Rand Paul: We Need Guns In The Cockpit

politico.com ^ | 4/10/14 | TAL KOPAN

[BarnacleCenturion]

Sen. Rand Paul says he wants “100 percent” of pilots carrying weapons, as it’s the best way to prevent another attack like Sept. 11, 2001.

“The goal of my bill is to have 100 percent of American pilots armed, because I think it’s a very cost effective, it’s the most cost effective way of deterring another attack on our planes,” Paul said on Fox News’s “Hannity” on Wednesday night.

The Kentucky Republican says he supports recent calls to allow concealed weapons on military bases in the wake of the recent shooting at Fort Hood, but he is dealing with another concealed carry issue.

“I’m concerned about what is the most cost-effective way of preventing another 9/11: I want all pilots to be armed,” Paul said. “The president has zeroed this out of his budget. He’s advocated for getting rid of the program. And when I talk to pilots — I’m at airports all the time. Pilots come up to me all the time and say it’s too hard to get a permit and to keep up the permit.”

[Telepathic Intruder]

Commercial airline pilots are already flying a weapon far more dangerous than the mother of all liberal fears: the assault rifle. So what’s the problem?

[servo1969]

In this instance I agree with him

In most instances I think he’s a horse’s -ss.

Both are happening at the same time.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You know, I’m wondering…all this absurd expense and hassle and intrusion we’ve allowed since 9-11 - wouldn’tit have been much much less expensive to simply have armed guard on all flights? Even 2 maybe? Armed with whatever could incapacitate a terrorist without depressurizing the cabin maybe.

I mean I’m all for pilots having guns, but I don’t know if 100% would want to or be competent in its use. We always seem to do the most expensive least effective thing as a country…..the cancer of the bureaucratic state.

[G Larry]

ok, but please don’t pretend that would have helped in MH370

[Blue Collar Christian]

The problem is that those pilots are not “trained” government agents, as this government wants only its people armed. A pilot is just another of the sheeple and therefore to be disarmed.

[AlexW]

“The problem is that those pilots are not “trained” government agents, “
__________________________________________________
Exactly, and the thought of their outgunning a terrorist attack in the cockpit is somewhere between slim and none.

[Servant of the Cross]

Rand Paul: we must agree to disagree on the fundamental Social Conservatism leg of the Conservative stool;

Rand Paul: a legislative priority is we need guns in the cockpit.

I'm wondering where Rand's head is ...

[I want the USA back]

100% is stupid. Not all are qualified or willing. Forcing them to do so is stupid.

[Telepathic Intruder]

After 9/11 they started using armed air marshals on flights, or so I heard at the time. The problem is if Muslims (or old ladies in wheel chairs, since I don’t want to profile) were doing as much planning as they did in the first attack, couldn’t they kill the armed marshal as the first order of business and get his gun? Even though they were pretending to be passengers, it might not have been hard to notice that they never got off the plane. On the other hand, the terrorists had to physically break down the doors to the cockpits, giving the pilots plenty of time to prepare.

[Flintlock]

I dunno.
I have never heard of ANY pistol that comes close to the difficulty of flying even a Piper Cub—let alone a 777.
Somehow, I think pilots can manage to handle guns—especially revolvers.
Better yet—reverse the seats of the first few rows and seat ‘carrying’ passengers there. Guns up front!

[C. Edmund Wright]

Yes, I know about the marshals, but as I understood it, they were not on every flight. And I hear your argument about the pre planning, and I would say two things to that:

A: nothing is perfect, including this idea, but it’s a damned sight better than what we have now and
B: we were caught with our guard down on 9-11 - that would not be the case afterwards. I think you’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the much better….

[C. Edmund Wright]

with due respect, false analogy IMO

[Tzfat]

Uh, not compitent to be armed, but compitent to fly your rear around the world at .80 Mach?

[Cruz_West_Paul2016]

Yes,arm all pilots,if not a pistol/side-arm, or even a fully loaded pop-tart.

[mj1234]

Exactly!

The best defense the AIRLINES did, was to make RULES about
LOCKING THE DOOR!! and making it STURDY enough that
it is almost impossible to SHOOT thru- or Break down!

[DoodleDawg]

So they went to all the trouble and expense to secure the cockpit walls and doors and make it a place where the hijackers can’t get into thus denying them control of the aircraft. So is Senator Paul suggesting that in the event of a hijacking the pilots leave that protected area and shoot it out with the hijackers? What if they lose? The hijackers now have the plane and can do what they want with it. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

[ThunderSleeps]

You know, I’m wondering…all this absurd expense and hassle and intrusion we’ve allowed since 9-11 - wouldn’tit have been much much less expensive to simply have armed guard on all flights? Even 2 maybe? Armed with whatever could incapacitate a terrorist without depressurizing the cabin maybe.

Couple of things the pilots can do right now that they don't need any extra gear for or any permission from the nanny state. If/when some rag-head starts trying to break into the cockpit... One, depressurize the cabin. Jamal will be unconscious in a few seconds if he doesn't get his backside back to a seat and a mask. Two, violently maneuver the aircraft. Jamal will be a red stain on the cabin ceiling - the nose of the aircraft is very far away from the pitch center and can experience extreme G forces both positive and negative.

Granted, #1 is not a long term solution but it ends the immediate threat. Some passengers had better man-up and decide it is better to go down fighting that let Jamal have his way. A commercial pilot told me #2, said he and some fellow pilots had decided that a few broken bones on some other passengers was worth it. Said he could knock out anyone outside the cockpit door in about 30 seconds with a few violent pitch maneuvers.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You so so so so so totally missed my point…..I just don’t think 100% of pilots WANT to be competent with guns or carry one. I’m sure they’re all capable of it. And I have no problem with them having guns - the ones that want to carry - I think it’s great idea - but I was simply talking about the 100% rule.

I believe I made this clear in my first post….but I’ll doublecheck.

[cloudmountain]

When my husband and I lived in the middle east we flew Syrian Air from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, to New York a couple of times. My husband spotted TWO Syrian men who, he said, HAD to be armed security guys.

They were in the mid-late 30's, sitting on aisle seats, looking around a lot and each had a bulge in the upper left suit pocket. Tough looking monkeys and we felt safe on that flight.