Hacker News Reader

Comment by anamax | Hacker News Reader

> At US airports there are also soldiers or guards carrying big scary automatic weapons in plain sight

When I was in Frankfurt in the 80s, it looked like every airport and train policeman carried a submachine gun.

In both Germany and the UK, I saw ordinary police carrying submachine guns outside the airport. (The UK surprised me.) Again, the 80s.

Has that changed? (I saw a couple of Italian police outside of airports with submachine guns post-2005.)

I've never seen more than a couple of automatic weapons in a US airport (and I spend way too much time in them). (BTW - M-16s aren't "big scary".)

I've seen maybe 10 US police outside of airports with automatic weapons in the last 30 years.

I was surprised how well armed the Indonesian airport police were in 2010.

View on HN

BTW - M-16s aren't "big scary".

I grew up in rural Alaska where guns were very much a part of everyday life, and I'm not sure I entirely agree.

Handguns are for situations where you don't expect to shoot something. Long guns are for situations where you do. In Alaska, most people carried handguns in the woods in case of bears, but a rifle indicated intent to kill things. Police often have a rifle, shotgun or both in the car, but don't get it out when they're not expecting trouble.

Something similar can be seen in the military, where soldiers whose primary job involves shooting people carry rifles or machine guns, and soldiers whose job is something else often have only a handgun.

A police officer carrying a long gun is, and should be a little alarming; it implies an unusually high expectation of a shootout.

(BTW - M-16s aren't "big scary".)

You know that, I now that. But to someone who rarely or never shoots an M16 is indeed big and scary.

Or just big. Two years ago we had an exchange student from mainland China. He'd never _seen_ a gun not carried by a soldier and never handled one not in a video game.

The idea that I had some pistols and rifles around the house was interesting to him ... but I thought he'd stroke out when I took him to a gun store and he was able to actually _handle_ an AR15.

I would consider any gun in the hands of another man 'big scary'. It doesn't really matter how big it is. He could be holding a small pistol - it can still kill me.

I suspect it depends on what you're used to. Seeing normal police officers in the US with firearms is, to me, just as scary as the officers that carry large rifles in airports. At least airports feel like an exception.

But most Americans I've talked to comment on the large rifles, but never on the handguns carried by normal police officers. It's normal for cops to have handguns, so it's nothing for them to be afraid of.

If your average American knew how little firearms training an average cop actually has they _would_ be afraid.

No joke. I know some LEO are very well trained, but I've shot alongside Boston PD and Seattle based Air Marshals and I was shocked at how bad of shots both groups were. And this is on the shooting range, without adrenaline/fear, etc... They were hitting paper, but nowhere near the 10 ring. The Air Marshals were scary considering they'd be shooting inside a crowded plane.

If we're doing anecdotes ...

Friend was a former Forth Worth police officer. His first week of patrol his issue pistol was broken. He didn't find out about this until he pulled it on a guy and it went 'click' not 'bang'.

It amazed me that this guy, who was not stupid, carried a gun around for a week without doing a function check on it.

He could be holding a small pistol - it can still kill me.

A gun is just a thing, a tool, it can't do anything.

What matters is the operator, his intent.

A Marine with his bare hands is dangerous. A cheerleader with a bazooka is not.

I'll have you know I'm a Marine with ambitions of cheerleading, you insensitive clod!

I'm sorry, but a cheerleader with a bazooka is most decidedly dangerous.

I'm sorry, but a cheerleader with a bazooka is most decidedly dangerous.

Not a bit. The bazooka is not dangerous, the _operator_ is.

Thought experiment. We've got a Thunderdome. Make it bigger (for kicks) and with more protection so shrapnel doesn't shred the crowd.

We've got Midvale High's cheerleader team, two US Rangers just back from Afghanistan.

Give the Rangers knives, the cheerleaders bazookas, grenades, shotguns, whatever.

I'll take the Rangers to win anyday. You'll really bet on the cheerleaders to win?

The point is not who is more dangerous _in battle_. The point is who is more dangerous _to me_, who poses no threat. An untrained operator is far more dangerous _to me_, as compared to a trained operator who will be aware that I do not need shooting, and who will be capable of hitting other targets, if necessary, without accidentally hitting me.

The point is not who is more dangerous _in battle_. The point is who is more dangerous _to me_,

Your point and my point diverged somewhere upthread.

It's not about 'battle', never was to my mind. It's about intent, will, and capability.

Another thought experiment.

Imagine a short tunnel. You're in the tunnel. The cheer leader is also in the tunnel.

Give the cheerleader a live, loaded, bazooka. Cheerleader doesn't know where or what the trigger is, or what any of those flaps, buttons, and triggers are, or how to hold the device.

Where do you want to stand? Within arms length of the cheerleader? Within 10 metres of the cheerleader, in front of the bazooka?

Most people are saying that the cheerleader might have no intention of killing you (and would be horrified if they did) but that there is a strong chance that they would, by accident.

1. I don't stand anywhere.

I yell like a banshee, run forward, knock her on her butt and smash her over the head with the bazooka.

Or, I talk nice, put on my authority voice, walk forward and then knock her down and smash her over the head with the bazooka.

Depends on the cheerleader. Talking nice will probably work best, thinking about it. And oh, hey, there is that intent thing again.

2. Thunderdome is a much better example for a melee battle than a short tunnel.

3. It's fascinating how my comments in this thread get modded down to 0, or -1 but people keep replying.

So, both your examples in 1 suggest that you think a cheer leader having a bazooka is not a good idea. Other people agree, not because the cheer leader is wanting to kill you with it, but because the cheerleader has a good chance of accidentally killing you (or others) with it.

(I haven't down-voted you. I do disagree with you, but that's not a reason why I would down vote.)

I don't agree with him either, but the discussion isn't bad. I've up voted him so that the text goes darker :-)

I'd be more worried about the cheerleader. The marine has a lot of training so unless I do something stupid they will most likely stay in control and not use their power over me. A gun can make any idiot as deadly as a well trained marine - but the idiot may not have the same amount of control making them more dangerous.

I'd be more worried about the cheerleader.

Sorry, wrong answer. It's not 'staying in control' it's the will to use the weapon to cause harm that 'will or may result in death'.

A cheerleader has no training, is not desensitized, hasn't been indoctrinated that guys downrange are targets and no longer actually human.

I may be overstretching the example, but a cheerleader with a rocket launcher has a non-trivial probability of unintentionally firing it in an unsafe direction.

You're over thinking the problem.

We're not ... I'm not ... talking about anything but intent to harm.

Marine has it. Cheerleader doesn't.

Cheerleader is harmless. Marine isn't.

This intentionally simple example excludes random fumbling with controls.

Well, I'm going to overthink it a bit more.

An armed cheerleader, given alcohol or significant emotional distress is more likely to act rashly than a marine who was intentionally subjected to abuse in basic training to see if he'd snap under pressure and trained to be disciplined at all times.

Your initial thinking isn't wrong, but this is HN; we pick things apart here.

Well, you did it: you stretched that metaphor until it broke into teeny-tiny pieces all over the ground.

My inner-bitter clinger is going to go weep to Jesus now.

You can also be killed by a baseball bat, garden shears, or a plastic supermarket bag. Why do you consider a gun carried by someone as part of his job 'big scary'?

Hand guns are made with the specific purpose of killing human beings which is somewhat terrifying. Also, it is a lot easier to be accidentally killed by a hand gun than a plastic supermarket bag.

>it is a lot easier to be accidentally killed by a hand gun than a plastic supermarket bag.

How many accidental gunshots vs. how many accidental incidents of accidental suffocation caused by supermarket bags?

Bags killed over 2000 infants btwn 1980 and 1997.

Accidental firearm deaths about 1000/year. So, you are right. But it's not as though accidental bag suffocation is insignificant and brushed aside as minimal.

So maybe infants should be more scared of plastic bags than firearms. I'm pretty sure that the commenter in question is not an infant, and thus has little to fear from plastic bags. (Does this really need to be stated?)

The commenter in question is afraid of a little girl with a gun. So .. me _might_ well be afraid of plastic bags.

> Hand guns are made with the specific purpose of killing human beings

Citation needed. Since they're not that effective at that "specific purpose", either their designers are incompetent or that isn't actually their "specific purpose". (And no, "what are they designed for if not killing people?" isn't actually an argument, evidence, etc.)

Hand guns are made with the specific purpose of killing human beings

I had, for a number of years, a .22 target pistol. Made for the specific purpose of punching small holes in paper. You _could_ use it for killing people, but you'd have to work at it.

That aside, being terrified of a thing seems like a sad way to live.

I'd be more afraid of a person with intent to harm, than the specific tool he uses.

That's how I feel exactly. Over the years I've been places where there were no guns, and places where pretty much everyone was packing. The most terrified I've ever been was a place where nobody had a gun, and I would have been overjoyed to see an armed policeman at the time.

> I would consider any gun in the hands of another man 'big scary'. It doesn't really matter how big it is. He could be holding a small pistol - it can still kill me.

How about a gun in the hands of a woman?

Or, a car in the hands of a human?

Or, a match/lighter?

You're surrounded by people with things that can kill you (he says considering the lethal potential of desk stapler).

The UK surprised me

I'm surprised at your surprise. The thing to remember is that terrorist groups has been a real and continuous threat in many European countries since at least the 60's. So airport security is something they've been taking seriously for decades and as such serious men with sub-machines guns have always been part of the scenery in most major European airports.

The UK thing is gently surprising. It's only reletively recently that they've started openly carrying guns.

Metropolitan Police were first permanently stationed at Heathrow in 1974. Boundary and operational conditions meant that most airport police could not carry arms; a law change in 1974 made it possible for them to do so.

But they openly started carrying machine guns in 1986.[1]

The UK had domestic terrorism for a long time before that happened. (Also, after.[3])

(http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-09/news/mn-14156_1_machi...)

(http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860109&...)

[3] (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ira-bombs-on-runway-as-jet...)

As an off-topic aside, my recent web searches include things like [heathrow mortars] and [machine guns heathrow] and so on. It says something that my totally innocent searching for information has left me with some anxiety.

And serious women, at least in Israel.

In both Germany and the UK, I saw ordinary police carrying submachine guns outside the airport. (The UK surprised me.) Again, the 80s.

Has that changed?

No. At least at Munich airport, there are one or two policemen with submachine guns right behind the security checkpoints. I think I have seen one at Heathrow recently, too.

This actually makes me feel safer.

Yup, police with submachine guns are completely routine at Heathrow. They're also not an uncommon sight around certain parts of London these days - all the big government buildings have a couple of policemen with MP5s hanging around the entrances.

That might have been a terrorism thing in the 80s in Germany. You know, domestic terrorism. The RAF was still active in the 80s and was actually able to carry out a few attacks (unlike, say, islamic terrorists).

During a recent terrorism scare (you know, elevated danger of an attack and such) those submachine guns really were everywhere in larger train stations but they disappeared after some time. I usually only see police without submachine guns now.

While the RAF were redoubtably active in Germany in the 80s they hadn't dropped any bombs on it for some time.

I suspect your mean the IRA?

Red Army Faction, not Royal Air Force :-)

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

OK, we always called them Baader-Meinhof - it sounded much more scarily Teutonic!

Arguably, they both specialized in blowing up stuff in Germany.

Hm, interesting. Going by this and the other reply it appears that maybe they put up a different show depending on if you're foreign?

For me it was JFK airport in New York btw.

As for Germany, yes I suppose you could say they had some "changes" near the end of the 80s ... ;)

And I suppose guns are about as big and scary as how threatened you're feeling. For example, UK police generally also tend to wear funny hats.

It's still common at Bristol airport in UK.

I'm not worried that police has them. I'm more worried how trained are they, since they're in a crowded area. Automatic weapons don't go well with crowded areas full of civilians in my mind. They're even worse if there's a possibility of someone going through the security without any issue, taking out the armed guy with a simple blow to the head and then taking his gun...

I travelled through Frankfurt in 1999, and was just as surprised at the very-well-armed airport security.

In the US and Canada, I can't recall ever seeing anything more than a holstered pistol.

One will sometimes see this in Berlin, at both the airports and at monuments/the Reichstag etc. For some reason they don't come across as particularly menacing, though.

Huh? Rifles in a closed indoor environment are pretty scary to me. They are inappropriate and intimidating to anyone who isn't a gun geek.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com