Pointy Sticks are next

[Badger]

57,000 approx. or 0.1% of the population. I was one of that 0.1% who had legal handguns, the ~8,000 pounds (about $14,500 US) compensation paid for a new kitchen and half the wifes secondhand 4x4, most of the money was for reloading gear, brass and the like. The 6 guns were a .22 single shot precision target pistol, .32 berreta (uncles leaving present from H.M. gov'ts VIP protection service), S&W 66, Pre WW1 colt 1911, S&W .455 WW1 officers name engraved revolver and a S&W .44 mag with the 8" barrel and optics barely made 1200 pounds of the total, they returned my speedloader blocks and my 1911 compensator, even though they have no other use. Of course lots more people would have liked to have had handguns, but the law put too many barriers in the way of them doing so legally.

Handguns however are not completely banned, certain historic metallic cartridge guns, hunters/vets and others requiring the means to kill animals can still have them. Muzzle loading guns are also still legal, though my 3 legal and registered flintlock pistols seem to be causing some angst to the police at the moment.

Illegal handguns however are plentiful according to some police officers I meet.

Can't buy, but not banned from owning, our Scouts still have pocket knives, though some stupid people think non-locking folding blades are suitable....Fixed or locking, you don't want it to close on YOU whilst your using it!

Niel, also a Scout leader.

[Lawrence Wasserman]

Banning swimming pools would save far more lives each year than banning guns, and after all, they are not constitutionally protected, nor could many people justify a "need" for one.

[Mark & Juanita]

Your information above indicates that it was in a bag she was carrying.

The attempt was thwarted because the bag she was carrying was searched as is all carry-on -- that attempt should have been caught by the x-ray or random explosive swipe of the luggage (not the person).

No, you seem to have missed my point. No invasive search of the pregnant woman was needed to find the device being placed on board the plane, that should have been identified and found in the normal search to which *all* carry-on items subjected. You can argue that a person could unwittingly be duped into somehow actually carrying a bomb on their person that could only be detected by invasive search, but that is a huge stretch. i.e, the point is that screening of all carry-on precludes the introduction of problems by unwitting passengers, the invasive search of *people* not matching a specific profile is a waste of resources.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[fredfighter]

I got your point and explained why it was wrong. I explain in greater detail below.

I do and it is not a huge stretch. Remember DeLorean?

Here are two hypotheticals, one using your example of a middle- aged male, the other a grandmother:

1) Disguise. A young man (who does meet the profile) poses as a middle- aged man (who does not meet the profile), disguises himself as that older man (bleaches his hair, uses make-up on his face) uses false ID and boards the plane with a bomb or plastic knife hidden on his person. 2) The Al Queda operative finds a little old lady with a desparately ill family member who has no health insurance. That operative posses as a drug smuggler and convinces the little old lady to smuggle a package of drugs on her person. Only the package of drugs is really a bomb. It is nontrivial to make a bomb with a timer or altimeter fuse without metal, but it is doable. It doesn't have to be drugs, it can be any contraband--the bomb can be put into bibles to be smuggled into Saudia Arabia.

Wrong. The point is that if a profile is used by security, it will be used to defeat those security measures by anyone who is at least a little bit clever.