Arm the Passengers

http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/ ^ | 3 june 02 | Armed and Dangerous

[white trash redneck]

Now here's an interesting thought!

[Clemenza]

I would have no problem with this...

[widowithfoursons]

Even if passengers can't carry weapons, there would be no reason for the pilots to throw out their guns since the alternative is for our boys to blow the plane out of the sky. So everyone in the cabin could be killed, but the pilots would be safe to land the plane. How comforting.

[1bigdictator]

Love the 2nd ammendment but how long would it be before a gun-toting passenger got irritated at the yahoo that put his seat back to far spilling coke on the gun-packing passenger... think air rage, similar to road rage. The guns would inevitably get misused. The liberal media would have a field day upon the first instance.

[Ajnin]

The priority of the Air Marshall is the plane. The terrorists can slit the throat of every passenger on the plane because that's not the priority. It's the protection of the cockpit and the pilots. The Air Marshall(s) would shoot anybody approaching the cockpit. The tangos would have to be extraordinarily bad ass to detect the Marshall, not get shot and overcome being mauled by the other 200 passengers.

[NativeNewYorker]

This blog is on my daily bookmark hit-list.

Truly a freeper must-read.

BTTT

[drjimmy]

The anti-gun bien pensants of the world wet their pants at the thought of flying airplanes containing hundreds of armed civilians.
Here is where the fantasy of the suggestion comes through. There ain't going to be hundreds of armed civilians on any flights just because civilians are allowed to carry weapons on flights. How many of the people on the hijacked 9-11 flights would have been armed even if they had been allowed? If a dozen armed terrorists all get on the same flight, the odds are pretty good that they will outnumber the armed non-terrorists. The world is a far different place than it was pre-1971, so it's ridiculous to use that as some kind of benchmark.

[the]

Your argument is a red herring. Now that the majority of states are "Shall-Issue" for CCW permits, having issued millions of permits over past years to citizens who presumably also drive cars, I challenge you to find a case of a CCW holder unjustifiably using his or her weapon in a case of "road rage."

[Jerrybob]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bacbcdc13c4.htm

Great cartoon here.

[weikel]

My one problem is that tons of Arabs could book a single flight then... arm the pilots.

[Rifleman]

My own proposal is that anyone who can document an eight second El Presidente pistol drill and a background check should be able to carry on board. Pilots, cabin crew, businessmen, old ladies....simple, cheap and decisive.

[Zon]

I notice that you neglect to mention that because of 9/11 many more law-abiding air travelers would be carrying guns. It's not nice to insult the readers' intelligence.

[Ramius]

Bats. Issue every passenger a bat.

[drjimmy]

I notice that you neglect to mention that because of 9/11 many more law-abiding air travelers would be carrying guns. It's not nice to insult the readers' intelligence.
And many more non law-abiding air travelers would be carrying guns as well. I was insulting the writer's intelligence.

[Frohickey]

Here is where the fantasy of the suggestion comes through. There ain't going to be hundreds of armed civilians on any flights just because civilians are allowed to carry weapons on flights. How many of the people on the hijacked 9-11 flights would have been armed even if they had been allowed? If a dozen armed terrorists all get on the same flight, the odds are pretty good that they will outnumber the armed non-terrorists. The world is a far different place than it was pre-1971, so it's ridiculous to use that as some kind of benchmark.

I beg to differ.

Civilians with valid CCW permits and peace-officers (not LEOs) should be allowed. Of course, this is after the permits have been looked at by airline security. The pilot will then know how many armed passengers he/she has, and so will the air marshall that might be on the flight. If a terrorist happen to be one of the armed CCW permittees, then the state authorities already have a head-start with the investigation, and might be able to alert the pilot while enroute.

Not part of the topic, but how about doing away with the cockpit doors, and have a permanent wall separating the pilots from the passengers. The pilots can enter the plane through the windshields, eat MREs and use a bucket. A potential hijacker would have to cut through, or come in from the outside. ;)

[B Knotts]

The guns would inevitably get misused.

LEOs misuse their weapons more often than CCW holders.

A better question: how long before a testosterone-fueled "Air Marshal" misuses his weapon?

[Kermit]

The government pukes, 'RAT and pubbie, Mineta, Ashcroft and Bush have one goal, power. They oppose anything that reduces the power of government. They all want the flying public dependent of government security, even though it is a proven failure.

Government is NOT serious about airline safety. It is no better today than it was on the morning of 9/11.

The only difference today are the attitudes of the passengers. Passengers prevented the use of Flight 93 to take out the White House. Passengers prevented "shoebomber" Richard Reid from bringing down that flight. Now passengers are unarmed. Someone had the idea of allowing CCW holders to get further training and have an ATQ (Air Travel Qualified) extension on their license.

Mineta and Bush are TODAY still not serious about airline passenger safety. They won't even take the step of arming pilot. The Air Passenger Militia obviously is needed and is the only pragmatic way to stop hijackings.

[AAABEST]

I am a HUGE 2a supporterss. I run a 2a website. I'm also all for arming pilots and if not sky marshalls, some other "trusted" people - like say a corps of screened folks who get a discount on their planefare or something. I don't know I'm just throwing stuff out.

Everyone however has a line and this author has found mine. A plane full of drinking, air psychosis prone people with guns is my line.

[B Knotts]

That actually doesn't sound much different than what I advocate: a Federal Air Travel CCW. Background check done by the FBI, with 3-6 months training (at least partially at the expense of the applicant).

Even if you think air marshals are capable of handling problems, there will never be enough of them to be on every flight. A class of unpaid volunteers is the only way to secure our air industry.

[4CJ]

The anti-gun bien pensants of the world wet their pants at the thought of flying airplanes containing hundreds of armed civilians. They would have you believe that this would be a sure recipe for carnage on every flight, an epidemic of berserk yahoos blowing bullet holes through innocent bystanders and the cabin walls. When you ask why this didn't happen before 1971 when there were no firearms restrictions on airplanes, they evade the question.

They still do.