Legalizing guns on airplanes?

[Jay Kominek]

But with a bunch of them, you might. BTW, it will be a rare shot from inside an airliner that won't penetrate the skin.

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

 

[Art Eatman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art

 

[The Rabbi]

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

 

[280PLUS]

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



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

Learned that one from a student of mine

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

 

[AZLibertarian]

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

So, let's invent some hypothetical guy who senses a market opportunity here. He sees that those with CCWs want to fly armed--it makes them feel safer. So to get a leg up on his competition this guy comes up with the following marketing plan...

Let's start up a new airline where we not only allow private citizens to carry guns onboard, but we encourage it. Let's call our airline HK Airlines. And as a marketing campaign, and in the further interest of making this airline the least-likely terrorist target in the sky, we'll allow our CCW-fliers to not only carry their personal weapons onboard, but as a reward/incentive to our best and most frequent CCW-fliers, we'll check out to each a MP-5 complete with two extra magazines. Fly a million miles with us and we won't just give you some lame ticket to Hawaii...Hell, we'll let you take one home.​

So the opinion of many here would be that this airline ought to have great success with this plan.

However, I'm of the opinion that most of us would soon find ourselves using other travel options. You see, it wouldn't necessarily be one of these guys who'd you be likely to sit next to, but rather one of these two. You'll notice that they look a little "twitchy" and one of them can't keep their damned fingers off the trigger. You'll get tired of wondering if this woman has quite enough on her plate with her two kids, much less an automatic weapon on her lap. And then there'd surely be one of these old guys who has felt the need to tell (and re-tell) his Korean War war stories, but (except for that 5 hour CCW course) hasn't handled a gun much since then. None of them will exactly inspire much confidence.

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

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

 

[280PLUS]

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

 

[AZLibertarian]

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

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

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

 

[280PLUS]

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

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

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

 

[secamp32]

How about if we just issue each passenger

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

 

[AZLibertarian]

...Giving people the power to do things opens up the possibility that some people will abuse or misuse that power.

And, in the case of the abuse of CCW priviledges on a plane, the consequence of that abuse is that you allow another plane-turned-into-WMD in the hands of a terrorist. And that, IMO, is a consequence dire enough to justify the restriction of CCW weapons from passenger cabins.

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

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

 

[GunGoBoom]

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

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

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

How about if we just issue each passenger

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

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

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

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

 

[centac]

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

 

[Art Eatman]

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

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

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

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

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

Art

 

[torpid]

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

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

 

[El Rojo]

It's going to turn terrorist-held WMD planes (whether made so by box cutters or legal CCW holders) into non-WMD planes when the terrorists are shot dead on the spot.

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

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

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

You are talking Hollywood talk. I don't know about any of you, but if I were a pilot and the terrorists wanted to kill all of the passengers in the back, I still wouldn't open the door. This ain't the movies where the moron does what the terrorist says and puts down their gun. This is real life where smart people realize that as soon as you do something that stupid, everyone dies. I would like to see a poll on how many commercial aircraft pilots would open the door to save anyone's life. I would guess you would have about a 95/5% poll on that one. So how do we protect the passengers? Just like we do now. 4 vs. 40, the 40 should win. 10 vs. 200, the 200 should win. Taking aircraft hostage ended with Flight 93. It won't happen again anytime soon.

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

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jeffrey

 

[280PLUS]

You are talking Hollywood talk.

HOLLYWOOD?

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

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

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


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

 

[odysseus]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[280PLUS]

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

Yea, stoopid...

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

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

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

And...

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

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

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

again, pigs,,,flying...

 

[280PLUS]

Any cartoonists out there?

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

 

[El Rojo]

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

If I were to translate that into reality, what you are really saying is, "I don't have any real life exampels of 'Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome', so I am going to pretend like I do and hopefully you won't call me on it." You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

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

 

[AZLibertarian]

Art...

Are you gonna absolutely guarantee me that....

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

El Rojo...

...it would be so easy to counterfeit a CCW....

I take your point, but just to highlight a small difference between your point and mine: I'm not concerned about terrorists counterfeiting CCWs. I'm more concerned they might board with legitimate CCWs.

280Plus...

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

So in one paragraph I'm supposed to accept that the pro's--the guys who do nothing all day except to practice this sort of thing--are going to end up shooting some innocents [and I do accept this, BTW], yet I'm also supposed to also envision that "granny greytop" might be able to "pop one in the back of the head" from 21C? C'mon. Granny hasn't shot her gun in at least a decade. It's on the bottom of her purse with Gawd-knows-What. And the last time she shot her gun she was barely able to hit the broad side of a barn when standing square-up in front of a non-moving target. Since then she's had her hip replaced and uses a walker.

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

 

[centac]

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

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