Legalizing guns on airplanes?

[xdoctor]

I think they should just put a 1911 in every seatback. Then we can have a scenario like this:

Terrorist: Allah Hattal! Makhai Kahlem!
(silence descends on the airline. for a few seconds, no one moves. suddenly we hear somone jack the slide on a .45. The sound is then repeated in unison...300 times.)
Passenger: Son, if I was you, I'd sit back down.
(terrorist sits back down, the passengers disarm him, handcuff him and put him in the restroom. upside down.)


Isn't that a fun scene? I'd personally like to see that. Maybe they'll make another 'Airplane' movie.

 

[Art Eatman]

Zone Five" "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."

Why? How would one know this? It seems to me that if CCW's carrying on a flight is legal, on one flight you might have 20 or 30, and on another, none.

"Your statement, well meaning exactly illustrates the problem. The vast majority of CCW holders are formally untrained."

Right now, yes.

"Do you understand the ballistics of your handgun round?"

Me personally? Better than most, considering my engineering background and over fifty years of reloading for numerous pistol cartridges.

"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."

As I said, shooting through a hostage is a no-other-choice option. And, it doesn't really matter if the bullet doesn't go all the way through. Ever try to hold up 120 pounds of inert mass with one arm? And more bullets are coming your way?

See, where I'm coming from is that there is no way to survive unless the terrorists are stopped. SFAIK, the only way they will stop is when they are dead. What, a highly-trained agent is gonna holler, "King's X!" and negotiate?

"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."

More vicious than cutting a stew's throat?

"In fact, I doubt seriously that a gun carrier will have time to engage before it is too late."

In which case my notions are as good as anything else. Or a highly trained agent is no better than I am. And I cost fewer taxpayer dollars.

Art

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Terrorist: Allah Hattal! Makhai Kahlem!
(silence descends on the airline. for a few seconds, no one moves. suddenly we hear somone jack the slide on a .45. The sound is then repeated in unison...300 times.)
Passenger: Son, if I was you, I'd sit back down.
(terrorist sits back down, the passengers disarm him, handcuff him and put him in the restroom. upside down.)


Isn't that a fun scene? I'd personally like to see that. Maybe they'll make another 'Airplane' movie.

Reminds me of Chuck Norris in Code of Silence, one of his best. BGs tryin to hold up a cop bar/hangout.

"OK motherf******............"
Followed by about a hundred guns getting shoved into his face.

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Stevie-Ray, that was a neat scene...


"(terrorist sits back down, the passengers disarm him, handcuff him and put him in the restroom. upside down.)"

His face was flushed, but his broad shoulders saved him.

Art

 

[Zone Five]

Thanks for your enthusiasm, Art.

I was talking wound ballistics, should have used that term. Shooting a hostage is bad, bad tactics, it isn't required. There are several ways to deal with that problem without killing an innocent person.

To be effective requires integrated training, ESPECIALLY combative skills, and awareness/mindset. Otherwise, carrying a gun against this threat is of little real use.

Pretty sure that you agree from your statement.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a good thing, as long as we ensure that good guys get outstanding training and are able to maintain excellent proficiency in gun integrated combatives.

Take care

 

[carebear]

Zone,

I still gotta disagree (thanks for the math catch Art).

"Don't move or I kill this girl" ONLY works if that girl will survive if I don't.

Since our new model is "everyone dies when the plane hits a building or the USAF shoots us down" then option "that girl might die if I miss" doesn't look so bad.

Leet ninja skillz or not, either a few unlucky people or EVERY-FREAKIN'-BODY is going to die.

We flat out CANNOT put Delta or equally trained others in sufficient numbers on each plane randomly and statistically to make a difference. If there is just one, he'll lose no matter how good.

That being a fact, the best alternate deterrent is potentially enough people who can put a reasonable amount of rounds in a fairly static target at a limited range (the realistic airplane terr/hostage scenario) on board every flight that trying to get an overwhelming force of trained terrs on board becomes logistically impossible.

Arm all CCWS and the math skews in the "uncontrollable by terrs" direction. Insist on Sky Marshall training and you render the threat of resistance laughable.

 

[carebear]

As far as those skills go....

On a 727/737 we're talking fairly stationary targets at limited range in a cylinder.

No corners to clear, no stairwells. No hard cover, just seats. That is hardly a particularly difficult problem. Shoot the guy with the gun to the stewardesses throat. If you go down, the next guy kills your attacker. Shampoo, rinse, repeat. You are all dead anyway if you lose or do nothing.

This is hardly CQB in the classic sense, just basic marksmanship and a bit of mindset. Two directions to cover, the front of the plane and behind you.

As far as "faking documents" goes. These clowns couldn't get all of their teams in place in a permissive environment requiring nothing more than expired legit student visas.

Now they suddenly will gain the ability to operate as a cell against alerted LEO and intel, fake both ID AND CCW papers AND do all this with guys significantly more trained than the likely carriers on planes?

Remember, the number of CCWs who carry all the time is small, and consists primarily of the better trained/more aware. The proportion on planes should be the same. I'll take a few guys on this board up against a few random wanna-be, had to sneak-in, perfunctorily-trained terrs any day of the week.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Art

I've been round and round here on this topic, and still believe that the idea that CCWs be allowed to carry on planes is frought with problems.

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

So how would the CCWs meet prior to the flight? Who is in charge? Preferential seating would imply that the terr's would immediately know which seats to take out first--CCW or not. I know you specify some sort of IPSC/IDPA skill level as a starting point for any of this, but IPSC and IDPA are individual sports. Mulitple CCWs on planes would be asked to perform as a team when having never had any practice at team tactics. As I said here earlier, you're still essentially cobbling up a posse from off the street, then expecting that they'd act as a well-oiled team once on the plane.

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

True story: I just got off a trip where a passenger was absolutely screaming ( ) at my flight attendant because the FA was enforcing my company's rule which now requires that a guitar must be checked rather than carried on. There are all kinds of situations which may appear to be threatening, but which actually are not. Should one of your CCWs decide, from 8 rows back, that there was actually a threat to the plane, and then kill someone over it, when in truth it turns out to have been a simple, and very common example of travel-frustration, just how would we resolve this? It seems to me that you've opened up a giant can of legal-worms here. As CCW-holders, we all understand the extra individual liability we assume while carrying on the street. But an airplane hijacking is not simple street crime. We now have to assume there is a political objective to it. I think you make a great leap when allowing CCW holders to act as though they had the blessing of the government (who have the onus of protecting us from "all enemies--foreign and domestic"), when that is not necessarily the case. If I kill an innocent in effort to prevent a car-jacking, I can expect to go to jail and lose my house. If I kill an innocent in a hijacking, are you proposing I should be immunized somehow?

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.

On this we agree. Not that I think we ought to do away with FAMs/FFDOs or F-16s, because I don't. But I do think that the next attempt at a 9/11-style hijacking will result in the passengers using their bare hands to beat to a pulp anyone remotely resembling a terrorist.

And there is one question which I have yet to hear an answer to: Just how would we protect ourselves from terrorists going out and legitimately getting the very same CCWs which you envision will protect us from these same terrorists?

 

[Zone Five]

Since our new model is "everyone dies when the plane hits a building or the USAF shoots us down" then option "that girl might die if I miss" doesn't look so bad.

Sure it does, because for those who understand more than just basic shooting, there are simple tactics that make taking that precsion shot uneccessary. Furthermore, if you are trying to pass legislation in favor of CCW carry on aircraft, such statements are harmful to your cause. A professional will eat you up in the media, will use it in hearings to demonstrate why CCW carry is unacceptable, because he will present simple, effective alternative tactics showing the lack of seriousness to those making the decisions. In other words, he will use the lack of training and tactics against you, so you had better show up with a serious, strong, workable program.

I tend to disagree with AzLib on one point. I believe that the bad guys are working on new tactics to do another takeover. It will be different, more overwhelming and targeted at an aircraft with a sparse passenger load (perhaps cargo only) where they can exploit a smaller number of possible "interveners". They will be ready for armed defenders, come with more force and speed, and have a strong plan to keep control of the aircraft. For that reason, I also think that those who think they have an "easy" shooting situation are mistaken. It will more akin to a full blown, violent riot than a single hostage shooting scenario.

As AzLib mentions incessantly , this is an academic discusssion, CCWs won't be able to carry on airplanes. If you are serious, get some training, and polish up your hand skills. Pilots willing to volunteer to be trained on their own dime is part of what got their program enacted. They proved their seriousness by their willingness to sacrifice personally for their cause. Learn to fight with what you have, make yourself dangerous and when the time comes, attack. Right now, you don't have another option.

Screaming guitar player, eh? Sounds like the typical grunge metal performance. Are you sure you weren't just watching an audition Az?

 

[AZLibertarian]

You may be right about the new tactics. Such things are probably classified, and if not, they're at least speculative, so we could each come up with scenario after scenario which highlights holes in our system. The unfortunate thing is that it is very few who don't end up fighting the last war.

...Screaming guitar player, eh...

Actually, the surprising thing was that it was a 30-something mom yelling about not wanting to check Junior's guitar. FWIW, I once told Clarence Clemmons he couldn't get on with his instrument and 2 carry-ons. They're not my rules, and I don't always agree with them, but they pay me to enforce them, so I do.

Oh. And one more thing. A and a right back at 'cha.

 

[Art Eatman]

AZLib, I don't at all doubt there are beaucoup problems.

My main point about shooting through a hostage if necessary has to do with my view that in a takeover-effort situation, nobody's body is inviolate. Any given person is expendable, even me and this body I love and and cherish.

I dunno. First order of business: Better a Kansas wheatfield than the Sears Tower. Second order of business: Survive the brouhaha. I'm not expecting perfection. After all, it's TSA in charge, right?

, Art

 

[280PLUS]

Geez, you guys still going at it on this? I haven't read it all but it seems to have remained pretty civil! My compliments!

Remember, the number of CCWs who carry all the time is small, and consists primarily of the better trained/more aware. The proportion on planes should be the same. I'll take a few guys on this board up against a few random wanna-be, had to sneak-in, perfunctorily-trained terrs any day of the week.

+1

Especially if they've taken their time to train a little in aircraft control strategy type stuff. Which I"m sure most would do.

 

[GEM]

I'm still fixed on:

1. Deep cover terrorists get CCW permits easily
2. 4 to 5 get on a plane
3. Odds of a trained CCW good guy low
4. One CCW good guy against 4 to 5 BGs who probably have worked out the scenario for a CCW good guy and practiced for it.

Here's your problem: 5 armed guys

1. Three guys get up and say we are taking over the plane. For argument's sake, I'm not going to deal with the pilots. We are going to take over the cabin and then deal with the pilots.

2. Two are in front, one in the back. They shoot a stew or a passenger and say: Everyone assume crash position, if you raise your head you die.

Now what do you do? If you move to a firing position, you get killed.

3. Note, 3 get up. Two are hidden reserves and not known to you.

I have been shot twice by hidden BGs in FOF. True I shot both of them but that was after a sims hit. Maybe I would have been dead for real.


I prefer an nonfirearms fight of passengers vs. bad guys.

I'm all for carry except for technical reasons and this seesm one of those cases.

 

[WT]

Last year the Russians lost 2 airliners due to suicide bombers. The female bombers were carrying explosives shoved up their .........

Now, how would a CCW work in that instance?

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, you've presented a wonderful clustermess scenario, what with five armed hostiles.

"I prefer an nonfirearms fight of passengers vs. bad guys."

Why? If a bunch of the passengers are armed, seems like the bad guys lose on account of numbers. If the passengers are not armed, the bad guys could lose on account of numbers but there would (IMO) be a greater number of dead Good Guys.

Still, when the alternative is, "Hellllooooo, Sears Tower!!!", what difference does it make?

, Art

 

[Zone Five]

What is so unusual about adults having an intellectual discussion without resorting to personal attacks? I mean, this is the Internet you know!

My main point about shooting through a hostage if necessary has to do with my view that in a takeover-effort situation, nobody's body is inviolate. Any given person is expendable, even me and this body I love and and cherish.

Art,

I understand what you are saying, but expressing the logic of the situation to the public that way isn't going to "fly". They will just label the movement as a bunch of wannabe wackos. If a serious attempt to arm citizens on aircraft is going to be approved, it will have to be presented in an extremely professional. impeccably sound manner.

"Shooting through a Stewardess" will get you an immediate anti AirborneCCW lobby of about 150,000 flight attendents, their unions, and the politicians who support them. Your message will get lost in the howling, and you will be doomed before you finish your presentation.

If I was opposing you, I'd use that statement against you in so many ways it would make your head spin. You have to win the political and public opinion battle, that is reality.

Well, you've presented a wonderful clustermess scenario, what with five armed hostiles.

Only five? GEM is being kind...

 

[Zone Five]

Last year the Russians lost 2 airliners due to suicide bombers. The female bombers were carrying explosives shoved up their .........

I don't know, but it is sure to put the "who" back into security screening!!!!

 

[GEM]

Art, I was trying to convey that :

1. More firearms carrying badguys are more likely to negate the lone CCW
2. A reasonable sized group of firearms BGs will be more likely to negate even dedicated passengers with no firearms
3. Unarmed or knife armed hijackers can be overwhelmed by passengers.

Thus, I reluctantly argue against CCW in planes. I'm not happy with this position. If we had reasonable screening instead of goosing Grandma on a random basis, I might be more in favor of carry on the planes.

It's a close call.

 

[james481]

I guess I won't really chime in on this too much, other than a quote I caught from the first page of the thread:

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?)

This is regarding pilots training to carry firearms. I have taken more than a 25% paycut in a month so that I may (soon) carry a firearm:

$100 - $150 a month in practice ammo
$650 for a Glock 30
$200 CCW course and certification
$100 Holster, mag-pouch, belt
$200 Clothing for carry (ie slightly larger jeans, undershirts, etc)
$100 Carry ammo (both to fire to check functioning and load carry mags)

I'm not sure if, as a pilot, you would have to buy your own carry weapon, so:

Cost with gun: $1350 (approx 50% my monthly wage)
Cost without gun: $750 (approx 30% my monthly wage)

So, as you can see, myself and many others HAVE given up at least 25% of a month's salary for the "privledge" of carrying a weapon. In just about any feasable situation I might be involved in, I would be protecting myself, my GF, and maybe a couple other people (as in a robbery in public place, etc). You as a pilot, at the least, would be protecting yourself and the 300+ people on the plane. Or maybe as many people as might be in the building that plane could destroy. So, from your statement, I gather that you don't feel that protecting between 300 and 3000 people is worth 25% of your month salary? If that is not what you said, feel free to disagree, but if it is, that's about the most selfish thing I have ever heard...

 

[Marshall]

Heck, just put one at every window seat and say to hell with it.

 

[AZLibertarian]

james481

...I gather that you don't feel that protecting between 300 and 3000 people is worth 25% of your month salary? If that is not what you said, feel free to disagree, but if it is, that's about the most selfish thing I have ever heard...

I won't take any of this personally, but since you're responding to something I wrote, let me expand a bit...

What I'm saying here is that I don't have enough information, nor do I have a place to offer a judgement as to whether an individual's decision to not become an FFDO is selfish or not. Leaving the money aside for a moment, I don't know that his choices for for how to spend a week off from work aren't...

• Travel with his church to Central America to help out with a mission his church supports.
• Help out with his son's Boy Scout campout.
• Or simply that he's been putting off that family trip to DisneyWorld, and that his kids aren't getting any younger, so they'd better go now, or not at all.

To repeat, I don't know what his reasons are for deciding not to pursue becoming an FFDO, nor do I want to know. If his reasons are simply that he can't afford the 25% hit to his income, then if that's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. I can't help but accept that some may view the FFDO program as charity work--He's asked to take a week out of his life (and perhaps take a hit to his income) to get the credentials for an unpaid qualification. You say that's selfish; I say I have no place in judging at all. We all agree that having FFDOs is a good thing, but for those who've chosen not to become one; their choice is personal, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[james481]

Hmm, all good points, and extremely well put ones at that. Re-reading my post, I think I came off as sounding kinda like an ass, which was not my intention. I guess that is what I get for posting half asleep... :banghead:

 

[Zone Five]

I would add that it takes a certain type of person to take on that type of training. For some, the time off, the added responsibility and the comitment to stay proficient are insignificant compared to their sense of duty to protect their fellow Americans.

Pilots are a cross section of America. They have a wide variety of viewpoints and backgrounds. Many simply want no part of the idea of having to fight, while others relish the opportunity to defend themselves and their crew and passengers. That is cool, and I would surmise that the folks who are participating understand that many pilots just don't have the attitude to be effective and shouldn't participate. They use a variety of explanations for their non-participation, some valid, some not. Doesn't make them unpatriotic, they are simply staying within their capabilities.

However, for those with a particular mindset, the training and program are probably a very small obstacle in the large scheme of things. They love the challenge while others abhor it.

Just an observation.

 

[GunGoBoom]

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.

+1. there you have it - let the free market decide. HardTarget Airlines with lots o' CCW holders would be the most profitable in the long run, after a few nanny state / blissninny planes went down to terrorists, and a few HardTarget customers stopped some hijackings cold. The TSA folks would be driving little trains and handsome cabs like the Capitol One pillager guys, Darwin would be given a leg up in completing his work, and we would be happier and safer. "Fly the Tactical Skies!"

 

[Stickjockey]

If we had reasonable screening instead of goosing Grandma on a random basis, I might be more in favor of carry on the planes.

This is the real problem. The current security situation has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

[geek moment]
Marshall: starboard waist gun position, Consolidated B-24. I'm guessing Collings Foundation's "All American?"[/geek moment]