Arm the pilots, arm the cabin crew, arm law-abiding citizens.

[TechBrute]

Ok, so if you can guarantee that the plane is packed full of gun-toting americans, what idiot terrorist is going to even THINK they have a chance to hijack the plane? As far as I'm concerned, I don't care who carries on the plane or what their level of competency with a pistol is (so long as there are no NDs). If everyone's carrying, the terrorists won't go within a mile of an airport.

DMF is worried about what happens if there's a shootout. Good grief, if you're a terrorist, you're not going to jump into the lions den. The terrorist no more wants to die without accomplishing his mission than you want to be hit by Granny's stray bullet.

For that matter, maybe the flight attendant will lose the attitude, the gate attendant will pretend to pay attention when you speak, the person at the CS counter will pretend to be concerned that your luggage is lost, and the idiots that work security will act like there's some sort of accountablility in this world for them. After all, an armed society is a polite society.

 

[DMF]

wildcard, and how do yo ID these Muslim terrorists? John Lindh is a Muslim, and he's white. Jose Padilla is a Muslim, and he's Puerto Rican. There are millions of Muslims all over the world, that don't "look Muslim." Then there is the fact that most Muslims are NOT terrorists. So your simplistic ideas about who is committing acts of terrror, which ignores all the terrorist acts by non-Muslim groups*, show you don't really have a grasp on the realities of combating terrorism.

Remember up until Sep 11, 2001 the worst act of terrorism against US citizens, was committed by two white Christian men. And yes the two women that took down the airliners in Russia were Muslim, but they prove my point that as soon as you only look for one narrow profile, the terrorists will work around that profile.

*Phineas Priest, Red Hand Volunteers, Army of God, WAR, IRA, P-IRA, Real IRA, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Brotherhood, ALF, ELF, FARC, Shining Path, etc, etc.

 

[wildcard]

I am confident, that if you are middle eastern or persian, you are muslim, I am over 99% sure of that. That is a fact of life. Yes, others, within our own country have committed acts of terrorism, but the main force of foreign terrorists, are 99% Muslim, of what ever gender, but from middle eastern or persian decent.


Sure we can talk about all the groups you listed above, we can include some groups that were popular in Europe in the 80's and 90's, targeting Troops or installations like RAF (Red Army Faction) or the Badder Meinhof Gang. Yes, there are other terrorists, but tht ones, right now, at this time, that are most likely to strike here, or at interetsts abroad, are Muslim.

 

[SAG0282]

Im'a get a little windy and philosophical on you guys, so bear with me, in the spirit of MLK day.

I have a dream. A dream where the general populace isn't so naive to believe that government as the sole source of protection is or can be effective, and that they are ultimately responsible for their safety.

I have a dream. That citizens embrace the responsibility of their own safety. That citizens realize that a good solid atmosphere of security requires many layers, not the least of which include capable, conscious, and actively engaged citizenry looking for threats and able to deal with them.

I have a dream. That I can take responsibility for my safety in the armed capacity I do at home while I'm away. That my life doesn't become less important or more vulnerable simply by virtue of what zip code, state, city, or other location I'm in. That I'm trusted as a law-abiding citizen outside of WA. That my USP isn't viewed stupidly as a destructive killing instrument, but rather a means of lawful defense. That I can contribute to the safety of my general location everywhere I go.

I have a dream. That Americans collectively refuse to be victims and stop demonizing lawfully armed citizens, and instead take up arms or support those that are inclined to for the purposes of lawful defense in these uncertain times.

I have a dream.

 

[sm]

Art -

I agree with your posts/ replies.

At one time it was common for Pilot's to be armed. It was also common for LEO, and other folks to carry concealed. Stewardesses have been known to have something in their area as well.


Then the Gummit Meddled to comfort the " I need someone to make me feel safe crowd"...

TTBOMK El Air for instance does NOT reveal their security measures , does not Broadcast for all to know...Internet is real time...

Concealed is concealed, no funky uniforms, or Dept Reg haircuts...

Oh - I drive , if I had to travel I'd sure rather take a Private Plane...no TSA for me.

 

[DMF]

So wildcard you went from 95% to 99%. Does it mean that as your argument gets weaker the numbers you make up get higher?

 

[mbs357]

Wildcard, you have given no data to prove your figures. Could you link us to a source?

 

[wildcard]

95, 99%, pfft. Point being, the majority of foreign terrorists, wanting to or strinking the US, are muslim.


Figures:

You should know this:

Kobar Towers
Pan am Flight
9/11
USS Cole

The list can go on. One thing in common, Muslims.

Disclaimer:

I am not Muslim hating/bashing. I have several Muslim friends. (they happen to agree with me). I do not judge all muslims, by the actions of a few. But my opinion stands.

 

[DMF]

I know about all of those, however, I also know about the OKC bombing, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Shelly Shannon, bombings and murders by Phineas Priest, all the destruction done by ALF and ELF (just a matter of time before people die in great numbers from those loons), kidnappings and murders by the FARC, and Shining Path, KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, WAR, use of bio/chem weapons by Aum Shinriyko, violence from Army of God and other radical Christian groups, etc, etc.

Again, if we lock ourselves into only seeing on profile (Arab/Muslim males) as possible threats, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.

I have to say I'm shocked the preceeding post didn't mention something about 99.99%.

 

[wildcard]

I agree with you on that. But again, those you mentioned, have yet to fly a plane into a building.

I wonder why the feds dont actively go after the groups you mentioned. If they are that dangerous, dont we need to be on the ball.

 

[DMF]

I wonder why the feds dont actively go after the groups you mentioned.

They do. The FBI, ATF, and USPIS, went after Ted Kazinski. The ATF got Shelley Shannon, and tried to get her to give up her other AOG freaks. Talk about some terrorist that are hard to crack those AOG types think they have God on their side. (Sound familiar?) The ATF, with help from the FBI and state and local agencies, built the case against Eric Rudolph. Sure it was an alert rookie cop on patrol that saw him and grabbed him up, but the investigation that pinned all those bombings on him was ATF. ATF, FBI and others, are actively working to break up ALF, and ELF. Phineas Priest - A few years back several were put in jail in WA state. FBI and ATF working with state and local worked that case. The list goes on. All in addition to working the Islamic terror threat too, because they all know that there are multiple serious threats.

Are Islamic terrorists a major threat? Hell yeah. However, to believe they are the only threat, or that simplistic profiling of Arabs will thwart them is a dangerous mindset.

So we still haven't figured out how we differentiate all the good guys from bad guys when we have the 35K foot shootout in the United Airlines Corral.

We could debate this for days, but even if we agreed on the idea of allowing CWP holders to carry on airliners there isn't an airline company in the world that will shoulder that liability. You see if some fed shoots the wrong person on an airplane the government sucks up the liability. If Joe Passenger shoots the wrong person, well Soon To Be Bankrupt Airlines, Inc. sucks up the liability.

Catch you on the next thread.

 

[wildcard]

I some what agree with you, about 99.9%.

 

[DelayedReaction]

So what the hell are you going to do when a gun-toting arab happens to be the one who has a CCW? Are you going to be able to differentiate between a terrorist and a fellow american who wishes to defend himself? Are you going to shoot a human being because they have a gun out and happen to "look" muslim?

I'm all for defending myself, and for having people take the initiative to train and arm themselves in a manner that improves their chance of survival. But confined locations like airlines are PRECISELY the kind of place we should have strict gun control, because most of the variables can be controlled. Gun control doesn't work in cities or other places because the criminals have alternate access to weapons, and can ignore the law entirely. At least on airlines there is a significant enough level of control to ensure unauthorized firearms are kept off.

Train the crews, and arm them with tasers. We need protection on planes, but guns aren't the answer.

 

[orionengnr]

artherd...to review...

You said, "To all of you confined space ninnies, if I can carry on a Bus, why can't I do so on a plane?"

A bus is not pressurized. While we can debate the potential effects of rapid/explosive decompression (anywhere from wind whistling out the punctured window to catastrophic airframe failure and resultant loss of the aircraft, there are too many variables involved to predict the outcome accurately.

You said, "Planes leak like a sive (sp) already"

One, planes most assuredly not "leak like a sive (sp)". They do have a permissable leakdown rate which is quite stringent. This is to ensure (among other things) that given the loss of one or more engines or compressors, the aircraft will maintain pressurization.

You said, "they have to, there's no 'out' valve for pressure, just an in pump"

Wrong again. Airliners, corporate jets, military, regional, private aircraft (any pressurized aircraft) has an outflow valve, usualy pnuematically controlled, often with an electric motor to drive it full-open or else a separate electrically controlled "dump" valve.

You said, "If the plane didn't leak, the pressure would stay built up when the plane landed!

See above. In addition to all of those, most aircraft employ weight-on-wheels switches to electrically drive the valve(s) full open when the aircraft is on the ground.

Plenty more info available...
21 years USN/USNR (flying for 17) note my user name
18 years airline A&P mech

 

[AZLibertarian]

Wow. I must say I'm impressed. This topic comes up every 6-8 weeks or so, and I used to be the only one here making the point that allowing CCW holders on planes is a bad idea. While I accept that there may be differing opinions, many of you take instruction well.

I'm a captain at a major national airline, and believe that arming passengers is a bad idea. I am very comfortable with an armed society--in fact, I recommend it--but the environment on a plane is quite different than on a bus or in a mall. You all have made in this thread most of the same points I've made in previous threads. However I must say I'm struck by the argument that "If the plane is hijacked, we're all dead anyway, so what does it matter if I take out a few innocents while I bracket the terrorists?" The same could be said of any of us in any venue--"We're all going to die someday, so why should I be responsible for a stray round if my intent was to stop the grocery store robber?" I simply cannot endorse the idea that there might be a circumstance when we shouldn't be liable for every round that makes it to the muzzle of our weapons.

But you guys have made me proud. This type of thinking--a group of very pro-gun people discussing a situation where carrying a gun is inappropriate--doesn't happen in every crowd.

 

[Bruce H]

The other side of the coin is if there had been armed passengers 9-11 might not have happened. We can play the senario game all we want but box cutters. The 9-11 hijackings and subsiquent distruction and loss of life and property were caused by government stupidity. Set rules in motion were box cutters are the most dangerous things on the plane. Give a maniac funding and an abiding hate and see what happens. How long was this planned? This wasn't an overnight operation. Look for the best weakness and exploit it. Dedicated people is what makes things like this work.

 

[Art Eatman]

AZL, by and large I wouldn't argue against your "no guns" point. This particular exercise, however, has been more of a deal of, "If terrorists try a hijack, would you rather be armed or unarmed?" sort of mindplay.

The world changed on 9/11, regardless of anybody's notions of what's good or bad or proper and all that. We learned--or should have learned--a very harsh lesson. Well, more than one, really.

We learned that a hijacking is no longer an inconvenient round-trip tour of Havana or someplace in the middle east. It's a one-way, no-transfers, Very Fast Stop.

We learned there are people who will kill you for the sin/crime of being different. Further, we've learned that they don't care about specifics; "To whom it may concern" is just fine and dandy.

A real-world, viable answer for "near-perfect" aircraft security? I don't pretend to have one. Lots of ideas being implemented, of course, but we don't yet know if they're anywhere near the perfection we desire...

Regardless, "Let's roll!" beats all other options...

Art

 

[rock jock]

Ok, so if you can guarantee that the plane is packed full of gun-toting americans, what idiot terrorist is going to even THINK they have a chance to hijack the plane?

No plane is going to be "packed full of gun-toting americans". I've already addressed that. You will almost certainly be outnumbered by armed terrorists, who then have the advantage of employing firepower equal to or great than that the pilots. Any advantage armed pilots woyld have is then completely lost.

I've never understood the way antigunners think.

Excuse me, sir. I am not an anti. And, at least I am thinking. Flippant remarks don't meet that criteria.

 

[fistful]

If armed passengers/flight crew results in chaos, then terrorists cannot count on using the planes as weapons, or the hostages as bargaining chips. They could only reliably hijack planes using some James Bond knock-out gas, or some chem or bio agent that kills the passengers and flight crew. It is said that Palestinian terrorists used to fire randomly into crowds, until the Israelis began to shoot back. Now they just use explosives. Whether or not this is true, it would in the same way be easier to simply blow up the plane. Either way, we limit the terrorists' options.

People will die, you say? Yes, that happens when we are made war upon.

Do you really think you'll have what it takes to just shoot through an innocent hostage like that? Should you even have that responsibility? I certainly don't think so...

Excuse me, sir, but of what polite game of bridge are you speaking? If shooting through a hostage is the correct tactic, then we had better all be prepared to do it. As for responsibility, that is what the right to bear arms entails. You may not think Art should have that responsibility, but if he is the man facing the situation, I'm afraid he will have to bear it, no matter what you and your bridge club might think.

up until Sep 11, 2001 the worst act of terrorism against US citizens, was committed by two white Christian men

If you are speaking of McVeigh and Nichols, did they claim to be Christians or to have acted in the name of Christ? This question is not rhetorical.

if we agreed on the idea of allowing CWP holders to carry on airliners there isn't an airline company in the world that will shoulder that liability. You see if some fed shoots the wrong person on an airplane the government sucks up the liability. If Joe Passenger shoots the wrong person, well Soon To Be Bankrupt Airlines, Inc. sucks up the liability.

Back to the bridge game. Let them all fold. If the planes are easy targets for terrorists, the airlines don't deserve our business.

In sum:

 

[Art Eatman]

If the subject is "Ya gotta gun; whaddaya do?", then the TSA and liability and laws in general and all that are irrelevant.

If you want to include the actual reality of air travel as it is, the question changes to, "Do you attack bare-handed and maybe die, or do you sit back and relax and definitely die?"

Harsh reality: If I am armed, and by my actions an innocent or two or three die but the rest of us live, I'll live with my conscience and the findings of a court. You either accept the adage of "It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." or you don't. (In the event of an air crash, the six are most likely superfluous.)

Please realize that I'm not drooling and slobbering over the opportunity to harm an innocent person. What I'm saying is that if the ONLY way to take a terr out of action is to shoot through a hostage, I'll take the shot.

If I'm in today's real world of unarmed passengers, I like to think that I'll go hair, teeth and eyeballs in an effort to stop the terrs. Yell, scream, throw whatever's available as I attack. Since I'm gonna die if I do nothing, why not have some choice in the matter, and at least go out with a clear conscience? It takes no talent whatsoever to do nothing but sit back and die.

Art

 

[artherd]

Hey Art, I see your point, but when everyone is pulling their gats at 35K feet, how do you know who is a "terrorist" and who is a "good guy" like you? The terrorists will all know each other, and be working together. You and the other "good guys" won't. You may very well end up shooting it out with other "good guys," while the terrorists wait for their odds of success to go up.

Yeah, and then maybe a rapist will take my gun away from me and use it against me

Come on!

 

[SkyDaver]

question on depressurization

Orienengnr,

Do you have any information on how long it would take to depressurize through a 1/2 inch hole?

An acquaintance found the problem in one of his engineering textbooks, and we came up with something like 70 minutes at 35000 ft to depressurize to ambient, through a 1/2 inch hole. You could plug such a hole with a magazine (the paper kind ;-) )

Obviously more, and/or larger holes (window blowout?) would cause depressurization to occur much more quickly, but IIRC, the SOP for airline flight is for one of the pilots to have an O2 mask at the ready at all times.

In the event of rapid depressurization, that pilot puts on the mask (if it's not already on) and takes the plane down, fast. The plane would be below 10,000 ft long before cabin altitude get's there.

I have also heard that the Discovery channel show Mythbusters tested this, and also came up with a very long time to depressurize.

The point of all this is that bullets through the fuselage would not be the greatest problem.

 

[AZLibertarian]

SkyDaver

Do you have any information on how long it would take to depressurize through a 1/2 inch hole?

I hope Orienengnr will PMFJI, and I'll bet he'll back me up on this, but a half inch hole may not even be noticed by the pressurization system. The airplanes I fly (B757/B767) have outflow valves that are in the neighborhood of a foot diameter. Should a half-inch hole develop in the airplane, the outflow valve (often, a butterfly type valve) will just close a fraction.

...the SOP for airline flight is for one of the pilots to have an O2 mask at the ready at all times...

All cockpit seats have nearby a quick-donning O2 mask. Either pilot will have equal access to his.

In the event of rapid depressurization, that pilot puts on the mask (if it's not already on) and takes the plane down, fast. The plane would be below 10,000 ft long before cabin altitude get's there....

Mostly true. We will put on our O2 masks (and you'll see your masks which are demonstrated by the flight attendants on your taxi out), but we most likely won't be able to descend below 10000 ft, before the cabin altitude climbs higher than 10,000'. We'll all need that O2 for some period.

And you're right. Mythbusters nailed this myth. A stray bullet hole in a pressurized airplane is pretty much a non-event.

 

[DelayedReaction]

Well, holes in the airplane or not, the density of people makes having guns on board a bad idea.

Can someone explain to me why arming the crew with tazers wouldn't do the job?

 

[saltydog]

When SH#& goes down on an Airplane, you’re going to know who the bad guys are. I say divide the flying public into 2 groups.

Group (1) passengers can be armed in flight with a valid CCW. If we go down, we go down fighting. No sissy's allowed here.

Group (2) can fly unarmed and if SH#& happens then the Govt jets can shoot their A##'s down. (Like it is now)

Just a suggestion.

ARTHERD, I'll fly with you anytime.