Guns in cockpit makes progress in house.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

>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

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Sonar5 3]

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

[Sonar5 3]

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

[Guest SoarPics]

Hmm...Well, Braun brought up this subject some time ago and what insued was a fun and pleasant debate. I made my position clear then, so there's no sense entering this foray.http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...rum=DCForumID6:Regards,

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

>Hi Scott, >>I don't start these things, I just finish them. :-) Joe, I would be very impressed if you actually were able to finish this debate or argument, whatever one calls it. This will be one of those debates that goes on forever. :-)>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... That's dissappointing Joe that it seems you feel I am just targeting you. So be it. I thought I had explained myself. As for Eric's statement's, I suppose I was able to see the context in which he meant them. He statements were referring to those that would use guns for criminal purposes. Yes, he could have stated that a bit clearer and he stated so below.>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. :-) How about not trying to categorize everyone under a specific label as that never really works. I have agreed with much of what you have posted in the forums, but anytime someone generalizes about the side they feel is against them, I start to lose faith in their debated points. And I start to get the feeling you may be including me in that group and for someone still serving in the military, that would be disappointing to me.>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. Probably just missed that one as I spend most my free time in these forums. :-)I guess when you start out your post with "Hypocrites abound" and the first statement of opinion in your post goes like this, "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"; it was natural for me to feel you were directing your hypocrite statement to liberals. I've already mentioned that you would probably label me a liberal. Do I feel you and other law-abiding citizens shouldn't be able to own a gun if you want, absolutely not. Do I feel there is a problem with the proliferation of guns in this country? Absolutely... Do I think there is a simple right or wrong answer like most that are sitting in the extremes? No, I do not. And that is about where I usually stop on the gun-rights debate because I know for me, I can do little to sway either side. But that is my position I stand by only for myself.>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. :-) I really do not think Eric's intention was to "slide by". He may be guilty of not stating his point distinctly enough as we all do from time to time. And the whole purpose of a debate is to present both sides of the subject. My response to you was not about the gun debate itself but just a warning for everyone to not let this turn into personal attacks. When I see someone starting to use all caps in their message and you can tell from the statements that they appear to become heated, I will try to offer a reminder before it actually turns into a personal attack.Again, I'm sorry it appeared to you that I was calling you to go on the defensive. Your nonchalant comment about me locking the thread gives me the impression you feel I lock or remove topics flippantly. I assure I try to do exactly the opposite. Which is why I'm still here in this thread trying to explain my side and keep us from removing a thread for getting personal just as has always been our policy.

[Guest]

Hi Greg...Ya' know, I'm pretty disappointed in you. You never came by and had that beer! LOL :)Bext,bt