BkCo1. Yes I will have to agree I do have a rather poor opinion of some of my fellow gun carriers. I read the posts on here, other forums, go to the range and watch youtube and it does make me wonder sometimes how some have survived since birth much less carrying a firearm.
Not everyone and no one in particular on the forum just in general. Maybe it is my nature or my job. I am by no means saying everyone should have advanced firearms skills or training as they are not needed but sometimes just a good dose of general purpose common sense would be good.
You are also correct the CC'er would be in the minority on a flight and could probably be easily distinguished from the bad guys but as I stated before I don't really trust Bob the accountant with his KelTec shooting from seven rows behind me either. (Nothing against folks named Bob, accountants or KelTec's).
Kerberos. No you cannot switch sides. The first thing would be a nationwide permit or and exemption for those legally carrying on a plane when they landed i.e. The person upon arrival at there final destination will secure the firearm for the remainder of their stay in the particular jurisdiction if said jurisdiction does not authorize or recognize the CCW permit.
It is nice to talk of such matters, who knows what may happen in the future.
Consider I used a "wink" smiley, and combine it with my comments in post #59.
Originally Posted by tacman605
I'm just willing to acknowledge that I too would be uncomfortable with Bob being at my 6.
The whole nationwide permit thing is what gets me skiddish...
When things go from state control to fed, the folks in flyover country usually vanish in the minds of the "many"
Last thing I want is for the folks in Cali and NY telling me how to live my life in yet ANOTHER matter!
To move from my usual sarcastic comment to more serious...
Yes I can, and have, switched sides to some degree.
This morning when I woke up I would have given a snap answer of "Yes. Of course I should be allowed to conceal carry on an airline; I'm a former Marine and am one of the most level-headed people I know. To say otherwise directly violates my God-given rights!"
Of course after a little contemplation I realize that legally speaking I'm in the same boat as Bob...
Prior service and training not withstanding.
That's before comments on this thread have knocked me off that little hamster wheel I've got spinning in my brain housing group.
So as I lay down to sleep...
I will be in the "maybe lots of guns on a plane isn't such a good idea after all"
I did say maybe.
I gotta get some work done today...
I'll check back in tomorrow; when I'll probably flip-flop again! haha
Then it would be illegal to carry concealed (or in any other manner) while flying over IL? Dang! Busted.
Originally Posted by kerberos
So a lot of people agree that it's a bad idea, right? Maybe. But how about we let the airlines make the choice of whether to allow them or not, rather than force it by federal law? Chances are that most airlines would recognize the potential risks and nothing would change.
I have often said that no armed scenario is perfect and that in a perfect world, we would never have the need for weapons, but that isn't so.
The 9/11 hijackers were well prepared with a well thought out plan of action. I would imagine that once the passengers on those flights realized there was a hijacking in progress, it was a bit too late and having people armed may not have prevented the terror attacks. We cannot know, because there were no armed people on the planes and the surprise of the hijackers nullified most of the attempts to stop it.
Future attempted hijackings? Well perhaps having at least someone armed and trained, ie Air Marshalls could prevent or end a hijacking but going back to the perfect world we don't live in, that seems unlikely in a real life situation. I would say the idea of having armed resistance on jet aircraft might prevent a hijacker who may have second thoughts of doin so.
The 9/11 hijackers were going to die no matter if they did or did not complete their act of terror, they were counting on death in whatever happend. If they died by the hands of passengers or crashing into stuff, it really didn't matter, their deaths were a done deal. You can't guard against that even with a million armed passengers.
I agree my fellow armed brother. Laws that prevent carry by people disgust me. Like not allowing children to buy firearms. And why shouldn't my 11 year nephew old be allowed to bring a Glock to school for self defense. Nobody would bully the kids who are CCWing! Or why cant I bring my gun to visit my cousin in prison? Hello, there are a bunch of dangerous convicts about so of course I might need it. I don't see the problem with armed individuals on an airplane in a small envlosed space at 40,000 feet having a shoot out. So what if their are other safety concerns? And why can't I take my gun into a bar and drink till I can't see straight? Nowhere does the 2nd amendment mention a sobriety check!
Originally Posted by BWBracelets
I also think it includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons but stupid laws say otherwise.
Originally Posted by ghost tracker
On private or department or corporate airplanes and/or helicopters sure, I have many times.
On civilian public transport, I’ll pass.
I’d rather not, and instead I’ll check it in, and trust the sky Marshall who has been practically trained in how to handle airborne situations.
Further, I cringe to think of some average “Joe citizen” opening fire while flying 30,000 miles up, at what he perseveres as a threat.
"You're out of Kentucky burbon?!" Now that's a threat...
Originally Posted by tns0038
More Training in hand-to-hand would be useful.