Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Mr Manifesto]

In the interests of fairness, could people wait until the pro-guns-on-planes side have their say first.

The issue is: should the average citizen, with a concealed carry weapon permit, be allowed to take a gun on a plane? It has been suggested that if guns were allowed to be carried on planes by your average citizen with a ccw permit, that the events of 9/11 would have been prevented.

My personal opinion is that this is lunacy. Allowing guns to be carried on planes would open too may avenues of opportunity for those weapons to fall in the hands of hijackers. We also cannot tell if someone might be irresponsible with a weapon at some point in the future, just because that person passed the requirements for a ccw permit. If a gun is going to go off -accidentally or otherwise- I'd prefer it doesn't happen in a plane.

The forum is now open for both sides to present their arguments. May I suggest that polling be allowed 48 hours after this post?

 

[Iamme]

Mr. Manifesto---Until I hear a better argument; I am for allowing it. You said that the gun could get into the wrong hands, like the hijacker. True. But then there may be 9 or 15 other people on board with guns, to come to the rescue. I would rather chance having guns on a plane, held by sane people, than one gun on a plane held by one insane person.

 

[crackmonkey]

What sheer idiocy. One shot could cause decompression of the cabin...
The right to bear arms doesn't mean that guns should be allowed absolutely everywhere. If there are any guns in an airplane at all, they should be carried by air marshalls, and have ammo that wouldn't penetrate the fuselage.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

What sheer idiocy. One shot could cause decompression of the cabin...
The right to bear arms doesn't mean that guns should be allowed absolutely everywhere. If there are any guns in an airplane at all, they should be carried by air marshalls, and have ammo that wouldn't penetrate the fuselage.

I'd love to agree with you, but apparently that's not the case (about decompression).

I'm not jumping down your neck. I just had to point that out in the interests of fairness.

 

[geni]

Or maybe there is a grain of truth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3039583.stm

There was a case of a pilot being sucked out of a plane window (I think it was a 747) but since this was ten years ago I have not been able to find a link yet.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Actually, that was hinted at in my link as well. The issue isn't so much people getting sucked out of planes, as the plane running out of oxygen before pilots, etc, can act.

As seen in geni's article.

And I agree, needless to say, with:

"People with guns and aircraft do not mix."

 

[Iamme]

Great thread, Mr manifesto!

Crackpotmonkey---Uhhhhh, are you going to tell the gun weilding hijacker also, that it is sheer lunacy for him to shoot?

Geni---The Guiness World Book of Records and possibly the World Almanac lists as a record, that some stewardess was sucked out a plane, at 37,000? (I think) feet...and lived!!!!

 

[crackmonkey]

Certainly, if I thought it'd do any good. I stand corrected (amusing to see you reference WND, Manifesto). Decompression or no, the idea of playing gunfight at the OK Corral at 40.000 feet is pretty damned silly. There are plenty of other ways to defend against a hijacker besides hosing down the cabin with bullets.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Certainly, if I thought it'd do any good. I stand corrected (amusing to see you reference WND, Manifesto). Decompression or no, the idea of playing gunfight at the OK Corral at 40.000 feet is pretty damned silly. There are plenty of other ways to defend against a hijacker besides hosing down the cabin with bullets.

I'm not familiar with WorldNetDaily. I just googled 'decompression' 'bullet' and something else and used the first site I came across. The 'explosive decompression doesn't exist' info I originally got from Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum about five years ago. Or so.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, and there are other reasons why gunfights in planes are a bad idea. Such as: the bullets ricocheting all over the place. Cowboys with CCW's waiting for the chance to prove that they are a hero (look no furter than the rantings of Richard G, who thinks no problem can't be solved with a quick-draw).

If guns have to be carried on a plane at all, I'd rather they were specialised weapons, held by specialists only.

 

[Ed]

Oh, and there are other reasons why gunfights in planes are a bad idea. Such as: the bullets ricocheting all over the place. Cowboys with CCW's waiting for the chance to prove that they are a hero (look no furter than the rantings of Richard G, who thinks no problem can't be solved with a quick-draw).

If guns have to be carried on a plane at all, I'd rather they were specialised weapons, held by specialists only.

I tend to agree about guns on planes but exactly what would the bullets ricochet off of? Plexiglass? Aluminum?

 

[The Fool]

I tend to agree about guns on planes but exactly what would the bullets ricochet off of? Plexiglass? Aluminum?

I think I remember a bullet did ricochet off a belt buckle so the hero could survive in the cowboy movie. (he got the girl in the end too). please don't ask which end, its an old joke....

 

[EdipisReks]

while i am extremely pro gun, i think that guns on planes should only be in the hands of Sky Marshals. i also think that there should be a Sky Marshal on every plane. air lock style doors to the pilots cabin should also be mandatory.

 

[Luke T.]

I guess hijackers would like to have guns allowed on planes. It sure would make sneaking one on a lot easier than under the current system.

A shootout at 10,000 feet, eh? People with no training on how to take down terrorists without them blowing up the plane first, spraying the passenger cabin. Yeah. Good idea.

Air Marshals. Maybe even pilots. But not Joe Sixpack. Please.

 

[shanek]

My personal opinion is that this is lunacy. Allowing guns to be carried on planes would open too may avenues of opportunity for those weapons to fall in the hands of hijackers.

On another thread, I asked you to provide examples of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns from before the gun ban. You ignored me. Are you going to do so here?

We also cannot tell if someone might be irresponsible with a weapon at some point in the future,[/qutoe]

Well, I can't tell if you're going to be irresponsible with a knife, a car, or anything else in the future. Is that any justification for taking away your rights?

 

[shanek]

What sheer idiocy. One shot could cause decompression of the cabin...

No, that is sheer idiocy. You've been watching too many movies. There are already holes in the plane much bigger than bullet holes. One tiny hole, or even one fairly big hole, could not cause decompression. Decompression happens when air exits the plane faster than it is being pumped in.

And decompression is rarely dangerous. There was in instance where a plane lost its entire roof and the plane landed safely with no injuries.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean that guns should be allowed absolutely everywhere. If there are any guns in an airplane at all, they should be carried by air marshalls, and have ammo that wouldn't penetrate the fuselage.

Why not let the individual airlines set their own policy? Then you could choose one that prohibits guns, and I could choose one that allows them. Then we both get what we want.

 

[shanek]

Decompression or no, the idea of playing gunfight at the OK Corral at 40.000 feet is pretty damned silly.

I agree with this 100%. But what you apparently don't seem to realize is that the gunfight at the OK Corral happened because of gun control rules that went awry. It's the gun control people that want to play OK Corral, not those speaking out in favor of the second amendment.

 

[shanek]

Okay, my answer was "Yes," with the following qualification:

As the airplane is the property of the airline company, and they are responsible for the safety of the flight, they have the right to set whatever rules they want, including the prohibition of guns. Just as the owner of a building or other piece of property can ban guns or smoking or whatever on their own property, the same is true for the airlines. But the government shouldn't have the first thing to do with it.

 

[Tesserat]

Okay, my answer was "Yes," with the following qualification:

As the airplane is the property of the airline company, and they are responsible for the safety of the flight, they have the right to set whatever rules they want, including the prohibition of guns. Just as the owner of a building or other piece of property can ban guns or smoking or whatever on their own property, the same is true for the airlines. But the government shouldn't have the first thing to do with it.

Airplanes fly over property that isn't owned by the airline company, peopled by citizens that might not be customers of that company. Because of that, the decision can't rest with the individual companies, but must be regulated by the government.
The risk is not just to the people in the plane.

 

[KelvinG]

I think it's insane to somehow think that it's possible to allow only passengers who are law abiding and responsible to carry weapons on a plane. How do we make this determination? How do we weed out persons who might pose a threat to the flight?

Would I feel good about some of the pro-gun advocates on this site carrying a firearm on a plane? Absolutely not. They're inflammatory language and outright threats are downright frightening.

And here's a question. The cartoon that RichardG posted shows vigilant citizens pointing guns at terrorists trying to take over a plane. I notice the terrorists in that cartoon aren't holding guns. But, what would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from having guns as well? Was there anything about them that would have prohibited them from owning guns and taking aboard their flights?

If the good guys can have guns on a flight, then can't the bad guys as well? Or are we naive enough to believe the bad guys can always be weeded out?