Airport security now carrying semi-autos

Status
Not open for further replies.
CA NG showed up at Ontario airport after 9/11 with M4s but were walking around with them unloaded. No mags just like at the Rodney King riots which is easy to spot for the bad guys.

I wonder if the good general in charge of the NG now allowed them to lock and load this time?

News showed LAX police toting M4s with a mag in. Those mags might just come in handy ya think?

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, most roving patrols I see in the ariports are circled up playing grab ass from my observations.
 
I'm not a fan. With a little bit of practice, 2-3 shot bursts from an MP5 on full are simple.
 
Anything in those magazines? As noted, last time 'round the guns were impressive - but empty.

And the "they represent the increasing militarization of the law enforcment" response is very weak. Got anything else?
Click to expand...
Those cops/soldiers walking the airport with machineguns are doing so precisely to ward off ... what? Who are they expected to shoot at? The expected enemy has a preference not for engaging in firefights, but fondly shouts "Allah Akbar!" and blows up. Fat lot of good an MP5 or M16 will do against that.

So why the machineguns?
 
Those cops/soldiers walking the airport with machineguns are doing so precisely to ward off ... what? Who are they expected to shoot at? The expected enemy has a preference not for engaging in firefights, but fondly shouts "Allah Akbar!" and blows up. Fat lot of good an MP5 or M16 will do against that.

So why the machineguns?
Click to expand...

Why have any guns, following that line of reason. Pistols will do no more good that machine guns. The premise is a good one, but take it to the above limit. Why do they need guns if the goals of these people is to simply blow up?

One argument would be that if the police catch them at the airport before they get on a plane. The terrorist(s) puts up a fight, the police shoot them. They could definitely do that with pistols. however, there's a rumor that many people find it easier to shoot a rifle or something with a stock over a pistol.
 
Two rounds of 9mm hitting a target is better than one.

:)

I don't think they need full auto but 2 round burst is fine.
 
Sometimes it can be comforting.

First time leaving Milano, Italy just after the USA went into Iraq a few years ago after Christmas, all Americans going home to the States were funneled off the the left of the terminal. Everyone else going anywhere else had the other 90% of the terminal to the right.

The only guys with machineguns at every line going in to our general area, as well as on the tops of all the ticket counters were on our side of the terminal. Impressive.

I nodded to myself, "Alright."

have a great day,
cavman
 
however, there's a rumor that many people find it easier to shoot a rifle or something with a stock over a pistol.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider that a rumor. I shoot better with a stock than without one. Keeps me a little more steady.
 
Why have any guns, following that line of reason. Pistols will do no more good that machine guns. The premise is a good one, but take it to the above limit. Why do they need guns if the goals of these people is to simply blow up?
Click to expand...

The issue isnt that they shouldnt have any guns, but rather that it is ridiculous to issue special weapons when they serve no real purpose, so by default the standard issue sidearm is adequate and appropriate.

They have pistols because pistols serve a legitimate purpose for duties other than counter-terror. They just happen to carry them in the airport because they carry them on duty regardless if they are in an airport or elsewhere.

But issuing MP5's and M-16's/M-4's in airports makes no sense. They dont serve a real purpose in the context of counter-terror. And since they dont have a legitimate use in regular non-airport patrols either, there is no reason for them to be carried, because the standard issue pistol is adequate.
 
are you sure?

"But issuing MP5's and M-16's/M-4's in airports makes no sense. They dont serve a real purpose in the context of counter-terror. And since they dont have a legitimate use in regular non-airport patrols either, there is no reason for them to be carried, because the standard issue pistol is adequate."

i'd say that your opinion run counter to that of those who do it for a living. maybe you could explain why your theory trumps their experience?
or not:what:
 
i'd say that your opinion run counter to that of those who do it for a living. maybe you could explain why your theory trumps their experience?
Click to expand...

Of course it runs contrary to the opinions of most LEO's. If it were up to LEO's, they'd choose to carry full auto weapons every day, under all circumstances. While I disagree with it, I do understand their reasoning. They wish to be as heavily armed as possible, "just in case" they end up in a North Hollywood bank robbery type situation. But the statistical odds of such an event are so low.

And specifically in this case the issue of such weapons would have no effect if a suicide bomber terrorist attacked an airport, its not appropriate.

However, in typical law enforcement fashion, the administrative "powers that be" decide this is an ideal time for a power grab, because the general population is living in fear of terror. And at the lower levels, the LEO's relish the opportunity to dress up and play Rambo for a while. :cuss:
 
I saw the National Guard patrolling Grand Central Terminal in NY with their M16 variants after 9/11. I hoped they didn't have "full auto" selected. All I could think of was that no matter which direction they fired in, their backstop would have been a couple of hundred people.

The only scenario where I can imagine them responding that way is if a terrorist bunch started just mowing people down indiscriminately, as happened at Lod airport in Israel in the '70's. Then it would be a "lesser of two evils" sitiuation: collateral damage to avoid greater loss of life. But, no, I didn't feel safer seeing that kind of armament in a big crowd. Entry shotguns, maybe, plus a few snipers in the rafters? Works for me...

Nothing against the Guard: They show up with what they trained with and are told to bring. And I'm sure the psychological value worked for a lot of people, like all those tourists who were having their pictures taken with the Guardsmen. Snipers might have had less "feelgood factor," but more practical effectiveness. Then again, maybe they were there and I just didn't see them.
 
why

the knowledge that the cops have em keeps sane folks from trying. old enough to remember lod airport? 3 guys killed 24 and wounded 78 in mins.. and that was in israel with guards armed and fairly ready. but looking the wrong way
 
the knowledge that the cops have em keeps sane folks from trying.
Click to expand...
That is a dangerous precident to set. It leads to Orwellian monitoring and awesome, indiscriminant displays of force and intimidation aimed at every law abiding citizen.

I saw police/soldiers with MP5s in London, and needless to say, it didn't help me feel secure by any stretch of the imagination. They clearly didn't trust me... and I was unarmed. So of course I didn't trust them. With these intimidation tactics we become paranoid; "Did I forget a pocket knife in my carry-on?" "Can I even bring a carry-on?" "What about a can of coke? It's just a freaking can of coke... Sealed." "Am I walking too fast?" "He's looking at me wierd 'cause I glanced at him"
 
different reaction

for me. i look em over hope that he/shes been trained well and adheres to it. i find my situational awareness changing a bit keep an eye out for areas to cover in "in case" especially true when i have rug rat with me.i look for "bad guys" and try to stay away from potential trouble spots.forgive me for this any of you bigger guys but i look at you as cover if something goes down. so if a lil guy with a kid hides behind you in a bad situation its not that i like ya but i'm using all available cover to save my bacon:rolleyes:
i realize that while there prescence deters the small timers and the sane if something does happen its gonna be big and/or insane.
i am much more fearful of the invisible things our gov does a few soldiers with guns don't rattle me that much. i do remember that they are soldiers and less "police " oriented.
i would fear that without them someone could turn an irport or trainstation into a charnel house in a few seconds
 
I think if they have to carry selective fire rifles (aka machine guns) in the airports they should be required to have a suppressor . No bystander hearing loss that way since I'm sure an MP5 or M-16 shooting indoors is VERY LOUD!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top