They let people like this be attorneys?

Status
Not open for further replies.

v35

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
910
You know I don't read the US(eless)A TODAY but this was right there on the front page.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-03-31-armed-pilots_N.htm

More than 10% of pilots allowed to fly armed
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — More than one in 10 of the nation's airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection.

The TSA, which has declined to disclose the number of armed pilots, revealed in a recent budget document that 10.8% of airline crewmembers were authorized to carry guns.

The Federal Air Marshal Service, a TSA agency that runs the armed-pilots program, reports that 85,000 to 90,000 pilots and crewmembers flying domestic passenger and cargo planes are eligible to carry a gun. That puts the number of armed pilots at about 9,500 — a figure Air Marshal spokesman Nelson Minerly did not dispute. The marshal service keeps the exact number confidential.

The TSA projects the program to grow to 16.5% of eligible pilots by the year 2011.

Aviation experts were surprised and alarmed that so many pilots are toting guns in the sky.

"That's a big number compared to what I thought it would be," said aviation-security consultant Rich Roth, who said he had predicted there would be fewer than 1,000 armed pilots. The 5-year-old program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.

"That's a scary number," said Joseph Gutheinz, a former Transportation Department special agent and aviation attorney in Houston. "By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."

Capt. Bob Hesselbein, head of security for the Air Line Pilots Association, said the number of armed pilots is "a tremendous deterrent" to hijackings. "An organized terrorist team, their challenge is to take control of the cabin, then the flight deck."

Armed pilots have come under scrutiny since March 22 when the gun of a US Airways pilot fired in the cockpit of Flight 1536 as it approached Charlotte from Denver. No one was hurt, and the plane landed safely after the bullet pierced the fuselage.

A report by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said the gun fired while the pilot was stowing it.

The marshal service is investigating. The firing was the first such incident, which indicates that "this isn't a problem with the program," Air Marshal spokesman Greg Alter said.

Hesselbein, whose union lobbied Congress for the program, said armed pilots are on about 15% of domestic flights.

Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association, which represents armed pilots, said their numbers could grow more if training facilities expanded.

Pilots train at a federal center in New Mexico. Classes hold 48 people and have been filled or nearly filled for five years, Minerly said.

Let's get that bold quote right: "By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly [STRIKE]armed[/STRIKE], we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has [strike]a gun[/strike] an airplane and overpower him."

...AND CRASH IT INTO BUILDINGS KILLING MY FRIENDS.


Idiot.
 
Isn't that kind of the point? Give the terrorists the opportunity to overpower an armed person instead of an unarmed person.

I don't think overpowering someone with a gun is the kind of "opportunity" a terrorist is looking for.
 
First off, a law degree is nothing more than proof that one has completed law school. Bar passage merely means that you've remembered enough law school crap to pass a test. Real law is what you learn after law school, in practice.

Second, an idiot who graduates from law school is still an idiot, but properly called idiot, esq.

Third, this is the basis for the debate from the beginning. Some think that security means no one is armed, so no one gets hurt. That didn't do so well on 9/11, did it. Others think that the ability and willingness to fight back is the key. This is the entire gun control debate focused on one situation. no need to ask this guy where he stands on gun control issues...
 
Hey, if Jack Thompson can make it as a lawyer, anyone can.

If anyone here hasn't heard about Jack I suggest you read up on him, his exploits are the living definition of "you can't make this stuff up".
 
I agree completely that terrorists should not be able to indentify the number of armed people in the cabin of a plane.
 
Wow,, I think it is alarming how many people/attorneys with this type of mindset are running around using their mouths...

I think terrorists already hijacked their brains.
 
By allowing so many police the opportunity to walk armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."
This would fit with his logic, maybe we should dis-arm the police and military?

lawson4
 
"By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."

Uhh, yeahhh..as opposed to having him identified as a PILOT and overpower him.

What a friggin nutjob! At least now, with a gun, he can defend himself and keep anyone from taking the controls.
 
Here we are, seven years later with 10% armed pilots.
You may have overlooked the last line of the story... classes have been running at capacity, or nearly so, since they began. The program is only about five years old.

Not everyone has the ability to take a week off, plus travel time, unpaid, to attend training. For a lot of airline pilots one week would be the equivalent of somewhere between one and three thousand dollars of lost compensation. Upon completion of training flight deck law enforcement officers serve unpaid in that position. There is no expense reimbursement. There is no compensation for recurrent proficiency training or equipment. They are true patriots.

Seems to me a totally voluntary organization that gets a 10% participation rate is pretty darn successful.

Somewhere in the comments section there's a reference to air marshals - somewhere around 1% of flights have air marshals at a cost of $750M, but 10% have armed pilots, at a cost of $5M. Don't know the source of these figures, but talk about bang for the buck...!
 
There's a reason that lawyers are held in the same esteem as used car salesmen, politicians (IIRC,80+% of congress is lawyers . . ), and realtors:what:. Shakespear had it right . . .:neener:

Every occupation has its share of scumbags, and it's a shame that teh good ones get tarred along with the bad.
 
"By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."

If a terrorist team attempts an airplane take-over, do they think the BGs will be less inclined to do bad things if the pilot is unarmed???!!! Would they somehow be less dangerous armed with "just" an airplane as opposed to an airplane and a gun.

Do these people realize nobody says guns are a talisman to ward off hijackers. It only raises the odds that the BGs experiences massive failure.

Too, co-ordinated hijackings are much less common than the occasional nut-job loosing it at 36000 ft. They act like terrorist attacks are the only reason to arm pilots.

Armed pilots have come under scrutiny since March 22 when the gun of a US Airways pilot fired in the cockpit of Flight 1536

Yea. All by itself.
 
Yep, and then if they aren't very good attorneys and can't make a living, they let 'em run for Congress.
 
Shakespear had it right . . .

He sure did.

I assume you're referring to Henry VI, Act IV, Scene 2. The quote is: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

The person speaking the quote is plotting to overturn the government and install a dictatorship. He suggests killing all the lawyers because lawyers are potential enemies of despots.

As a person who intends to be a lawyer (1 month to go!), I can certainly say that I intend to uphold the Constitution in the face of people who would install a dictator in its place.

As to the lawyer in the article--he's clearly an idiot. But the fact that he's a lawyer does nothing to bolster the stupid opinion he gives in the article. So what does his being a lawyer have to do with anything?

So the answer to the original poster's question is: Yes, they let these people be attorneys. Why shouldn't they? What people like this attorney should be stopped from doing is making airline policy. Which he isn't, thankfully.

Aaron
 
It's funny how many people castigate lawyers until they need one. I had a friend who was in the police dept. here in Vegas who just for the life of him could not understand how I (formerly) could practice criminal defense. I told him I didn't practice criminal defense, I practiced Constitutional defense, and you can't defend the good guys if you don't defend the bad ones. The Bill of Rights wasn't drafted to protect perfect people who would never get harmed because the system was perfect as well. He still couldn't understand, because in his mind, he was perfect in all of his arrests. In any case, the 2nd Amendment requires lawyers to defend it from others who would attack it. Some people on this board seem to forget that.

Nevertheless, I agree that the "aviation attorney" quoted above is pretty dim - or, he was misquoted.
 
Guns are only as dangerous as the people operating them... Pilots are no more dangerous than the rest of us as a group. My ex, a commercial pilot, former Navy fighter guy and a during and after the divorce stalker, shouldn't even own a gun, but he has several and now wants to be an FFDO... Can't keep his mouth shut when he should either... The criminals carry, why not the law abiders? In terms of security, every additional layer of defense adds to overall saftey, IMHO...
 
Aaron Baker said:
So what does his being a lawyer have to do with anything?
Welcome to the forum Aaron.

My intent is not to impugn the profession and if you read my post, you'll find I did not, nor will I. I'd like to think that attorneys are capable of more common sense than this former DOT "special agent" dimbulb apparently possesses.

I delight in pointing out idiocy, which is unfortunately found in all professions. The guy is making a distressingly common argument - that if a terrorist breaks into the cockpit, he'll take the gun away and use it against the pilots. He seems unable to follow the simple logic that if a terrorist breaks his way into the cockpit, you've got bigger problems than having a gun used against you. He also gratuitously assumes that armed pilots aren't trained in weapons retention and recovery tactics.

What's distressing is that I have heard this argument from pilots. As I said, idiocy finds its way into all professions.
 
Aaron Baker, thank you for an excellent post! I did not know the history behind the quote. Now I do and it will come in handy.
 
Being a lawyer neither precludes nor requires one be a idiot - clearly.

However, it is disturbing when a great number of lawyers, including the American Bar Association, do not espouse a correct understanding of the 2nd Amendment and the right it protects (as evidenced by the ABA's anti-Heller amicus brief)
 
The American Bar Association is just like any other organization - they espouse views such as the death penalty, gun control, etc., and unfortunately, their view is imputed upon the masses of unwilling lawyers in the profession. Unless I'm mistaken, and I'm not, Heller has some attorneys on the right side too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top