pajarito 0 #26 December 14, 2004 QuoteWrong. Weapons do not necessarily make a plane less safe. You said so yourself by advocating Air Marshals. It's all those gun and SUV's man. They're going around killing people "wholesale" all over the place nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #27 December 14, 2004 >Can you imagine what would happen to an airline if they turned down >a FFDO pilot and one of their planes was hijacked? Can you imagine what would happen to an airline if they skimped on maintenance and their plane crashed? You don't have to imagine it - it's happened. They are used to making such decisions; in fact their business demands that they do so. The companies that make bad decisions go out of business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #28 December 14, 2004 Quote Hitting a person is not like shooting at a range... Ever see the video on "cops" with the white suv and the two cops firing at less then 15ft away and not even hitting the suv or the bad guys.... 23 rounds fired and they hit nothing... Thats the norm, A cop in my town fired 13rds at point blank range (3feet) and missed every shot, The bad guy hit the cop with two out of three rds fired from a stub-nose 38.... What's the alternative then? Let the hijackers fly the plane into a building not only killing everyone on the plane but thousands more? By the way, I know what you're saying and agree to a point. It is very different shooting at close range. I've had a lot of training in that area and wouldn't be considered the norm. However, I stand by my point at the beginning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #29 December 14, 2004 Quote>Can you imagine what would happen to an airline if they turned down >a FFDO pilot and one of their planes was hijacked? Can you imagine what would happen to an airline if they skimped on maintenance and their plane crashed? You don't have to imagine it - it's happened. They are used to making such decisions; in fact their business demands that they do so. The companies that make bad decisions go out of business. Man...some of the things you compare are worlds apart from each other. It always makes me think about your "every aspect of abortion should be legal" comparison to "it's acceptable that kids will be killed as a result of bombing and war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #30 December 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Isn't the entire purpose of the TSA to _prevent_ weapons from being on the plane? No. The job of the TSA is to keep the plane safe. Right, and a large part of that entails preventing weapons from being on the plane. Wrong. Weapons do not necessarily make a plane less safe. You said so yourself by advocating Air Marshals. If we can seal the cockpit and prevent weapons from being on the plane, Air Marshalls would not be necessary. FWIW, I know a few and I wouldn't trust them to change a flat tire on my Jeep let alone engage a hostile target in the body of an airplane full of screaming tourists. (No offense to current AMs out there) If "weapons do not necessarily make a plane less safe", why are they prohibited? The answer is that they make the plane less safe. To truly ensure safety, I think you need to go to one extreme or the other. Either everyone is allowed to carry or no one is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 December 14, 2004 QuoteIf "weapons do not necessarily make a plane less safe", why are they prohibited? The answer is that they make the plane less safe. You have anything to show that, or are you just spouting stuff? And weapons are allowed. We have Armed Crew Members now, and FAM have weapons."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #32 December 14, 2004 I think pilots should be armed , "IF" they can use it like a air marshel can.... Letting every tom dick and harry carry pistols is not the answer..... I think many old fighter jocks would be great at it.... killer.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #33 December 14, 2004 >Man...some of the things you compare are worlds apart from each other. So be it. Airlines make decisions every day that could, directly or indirectly, result in the destruction of the aircraft and deaths of all the passengers on board. They are used to making such decisions. Deciding to arm pilots or not is one of those decisions. I think it would be silly to say they can choose to switch to less reliable (but cheaper) engines on their MD-80's, but are not competent to decide whether arming their pilots is a good idea or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #34 December 14, 2004 Why stop there?I think they should extend it to people with CCW licenses too with some additional training of courseMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #35 December 14, 2004 QuoteIf "weapons do not necessarily make a plane less safe", why are they prohibited? The answer is that they make the plane less safe. QuoteYou have anything to show that, or are you just spouting stuff? Probably just spouting. I know common sense isn't common, but I do give the benefit of the doubt in matters that are painfully obvious. QuoteAnd weapons are allowed. We have Armed Crew Members now, and FAM have weapons. I wouldn't exactly call it allowed if a passenger tried to board while carrying and was arrested. If I am not mistaken, some countries have sealed cockpits. At least that was the case on the few international and foreign commercial flights I've been on. That concept seems like a no-brainer to me. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have that as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #36 December 14, 2004 Highly recommended. Great idea. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #37 December 14, 2004 QuoteProbably just spouting. I know common sense isn't common, but I do give the benefit of the doubt in matters that are painfully obvious. What is painfully obvious is that you made an assumption and said that weapons on aircraft are bad. FAM have weapons, several crew members at my work are armed. You spouted something without facts based on a personal feeling that had no basis in the real world. You now claim that it is common sense. Using your same logic police should not carry weapons. Like it or not bad guys are going to fiqure out ways to get weapons on Aircraft. I see no problem with allowing Crew Members to carry in a lst ditch effort to protect the cockpit. I see no problem with FAm having weapons. Hell if a few folks that had CWP were allowed to have firearm on the plane 9/11 might not have happend. Kennedy here is one that you might be able to find...Were there arny CWP holders on the 9/11 aircraft? QuoteIf I am not mistaken, some countries have sealed cockpits. At least that was the case on the few international and foreign commercial flights I've been on. That concept seems like a no-brainer to me. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have that as well. FAA regs require them. But they are not perfect. Why not protect the cockpit with trained personell?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #38 December 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteProbably just spouting. I know common sense isn't common, but I do give the benefit of the doubt in matters that are painfully obvious. What is painfully obvious is that you made an assumption and said that weapons on aircraft are bad. FAM have weapons, several crew members at my work are armed. You spouted something without facts based on a personal feeling that had no basis in the real world. You now claim that it is common sense. Using your same logic police should not carry weapons. Like it or not bad guys are going to fiqure out ways to get weapons on Aircraft. I see no problem with allowing Crew Members to carry in a lst ditch effort to protect the cockpit. I see no problem with FAm having weapons. Hell if a few folks that had CWP were allowed to have firearm on the plane 9/11 might not have happend. Kennedy here is one that you might be able to find...Were there arny CWP holders on the 9/11 aircraft? QuoteIf I am not mistaken, some countries have sealed cockpits. At least that was the case on the few international and foreign commercial flights I've been on. That concept seems like a no-brainer to me. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have that as well. FAA regs require them. But they are not perfect. Why not protect the cockpit with trained personell? I will stipulate to this line of thinking because it is one of those things that no amount of proof to the contrary will ever change your mind. That said, I believe there should be no gray area here. If you are in favor of allowing weapons on commercial aircraft, fine. I would propose that we quit spending the mountains of tax dollars trying to prevent weapons from being on planes, because as you said, it is not possible to keep them off. This should include any passengers who would normally qualify to carry a weapon as well. As such, we could eliminate the security screening process as it is and streamline it to only detect bombs. I think knowing that the plane may or may not be full of weapons would be a pretty good deterrant to a potential hijacker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #39 December 14, 2004 Not to sure, but lean towards bad idea. Behind a sealed armored compartment the pilot has more options at his disposal than to open up the cockpit and expose the controls of the aircraft to terrorists. Cant pilots control the pressure and 02 of the main cabin hence basically allowing them to put the passengers to sleep, could he put the plane in a sharp decent or climb to throw people that are standing up off balance. I'd like to hear what some commercial pilots have to say about this. Like I said I lean towards bad idea, but will also keep it open to discussion. I'm all for having armed air marshalls on board as long as they blend in though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 December 14, 2004 QuoteI will stipulate to this line of thinking because it is one of those things that no amount of proof to the contrary will ever change your mind. You have not tried to bring any proof, only opinion. QuoteThat said, I believe there should be no gray area here. If you are in favor of allowing weapons on commercial aircraft, fine. I would propose that we quit spending the mountains of tax dollars trying to prevent weapons from being on planes, because as you said, it is not possible to keep them off. This should include any passengers who would normally qualify to carry a weapon as well. As such, we could eliminate the security screening process as it is and streamline it to only detect bombs. I think knowing that the plane may or may not be full of weapons would be a pretty good deterrant to a potential hijacker. Not having any security is just silly. Allowing a person who is law enforcement, or a pilot in a locked cockpit is totally different that just allowing anyone even a CWP holder to carry on a plane. They would have training to deal with THAT type of situation."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YahooLV 0 #41 December 14, 2004 In a way I think it's a stupid idea. The LAST thing I want is a pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft and "protect" me. I'd rather he/she stay in the cockpit and fly the damn airplane. If it would help, they could roll the plane as I leap from my seat the attempt the superhuman move of disarming and decapitating the "offender". Reinforce the plane walls so bullets can't penetrate the cockpit area...and fly baby, fly! Just my two cents.http://www.curtisglennphotography.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #42 December 14, 2004 OK, I thought people understood this, u I guess I have to make it clear. No one is suggesting that pilots open the door, leave the cockpit, and begin room-clearing. The cockpit door is to remain closed as much as possible. In the case of an attempted hijack, the pilot would leave the door closed and locked, and attempt to land at the nearest airport. The firearm is the last line of defense in case the door is breached. It is to prevent hijackers from gaining control of the plane. THE GUN IS THE LAST CHOICE. The only option after a pilot's gun is an F-18 and it's missiles. Only after ecerything else fails would a pilot go to the gun. what is it aobut some people that they think a gun will turn someone into John Wayne?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #43 December 14, 2004 An increase in the number and style of the air marshals is probably a better idea. I want my flight crew flying the plane, not doing security.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #44 December 14, 2004 I will stipulate to this line of thinking because it is one of those things that no amount of proof to the contrary will ever change your mind. You have not tried to bring any proof, only opinion. QuoteRight. On the TSA website, firearms are listed as banned items. I'm sure that's just because they make the cramped seating uncomfortable.Quote That said, I believe there should be no gray area here. If you are in favor of allowing weapons on commercial aircraft, fine. I would propose that we quit spending the mountains of tax dollars trying to prevent weapons from being on planes, because as you said, it is not possible to keep them off. This should include any passengers who would normally qualify to carry a weapon as well. As such, we could eliminate the security screening process as it is and streamline it to only detect bombs. I think knowing that the plane may or may not be full of weapons would be a pretty good deterrant to a potential hijacker. Not having any security is just silly. Allowing a person who is law enforcement, or a pilot in a locked cockpit is totally different that just allowing anyone even a CWP holder to carry on a plane. They would have training to deal with THAT type of situation.QuoteHow is having security that is ineffictive any better? You don't believe that its possible to keep weapons off of planes and do not advocate that passengers should be allowed to protect themselves. It doesn't seem very reasonable to put people in a situation where the only real guarantee you can give them is that they will not be able to protect themselves. If that is taken from them, there should be assurances that they will remain safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #45 December 14, 2004 QuoteRight. On the TSA website, firearms are listed as banned items. I'm sure that's just because they make the cramped seating uncomfortable. Still you have shown no proof that weapons on Aircraft are dangerous.... I would have to venture that you can't take a weapon on a plane just like you can't take a weapon into an amusement park. But I would venture that both cases are knee jerk reactions by the anti gun crowd. QuoteHow is having security that is ineffictive any better? God you are right you have apoint. I guess we should just let all the criminals out on the street since the corrections system does not seem to be rehabilitating them. I guess we should just allow our borders to be open since terrorists will come through even with the best protection. On second thought I guess we should just start killing our selves since the terrorists will eventually get a few of us. Great logic you have. Don't expect me to reply unless you can bring facts to the table."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #46 December 14, 2004 A handgun is a rather poor weapon in close quarters. Inside of seven feet, they are cumbersome, and tend to take way too much time, which a surprised pilot won't have against a prepared hijacker. Other weapons would be preferrable. Why not have something similar to a DB cooper switch to make it impossible to breach the cockpit during flight? The switch could be dependent upon airspeed, or the load on the front landing gear (how a stick shaker is switched off). Guns are like big hammers. There are very few problems they won't solve, but they are rarely the best solution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #47 December 14, 2004 QuoteRight. On the TSA website, firearms are listed as banned items. I'm sure that's just because they make the cramped seating uncomfortable. Still you have shown no proof that weapons on Aircraft are dangerous.... Fine, then they shouldn't be banned, because the aircraft will be safer if passengers are allowed to carry. No problem with that. As such, we will be able to trim down the security screening process and save some tax dollars. QuoteGod you are right you have apoint. I guess we should just let all the criminals out on the street since the corrections system does not seem to be rehabilitating them. I guess we should just allow our borders to be open since terrorists will come through even with the best protection. On second thought I guess we should just start killing our selves since the terrorists will eventually get a few of us. No need to respond. High and to the right. Way off topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,079 #48 December 14, 2004 >Why not have something similar to a DB cooper switch to make it >impossible to breach the cockpit during flight? They do; they have a system that will not unlock the door for an intruder. Forgive me if I don't go into details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #49 December 14, 2004 Ensuring the cockpit door is unpenetrable seems like a much smarter choice of paths. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #50 December 14, 2004 QuoteStill you have shown no proof that weapons on Aircraft are dangerous.... I'm not sure how credible this is - but on the show Mythbusters they fired a gun thru the bulkhead and window of a presurized airplane and no structural damage appeared. Of course the plane wasn't in flight when this happened, so it's not foolproof. But, what would a weapon do to the controls of an airplane with a misfire or scuffle? If you do give a gun to a pilot they should be required to pass small quarter training first._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Ron 10 #45 December 14, 2004 QuoteRight. On the TSA website, firearms are listed as banned items. I'm sure that's just because they make the cramped seating uncomfortable. Still you have shown no proof that weapons on Aircraft are dangerous.... I would have to venture that you can't take a weapon on a plane just like you can't take a weapon into an amusement park. But I would venture that both cases are knee jerk reactions by the anti gun crowd. QuoteHow is having security that is ineffictive any better? God you are right you have apoint. I guess we should just let all the criminals out on the street since the corrections system does not seem to be rehabilitating them. I guess we should just allow our borders to be open since terrorists will come through even with the best protection. On second thought I guess we should just start killing our selves since the terrorists will eventually get a few of us. Great logic you have. Don't expect me to reply unless you can bring facts to the table."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #46 December 14, 2004 A handgun is a rather poor weapon in close quarters. Inside of seven feet, they are cumbersome, and tend to take way too much time, which a surprised pilot won't have against a prepared hijacker. Other weapons would be preferrable. Why not have something similar to a DB cooper switch to make it impossible to breach the cockpit during flight? The switch could be dependent upon airspeed, or the load on the front landing gear (how a stick shaker is switched off). Guns are like big hammers. There are very few problems they won't solve, but they are rarely the best solution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #47 December 14, 2004 QuoteRight. On the TSA website, firearms are listed as banned items. I'm sure that's just because they make the cramped seating uncomfortable. Still you have shown no proof that weapons on Aircraft are dangerous.... Fine, then they shouldn't be banned, because the aircraft will be safer if passengers are allowed to carry. No problem with that. As such, we will be able to trim down the security screening process and save some tax dollars. QuoteGod you are right you have apoint. I guess we should just let all the criminals out on the street since the corrections system does not seem to be rehabilitating them. I guess we should just allow our borders to be open since terrorists will come through even with the best protection. On second thought I guess we should just start killing our selves since the terrorists will eventually get a few of us. No need to respond. High and to the right. Way off topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #48 December 14, 2004 >Why not have something similar to a DB cooper switch to make it >impossible to breach the cockpit during flight? They do; they have a system that will not unlock the door for an intruder. Forgive me if I don't go into details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #49 December 14, 2004 Ensuring the cockpit door is unpenetrable seems like a much smarter choice of paths. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #50 December 14, 2004 QuoteStill you have shown no proof that weapons on Aircraft are dangerous.... I'm not sure how credible this is - but on the show Mythbusters they fired a gun thru the bulkhead and window of a presurized airplane and no structural damage appeared. Of course the plane wasn't in flight when this happened, so it's not foolproof. But, what would a weapon do to the controls of an airplane with a misfire or scuffle? If you do give a gun to a pilot they should be required to pass small quarter training first._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
