The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 12, 2001, 12:04 PM   #1
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
The lovely side effects of a disarmed crew

These bastards killing the stewardesses to lure the pilots back out would have been a big mistake if the women themselves were armed and especially if the pilot came back with a sidearm. For years they have disarmed us to make us safe on planes, and we're still not safe. 3 young men had to give their lives to even stop one of these attacks. This is not right.
__________________
Help Fight Cancer

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

"Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them."
Dangus is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 02:53 PM   #2
bronco61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 1999
Location: Alaska
Posts: 518
I couldn't agree with you more Dangus. What is burning me up is when I suggest that the pilots need to have access to arms as well as a door that cannot be kicked in and they say "Having a gun on a plane could get people killed". They would prefer all our rights taken away and a more intrusive govt.

The simple fact of the matter is that if just ONE person on each of those planes had been armed, we wouldn't have seen this extent of destruction. period.
bronco61 is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 02:55 PM   #3
Lennyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2001
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 1,149
Guess we should go back to the Air Marshall days?
Lennyjoe is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 03:32 PM   #4
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
Sky Marshal?!?! Sky ninja. You would put your safety in the hands of your government? Isn't that the definition of sheople?

Why is this silly regulation burned into even members of the gun culture? Baaah--guns on planes baaaahd.

The answer is to abolish the silly FAA regulation prohibiting good people from carrying arms abound airliners. One Thunder Ranch grad, one Gunsite grad, one Chapman Academy grad and one YFA grad could have prevented thousands of deaths.

I'm am so mad steaming is coming out my ears and those morons in our government want even more rules (banning knives). Utter rubbish.
KSFreeman is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:09 PM   #5
EnochGale
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2000
Location: southwest
Posts: 823
Problem with that is that folks in deep cover could easily carry on the planes also. It is easy to get permits in many states (as it should be). Thus, you let guns on the plane. Most folks don't carry - only 2% of the population. So you just permission for terrorists to get on the plane with guns easily.

Easy emotional solutions may not work.
EnochGale is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:37 PM   #6
bullet44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2000
Posts: 819
For the lack of a weapon thousands die, strange
world.!!!!
bullet44 is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 04:51 PM   #7
Southla1
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the
Posts: 1,999
I wish I had thought to ask my friend that I had breakfast with this morning if there was ever a case of an air marshal stopping a hijacking in progress.

I know that they were on board of a small percentage of flights for a long time, but don't know if a hijacking attempt ever occured on a flight that they were on.

He is an ex Louisiana State Trooper, then in federal law enforcement (he is one of the good guys.......really). He was a sky marshall for years on flights out of New Orleans to different destinations and then returning to New Orleans. (he was also a damn good competitor in outdoor bullseye pistol competition)
Southla1 is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:15 PM   #8
Dagny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2000
Location: Galt's Gulch
Posts: 390
What guns and ammo did Sky Marshall's have?
Dagny is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:17 PM   #9
GunFool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2000
Posts: 157
I definitely agree that there should be a sturdier cabin door which is NEVER opened during a flight. I flew just weeks ago and the pilots had the door open the entire flight, chatting with the stewardess. I was concerned about it then, but who could know just how much I should have worried?

As for arms and arming planes and pilots...it is very difficult to judge what could cost more lives: the occassional 'psycho' armed with a gun on a plane or the unarmed psychos who take over an unarmed plane. Will we have more tragedies or fewer tragedies if anyone can be armed on a plane? It's just too impossible to say. Yes, an armed citizen, pilot, or guard might have been able to stop a hijacking. But on open-carry flights there might be any number of BG's with guns. It would be even harder for any similarly armed pilot or civilian to stop a hijacking then.

No, I dont think open carry on flights is the right answer. We need a compromise. An armed guard per flight. A secure cockpit. Better security on the ground. Frequent and random undercover armed security. That's about the closest we'll get.
__________________
It is US against THEM. Whoever they are.
GunFool is offline  
Old September 12, 2001, 05:28 PM   #10
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
I am not talking about armed passengers. I agree with disarming them, because the confines of the plane, and the vulnerability of the structure, that many weapons could become a liability. The cockpit should have a weapons locker though.
__________________
Help Fight Cancer

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

"Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them."
Dangus is offline  
Old September 13, 2001, 10:53 PM   #11
bronco61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 1999
Location: Alaska
Posts: 518
Gunfool, they DO let just ANY idiot sit next to the emergency exits. These people could release more cabin pressure by simply opening the door than ANY gun hole could produce. I saw a special a couple years ago that showed that a machine gun could spray the hull from the inside and not be able to put people in danger of losing cabin pressure. They just turned up the cabin pressure to make up for the holes. They can't do that for the opening produced if the dingbat next to you were to open the emergency door.

If just ONE person on those flights were armed, we wouldn't have this catastrophe. The hijackers knew this and counted on the fact that nobody would be armed. Just a simple fact.

You question whether people being armed on planes could cost MORE lives than it could save due to the few "Psychos" with guns, is the exact same arguement that anti-gun people give when they say that our society should be unarmed because they feel that the few "psychos" will just go around killing other people.

Most of our country allows concealed carry in our towns. Are we to assume that these same people will suddenly become psychos as soon as they board an airplane?
bronco61 is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 02:51 AM   #12
BJM
Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2000
Posts: 49
There would have to ba a lot of good people would have to have a lot of "accidents" to add up to the body count of Tuesday,

The risk of airplane carry is worth it.
BJM is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 10:20 AM   #13
Mikul
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2000
Posts: 1,396
Airplane carry is probably more dangerous than it's worth, but I see no reason to otherwise disarm everyone. Let them have their pepper sprays and 8" tanto blades.

The current ban on nail clippers is the most pathetic reaction imaginable.
__________________
There are two types of men: those with guns, and those at their mercy.
Mikul is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:04 AM   #14
GunFool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2000
Posts: 157
Bronco61...

True, if 1 person on a plane had been armed, then that particular catastrophe probably wouldnt have happened. However, if that one person and one terrorist each had a gun, then we are back to square one. That's why I advocate the armed guard/undercover security concept over open carry. You speak of concealed carry, but you fail to consider all of the people who do so -illegally-! I'm willing to bet they outnumber you and I on the street. We are not talking about the law-abiding gun owner here. Of course the average person carrying a gun wont turn into a 'psycho' once he gets on a plane - however, what's to stop the average bad guy from continuing his normal street behavior in the air? The fact that he cant have a gun there! We're not talking about suicide fliers who could pull open the emergency door. Sure, any armed citizen or guard would have a good chance of stopping them. But why introduce an -additional- threat on the plane by saying everyone can carry? I agree that a qualified, licensed guard should carry on a plane...but I dont know that anyone else should. If we can carry, then the criminals can carry too - the best of them can probably pass the exam and background check as well as the rest of us.

The way I see it is like this: I am most concerned with my personal safety on a plane. Will I be safer if I have my gun in the event of some terrorist plot, or will I be safer if NO weapons are allowed on any flights except in the hands of a security officer? I'm not saying which way is best, just that it seems to me the more weapons allowed on planes, the more possibilities for disaster. Are good armed people responsible? NO! But not all armed people are good.

I am in no way anti-gun or anti-carry, that would be hypocritical. Are there times and places where we shouldnt carry? Maybe, maybe not. In today's world, if the other guy is going to have a gun, then I will have a gun - simple as that. I said it was difficult to determine which would cause more deaths (open carry or no carry)...I never said anything about accidents. Would it be easier for a terrorist to hijack a plane if he's armed? Sure! Would it be easier for the average passenger to stop a hijacking if he was armed? Maybe, but it seems to me they cancel each other out...especially if there are more terrorists.

I feel (like many others) that I have the natural right and responsibility to ensure my own safety and survival. And I dont want to be told that I cant do that, or even how to do that. But in this case I dont know that being allowed to be armed is the safest way to fly.

YMMV
__________________
It is US against THEM. Whoever they are.
GunFool is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:11 AM   #15
Goet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2000
Location: North Ogden, UT
Posts: 953


Ban Them!

Its for the Chirruns!
__________________
Bomb Canada!
Goet is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:15 AM   #16
GunFool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2000
Posts: 157
Oooh..now does that model have the deadly pre-ban fingernail dirt scraper????
__________________
It is US against THEM. Whoever they are.
GunFool is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:19 AM   #17
Goet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2000
Location: North Ogden, UT
Posts: 953
Worse


It has the finger grip
and extendable stock.
__________________
Bomb Canada!
Goet is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:28 AM   #18
travis0127
Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2000
Location: colorado springs, co USA
Posts: 50
If you would give up a little freedom for more safety....
__________________
DEATH before DISARMAMENT
travis0127 is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:37 AM   #19
GunFool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2000
Posts: 157
Dont fly much Travis? The right to arm oneself on a plane isnt a freedom to give up - we never had it! I say either arm -everyone- or perhaps better, arm at least someone responsible per plane and make damn sure no one else is armed. Either way, still better than our current system, dont ya think? How about an argument and not just a by-line next time? Those things are written by *choke* politicians, you know!
__________________
It is US against THEM. Whoever they are.
GunFool is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 11:57 AM   #20
travis0127
Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2000
Location: colorado springs, co USA
Posts: 50
Gunfool,

To clear up any misunderstanding in my position. I am for allowing everyone, everywhere to be armed, all the time.

Yes I fly some, I did not mean to imply that I thought it had been "legal" in the past to go armed on a plane. My thought was meant that at some point our "freedom to bear arms" was given up, at least a little. This was done to make flying "safer". I don't agree with that sentiment. I was paraphrasing an argument I have heard somewhere, I think it might have been around the time of our revolution.

I prefer freedom to slavery, even if I'm just a little bit enslaved or not quite free.
__________________
DEATH before DISARMAMENT
travis0127 is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 12:11 PM   #21
bronco61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 1999
Location: Alaska
Posts: 518
Gunfool

We can both agree that an armed security agent (or two) on board is an excellent idea. Definately more effective than the moronic ideas they've come up with so far.

That being said: Prohibitions do not work. Period. Whether it be a drug or a material thing. What you end up with is situations like we've had. No matter how hard they try, somebody will get something through, somebody will have inside help to bypass security, and innocent law-abiding people will get killed because they have no means of protecting themselves.

You stated: However, if that one person and one terrorist each had a gun, then we are back to square one. Square one being what? That the one person was able to shoot the terrorist with the gun and end the hijacking? We don't know. What we DO know is that there would be the CHANCE of the conflict ending. The same can be said as to why you and I carry. Nothing guarantees that we will succeed in saving ourselves. The only thing concealed carry gives us is - that CHANCE.

Your statement of: Will I be safer if I have my gun in the event of some terrorist plot, or will I be safer if NO weapons are allowed on any flights except in the hands of a security officer? is EXACTLY the same as the arguement people give for gun control on our streets. I can see that you still haven't decided whether our second amendment is a "right" or a "Privilege", or if an armed society is safer or more dangerous.

You are also wrong in telling Travis that we've never had the right to carry a firearm on an airplane. Our "Right" to carry on a plane was taken away in the 70's. Look it up. It was taken away because of hijackings in other countries. (Where, by the way, the people weren't allowed to carry on planes) Our government felt it would be better if we were put in the same situation as the defensless Europeans.

Last edited by bronco61; September 14, 2001 at 12:48 PM.
bronco61 is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 01:03 PM   #22
moa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2000
Posts: 667
All this talk about weapons and security personnel still does not take into consideration the bomb threat supposedly issued by at least one group of hijacker.

So, confronted with a possible bomb, what course of action is possible then?
moa is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 01:05 PM   #23
Goet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2000
Location: North Ogden, UT
Posts: 953
Remember to cut the red wire.
__________________
Bomb Canada!
Goet is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 02:27 PM   #24
GunFool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2000
Posts: 157
Bomb? That would never happen in America! Oh..umm..wait-a-minute...


Bronco...I agree that having that 'chance' to protect onesself is important, that's why I carry. I still feel that it should be all or nothing, but like you said, somebody will get something through eventually. Same argument that I make for the universal ownership of firearms...some government can *never* convince me that ALL the guns are off the street and out of the hands of criminals and the rest of us alike, despite how intrusive and rigorous their grab may have been. So I'm not giving mine up.

And to clarify...the ideas expressed in the second ammendment only offer us some privilege to our right to bear arms. Do we have a right? Of course. Does our law allow us to fully exercise that right? Unfortunately, no. A government cannot grant a right. Funny how we've had so many rights taken away, whittled down to this article and that, and handed back to us as 'freedom'. Concience and morality determine rights. Our country's government decides which rights, and to what extent, we may have access to. Therefore, I doubt we will ever see open carry on airlines, despite our right to protect ourselves. Hopefully the powers that be will have the guts to get past their gun-fright and at least give us that 'chance' in another way. I loathe putting my safety in the hands of another as much as the next guy, but if I MUST, let my guardian angel be armed!
__________________
It is US against THEM. Whoever they are.
GunFool is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 02:32 PM   #25
bronco61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 1999
Location: Alaska
Posts: 518
Gunfool,

I agree with what you've said except you're a bit confused about our 2nd amendment. How can a "right" be a "Priviledge"? Show me anywhere in the Bill of rights that says that our rights are actually priviledges. Its called "The Bill of Rights" NOT "The bill of Priviledges". Its not a right if its a priviledge.
bronco61 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2020 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.17511 seconds with 10 queries