the rules before the game starts next time!

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Darn the fact that I am too old to do anything with her once I get her though.....

Save your energy, I'll take care of the girl and her attractive model friends and you finish saving the world!

[Collegeboy]

If someone has posted the reason they think the gun is better then all other possible solutions then I am not talking about them, now am I.

[Restola]

Originally posted by tony emerson
oh what do you do after the decompressing of the aircraft.
Wait till all of the people die?

OK two things are now official:

tony emerson makes stupider statements than CB (sorry CB :))

tony emerson has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to aircraft, altitude, airline SOPs, emergency situations, and hypoxia.

[davidb]

-- I deleted an earlier post that said this same thing and am reposting it here, since it is actually being discussed.

Oh man, that is just precious.. Use a system where you drain the oxygen from the passenger compartment? For one thing, the passengers are going to be understandably annoyed when you start depriving them of oxygen when they have the terrorists hog-tied in the back. For another, while some people are still groggy but conscious, others are going to be passed out on the floor sustaining brain damage from oxygen deprivation. This, of course, places strict limits on the time that you would be able to do this. Which, in turn, means that the terrorists would only have to find a way to last a little bit longer than the rest of the passengers (if they can manage an AK they can get a O2 tank EASY), after which they are now free to move about the cabin. And even IF everything miraculously went right, you still have all of your passengers suffering from varying levels of brain damage, or, in the case of the elderly or enfeebled, death.

CB, a while ago you seemed certain that they were going to each have an assault rifle that they snuck past security. Now you don't think that they could get a minute or two worth of air (which one could have and they could share)? It wouldn't have to be a compressed air tank, it could be something as simple as a balloon! Then if you just wait for them to run out, everybody else is, in effect, drowning!

Face it guys, this is a BAD idea.

CB you assume make the assumption that if we had been thinking, we would have already arrived at the same conclusions as you have. You don't suppose that maybe we've put MORE thought into it than you have, and that is why we don't think as you do? Obviously, if the above "asphyxiate the passengers" idea was one of these enlightened conclusions that we were supposed to come up with, YOU haven't put a whole lot of thought into it.

If someone has posted the reason they think the gun is better then all other possible solutions then I am not talking about them, now am I.

What, so you want each person's version of it? If somebody reads the thread and sees that I posted them, or that somebody else posted them, are they compelled to reiterate them just to improve your opinion of them?

You have a lot of gaul to assume the position of "teacher" here. This is, in your and my case, a discussion between equals. We are both young guys who are going off of what we have heard, what we have read, what we have concluded, and not any kind of pertinent experience (although, I for one can say that I've been on many planes in my life). Between you and some of the others here, it gets slightly less favorable for you. "If you don't know then I'm not going to tell you!" makes you sound more like a woman scorned than a wisened pedagogue.

[Collegeboy]

If the passengers can be counted on taking down the terrorist on their own then there would be no need for an air marshal or any other alternative actions.

I said to the response of someone getting a 50 Caliber on the plane. I said that more then likely the gun would be an ak47 or 76 which can be made down to 10 inches or so.

Face it davidb, an armored air marshal is a bad idea. No, I am not saying that if you are thinking you would come to my ideas, I said that if you were thinking you were weigh both sides and not just break out in insults. From your post, even though I disagree with it, and think it is totally off, you show you are at least thinking.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Face it davidb, an armored air marshal is a bad idea. No, I am not saying that if you are thinking you would come to my ideas, I said that if you were thinking you were weigh both sides and not just break out in insults. From your post, even though I disagree with it, and think it is totally off, you show you are at least thinking.

I agree with you. An armored air marshall is a bad idea. You know all of that plate and chain mail would give him away!

An armed one on the other hand is successful and you can not dispute it! El Al is a perfect example of how to use the air marshall and make it successfull.

I have just cited a successfull example. Please cite one incident where it made the situation worse and not better. Just cite one and I'll give you a modicom of credit!

[billybob_81067]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I said to the response of someone getting a 50 Caliber on the plane. I said that more then likely the gun would be an ak47 or 76 which can be made down to 10 inches or so.

Ok first off you are twisting words and thoughts around horribly. What I specifically said was that it sounds like you think there would be a mini war in which the good guys would have a 50 cal machine gun to kill the terrorists with and end up ripping huge holes in the floor, ceiling, sides, and fuselage of the plane... Here's the original quote by you as follows:

originally posted by Collegeboy

Now the whole article is one sided in a way, like I said, will one bullet bring down a plane, probably not, but when will there ever only be one bullet. This is something that it fails to acknowledge. The believers in this purposely look to the best case scenario and do don't plan for the worst.

And my original response...

originally posted by billybob_81067

When will there only be one bullet? When the terrorist on the plane gets taken out with one well placed shot, that's when.

You act as if there was a terrorist on a plane there would be a huge conflict with hundreds of thousands of bullets from a 50 cal machine gun located at the back of the plane trying to hit the terrorist at the front of the plane.

And also when I said the whole thing about shutting off the O2 to the passengers I was being completely sarcastic, yet you think that is such a great idea...

originally posted by billybob_81067

Ohhh Ohhh.... I know I know!!! You can just have the cockpit be an airtight compartment and just shut off all the O2 to the rest of the plane until all the passengers (terrorists and all) pass out... then just go back there, find the terrorists, lock them in the lil' restroom and commence getting everyone else started breathing again.

Am I right???

Do you sense the sarcasm there?

[Army]

CB, your ignorance flag is waving briskly in your hot air. I notice that it is adorned with two eyes closed tightly.

The receiver alone on ANY AK variant is more than 10" long, but now you have to get a barrel/gas piston assembly on it, and some sort of grip or stock too. Oh yeah, let's not forget the nearly foot long magazine. Even in pieces, an AK is simple to spot, by even the "poorly trained" TSA security.

There is no such thing as an AK-76, so don't try to go there.

OK, you'll have to pull up the big person chair to read this part..

1992- Edwards AFB- Impact and Ballistic Result training on aircraft material. (my conclusions have been used by NASA and the FAA)

1992- Edwards AFB- Aircraft Construction, Improving Structural Integrity To Withstand Ballistic Impact. (my conclusions have been used by NASA, the FAA, and most airlines)

1993- Yuma Proving Grounds- Weapons Studies, High Pressure Ballistic Release studies. (decompression results from bullet holes)

1995- White Sands Proving Grounds- Study of Aircraft Condition after Missile Contact. (this one was fun, lots of Maverick and Stinger shooting)

1999- Aberdeen Proving Grounds- Heavy Weapons Studies. (my conclusions are now used in Army weapons training at APG)

2000- Heavy Weapons Studies, Foreign. (my conclusions are now used in Army weapons training at APG)

2002- FBI Training Facilities, Quantico VA- Assisted Air Marshall training in ballistic training, firearms handling, and rapid decompression results from gunfire.

2002- FBI Training Facilities, Quantico VA- Applied study results to facilitate Air Marshall ballistic training. (my conclusion was helpful in aqquiring frangible ammunition)

And those are just the ones that relate directly to this discussion, that I have attended or was the course instructor. Again, I will repeat myself so you can understand, I am the expert you are looking for. Much of my training has been on terminal ballistic research, and the performance of projectiles on substance and personnel. I have been part of the FBI research and study into use of frangible projectiles on thin skinned civilian conveyance, which include planes trains and automobiles. Military application of ballistic research is an always thing. I have recently studied 2 M2 Bradley IFV's that were hit with RPG's in Iraq. I will submit my conclusion of it's armor performace in about 4 months or so. This is what I do for a living...then I fix it.

I gave you a scenario that is the MOST LIKELY to occur during an aircraft take-over, according to historical records of previous hi-jackings, study of worse case scenarios, and my attended training. A SINGLE, well armed, well trained person (Air Marshall), can easily thwart a determind person, or persons, from commandeering an aircraft at altitude...yes, even if the baddies somehow snuck multiple 9lb, 36" rifles past security, and into the convenient seat-back pockets.

So, my best idea, which has been agreed on by EVERY major law enforcement agency around the world, is to place well trained, well armed, Air Marshalls aboard as many flights as possible, if not all, and shoot the bad guys dead before they can do harm.

Your idea was....what?


BTW; The Army doesn't use Ford trucks, nor are there any at my post.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Rebel46_99
I freely admit that I am not the most eloquent writer. Army, Sam, FOL, 1DE and yourself all do a magnificent job of expressing, not only your viewpoint/opinion but, that shared by the majority of people here.

Boy, can you say LEFT OUT?

/me sad

[-Carnifex-]

Alb you don't use eloquence as much as you use "scare your point into them."

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
The problem with you as a hero is that you would start with saving the girl and forget everything else! (you know the world and plane part are important as well) We all know your type....

Yeah well, think of what would happen if it was me....

You know the part of the movie where the bad guy always offers the good guy a piece of the action to join him but the good guy always refuses because he's heroic and of good character?

Not everyone is like that...

[Konigballer]

Just to back up what Army said.

"more then likely the gun would be an AK-47 or [74, there is no AK-76 by the way] which can be made down to 10inches or so."- Collegeboy

Once again, it is just overwhelmingly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about with regards to any firearm.

You argue the merits of an armed airmarshall when you have proven beyond doubt in the previous pages that you have know real knowledge or experience, either actual or researched, about the cababilities of firearms, their power, their concealability or their effectiveness in a combat situation.

Because all of your theories of "what would happen", or "why your (mystery) solutions are better than ours" are based of your assumptions, your posts in this entire thread are inconsequential. All of your theories and solutions are built on a "house of cards" made up of your own ignorance and total lack of understanding of the most important variable in this whole debate, firearms: their use, effectiveness,and consequences.

The credibility of all your arguements is completely null. You can not debate this topic without understanding its most important factor: the presense, or lack, of a firearm(s) in the hands of a trained air marshall to stop a terrorist(s) in a combat situation.
I just quoted your ak comment at the start of my response to illustrate your obvious ignorance about firearms.

An AK-74, wich has almost the exact same measurements of the older AK-47, measures 27inches with the stock folded.....a far cry from your stated 10inches.

The AKSU-74, wich is the smallest version of the entire AK series, is just a tad over 19inches without the stock. Once again, FAR from 10inches.

Your whole agruement of terrorist overpowering a pistol equiped airmarshall was based on them being able to conceal a magical AK on to an airliner. Your arguement on that point, as with all your others in this debate, is in admissable because its completely based on ignorance. Please, feel free to admit you cannot argue in this debate with any kind of validity as you do not have the knowledge to do so.