Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[flint4xx]

I'm more worried about surface to air missles, or machine gun fire from the ground after rotation or something like that. While we worry about another hijacking, they'll slip under our noses and do something different.

 

[350DRIVER]

Folks this is a pointless debate, fortunately for everyone who reasons "logically" and lives in reality the right choice was made by the Govt. As much as you hate to admit it, the majority has had their way regarding this issue and I am very pleased as many other people are with the outcome.

TWA Dude would you please enlighten me on how a would be terrorist is going to attack with a .45 slug in his head?

YOU are "assuming" that under ideal circumstances that the pilot will have the time not only to get his safety belt undone, get to the lock box, get the gun, load the gun, all in a matter of seconds-BUT.....Don't worry about it since this will never be an issue or debate since this is "dead" "over" "done deal"... IF you like guns so much possibly the FBI, police, or Secret Service may be the right career path for you to take.(just a thought)..OR if you are so anti-US gov't then possibly you should look into moving to Mexico or another country where this "gun" debate may still have a chance.(just a thought)...

Once again the flight deck is no place to have guns-Fortunately a few(maybee 1 or 2 people) in DC also agreed. Last time I had checked the pilots don't get extra pay to be security guards and play GI Joe at FL370. The problem is with the airport security and IF they do their jobs properly then that should be the end of the story and won't turn out to be an enroute problem or concern. YOU can continue to degrade,ridicule, and fault these "low" people as someone put it which is only a cop out- I am sure their are going to be many many more changes with the people who are your last line of defense.Time shall tell though-who knows...
I highly doubt that "now" any passenger would ever allow a potential cockpit intruder to make his way past the first class section after what has taken place not to mention (last time I checked)that their are "2" people up front and I am sure 1 of those 2 would deter/stop any attempt to take the aircraft over...All airlines have implemented some sort of "action plan" into effect just in case any attempt would ever happen again.- If my memory serves me correct an attempt had taken place a few months ago where a crash ax did some facial damage to someone who did disturb the flight crew.(by the way their was no gun up front for this first officer to use)- Plane landed without further incident. IF you research this you can look at many other positive outcomes like this one without a "magic" gun as part of the equation..


C H E E R S

3 5 0

 

[TWA Dude]

TWA Dude: Sorry, pal, but you are way off base here.

Does that mean you disagree with me?

If you are content to let screeners and the present procedures safeguard the lives of you, your passengers, and the future of our industry- great.

The screeners are practically irrelevant. The new Common Strategy II isn't. Am I content with it? Of course not. There's always room for improvement.

The rest of us who have a more realistic outlook know better.

Who exactly are "the rest of us"? The pro-NRA Republican Administration is against guns in the cockpit. How many Congressmen, Cabinet Secretaries or Bush Administration officials spoke out in favor of it?

 

[ShawnC]

The only proper way to deal with a terrorist is to allow the CIA to infiltrate the orginizations and deal with them before they have a chance to strike.

Anything else is just a way to deal with a problem that has already been set in motion.

 

[350DRIVER]

Sorry, pal, but you are way off base here. If you are content to let screeners and the present procedures safeguard the lives of you, your passengers, and the future of our industry- great. The rest of us who have a more realistic outlook know better.

The so-called "present" procedures are irrelevant due to the fact that their have been many changes regarding airport security, screeners. I agree with you that we have a long way to go and their is plenty of room for improvement BUT things will change and have changed for the better and once again the "correct" path was taken by the gov't in my opinion as well as many others. As for the "rest of us" as you put it - let me once again reiterate that I am in no way anti-guns or against them IF they would help a situation out and make it a "safer" environment which in this case I cannot see how a gun being on the flight deck would help at all. You are "assuming" without any knowledge or factual evidence of my beliefs and feelings regarding this.

I agree with Flint- IF this would ever be attempted again I am sure the would be hijackers would use a different way, different method- Don't think a gun is going to stop someone who is wrapped in explosives sitting in the back who decides to blow himself up. Although maybee you can explain how a gun would stop this attempt.....

I will never be "content" until all precautions have been taken, security procedures have been revamped and changed, risks have been "minimized", and we have more educated and highly trained screeners who are our last life line of defense. I do feel rather stongly however that we are going in the right direction and this is a much more logical way of tackling the problem than keeping a gun on the flight deck BUT once again this is a "dead" issue since the decision has already been made to prevent guns on the flight deck.

Once again you can continue to degrade and ridicule the screeners BUT you can also support them and ensure we are being protected and help the process out by standing behind these people who in "reality" are here for us NOT here to attempt to harm us. (just a thought)

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[enigma]

to TWAdude and 350

How many dead Americans will it take to convince you of the wrongness of your political correctness? If you take the time to read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers, you'll find that one of their biggest concerns was an all powerful and oppressive government. Their writings indicate that the second amendment was placed in the constitution as a way of guaranteeing that citizens always had force equal to government. I don't believe that our Federal government is out to enslave us, but it is quite insulting for John MaGaw to infer that we citizens can't be trusted with a weapon that we could use to defend ourselves, while at the same time the President has ok'd the shootdown of airliners. Where's the logic in that?
It has been said, maybe by you two, that determined terrorist will get on the plane. That in itself defeats your logic. If they WILL get there, and we can't place an FAM on every flight, it follows that your position would be that we just accept that they win. That is the end result of your logic. We can't stop them, therefore they will get their way. I can't accept that, and I guarantee you that the poor bas---ds who happen to get hijacked next will also reject that kind of defeatist logic. They will fight to their death, They will be screaming "lets roll" as they face the terrorists.Your logic would have them sitting calmly in the seats cowering, shaking and begging because "there's no way to stop a determined terrorist".

 

[enigma]

The only proper way to deal with a terrorist is to allow the CIA to infiltrate the orginizations and deal with them before they have a chance to strike.

Anything else is just a way to deal with a problem that has already been set in motion.

I agree, but I believe that there is also another way. Inform the states that support terror that the next American that dies as a result of terror will bring down the full force of American power, nukes if necessary, upon Bagdad/Tehran/Mecca, etc.

Most of us "touchy/feely" politically correct Americans don't yet understand that this is not an old fashioned war. Those wars were fought to win territory and material wealth. These terrorist wars are about ideology. The muslim extremists are not out to steal our land, they want us dead. Period. Dead. If we insist upon dealing with them in the same way that normal people are dealt with, we will only bleed.

I do believe that we will win the war, the question is this. How many Americans will have to die before the American populace realizes that this is a battle to the death? It is only then that we will put the pressure on our leaders to take decisive action.

Good Luck to us all

 

[350DRIVER]

How many dead Americans will it take to convince you of the wrongness of your political correctness?

Once again you are "assuming" that a gun would have saved the day as well as made that much of a difference. I tend to disagree with you due to fact that these hijackers were so determined and willing to do whatever it would take to bring the planes down and no matter what they were not going to be stopped. IF you are that determined and willing to DIE for a cause that you believe in I find that it would be next to if not impossible to stop that person. (just my opinion) The only thing that I am suggesting is that we "mimimize" our risks and take every precaution that we have- BUT just for "debate" sake lets say the gov't had allowed all airlines to have a gun on the flight deck, what do you think the probability would be that IF a hijacker would attempt to duplicate the same 9-11 scenario that the hijacker would use the same method and way of taking control of the aircrafts.?

Also how would a "gun" stop a potential hijacker who is sitting in the back wrapped in explosives who is willing to die for a cause that he/she believes in.?

Just for curiousity sake- also how is a GUN on the flight deck going to stop a missile from bringing the aircraft down as well as a potential explosive device in some hijackers suitcase.?

I do see your points however I would rather STOP a hijacker from even gaining access to the aircraft while it is on the ground.... IF they get by security and are given access to the aircraft then the people working security have failed not only us but also the innocent pax in the back as well as the many innocent lives on the ground. IF they are not on board the aircraft in the first place then their would be no "problem" or worry.... I am not "suggesting" that they "win" as you put it, the only thing I am suggesting is NOT to be put in that situation in the first place.


C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[AWACoff]

I'm sure everyone will admit that a gun would not have "saved the day" on September 11th due to the Common Strategy. As far as the crash axe saving the day on the American flight to south america...well, luckily it was just one nutcase and not a coordinated effort. If the pilot had time to get out of his/her seat, take out the crash axe, AIM and then swing the crash axe, he/she certainly had time to pull a pistol out of a holster and then aim and shoot an assailant (sp?). I'm glad the nutcase in question wasn't killed. That would be a bit of "overkill". If push comes to shove though...I would prefer to have a method of ending a conflict permanently and quickly. Notice I haven't mentioned anything about shooting terrorists...I doubt that they will try another hijacking scenario similiar to 9/11. But I would enjoy the peace of mind in knowing that the cockpit truly is more secure than it is now. The question of physiological needs is something that needs to be addressed. To live in a perfectly secure world, you have to be willing to give up large amounts of freedom and capital. I choose to live free and within my means with the element of risk that is called LIFE.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Have to agree with the above comments by flint4xx, and don't want to give anyone any ideas, that there are "easier" ways to bring down an aircraft.
Passengers seem to be more engaged with their surroundings and (hopefully) would respond to a crisis situation.

The problem for the kooks is that if they don't go down with the ship then they miss out on the 70 virgins waiting on them after they die.
You have to wonder if this suicide stuff is so great then how come none of the alleged leaders do it?!! Guess they already have their harem here on earth.

There are lots of ways for these scumbags to bring down a ship. A criminal mind can be very creative.

Back to the original thread about having guns, I agree they should be allowed but the reality of the situation is it creates a screening nightmare plus there would be some pilots who would carry a weapon and others who wouldn't. Speculate though that if a criminal had to wonder if a crew was armed that could be a deterrent itself.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: to TWAdude and 350

How many dead Americans will it take to convince you of the wrongness of your political correctness?

Who was it that said, "To label me is to nullify me"? PC has nothing to do with anything here.

If you take the time to read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers ...

Thank you for that patriotic speech but I'm not talking about guns laws in general. I'm talking about a specific change to a gun law in a security-sensitive location. Even law enforcement officials don't have carte-blanche to carry a weapon here.

I don't believe that our Federal government is out to enslave us, but it is quite insulting for John MaGaw to infer that we citizens can't be trusted with a weapon that we could use to defend ourselves, while at the same time the President has ok'd the shootdown of airliners. Where's the logic in that?

I'm not trying to be smart with this, but what evidence do you have to prove MaGaw wrong? Can it be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that a gun in the cockpit would've prevented any of the historical calamities? We can both speculate all we like but I think the gov't is simply weighing the risks and thus deciding.

It has been said, maybe by you two, that determined terrorist will get on the plane. That in itself defeats your logic. If they WILL get there, and we can't place an FAM on every flight, it follows that your position would be that we just accept that they win.

Getting on the plane and defeating it are two different issues. If they can't penetrate the (newly bulletproof) cockpit door than the plane has a very good chance of landing safely. IF they somehow penetrate the door one gun up front may or may not stop all of them.

Just try to imagine all the new procedures that would be required to allow a gun up front. Every leg of every flight would involve a lot more work and paperwork. It'll cost oodles of government and airline money that I believe is best spent on other things.

 

[eriknorth]

Do any of the airline applications have a box under "special skills or training" for Kung Fu?

 

[601Pilot]

Arming Pilots

Well, I'm still in favor of US pilots carrying
firearms and I believe the debate is just starting and no where near "over" as 350 is citing. The next few months should be very interesting in this debate. Hopefully the Mica/Young bill will pass and we can force the administration to accept firearms in the cockpit.

 

[dash8driver]

yes you're right.. IF the screeners are effective, then the hijackers wont get on the plane. thats a big IF. they were supposed to be effective before 9/11 too! even after 9/11 they arent that effective, there's been numerous occasions about guns and knives and stuff getting past them since, just think about all the occasions that werent found out or reported on.

you're right a gun wont stop a ground launched missle from a terrorist, neither will ground screeners, so by your logic mr 350, would you suggest we do away with ground screeners? seems by your logic that if a security measure wont stop all possible ways, then its not worthwhile.

i'm sure most americans feel that another 9/11 wont happen, and odds are it probably wont. but the terrorists goal is to make us feel the terror, they even said that we wont feel security til blah blah blah. what better way to rub our noses in it and show us that no matter what we do, they still got us by the balls than to do something similar. our "new" security is far from adequate, a repeat under current conditions is totatlly doable. and it would be more effective (on the nation) than the first attack or if they attacked someplace else when we werent looking.

 

[enigma]

Think about your logic

.............
IF you are that determined and willing to DIE for a cause that you believe in I find that it would be next to if not impossible to stop that person. (just my opinion) ................

.........I do see your points however I would rather STOP a hijacker from even gaining access to the aircraft while it is on the ground...........

C H E E R S
3 5 0

First you say that it is next to, if not, impossible to stop a determined hijacker who is willing to die. I say, then be prepared to kill him. A 45 would suffice quite well in that regard.

You end by saying that you would rather STOP a hijacker from gaining access while the aircraft is on the ground.
I say that you can't have it both ways, unless you are willing to kill him on the ground.

What do you choose? Do you kill the young muslim extremist that you picked out in the screening line? I doubt it. We are not going to racially/affiliation profile, so your way WILL allow the bad guy on the airplane. The very same airplane that has no way to defend itself under your plan.

So let's look at this scenario. Now we have a defenseless airplane carrying suicidal maniacs, who you admit will only stop when they are dead. What do you suppose the outcome of that situation will be?

The rest of your arguments have no bearing on the subject at hand. Of course a gun in the cockpit won't stop a missle from bringing down an airliner. It's not supposed to. Neither will a gun stop a bad guy from detonating a bomb, unless he is trying to light off his shoe. But the gun is not supposed to stop that either. Guns in the cockpit would be there for the sole purpose of defending the cockpit. And for that purpose, they would have no equal.
Like I said, how many dead Americans will it take to make the politically correct realize that we are at war?