Interesting article on airport security

[mnblade]

According to an article in today's Palm Beach Post, the Federal Aviation Administration logged 147 security incidents at the Palm Beach International Airport from 1990 to 2000, involving airlines, the airport, passengers and others who do business at that airport. Of the security incidents, 79 involved weapons. Guess how many of those 79 weapons incidents involved knives? <a href="http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/today/news_1.html">One</a>.

 

[Professor]

What tar-like substance were people trying to mask pistols with I wonder? Wierd.

Professor.

 

[TRAV]

These stories never surprise me. "Government agents were able to sneak weapons onto an airplane." It's their job to know all about security and how to beat it. Your average passenger isn't going to know how to beat a metal detector, and that is who security is really designed for. The papers make it seem like such a big deal that federal agents were able to do this, but when you're trained to know how, and I mean it's your job to know how to do this, it isn't a big deal.

-Travis

 

[BlackRazor]

.....

 

[TRAV]

Originally posted by BlackRazor
I disagree Trav... terrorists, you can bet, are going to be just as "trained to know" and a lot more motivated that some agent. If you can't stop trained agents, you can't stop suicidal terrorists. Throwing up your hands and saying, "it can't be done" is simply not a solution. There's always a way

I agree. My point was this: I am not surprised when feds can get weapons onto airplanes. They are suppossed to be able to. That is their job. So, articles like this don't mean anything. The authors may be able to extrapolate the points of the article to mean that terrorists can do the same, but the article doesn't do that. It's like saying feds hacked into NASA. My response is, "Good, they should be able to do that", but it doesn't bring out the "call to arms" alarmism in me (which is the idea behind sensationalist journalism).

-Travis

 

[TOMBSTONE]

Doesn't suprise me either.In fact most weapons laws or any law for that matter has little effect on a person who is bent on committing an illegal act.Any more laws or regulations just futher restricts our freedoms,but does almost nothing to prevent a crime from being committed.All this added security is feels good knee jerk responses that do not make anyone safer.In fact just less likely be in a position to defend oneself.

 

[TOMBSTONE]

Also I might add,how does banning pocket knives or toe nail clippers guarentee anyones safety.It can't be to difficult to have a all plastic knife on your person and get on the plane undetected.In fact it seems to me all these knife like objects were actually planted by some airport or airline workers previous to the boarding.So these people did not even go through security check points with these weapons anyway.Obviously,when a group organizes a synchronized multipe attack scenerio,they need a guarantee these weapons are going to be there.I highly doubt that they would have taken a chance getting them through security checkpoints even if it is easy to get through.The process would have been unpredictable.I was also thinking,if you can put a firearm in baggage in the belly of the plane,what prevents someone from getting to the compartment from inside the plane and access their weapon for a highjacking?All I can think is that thses regulations in reality only regulate law abiding citizens and offer us no real security.