The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

View Poll Results: If federal laws allowed CCW on aircraft with a class of instruction would you do it?
No - Guns and planes dont mix 57 26.39%
Maybe depending on the hassle involved 34 15.74%
Yes but certification would have to be frequent for max safety 31 14.35%
Yes but only if certification was good for at least 3-5 years 94 43.52%
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 20, 2011, 01:02 AM   #101
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,948
At least you wouldn't have to worry about it getting lifted out of your suitcase and wait for your bag to be inspected.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 03:27 PM   #102
praetorian97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2011
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 455
Quote:
MLeake

And ever since 9/11, people who have tried to storm the flight station have been stopped by the passengers.
God Bless America......
praetorian97 is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 03:40 PM   #103
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
To those of you who are against carry on airplanes- how many other places do you feel are too crowded for carry? College campuses? Movie theater, Walmart, bank lobby?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 03:54 PM   #104
praetorian97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2011
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 455
My rebuttal to that is how non experienced shooters get tunnel vision. I dont care if you shoot every weekend. Thats not the "experience" I am referring too.

You simply cant learn that in an 8 hour course.
praetorian97 is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 04:49 PM   #105
MidwestRookie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 462
not a chance in hell..

I'd stop flying if any idiot could take an 8-hour class and bring a gun on to a plane..

thank goodness this will never happen, so CCW crazies can keep their crap opinions that any place is ok to carry to themselves..case in point:
Quote:
To those of you who are against carry on airplanes- how many other places do you feel are too crowded for carry? College campuses? Movie theater, Walmart, bank lobby?
just dumb..not even worth a response.
MidwestRookie is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 04:52 PM   #106
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
The problem is that many people who CCW think they are part of some elite group of do-gooders. They think that all CCWers will be able to make the perfect shot at the most opportune time, save the day, get the girl, blah blah blah...

The truth is I know people who own guns that shouldn't. I definitely don't want them on an airplane with one. Legally, they're no different from a responsible gun owner. That means they are entitled to the same rights as one as far as the law goes. Doesn't mean I trust them.
hardworker is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 05:04 PM   #107
Mr.Blue
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2011
Location: SE Wisconsin & Long Island, NY
Posts: 418
Archie Bunker Gives His Opinion

While I know the liberal producers of the show are trying to make gun people look stupid, this is funny. Archie suggests arming all plane passengers in order to stop skyjackings. Priceless!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJ...e_gdata_player
Mr.Blue is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 05:43 PM   #108
praetorian97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2011
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 455
Quote:
HARDWORKER

The problem is that many people who CCW think they are part of some elite group of do-gooders. They think that all CCWers will be able to make the perfect shot at the most opportune time, save the day, get the girl, blah blah blah...

The truth is I know people who own guns that shouldn't. I definitely don't want them on an airplane with one.
DITTO!
praetorian97 is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 05:56 PM   #109
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Just curious... for those that voted that they are for carrying on airplanes, what sytem would you put in place to weed out the hijackers?
shortwave is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 06:03 PM   #110
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
thank goodness this will never happen, so CCW crazies can keep their crap opinions that any place is ok to carry to themselves..case in point:
Ah so CCW alone qualifies us as crazy..... Do you carry a cop with you? Whats faster my right hand to my lawfully carried and employed pistol to save my life from a intended life threatening attack or calling 911?

Tell you want next time your around Minny look me up and I will get the kids cap gun out and you can pretend to be a BG and I will fire off a cap and our spouses can time it and then you can do the same and then we can google the police response times for where you live and see whos faster.....

The winner buys lunch and the loose buys the brew or whatever your taste in refreshment runs too.


Feel how you wish but your cell phone call time reaction from law enforcement will NEVER be faster than a lawful CCW Carrier with any reasonable amount of practice.......
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 20, 2011 at 07:18 PM. Reason: To be more generous
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 06:14 PM   #111
Ralgha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGutzman View Post
Ah so CCW alone qualifies us as crazy..... Do you carry a cop with you? Whats faster my right hand to my lawfully carried and employed pistol to save my life from a intended life threatening attack or calling 911?

Tell you want next time your around Minny look me up and I will get the kids cap gun out and you can pretend to be a BG and I will fire off a cap and our spouses can time it and then you can do the same and then we can google the police response times for where you live and see whos faster.....

Its the "It can never happen to me" crowd.......

Feel how you wish but your cell phone call time reaction from law enforcement will NEVER be faster than a lawful CCW Carrier with any reasonable amount of practice.......
Simmer down man, he didn't say all CCW holders are crazy, he said, "CCW crazies," which is a subset (that certainly does exist).
Ralgha is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 07:54 PM   #112
Nordeste
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2011
Location: Asturias, Spain
Posts: 328
Quote:
Nordeste...airline and FAA procedures regarding LEO's carrying their duty weapons on board are not publicly discussed here in the US. Suffice it to say the the crew is aware that there is an armed individual on board, and his seating location....HTH's Rodfac
Yep, it did help. Thank you.
Nordeste is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 08:24 PM   #113
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
WayneinFL, based on the typical shooter I see at the range, when I go to a range, I would NOT want them trying to make a critical shot in an airplane packed with people. I would especially not want them to do that if they were firing toward the front end, where the pilots, controls, and avionics are clustered.

I know Federal Air Marshals. I know Federal Flight Deck Officers. I have a rough idea of the training they go through.

Trust me when I say it's way more than eight hours. Trust me when I say the FAMs shoot at a whole different level than most shooters, even the ones who compete on a fairly regular basis. (Unless those competitors train to shoot, around non-targets, while people to the sides hurl objects at them.)
MLeake is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 09:03 PM   #114
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
+1 MLeake.

Not only extensive shooting training but using various scenario's as well as psycological and hostage negotiation training.
shortwave is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 10:28 PM   #115
MidwestRookie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralgha
Simmer down man, he didn't say all CCW holders are crazy, he said, "CCW crazies," which is a subset (that certainly does exist).
thanks for helping him understand...this is exactly what I mean.

anyone know what exactly would happen when someone decides a shot fired is necessary, that shot misses everything and goes through the body of the plane or through one of the windows?

It can't be like movies where a giant hole opens up and sucks everyone out I assume, but there has to be some kind of pressure loss..anyone got an educated guess?
MidwestRookie is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 10:28 PM   #116
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
FBI's Hostage Rescue Team: No Heroes...

The motto of the elite HRT or Hostage Rescue Team is To Save Lives.

The author of the non-fiction book No Heroes is the FBI agent who started the unit.
That & Cold Zero are good reads & provide insight into real spec ops/hostage rescue training.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 11:11 PM   #117
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
MidwestRookie,

MLeake covered that quite well in post #25.
shortwave is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 11:42 PM   #118
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
MidWestRookie,

A quick summary of the idea:

Bullet hole is not that large, and would most likely result in a very gradual depressurization, and most likely the aircraft would be able to maintain a fair amount of pressure.

Windows are usually in two plies, and are not prone to disintegrating easily. Assuming a complete failure of both window layers, and loss of a window, the aircraft would depressurize rapidly, but would not suck a human body out, nor cause the airplane to come apart.

Since somebody brought up "explosive decompression" in a post since then, I'll go over that in this post.

Worst case, what we'd call "explosive decompression" is not fun, but should not be fatal. In such a case, where pressure drops to outside levels in a matter of a second (or several seconds), there may be sinus injuries and ear-drum injuries. It will get cold; mist will form in the air. The aircraft's automated systems should sense the drop in cabin pressure, and drop oxygen masks without any inputs from the flight station. You've all had the flight attendant's briefing on how to use those.

Of course, the flight station has the ability to actively drop those masks, by flipping a switch or pulling a lever, depending on the aircraft.

And the flight attendants have a tool they can use to open the oxygen mask panels for each row of seats.

At the first indication of loss of pressure, the pilots (and flight engineer, if the aircraft has one) will put on quick-donning oxygen masks, with positive pressure, from a separate oxygen system. Such systems are designed to give the flight station crew over two hours (up to 3.5 hours) of oxygen. In other words, the pilots may experience physical discomfort (sinuses, ears, possible gas pains in the digestive tract), but should otherwise be able to function normally, due to the supplemental, positive-pressure oxygen.

Assuming the terrain below will allow it, after donning their masks and flipping the switch or pulling the lever to release passenger masks (that should have dropped already, but it's a redundancy thing), the pilots will initiate an emergency descent. This will typically result in a descent rate of 4,500-6,000fpm. From a typical cruise level of FL370 (37,000 ft MSL), the aircraft should be able to get down to 10,000' in five minutes or so, which is well within the endurance of the passenger oxygen system. At that point, oxygen is not necessary.

The worst case scenario would involve a transoceanic flight, with explosive decompression past the point of no return. (This is nominally half-way, but winds play a factor. Flying west into the jet stream - which may be 175-200kts - point of no return is past half-way in terms of distance, as there's a headwind going west but a tailwind if the plane turns around.) In such a case, the ability to descend to 10,000' may be iffy, as jet engines consume much more fuel at low altitudes; fuel consumption at 10,000 is over twice the consumption at FL370.

The next worst case would be over mountainous terrain. The crew won't descend below 2000' above the highest peak within 25NM. However, they will also be turning toward the nearest suitable field, and getting away from the high terrain as quickly as possible.

Going back to the concept of the thread, though, the real threat to passengers' lives would not be decompression, nor damage to control or fuel lines, or even damage to the pilots. The more likely threat would be bullets being fired by guys with 8-hr training certificates in an aluminum tube packed sardine-tight with people.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 12:19 AM   #119
38splfan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2004
Location: Ft. Lewis/Tacoma, WA.
Posts: 1,034
Anti-Gun.

Nevermind.
__________________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to others and I expect the same from them." - John Wayne
38splfan is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 12:35 AM   #120
Glockfan36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 216
I voted for the third option

...not because I'm crazy,or paranoid,or fancy myself some kind of QUICK-DRAW EXPERT GUN HERO or anything.I carry a concealed weapon for one reason-to extract myself and those I care about from a bad situation. So, if I save someone else's life in the process, so be it. End of discussion.
__________________
Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!- Ronald Reagan
Glockfan36 is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 06:45 PM   #121
MidwestRookie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 462
thanks for the lesson MLeake...much appreciated.
MidwestRookie is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 07:03 PM   #122
johnbergsing
Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 41
I'd do it if it were like Hunter Safety Classes ... FREE! (At least here in Alabama!) And it was good for 3-5 years. I don't fly frequently enough for it to be a huge hassle. But the knowledge that people are armed on airplanes would deter hijackings.
johnbergsing is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 07:14 PM   #123
Nordeste
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2011
Location: Asturias, Spain
Posts: 328
Quote:
I'd do it if it were like Hunter Safety Classes ... FREE! (At least here in Alabama!) And it was good for 3-5 years. I don't fly frequently enough for it to be a huge hassle. But the knowledge that people are armed on airplanes would deter hijackings.
Surely would deter hijackers. But it would deter a lot of us too , who would think in an alternate way of travelling!!.
Nordeste is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 08:30 PM   #124
Deja vu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Border of Idaho & Montana
Posts: 2,154
Quote:
There are apparently a lot of folks here who still believe in explosive decompression as taught by Hollywood and that FAMs are somehow the world's greatest gunhandlers and marksman. Amazing. Remember that the people who are making the rules and who are responsible for aircraft safety and security are the SAME people who were in charge on the morning of Sept. 11 and who were unable to do ANYTHING about four hijacked airliners flying around the CONUS for an hour or so. Including our $400 billion dollar a year Air Force. Until this situation changes significantly I am with the folks who stated they will not fly commercial (and have not) with the policies and procedures we now have in place. Especially the use of the TSA who told Joe Foss that they were confiscating his Medal of Honor because it might be a possible weapon and when he asked them what they were going to do with it he was told they were going to throw it into a trash can. The reason they don't want you to be able to defend yourself on a commercial aircraft is quite simply that the airline's insurance carriers don't want to risk litigation. As long as they are safe from lawsuits they couldn't care less how many airliners get hijacked. It's all about money. It always is and always has been.
I think this one has it right
__________________
Shot placement is everything! I would rather take a round of 50BMG to the foot than a 22short to the base of the skull.

all 25 of my guns are 45/70 govt, 357 mag, 22 or 12 ga... I believe in keeping it simple
Deja vu is offline  
Old July 21, 2011, 09:56 PM   #125
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
That shouldn't be a surprise, airliners aren't in business to provide a service, they want to make a profit. Just like you would if you owned an airline. And honestly, guns on a plane would probably create more problems than it solves, given the extraordinarily low number of hijackings in aviation history.
hardworker is offline  
Reply

Tags
aviation , ccw , chl , pistol

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14175 seconds with 8 queries