U.S. Gov't. position: We The People are EXPENDABLE
- Thread starter progunner1957
- Start date
A bullet punching through a planes interior will cause decompression but not on the scale of Hollywood. I dun know all the physiscs and science but it will force the plane to descent on a rapid scale and may crash if the pilot is unable to control the plane. If an armed Air Marshal does engage a terrorist onboard you can bet he/she will avoid firing as best as they can. And if they do, they will more likely go for body shots than headshots as since the head is a smaller target, you dont really want to miss on a plane.
Personally, I would rather have a taser or stun rod than a gun.
Personally, I would rather have a taser or stun rod than a gun.
jeff_troop
New member
what movie was that in
there will likely be a temperature drop and a reduction in oxygen depending on altitude.plug the hole with the dead guys head and be done with it.
CarbineCaleb
New member
progunner1957
It sheds a great deal of light on many aspects of our current national and international state of affairs.
Psycho is, as psycho does.
-----------------------------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
Correct on all three counts. Such people are also given to being pathological liars.
It sheds a great deal of light on many aspects of our current national and international state of affairs.
Psycho is, as psycho does.
-----------------------------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
I don't actually get the logic here.
"We can't have guns on board an airplane! Why, if there's a hijacking, the good guy with the gun might miss the bad guy. And a bullet might hit something vital, and maybe even bring down the plane~! So we can't risk having mere (*sniff*) civilians able to fight back effectively. It's too dangerous!"
Okay, I could buy that. Except for the fact that the alternative, the one we're using now, is worse. Right now today, if your airliner is hijacked and the good guys cannot retake control of it with their bare hands, a military plane will fly alongside it and blow it to smithereens -- killing all aboard.
And this is better, how?
pax
If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism. --Thomas Sowell
"We can't have guns on board an airplane! Why, if there's a hijacking, the good guy with the gun might miss the bad guy. And a bullet might hit something vital, and maybe even bring down the plane~! So we can't risk having mere (*sniff*) civilians able to fight back effectively. It's too dangerous!"
Okay, I could buy that. Except for the fact that the alternative, the one we're using now, is worse. Right now today, if your airliner is hijacked and the good guys cannot retake control of it with their bare hands, a military plane will fly alongside it and blow it to smithereens -- killing all aboard.
And this is better, how?
pax
If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism. --Thomas Sowell
CarbineCaleb
New member
CarbineCaleb:
I am more worried about the conduct of said wannabe marshalls when there are no terrorists on board, but there is a problem (or at least a problem perceived in their minds). This actually happens with fair frequency these days (the disorderly conduct of passengers has been in the news) What will happen then? And don't tell me you know, because these people are by definition untrained and unscreened. Even with real officers, there are issues at times with incompetence, excessive use of force, etc. What now then with self-appointed "officers"?
I am more worried about the conduct of said wannabe marshalls when there are no terrorists on board, but there is a problem (or at least a problem perceived in their minds). This actually happens with fair frequency these days (the disorderly conduct of passengers has been in the news) What will happen then? And don't tell me you know, because these people are by definition untrained and unscreened. Even with real officers, there are issues at times with incompetence, excessive use of force, etc. What now then with self-appointed "officers"?
Okay ...
If a mere civilian is motivated, wants to carry everywhere he goes, including on board an airliner, and gets a whole bunch of extra training that ordinary people don't bother with, and pays for it himself -- then he's a wannabe and no one wants someone like that anywhere near them on an airplane.
But if the mere civilian isn't motivated to jump through a whole bunch of hoops, and doesn't have the money to pony up for a whole lot of training, well, then he's not qualified to carry and nobody wants someone like that anywhere near them on an airplane.
It makes perfect sense, now.
pax
If a mere civilian is motivated, wants to carry everywhere he goes, including on board an airliner, and gets a whole bunch of extra training that ordinary people don't bother with, and pays for it himself -- then he's a wannabe and no one wants someone like that anywhere near them on an airplane.
But if the mere civilian isn't motivated to jump through a whole bunch of hoops, and doesn't have the money to pony up for a whole lot of training, well, then he's not qualified to carry and nobody wants someone like that anywhere near them on an airplane.
It makes perfect sense, now.
pax
CarbineCaleb
New member
Air rage
Here, for example is a link to a 2003 FBI article on the subject of unruly/criminal passenger behavior, which opens by mentioning a flight with two separate incidents - a physical assault by a female on a flight attendent, and a sexual assualt by a male on a young girl...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_8_72/ai_107930060
I'd rather have either a trained, screened accountable officer, or no officer in such situations. Having someone with no other qualifications other than being a gun owner suddenly stand up with a drawn weapon in a crowded plane and say "I'm the law around here"... would not be good.
pax: There is no extensive training requirement for a concealed weapons permit. You can insult them if you wish, but that's a different bar than the screening and training for state or federal officers, which at least establish a minimum standard. There is no minimum and no standard if we are talking about the CCW permit holder.
Here, for example is a link to a 2003 FBI article on the subject of unruly/criminal passenger behavior, which opens by mentioning a flight with two separate incidents - a physical assault by a female on a flight attendent, and a sexual assualt by a male on a young girl...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_8_72/ai_107930060
I'd rather have either a trained, screened accountable officer, or no officer in such situations. Having someone with no other qualifications other than being a gun owner suddenly stand up with a drawn weapon in a crowded plane and say "I'm the law around here"... would not be good.
pax: There is no extensive training requirement for a concealed weapons permit. You can insult them if you wish, but that's a different bar than the screening and training for state or federal officers, which at least establish a minimum standard. There is no minimum and no standard if we are talking about the CCW permit holder.
CC ~
Yeah, you're right.
It's a lot better to simply allow a middle-aged guy to paw the young teenage girl sitting next to him, than it would be to allow mere civilians to carry equipment that may save their lives and the lives of everyone else on board in the event of a hijacking.
pax
Yeah, you're right.
It's a lot better to simply allow a middle-aged guy to paw the young teenage girl sitting next to him, than it would be to allow mere civilians to carry equipment that may save their lives and the lives of everyone else on board in the event of a hijacking.
pax
CarbineCaleb
New member
pax: Well, I think we have both stated our positions - you are focusing on the possible good that might happen if we deputized all gun owners, and I am hinting at least at the possible problems. I don't have a lot more to say about it.
"t's a lot better to simply allow a middle-aged guy to paw the young teenage girl sitting next to him, than it would be to allow mere civilians to carry equipment that may save their lives and the lives of everyone else on board in the event of a hijacking."
Flight crews are trained and prepared to deal with just these types of scenarios. Is the average civilian?
Flight crews are trained and prepared to deal with just these types of scenarios. Is the average civilian?
Look, I jumped in because of what you said in your first post in this thread. One poster opined that as a frequent flyer who already has government clearance, it would not take much for him to get the training & clearance it would take to certify him to carry aboard an airliner.
You replied that people like that scare you, and implied that he is nothing but a wannabe. You posted a picture insulting anyone who would volunteer as an air marshall, implying that all such are nothing but Walter Mittys.
And now you're saying I insulted someone? No way. I simply repeated what you said.
*shrug*
No insults intended, here. I'm just saying that fear of road rage -- er, I mean "air rage" -- is no reason to keep ordinary citizens from being armed.
pax
Before guns were banned by us "mere civilians" on aircraft, could someone point out where the problems were that deemed laws banning guns on aircraft were necessary?
What I am reading here is basically straight from the anti's playbook. We can't trust "mere civilians" from owning or carrying guns, blood will run in the streets, or in the case of this thread, in the air.
Geez, I don't know if some of you are actually RKBA people or Brady Bunch plants. Sometimes it seems the latter.
So, instead of just using the talking points of the anti's to why guns shouldn't be carried by us "mere civilians", what are the solutions?
Air Marshalls? As been posted, maybe 1 flight out of many others MAY have an air marshall.
LEO's/Military only? What is the "innocents killed" ratio between "mere civilians" and LEO's? Which ones seem to shoot straighter and mainly at the bad guys, not those with cell phones or wallets in their hands? Military? I believe there is a law that states that the military can't be used for "police" purposes.
Armed Pilots? The can protect the plane but if they call in a hi-jacking you do realize that they will be ordered over water/barren land so when the plane is shot down it only kills the innocent "mere civilians" on board the plane.
So come on folks that don't believe that us "mere civilians" should be able to carry on a plane, what's your solutions?
Wayne
What I am reading here is basically straight from the anti's playbook. We can't trust "mere civilians" from owning or carrying guns, blood will run in the streets, or in the case of this thread, in the air.
Geez, I don't know if some of you are actually RKBA people or Brady Bunch plants. Sometimes it seems the latter.
So, instead of just using the talking points of the anti's to why guns shouldn't be carried by us "mere civilians", what are the solutions?
Air Marshalls? As been posted, maybe 1 flight out of many others MAY have an air marshall.
LEO's/Military only? What is the "innocents killed" ratio between "mere civilians" and LEO's? Which ones seem to shoot straighter and mainly at the bad guys, not those with cell phones or wallets in their hands? Military? I believe there is a law that states that the military can't be used for "police" purposes.
Armed Pilots? The can protect the plane but if they call in a hi-jacking you do realize that they will be ordered over water/barren land so when the plane is shot down it only kills the innocent "mere civilians" on board the plane.
So come on folks that don't believe that us "mere civilians" should be able to carry on a plane, what's your solutions?
Wayne
progunner1957
Moderator
Hollywood hogwash and antigun hogwash
As someone said earlier -
As far as the people who are in a snit over my suggestion that the average Joe be able to carry a firearm onboard commercial flights, you have all been conditioned by the disinformation of the gunhaters that the average person is not capable of using a gun in self defense without creating a whole pile of dead innocent bystanders.
As someone else said -
I cannot recall where I read this, but the ratio is 10 to 1. For every one LE who puts his bullet in the bad guy, TEN average Joe CCW holders shoot - and stop - their attacker. Now ask the question, "Who can we trust with guns onboard planes?"
Passenger "air rage?" For the sake of discussion, let's say there are 180 people on a given flight; anywhere from 10 to 25 percent are armed, or 18 to 45 guns on board, with perhaps 50 to 75% of the passengers carrying pepper spray and other non-lethal weapons.
I doubt that some moron is going to attack a flight attendant or another passenger, given that he/she has no idea who or how many are armed. If an armed society is a polite society, I would imagine an amed jet would be a polite jet.
Regarding a passenger missing the hijacker and the plane crashing as a result of a shot gone wild, this is nothing but Hollywood Hogwash. There are only two components onboard a passenger jet that can be shot and cause the plane to crash. You would have to hit both with the same shot.
Those components are: 1.) Captain; and 2.) First Officer.
How do I know?? What makes me an expert?? I hold an Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic's Certificate, issued by the FAA. I have worked on passenger jets as well as business jets. Unless you shoot and kill both the Captain and First Officer, a stray shot is not going to cause a passenger jet to crash. It won't happen, folks. The systems and components that are "safety of flight" issues have backups to backups to backups.
As far as a hole in the aircraft causing a crash due to decompression, it won't happen. One of my instructors in A&P school was a flight engineer in the Navy and spent his 20+ years flying onboard Navy subchaser planes (P-3 Orion). This gentleman personally experienced six decompressions while inflight during his career. He wasn't sucked out of the plane through a tiny hole; the plane did not disintegrate and crash. On a civilian plane, all that will happen with a decompression is that the oxygen masks will drop down, and the pilot will descend to a lower altitude.
We still have to address the problem I originally identified, to wit:
As someone said earlier -
As far as the people who are in a snit over my suggestion that the average Joe be able to carry a firearm onboard commercial flights, you have all been conditioned by the disinformation of the gunhaters that the average person is not capable of using a gun in self defense without creating a whole pile of dead innocent bystanders.
As someone else said -
I cannot recall where I read this, but the ratio is 10 to 1. For every one LE who puts his bullet in the bad guy, TEN average Joe CCW holders shoot - and stop - their attacker. Now ask the question, "Who can we trust with guns onboard planes?"
Passenger "air rage?" For the sake of discussion, let's say there are 180 people on a given flight; anywhere from 10 to 25 percent are armed, or 18 to 45 guns on board, with perhaps 50 to 75% of the passengers carrying pepper spray and other non-lethal weapons.
I doubt that some moron is going to attack a flight attendant or another passenger, given that he/she has no idea who or how many are armed. If an armed society is a polite society, I would imagine an amed jet would be a polite jet.
Regarding a passenger missing the hijacker and the plane crashing as a result of a shot gone wild, this is nothing but Hollywood Hogwash. There are only two components onboard a passenger jet that can be shot and cause the plane to crash. You would have to hit both with the same shot.
Those components are: 1.) Captain; and 2.) First Officer.
How do I know?? What makes me an expert?? I hold an Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic's Certificate, issued by the FAA. I have worked on passenger jets as well as business jets. Unless you shoot and kill both the Captain and First Officer, a stray shot is not going to cause a passenger jet to crash. It won't happen, folks. The systems and components that are "safety of flight" issues have backups to backups to backups.
As far as a hole in the aircraft causing a crash due to decompression, it won't happen. One of my instructors in A&P school was a flight engineer in the Navy and spent his 20+ years flying onboard Navy subchaser planes (P-3 Orion). This gentleman personally experienced six decompressions while inflight during his career. He wasn't sucked out of the plane through a tiny hole; the plane did not disintegrate and crash. On a civilian plane, all that will happen with a decompression is that the oxygen masks will drop down, and the pilot will descend to a lower altitude.
We still have to address the problem I originally identified, to wit:
Last edited:
I have a knife and understand the principle behind a tracheotomy, but that doesnt make me a surgeon nor qualified to perform the operation. I also know the theory behind flying a plane, do you want me to take the controls if something happens to the pilots, or should I leave that to someone who actually has experience and direct knowledge in flying the plane? Just 'cause ya gotta gun dont make you a gunfighter. Dont like being a "mere civilian'? Get to work and train.