Not considered LEO off duty?

I would suggest that the best answer would be to get the crackheads and unsafe gunhandlers off the force

Like now!

Seriously....these guys are carrying all day every day and we think a 2 -3 hour plane ride is where they are suddenly gonna become a threat to society :confused:

As to nobody being armed...the assumption is that without the armed good guy the bad guy crashes the plane...and everyone dies...not just the person behind/next to the bad guy...

Next you will need a special certification for subways, buses, sportscars
 
They can't and that's why you put your gun in your checked luggage.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, there Frank. They don't require all guns to go into checked baggage....just those for people who "can't be trusted":

According to witnesses, police and administration officials, the incident began when a passenger in the rear of the plane, later identified by police as Steven Feuer of Tamarac, Fla., allegedly began looking at other passengers' luggage in an overhead compartment. At the request of flight attendants, the air marshals confronted him and forcibly restrained him in a first-class seat.

Then, after telling everybody else on the 183-passenger flight to remain seated, one of the air marshals drew his pistol and held everybody at gunpoint with orders not to move until the plane landed.

After the plane landed, the air marshals removed Feuer from the plane. Then they returned and forcibly handcuffed and removed the second man, Rajcoomar, from first class for reasons that remain unclear.

Both detained passengers were released without charge or explanation a few hours later.
Click to expand...
Rich
 
Obiwan, my point was that there are already specialized gunfighters on board planes. Add in people who do not have any training in shoot/no shoot situations aboard aircraft and you have a very high chance of blue-on-blue. The gunfighters are going to take control of the flight deck. If there not any, then yes, having someone untrained is better than nothing. I agree. But nowadays, there are so many people flying armed onboard planes, that there needs to be some standardization. Once you have obtained that, then wouldn't you feel better being the only gunfighter on board and knowing what you are supposed to do and how to do it (especially when there are others like you on board)?
 
As to nobody being armed...the assumption is that without the armed good guy the bad guy crashes the plane...and everyone dies...not just the person behind/next to the bad guy...
Click to expand...

The flight deck crew should be able to have guns. No one else outside extenuating circumstances.

I would suggest that the best answer would be to get the crackheads and unsafe gunhandlers off the force

Like now!
Click to expand...

That's not part of their plan. Back when the department was being integrated, the range masters were ordered not to fail anyone who fit the desired demographic.

Seriously....these guys are carrying all day every day and we think a 2 -3 hour plane ride is where they are suddenly gonna become a threat to society
Click to expand...

They're a threat to society 24/7. I just don't want to have to be around them on an airplane while they're armed. Outside of an airplane it's fairly easy to stay away from them.

Next you will need a special certification for subways, buses, sportscars
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that you won't.

Why stop at planes, Frank?
If there are so many crackheads with guns in our society that you can't allow carry on public conveyance, why not extend that to parks, shopping malls, driveways, roads, supermarkets? Hell, why not eliminate them in the home where 98% of all that crack is consumed?
Click to expand...

Because the consequences of someone not knowing what they're doing with a gun on an airplane is far greater than in any of the other situations you described.
 
Because the consequences of someone not knowing what they're doing with a gun on an airplane is far greater than in any of the other situations you described.
Click to expand...
And there we have it, Frank. Because a 9mm is gonna take a 747 engine out or suck everyone out the window like in GoldFinger? Think again.

What makes you believe that a crowd of Healthy American Citizens, especially with the knowledge of how a hijacking will end, is any more in danger from your gun in an aircraft than at the mall, in the subway, on a train or in church?

It goes without saying that, in my world, there'd be more than just one firearm under a coat up there. And, hey guess what? The "Dodge City Syndrome", regarding Americans' Trigger Happy Agenda, has been put forth, tested and debunked from Florida to Texas to Arizona to Vermont.

That's not part of their plan. Back when the department was being integrated, the range masters were ordered not to fail anyone who fit the desired demographic.
Click to expand...
I really wish you hadn't said that in response to the problem of "crack-head cops" on your department, Frank. It goes to the issue of mindset. Not pretty.
Rich
 
I'm a little nervous about anyone on a plane at 30,000 feet with a firearm, but it has nothing to do with who or who can't be trusted. Sky marshalls are trained for that environment; most other LEO's and people aren't. The problem lies with what a bullet can do on an aircraft at that altitude. Explosive decompression, destroyed avionics, control cables, and a ton of other sensitive things that keep the airplane in the air. As BreacherUp! said, combat in a tubular environment is a whole different ball game. But those are the only things that concern me. Sorry Frank, but I have to believe that the total percentage of cops in the USA that are crackheads is measured to the right of the decimal point. (At least I hope it is.)
 
Correct me if I am wrong, the DOT does not allow firearms in Commercial Trucks.

So John Doe, even retired Deputy John Doe, making a few bucks driving a truck- cannot carry a firearm while driving that 18 wheeler loaded with fertilizer. What if that 18 wheeler is hijacked? What if Retired Deputy John Doe stops for a Chicken Fried Steak and is confronted at the Truck Stop?

OKlahoma bombing on 4.19.93 used ammonium nitrate IIRC.
 
Explosive decompression, destroyed avionics, control cables, and a ton of other sensitive things that keep the airplane in the air.
Click to expand...
Capn-
These really are myths. The redundancy, even on a small plane, renders it pretty damned safe to small arms fire, unless sustained. Explosive decompression requires just that: explosives.

For the record, I don't advocate that we arm everyone flying. I said I wouldn't be uncomfortable with it, in comparison to today where a PILOT can't even have a nail clipper to defend a plane. And I certainly wouldn't be uncomfortable with all sworn officers carrying.....not that I think they're inherently "safer" than the average CCW holder.....just because the deterrent effect is that much greater than the current system.

Lastly, I fully understand that CQB in a crowded compartment (or personal home with your family inches away from you) is inherently different than a street battle at 2 AM. Each of these scenarios should require special training.....not everyone gets it. So be it.
Rich
 
If we are only arming pilots, then let's hope they are sober :D

Couldn't resist

The logical part about allowing cops to go armed is that there has already been a conscious decision (right or wrong) to allow them to go armed.

Civillians rapidly becomes a can of worms

That anyone would sit idly by and watch innocents killed because they were not "properly trained" strikes me as ...well nuts!

Handgun or none...I would like to think any able bodied person would step up

The idea that only "Certain People" qualify does sound a bit like Brady Bunch rhetoric
 
And there we have it, Frank. Because a 9mm is gonna take a 747 engine out or suck everyone out the window like in GoldFinger? Think again.
Click to expand...

There you go, putting words in my mouth again. Try some idiot with a John Wayne complex pulling his gun on some wacko who won't listen to the flight attendant, and then being disarmed by said wacko. It's very easy to do. I've done it before (The disarming the wacko part).

What makes you believe that a crowd of Healthy American Citizens, especially with the knowledge of how a hijacking will end, is any more in danger from your gun in an aircraft than at the mall, in the subway, on a train or in church?
Click to expand...

No one except the hijackers has any idea how a hijacking will end. And when it comes to the untrained and unexperienced, one man's obnoxious jerk is bound to be another man's hijacker. I'm not thinking of a whole crowd of people, I'm just thinking of me and my family, and I believe that we will be safer on a commercial airplane if the only ones armed are the ones currenly allowed to fly armed, and the crew of the flight deck. And I believe my family and I are in more danger from the people who THINK they are competent to carry guns and make shoot/don't shoot decisions, who have never done so, than I am from potential terrorists.
 
Obiwan, I'm talking about firearms in a plane. I EXPECT any able bodied person to do their duty in time of crisis, with gun or without. But getting in a firefight on a plane at 30,000 ft, there is zero room for error. It takes training and practice. My thoughts are not that you need to be a "special person" , only that you go through specialized training, LEOs included.
 
Try some idiot with a John Wayne complex pulling his gun on some wacko who won't listen to the flight attendant, and then being disarmed by said wacko. It's very easy to do. I've done it before.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO
In that scenario, were you the guy with the "John Wayne Complex" or "The Wacko"?
Bleeding from my eyes, I'm laughing so hard. :D

But I think I see. You mean, for instance, all the would be hijackers that would be just trolling the flights of armed citizens and cops waiting to get their hands on one of those guns while the other armed citizens and cops swoon with fear?

Or were you arguing that citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns anywhere lest some "wacko" get ahold of said Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Lest I risk putting "words" in your mouth, tell me again how "the consequences of someone not knowing what they're doing with a gun on an airplane is far greater than in any of the other situations described."?

Admit it, Frank. You're not in favor of CCW at all, are you?
Rich
 
I see. You mean, for instance, all the would be hijackers that would be just trolling the flights of armed citizens and cops waiting to get their hands on one of those guns while the other armed citizens and cops swoon with fear?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about a hijacker disarming someone, I was talking about your run of the mill American nutjob. A terrorist wouldn't NEED to disarm anyone because they would just bring their own legally licensed guns aboard and start capping people when the time came to take over. How many do you think they could get before you took them all out? Do you think that hijackers being allowed to bring their own guns on board would increase or decrease the number of hijackings?

Admit it, Frank. You're not in favor of CCW at all, are you?
Rich
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of CCW by people who show a proficiency with their gun, and an ability to make sound decisions. But not on airplanes with a few exceptions.

And now a question for you: Do you think hijackings will increase or decrease if hijackers are allowed to bring their own guns aboard? What about passengers killed without the airplane being taken over, assuming that all of these armed passengers will be able to kill the 10 or 12 hijackers on board if hijackers are allowed to bring their own guns on the airplane?
 
How many do you think they could get before you took them all out?
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, The Dodge City Gambit again.
Well, lessee. If they're terrorists or even foreign nationals they couldn't possibly have a legal gun, now could they Frank? .gov "screens" that out....just like mine at the airport.

How many could I get? Dunno. But I'd certainly prefer if the heroes of United Airlines Flight 93 were given an option to find out on September 11, 2001. Don't you?
Rich

ps:
And now a question for you: Do you think hijackings will increase or decrease if hijackers are allowed to bring their own guns aboard?
Click to expand...
A not very Trick question, Frank. Answered above.
 
How many could I get? Dunno. But I'd certainly prefer if the heroes of United Airlines Flight 93 were given an option to find out on September 11, 2001. Don't you?
Click to expand...

That particular hijacking wouldn't have taken place with boxcutters if the terrorists had been allowed to bring their own guns.

Well, lessee. If they're terrorists or even foreign nationals they couldn't possibly have a legal gun, now could they Frank? .gov "screens" that out....just like mine at the airport.
Click to expand...

So they would just show their foreign national ID? They wouldn't have fake ID or fake CCW permits? They're that unsophisicated huh? I thought you didn't trust your government enough to be able to screen them out. Isn't that why you have to carry your gun on the airplane in the first place?
 
I thought you didn't trust your government enough to be able to screen them out.
Click to expand...
See, you can follow the bouncing ball after all.....somewhat. You actually note the logical incongruence of parody; though not the fact that is is parody; or that you're the subject. :)

Correct, Frank. I don't think .gov can keep all terrorists from getting weapons on a plane.
That's why I'd prefer to see all sworn officers (and potentially Law Abiding Citizens) be allowed to carry rather than the current farce.

You on the other hand, would prefer to trust .gov to force those cops (and LAC's) to check their weapons at the door and bury your head on the other side of the problem.

Value judgment, Frank. It's just a value judgment. I respect your right to yours. Man's gotta know his limitations, after all.
Rich
 
I'm in favor of CCW by people who show a proficiency with their gun, and an ability to make sound decisions.
Click to expand...
So do Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and the Brady's.
Are you SURE you don't write for them in your spare time? :D
Rich
 
That's not part of their plan. Back when the department was being integrated, the range masters were ordered not to fail anyone who fit the desired demographic.
Click to expand...

I really wish you hadn't said that in response to the problem of "crack-head cops" on your department, Frank. It goes to the issue of mindset. Not pretty.
Rich
Click to expand...

If demographics was more important to them than the ability to qualify with a pistol and shotgun, how much of an effort do you think they have taken, or will take in order to get rid of drug users, or people who don't have the judgement necessary carry guns every day if an all out effort to rid the department of those officers would affect the demographics?

Correct, Frank. I don't think .gov can keep all terrorists from getting weapons on a plane.
That's why I'd prefer to see all sworn officers (and potentially Law Abiding Citizens) be allowed to carry rather than the current farce.
Click to expand...

So you believe that allowing armed Americans on board an airplane, in per capita numbers and temperement currently represented in the general flying population, is worth the risk of allowing terrorists to bring their own guns on airplanes? Or are you not willing to concede that if anyone with a CCW can bring a gun on a plane, terrorists will have virtual carte blanche to bring gun aboard?
 
You speak derogatorily about "desired demographics" in context of "integration" and the resulting "crack-head cop" percentage, Frank.

Don't hold back....tell us exactly what you mean by that.
Then again, perhaps you shouldn't. I, for one, clearly see where you're coming from. I need hear no more, thanks.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top