Legalizing guns on airplanes?

[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

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...



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?

 

[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.