If law permitted CCW on Airlines with a 8 hour training course would you do it?

If federal laws allowed CCW on aircraft with a class of instruction would you do it?

  • No - Guns and planes dont mix

    Votes: 57 26.4%

  • Maybe depending on the hassle involved

    Votes: 34 15.7%

  • Yes but certification would have to be frequent for max safety

    Votes: 31 14.4%

  • Yes but only if certification was good for at least 3-5 years

    Votes: 94 43.5%
  • Total voters
    216
  • Poll closed .
Bad idea to have passengers armed to the teeth inside a plane. People are already in a bad enough mood when they get into a plane after going through TSA, and then having to sit in a crowded plane, crammed like cattle, with no leg room or personal space. Arming them would be a recipe for disaster.

How long before some idiot shot someone, and a firefight erupts? Would you really want 10-15 people in a firefight inside a narrow space crammed with 200+ passengers? I think not!
Click to expand...

No offense but I think you might be watching a little too much drama tv... Firefights breaking out just because you have several lawfully armed people in an area and having a bad day.... lol So what keeps the police from all going John Wayne at the police station when they have a bad day?

I cant speak for anyone else but when I get really bad customer service I speak to a manager and take my business elsewhere the next time. If I felt the TSA was going to put me in some sort of crazy murderous mood I would seek professional help along with not flying on airlines anymore.....

I carry a CCW weapon every day and have been chased at by over aggressive bankers and sales people of every kind from mildly offensive to you wonder why they haven’t been arrested for disturbing the peace. In fact I have a neighbor who felt sitting on a couch with wheels in the driveway and drinking beer in the driveway while insulting neighbors and revving motorcycle engines at 2 AM for the sole purpose of being rude was the way to go.... All this and yet I never presented my weapon nor found the need to resort to some form of violence or threat of violence.

Having arms on your person doesnt make your location some fantasy wild west, which in reality wasnt nearly as wild as most people would think.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
The difference in pressure inside the plane and outside is *maybe* 10 psi. Probably less than that (it's 10 if the cabin is fully pressured as if at sea level and the airplane is flying at about 30000 ft) Ten psi drop across and opening the size of a bullet is not significant. You could plug it with a sheet of paper.

Commercial aircraft aren't pressurized to sea level equivalent. I believe they are pressurized to the equivalent of either 12,000 feet or 15,000 feet.
Click to expand...
I know they aren't fully pressurized (just didn't know what they were pressurized to), sea level is just a worst case. If it's 12000 to 15000, the pressure difference drop to about 5 psi.
 
I kind of take a different view to carrying on a plane. I dont look at it as a self defense issue. I would look at it as a convienience issue.

If I was able to carry on the plane, going to a destination where I caould also carry, it would make life easier.

You would not have to check the gun and waste time with a bunch of TSA agents who dont know the procedures (its happened to me twice) and would not have to worry about it along the way.

Now, they just have to make the seats a little bigger....

-George
 
The variables are too many, the possible disruptions to a defense of self/others are profound from terrified or well-meaning passengers who may think that you are also a threat, the chance of your weapon being taken, etc., and the possibility (nay probability) of an innocent passenger(s) being harmed in the effort, the possibility of mass exodus from one side/end of the plane to the other, causing it to become uncontrollable ... all these reasons make it a colossally bad idea.

The idea that anyone could learn the necessary skills in any 8-hour course is completely laughable, were the results not likely to be so tragic.

Any possible reasons for SD on a plane are obviated by the presence of Air Marshalls, who are present on far more planes than you may think.

This is an idea that should go nowhere and now.
Click to expand...

This is offered as an intellectual exercise in consideration of the Right to Bear Arms and nothing more, at all times we must obey the law.

The basic layout of all commercial transportation aircraft is much the same. You have aisles and seats with the seats generally in movement constricting rows.

In order for any crazy terrorist to take over the craft they would almost certainly have to move to an aisle where generally there is little traffic outside of flight attendants once a flight has begun. In many ways it resembles the same kind of physical layout you get at a shooting range.

So in a general sense the argument that too many people would be in the way doesn’t hold water with me because the first thing all terrorist do is try to control the passengers and certainly they would seek to stop movement of passengers and crew and force people to sit down. It would be at this point a lawful citizen in CCW mode would have the advantage of surprise as every seat cannot be watched in great detail and you basically have a firing lane with the upper chest and head of the BG above the level of the seated passengers and you have a generally limited range that will probably help all except the poorest of marksman hit the BG. The movements of the BG him or herself limited by the floor layout of the craft confining the space itself.

As far as passengers running from one side of the aircraft to the others in the limited time of a brief encounter... doubtful in my opinion as most aircraft I have been on nowadays are insistent that you stay seat belted in except when moving to or from the restroom. Even if all the passengers were unbelted in it seems very unlikely that they could all run from one side to the other as the very nature of the seating and the presence of passengers balancing the aircraft sitting on the other side would act as a bock to any sort of rapid mass passenger movement as we have all seen when we go to de-board a plane.

I have seen legal opinions that say that banning of a right in one place and saying that it is constitutionally acceptable because you can go somewhere else and exercise your right outside of that area is actually not acceptable and has been ruled against. (Chicago cases) could not the confines of an aircraft be considered the same?
 
I'm not sure I'd get anything in exchange for my 8 hrs and costs, since I hate flying and get on a plane maybe once a year, if I'm unlucky ... However ... I think it's a great idea, as long as those carrying are sufficiently vetted to be sure they won't cause problems .. hijacking is always a concern, but such incidents have declined dramatically over the years and I'd hate to see some drunk get plugged by an overzealous carrying passenger just because he was being obnoxious ...
 
I just flew back from vacation last night which included a 6 hour delay @ our connection point. Between traveler frustration, potential alcohol use and stress....not sure adding guns would be a great idea. More the other folks I would be worried about.
 
Yes I am afraid I would have to, because I know that there would be nut-jobs on the plane carrying also - like the jackass who carried OC and hung out in front of an Atlanta 7-Eleven, holding the door open for people and then picking fights with them when they didn't say thank-you, and the jackass on YouTube who walked up on an officer's traffic stop carrying a gun and a video camera cuz he felt he was charged with "keeping everything honest".

Before I did that though I think I would make myself a mock airplane seat and see exactly how it's even possible to get comfortable in one of those things while also carrying a pistol. I have enough trouble with my wallet causing me discomfort during a flight let alone a firearm.
 
About the hope that there would be large numbers of folks carrying to have a shootout at the JetBlue corral.

That doesn't seem to be the case with what we know about carrying in general and the number of folks with concealed carry licenses.

I'd rather have a H2H that a large gun fight.

Now, let's say one of the BGs also announces that he has an underwear bomb with a deadman's switch. Gonna shoot him? Puts the gun to a kid's head. 8 hours enough to make that shot from down the aisle with folks screaming, standing, etc.

I'm no warrior but I've been 'shot' a few times in FOF melees when I was just an innocent. Had my hands straight up in the air and an officer shot me. This was a trained guy.

Planes are a special circumstance as I said before so that is not a pure RKBA issue.

It's like arguing you can carry your 1911 in the MRI because you believe in the 2nd Amend. Even though the magnetic field can drag you in and cause the gun to shoot you on it's own.
 
Ok, more on pressurization, since we are having some, er, interesting numbers bandied about.

Per FARs, any flight above 12,500' must have supplemental oxygen, because that's the nominal pressure altitude where the partial pressure of oxygen is low enough to start causing hypoxia in the average person. So, no, passenger aircraft are NOT pressurized to 12,000 - 15,000'. If they were, infants and little old ladies would start turning blue (literally, it's called cyanosis, and is usually first noticed in the lips and the fingernail beds).

Airliners usually have a cabin altitude caution light and horn that will come on in the flight station, if cabin altitude reaches 10,000' plus or minus 500'. (So, if the cabin altitude reaches 9,500 in most cases, we get an alert, because this is not normal.)

If cabin altitude does go above 10,000', and cannot be brought back down; and if that condition is going to last for a while (EG, can't descend due to mountainous terrain, or due to being way out over the ocean and there won't be enough fuel if we descend too soon) then supplemental oxygen masks get dropped.

We normally pressurize aircraft depending on several factors. Initially, we set an altitude at least 500' above takeoff field elevation, because we don't want the aircraft pressurized on deck. (Weight on wheels switches provide backup, but we like redundancy.) Reason for this: If we need to do an emergency evacuation, and the aircraft is pressurized, we can't get out. One plane I used to fly had a warning: at just 1" PSI differential, there was 1500lbs of force holding the main cabin door closed.

In the climb, we will set cabin altitude based on two factors: 1) An altitude that will keep PSI differential within limits (on the plane I currently fly, that's 6.6PSID), or 500' above destination elevation, whichever is higher.

With my current aircraft, at 25,000', we can maintain 5,000 cabin altitude while staying within 6.6 PSID. But if I were flying into an airport in the Rockies, at 8,000' elevation, I'd program 8,500' cabin altitude.
 
Now, let's say one of the BGs also announces that he has an underwear bomb with a deadman's switch. Gonna shoot him? Puts the gun to a kid's head. 8 hours enough to make that shot from down the aisle with folks screaming, standing, etc.
Click to expand...

Good point, who would ever have though that such things would ever be real?
 
I know I guy who tried out for the first air marshall wave, way back when - before 9/11.

In a simulation, he pulled his gun - fired and sent a round through a whole long row of 'passenger' heads. Needless to say, his career plans took a change.
 
I voted maybe because I don't think I should have to take some silly course. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about carry permits, registration, or any other BS the people with "D" or "R" next to their name make us go through. Imagine if you had to take a course and carry a special piece of paper to utilize your freedom of speech--it would never happen so why is it okay for another amendment?

Point is, don't get wrapped up in the details, while this would be a step toward freedom, it isn't the end goal.

I do think lots of armed citizens on planes would certainly be a great deterrent though. I worked for US Airways for 4 years during college, both pre and post 9/11, and I can tell you there just aren't enough air marshals to keep us safe.
 
The guys on Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters" program pretty much proved that the "bullet-hole-in-plane-wall-equals-passengers-sucked-out-of-plane" thing is not gonna happen. But to answer the question: Nope, you ain't getting me on no plane, period. It's not a fear of flying...it's a fear of CRASHING.:eek:
 
A few conditions:

I would as long as the Government was willing to to provide the wapon and All ammo for said weapon, along with the appropriate holster(s). A few conditions they would have to meet before I'd ever even think of carrying:
1. Weapon must be from my own list: Glock, Springfield XD, Smith&Wesson M&P, or Sig (only as a last resort- I'm not a big fan of Sigs).
2. I prefer to carry on my strong side, IWB, with a spare mag holder on my holster.
3. Ammo would have to be Glaser Blue Safety Slugs in 9mm or .357 sig.
4. The Government would be responsible for an and all medical and/or funeral expenses.
 
It's just not a good idea to have a bunch of people armed to the teeth inside an airplane. What's to keep the terrorists from infiltrating a few sleepers into this country, acting like good citizens for a few years, and then getting guns and shooting up a plane? Leave the guns to the Marshals.

Besides, a gun fight inside a plane full of 200+ passengers will not end well, for anyone!!!
 
At 40,000 feet I don’t want some mall ninja “saving the plane” with your suggested training, taking out a window.
Having seen what explosive decompression can do when I was flying in P3-C’s in the 70’s says this is a really bad idea.
 
CCW on aircraft

Silly and a total waste of time to even think about.

It will NEVER happen...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top