Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[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?

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: to TWAdude and 350

To TWAdude,

Sorry for the label, but your argument is more politically correct than realistic.

You're welcome. Someone has to counter the politically correct cr-p- that says that ordinary citizens can't be trusted with guns.
You're right, not even all LEO's can carry a gun on an airplane, but Airmarshalls can, and ALPA was proposing that any pilot who wanted to carry, must go through AirMarshall equivilent training.

My point about MaGaw was not that he proved that a gun would have stopped 9/11. My point was that I'm insulted that the government has the mindset that citizens can't be trusted. I prefaced that with a statement that proved that the founding fathers DID trust the citizens.

No one said that guns would have prevented 9/11, matter of fact, as AWACoff wrote; nothing would have prevented 9/11 as long as the previous common strategy was in place.

Do you really believe that the bulletproof door will stop a hijacker from killing you in the cockpit. Are the entire rear walls of your Maddog cockpit armored? A few well placed shots through the EPC's or the front of the galley are going to get you. Of course, a gun might not stop them, but it's better that nothing; and in well trained hands a gun has a better than even chance. It's better than the alternative.


You could be correct about the hassle, but as far as the cost goes, this is one plan that wouldn't cost anyone but the pilots who choose to take the training.

Later

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Re: to TWAdude and 350

To TWAdude, Sorry for the label, but your argument is more politically correct than realistic.

I was expressing my opinion. You're the one making judgements of political correctness. And your version of "realism" is simply your opinion. Try to separate the two.

Someone has to counter the politically correct cr-p- that says that ordinary citizens can't be trusted with guns.

Since you brought it up, most citizens can't be trusted with guns. They don't know how to use them safely; they don't know how to store them safely; they don't know how to keep them away from children; and they aren't trained like police to resist someone trying to take the gun away from them. If every gun owner were required to pass Air Marshall training then I'd be able to sleep better knowing so many guns were around. I believe it's naiive in the extreme to think that a gun in every law-abider's household would make this country a safer place.

You're right, not even all LEO's can carry a gun on an airplane, but Airmarshalls can, and ALPA was proposing that any pilot who wanted to carry, must go through AirMarshall equivilent training.

If it's such a good idea to have a gun in the cockpit why isn't one of the air marshalls on board stationed on the jumpseat?
And how many pilots would actually go through with a full Air Marshall program? One percent, five percent, maybe even ten? For such a small number it's no more deterrent than the random marshall program is now.

My point about MaGaw was not that he proved that a gun would have stopped 9/11. My point was that I'm insulted that the government has the mindset that citizens can't be trusted. I prefaced that with a statement that proved that the founding fathers DID trust the citizens.

Some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. They didn't trust the general population to elect the president (and still don't). But the government is the people. If enough voters want guns then guns we shall have.

Do you really believe that the bulletproof door will stop a hijacker from killing you in the cockpit. Are the entire rear walls of your Maddog cockpit armored? A few well placed shots through the EPC's or the front of the galley are going to get you.

It's my understanding that the new door installation will include reinforcement of the bulkheads as well.

Of course, a gun might not stop them, but it's better that nothing; and in well trained hands a gun has a better than even chance. It's better than the alternative.

I don't disagree with that. But various risks must be weighed. If it was so obvious that a gun is needed we'd already have it.

You could be correct about the hassle, but as far as the cost goes, this is one plan that wouldn't cost anyone but the pilots who choose to take the training.

You're assuming that an approved plan would have pilots carrying the guns on their person. Another plan has the gun stowed in the cockpit with only qualified pilots being able to access it. I've heard that the latter plan is more favored but it's much more expensive.

Later

 

[350DRIVER]

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.

I disagree with you 100% due to many different variables. How would you be "prepared" to kill "him" IF their are multiple intruders?.- For argument sake ok so you kill 1 of them and have 3 others which are just as determined as the first now to get the aircraft in their control. YES a 45 may have knocked one of them off BUT you still had a few more to contend with. It is easy to "assume" and play moday morning qb BUT as a token of respect to the thousands of innocent lives lost I am not even going to get into a "scenario" debate with you regarding the actual events of 9-11. You have your beliefs and feelings which I respect and on the other hand I have my own and it just so happens that we are no where near agreeing on anything regarding this issue-

You end by saying that you would rather STOP a hijacker from gaining access while the aircraft is on the ground.

I think the problem is solved 100% by "stopping" them prior to getting on the plane- SECURITY will work IF many things are changed. You need not to forget that this was a problem that originated with ground security NOT with pilots- Security failed the American people on that day so now it is time to "change" the way security is handled and changes have taken place and will continue to change at every airport in the US of A until we have minimized every risk and we are 100% sure that the events of 9-11 can never happen again. Is the security system in place now "perfect" and "screw-up proof".??-Absolutely not BUT 3-4 years from now I do feel that our security procedures will be able to stop any such terrorist attempt.

Once again you think that a gun on the flight deck would be the best thing that ever happened to aviation and I tend to strongly disagree.

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.

Again- you are "assuming" just the same as I am- I however feel strongly that IF every precaution is taken on the ground then a pilot shouldn't have to worry about defending the cockpit. IF the cockpit door is reinforced to make it impossible to break in then how/why would a pilot need to defend the cockpit.??

I understand every point that you are attempting to make and I see your logic I just have a different opinion on how to "avoid" the situation completely so that a "gun" would never have to come into the equation.

I am not an airline pilot nor do I have your experience so I respect your points even though I may not agree with you regarding the gun issue...

I just hope that whatever happens in the end it will be for the best interest of all involved and 9-11 will never happen again..
What is just a tad puzzling is the cargo security or I should say lack of.....

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[dash8driver]

well, the door is only big enough for 1 hijacker to fit through at a time, and a gun usually carries more than 1 round. you couldnt ask for a better way for them to be lined up and shot. basically you shoot them as they come through the door.

you are absolutely right that IF security is done correctly, a pilot shouldnt have to worry about defending the cockpit. unfortuneatly its not, and pilots do have to worry about it. and when he does have to worry about it, he/she should be able to do something about it. IF security was done correctly, we wouldnt have to have f-16's with orders to shoot if necessary.. which is still the case.

you cant make a cockpit door impossible to break in. it has to be made possible to break in so that the crew can break out in case of an accident (or rescuers can break in to rescue them)

security can never be 100%, thats why you never rely on 1 layer of security.

 

[lancair1]

Some of you are really amazing me here..

Do you think it requires some "magic hands" to utilize a firearm. Must you be cia, fbi, etc. to obtain or grow these magic hands?

Your fear of handguns only holds validity in that you, yourself are not mentally capable because of your own incorrect assumptions.

And what is this crap: "it probably won't make a difference anyway" attitude. September 11 was not "likely" to happen.

What the heck do you memorize any emergency checklists for? An emergency is not "likely" to occur.

I'm starting to get depressed, so I must go. It must just be the political favor of my circle of friends that led me to believe that most, if not all pilots were the thinkers, not the suckers.

 

[enigma]

: to TWAdude

A few quick points, then I'm done. These type of strings usually get ignored by everyone once they become longer that a couple of point- counter points. Then no one else is listening and the reason I post is to make a point with everyone who reads this, I really have no expectation of changing your mind. In effect, you provide me a foil and relieve me of playing devils advocate with myself. In other words, I have no personal fight with you.

As to this being opinions, your right; but some opinions can be backed up with fact and precident. Politically correct though has a basis in wishes/dreams/etc. It's just symbolism.

Next, Citizens can be trusted with guns. Criminoligist Gary Kleck has published, in more than one study and book, scientific evidence of that FACT. To summarize, take the number if firearms in the country and compare that to the number of firearm misuse; you will find that the percent of misuse is statistically ZERO. You say this, 'I believe it's naiive in the extreme to think that a gun in every law-abider's household would make this country a safer place." Once again the facts prove that the safest areas to live are counties that allow the most legal firearms. Vice-versa, the most dangerous places have a total ban on firearms. Washington DC is the best example.

The reason that there is not a FAM in every fwd jumpseat is simply money. Now there is an area where the government has made a choice of money over safety. Your phraseology implies that you would approve of allowing a FAM in that position. What I advocate, putting an armed pilot in the cockpit is NO different than your FAM in the jumpseat thought. The bonus is that the pilot doesn't require an additional paycheck while the FAM does.

Your info says that you fly DC9s. If so, you know full well that the bulkheads are nigh near impossible to bulletproof. The proximity of the electrical system behind the Captain as well as the control cables just doesn't leave any room for any cheap installation, and the airlines will probably park the planes before they spend what would be necessary to completely re-engineer the entry area.

Later

 

[SpinDoctor]

In my opinion.....

In my opinion the liabilities outweigh the potential assests to having a firearm(s) in the cockpit. Good arguments have been made by both sides, however I am of the same opinion and stubbornly stuck to it like TWA and 350.

I would like to respond to some of the origional posts about the FedEx incident. If the attacker was a jumpseating/deadheading pilot and he had a gun, neither one of those pilots would be alive today. He simply would have shot them both before they knew what was going on.
Which brings up something that I feel will certainly happen if we are allowed to carry firearms. The FAA will end all jumpseat agreements. No access to the cockpit to anyone other than the FAA or checkairmen. We all know how much the FAA enjoys overkill, and I fear this will be one of the consequences.

Lancair it doesn't take magical hands to utilize a firearm. However, your argument about lacking the mental capacity to utilize a firearm is flawed. How many pilots in thier mental capacity think they are the best d@mn pilot they know? Probably most. Yet we all know that because of pilot error, perfectly good airplanes fly right into mountains that have been there for millions of years.
By the way how's Vero? Is Cliff still working dispatch?

 

[lancair1]

spin doctor,
I am sure you will not be surprised that I disagree that my logic is flawed.

You say that pilot's fly aircraft into mountains that have been there for years? Then why do we continue to fly? If there is a possibility of danger why don't we start a thread advocating the gov outlaw flight?

To save myself from looking like a pompus jerk, my statement that certain people "lack the mental capacity" must not be taken out of context:

"Your fear of handguns only holds validity in that you, yourself are not mentally capable because of your own incorrect assumptions."

I don't know if you all saw this or not. A couple weeks ago Cokie Roberts, Sam, Stephanopolis and George Will were all sitting around the table talking about this. Kokie says, (in a whiny voice) "being on a plane was the only place I feel safe from guns", then, "what if the pilot misses and shoots a pax". George Will returns: "HELLO, THERE IS ALREADY A HIJACKNG GOING ON"

Do you realize that you're buddying up with Kokie Roberts? We're supposed to be the logical ones! Not the emotional likes of her!

 

[SpinDoctor]

You say that pilot's fly aircraft into mountains that have been there for years? Then why do we continue to fly? If there is a possibility of danger why don't we start a thread advocating the gov outlaw flight?

Well hell's bells son...just being alive kills a person. Should we outlaw being alive since in the end you're going to die anyway? You can't argue that we should stop doing something just because there is some inherent danger or risk in such an activity. My point was that eveyone's idea of their own mental and physical ability is a little biased. Most, if not all, people feel as though thier abilities are better than they actually are.

I have no fear of carrying or utilizing a firearm in the cockpit. I fear other people carrying and/or utilizing firearms in the cockpit.

Kokie, Sam, George, and George aren't exactly people who know what's going on. Most reporters/anchormen in the mass media have no idea what goes on behind the scenes in the cockpit of a commercial airliner or even general aviation aircraft. For that matter, neither does the general public. Bill Mahr said, "Why not give pilots guns, they were all in the military anyway." The public and the mass media have a very skewed perception of pilots and our jobs.

If I'm buddying up to anyone it's Star Jones.....she is so hot!

 

[enigma]

Re: In my opinion.....

Which brings up something that I feel will certainly happen if we are allowed to carry firearms. The FAA will end all jumpseat agreements. No access to the cockpit to anyone other than the FAA or checkairmen. We all know how much the FAA enjoys overkill, and I fear this will be one of the consequences.

I've been working in flight test the last 5 weeks. Did the Feds change the current JS rules during that time?

The last I knew, the cockpit was already off limits to anyone other than company pilots; and we can only carry company up front after calling dispatch. This argument is red herring.

regards