Jeez, Jarhead, I'll just hop into my trusty time machine and jump back to Sept. 12 or 13 so I can turn on my VCR recorder and make a tape of WHAT WAS ON THE NATIONAL NEWS ON SEVERAL STATIONS THAT DAY.

Guess I'll have to scour some news archives instead, eh?

Ah, here's one:

[url]http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_PAcrash010912.html[/url]


"Pennsylvania State Police officials also announced today that there is more crash debris about 6 miles from the site, near Indian Lake. The FBI will begin examining that site as well."

It was 6 miles, not 8, sorry.

Are you a believer yet?

The level of common sense remains the same, however the consequenses of having someone without common sense in possession of a gun go up astronomically at 30,000 feet.

As an example, I present this forum topic:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=59367[/url]

Just imagine this idiot with a handgun on an airplane.  And for those of you who would (correctly) point out that he was a convicted felon and thus cannot legally possess a firearm; I would ask, how do we determine who can legally board an aircraft with a firearm?  There are only two methods that I can think of; either conduct background checks on everyone who wishes to fly (completely unfeasable, not to mention unpalateable), or require anyone who wishes to carry a firearm on an aircraft to be licensed by the federal government (an equally objectionable solution.)

I would go with just arming the pilots, or those that have vaild concel carry permits from the states.  
No need to wait for the feds to create a bigger government jobs program, called the sky marshals.
c-rock

Nimrod, you forgot "C"; Ask to see their existing CCW issued by their home state.
Seems simple enough to me. If you don't trust people with CCW's in the air then you should not trust them on the ground. If you do not trust them on the ground with CCW's then you must not trust law abiding people with guns. If that is the case you do not think law abiding private citizens should be able to legally own guns. Therefore you need to Email the Brady Bunch and ask for your membership card. See how simple that is?

So, you want Johnny Rent-a-Cop at the airport to be able to identify valid CCW ID's from fifty different states.  Hell, a lot of cops have a hard time determining the validity of an out-of-state driver's license without calling it in.  The only way that works is if there is a single national firearms license, and most folks don't seem too crazy about that idea.

Your argument that because I don't trust people with CCW's in the air, I don't trust them on the ground is asinine.  I realize that many people who receive CCW's take the time to become proficient with their weapons, but there are a lot of folks out there who couldn't hit the broad side of a war zone, especially under stress.  The consequenses of missing the target on the street are a lot less than missing the target in a plane.  Forget the debate on what will happen if a bullet punctures the hull of the aircraft, what about a bullet puncturing the pilot's skull?

I am a supporter of the right of people to keep and bear arms (both vocally and financially), but the idea of allowing any swinging Richard who can qualify for a CCW to carry a firearm on a commercial aircraft is insane.

Well to me arming pilots who WANT to be armed makes sense. Someone brought up liability for the airlines arming pilots. That is true, however there can also be liability for not making a decision or for refusing to do something. So if an airline that refused to arm pilots was hikacked there could liability because they didn't take steps to stop a hijacking.

Allowing passengers on with weapons. Well have you ever read the "stupidest stuff I've seen at the range" posts that appear here from time to time. Wonder how many people that are the subjects of those posts have a CHL/CCW? Someone else pointed out that terrorists could forge or obtain real CHL's and bring their own guns on board.

Perhaps the cabin crews need more stuff like handcuffs and other restraint devices available to them. Not to mention some self defense training. Reinforced cabin doors sound good too.

What about panic buttons, both for the cabin crew and for the plane. So that if something was happening the cabin crew could alert the pilot instantly and covertly. Then the pilot could hit a button to alert air traffic controllers. Pilots should also be authorized to take evasive manuievers, and depressurize the cabin. That way anyone not belted in will be floating around gasping for breath.

Air Marshalls also sounds good, in theory. I don't think putting an air mashall on every flightis realistic and sounds a bit expensive. I would rather have anyone who wanted to hijack a plane wondering not only if/who the air marshall was on board, but if there was more than 1. Why couldn't pilots or other airlines personell be "reserve" marshalls with apropriate training? Why couldn't LEO's that fly often or business flyers that fly often be "reserve" marshalls as well? With apropriate training and credentials, as well as a way to ID who they are.

Also don't just regular passengers have an interest in making sure they don't get hijacked? The government derives it's power from the people, and is supposed to do what an individual person can't do for themself. Shouldn't individuals take responsiblity for their own safety as much as possible? Too many people are of the mindset(s) "it won't happen to me", "not my job", "I don't want to get involved".

Ok, everyone here so far has made good points.  Is any one of us here going to be able to come up with the solution to the problem.....probably not.  The answer lies within suggestions and refinements.  

First off; I dont think the process of getting a carry license is strict enough.  I think it should entail some rigirous qualifications that should have to be renewed (sounds like a drivers license to me), maybe some mental checks so wacko bob doesnt get a ccw.  Secondly, if we had the pilots armed and the citizens armed, where is the problem?  Am I more reluctant to die from a gunshot or the possibility of cabin decompression than from the plane being shot down.  No.  I would love to have the chance to fight for my survival (with more than just my bare hands).  If we neutralize the situation, great!  If not, the gov can shoot the plane down.  If you were to have 50 citizens carrying on the plane, what are the chances that terrorists could disarm/disable all 50 of them.  Who knows, but IMO the chances sound alot better than unarmed citizens.

stanfosd, I urge you to go read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime"

You suggest stricter CCW checks, etc.  All that has ever accomplished is limiting the number of people willing to go jump through hoops in order to obtain their 2nd Amendment right to carry a handgun wherever they go.

We're going the wrong way.  Anyone suggesting that we need more control, more checking, more surveillance, etc. is being foolish and reactionary.  Crooks will always be able to obtain weapons.  Hell, the mafia got hold of LAW rockets and machine guns.  

The only check that is needed at the airport is to see if your handgun has the proper ammunition for in-flight use.  Beyond that, everything else is a waste of time and money.

Vermont-style CCW or no CCW.

Nimrod, the argument that a miss bullet has the potential to hit a pilot in the skull is no different than saying anyone with a CCW on the ground could miss and hit a motorist, passerby or some other innocent.
I still contend that if you do not trust your fellow gun owners in the air then there is no reason for you to trust them on the ground.
If you don't trust gun owners go ahead and tell us. We'll understand. There are a lot of people in this country that don't. Of course most of them are not on this board and think the Sara Brady is an alright sort of gal simply concerned for the children.

Gunslinger

How would you prevent terrorist with citizenship from attending a CCW class and carrying weapons on a aircraft?  The difference in missing a target in a house or on the street versus a metal tube filled with people seems obvious to me.  I don't know the specific requirements for CCW but from the the material I read about the class in SC and KY I don't think one would be qualified to engage in a gunfight with trained terrorist in a confined space filled with people after attending these classes.  I just don't think the level of training is there.

Oh, hell, just carry a metal fountain pen. If a few get shot or cut trying to kill the bastards, so be it. Stab the bastard tangos hard and fast enough (read that as with RAGE that they even think they could get away with it again), there will be exactly ZERO chance of the tango succeeding.  If they have a bomb on board, it's "Game over, man, game over" anyway, so why not watch him bleed before you die?

Airborne!
Don Out

So nice to see all the little sheeple going baaah!!!! No restrictions on carry...."shall not be infringed"  All of you guys are using the anti's arguments. Try this---a man with a gun is responsible for his own actions. period. Don't give me any crap about you are responsible for another person or that you feel that someone elseshould not be allowed your rights...hogwash

Thank you hound, thank you most kindly.
Mr. Beam, whom else and where else would like to for these restrictions to extend?
Where do we draw the line? Buses? Restaurants? They are an inclosed place. Surely they would qualify as well. How 'bout crowded shopping malls? Give me a list of the all the places you trust your fellow gun owners with guns and we'll work from there, k?

All sing together now........
[i]The Brady Bunch,
The Brady Bunch,
and that's how we all became the Brady Bunch.[/i]

I don't mind your mentioning it a bit beekeeper. The thought had not even occurred to me during the course of this discussion. But yes, I am one of those (police officers) that are all thought of as wanting to take guns out of the hands of citizens.
Thank you for the compliment.