Lack of respect for the 2A: CCW on Air Lines

This is a discussion on Lack of respect for the 2A: CCW on Air Lines within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Just a thought: Permit those with CHP/CCL/CCP, etc...carry, but only permit frangible ammo. Oh...and then have them pre-board (instead of gold or silver customers, they're ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64

Thread: Lack of respect for the 2A: CCW on Air Lines

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,000
    Just a thought: Permit those with CHP/CCL/CCP, etc...carry, but only permit frangible ammo. Oh...and then have them pre-board (instead of gold or silver customers, they're "brass customers"). That way, everyone know who the other person is...and prevents/reduces fratricide.

    What do you think?
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    Just a thought: Permit those with CHP/CCL/CCP, etc...carry, but only permit frangible ammo. Oh...and then have them pre-board (instead of gold or silver customers, they're "brass customers"). That way, everyone know who the other person is...and prevents/reduces fratricide.

    What do you think?
    Brass Customers eh?

    I like that.

    Althoug the idea has merit, it requires way to much forethough to ever be used by the TSA. Its simply too complicated for them. Air Marshals would also object, because instead of worrying about a couple of guns now they are worried about them all. Also, it puts them at risk because I doubt that they will want their identities known. So some whacko gets up and gets stupid,the two Air Marshalls try to stop it and get whacked by a passenger that thought he was doing the right thing by shooting badguys.

    Too many variables there.

    I cant see it ever happening.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    A few .50's won't hurt the airworthiness of a plane, and we all know how weak handgun rounds are. The vast majority of people's knowledge of "what would happen if" comes from Hollywood. There are a few, and only a few, things that can be hit by something as minuscule and weak as a bullet, let alone a bullet from a handgun, that can cause enough damage to take down a plane. Almost everything electrical is backed up, and hydraulics are sturdy as anything (with potential backups as well). The one thing a bullet could hit that I know of is at the front of the plane and is about the size of a computer (which it might well be; damned if I can remember though).
    Hate to be the one to test your Hollywood theory. One bullet perhaps...multiple, who knows.

    There is multple redundancy in modern day aircraft...most controlled by computers. Every take a bullet to a computer? Nothing "minuscule or weak" about it...

    Rick

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array randytulsa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,548
    Armed citizens shooting the snot out of the plane (along with the hijackers, hopefully) wouldn't have given us a net result that was any worse than what happened.

    Ron Paul is right.
    "...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


    Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    ahhh the famous defeatists are at it again, naysaying every solution to every problem. Understand this: if the bad guys reach the inside of the plane with evil intentions, it is already too late, all of our security precautions have failed. It is time for drastic action, and quickly. 9/11 only showed us that while guys with box cutters may be overcome, when they get to the cockpit, they can turn the plane into a flying bomb. So to me, a round through a window at 40,000 feet does not bother me nearly as much as a bunch of terrorists flying a 737 into the Super Bowl crowd or the White House. And besides, a couple of rounds through the windows in exchange for dead terrorists is very survivable, the O2 masks just drop down and the pilot reduces altitude below 10k. Now, I do agree that the type of ammunition used can be specified to be more frangible to prevent such incidents from occurring but I don't believe continuing senseless bans will accomplish anything other than to make taking over airplanes a viable option. Imagine the potential BG stepping onto a plane knowing that 4 or 5 people may well be armed?

    I think I would be on my best behavior......
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  7. #21
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    Hate to be the one to test your Hollywood theory. One bullet perhaps...multiple, who knows.

    There is multple redundancy in modern day aircraft...most controlled by computers. Every take a bullet to a computer? Nothing "minuscule or weak" about it...

    Rick
    Truly? I'd love for you to test my theory. What that would require is for you to take the, say, five most common handgun ammunitions, as well as the combination of material separating said computer(s) from the bullet's point of origin (the handgun), and see how well the bullets travel, or do not travel, through no less than two layers of hard material and a layer of softer insulating material. And that's just simulating the exterior of the plane. In order for a bullet fired from the cabin of the plane to strike a computer, it has to go through the floor, which is a metal considerably denser than the material comprising the main "walls" of the cabin.

    I understand your point, believe me. Enough bullets can take down anything, though. Hell, enough people, without bullets, could take down anything. But we're not talking about full-out gunfights here. We're talking about the same sort of self-defense scenarios where the average shots fired is between what, three and five?

    Would you object to the rules for civilians kept as-is, but airliners keeping armed security (folks trained appropriately) and armed pilots on board every flight? What about bullet-proofing the cockpit and/or having different compartments capable of being sealed off by bullet-proof hatches to keep folks from moving around in an emergency? I'm open to suggestions; what we have now is clearly not working, and TSA has even admitted such. These "increased security measures" have done more to tick people off than they have to decrease chances of airliner/airport terrorism.


    -B

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,683
    Armed CITIZENS on a commercial aircraft is NEVER going to happen. The outcry from the anti's would be ENORMOUS. Just look at how militant they got of Va. Tech. & Columbine & those were schools on the ground, not an airliner going 500 knots at 30,000 ft.

    I would like to see a program where the average CC'er could qualify to carry on board an aircraft, but that won't happen either.......The Fed's haven't even completed the pilot arming program..(When was the last time anybody heard of any movement of that?)
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  9. #23
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    what we have now is clearly not working, and TSA has even admitted such. These "increased security measures" have done more to tick people off than they have to decrease chances of airliner/airport terrorism.
    I have to completely disagree with this. What we have now is working sufficiently to have prevented another hijacking since 9/11. The increased security measures have obviously been a deterrent despite that anxious and impatient people have been 'ticked off.'

    Further, the improved security onboard the aircrafts has also decreased the possibility of another 9/11. We have no idea how many flights have armed air marshals, who are specifically trained for aircraft encounters.

    While I have the greatest respect for our community and the capabilities of so many that carry, I don't think the confined space of an airplane, with the lives of hundreds at risk, is a place for ordinary armed citizens.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 13th, 2008 at 04:38 PM. Reason: grammar

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,683
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    ...What we have now is working sufficiently to prevent another hijacking since 9/11. The increased security measures have obviously been a deterrent despite that anxious and impatient people have been 'ticked off.'
    Not picking on you SelfDefense, so don't take this as an attack.

    I think the deterrent is the realization that if hijackers were to try again, they would get the crap pounded out of them by the passengers who know they have nothing to loose. Prior to 11SEP01, passengers were taught to act as sheep & 'give in' the jacker's demands....Now they know that there 'demands' may be devastation using an aircraft.

    Disarming little old ladies of their knitting needles & me of my fingernail clippers is just asinine!

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    ...the improved security onboard the aircrafts has also decreased the possibility of another 9/11. We have no idea how many flights have armed air marshals, who are specifically trained for aircraft encounters.
    This is probably the more important deterrent. Along with armoring up cockpit doors. These are better methods than taking away my penknife. The only deterrent I wish to see improved is making sure explosives aren't on board. These are the hardest to defend against now....it's not someone with a firearm or box cutter that I fear. They aren't getting control of the aircraft.....It's the nut with a bomb, that can bring it down!

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    ....I don't think the confined space of an airplane, with the lives of hundreds at risk, is a place for ordinary armed citizens.
    That's the argument that the anti's use to limit where we carry now.
    -"You can't carry on train, it has to many people..."
    -"You can't carry in a National Park, it has to many people..."
    -"You can't carry in a church, there's to many people..."
    -"You can't carry in a school, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in a mall, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in a arena, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in a courthouse, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in Illinois, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in NYC, there's to many people.."
    ....etc....
    ....etc....
    ....etc....


    Why are there limits on my right to self defense?
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array Pitmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wherever there's fried chicken or barbecue
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    I just want to get peoples personal opinions on this issue. Ron Paul made a fantastic statement that I agree with 100%. He said that because of the governments lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment was the reason 9-11 happened. Basically the FAA stuck its nose in the buisness of private airlines and citizens rsponsibility of CCing on airplanes and said they cant do it. If people were allowed to CC on the airliners 9-11 would have been something like this...

    Thoughts?
    Ron Paul has not been the first guy to address guns on airplanes.

    Archie on Gun Control

    I'm not concerned about weapons on airplanes any more. I consider it a moot point. I don't think an airplane can be successfully hijacked anymore in the U.S. There are way too many people who will defend themselves and other passengers on airplanes anymore. I sit on the aisle and if some buy tries to rush the cockpit he has to at least crawl over or move my fat a$$ which will slow him down enough for others to jump him. There are more passengers in "warrior" mode today than 8 years ago. You don't have to have a gun, ccw, to protect an airplane. The current polices are feel good regs but don't have an impact on safety.

    The issue isn't gun control on airplanes. The issue is the risk to everyone on the airplane. A negligent discharge almost anywhere will usually only kill one person at the most. On an airplane the risk increases to every person on the plane. I'm not opposed to restricting firearms from the passenger compartment of airplanes. I do want my luggage to be safe from theft which is the most frequent crime against a passengers while flying.
    Pitmaster

    HELGA: Where are you going?
    HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
    HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
    HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Brass Customers eh?

    I like that.

    Althoug the idea has merit, it requires way to much forethough to ever be used by the TSA. Its simply too complicated for them. Air Marshals would also object, because instead of worrying about a couple of guns now they are worried about them all. Also, it puts them at risk because I doubt that they will want their identities known. So some whacko gets up and gets stupid,the two Air Marshalls try to stop it and get whacked by a passenger that thought he was doing the right thing by shooting badguys.

    Too many variables there.

    I cant see it ever happening.
    Neither can I...

    But following this thread...the ROE would be no different than if a LEO is in a store and it is robbed...LEO has control and CCW weapons stays in holster (until needed)
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by goawayfarm View Post
    Why are there limits on my right to self defense?
    You give up certain rights when you get on an aircraft or any vessal for that matter....smoking is classic example. No one is forcing you to fly.

    BAC...I agree, there are some layers and have also seen how thick those layers are...not convinced a 45 would not do some serious damage...especially with some of the little RJs or all electric Airbuses. That being said, there have been studies and proposals to provide increased cockpit/equipment protection. Regardless, the first line of defense is the screening and the second are the pilots and sky marshalls. The third are the passengers who will beat the crap out of the BG.

    Rick

  14. #28
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by goawayfarm View Post
    I think the deterrent is the realization that if hijackers were to try again, they would get the crap pounded out of them by the passengers who know they have nothing to loose. Prior to 11SEP01, passengers were taught to act as sheep & 'give in' the jacker's demands....Now they know that there 'demands' may be devastation using an aircraft.

    Disarming little old ladies of their knitting needles & me of my fingernail clippers is just asinine!
    I do agree that some of the restrictions are a bit ridiculous. However, they don't pose undue hardship on passengers. At most it could be considered an incovenience. And I fully support the politically incorrect profiling, which I think we do anyway. The layers of security used in Israel are a model for every airport security effort.

    And I agree that the passengers fighting back on 93 is also important to overall deterrence.

    That's the argument that the anti's use to limit where we carry now.
    -"You can't carry on train, it has to many people..."
    -"You can't carry in a National Park, it has to many people..."
    -"You can't carry in a church, there's to many people..."
    -"You can't carry in a school, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in a mall, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in a arena, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in a courthouse, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in Illinois, there's to many people.."
    -"You can't carry in NYC, there's to many people.."
    ....etc....
    ....etc....
    ....etc....


    Why are there limits on my right to self defense?
    It's not there that are too many people, but rather there is no safe backstop and no escape other than a 30000 foot drop. And, it is a far more dense environment than any of the comparisons you suggest. It's difficult enough to get up, go through the aisle to go to the bathroom no less drawing and positioning yourself for a shot that will not endanger others. Also, the issue of retention is certainly more of a problem in the confined space. It would be next to impossible to keep your strong side away from others in your seat or in the aisle. No hugging low in this environment. And if the guy next to you does a gun grab you really have extremely limited options.

    This particular job is best suited to those who have specifically trained for this type of scenario.

  15. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    Slef Defense has hit on one important thing that no one seems to take as a threat very seriously...retention, or the gun grab.

    That can be a real security issue. To someone up to no good, all he has to do is aquire a gun and its really not as hard as we would like to beleive. All the BG has to do is target the individual and wait for the right moment....and then he has a gun.

    Of course, using it might be a problem if others were armed, but this is only hpothetical as I seroiusly doubt we'll ever see it. There are numerous examples of LEO's having their own guns snatched and used against them though so we cant say that it couldnt happen.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #30
    Member Array Tye_Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    Ever been trained to fight in a tube, aiming at a target with 100+ passengers in the way? Lastly, ever thought if you shot the place up, that you won the battle, but the plane died (lots of electronics on todays aircraft).
    I don't believe we should allow guns on planes either but these 2 arguments don't hold water for me. I haven't come up with an argument that rationalizes my belief but I'm still working on it.

    1) It doesn't matter whether you have been trained to shoot a terrorist in a plane. Taking out a BG in a plane is probably easier then in any of the places we routinely carry! Doing it without hitting another passenger would be a LOT harder, but more will live if you engage then if you don't! In terms of 9/11, none of the passengers survived in any of the 4 planes so it couldn't have been any worse for the passengers if they got shot then what happened. In the 1 that we think the passengers resisted, there were a bunch of people on the ground saved so resisting, while it probably won't save your life, will probably save others. I just hope I'd have the guts to be willing to sacrifice my life to save others (would it be easier for me to do it, knowing I'm probably going to die anyway? I don't know.)

    2) Just about any plane flying today can still fly if you removed all the electronics. Planes fly amazingly well, it's harder to get a plane to not fly then you would think. Heard a story recently of a plane that ran out of fuel 98 miles from the nearest airport. When the engines quit, there is no power generated so most of the electronics are out. They managed to glide all the way to the airport and land. They were probably going about 5 miles per minute (300 knots) and were at ~38000 feet when they lost the engines. I think they were coming down about 2000 feet per minute in their glide so it was probably tight but they made it to the airport and actually had to kill speed at the end to keep from overshooting the airport.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. S&W lost my respect
    By dukalmighty in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 28th, 2009, 08:45 AM
  2. Show some respect please...
    By Derrin33 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 6th, 2009, 09:53 AM
  3. Visiting Respect in DC
    By SixBravo in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 10th, 2007, 11:42 AM
  4. Respect for Wheelies...
    By BlueLion in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 10th, 2006, 10:46 AM
  5. Out of respect?
    By mzmtg in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 21st, 2006, 06:24 PM