Ceramic/Plastic Knives and Air Travel.

Discussion in 'Misc. Knife Arts' started by Cruentus, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. Cruentus

    Cruentus Tactician

    Letter opener on planes? I prefer a titanium stylus or three. ;)

    The plastic/ceramic knife concern is exactly why people should be allowed to carry what they want in most places. We, the private citizen, are the 1st response to a threat, whether we like it or not. And it isn't us, the law abiding citizen, who is going to tape a CIA letter opener to our bodies to board a plane. And last, before I get off my soapbox, knife laws that restrict length, opening method (switchblade, etc.), material (ceramic or plastic) and so on are completely useless when it comes to preventing crime. If a ban of the sale of plastic/ceramic knives were in effect, people would just make their own. Just look at the clever impliments that our prisoners make from everyday objects right under the noses of authority.

    Well the bottom line (then off the soapbox, I swear) is that the key to effective homeland security is empowerment of the everyday citizen.

    As to the knife business; yes, it is a fairly sizable business considering how tightly niched the market is. This never ceases to amaze me.


  2. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    I agree that switchblade laws are pretty silly. The article talks about the impact of those laws a fair amount. They were just a reaction to the James Dean image of hooligans of those days.

    As for "an armed plane is a polite plane," I'm not so sure about that yet!
  3. Cruentus

    Cruentus Tactician

    Me either. :) But I am still an advocate of all flight attendents having tazer access and access to at least 1 firearm (of a low velocity caliber that isn't likely to penetrate the plane walls) in a locked box with manditory minimal training, and all pilots having firearm access in their cabins with manditory minimal training and a sealed flight cabin.

    These people are private citizens who should be given the capabilities of being an adequete 1st responder if there is a threat.

    BTW... this isn't just me and my crazy idea's at work. I had discussed this a long time ago on MartialTalk, and people thought I was loonie then. It would appear that security and government agencies have been reading my posts (lol) , because this has been a point of debate and actual consideration.

    I'll post the article when I get the chance.

  4. Cruentus

    Cruentus Tactician

    Here we go:



    This is a really good article here:


    This one illustrates a United Airlines Plan to install tazers on all it's planes:


    So, to be more clear, in some select places like airplanes, I can see the need for some sort of weapon restriction for passangers. But the workers, who are private citizens, should be armed. This would be a much more effective move rather then the panic over things like nailclippers and such.

    Also, I am in agreement with the travel insider regarding firearms, but I still see the tazer as a good initial responder. The tazer has to be backed up by lethal force (firearm), however, considering that you can only subdue one opponent with a tazer, among other things.

    O.K....thread hijack over. :) (probably worth a seperate discussion, though..)

  5. Brian R. VanCise

    Brian R. VanCise Senior Member Supporting Member

    Hey Paul,

    I am all okay with Flight attendant's having some personal security tools if they undergo rigorous training and can actually use them. (if not forget it)They are generally so busy when walking up an down the aisle's though, that I think they could easily be disarmed by a terrorist who would then be armed with something. (why bring the tool, when you can just take one)

    Locked flight cabin's is definately a no brainer. Surprising that someone did not figure that out before 9/11. (oh the Israeli's figured it out)

    What is interesting though is that terrorists will probably not try the airline jumbo jet into a building thing in the near future. I could see small private jet's into building's or nuclear power plant's. Needless to say they change their strategies readily so our security forces need to be constantly looking at new ways to protect the public.

    Brian R. VanCise
  6. Cruentus

    Cruentus Tactician

    I agree that you make a valid point, however it just depends where you are in the arguement. Some would say that it would be better to have nothing at all then to risk someone not responding with the weapon (whether it be a tazer or gun) properly due to insufficient awareness or skills/training. I disagree with that, though. I think a bigger risk is to have nothing at all. With nothing at all, the passangers and staff are left to the mercy of those who would attempt a take over with little available to equalize a threat. With manditory minimal training and weapons kept in a locked but accesssable box, there is at least a chance. With all the elements in place, locked pilot cabin, firearms to back up the tazers, training, a clear force continuum, cooperative passangers willing to stand up to the terrorists, etc., I think there can be a fairly good chance. The risk of a tazer or gun being used against people is no greater then the risk posed from someone willing to take over a plane in the 1st place.

    I agree. I was briefed on this a while ago when I did some federal work; the news doesn't really cover this, but it isn't classified or anything like that. Homeland Security has been keeping an eye on small utility trucks, like small Uhauls and moving trucks and freezer trucks. Basically trucks designed for transporting requiring a class C license, but not a CDL. Based on classified information, there is reason to believe that there was a plan to do a mass attack with multiple trucks like these loaded with explosives; think McVeigh and the Oklahoma tragidy to get an idea of what 1 truck can do.

    But, just because the next attempt probably won't involve planes, I am sure you'd agree that it doesn't mean that we should neglect taking affective, low cost security measures at the airport. I would say that at least securing the pilot cabin with a lock and seal, and a pistol would fit under the category of low cost.

  7. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

  8. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    The small truck scenario is scary. They can be anywhere...how does one defend against that?

    Securing the planes was necessary, but I agree that we're now fighting the last war as they say. Yet...we have this:

    That's from today's news.
  9. Brian R. VanCise

    Brian R. VanCise Senior Member Supporting Member

    Blowing up planes is still on the agenda big time. I do not see them going for building's still with Jumbo Jets. (however you never know) However, I think our airline industries are still very vulnerable to various type's of explosive threats.


    I would rather have trained professionals working planes and let them handle terrorists. Airline flight attendants just do not form a really good security presence in my mind. (they are simply to busy with other functions) They can be good eyes and ears though and also can and should assist if need be. Sure, pilots should be trained with tactical tools to protect the cabin and the door should be locked to aid them in
    this process. I would rather have more security (undercover or otherwise) working airlines to provide adequate protection for the passengers. I would be happy to pay an extra $25 or so for each ticket to have a couple of personel solely designated for security on each airplane. However, knowing how airline administration and security works from working and training with various personel, I doubt that this will happen.

    Air Marshall's are still spread way to thin and simply cannot keep up with all of the flights international or otherwise. It would still be a great step to continue to increase air marshal presence both on international and domestic flights.

    Unfortunately Airlines are still very vulnerable and probably always will be.

    Brian R. VanCise
  10. kabaroan

    kabaroan Kabaroan

    Personally, I prefer to see more air marshalls flying the friendly skies. I would also like to see more air line security flying as well...security employed by the airline to handle a situation; someone with the training in proper use of and escalation of force...kubotan/pocket stick; mace/pepper spray; tazer; beanbag shotgun. Teach about locks, holds, disarms, etc.

    Now then, that's impractical, we'd never be able to afford flying if we pay for all the security.

    I think that the next best solution should be the training of the airline flight crew (pilots to attendants) in the proper use of force (kubotan, pepper spray, tazer, etc) with annual or semi-annual certification.

    my two cents...
  11. Brian R. VanCise

    Brian R. VanCise Senior Member Supporting Member

    Really an extra $20 per passenger would cover the cost! I personally think that most flights security/safety should be modeled after ElAl airlines. I am not completely against flight attendants having training but once or twice a year, come on. They are so busy doing their regular job that they would probably be unable to function well in a security role. My background in this field also points out that personel that are pushed into a security role that is not what they see themselves as ends up being simply poor security. For good, well trained security more marshals and private airline security. I hate flying because I have no faith in the airlines ability to protect us at this point. Whether it be that they do not check all checked in packages. (reportedly only 10 percent) Or that they do not screen passengers well enough. I have unfortunately very little faith in the major airlines at this point.

    Brian R. VanCise
  12. Apollo

    Apollo Administrator

    Force all passengers to fly completely naked, then walk through an xray to ensure they aren't "smuggling".
  13. Brian R. VanCise

    Brian R. VanCise Senior Member Supporting Member


    Brian R. VanCise
  14. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    Meanwhile, I came across this story in today's paper:
    Pa. agency turns banned items into cash

    The picture in my paper included a shot of the machete and fake grenade and toy guns. Also in the picture are two pair of nunchaku and what appear to be two throwing stars.
  15. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member


    Grandma sues Postal Service over fruitcakes

    Postal clerk allegedly asked if 80-year-old was a terrorist

  16. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

  17. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    I wish I had one of those FAA surplus shops around where I am! :D
  18. kabaroan

    kabaroan Kabaroan

    Speaking of confiscated items...I recall reading where Joe Foss, USMC WW2 Ace and Medal of Honor recipient, and later US Senator, was detained in Pheonix carrying his MOH and a NRA bullet keychain and small pocket knife by the national guard. Foss was enroute to address the graduating class of the USMA, West Point.

    I find it inconceivible that the national guard would not know what a Medal of Honor looks like. Sad but true.

  19. tellner

    tellner New Member

    The automatic knife laws are stupid, the result of mid 20th century fear-mongering. And yes, people should be allowed to carry small knives on planes.

    But if you're trying to figure out how to carry something on the plane illegally, Cruentus, you're conspiring to commit a felony. And if you do it, you are a felon twice over. You belong in jail with the rest of the criminals. Period. End of discussion.
  20. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    Agreed. Someone can just carry a fixed blade that's every bit as deadly...let alone that those setting out to cause trouble will carry what they will.

Share This Page