Yes, by all means...let's arm them pilots.

[iman]

We would have to check with Kuli, but I think the NRA politically correct position would be to arm all the passengers and all the crew and nobody would dare to hijack the plane. Is that about right?

 

[Jonnism]

It makes me literally laugh out loud to read the comments that say that we should arm everyone we possibly can.

That's just pure ignorance of the facts.

What facts? Did you not read the article I provided in the link? The goal is to arm those that can help defend travelers in the event of an attack.

If you're referring to the facts that state that pilots who carry guns are more of a threat than a protection, I can COMPLETELY agree considering that there are no such facts.

 

[spiderhead]

But what if the bullet would have ricocheted off of the equipment causing an explosion which thrust bits and pieces of metal into the pilot and co-pilots skulls killing them instantly all the while simultaneously causing an electrical fire which burned everybody alive while the plane was crashing explosively towards the ground landing on a school of kindergardeners killing them all in the inevitable ground impact?

Nothing really happened here.

 

[jtilden21]

Just throwing this out there --

Only 1% of flights have air marshals.

I'm pretty sure close to 100% of flights have pilots.

Hmmm.

Which of these two groups would you rather have the tools necessary to ensure safety?

And, FTR, just to clarify, approximately 60% of commercial pilots are ex-military. So, I am pretty confident that they have some firearms training as well.

Just saying..................

 

[spiderhead]

^ I completely agree. I'm against people being able to carry guns period. My hubby's from France and said they can't own guns there, and that he's shocked at all of our school shootings and all the other problems guns cause.

 

[Kulindahr]

It makes me literally laugh out loud to read the comments that say that we should arm everyone we possibly can.

That's just pure ignorance of the facts.

This is from a man in a country that since it banned handguns has had firearm attacks on its law officers more than double (source: Scotland yard).

Besides which -- to which comments are you referring?

We would have to check with Kuli, but I think the NRA politically correct position would be to arm all the passengers and all the crew and nobody would dare to hijack the plane. Is that about right?

Actually -- no.
The NRA position would be that anyone who can in their state qualify for a concealed weapons license/permit should be allowed to carry IF they have ammunition appropriate for that environment. The official proposal of what the NRA would like to see is for all the crew, not just the pilots, be permitted to take the training, and that all current and former law enforcement officers current with their skills, and all military officers and noncoms, and anyone permitted by federal law to carry concealed, be allowed to carry on a flight, with appropriate ammunition.
Your typical NRA member will concede that a good portion of the population shouldn't carry guns -- they have neither the temperament, nor training, nor dedication to do it right.

OTOH, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would prefer to allow all non-felons to carry on planes. The Gun Owners of America is a bit stricter. I don't know where the Je4ws for the Preservation for the Ownership of Firearms stands.

Just throwing this out there --

Only 1% of flights have air marshals.

I'm pretty sure close to 100% of flights have pilots.

Which of these two groups would you rather have the tools necessary to ensure safety?

And, FTR, just to clarify, approximately 60% of commercial pilots are ex-military. So, I am pretty confident that they have some firearms training as well.

Just saying..................

Straight to the point.
The idea is to keep terrorists from taking any more planes. Armoring doors, and putting air marshals on a whole one out of a hundred flights, doesn't do that worth crap.
Why? Shaped charges can get through one of those doors with a decent chance of not taking out the plane. A team of terrorists would have a 99/100 chance of not having an armed foe -- a single armed foe! -- aboard if pilots weren't armed. For terrorists, that's a no-brainer: if they're on one of the 99, they're go; if they're on the 1, they shoot it out, and if it looks bad, just blow the plane.
But if they know that the odds are that there's at least one guy on the other side of that cockpit door with a firearm who is trained and ready to use it, that puts a whole different wrinkle in the planning.
And if the NRA's proposal was law -- well, it's been estimated that 6-7% of all U.S. domestic flights would have someone armed, in the passenger cabin... not just 1%. If you have to plan for having someone in the cockpit who can shoot back, and someone behind you in an unknown position who can shoot, things get dicier.

Id rather there be no firearms on board aircraft. What's wrong with tazers?

Uh... very bad environment for effective use.
I'd rather there be no firearms on aircraft, either. But since we can't expect the bad guys to be total wusses with neither weapons nor martial arts training, I have to go with having the best possible defense available. That's firearms.

^ I completely agree. I'm against people being able to carry guns period. My hubby's from France and said they can't own guns there, and that he's shocked at all of our school shootings and all the other problems guns cause.

Well, he must be pretty mellow about things, then, because guns don't cause problems.
Guns are inanimate objects. They just sit there. They don't get loaded by themselves, they don't hop into a holster by themselves, they don't float up and aim themselves, and they don't go off by themselves.
I'm sorry that your hubby isn't from a free country that doesn't understand human dignity, and I'm even more sorry that you've bought into the concept that criminals should be guaranteed the upper hand. But when the object is to stop someone who doesn't care if he gets killed, who is probably trained to keep coming even if hit with a taser, or a bullet hit or two, what you put in the hands of the defenders is the most lethal weapon you can for the environment -- and that means a firearm.

 

[LaloGS]

Nobody said they were the solution to everything. They are a tool that has the ability to protect life and property when used judiciously. More often than not, the mere production of a firearm renders the desired result.

It presupposes all pilots are sane. Remember the Egyptian pilot who nosedived his craft into the north Atlantic a few years ago taking all his passengers with him because he was depressed? I'm just saying pilots don't need guns. If the door separating the cockpit from the passengers is capable of keeping out unwanted intruders, the only way a pilot's gun could help the situation would be to breach that door, which then would become a shoot out situation with dire consequences for both the pilot, and passengers, since there is no guarantee the pilot would be successful at killing the terrorist before he himself is killed or wounded. I repeat: This is STUPID to put guns in the hands of pilots. More guns are not the answer. There are better solutions. I doubt if a single passenger would complain if a knockout gas flooded the plane's passenger section in the event of a terrorist hijack to protect everyone on the plane, but a sky high shoot out would endanger everyone on board. Just add gas masks to items banned from carry-on luggage.

Besides, if the pilot in question in this incident was trained, and as he's said, he was just stowing the gun, why was the safety off? Why was his finger on the trigger? More STUPIDITY by the supposedly trained pilot.

And to all of you who said the gun was probably loaded with special bullets that couldn't penetrate the skin of the plane. How do you explain that it did penetrate. Had it blown out a windscreen, this story could be reading much more tragically. Sheer STUPIDITY!!!! Dumb cowboy thinking, and no solution at all to the problem, but it does compound the danger of flying.

 

[LaloGS]

SO you in fact DO want to:

get rid of air marshals
disarm all police?

Well, I have opposed air marshals on planes from the beginning. They are only able to escalate a situation if there are multiple perps, and they would have to Annie Oakley accurate to take out a lone perp with out risking harm to other passengers or the plane itself. The best solution would be knock out gas. Put everybody to sleep, land the plane, remove the perp(s), administer the antidote gas, and everybody walks away, and you have the perp(s) in hand alive to interrogate about his or their connections to terrorist groups. Risking the plane and everyone on it for a John Wayne moment is STUPID.

As to cops not having guns. What a barrel of wreaking worms that question opens. You know I normally post from Colombia. I happen to be in the US at the moment, taking care of some business. Colombia does not allow private ownership of guns, and they require every person of age not in higher education to serve two years for their country either in the military, or in the police force. I have to say, I feel safer in Colombia than I do here in the US.

My neighborhood in Bogota is patrolled by dozens of police day and night. They are usually in groups of 4, and carry only night sticks. For every group of 4, there is also an officer who is a career man or woman who does carry a pistol I've never seen one drawn for any reason. My neighborhood there, is filled with University students since there are 12 Universities withing a 5 block radius of my house, and more than 50 student bars serving alcohol to the students, and one would think it would be a volatile mixture, but crime is in four and a half years has been non existent. We can walk the street day or night and not be or feel unsafe.

Whereas, here in Arizona, where I am currently, every news cast brings stories of murders with guns, and robberies with guns, and even accidental killings or shootings. So should cops carry guns? I guess because their job requires they be able to confront these murders and robbers who carry them as well, that Cops should carry guns, but controlling the number and kind and who is allowed to hold a gun permit privately, would go along way to reducing the need for as much violence America experiences from guns.

I know you believe that the more guns in private hands the safer everybody is, but I just don't buy what you believe Kuli. The statistics show that the majority of gun violence is between people who know each other, and may even be family. The argument that if all guns are taken away, only criminals will have guns is bogus. If guns were ever to be taken away, and/or controlled, laws could be written to the effect that any crime committed with a gun would carry an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole. Crimes with guns in which a death occurs, life in prison in solitary confinement would be mandatory. I don't believe the state has the right to capital punishment, but I have seen that Colombia is better off than the US because they don't allow guns in private hands. Colombia is a saner, safer, society than here in the US for the lack of guns in private hands.

 

[spiderhead]

Kulindahr,

USA has the highest murder rate of any country per capita in the world.

That speaks for itself.

If people don't own guns they can't shoot them can they?

We also have more people in prison per capita, so your whole "france has no freedoms" bullshit is lame.

we have less freedom here.

 

[spiderhead]

Kulindahr how many countries outside of the US have you been to?

Have you ever been to France?

Just, you know, checking.

 

[Kulindahr]

It presupposes all pilots are sane.

If they're not, not arming them isn't going to make one bit of difference. That's a really inane objection.

I doubt if a single passenger would complain if a knockout gas flooded the plane's passenger section in the event of a terrorist hijack to protect everyone on the plane, but a sky high shoot out would endanger everyone on board. Just add gas masks to items banned from carry-on luggage.

"Knockout gas" is a (bad) adventure-movie toy. In reality, its effectiveness depends on body mass, physical fitness, and other factors. Use it on an airliner and you will have heart attacks and other medical problems. And all that terrorists would have to do is plant a shaped charge on the cockpit door and let the gas in there.
It would also be too easy for terrorists to be prepared for.

Besides, if the pilot in question in this incident was trained, and as he's said, he was just stowing the gun, why was the safety off? Why was his finger on the trigger? More STUPIDITY by the supposedly trained pilot.

How experienced are you with firearms?

And to all of you who said the gun was probably loaded with special bullets that couldn't penetrate the skin of the plane. How do you explain that it did penetrate. Had it blown out a windscreen, this story could be reading much more tragically. Sheer STUPIDITY!!!! Dumb cowboy thinking, and no solution at all to the problem, but it does compound the danger of flying.

You're spinning fantasies in order to scare people -- standard tactic.
Had it blown out a windscreen, the pilots would have descended more rapidly, and there might have been a few lacerations, and the place would have needed a little more repairs -- end of story.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr,

USA has the highest murder rate of any country per capita in the world.

That speaks for itself.

If people don't own guns they can't shoot them can they?

We also have more people in prison per capita, so your whole "france has no freedoms" bullshit is lame.

we have less freedom here.

Let's see...

2000: top ten murder rates were in Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus. The U.S. was 24th.

2004: Albania, El Salvador, Jamaica, Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, South Africa, Colombia, Belize, Trinidad-Tobago. The U.S. was 40th.

The trends continue -- the U.S. has never even been in the top ten for murder rates. And in fact, the more "gun control" laws that get passed, the higher the murder rate has gone. It's about four times now what it was back when you could mail-order any firearm you felt like.

"France has no freedoms"? Now you're manufacturing stuff.
Or wait -- you just "misspoke", like Hillary, huh?

 

[spiderhead]

Fine we're a far cry from first. If you look at the countries that are placed above of it's pretty clear why. The UK, England, and France are doing much better than we are and they have gun control laws.
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Most
recent
Albania[26] 76.64 75.68 87.68
El Salvador[19] 37.3 34.6 31.1 32.7 41.0 54.9 55.3 55.3
Jamaica[10] 34 44 40 36 54 58 49 49
Guatemala[21] 25.8 25.2 30.7 35.0 36.3 42.0 45.2 45.2
Honduras[18] 49.92 53.72 55.89 33.57 31.89 35.06 42.91 42.91
Venezuela[27] 37 40 49 59 45 42 42
South Africa[17][28] 49.6 47.5 47.8 42.7 40.3 39.5 39.5
Colombia[29][30][31][16] 62.7 64.6 65.8 51.8 44.6 39.3 39.3
Belize[32] 30.8
Trinidad and Tobago[23] [33] 10.0 12.58 14.33 20.69 20.07 29.69 28.53 30.38
Brazil[34] 26.7 27.8 28.4 28.9 27 27
Russia[14] 19.80 19.80
Ecuador[35] 15.07 18.33 18.33
Swaziland[14][35] 88.61 13.05 13.63 13.63
Mexico[14][26] 14.11 13.94 13.04 13.04
Mongolia[35] 13.51 12.81 12.81
Paraguay[14] 12.05 12.05
Haiti[36] 11.5
Suriname[35] 15.10 10.30 10.30
Panama[26] 10.56 9.56 9.56
Argentina[14][26] 7.17 8.43 9.47 9.47
Lithuania[14][26][35] 10.01 10.14 8.45 9.96 9.38 9.38
Papua New Guinea[14] 9.06 9.06
Latvia[14][26][35] 10.03 9.28 9.15 9.44 8.58 8.58
Thailand[14] 8.47 8.47
Zimbabwe[14][35] 7.24 7.99 8.44 8.44
Belarus[14][26][35] 10.13 9.72 9.96 8.91 8.31 8.31
Kyrgyzstan[14][35] 8.40 8.15 8.01 8.01
Zambia[14] 7.89 7.89
Barbados[14] 7.49 7.49
Ukraine[14][35] 8.93 8.51 7.42 7.42
Seychelles[14] 7.39 7.39
Uganda[35] 7.95 7.37 7.37
Pakistan[37][14] 6.86
0.05 6.86
0.05
Estonia[14][35] 10.45 10.96 6.82 6.82
Moldova[14][26][35] 8.13 8.36 7.99 7.94 6.71 6.71
Sri Lanka[35] 6.42 6.69 6.69
Namibia[26] 6.33 6.35 6.35
Costa Rica[26][35] 6.64 6.44 6.99 6.23 6.23
Georgia[14][35] 4.76 6.62 6.22 6.22
United States[38][37] 7.5
5.51 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.5 5.9 5.9
Uruguay[14][26][35] 4.61 6.31 6.46 5.30 5.64 5.64
Peru[26][35] 4.91 4.25 4.85 5.54 5.54
Philippines[14][26][35] 7.59 7.47 8.20 4.97 4.31 4.31
Côte d'Ivoire[14] 4.07 4.07
Palestine[35] 2.70 4.04 4.04
Yemen[14] 3.98 3.98
Turkey[35] 3.83 3.83 3.83
Nepal[26] 2.56 3.42 3.42
Bulgaria[14][35] 4.07 3.15 3.08 3.08
Switzerland[14][26][35] 0.96 2.42 2.92 2.59 2.94 2.94
Iran[35] 2.64 2.93 2.93
Bolivia[26] 3.74 2.82 2.82
Finland[14][26][35] 2.86 3.01 2.54 1.97 2.75 2.75
Dominica[14] 2.74 2.74
Israel[35] 3.01 2.62 2.62
Scotland[26][35] 1.95 2.20 1.84 2.56 2.56
Mauritius[14][35] 2.19 2.95 2.51 2.51
Armenia[14][35] 3.34 2.50 2.48 2.48
Northern Ireland[26] 2.90 2.48 2.48
Azerbaijan[14][26][35] 2.81 2.69 2.59 2.20 2.41 2.41
Sweden[26][35] 1.88 2.45 2.13 2.39 2.39
Romania[14][26][35] 2.50 2.66 2.52 2.52 2.37 2.37
Malaysia[14] 2.36 2.36
Republic of Macedonia[14] 2.31 2.31
Slovakia[14][26][35] 2.65 2.40 2.57 2.70 2.26 2.26
Czech Republic[14][26][35] 1.69 2.29 2.29 2.27 2.22 2.22
South Korea[14][35] 2.02 2.19 2.18 2.18
Hungary[14][26][35] 2.05 2.49 2.00 2.33 2.09 2.09
United Kingdom[26] 1.76 2.03 2.03
Canada[14][26][35] 1.59 1.67 1.67 1.74 1.95 2.01[citation needed] 1.85[citation needed] 1.85[citation needed]
Croatia[26][35] 1.86 1.79 1.53 1.83 1.83
Portugal[14][35] 2.47 2.61 1.79 1.79
Malta[26] 1.52 1.51 1.75 1.75
Chile[14][35] 1.55 1.75 1.71 1.71
Cyprus[26][35] 0.92 0.26 1.71 1.70 1.70
Poland[14][26][35] 5.61 2.01 1.87 1.72 1.64 1.64
France[14][35] 1.78 1.64 1.64 1.64
England, Wales[14][26][35] 1.61 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.62
Bermuda[35] 3.14 1.56 1.56
Belgium[26] 1.80 1.50 1.50
Slovenia[14][26][35] 1.81 1.42 1.83 1.07 1.47 1.47
Algeria[35] 2.04 1.39 1.39
Brunei[35] 0.56 1.37 1.37
New Zealand[14][26] 1.17 1.16 1.29 1.29
Australia[14][35] 1.57 1.53 1.28 1.28
Maldives[26][35] 2.50 2.79 1.28 1.28
Spain[14] 1.25 1.25
Italy[14][26][35] 1.29 1.23 1.12 1.24 1.23 1.23
Tunisia[14][26] 1.18 1.26 1.22 1.22
Syria[35] 1.04 1.14 1.14
Japan[37][14] 1.10
0.50 1.10
0.50
Indonesia[14] 1.05 1.05
Iceland[14][26] 1.78 0.35 1.41 1.03 1.03
Kuwait[26] 1.71 0.99 0.99
Germany[14][26][35] 1.17 1.05 1.11 0.99 0.98 0.98
Bahrain[35] 0.43 0.98 0.98
Netherlands[25] 1.42 1.23 0.97 0.97
Saudi Arabia[14][26] 0.51 0.87 0.92 0.92
Ireland[35] 1.12 0.91 0.91
Luxembourg[26] 1.36 0.90 0.90
Austria[26] 0.87 0.81 0.81
Denmark[14][26][35] 1.09 0.97 1.04 1.20 0.79 0.79
Norway[14][35] 1.09 1.11 0.78 0.78
Qatar[14][35] 0.17 0.55 0.77 0.77
Greece[14] 0.76 0.76
United Arab Emirates[35] 1.12 0.63 0.63
Hong Kong[14][35] 0.56 0.73 0.63 0.63
Oman[26] 0.52 0.59 0.59
Japan[14][37] 0.50
1.10 0.50
1.10
Singapore[14][35] 0.92 0.57 0.49 0.49
Morocco[26][35] 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.47 0.47
Burma[26] 0.25 0.19 0.19
Pakistan[14][37] 0.05
6.86

 

[Kulindahr]

Fine we're a far cry from first. If you look at the countries that are placed above of it's pretty clear why. The UK, England, and France are doing much better than we are and they have gun control laws.

Yeah -- and since England banned handguns, firearm attacks on their police have more than doubled, and other crime with firearms has risen.

Washington, D.C. discovered the same thing: the tighter their gun control laws, the higher their violence rate went.

The countries above the U.S. are distinguished by one thing in common: very little appreciation for human rights. Some of them have another thing in common: a high rate of crime caused and subsidized by the U.S. government.

 

[spiderhead]

Yeah -- and since England banned handguns, firearm attacks on their police have more than doubled, and other crime with firearms has risen.

Washington, D.C. discovered the same thing: the tighter their gun control laws, the higher their violence rate went.

The countries above the U.S. are distinguished by one thing in common: very little appreciation for human rights. Some of them have another thing in common: a high rate of crime caused and subsidized by the U.S. government.

Agreed...........

 

[LaloGS]

If they're not, not arming them isn't going to make one bit of difference. That's a really inane objection. It's a reasoned objection, while arming them is cowboy logic. Shoot the fuckers is all a gun toting idiot ever thinks about.



"Knockout gas" is a (bad) adventure-movie toy. In reality, its effectiveness depends on body mass, physical fitness, and other factors. Use it on an airliner and you will have heart attacks and other medical problems. And all that terrorists would have to do is plant a shaped charge on the cockpit door and let the gas in there.
It would also be too easy for terrorists to be prepared for. So. . . every dentist who uses it is potentially killing every patient who requests it? And when I've had it administered to me, and I'm 6' 4", it only took a moment to work. I couldn't get a shaped charge out of my pocket, much less find the cockpit door before I was in lala land. And one would assume there could be gas masks in the cockpit. You aren't thinking this through kuli, maybe because your mind is clouded by visions of having a John Wayne moment mid air. That is just wrong thinking, because it puts innocent lives of passengers at risk for a chance to let a gun toting marshal or pilot maybe make the shot. So the pilot breaches the cockpit door, and has a shoot out with a terrorist, and gets plugged between the eyes by the terrorist who probably has more training than the pilot. What do you have now? a dead pilot, an armed terrorist, and a co-pilot too busy flying the plane to do anything to protect himself from the terrorist who is most likely ready willing and able to collect his 72 virgins in where ever it is they go to collect the chicks or what ever. How long do you think the co-pilot's gonna live with the cockpit door breached by the dead pilot? There is no thoughtful logic in any of this.



How experienced are you with firearms? I was an Army brat, and had them drummed into me at every opportunity. But I still abhor the easy access to deadly violence they provide to those who own them.




You're spinning fantasies in order to scare people -- standard tactic.
Had it blown out a windscreen, the pilots would have descended more rapidly, and there might have been a few lacerations, and the place would have needed a little more repairs -- end of story. I'm spinning a reasonable and thoughtful "fantasy" that is more likely to save lives of innocent people going about their business. I'm not trying to scare anybody. But I am scared that every time I get on a plane, there are possibly people on it with me packing heat and willing to endanger all the passenger's lives if the opportunity arises to shoot some guy with a plastic knife.

Care to back anything you've said up with facts? You are dangerously close to becoming an ideologue about guns. They are not the answer to everything, and never will be, regardless of how many John Wayne movies you've seen. That Myth is long since dead, and seriously beginning to stink up the place.

 

[Jannus]

"The pilot has to take his gun off and lock it up before he leaves the cockpit, so he was trying to secure the gun in preparation for landing, while he was trying to fly the airplane, too," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance. "In the process of doing that, the padlock that is required to be inserted into the holster pulled the trigger and caused the gun to discharge.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080328/NATION/927995814/0/ENTERTAINMENT

"...he was trying to secure the gun in preparation for landing, while he was trying to fly the airplane, too..."


Sounds read safe. But locking up the gun prior to landing (even while trying to fly the plane) is what the program to arm pilots requires. I guess one or two hundred people will have to die in future incident(s), before this ridiculous Bush administration program to arm pilots will be terminated. This administration has been the most incompetent in history in so many areas. Their "solutions" to problems like Iraq, the economy, and terrorism have routinely made the problems worse.

And I can tell from the posts above that even the deaths of a few hundred people will not convince some of you that guns on the flight deck are more dangerous than they are safe.

 

[jackoroe]

^Maybe if the gun was simply in the pilots holster where it should be instead of all of going these convoluted gyrations trying to "secure" it, this would never have happened. Just wear the damned thing!

 

[Jannus]

^Maybe if the gun was simply in the pilots holster where it should be instead of all of going these convoluted gyrations trying to "secure" it, this would never have happened. Just wear the damned thing!

Good idea. The pilot can wear it in his holster, as he walks about the plane. Then some passenger can grab the gun as the pilot walks by, and start a shoot 'em up. The program to arm pilots requires (for safety reasons) that the gun be secured every time the pilot leaves the flight deck. It is not unusual for pilots in the gun program to lock and unlock their guns ten times during a flight!

Under the sterile cockpit rule, pilots aren't even permitted to talk about personal stuff when the plane is under 10,000 feet, since such idle chatter is felt to be too distracting to the flight crew. But somehow it's okay to fumble with a gun during the landing approach! What if next time, the gun discharges into the copilot?

 

[LaloGS]

^Maybe if the gun was simply in the pilots holster where it should be instead of all of going these convoluted gyrations trying to "secure" it, this would never have happened. Just wear the damned thing!

Come on Jack. He had to have the safety off, and his finger on the trigger. That's stupid in anybody's book if he was just trying to stow it for landing. This pilot has to be a nut job, or a dangerous idiot.