Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Something struck me in your post, GS1, "...but simply because we're safer that way and we don't present much of a risk to the public".

As Malum referenced, the risk FROM law enforcment is greater than the risk from us, my point being that I'm not sure that we want to frame our argument that way, that is that our right is somehow dependent on what someone else sees as our "risk".

I mean, there's a risk that someone will yell "fire" in a movie theater, isn't there (when there isn't a fire)? No cops taping mouths shut... yet.

I realize that this is mostly between us, but, well, guess I want to begin framing our point of view in our terms.

T
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Didn't know whether this is salient, and/or appropriate for posting here, but...

We're doing some work for a startup airline, and the backers are fairly heavy hitters, at least financially. While our focus is on building a business plan, we've retained an expert on FAA regs to help integrate various compliance issues into the plan, because of the substantial costs associated with achieving compliance (stuff like operating certs, maintenance certs, seating certs, etc.). The new airline will have a focus on international travel, and will try to differentiate itself by being "kid and family friendly." So much for background.

One of the big issues is security, especially as there might be some folks who find an airliner full of parents and kids a particularly attractive target.

Our FAA guy has emphasized the FACT that all the cops, the body cavity searches, the lip-gloss and water confiscations, DO NOTHING to promote security of the aircraft, i.e. that all of it is (wicked expensive) window dressing. The perspective is, essentially, once the plane leaves the gate, security begins, and so we're working (with others) to find the balance of obvious and not-so-obvious security measures to not only keep the plane and occupants safe, but to communicate and be able to communicate the same to the public. Translated, what we’re saying over and over is that the responsibility is “ours.†The part I find interesting is that our FAA guy says, although he can't point to any studies or anything, that the public responds positively to obvious (and real) security, that is, planes (and airlines) that have things like something more than cardboard doors separating the cockpit, but that the public can't/doesn't articulate it. Its almost as though the message of safety on board is subliminal. I know, not real scientific, but it surprised me that a govy employee would have that perspective.

So, I guess the issue is the sense of security that the facade creates. As my wife says, if you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig... just wearing lipstick.

Despite the laws, I don't think I've ever spoken with anyone who said s/he felt "safe" on MARTA.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top