Legalizing guns on airplanes?

[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.

 

[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.

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.



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.

 

[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). 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 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.