Fat lady not singin, gun talks not over!

[alimaui]

Thursday June 6, 9:48 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
SOURCE: Andy Martin
Talk Radio Leader Launches National Crusade to Reverse President Bush And Arm Airline Pilots in the Cockpit
News Conference Advisory: A Programming Note From 'Andy Martin's America'
NEW YORK, June 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Internet Broadcaster Andy Martin will present a special radio/Internet news conference edition of "Andy Martin's America" Friday, June 7th at 1:00 P.M. to announce a national talk radio crusade aimed at reversing the Bush Administration's decision to prevent airline pilots from being armed in the cockpit.

"This is the national issue which unites almost every American," says Martin. "When you have gun control advocates such as Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, and Second Amendment types, agreeing, watch out President Bush. The American people are trying to tell you something. Your administration is wrong to refuse arming pilots in the cockpit," says the talk radio leader.

"In order for talk radio to influence national policy, there has to be an issue where the American people are united and the politicians are wrong," says Martin. "'Guns in the cockpit' is such an issue. The people, liberals and conservatives, want armed pilots. The politicians do not. June 7th, we launch a crusade to reverse the politicians.

"Every talk radio host is invited to join this crusade," says Andy.

"I believe, based on my own flying experience, each Captain and First Officer should carry a revolver and knife. The program should be voluntary. No pilot should be compelled to carry a firearm. The Bush Administration is being hypocritical to support the Second Amendment in court filings, and then to refuse arming airline pilots."

Martin's controversial program "Andy Martin's America" has become a fulcrum of foreign policy, political analysis and contemporary commentary on the Internet.

Martin has been involved in broadcasting for 34 years, as an on-air personality, and in management, sales and consulting.

Martin has been an adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York, is a Washington foreign policy consultant in the areas of military security and intelligence and was an assistant to U.S. Senator Paul H. Douglas.

Martin's radio program (WPBR-AM, West Palm Beach) covers Florida issues from noon-1 P.M. and national/foreign policy from 1-2 P.M. Radio call-in (561) 641-8256, (800) 810-9727. Internet radio website: 1340wpbr.com (click "on air"). E-mail [email protected].

SOURCE: Andy Martin

 

[Bai B Nai]

Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) have introduced a bill in the Senate (S.2554) that would mandate the Bush administration to arm pilots within 90 days of bill passage. It apparently has the support of the Airline Pilots Association and one of the flight attendants unions.

However, getting it out of the Senate will be tough, and then on to the House. Would the President even sign it once it hit his desk?

 

[capt_zman]

Good luck, should get interesting.

 

[cessna_driver2]

I may be a little nieve, but putting a weapon in the cockpit just sounds like trouble. The pilots should be hell of a marksman or highly trained in close quarters combat to make use of the weapon. Then what about putting the rest of the passengers in danger of a pass through bullet or decompression. I believe that tazers would be a better call that a firearm. The voltage that goes through some of these is enough to drop an elephant. And they can still be used up to about 10 yrds away.

 

[TheFlyingWeasel]

The voltage that goes through some of these is enough to drop an elephant.

Great googly moogly son!!! What in heavens name you using to charge that puppy up with Chernobyl?

Weasel

 

[Orvilleflyer]

A few observations...

- Enough to drop an elephant- What would happen if it hit the panel? Yes United has extensively tested their panels with direct Taser contact and surprisingly nothing has happened! But the fat lady's not done sing'in on this one. I'd rather have a bullet take out a few instruments then a Taser possibly taking out all of it.

- You go defensless in your plane and I'll go armed in mine. The both of us will get our whimsy flightdeck doors beaten down with a fire extinguisher and we'll see who fares better, and who wished they had a 16 round clip instead of a 1 shot whim.

- It's illegal to post copyrighted material.

 

[LAZYB]

(fwd)
...Less-than-lethal devices, like TASER, Pepperballs, beanbag shotgun loads, stun guns, pepper spray etc. have genuine law-enforcement and security applications; cockpit defense, however, is not one of them. Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has come out and stated that arming pilots with firearms: "doesn’t make a lot of sense to me." Considering the alternatives to arming pilots, leaving flight crews defenseless or giving them an ineffective non-lethal defensive tool, the only thing that doesn’t make sense is Tom Ridge’s position on this matter.

The TASER naturally appeals to some folks because it’s less-than-lethal and therefore not as fearsome or politically incorrect as a pistol. For these very reasons, it is not nearly as effective as a good handgun either. To use the TASER, a person attaches a cartridge to the front of the device that contains wire coils and two spiked electrical leads that enter the body of the target. The rear of the unit looks a lot like a pistol. Once the trigger is pressed the twin spikes fly out, each attached to a thin, 21-foot long wires, and imbed themselves in the skin of the target and deliver an electric jolt, which will generally incapacitate the average person for several seconds. Additional jolts can be given by pressing the trigger.

Sounds effective, right? Wrong. Unfortunately, this design has several inherent flaws. First, in order to be effective, the leads must enter the skin. Therefore, if the hijacker is wearing an appropriately thick shirt or jacket, the leads will not contact the skin, and the TASER is going to be minimally effective. Second, if two hijackers bust down the cockpit door, the TASER is useless. Theoretically, the pilot could zap one, do a quick cartridge change and zap the second intruder; of course, once the cartridge attached to the first intruder is removed from the unit, he can no longer be zapped. So, by the time the second intruder has been zapped, the first has fully recovered and is therefore free to begin slashing the pilots’ throats while his buddy recovers. With only one TASER against two intruders, the pilot would almost do better to zap the one and then beat the second intruder with the TASER unit itself, not something a pilot should have to deal with in a cramped cockpit. Furthermore, even if only one intruder breaks into a cockpit and is successfully subdued by the TASER, what then? Someone has to jump on him before he recovers and handcuff him. Who’s job is that going to be? Please don’t say the other pilot; he’s flying the plane.

The only viable way to protect the cockpit of a jumbo jet using a TASER would be to have several of the units in each cockpit, each fully charged with at least one spare cartridge per TASER. This is a rather expensive and silly solution to the problem of cockpit security.

A vastly more effective solution is a pistol, preferably one chambered for a no-nonsense cartridge like .45 ACP, .40 S&W or .357 Magnum.

If I were in position to recommend what to equip pilots with, given my background as an NRA-certified personal protection instructor, I’d suggest a .45 ACP Glock model 36 Slimline fitted with a suppresser and accessory rail-mounted tactical laser (with a pressure switch on the grip) with magazines full of Glasser Safety Slugs, Mag-safes or similar fragmenting bullets. Such a pistol is the right tool for the job and as my eighth-grade wood shop teacher insisted on saying: "A tool for every job, a job for every tool." Indeed. Using a TASER to defend a cockpit is akin to using a monkey wrench to drive a nail, sure, it’ll kind of maybe work, but it really isn’t the best tool.

The above-described Glock, however, is the right tool for the job, regardless of what Ridge and other opponents of arming pilots might think. The Glock truly is perfect for this role, it has earned a reputation since its introduction to US markets in the late 80s as a reliable, incredibly durable, simple-to-operate pistol that works well. Glock pistols in a variety of models and calibers are now safely stored in the holsters of many a police officer across the nation. They’re a work-a-day pistol that lacks an external safety toggle, instead relying on a trigger-mounted safety lever that compliments internal inertia safeties, which Glock calls its "Safe Action" system. The only controls on a Glock are the trigger, slide catch, magazine release and ‘takedown’ buttons, very straight forward and easy for a non-gun savvy individual to use in a crisis situation. I’d suggest the Glock 36 Slimline over the standard .45 caliber model 21 because the 36 is the first Glock to get away from double column magazines and features a slim grip that users with a variety of hand sizes will find comfortable. Since these guns will likely go a long time between cleanings, Glock’s reliable design and corrosion-resistant construction will guarantee they work when called on, even if they haven’t seen a drop of G96 Complete Gun Treatment in years.

The .45 ACP cartridge has proven itself in countless shootings, and when topped with fast, frangible bullets, will not puncture the fuselage of an airliner. Upon striking the center-mass of a would-be hijacker, the incapacitating effect of a .45 ACP Glasser will last a lot longer than would that of a TASER, i.e. permanently as opposed to five seconds. Furthermore, the .45 ACP doesn’t care what the hijacker wears, as long as it’s not Kevlar, it’s going in to disrupt a few vital organs.

I would also suggest a suppresser be attached. .45s are loud in general, but in the confines of a cockpit the noise would be deafening. The discharge of a suppressed .45 ACP in a cockpit would still be noisy, but the suppresser will protect the pilots from temporary near-deafness. The laser sight will help the user aim quickly and nothing takes the fight out of someone like seeing that glowing red dot hone in on their heart. With the Glock 36’s 6+1 ammo capacity, seven separate hijackers could be dispatched quickly and if more shooting was necessary, a few spare, loaded magazines can be kept handy. Because of the suppresser, these pistols couldn’t be the issued directly to pilots (without them having to contend with mountains of permits and paperwork anyway, unless F-troop makes an exception for them), but rather to each individual plane. One member of the flight team—copilot, navigator, whoever—could be designated as the person who wears the pistol in a shoulder rig and then returns it to a small gun safe in the cockpit after the passengers have deplaned. Issuing them to the plane instead of the pilot would help ensure that only frangible bullets were kept anywhere near the firearm.

Another very good alternative to the Glock 36 is a Glock 23. It’s a pistol of roughly the same size, and it holds 10+1 rounds (in post-ban magazines, that is) of .40 S&W, a potent cartridge that surpasses the .45 ACP in the Fuller Index (a system that predicts one-shot-stops) when using conventional hollow points.

With frangible bullets in the firearm, the plane’s passengers could be protected by the installation of a thin wooden door a few feet outside the cockpit door, or even a set of heavy curtains made of Kevlar or similarly strong artificial fabric. Frangible bullets break apart upon contact with anything, shedding weight and velocity rapidly. When they hit a solid object like a wall, they shatter harmlessly. Upon striking a soft target like a person’s chest, they penetrate as they fragment, depositing all of their considerable energy into a shallow wound cavity that causes massive tissue damage.

Naturally, the problem with my recommendation is that it makes sense and therefore will not be heeded. Instead, United will sally forth and equip their pilots with TASERS. With Tom Ridge’s endorsement of such silly measures, other airlines will likely follow suit. Now, I’m not suggesting TASERS and other less-than-lethal weapons are useless or have no place in law-enforcement or security. Quite the contrary, I’m actually a fan of some less-than-lethal instruments, especially Jaycor Tactical System’s Pepperball Launcher (essentially a Tippman Pneumatics paintgun that fires balls filled with powdered pepper spray instead of paint). However, the Pepperball Launcher is as inappropriate for use in cockpit security as the TASER, but for different reasons.

The cockpit of commercial airliners needs to be viewed as a castle, a fortress that must be secure. Beefier doors are a good start, but any door, regardless of how sturdy, can be overcome by a determined enough individual or group. Should that door be broken down, the pilots need to be able to permanently defeat the intruder or intruders. Incapacitating (hopefully) them for a few seconds isn’t enough. The simplest, most obvious choice is a pistol, particularly one very like the Glock I described above. Again, we get into the whole political correctness issue; sure, it’s nicer and kinder and gentler to temporarily incapacitate a cockpit intruder than it is to shred his vital organs. Thing is, we’re talking about a cockpit intruder here, not a drunk that got tossed out of a bar and is giving the cops a hard time.

Anyone with the wherewithal to get on a plane today probably hasn’t been living under a mushroom for the last six months and is, therefore, aware that pilots don’t want anyone visiting them in the cockpit. The way I figure it, if someone does break down a cockpit door, they can’t be up to any good and have forfeited their rights and life by doing so. Simply put, today, if you break down a cockpit door, you deserve to be shot in the chest. Twice. By a .45. If that doesn’t make sense to the guy charged with operating the Office of Homeland Security, then he’s as ill suited for his job as the TASERs are for cockpit defense.

Kyle Lohmeier

 

[Dep676]

Yeah one just like in the picture to the left. A nice hollow point in the gut would stop them. Somebody mentioned pepperballs. That wouldn't be very wise. Cause they would not only get the attacker but most likely get in everyones eyes to. And that stuff doesn't fell very good. Then try landing a plane with that in your eyes. I know I couldn't do it. I took a hit of pepper spray last year for training and I was out for about 30 to 45 minutes. Not fun. Although it would be fun to use it on someone else but not in a cockpit or plane. I would vote for the Glock 36 .45 cal. Oh and for a non-lethal way no-way. They are trying to kill you. So lets get them first and ask questions later. Cause we just stun them. Then we have to take care of the idiot in prison while they wait for trial. That makes sense. There are better things to do with my tax dollars than to feed some A-Hole for life. Just look at the circus for the ones we have in our so-called system now.

 

[TheFlyingWeasel]

The government is not prepared to allow airline pilots to use deadly force to stop a crazed terrorist on a suicide mission from slamming a jet into another WTC or Pentagon, but the government is prepared to order the ANG to use deadly force to stop a crazed terrorist on a suicide mission from slamming a jet into another WTC or Pentagon.

First scenario results in the BG’s dead and worst case, couple of PAX dead or wounded and a need for an emergency decent, a$$holes and elbows to the nearest suitable field.

Second scenario results with ALL on board dead, Lord knows what damage on the ground and some poor bastard who pulled the trigger living with the violent image of a 737 to a 747 rolling into a hillside like some **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** bogie being flamed over downtown Baghdad.

The latter is a sad state of affairs to swallow.

If I were placed in that seat, once the order was given I would default to my training and pull that trigger, but God can only know what I would do when I went home.

Killing lawful combatants engaged in war is one thing, they are given the chance to run, fight, surrender or die. But innocent civilians, unarmed and scared $hitless, torn from the sky because some heartless bureaucrat saw fit to deny a flight crew the tools necessary to defend their ship is entirely another beast altogether.

The thought of it coming down to that someday in our near future is almost as heart wrenching as watching the WTC collapse all over again.

It may be a tuff call to make on the grounds of civil liability, arming the pilots, but we make tuff calls everyday that’s what we’re paid for.

Passengers place their lives in the hands of aircrews hundreds of thousands of times each day, it’s pure stupidity to say we trust them with a 400,000 pound air frame and the lives of 250 to 500 souls but we don’t trust them with guns?

If training is the issue, then develop a course that specializes in cockpit defense, base it on CQB, close range shooting and weapon retention. The media has made this out to be an issue, that if armed the pilots would go roaring out of the cockpit armed to the gills like a SEAL Team storming the gates of Hell to handle every little problem that arises in-flight, which is bogus and a lie. They would only use the weapons to end a situation once the flightdeck door had been breached.

There is a difference from some drunk pounding on the flightdeck door thinking his at the head, than some BG tearing the door down with an improvised weapon of some kind.

Weasel

 

[Dep676]

I agree with that totally. They can train you to shoot in a cockpit within weeks. As far shooting them and how to deal with it after. Cops do it and there is counseling for that sort of thing. I admit it wouldn't be easy. But I would rather learn to live with it than have some A-Hole kill me first and not live at all. Yeah and they give the military the right to shoot down the whole aircraft and kill everyone on board. Instead of letting the crew kill just the knucklehead on board and then throw his body out in the dumpster when they get to the ramp.