More guns seen at airports! I forgot I had it!

[beatledog7]

...too many people do stupid things with guns for me to feel comfortable having them on board. Except for air marshals and perhaps well-trained air crew we should keep flights gun free zones.

Given that logic, what places would you not want to be "gun free"?

 

[Sav .250]

My dog ate my home-work. Same thing. Confiscate the item. Lesson learned.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

For too many people do stupid things with guns for me to feel comfortable having them on board. Except for air marshals and perhaps well-trained air crew we should keep flights gun free zones.

No way for me. I want my pocket knife and gun back. While security is great inside the zone I had some issues in airport parking garages. I have my ink pen and cane but I miss my knife and gun.

 

[BSA1]

So you recommend that those folks be allowed on a plane with guns?

Why not ask the families of American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93 and the almost 3,700 people killed in the attacks on 9/11/01?

 

[alfon99]

I left 10 9mm rounds in my baggage, but i didn't have much problems here in uruguay. In fact, I'm lucky they saw them, because I was going to NY. I'm sure there it would have been worst.

 

[tipoc]

Why not ask the families of American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93 and the almost 3,700 people killed in the attacks on 9/11/01?

The highjackers should have been allowed on the planes with guns then in your opinion.

It is an interesting point of view.

Next time I see Justin Beiber, Alec Baldwin and Lindsey Lohan in a drunk slap fight on an airplane I'll think "Gee this would be more fun if they were armed"

tipoc

 

[BSA1]

The existing ban on not allowing firearms to be carried on airplanes on 9/11/01 did not prevent the death of almost 3,700 innocent people did it?

The passengers in the planes that hit the World Trade Center rode helplessly to their deaths.

The passengers in Flight 93 died fighting.

Armed passengers on Flight 93 might have saved them.

Your argument against guns on airplanes are the same as the worn out arguments against concealed carry laws.

 

[alfon99]

The existing ban on not allowing firearms to be carried on airplanes on 9/11/01 did not prevent the death of almost 3,700 innocent people did it?

The passengers in the planes that hit the World Trade Center rode helplessly to their deaths.

The passengers in Flight 93 died fighting.

Armed passengers on Flight 93 might have saved them.

Your argument against guns on airplanes are the same as the worn out arguments against concealed carry laws.

Yes, but both passengers and terrorists would have guns. And what if there are no armed passengers? I know that if it was allowed that would be unlikely, but it is possible. I think it would be reasonable if the crew was always armed.

 

[BSA1]

And what if there are no armed passengers?

That comment confuses me. We already know what happened to the unarmed passengers. They all died.

 

[alfon99]

And what if there are no armed passengers?

That comment confuses me. We already know what happened to the unarmed passengers. They all died.

But that way it would be easier for terrorists. If only the crew had guns, and they had them always, something like 9/11 would never happen. But if every single person can have guns in an airplane, this includes terrorists.

 

[bassdogs]

Arguing the merits of banning firearms / weapons on airplanes is I think off topic and misses the point of the thread. The fact is that it is NOT ALLOWED and might get you in a major hassle if not cause you to miss your flight. I agree with other posters, if after walking into the airport, passing countless signs [No guns], approaching the passanger security area, seeing the metal detectors and xray machines, and removing your shoes and belt; it still doesn't dawn on you that you are carrying, you deserve to face whatever wrath the evil TSA might dole out. Its the law, and OH I forgot may or may not save your trip.

 

[HankR]

(on forgetting and taking a gun through "security" at the hospital) This is about 10 orders of magnitude lower than walking through security at a commercial airport while forgetting that you have a gun on your person.

Why? In each case some mis-informed individual or committee, with or without government sanction, is engaged in a bit of security theater and pretending that you will be safer if you allow them to disarm you according to their whim. You are being asked to surrender your God given right to defend yourself to make someone else feel better. This feels unnatural, since it is unnatural, and the rational mind can't be expected to keep track of every such irrational request, much less plan for it days in advance.

 

[BSA1]

But that way it would be easier for terrorists.

So to summarize this discussion.

You believe passengers safety is best left to Big Brother and his lackies...TSA employees and certain flight crew members (which incidently are not currently allowed to be armed. As far as I know guns are only kept in the cockpit which doesn't help at all with problems in the passenger compartment).

I believe I am personally responsible for my safety and prefer a fighting chance rather than like a lamb being led to the slaughter. Patton summarizes my view well...

"No <person> ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb <person> die for his country."

 

[beatledog7]

But if every single person can have guns in an airplane, this includes terrorists.

Not really, no.

In my world, the only ones carrying firearms on passenger planes would be those with a CCW/CHP that's valid both where they boarded and where they're getting off. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the sort of terrorists that attacked America on 9-11-01 would not have been able to obtain such a permit.

There's no valid legal argument that I conjure against states being able to determine, by whatever method they choose, who can carry concealed. The wording of 2A doesn't say we have the right to go about with a hidden firearm, just a firearm. So a valid state-issued CCW/CHP seems a rational discriminator, just as we use our state-issued driver license for valid ID when checking in. Regarding constitutional carry, as with the vote, I presume a person would have to be a US citizen to enjoy such a right, a qualification that would have also screened out the 9-11 hijackers.

Would it possible for a US citizen CCW holder gone bad to board a plane in my world? Yes, but our current processes can't screen out every possible risk either. And if this hypothetical US citizen terrorist with a CHP did go aboard armed, he'd have to be aware that there could be many others on board with guns as well. That's called deterrence, in case you're not familiar with the concept.

 

[tipoc]

Arguing the merits of banning firearms / weapons on airplanes is I think off topic and misses the point of the thread.

I agree. It takes a useful discussion and makes it pointless.

What is useful in the thread? Some things I see are:

That out of the millions that flew in the last 6 months only 894 guns were found on people trying to board planes.

That you can see that people who carry guns don't have the same attitude towards them. When I see a bunch of cops with guns, metal detectors, etc. I go into condition orange. I don't "forget" I have a gun on me, I don't "forget" where it is. It says something about awareness of your surroundings.

That the "forgot I had it" thing means something about gun awareness and gun safety in general that's worth taking note of and thinking on. If you forgot your gun was in the brief case that means, at that moment it could be in your car, your closet, desk, etc. You don't know where it is.

In some cases the cops found the gun and let the folks take it home, or away. In others they charged them with breaking a law and they were fined, etc. What's the criteria for who gets arrested and who goes home? Who they like I guess, cuz there is no uniform criteria.

tipoc

 

[beatledog7]

Arguing the merits of banning firearms / weapons on airplanes is I think off topic and misses the point of the thread.

Maybe, a little. But if we were able to achieve rational carry on airplanes, the original "point" of the thread would be moot for many of us; when we have to fly we'd just arm up and carry our permit as we normally do.

Problem solved.

 

[bassdogs]

Point is "if, if, if," doesn't alter the law that exists today. Fight to change it but don't blame "I forgot" for showing up at security with heat.

If the speed limit was 80 instead of 70 most of us wouldn't have got a ticket. But a speeding ticket is a whole lot less trouble than a rubber hose session with the TSA.

Done here

 

[wep45]

firearms NEED to be carried everywhere.............

 

[Warp]

firearms NEED to be carried everywhere.............

Location: Illinois

 

[gym]

I would prefer to have my gun on me anyplace I go. Why are planes different than cars or boats? If you have a license it should be an interstate license, "which it almost is". And there should be no parameters on where you carry it. Terrorists without citizenship, would have been checked before boarding, thus removed from the flight, others "with valid permits", would have been allowed to board. Why do I need a permit for a plane? it's a mode of transportation like any other vehicle.
The fact that it can be hijacked could be said for a school bus also, or a piece of heavy duty equipment, boat, or unlimited other things.

 

[alfon99]

Not really, no.

In my world, the only ones carrying firearms on passenger planes would be those with a CCW/CHP that's valid both where they boarded and where they're getting off. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the sort of terrorists that attacked America on 9-11-01 would not have been able to obtain such a permit.

There's no valid legal argument that I conjure against states being able to determine, by whatever method they choose, who can carry concealed. The wording of 2A doesn't say we have the right to go about with a hidden firearm, just a firearm. So a valid state-issued CCW/CHP seems a rational discriminator, just as we use our state-issued driver license for valid ID when checking in. Regarding constitutional carry, as with the vote, I presume a person would have to be a US citizen to enjoy such a right, a qualification that would have also screened out the 9-11 hijackers.

Would it possible for a US citizen CCW holder gone bad to board a plane in my world? Yes, but our current processes can't screen out every possible risk either. And if this hypothetical US citizen terrorist with a CHP did go aboard armed, he'd have to be aware that there could be many others on board with guns as well. That's called deterrence, in case you're not familiar with the concept.

Terrorists don't have to be from the middle east, they may just be crazy muslim converts.

 

[alfon99]

I would prefer to have my gun on me anyplace I go. Why are planes different than cars or boats? If you have a license it should be an interstate license, "which it almost is". And there should be no parameters on where you carry it. Terrorists without citizenship, would have been checked before boarding, thus removed from the flight, others "with valid permits", would have been allowed to board. Why do I need a permit for a plane? it's a mode of transportation like any other vehicle.
The fact that it can be hijacked could be said for a school bus also, or a piece of heavy duty equipment, boat, or unlimited other things.

Come on, you cannot kill thousands of people with a car. But you can with a plane, and that happened in 9/11

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Come on, you cannot kill thousands of people with a car. But you can with a plane, and that happened in 9/11

Just as spurious logic. You are basically saying that killing thousands is the standard by which the cutoff should be made.

 

[Warp]

I would prefer to have my gun on me anyplace I go. Why are planes different than cars or boats? If you have a license it should be an interstate license, "which it almost is". And there should be no parameters on where you carry it. Terrorists without citizenship, would have been checked before boarding, thus removed from the flight, others "with valid permits", would have been allowed to board. Why do I need a permit for a plane? it's a mode of transportation like any other vehicle.
The fact that it can be hijacked could be said for a school bus also, or a piece of heavy duty equipment, boat, or unlimited other things.

Don't pretend as though it would be impossible for a terrorist to be a person with a valid permit.

Besides, the way this really ought to be is no permits at all. It's supposed to be a right, not a privilege that requires a 'mommy, may I?" permission slip from the government.

 

[Bill4282]

Don't buy it. When I get ready in the morning for my flight, I go the the ritual of storing gun, knife and deadly fluid containers over 4 ounces. I used to carry a knife on my key ring, not any more. Since I was a Fed employee, it was too much a hassle visiting other offices in Fed bldgs where we were not allowed, at first a blade over 2" now any length, any edged instrument. I still carried a Cross pen for guess what reason.