You mean they didn't summarily execute him?

[PeterNSteinmetz]

All to pursue with vigor security theater. I know they TSA has to brag about something, but I do wonder how many times they fail to find these? Presumably less than their 96% failure rate in their tests for detecting contraband, as though items are often more artfully concealed.

Man 'Forgot About' Loaded Handgun he Attempted to Take Through TSA Checkpoint

TSA found a loaded handgun during a security check at Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport. See how the airport responded and what consequences the gun owner could be facing.

aeroxplorer.com

 

[anonflyer1]

but I do wonder how many times they fail to find these?

I've heard it can be as high as 70% missed. But supposedly its getting better for various reasons. Regardless, I think these Darwinian candidates should lose flying privileges for a spell for these stupid acts as punishment, as all it does is give low-hanging fruit for the gun-control lobby.

But since you like analytical analysis on topics I might be able to get you a link to one on this subject?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

At first it does shock me - how can they miss the huge signs with serious threats. But then I remember that I know a lot of people who just carry all the time and perhaps have their gun in their bag.

Of course, I see no great problem with people carrying their firearms on the plane.

Do you really think it is that dangerous? If so, why?

Yes, can you please send a link regarding the 70% or so?

 

[anonflyer1]

Do you really think it is that dangerous? If so, why?

Yes. If the same dumbazz who couldn’t remember if he had a loaded gun in his carry-on, was allowed to carry it onboard, then I become a captive audience/participant to his ongoing stupidity and ignorance. On the ground, outside of an aircraft, no big deal as I can walk away from him.

Yes, can you please send a link regarding the 70% or so?

Couldn't find the exact report I was looking for but found these 2 links that cover it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/inte.2020.1037?journalCode=ijaa

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes. If the same dumbazz who couldn’t remember if he had a loaded gun in his carry-on, was allowed to carry it onboard, then I become a captive audience/participant to his ongoing stupidity and ignorance. On the ground, outside of an aircraft, no big deal as I can walk away from him.

I agree one is more subjected to such people in an aircraft. In my experience, generally the people who carry all the time are better trained than LEOs. But that is a very limited sample.

My serious opinion, as you likely know, is that this should be up to the airlines and their insurers. Then people can choose airlines based on their security policies if this is of concern to them.

Couldn't find the exact report I was looking for but found these 2 links that cover it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/inte.2020.1037?journalCode=ijaa

Thanks.

 

[Bob Noel]

Yes. If the same dumbazz who couldn’t remember if he had a loaded gun in his carry-on, was allowed to carry it onboard, then I become a captive audience/participant to his ongoing stupidity and ignorance. On the ground, outside of an aircraft, no big deal as I can walk away from him.

ah, irony

 

[anonflyer1]

In my experience, generally the people who carry all the time are better trained than LEOs. But that is a very limited sample.

Interesting. Except not all state carry laws are equal, so the caliber… of people carrying will be across the entire spectrum to include those who have only fired a gun to get their permit.

My serious opinion, as you likely know, is that this should be up to the airlines and their insurers. Then people can choose airlines based on their security policies if this is of concern to them.

And in an equal opportunity market you may be correct. However, the aviation carriage market is far from equal with majority of customers having access to only one or possibly two flight providers. So, say Southwest was the only airline that provided firearm carry on their flights:

How would you handle it when the rest of the flying public not serviced by Southwest, complained to their congressional representatives that they wanted the same opportunities?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Interesting. Except not all state carry laws are equal, so the caliber… of people carrying will be across the entire spectrum to include those who have only fired a gun to get their permit.

Well, in 25 states there is Constitutional Carry, so no test at all.

And in an equal opportunity market you may be correct. However, the aviation carriage market is far from equal with majority of customers having access to only one or possibly two flight providers. So, say Southwest was the only airline that provided firearm carry on their flights:

How would you handle it when the rest of the flying public not serviced by Southwest, complained to their congressional representatives that they wanted the same opportunities?

I don't think it has to be an "equal opportunity" market at all, whatever that might mean. I consider a free market to be one without interference by people using violence and threats of violence to get their way.

Since the government isn't involved in such markets, they can say whatever they want to the congress critters, it won't matter. ;-)

 

[anonflyer1]

Since the government isn't involved in such markets, they can say whatever they want to the congress critters, it won't matter. ;-)

Why not give a few examples how your “free market” would handle the perk of firearm carry on an airline in the same scenario I presented above? Its one thing to have theories but if you can’t get them down on paper to show how they work, what’s the point?

I consider a free market to be one without interference by people using violence and threats of violence to get their way.

Since “threats of violence and violence” are currently against the law now, are they legal in your version of a free market?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Since “threats of violence and violence” are currently against the law now, are they legal in your version of a free market?

They are not against the law generally when the government uses them. That is fundamentally what the government does - it uses violence and threats of violence to control people. They are “legal” in the sense of normally permitted by the law, but that does not change what the actual actions are.

I have a very old friend from childhood and she just is incapable of understanding this basic point. The government is in the violence business. Most people want it in that business and recognize that use of violence and threats as legitimate when it is used to control the 5% or so of the population who will use aggressive violence against others. It has a legitimate function as defense of the life, liberty and property. But it is violence and threats thereof nonetheless.

 

[anonflyer1]

They are not against the law generally when the government uses them. That is fundamentally what the government does - it uses violence and threats of violence to control people. They are “legal” in the sense of normally permitted by the law, but that does not change what the actual actions are.

What I find interesting, is that when others make an argument or point, you require peer-reviewed studies, scientific articles and empirical data from them to back things up. Yet when you make a point, you offer zero references or even examples and simply repeat your personal opinion. Let me demonstrate.

Take your continued use of “violence and threats” in relation to official government actions. As I’ve stated violence is against the law and no one is above the law. Where are your references to the opposite? Regardless my references are listed below.

I even took it one step further and shared your view with several friends to see if maybe I missed something. All 10 said the same as me: no gov’t based violence. One did ask if you were part of the sovereign citizen movement. Couldn’t answer because didn’t know. Are you?

So when it comes to your old childhood friend, it appears she is quite capable of understanding the point as she is part of the majority who believe you are incorrect based on the facts and public understanding in general. It is what it is.

18 USC Section 16: Crime of violence defined:

Rule of Law

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The only reference really necessary here is to the dictionary.

Merriam-Webster gives “violence noun
vi·o·lence ˈvī-lən(t)s

1 a
: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
B
: an instance of violent treatment or procedure“

Now does the government often engage in actions meeting definition 1 when enforcing laws?

The examples of this are so prevalent that I apologize, I did not think it necessary to give an example. Just to be concrete, let us consider the following news item - https://www.abc15.com/news/region-s...es-moments-before-he-fatally-shot-unarmed-man This is a rather famous case nearby in Mesa.

So the question is - did officer Brailsford use violence when he shot Shaver?

I would argue that firing a bullet at Shaver was intended to at least injure, damage or destroy Shaver in order to render him incapable of potentially injuring the officers.

I am curious to hear how one could view it as not meeting that definition, if you think it does not.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I should perhaps have mentioned that I am the son of a linguist, so from a very early age was brought up to enjoy parsing the meaning of words and statements. Thus I was concerned to hear the results of this informal survey by @anonflyer1 . I don't believe that majority vote determines the truth; however, a sense of how others understand things is relevant to how statements are understood.

Thus I asked 7 people today the following - "Is the following statement true or false - 'The government uses violence and threats of violence to enforce its laws and regulations' ? ". 3 were attorneys, 1 a professor, 1 a person in a parking lot who was interested in my car, 1 a barista, and 1 a sales clerk in the hardware store. None were related to me.

Six said the statement was true, one said it was false.

Thus I think the results are quite at odds here. Like all surveys, the answer may well depend on how exactly the question is asked.

 

[Winthrop]

So I had a professor in law school (who ended up on the DC Circuit) who basically defined government as the entity with a monopoly on force -- and by extension crime. It is worth taking a look at the exceptions set forth in 28 U.S. Code § 2680 which pretty broadly allows the government do do some pretty horrendous things. The US also adopted from common law the idea of sovereign immunity which essentially creates broad immunity for the king (and now the US government) carte blanche to commit torts and crimes.

So in theory if the King of England or the President of the United States woke up tomorrow and started shooting people on the street they would be exempt from prosecution. Generally, heads of state are in fact considered above the law. There are some other immunities too, like it is illegal to arrest a congressman going to vote. This authority extends down to their subordinates own various ways. As a practical matter the government rarely prosecutes its own agents for crimes they commit so while not de jure exempt from prosecution, they are de facto exempt.

At best the use of governmental force is attenuated ever so slightly from modern life, but is clearly there. It is unclear how anyone could really believe otherwise.

​

 

[Winthrop]

Then people can choose airlines based on their security policies if this is of concern to them.

As to airlines and competition, well the government have stifled that completion and of course airlines are not in the business of moving passengers, but rather are in the business of marketing credit cards as banks. While some foreign carriers derive their revenue from selling seats, the big money maker for major US carriers are their credit card mileage programs. Within reason little else matters to US airlines.

Of course, I see no great problem with people carrying their firearms on the plane.

I imagine you would not and nor would I, but I think most of the flying public would be concerned by this. Granted some of these fears may well be irrational.

 

[anonflyer1]

Now does the government often engage in actions meeting definition 1 when enforcing laws?

Since this whole conversation started with FAA regulations and your use of threats/violence in Post #16 here, I’ll answer based on that post.

No. I can state with confidence the government via the FAA does not engage in threats of violence and violence when enforcing aviation laws and regulations. Full stop.

And since you now state that “examples of this are so prevalent,” I will be interested in seeing those examples as it pertains to the FAAs enforcement actions. Once you can establish the violence context with the FAA, then we can slide farther down this rabbit hole if you choose.

But what an LEO shooting an unarmed man has to do with FAA enforcement procedures I have no clue.

Like all surveys, the answer may well depend on how exactly the question is asked.

This. If you don’t ask in the same manner/context the results are moot to a comparison. I merely forwarded my group a link to your Post 16 mentioned above and asked whether the “threats and violence” references made sense to them in the real world.

While the meanings of words are important, context is everything.

 

[Winthrop]

No. I can state with confidence the government via the FAA does not engage in threats of violence and violence when enforcing aviation laws and regulations. Full stop.

You are correct that unlike say the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency, the FAA does not have its own SWAT team, yet. (Though DoT has armed components outside the FAA) However, the DoJ is empowered to enforce FAA regulations with criminal law. For instance we all remember Trevor Jacob, the guy who crashed a plane as a YouTube publicity stunt. Well, that violated FAA regulations and was investigated by the NTSB, Mr. Jacobs was then charged by the Department of Justice and eventually ended up in prison. Now I guess you could argue that is not violence, but what happens if you refuse to cooperate with the NTSB or refuse to report to prison?

NB: the actual charge was obstructing the NTSB

 

[anonflyer1]

NB: the actual charge was obstructing the NTSB

The actual charges were lying to a federal investigator and obstructing a federal investigation by destroying evidence. That falls outside the FARs and was the reason the FBI stepped in to investigate. Once it became known he purposely crashed his aircraft the FAA investigated and revoked his certificate. So where is the threat or violence there?

 

[Winthrop]

The actual charges were lying to a federal investigator and obstructing a federal investigation by destroying evidence. That falls outside the FARs and was the reason the FBI stepped in to investigate. Once it became known he purposely crashed his aircraft the FAA investigated and revoked his certificate. So where is the threat or violence there?

Are you serious? So if you fail to cooperate we put you in a cage is not violence? 18 U.S.C. § 32 is also insanely broad.

So they revoked his certificate, what if he ignores them and continues to fly? Oh yeah, 49 U.S. Code § 46317.

 

[Winthrop]

So generally the FAA operates through the "The Aviation Litigation Division" which is civil. But need I remind you that US Marshals use force to enforce those judgments. That having been said: https://www.faa.gov/faq/there-penalty-failing-register#:~:text=The FAA may assess civil,for general questions and comments.

Just because the FAA does not generally act as its own "enforcer" does not mean their regulations are not backed by the threat of violence.