Legalizing guns on airplanes?

[Art Eatman]

Hokay, centac, I'll happily replace stoopid with ignorant. I just get grumpy at the way Our Gummint regards us. I guess the best example is TSA's gropers in training and the fetish against inert-cartridge key fobs or fingernail clippers, etc.

So I'm on your airplane with your five armed terrorists. Maybe I take out one or two before they kill me. I'd hope that the rest of the few hundred on board would jump up and take their chances, just as I did. If ten or twenty passengers die in taking out the five terrorists, I call it a profitable day.

If 280 of 300 live and the plane lands safely, that's about as good as it's gonna get, and the Sears Tower remains intact.

But everything I've written in this thread is predicated on the idea that if I do nothing, I'm dead. Overall, what I'm saying is that what I want is some choice as to how I go out. The specific "how to" is a great unknown; all I can say is that I won't sit back and play sheep--guns or no guns. Why should I?

Art

 

[280PLUS]

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.

What part of "Shall achieve and maintain a level of proficiency with that weapon" did you miss? Maybe Granny happens to be the top female senior shooter in her league? Heck, I know a guy well into his sixties that can draw and double tap them through the same hole in less than 2 seconds.

Real Life "Fox in the Henhouse Syndrome" Examples, uh 9/11/01 ring any bells for you? Columbine? Must I go on? Maybe you're not getting my point when I say "Fox in the Henhouse"?There's noone to shoot back, maybe a few of the chickens will make a valiant effort to get the fox but they probably won't fare too well. Neither will the rest of the chickens unless the valiant chickens prevail. Now, you put a big DOG in the henhouse and the fox's chances of success immediately become questionable.

Why would a pilot be any different knowing that as soon as they open that door, everyone dies?

What if everyone in the cabin is going to die if they DON"T open the door? (I fully understand why they can't) Shouldn't we be allowed to defend ourselves? It's sounding like people are too willing to accept the passengers on an airliner as write offs. I find that unacceptable. ESPECIALLY IF I AM THE PASSENGER! The Gov't / airline industry can't protect us fully nor will they allow us to protect ourselves. Sounds like a new twist on the old Catch-22 IMHO.

BTW You know although I AM sincere in my beliefs I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, try not to get too riled up at me.

I'm Italian mostly, I LOVE to argue

 

[AZLibertarian]

What part of "Shall achieve and maintain a level of proficiency with that weapon" did you miss? Maybe Granny happens to be the top female senior shooter in her league? Heck, I know a guy well into his sixties that can draw and double tap them through the same hole in less than 2 seconds.

Yeah. I know guys like this too. Heck, Rob Leatham occassionally shots IDPA where I shoot. I don't want to over-state this, but he's a very casual social acquaintance. Some of the guys I shoot IDPA with are verrry good. Every month after the results are released, I do a little statistical analysis. I am very happy when I shoot average in the bunch.

But here's the problem. I'm not worried about how well Rob Leatham or your 60 year-old double-tap guy (or most of the present company here on THR, for that matter) would do on a plane. It's the average guy I'm worried about. True Story: I've been shooting IDPA for about 2 years and have participated at three of the four venues here in the Phoenix area. I've never seen more than 25 or 30 guys at any one match (And usually it's the same faces match-to-match, venue-to-venue.). However, here's the rub: There are 36115 permit holders in Maricopa County. Now I certainly acknowledge that there is all kinds of practice, and IDPA might not be for everybody, but just where are the rest of these 36000 guys (not to mention the rest of the state) "maintaining" their proficiency? My belief is that they're not, and therefore it is a big mistake to allow them to carry on a plane.

The Gov't / airline industry can't protect us fully nor will they allow us to protect ourselves....

Firstly, I hope no one here is expecting the government to fully protect us. They can't even do that in a maximum security prison. But, more broadly, and especially after the London bombing, we ought to know that the government can't protect us in many places beyond the passenger seat on an airplane. As I said earlier, the CCW--while a valuable tool against crime--is of less value against terrorism.

BTW, I'm not riled up at all. I too like to "Devil's Advocate" a prevailing wisdom. Although I'll never admit it in front of my wife, I like to argue too.

 

[280PLUS]

You are correct in your statments not a lot of shooters ARE as proficient as we'd like them to be. I was thinking this "program" might help change that and encourage more to practice.

Again, if you don't demonstrate proficiency with your weapon, you don't carry on the plane. I grant you a handgun will not always be the answer to our terror problems but they could come in handy sometime if there are enough of them around in capable hands.

I understand the Gov is not capable of protecting us 24/7 but why won't they let us protect ourselves?

BTW, I'm not riled up at all. I too like to "Devil's Advocate" a prevailing wisdom. Although I'll never admit it in front of my wife, I like to argue too.

Then we'll agree to agree on that one and keep it our little secret!

 

[The Rabbi]

You are correct in your statments not a lot of shooters ARE as proficient as we'd like them to be. I was thinking this "program" might help change that and encourage more to practice.

As I mentioned, no shooter is as proficient as we'd like him to be. I'm not as profiecient as I'd like to be.
But that begs the question of "how proficient does someone need to be before you would allow them to carry on an airplane or anywhere else for that matter?"

I have noticed too that in the NRA's column of Armed Citizens and other stories of people using guns to protect themselves, virtually none of those people had any kind of active training nor did they train regularly. That isnt an argument against training but a suggestion that maybe it isnt the be-all and end-all many would think.

 

[carebear]

Just wanted to point out that prior to, what, 1963 it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL to carry loaded firearms onboard civilian commercial aircraft. (only thing that mattered was airline policy)

That's right, Joe Six Pack could drive up in his non-catalytic auto, light his cigarette, walk out to the plane, go up the stairs and get his cocktail all without taking off his roscoe.

Funny how even them antique planes weren't exactly falling out of the sky...

So it isn't "moving radically forward" that we have to do, it's just "rolling back".

Remember,

Plan A is the law-abiding unarmed passengers try to take out the hijackers who are probably as smart as me and thus could get damn near any weapon on a plane they wanted to, if the test results TSA puts out are accurate.

or,


Plan B is the Air Force shoots down the plane and everybody dies.

I think I'd rather risk the 1 in 4 lethality of taking a handgun bullet. Better odds.

 

[280PLUS]

"how proficient does someone need to be before you would allow them to carry on an airplane or anywhere else for that matter?"

I'd like them to be able to at LEAST hit the target with some consistency. All I know is the first day I ever tried any IDPA style I SUCKED! Now after only a few sessions here and there I have improved immensely simply by picking up some of the basics. Granted I could shoot a pretty fair bullseye target to start with, which certainly helped.

Just wanted to point out that prior to, what, 1963 it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL to carry loaded firearms onboard civilian commercial aircraft.

Which is why noone in the front office of "The Twightlight Zone" batted an eye back there in the 50s when Shatner pulled out his gun and started shooting at the Gremlins.

Once again, another case where the criminal causes problems and the law abiding citizen pays for them in lost freedoms.

I forgot to mention, I've been working as a RO at my local range for 2 years now, providing a place for the general public to come and shoot their handguns. Noone has to tell me how many CCW out there couldn't hit a barn even if they were shooting at it from the INSIDE!

 

[Zone Five]

Which is why noone in the front office of "The Twightlight Zone" batted an eye back there in the 50s when Shatner pulled out his gun and started shooting at the Gremlins.

Shatner, playing a nut case, didn't have his own gun. He got a (sleeping?) police officer's revolver and went to town on the goblin on the wing. Think there might be a lesson there?

I understand the frustration of those who feel vulnerable by being disarmed on an airplane. I would humbly submit, that merely possessing a firearm onboard isn't enough to complete the mission.

What the airline pilot here is trying to say, is that he is worried about the effectivness of the average citizen who would carry firearms on aircraft. So this leads to the question that hasn't been asked-

You are going to be fighting evil murderers who have been through there own tough training and tactics, rehearsing their mission over and over. They have probably killed before, and have no regard for the lives of any infidel, young or old, male or female. You are nothing to them, other than perhaps a prop to be exploited for their purposes.

So what sort of testing/training do you thing would be appropriate given the threat an airborne CCW would face? What would be prudent in your opinion?

Give us a general program, including protocol on conduct and requalification requirements.

 

[Art Eatman]

Since I can't avoid thinking of the consequences of doing nothing, with that F-16 out there with rockets and maybe a couple of hours before becoming intimate with the Sears Tower, I guess a general program would include a level of competency of a C-shooter in IPSC or the equivalent in IDPA. That is, the shooter is reasonably likely to hit a person within 30 or 40 feet without great difficulty.

Otherwise, most anybody who's around 25 or thirty years old with a resume that shows decent grades in school, steady employment and a decent line of credit: IOW, a mature adult.

This country seems to be eat up with "consultants" and "programs" and "systems" and totally unconcerned with common sense. I've often wondered how I got to be this old without needing them...

Art

 

[Vang]

A test for maturity isn't not going to be particularily accurate. Your test simply seems to be something that could be changed or interpreted to prevent people from ever taking a gun with them.

 

[carebear]

Art,

+1

Zone,

Remember, the choice is AT BEST between "fight back and maybe lose and you and maybe other innocents die" and "don't fight back and you all are either killed by the terrs or your own air force".

At least the fighting back gives you a chance to get out of that uncomfortable seat for a bit.

 

[crewsr]

my take on this

Conceal carry is all about trust. Why should a pilot have more rights in the air than "we the people"? You want to stop terrorism in the air? Just allow current CC holders to board planes on their normal everyday trips. Just make sure the permit is vaild and current at check-in.

Look to "the people" to solove any problem better, faster, cheaper and maintain liberty than having Govt solve it. If flight 93 had CC holders on board....there is NO WAY the terrorist would know how to control that plane....they would be shot before they touched the pilots cabin door. Period.

If we trust "we the people" on the ground....in cars, on boats, on bikes.....what is the deal with up in the air being so different. Are Our kids and loved ones less valueable on a plane?

Yes I understand bullets and cabin pressure......But if your worried about bullets and cabin pressure than that means you already have a dangerous situation that could crash the plane. Loss of cabin pressure VS. a plane forced to slam into a building/ or bomb going off inside.......which do you pick??

If CC holders can thwart car jackings cant they also thwart hi-jacking airflights??
I think we can.
but its a matter of trust

 

[Art Eatman]

Vang, I'm nowhere near striving for perfection. I could care less--if I knew how.

I'm coming from what to me seems an obvious deal when thinking of 9/11: Do nothing, and die. Do something, and maybe live. Relying on Big Nannie to tell anybody how to do anything just doesn't fit anything worth worrying about. Big Nannie flies on safe tax-paid-for airplanes.

Doesn't really matter, to me. It's still cheaper to drive than to fly, and as long as TSA is doing its gropers-in-training thing, I ain't flying. I won't subject myself to those indignities.

Art

 

[Ezekiel]

Unilateral guns on planes? "Yuck"

Private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. People with firearms are scary. People with firearms have itchy fingers.

Unfortunately, evidence from my line of work would certainly lead one to believe in that fashion. I'd rather there be a significant probability that nobody on board has a firearm verses the legal possibility that the one-tooth and sub-GED troglodyte next to me does.

Being on a plane is like having a gunfight in a closet: I want minimum standards of skill. For me, it's just that simple.

 

[Zone Five]

What sort of training is required to WIN?

Doesn't really matter, to me. It's still cheaper to drive than to fly, and as long as TSA is doing its gropers-in-training thing, I ain't flying. I won't subject myself to those indignities.

You might want to check air fares vs gas prices. Last time I looked, flying on most available coach fares on most city pairs (especially longer distance) was cheaper than driving. Amazing but true.

Since you don't plan on flying, I understand your aversion to commenting on training.

For others, let's say you are hosting a party with people in attendance who are completely unknown to you. Drinks are being provided by you, the gracious host. Would you want any armed person to have some sort of training? Should a homeowner have the right to post limits on what happens in his domain? I, not the Federal Government want only sane, proficient, and safe gun owners carrying weapons in my home. If the hoards attack my party, I want people who know what they are doing to repel boarders.

Should someone qualified for airborne CCW have some restrictions on conduct and proficiency? If so, what sort of training would you want to see, reminding once again, that the idea is not just to make us all feel better that letting a random number of people carry a firearm of their choice on an airplane is better than nothing, but to actually come up with a program to win the fight against a large number of well trained, extremely aggressive, unafraid to die attackers?

You see, the only way this would ever happen is if citizens are willing to demonstrate that they can get the job done in a very difficult environment, with good guys fighting the bad guys with whatever they have. The lone CCW with unknown training has to sort all of this out, good guys intermixed with bad guys, and has but a few seconds to act. It isn't really self-defense, which is what CCW is all about, it is a close quarters battle, requiring many skills and tactics that not even the top scorers of IDPA/IPSC may have remotely thought about.

So what skills are needed to prevail?

 

[Vang]

I was concerned that it was too restrictive.

 

[Art Eatman]

"So what skills are needed to prevail?"

I'll stand by what I've already said.

Again, the alternative to doing something is to die. So, you do whatcha can with whatcha got. If it ain't enough, the outcome is no different than if you did nothing. Either way, you're dead, so what difference does it make? Does it matter in the end if a terrorist kills me, or an F-16 does?

Zone Five, check airfares between Tallahassee, Florida and Midland, Texas. Then add the 240 miles of driving from Midland to Terlingua, with the hassle of no place to drop off a rent-a-roach. Driving is cheaper, I'll guarantee you.

Art

 

[mattman the gun fan]

i dont think it would be a good idea to have armed passengers,but armed pilots that go through training is a much better idea.

 

[Zone Five]

Art,

I said fares between most city pairs are cheaper, not between two uncharted, GPS co-ordinates in the middle of the desert!

Here is where we are disconnecting in our goals. You are looking at this as if you are going to lose anyway, so anything is better than nothing. It is a defeatist attitude. Apply this to a bomb disarmament if you will. Sure, someone could try to pull a few wires and hope for the best, assuming that by doing nothing, he is dead already, but wouldn't it be better to train the guy as to how to actually disarm the bomb?

My view is that if the goal is to win, then we want to equip as many people as possible with the skills to actually overcome a team of extremely motivated terrorists. I would submit that a simple CCW carrying a gun won't do the job. On the next hijacking attempt, you can bet that there will be sleepers or two in the back of the cabin, ready to attack any threats to their plot. A random CCW won't be effective, and the outcome would likely be the same. Stating that the CCW could take a few of the hijackers out, without stopping the use of the aircraft for mass destruction is irrelavent.

So what training would suffice?

 

[carebear]

If 1% of the passengers were armed on a modern aircraft that's, what, 30 shooters. Say 15 are not in position, that's still 15. We aren't talking CQB here, we're talking shoot the guy holding the flight attendent, his buddy trying to force the door and keeping an eye open behind you.

Realistically, how many sleepers do you have to plant to ensure you will win a 1 to 1 or even 2 or 3 to 1 loss ratio shootout with a bunch of armed passengers? What sort of special skills do you really think necessary in a linear shooting gallery other than being able to hit small targets of opportunity quickly. The very simplicity of the cabin layout reduces it to primarily an accuracy contest.

The blue-on-blue is the nightmare scenario but, again, Plan B is taking a Sidewinder over the ocean.

 

[Art Eatman]

Math, carebear, math! 1% of 300 is three--although I'd hope you really meant 10%.

Okay. Training. As I said before, IMO a Class B or C IPSC/IDPA skill level with a handgun should be adequate. (I was Class B. I wasn't as fast as Chip McCormick, but on the first two shots on two targets I was as accurate and within a couple of tenths.)

The training would have to do with things like preferred seating, type of concealed carry, and discussion about timing of taking action.

Opinion: The "timing" choices would include taking immediate action, or playing it by ear as to what the terrs are requesting or doing. There would be other options, I imagine. This isn't an area of my expertise.

Tactics: If there's no other option, shoot through a hostage to kill a terr.

Separately, I don't really think that there will be a repeat of the 9/11 effort via a commercial airplane. Possibly a bomb, of course, but not an armed takeover to use the plane as a cruise missile.

Art

 

[GEM]

To me, I'm swayed by the argument that we will make it easier for arrmed terrorists to get on the plane as compared to the number of possible competent armed citizens that are flying.

Thus, and sadly, I go for armed pilots and marshals. Frankly, I have quite a few CCW friends. Only one, who was an army pistol champ, is in my opinion having any significant training and ability beyond myself.

I would prefer a hand to hand fight, even with knives, then the chance of 4 guys with Glock 19s on the plane and just me with one.

 

[Jim Diver]

Separately, I don't really think that there will be a repeat of the 9/11 effort via a commercial airplane. Possibly a bomb, of course, but not an armed takeover to use the plane as a cruise missile.

I disagree. Remember, our lack of imagination did not even allow us to consider the use of airliners as cruise missiles.

They will not do it right away, but they will do it again or something like it.

 

[Zone Five]

If there's no other option, shoot through a hostage to kill a terr.

Art, not picking on you, I admire Americans who want to do something to help, who feel it is their duty to protect their country.

Your statement, well meaning exactly illustrates the problem. The vast majority of CCW holders are formally untrained. The idea of shooting through a hostage is a case in point. Do you understand the ballistics of your handgun round? Do you think you should be restricted to a certain type of round? Because the vast majority of self defense rounds make "shooting through a hostage" unfeasable. It is a stupid tactic, not needed, and counterproductive.

Another aspect by most of the replies illustrate that "Gun People" tend to be "Gun Focused". A huge portion of the solution lies apart from the gun.

The number of CCW's available to carry on board aircraft is infintesimal and provides little coverage. It would be far easier for a bad guy to forge the credentials and carry a weapon on board than to have a CCW on an airplane when the next attack occurs.

The next attack will also be far more vicious than a couple of bad guys using a flight attendant to keep the passengers at bay. In fact, I doubt seriously that a gun carrier will have time to engage before it is too late.

I am a pragmatist here, and am interested in a credible answer to a nasty threat. IDPA/IPSC paper target shooting skills have almost nothing to do with stopping a hijacking, especially when administered by an out of shape, shooter completely in over his head with respect to the threat he faces.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

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!"

the picture I saw was of a beretta 92

also not a bad choice.