Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[350DRIVER]

My last $.02.....

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

NO- I think logical reasoning would highly suggest that if "something" isn't working out, not safe, then we MUST CHANGE things for the better. "CHANGE"- is the key word, I would do away with ALL ground screeners that have proven themselves as a possible risk and who are not able to handle the job within the guidelines that are outlined. IF it takes hiring thousands as replacements then so be it. What other options would be left.? Even if we must revamp and change the system completely I still feel it is in the best interest of the American people versus "gambling" on the "magic" gun..... I will take my chances on survival any day of the week with a terrorist on the GROUND(attempting to get passed security "NOW") versus being on an aircraft "hoping" and praying that the so-called magic gun will safely get me back on the ground. Once again I feel that IF we can "prevent" the situation from ever happening in the first place then it is a win win situation for all involved.

As a former DAL employee (ops/gates) I saw first hand what "kinds" of people are employed and a few of the ones I have seen made me second guess "why" they were even hired in the first place not to mention when the FAA did the random checks HOU security did not have the best record or even close to it. However we can continue to degrade and rank on them OR we can stay optimistic about what the future has in store..

IF you think that once most airports have the "federalized security" plan intact that the SAME people will be employed as now just ask any security person about their job security and get their response....


C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[enigma]

350driver

Why do you frame the argument as either/or?
Why can't we ask for both good ground screening and secure aircraft?
I certainly agree that we need more effective screening, I'm not saying that we should do away with ground screening, yet that is what one takes from your arguments.
regards

 

[350DRIVER]

IF it takes "doing away" with ground security and starting from scratch to hire "new" more educated, competent,safe, and more motivated people to ensure the American people are getting the best federal employees which are in reality our last life line then I am all for it 100%...- I don't think I have ever suggested "doing away" with ground security, I think that most if not all who reads my posts get the feeling that I would much rather "prevent" the problem on the GROUND at any and ALL costs versus letting this problem escalate to a very serious issue at FL370... I strongly feel that it is much smarter to AVOID the problem in the first place.

IF the hijacker is prevented from boarding the aircraft then this whole gun debate is irrelevant, like I said this is a very serious "ground security" issue NOT a pilot problem as far as I am concerned. How do you "fix" all kinks and flaws with ground security at the present time.??- Good question and I don't think it is easily answered BUT we must not leave any doubt when the "final" plan is put in place. This is in no way going to be an easy "fix" as far as I am concerned however I do strongly think that we are moving in the right direction.(time will tell)

Why can't we ask for both good ground screening and secure aircraft?

I agree and I do think that IF we prevent the terrorist BEFORE they would get onboard then we have a "secure aircraft" and safe work atmosphere. I would much rather disect every part of the ground security system and "attempt" to perfect it than having to HOPE that a gun could save the day and have a positive outcome when put to the test.

Time shall tell however IF the correct choice has been made. I cannot look into the future and say that I am right BUT I just believe that IF the security is better then NO pilot should ever have to worry about having a gun at 30,000 wondering IF they will be alive to see another day.

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[lancair1]

350,
Do you place the same judgement to the safety of your family?
That you would rather rely on our criminal justice system to keep criminals off the streets and out of your neigborhood, and in a worst case scenario, you call 911?

I'm beginning to think that you are either: 350 lbs of brute muscle, a 4th degree Black Belt, or that you hate guns.

Would you at least advocate sharpening up the axe?

 

[350DRIVER]

lancair1-
It is obvious that your reasoning has just a tad to be desired but to any extent that is your choice not mine fortunately. I tend to want to "avoid" being put into any situation where a pilot would "need" to resort to using a gun and you on the other hand would rather allow a terrorist on the aircraft and then hope a gun saves your life as well as everyone else onboard- (good luck to you & take a few pictures up there)- Better you than me... I am just very thankful that a few people in DC also agree with my reasoning however it is only common sense.

I'm beginning to think that you are either: 350 lbs of brute muscle, a 4th degree Black Belt, or that you hate guns.

I have absolutely nothing against guns at all IF their is a logical reason to have a "need" for them. I feel that in this day and age in this society that a gun IS beneficial in most cases as "protection" however on the flight deck it seems to defy common sense to have a "need" for one.....

Like I said you prefer to allow a hijacker on the aircraft and in your anit-gov't views leave the "security" issue up to you to play GI Joe at 30,000 -I prefer to let security arrest the person on the ground and prevent the situation all together. (just my personal feelings regarding this)

Do you place the same judgement to the safety of your family?

I appreciate your concerns for the well being and safety of my family and I can assure you that everyone in my family is safe and sound. This debate is going no where so we can continue to waste each others time or move on and address the concerns at hand. YOU have your opinions and I respect your views even if we may never agree regarding this issue. This is a debate that is nothing more than opinions versus opinions and nothing more. I tend to want to "prevent" and you seem to want to "allow" a situation to mature into what possibly could be a problem.-

I think we have beaten this thread inside and out with no agreement in sight so with that being said I wish you the best of luck in your fight to drum up support for "guns on the flight deck" and IF it is meant to be then I guess we shall all accept guns on the flight deck- Either way I won't loose too much sleep I assure you of this. Cheers to you and happy flying-

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[gsrcrsx68]

I was eating lunch with friend today and pondered," What type of people are better trained, more disciplined, more level headed and more capable, local cops or pilots?"

No disrespect intended. I am glad the police are available for those who need them.

I say give pilots the guns. Give them MP5's, and load them with rubber bullets. There would be less chance of improper useage than there is a chance of improper useage of the elevator control.

As for anyone claiming they understand guns, but would keep them away from law abiding citizens, you do not understand guns. Period. Stay in your (far) left wing, with your superior mind and think. The rest of us will deal with reality.

 

[dash8driver]

350...

why do you insist that its either ground security OR guns? you make it sound as if you're going to let a gun in the cockpit, its a trap for the terrorists because we're gonna let them all on the plane with no ground security. in your posts you try to say that the gun supporters dont want ground security, only guns.

its not about either/or for the gun supporters. we want the best screening and security available... hell if they could do background checks on every pax like they do on El Al we would love it. we want every layer of security now in place to be improved as much as possible AND have an option open (gun) in the event that all else fails. if you're going to have to fire that gun in the cockpit, you're already in deep trouble because someone is trying to kill EVERYONE on the plane.

no pilot wants to ever use that gun, ever. no one wants to play GI joe...thats a stupid assumtion. all pilots ever want is to have a full career with no trouble. if all the ground security keeps us safe the rest of our lives, that would be great... but give me something to defend myself with just incase all the wonderful ground security guys get tricked by some smart terrorists. (incase anyone hasnt figured it out by now, they're not stupid).

 

[Saabslime]

Law or no law, no crewmember is going to carry a firearm onboard my aircraft. Period. There are many other effective measures available to deal with a would-be highjacker. All this hype about pilots carrying guns is just as big of a knee jerk reaction on our part as what we (pilots) were accusing the government of in their reaction to security measures post 9/11.

 

[lancair1]

At first, I thought we were debating with useful information and concepts. Now I find that I am a "gi joe" "government hating" pilot who "wants to allow hijackers through ground security so I can ambush them"

You see right through me 350. Turn yourself into "logic" mode from "ridiculous and baseless accusation" mode.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Here is some logic that I don't think can be disproved:

It is better to have a gun and never need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.

 

[Saabslime]

It is better to have a gun and never need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.

Wow, that was deep. What if C - A - T really spelled dog??..................................

 

[gsrcrsx68]

simple and true.

C A T? yeah I read some crap like that in philosophy 111.

 

[AWACoff]

I think that everyone can agree with this point...no matter how good our security, no matter how much money we throw at it, the terrorists will always find a way. We can't stop them all. Saabslime... I hope distrust of your fellow pilots is not your reason for not wanting firearms on the flightdeck. On another point...if guns in aircraft are so inherently dangerous, why do we allow LEOs, Air Marshals, etc. to carry them? On top of that, apparently the Air Marshals are no longer being trained to the high standards we were told they would be. It seems readily apparent who on the board has grown up with firearms in the household and who hasn't. As pilots we must rely upon ourselves to ensure an "out". We need to increase our options and tools at our disposal. When was the last time anybody needed to pull the elevator or aileron disconnects? It doesn't happen that often but it sure is nice to have that last ditch option.
What do I know though...I'm stuck up in the northwoods talking with cows and trying to catch sheep. (hint- velcro gloves).

 

[350DRIVER]

Lanc-
Like it or not this is how it is going to be- NO guns on the flight deck.(ruling was made last week) <- OLD NEWS)That is the bottom line and you can attempt to debate this with your "gun" ho attitude till you are a tad more blue in the face if that is what is going to make you happy I am just very sorry that the majority of people in general as well as in DC did not agree with YOUR logic and feelings regarding "allowing" guns on the flight deck. Once again the ruling was made that NO guns are to be allowed on the flight deck IF you skipped the first part of this reply..

Law or no law, no crewmember is going to carry a firearm onboard my aircraft. Period. There are many other effective measures available to deal with a would-be highjacker. All this hype about pilots carrying guns is just as big of a knee jerk reaction on our part as what we (pilots) were accusing the government of in their reaction to security measures post 9/11.

Also all of your posts Lanc speak for themselves and I don't think it would do justice to go into them and disect them one by one however I did think a few were quite comical so IF you have the chance go back and read a few..

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[lancair1]

350,
You are just plain full of bologna. Your right that they did not approve guns in the cockpit.. Things can change.

If you felt that guns should not be allowed in homes, should my only comeback be that your effort is useless because the laws already protect my right to own a weapon?

You are left feeling that you must say things like "gi joe" "government hating" pilot who "wants to allow hijackers through ground security so they can be ambushed"

After claiming the statements above, do you feel confident and content about the picture your painting of yourself?

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Well don't confuse a vote for larger government with an anti gun vote. The vote in DC was a vote for more government, more pork, more federal agentsa and MORE, not less, GUNS.

With air marshalls randomly placed in the cabin, they should now bulletproof the cockpit. If someone is in back, shooting forward you need to protect the cockpit. If you are going to have the air marshalls sit up front in the same seats all the time, you might as well just give the guns to the pilots.

Once again, for you unrealistic peacenics...The vote was STILL FOR MORE GUNS!

And to the guy guy who said no guns, you just gave the safety of your aircraft to someone you have ZERO control over...good job.

 

[350DRIVER]

Lancair1-
Sorry that you are in the minority on this issue but get used to it since this issue is "dead"(sometimes you have to admit defeat whether you like it or not)- I will not debate this issue anymore with you since clearly your experience level and maturity level have alot to be desired to say the least (just read your posts and you should be able to come to this conclusion also)

If you felt that guns should not be allowed in homes, should my only comeback be that your effort is useless because the laws already protect my right to own a weapon?

Please show me where I have ever mentioned in ANY of my posts where I am against guns in the homes.?? (It is obvious since you clearly have nothing to else to "debate" you must "accuse" people of something that was never said- you are a class act I must say..... I could only imagine what your CFI has to go through in order to attempt to teach you something..

You got a way to go "kiddo"-

3 5 0

 

[lancair1]

350,
I concede that I should never use a parallel in attempt to make a point to you. Parallel: ie. analogy, ie. situation with certain similiarities in attempt to make a point. Now there's a "dead issue"

 

[350DRIVER]

Atleast we do agree that "changes" should be made-lol
right?

C H E E R S
3 5 0

my last $.02

 

[lancair1]

afirm