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 22, 2011, 07:48 AM   #126
Locoweed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 643
So if I'm a terrorist, especially a domestic one, I would just take the course and then carry my handgun onto the airplane for nefarious deeds. No way is this a good idea. And in the event of trouble you jump out of your seat with your pistol drawn and then the sky marshal shoots you down thinking you are one of the bad guys.
Locoweed is online now  
Old July 22, 2011, 08:39 AM   #127
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,691
My choice was not there. I fly now only because I need to for work and I fly armed. Once I retire I do not plan on flying anymore.

Everything is overpriced and everybody is rude. The seats are too cramped and the planes stink, everyone who is sick shares it with everyone else on the plane.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 09:37 AM   #128
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
So if I'm a terrorist, especially a domestic one, I would just take the course and then carry my handgun onto the airplane for nefarious deeds.
And the lawful carrier on the plane punches your ticket.... Exactly my point...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 09:49 AM   #129
Ralgha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk View Post
My choice was not there. I fly now only because I need to for work and I fly armed. Once I retire I do not plan on flying anymore.

Everything is overpriced and everybody is rude. The seats are too cramped and the planes stink, everyone who is sick shares it with everyone else on the plane.
Overpriced? Compare the price of tickets now and 20 years ago, they haven't changed. The price of tickets now isn't enough to cover the cost of the flight. Employees are rude because the companies treat them like crap, the planes stink because the ticket price doesn't provide enough money to clean it every leg.

Most of the airline woes (outside of security) boil down to air travel being underpriced, not overpriced.
Ralgha is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 09:53 AM   #130
saltydog452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2004
Posts: 493
I'd take the GreyDog.

Better class of people and there is no charge for enterainment.

salty
saltydog452 is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 10:04 AM   #131
praetorian97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2011
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 455
I respectly disagree Ralgha.

I travel 10 days a month for work on average. So I would say I have extensive flying experience.

I have seen rates vary so much that there is definite fluff. Just recently I had a business trip scheduled. I had to push it back a week. I had them reschedule the same exact flights a week later and they were $600 more on top of the $400 already. That didnt include the "Change Flight" fee.

As far as you pointing out people being rude is cause they are treated like crap? So what you are saying is if my boss is a jerk to me. That justifies me treating you like crap?

If your boss/company is treating you badly, start looking for another job. Dont take it out on people that have nothing to do with it.
praetorian97 is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 12:29 PM   #132
Ralgha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 107
I'm a pilot for an airline. I fly 4+ days a week, 4+ flights a day. I see them cancel service to cities with consistent nearly full loads because they are losing money on them. A few examples of expensive tickets mean nothing.

I am looking for another job, many in my position can't due to lack of other experience or other reasons. Changing airlines is not always an option because you start over at the bottom.

I could describe what it's like, but most people probably don't care. I personally don't hate my job, or my company, but they are not making me want to stay.
Ralgha is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 01:41 PM   #133
praetorian97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2011
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 455
I won't argue Pilots aren't treated as well as they were in past. The blame should be on the suits above and not the passengers looking for a good deal on a flight.
praetorian97 is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 03:02 PM   #134
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,679
The lawful carrier vs. the terrorist sound great except that we've made the point that you might get a fairly large number of terrorists on the plane and Johnny J-Frame isn't going to be that successful.

Also, the terrorists start by grabbing a person or two and the rest draw down on the passengers. What you gonna do then?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 22, 2011, 04:06 PM   #135
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,932
Quote:
And the lawful carrier on the plane punches your ticket...Exactly my point...
In your wildest imagination, do you really think it would be that simple? .

Still waiting on those who are in favor of cc'ing on airlines.... what plans you have to insuring no legal cc'er thats a hijacker will board your planes in the first place???

Last edited by shortwave; July 22, 2011 at 04:13 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 06:04 PM   #136
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Given my level of training and experience..... yes

Have you ever been under live fire? Its not rocket science....

Quote:
what plans you have to insuring no legal cc'er thats a hijacker will board your planes in the first place???
Well unless the mass of CCW carriers goes nuts I would hope we would have at least one or two patriots on the plane.

Funny no one screens our bus passengers and they could load those babys up with BGs.....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 06:54 PM   #137
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,932
Quote:
Given my level of training and experience...yes
...and do you feel the rest of the cc'ing world that may be on the same plane as you and your family have the same training/experience as you... that they have all experienced live fire and wouldn't freak out.

Before answering that, think about the possibility of one of the hijackers having a loved one of yours using them as a shield, you are halfway down the isle of the plane with to many people between you and hijacker/loved one and there are 300 other armed passengers on board. How confident would you be that these other armed passengers would have your experience...enough to trust the life of your loved one with??

Quote:
Its not rocket science
Unless perhaps the above scenario was to happen. Then rocket science would be a bit trivial.

How comfortable or sure would you be even with your experience in that scenario?

Last edited by shortwave; July 22, 2011 at 07:05 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 07:28 PM   #138
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
...and do you feel the rest of the cc'ing world that may be on the same plane as you and your family have the same training/experience as you... that they have all experienced live fire and wouldn't freak out.

Before answering that, think about the possibility of one of the hijackers having a loved one of yours using them as a shield, you are halfway down the isle of the plane with to many people between you and hijacker/loved one and there are 300 other armed passengers on board. How confident would you be that these other armed passengers would have your experience...enough to trust the life of your loved one with??
I cant speak for the level of competence of the average CCW person but if the plane is going to be shot down because of the situation then even a horrible shot CCW person would probably be preferable to the passengers than 100% chance of death.

I know what I can do and what I cant do with a bullet and in the situation that it was my loved one then I wouldnt present until the opportunity was reasonably favorable. I am certainly not Rambo but Im not Joe Blow at shooting either.....

Ultimately even if every CCW person on the plane was a terrible shot one would hope they would understand their individual limitations and only act if and when they felt they could contribute to the successful end of the situation.

The first thing one learns as a leader on the ground is situational awareness and that if you dont have it you tend to loose the battle quickly. Of course most CCW people wont have the training but does that negate the right to self defense? I totally get that a hand to hand approach may be the more desirable approach but many people arent physically able to contemplate that avenue due to health, age or experience....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 11:18 PM   #139
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BGutzman, my guess is that your live-fire experience involved unit vs improvised attack/ambush scenarios, since IIRC you only recently retired, and were not around for VietNam.

Defending a FOB, you aren't shooting around your buddies.

Defending a convoy, you aren't shooting around your buddies, though if you are a vehicle gunner you may be shooting over their heads.

Clearing a building, you are normally working with a team, and know where your guys are.

When was your last experience at engaging a bad guy, on the far side of a tight cluster of unarmed friendlies?

That's the kind of experience and training you'd need for an airliner scenario, and only a very small few get that training.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 11:36 PM   #140
TylerD45ACP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 1,654
I would in a heartbeat, even if they checked up on you often. I would feel so much safer on a plane carrying and knowing other citizens could be carrying. I think there should be plenty of rules though I dont know what they would be. But, I do believe everyone should have to use Frangible ammo because off risk of hull rupture. That could cause problems, however the plane would not tear open like a can if it did happen. Maybe a Basketball size hole at MOST and that is pushing it. They problem is 38,000ft. is a little short on oxygen .
TylerD45ACP is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 12:24 AM   #141
TXGunNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: If you have to ask...
Posts: 2,851
I've taken the course for peace officers flying armed and it was quite interesting. It was only for purposes of transporting prisoners, I couldn't fly armed under any other circumstances. The risk of blowing a hole in the plane and having it suddenly depressurize wasn't the big hazard we thought it was, they seemed more concerned with fire hazards.
I think the big draw of flying armed for qualified individuals is not having to check the firearm in a bag and risk losing a carry gun to a criminal. The possibilty of actually needing a firearm on an airplane are so remote I wonder why I even consider possible scenarios. Retrieving a firearm from my checked bags and getting "dressed" in a rental car office or baggage terminal bathroom is a real PITA.
I don't fly enough to consider it but the idea has merit.....and zero chance of actually happening, IMHO. Just an interesting idea.
__________________
Life Member NRA, TSRA
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call Lonesome Dove
My favorite recipes start out with a handful of used wheelweights.
TXGunNut is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 01:02 AM   #142
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,326
Quote:
But, I do believe everyone should have to use Frangible ammo because off risk of hull rupture. Maybe a Basketball size hole at MOST and that is pushing it. They problem is 38,000ft. is a little short on oxygen.
A bullet through the hull makes a bullet hole--nothing more is likely. The pressurization system is more than capable of dealing with a bullet hole--even several bullet holes. Planes are not nearly as air-tight as most folks think. The pressurization system is regulated by a large outflow valves (two valves in some designs) that can be opened wider if the pressure rises too high or closed a bit to compensate for leaks or low pressure.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 01:16 AM   #143
TylerD45ACP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 1,654
:Thanks for the info JohnKSa I figured it wouldnt make a big hole. I just have never seen it happen so cant judge what it would look like. I bet it would be just a hole though like you said. It might not even make it through the hull in some spots. I didnt realize all that about the pressurization system cool info. Well I guess you could just use standard JHP's but frangible might be a good idea.
TylerD45ACP is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 01:53 AM   #144
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Tyler, please see post #118. The pressurization issue has been gone into in some detail, by myself among others.

Ok, for those who think carrying on an airliner would be a wise choice, try this next time you go to a range where you can do more than stand behind a line and shoot a single target:

Set up several rows of silhouettes, 3 left side, an aisle space, and 3 right side. Mark them all with big red X's. These are passengers, not targets.

Next, set up a target or two.

Past the target(s), set up several more rows of silhouettes, 3 left, 3 right.

Now, set yourself up in a chair. Put chairs to either side of you. Put suitcases in the chairs, to represent obese travelers to left and right.

Try to engage your targets. Do not hit any red X silhouettes between yourself and the targets. Do not hit any red X silhouettes beyond yourself and the targets.

Have fun with this. (We do this kind of thing in IDPA... it is actually fun. It is not easy, and that's without any stress thrown in.)

After doing this, give an honest assessment of whether you want to see people trying it, in a true threat environment, with only a day's worth of training.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 06:19 AM   #145
rodfac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,517
And .... to expand on Mleake's excellent discussion points....while hitting the bad guys, keep any over penetrative rounds and/or misses from hitting the cockpit bulkhead (it's full of circuit breakers that control vital equipment), not to mention the guys doing the flying, control wires, fuel bladders, engines, hydraulic and pneumatic lines etc etc etc.

And while doing all that, be aware that rats travel in packs...there is a good likelihood that the BG you're shooting at, probably has buddies elsewhere on the plane...

The solution for terrorists on commercial aircraft is: keep them off...search the baggage, profile the passengers, do the job that we all know is necessary...anything short of that is not going to work.

Rodfac....Flew for: USAF, Braniff, Air Niagara, People Express, Continental, and UPS. Yep...it was an interesting and tumultuous career.
__________________
Our Flag does not fly because the wind blows against it, it is moved instead, by the dying breath of our patriots in uniform. Our Freedom is not free, it's been paid for many times over.
USAF Forward Air Controller, 5th Spl Forces,
An Loc, lll Corps, RVN, 69-70, Vietnam Vet '69-'73
rodfac is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 09:30 AM   #146
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by praetorian97
Didnt read the entire article. But wanted to throw my .02 in.

Even after an 8 hour course there are still people out there I dont think should own guns.

Watch these two videos. If I got shot by some over achiever there may a problem with me not returning fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg
A handful of students, who are probably under 21 or for other reasons have not obtained a ccw permit (at least not that I saw reported, although I was not devoting my full attention to the videos), are selected on the basis that they wanted free gun training, offered not by a well-known training instructor but by the local PD. In that artificially constructed scenario where those gun trainees are put in a worst-case active shooter situation in a full classroom, the best the news media can come up with is that they weren't able to prevent themselves from getting killed and they missed a few times?

And while yes, CCWers should be accountable for every round they fire, if heaven forbid an innocent is shot and killed in a scenario with an active shooter, the CCWer might be held civilly liable, but in states with the felony murder rule at least, or even merely relying on the competing harms doctrine, it would be hard to convict the CCWer of some homicide charge. Where the felony murder rule is in effect, the DA gets a scalp to pin the homicide on, so there's little incentive politically to go after the CCWer unless the DA is anti-gun or unless there's some horrible mistake on the CCWer's part that would put his or her actions beyond what was reasonable, and lose him or her sympathy with a jury.

CCW advocates also believe in better training for everyone. What they don't advocate is the government mandating that training as a condition of being allowed to CCW, arbitrary standards based on the idea that every CCWer needs to be able to handle the depicted scenario without getting shot and without missing. I'd be surprised if one in 5 ordinary (non-SWAT) police officers or feds would be able to do that.

If there's any doubt as to the motives or trustworthiness of the people appearing in those videos, please note that that's the Violence Policy Center's youtube channel. The entire scenario was BS, because the (fake) perp was a police officer with weapons training. Compare that to someone like Seung-Hui Cho who had just recently obtained the guns he used, and it's much more likely that any of the students would have been able to disable him.


--Main topic--

I'm ambivalent about CCW on airplanes. Remember the news media tests years ago trying to sneak guns onto airplanes? The TSA's success rate detecting guns wasn't very good. Even if the detection rate is better these days, a dedicated terrorist group with more than few recruits could get someone with a gun onto an airplane eventually, if they wanted to. An armed terrorist on board a flying sardine can, with a small chance on domestic flights that there's an armed LEO on board. Furthermore the group could put an additional unarmed recruit on each attempt, whose purpose would be to create a ruckus and draw out an air marshal if there is one, then have the armed "teammate", if you will, take action.

However, I'm inclined to say the policy of only LEOs-with-special-privileges carrying on planes should continue. Commercial passenger plane hijackings are rare. It is improbable that another 9/11 could occur, even with armed terrorists, since cockpits are harder to get into, passengers are less likely to sit like lambs in the event of a hijacking, and pilots are better prepared and trained (whether or not they have guns in the cockpit) to deal with those situations. Finally, the military will get fighters in the air faster, and where airliners are off course and behaving strangely, assuming they can be intercepted, they will be shot down before reaching major population centers.

I think every terrorist organization with a detectable level of collective brain activity will have figured out by now that even in the best case scenario of getting multiple blade or firearm-armed terrorists onto a plane, the probability of a successful plane-meet-building attack is just about zero, mainly because, even ignoring pilot actions and military actions, other passengers simply will not stand for it, even if they risk injury trying to disarm the terrorists.

The issue really is this: Take the estimated yearly average of passenger injuries and deaths while disarming would-be terrorists, and compare it to the estimated yearly average of passengers getting injured or killed due to CCW fubars... air rage, mall ninjas treating agitated passengers as terrorists, negligent discharges... and when something did happen (and it would), it would not only kill the plane ccw policy instantly, it would not only put all the pro-gun politicians who supported plane ccw on political death row; no, beyond all that, the anti-gunners would use the incident(s) to whip naive people into a frenzy of anti-gun hatred that would set back other pro-gun initiatives.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 11:11 AM   #147
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,932
Sorry, DP

Last edited by shortwave; July 23, 2011 at 02:21 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 11:44 AM   #148
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,932
MLeake,

The only additional thing I would add to your fun excersize to put things more into a real life prospective with the topic at hand would be to put a friendly silhouette of a hostage, pressed against your BG target, making your BG target very small.

I've ran many combat/house clearing drills set up simulating hostage situations ....but until you run a few and hit a few friendly's, then start correlating your drills with real life possible situations and knowing you just shot ' little Johnny ' instead of BG, its fairly easy to sit back and say " I can do that". Also remember after you've opened up and shot 'little Johnny' instead of intended BG, you've just pulled the pin for massive casualties. Especially if there's more than one BG.
Also noting, the course's I've ran were not set up with as nearly as many people crammed into such tight quarters as you would find on a plane.

The psycological aspect alone of the most extreme trained person in this kind of scenario, if he would be facing a hostage situation where your facing a BG with say, a kid looking at you crying in hysteria is something many regularly trained LEO's just couldn't take. Let alone the average ccw holder.

What it boils down to is: are you good enough to make that shot.... and do you have confidence that everyone carrying on that plane is also competent of making that shot under those extreme circumstances??
Cause remember the terrorist may just have your loved one as hostage.

I know a few and have witnessed, first hand, the training of some of our state,county and city SWAT LEO's. Not only the physical training aspects but the mental and negotiating training as well. Which CAN be a better weapon than a gun. Given the right situation.

I can tell you that every LEO is just not cut out mentally for the pressure of some of these special units.

The mental stress alone is incredible and can age a fella fairly quickly.

I " Thank " those that are for the incredible job they do.

I just don't see alot of cc people handling this kind of situation in as close quarters as a plane would be, very well.
shortwave is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 12:28 PM   #149
TylerD45ACP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2010
Posts: 1,654
Thanks MrLeake and shortwave for your ideas on training. I am going to try that out when I get a chance what you have reccommended. Also I would lay low on a plane if I had a weapon. Even if the people were going crazy I would just try to sit there and clock the situation as well as possible.
TylerD45ACP is offline  
Old July 23, 2011, 12:29 PM   #150
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Still waiting on those who are in favor of cc'ing on airlines.... what plans you have to insuring no legal cc'er thats a hijacker will board your planes in the first place???
What plans to you have to ensure a hijacker isn't boarding a plane now? They're still out there. We're to the point that we have to check underneath everyone's balls for a weapon. The next step is that someone sticks a bomb up his ass, and we have to do a cavity search on everyone who boards a plane.

And let me ask my question again, because it was asked in earnest.

To those of who who oppose carrying on airlines because they're too crowded: What other places do you think are too crowded?

Buses and college classrooms are crowded, too. Are these off limits?

Of course there is an off chance that someone besides a terrorist could be shot by accident, by a cop or someone CCWing. On airliners, buses, or in college classrooms.

On an airplane, the other alternative is a terrrorist killing everyone on the plane by crashing it, or the government shooting it down and killing everyone to avoid hitting the plane reaching a target. In that case, more than any other, I'll take a few people shot by accident to save the entire airliner any day.
wayneinFL 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 09:53 AM.


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 0.15909 seconds with 8 queries