Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 9/14/2001 5:22:59 PM EDT
we'll have to consider letting CCW holders carry on airplanes.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 5:24:20 PM EDT
never happen... forget it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 7:41:25 PM EDT
Such enthusiasm! Come on, here's the event that proves the lie of "gun control." At least rub a few Anti's faces in it. Even if ten or twenty planes went down next year because armed passengers mistakenly blew away the entire flight crew, you'd still have fewer deaths than we saw on Tuesday!
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 7:43:54 PM EDT
Stop trying to be logical!
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 7:52:22 PM EDT
Get real!! I wouldn't want anybody but a highly trained law enforcement type carrying on a plane. The average citizen does not have the training required to be responsible for hundreds of lives aboard an aircraft.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 8:05:13 PM EDT
I have a PA. carry permit. I asked an LEO friend of mine a question. " If I was out for a walk and saw a woman being beaten or stabbed, would I be within my rights to pull a weapon to stop him?" He told me I'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon unless MY life was in danger. Go figure. I don't recall of hearing about any CCW vigilantes, just terrorist attacks. You do all have valid points.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 8:13:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hdhogman: I have a PA. carry permit. I asked an LEO friend of mine a question. " If I was out for a walk and saw a woman being beaten or stabbed, would I be within my rights to pull a weapon to stop him?" He told me I'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon unless MY life was in danger. Go figure. I don't recall of hearing about any CCW vigilantes, just terrorist attacks. You do all have valid points.
View Quote
In KY we can shoot the BG and get a pat on the back to boot! God I love this state.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 8:21:14 PM EDT
Taking on five hijackers among a crowd of innocent bystanders, on board a pressurized aircraft travelling 400 miles and hour at 30,000 feet does not compare in anyway to stopping a street thug commiting a crime.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 8:37:58 PM EDT
if we want CCW to be reasonably easy to obtain, they would be cake to allow a terrorist to get a gun onboard.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 8:38:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hdhogman: I have a PA. carry permit. I asked an LEO friend of mine a question. " If I was out for a walk and saw a woman being beaten or stabbed, would I be within my rights to pull a weapon to stop him?" He told me I'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon unless MY life was in danger. Go figure. I don't recall of hearing about any CCW vigilantes, just terrorist attacks. You do all have valid points.
View Quote
Last time I checked (at least in MY state constitution), it's "protection of your own life or that of a 3rd party". Sucks for you.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 9:08:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hdhogman: I have a PA. carry permit. I asked an LEO friend of mine a question...
View Quote
Remember that many LEOs are truly clueless about legal issues. I once talked to a range of sergeants, shift officers, and patrolmen in Atlanta about whether or not my S.C. permit was honored there. I got a different answer from each one. One said yes. One said no. One said no permit was needed. One said that I couldn't possess a gun in his state. It went on and on. When in doubt, contact the legal office of the state's public safety department or equivalent agency.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 10:11:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattsd: if we want CCW to be reasonably easy to obtain, they would be cake to allow a terrorist to get a gun onboard.
View Quote
I don't think they issue CCWs to non citizens, or people with sketchy backgrounds. As for confronting terrorist.I would much rather confront them, then just let them slam me into a building.Most innocent by standers would agree. What does 400 mph or 30,000 ft have to do with anything? See above. More accidental deaths result from police shootings per year, than from qualified CCW holders.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 11:23:20 PM EDT
Let's keep a few things in mind here: 99.99999% of passengers on a plane WANT to get to their destination. Therefore, they have a vested interest in ensuring that they get there alive. If they have no tools to prevent the .00001% from ruining their trip, they are screwed. Keep in mind that the second attacks were thwarted jsut before the planes took off. The bad guys had knives, and the FAA just made sure that the good guys had none!! The terrorists win if we impose any more restrictions on our freedom. Think about it - if one or even five terrorists try to take over a plane, they would likely encounter at least as many armed citizens wanting to reach their destination and willing to fight to get there. Terrorists prey on the weak and undefended. So why lot allow passengers carry as long as they are held liable for any accidents?
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 2:15:09 AM EDT
The primary factor is the safety of all of the innocent bystanders, who, in this case, have no where to go. Who's to say the Hijacker intends to plow the plane into a building, what if he doesn't and "Joe-six-pack" starts blasting away? Hold him accountable for his actions? Yeah right, that would be hard if everybody ends up dead. As much as I enjoy my right to keep and bear arms, I do not wish to entrust the safety of my 2 month old son to some stranger packing heat on an aircraft. The average CCW holder does not have the required skill, training, and ability to think rationally in a violent, fast, moving hijacking situation. Nice idea, in theory, the the reality just leaves to many variables.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 2:21:48 AM EDT
as for "what does 400 mph and 30,000 feet have to do with it"....what do you think. One hundred people with nowhere to take cover, trapped in an pressurized aluminum tube, while some guy who attended an 8-hour CCW class, and goes to the range twice a year at best, decides to shoot-it out with 5 armed terrorists who have trained for years for this very event. Police may cause more accidental deaths than CCW holders. Maybe because so far this lame-brained scenerio has not been allowed to take place.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 5:14:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 5:37:18 AM EDT
Let me think. Hmmm! Terrorist take over plane. Do I want someone with a CCW on board or not. Let's see. Slim chance vs. No chance. I vote for the Slim chance. Vulcan94
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 6:52:32 AM EDT
I guess MSG is part of that majority of US citizens who haven't figured out that most mass murders happen to legally disarmed victims. You know, in airplanes, or school yards, or passenger trains, or office buildings, etc.; places where the majority has passed laws requiring everyone to be defensless. I won't mention the tens of millions of (legally disarmed) victims of state sponsored genocide. Exactly how many examples of CCW holders causing mayhem can you list in response? You can lead the sheep to water, but you can't make them drink.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 7:08:02 AM EDT
You just need one idiot with a CCW to get on a plane and make a mistake, it doesnt matter if 999 of 1000 people with a CCW license are good, one fuckup and you just created another problem for gun owners. Better that pilots have CCW permits and aircrews aswell.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 7:29:29 AM EDT
Can anyone name the last hijacking (prior to this week's) we had in this country? There were four planes taken hostage this week within a short time of each other. The terrorists exploited the weakness of our airport security, and the security of the cockpit. Threats were assumably made with LEGAL carryon knives and "explosives" claims. As horrific as this was, this does not mean that hijackings are on the rise. This will depend on how airport security measures are overhauled now. 1.This country cannot afford LEO's on every major flight in this country, so it will be a shell game as to which flight has one on board. 2.Millions of civilians have carried knives on board planes for years and we've had extremely few incidences of flight disruptions due to passengers and weapons (to the best of my knowledge). I support allowing passengers to keep carrying knives. 3. I believe arming the cockpit crew is a good idea, along with closing off access, or reinforcing access to the cabin. 4. As far as the ability of a CCW holder being able to ward off a terrorist attack? I hope you will agree that for the most part we could expect that hijackings of commercial aircraft will still be relatively rare in this country. If airport security becomes a Law Enforcement responsibility, perhaps flying will be even much safer than it is now. I don't agree with allowing CCW's on commercial aircraft at this time. Perhaps if a person were to show training and follow-up practice with their handgun (from a school of their own choosing) in a course that took into consideration the problems likely encountered inside an aircraft, I would go for it. I'd also place a restriction on types of ammo carried onboard. What I think we, as Americans, should be doing is changing our pattern of "not getting involved". We need to look at the instances of passenger involvement (plane, train, etc.) where the hijacker/nutcase was overwhelmed and detained. We need to get more and more LEO's to come out and say that people SHOULD take more matters into their own hands, instead of saying the opposite.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 7:39:24 AM EDT
TreetopFlyer, a non-citizen of the US can get a CCW. I am a Canadian citizen, with permanent residency status (green card) living in GA with one, and probably not the only one down here with a CCW. [beer]
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 8:20:10 AM EDT
MEF, you guess wrong. Way wrong. There is a place in society for CCW...but not on an aircraft or in other confined spaces where I have no option to exercise control over my situation if some lame-brained hero-wanna-be decides to go off half-cocked. Yeah, we all want to think we are bad-assed and can take on the bad guys by ourselves, but the truth is introducing firearms onto aircraft will only complicate security matters further.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 12:37:32 PM EDT
Scarecrow wrote: "You just need one idiot with a CCW to get on a plane and make a mistake, it doesnt matter if 999 of 1000 people with a CCW license are good, one fuckup and you just created another problem for gun owners." and MSG wrote: "There is a place in society for CCW...but not on an aircraft or in other confined spaces where I have no option to exercise control over my situation if some lame-brained hero-wanna-be decides to go off half-cocked. Yeah, we all want to think we are bad-assed and can take on the bad guys by ourselves, but the truth is introducing firearms onto aircraft will only complicate security matters further." Your comments betray an inherent lack of faith in your fellow man, and a willingness to abdicate your responsibility for your personal safety. Maybe you actually think Nanny should "exercise control" over certain aspects of all our lives? BTW, just what "(an)other problem" or "complicat(ion)" do you have in mind that would compare with the 5000+ dead the present system has permitted? Finally, it's because I'm a wimp, and NOT a bad-ass, that I consider a concealed handgun a necessity.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 12:39:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MEF: Your comments betray an inherent lack of faith in your fellow man
View Quote
We had faith in our fellow man, then our fellow man flew a plane into a building.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 5:47:06 AM EDT
...and how was that better than letting armed passengers defend themselves and the airplane?
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 1:10:14 PM EDT
Seems to me MEF that your wanting to allow CCW's on aircraft also displays a distrust in your fellow man. Again, let me point out that hijackings in this country are rare compared to other countries that have experienced this problem. This one tragedy doesn't spell the START of Terrorism in this country and doesn't define a point of escalation here either. If security can be done any better (It'll never be perfect but I do think there's still room for improvement), AND we can convince that protion of the public who will listen, to accept the responsiblilities of citizens to "get invovled" more often, we won't need firearms on board aircraft. Do some research in the news. Groups of folks have subdued a threatening person on public transportation before with their bare hands. I would prefer this type of involvement on an aircraft in flight, to many armed passengers who may not react any better when the first shot is fired, than some police officers do now. In numerous situations, how many times in the last few years have we had some police officers fire, say, 20+ rounds at ONE potentially armed ASSUMED criminal or psych patient? Now, when you think of how many LEO's there are in this country and how many incidents like this have made the news, these certainly seem to be very few. And I have no doubt that any civlilian can train themselves to be just as good if not better than some trained professionals. But, I'm not comfortable with knowing that there are people who can't hit a paper target very well with their pistol, and hardly ever practicing after purchasing their firearm, carrying one in confined spaces, and trying to shoot a suspect hiding behind a stewardess. I think the cockpit should also have CCTV to see what's going on in the passenger compartment.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:47:22 PM EDT
Couldn't have said it better WSmac... A few years ago the term "operational risk management" or "ORM" came into vogue in the military. The basic premise is that we had to scrub our operational procedures to see if the risks CREATED by a procedure outweighed the benefits of said procedure. This discussion is a classic example of ORM. Given the situation and the facts (not hysterics)the inherent risks of untrained, unqualified citizens introducing firearms onto an aircraft far OUTWEIGH any perceived benefits.
Top Top