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; Originally Posted by SelfDefense WOW! That is not nearly it and it is not rare at all. Without knowing about those off the top of ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

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

  1. #46
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    WOW! That is not nearly it and it is not rare at all.
    Without knowing about those off the top of my head, I can’t effectively argue about these incidents. Thank you for making them known to me, and I’m going to look into them. They do not, however, change the comparative frequency of terrorist incidents on America soil. Even your additions only add another six to an already short list. (I’m intentionally not counting embassies and such in far-off nations). It’s already hard to pull off an attack against a country that is geographically far away, and only becomes harder with the knowledge that the currency of those nations most inclined to attack us is weaker than our own, among other reasons. A lot of people give a lot of tough talk around the world, but it’s difficult to actually do anything. If that wasn’t the case, you and I should both agree that we would be attacked much more than we have been; we’ve certainly made enough enemies.

    Attacks aren’t commonplace. They are still statistically rare, and it is almost impossible to anticipate these outliers. Of the instances of violence in America, terrorism comprises an infinitesimally-small section of total violence in America. By all indications, the “lone gunman” is the increasing threat because “domestic terrorists” are becoming increasingly active. Anyone had their ears and eyes open for ELF/ALF lately? Or any of the larger white supremacist groups?

    Those airport tests consistently tell me that airports are still not very fortified against potential terrorist attacks. That many of the airports receive advance notice of the tests tells an observer that their successes would be much lower than if they hadn’t been told. Since airports are the main topic of this discussion, it’s easy to see how a “ban on guns” has done little, if anything, to make airports safer. Given the test results and that they came from TSA (I suspect only because another news group had already snagged some of the test data) several years after these “increased security measures”, I maintain that even the newer measures are still not making airports notably safer.

    On security measures, we see two different approaches, very analogous to a “concealed v. open carry” argument (of which there is virtually no data supporting which is more preventative of crime). I can’t say what would be more or less effective, only that I am more supportive of hard knowledge that an armed and trained presence is there. To elaborate on my position, it would be like a criminal going into a store and knowing that there is, without a doubt, armed and trained professionals in the store, and that the clerks are similarly armed, but the criminal doesn’t know who is armed. I find that more comforting than the criminal potentially gambling that “this one might not have” those armed and trained professionals.

    Regarding your argument to deterrence (“It is the responsibility of the Federal government to secure the nation and our people...”), I’m not suggesting that it’s an infringement of rights. I believe it is, but let me repeat myself and say that I don’t think that’s the problem. The problem is that the government has not adequately taken accountability for restricting the ability of citizens to protect themselves. To be blunt, they took weapons away but put nothing in their place. No armed professionals, no armed pilots, not nearly adequate (efficient?) airport security. That is my problem.

    Your numbers for how many flights have armed presences on them are curious, and if possible I’d like to see a source for them. Even in conjecture, those numbers are highly at odds with what (admittedly little) I know about the sad state of affairs the air marshals are in, that being that their numbers are very, very low.

    I’m curious as to why you feel this is a federal issue, though. Why would this not be a contractual issue between states, where states are liable for losses? Just sparking discussion, because while I don’t agree with you that it is wholly a federal issue and do feel the federal government should be involved in the process, I’m more inclined to think it should be a process a federal government watchdog agency (perhaps with investigative powers, perhaps not) oversees as opposed to performs itself. My understanding of Eisenhower’s decision regarding roadways was to make travel more efficient after he saw how efficient it made transportation in Germany. I see how that relates to national security, but I don’t see how that is a security issue entirely, any more than I do how aerial transportation is a security issue entirely. Should airliners not be permitted to provide their own safety features (security elements) to their aircraft in the same way automobile manufacturers provide safety features? Federally mandated, privately carried out?

    The vaccinations and internet are separate issues, and I shouldn’t have brought them up. The only way to clarify and expand would take this further off topic (though if the opportunity presents itself I would like to have that debate with you one day).


    -B

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    Get a grip you'all who think cartoons like that are good. This is what make gun friendly people look like wako's. 2A does protect rights, but it doesn't protect wakos...

    Aircraft are flying aluminum cans with delicate engine parts, fragile aerodynamic surfaces, liquid oxygen, and about 8,000 gallons of jet fuel. Not the sort of place one wants to start a gun fight. I am certain one of the first lessons Air Marshals and Pilots who CCW get is "when it's ok to shoot and not destroy the aircraft"

    Airports and planes are one of the few "gun free zones" that are actually a good idea. Given the metal detectors and baggage screening, one can be reasonably certain that there are no weapons around.
    Did you read my earlier post regarding TSA's findings about the very screenings you're referencing? Or the several comments earlier regarding the physical hardiness of airplanes, and the unlikelihood of a bullet from any handgun doing any substantive damage to an airplane? Did "gun free zones" work anywhere else they were designated? Did they work on September 11th?

    Just curious. I find the picture amusing myself, and a good parody.


    -B

  4. #48
    Distinguished Member Array Ghettokracker71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Under a rock.
    Posts
    1,763
    Cool picture,and a good noteworthy idea BUTTT I doubt seriously if the BGs had a way of getting something more "lethal" than a box cutter to use in a hi-jacking,they would have.


    "To blame a gun for a mans decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object"- Colion Noir.

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    . 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......
    I personally believe this should be the direction of the CCW on a plane. I find this equal to the deterrent of a burglar entering a home labeled " Protected by Smith and Wesson. Current status of airline policy is a lawsuit happy society fed by hungry liberals acting as lawyers.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  6. #50
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Without knowing about those off the top of my head, I can’t effectively argue about these incidents. Thank you for making them known to me, and I’m going to look into them. They do not, however, change the comparative frequency of terrorist incidents on America soil. Even your additions only add another six to an already short list. (I’m intentionally not counting embassies and such in far-off nations).
    I guess whether you think terrorists attacks are infrequent depends heavily on whether you or your family are involved. Violent crime against a particular individual is rare but we carry and prepare for that very occurence. And I do think you should include the embassies (and also military installations) overseas because it is American soil and Americans lives are at risk. In fact, those places are typically more hardened than those on our own continent.

    It’s already hard to pull off an attack against a country that is geographically far away, and only becomes harder with the knowledge that the currency of those nations most inclined to attack us is weaker than our own, among other reasons. A lot of people give a lot of tough talk around the world, but it’s difficult to actually do anything. If that wasn’t the case, you and I should both agree that we would be attacked much more than we have been; we’ve certainly made enough enemies.
    I have to disagree with this vehemently. As technology advances the oceans are no longer adequate protection against our enemies. Far and away the biggest threat to our national security is a missile attack by a rogue nation (like NK or Iran) or well financed terrorists. Perhaps I am biased or perhaps I am more knowledgeable because I work in missile defense but the fact is that long range missiles pose a grave danger and can be tipped with biological, chemical or nuclear warheads. The North Korean TD2 is capable of reaching the US mainland and it is common knowlede that they readily sell their technology and final products. I suggest a reading of Rumsfeld's 1998 missile report to get a feel for the capabilities of our enemies.

    Attacks aren’t commonplace. They are still statistically rare, and it is almost impossible to anticipate these outliers. Of the instances of violence in America, terrorism comprises an infinitesimally-small section of total violence in America. By all indications, the “lone gunman” is the increasing threat because “domestic terrorists” are becoming increasingly active. Anyone had their ears and eyes open for ELF/ALF lately? Or any of the larger white supremacist groups?
    I don't think the fact they have been rare (as you suggest) is any indication that in the future they will not be as commonplace as in the cities in Israel. Israelis have already gone through the terror and life changing events to get their current vigilence. I would hope we can thwart every terrorist effort and I applaud almost all security measures because I know the panic and harm that would ensue to the of America.

    Those airport tests consistently tell me that airports are still not very fortified against potential terrorist attacks. That many of the airports receive advance notice of the tests tells an observer that their successes would be much lower than if they hadn’t been told.
    Again, the testers already know the weaknesses of the layered system and devise their test accordingly. Did any of them pass throgh the checkpoint with an XD 40 in a tuckable IWB holster?

    Consider the possibility that we do the behavioral profiling that Israel employs. The testers would not be scrutinized properly and perhaps succeeded where a terrorist would fail.

    Since airports are the main topic of this discussion, it’s easy to see how a “ban on guns” has done little, if anything, to make airports safer. Given the test results and that they came from TSA (I suspect only because another news group had already snagged some of the test data) several years after these “increased security measures”, I maintain that even the newer measures are still not making airports notably safer.
    Yes, that is your argument and mine is that since we have had no attacks since security was enhanced that our measures have not been unsuccessful. Also, I cannot remember when guns were ever allowed on airlines though I do remember the time before metal detectors. The worldwide hijackings significantly decreased after those seurity asures were taken. Certainly, the further security measures has incrementally improved security at virtually no cost to the passenger.

    To elaborate on my position, it would be like a criminal going into a store and knowing that there is, without a doubt, armed and trained professionals in the store, and that the clerks are similarly armed, but the criminal doesn’t know who is armed. I find that more comforting than the criminal potentially gambling that “this one might not have” those armed and trained professionals.
    Not being a BG I cannot comment on their choice of target. My argument I presented yesterday was not well articulated. I was trying to argue that the risk profile a terrorist might use is the target for security when you cannot have 100% air marshals. If the chance was 50% their long planned activity would be thwarted then perhaps they would not ake the attempt. What is their risk profile? I don;t know, but that is certainly the reason we don't know the percentage of marshals on the flights.

    Regarding your argument to deterrence (“It is the responsibility of the Federal government to secure the nation and our people...”), I’m not suggesting that it’s an infringement of rights. I believe it is, but let me repeat myself and say that I don’t think that’s the problem. The problem is that the government has not adequately taken accountability for restricting the ability of citizens to protect themselves. To be blunt, they took weapons away but put nothing in their place. No armed professionals, no armed pilots, not nearly adequate (efficient?) airport security. That is my problem.
    This is a multiple issue statement so I will address each separately. The government is not, per se, accountable for the liability of restricting your right to protect yourself. Each individual legislator (and President) is accountable. The Federal government has the responsibility to provide for national security as we the people determine is required. Every Federal policy is a reflection of us, the citizens.

    And they have not taken away your right to protect yourself (with a gun) as you never had that right on an airplane. If you want to fly your own plane I don't think there is a prohibition against you carrying. And there is security in place and they are attempting to improve and make it more efficent constantly.

    Your numbers for how many flights have armed presences on them are curious, and if possible I’d like to see a source for them. Even in conjecture, those numbers are highly at odds with what (admittedly little) I know about the sad state of affairs the air marshals are in, that being that their numbers are very, very low.
    Hopefully, I addressed this satisfactorily above.

    I’m curious as to why you feel this is a federal issue, though. Why would this not be a contractual issue between states, where states are liable for losses? Just sparking discussion, because while I don’t agree with you that it is wholly a federal issue and do feel the federal government should be involved in the process, I’m more inclined to think it should be a process a federal government watchdog agency (perhaps with investigative powers, perhaps not) oversees as opposed to performs itself.
    I think it is a Federal ssue for a number of reasons. Many flights originate of terminate in other countries. The Constituion clearly addresses interstate issues and mandates that it is a Federal concern. I think the abuse of the interstate commerce clause has made its true intent a bit overshadowed by national interests (such as the so called medicinal marijuana issue.) And I do make a distiction between national issues and Federal issues.

    My understanding of Eisenhower’s decision regarding roadways was to make travel more efficient after he saw how efficient it made transportation in Germany. I see how that relates to national security, but I don’t see how that is a security issue entirely, any more than I do how aerial transportation is a security issue entirely.
    I think you are correct about Eisenhower's motivation but his justification for using Federal funds was that it was a ntional security issue. That debate is for another time. But I do think that aerial transportation is significantly differnt than ground transportation and poses an entirely different set of national security problems.

    Should airliners not be permitted to provide their own safety features (security elements) to their aircraft in the same way automobile manufacturers provide safety features? Federally mandated, privately carried out?
    The auto safety features are for personal safety. Aircraft safety is not necessarily to defend you personally, but rather the nation as a whole. In the past is was to use hostages as bargaining chips. Now they can be used as powerful missiles.

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Did you read my earlier post regarding TSA's findings about the very screenings you're referencing? Or the several comments earlier regarding the physical hardiness of airplanes, and the unlikelihood of a bullet from any handgun doing any substantive damage to an airplane? Did "gun free zones" work anywhere else they were designated? Did they work on September 11th?
    -B
    Yes, I have read articles describing TSA failures in bomb tests, the classic one was TSA finding, then loosing a dummy bomb and allowing it to be loaded on a flight to Amsterdam...

    It is not fair to compare mall type "gun free zones" (with no screening and enforcement) with sterile airport conditions. Today, we can be almost totally certain that there are no weapons on flights. The 911 box cutters were a failure of policy- not in screening. They were legal to carry on board.

    Planes are built to be robust, but you aren't even allowed to use your ipod during takeoff...In my humble opinion, the extra benefit from allowing passengers to CCW is not worth the risk.

    ...
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array mulle46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,164

    Unhappy

    I have worked security that involves both metal detectors and x-ray machines at a courthouse. I have seen a large(bigger than officer issue) can of O.C. and a boxcutter that were barely detectable. The only reason we found out is because the woman told the probation officer that she had her s**t with her.

  9. #53
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    I know everyone wants to protect themselves and their families, and I personally hate being unarmed. But we really need to think this through.

    If guns were allowed on planes, wouldn't the terrorists have found a way to bring some on with them? They wouldn't have brought knives to a gunfight. Add to that the fact that they would have trained together extensively, probably simulating several times the very attack they are executing. Do you still think it would be so easy for 4-5 CCWers who have probably never met to take them out? Plus at this point you're talking a pretty big gunfight. Lot's of secondary casualties, and a major chance of damaging the plane past the point of no safe landing.

    Someone mentioned having the CCWers board early or have some way of identifying themselves to each other. The terrorists would more than likely have infiltrated this group as well and now knows who to take out first. As much as we dislike them, we can never trick ourselves into thinking they are stupid or untrained.

    While I don't like being disarmed on a plane, it's probably the best/safest alternative for all involved. I do think we need more Air Marshalls so that we have at least one, preferrably two, on each flight. Also every pilot and copilot should be trained and armed. I also think that all of the attendants should be trained in martial arts. With this, a flight of citizens could overwhelm any terrorist without a bomb or a gun. I would take my chances on a disarmed plane with the above trained personnel over a bunch of armed passengers anyday.

  10. #54
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    The reason 9/11 happened was the policies of the airlines and the FAA, which was to co-operate with hijackers, as opposing them will result in injuries, death, etc. That was drilled into everyone. So a few fanatical bullies could take over 4 airplanes full of responsible adults. I'll bet more than a few passengers had real knives on them, but did nothing.

    By the way, planes have so many redundant systems that you could shoot at one all day and not impact it in the least, aside from keeping it from being pressurized. You won't get explosive decompression from bullet holes.

    As to the Air Marshalls, you have a better chance at consistently winning in Vegas than having one on your flight, unless you fly in and out of DC or NYC. The airlines are also fighting having more Marshalls on flights, as it costs them money (apparently the feds don't pay as much for the Air Marshall's seats as regular folks do).

    Flight attendants being trained in martial arts is a good idea, but most of them women (smaller and weaker than men, on average) and, how should we put it politely, old enough to be the parents of most martial arts instructors. Not who I want to depend on for my personal safety, thank you very much.

    Even if you do buy into the "no CCW guns on airlines", what is the problem with us non-terrorists having knives on a plane?

  11. #55
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan View Post
    The reason 9/11 happened was the policies of the airlines and the FAA, which was to co-operate with hijackers, as opposing them will result in injuries, death, etc. That was drilled into everyone. So a few fanatical bullies could take over 4 airplanes full of responsible adults. I'll bet more than a few passengers had real knives on them, but did nothing.
    No, the reason 9/11 happened was because terrorists hijacked airplanes. Blaming the airlines and the FAA is disingenuous. No one could know the enemy was going to use the planes as deadly missiles. Previous hijacks were used for political bargaining, not acts of war. In fact, when the passengers on 93 realized what was going on they did successfully thwart the enemy's activities.

    As to the Air Marshalls, you have a better chance at consistently winning in Vegas than having one on your flight, unless you fly in and out of DC or NYC.
    How do you know this? Are you disclosing classfied information or are you just making a guess that conforms to your preconceived notions?

    Even if you do buy into the "no CCW guns on airlines", what is the problem with us non-terrorists having knives on a plane?
    How do I know you are a non terrorist? More to the point, if a terrorist could be easily distinguished from a good guy then we could simply not allow the terrorist to board the aircraft.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 20th, 2008 at 10:00 AM. Reason: spelling

  12. #56
    Member Array CarryingMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan
    Posts
    354
    ok, my 2 cents, were not even talking about terrorists here, foreign or domestic, we are simply say our 2nd amendment is being ripped to shreds, by not allowing us TRAINED CCWers to carry on public transportation, and there is a simple fix to this IMO, you know how you have different classes of operator licenses (driving) oper, cdl, cycle, I think you could do something similar with concealed weapons permits, for instance, MOST of us carry a second Magazine, and if we had a pulic transport stamp to out CCW then we would simply swap magazines with the new less than lethal force bullets (bean bags) and carry that way, it would send a message to everyone thinking about doin something stupid that the "NEW" law take their chances for success away for the most part. just my .02
    "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference, the MARINES don't have that problem." Pres. Ronald Reagan.

    Remember your abilities AND disabilities can become Possibilities!

    Semper Fi!

  13. #57
    Senior Member Array sui-juris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    A) Its supposed to be a right not a privilege Meaning no one should be able to take that "right" away. If permission need be granted than it is a privilege. So is the answer comes down to whether you believe 2nd Amendment a right or a privilege.

    B) A plane containing 100 passengers would have to be brought down every week for 92 weeks to equal the number of dead & injured on 9/11. (Deaths=2,993 (including 19 terrorists) Injured=6,291+ source Wikipedia ) That will never happen. Even in the unlikely event that lone gun men could bring a plane down the reality is that a single hijacked plane can and has caused more deaths in a single day than a periodic plane falling out of the sky will ever cause.

    C) The rights of 9,284 American citizens were violated on September 11, 2001 because the 2nd Amendment right of American citizens flying on planes that day were violated. Had the right to bear arms not been violated most of those people would be alive today.
    Very well put!

  14. #58
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    It is not disingenuous to blame the "authorities" for telling crews and the public not to resist airplane hijackers. Four bullies with box cutters should not have been able to take over 4 jetliners with hundreds of able bodied Americans who could have easily overwhelmed them, if the sheep mentality had not been drummed into everyone involved (except the terrorists).

    As to the number of flights with Air Marshalls on them, the TSA's own goal is 3% of the 30,000 daily flights, with the emphasis on DC, NYC and Latin American flights. This info is publicly available from the GAO.

    If everyone on a plane has a knife, then the few BG's with knives will be outnumbered, and probably wouldn't even try anything.

  15. #59
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    there wouldn't have been that many folks...but there would have been enough.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by sui-juris View Post
    Very well put!
    Thanks is always surprises me how many on gun forums reveal that they really think that 2nd Amendment a cherished privilege subject to restrictions and limitations. How many cite crime stats that show CCW reduces crime, They point out the states with the most liberal CCW laws as being the states with the lowest crime. They quote our founding fathers about the intent and need for the 2nd Amendment. Yet, they understand the need for background checks, finger printing, registration, certification and restrictions on where and who can carry. Often citing the very same reasons & fears the Brady Bunch uses to ban all guns. Maybe it is time for us to follow our own reasoning and accept that despite our concerns the safest state is not the one with the best thought out certification & registration program but the one that recognizes that the 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right and has no gun control laws at all. Where anyone sixteen or older can buy any gun they choose to and carry it as they see fit.
    Last edited by LongRider; January 22nd, 2008 at 08:34 PM.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Page 4 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