Government denies pilots right to carry firearms [Archive]

dnc101

05-23-2002, 10:24 AM

in this case I'm not sure if there is a right. When they applied for their license my guess is the pilots contracted away their rights and agreed to follow the laws and regulations governing their performance and behavior while flying.

Having said that, I still think they should be allowed to carry firearms. And there are alternatives to the full power
.44 mag(nificent) loudenboomer that most people probably envision when discussing this. Sentered bullets are one good option. Another is a light weight round that sheds velocity extremely fast. The Japanese used wooden bullets when penetrating our lines in WW II- they didn't get far and so were unlikely to kill each other if they missed. Then there are stun guns and other exotic weapons.

And now, having said all that, I'd still like to have someone in the 'flight station', and possibly one mean 'seat station' stewardess, armed with something that would reach the full length of the aircraft and knock some 'fecal thought station' jerk straight to the 'eternal furnace station', if necessary. Something like a full power .44 mag(nificent) loudenboomer.

BeiKongHui

05-24-2002, 01:49 PM

even though I have several guns myself because I wonder how safe firing a handgun would be in a turbulent air craft or what shooting a window out while the plane is pressurised could do to innocent passengers.

The US government wastes millions on crap each year so I am sure they could develop a specialized weapon for these cases. Heck even in Star Trek the captain could fill the ship with knock out gas if there were intruders so why not separate the c0ckpit and the passenger compartment and give each their own vetalation system. Knock everyone out, land, arrest the troublemakers before anyone has even woken up.

dnc101

05-24-2002, 04:22 PM

The aircraft depressurizes, the masks drop, and everyone puts theirs on- including the terrorists whose other option is to black out. Either way, the stewardess can then, with the portable air unit, walk over and ventilate his skull. Or I suppose he could just be restrained, but that doesn't sound like much fun. And I doubt that gassing the other passengers would be viewed as more benign. Have you ever seen the effects on people when they are gassed, and at altitude no less? If one of them throws up and is unconscious you just killed an innocent passenger.:eek:

guohuen

05-24-2002, 05:34 PM

BTW, they make very effective fragmentation rounds that wouldn't penetrate the fusilage. Pretty good manstoppers too.

Radhnoti

05-25-2002, 03:41 PM

The whole "gas the passengers" and "depressurize the passengers" arguments have been attacked by the flight crews (who admittedly want guns). They point out that such methods could easily kill both elderly and infant passengers before hurting a strong determined terrorist attacker. It's also been put forth that any non-lethal devices could be planned for and neutralized. For example, to get around stun guns wear all rubber shoes and/or thick clothing that would stop penetration of the "needles". Certain drugs (PCP I suppose?) were supposed to render different gases (pepper sprays, etc.) useless. Other non-lethal devices were either untried or too incredibly cost inefficient to consider.
The idea that this is just too risky is silly to me. Ok, let's review a worst case pro-pilot with gun scenario. Terrorist are battering the door down, the pilot fires blindly as they break through missing the terrorists and killing three passengers. Newsflash, those folks were doomed when the plane was intentionally crashed anway! Now, let's say the pilot kills the terrorists as they enter (which is probable in my book, considering the small target area), but still kills three passengers. Ok, it sucks to be one of those three...but the rest of the plane and whoever the plane would have been aimed at is safe. Best case, the terrorists are killed...no passengers...no civilians on the ground, and WHAT WOULD IT HURT to have that final layer of protection?

Here's the latest on the whole thing...turns out Congress doesn't feel this particular fight is over. I hope they turn it around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1859-2002May23.html

dnc101

05-25-2002, 04:23 PM

Rad, you seem to have a good grasp on the issue. Another thing to consider when talking about possible solutions is that the more high tech the defense, the less reliable it is. And most of the high tech stuff is no good much past arms length when it does work. That puts the bad guy in range to kill you if he is faster, better or luckier. I would agree with you as well that it is better that three unfortunate people die, or eve thirty, than everyone on the plane and in the target area. But unfortunately I think you (we) are going to take a lot of flak for that view. The libs are probably already wailing somewhere "that's unfair! Oh, how mean, evil, unfeeling can they be? We have to level the field so everyone must live or die. If we hadn't oppressed them they wouldn't be mad at us in the first place..."- you get the picture, I'm sure.

The real issue here is that there are those in power and those that support them who are not going to allow guns to be seen in a positive light, no matter what the cost in human life and suffering. And they have no national pride, nor any grasp of the fact that if you are percieved as weak, either physically or spiritually, you will be repeatedly targeted by those who trade in hate and violence. These "Americans", in my opinion, are lower than the terrorists- they enable and even invite the terrorists to act against their own country.

*It just occured to me that I'd better edit this to add that I'm not attacking anyone who's posted here. Your concerns are valid and needed to be addressed. And as martial artists I think most of you understand both pride and the will to act. I do, however, think we need to exercise that will more and take a stand for what is right.

AndyM

05-25-2002, 04:38 PM

Kind of pointless having all the Airport security that makes flying such a pain in the ass, if Terrorists don't have to bother smuggling a gun, but merely work out a way of getting one from the pilot!

What exactly is the pilot going to do with a gun if he has one?

I'd rather he concentrated on flying the plane!

If you must have guns on planes, then put them in the hands of someone trained to use them. Must be a lot of spare military personnel going about, now that we are all scaling down our Nuclear Arsenals.

AndyM

:D

dnc101

05-25-2002, 06:27 PM

Most of the pilots and a good percentage of the flight crews are "spare military personnel", and they have asked for extra training as well as the option to carry.

As for the beefed up airport security, there have been ongoing tests to check the system since 911. Obvious bombs, firearms, knives and other weapons are frequently slipped past security with apparent ease. And even if we successfully close that loophole, a determined terrorist would find a way. Any system man can make, man can also break.

However, there is some validity to your point. If the terrorist knows who and where to attack to obtain a weapon he has some increased chance of success. Mixing up who has the firearm and/or where it is hidden might be a good idea.

AndyM

05-25-2002, 06:48 PM

However, there is some validity to your point. If the terrorist knows who and where to attack to obtain a weapon he has some increased chance of success. Mixing up who has the firearm and/or where it is hidden might be a good idea.

C'mon dnc101, there's more than a little validity to the point!

Not only has the Terrorist got an increased chance of success, but a reason for being on the plane in the first place!

Maybe the gun should be 'duck-taped' to the tail of the plane so 'Bruce Willis', 'Sylvester Stallone', or 'Harrison Ford' can pop out and get it.

Come to think of it....." Fly with Schwarzenegger, the safer airline"

AndyM:D

Radhnoti

05-25-2002, 08:26 PM

I always thought the firearm would remain in the c0ckpit during things like...bathroom breaks, presumably the co-pilot would be trained in marksmanship and proper procedure as well. If not...them getting into the c0ckpit is the goal, not a step toward the goal. Getting the gun after securing the c0ckpit would be superfluous. Though I suppose it could aid in defending the terrorist that manages to get into the "flight station", but that's why we want it in there in the first place.
:)

dnc101

05-26-2002, 12:15 AM

Didn't you see True Lies? The Schwartz was flying that Harrier and the leader of the evil Crimson Jihad jumped right on it and then retrieved the AK47 that was hanging on the tail! Get your history right, man. :D

Seriously, the reason for the terrorist being there is not the gun. He wants to take over the aircraft. The question is whether the gun will more likely prevent him accomplishing that goal, or will it aid him. Logically, he would have to pretty much already have taken control to get to the gun. On the other hand, if he's been shot, taking or keeping control would be more difficult.

Axiom

05-26-2002, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Radhnoti
The idea that this is just too risky is silly to me. Ok, let's review a worst case pro-pilot with gun scenario. Terrorist are battering the door down, the pilot fires blindly as they break through missing the terrorists and killing three passengers. Newsflash, those folks were doomed when the plane was intentionally crashed anway! Now, let's say the pilot kills the terrorists as they enter (which is probable in my book, considering the small target area), but still kills three passengers. Ok, it sucks to be one of those three...but the rest of the plane and whoever the plane would have been aimed at is safe. Best case, the terrorists are killed...no passengers...no civilians on the ground, and WHAT WOULD IT HURT to have that final layer of protection?
Most of this makes sense, but it does make the assumption that the terrorists are planning on killing everyone in the plane anyway. I can see how that assumption is made given the nature of the hijackings we just saw, but you have to ask whether it's always going to be the case.

dnc101: what has national pride got to do with it? I thought this was about protecting people's lives, not flag-waving.

dnc101

05-26-2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Axiom

dnc101: what has national pride got to do with it? I thought this was about protecting people's lives, not flag-waving.

Easy- if you are percieved as not having the will to defend yourself you will be assaulted repeatedly. This is especially so if you are the big boy on the block. Any one who wants to feel big or important, or bad, will target you if he thinks you won't fight back. In this case, the bad boys chances of going straight to the eternal bordello depends on him successfully taking over the aircraft. If you havn't got the pride and self respect to defend yourself he will see that as opportunity- praise Allah and get the virgins ready to party! It's not flag waving, it's standing guard where the flag flies that counts.

Shadow Dragon

05-26-2002, 05:22 PM

Personally, I think the whole thing is mute and a waste of US-taxpayers money.

At the most the FAA can enforce Pilots on US-Flights to carry Guns, but there are many more planes coming and going from nations where Pilots will not carry guns.

So if you get hit with a United 767 or a Malaysia Air 767 where is the difference??

Or what would happen if the Terrorists hijack a Cargo plan, which outnumber passenger planes anyway.

Said that has anybody asked the potential passengers if they are willing to board a Plane where a Pilot is armed, in the end they are who make the decision by buying a Ticket or not.

Peace.

P.S.: Just read a report that the Guns of the National Guards at some Airports were never loaded.

AndyM

05-26-2002, 05:30 PM

How will it be kept?

Loaded or Unloaded?

In the glove compartment?

Strapped to the thigh of a Saucy Lady Flight Attendant?

Seriously though. I recently got off a flight to Germany with some friends. An old lady slipped getting on to the terminal coach and cut her leg badly. At first we thought it was Arterial because of the amount of blood, so my mate, Ex. Forces and Ex. Gulf war ripped off his belt and applied an emergency tourniquet then ran back on board the plane for a first aid kit before anyone else knew what had happened. He came back with his first aid kit, applied a field dressing, then another, and removed the tourniquet. Turned out the reason for the masses of blood was because of the change in pressure with getting off the plane!

We then discovered that his own hand was bleeding badly!

Apparently the first aid kit had been fixed ( closed ) to the plane with a steel cable tie. He ripped his finger open twisting it off!

If the Aviation authorities haven't got enough sense to make first aid accessible, just how do you think they will cope with guns?

"Cross doors and Weapons check?"

;)

Radhnoti

05-26-2002, 09:53 PM

Axiom, wow...you may be the first person on this forum to think I wrote something that "makes sense"...mostly anyway. Thanks. ;)
I'd say that from now on everyone HAS to assume someone hijacking the plane is planning the worst.
Shadow Dragon, I think the whole pilot carrying a firearm or not would be completely optional and (so far) also based in part on the training received.
I think that the grim reality is that U.S. fighters are more hesitant to shoot down passenger planes...especially U.S. passenger planes (talk about a political nightmare). I would be ALL FOR announcing whether or not firearms are on board. In fact, I'd consider it a bonus as I'd be willing to bet that a terrorist would almost certainly choose the attack the flight station of an unarmed pilot over that of an armed pilot.
AndyM, I think they're discussing giving the "saucy flight attendant" a "non-lethal" device...a big metal stick. And, if it were me, I'd keep the firearm next to the pilot...maybe in some sort of holster on the seat? :D

Shadow Dragon

05-26-2002, 10:12 PM

Rad.

Personally, if I know that the Pilot is trained and all precautions have been taken it should be ok and safe.

My point was:
US Pilots/Crew carry Guns, so Terrorists might choose a Plane coming in from Mexico, Rio or another non-US Airport.

To be honest I don't really see it making a real difference, but maybe that is just me.
Feels kinda like a feel good measure.

Unless EVERY flight coming/leaving the States has to follow the same rule about Pilots being trained to US standard and carry a Gun.

Which again is unrealistic, as some Countries have made Guns illegal.
Causing some obstacles for US Airlines lets say going to Japan or other Countries which are stricter, unless Pilots/Crew can leave the Guns on the Plane while it is re-fuelled,etc.

Of course Guns could be stored in the "international" area of the Airport, but that would make it a good target for Terrorists.

From my own travel experience I must say that worldwide the US Airlines got the toughest(inconvenient) checkins.
Not disagreeing here, just giving an outsiders viewpoint.

Peace.

Radhnoti

05-27-2002, 07:32 AM

For me, it's more about giving the pilot the OPTION of doing this...because we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this would be entirely voluntary. No one's going to be forced into carrying a firearm here. Why not give a terrorist one more variable that could ruin a carefully thought out plan?
SD, I appreciate your points of view about practical implementation, because (to be honest) I've not done much travelling via airplane. So, thanks.

The Willow Sword

05-27-2002, 03:02 PM

do you know what happens when a bullet hole is created on a plane travelling at 35,000 feet ?
i am glad that pilots will not be able to carry a gun on board an aircraft. the problem lies with the security of the airports and BS security companies that do nothing to really protect and "SECURE" the safety of the airport. why dont we focus on that rather than getting on this hollywood attitude when it comes to gun toting on an aircraft.

Many Respects,,, The Willow Sword

Axiom

05-27-2002, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
Easy- if you are percieved as not having the will to defend yourself you will be assaulted repeatedly. This is especially so if you are the big boy on the block. Any one who wants to feel big or important, or bad, will target you if he thinks you won't fight back. In this case, the bad boys chances of going straight to the eternal bordello depends on him successfully taking over the aircraft. If you havn't got the pride and self respect to defend yourself he will see that as opportunity- praise Allah and get the virgins ready to party! It's not flag waving, it's standing guard where the flag flies that counts. I got the impression that the attacks are more likely to be because of a perceived over-eagerness to take action against what seem like foreign threats on the US' behalf. The US certainly has no shortage of national pride if you compare it to other countries. It doesn't seem very likely that national pride is a problem.

Having 'the pride and self respect to defend youself' in a hijack situation is quite different. That's not national pride, that's fighting for your life and the lives of the passengers and crew.

Besides, who cares if they're going to fight back when you're gonna die anyway?

By the way, I am partially playing devil's advocate here. Just interested in the different opinions.

Radhnoti

05-27-2002, 06:40 PM

Willow, I believe it's been pointed out that there are bullets that won't penetrate the plane. So, I don't think depressurization is a worry. And the political battle isn't over yet, the pilot's union wants this pretty badly...and lots of folks support them on "the Hill".
Axiom, U.S. "pride" is a strange thing. For every flag waving, gun toting, pro-military type we have a flag burnin', gun bannin', pacifist. The result seems to be that the polls turn on the "undecided and often uninformed" section who will often make their decision based on how subjects are packaged before being handed over to them.
:o

Radhnoti

05-28-2002, 09:30 AM

Ran across two relevant articles to this discussion. Here's a part of each article followed by a link to the article being quoted:

"What if gunless pilots went on strike?
A leader of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance says he personally opposes a strike to force the government to allow firearms in the ****pits, but he has heard rumblings about the possibility from others.

Bob Lambert, board member of APSA, said the fortified doors between the ****pit and the rest of the plane are only a "temporary fix." Any door can eventually be penetrated, he said. He believes pilots ought to have the right to carry firearms on top of safety measures the airlines suggest for a "multi-layer effect" toward safety.

Lambert pointed out that during the Cuban missile crisis era, pilots were allowed to carry firearms, and those policies did not result in increased danger to passengers and crew.

Polls conducted on the subject reveal an overwhelming support by Americans for the arming of pilots. According to APSA, 77 percent of even those who support gun control still agree that pilots should be allowed to carry firearms. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27729

"Skill level of new air marshals in doubt

The government has cut training for federal air marshal applicants and put new hires on flights without requiring the advanced marksmanship skills the program used to demand, USA TODAY has learned.

During a Senate hearing Tuesday, Transportation Security Administration head John Magaw cited the expertise of marshals in explaining his opposition to allowing pilots to carry guns. "The use of firearms aboard a U.S. aircraft must be limited to those thoroughly trained members of law enforcement," he said.

But TSA officials acknowledged Thursday that they no longer require applicants to pass the more difficult shooting test that some argue was the program's critical requirement. The government considers the marshals, who fly incognito, a critical deterrent to hijackings.

Current and former marshals say the advanced training helped prepare them to fire accurately in the close confines of passenger jets. They and others within the TSA say agency officials, under pressure to meet congressional deadlines for hiring, are lowering standards to get marshals aboard more flights quickly."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/05/24/air-marshals.htm

Axiom

05-28-2002, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Axiom, U.S. "pride" is a strange thing. For every flag waving, gun toting, pro-military type we have a flag burnin', gun bannin', pacifist. The result seems to be that the polls turn on the "undecided and often uninformed" section who will often make their decision based on how subjects are packaged before being handed over to them.Why are gun-banning pacifists flag-burners? Can't they just be gun-banning pacifists? Not that it matters much. The main question I was asking was whether having national pride had a positive effect on avoiding hijackings.

DelicateSound

05-28-2002, 11:58 AM

Won't the terrorists just shoot the guy[s] with the gun[s] as soon as they board. i.e: Get into positions to take the c*ckpit instantly.

If the c*ckpit door is locked, with the gun[s] as a last resort, won't the terrorists just threaten to kill everyone on board.

I know you could say they're dead anyway, but how could a pilot take that decision, when there is still the chance that he could end things?

The best thing IMHO is to COMPLETELY shield the pilots from the rest of the plane. No communication AT ALL, except for maybe a tannoy, cameras ETC. Possibility of pilots needing to see the rest of the aircraft is small. In what cases? Cases where fuel-smell gives away a fault. Maybe. Better sensors could rectify that.

If there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to hijack a plane, then they won't.

Radhnoti

05-28-2002, 01:54 PM

DS, I think you're talkin' about BIG money there. The kind of money that would bankrupt most in the industry. You're talkin' about redesigning the aircraft...you'd have to put a bathroom and small kitchen in with the pilots...this is in an industry where weight REALLY counts. I've heard complaints about how much extra fuel the reinforced door is going to "waste".
Axiom, I was just throwing out words...you'll notice that the two "types" I mentioned mirror each other. It could have just as easily been liberal, gun-totin', tree huggers vs. conservative, gun-bannin', lumberjacks. Not overly sensitive are ya? :)

DelicateSound

05-28-2002, 03:13 PM

Yep - I'm talking MASSIVE amounts of cash. As the son of a flight enthusiast I know all about the weight ratio, cost of aviation fuel etc.

Can you really put a price on human life? You Americans are happy to wave your flags and sing your anthems. OK it's fine to respect the dead, as a Brit who's visited your fine country many times in his short life my heart went out to you on 11/9, but wouldn't it be better to put all that energy into something constructive?

If the enemy can use planes again in a similar situation, they WILL. I do not want to see a repeat of 11/9. Let's get rid of all possibility of that, and of any other type of terrorism. Innocent people do NOT deserve to die.

No?

Shadow Dragon

05-28-2002, 04:05 PM

Here is something else to think about.

You arm the ****pit Crew with Guns in a Firefight/Struggle BOTH Pilot and Co-Pilot get wounded somehow.

WHO flies and lands the plane in that situation, up to now the Hijackers needed the Pilots alive and healthy to fly the plane.

Personally I don' think that ****pit/Cabin crew should be endangered by asking them to take part in defending the Plane.

In this case I am with DS, keep the ****pit Crew safe at all costs.

peace.

Dark Knight

05-28-2002, 04:09 PM

"ou arm the ****pit Crew with Guns in a Firefight/Struggle BOTH Pilot and Co-Pilot get wounded somehow.

WHO flies and lands the plane in that situation, up to now the Hijackers needed the Pilots alive and healthy to fly the plane. "

that was the approach before 9-11. But now the terrorist dont need a pilot to fly into the side of a building.

Also remember the terrorist who tried to use explosives in his shoes to blow up the plane, I dont think he cared who was going to fly.

Shadow Dragon

05-28-2002, 04:25 PM

Dark Knight.

That is the problem with the "What if ..." game. It never ends.

How about "What if ****pit Crew and Terrorists are incapable of flying the plane."
In that case the Pilot has failed to do his duty to protect and deliver his passengers to the destination airport.
Personally, I find it unlikely that Al-Qaeda will use the same method next time.

The game of Terror is about:

"Hitting when and where nobody expects to get the most benefit, while the attention is focused on the after effects from a previous attack or the target feels safe and snug and confident that nobody can touch them."

It is all about creating doubt in the Targets mind about their own abilities.

Granted it was a good wakeup call and showed flaws and loopholes.
Peace.

Dark Knight

05-28-2002, 04:48 PM

"Personally, I find it unlikely that Al-Qaeda will use the same method next time. "

After the attack someone had explosives in their shoes to try to bring a plane down.

We can no longer think that a terrorist is going to take a plane hostage. The guy with the shoes was stopped by the passengers, even the public will no longer just sit by as a plane is hijacked.

Dark Knight

05-28-2002, 04:57 PM

Should we be scarded forever? Let the terroist be successful? We dont trust our own people to defend us, or have the oppertunity to? Its going to happen again, prob a different method, but the US is a target, it has been for years, it just got easier and it will always be easy.

At what cost do we do nothing so as to not **** off the world. Its time to carry the big stick again, and stop those who are killing innocents for their own cause and let them know they cannot do it.

"Wishful thinking might bring comfort, but not security. Call this a strategic challenge, call it, as I do, axis of evil, call it by any name you choose, but let us speak the truth … If we ignore this threat we invite certain blackmail and place millions of our citizens in great danger."

- President George W. Bush reiterating his view that Iran, Iraq and North Korea are seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. The president called on European leaders to help the United States in waging a wider war against terrorism.

Shadow Dragon

05-28-2002, 05:04 PM

Dark Knight.

All that a lot of people are saying is don't rush out arm the world, infringe on Human rights(many countries did after 11/9) and so on.

But rather sit back for 5 minutes and come to the best solution that ensure safety and still guarantees the most freedom and ease of mind.

Many European & other Countries have been faced with this situation many a times and have come to a workable solution.

Peace.

Dark Knight

05-28-2002, 05:26 PM

"Many European & other Countries have been faced with this situation many a times and have come to a workable solution. "

We are in a different world. Time will tell if we have taken the right path.

Radhnoti

05-28-2002, 08:57 PM

Maybe the "workable solution" is to let responsible citizens play a more active part in the defense of their country? I think a part of that would be arming the pilots.

Shadow Dragon

05-28-2002, 09:00 PM

Rad.

Maybe that is the answer for you guys.

As Dark Knight said you are in a different World, and views of people differ.

Problems might occur when wordls overlap though.

Peace.

dnc101

05-29-2002, 07:16 PM

Axiom, if I was waving the flag, I make no apologies for it. The purpose for waving the flag is to stir a lot of positive emotions. Too often we conservatives go on the defensive and tone down our rhetoric so as not to offend the libs- which is a waste since they are offended by our mere existence. The reason they hate us using it is because they think they own the emotional issue. Since there is little logic or common sense to their approach, if they loose the emotional component they loose the debate. As a "conservative" I have emotions, but they are tempered with reason and logic. Pride- a value with strong emotional ties- tempered by reason, is a powerful force. It can motivate a person to act in the face of overwhelming terror. It also fosters a mindset of preparation and taking personal responsibility for your own safety and that of those arround you.

Most of the anti armed pilots arguments here can be boiled down to a few what if scenarios and logstics problems. These must all be considerred and dealt with where necessary. But no one so far has put forth any valid reason not to allow those pilots who wish to shoulder the additional responsibility to carry firearms. Every contingency has been dealt with or shown not to be a problem. Further discussion, without additional information or a different take on the particular objection, must necessarily degenerate into a bunch of hand wringing. If pointing that out doesn't win the day, kindly allow me to wave my flag.

Axiom

05-30-2002, 04:35 PM

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, but I still don't really see how patriotism is what helps prevent terrorist attacks.

If the only way people can be motivated to be responsible for themselves, aware of their surroundings and prepared for danger is through overt patriotism, that suggests a deeper social problem. It seems to me that patriotism is just a vaguely related side issue.

Obviously, you go ahead and wave your flag if you want. I've been known to wave mine occasionally, although not to anything like the extent you do I am sure.

yu shan

05-30-2002, 08:40 PM

Profile screening, what do you think?

dnc101

05-30-2002, 10:23 PM

You don't seem ignorant.
And patriotism is not the only way, but it can be a powerful motivator.

DelicateSound

05-31-2002, 11:38 AM

Dnc - it's a very American thing. Not to say it's a bad thing, just very American.

dnc101

06-01-2002, 07:14 AM

If I read my Shakespear correctly, you all (pronounced ya'll) do a fair job of it. Some of that stuff even motivates me, although I'm several generations removed from my English heritage.

DelicateSound

06-01-2002, 07:20 AM

Mmm.

Then again, I'm becoming more patriotically English every day..

roughnready

06-16-2002, 07:24 PM

really??

Radhnoti

06-19-2002, 02:11 PM

Basic breakdown of the article. They're talkin' about letting 250 carry to start, after training in much the same way the air marshals do. And ending in a few years with almost 1500 carrying, at which time the program would be re-evaluated. But, it has a few more hurdles to clear. Here's a link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7654-2002Jun18.html

Radhnoti

06-27-2002, 08:22 PM

House committee approves guns in ****pits
----------
Fox News/AP
"Ignoring Bush administration objections, the House Transportation Committee voted to allow more than 1,000 pilots to carry guns for a two-year trial. In the Senate, the move faces the opposition of Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ernest Hollings. (06/27/02)"

guohuen

06-27-2002, 09:42 PM

Good. Considering that years ago almost all airline pilots were ex Airforce or Navy and had pistol training I think it's a good idea. If the airlines are passing up military trained pilots now they'd have to have there heads up their fourth point of contact. Why train someone from scratch? Seems like a waste of time and money. I only hope they're going to issue something like Glaser Safety Slugs to prevent overpenetration. We don't need to return to the bad old days of "Take this plane to Havana" Entebbe and 9/11.