Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Jocko]

What does that have to do with your property? If someone drives off the road into your property and does damage, they are liable and responsible for it. Why should it be any different with a plane?

You're joking, right? You think we should drop all the rules regarding passenger safety and count on the airlines - half of which are in BANKRUPTCY, mind you - to do the right thing in civil court?

Why is it different? I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer, except to say that an out-of-control car isn't capable to turning three square blocks into a mini-Dresden.

The problem is, you focus on the extremes. But the regulation will enivtably lead to much, much more that is greatly undesirable. That is the way government regulation always works. Look at the stuff the ADA has been used to do, for example. Why would it be any different here?

The premise of this thread is related to an extreme - the possible consequences of gunplay on an airplane. If you don't want to deal with that - beyond the usual pie-in-the-sky (no pun intended) utopian Libertarian crap, then I suggest you find another thread where "absolute individual rights" don't come across as so freakin' irrational.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

Then why is it unreasonable to let the individual airlines decide for themselves?

I suppose you're casting this in the same light as non-smoking sections in restaurants vs. governement mandates outlawing it. I think that's a tenuous comparison at best, but here goes.

Don't you think the airlines are capable of lobbying for such a measure as freely transporting loaded firearms on their own? I mean, if they thought it was a good idea.

Of course they could, and of course they haven't. Do the math.

 

[shanek]

Things have changed a lot since pre gun ban days.

Has human nature changed? Has society changed? This is only about 35 years, so you really have no cause to suggest a 180° reversal in human behavior here.

Post sept 11 people's behavior has changed. They are going to be a lot more jumpy.

Evidence?

 

[shanek]

Merely because it hasn't happened does not mean that there is no risk.

Will you listen to yourself? Don't you realize you're employing the same arguments as astrologers and homeopaths?

Allowing weapons to be brought on board makes it childishly simple for terrorists to terrorize.

That's ridiculous. If anything, it makes it much, much more difficult. Terrorists don't like actually going up against armed opposition.

You never addressed my point about explosives; would you prevent me from carrying sticks of dynamite on a plane?

Again: Up to the airline. I don't imagine any airline agreeing to this, though.

Is there any weapon that you would prevent being carried or transported on a plane?

Me? No; I don't have that right. The airline companies do.

 

[crackmonkey]

You think I sound like an astrologer because I point out that risks exist that have not yet happened? I'm sure you'd agree that the risk of planes being flown into skyscrapers existed before 9/11... I don't know where you're trying to go with this curious line of argument.
Terrorists would love your idea of airlines having the final say as to what is allowed to be carried on their airlines. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for a few wealthy terror sponsors to purchase a small airline and decide that it is fine for their airplanes to carry a fuselage full of explosives as cargo. It could be that potential passengers would be scared off because of that policy, but so what? There are now legally sanctioned flying bombs circling our skies, waiting for the word to plunge into whatever targets the terrorists choose. Hell, with your scenario, there's no reason to forbid our TerrorAir planes from carrying nuclear devices, is there?
Madness.

 

[BTox]

There should be guns on airlines but only carried by qualified Marshalls.

 

[Luke T.]

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

Sorry, shanek, but unless you know of another plane that lost its roof, this claim is bogus.

Source 1.

Source 2.

A week later--on April 28, 1988--the same jet's roof ripped open 24,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, killing one flight attendant and seriously injuring seven passengers and a crew member.

The flight attendant was sucked out of the airplane.

Aside from rapid decompression concerns, airplanes are bristling with flight control systems throughout the entire length of a plane and its wings. Hydraulics. Fuel tanks. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. A bullet penetrating any one of these can cause a plane to go down.

 

[Luciana]

You must be referring to domestic flights only, right?

Because everywhere I've been to, airports prohibit passengers from carrying guns. How would that be - an American flight arriving in an international aiport, where carrying guns is prohibited? And how would that be, upon boarding a flight?

Should the airport employees allow Americans to enter the plane carrying guns - that is, is an American gun permit recognized by other countries? Aren't rules different? And actually... would some foreign citizens enjoy the idea that Americans are carrying guns, and they're not, because their country doesn't allow it?

Actually, I don't think a foreign national can enter my country without special permission for its gun, acquired previously at an embassy. If that's the case, what would an American do upon arriving here, toss it in the sea?

 

[shanek]

You think I sound like an astrologer because I point out that risks exist that have not yet happened?

No; you sound like an astrologer because you essentially argued "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Terrorists would love your idea of airlines having the final say as to what is allowed to be carried on their airlines. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for a few wealthy terror sponsors to purchase a small airline and decide that it is fine for their airplanes to carry a fuselage full of explosives as cargo.

And the terrorists would get that kind of funding from were? Dubya's lies notwithstanding, they're pretty much a low budget operation compared to what would be needed to start an airline, load it with fuel, and crash it into buildings. And you people accuse us "gun nuts" of paranoia!

There are now legally sanctioned flying bombs circling our skies, waiting for the word to plunge into whatever targets the terrorists choose.

Oh, get over it! 9/11 was something that could only work once and the terrorists know it. If we had any intelligence at all (in both senses of the word), we'd be infiltrating these organizations trying to figure out what they're going to do next instead of engaging in pathetic fear-mongering and the illusion of safety for the purposes of getting votes and money.

Hell, with your scenario, there's no reason to forbid our TerrorAir planes from carrying nuclear devices, is there?
Madness.

The only "madness" here is you assuming that terrorists could do damage with a nuclear device on a plane that they couldn't do on the ground. Do you even think before you post?

 

[shanek]

Okay, you fear-mongers, read and learn:

Closing the Cockpit Loophole

by Captain Duane Shaw

Let me introduce myself. I am an airline Captain for the worlds second largest airline. I have been flying airplanes professionally for twenty one years. I have dealt with engine failures, aircraft system failures, aircraft navigation equipment failures, Air Traffic Control failures and airline management failures. Through it all, nothing has scared me more in aviation than the people I carry in the back of the plane. Why? Because I have had to deal with drug crazed and drunk passengers, air ragers, and people who are just scared. I have learned that all these people are unpredictable and dangerous. (just the opposite of law abiding gun owners).

What about Air Marshals? Not the best idea. An Air Marshal in the back of the aircraft can be identified, distracted and overwhelmed, even if armed. [...] Also, there are over eight thousand flight segments per day in the U.S. The cost of putting an Air Marshall on each flight would be prohibitive. Especially when you have two highly qualified professionals in the nerve center (cockpit) of the airplane who can do the job.

Is it dangerous for pilots to carry guns? No. Pilots are some of the most mentally, physically and psychologically tested people on earth. Additionally we are drug and alcohol tested all the time. We are highly educated, have a unique understanding of how mechanical things work, and have eye/hand coordination second to none. We are also required to undergo rigorous recurrent training and checkrides every nine months. (A great place for firearms requal.) There is no safer group of individuals to issue defensive firearms to.

What about shooting in a pressurized cabin? Will the airplane blow up? No. Do not be fooled by movies showing an explosive decompression in the cabin after a gun is fired. The pressurized fuselage of an aircraft already has many holes in it for regulating pressurization and air flow. The aluminum alloy skin of the aircraft is a quarter inch thick and capable of taking direct hits from most handguns without fracture. Even the cabin windows are incredibly thick and strong and capable of taking hits without failure, especially if using a frangible bullet. Even if they did penetrate the fuselage, several additional small holes would not make any difference in the ability to maintain pressure.

But let's not lose the forest for the trees here. Just remember the scenario that would require gunfire in an aircraft. It would be the last line of defense before turning the aircraft over to a terrorist for him to complete his mission - to kill hundreds or thousands of you.

Fights between pilots in the cockpit? Does not happen. In twenty one years of professional flying with five different airlines, I have never been involved in an altercation with another pilot. I have never even heard of this happening. How many police get into arguments, draw their weapons and kill each other while on duty?

Still do not want guns on airplanes eh? In any given week of flying I will carry one to five armed individuals on my aircraft. They are IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, DEA agents, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, state and local law enforcement, and virtually anyone else authorized by the government to carry a weapon. There is no restriction on the size or type of gun they carry.

All I am asking is to not be defenseless. Give me a fighting chance to save my passengers, crew, aircraft and people on the ground from a psycho or terrorist. Lets close this cockpit loophole.

I am hearing over and over on TV and the radio from elected officials how we are going to have to give up freedom and liberties for additional security provided by our government. This is not acceptable. I have a right to defend my family from harm at home. Why can't I have the same right in my aircraft at work? If we adopt a bunker mentality and start voluntarily giving up freedom, then we have already lost. Let me defend my aircraft and cockpit with the best tools available.

 

[Richard G]

You must be referring to domestic flights only, right?

Absolutely correct. It is impossible to travel abroad with a firearm, most of the world has outlawed them for the unwashed masses. And foreigners are prohibited by law from possesing a firearm in the U.S.

 

[crackmonkey]

WHere to begin? If I asserted on 9/10 that terrorists could fly planes into buildings, by your 'logic' you'd consider that to be nonsense akin to believing in astrology? Do we have to take this any further?
I'm sure that a reasonably large terrorist outfit could buy a few older planes with no problem. This is a red-herring argument anyway...
9/11 would happen often, if you set the rules. If any passenger (and terrorist) was able to carry whatever arms he decided he needed on board, planes would be dropping out of the skies daily.
Do I think before I post??? Do you think at all? Nothing's more distasteful than a wild-eyed true believer in full rant, rationalizing himself into a corner. While I support the right to own a weapon, you carry this to an absurd extreme, and refust to back down regardless how silly it makes you sound.
Do me a favor - don't ever take my side of an argument, okay?

 

[shanek]

You must be referring to domestic flights only, right?

As international flights open up a whole plethora of different issues, yes, I think it's safe to say we're all referring to domestic US flights.

 

[Iamme]

I agree with letting the airlines decide. It's their planes. It's their possible lawsuits/insurance rate hikes if they choose the wrong option. Or, more profits, after they find out that the other airlines policies resulted in more deaths/accidents.

I think that cartoon above with everyone pointing their pistols at the mideastern hijackers reiterates my position I mentioned earlier. Chances are, there will be many people on board authorized to carry a gun. If something goes awry with either a hijacker getting his hands on a gun (as if he wouldn't have some weapon to begin with?), or a right-to-carry person flipped out...what would happen is the good people would cry out for more right-to-carry people to intervene. The 5,6,10,20,? who are allowed to carry would overwhelm the bad. See again that cartoon.

Too many posters make it sound like nobody could tell a hijacker from a right-to-carry person, getting on board. Um....not everyone can just come on board with a gun you know. Obviously, those who have that right must be carrying documents with picture I.D. or whatever, authorizing them to do so.

Could hijackers get there hands on fake picture I.D.'s? Obviously, before such a right-to-carry law (on planes) could be implemented, you have to have some form of I.D. that can't have za simple photo-transfer done. It'd have to be how we now have uncounterfeitable 2o dollar bills. *IF* they have this perfected, I would feel WAY safer on such a plane, knowing there were possibly lots of authorized carriers of guns. I would take my chances with any riqocheted bullets or decompression. I would NOT want to be on a plane and find out I am at 40,000 feet with no parachute, and with a cabin full of defenseless pasengers with some hijacker who DID manage to smuggle a bomb or gun on board somehow. I do NOT trust the ability of the airlines to positively screen out some rogue pistol. I've watched too many Mission Impossibles, Columbos and McGivers to have peace of mind that absolutely no weapon could be brought on board by some unwanted person.

 

[Iamme]

Oh...the thing about sky marshals? To me, one sky marshall is not enough for my peace of mind. You guys make it sound like this sky marshall is going to be some John Wayne hero everytime. Ya. What if there are 6 hijackers and the I.D. of the sky marshall is learned. Fe-or-get-it!!!! I would want no less than 3 sky marshalls per plane, otherwise I ain't getting on one. And who is going to pay for these guys? Right-to-carry people would be at no cost to us.

 

[MoeFaux]

Let's also not forget that D.B.Cooper opened the emergency exit door in flight and jumped off of the plane, while no one else was injured. So one little bullet hole wouldn't make a difference. (though, after DB emergency exit doors all have locks that make it so you are unable to open the door mid-flight)
No one is going to get sucked off an airplane. Now, sucked off IN an airplane, that's a whole 'nother story.


I voted yes.

 

[Luke T.]

Shanek, you are cracking me up.

First, your link to the pilot's story only argues in favor of pilot's being allowed to carry guns on planes.

Second, you asked someone for example of citizens (NOT HIJACKERS) who abused the privelege of having a gun on a plane before guns were banned. Gee, it doesn't matter that it was because of HIJACKERS that guns were banned and that HIJACKINGS dramatically decreased after the ban? Hello?

(edited to add: If you make a joke about hijacking a plane to Cuba these days, most people under 30 won't get the joke, probably.)

If you allow anyone to carry a gun on board, then any hijacker can, too.

And think about what you are saying when you say this:

Oh, get over it! 9/11 was something that could only work once and the terrorists know it.

And why can that only work once? Because the passengers will kick their sorry butts, that's why. And why will the passengers be able to do that? Because it is much more difficult to get a gun or even a box cutter onto a plane.

Let me know as soon as a hijacker hijacks a plane with a gun again and then we'll talk about arming the passengers.

 

[Luke T.]

It also cracks me up that the pilot in the aforementioned link also talks about air rage. That is probably why he didn't make the argument in favor of passengers having guns. He says quite plainly that the scariest thing on the plane are passengers.

And this:

I have learned that all these people are unpredictable and dangerous. (just the opposite of law abiding gun owners).

What is he saying here? That somehow, being a gun owner makes you predictable and non-dangerous? Or that all gun owners are law abiding? Or as soon as someone does something with their legally owned gun that isn't legal, they are no longer a law abiding gun owner and are excluded from the argument for some reason? We'll be able to spot these types and keep them from bringing a gun on the plane?

They can't even spot someone who is going to have an attack of air rage before they get on the plane.

 

[shanek]

First, your link to the pilot's story only argues in favor of pilot's being allowed to carry guns on planes.

No, it doesn't only do that. It also points out the problems with the "decompression" argument as well as the problems with armed sky marshalls. He also points out how gunplay is the last resort and other things that refute what has been said here.

Second, you asked someone for example of citizens (NOT HIJACKERS) who abused the privelege of having a gun on a plane before guns were banned.

What does that have to do with the article? I can't refute other points as well?

Gee, it doesn't matter that it was because of HIJACKERS that guns were banned and that HIJACKINGS dramatically decreased after the ban? Hello?

Except that hijackings did not dramatically decrease after the ban. They actually increased.

And why can that only work once?

Because passengers, armed or not, are not just going to sit idly by while people hijack a plane. The passengers on the fourth flight proved that. What's the point?

 

[Luke T.]

How many planes were hijacked in the 60s and 70s that were stopped by armed passengers, I wonder? How many planes were hijacked because anyone could carry a gun and no one was able to stop the hijacker?

Only a complete idiot would want to bring back those days.