[eurohacker]

Good/bad idea?

I don't think the gov't has any reason to decide which security measures an airline uses. Basically if you want to get your... uhm... orifice probed and told what to do, choose airline A. If you want to carry guns on the plane and not have any security checks at all, choose airline B. As long they're up-front about, I see no problem.

And if a plane does get hi-jacked, well, that's what Stinger missiles are for...

[Lone_Gunman]

It doesn't matter if its a good or bad idea, it simply will never happen.

[1911JMB]

One good idea that is possible is more pilots carrying guns. More grassroots agitation is needed for that to happen.

[eurohacker]

What is one pilot going to do? Hell, what is one Air Marshall going to do? Terrorists could have a few guys who sacrifice themselves, get shot, then the real team sneaks up behind...

Plus, there are things you can never protect against. You could have a female terrorist with fake boobs filled with Sarin gas, for instance.

[TMM]

"pilots should fly the plane, not defend the plane from terrorists"

hah.

everyone should be allowed to carry, but using only frag rounds. terrorist comes up with boxcutter, then he gets turned into swiss cheese.

~TMM

[eurohacker]

How about using some kind of shotgun with birdshot?

[Flyboy]

What is one pilot going to do?
Sit in the cockpit, behind a door which makes most people turn sideways--think "choke point"--and a deployed jump seat, which people have to step over to enter.

Seriously, the layout is almost ideal for the defender. The attacker can only come from one direction, and he will be significantly slowed when he tries to enter. He can't enter without making enough noise to alert the pilot (particularly with the new, stronger, doors), and even if he does get in, the cockpit is cramped enough that it's going to be difficult for him to move; the pilot, however, can sit in his seat, point the gun at the choke point, and as soon as he sees the bad guy, double-tap.

The choke point is so tight, in fact, that it negates possibility of large teams. As bodies start falling, they'll clog up the entryway, just like at Thermopylae. Of course, since the intial attack, the other pilot has disengaged the autopilot and is maneuvering aggressivly, making it difficult for anybody standing to remain so, let alone try an attack. He's probably also dumping the pressurization, taking the cabin up to 35,000 feet, where the time of useful consciousness for anybody not wearing a mask is less than a minute.

At least, that's what I'd do.

[Standing Wolf]

It doesn't matter if its a good or bad idea, it simply will never happen.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. The one thing you can always count on government to do is prevent individuals from exercising individual initiative.

[Stickjockey]

As someone who works for an airline, I'd love to see something like this:

If you have a CCW, as long as your permit is accepted in both your departure and arrival areas, the only question you should have to answer would be, "what calibre ammo would you prefer today?" Non-CCW permittees would be required to carry declared, and openly or in their carryon luggage. There would also be a requirement that at least one person at each ticket counter/gate be armed.

Will it happen? Not on your life.

[Lone_Gunman]

Stickjockey,

Your plan would have done nothing to prevent 9-11, nor would it stop most terrorist attacks using planes, because our biggest and busiest airports are in states that don't have good CCW programs, and don't have reciprocity with many other states.

American Airlines Flight 11 was from Boston, MA to Sanfrancisco, CA.

United Airlines Flight 175 was from Boston, MA to Los Angeles, CA.

American Airlines Flight 77 was from Washington DC to Los Angeles, CA.

United Airlines Flight 93 was from Newark, NJ to San Francisco, CA.

Who would have a CCW permit valid in MA, CA, DC, and NJ? No one short of a federal agent I suspect.

I don't think we really need guns on planes to prevent terrorist hijackings. At this point, unless the hijackers are in the majority on the flight, I think they will get their asses whipped as soon as the first box cutter comes out.

[Burt Blade]

Imagine how fast we would get national CCW reciprocity of only airliners from unfree states were hijacked, and Free state planes were safely armed and were unmolested?

Imagine if the pilots on September 11th had been armed. Or even had instructions to resist takeovers, and not surrender the plane no matter what the thugs did in the cabin. What if it was common doctrine for cabin crew to gang-tackle any troublemakers, and to call on passengers to join the scrimmage?

September 11th would be known as the day angry Americans on aircraft beat/shot/stabbed/strangled to death 19 thugs. Perhaps we would have had four mid-course crashes, instead of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.


That "sheep" doctrine killed several thousand people.


Don't be a sheep. Even barehanded, a plane full of angry people can defeat 5 thugs. Just understand that if the thugs win, you die, and a whole bunch of people on the ground will die too. Anything you do to fight the thugs, _anything_, no matter how unlikely to succeed, is better than meek surrender. Surrender is death and mass murder.

Never forget a handful of angry Americans said "Let's roll" and defeated Al Qaeda. That plane did _not_ reach the intended target. Yes they died. They died saving many lives, perhaps thousands of lives. Sometimes all you get to do is choose the manner of your death. Make that choice count.

[NukemJim]

everyone should be allowed to carry, but using only frag rounds

You might want to do a little checking on that. Air Marshalls doe NOT carry prefragmented or frangible ammo, standard hollowpoints I forget which ones off hand.

Outside of Movies there is NOT a risk of explosive decompression from bullet holes. A standard size airlinger (707, 727, 737 etc ) usually have between 1-2 Square feet of holes in the pressurerized section of the plane. That is why they continusly feed in air under pressure. If you hit a window and blow it out the masks will come down but the only people at risk from being sucked out would be an infant being hand held.

From my talking with AirMarshall trainers the real risk to the plane is from hitting control/hydraulic/electrical lines but even prefragmented/frangible (frangibles are designed to need to hit steel before they break apart) rounds can pierce these lines.

Besides that you can always plug any holes made by the bullets with the terrorists body :D

NukemJim

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm always against disarming free people, but I just can't see how allowing passengers to carry on a plane would make it safer from hijacking.

The problem is that by allowing armed passengers you're also allowing armed hijackers. If guns were allowed on planes on 9-11-01 then the hijackers would have brought Glocks instead of boxcutters. It would have been easier for them to pull off their attack.

Statistically, I doubt there will be more than about 2 armed "good guys" on the average plane. Given 4 armed hijackers (as on 9-11) with the advantage of surprise, preparation and coordination, the good guys simply won't have a chance. Thus, arming the passengers essentially allows the terrorists to take any plane at will. Not good... :(

We need a way to arm only the good guys. But trying to allow only honest passengers to have a gun simply isn't workable. If we had a way to tell the hijackers from the regular passengers we'd use it to keep the hijackers off the plane in the first place.

So, I guess I can't see why it would be advantageous to allow passengers to bring their guns onto a plane. I don't like it at all, but there it is. :( Maybe someone can point out an error in my reasoning.


Arming the pilots is an entirely different matter. The pilots can be assumed to be good guys. (If they aren't then we're screwed no matter what.) So, arming the pilots but not the passengers means you're giving the good guys a huge advantage without helping the hijackers at all. This would be a good thing indeed. Combine this with impenetrable cockpit doors and you can darn near eliminate the possibility of repeating the type of attack used on 9-11.

We have the tougher cockpit doors. Why don't have guns in the cockpit???

[c_yeager]

Call me crazy, but i think it should be up to the person/people who own the plane.

[280PLUS]

Last time I flew, we were standing in line at the security checkpoint and there was a sign indicating what you can not bring on board. On it was a picture of a S&W snubbie with one of those red circles and line over it, "NO Guns" it clearly meant. I, being an old smarta**, exclaim loudly, WHAT!?! I can't bring my Smith and Wesson on the PLANE??!? I sure would feel better IF I COULD!"

Got a few chuckles out of it...

:evil:

Give me my snubbie over a plastic knife any day of the week!

Anyone remember the old Twighlight Zone episode where Shatner leans out the window of the plane with his revolver and starts shooting Gremlins off the wing? :eek: :D

[Joejojoba111]

What frag rounds would work?

Also, what really happens if the skin of airplane is punctured? Is it catastrophic, or not catastrophic? Like 1 minute of rapid depressure while you put on air-masks? I could live with that.

[Pilot]

I am a proponent of pilots being armed in commercial aircraft. However, many are not taking advantage of the program for whatever reason, mainy the hassle factor of the training. I think this is unfortunate. Some maintain that having an armed flight crew is a negative as all the terrorist have to do is threaten a passenger's life to get the pilot to give up the gun. Now, you have a terrorist armed with a firearm instead of a box cutter or whatever else they'v had smuggled on board. The most likely scenario is weapons smuggled onto the aircraft by maintenance staff, catering, custodial, etc. I am still in the camp that wants pilots to be armed.

I know as U.S. citizens we have the RKBA, but I would not want all those people carrying weapons in whatever stage of readiness with an unknown level of training (probably none for ops inside an aircraft) in my aircraft, and as Pilot in Command I have the last say as does every other pilot flying.

[Stickjockey]

Your plan would have done nothing to prevent 9-11, nor would it stop most terrorist attacks using planes,

LG,

I never said it would. On the other hand, it would create a much freer environment for those with CCW, especially for those who do most of their travelling intrastate or between states that have reciprocity or honor out-of-state permits. I travel quite a bit on a regional airline between Portland and Bend, Oregon. Why should I have to unload, lock up, and check my sidearm, thus rendering it both ineffective and subject to disappearance, only to have to put it all back on at the end of my flight? I'm the good guy, remember?

There's also the added benefit that Burt suggested, especially given the growth of CCW in the past few years.

[centac]

Possession of guns by untrained civilians does not equate to safety. What do they know, possess or can do that cannot be done better by the FAMs and ADOs? It is their ballpark, so it is their game.

[Flyboy]

Possession of guns by untrained civilians does not equate to safety. What do they know, possess or can do that cannot be done better by the FAMs and ADOs?
Possession of guns by untrained civilians does not equate to safety. What do they know, possess or can do that cannot be done better by the FBI and police?

[Russ]

They will do that when pigs fly. Too many hijackings in the 60's and 70's and now with the Facists that hide behind Islam, this will never happen.

[hifi]

One good idea that is possible is more pilots carrying guns. More grassroots agitation is needed for that to happen.

Hell, even Boxer wants to arm the pilots, but not Lord Bush.

[Omni04]

hey hasn't anybody read Rainbow Six, by Tom Clancy? It should be standard reading for all airline passengers!

[captain obvious]

Possession of guns by untrained civilians does not equate to safety. What do they know, possess or can do that cannot be done better by the FBI and police?

:banghead:

Why not just take that a step further and make all firearm ownership by civilians illegal?

[Burt Blade]

The Calculus of success.

If a plane _might_ be carrying 3-5 armed passengers, not all of whom will act right away, what is the likelihood of successfully taking control of a plane and _maintaining_ control of it while flying it to a target?

Not good. One undetected little old lady with a .38 snubbie could screw up the whole thing. Could, but not "certainly could". Still, where does that leave the bad guys? How do they ensure even a 50-50 chance? The last thing, the very last thing they want is the passengers thwarting their plans. That would remove their aura of power, of invincibility. They _cannot_ have that, so they will not try.

Flight 93, where ordinary Americans took back their lives from the despicable thugs of Al Qaeda, prevented a greater tragedy.

http://www.unitedheroes.com

Yes, they died. Yes, they _won_. Now we know that fighting back is better than surrender. From now on, any time some turds try to seize an American airliner, a bunch of angry Americans will attack them, _barehanded_ if they have to. The plane will _not_ be used as a weapon against a ground target. I fly quite a bit. My life is gone the moment they announce the takeover. I can only win it back by trying. If I die, so be it. I will die fighting. That plane may crash, but my hands will be on the throat of one of the SOBs, and I will see them off to hell before I sit there and die like a sheep. I choose Liberty over safety. So do others.

And some really dumb people, in the name of "safety" want us to go up against armed hijackers barehanded. The bad guys can always beat the system, and get weapons aboard. All the restrictions do is make my survival doubtful.

If someone hijacks a plane, and I get shot to death by the guy who bags the turd, so be it. I was dead the moment the turds selected my flight. My life goes on only if we win the day. I much prefer that at least _some_ passengers survive.

I want the SchweinHund to know that there is _no_ chance to take over a US airliner. None. One of us, perhaps _all_ of us, will _exterminate_ them. No would be hijacker should ever reach the ground alive. _My_ funeral pyre will _not_ be another skyscraper.

[280PLUS]

I've posted this idea in the past but here goes again.

Let the CCW have the option of taking it upon him/herself to undergo training in "Ops" on an aircraft and thereby achieve qualification to do so. Then I'd seat several of those individuals just behind the cockpit door so any person trying to approach and gain access to the cockpit would have to make it through them. They could make the bulkhead between first class and coach bullet resistant. Then, if there were enough to go around, some others can be scattered about the cabin. People need to come around to the fact that the civilian is the answer to the terrorist problem. The police etc simply can't be everywhere.

If the CCW prefers NOT to undergo such training then their firearm resides in the cargo hold during the flight.

As far as myself or anyone else giving up their weapon to save a hostage. Those days are over unfortunately and I, for one, regret, no RESENT, having to think this way.

:( :mad:

[Joejojoba111]

Lol - the government training citizens to become better with their firearms - and footing the bill for it?

And then you also get to ride up in first class...

It makes perfect sense in the tactical and logical way, but making sense like that counts for didka. But your idea makes good sense, especially the seating by the cockpit. On the other hand, it might be better if the CCWs could be anywhere, not always in one specific place.

[The Rabbi]

I think first there needs to be nationwide reciprocity on CCWs.
Second, those with CCWs should declare it at the time of boarding. They should be required to unload the gun but not store the ammo separately. This will eliminate NDs.
Third, no one else should know who is CCWing and who isnt. That is the whole beauty. There might be 3-5 terrorists on board but how many CCW's and who are they? They wont know.
As far as special training, why? Impose the same standards of legal liability we have now. Anyone who wants special training would be well advised to get it but it shouldnt be required. If you want to be a yayhoo and are willing to foot the legal bills for your lack of preparedness then so be it.
I know its a fantasy but hey, we can dream cant we?

[280PLUS]

Hi Rabbi!

I agree 110% on the national reciprocity, I do not agree with unloading my gun, it would be detrimental to the whole concept. I (figuratively speaking)wouldn't want to have to waste any time loading in an emergency.

To go back to jojo for a second, I'm not suggesting the Gov't do the training just recognize it.

Now back to Rabbi, as for training, I, personally, would feel better knowing that any CCW that I may have to ally with has some modicum of training. We'll at least know that each others capabilities are at some certain level.

I fully agree with the secrecy as well as not placing them ALL near the cockpit door. That way, as you stated, anyone with bad intentions woud not know who, how many, where etc. A great deterrant IMHO. Just to make it fair for example if you flew first class this trip you'd fly coach the next. That way everybody gets to be pampered. :p

I think the CCWs should be aware of who and where each other are though, very important.

Yes, I too see it as a scenario that would take place as soon as pigs grow wings and learn to fly. Of course if you take your pig and put it on a plane IT WOULD BE FLYING!! No need for it to grow wings at all.

:D

I think the only thing that would change the status quo would be a true life SHTF world of the future at which point there would be no choice.

[bigjim]

Possession of guns by untrained civilians does not equate to safety. What do they know, possess or can do that cannot be done better by the FAMs and ADOs? It is their ballpark, so it is their game.

Oh boy. Last Cop professional enough to say something like this shot himself in the leg. I hope you are ok centac.

[Joejojoba111]

LO fing L! Hey, Centac is just a standard issue street soldier, trying to get by, just like the rest of us...

[The Rabbi]

Now back to Rabbi, as for training, I, personally, would feel better knowing that any CCW that I may have to ally with has some modicum of training. We'll at least know that each others capabilities are at some certain level.

OK. Today, 2005, you are sitting in a Cracker Barrel and some disgruntled former employee walks in with his shotgun/Mac90 etc ready to settle scores. There are likely some CCWs there. Would you feel better knowing the others have some modicum of training? Does that translate into requiring people to take advanced firearms classes in order to get a CCW?
I personally would feel better knowing every law abiding citizen had a gun and was proficient as Jerry Miculek is with a revolver. But recognizing that wont happen I am happy if every citizen has the right to own the gun, the opportunity to train with it to whatever level he feels is right, and the liability so if he does something stupid I can sue his butt.
Just because you are on an airplane shouldnt make it any different.

[Art Eatman]

Drifting somewhat: I tend to agree with the Israeli anti-terrorism guy who commented that terrorists won't again try the airplane deal. They believe that passengers will do a "Let's roll!" thing.

Shame TSA has less faith in us than do the terrorists.

Me? I'd let any IDPA or IPSC guy with a CHL to carry on a plane. Any cop, same-same. Any graduate of Gunsite et al. So a good guy on a plane gets hit. So what? The USAF is willing to shoot down a planeload of 400; what's one or two mistakes?

Art

[Joejojoba111]

I don't really believe that 1 hole a fraction of an inch wide will make an airplace explode anyways. I'm not stuck in a dogma, it's just I don't understand why it would. Maybe air would escape, yea, but I don't see walls blowing out and sucking everything to oblivion. I'm open to evidence, I'd love to see it, but I can't believe it until I hear at least a theory why.

[AZLibertarian]

Geez. This topic comes up like clockwork every couple of months. Most of you have got the right idea, but here are my thoughts (again)...

I am a captain at a major national airline. Now before anyone thinks I'm not a supporter of the 2A and our RKBA, you're wrong. I'd love to see a truely libertarian world where we could each decide whether to carry anywhere. But other parties would be also be free to restrict that right on their property for their own reasons. Allowing CCWs or other "civilians" to be armed on a plane is a bad idea for a number of reasons.... I highly doubt that the airlines--as private entities--would allow armed private parties on their property to individually decide--with no guidance from the airline--when a situation was bad enough to start shooting. Leaving aside for the moment the potential for innocents being killed through this policy, fixing a hole in a jet is much more complicated than patching some drywall in a restaurant/movie theater/wherever. Some of you are bringing irrelevant points into this argument. An armed civilian, pilot, or LEO/FAM will have no ability to prevent a terrorist from using an explosive or chem/bio weapon. Likewise, no transport pilot will resort to aggressive maneuvers. The planes simply aren't built to withstand them. And depressurizing the plane is as likely to kill the young/old/infirm as it might put the athletic young terrorists (along with everyone else) to sleep.

If you did allow CCWs on planes here are a few questions that need answered...
How often, and to what standards have the CCWs trained?
Does everybody know where everybody else is seated, and what they look like?
Just when are all these strangers supposed to meet to get to know one another? An airplane sitting at a gate is like a factory sitting idle. Sitting around for 5 minutes while everybody meets and greets costs money. In case someone hasn't been paying attention recently, the airlines are strapped. If it isn't at least cost-neutral, count them out. Would CCWs be willing to pay extra for this priviledge?
Is there a standard ROE and does everybody understand it?
Is there a chain of command, who's in charge and how do you decide this?
How do you know that the CCWs haven't been infiltrated by terrorists?



And in case none of that convinces you that this is a bad idea, go back and re-read reply #2 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1788713&postcount=2).

[280PLUS]

Some of you are bringing irrelevant points into this argument. An armed civilian, pilot, or LEO/FAM will have no ability to prevent a terrorist from using an explosive or chem/bio weapon.
Quite true but it COULD help to prevent them from taking over the plane and using it as a weapon. Like Art said, if your plane is taken over it most likely will be blown out of the sky. Wouldn't you want a chance to prevent that? I sure would. I'll bet that if the SHTF on your plane you'd be more than happy to see a civilian jump up with a gun and take the offending party out because unless someone did they'd be making their way into YOUR cockpit.

It's time to start realizing we're all in this TOGETHER! United We Stand has taken on a whole new meaning here in the 21st century.

If you did allow CCWs on planes here are a few questions that need answered...
How often, and to what standards have the CCWs trained?
Does everybody know where everybody else is seated, and what they look like?
Just when are all these strangers supposed to meet to get to know one another? An airplane sitting at a gate is like a factory sitting idle. Sitting around for 5 minutes while everybody meets and greets costs money. In case someone hasn't been paying attention recently, the airlines are strapped. If it isn't at least cost-neutral, count them out. Would CCWs be willing to pay extra for this priviledge?
Is there a standard ROE and does everybody understand it?
Is there a chain of command, who's in charge and how do you decide this?
How do you know that the CCWs haven't been infiltrated by terrorists? This could all be addressed fully except the last point. But then again, how do we know, for example, your local police force hasn't been infiltrated? Or anything else for that matter?

If the CCW people arrive a little EARLY and have a little meet and greet? Remember, they would be accepting responsibility for theirs and the rest of the passengers safety, they might be taking this seriously enough to agree to show up early to meet with others and establish who takes what position in already practiced scenarios.

And in case none of that convinces you that this is a bad idea, go back and re-read reply #2. While I do not view it as a BAD IDEA please see MY reference to pigs and flying in post #29 just to confirm that I'm not really living in a dream world.

Your points are well taken Rabbi, but a little training never hurt anybody. In a resturant, if someone comes in and starts shooting chances are anyone else who jumps up and starts shooting back is probably on my side. On a plane I couldn't be so sure. We don't want civilians to jump up and end up shooting each other, or we'd at least want to try to prevent that.

The "Let's Roll" scenario already proves the viability of the civilian population taking resposibility for their own safety. HAD THEY BEEN ARMED it might have turned out differently for them. At least their chances woud have been a little better.

[AZLibertarian]

Quite true but [civilian CCWs on planes] COULD help to prevent them from taking over the plane and using it as a weapon. Like Art said, if your plane is taken over it most likely will be blown out of the sky.... I agree with all this, but I also think we have to balance this "COULD" against the possibility that a bunch of semi-trained civilians COULD end up shooting a bunch of innocents over nothing.

I think we need a bit of reality here folks. There are a few here who are "Computer Cowboys" and talk a bunch about shooting without ever managing to get to the range much, but I get the sense that the majority of THRers are active shooters. Most of "us" here are knowledgeble (beyond the latest issue of Guns-n-Ammo) about firearms, and shoot a minimum of 300 rounds per month. However, I believe there's a whole world of gun owners out there who don't know that THR exists and don't even own ammunition. They manage to shoot a box of 50 every 3-4 years. Even active hunters only shoot enough to sight-in their rifles (10-20 rounds), and then put them away after deer season. I'd wager that at least half those who've taken the effort to get a CCW carry their guns infrequently, and rarely to the range. My point here is that while I love the idea that--as an individual--one can freely choose whether to carry a weapon and how proficient one needs to keep oneself, when you put a number of these folks on a plane, you're asking for trouble. The density of people, and the consequences of what might happen when rounds miss their targets, I think, demand a level of individual proficiency and teamwork that simply won't work on a plane. What you're doing is assembling a posse of folks off the street, then assuming they'll perform like a well-trained SWAT team.

Regarding the "Let's Roll" phenomenon...I'm all for it, but one part of it does concern me. For as misguided as I believe the terrorists to be, I don't think they're dumb (far from it, in fact). Another 9/11-style takeover will result in nearly everyone getting out of their seat and using their own hands to take down a terrorist team. My fear, however, is that one day there is going to be a misunderstanding in the cabin, and someone is going to be beaten to a pulp by a crowd of people who just missed an innocent explanation of what might have looked suspicious.

[The Rabbi]

The density of people, and the consequences of what might happen when rounds miss their targets, I think, demand a level of individual proficiency and teamwork that simply won't work on a plane. What you're doing is assembling a posse of folks off the street, then assuming they'll perform like a well-trained SWAT team.

The elitism of some of the responses is amazing for a group of folks who consider themselves Libertarians.
Why should we issue CCWs at all? Maybe we should insist that every CCW undergo SWAT-type training. Maybe training should take years and cost thousands of dollars. That would certainly cut down on the number of CCWs in the country. Why do you think so few pilots have been certified? You guys are as bad as the "at-will issue" crowd.
Yes, drawing your gun and firing in a crowded plane is dangerous. Drawing your gun and firing in a crowded anything is dangerous. Do you leave your weapon at home when you go to the movies?
Or can we agree that if someone is astute enough to go get a CCW then he should be astute enough to know when and how to use the weapon in different situations. And if he isnt then he will bear the legal consequences of his actions?

[richyoung]

Let the CCW have the option of taking it upon him/herself to undergo training in "Ops" on an aircraft


HOW are "ops" on a PLANE any DIFFERENT from "ops" on a bus, or subway? They AREN'T - the gun is like Windows - point-and-click interface, no matter where you are using it. "Mythbusters", (and the experience of hundreds of pressurized B-29s and B-52s that endired combat dammage) have totally gutted the Hollywood "explosive decompression" silly movie plot device.

[El Rojo]

I think we need to recognize that CCWing on the street is quite different than CCWing on on a potential flying bomb. The facts are if we allow CCWers to carry on aircraft, then we also allow terrorists to carry on planes. I work with a lady who has a husband that is a pilot for Fed-Ex. He went through the training and even he carries on his plane full of inanimate cargo. He has stated that there are a lot more armed pilots than the media lets on.

So if you have a reinforced cockpit and armed pilots, why give the passengers all of the hardware they need to take over and keep the plane? I think the situation is fine just as it is. Pilots are armed, the doors are really hard to get into, and passengers are no longer going to sit and comply with terorrist demands. Flight 93 was the last time passengers would comply with terrorist demands. Look at Richard Reid, they beat the living crap out of that guy as soon as he tried to light his shoe bombs.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. And if you leave it up to the airlines to do what they want, you an pretty much bet they aren't going to change anything because if they allow armed passangers and something happens, kiss tha company good bye to lawsuits. No one would be willing to take that risk.

[The Rabbi]

The facts are if we allow CCWers to carry on aircraft, then we also allow terrorists to carry on planes.

Can someone explain the logic of this to me? By that same logic, if we allow CCW on the streets then we also allow criminals to carry on the streets.

[AZLibertarian]

The elitism of some of the responses is amazing for a group of folks who consider themselves Libertarians. Why should we issue CCWs at all? Maybe we should insist that every CCW undergo SWAT-type training. Maybe training should take years and cost thousands of dollars. That would certainly cut down on the number of CCWs in the country. Why do you think so few pilots have been certified?... The point of CCWs is to protect me and mine from a lethal threat. If I miss my target and shoot an innocent person, or somehow damage property--the legal consequences to my error would run millions. In the worst case, I'll be bankrupted, and potentially in jail, but at least my family will be safe. If I'm on a plane and do the same thing, these consequences can quickly approach the billions (an older, smaller airframe such as a 737 can begin at $44million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737)). Add to that the wrongful death lawsuits for a hundred+ people on the plane, and you've not only bankrupted yourself, but left a severely financially-damaged airline as well as the damages to the others on the plane. The only individuals likely to be able to cover this level of damages live in Bill Gates' neighborhood. In other words, I think you have to keep in mind the worst case level of damages arising from the least-trained and capable CCW you've allowed on the plane. In my opinion, the risks of these minimally-trained CCW holders outweigh the benefits they might provide.

As to why "so few" pilots are FFDOs...
First of all, since the TSA doesn't release this data, I don't know one way or the other what percentage of pilots have volunteered to be FFDOs, so I don't know if I could agree with your "so few" label. However, this is a complex question. In everyday life, not everyone wants the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun. It is no less the case for an FFDO. A common barrier to the process is simply scheduling. The training takes a full week--a week that is unpaid (how many CCWs would take a 25% paycut one month simply to carry a gun?). The TSA process might be characterized as unwelcoming to pilot volunteers just as easily as it might be characterized as saying that it ensures that it provides the careful scrutiny that one would expect over any federal LEO.

I don't think my position is elitist. I acknowledge that it might appear to conflict with a worldview where we are all individually free, yet responsible for our actions. However, I see this as the difference between anarchy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html) and libertarianism. Of course, on this point, as well as the earlier point about CCWs on planes, YMMV.

[richyoung]

The point of CCWs is to protect me and mine from a lethal threat. If I miss my target and shoot an innocent person, or somehow damage property--the legal consequences to my error would run millions. In the worst case, I'll be bankrupted, and potentially in jail, but at least my family will be safe. If I'm on a plane and do the same thing, these consequences can quickly approach the billions (an older, smaller airframe such as a 737 can begin at $44million).

You aren't going to bring an airliner down with a handgun. Look at how much we ridicule the anti's for claiming a .50 will be used by terrorists to "bring down a jetliner" - I doubt a handgun has enough penetration to get though the deck and into critical wiring/hydraulics - most of which have back-ups, anyway. You are positing a scenario that simply doesn't exist.


Add to that the wrongful death lawsuits for a hundred+ people on the plane,

...given such a scenario, how are they going to know who shot?

and you've not only bankrupted yourself, but left a severely financially-damaged airline as well as the damages to the others on the plane.

...its called "insurance", and I believe commercial airlines are required to have it....

The only individuals likely to be able to cover this level of damages live in Bill Gates' neighborhood.

...insurance, again...

In other words, I think you have to keep in mind the worst case level of damages arising from the least-trained and capable CCW you've allowed on the plane. In my opinion, the risks of these minimally-trained CCW holders outweigh the benefits they might provide.

Your opinion will carry more weight, and probably change, when you are more informed. We have LOTS of experience with pressurized airplanes being shot - the "explosive decompression" is a myth.

[The Rabbi]

The point of CCWs is to protect me and mine from a lethal threat. If I miss my target and shoot an innocent person, or somehow damage property--the legal consequences to my error would run millions. In the worst case, I'll be bankrupted, and potentially in jail, but at least my family will be safe

You've brought up a good point. Let's say you cause millions of dollars of damages through a bad shoot. Do you have millions of dollars to pay it? If not, then what difference does it make if you cause thousands of dollars you dont have or if you cause millions of dollars you dont have or if you cause a billion dollars you dont have? Someone is going to be out money because you can't get blood from a turnip. Maybe we should require a performance bond with CCWs or some statement of financial responsibility, just as we do with automobiles?
I dont see any difference between CCWing into a restaurant or a movie theatre or into a commercial jet. If you are allowed to do one you should be allowed to do the other.

[AZLibertarian]

I dont see any difference between CCWing into a restaurant or a movie theatre or into a commercial jet. The difference, as I said earlier, is that holes in the wall of a restaurant or movie theater take a little more than some spackle and paint. Holes in the skin of a plane are a whole lot more difficult to repair. The difference in human terms, is that once the shooting starts in a restaurant or movie theater, those who wish to escape the mayhem will head for the exits. When the shooting starts on a plane, not only is the "people density" higher than on land, but there is no place to escape to.

[The Rabbi]

I dont see any difference. Physical damage is physical damage. Human damage is human damage. When someone pulls his gun to shoot he takes responsibility for where the bullets go. Against one aggressor on an empty street there is obviously less risk than against multiple aggressors in a crowded setting. But that is for the CCW himself to measure. There is no law that says you must pull the weapon and shoot.

[centac]

At the risk of contaminating AZLibertarian with centac cooties, he is spot on. The average CCW doesnt have the right or ability to unilaterally act in disregard of all the other Souls On Board, heck, as an average LEO I dont either. Y'all just arent that good, and neither am I.

[AZLibertarian]

You aren't going to bring an airliner down with a handgun.... But with a bunch of them, you might. BTW, it will be a rare shot from inside an airliner that won't penetrate the skin.

...its called "insurance", and I believe commercial airlines are required to have it.... If I'm reading you right, you're proposing that airlines carry insurance to cover their passenger's liabilities--Is that right? If a CCWer neglilently shoots someone in a Walmart, is Walmart at fault?

Your opinion will carry more weight, and probably change, when you are more informed. We have LOTS of experience with pressurized airplanes being shot - the "explosive decompression" is a myth. Nowhere did I claim a problem with explosive decompression. My main concern is two-fold...
The potential for a plane-load of CCWers to turn a hijacking into a circular firing squad.
And questions regarding the greater level of property damages likely in an airplane CCW event compared to a typical CCW event on land. I guess you missed my earlier sentence... I am a captain at a major national airline.... I've been flying pressurized airplanes professionally for better than 25 years. You're free to disagree, but when your argument boils down to "Come back when you're more informed", yet you offer little in return, I find it hard to take you seriously.

[280PLUS]

OK, you've got armed pilots and reinforced cockpit doors. Who's protecting the passengers? Who's to say some terrorists are not going to create carnage back in the cabin killing people in an effort to force the pilots to open the door? I've dubbed it "Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome" in other posts because that's what you've got when an armed individual with evil intent is confined with a group of unarmed people. Can you guarantee me this scenario could never take place?

Rich, when I say Ops on a plane I mean well thought out and practiced scenarios such as "the individual in such and such an area of the plane is responsible for control of this particlar area" so that no matter what area you are placed in on any given plane for any given flight you know what the procedures are that involve that area of the plane.

Really this would only be most effective with those who fly regularly. If the average CCW only flies once every few years there really is no sense for them to undergo any training, unless they really feel commited to do so, which would preclude them from carrying on board.

What's the saying? Train more now bleed less later?

I'll tell you some of what is helping to "strap" the airline industry. People like me who are not going to go anywhere near their planes with his money unless absolutely necessary because of the policies of the industry. I don't feel the airline industry YET can be entrusted with my safety. I don't even know them. It's all about risk, getting on a plane today just to fly to Disneyworld is, to me, an unecessary risk. I don't take unecessary risks thanks to an old retired AF Colonel who made me see the difference between necessary and unecessary risk.

[280PLUS]

The average CCW doesnt have the right or ability to unilaterally act in disregard of all the other Souls On Board, heck, as an average LEO I dont either. Y'all just arent that good, and neither am I.

Then who is and/or what do you suggest we do? There sure aren't enough Air Marshalls to go around and the so called security systems are not 100% foolproof. All a determined terrorist has to do is make a stoneage weapon of a nice sharp rock attached to a stick, hide it on his person and he's defeated your metal detectors. Are you aware that a razor sharp knife can be made from a piece of bamboo and nothing else? The US Army survival manual actually includes the making of stoneage tools when you're in a bind so it may sound far fetched but...

Oh well, all this talk is for nothing anyways, we all know how the story will end.

[Jay Kominek]

But with a bunch of them, you might. BTW, it will be a rare shot from inside an airliner that won't penetrate the skin. Ok, so the shot goes outside the skin, it is going to cause damage where? The wing?
I'd expect tumbling after exiting the cabin, which would be exacerbated by 600 mph crosswinds. The ballistic calculator I plugged it into is only showing about 2 feet of drift at handgun velocities, though. I don't suppose anyone can send the box 'o truth guy a wind tunnel? :) I'd be interested in any scientific or evidence-backed light which can be shed on this.

[Art Eatman]

The "Myth Busters" on the Discovery Channel pressurized a 737 and then shot through the window. Nothing happened. They then did an explosive device on the window. The results showed that maybe a passenger in the window seat would have been in trouble; possibly sucked out--but not definitely so. Forget the explosive decompression from bullet holes; that doesn't happen. Also remember the airliner in Hawaii that lost a whole bunch of fuselage and door and still managed to land safely. Scary, yeah, but they landed...

Okay: Since 9/11, does anybody here believe that a terrorist attempt to take over an airliner will NOT result in the "flying bomb" deal? Anybody? Me, I think such an event would be a repeat effort--or, at the least, a blowing up of the airliner.

So, if I do nothing, I'm dead. If I do something, I'm maybe dead, but maybe not.

So the pilot hits 7600 or whatever the freq is to tell the FAA he's in deep doo-doo. An F16 is quickly sitting alongside; if the pilot is not allowed to land, WE'RE ALL DEAD!

What difference does it make if I've had training or not? "Let's roll" is the only option there is! There just ain't no other, besides playing sheeple--and that just plain sucks. I ain't gonna, unarmed or whatever. I may be the first to die, but at least I'll have made a choice as to HOW to die. Hell's bells, I'm gonna die anyway, one way or another. So are all of you. Sooner or later, folks, you're gonna be looking at daisy roots, whether you like it or not.

And the last thing on my mind is the repairman's problems in fixing some bullet hole in the airplane. They can scrap that sucker for all I care. If I live through it because of my shooting or some air marshall's shooting--or even that of Dudley Doofus, it's pure profit. And if I'm a bystander victim but all others get out okay, well, that's the breaks.

But TSA sez, "Thou shalt be a sheep." I really resent that arrogant talking-down attitude.

Art

[The Rabbi]

I think for once I agree with Art. Anyone notice a chill wind around their feet?

[280PLUS]

yea there DOES seem to be a chill, maybe some of that JD you mention would warm us all up?

:D

Just for the record, if I had nothing else I'd be takin' my pencil and doing my best to stick 'em in the eye with it.

Learned that one from a student of mine :eek:

Does that mean we have to ban pens and pencils too? :evil:

[AZLibertarian]

Ok, just for the sake of argument, let me adopt the prevailing opinion here that those with CCWs ought to be allowed to carry onboard a plane. Say we've found a way to verify the CCW credentials, and perhaps we've decided on what an appropriate level of extra training would be and we also have a way to ensure this requirement has been met. Say we've also set standards on what weapons/ammo are appropriate and have had some sort of inspection to verify the same. The airlines are OK with this, and obviously the government has bought off on it. [Although, interestingly, nobody has addressed what to do about terrorists posing as CCWers.]

So, let's invent some hypothetical guy who senses a market opportunity here. He sees that those with CCWs want to fly armed--it makes them feel safer. So to get a leg up on his competition this guy comes up with the following marketing plan... Let's start up a new airline where we not only allow private citizens to carry guns onboard, but we encourage it. Let's call our airline HK Airlines. And as a marketing campaign, and in the further interest of making this airline the least-likely terrorist target in the sky, we'll allow our CCW-fliers to not only carry their personal weapons onboard, but as a reward/incentive to our best and most frequent CCW-fliers, we'll check out to each a MP-5 (http://www.counter-strike.net/images/weapons/mp5.jpg) complete with two extra magazines. Fly a million miles with us and we won't just give you some lame ticket to Hawaii...Hell, we'll let you take one home. So the opinion of many here would be that this airline ought to have great success with this plan.

However, I'm of the opinion that most of us would soon find ourselves using other travel options. You see, it wouldn't necessarily be one of these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg) who'd you be likely to sit next to, but rather one of these two (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~janetmck/gothpix/me%26sion_goth2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~janetmck/goth.html&h=532&w=400&sz=83&tbnid=rcs74ExSRtQJ:&tbnh=129&tbnw=96&hl=en&start=26&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgoth%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN). You'll notice that they look a little "twitchy" and one of them can't keep their damned fingers off the trigger. You'll get tired of wondering if this woman (http://www2002.stoke.gov.uk/council/libraries/_images/p-woman-2kids-park.jpg) has quite enough on her plate with her two kids, much less an automatic weapon on her lap. And then there'd surely be one of these old guys (http://kilo35usmc.org/commem/2000/photos/PIC00008.JPG) who has felt the need to tell (and re-tell) his Korean War war stories, but (except for that 5 hour CCW course) hasn't handled a gun much since then. None of them will exactly inspire much confidence.

Now it's not that I doubt these peoples' earnestness in wanting to help out should another terrorist group attempt to take down another plane. In fact I applaud it. But I hope that the above examples show that putting an automatic weapon in the hands of these earnest, but, at best, minimially trained hands is a mistake. Similarly, it is a mistake to allow the average CCW holder to bring their weapons on a plane. I doubt that many of us short of Rob Leatham can snap off an accurate 25-30 yard shot in the time that will be available for it. And let's not forget that by letting my examples above carry onboard, you open yourself up to letting one of these guys (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/htimages/E021_Terror10_HamasatYassinFuneral_Tablet3-27-04.jpg) on too.

As much as it makes us feel naked and unprotected in the cabin of an aircraft, I think we're all better off if we let the pro's handle this.

[The Rabbi]

For someone who styles himself a Libertarian you sure sound a lot like a gun-grabber. It is all the same arguments:
Private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. People with firearms are scary. People with firearms have itchy fingers. They are not nearly well-trained enough for the task. Let Law Enforcement deal with it. They are the trained professionals in firearms.
Your fantasy of HK Airlines is just that: a fantasy. In fact, a consistent theme on these boards is that businesses that welcome CCWs are in less danger than businesses that dont. Why does that argument fail when it is raised 30k feet?

[280PLUS]

I don't know, that Goth girl is kinda cute in a :eek: sort of way...


:D

[AZLibertarian]

Well actually, I haven't advocated that anyone's guns be grabbed. That I believe that a CCW weapon on a plane is more dangerous than useful does not mean I've grabbed the weapon. If you think having your CCW onboard is more important than the convenience of flying, then don't fly. Eventually the airlines and the government will get the message.

I think CCW has been one of the most valuable tools in reducing crime in the history of crime. But I also think that there is a difference between crime and terror, and in certain fronts of the GWOT, CCW is of less utility. When we get hit by terrorists shooting up a mall (as we certainly will), then having a few CCW holders among the shoppers will at least mitigate the damage. Of course, a CCW holder can do nothing about a Madrid- or London-style bombing. However, a plane is different because, as we now well know, the point of taking over a plane is not just to kill the passengers, but to fly the plane into someplace where thousands of other potential victims might be. I do not like this (I commute to work on a plane weekly), but the simple fact is that passengers on a plane are expendable, either to the terrorists who will use their deaths to seek access to the cockpit, or to the fighter pilot who will do his best to down the plane before it hits it's larger target. Allowing a CCW holder to carry on a plane also opens the plane to the terrorists who will present the same CCW credentials that you and I have. Resolve that dilemma, and I'll be all about a libertarian view of things here.

To illustrate my point that the meager training of most CCW holders makes an armed passenger cabin less safe, not more, I wrote a small story about a hypothetical HK Airlines. I said it was a story; you call it a fantasy. Fine. But it is equally a fantasy to believe you'll ever see CCWs freely carried on a plane.

[280PLUS]

the meager training of most CCW holders makes an armed passenger cabin less safe, not more, (and) it is equally a fantasy to believe you'll ever see CCWs freely carried on a plane.

All too true, I just wish that if necessary I could meet an inflight emergency with more than just my :eek: in my hand.

And what about the GREMLINS?? Don't you see them? :what:

:D

[secamp32]

a baseball bat as they get on the plane? Or maybe everyone gets a taser in the seat pocket. :evil:

[The Rabbi]

Allowing a CCW holder to carry on a plane also opens the plane to the terrorists who will present the same CCW credentials that you and I have. Resolve that dilemma, and I'll be all about a libertarian view of things here.

Yes, you are right. Giving people the power to do things opens up the possibility that some people will abuse or misuse that power.
But since you are a Libertarian you are prepared to accept that possibility because the freedom of the majority is more important than any possible misuse of it by a minority. Right??

[AZLibertarian]

...Giving people the power to do things opens up the possibility that some people will abuse or misuse that power. And, in the case of the abuse of CCW priviledges on a plane, the consequence of that abuse is that you allow another plane-turned-into-WMD in the hands of a terrorist. And that, IMO, is a consequence dire enough to justify the restriction of CCW weapons from passenger cabins.

Freedom does come with reasonable limits. This is one of them.

It is abundantly clear to me that we're not going to agree on this issue.

[GunGoBoom]

I don't think the gov't has any reason to decide which security measures an airline uses. Basically if you want to get your... uhm... orifice probed and told what to do, choose airline A. If you want to carry guns on the plane and not have any security checks at all, choose airline B. As long they're up-front about, I see no problem.

Absolutely. +1. Let the free market decide. I bet you'd see more hijackings on the no-guns airlines, and THRers and others would be safe on the don't-ask-don't tell airlines.

Centac, the PRIVATE plane carrier on which I choose to ride is emphatically NOT the feds' ballpark. It's MINE and that of the airline themselves. The feds' ballpark is in Quantico, Virginia.

How about if we just issue each passenger

a baseball bat as they get on the plane? Or maybe everyone gets a taser in the seat pocket

Not a half bad li'l plan you got there...

And, in the case of the abuse of CCW priviledges on a plane, the consequence of that abuse is that you allow another plane-turned-into-WMD in the hands of a terrorist.

No it's not! It's going to turn terrorist-held WMD planes (whether made so by box cutters or legal CCW holders) into non-WMD planes when the terrorists are shot dead on the spot. You're giving libertarians a bad name bro. I'm not a libertarian, because they want too little gov't intervention, but yet I'm the one arguing for more freedom/less govt here, and you're arguing the opposite! I can see possibly requiring Glaser safety slugs however.

[centac]

This is nuts. In my state a CCW requires 12 hours of training of which 2 are on the range. No standardized curricula exist, but if it did I would bet that none of it broaches on how to recover an aircraft that has been seized by terrorists. Have y'all seen the tapes of Al-Quiada training? This is SEAL Team 6 / Delta / SAS / GSG9 stuff we are talking about, not a SASS match. Shut up, sit down and stay out of the way, Walter Mitty, this aint your fantasy come to life. Our get only yourself killed please, the rest of us will hold out for the FAMS and El Al types, the people who know what they are doing.

[Art Eatman]

centac, I have a bit of a problem with "...FAMS and El Al types, the people who know what they are doing."

I don't doubt they know what they're doing. Trouble is, I might be on the 99% of flights that don't have any of them. Then what?

You have a choice: Become intimate with some equivalent of the Sears Tower, or play "Let's roll." That's it. Or you can hope that F16 saves the Sears Tower--which helps you or me not at all. Very small whoopee.

I don't see that it matters one iota whether or not I'm armed or if there's a FAM. It's still gonna be fight or die. Are you gonna absolutely guarantee me that that FAM hasn't been IDed and dealt with before the party starts?

I just really resent our government's implication that I'm too, too stoopid to know what I'm doing with a gun. And, you as well.

Art

[torpid]

I just really resent our government's implication that I'm too, too stoopid to know what I'm doing with a gun. And, you as well.

It's not either of you, it's that other guy that's too stupid.

:D

[El Rojo]

It's going to turn terrorist-held WMD planes (whether made so by box cutters or legal CCW holders) into non-WMD planes when the terrorists are shot dead on the spot.How arrogant are we to assume that just because law-abiding citizens with guns are on planes that non-law abiding terrorists are not on the planes and do not have more guns, more people, and better training. The problem with CCWs on planes is it would be so easy to counterfeit a CCW and get guns on the planes for people who probably shouldn't be on the plane with a gun. I am so tempted to scan a copy of my CCW permit for you all so you can see what a joke it is. It is simply a piece of paper with typing and a red stamp. It would be so easy to duplicate or create a new one. How are you going to efficiently and effectively check on those CCWs? Despite the popular myth, California doesn't have a central CCW database. If you want to verify it, call the issuing agency and hope that person isn't out sick, on vacation, or simply at home since it is after hours.

I just don't think you can get around it. If you let the average Joe on the plane with a gun, so too will the average terrorist be able to get on the plane with a gun. To assume that you have better training than a terrorist or several terrorists would be a major mistake in my opinion. Add in a few different CCW holders, how do you tell who is who? I just got flamed for assuming that only Arabic looking individuals would be terrorists.

OK, you've got armed pilots and reinforced cockpit doors. Who's protecting the passengers? Who's to say some terrorists are not going to create carnage back in the cabin killing people in an effort to force the pilots to open the door? I've dubbed it "Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome" in other posts because that's what you've got when an armed individual with evil intent is confined with a group of unarmed people. Can you guarantee me this scenario could never take place?You are talking Hollywood talk. I don't know about any of you, but if I were a pilot and the terrorists wanted to kill all of the passengers in the back, I still wouldn't open the door. This ain't the movies where the moron does what the terrorist says and puts down their gun. This is real life where smart people realize that as soon as you do something that stupid, everyone dies. I would like to see a poll on how many commercial aircraft pilots would open the door to save anyone's life. I would guess you would have about a 95/5% poll on that one. So how do we protect the passengers? Just like we do now. 4 vs. 40, the 40 should win. 10 vs. 200, the 200 should win. Taking aircraft hostage ended with Flight 93. It won't happen again anytime soon.

I say keep guns off of planes unless they are in the cockpit. If I don't like that rule, I just won't fly.

[peacefuljeffrey]

I'm always against disarming free people, but I just can't see how allowing passengers to carry on a plane would make it safer from hijacking


You made a valid point about how the hijackers, too, would be able to be armed.

But preventing hijacking is not the only reason I think we should be able to travel armed.

I think we should enjoy the unmolested, uninfringed right to be armed for our own defense in any place we have a legal right to be -- all across our country!

For the simple reason that I am not allowed to be armed on a commercial flight, I am also not able to be armed on my travel to catch that flight, or on my travel back from that flight. That puts my life at greater risk than it need be at; it makes me vulnerable in a way I normally choose not to be.

I normally carry a gun for defense. I normally carry at least one or two knives for utility (and possibly defense). I can have neither of these either on the plane, or coming to and from the plane. I can stow knives, at least, in checked luggage -- and then hope they'll be there when I arrive at my destination. I would be very reluctant to check guns on an airliner. And since most of the time when I fly, it's to NY where I can't carry, there's no point. (That's an issue for CCW reciprocity, if anything.)

-Jeffrey

[280PLUS]

You are talking Hollywood talk.

HOLLYWOOD?

I can sit here all day and give you examples of my "Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome". Not worth the time or effort though.

It appears to me, from this conversation, that, as far as the Gov't and the airline industry is concerned, from the time I set foot on my flight until the time I am back on Terra Firma my life is not worth a plugged nickel.

I forsee a day when the coordinated bomb attacks that just occured repeat themselves in the airline industry. They're just waiting for us to get a little too confident and a little too complacent again.


This Pic is off of the cover of an album my friend did in 1981. We haven't been thinking about this for TOO LONG now, have we? Incidentally, that's a TWA plane. TWA would not allow him to include their logo. That's why the tail fin thingie there is blacked out.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=26375

[odysseus]

I don't see that it matters one iota whether or not I'm armed or if there's a FAM. It's still gonna be fight or die. Are you gonna absolutely guarantee me that that FAM hasn't been IDed and dealt with before the party starts?

I just really resent our government's implication that I'm too, too stoopid to know what I'm doing with a gun.

+1. I can't say much more than what Art has here.

Bottom line - you get into that pressurized aluminum shell, and you have now entered a zone like no other. It will be your life (and the others on board) to save since the whole plane is a liability once in the air. I think we all know pretty well there is no safety being a sheep. You will have to fight.

However, I can't see how the government is going to ever allow civilian ccw on airplanes period. Their main premise is to not allow them period for how could they tell between a good civilian or a possible terrorist or maniac, and general society would never go for it.

[280PLUS]

I just really resent our government's implication that I'm too, too stoopid to know what I'm doing with a gun.

Yea, stoopid... :fire:

Their main premise is to not allow them period for how could they tell between a good civilian or a possible terrorist or maniac

No plan is foolproof
As far as Delta Force and SEAL teams, they practice to gain access to a plane that is A. on the ground, B. Already in the hands of BGs. and C. If they are engaging, innocent people are probably going to die. Wouldn't it be nice instaed if at the moment these terrorists were trying to take over your plane granny greytop in seat 21C reaches out and pops one of them in the back of the head?

I speak more towards deterrence anyway. Why was 911 succesful for them? Because they knew they were entering a sterilized area where boxcutters combined with cold hearts would be an effective weapon. Let's take that away from them. Edited to add that they also had the wool over the passengers eyes, I'd surmise if the passengers ALL knew what they were headed for there would have been fights on all the planes. They HAVE lost that advantage.

And...

You set a bar, "In order for you to carry your weapon concealed on a plane you must achieve and maintain this level of proficiency with it."

And if it were presented in a manner as "The airline industry and the US Gov't have today agreed to allow those CCW civilians who undergo training and demonstrate certain proficiency to carry their weapons on commercial flights." Call them CAM "Civilian Air Marshalls".

Not "OH MY GOD!!! THEY'RE LETTING PEOPLE CARRY GUNS ON PLANES!! :eek:

again, pigs,,,flying... :rolleyes: :D

[280PLUS]

I see a one panel cartoon where pigs are coming down the stairs out of a plane and one person exclaiming to the other, "Gee, It looks like pigs DO fly!"

:p

[El Rojo]

I can sit here all day and give you examples of my "Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome". Not worth the time or effort though.If I were to translate that into reality, what you are really saying is, "I don't have any real life exampels of 'Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome', so I am going to pretend like I do and hopefully you won't call me on it." You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? ;)

I would seriously like to hear real world examples of professionals or anyone for that matter getting nabbed by the Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome. I was just a teacher in prison, but it was standard policy that no keys or firearms were ever to be turned over in order to save a life. Every employee in there knew if it came down to your life or giving the inmates something vital in a hostage situation, the employee was going to die. Why would a pilot be any different knowing that as soon as they open that door, everyone dies? I don't think it would, but you claim it would, so lets see some documented examples eh?

[AZLibertarian]

Art...Are you gonna absolutely guarantee me that.... No. Of course not. No one can guarantee anything in this discussion. And you're right. The FAM might be id'd. The LEO might be taken out first. Etc., Etc., Etc. Although I wouldn't use the word "stupid", you're also right that the government must consider the lowest common denominator when considering allowing CCWs on planes. And it is that lowest common denominator--the guy/gal who doesn't practice, or IDPA, or even carry their gun much--which will decide the matter.

El Rojo......it would be so easy to counterfeit a CCW.... I take your point, but just to highlight a small difference between your point and mine: I'm not concerned about terrorists counterfeiting CCWs. I'm more concerned they might board with legitimate CCWs.

280Plus...No plan is foolproof. As far as Delta Force and SEAL teams, they practice to gain access to a plane that is A. on the ground, B. Already in the hands of BGs. and C. If they are engaging, innocent people are probably going to die. Wouldn't it be nice instaed if at the moment these terrorists were trying to take over your plane granny greytop in seat 21C reaches out and pops one of them in the back of the head? So in one paragraph I'm supposed to accept that the pro's--the guys who do nothing all day except to practice this sort of thing--are going to end up shooting some innocents [and I do accept this, BTW], yet I'm also supposed to also envision that "granny greytop" might be able to "pop one in the back of the head" from 21C? C'mon. Granny hasn't shot her gun in at least a decade. It's on the bottom of her purse with Gawd-knows-What. And the last time she shot her gun she was barely able to hit the broad side of a barn when standing square-up in front of a non-moving target. Since then she's had her hip replaced and uses a walker.

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but here is the sad truth: Most gun-owners rarely shoot their guns. Most CCWers rarely carry. They don't visit THR. They have no idea what IDPA or IPSC is, much less any experience with it. The average guy does not, IMO, have the proficiency to pull off what I'd consider to be acceptable shooting on a plane. Somebody earlier called me "elitist" for this view: I call it realism. The best FAMs/Delta/SWAT guys are going to have misses, and I accept this. But the shooting errors I envision from the average CCWer on a plane doom this idea completely. I accept this error rate on the street. On a plane, it is unacceptable.

[centac]

You can "Roll" all you want, but you'll need to do it without a gun. "Stoopid" is your term, I would use "ignorant", because technically we, myself included, are "ignorant" of the tactics and plans needed to deal with an armed takedown of an airliner. Watching Harrison Ford do it does not as training count.

If you do indeed know what you are doing, please share your insights as to how one CCW (cause their wont be any coordination with others) will successfully defend the craft from 5 armed hijackers.

[Art Eatman]

Hokay, centac, I'll happily replace stoopid with ignorant. I just get grumpy at the way Our Gummint regards us. I guess the best example is TSA's gropers in training and the fetish against inert-cartridge key fobs or fingernail clippers, etc.

So I'm on your airplane with your five armed terrorists. Maybe I take out one or two before they kill me. I'd hope that the rest of the few hundred on board would jump up and take their chances, just as I did. If ten or twenty passengers die in taking out the five terrorists, I call it a profitable day.

If 280 of 300 live and the plane lands safely, that's about as good as it's gonna get, and the Sears Tower remains intact. :)

But everything I've written in this thread is predicated on the idea that if I do nothing, I'm dead. Overall, what I'm saying is that what I want is some choice as to how I go out. The specific "how to" is a great unknown; all I can say is that I won't sit back and play sheep--guns or no guns. Why should I?

Art

[280PLUS]

So in one paragraph I'm supposed to accept that the pro's--the guys who do nothing all day except to practice this sort of thing--are going to end up shooting some innocents [and I do accept this, BTW], yet I'm also supposed to also envision that "granny greytop" might be able to "pop one in the back of the head" from 21C? C'mon. Granny hasn't shot her gun in at least a decade. What part of "Shall achieve and maintain a level of proficiency with that weapon" did you miss? :D Maybe Granny happens to be the top female senior shooter in her league? :neener: Heck, I know a guy well into his sixties that can draw and double tap them through the same hole in less than 2 seconds.

Real Life "Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome" Examples, uh 9/11/01 ring any bells for you? Columbine? Must I go on? Maybe you're not getting my point when I say "Fox in the Henhouse"?:confused:There's noone to shoot back, maybe a few of the chickens will make a valiant effort to get the fox but they probably won't fare too well. Neither will the rest of the chickens unless the valiant chickens prevail. Now, you put a big DOG in the henhouse and the fox's chances of success immediately become questionable.

Why would a pilot be any different knowing that as soon as they open that door, everyone dies? What if everyone in the cabin is going to die if they DON"T open the door? (I fully understand why they can't) Shouldn't we be allowed to defend ourselves? It's sounding like people are too willing to accept the passengers on an airliner as write offs. I find that unacceptable. ESPECIALLY IF I AM THE PASSENGER! The Gov't / airline industry can't protect us fully nor will they allow us to protect ourselves. Sounds like a new twist on the old Catch-22 IMHO.

BTW You know although I AM sincere in my beliefs I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, try not to get too riled up at me. :what: :p

I'm Italian mostly, I LOVE to argue ;)

[AZLibertarian]

What part of "Shall achieve and maintain a level of proficiency with that weapon" did you miss? Maybe Granny happens to be the top female senior shooter in her league? Heck, I know a guy well into his sixties that can draw and double tap them through the same hole in less than 2 seconds. Yeah. I know guys like this too. Heck, Rob Leatham (http://www.robleatham.com/) occassionally shots IDPA where I shoot. I don't want to over-state this, but he's a very casual social acquaintance. Some of the guys I shoot IDPA with are verrry good. Every month after the results are released, I do a little statistical analysis. I am very happy when I shoot average in the bunch.

But here's the problem. I'm not worried about how well Rob Leatham or your 60 year-old double-tap guy (or most of the present company here on THR, for that matter) would do on a plane. It's the average guy I'm worried about. True Story: I've been shooting IDPA for about 2 years and have participated at three of the four venues here in the Phoenix area. I've never seen more than 25 or 30 guys at any one match (And usually it's the same faces match-to-match, venue-to-venue.). However, here's the rub: There are 36115 (http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/stats2005.asp) permit holders in Maricopa County. Now I certainly acknowledge that there is all kinds of practice, and IDPA might not be for everybody, but just where are the rest of these 36000 guys (not to mention the rest of the state) "maintaining" their proficiency? My belief is that they're not, and therefore it is a big mistake to allow them to carry on a plane.

The Gov't / airline industry can't protect us fully nor will they allow us to protect ourselves.... Firstly, I hope no one here is expecting the government to fully protect us. They can't even do that in a maximum security prison. But, more broadly, and especially after the London bombing, we ought to know that the government can't protect us in many places beyond the passenger seat on an airplane. As I said earlier, the CCW--while a valuable tool against crime--is of less value against terrorism.

BTW, I'm not riled up at all. I too like to "Devil's Advocate" a prevailing wisdom. Although I'll never admit it in front of my wife, I like to argue too. :D

[280PLUS]

You are correct in your statments not a lot of shooters ARE as proficient as we'd like them to be. I was thinking this "program" might help change that and encourage more to practice.

Again, if you don't demonstrate proficiency with your weapon, you don't carry on the plane. I grant you a handgun will not always be the answer to our terror problems but they could come in handy sometime if there are enough of them around in capable hands.

I understand the Gov is not capable of protecting us 24/7 but why won't they let us protect ourselves?

BTW, I'm not riled up at all. I too like to "Devil's Advocate" a prevailing wisdom. Although I'll never admit it in front of my wife, I like to argue too. Then we'll agree to agree on that one and keep it our little secret! :D

[The Rabbi]

You are correct in your statments not a lot of shooters ARE as proficient as we'd like them to be. I was thinking this "program" might help change that and encourage more to practice.

As I mentioned, no shooter is as proficient as we'd like him to be. I'm not as profiecient as I'd like to be.
But that begs the question of "how proficient does someone need to be before you would allow them to carry on an airplane or anywhere else for that matter?"

I have noticed too that in the NRA's column of Armed Citizens and other stories of people using guns to protect themselves, virtually none of those people had any kind of active training nor did they train regularly. That isnt an argument against training but a suggestion that maybe it isnt the be-all and end-all many would think.

[carebear]

Just wanted to point out that prior to, what, 1963 it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL to carry loaded firearms onboard civilian commercial aircraft. (only thing that mattered was airline policy)

That's right, Joe Six Pack could drive up in his non-catalytic auto, light his cigarette, walk out to the plane, go up the stairs and get his cocktail all without taking off his roscoe.

Funny how even them antique planes weren't exactly falling out of the sky... :rolleyes:

So it isn't "moving radically forward" that we have to do, it's just "rolling back".

Remember,

Plan A is the law-abiding unarmed passengers try to take out the hijackers who are probably as smart as me and thus could get damn near any weapon on a plane they wanted to, if the test results TSA puts out are accurate.

or,


Plan B is the Air Force shoots down the plane and everybody dies.

I think I'd rather risk the 1 in 4 lethality of taking a handgun bullet. Better odds.

[280PLUS]

"how proficient does someone need to be before you would allow them to carry on an airplane or anywhere else for that matter?" I'd like them to be able to at LEAST hit the target with some consistency. All I know is the first day I ever tried any IDPA style I SUCKED! Now after only a few sessions here and there I have improved immensely simply by picking up some of the basics. Granted I could shoot a pretty fair bullseye target to start with, which certainly helped.

Just wanted to point out that prior to, what, 1963 it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL to carry loaded firearms onboard civilian commercial aircraft.

Which is why noone in the front office of "The Twightlight Zone" batted an eye back there in the 50s when Shatner pulled out his gun and started shooting at the Gremlins.

Once again, another case where the criminal causes problems and the law abiding citizen pays for them in lost freedoms.

I forgot to mention, I've been working as a RO at my local range for 2 years now, providing a place for the general public to come and shoot their handguns. Noone has to tell me how many CCW out there couldn't hit a barn even if they were shooting at it from the INSIDE! :what: :p

[Zone Five]

Which is why noone in the front office of "The Twightlight Zone" batted an eye back there in the 50s when Shatner pulled out his gun and started shooting at the Gremlins.

Shatner, playing a nut case, didn't have his own gun. He got a (sleeping?) police officer's revolver and went to town on the goblin on the wing. Think there might be a lesson there?

I understand the frustration of those who feel vulnerable by being disarmed on an airplane. I would humbly submit, that merely possessing a firearm onboard isn't enough to complete the mission.

What the airline pilot here is trying to say, is that he is worried about the effectivness of the average citizen who would carry firearms on aircraft. So this leads to the question that hasn't been asked-

You are going to be fighting evil murderers who have been through there own tough training and tactics, rehearsing their mission over and over. They have probably killed before, and have no regard for the lives of any infidel, young or old, male or female. You are nothing to them, other than perhaps a prop to be exploited for their purposes.

So what sort of testing/training do you thing would be appropriate given the threat an airborne CCW would face? What would be prudent in your opinion?

Give us a general program, including protocol on conduct and requalification requirements.

[Art Eatman]

Since I can't avoid thinking of the consequences of doing nothing, with that F-16 out there with rockets and maybe a couple of hours before becoming intimate with the Sears Tower, I guess a general program would include a level of competency of a C-shooter in IPSC or the equivalent in IDPA. That is, the shooter is reasonably likely to hit a person within 30 or 40 feet without great difficulty.

Otherwise, most anybody who's around 25 or thirty years old with a resume that shows decent grades in school, steady employment and a decent line of credit: IOW, a mature adult.

This country seems to be eat up with "consultants" and "programs" and "systems" and totally unconcerned with common sense. I've often wondered how I got to be this old without needing them...

Art

[Vang]

A test for maturity isn't not going to be particularily accurate. Your test simply seems to be something that could be changed or interpreted to prevent people from ever taking a gun with them.

[carebear]

Art,

+1

Zone,

Remember, the choice is AT BEST between "fight back and maybe lose and you and maybe other innocents die" and "don't fight back and you all are either killed by the terrs or your own air force".

At least the fighting back gives you a chance to get out of that uncomfortable seat for a bit.

[crewsr]

Conceal carry is all about trust. Why should a pilot have more rights in the air than "we the people"? You want to stop terrorism in the air? Just allow current CC holders to board planes on their normal everyday trips. Just make sure the permit is vaild and current at check-in.

Look to "the people" to solove any problem better, faster, cheaper and maintain liberty than having Govt solve it. If flight 93 had CC holders on board....there is NO WAY the terrorist would know how to control that plane....they would be shot before they touched the pilots cabin door. Period.

If we trust "we the people" on the ground....in cars, on boats, on bikes.....what is the deal with up in the air being so different. Are Our kids and loved ones less valueable on a plane?

Yes I understand bullets and cabin pressure......But if your worried about bullets and cabin pressure than that means you already have a dangerous situation that could crash the plane. Loss of cabin pressure VS. a plane forced to slam into a building/ or bomb going off inside.......which do you pick??

If CC holders can thwart car jackings cant they also thwart hi-jacking airflights??
I think we can.
but its a matter of trust

[Art Eatman]

Vang, I'm nowhere near striving for perfection. I could care less--if I knew how.

I'm coming from what to me seems an obvious deal when thinking of 9/11: Do nothing, and die. Do something, and maybe live. Relying on Big Nannie to tell anybody how to do anything just doesn't fit anything worth worrying about. Big Nannie flies on safe tax-paid-for airplanes.

Doesn't really matter, to me. It's still cheaper to drive than to fly, and as long as TSA is doing its gropers-in-training thing, I ain't flying. I won't subject myself to those indignities.

Art

[Ezekiel]

Private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. People with firearms are scary. People with firearms have itchy fingers.

Unfortunately, evidence from my line of work would certainly lead one to believe in that fashion. I'd rather there be a significant probability that nobody on board has a firearm verses the legal possibility that the one-tooth and sub-GED troglodyte next to me does. :uhoh:

Being on a plane is like having a gunfight in a closet: I want minimum standards of skill. For me, it's just that simple.

[Zone Five]

Doesn't really matter, to me. It's still cheaper to drive than to fly, and as long as TSA is doing its gropers-in-training thing, I ain't flying. I won't subject myself to those indignities.

You might want to check air fares vs gas prices. Last time I looked, flying on most available coach fares on most city pairs (especially longer distance) was cheaper than driving. Amazing but true.

Since you don't plan on flying, I understand your aversion to commenting on training.

For others, let's say you are hosting a party with people in attendance who are completely unknown to you. Drinks are being provided by you, the gracious host. Would you want any armed person to have some sort of training? Should a homeowner have the right to post limits on what happens in his domain? I, not the Federal Government want only sane, proficient, and safe gun owners carrying weapons in my home. If the hoards attack my party, I want people who know what they are doing to repel boarders.

Should someone qualified for airborne CCW have some restrictions on conduct and proficiency? If so, what sort of training would you want to see, reminding once again, that the idea is not just to make us all feel better that letting a random number of people carry a firearm of their choice on an airplane is better than nothing, but to actually come up with a program to win the fight against a large number of well trained, extremely aggressive, unafraid to die attackers?

You see, the only way this would ever happen is if citizens are willing to demonstrate that they can get the job done in a very difficult environment, with good guys fighting the bad guys with whatever they have. The lone CCW with unknown training has to sort all of this out, good guys intermixed with bad guys, and has but a few seconds to act. It isn't really self-defense, which is what CCW is all about, it is a close quarters battle, requiring many skills and tactics that not even the top scorers of IDPA/IPSC may have remotely thought about.

So what skills are needed to prevail?

[Vang]

I was concerned that it was too restrictive.

[Art Eatman]

"So what skills are needed to prevail?"

I'll stand by what I've already said.

Again, the alternative to doing something is to die. So, you do whatcha can with whatcha got. If it ain't enough, the outcome is no different than if you did nothing. Either way, you're dead, so what difference does it make? Does it matter in the end if a terrorist kills me, or an F-16 does?

Zone Five, check airfares between Tallahassee, Florida and Midland, Texas. Then add the 240 miles of driving from Midland to Terlingua, with the hassle of no place to drop off a rent-a-roach. Driving is cheaper, I'll guarantee you. :)

Art

[mattman the gun fan]

i dont think it would be a good idea to have armed passengers,but armed pilots that go through training is a much better idea.

[Zone Five]

Art,

I said fares between most city pairs are cheaper, not between two uncharted, GPS co-ordinates in the middle of the desert! :D

Here is where we are disconnecting in our goals. You are looking at this as if you are going to lose anyway, so anything is better than nothing. It is a defeatist attitude. Apply this to a bomb disarmament if you will. Sure, someone could try to pull a few wires and hope for the best, assuming that by doing nothing, he is dead already, but wouldn't it be better to train the guy as to how to actually disarm the bomb?

My view is that if the goal is to win, then we want to equip as many people as possible with the skills to actually overcome a team of extremely motivated terrorists. I would submit that a simple CCW carrying a gun won't do the job. On the next hijacking attempt, you can bet that there will be sleepers or two in the back of the cabin, ready to attack any threats to their plot. A random CCW won't be effective, and the outcome would likely be the same. Stating that the CCW could take a few of the hijackers out, without stopping the use of the aircraft for mass destruction is irrelavent.

So what training would suffice?

[carebear]

If 1% of the passengers were armed on a modern aircraft that's, what, 30 shooters. Say 15 are not in position, that's still 15. We aren't talking CQB here, we're talking shoot the guy holding the flight attendent, his buddy trying to force the door and keeping an eye open behind you.

Realistically, how many sleepers do you have to plant to ensure you will win a 1 to 1 or even 2 or 3 to 1 loss ratio shootout with a bunch of armed passengers? What sort of special skills do you really think necessary in a linear shooting gallery other than being able to hit small targets of opportunity quickly. The very simplicity of the cabin layout reduces it to primarily an accuracy contest.

The blue-on-blue is the nightmare scenario but, again, Plan B is taking a Sidewinder over the ocean.

[Art Eatman]

Math, carebear, math! 1% of 300 is three--although I'd hope you really meant 10%. :)

Okay. Training. As I said before, IMO a Class B or C IPSC/IDPA skill level with a handgun should be adequate. (I was Class B. I wasn't as fast as Chip McCormick, but on the first two shots on two targets I was as accurate and within a couple of tenths.)

The training would have to do with things like preferred seating, type of concealed carry, and discussion about timing of taking action.

Opinion: The "timing" choices would include taking immediate action, or playing it by ear as to what the terrs are requesting or doing. There would be other options, I imagine. This isn't an area of my expertise.

Tactics: If there's no other option, shoot through a hostage to kill a terr.

Separately, I don't really think that there will be a repeat of the 9/11 effort via a commercial airplane. Possibly a bomb, of course, but not an armed takeover to use the plane as a cruise missile.

Art

[GEM]

To me, I'm swayed by the argument that we will make it easier for arrmed terrorists to get on the plane as compared to the number of possible competent armed citizens that are flying.

Thus, and sadly, I go for armed pilots and marshals. Frankly, I have quite a few CCW friends. Only one, who was an army pistol champ, is in my opinion having any significant training and ability beyond myself.

I would prefer a hand to hand fight, even with knives, then the chance of 4 guys with Glock 19s on the plane and just me with one.

[Jim Diver]

Separately, I don't really think that there will be a repeat of the 9/11 effort via a commercial airplane. Possibly a bomb, of course, but not an armed takeover to use the plane as a cruise missile.

I disagree. Remember, our lack of imagination did not even allow us to consider the use of airliners as cruise missiles.

They will not do it right away, but they will do it again or something like it.

[Zone Five]

If there's no other option, shoot through a hostage to kill a terr.

Art, not picking on you, I admire Americans who want to do something to help, who feel it is their duty to protect their country.

Your statement, well meaning exactly illustrates the problem. The vast majority of CCW holders are formally untrained. The idea of shooting through a hostage is a case in point. Do you understand the ballistics of your handgun round? Do you think you should be restricted to a certain type of round? Because the vast majority of self defense rounds make "shooting through a hostage" unfeasable. It is a stupid tactic, not needed, and counterproductive.

Another aspect by most of the replies illustrate that "Gun People" tend to be "Gun Focused". A huge portion of the solution lies apart from the gun.

The number of CCW's available to carry on board aircraft is infintesimal and provides little coverage. It would be far easier for a bad guy to forge the credentials and carry a weapon on board than to have a CCW on an airplane when the next attack occurs.

The next attack will also be far more vicious than a couple of bad guys using a flight attendant to keep the passengers at bay. In fact, I doubt seriously that a gun carrier will have time to engage before it is too late.

I am a pragmatist here, and am interested in a credible answer to a nasty threat. IDPA/IPSC paper target shooting skills have almost nothing to do with stopping a hijacking, especially when administered by an out of shape, shooter completely in over his head with respect to the threat he faces.

[Commissar Gribb]

Last time I flew, we were standing in line at the security checkpoint and there was a sign indicating what you can not bring on board. On it was a picture of a S&W snubbie with one of those red circles and line over it, "NO Guns" it clearly meant. I, being an old smarta**, exclaim loudly, WHAT!?! I can't bring my Smith and Wesson on the PLANE??!? I sure would feel better IF I COULD!"

the picture I saw was of a beretta 92 ;)

also not a bad choice.

[xdoctor]

I think they should just put a 1911 in every seatback. Then we can have a scenario like this:

Terrorist: Allah Hattal! Makhai Kahlem!
(silence descends on the airline. for a few seconds, no one moves. suddenly we hear somone jack the slide on a .45. The sound is then repeated in unison...300 times.)
Passenger: Son, if I was you, I'd sit back down.
(terrorist sits back down, the passengers disarm him, handcuff him and put him in the restroom. upside down.)


Isn't that a fun scene? I'd personally like to see that. Maybe they'll make another 'Airplane' movie.

[Art Eatman]

Zone Five" "It would be far easier for a bad guy to forge the credentials and carry a weapon on board than to have a CCW on an airplane when the next attack occurs."

Why? How would one know this? It seems to me that if CCW's carrying on a flight is legal, on one flight you might have 20 or 30, and on another, none.

"Your statement, well meaning exactly illustrates the problem. The vast majority of CCW holders are formally untrained."

Right now, yes.

"Do you understand the ballistics of your handgun round?"

Me personally? Better than most, considering my engineering background and over fifty years of reloading for numerous pistol cartridges.

"Do you think you should be restricted to a certain type of round? Because the vast majority of self defense rounds make "shooting through a hostage" unfeasable. It is a stupid tactic, not needed, and counterproductive."

As I said, shooting through a hostage is a no-other-choice option. And, it doesn't really matter if the bullet doesn't go all the way through. Ever try to hold up 120 pounds of inert mass with one arm? And more bullets are coming your way?

See, where I'm coming from is that there is no way to survive unless the terrorists are stopped. SFAIK, the only way they will stop is when they are dead. What, a highly-trained agent is gonna holler, "King's X!" and negotiate?

"The next attack will also be far more vicious than a couple of bad guys using a flight attendant to keep the passengers at bay."

More vicious than cutting a stew's throat?

"In fact, I doubt seriously that a gun carrier will have time to engage before it is too late."

In which case my notions are as good as anything else. Or a highly trained agent is no better than I am. And I cost fewer taxpayer dollars. :D

Art

[Stevie-Ray]

Terrorist: Allah Hattal! Makhai Kahlem!
(silence descends on the airline. for a few seconds, no one moves. suddenly we hear somone jack the slide on a .45. The sound is then repeated in unison...300 times.)
Passenger: Son, if I was you, I'd sit back down.
(terrorist sits back down, the passengers disarm him, handcuff him and put him in the restroom. upside down.)


Isn't that a fun scene? I'd personally like to see that. Maybe they'll make another 'Airplane' movie.Reminds me of Chuck Norris in Code of Silence, one of his best. BGs tryin to hold up a cop bar/hangout.

"OK motherf******............"
Followed by about a hundred guns getting shoved into his face. :D

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Stevie-Ray, that was a neat scene...


"(terrorist sits back down, the passengers disarm him, handcuff him and put him in the restroom. upside down.)"

His face was flushed, but his broad shoulders saved him.

Art

[Zone Five]

Thanks for your enthusiasm, Art.

I was talking wound ballistics, should have used that term. Shooting a hostage is bad, bad tactics, it isn't required. There are several ways to deal with that problem without killing an innocent person.

To be effective requires integrated training, ESPECIALLY combative skills, and awareness/mindset. Otherwise, carrying a gun against this threat is of little real use.

Pretty sure that you agree from your statement.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a good thing, as long as we ensure that good guys get outstanding training and are able to maintain excellent proficiency in gun integrated combatives.

Take care

[carebear]

Zone,

I still gotta disagree (thanks for the math catch Art).

"Don't move or I kill this girl" ONLY works if that girl will survive if I don't.

Since our new model is "everyone dies when the plane hits a building or the USAF shoots us down" then option "that girl might die if I miss" doesn't look so bad.

Leet ninja skillz or not, either a few unlucky people or EVERY-FREAKIN'-BODY is going to die.

We flat out CANNOT put Delta or equally trained others in sufficient numbers on each plane randomly and statistically to make a difference. If there is just one, he'll lose no matter how good.

That being a fact, the best alternate deterrent is potentially enough people who can put a reasonable amount of rounds in a fairly static target at a limited range (the realistic airplane terr/hostage scenario) on board every flight that trying to get an overwhelming force of trained terrs on board becomes logistically impossible.

Arm all CCWS and the math skews in the "uncontrollable by terrs" direction. Insist on Sky Marshall training and you render the threat of resistance laughable.

[carebear]

As far as those skills go....

On a 727/737 we're talking fairly stationary targets at limited range in a cylinder.

No corners to clear, no stairwells. No hard cover, just seats. That is hardly a particularly difficult problem. Shoot the guy with the gun to the stewardesses throat. If you go down, the next guy kills your attacker. Shampoo, rinse, repeat. You are all dead anyway if you lose or do nothing. :rolleyes:

This is hardly CQB in the classic sense, just basic marksmanship and a bit of mindset. Two directions to cover, the front of the plane and behind you.

As far as "faking documents" goes. These clowns couldn't get all of their teams in place in a permissive environment requiring nothing more than expired legit student visas.

Now they suddenly will gain the ability to operate as a cell against alerted LEO and intel, fake both ID AND CCW papers AND do all this with guys significantly more trained than the likely carriers on planes?

Remember, the number of CCWs who carry all the time is small, and consists primarily of the better trained/more aware. The proportion on planes should be the same. I'll take a few guys on this board up against a few random wanna-be, had to sneak-in, perfunctorily-trained terrs any day of the week.

[AZLibertarian]

I've been round and round here on this topic, and still believe that the idea that CCWs be allowed to carry on planes is frought with problems.
...The training would have to do with things like preferred seating, type of concealed carry, and discussion about timing of taking action. So how would the CCWs meet prior to the flight? Who is in charge? Preferential seating would imply that the terr's would immediately know which seats to take out first--CCW or not. I know you specify some sort of IPSC/IDPA skill level as a starting point for any of this, but IPSC and IDPA are individual sports. Mulitple CCWs on planes would be asked to perform as a team when having never had any practice at team tactics. As I said here earlier, you're still essentially cobbling up a posse from off the street, then expecting that they'd act as a well-oiled team once on the plane.

Tactics: If there's no other option, shoot through a hostage to kill a terr. True story: I just got off a trip where a passenger was absolutely screaming ( :fire: ) at my flight attendant because the FA was enforcing my company's rule which now requires that a guitar must be checked rather than carried on. There are all kinds of situations which may appear to be threatening, but which actually are not. Should one of your CCWs decide, from 8 rows back, that there was actually a threat to the plane, and then kill someone over it, when in truth it turns out to have been a simple, and very common example of travel-frustration, just how would we resolve this? It seems to me that you've opened up a giant can of legal-worms here. As CCW-holders, we all understand the extra individual liability we assume while carrying on the street. But an airplane hijacking is not simple street crime. We now have to assume there is a political objective to it. I think you make a great leap when allowing CCW holders to act as though they had the blessing of the government (who have the onus of protecting us from "all enemies--foreign and domestic"), when that is not necessarily the case. If I kill an innocent in effort to prevent a car-jacking, I can expect to go to jail and lose my house. If I kill an innocent in a hijacking, are you proposing I should be immunized somehow?

Separately, I don't really think that there will be a repeat of the 9/11 effort via a commercial airplane. Possibly a bomb, of course, but not an armed takeover to use the plane as a cruise missile.
On this we agree. Not that I think we ought to do away with FAMs/FFDOs or F-16s, because I don't. But I do think that the next attempt at a 9/11-style hijacking will result in the passengers using their bare hands to beat to a pulp anyone remotely resembling a terrorist.

And there is one question which I have yet to hear an answer to: Just how would we protect ourselves from terrorists going out and legitimately getting the very same CCWs which you envision will protect us from these same terrorists?

[Zone Five]

Since our new model is "everyone dies when the plane hits a building or the USAF shoots us down" then option "that girl might die if I miss" doesn't look so bad.

Sure it does, because for those who understand more than just basic shooting, there are simple tactics that make taking that precsion shot uneccessary. Furthermore, if you are trying to pass legislation in favor of CCW carry on aircraft, such statements are harmful to your cause. A professional will eat you up in the media, will use it in hearings to demonstrate why CCW carry is unacceptable, because he will present simple, effective alternative tactics showing the lack of seriousness to those making the decisions. In other words, he will use the lack of training and tactics against you, so you had better show up with a serious, strong, workable program.

I tend to disagree with AzLib on one point. I believe that the bad guys are working on new tactics to do another takeover. It will be different, more overwhelming and targeted at an aircraft with a sparse passenger load (perhaps cargo only) where they can exploit a smaller number of possible "interveners". They will be ready for armed defenders, come with more force and speed, and have a strong plan to keep control of the aircraft. For that reason, I also think that those who think they have an "easy" shooting situation are mistaken. It will more akin to a full blown, violent riot than a single hostage shooting scenario.

As AzLib mentions incessantly ;), this is an academic discusssion, CCWs won't be able to carry on airplanes. If you are serious, get some training, and polish up your hand skills. Pilots willing to volunteer to be trained on their own dime is part of what got their program enacted. They proved their seriousness by their willingness to sacrifice personally for their cause. Learn to fight with what you have, make yourself dangerous and when the time comes, attack. Right now, you don't have another option.

Screaming guitar player, eh? Sounds like the typical grunge metal performance. Are you sure you weren't just watching an audition Az? :D

[AZLibertarian]

You may be right about the new tactics. Such things are probably classified, and if not, they're at least speculative, so we could each come up with scenario after scenario which highlights holes in our system. The unfortunate thing is that it is very few who don't end up fighting the last war.

...Screaming guitar player, eh... Actually, the surprising thing was that it was a 30-something mom yelling about not wanting to check Junior's guitar. FWIW, I once told Clarence Clemmons he couldn't get on with his instrument and 2 carry-ons. They're not my rules, and I don't always agree with them, but they pay me to enforce them, so I do.

Oh. And one more thing. A ;) ;) and a :neener: right back at 'cha.

[Art Eatman]

AZLib, I don't at all doubt there are beaucoup problems.

My main point about shooting through a hostage if necessary has to do with my view that in a takeover-effort situation, nobody's body is inviolate. Any given person is expendable, even me and this body I love and and cherish.

I dunno. First order of business: Better a Kansas wheatfield than the Sears Tower. Second order of business: Survive the brouhaha. I'm not expecting perfection. After all, it's TSA in charge, right?

:D, Art

[280PLUS]

Geez, you guys still going at it on this? I haven't read it all but it seems to have remained pretty civil! My compliments!:D


Remember, the number of CCWs who carry all the time is small, and consists primarily of the better trained/more aware. The proportion on planes should be the same. I'll take a few guys on this board up against a few random wanna-be, had to sneak-in, perfunctorily-trained terrs any day of the week.

+1

Especially if they've taken their time to train a little in aircraft control strategy type stuff. Which I"m sure most would do.

[GEM]

I'm still fixed on:

1. Deep cover terrorists get CCW permits easily
2. 4 to 5 get on a plane
3. Odds of a trained CCW good guy low
4. One CCW good guy against 4 to 5 BGs who probably have worked out the scenario for a CCW good guy and practiced for it.

Here's your problem: 5 armed guys

1. Three guys get up and say we are taking over the plane. For argument's sake, I'm not going to deal with the pilots. We are going to take over the cabin and then deal with the pilots.

2. Two are in front, one in the back. They shoot a stew or a passenger and say: Everyone assume crash position, if you raise your head you die.

Now what do you do? If you move to a firing position, you get killed.

3. Note, 3 get up. Two are hidden reserves and not known to you.

I have been shot twice by hidden BGs in FOF. True I shot both of them but that was after a sims hit. Maybe I would have been dead for real.


I prefer an nonfirearms fight of passengers vs. bad guys.

I'm all for carry except for technical reasons and this seesm one of those cases.

[WT]

Last year the Russians lost 2 airliners due to suicide bombers. The female bombers were carrying explosives shoved up their .........

Now, how would a CCW work in that instance?

[Art Eatman]

Well, you've presented a wonderful clustermess scenario, what with five armed hostiles.

"I prefer an nonfirearms fight of passengers vs. bad guys."

Why? If a bunch of the passengers are armed, seems like the bad guys lose on account of numbers. If the passengers are not armed, the bad guys could lose on account of numbers but there would (IMO) be a greater number of dead Good Guys.

Still, when the alternative is, "Hellllooooo, Sears Tower!!!", what difference does it make?

:), Art

[Zone Five]

What is so unusual about adults having an intellectual discussion without resorting to personal attacks? I mean, this is the Internet you know! ;)

My main point about shooting through a hostage if necessary has to do with my view that in a takeover-effort situation, nobody's body is inviolate. Any given person is expendable, even me and this body I love and and cherish.

Art,

I understand what you are saying, but expressing the logic of the situation to the public that way isn't going to "fly". They will just label the movement as a bunch of wannabe wackos. If a serious attempt to arm citizens on aircraft is going to be approved, it will have to be presented in an extremely professional. impeccably sound manner.

"Shooting through a Stewardess" will get you an immediate anti AirborneCCW lobby of about 150,000 flight attendents, their unions, and the politicians who support them. Your message will get lost in the howling, and you will be doomed before you finish your presentation.

If I was opposing you, I'd use that statement against you in so many ways it would make your head spin. You have to win the political and public opinion battle, that is reality.

Well, you've presented a wonderful clustermess scenario, what with five armed hostiles.

Only five? GEM is being kind...

[Zone Five]

Last year the Russians lost 2 airliners due to suicide bombers. The female bombers were carrying explosives shoved up their .........

I don't know, but it is sure to put the "who" back into security screening!!!!

[GEM]

Art, I was trying to convey that :

1. More firearms carrying badguys are more likely to negate the lone CCW
2. A reasonable sized group of firearms BGs will be more likely to negate even dedicated passengers with no firearms
3. Unarmed or knife armed hijackers can be overwhelmed by passengers.

Thus, I reluctantly argue against CCW in planes. I'm not happy with this position. If we had reasonable screening instead of goosing Grandma on a random basis, I might be more in favor of carry on the planes.

It's a close call.

[james481]

I guess I won't really chime in on this too much, other than a quote I caught from the first page of the thread:

A common barrier to the process is simply scheduling. The training takes a full week--a week that is unpaid (how many CCWs would take a 25% paycut one month simply to carry a gun?)

This is regarding pilots training to carry firearms. I have taken more than a 25% paycut in a month so that I may (soon) carry a firearm:

$100 - $150 a month in practice ammo
$650 for a Glock 30
$200 CCW course and certification
$100 Holster, mag-pouch, belt
$200 Clothing for carry (ie slightly larger jeans, undershirts, etc)
$100 Carry ammo (both to fire to check functioning and load carry mags)

I'm not sure if, as a pilot, you would have to buy your own carry weapon, so:

Cost with gun: $1350 (approx 50% my monthly wage)
Cost without gun: $750 (approx 30% my monthly wage)

So, as you can see, myself and many others HAVE given up at least 25% of a month's salary for the "privledge" of carrying a weapon. In just about any feasable situation I might be involved in, I would be protecting myself, my GF, and maybe a couple other people (as in a robbery in public place, etc). You as a pilot, at the least, would be protecting yourself and the 300+ people on the plane. Or maybe as many people as might be in the building that plane could destroy. So, from your statement, I gather that you don't feel that protecting between 300 and 3000 people is worth 25% of your month salary? If that is not what you said, feel free to disagree, but if it is, that's about the most selfish thing I have ever heard...

[Marshall]

Heck, just put one at every window seat and say to hell with it.


http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/aprilskies/264/aa_starb_wgun.jpg

[AZLibertarian]

james481...I gather that you don't feel that protecting between 300 and 3000 people is worth 25% of your month salary? If that is not what you said, feel free to disagree, but if it is, that's about the most selfish thing I have ever heard... I won't take any of this personally, but since you're responding to something I wrote, let me expand a bit...

What I'm saying here is that I don't have enough information, nor do I have a place to offer a judgement as to whether an individual's decision to not become an FFDO is selfish or not. Leaving the money aside for a moment, I don't know that his choices for for how to spend a week off from work aren't...

Travel with his church to Central America to help out with a mission his church supports.
Help out with his son's Boy Scout campout.
Or simply that he's been putting off that family trip to DisneyWorld, and that his kids aren't getting any younger, so they'd better go now, or not at all.


To repeat, I don't know what his reasons are for deciding not to pursue becoming an FFDO, nor do I want to know. If his reasons are simply that he can't afford the 25% hit to his income, then if that's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. I can't help but accept that some may view the FFDO program as charity work--He's asked to take a week out of his life (and perhaps take a hit to his income) to get the credentials for an unpaid qualification. You say that's selfish; I say I have no place in judging at all. We all agree that having FFDOs is a good thing, but for those who've chosen not to become one; their choice is personal, and I'll leave it at that.

[james481]

Hmm, all good points, and extremely well put ones at that. Re-reading my post, I think I came off as sounding kinda like an ass, which was not my intention. I guess that is what I get for posting half asleep... :banghead:

[Zone Five]

I would add that it takes a certain type of person to take on that type of training. For some, the time off, the added responsibility and the comitment to stay proficient are insignificant compared to their sense of duty to protect their fellow Americans.

Pilots are a cross section of America. They have a wide variety of viewpoints and backgrounds. Many simply want no part of the idea of having to fight, while others relish the opportunity to defend themselves and their crew and passengers. That is cool, and I would surmise that the folks who are participating understand that many pilots just don't have the attitude to be effective and shouldn't participate. They use a variety of explanations for their non-participation, some valid, some not. Doesn't make them unpatriotic, they are simply staying within their capabilities.

However, for those with a particular mindset, the training and program are probably a very small obstacle in the large scheme of things. They love the challenge while others abhor it.

Just an observation.

[GunGoBoom]

Basically if you want to get your... uhm... orifice probed and told what to do, choose airline A. If you want to carry guns on the plane and not have any security checks at all, choose airline B. As long they're up-front about, I see no problem.

+1. there you have it - let the free market decide. HardTarget Airlines with lots o' CCW holders would be the most profitable in the long run, after a few nanny state / blissninny planes went down to terrorists, and a few HardTarget customers stopped some hijackings cold. The TSA folks would be driving little trains and handsome cabs like the Capitol One pillager guys, Darwin would be given a leg up in completing his work, and we would be happier and safer. "Fly the Tactical Skies!" :neener:

[Stickjockey]

If we had reasonable screening instead of goosing Grandma on a random basis, I might be more in favor of carry on the planes.

This is the real problem. The current security situation has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

[geek moment]
Marshall: starboard waist gun position, Consolidated B-24. I'm guessing Collings Foundation's "All American?"[/geek moment]

[michaelbane]

I just won't fly unless they change the law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons on planes. Also trains, buses and ships, for that matter. See my new thread started on 8/22/05. I live in the Philadelphia, PA area. Anybody interested in meeting to form a new political organization to try to get these laws changed? Some of the airlines are already in bankruptcy. Let's boycott them on this issue and put one more nail in their coffins.

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Given the closed environment, nervous passengers, history of misuse of firearms related to aircraft, terrorist threats, it is unlikely we'll see it. By contrast, El Al the Israeli airlines never flies without at least one if not two Sky Marshals aboard. The U.S. picture in that regard falls short.

[del4]

Armed passengers are great! How would you keep the terrorists from flying with explosives? It's not like they have never planted bombs on airliners before. It would be EASIER for them to bring down the armed pax plane because there is NO screening. Just check a bag in with HK Airlines and leave.

Richard Reed (shoe bomber) would have blown a hole in the aircraft before anyone caught on if he hadn't been an idiot. His shoe was supposed to have been detonated by impact, not the mil. safety fuse he was playing with.

Btw, they caught some kid (23yo) w/ a bomb in his bag (Norman, Ok.) Thurs. or Fri. Gotta find the link.

I wouldn't get on a plane armed or not if no one was even making an attempt to check for bombs. Bombs are their main MO.

[Zone Five]

Some of the airlines are already in bankruptcy. Let's boycott them on this issue and put one more nail in their coffins

How are you going to boycott when you already stated that you don't fly?

Airlines are carrying more passengers than ever, they aren't profitable due to fuel and debt costs. An economic boycott over guns isn't going to get one second of coverage, or have on iota of an impact due to our anti gun media.

There are a lot of people "refusing to fly" who rarely flew in the past. Refusing to fly even more forcefully isn't going to accomplish anything.

Really.

[GEM]

I won't fly - blah, blah. Nice to say if you have no life. The rest of us have to get places in the country. Until Scotty beams me up, I have to fly. Give me a break.

[DRZinn]

Armed passengers are great! How would you keep the terrorists from flying with explosives? It's not like they have never planted bombs on airliners before. It would be EASIER for them to bring down the armed pax plane because there is NO screening. Just check a bag in with HK Airlines and leave.Did anyone advocate not checking for explosives? Just checking.

[michaelbane]

First, for Zone Five, I decided not to fly because I believe in this issue. If we make a public statement that this is one more reason why we don't want to fly, it has the possibilty, however small, of bringing this issue some publicity. And it can't hurt to have another reason to avoid flying.

As for GEM, consider this. Last October, I put my money where my mouth is - literally. I spent 2 1/2 weeks travelling by car on a trip to a prestigious firearms training school. I planned the trip specifically to go through states where it was legal for me to carry concealed. In addition to seeing this great nation of ours, I helped the local economies of various communities by spending money on meals and lodging. I could have easily flown, saving lots of money and time. But I chose to act out of principle. And I had a great time doing it. If sacrificing your rights for convenience is your definition of having a life, that's your choice. Just don't criticize me.

[Zone Five]

MB,

That's cool. I enjoy driving as well, an interesting way to see the country. Flying is cheaper, safer, and enjoyable as well. Going thru security is not that big of a deal.

I would add that your angst against airlines is misplaced. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT runs the TSA and dictates everything that transpires with respect to the security proceedures that have you upset.

Boycott the Federal Government, the airlines hate what is happening, know that it is less than effective, and is chasing away customers.

[michaelbane]

Thanks for the feedback. :) My idea is that if a boycott is sucessful, it could pressure the airlines to lobby the Federal Government to change. That would make the case more credible. Also, anyone who flies pays an additional surcharge (read: tax) that goes to fund the TSA. If you don't buy the ticket, the TSA doesn't get your money. I feel that paying for the privilege of being disrespected by the government in this way is adding insult to injury. :banghead:

[Dr.Who]

Here's a wild idea.

Everyone who gets on the plane gets screened. Then as they board the plane they all get a one shot gun. If a terrorist try’s to do something with one bullet, there are 100 plus guns pointed his way.... Being armed would reinforce peace... Gee where have we heard that before....? Hmmmm One Vote, One Bullet....

As for the bomb's, the screening and Dogs would need to take care of that. Have the dogs go over the plane prior to departure prior to passenger's boarding...

[gulogulo1970]

I'm for baseball bats myself. Really hard to have an AD or a ND with a bat.

Come on, we have all seen bad gun handling at gunshows, gun ranges, etc. So, let's give guns to all of the flying public, yeah right... :rolleyes:

[enfield]

Personally, I'm never going to fly again until all of the inmates (TSA) are back in the asylum. Haven't flown since 2000 and don't know if I ever will again. I've been to Wisconsin twice, Virginia once and California 4 times by car. Kinda enjoyed it, compared to being mauled by a pervert.

[Zone Five]

I feel that paying for the privilege of being disrespected by the government in this way is adding insult to injury.

My we assume that you don't possess a driver's license then? There is no more demeaning entity that your State Department of Motor Vehicles.

Protesting the government's poor treatment of the citizenry will be a full time job for you...

[michaelbane]

I don't feel demeaned by having to get a driver's license to drive, just like I got my CCW license to carry (Vermont style CCW would be ideal, though). The DMV can just be incompetent sometimes! I used to work for the US government, so I have an idea of how bureaucracy works. There's a need for some government regulation of things. Just that in my opinion, law abiding citizens with weapons on planes isn't one of them. :)