Activism Change

Guns in Cockpits

Question:

www.gunowners.org Dec 2001 Official Petition Asking Transportation Secretary to Implement the New Law Allowing Guns in Cockpits — Ask your Representative to sign the Hostettler-Young Petition Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 (Monday, December 3, 2001) — Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) and Don Young (R-AK) need your help. They are petitioning Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to begin implementing the new law which President Bush signed on November 19 allowing pilots to possess firearms for the protection of passengers and crew. As GOA mentioned in its alert last month, there are certain guidelines which the Secretary (and a still-to-be-named Under Secretary of Transportation) must implement before commercial pilots can begin the important task of protecting their planes. Representatives Hostettler and Young are now getting other legislators to cosign a letter addressed to Secretary Mineta. "Both houses of Congress, as well as the Airline Pilots Association, have demonstrated overwhelming support for providing pilots the privilege of protecting their passengers and crew from dangerous threats by responsible means, including the use of firearms," their letter says. "Accordingly, we hope that you and the new Under Secretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act], in order that these indispensable provisions can be carried out seamlessly and without delay." ACTION: Representatives Hostettler and Young are trying to get as many Congressional signatures as possible before they send their letter to Secretary Mineta. Please ask your Congressman to sign onto the Hostettler-Young letter petitioning the Secretary for immediate action in this important endeavor. Their deadline is next Wednesday. And those of you who live in Hostettler’s and Young’s districts, be sure to thank them for their diligent efforts to get guns back into airplane cockpits. You can reach the Congress at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. —– Pre-written message —– Dear Representative: As you know, President Bush recently signed legislation establishing guidelines for arming pilots in the cockpits. Representatives John Hostettler and Don Young are petitioning Secretary Norman Mineta to put these procedures into place immediately so that passengers can travel the skies safely once again. Please call Hostettler’s office before the end of Wednesday, December 12 and ask them to add your name to this very important letter. Thank you. Sincerely, —- — Ray Keller http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/ "You don’t expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don’t, those who aren’t shot will be hanged."                          -Michael Shirley Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a  woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound I would prefer to live in a free society than a drug free society – even if the latter could actually be achieved.

Response:

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – www.gunowners.org Dec 2001 Official Petition Asking Transportation Secretary to Implement the New Law Allowing Guns in Cockpits — Ask your Representative to sign the Hostettler-Young Petition Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 (Monday, December 3, 2001) — Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) and Don Young (R-AK) need your help. They are petitioning Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to begin implementing the new law which President Bush signed on November 19 allowing pilots to possess firearms for the protection of passengers and crew. As GOA mentioned in its alert last month, there are certain guidelines which the Secretary (and a still-to-be-named Under Secretary of Transportation) must implement before commercial pilots can begin the important task of protecting their planes. Representatives Hostettler and Young are now getting other legislators to cosign a letter addressed to Secretary Mineta. "Both houses of Congress, as well as the Airline Pilots Association, have demonstrated overwhelming support for providing pilots the privilege of protecting their passengers and crew from dangerous threats by responsible means, including the use of firearms," their letter says. "Accordingly, we hope that you and the new Under Secretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act], in order that these indispensable provisions can be carried out seamlessly and without delay." ACTION: Representatives Hostettler and Young are trying to get as many Congressional signatures as possible before they send their letter to Secretary Mineta. Please ask your Congressman to sign onto the Hostettler-Young letter petitioning the Secretary for immediate action in this important endeavor. Their deadline is next Wednesday. And those of you who live in Hostettler’s and Young’s districts, be sure to thank them for their diligent efforts to get guns back into airplane cockpits. You can reach the Congress at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. —– Pre-written message —– Dear Representative: As you know, President Bush recently signed legislation establishing guidelines for arming pilots in the cockpits. Representatives John Hostettler and Don Young are petitioning Secretary Norman Mineta to put these procedures into place immediately so that passengers can travel the skies safely once again. Please call Hostettler’s office before the end of Wednesday, December 12 and ask them to add your name to this very important letter. Thank you. Sincerely, —- — Ray Keller http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/ "You don’t expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don’t, those who aren’t shot will be hanged."                          -Michael Shirley Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a  woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound I would prefer to live in a free society than a drug free society – even if the latter could actually be achieved.

Response:

An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. I also enjoy Ray’s posts – thoughtful and well considered.  But I do not agree with Ray on arming pilots, for the reasons cited by Kzin, and for other reasons: 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls. 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he? 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers). -Tabby

Response:

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years.

I also enjoy Ray’s posts – thoughtful and well considered.  But I do not agree with Ray on arming pilots, for the reasons cited by Kzin, and for other reasons: 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls. 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he? 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers). -Tabby

Response:

1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  

Flat out impossible for airports to be secured. Not possible. For example, convicts get or make weapons while in high security prisons, you think you can keep everyone unarmed on an aircraft or at an airport? Millions of people and all that luggage moving in and out every day? What are you going to do? Have every one strip naked and wear manacles? Passengers climb into iron boxes at the curbside and no one else not working in the air port or on a plane even get in? You do know that the Israeli airlines (El Al, Al El, whatever) that everyone brags about being so safe has a lot of armed people on board? 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls.

I would leave it to the pilots to decide and to deal with. Heck, arm the stews! 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he?

You are trying to dictate tactics for professionals in an area you have NO expertise in? Pilots are not experts? Train them. No certification unless they meet gun handling standards. HEY!!! "UNDER SOME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES" something *could* happen? And because of a POSIBILITY that you do not even know the probability of, you wish to forbid a course of action? Under some sets of circumstances, the airplane could run into Santa Clause! 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers).

First of all, this is not an "aviation safety" problem, but a problem that can also happen while aviating and is analogous to concealed carry on the street. Uniformity is necessary in those things that directly effect the plane’s function. This does not. Second, if the pilots are required to be armed and do not want to carry, they get FIRED. Where’s the problem? Third, why should the others on board know who is carrying or who is not? What is the problem here? It’s not like they are in a hospital where you have to know who to call for specific problems. Airplanes and hospitals are NOT comparable. Fourth, pilots are in uniform, so the sky marshal can certainly tell who he is. The pilot can be told who the marshal is, no sweat. Where’s the overwhelming danger? Off duty cops get shot by on duty cops "all to often"? Gimme some numbers. I agree that once is too many, but one more airplane crashing into a building is also one too many, and likely to kill a hell of a lot more people. Give me a reason to think there is a big problem here.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. I also enjoy Ray’s posts – thoughtful and well considered.  But I do not agree with Ray on arming pilots, for the reasons cited by Kzin, and for other reasons: 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma.

It’ll never happen. You’ll never see government employees or agents punished. The FAA is a regulatory agency  not security. The government is not good at security and there is only so much to do anyway. You are ultimately responsible for your security. 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls.

Some cockpits have more room than others. There are at least two and sometimes three, in the cockpit. Don’t have to "aim" in 3 -5 feet of space. The passengers that so desire should be armed. That is the only thing that will deter criminals. 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he?

Why aren’t passengers armed? Why "herd" perps to the cockpit? 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers).

Uniform regulation is not security. Those passengers that want to be armed should be also. The only people shooting in a plane would be those that could see the perp. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tabby

Response:

An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns.

Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it.

What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place?

Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen. -Tabby

Response:

You really do not have a clue, do you? The real world is not kind to the naive, but maybe you will get lucky.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen. -Tabby

Response:

Again, blow it out your ass.

A sign of frustration at losing an arguement. It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen.

You only want the terrorists armed, don’t you ? Why do you want to disarm citizens ?

Response:

Autopilot works quite well without the pilot’s attention.  Also on the big airliners, there are always two pilots in the cockpit.  Well, a pilot and a co-pilot that can fly just as well.  I don’t think arming the pilots is THE answer, but it is definitely a better alternative to letting hijackers take over the plane. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. www.gunowners.org Dec 2001 Official Petition Asking Transportation Secretary to Implement the New Law Allowing Guns in Cockpits — Ask your Representative to sign the Hostettler-Young Petition Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 (Monday, December 3, 2001) — Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) and Don Young (R-AK) need your help. They are petitioning Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to begin implementing the new law which President Bush signed on November 19 allowing pilots to possess firearms for the protection of passengers and crew. As GOA mentioned in its alert last month, there are certain guidelines which the Secretary (and a still-to-be-named Under Secretary of Transportation) must implement before commercial pilots can begin the important task of protecting their planes. Representatives Hostettler and Young are now getting other legislators to cosign a letter addressed to Secretary Mineta. "Both houses of Congress, as well as the Airline Pilots Association, have demonstrated overwhelming support for providing pilots the privilege of protecting their passengers and crew from dangerous threats by responsible means, including the use of firearms," their letter says. "Accordingly, we hope that you and the new Under Secretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act], in order that these indispensable provisions can be carried out seamlessly and without delay." ACTION: Representatives Hostettler and Young are trying to get as many Congressional signatures as possible before they send their letter to Secretary Mineta. Please ask your Congressman to sign onto the Hostettler-Young letter petitioning the Secretary for immediate action in this important endeavor. Their deadline is next Wednesday. And those of you who live in Hostettler’s and Young’s districts, be sure to thank them for their diligent efforts to get guns back into airplane cockpits. You can reach the Congress at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. —– Pre-written message —– Dear Representative: As you know, President Bush recently signed legislation establishing guidelines for arming pilots in the cockpits. Representatives John Hostettler and Don Young are petitioning Secretary Norman Mineta to put these procedures into place immediately so that passengers can travel the skies safely once again. Please call Hostettler’s office before the end of Wednesday, December 12 and ask them to add your name to this very important letter. Thank you. Sincerely, —- — Ray Keller http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/ "You don’t expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don’t, those who aren’t shot will be hanged."                          -Michael Shirley Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a  woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound I would prefer to live in a free society than a drug free society – even if the latter could actually be achieved.

Response:

An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms.

What do "Core competencies" have to do with the question at hand? I’m a farmer.  A farmer’s "core competencies" don’t include the use of firearms either, but I sure do know how to use them.  Would you suggest that I not be allowed the use of firearms merely because I’m a farmer and not a highly trained marksman?  The same quiestion fits the armed pilot matter. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation!

The "balance of power" applies to all situations in which power might be used.  It doesn’t apply only to the affairs of states. If a home invader chooses my house to attack, the balance of power between him and me is the overriding consideration.  If a would-be hijacker attempts to take over an airliner’s cockpit, the balance of power in that situation is also the overriding consideration. And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC?

You’ll have to do some editing on the above paragraph if you expect a response. If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen.

Sometimes they do.  They did on September 11th, or didn’t you notice?  If determined hijackers happen to be on board the flight you are hoping to take from "A" to "B," and you get your way and prevent the aircrew from being armed, and if you don’t happen to be on one of the selected flights with "sky marshals" on board, you and your fellow passengers will end up either defending the airplane yourself with whatever weapon you can improvise from your laptop computers, shoes, etc., or else you’ll have to trust in the good intentions of the hijackers. Perhaps you’re one of those people that believe bad things won’t happen, if only you pretend they won’t happen.  I would have thought such illusions had been burst lately, even in the most childlike minds. — Robert Sturgeon http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen.

Tell it to those who remember the passengers and crews of FOUR planes, each downed on 9/11 because there was not ONE weapon on any of them And some 20 or so other hijacked planes over the years that blew up or crashed. Tell it to the those who remember the 4,000,000 killed in the Nazi holocaust because there were insufficient weapons to fend off the attackers. Tell it to the 30,000,000 Russians killed by Stalin because they had insufficient weaponry to defend themselves. The more guns the merrier. An armed society is a polite society. Rules, spoken and unspoken, develop amongst the armed, which makes sure that mistakes are minimized. It is no accident that the relative freedom today occurred just after the inventions of repeating arms. Dictators doesn’t like the citizenry to have guns. Too bad. It’s called "balance of power". You prefer an imbalance which makes you a weak player. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tabby

Response:

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years.

<Snip of Ray’s post for brevity Oh Gawd! Not the "pressurized cabin" myth again!  ’Fess up now, you don’t know a damn thing about what you’re talking about, do you?  You are aware that a 747 can maintain cabin pressure with 5 windows out, aren’t you?  You do know that "pressurized" typically means a 5-8 lbs./sq. in. difference between cabin and outside pressure, don’t you?  A .45 caliber hole in an airliner’s fuselage would be one more small hole among many, much larger holes. James Bond movies are *not* an accurate guide to the basic workings of aircraft. No regards for the willfully ignorant, Jack Brooks 10 year USAF Security Police veteran, aircraft security and recapture was part of my job. Just don’t shoot toward the pilot, please.

Response:

Another libloon PLONK

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen. -Tabby

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Uniform regulation is not security. Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places. And more, and more, and more…

We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Robert Sturgeon http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Response:

Uniform regulation is not security. Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places.

And more, and more, and more…

Response:

Uniform regulation is not security.

Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places.

Response:

Another libloon PLONK

snip My thoughts, exactly, Ray.  As I read Tabby’s ridiculous posts in _this_thread_, my immediate inclination was to add her to my filter, not because I don’t like her or have anything against her, or even because I don’t like her point of view — but rather because my impression was that she is so naive and illogical that I will probably never learn anything useful from her; I often use my filters as a way to eliminate worthless junk and noise.  However, since I’ve just come back to the group recently, and consequently don’t know many folks including Tabby, I decided to resist the urge in the hope that she just _might_ have some valuable thoughts in _other_ areas, and that I ought to take a wait and see attitude.  So, rather than ‘plonk’ her, I decided to filter all posts by her on the subject of guns, in particular, but not otherwise. Just a thought, for what it’s worth. I don’t know why, but this caused me to think of a funny event that happened last week.  I noticed that the coffee that this girl had made was extremely weak looking, and so I asked her if she had forgotten to change the filter — thinking that the water was merely dripping through the old grounds.  She said ‘No’, so I pulled the filter out and was shocked to find that she had put whole coffee beans in there, without grinding them.  We have a coffeemate grinder sitting there, so I showed her what she was supposed to do.  ;-)  She is a coffee drinker, so I’d have thought that she would have had some idea that coffee is ground, even if she has never made freshly ground coffee before. Cheers. Bill Velek

Response:

We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

<innocent earnest mode on Obviously, we need a special police force of properly certified specialist police to deal with that. <innocent earnest mode off

Response:

1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. It’ll never happen. You’ll never see government employees or agents punished.

There may be some truth in your statement.  But it has nothing to do with arming pilots.  Or passengers. The FAA is a regulatory agency  not security.

It most certainly does have the lead role in aviation security and safety.  It sets policy ("why" and "how" to do (or not do) certain set of things); it enforces these security regulations (inspects, audits) that directly relate to airport access, processes, and minimum performance levels.  THAT’S done via regulations.  So when you see in the news that this silly feel-good scheme ain’t gonna make law, you’ll understand the power of being a regulatory entity like FAA. The government is not good at security and there is only so much to do anyway.

Ummn, what’s that big ugly building in Virginia – got five sides?  The Pentagon! As in the military.  Sorry – that’s the ultimate federal role in security, and seems to work OK to a whole nation of grateful people… You are ultimately responsible for your security.

Not by toting a gun on a plance, my friend.  Let me touch on this – safety, cause you seen awful scared about flying.  And you can validate these figures: o  36,000 (approx) people in the U.S. died from guns in 1997.  Of this number, o  Of this carnage – these 36,00 dead by guns, 4,000 died by wounds incurred by ACCIDENT.  I DO NOT want to fly with some boozed-up, pistol-packing Bubba with a Rambo complex – know what I mean? How many people died in commerical aviation in 1997?  One.  One person. I’ll take those odds any day.  So please, when you next fly – sit back, relax, AND KEEP YOUR GUN AT HOME.  I don’t want to be one of the 4,000 dead! – Tabby

Response:

You may be right about the pressurized aircraft, I have never been on one that has suffered a rapid decompression, only seen the pictures of the after effects. As a 10 year USAF Security Police veteran you did not fly the plane, which is case in point. leave the security work to the professionals. Oh Gawd! Not the "pressurized cabin" myth again!  ’Fess up now, you don’t know a damn thing about what you’re talking about, do you?  You are aware that a 747 can maintain cabin pressure with 5 windows out, aren’t you?  You do know that "pressurized" typically means a 5-8 lbs./sq. in. difference between cabin and outside pressure, don’t you?  A .45 caliber hole in an airliner’s fuselage would be one more small hole among many, much larger holes. James Bond movies are *not* an accurate guide to the basic workings of aircraft. No regards for the willfully ignorant,

Or for the intentional smart ass Jack Brooks 10 year USAF Security Police veteran, aircraft security and recapture was part of my job. Just don’t shoot toward the pilot, please.

Best advice you gave

Response:

o  36,000 (approx) people in the U.S. died from guns in 1997.  Of this number, o  Of this carnage – these 36,00 dead by guns, 4,000 died by wounds incurred by ACCIDENT.  I DO NOT want to fly with some boozed-up, pistol-packing Bubba with a Rambo complex – know what I mean?

Sigh..Tabby..post your cites. We might as well get this over with once and for all. Just to make sure your ignorance does have bounds. Gunner "Time, heat and pressure.    The same things that make a diamond also make a waffle."                                              ~Scott Meyer

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. It’ll never happen. You’ll never see government employees or agents punished. There may be some truth in your statement.  But it has nothing to do with arming pilots.  Or passengers. The FAA is a regulatory agency  not security. It most certainly does have the lead role in aviation security and safety.  It sets policy ("why" and "how" to do (or not do) certain set of things); it enforces these security regulations (inspects, audits) that directly relate to airport access, processes, and minimum performance levels.  THAT’S done via regulations.  So when you see in the news that this silly feel-good scheme ain’t gonna make law, you’ll understand the power of being a regulatory entity like FAA. The government is not good at security and there is only so much to do anyway. Ummn, what’s that big ugly building in Virginia – got five sides?  The Pentagon! As in the military.  Sorry – that’s the ultimate federal role in security, and seems to work OK to a whole nation of grateful people… You are ultimately responsible for your security. Not by toting a gun on a plance, my friend.  Let me touch on this – safety, cause you seen awful scared about flying.  And you can validate these figures: o  36,000 (approx) people in the U.S. died from guns in 1997.  Of this number, o  Of this carnage – these 36,00 dead by guns, 4,000 died by wounds incurred by ACCIDENT.  I DO NOT want to fly with some boozed-up, pistol-packing Bubba with a Rambo complex – know what I mean? How many people died in commerical aviation in 1997?  One.  One person. I’ll take those odds any day.  So please, when you next fly – sit back, relax, AND KEEP YOUR GUN AT HOME.  I don’t want to be one of the 4,000 dead! – Tabby

National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 47, # 19 1997 Firearm fatalities    32,406 Suicide by firearm         54.2% Homicide by Firearm        41.7% All other Firearm fatalities (including accidental)                             4.1 % (roughly 1329 total) Commercial Aviation Fatalities, 1997 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) Total                           93 Major Air Hub Carriers           8 Local Service Air Carriers      46 On Demand Air Taxis             39 Be careful about throwing around numbers on this group, you will be taken to task. David Hughes

Response:

We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? <innocent earnest mode on Obviously, we need a special police force of properly certified specialist police to deal with that. <innocent earnest mode off

Yes, an elite, special, super-duper police. Especially trained to deal with troublesome people. And a special place to put these miscreants.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Uniform regulation is not security. Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places. And more, and more, and more… We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Not the guards, that’s for sure. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Robert Sturgeon http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Response:

Filed under: American Activism

Related Posts

• ASSAULT ON LIBERTY
• Going to Somalia
• Bigotry by Jews Toward Non-Jews (Wine Bigotry) New Findings [In Their Own Words Series] V3.0 S_0222
• Thanks soc.culture.usa-alt.activism-s oc.culture.african.american.
• Fluoride & Amalgam
• Slick Willie has Y2K bug! Ah-choo! Ah-ah-bfuscate!!
• BRAND NEW!! Swiftboat Vet's OWN Military Records Prove They're Lying
• Yet Another Reason Helen Was Wrong
• Colorado: Verdict a relief for the family
• ACTION: Call PBS to Demand Inclusion of _We Do the Work_