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

[Art Eatman]

DelayedReaction, I'm assuming that any armed people on an airplane would at least have had the rather minimal amount of training as I.

A basic thing is the old bit of, "If I see a weapon, I shoot." Any amount of thought and training gets you to the point of no weapon, no shoot. If you've worked on, "If I see a gun, I shoot," and you see a knife, you'll hold for a moment instead of instantaneously shooting.

I further figure that if other gunnies see somebody aiming at a terr, they'll figure him for a good guy. That would be my own initial reaction. And, after all, some modicum of time would be spent in assessing the situation before just leaping into an unknown fray. Somebody holding a gun or knife to a hostage, you don't figure he's getting ready to preach a sermon on love and kindness.

Again, that old "assuming" word, but ya gotta start somewhere. I just don't assume that all who carry guns are immature nutzoids hoping and praying for an opportunity to see how fast they can empty a magazine...

Art

 

[Firethorn]

Shovelhead: On that picture you posted, I noticed:
7 Semis
3 Revolvers
1 Black powder?!?!? (Man in the back left)

It might be another revolver, but the difference in coloring, and the fact that all the other revolvers have a cleary defined chamber makes me wonder...

Back on target

If I'm carrying on a plane, I'm going to load up with glazers. I also hope like heck that I'm never on a plane with an attempted hijacking. I will go down fighting if I think that it gives me a chance to take out the terrorists. Or at least weigh down one with my body so the rest of the people can take them down.

I think that arming the stewardesses with tasers is a good idea. Heck, can you rig the cabin with a sedative? It'd be tough to get the dosage right, but all you have to do is disorient them long enough to get on the ground.

 

[SkyDaver]

AZLibertarian,

I appreciate your response ... our calculation was that for a fuselage sized, pressurized tube, a bullet hole would take a LONG time to equalize to ambient pressure. A big hole (like a window or door) would be a bit more of a problem.

You said that an aircraft probably couldn't get to 10000 ft before cabin pressure got above 10000 .. that would be in the event of a rapid decompression, correct? a small hole might not even be noticed (since the outflow valve is so big)

Is the descent rate something that is a structural integrity issue, or an air traffic control issue? (i've been in a king air that had its VSI pegged, but the space around and below it was entirely open ... except for the skydivers off to one side ;-) )

 

[artherd]

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.

Your opinion differs with several actual events at altitude, informal studies (see Mythbusters) and the FAA.

There is a very minute possability that something vital could be struck in enough areas to clobber all the redundancy in a modern aircraft, and that could possibly cause loss of the same. What would you rate higher as a probability, getting struck by lightening or the chance of a stray round actually hitting THE ONE 1/2 square inch at the right angle where the plane might be vulnerable?

I'll take the chance. (note, we DO need the new bulletproof cockpit doors!!! Withought those, taking a shot inside a plane gets a LOT riskier, as you're quite likely to hit a pilot. I can probally land a 757 in a big pinch (maybe, wtih radio assistance after calling out a mayday.), but it won't fly again.


Saltydog: same here my friend. It should be relatively realatively easy to discern between even the indian dude with a SIG 226 yelling "DROP THE KNIFE, MOTHER TRUCKER!", the israli with a Glock 19 yelling "FACE DOWN, ON THE GROUND!" and the terrorist (black white or pink guy or gal) with a knife to a stewardess's throught that they are all pointing their weapons at.

Tasers will be ineffective, because of their very limited range.

 

[Firethorn]

Ummm... Some tazers can shoot

Guys, when tasers are mentioned, I was thinking about the police models that shoot the needles out.

"Limited range"? Do you need more than 20-30 feet? Do you want more than 20-30 feet with all those passengers around?

 

[orionengnr]

yes, art, as I tried to state clearly...

There is room for discussion and difference of opinion on all the "what if's".

Your original question was, if I can carry on a bus, why can't I carry on an airliner? Why is it any different? I tried to illustrate some of the differences.

Now we are referencing such unimpeachable sources as Mythbusters? Come on guys...it's a TV show. Do you watch Judge Judy for legal advice? Or Jerry Springer for advice on solving domestic problems?

Unlike you, I am unable and unwilling to quantify such things as "THE ONE 1/2 square inch at the right angle"....

I am all in favor of flight crew being trained and qualified to carry. As far as passengers go, in principle, I am open to discussion. But I think that a lot of valid concerns have been brought up, and an airplane is not a bus....and anyone carrying on board had best understand that.

Last parting shot..what if a bad guy gets a license to carry? Or overpowers someone who is? Is the bulkhead between the forward lav and the cockpit bulletproof? Hint--on the record, at least one instance of a Middle Eastern male in the lav removing the mirror and attempting to access the cockpit through the bulkhead (fortunately foiled, but "they" are still thinking and trying, and we'd better not stop doing either...)

 

[AZLibertarian]

After starting out so well, we seem to be wrapped around the axle again...

Re: Tasers...
I'm not a LEO, but IIRC, the standard LEO procedure is to have an armed LEO covering the suspect with his firearm while another cop deploys the taser. IOW, they aren't 100% effective. How well do they work against someone wearing a leather jacket or using a plane's seat cushion (or flight attendant) as a shield? And most importantly, how effective will that taser be against Terrorist #2, T.#3, T. #4, etc? IMO, the taser is the bliss-ninnie solution to a situation crying out a firearm.

Art Eatman and "Assumptions"...
You acknowledge the problems with assumptions, yet you seem to be assuming that only the good guys will be armed against the knife-wielding terrorists. What's to say that the terrorists won't just go out and get the same CCW that allows you to carry on a plane (in your scenario)? You say "If I see a weapon, I shoot." Does the same apply to every other CCW holder? I hope you can see that you're setting yourself up for a circular firing squad. Which leads me to....

fistful and "If armed passengers/flight crew results in chaos, then terrorists cannot count on using the planes as weapons..."
The 9/11 terrorists were able to take control of those airplanes with knives. Once they had control of the planes, IMO, they had weapons that are the equivalant to WMDs. You're suggesting that our counter-strategy to another airplane-WMD is chaos. This simply isn't reliable enough, IMO. What if it doesn't work? What if Art's Circular Firing Squad does nothing but eliminate themselves? Our national security simply can't be based on something that can't be reasonably predicted. This is why passengers are unarmed, and why (the reasonably trained) FFDOs and (the suberbly trained) FAMs along with the occassional LEO are the only folks armed on a plane. We simply must know what to expect up there should we lose control of another plane. Chaos is simply a roll of the dice.

I forgot to agree earlier with DMS who said that this story smells. The FAMs I've worked with are very OPSEC and COMSEC conscious. I simply cannot believe that a FAM would blab a story to his doctor which would then make it's way into Malkin's column. The issues she raises in her column perhaps might be correct, but if I were to accept them with her FAM-MD linkage, I'd also have to accept Dan Rather's story about the Bush National Guard documents veracity.

 

[DelayedReaction]

I should've clarified that a bit more; when I say "taser" I specifically mean the kind that shoot out prongs. Like the ones available at www.taser.com.

Re: Tasers...
I'm not a LEO, but IIRC, the standard LEO procedure is to have an armed LEO covering the suspect with his firearm while another cop deploys the taser. IOW, they aren't 100% effective. How well do they work against someone wearing a leather jacket or using a plane's seat cushion (or flight attendant) as a shield? And most importantly, how effective will that taser be against Terrorist #2, T.#3, T. #4, etc? IMO, the taser is the bliss-ninnie solution to a situation crying out a firearm.

They have tasers that shoot multiple projectiles, and are capable of arcing through clothing. If you have multiple people firing, it reduces the chance of a poor contact.

And I'd MUCH rather shoot a taser at someone using a flight attendant as a hostage, especially in such a crowded space.

 

[AZLibertarian]

SkyDaver A typical airliner cruising anywhere above FL310 or so (will vary with plane) will have a cabin altitude in the neighborhood of 7000-8500'. With a rapid decompression (much bigger than the half-inch hole that we started with), the cabin may climb at rates in excess of 10000fpm. Even if it only climbed at 1000fpm, when starting from 7000', you only have 3 minutes before busting the 10000' cabin altitude line. In an emergency descent, we may be able to get 3-4000fpm descent out of the airframe, but that may be much less, depending on whatever structural damage we might have. So, in that same 3 minutes, the cabin would climb through 10000', while the plane would still be descending through FL220. Start from a higher altitude, or not be able to descend as fast, and you can see that the problem becomes more dire.

Personally, once I've declared an emergency for a rapid decompression, I'm not going to worry about traffic. I need to get to a lower altitude where my passengers will be able to breathe. On most airplanes the canisters that provide passengers their oxygen will only supply 15 minutes. I must get the plane and the cabin down to where folks can breathe without the oxygen. [FYI, those canisters produce O2 through a chemical reaction. They get very hot while they do this, and I'd be surprised if the cabin doesn't smell smoky from the dust near these hot canisters. Don't panic if it looks smoky.]

 

[River Wraith]

I hope the tasers are more powerful than stun guns. I was actually in a drill in which we had to fire while being shocked with stunguns. I was surprised at how little pain it inflicted. I had no problem nailing the targets, and neither did anyone else.

 

[fistful]

You're suggesting that our counter-strategy to another airplane-WMD is chaos.

I'm suggesting that our counter-strategy should be to make an airplane a very scary place to be a terrorist. I was only trying to point out that even if the situation devolves into chaos, that is still a more hostile, unpredictable situation for terrorists and therefore preferable to unarmed passengers.

The 9/11 terrorists were able to take control of those airplanes with knives.

The morning of September 11th was a different age, my friend. Before the Towers were hit, hijackings meant a long, drawn-out hostage situation, where the goal was to save as many hostages as possible. The possibility of chaos, therefore, was to be avoided. By the time Flight 93 went down, the whole game had changed. Chaos is now preferable to allowing a plane to become a guided missile. Flight 93 (which crashed in Penn.) was chaotic, and the result of that chaos was that the terrorists aborted the mission. Not the perfect outcome of course, but better than a plane hitting the White House. I suppose you are angry with the passengers of Flight 93 for not delivering a perfect Hollywood ending. Your reasoning blames them for killing all of their fellow passengers.

Those who suggest the possibility that armed passengers may shoot good guys are inflating the chances of this. I submit that in all probability, they are more likely to shoot a terrorist. The "hardly anybody will be CCWing" supposition supports this as well - the more the T's outnumber the good guys, the less the chance of friendly fire. It also supports the argument for armed passengers, in that guns would help even the odds.

This simply isn't reliable enough, IMO. What if it doesn't work?

What is reliable enough? Do you have a fool-proof method? Armed pilots, Air Marshalls, security checks, shooting the plane down - arm the passengers, and we still have all these options. Armed citizens may interfere with the Air Marshalls, but what if the Air Marshalls fail? What if they are too easily identifed and taken out? Anything that might have helped on flight 93 is a good idea.

Regarding terrorists with carry permits: If terrorists can get permits, this undermines the whole concept of shall-issue.

 

[DelayedReaction]

I hope the tasers are more powerful than stun guns. I was actually in a drill in which we had to fire while being shocked with stunguns. I was surprised at how little pain it inflicted. I had no problem nailing the targets, and neither did anyone else.

Every video I've seen of these devices in use has shown the target being knocked to their feet and utterly unable to do much of anything beyond scream in pain. They work very effectively.

 

[Brian D.]

Here's my idea, which has been rattling around in the ol' noggin for quite a spell now. Anyone who meets the following criteria can carry a firearm aboard a plane.

1) LEO, and/or holder of a valid CCW license from any state/political subdivision of the U.S.
2) Able to pass the old (pre-watered down) Air Marshal qualification course.

Item #2 above will assure there won't be a lot of extra bullets flying around, just enough to get the job done when needed. The qual course I'm talking about ain't no cakewalk. I've been a high "B" IPSC, NRA Expert, and IDPA Expert at times in the past, and when I tried running through that (old) Air Marshal course, just barely made it.

Hate to sound like some kind of exclusionist, but on board a plane it would seem to me that the marksmanship proficiency bar needs to be raised somewhat.

 

[Waitone]

I'd feel better about Tazers is I ever saw a demo where the target was wearing something other than a single ply shirt. Lemme see how it works against a leather jacket. Better yet, how does it work against a feather vest like I wear at home to keep warm. Think nylon sandwiching a handfull of feathers.

 

[Art Eatman]

orionengnr: "Your original question was, if I can carry on a bus, why can't I carry on an airliner? Why is it any different?" was somebody else's question, not mine.

My approach has always been one of "if I'm armed" compared with "if I'm unarmed"--coupled with "if I'm gonna die, anyway".

No biggie.

AZLibertarian sez:

"Art Eatman and "Assumptions"...
You acknowledge the problems with assumptions, yet you seem to be assuming that only the good guys will be armed against the knife-wielding terrorists. What's to say that the terrorists won't just go out and get the same CCW that allows you to carry on a plane (in your scenario)? You say "If I see a weapon, I shoot." Does the same apply to every other CCW holder? I hope you can see that you're setting yourself up for a circular firing squad."

Well, not really assuming only the good guys have guns. However, the odds are against terrs making it through today's background checks for a CHL. Odds, I said, not perfection in the system. Even so, my assumption of being dead by doing nothing still holds, doesn't it?

You seem to be ignoring my other comment about assessing the situation a bit, before taking action. Plus, my comment about other CHL folks also doing that same assessing. Again, I certainly haven't assumed any sort of perfection in all this speculating...

My real-world knowledge is that I'm gonna be unarmed if I fly commercial.

All this "what are the odds?" and other speculations are no different from the "what do you do" for SHTF or TEOTWAWKI.

Art

 

[ARperson]

The way I see it. The confined space, what about decompression, and who will know who is who all goes out the window very soon after a highjacking occurs.

Once the pilot knows something is wrong and sets the transponder to hijack, a pair of "escorts" are going to show up.

The crew and passengers have until the escorts shows up to regain control of the plane because once the "escorts" show up all is going to be null and void. They will radio a few times, and if the pilots don't control the plane, it's not going to matter who shot who, how many holes are in the plane etc, because the "escorts" will keep it from becoming a large manned cruise missile.

So arguing what the innocents think if and when they get shot is too bad. Because if the plane in not recaptured. Nothing but dead man inhabit that plane anyway.

The 20mm, Sidewinders, AMRAAMS,and gravity, will not care who is innocent.

I say arm everyone. There is a chance that some will live. Arm no one and there is a GUARANTEE EVERYONE WILL die.

 

[Zone Five]

I assume that you are already willing to go through a background check to make sure we aren't arming up a bunch of bad guys right?

Would you also be willing to go through some additional training on aircraft specific concerns? Like vulnerable areas- AZ Lib would say that the PILOT is the most valuable system.

How about a shooting test and regular requalification? Think that might be a good idea? Just basing carry on the Second Amendment doesn't provide a deterent if few are able to hit anything under extreme stress.

So what sort of accuracy and time qualifications would be in order? Do you think that a course of fire with all shooting done from concealment makes sense? Maybe some hand to hand work and mindset along with federal legality of use of force training? You will be flying in national airspace, wouldn't that be different than your particular state law?

If you are going to be effective, and that is the question at hand, then shouldn't someone being allowed to carry onboard have the skills necessary to actually win the fight against a suicidal, well trained, well armed (your program ensures that) and extremely determined adversary. Won't you basically be up against the equivalent of hand picked suicidal specal forces operators?

All I am talking about is practical CHL for the sky. What would be sufficient in your opinion?

Z5

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Nothing like experience, eh?

Several have mentioned explosive decompression, of course they are righfully fearful. But, there have probably been less explosive decompressions than hijackings. You aren't going to get one with an Uzi, no matter CCW Uzi, or terrorist Uzi.

However, any real explosive decompression would stop a hi-jacking, in mid-hijacking, so to speak.

I've been on a plane when the presurization took a vacation. Most everyone in the cabin was debilitated quickly with sinus and ear pain.

Lastly, for DMF, I will know a terrorist when I have a sight picture on him.

Or, "Kill them all, God will know his own."

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

Hey pilots!

I have a question...

There's a Stephen King short story called "The Langoliers". (You might have seen the TV movie as well)

In it, the pilot adjusted the cabin pressure to knock everyone out. Would that really work? Are the controls to do that available? Or is that exaggerated?

 

[AZLibertarian]

fistful
Perhaps it is the limitations of this medium, but I sense that you see me as a bit more adversarial here regarding this issue than I really am, so I'll try to tone down my rhetoric here to make this a more friendly conversation.

My point about chaos is that the nation can't endorse a strategy to deal with an enemy when it can't predict the outcome. As an analogy, during the Cold War "Mutual Assured Distruction" days, we knew that any Soviet attack on us would be met with a crippling attack against them. It was destructive, but not chaotic--in the sense that we could predict the outcome. I forget where I recently saw this, but one of the services (most likely the Marines) has a view that they bring chaos to the enemy, but from our point of view, it is managed chaos. We're inflicting completely random and unexpected outcomes to every move the enemy makes. It is the lack of management in your CCW-carriers-on-a-plane approach (which is the point I've been making with Art) which makes me believe that it'll never happen. On the street, the criminal is unable to predict if a potential victim might be armed--this is the great virtue of CCW. However, on a national level, I think we need to be able to know what our response might be.

You're right that "Chaos is now preferable to allowing a plane to become a guided missile", however only insofar as the chaos is located in the mind of the terrorist. Today, he doesn't know whether or how many FAMs or FFDOs are on any plane. The FAMs and FFDOs do know what to do in the event that another hijack attempt is made.

Brian D. and Zone Five allude to an approach that I could live with, but in a practical sense I think will doom any citizen carry on a plane--that being serious background checks, operational doctrine, and qualification standards. The sad fact is that many gun-owners and CCW holders (present company excluded) have a hard time running 200 rounds/year through their guns. This simply is not serious enough. To allow this kind of person on a plane, when their actions could determine the success of a WMD attack, is misguided, IMO. As Brian said, the qualification standards are stringent. And because the standards are tough, I think that the participation rate would be so small as to doom any armed citizens inflight.

Art Eatman

...However, the odds are against terrs making it through today's background checks for a CHL. Odds, I said, not perfection in the system. Even so, my assumption of being dead by doing nothing still holds, doesn't it?

You seem to be ignoring my other comment about assessing the situation a bit, before taking action. Plus, my comment about other CHL folks also doing that same assessing. Again, I certainly haven't assumed any sort of perfection in all this speculating...

Without knowing, I'd guess that most background checks look for the absence of an arrest record or other disqualifying data. Faking a name with a clean record seems like it ought to be child's play. Regarding "assessing the situation a bit", how big is your "bit"? This seems to be central to determining whether the guy in front of the plane with a gun is a terrorist or a FAM. And the other CCW holders may have different size "bits", so all hell may break loose while you're still assessing.

Nehemiah
I haven't seen the movie, but this scenario is impractical. The incompassitation (sp?) rate varies with individuals, and it does not happen instantly, so putting someone to sleep by depriving them of O2 might not stop the attack in time. Also it is likely that you'll kill some of your passengers you're attempting to protect as you try to put the BGs to sleep(kinda like the Russians did in that theater takedown a couple of years ago). In fiction it works, but that's about the extent of it.

Fellas, I've enjoyed the discussion. I've pretty much said all I can on this topic. Arming citizens is a great idea, until you're on a plane. At that point, because of the wide variety of training and standards, along with the national security implications of failure, I think that only the professionals ought to be armed. As a libetarian, it pains me to say that we ought to leave this to the guv'mit, but, on this issue, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Zone Five]

...and when the aircraft descends to lower altitude, everyone (well, some might be taking a permanent nap) wakes up, and the fight is on again.

It has been studied, and is not effective.

Z5

 

[fistful]

AZLib:

I see my reputation for vicious polemic precedes me. Or, at least that would be kind of cool. I don't think my response was all that adversarial, but I think my side of the argument must fear that we are viewed as gung-ho mall-ninjas, as opposed to the side which is more skeptical of the benefits of armed passengers. I should have explained in my last post that I am not prescribing chaos, nor proposing a free-for-all, Wild West, shoot-what-moves solution to hijacking. I am only trying to say that this would not be the worst of all possible outcomes, and that it would be preferable to disarming the passengers.

I think this may be the nut of the argument:

To allow this kind of person [untrained gun-toting passenger] on a plane, when their actions could determine the success of a WMD attack, is misguided, IMO. As Brian said, the qualification standards are stringent. And because the standards are tough, I think that the participation rate would be so small as to doom any armed citizens inflight.

This seems to say that one should only carry on a plane if trained to some floor of competence. That if one's skills are not adequate for the mission, he should leave his weapon at home. I assume this is to prevent a trigger-happy passenger from interfering with the Air Marshalls, or shooting the pilots. The point is well-taken, but I disagree for the following reasons.

a. The death of the pilots is regrettable, but even if the plane crashes, this is preferrable to allowing the terrorists to succeed. If indeed cockpits are being equipped with armored doors, the chances of this are greatly reduced, no?

b. Does every flight come with Air Marshalls? Even if they do, we hear that the marshalls are burdened with certain uniform requirements that make them too easy to identify.

c. Although armed passengers may impede the work of the Air Marshalls, I still prefer to trust an armed citizen to do the right thing. This is what a free society, and the Second Amendment, depend upon. Even though the armed passenger may cause the situation to implode, to devolve into chaos, it is absolutely necessary that the terrorists' goals be denied them. However, it is equally likely that the armed passenger may be the decisive factor in saving the plane.

d. Joe Civilian, 23, a software engineer and gun hobbyist, looks up from his Gameboy to witness a hi-jacking. He quickly but surreptitiously pulls out his new .50 caliber 1911, and...

1. drops two terrorists before they even see him, then kills the next three before dying of his own wounds. There are no Air Marshalls.

2. drops two terrorists before they even see him, but is soon killed. The remaining passengers/Air Marshalls are emboldened to rush the terrorists, and the plane is saved.

3. drops two terrorists before they even see him, but is soon killed. The remaining passengers/Air Marshalls are emboldened to rush the terrorists, and the plane crashes in the ensuing chaos.

4. drops two terrorists before they even see him, but is soon killed. The remaining terrorists are a little rattled, but complete their mission, killing all on board, as well as two thousand people on the ground.

5. shoots a fellow, peace-loving permit holder of South Asian descent (who's gun is also drawn) and then kills a real terrorist.

6. shoots a fellow, peace-loving permit holder of South Asian descent and aims at a terrorist, but hits the old woman sitting in front of him, before he is killed.

7. fires wildly, hitting only a window and the fuselage skin, until his gun jams, and he is shot to death, along with the little girl sitting beside him.

8. mistakenly kills an Air Marshall, and two passengers.


Outcomes 1, 2 and 5 are good, despite the death of the other civilian in 5.

Scenario 3 may be preferrable to the remaining outcomes.

Numbers 4, 6 and 7 result in a draw. The South Asian was just as likely to help or hurt the situation as he was, and the two victims were likely to be killed very soon, anyway. However, he did create a distraction which could have the same result as number two.

Eight is of course very bad.

Keep in mind I have selected an unlikely man of action with an unnecessarily powerful firearm.

Yes, the outcome is unpredictable, but how predictable is any other solution?

 

[Art Eatman]

As far as the shooting skill of possible CHL carriers on airplanes, I don't see the requirements as "stringent". Nothing I've read indicates a need for more than, say, an IPSC "B" shooter.

(For a comparison of a "B" shooter and a Chip McCormick, think of the Steel Challenge's "Double Trouble" stage. One shot on each of two targets, one plate a couple of feet above the other. Don't remember, now, wuz it seven yards or ten yards. Chip did it in 1.03 seconds; me, 1.30. Chip and I were roughly equal on first-shot hit times.)

The real test would be of maturity and judgement, insofar as completing a training course...

IMO, the dividing line would be the willingness of Joe Sixpack CHLer to undergo the training program. If such a program is operated as is the system provided for pilots, few would vounteeer; way too much hassle-factor, from what I've read.

Art

 

[artherd]

Here's my idea, which has been rattling around in the ol' noggin for quite a spell now. Anyone who meets the following criteria can carry a firearm aboard a plane.

1) LEO, and/or holder of a valid CCW license from any state/political subdivision of the U.S.
2) Able to pass the old (pre-watered down) Air Marshal qualification course.

You know, that's just obvious enough that I didn't think of it

Perfect scenario, I don't really want untrained gun-totin ND-having loons on my plane either. To get the AIRLINE endorsement, you pass the same test as the Air Marshals. Done. (And where do I sign up?!)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The reason I'm against arming passengers is that its a numbers game. Example: in most states that have CCW, the average percentage of folks that actually have licenses is about 2% or less. Consider that of those, probably about 1/3 are actually going to carry on a regular basis and less than 10% of CCW holders will have had ANY sort of training or even rudimentary instruction in tactics. So, with 300 passengers on board a flight, you could safely assume that MAYBE three people are carrying,

That's under current laws.

I try to avoid flying whenever possible these days, but there are times when it's a necessity ... if only to keep peace with the wife, who hates long drives. But the hassles of taking a gun on a flight just make things that much more difficult, even without factoring in that when I travel to visit family it usually requires landing at one of the NY airports, and you can't do that with a gun in your luggage (there's a related post on this here). Then there are the problems of lack of reciprocity when you get where you're going even if you DON'T have to go through NY.

If they would make it a bit more logical, and enforce interstate reciprocity for CCW permits the same as drivers licenses, I think you'd see a lot of people carrying. And even if you didn't ... it would give the bad guys one more unpredictable factor to worry about.

As to the "problem" of the airlines not wanting it because of liability, that's an easy one. The same law that says passengers with CCW permits can carry on flights can also provide that the airline is absolved of liability for the passengers actions in defense against terrorist activity and/or attempted hijacking.