Why Pilots Should Not be Allowed Firearms on Planes

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Air Marshals are the component to pour resources into, not privately employed pilots.

So you believe that since this dousche pulled it out and was dinkin with it in flight and had a AD they all should be banned?

They should never have implemented the policy to begin with. I am about as pro-gun as a guy can be.

However, the reality is that hi-jacks are no longer a viable MO for the terrorists because of what happened on 9/11. The passengers and crew will overwhelm them and take them out.

Quote

I would have loved to seen the write-up in the A/C logbook though. "Bullet hole in floor"

Someone is scratching their head over that one for sure.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/national/main3965159.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3965159

Quote

The "accidental discharge" Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver, Colorado, to Charlotte, North Carolina, did not endanger the aircraft or the 124 passengers

First of all, it was not an "accidental discharge", it was a negligent discharge. I am not aware of a single firearm that can be fired if it handled properly and maintained with the safety on.

"Negligent Discharge", a PERFECT example of Newspeak ((C) George Orwell, 1948) promulgated by the gun lobby in a silly attempt to claim that guns don't kill people.

Wrong. If a weapon is being handled properly, there is no reasonable expectation that a safety will not work. This clown chose to mishandle his gun, which put the safety of the crew, and thus everyone on board the plane at risk.

It's a negligent discharge because the owner/operator of the gun was negligent in his/her handling of the firearm.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/national/main3965159.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3965159

Quote

The "accidental discharge" Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver, Colorado, to Charlotte, North Carolina, did not endanger the aircraft or the 124 passengers

First of all, it was not an "accidental discharge", it was a negligent discharge. I am not aware of a single firearm that can be fired if it handled properly and maintained with the safety on.

.

"Negligent Discharge", a PERFECT example of Newspeak ((C) George Orwell, 1948) promulgated by the gun lobby in a silly attempt to claim that guns don't kill people.

As opposed to he newspeak that "guns kill people", perhaps? I guess mine (and millions of others) must be malfunctioning, because they haven't jump out of the safe and shot up the neighborhood all on their own, yet.

To summarize: Your attempt to derail Gawain's post is infantile.

"accidental shootings are a myth perpetuated by a biased media.", warpedskydiver, Oct 27, 2007.

Appears to be claiming that only things have accidents and humans don't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

What do the rules say about the gun?
WOuld it be typical to store it with a magazine inserted (I doubt it)?
Would it be typical to store it with a round chambered (again, I doubt it)?


If the gun would be stored SAFE (unloaded) then there is NO WAY that this can be considered and Accident.

The DZ.COM case for the prosecution rests

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[warpedskydiver 0]

You and I both know what probably happened

He was finger fucking the pistol while showing it off to the crew.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Training to keep your finger off the trigger, training to keep the barrel pointed in a safe direction, etc...

What would be a "safe direction" to point a weapon in the cockpit of an airliner?

Safe = a direction where no person is going to be hit by either a direct hit or a ricochet, so in a cockpit, probably at the floor, or locked up in the lockbox where nobody's finger is going to get on the trigger, even by "accident".

[billvon 2,990]

>Firing a shot when you didn't mean to CAN be considered accidental,
>but is more properly considered negligent.

In English it would be considered accidental, as the opposite of intended. An accident is an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss.

Unless, of course, you think it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, or need to spin it to your political advantage.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Negligence or the admission of, is the willingness to accept the blame for having committed and act with results in an accidental action.

To say something is purely accidental is simply an unwillngness to accept responsibility for ones own action, or inaction.

No wonder ACCIDENTAL is such a popular phrase, it allows someone to never accept responsibilty.

It is always someone, or something elses fault.

[Esquilax 0]

Hmmm...one person shits the bed, and we all have to wear diapers...Yep, you're in the military.

Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2.

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/gun_on_plane;_ylt=AuGUDfm0ELacb7EQ9mdc2n1I2ocA

The pilot was trying to stow the weapon. Why was it unstowed to begin with?

What would a small hole below the cock-pit window do above 10,000MSL?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,990]

>is the willingness to accept the blame . . . .

Like I said, if you have some political/moral reason to call it that, then go right ahead; be as politically correct as you like.

[n23x 0]

Quote

What would a small hole below the cock-pit window do above 10,000MSL?

Either:

a.) A massive explosion of disastrous FOX news proportions as the bullet hole results in enough damage to produce a rapid loss of pressure that causes everybody's guts to fly out through their buttholes!

OR

b.) Probably not a whole lot of anything.

Which one sounds more likely to you?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

What would a small hole below the cock-pit window do above 10,000MSL?

Either:

a.) A massive explosion of disastrous FOX news proportions as the bullet hole results in enough damage to produce a rapid loss of pressure that causes everybody's guts to fly out through their buttholes!

OR

b.) Probably not a whole lot of anything.

Which one sounds more likely to you?

.jim

Well, I know the "movie" version...what about 20,000MSL? Or 30,000MSL?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,990]

>What would a small hole below the cock-pit window do above 10,000MSL?

It would depressurize the plane to some extent. If it was small enough, bleed air might be enough to keep the cabin pressure reasonable, although it would make a hell of a racket.

If it took out a window, then the plane would depressurize through the window. The big risk there would be injury to the flight crew, as the cockpit door would blow in and a lot of debris would go whistling past them on its way out the window.

If it took out an oxygen tank it could rupture the aircraft's skin, and would certainly cause a lot of damage. Airliners carry both portable and fixed pressurized oxygen systems near the nose.

If it took out a system, it would depend on the system it took out.

[n23x 0]

All reasonable and legitimate claims.

I still estimate the probability of "All Gloom and Doom" to be far lower than a non event.

For fun, I'm digging up personal video of an ultimate pressure/load test (unsuccessful: catastrophic failure) involving a carbon fuse pressurized to ~24psi. Talk about a high energy event.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Firing a shot when you didn't mean to CAN be considered accidental,
>but is more properly considered negligent.

In English it would be considered accidental, as the opposite of intended. An accident is an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss.

Unless, of course, you think it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, or need to spin it to your political advantage.

Because having your finger on the trigger WHEN IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE THERE is NOT an ACCIDENT - it is NEGLIGENCE.... the only "spin" on this crap is from the news, the anti-gunners, and those that don't understand what is being discussed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

A question for the Ammunition experts... Do they (Air Marshalls etc) carry specialist rounds on aircraft?

Would they want smaller caliber and/or lighter loads, for example (to reduce the risk of penetrate the cabin)?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[justinb138 0]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/gun_on_plane;_ylt=AuGUDfm0ELacb7EQ9mdc2n1I2ocA

The pilot was trying to stow the weapon. Why was it unstowed to begin with?

Given the holster they're required to keep it in, I'm suprised this hasn't happened before now.

[dannydan 5]

Quote

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/gun_on_plane;_ylt=AuGUDfm0ELacb7EQ9mdc2n1I2ocA

The pilot was trying to stow the weapon. Why was it unstowed to begin with?

Given the holster they're required to keep it in, I'm suprised this hasn't happened before now.

your kidding us right??? Is this really what they use for "stowing" a firearm in a cockpit of a commercial a/c??? OMFG~WTF!! I can't believe this at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/gun_on_plane;_ylt=AuGUDfm0ELacb7EQ9mdc2n1I2ocA

The pilot was trying to stow the weapon. Why was it unstowed to begin with?

Given the holster they're required to keep it in, I'm suprised this hasn't happened before now.

Actually proves my point. If the weapon is to be stowed during aircraft operations in the absence of an emergency, how does that come out of the holster without deliberate action?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[labrys 0]

Quote

Because having your finger on the trigger WHEN IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE THERE is NOT an ACCIDENT - it is NEGLIGENCE.... the only "spin" on this crap is from the news, the anti-gunners, and those that don't understand what is being discussed.

I don't know how accurate this website is, but if it is accurate, maybe this pilot deserves a little slack. It's possible that he's being bashed by people without full knowledge of the procedures and what actually happened?

http://www.crimefilenews.com/

Owned by Remi #?

[labrys 0]

What I've read indicates that the pilot hit the trigger with the padlock while the weapon was holstered. It seems that the TSA might require the pilot to unstow the weapon and restow it before leaving the flight deck.

Owned by Remi #?

[labrys 0]

Press statement from this website attached.

http://www.secure-skies.org/

The press release uses the words "the padlock depressed the trigger", which I think shifts too much of the blame away from the pilot since he was holding the padlock at the time, but it's not like he was waving an unholstered weapon around in the cockpit with his finger on the trigger, as some have implied here

Owned by Remi #?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Because having your finger on the trigger WHEN IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE THERE is NOT an ACCIDENT - it is NEGLIGENCE.... the only "spin" on this crap is from the news, the anti-gunners, and those that don't understand what is being discussed.

I don't know how accurate this website is, but if it is accurate, maybe this pilot deserves a little slack. It's possible that he's being bashed by people without full knowledge of the procedures and what actually happened?

http://www.crimefilenews.com/

It's still negligent. It's no different than making sure a weapon is cleared before it's handed off or inspected.

What that video does not explain is how the safety came out of the "safe" position and the hammer was cocked.

I started looking at every picture and spec easily available about the HK USP .40, and while that holster looks like a wicked pain in the ass, careful handling of a loaded firearm (as this was) should not result in a discharge unless intended.

There is a variant of the HK USP .40 (variant 7? -- scroll down http://www.hkpro.com/usp.htm), with no safety or decocking lever, and is double-action only. However, I don't think this is used by any federal or other LEOs in the states (please someone correct me on that)

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kbordson 8]

That is the most ignorantly designed holster that I have ever seen! Should the one locking it have been more careful, of course, but when you have something that is dangerously designed, it makes it more challenging... NOT more safe.

I have to agree with the guy in that video ... it's lucky that he didn't injure himself!!