Skip to comments.
What if pilots had a gun in the cockpit?
Self ^
| 9/12/2001
| Slelf
Posted on 09/12/2001 6:53:41 AM PDT by KansasConservative1
I know how a lot of Freepers feel about gun control and gun ownership. I personally feel that (like many foreign airlines) these incidents may have been avoided if a gun was available in a cockpit. I don't want to hear the lame argument about "what if a pilot wants to kill himself or others with it" Duh... Obviously, his plane is enough to accomplish that. So please Freepers, share with me the arguments for/against having a gun in the cockpit.
One other thought occured to me, what if we sent police out without guns... Instead, they have a shotgun in the car and iron on the hip. Are our pilots and Americans air freedom worth less than the lives of our police. I don't think so...
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: KansasConservative1
I don't think the concern is that the pilot would kill himself. The problem is that when a bullet pierces the hull of a pressurized aircraft cabin, it violently depressurizes. I suppose now the entire risk equation has to be refigured, though, with the dreadful calculation - is it better for the plane to go down over a scarcely-populated rural area, or over water, versus deliberately being rammed into some structure in a major city?
To: ikanakattara
Interesting thought. Would a shotgun be a better choice? Less chance of penetration yet effective at close range...
To: KansasConservative1
The best solution would be a kevlar coated cockpit door that can only be opened from inside the cockpit. The FAA should request these (lightweight, bulletproof) and state that under no circumstances in flight under any condition are they to be opened.
4
posted on
09/12/2001 7:06:34 AM PDT
by
Bommer
To: ikanakattara
Pilots aren't about to be trusted with guns though I suspect the sky marshalls will return. In any case, these terrorist acts will be used as an excuse to whittle away (not extend) the second amendment, and other, protections of the Bill of Rights. If history is any guide, the first casualty of war is liberty. Based on the events of the last day, I see no reason to believe that this "war" will be different.
To: KansasConservative1
I agree...wouldn't birdshot be enough to stop an assault on the cabin, while not penetrating the skin?
6
posted on
09/12/2001 7:08:31 AM PDT
by
mattdono
To: KansasConservative1
I think firearms on airplanes are a good idea. Not only in the cockpit, but in the hands of lawabiding citizens. One or two of those would have prevented the worst of yesterday's heinous tragedies.
7
posted on
09/12/2001 7:09:02 AM PDT
by
hinj
To: KansasConservative1
I think firearms on airplanes are a good idea. Not only in the cockpit, but in the hands of lawabiding citizens. One or two of those would have prevented the worst of yesterday's heinous tragedies.
8
posted on
09/12/2001 7:09:07 AM PDT
by
hinj
To: ikanakattara
when a bullet pierces the hull of a pressurized aircraft cabin, it violently depressurizes. This is a problem? The choice between depressurzation and the loss of an aircraft due to hijacking?
I think the danger is overplayed. After all we have numerous examples of windows blowing out of jet aircraft at altitude with no catastrophic consequences? How much air will rush through a bullet hole before the peanuts plug the hole?
9
posted on
09/12/2001 7:11:50 AM PDT
by
Procyon
To: Captain Kirk
You say that this may be used as an excuse to whittle away the 2nd Amendment --- please remember -- none of the hijackers used a firearm. We can use that to our advantage.
10
posted on
09/12/2001 7:12:28 AM PDT
by
hinj
To: ikanakattara
El-Al pilots are armed as are security guards that fly on every El-Al flight. Their planes arenever hijacked.
11
posted on
09/12/2001 7:12:34 AM PDT
by
SUSSA
To: KansasConservative1
First thing I thought of when I heard the terrorists were armed with knives. One gun on the plane would have stopped the tragedy.
Without guns, the physically stronger prevail.
12
posted on
09/12/2001 7:13:28 AM PDT
by
MrB
To: Procyon
What about rubber bullets used for riot control or a taser with the wires that shoot out at the perp?
13
posted on
09/12/2001 7:16:33 AM PDT
by
celeste
To: KansasConservative1
The problem is more basic and probably couldn't be solved (at least, up tp now) by arming the pilots. The pilots have been trained to avoid physical danger and force. What happened here was probably that the hijackers grabbed a flight attendendant and, using her, gained access to the cockpit. The pilots, figuring that the worst that could happen would be to divert to Cuba, opened the door to protect the FA, and got stabbed and killed. Only in the PA crash (assuming that the USAF didn't splash it) does the action of the aircraft suggest that the pilot or some passengers might have been able to put up a fight. We've never had a situation where the hijackers were crazy enough to want to kill themselves and everyone on the plane.
14
posted on
09/12/2001 7:17:08 AM PDT
by
Tacis
To: KansasConservative1
Guns are fine, but a securely locked cockpit would probably be better. Pilots locked into cockpit before passengers board and not unlocked until last passenger off.
To: Bommer
The best solution would be a kevlar coated cockpit door I agree, however, there should be a way to have it opened electronically from maybe ATC if necessary.
16
posted on
09/12/2001 7:24:59 AM PDT
by
1Old Pro
To: All
The military has ammo called "shortstop ammo" that's issued to military cargo jet crews in the event of hijacking. It's designed to not penetrate the hulls of the planes.
17
posted on
09/12/2001 7:27:39 AM PDT
by
mbynack
To: hinj
I agree that this is a significant point though the gun grabbers have rarely been deterred by the truth. My main concern is that the second amendment will suffer as a byproduct of a general assault on the Bill of Rights.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Ha!
Try telling that to a pilot flying from New York to Paris 3 or 4 days or more a week. No coffee, no stretch of the legs, no small chat socializing with anyone on board the plane. Even though it's on auto-pilot for hours and th co-pilot can handle anything likely to happen mid-Atlantic.
You'll soon have no pilots willing to fly long routes. Much better to have some sort of defensive weapons in the cockpit. Many pilots are also ex military- they can handle a gun. They should be armed, and now.
19
posted on
09/12/2001 7:33:05 AM PDT
by
DETAILER
To: ikanakattara
IMHO, impenetrable cockpit doors or Air Marshals are the only answers that will gain acceptance. Cockpits don't have a bathroom, so entry/exit during the flight is still required. I would love to use my cc permit in the cockpit. The scenario of reaching for my Glock in the cramped cockpit, twisting in a confined area to confront someone behind me at the door leaves me a bit worried about the outcome. Pistol bullets are on the market that would shatter prior to penetrating the fuselage. These hijackers were somewhat trained...Boston officials found Arabic flight training manuals in the suspected hijacker's car in the airport parking lot.
I find it incredible that an entire flight crew and group of passengers would allow themselves to be herded to the back of the airplane without a fight but we don't know the whole story yet.
May God Bless America and protect her during these days.
20
posted on
09/12/2001 7:40:55 AM PDT
by
aviator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 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