Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 9/12/2001 9:13:43 AM EDT
The Hi-Jackings of commercial airliners are occurring in part because we have made them too easy, and with little consequence to those who are intent on committing suicide anyway. It is possible to put back some negative consequences to those who are willing to die. The way to do that is to simply thwart their plans. Stop them before they can gain control of the plane and crash it into a building or fly it to Cuba (or wherever). If they can’t achieve their objectives, the glamour of suicide decreases. The approach for doing that is simple: 1. Starting immediately, permit any flight crew member who is willing to go through some basic firearms training (I think about 40 hours would be sufficient) to carry a concealed weapon on board all flights. 2. We have lots of cops in this country who are authorized or required to carry firearms at all times. They usually carry concealed when off duty. I trust them. They also take trips, and I expect that most would prefer to be able to defend themselves, their families, and other innocent citizens when they travel. Immediately authorize any sworn peace officer to carry concealed weapons on any commercial flight. 3. Many law-abiding American citizens have voluntarily taken the required training and qualified for a concealed-weapons permit. Their record for responsible use of those firearms is even better than that of peace officers (although admittedly they don’t face as many challenges on the street as the peace officers). I trust them. Immediately permit any such licensed law-abiding American citizen to carry concealed weapons on any commercial flight. 4. There are empty seats on most commercial flights. Likewise, there are many law-abiding American citizens who would like to take trips on commercial airline flights, but can’t afford as many trips as they would like. Permit any such law-abiding American citizen (for a first definition, any off-duty peace officer or holder of a CCW permit) to fly on a “space-available” basis at low cost or no cost, so long as they agree to bring their concealed weapon. 5. As a last resort, or perhaps as a temporary measure, return the armed Sky Marshals until the other citizens described above can fill the need.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:16:21 AM EDT
Now, many people will be scared to have a pilot or air crew member with a firearm. That is completely irrational. After all, that pilot or crew member must be trusted to not crash the plane, so we must trust them anyway. Trust them further to use their common sense to save the plane and its passengers if the need arises. “Yes, but the pilot might get hurt or killed if he tries to subdue a terrorist!” And how is that worse than what might happen if he DOESN’T try to subdue or kill the terrorist? “I would be scared to have some cop or citizen with a gun on the plane. He could take control of the plane with his GUN.” And just how is that worse than the terrorists who took control yesterday? An armed society is a polite society. When the law-abiding passengers on a plane have the means to counter the terrorists, the playing field is leveled. That doesn’t necessarily ensure the success of the law-abiding victims, but it would change the odds enough to discourage the terrorists. We have gone exactly the wrong direction in this country in response to the terrorist problem. When our initial response of dis-arming the victims didn’t work, we did more of that. That is irrational. When it doesn’t work, go the other way, don’t do more of the action that didn’t work. GunLaw
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:19:50 AM EDT
I think the skymarshal route is the best defense. Pilots need to be flying the plane not fighting wussbag terrorists. Cockpits need to be secured!
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:22:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2001 9:22:23 AM EDT by Grundsau]
No flames meant, but I was thinking about what might happen if a bullet perfs a pressurized cabin at 30,000 feet or higher.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:27:33 AM EDT
Ceartainly they need to bring back skymarshals. 2 per flight minimum could be funded by a $10 per ticket charge easily. Could use those plastic bullets made by Kaswer (think they were called turbo grabbers???) were specifically made for use in pressurized aircraft or so I recall. (could just be senile) Also WTF didnt those aircrews follow regulations and keep the cockpit door locked at all times!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:30:28 AM EDT
If the plane depressurizes, the masks drop people put them on and the pilot generally tries to land plane quickly, because it is damn cold at 30k. Ideally terrorist not wearing seatbelt gets sucked out hole in plane and dies a horrific death. [beer]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:31:05 AM EDT
Yes, Grundsau. How is that worse than what might happen if the terrorist files the plane into the World Trade Center or the next designated target? If the plane is de-pressurized, the pilot might still be able to control it until he can get it on the ground. And the terrorists aren't likely to hit that designated target. Good point, though. I don't mean to flame you, but I think the bullet through the fuselage is the lesser of two evils. And it has the advantage of depriving the terrorist of achieving his goal. GunLaw
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:42:28 AM EDT
I believe the israelis did some tests with a commercial airliner getting shot full of holes, and found that other than being really cold for the rest of the flight, the plane did not break apart and have holes ripped in it. Someone else probably has a link to the story about it.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:42:44 AM EDT
ipschoser1 and Mr45auto, I agree with you on the Sky Marshals being useful. However, I don't think they are a complete answer. Sky Marshals would probably be like peace officers: You could never find one when you need one. I don't think the flying public can afford the cost of having one or two Sky Marshals on every flight. It would be easy for the terrorists to pick flights that have no Sky Marshals, or simply to overpower or kill them first. The advantage of armed passengers, when the other passengers (including the terrorists) don't know who is armed, is the same as the effect of CCW licenses for citizens. The bad guys don't know who is armed, and that discourages the bad guys from risking the act. If the mere presence of armed citizens (passengers) doesn't discourage the bad guys, a few dead terrorists who failed to achieve their objectives will. Thanks for your responses. GunLaw
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:49:13 AM EDT
Gunlaw, me not knowing anything about cabin pressure, you make a good point that there could be worse repercussions from inaction. No disagreement here.
Top Top