Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Guns in cockpit makes progress in house.

Recommended Posts

I will restate my position once again, as succinctly as possible.I own no guns. Will not. Guns should be registered. All guns. Pilots should be able pack. They are completely capable. And hey, guess what gang. If the pilots had been packin Sept 11, it probably would never have happened. Could not have been worse, now could it. Should be voluntary. Pilots support the idea. Pilots oppose the idea. They make up their own minds. You make up yours.Cheers,bthttp://www.msnbc.com/news/769526.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Blimey, where on earth do you dig them up from ???

Share this post


Link to post

"Perhaps if people looked at guns as a being a problem rather than a solution then the world would be a safer place !!!"Agreed, but that just ain't gonna happen in the near future."Projectile weapons have no place in the cockpit of a pressurized aircraft, full stop"Disagree...almost every nation, including yours I believe, has its military pilots carry a piece. Their safety record on this issue has been outstanding. There should be no reason Civil Aviation cannot do same.Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Considering the psychotic ##### that try to take over these aircraft plow them into our cities, I would say losing cabin pressure because of a weapon discharge is the least of our worries. The stakes are much higher than you care to remember, it seems. If I had to put the plane in grave danger in order to avoid certain death for all onboard and thousands on the ground...Well so be it.Cory

Share this post


Link to post

the answer to cockpit safety is not a conventional weapon, it is a mixture of safety measures and defensive measures:A) lock the cockpit!!! El Al knows this from experience, if hijackers can't get into the cockpit, they can't fly the aircraft!B)stun guns- arm pilots and stewerdesses with stun guns, if the miss the target, they do not punch holes in the aircraft, and do not kill passengers, but if they hit their target, the hijacker falls to the floor, and is paralized for a few seconds in which they can be cuffed or whatever, if they recover, stun them again!C) security checks, I trhink we all know what those areD) a system in the cockpit, that neutralizes the controls, so that no one can control the aircraft from inside, that system will be fed the information neccesary to make it back to the airport for an automated landing.the last option may not exist as of yet, but I believe it could be made operational within a year or two, since all the components are available.just my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post

I must admit to not knowing which military pilots "carry" so I couldn't comment, then again I have never heard of a military aircraft being hijacked or having problems with people forcing their way into the cockpit. If you are putting guns in the hands of pilots then you are trying to solve the issue of "what to do when a terrorist gets in the cockpit", whereas the issue should be "how do you stop them a) getting there in the first place, and :( harming innocent civilians in their efforts" if there is no-one in the security industry that cannot come up with a non-lethal method of sorting the problem we are still living in the dark ages. (by non-lethal I mean to "all concerned", I don't really care if a terrorist cops it).However, if the only solution that the industry can come up with is to arm someone on the aircraft then do what the Israeli's do and arm a profesional who is trained to solve this sort of problem rather than someone whose job is to fly the aircraft (that is from 3rd hand info).

Share this post


Link to post

Along the lines I was thinking (I replied at the same time). Some other suggestions which can be (some are extreme but in an extreme situation)........a) knock out everyone in the passenger compartment using your method of choice (at the extreme end):( flood the passenger compartment with smoke (or tear gas to be extreme)c) use a noise system to disorient anyone in the passenger compartment.I am sure that the security industry has many more alternatives that could be applied, but a combination of smoke & noise could probably be used to keep any potential hijackers otherwise entertained whilst the crew make a quick diversion.Sure the passengers are not going to be impressed, but more importantly they might stand a better chance than if there was a reinactment of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" at FL300 !!

Share this post


Link to post

Guns are not the problem, people are! I own several guns, and I know how to properly use them. My kids own guns. They know how to use them as well. My oldest son was murdered by a couple of thugs who had stolen the gun they used to shoot him. Was it the guns' fault? No, it was a people problem! If we need guns in the cockpit to keep innocent people safe, (my son was an innocent person), then the pilots should be properly trained as to how to use them.I live in Montana, and fully support my Senator Burns in his actions on this issue!Darrell

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I just don't know....Why not just issue a gun to everyone checking in for a flight? Worked in the wild west.Trust me, the sky-marshalls are on board and they have a few special items that limit the damage the aircraft hull.Guns WERE carried by civil pilots in the '30's in PAX plane as part of a federal/postal regulation (Read Ernie Gain's "Instrument Flying Circa 1930" short story in his "Flying Circus" book -(recommended reading). In it he describes a bored captain of his "fondling his gun" out of boredom...but don't recall any accidental shootings.Wonder where we will have them, in our flight cases? Its hard enough getting out of a flight deck seat without having a gun in one's hand. Then what about commuting pilots or those on dead-head....more guns in the cabin.I am sure these will be worked out, queitly, behind closed doors between the airlines, government and the pilot's unions.(I do like the idea of knock out gas....little nitrous oxide in the air system....happy ship)Timothy(We could set up a firing range UNDER the simulator bays in the training department. Probably add another day to General Refresher as we shot for quals....)

Share this post


Link to post

I belive a good deal of our pilots are former military... I think weapons will be for use for those who make it into the cotpit if air marshalls don't stop them first... I can't speak for all who carried weapons when flying in the military, even given the fact we flew high risk sorties, both the pilot and I were armed...Ron Mashburn

Share this post


Link to post

>Guns are not the problem, people are! I own several guns, >and I know how to properly use them. My kids own guns. >They know how to use them as well. My oldest son was >murdered by a couple of thugs who had stolen the gun they >used to shoot him. Was it the guns' fault? No, it was a >people problem! If we need guns in the cockpit to keep >innocent people safe, (my son was an innocent person), then >the pilots should be properly trained as to how to use them. >>I live in Montana, and fully support my Senator Burns in his >actions on this issue! >Darrell First, I'm sorry about your son.Second: yes people are the problem, but guns also are to some extent. Would these two thugs have been able to stole a gun if guns weren't so readily available ? Anybody who really wants a gun (i.e. a hardened criminal or sombody who is absolutely decided to commit a crime) will always find one. So why not make them illegal or very strictly regulated (like for hunters, sportsmen... etc) ? This would prevent kids taking their careless parents' guns and make a big mistake and it would prevent any thug from being able to find guns so easily. I'm convinced many wouldn't take their criminal ideas to their realisation if it was difficult to find a weapon (i.e. if it was illegal in the first place). They simply wouldn't bother. Would you go through the hassle of finding a gun if all you had planned was robbing your local newsagent ?As to people who argue about defence, well you won't have to defend yourselves against thugs with firearms if there's none to be found in the first place... Why not use stun guns ? They were made for a purpose. And anyway, a thug has the advantage of surprising you (i.e. he'll shoot you before you can defend yourself anyway, whether you own a gun or not). On top of that, people in other countries manage to stay alive just fine.My basic point is that guns can always be found if you try hard enough. Making them illegal would prevent many "mistakes" by people who shouldn't have been able to get near a gun in the first place.Sorry for being slightly off-topic.__________________________________________________________EricList of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

Share this post


Link to post

Eric,I'm not going to go into any huge debate about guns, because it is clear that we disagree. However, it doesn't matter whether guns are legally owned or illegally owned. The fact of the matter is, that the types of people who are about to commit any kind of crime do not care how the weapon is acquired. Making guns illegal only insures that only law enforcement and criminals will possess them. And we already know that there are not enough law enforcement agents to stop a criminal from commiting any kind of crime. Therefore, if someone crashes my front door, they had best be prepared to face the consequences.Darrell

Share this post


Link to post

To those who want to take away my guns, I ask you this:- What kills more kids?a) Swimming Pools:( Bicyclesc) Gunsd) Car AccidentsAccording to the CDC, it is Unintentional Injuries.It is always amazing to me when the Liberals that want to take away my constitutionally protected RIGHTS don't show the same compassion for swimming pools and bycycles.Hmmmmmm, I can't remember the last time I heard of a "turn in your swimming pool for $50 Program to save a kid.HYPOCRITES, one and all.And don't start relying on some hypocritical gun study where handgun control siad kids are up to age 24. Sorry, HCI, kids are adults at 18 in this country.According to the CDC in this report:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_08.pdfHere are the 15 leading causes of death in 1999 for the United States:1) Heart Disease2) Cancer3) Stroke4) Chronic Respiratory Disease5) Unintentional Injuries6) Diabetes7) Influenza & Pneumonia8) Alzheimer's Disease9) Kidney Disease10) Septicemia11) Suicide12) Chronic Liver Disease13) Hypertension14) Homicide ***** See, Number 14, but what does the LIBERAL PRESS Report...Mostly Homicides.... Hypocrites ******15) Aortic Aneurysmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/99mortality.htmIn 1999, there were 16,889 deaths by firearms which represented 0.7 That's 7/10 of 1 percent of all deaths for you non-math people.In 1999, there were 214 deaths under age 19 by accidental discharge, and 404 between the ages of 20-44.I say that is any death is too many, and programs like the NRA Eddie The Eagle Program can help prevent those deaths.In FACT, Homicides, according to the CDC went DOWN 6.5% from 1999 to 2000. Maybe all the Conceal carry laws are helping this stat out, eh.....???http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_12.pdfI have the addage that if you take away the curiosity of the kids, and teach them proper use, you will minimize the occurance of accidents.Boy, maybe I should have to go take my pool to the police station and have a water sample done, or have my pool registered.. :-lol :-lol I own, all three, Guns, Swimming Pool, and Bycycles, and My kids know how to use all three. Period. :-)Get the facts straight and maybe I will understand your opinions, until then, leave my rights alone.I say arm the Pilots.Here is a fact for you anti-rights NUTS.Do you know the MURDER Capital of the United States?It's CHICAGO, Illinois, where hizzoner daley the crook has outlawed handguns. Yeah that works well, doesn't it, richie rich? Only the criminals have guns...Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Joe...you and I have the same views, yet I'll suspect we have vastly different views on the same topic. I only say that to point out that you can have divergent ideas and yet agree on any topic.To those who feel that the pilot should be flying the plane, and not shooting bad guys, I agree. The Pilot In Command should always make flying the aircraft his or her most utmost priority, above even their own life. But don't forget that ATP type rated flights, the ones most folks think about when they think, "Hijack", will always have at least TWO pilots.Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Braun,I would like to see the stats on the percentage of pilots flying the commercial jets, say 737 or A320 and above are former Military Pilots.If military, they were all trained and armed as well. Someone mentioned the Israeli airline, and it is no secret that armed guards frequent those flights and their security procedures may be good, but imagine the delays in this country if we implemented a full background check and Q&A of every passenger. But it seems to work.Remember, Armed pilots, policemen and ordinary citizens in The UNited States all have to follow the same laws when using a firearm. There are no exceptions. Period. A police officer can be prosecuted the same as a citizen.I do beleive someone should have prior military or be forced to go through a training course prior to owning a firearm, but that is my opinion. :-)I am not against common sense laws, but I am against impeding my rights. :-)Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I REALLY should stay out of this one, but as a long time member of the NRA I just gotta chip in.I support guns in the cockpit, by all means. If you can't trust the pilots of your aircraft to use them wisely and with due restraint then how in heavens name can you trust them to fly an aircraft that you are riding in?Guns are neither good nor bad. They are a tool. An inanimate object. No more, no less. And like any such device they can be used for good and for bad. But they are no more to blame for the violence that occurs than automobiles are responsible for the 500+ people that died in car accidents during a recent holiday. We've already seen (on Sept 11) what an aircraft is capable of when misused. Of course we could conclude that we need to ban airplanes, but I don't think that would help. Are guns in the cockpit the total answer? No. Will they stop all hijackings? No. But if they stop one, then they were worth the effort. Mike Stone

Share this post


Link to post

>Eric, >I'm not going to go into any huge debate about guns, because >it is clear that we disagree. However, it doesn't matter >whether guns are legally owned or illegally owned. The fact >of the matter is, that the types of people who are about to >commit any kind of crime do not care how the weapon is >acquired. Making guns illegal only insures that only law >enforcement and criminals will possess them. And we already >know that there are not enough law enforcement agents to >stop a criminal from commiting any kind of crime. >Therefore, if someone crashes my front door, they had best >be prepared to face the consequences. >Darrell Actually, we agree on this. My point was how to reduce the probabilities of voluntary or involuntary crimes by making weapons more difficult to find, and therefore reducing the temptation to actually commit a crime. This is more psychological than anything. It's kind of obvious that having a firearm gives a sense of being invincible to the person who has one.Actually I disagree on one thing. Having a gun at home to defend oneself is simply not a solution to the crime problem.__________________________________________________________EricList of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

Share this post


Link to post

>If military, they were all trained and armed as well. >Well, that can be questionable. I have been involved in the Air Force and now Air Guard. I get to hold and shoot an M-16 about one day out of 3 years now. I would hardly consider myself armed and definitely one could question my the currency of my training. While I'm pretty sure I could handle a gun without shooting the wrong person, I view it much the same way as being a pilot. You can be a licensed pilot and even be current, but this does not necessarily constitute a competent pilot.So I myself do feel the pilot's primary job should be flying the plane. But if we are going to arm them, they need to be kept current with firearms training also. I don't want a pilot whose primary job is to fly the plane suddenly be faced with using a gun that he last shot several years ago.

Share this post


Link to post

Joe, I've got to step in here and say something. I knew as I watched this thread progress it would go from being about arming pilots to an argument about gun rights. You can't talk about guns long before both sides get all up in arms about the subject(pardon the pun). I have views that run the range from the labels conservative, independent, and liberal. Probably more of them side on what you would call the liberal side.I'm certainly not going to get into a gun debate with people since it is rarely a non-heated debate. :-)What I will say though is I don't want this to evolve into name-calling. You subject line pretty much summed up where this was going. There are many hypocritical views on both sides. The liberals certainly don't hold the patent on being hypocrites. I just wanted to let everyone know that if the debate is going to evolve into heated emotions where we start calling each other "anti-right NUTS", it will be closed down.

Share this post


Link to post

Scott, Joe, everyone. It is not my wish to create controversy when I post these topics. I just believe that we all have to make up our own minds, with as much information as possible. It is my utmost wish that:A. We can continue to discuss the topics of the day here, in a sane, non-confrontational manner, so as to help us make informed choices now and in the future.B. That this thread remain open, because it is topical, and germane to what "ails us" currently, in my most humble opinion.Best to all,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Scott, I don't start these things, I just finish them. :-)Eric is the one that started the kids and guns thing, so with all respect maybe it should have been directed at him as well.Eric stated in Thread #10"Anybody who really wants a gun (i.e. a hardened criminal or sombody who is absolutely decided to commit a crime) will always find one."Also:"Making them illegal would prevent many "mistakes" by people who shouldn't have been able to get near a gun in the first place."Those were allowed to slide by...I do apologize for the anti-rights nuts comment. And Braun, I apologize to you as well for responding to Eric's CRIMINAL COMMENTS. I guess that side gets a free ride as well. ;-)I should of called them what they really are and that is people who don't want to be bothered with following the laws, Constitution, and Bill of Rights of The United States of America. Let's see, maybe ahhh never mind, they know what they are in my book. :-)And I never said that only liberals are Hypocrites. You should see my thread where I slammed Bush on stating that Air Traffic Control is no longer an "Inherent Governmental Function". I posted that over at Flightsim on Friday. I am an equal opportunity truth monger, and if someone states an untruth, yes, I am going to call them on it, and state the facts. Period.Again,I DID NOT bring it into the conversation, and I am not going to let Eric slide on by innocently. Did you direct a comment towards him as well?So lock it if you like, I apologized for the Anti-rights NUTS comment, and maybe Eric will apologize for calling gun owners criminal with his ANYBODY comment. At least I posted facts.So lock it or move it, no bother with me, but please read the rest of the comments instead of just singling out mine please. I thank You. :-)Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I still can hit a target very well after being out of The United States Marine Corps since 1989.I feel pilots can qualify with a firearm as a requirement the same as law enforcement agents have to.I have many friends that are in Law Enforcement, qualify every year and I can shoot more proficiently than they do. Remember most Police are not out there firing there weapons every day or so. Sometimes its only once or twice a year. Some do it monthly depending on the jurisdiction. I feel it is like riding a bike, as I have always been able to shoot well after a little warmup.Now, I enjoy target shooting and ######, and have never gone hunting in my life. I have no desire to kill a living thing with a gun, but I will defend myself if forced to. Hopefully I will never have to.But Pilots should have the OPTION, not requirement to carry firearms, and the ones I speak to agree with my position that if trained, and required to stay proficient, it may save their lives someday.The best part is deterrance if future hijackers think the pilot is packing a 9mm, then he/she will think twice about gaining entrance and that may just be enough. Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gifM

Share this post


Link to post

Umm Joe, it's easy to quote out of context. My "anybody" comment was meant to be applied to a country/time where/when guns are/will be outlawed. It also implied getting one illegaly to commit acts that are usually considered as being bad or illegal. I never said I wanted to prevent people from hunting or practicing sports which involve firing weapons (for example). So let me rephrase my sentence:"Anybody who really wants a gun for illegal purposes (i.e. a hardened criminal or sombody who is absolutely decided to commit a crime) will always find one."I thought that was pretty much a given considering the rest of my post. And whatever it is you understood, don't call my comments criminal. This is a useless exaggeration. What's criminal is people who cannot take care of their own firearms, won't lock them, won't teach their kids the meaning/importance/danger of them, will show off with them... etc. They're bound to be stolen, be an attraction to kids who will make a huge mistake... etc. That's not to say it's your case. Some people who own firearms are intelligent enough to take care of them properly. Sadly many aren't.As to your Rights, how on earth did I suggest anything that touched your Rights ? You have a Right to defend yourself, yes. Will firing a gun at an attacker solve anything on a global scale ? No. That's what the debate is about.And my point of view in this debate is that it's not by defending people's right to use a gun on somebody who tries to attack them that you're gonna solve the problem of the rising crime rate. Shoot a thug, another takes his/her place. Oh yeah, you're safe... 'till next time. Perhaps it's about time somebody looked at the reasons why there are so much "crimes". I live in France, and believe me I know what it is to feel unsafe in a street. If you've followed the recent news with our presidential election, you might understand. As to what committing crimes, there are many reasons for somebody to do something illegal. There's poverty, racism/xenophobia, social exclusion... etc. Many reasons. I only focus on one reason: the availability of guns. I'm not talking about organised crime here. I'm talking about your average joe public who finds himself/herself in a difficult situation and will take the easy way out. Example: need money, steal a gun from the neighbour who owns one and rob the local grocery shop/bank... etc. I'm not even gonna talk about accidents when improperly using guns or about gun owners who will find themselves in a difficult situation. I think we'll agree that a gun owner must be responsible enough to prevent that from happening. Perhaps the psychological stability of gun buyers could be assessed first, or even better, every few years. Just like in some countries, you're checked every few years for your driving abilities so that you don't become a danger to yourself and/or other people. Just like an unresponsible gun owner will be a danger to himself and/or others. I know I'll get flamed for that suggestion, but it's an idea.What I am saying is that having the opportunity to get a weapon so easily gives the means to do such things. Why not take away these means ? Of course, it's not enough. It need to be completed by social work on desperate people who would consider such acts. But it would be a first step. The temptation to commit a crime would not be as great as before. Again, when it comes to organised crime, it wouldn't matter either way. People involved in organised crime, be it at a national level or simply local to a town's neighbourhood, will find other ways to get guns, just like people find ways to get drugs (which are illegal). Take the comparison further. If hard drugs were readily available, more people would be using them. The simple fact that it's hard to find and illegal is a deterrent. Now apply that to guns. Does my point make more sense to you now ? I'm not asking you to agree, but to understand my point of view.Now feel free to argue with all that, but don't call me an anti-right or my comments criminal. You're way too far ahead of what I'm trying to say and you're making my words much more extreme than they are. I'm really everything but an anti-right person, that's for sure. On top of that, I fully realise I won't change much by typing all that. But debating is always a good thing, no matter the subject.__________________________________________________________EricList of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

Share this post


Link to post

Joe, that would be why I qualified my statement about your military assumption by giving my example of the Air Force. I agree with everything you wrote above, but it didn't seem to address the point I was trying to make about making an assumption to all military would be good with guns. I am sure from being in the Marines, you got exposure to firearms on a regular basis. I bet it is like riding a bike to you. All I'm saying is that it is wrong to assume that all military has learned to properly ride that bike in the first place.I just hope if they do decide to let pilots arm themselves, they have been previously trained to properly handle a firearm and they stay current with firing it.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this