[RightOnline]

For those so inclined to say it, let me head it off. Can a bullet do damage to a pressurized aircraft at altitude? Yes. Is it like in the movies? No. Hence the clear mention above of "training". You wouldn't want just any yahoo wielding a .45 at FL350, I'll tell you. However, this is one (former) pilot who'd feel a lot better knowing that there were a half-dozen or so good Americans in the passenger area watching my back.

[RightOnline]

Thoughts? Opinions?

[diggerwillow]

I have no problem with pilots carrying.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Pilots and air marshals only, and maybe flight crew if, and only if, seriously trained. Private people are good people, but one bullet through the aircraft could be serious and dangerous. Many Negligent Discharges do happen, and I would not want one while in the air.

[an amused spectator]

I'll second or third the motion.

[fso301]

Add one requirement; prior to boarding, bullets must be dipped in pork grease.

[the808bass]

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.

Logistically and financially, is a security officer of some sort on every flight (perhaps with other duties as well) out of reason? There've been many other situations which could have used something. I'm thinking of the several recent passengers who've had to be violently restrained once the plane was in the air. And of course, today, we're talking hijacking.

[CurlyBill]

This is absolutely not a problem for me. If every single person on those planes was armed, this would have never happened. I know about decompression, and some of the other dangers, but who would hijack a plane when everyone is armed?

[TEXASPROUD]

.44 Special with a 200 grain gold dot hollow point would be ideal for cabin use.

[havoc1us]

Any yahoo would have been able to prevent the planes from being hi-jacked. I think the airlines would be wise to provide their own armed security on-board. Fighter Jets on standby to stop a big bird gone astray could be a back-up. BOX CUTTERS??? That's ALL it took??? That's so wrong.

[Mulder]

I'm all for it.

It would be a much greater deterrent than the rude counter clerk who asks if your bags have been with you the entire time.

[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.

[TC Rider]

Looking for these?

[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. That said, I feel terrible about even discussing this right now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

They will never go for it because the liberals are more afraid of armed, honest citizens than terrorists.

[xm177e2]

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.

[Aric2000]

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.

[Servant of the Nine]

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

[Coleus]

I don't know,there's a lot of air rage out there.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

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?

[Skibane]

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.