Airport screeners find 75 guns per month

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | November 25, 2004 | Audrey Hudson

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Airport screeners find 75 guns per month

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 25, 2004

---

Traveling for the holidays? Have everything you need? Razor? Toothbrush? Handgun? Ammunition?

    Homeland Security officials say that even now, three years after the September 11 terrorist attacks prompted new security measures at airports, passengers continue to show up at the terminals carrying guns and bullets.

    Airport screeners find 2,000 bullets and 75 guns per month on passengers or in carry-on bags, said Mark Hatfield, spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). At 450 airports across the country, an average of two guns per day are discovered.

    "The numbers are going up," Mr. Hatfield said.

    Nearly every case is accidental -- hunters forget to take ammo out of coat pockets and sportsmen forget to take guns out of bags after target practice or a trip to the skeet range, he said.

    A 79-year-old woman was arrested Tuesday at Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida after a single-shot Colt Derringer and seven bullets were found in her tote bag.

    The woman said she had placed the gun in a hollowed-out book in the bag months ago and had forgotten about it. She faces a penalty of up to five years in prison.

    "That underscores the importance of the need to screen everyone," TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said. "This continues to be a significant problem at checkpoints across the country."

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) is teaming up with the TSA on a public service campaign to remind its members to include guns and bullets in last-minute...

[Oatka]

About a year ago I declared that I had two old blackpowder 40-82 cartrides in my luggage that was checked in. The clerk called a TSA guy over who took the bag and checked it out. Never did open the package with the cartridges, but I did find where they opened my package that held an 1890s bicycle wrench.

[nmh]

Ah, really?

"A 79-year-old woman was arrested Tuesday at Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida after a single-shot Colt Derringer and seven bullets were found in her tote bag."

"The woman said she had placed the gun in a hollowed-out book in the bag months ago and had forgotten about it. She faces a penalty of up to five years in prison."

The woman is lying through her teeth. Wandering around with a hollowed out gun in it - and JUST FORGOT ABOUT IT? Just like Sandy Berger, stuffing his pants is normal.

UNREAL!

[Knitebane]

That's why the pilot and copilot are armed, but remain in the cockpit.

So the hijacker waits until the pilot comes out to use the toilet. Or smuggles a few ounces of C4 and a detonator onboard to blow the cockpit door.

Ranged weapons are banned. I don't give a damn about weapons that reach no further than one's arm.

On 911, several planes were hijacked without using ranged weapons.

Then that's what we do.

Maybe you, perhaps, but I'm pretty sure the rest of the flying public would refuse to fly if they had to be strip searched first.

Problem: terrorists will then get (by hook or crook) concealed carry licenses, and seek martyrdom.

Solution: Every terrorist will know that armed American's will by flying with them. Based on what a few unarmed pi**ed off Americans did over the skies of Pennsylvania, a cabin full of armed passengers will introduce unecessary risk into their planning. They will go elsewhere.

By the way, your problem is already a problem. As long as we aren't strip searching, weapons are already getting onto aircraft. And they always will.

[TalonDJ]

You made it clear that you're unable to fight effectively without one.
Did not try to make that 'clear'. Not sure how I did since it is untrue. Just because I know some hand-to-hand does not mean I am would not want a gun when confronting several terrorists. I don't see how saying that equates to me questioning my own honor.
Insulting your intelligence by disagreeing with you? Do you take disagreeing with you as a personal insult or did you mean to imply that?

Not unless that 'fears an armed populace' hit a little too close to home.

And now you've really insulted me

THAT insulted you? There is no way that was insult unless you DO fear and armed populace. If you don't then that is not an insult. You are awfully touchy for a person arguing on a message board.

How many guns were used on 9/11?

Sarcasm.

More sarcasm, thought that would be obvious since it contradicts the point I have been making.
The screening protocol's a joke. That needs to be fixed.
Exactly my sarcastic point. I am operating under the assumption that the terrorists will be armed either way.

Actually, it doesn't, and that's an entirely separate issue. When someone on the ground jumps onto a plane cruising at 30,000 feet and shoots up the plane, I'll take your moronic analogy a wee bit more seriously.

Not that separate. Both are places people are not suppose to take guns but can anyway and both are places with a lot of unarmed targets. And moronic? Do you insult everyone that disagrees with you or just me?

[TalonDJ]

Nope. They make 'em out of plastic, in case terrorists ever bring plastic guns aboard. (No, I am not making this up.) And one guy who tests screeners said that making the dummy gun out of metal would "make it too easy to find."
Your FAA and TSA at work...

This is why I approach the topic from the assumption that the badguys will get on armed. If that is preventable (I have yet to see it) it might change my stance.

[Oztrich Boy]

Having the 'good guys' freeze up at first is not a problem.

less than a problem. it gives the terrorists time to establish themselves (and only themselves) on everybody's target list.

[Poohbah]

Did not try to make that 'clear'.

I don't care what you tried to do; it's what you did.

Insulting your intelligence by disagreeing with you?

Your whole scenario required the terrorists to be dumber than you are. The ones dumber'n you can't read the frickin' Koran anyway.

There is no way that was insult unless you DO fear and armed populace.

False. It is an insult to falsely suggest that is my belief, and that is exactly what you did.

[TalonDJ]

There is a saying that "action beats reaction."

In the case of someone drawing on a terrorist who's attention is split between many passengers then that argument favors the vigilante getting the drop on the already drawn terrorist. Because the terroist is the one reacting. That is NOT the same as two gun fighters reaching for leather.

[Poohbah]

less than a problem. it gives the terrorists time to establish themselves (and only themselves) on everybody's target list.

By the time the good guys unfreeze, any movement will result in their getting shot.

[snopercod]

Yeah...it's stupid, and the reason that the public is refusing to fly in droves.

America is not Nazi Germany (yet).

[dljordan]

You won't get explosive decompression and no one will get sucked out of any holes.

[neverdem]

Yeah...it's stupid, and the reason that the public is refusing to fly in droves.

Just before Thanksgiving, I was listening to folks on a news show saying how the major airlines are in trouble, two are in bankruptcy, but that total passenger volume has finally returned to the volume prior to September 11, 2001.

[CDB]

That's what a Boeing exec (who flew 737s) called it at the time. Seriously

[TERMINATTOR]

Carrying isn't a "privilege", it's a RIGHT. Requiring permits is illegal. I'm one of those who believes that the more good guys that are armed, the better. Every passenger has a Personal Floatation Device(PFD) available to them, why not a Personal Protection Device(PPD) too?

In a free country I'd choose the airline that had the best PPD's, the best bullet proof partition protecting my pilots, and included a pass to the airport shooting range with every ticket purchase. Shooting proficiency awards recieved by the staff and frequent fliers, would be a good incentive to fly the friendly and safe skies, of airline x.

An armed society, is a polite society.

[Thommas]

The first round to penetrate the fuselage would probably cause an explosive decompression

I've read that the urban myth of explosive decompression has been exposed in recent tests. Bullets that penetrate the fuselage just cause the hissing air to escape like opening the valve on a tire. Two things to keep in mind:
1. Even at FL410, there is atmosphere; little oxygen and cold, but not a vacuum.
2. The cabin is pressurized but not sealed; it is constantly losing pressure as the air compressors compensate.

[TalonDJ]

I could not agree more. Sadly many here don't see it as a right.

[Sloth]

the ENTIRE scenario behind armed civlians living together safely turns to open war when one of the people with the guns just wants to kill everything he can.

Uh, so what's your solution? Just allow him to keep killing whoever he wants until he's done? That strategy worked great with Colin Ferguson and the guy at Luby's in Texas.

[Sloth]

The first round to penetrate the fuselage would probably cause an explosive decompression that would not only suck people out the hole, it could cause enough damage to bring about catastrophic failure of the fuselage.

You probably shouldn't comment on things when you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Your whole scenario required the terrorists to be dumber than you are.

Comes to mind a report from Fallujah where the Marine is just amazed how stupid the tactics of the terrs are. They ARE clever enough to prey on sheeple. So -- don't be a sheeple.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Compared to smashing into a building (and NOBODY will believe a hijacker's assurances of safe arrival if everyone "cooperates" any more) -- any other risk is no worse. Do or die brings out amazing things in people, and more so in the righteous than in the wicked. Period.