Why Pilots Should Not be Allowed Firearms on Planes

[likearock 2]

Quote

On a tangent, I've noticed that a great number of the "pro-gun" folks are the ones that think this weapon was mishandled, negligence. Whereas the more liberal minded seem perfectly willing to accept this discharge as an accident.

That is interesting. But the more important point is the one you posed in the subject line. In spite of the fact that the pro-gun folk agree with you on the negligence of the pilot, none has gone as far as you to say that maybe that makes it a bad idea to allow pilots to have guns.

To me it makes no difference whether it was negligence or an unavoidable accident. The consequences of a weapons discharge at 30,000 feet is enough for me to say the risk far outweighs the reward.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Learn more about the firearm that was involved, this particular firearm has a feature that WILL NOT ALLOW THE PIN TO STRIKE UNLESS THE SAFETY IS OFF, AND THE TRIGGER IS PRESSED.

Learn, there are differences between types of firearms.

A rifle such as the AR-15 is a safe one, but yet one I can get to fire if the safety is on, if I try hard enough, it has a floating firing pin.

The same cannot be done with either a Sig, or the HK USP.

LEARN, all it takes it to examine an internal parts diagram.

If you do not look, you will continue to be ignorant on this issue.

[joedirt 0]

Quote

Learn more about the firearm that was involved, this particular firearm has a feature that WILL NOT ALLOW THE PIN TO STRIKE UNLESS THE SAFETY IS OFF, AND THE TRIGGER IS PRESSED.

I'm with you, many don't understand the inside of a gun. I don't have padlocks or even thumb safety's on any of my handguns... just holsters. Yet by the grace of god i've never fired one accidentally or "negligently". The whole idea gets tiresome to listen to. The TSA system sounds bad, but still... come on.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Tell ya what. I have a handgun right here. How would you feel about letting me load it, point it at your head, and depress the trigger?

Thereby breaking rules 2, 3 and 4 - unless you're actually planning on shooting him?

Quote

I started shooting when I was 6, was on a state champion rifle team when I was 12, and qualified as a sharpshooter with both th .45 and the M-16 in the military.

You can trust me to know if the safety is on or off. Really. I promise.

Just keep your chin up and close your eyes. You'll be fine.

All that training and still so nonchalant about the safety rules... shame on you, as you DAMN WELL should know better!!!

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Learn more about the firearm that was involved, this particular firearm has a feature that WILL NOT ALLOW THE PIN TO STRIKE UNLESS THE SAFETY IS OFF, AND THE TRIGGER IS PRESSED.

From what info I can find, the USP in question was an LE model (DAO) with no safety/decocker lever. I can find no information as to whether the pilots are required to have a round chambered. Even without that information, I respectfully submit that, if you have enough time to take a padlock off, you have enough time to chamber a round.

If the pilot fucked up and put the hasp of the lock in FRONT of the trigger (evidently possible if the pistol is not fully seated in the holster), guess what? *STILL* negligent.

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

[labrys 0]

Quote

All that training and still so nonchalant about the safety rules... shame on you, as you DAMN WELL should know better!!!

Mike,

I was trying to make it clear in as pointed (pun intended) a way as possible that the position of the safety is an unknown.

This is an Internet forum, not a range. If those guys really want to suspend disbeleif to the extent that they think they have an actual weapon aimed at them and not a literary one, there's nothing I can do.

Owned by Remi #?

[mnealtx 0]

I understood the point you were trying to make, labrys - merely objecting to the WAY you did it. There's plenty enough examples of gun-owners acting like asshats - those of us that know better need to be fighting the stereotype, not adding to it.

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

[kallend 2,027]

WHoosh whoosh whoosh

What was that concept that you failed to grasp three times in a row despite having it explained to you?

...

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

[Halfpastniner 0]

The entire point labrys was trying to convay is that anything mechanical is prone to failure.
That includes the safety.

BASE 1384

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The entire point labrys was trying to convay is that anything mechanical is prone to failure.
That includes the safety.

I don't disagree with that either - the salient point is, to me, that those of us who *do* have the knowledge and training know that *that* type of mechanical failure is vanishingly small.

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

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

The entire point labrys was trying to convay is that anything mechanical is prone to failure.
That includes the safety.

I don't disagree with that either - the salient point is, to me, that those of us who *do* have the knowledge and training know that *that* type of mechanical failure is vanishingly small.

I have to side with Mike, Rush and Warped on this little battle.

It is very alarming and quite disturbing that someone who claims to have experience with firearms is stating that to "prove" his point that he offered to point his gun at someones head and pull the trigger. Arguments about mechanical issues aside - THAT is NOT an acceptable test. NEVER. And "joking" about it isn't funny.

Now. Enough of this pissing contest.

Back on topic - WATCH THE VIDEO in post 48. If that truly is the holster used... it can cause an ACCIDENTAL discharge.

[mnealtx 0]

If the pilot didn't verify that the hasp was behind the trigger, I would still call it negligent.

(cant reach the video, sorry)

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

[n23x 0]

Sorry, but I must disagree with you.

If you make the statement: "no chance of occurance", which warped did, then labrys argument is legitimate.

To throw a hissy fit about it, and further, change the subject to question his gun-related experience, rather than say, "I don't have 100% confidence in the safety mechanism", is incorrect.

Similar flawed logic might make the statement: How can you, as a doctor, uphold your oath to protect life, and own a weapon to equivalently take life away? But indeed, I won't because it is flawed.

.jim

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

[billvon 2,991]

>Arguments about mechanical issues aside - THAT is NOT an acceptable test. NEVER.

Agreed.

Now, why isn't it an acceptable test? Because safeties sometimes fail, and it's not worth your life to take that very small risk. Thus, the statement "I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire" is foolish. You CANNOT guarantee the gun will not fire, so you NEVER point it at yourself and pull the trigger.

>If that truly is the holster used... it can cause an ACCIDENTAL discharge.

Also agreed, although you will get a semantic argument from people here that it's not accidental.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

The entire point labrys was trying to convay is that anything mechanical is prone to failure.
That includes the safety.

I don't disagree with that either - the salient point is, to me, that those of us who *do* have the knowledge and training know that *that* type of mechanical failure is vanishingly small.

And therefore, so is the risk of death or injury of pointing the gun at yourself and pulling thre trigger if the safety is on.

You (and warped and rushmc) can't have it both ways. The safety can't be 100% reliable and less than 100% reliable at the same time.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The entire point labrys was trying to convay is that anything mechanical is prone to failure.
That includes the safety.

I don't disagree with that either - the salient point is, to me, that those of us who *do* have the knowledge and training know that *that* type of mechanical failure is vanishingly small.

And therefore, so is the risk of death or injury of pointing the gun at yourself and pulling thre trigger if the safety is on.

You (and warped and rushmc) can't have it both ways. The safety can't be 100% reliable and less than 100% reliable at the same time.

Show me where I have stated that the safety is 100% reliable. Thanks.

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The entire point labrys was trying to convay is that anything mechanical is prone to failure.
That includes the safety.

I don't disagree with that either - the salient point is, to me, that those of us who *do* have the knowledge and training know that *that* type of mechanical failure is vanishingly small.

And therefore, so is the risk of death or injury of pointing the gun at yourself and pulling thre trigger if the safety is on.

You (and warped and rushmc) can't have it both ways. The safety can't be 100% reliable and less than 100% reliable at the same time.

Show me where I have stated that the safety is 100% reliable. Thanks.

If it's not 100% reliable then warpedskydiver's statement: "I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire" is clearly erroneous and his diatribe is ill founded.

Thanks for making the point.

...

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

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Sorry, but I must disagree with you.

If you make the statement: "no chance of occurance", which warped did, then labrys argument is legitimate.

To throw a hissy fit about it, and further, change the subject to question his gun-related experience, rather than say, "I don't have 100% confidence in the safety mechanism", is incorrect.

Similar flawed logic might make the statement: How can you, as a doctor, uphold your oath to protect life, and own a weapon to equivalently take life away? But indeed, I won't because it is flawed.

.jim

What was said by labrys was, in my opinion, inappropriate and NOT acceptable. The argument that followed became a drawn out pissing contest about less than relevant matters. But the initial statement about pointing a gun at someones head and pulling the trigger is NOT legitimate and should NOT be tolerated as valid by any respectable opinion - regardless of the prior statements.

And it could even be viewed as a personal threat.


-Not going to take the bait on the personal direction of your flawed logic comment.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, but I must disagree with you.

If you make the statement: "no chance of occurance", which warped did, then labrys argument is legitimate.

To throw a hissy fit about it, and further, change the subject to question his gun-related experience, rather than say, "I don't have 100% confidence in the safety mechanism", is incorrect.

Similar flawed logic might make the statement: How can you, as a doctor, uphold your oath to protect life, and own a weapon to equivalently take life away? But indeed, I won't because it is flawed.

.jim

What was said by labrys was, in my opinion, inappropriate and NOT acceptable. The argument that followed became a drawn out pissing contest about less than relevant matters. But the initial statement about pointing a gun at someones head and pulling the trigger is NOT legitimate and should NOT be tolerated as valid by any respectable opinion - regardless of the prior statements.

And it could even be viewed as a personal threat.


-Not going to take the bait on the personal direction of your flawed logic comment.

Illogical. A gun with a guaranteed reliable safety (as claimed by warped) engaged is no more dangerous than a stick. I think you completely miss the point, which is that 100% reliable safeties do not exist.

As for being a threat, that's just ridiculous. It was OBVIOUSLY a rhetorical device intended to emphasize the absurdity of warped's "guarantee".

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

WHoosh whoosh whoosh

What was that concept that you failed to grasp three times in a row despite having it explained to you?

It is being missed but not by me sir

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/USP_Armorers_Manual.pdf

Pay attention to one small detail, there is a disconnector installed in these pistols.

Unless the trigger is pressed/squeezed the firing pin cannot be struck by the hammer.


There is no safety, because none is needed, there is a mechanical block that slides down when the trigger is pressed.

Now we have firearms experts like kallend, and bill von to lecture us.


Bill Von should understand that, but of course he will not side with mechanical fact when it has to do with firearms.

And yet it is ok to suggest that someone wants to point a gun at my head, because it is me, it is not a threat.

And yet I received a warning.


Hippocrates.

Do you understand that what you allowed could be considered to be implicit approval of a threat, since you seem to agree and condone it?

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry, but I must disagree with you.

If you make the statement: "no chance of occurance", which warped did, then labrys argument is legitimate.

To throw a hissy fit about it, and further, change the subject to question his gun-related experience, rather than say, "I don't have 100% confidence in the safety mechanism", is incorrect.

Similar flawed logic might make the statement: How can you, as a doctor, uphold your oath to protect life, and own a weapon to equivalently take life away? But indeed, I won't because it is flawed.

.jim

What was said by labrys was, in my opinion, inappropriate and NOT acceptable. The argument that followed became a drawn out pissing contest about less than relevant matters. But the initial statement about pointing a gun at someones head and pulling the trigger is NOT legitimate and should NOT be tolerated as valid by any respectable opinion - regardless of the prior statements.

And it could even be viewed as a personal threat.


-Not going to take the bait on the personal direction of your flawed logic comment.

Illogical. A gun with a guaranteed reliable safety (as claimed by warped) engaged is no more dangerous than a stick. I think you completely miss the point, which is that 100% reliable safeties do not exist.

As for being a threat, that's just ridiculous. It was OBVIOUSLY a rhetorical device intended to emphasize the absurdity of warped's "guarantee".

You are entitled to your opinion. Respect my right to have mine.

edit to add: Knowing something in theory does not guarantee the reality. One should NEVER point a loaded gun and pull the trigger at a target that you do not intend to hit - whether the safety is engaged or NOT.

If someone, even "jokingly", mentioned that they were going to put a loaded gun to my head... I would be very guarded about that statement. Words can become deeds.

You can consider it "ridiculous." But... I would still be cautious.

Some things should not be joked about

[billvon 2,991]

>Bill Von should understand that, but of course he will not side with
>mechanical fact when it has to do with firearms.

You have demonstrated how you believe safeties (of whatever design) are 100% reliable.

Do you therefore have no problem pointing a loaded gun at yourself while handling it, since you trust the safety mechanism 100%?

>And yet I received a warning.

Yes. "Fuck you" gets you a warning.

[n23x 0]

Care to either:

a.) Direct us to a document specifically detailing the variant of weapon on the plane in question.

OR

b.) Identify specific portions of the document you provided that identify the mechanical safety action described.

Labrys proposed a hypothetical situation requiring you to "bet your life" on what you claimed to be uncontestable. He called "bullshit" and you had no legitimate response. Nobody made a threat of physical violence towards you.

Quote

Do you understand that what you allowed could be considered to be implicit approval of a threat, since you seem to agree and condone it?

Nope, I don't see it that way. Feel free to cry to whatever authority you feel necessary.

Quote

Hippocrates

I find it particularly silly that someone who regularly makes posts about violence towards others would throw such a shitfit about said hypothetical situation. Your general views on how others should be treated physically are grossly repugnant.

.jim

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

[warpedskydiver 0]