Skip to comments.
Is It Time for a New "Concealed Carry" Category.........for Air Travel?
self
| 09/11/01
| RightOnline
Posted on 09/11/2001 8:16:26 PM PDT by RightOnline
In light of today's horrific events, wherein a group of highly-trained, highly-motivated terrorists apparently armed with knives and/or box cutters hijacked no fewer than four civilian airliners, I'd like to offer a proposal for your consideration.
Is it time, in light of the state of our world today, for a new category of "concealed carry" licensing? Let's call it, for lack of better phraseology for the time being, CCW-ATQ (ATQ = "Air Travel Qualified").
What I envision is a category of armed citizens who are a subset of those with "CCW" licenses. They would undergo much additional training, akin to the training given to the "Air Marshals" whom we've all read about. They would undergo background checks, etc., much like individuals seeking higher security clearances.
Once certified, a citizen possessing a CCW-ATQ license would be approved to carry a weapon aboard a civilian airliner. The aircraft crew would be notified whether or not they had any CCW-ATQ certified passengers, but would NOT be given names or seating assignments (terrorists would know if such was provided to aircrews, thereby making such passengers easy targets..........nullifying much of their effectiveness).
I don't offer this suggestion lightly or flippantly, but as a proposal for protection of air travellers in American airspace. I cannot help but think that if such was allowed today, the hijackings just might not have been so successful.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
To: TEXASPROUD
No, I'd rather have a GLASER Safety Slug in .38 Special. Fatal (almost 100%, if you can get a head shot), but unlikely to overpenetrate.
To: RightOnline
You right on the money with this one.Just the thought, or potential, that someone on board is armed, could be all the deterrence you need.When that nut tried to take down the BA flight from Heathrow to Nairobi on New Year's, a weapon would have prevented him from even entering the cockpit area.
To: RightOnline
As for accidental discharge, keeping the mag out would be an option in this case. (I know, I know...sacrilege.) But if there was a situation where it were necessary to use the handgun, (in a terrorist situation like this), there would be time to put the mag in. That said, I feel terrible about even discussing this right now.
23
posted on
09/11/2001 8:41:51 PM PDT
by
July 4th
To: RightOnline
They will never go for it because the liberals are more afraid of armed, honest citizens than terrorists.
To: TEXASPROUD
.44 Special with a 200 grain gold dot hollow point would be ideal for cabin use. No, Glaser's or Mag-Safe's were designed for use in aircraft cabins. They are lightweight bullets filled with a resin compound and bird-shot.
They are designed to fly at very high-velocity and fragment when they hit something, expending all the energy and not over-penetrate. I think it's Mag-Safe that makes one that was specifically designed to not even penetrate a standard piece of drywall.
The problem is that heavy clothing is enough to somewhat shield the target. But, it won't punch through aircraft (except for the windows).
To: RightOnline
I think we should arm only the pilots.
The fewer the people that have the capacity to bring down the plane, the better. If a pilot has a gun, so what? He's already capable of destroying the plane. We also need locked cabins for the pilots.
26
posted on
09/11/2001 8:44:58 PM PDT
by
xm177e2
To: ALL: SHOULD THIS BE BROUGHT UP?
Well, then.............should this be brought up as an "official" suggestion to Congress? State approval alone wouldn't cut it, since we're talking about interstate air travel. The NRA or GOA? Would they get behind something like this?
To: havoc1us
"box cutters..."
My thoughts were along the same lines all day. Just how many people could you fend off with a box cutter. Especially if all 91 of them were highly motivated, ie, overtake the jacker or hit the ground at 500 + mph.
28
posted on
09/11/2001 8:48:36 PM PDT
by
going hot
(Happiness is a momma deuce)
To: RightOnline
I'm not worried about people using a gun, just some morons who play with it during flight and having an ND. And, yes, according to the FBI stats, there are many NDs each year. Funny enough is that many are by cops! (Totally new thread needed for THAT subject!) I would say for flight thata gun MUST be unloaded and kept that way and any brandishing (unholstering) of a firearm would be cause for serious prosecution.
Besides, I think Travis said it best that we do not know the circumstances of the events, such as were they holding a little girl by the throat and no one even imagined these rag heads ending the flight with a crash. People might have been thinking that it would simply be best to cooperate and wait until landing.
To: xm177e2
Not necessarily disagreeing strongly with your points, but:
"I think we should arm only the pilots." The fewer the people that have the capacity to bring down the plane, the better. If a pilot has a gun, so what? He's already capable of destroying the plane."
Maybe..........but you just cut the odds, significantly, of onboard weaponry being a deterrent. If you're a nutcase terrorist and know that the ONLY weapon(s) is/are up front, you have a HUGE edge.
"We also need locked cabins for the pilots."
Already have 'em; have had 'em for years. Piece of cake to get through.........believe me.
To: July 4th
As for accidental discharge, keeping the mag out would be an option in this case. (I know, I know...sacrilege.) But if there was a situation where it were necessary to use the handgun, (in a terrorist situation like this), there would be time to put the mag in. Mags out, empty chambers, etc. should never be an option. Why handicap yourself? The seconds spent seating a mag and racking the slide are likely critical moments and lost oportunities.
31
posted on
09/11/2001 8:50:29 PM PDT
by
TC Rider
To: RightOnline
I agree 100%, having a so-called security guard on each flight would 1: raise prices for flights, and 2: would give the terrorists a first target.
I would take the classes, I would pay to take the classes, I would feel MUCH safer on a flight if I had a way to defend myself and fellow passengers. I could be talked into carrying a lower velocity bullet that would not penetrate the planes shell, but would penetrate a terrorist.
A terrorist would be much less likely to hijack a plane if they knew that there could be up to 10-100 armed citizens on that plane ready to take him out as soon as he moved to take over the plane. And of course he had no clue who or whom they are.
32
posted on
09/11/2001 8:50:43 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
To: xm177e2
I think the stewardesses and stewards too. Even more so for them because they can shoot hijackers before they get in the cabin.
33
posted on
09/11/2001 8:51:07 PM PDT
by
FITZ
To: RightOnline
Some would, but it would face MAJOR opposition and be a real fight. Maybe the first step would be some FAA regulation adjustments as a stepping stone to congressional action. Best wishes, bud.
To: RightOnline
Arm the flight crew. If we trust them with a friggin' jet liner, we can surely trust them to carry.
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: PatrioticAmerican
". People might have been thinking that it would simply be best to cooperate and wait until landing."And, historically speaking, they would have been absolutely right in that assumption.
Except for today.
Specifically, on the flight on which Barbara Olsen flew, she was told by her husband, Ted (via phone), about the two hijacked aircraft that crashed into the WTC towers. They knew, therefore, that the odds were great that they, too, would be used for such a suicide mission. However, they were unarmed. IF a few of them had been armed, there's no doubt this would have been headed off. That's all I'm saying; NOT second-guessing the passengers' actions (or inactions) today.
To: RightOnline
Ever notice how hijackings declined when flights became non-smoking? Would you, as a potential hijacker, want to face a cabin full of nicotine-deprived passengers who might be packing iron?
As a smoker and frequent flyer, I can tell you that the air traffic controllers run serious risk of bodily harm if I think the plane orbits the field just once too often...
To: Alberta's Child
While I agree in principle with RightOnLine's suggestion, I also think that your suggestions are an even better line for the airlines to take. Incapacitation rather than fatal action is always preferable.
To: RightOnline
A bullet hole in a pressurised cabin would not happen with qualified CCW persons. There is ammo such as 'Mag-Safe' which will do tremendous damage on tissue, but will not penetrate an aircraft window or skin. I use it in my house gun, because it will not go through a sheetrock wall.
So9
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson