# Sometimes a Great Notion. Sometimes a Complete Crock



## tellner (Jul 7, 2008)

Some cynical curmudgeonly thoughts on a scheme to make us all safer by fitting air travelers with remote-control shock collars, err, "Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology".


----------



## bowser666 (Jul 8, 2008)

This thought is absurd.  How many malfunctions are potential ? Then it will be lawsuit city! If the security on the ground is decent then there should be no problems. They should also have a mandatory Air Marshal ( undercover) on each flight. Get rid of half the useless TSA and put marshalls on planes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 8, 2008)

Now this is funny. 
Gee, I wonder why air travel and tourism is down?
Draconian security, rates soaring, fingerprinting, delays, long waits, xray scanners, invasive searches, lack of privacy, riffled and stolen luggage and now they think mandatory shock collars are good? 

Maybe they can just require we fly in the nude, tied to our seats, and sedated next?


----------



## Jdokan (Jul 8, 2008)

How about large steel type cages similar to rollercoaster rides that would lock you into your seat.....that would keep the peace....they'd open once the plane landed...if the plane crashed, users would be locked into their respective seat numbers identification would be easier...Hey I think we might be on to something here......
ya...no...thoughts???


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 8, 2008)

bowser666 said:


> This thought is absurd.  How many malfunctions are potential ? Then it will be lawsuit city! If the security on the ground is decent then there should be no problems. They should also have a mandatory Air Marshal ( undercover) on each flight. Get rid of half the useless TSA and put marshalls on planes.


Being pretty conservative, there are several thousand flights a day.  Sure, some are cases where the plane continues on after a layover or something like that...  But, bluntly, that's a hell of a lot people you'd need.  With a lot of specialized training.  Not exactly cheap.  (Don't forget, they're going need days off, vacations, rest cycles, etc.)  

A simpler approach would be to allow law enforcement officers who choose to do so to carry their firearms on planes, without the current hurdles and hoops.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 8, 2008)

Well, if they sedated us, they could stack us like cordwood, and probably triple the carrying capacity of each flight...  All that wasted space where people are sitting upright could be filled with paying passengers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 8, 2008)

Personally, I think all these "precautions" are a bit crazy. I read a story where a photographer had his expensive camera taken and destroyed by inept DHS people because they didn't believe him when he said his DSLR didn't have built in memory. (Most don't). 

I'll rent a car and drive cross country (and take 3-4 days doing it) rather than go through all that crap. It's good for Enterprise, bad for Southwest.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 8, 2008)

My guess is that they are floating this idea so that when they bring out their real plan it'll seem mild compared to this.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 8, 2008)

Yeah. They'll replace this ridiculous proposal with simple, cheap, bar code tattoos, where everyone's bar code is read by a supercomputer housed in NORAD.

They call it "The Beast."


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 8, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Being pretty conservative, there are several thousand flights a day.  Sure, some are cases where the plane continues on after a layover or something like that...  But, bluntly, that's a hell of a lot people you'd need.  With a lot of specialized training.  Not exactly cheap.  (Don't forget, they're going need days off, vacations, rest cycles, etc.)



No kidding... that would be one hell of a expensive project.

Although to be perfectly honest the "conservative" party down there is really not all that conservative, nor is the liberal party all that liberal (as in liberty)

But all I can say is if you folks implement it I will not be flying down there anytime soon.

Although I can't see it lasting...  All these remote control devices have one major flaw.  They can be activated by remote control, its only a matter of time before someone reverse engineers one, or even without that they start malfunctioning.



> A simpler approach would be to allow law enforcement officers who choose to do so to carry their firearms on planes, without the current hurdles and hoops.



Guns on planes just seem like a bad idea.  decompression issues and lots of civilians in a crowded space, I think a better choice of weapons would be in order.

I can't see this being put into general use though, the costs would just be ridiculous to put one on every passenger.  Unfortunately I can see other, cheaper, but still stupid measures being put into place.

Rigging planes to flood everything but the cockpit with a gas that knocks everyone out... definitely could see something along those lines attempted.


----------



## zDom (Jul 8, 2008)

Its time to retire the airlines and break out the fusion-powered flying cars as seen in The Fifth Element, Back to the Future and other sci-fi flicks.

Hey, we have the flip-phone communicators as shown in Star Trek, don't we? What's the big holdup?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 8, 2008)

Now that&#8217;s an interesting idea

And what's next it will explode should you venture outside of the designated area. And don&#8217;t forget the booby traps in the on board bathroom should you stay to long&#8230;. I&#8217;m thinking a trap door

So it is a stun gun and it is remote which means a radio frequency.. Gee that couldn&#8217;t be used, abused or accidentally set off now could it?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 8, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll rent a car and drive cross country (and take 3-4 days doing it) rather than go through all that crap. It's good for Enterprise, bad for Southwest.




I'm driving from CoSprings to Pasadena in September for pretty much these kinda reasons...  just too obnoxious and getting worse


----------



## Kacey (Jul 8, 2008)

I drove from Denver to Dallas last December - that was due in part to crap from the airlines, and in part to my refusal to put my dog in cargo... no matter what they say about the conditions there.


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 8, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> Yeah. They'll replace this ridiculous proposal with simple, cheap, bar code tattoos, where everyone's bar code is read by a supercomputer housed in NORAD.
> 
> They call it "The Beast."


 Close, but no cigar.  It's micro-chips, not tattoos.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 8, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Now that&#8217;s an interesting idea
> 
> And what's next it will explode should you venture outside of the designated area. And don&#8217;t forget the booby traps in the on board bathroom should you stay to long&#8230;. I&#8217;m thinking a trap door
> 
> So it is a stun gun and it is remote which means a radio frequency.. Gee that couldn&#8217;t be used, abused or accidentally set off now could it?


 
No no no, next it'll be two micro capsules in each carotid artery which will completely dissolve in 22 hours if you don't get the President out of New York.

Best get lookin' for my eye patch.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 8, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Guns on planes just seem like a bad idea. decompression issues and lots of civilians in a crowded space, I think a better choice of weapons would be in order.



A bullet decompressing a plane explosively is a myth.



> On 8 May 2003 during hearings on the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, Dan Graves of Oviedo, Florida, a DC-8 First Officer for Airborne Express, and Executive Director for the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, testified before the House Subcommittee on Aviation:
> 
> [O]ur opponents claim that a bullet piercing the pressure vessel of the aircraft will cause a catastrophic loss of the hull. There's simply no evidence to support these claims. In fact, the Israelis have had a number of incidents where terrorists have discharged small arms in the cabins of their aircraft without causing catastrophic damage to the airframe. A study by Boeing aircraft agrees. It found that one or numerous small caliber rounds piercing the vessel would not cause a catastrophic loss.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> A bullet decompressing a plane explosively is a myth.


Mythbusters busted that too I think.


----------



## Brian S (Jul 8, 2008)

Hmmmm... I had no idea!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 9, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> No no no, next it'll be two micro capsules in each carotid artery which will completely dissolve in 22 hours if you don't get the President out of New York.
> 
> Best get lookin' for my eye patch.


 
Aye we will all be needing an eye patch.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 9, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Now this is funny.
> Gee, I wonder why air travel and tourism is down?
> Draconian security, rates soaring, fingerprinting, delays, long waits, xray scanners, invasive searches, lack of privacy, riffled and stolen luggage and now they think mandatory shock collars are good?
> 
> Maybe they can just require we fly in the nude, tied to our seats, and sedated next?


 
I wouldn't mind the sedated part.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 9, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> No no no, next it'll be two micro capsules in each carotid artery which will completely dissolve in 22 hours if you don't get the President out of New York.
> 
> Best get lookin' for my eye patch.


 
:lol:

Call me Snake..


----------



## zDom (Jul 9, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Close, but no cigar.  It's micro-chips, not tattoos.



Already putting them in pets 

BTW, you know the 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is w dontcha, and that they use letters for numbers, too?

www....

666?


----------



## Ahriman (Jul 9, 2008)

Hey, they would use the stun gun part against bad guys, right? So then, why a stun gun? They should inject a quickly working poison... or make it a collar instead of a bracelet and make it with small explosives which could destroy the neck.
.
..
...
I'm sure the drooling idiots would love the idea.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 10, 2008)

tellner said:


> Some cynical curmudgeonly thoughts on a scheme to make us all safer by fitting air travelers with remote-control shock collars, err, "Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology".


 Uhm.......sounds like something from the Onion.

Remember the neck belt car restraint system? 

The cure to hi-jacking is to hand everyone a ball-peen hammer upon bordering. Anyone gets out of line, the rest of the passengers bludgeon them to death.  It's so crazy it JUST might work!


----------



## girlbug2 (Jul 10, 2008)

Almost laughable. Almost.


----------



## tellner (Jul 10, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Uhm.......sounds like something from the Onion.
> 
> Remember the neck belt car restraint system?


Alas, it's serious. A former DIA security expert says that it's not the stupidest thing she's seen seriously considered.



> The cure to hi-jacking is to hand everyone a ball-peen hammer upon bordering. Anyone gets out of line, the rest of the passengers bludgeon them to death.  It's so crazy it JUST might work!



A little exaggerated, but basically true. Starting on 12 September 2001 every hijacking attempt or "passenger began to rush the cockpit" or "dingbat tried to blow up his shoes" incident involving planes in the US has ended with "passenger was [restrained|beaten into thin red pulp] by passengers and crew." A few dozen to a couple hundred terrified people who believe they have nothing to lose can do amazing violence in close quarters.


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 10, 2008)

tellner said:


> Alas, it's serious. A former DIA security expert says that it's not the stupidest thing she's seen seriously considered.
> 
> 
> 
> A little exaggerated, but basically true. Starting on 12 September 2001 every hijacking attempt or "passenger began to rush the cockpit" or "dingbat tried to blow up his shoes" incident involving planes in the US has ended with "passenger was [restrained|beaten into thin red pulp] by passengers and crew." *A few dozen to a couple hundred terrified people who believe they have nothing to lose can do amazing violence in close quarters*.


And the sheeple woke.  Well, they could have but that takes too much energy to actually wake up and do something significant when your *** isn't on the line at that second.


----------



## chinto (Jul 10, 2008)

OMG! what MORON came up with this stupidity.. now issue a weapon to every passenger makes a hell of a lot more sense !! but this is stupidity!! hell get control of the damned things and you got unobstructed control of the aircraft!!!   pravably the same kind of IDIOT who wants to out law guns "because then no criminal would have one!!"  beyond stupidity!!!!  :biggun:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> Alas, it's serious. A former DIA security expert says that it's not the stupidest thing she's seen seriously considered.


 Bureaucracy is the power of stupid people in large groups. 



tellner said:


> A little exaggerated, but basically true. Starting on 12 September 2001 every hijacking attempt or "passenger began to rush the cockpit" or "dingbat tried to blow up his shoes" incident involving planes in the US has ended with "passenger was [restrained|beaten into thin red pulp] by passengers and crew." A few dozen to a couple hundred terrified people who believe they have nothing to lose can do amazing violence in close quarters.


 I think it's safe to assume that 9/11 as it occurred was a phenomenon of passenger compliance, and could NEVER again happen in the same manner.  You can blow up planes, but you'll never again take 80 passengers hostage with 4 terrorists and some box-cutters.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> Some cynical curmudgeonly thoughts on a scheme to make us all safer by fitting air travelers with remote-control shock collars, err, "Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology".


 
Only if the one suggesting it wears one and I have the shock transmitter! Then maybe they would reconsider.

I understand in court rooms, were violent criminals at hearings or trial have been fitted with such because of their behavior in that very courtroom, but 99.99 percent of the citizens are NOT CRIMINALS AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH.

The guy proposing this out to have a cattle prod inserted up.... well you know.

Deaf


----------



## chinto (Jul 14, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Only if the one suggesting it wears one and I have the shock transmitter! Then maybe they would reconsider.
> 
> I understand in court rooms, were violent criminals at hearings or trial have been fitted with such because of their behavior in that very courtroom, but 99.99 percent of the citizens are NOT CRIMINALS AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH.
> 
> ...




i like it.. but only if they up the number of batteries in it and um add an old car coil to the circuit first then insert it there!


----------

