Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last
To: RightOnline
I don't know,there's a lot of air rage out there.
41 posted on 09/11/2001 8:56:22 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandur
"Arm the flight crew. If we trust them with a friggin' jet liner, we can surely trust them to carry."

An excellent "first step", no doubt.

For reasons I stated to another FReeper above, still not enough, IMHO.

42 posted on 09/11/2001 8:57:02 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"I don't know,there's a lot of air rage out there."

I know you posted this at least semi-tongue-in-cheek.........but you've swerved into a very important point.

This is absolutely a key point that would be brought up against such a concept.

This is why such careful screening processes would have to be put in place. I mean............getting my proposed CCW-ATQ would be a bitch; you'd go through some work to get it. You'd also have to go through a clearance process. I used to have a Top Secret clearance, and I'm thinking something along those lines (well, maybe not quite that deep.........but you get the idea).

In addition, as an aside..........would a rogue "CCW-ATQ'er" even consider an "air rage"-style incident, since he/she would know that there is a fair likelihood that he/she has other CCW-ATQ'ers aboard ready to send him/her to the permanent horizontal position? "Deterrence" can work several ways, IOW.

The best way to get others to see your way of thinking is to anticipate objections, so I thank you for bringing it up.

43 posted on 09/11/2001 9:03:21 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
You are absolutely correct.

Time to bring back Johnny Carson.

After the Cooper highjack, Carson joked in his monolog that the way to stop highjacking, was to give everybody a gun.

end

Who want to push the issue to actual completion?

44 posted on 09/11/2001 9:07:38 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (lawjj2@allways.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diggerwillow
Pilots in the military are always armed with a side arm.

All commercial pilots should be armed and there should be no access to the cockpit from the passenger compartment.

However, I remember a famous quote from Archie Bunker that went something like" They should pass out guns at the beginning of the flight so that everyone is armed".

It doesn't sound so stupid now.

Well Sara Brady, how safe were the people on those gun free planes?

45 posted on 09/11/2001 9:11:59 PM PDT by Hal.009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Arming the pilot/copliot seems like a marginal solution to me. First, they're both normally sitting with their backs to the passenger compartment door. It would still be pretty easy for a group of terrorists to kick the door down and kill or injure them before they could even draw their guns. Next, there's only two of them, which makes them easier to overwhelm. Finally, everyone on the plane knows who the only people with guns are.

Putting "incognito" armed marshalls on high-risk flights is another possibility. However, it's expensive, there would probably not be more than one or two of them on any given flight, and it's quite possible that they wouldn't be on the actualy flight being hijacked. In short, it's a "feel good" solution for benefit of public window-dressing, but of little practical value.

"Flight-qualified" CCW sounds like the best solution to me. If the airlines want to encourage pilots and flight attendents to also qualify to carry aboard airlines, so much the better.

46 posted on 09/11/2001 9:13:01 PM PDT by Skibane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
"Who wants to push the issue to actual completion?"

Good question. I don't say that to sound lazy; I just don't know exactly how such a thing would be pushed through. I assume it would require Federal legislation. Would the NRA / GOA and their lobbyists be the most qualified to push such a concept through in Washington?

One thing I do know: NOW would be the time, while this is still fresh in the minds of Americans, to push such an idea..........not a year from now.

47 posted on 09/11/2001 9:13:09 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I think a more practical idea would be to have the flight crew separated from the rest of the aircraft by an interior wall so that it is impossible to pass between the two areas.

Years ago someone suggested that this could also be done in conjunction with a ventilation system that floods the passenger cabin with some kind of non-lethal gas to incapacitate all passengers in the event there is a problem.

I suggested the same alternative earlier today on another post (pasted below) except for the non-lethal gas option. That sounds like a fantastic idea considering the madness we now have to deal with.

**********************************

From now on, airline cockpit compartments must be armored, cockpit crews must be armed, the cockpits must locked before take-off and must not be opened under ANY circumstances even if every single passanger is threatened with death. In case of a bomb threat, the pilots must fly to the nearest body of water or unpopulated area and circle since, if you are going to die anyway, it is much nobler to die protecting others on the ground. As the Israelis do, plain-clothed, armed security must be aboard every flight to shoot it out with the bad guys in the passanger compartment.

And, as Politically Incorrect as it is (or was until this morning), there is a value in racial profiling. If you look Middle Eastern, you must expect that special attention will be given to you by security.

48 posted on 09/11/2001 9:13:59 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bang_list
Added to bang_list. (Click HERE to show most gun-related articles recently posted on FreeRepublic.com.)
49 posted on 09/11/2001 9:14:32 PM PDT by Skibane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skibane
Thanks for the dead-on summary and supportive words.
50 posted on 09/11/2001 9:14:42 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Forget it. It isn't about to happen.
51 posted on 09/11/2001 9:17:12 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the808bass
DH and I were having this discussion earlier. Just for the sake of argument, have a security charge of $8.00 or so placed against each ticket, then use the $$ to pay the agent.
52 posted on 09/11/2001 9:23:35 PM PDT by Tuscaloosa Goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
You can design high powered bullets that won't go through the windows but do knock down your opponent or even kill him or her.
53 posted on 09/11/2001 9:23:54 PM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
I hear ya. Personally, I would love to have my guns at all times.
54 posted on 09/11/2001 9:25:33 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
The best way to convince people that this concept might work is to show them. I could see a TV news reporter doing a "special investigation" showing what happens (or rather, what doesn't happen) when Glasser Safety Slugs or other safety ammo is fired inside an aircraft. Follow it up with a few statistics on CCW's impeccable safety record, mention that weapons are routinely carried on military flights, and you're halfway there — especially right now, while people are clamoring for a workable solution.
55 posted on 09/11/2001 9:26:35 PM PDT by Skibane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
An outstanding idea. Too bad that the average American has been "Oprah-cized" into fearing guns. (No doubt some are glad that no guns were present on any of the aircraft today. "Someone might have gotten hurt!") The beauty of "CCW-ATQ" would be that it would be impossible for a hijacker to figure out which passengers out of the dozens or hundreds aboard are armed. This operation would not have been possible under such a system. The terrorists would have had no way of knowing from which direction the Glaser Safety slugs would be coming from.
56 posted on 09/11/2001 9:26:58 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
A responsible American armed with an authorized C&C permit, and a fire arm could have shut this down. Early.

Sword

57 posted on 09/11/2001 9:27:58 PM PDT by Sword_Svalbardt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuscaloosa Goldfinch
DH and I were having this discussion earlier. Just for the sake of argument, have a security charge of $8.00 or so placed against each ticket, then use the $$ to pay the agent.

This could be done on a voluntary basis by the airlines. So, if you wanna save the $8 and fly somewhere else you can. Also, if there is concern about the security officer being the first target, it's not neccesary for them to be in uniform. Could be "stealth" mode. I'd feel better havin' trained pros who would be held accountable for their actions. I realize most civilians who would be licensed under such a program would be good guys/gals, but one slip-up and revocation of all licenses.

58 posted on 09/11/2001 9:31:07 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
Unfortunately, you are correct-it is not going to happen. I live in a State with a "Shall-Issue" CCW statute, and I have never once been concerned that the person behind me in the check-out line very likely has a pistol in an IWB holster. I just don't care! The bad guys (a lot of whom I know personally, from my misspent time working for the Alaska Department of Corrections!) already have guns, and knives, and blackjacks, and all sorts of unfriendly stuff concealed on their persons. Why on Earth would I worry about folks who have passed a background check, a training course, and have been willing to be fingerprinted and photographed for a CCW? The same goes for passsengers on an aircraft: during Vietnam, I commonly flew on charter aircraft where most of the passengers were armed (including me). Just not a cause for concern. Of course, our current generation of pus-gutted, soft, wimpy little sissies are afraid of just about EVERYTHING- especially guns!
59 posted on 09/11/2001 9:36:48 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Hey! I've got an idea!

Why don't we divide all the airplanes into individual companies and let each board of directors decide how to protect their airplanes?

Some airlines might invest in better security for the flight crew.

Some might hire sky-marshals to protect from hijacking.

Still others might allow every passenger to keep and bear arms. Some specific flights might be designated as "no weapons". You know... Like those yard signs which say "We have no firearms! Please don't hurt us."

I see no necessity to have a collectivist solution to this problem. Airlines which offer no protection, such as those whose planes were hijacked today, would soon find their business declining and their insurance rates climbing.

60 posted on 09/11/2001 9:36:56 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson