Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Anti-gunners....chew on this

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


We got "change" alright.
Nov 26, 2001
For those against guns in the cockpit, here's something to think about. The next time you go out into the public, take a look around. I'll bet you'll see more than a few people in the course of the day that are all packin' and you don't even know it. Believe me, the environment out there is alot more unstable than in a cockpit. You have $hit-ton better odds at getting shot with a gun in mcdonalds than being in a situation in a jet. That's what you should be worrying about.

I have a CWP and am responsible, legal and stable. I'll bet that out of all the general public that packs, I'm in the minority. But if you're ever riding on my bus and things escalate to a point where my gun is needed, you'll change your tune.........rest assured.
Unless you are one who actually works at McDonald's, task saturation is going to be slightly higher in a cockpit than gunning down someone while ordering a happy meal.

FL000--gun toter, but not in the cockpit
My point was you have a better chance at getting shot by a nutcase at a mcdonalds than being in a terrorist situation in a jet.....

Gun toter.....where I may need it.
Captain John Oganowski and First Officer Tom McGinnis sure got their task saturated.
Bottom line is, the only time you will need it is when the cockpit has been penetrated. Now your choices are to defend yourself with some very cumbersome fighting in close quarters (yea right), give up and sit in the back while they repeat history, get shot down, or defend with sidearms (or some form of weaponry-I'll take my Glock please-) and,yes, maybe even still go down. But you'll be going down with a fighting chance.
Just for the record, I'm not against legislation allowing guns in the cockpit. I just don't thing I'll personally ever pack one. But I learned long ago to never say never.
Go to http://www.alliedpilots.org and check out the APA's demonstration of why stun guns have no place in the cockpit. The demonstration was filmed with the assistance of former Special Forces personnel, and it's a dramatic illustration of just how great the need is for guns in the cockpit.
Ok, I'm sold.

Just make sure that we have weapons that are reliable, effective, and sufficient to the task (ie, not a 38 special with 6 rounds but more like a 9mm with 14 rounds and hy-shok ammo).

I much preferred the second scenario.
Last line of defense

As much as I support reasonable gun-control measures, I do feel that there is a need for a last line of defense in the cockpit should some terrorists penetrate the cockpit. It could save lives. I gave this issue alot of thought and was initially against arming pilots but I looked into it more, and realized that I'd rather risk the loss of one person vs. a plane-load of people being shot down by an F16. Also, the idea of having keys, and also giving the pilots the choice would work well since there are some pilots who would not use the gun. But if it was me and my butt you can bet I'd use it to save my life and the lives on board.

Don't forget training. Make sure that crews get the best weapons training available. Perhaps make requalification on the range part of currency.

I don't know the nuts and bolts of the bill, but it would be wise to placard airport public areas, boarding areas and the cabin that entry into the cockpit without authorization is barred by law, that crews are trained and armed and will shoot to kill if necessary.

Latest resources