Should We Be Able to Board a Commercial Airplane With a Gun?

[Coyote Blue]

Should We Be Able to Board a Commercial Airplane With a Gun?

Until the mid Sixties and the start of hi-jacking ,mainly to Cuba ,carrying on commercial aircraft was quite customary.

Much has changed in the last 46 years.What are your thoughts on this controversial issue,TFL?

All critiques, thoughts and votes are appreciated.

[Ruger480]

I voted no way on this one. I don't think a person can carry enough insurance to cover the loss in an event that results in crash. And that only covers and AD. I'm not even considering other the possibilities.

[bikerbill]

Gotta agree with no way, no how ... when people did it, folks weren't trying to blow airliners out of the sky or hijack them for political reasons ...

[tomrkba]

Oh no! This went on for 250+ posts on The High Road. There seemed to be several groups:

1) Carry should not be allowed because:
a) You will miss and hit a person.
b) You will miss and cause the plane to crash.
c) You are safe and do not need it.
d) Arming terrorists will result in gun fights in The Friendly Skies.

2) Carry should be allowed no matter what.

3) Carry with a concealed carry permit only.

4) Only knives should be allowed.

5) Why the Hell are you asking this on a gun forum?

[Coyote Blue]

Oh no! This went on for 250+ posts on The High Road. There seemed to be several groups:

Oh,yes! Maybe we can get to 300 and even more groups here. It got to 298 on THR to be absolutely exact! Missed it by that much!

Different demos here for sure.

[Nathan]

This is one place I'm a bit iffy on the idea....me, yes. Everyone with certain qualifications, etc. not sure.

My not sure is only based on there is nowhere on a plane which pointing a gun is safe for the plane. There are controls, wiring and fuel lines all over, not to mention pilots and copilots are absolute no shoots.

The risk likely out weighs the reward.

[johnwilliamson062]

even if you shoot and hit your target the pass through could cause big problems.
To shoot on a plane I have to assume the target is armed with a gun. Hard to be sure his bullets aren't going somewhere bad.
Planes are pretty small. It isn't that easy to get far enough away from everyone to where a firearm is a huge advantage.

Frangibles absolutely necessary and I don't even like it with that caveat. SOme idiot always leaves an FMJ in the chamber, right?

Maybe it shouldn't be a federal law, but I wouldn't want to fly on an airline that allowed it.

[Tucker 1371]

No, even if I was allowed to carry on a plane I wouldn't and if I were hypothetically allowed to carry onto a plan and hypothetically chose to do so I would under NO circumstances feel comfortable taking a shot on a potential hijacker. You are almost guaranteed to hit something you don't intend to after the bullet passes through your target.

That said it would be nice to be able to carry immediately after deplaning

[hardworker]

Plane hijackings, though terrible, are extremely rare. Violence on planes not related to hijackings is non-existent. There is no need for a gun on a plane and I'd be hesitant to board any plane from a carrier that allows anyone to bring one on board.

[Ralgha]

Another no vote here. The pilots up front should have them (and some do) because if someone breaks down that door that's the last resort. Nobody else needs a gun on an airplane, except air marshals, but they train all the time specifically for that so yeah.

[tomrkba]

"Crime on planes is rare."

You don't need a gun until you do. That is the whole point of the right to keep and bear arms.

Many of the people responding prefer tyranny over "the inconveniences of too much liberty." This, and the fact that most Americans are judgemental fools, is the problem with the country today.

[alex0535]

I voted no, but do keep in mind that you are allowed to travel with your gun in your checked luggage.

If I am allowed to have a gun on my person on a plane, a terrorist would likely have the same privileges. A gun fight on a plane would injure or kill so many unintended people if it ever came down to needing the gun on a plane.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I had to go with no, also. I just think of some of the people that would be carrying on the airplane and feel much safer that they aren't even allowed nail clippers... Seriously though, too many variables in effect that make my mind up on this...

[Topher127]

Gotta go with no. I work for an airline, and it's just too much risk. You are more likely to make a bad situation worse, such as depressurization of the cabin. Flight crews and agents on the ground get specific training on handling emergencies on board every year. Things have changed from the days of "do what the man with the gun says."

[FrankenMauser]

"Crime on planes is rare."

Tell that to flight crew.

They routinely have to deal with people that believe in "sky law". (I can do whatever I want, because there aren't any police.)
The vast majority of 'crime' on commercial flights goes unreported, because it's a massive PITA for the crews (who don't get paid while they're on the ground).






(I'm not taking a side - just making a statement.)

[BuckRub]

I read in post 4 that people on airplanes are safe so there's no need- care to tell that to those planes that were hijacked? Heard also about bullets passing through and hitting someone else- if a plane was hijacked, shoot the BG and if you hit or even kill one innocent person would that not be better than the whole plane crashing into the twin towers? And then I heard only pilots should carry- yea if plane has a hijacker and pilot has a pistol he's locking himself in cockpit and letting all innocent passengers to be mutilated and he's not unlocking door for nothing until hijackers kick door in and kill him and take plane over only to run into bldg to kill more innocent people. I voted if you are licensed you should be able to. You're licensed to carry on streets for protection.

[BuckRub]

I just think people (most) think if and when you have a problem you will have a LEO standing in the next room waiting to make the situation all better. Far from the truth. Truth is almost everyone wants someone else to step in and fix their problems. That's why we as a people have so many problems.

[overhead]

I don't really have much of an opinion on the subject. I hate flying, but when I have to fly for work it always seems to be to an ungun friendly state anyway. The only "gun free zones" I don't mind are those with security, metal detectors etc, I suppose a plane would qualify.

Beyond that, I find it interesting people say folks should not carry on a plane because chances are they might hit something which they did not intend ,or would hit something/someone after it passed through the intended target etc. I suppose we should probably leave our guns at home anytime we go into a crowded area? Movie theater? College classroom? Public transportation like a bus or a subway? This sounds an awful lot like the arguments people make against carrying a gun anywhere. The chances of bringing down a plane with a handgun are very slim.

[BuckRub]

About like saying your banning guns- the only guns you'll be banning are from law abiding citizens!

[LockedBreech]

It's a really, REALLY rare case in which I find myself agreeing with gun-free zones, but planes fit that bill. Pilots yes, as a last resort. I just don't want to have the cabin depressurize because some jackass carries using one of those holsters that doesn't cover the trigger.

[ClydeFrog]

The topic has been on TFL in the past, tempers flared & keyboard muscles flexed.

I say: NO but I do support the FFDO program and the concept of allowing LEOSA members(retired sworn LE), sworn/trained federal LE(with active arrest powers & LEAP standards), some active duty military service members(MPs, MAAs, tier-one/SOCOM/spec ops, CIDC or OSI agents, Security Forces/USAF).

I honestly think the FAMS, Air Marshal program should be cut. It is a huge waste of tax $$$ and it poorly run. An elected official stated on the House floor that FAMS arrests(criminal cases) work out to about $300,000,000.00 USD per arrest.

Regular citizens should not have concealed firearms or weapons on aircraft. The risks, civil-legal problems & safety would be too great.

CF

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Ruger480

I voted no way on this one. I don't think a person can carry enough insurance to cover the loss in an event that results in crash. And that only covers and AD.

So because you are worried about your insurance exposure, nobody else should be allowed to carry the means of self-defense on an aircraft? That seems rather illogical, IMHO.

[geetarman]

I vote no. Too many crazies want to make a political statement with a gun at 35000 feet. I don't want to be a part of that kind of protest.

[hardworker]

About like saying your banning guns- the only guns you'll be banning are from law abiding citizens!

Actually they've gotten pretty good at getting all guns off of planes since 9/11. Ask the handful or so of people who forget they're carrying and get arrested at the terminal.

All I know is that there have been no incidents in many years on a US plane that required a gun, not since 9/11. That means guns could at this point only negatively skew the statistics.

[Kreyzhorse]

Guns on a plane? No. Planes are simply too big of a target for those that would do us harm.