Following plans by the Government to allow Armed Sky Marshal’s to operate on certain flight from the UK, how do you feel about it - For or Against?

I've created a poll.

Definitely FOR.

I saw Air Force One on TV last night - and couldn't work out how the plane didn't de-pressurise with all those bullets flying around.

The same appleis here.

Definitely for it as long as they use low velocity bullets or other techniques to preserve integrity of plane such as aiming at the baddie rather than spraying bullets all over the place and hoping for the best :P

We don`t have much choice if pilots refuse to fly with them

How about ejector seats?

I'm FOR it. I'd feel alot safer in the air if there's some kind of authority figure to deal with any troublemakers. Even though the cabin crew are generally very good, they can only do so much.

Originally posted by MrHelicopter
I saw Air Force One on TV last night - and couldn't work out how the plane didn't de-pressurise with all those bullets flying around. Dohh... Silly - it isnt a real plane - it's a film studio in Los Angeles :P

Definitely against this one if they have normal guns and ammunition. There is no way that anyone can take control of a plane anymore because of the new doors that were installed after 9/11. Perhaps the planes should be split up into smaller reinforced sections too? Fewer stewards and maybe vending machines that would serve better food than the muck that you get now, even in first class.

I have an idea that, after the first couple of weeks when nothing has happened, that the profile of the marshalls may change. We may start off with the pool of marshalls being populated with crack officers who are constantly going on refresher courses on how to take out the baddies in the style of Bruce Willis. Next time we look they all resemble T J Hooker and are counting down the days to retirement.

After these marshalls have been across the Atlantic a few times fed on a diet of airplane food and second rate films am I the only one who thinks they may lose their edge?

I am against any guns onboard a plane. I'd sonner concentrate on getting airport security water tight.

Having said that the following have used armed guards on planes for many years:

El-Al,
S.A.A.
Aeroflot

With this in mind they have managed to solve most of the so called problems people have come up with. For example, the Israelis and Russians have used a low penetration high impact rounds (titanium balls in a teflon grease .40cal) for some time now, these rounds will not penetrate the fuselage but will deliver an impact in excess of 1000ft/lbs spread over a very small area.

This is more than the equivalent of being hit by a bag of flour travelling at 800kph. It can cause cardiac arrest, crushed chest, broken limbs or if hit in the head a snapped neck. It will not however penetrate the body.

S.A.A. guards have used either a combination of plastic saboted rounds (9mm) that shatter on impact with similar effects to the above or very soft lead pellets that expand on impact and penetrate to a depth of around 3mm.

They will not however penetrate an aircraft skin.

The biggest risk is for the terrorist to have some form of light weight body armour, but first they have to get such things onto an aircraft. Which comes back to the real problem it's the security at airports which is the real danger, the armed guards are a very last resort.

I've always thought that the pilot could just have a button in the cockpit that activated the release of a harmless but incapacitating gas in the passenger compartment. This would knock everyone out and give the plane a chance to land where things could be sorted out by the ground crew.

Not exactly good for customer relations I suppose, but I'd rather be put to sleep for while than have the chance of bullets whizzing about the place, no matter how non-penetrating they were.

The trouble with people with guns is that their owners are more likely to get shot with by their own weapon than somebody else's! The US Police have just this problem today, and It's the best anti-gun argument around.

I really don't like the idea of having a weapon on board for a terrorist to use. No matter whos pocket it starts the journey inside the terrorist will have half the hard work done by having a weapon provided on board!

And the moment a sky marshall identifies himself and tries to take down the terrorist - all his mates (sitting quietly waiting for the Sky Marshall to ID himself) will leap up from their seats. knives at the throats of the passengers and force him to disarm using hostages.

I'm no terrorist, but even I can see how to get round that particular obstacle.

And it still doesn't stop the use of ex soviet SAM's. The politicians have been strangely quiet on this one and ISTR that we have had 3/4 attempts in 2003, but no hijackings. More spin perhaps?

I want to be feel protected. As long as they remain anonymous except in the case of a terrorist threat, why wouldn't you want to feel that? I makes me feel more comfortable to think that someone trained with a gun is on the plane, their sole job being to defend passengers and keep the plane safe in the air. Before Sky Marshalls what did we have? Civilians defending themselves against f***ers with box cutters! It's sad that it came to this because of 9/11. What chance did the people have on those flights that hit the Trade Center, the Pentagon and the one that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania?
My answer is yes, absolutely.

Originally posted by Tony
The trouble with people with guns is that their owners are more likely to get shot with by their own weapon than somebody else's! The US Police have just this problem today, and It's the best anti-gun argument around.


Sky Marshall aren't just ordinary people, they are trained professionals in the use of firearms, self defense and terrorism. I doubt if they would let Joe Blogs get on a flight with a gun without a background in police or security work. Yes, we have problems in the states but that's usually with people who don't know what they are doing. That's why I don't own a gun!