FACTS on Air Marshal training, tactics and armament

FACTS on Air Marshal training, tactics and armament; not hysterical
leftist ranting.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_han...lls/index.html

(Don't neglect to click on page Two link at bottom)

Tim K

You've gotta wonder why someone would insist on calling
partisan opinions "facts." Capitalizing it doesn't help
either. The opinions may or may to be valid, but the
credibility of the one proclaiming "FACT" really suffers.

Tim Kroesen wrote:

FACTS on Air Marshal training, tactics and armament; not hysterical
leftist ranting.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_han...lls/index.html

(Don't neglect to click on page Two link at bottom)

Tim K

I consider the words of someone who *trained* air marshals, and helped
to develop tactics, more *factual* than any of the kibitzers posting
on the subject so far here... What did you find less than FACTUAL
(Baloney) by this professional???

Do you think they should have found some Leftist 'partisan' peace-nik
for the job? The article has nothing to do with *my* credibility either
in posting it. As even you admit; it *may* be "valid" (FACTUAL) despite
your attempt to diffuse it by ****ing on me and my choice of subject
wording.

Matter of FACT; let's all wonder your motive in doing so.

Tim K

"Joey Balonio" wrote in message
...
You've gotta wonder why someone would insist on calling
partisan opinions "facts." Capitalizing it doesn't help
either. The opinions may or may to be valid, but the
credibility of the one proclaiming "FACT" really suffers.

Tim Kroesen wrote:

FACTS on Air Marshal training, tactics and armament; not hysterical
leftist ranting.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_han...lls/index.html

(Don't neglect to click on page Two link at bottom)

Tim K

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:08:58 GMT, Joey Balonio
wrote:

You've gotta wonder why someone would insist on calling
partisan opinions "facts."

I wonder why you would characterize the article cited by the OP as
"partisan opinion." At least it was written by someone with specific
knowledge of air marshall training. The recent thread discussing
potential aircraft damage, head shots, overcoats, and physics seems to
be no more than the normal rampant speculation by a bunch of r.t.e
posters with no applicable credentials.

Gordon

Gordon Forbess wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:08:58 GMT, Joey Balonio
wrote:

You've gotta wonder why someone would insist on calling
partisan opinions "facts."

I wonder why you would characterize the article cited by the OP as
"partisan opinion."

As oppose to what, vested interest? It's in "guns and ammo"
and it's by someone paid to train these folks. It definitely
ain't "fact". Well, better put, there was alot of opinion
in there. It was a point of view piece by someone who supports
and believes in the program. It wasn't written to be critical
and in fact was intended to be quite the opposite.

At least it was written by someone with specific
knowledge of air marshall training. The recent thread discussing
potential aircraft damage, head shots, overcoats, and physics seems to
be no more than the normal rampant speculation by a bunch of r.t.e
posters with no applicable credentials.

That there may be worse discussions, doesn't elavate the article to
the level of "fact".

On 9 Jan 2004 09:48:06 -0800, (me) wrote:

Gordon Forbess wrote in message . ..

I wonder why you would characterize the article cited by the OP as
"partisan opinion."

As oppose to what, vested interest? It's in "guns and ammo"
and it's by someone paid to train these folks.

It is an article about the guns and ammunition used by various
security personnel by a person who has direct knowledge of the
subject. Do you think "Martha Stewart Living" or "People" would be
more appropriate?

It definitely ain't "fact". Well, better put, there was alot of opinion
in there. It was a point of view piece by someone who supports
and believes in the program. It wasn't written to be critical
and in fact was intended to be quite the opposite.

So, if it were written by someone critical of the program who
concludes that the discharge of a firearm within the confines of an
aircraft will result in the destruction of the plane, you'd find it to
be "fact?" Very open-minded of you. Or, do you think you can find an
article on this subject by an "impartial" journalist? Hint: That is
an extinct species.

At least it was written by someone with specific
knowledge of air marshall training. The recent thread discussing
potential aircraft damage, head shots, overcoats, and physics seems to
be no more than the normal rampant speculation by a bunch of r.t.e
posters with no applicable credentials.

That there may be worse discussions, doesn't elavate the article to
the level of "fact".

It's a hell of a lot closer to credible information about the subject
than what you have cited.. which is nothing but your own prejudice.

Gordon

The really sad/funny thing about this are those that object to arming
the flight crew to prevent hostile take-over. Like we don't *trust* the
flight crew with our lives by default to begin with...g

BTW this was the most authoritative article on the subject I found in a
Google; yep, in Guns and Ammo...

Tim K

"Emilia" wrote in message
...
"Tim Kroesen" wrote in news:vvrm4hcql4jpa1
@corp.supernews.com:

FACTS on Air Marshal training, tactics and armament; not hysterical
leftist ranting.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_han...lls/index.html

(Don't neglect to click on page Two link at bottom)

Tim K


I like this sentence:
"Of course, the most important system to avoid shooting is the pilot
or co-
pilot."

I would say that was a FACT....

Having read the article, I wonder what I would do if there was a
commotion on the flight and the fellow next to me reached in his
jacket and pulled out a gun. If he is an air marshal, you want to
stay out of his way, but if he his a confederate of the high jackers',
you would have about a tenth of a second to try and disarm him. Not a
real problem, I suppose, since I'm pretty sure I would be in a terror
induced paralysis.

The Israeli National airline has had the equivalent of 'Sky Marshals'
Armed agents) for Decades on their flights and I don't think there has
ever been a successful hijacking. I believe there were some foiled
attempts...

Tim K

"Emilia" wrote in message
...
"Tim Kroesen" wrote in news:vvue3pqko37k11
@corp.supernews.com:

The really sad/funny thing about this are those that object to
arming
the flight crew to prevent hostile take-over. Like we don't *trust*
the
flight crew with our lives by default to begin with...g

BTW this was the most authoritative article on the subject I found
in a
Google; yep, in Guns and Ammo...

Tim K

Didn't you think that sentence was funny?? Come on, it had to make you
chuckle!

Anyway, while Sweden & Portugal refused to put armed "marshals" on
their
planes the Swiss said "Hey, we've had armed guards on our planes for
thirty years". How many attempted hi-jackings of planes from any of
those
countries? Are there statistics anywhere?






"Emilia" wrote in message
...
"Tim Kroesen" wrote in news:vvrm4hcql4jpa1
@corp.supernews.com:

FACTS on Air Marshal training, tactics and armament; not
hysterical
leftist ranting.


http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_han...lls/index.html

(Don't neglect to click on page Two link at bottom)

Tim K


I like this sentence:
"Of course, the most important system to avoid shooting is the
pilot
or co-
pilot."

I would say that was a FACT....

"Tim Kroesen" wrote in news:vvue3pqko37k11
:
The really sad/funny thing about this are those that object to arming
the flight crew to prevent hostile take-over. Like we don't *trust*
the flight crew with our lives by default to begin with...g

Everyone is worried about having an Armed Sky-Marshall on the plane.
My Assumptions about this are that:
1) The ASM might shoot a hole in the plane or cause the Hostiles
to do it.
2) Or that the Pilot & Co-Pilot might get killed and no one will
know how to land the plane.
Well, in these 2 cases, how about REQUIRING ALL ASMs to learn how to
land the planes???? The ASMs won't need to know how to take-off, but
they SHOULD learn how to land... and if it was my job, I'd want to
know!

In case #3, where the Hostiles win... everything else wouldn't matter
much! Would it?

And judging by how much coverage the News Services (et al) are giving
this and how much the World has changed because of this, Haven't the
Hostiles won a bit too much already?
And let's not forget PrezShrub's suspending Constitutional rights,
disrupting commerce, not providing any visible internal protections
instead going outside the country & starting a War, and of course,
using this all to Campaign for the next PrezElection, etc. As others
have suggested, was it all just a Plan put into effect by the Shrub &
his daddy? But it's unlikely that any theory like this would ever be
admitted to... it might even be a bit too much for a temporary gov't
employee with an 8-year job to do! (that would be the Prez)

Oops, sorry for going a little off subject and ranting.