rehmwa 2 #51 March 31, 2009 QuoteI am pro-gun....but I see no real need for the pilot to have a gun. kind of a pro-gun, but anti freedom/choice/selfdetermination stance. Interesting. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #52 March 31, 2009 Quote>I am pro-gun....but I see no real need for the pilot to have a gun. Nor do I, but let em carry them if they want (and they have the training.) What most don't know is that for years pilots, who flew mail along with passengers, and still do today, were required by federal law to carry a handgun. Where are our incidents in the 30's, 40's and 50's of airliners being brought down by all these guns? Seen those old pictures of the railroad postal cars and the employees sorting mail on the run? Those guys were packing heat too, all the way into the 50's. I bet no one went "postal' back then. The accidental discharge a few years back in the cockpit was not the result of the pilot playing with the firearm, either. The onerous procedures for carrying a gun in the cockpit require the pilot to holster and unholster it repeatedly. The poor design of the holster, with a trigger block to foil a gun snatch, makes it much more likely to have an accidental discharge during reholstering. The best thing for a sidearm is to put it on in the morning and leave it there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #53 April 1, 2009 QuoteThe onerous procedures for carrying a gun in the cockpit require the pilot to holster and unholster it repeatedly. The poor design of the holster, with a trigger block to foil a gun snatch, makes it much more likely to have an accidental discharge during reholstering. Nonsense, as I've learned by so many of the "right thinking" people on this website who are, Oh so much smarter than the rest of us - just ask them - is that having a bunch of EXTRA rules in place designated by (whoever) - ALWAYS makes things safer. You must be wrong. More regulation is always the answer. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #54 April 1, 2009 Thanks for my morning laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #55 April 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe onerous procedures for carrying a gun in the cockpit require the pilot to holster and unholster it repeatedly. The poor design of the holster, with a trigger block to foil a gun snatch, makes it much more likely to have an accidental discharge during reholstering. Nonsense, as I've learned by so many of the "right thinking" people on this website who are, Oh so much smarter than the rest of us - just ask them - is that having a bunch of EXTRA rules in place designated by (whoever) - ALWAYS makes things safer. You must be wrong. More regulation is always the answer. Your cynicism aside, I suggest extra rules are EXACTLY what we need in the financial services industry. Deregulation is what brought us to the current fiasco. And our skydiving rules (BSR) and most of the FARs are written in blood.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,544 #56 April 2, 2009 QuoteI suggest extra rules are EXACTLY what we need in the financial services industry. Deregulation is what brought us to the current fiasco. And our skydiving rules (BSR) and most of the FARs are written in blood. True dat. However, a periodic study of the rules in place, with removal of the ones that seem to have outlived their usefulness, is essential. Otherwise we end up with an incredible number of rules, and lots and lots of quibbling and little dependencies among them. The most important job is not the making of new rules, it's the study of the rules that we have to make sure that they fit together into a cohesive whole with the current situations. That's one of the beauties of the constitution -- it's really very, very basic rules. Delegates the making of most rules to other, regional groups, so that this study of the system as a whole is simpler. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #57 April 2, 2009 Quoteyour cynicism aside, that would really defeat the point of the comment, now, wouldn't it? QuoteI suggest extra rules are EXACTLY what we need in the financial services industry. Deregulation is what brought us to the current fiasco wrong - Adding BAD regulation, which ignores personal responsibility that comes with freedoms, is what brought us a large part of this current fiasco. BAD regulation that encouraged (even required) irresponsible choices by lenders and lendees..... It's well intentioned to create dependents. But the whole "never-think-things-through" crowd just keeps making the same mistakes over and over. Obama and his congress are just Bush and his congress on steroids. Maybe with a better PR team putting on the wrapping paper and bows. And a slightly modified, yet still fiscally irresponsible, social agenda. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 April 2, 2009 Quotea periodic study of the rules in place, with removal of the ones that seem to have outlived their usefulness, is essential. Otherwise we end up with an incredible number of rules, and lots and lots of quibbling and little dependencies among them. The most important job is not the making of new rules, it's the study of the rules that we have to make sure that they fit together into a cohesive whole with the current situations. That's one of the beauties of the constitution -- it's really very, very basic rules. Delegates the making of most rules to other, regional groups, so that this study of the system as a whole is simpler. so this is reasoned, but not what's happening, nor what the above crowd is really advocating - they want more rules, more complexity, and a means to control others' actions and behaviors for any issue, even very subjective issues best left completely alone. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,544 #59 April 2, 2009 It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of whatever side of an issue one tends to sympathize with. Doesn't make it right. Looking at it this way, there's no reason why pilots who are law abiding should not be able to carry weapons in the cockpit. Do I think it's silly? Yes, I do. But it's not nearly the accident waiting to happen that a loaded unlocked gun in a house with children would be. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,075 #60 April 2, 2009 >BAD regulation that encouraged (even required) irresponsible choices by >leaders and lendees..... Agreed. But in this case, bad DEregulation also played a role in the collapse. The decision to eliminate all reporting requirements for CDSes, for example, turned out to be a very, very bad move. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 April 2, 2009 Quote wrong - Adding BAD regulation, which ignores personal responsibility that comes with freedoms, is what brought us a large part of this current fiasco. It's interesting to note the failure of SOX to prevent some of these failures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #62 April 3, 2009 QuoteQuote wrong - Adding BAD regulation, which ignores personal responsibility that comes with freedoms, is what brought us a large part of this current fiasco. It's interesting to note the failure of SOX to prevent some of these failures. Would that be Boston or Chicago SOX?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #63 April 3, 2009 I find it fascinating this thread has continued for as long as it has even after the original post has been debunked.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #64 April 3, 2009 QuoteI find it fascinating this thread has continued for as long as it has even after the original post has been debunked. First, there's nothing wrong with that, and if people still want to chat, that seems normal to me. Nothing particularly "fascinating" about it in my mind. Second, just because I post a news item, doesn't necessarily mean I believe 100% in the veracity of the story. All it means is that I'm interested in the issue as a topic for discussion. And finally, my last post in this thread (until this one) was two weeks ago, so I don't know why you're directing this comment to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bodhisattva420 0 #65 April 3, 2009 I'd have to disagree with your post regarding limited training of federal flight deck officers. The majority of Commercial Airline pilots are ex-military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #66 April 3, 2009 QuoteThe majority of Commercial Airline pilots are ex-military. Which really has no bearing on training for a gun fight in an airplane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 April 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe majority of Commercial Airline pilots are ex-military. Which really has no bearing on training for a gun fight in an airplane. It means familiarity with aircraft. It means possible small arms training. And most importantly, it means a fighting mind-set. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #68 April 3, 2009 QuoteI'd have to disagree with your post regarding limited training of federal flight deck officers. The majority of Commercial Airline pilots are ex-military. That has no bearing on proficiency with fire-arms.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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 April 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe majority of Commercial Airline pilots are ex-military. Which really has no bearing on training for a gun fight in an airplane. The relevance is huge. Odd that you fail to see it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #70 April 3, 2009 QuoteAnd finally, my last post in this thread (until this one) was two weeks ago, so I don't know why you're directing this comment to me. Was simply commenting in a reply to the first post in the thread. Carly Simon was right.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 April 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd finally, my last post in this thread (until this one) was two weeks ago, so I don't know why you're directing this comment to me. Was simply commenting in a reply to the first post in the thread. Carly Simon was right. well, you did have the choice to remove his name. So she's perhaps only a little right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #72 April 3, 2009 QuoteThe relevance is huge. Odd that you fail to see it. I truly don't see the relevance. Even if his statement is correct that the majority are ex-military (which I doubt at this point), that doesn't mean they are current or even ever got relevant fire arms training in the military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 April 3, 2009 Right - those military guys spend all day weaving baskets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,075 #74 April 3, 2009 >Right - those military guys spend all day weaving baskets. I used to work at McClellan Air Force Base. And for some of the people on the base, weaving baskets would be an increase in activity for them. (Which they could use; they'd drop the extra 50 pounds they're carrying.) A lot of people have a vision of the military as a group of warriors who spend their days rappelling out of helicopters, flying training missions and practicing with a sniper rifle. In reality a lot of people who work on military bases clean toilets, sweep the floors, pull boxes out of airplanes, carry gas cans and paint the walls over and over again. Many of them are great people, but aren't quite the image of the modern warrior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #75 April 3, 2009 QuoteRight - those military guys spend all day weaving baskets. I see you have no interest in explaining the relevance you perceive there to be. Maybe you can tell me what percentage of the military trains in gunfights in airplanes? And how many remained current after leaving the military 20 years ago to become a pilot? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
