Cockpit guns

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 11 2002,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think we should arm passeners! Yeah, thats it! Just give everyone a gun when they get on the plane. I mean, if we give the pilot a gun, the good guys only have one gun, but if we give all the passengers guns, thered be like 50 good guys with guns! No terrorist would go up against those odds.

<span id='postcolor'>

That would be the Texas way, yes

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hell, change a few laws, and you wont even have to give the passengers guns. Theyll have their own! And Ill bet they'll be of a larger caliber than the airline is willing to provide

[Guest]

Yes, Yes! And while we are at it, why don't we wire the seats so they can serve as electric chairs for those who don't behave!

[Longinius 1]

"Potential Damage: The plane is not going to depressurize and cause a great catasrophy. As I said before, that only happened in the movie Goldfinger. One or two stray bullets will not bring down a plane, but do you know what will? That F-16 with sidewinders under the wings. There is a one in a million chance that a stray bullet will do serious damage. I think a pistol is a better tool than an F-16."

What if the bullet hits sensitive equipment or passangers?

"Hijackers Getting Gun: I guess police shouldn't have guns either because a criminal can take an officer's gun and shoot people."

There is a big difference in your two examples. Ever seen the movie Con Air? The lead criminal takes the gun from the pilot and explains that he is now in control, he has the only gun on the plane. I'd rather go up against a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun...

"There isn't much of a chance that a hijacker will get the gun. If the hijacker gets into the cockpit, the pilot will shoot him. A pilot won't start wrestling with a terrorist, he is going to shoot him. The whole thing about bad guys taking guns away from good guys is only in the movies."

The terrorist wouldnt have to wrestle him for the gun. He simply kills one stewardess and then tells the pilot to hand over the gun or the next one will get it. Most pilots would then probably hand over the gun. Pilots are not supermen, they are not lawenforcement officers, they are not trained for situations like that.

"International issues: Okay, so maybe they can't take guns to Germany or the UK. I'm sure that the US could try to work out deals with other countries to have pilots with guns. If the US can only work it out with a few countries it is still worth it."

Nah, just tell the rest of us to accept it or you bomb us. Thats common practice these days ;P

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ July 11 2002,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You make the cockpit so it can only be accessed from the inside, once the pilot and co-pilot are in there it doesn't get opened until they land again, food and anything else can be passed through by means of a security hatch, thus no risk or threat to the pilot/co-pilot/cockpit <span id='postcolor'>

What if all the engines malfunctioned or some thing to the same effect. Pilots do not deserve do go down with the plane every time this happens. They should live to tell the tale and to teach/learn from it. It's not always hijackers as odd as it seems

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 12 2002,08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sudan's national airline has the current record of least hijacking attempts. In the 70's there was one attempt. Four hijackers tried to take over a plane that was heading for Egypt. The onboard security guards took control of the situation and disarmed the hijackers. They then put them in first class, restraining them to to chairs. Then they cut their throaths.

After that there have been no attempts of hijacking of Sudanese airliners..

While the Sudan example is radical, I believe that competent air marshals are the solution. El-Al is a very good example of how this can work.<span id='postcolor'>

I have some things to say to that

1) Does any country really care about sudan? (except for the sudanese, it's not like the biggest of nations aka global political nobody)

2) That's were all the hijackers are coming from

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 11 2002,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think we should arm passeners! Yeah, thats it! Just give everyone a gun when they get on the plane. I mean, if we give the pilot a gun, the good guys only have one gun, but if we give all the passengers guns, thered be like 50 good guys with guns! No terrorist would go up against those odds.

<span id='postcolor'>

heh heh heh....Improvised firing squad.

[DarkLight 0]

Actually it is impossible to open the door when you're not one of the people that work on the plane.

The doors are locked on a special way, i think, i'm not really sure.

But even if the door would be impossible to open, if an attacker grabs one of the passenger and threatens him, and the attacker screams to open the *beeeep*ing door, then they should open the door. You never know what the attacker wants to do, maybe he just wants to hijack (sp?) the plane for a while but he doesn't want to kill anyone.

And keeping the door closed will only make the guy angry in such a situation and will make him do stuff that are pretty damn dangerous.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ July 12 2002,12:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually it is impossible to open the door when you're not one of the people that work on the plane.

The doors are locked on a special way, i think, i'm not really sure.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. A very moderate kick would easily go through one of these doors. The current setup is pathetic.

Stronger doors doesn't resolve the issue. What if the hijackers threaten to kill hostages if the pilot doesn't open the door?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Second_draw-"Does any country really care about sudan? (except for the sudanese, it's not like the biggest of nations)"

Funny you should say that, i seem to remember its about the biggest nation in Africa (though i know you meant politically)

+theres a murderous civil war going on there.(maybe someone should care)

Denoir-"stronger doors dont resolve the issue"

-have a CCTV camera/+ maybe speakers near the cabin door, bullet proof doors/wall + sound proof (as much as possible) -as soon as the pilots realise there is a hijack attempt make it standard policy to radio it to the ground and then turn off the camera/speakers making them immune to blackmail.

But that would cost too much for the airlines (especially the internal US flights that currently have terrible security)

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

Pay the baggage checkers at the metal detectors more than minimum wage. Have higher educated people doing it. This is very important and I think could stop all potential hijackers.

Do not federalize them, we do not need a bigger government and more beauracracy.

Air marshalls -- I'm not decided on this one. When I hear it I'm against it because its expanding the government once again. But we have cops in the streets, why not in planes. Hmm. I just don't think its feasible for a cop to be on every plane.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do not federalize them, we do not need a bigger government and more beauracracy.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. The only way to avoid getting non educated people who will work for a minimum wage is to make them federal employees. Otherwise free competition will drive the airport security companies to hire the cheapest ppl available.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Danish pilots allready stated that they will not bring any guns aboard their planes, simply because: "If we use so many ressources and time to keep weapons out of our planes, why should we bring one ourself, and just make it easier for potential hijackers". As for the states... Sure, theyll probably agree with it, and i dont care as long as its not europeens which is gonna get killed by it

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 12 2002,10:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do not federalize them, we do not need a bigger government and more beauracracy.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. The only way to avoid getting non educated people who will work for a minimum wage is to make them federal employees. Otherwise free competition will drive the airport security companies to hire the cheapest ppl available.<span id='postcolor'>

The way you think scares me. I'm glad you aren't American.

We do not have to federalize them. The government is not the solution for all our problems. Expanding the government will only lead to more problems.

Airports can take need to take it upon themselves to change. The airline industry is suffering big time. People just don't want to fly anymore. It's a hassle, some people are still scared, etc. If airlines want to make money they will in turn let the airports know that they need to do better or everyone will suffer.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 12 2002,104)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do not federalize them, we do not need a bigger government and more beauracracy.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. The only way to avoid getting non educated people who will work for a minimum wage is to make them federal employees. Otherwise free competition will drive the airport security companies to hire the cheapest ppl available.<span id='postcolor'>

The way you think scares me.  I'm glad you aren't American.

We do not have to federalize them.  The government is not the solution for all our problems.  Expanding the government will only lead to more problems.  

Airports can take need to take it upon themselves to change.  The airline industry is suffering big time.  People just don't want to fly anymore.  It's a hassle, some people are still scared, etc.  If airlines want to make money they will in turn let the airports know that they need to do better or everyone will suffer.<span id='postcolor'>

By your way of thinking, I am sure that you would want to make the police and the military private institutions. A point that you seem to be missing is that we do need indeed need a goverment/state to handle areas that are supposed to be handeled in a consistent matter not dependent on economic profitability.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 12 2002,10:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 12 2002,10<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do not federalize them, we do not need a bigger government and more beauracracy.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary. The only way to avoid getting non educated people who will work for a minimum wage is to make them federal employees. Otherwise free competition will drive the airport security companies to hire the cheapest ppl available.<span id='postcolor'>

The way you think scares me.  I'm glad you aren't American.

We do not have to federalize them.  The government is not the solution for all our problems.  Expanding the government will only lead to more problems.  

Airports can take need to take it upon themselves to change.  The airline industry is suffering big time.  People just don't want to fly anymore.  It's a hassle, some people are still scared, etc.  If airlines want to make money they will in turn let the airports know that they need to do better or everyone will suffer.<span id='postcolor'>

By your way of thinking, I am sure that you would want to make the police and the military private institutions. A point that you seem to be missing is that we do need indeed need a goverment/state to handle areas that are supposed to be handeled in a consistent matter not dependent on economic profitability.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm still not decided. I was thinking about police/military and yes we do need them.

But baggage checkers are different from police/military. They don't arrest people, or kill people, or have authority. I really don't think its the same.

I think it's just more federal employees and more problems caused by the government.

[billytran 0]

Depressurization is not an issue!!! If it were, then why would the air marshalls have guns? There are pre-fragmented bullets that break apart when they hit something. Nobody's going to shoot through an engine. And if the bullet accidentally hits a passenger, so what? That's better than the plane crashing into the US Capitol Building or having an F-16 shoot the plane down, killing everyone on board.

As I said before, the pilot will stay in the freaking cockpit. The example of the movie Con-Air makes no sense. The pilot will not leave the cockpit, no matter what. There is only one scenario is which the pilot will use a gun, and that is if someone breaks down the door and enters the cockpit. If that happens, the pilot will shoot the hijacker. He won't ask questions, he won't try to subdue him, he will shoot the mofo.

Air marshalls can not be on every flight. Do you have any idea what that would cost? They can't even get them on 20% of the flights.

As far as the examples of pilots killing the copilot, they don't need guns to do it. They could strangle him or bludgeon him to death. What if Al Quaeda started recruiting air marshalls? There's little you could do to stop them.

If you were on a flight, and a group of hijackers slits the throats of the stewardesses and ties everyone up, what will you be thinking when they go to break down the cockpit door. Could you honestly say, "Thank God those pilots don't have guns?" Do you really want the last line of defense to be an F-16?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><snip>

I think it's just more federal employees and more problems caused by the government.<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir hit the nail on the head...

When you put something in the private industry, the drive of the company providing the service is NOT the best interests of the American people. The drive of the company is to make the most money they can. And when that happens, you get poor training and such crap wages that no one suitable wants to do the job.

By having certain jobs handled by public sector workers, you get the advantage of a union that helps control the wages, and at the same time you get more stringent guidlines for training and education. And that is something that cant be subverted in a blind desire for profit, because the government is responsible not to shareholders but to the people of the nation.

Dont give a knee jerk response about government being evil. Sometimes the government is the best employer for the job. And I think events have prven quite well that private industry just isnt getting the job done, in regards to better security at airports.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Warin put it nicely. My thoughts are same too.

but back on topic, there are manuevers that pilots can do. they suddenly drop the airplane and regain the altitude. since hijackers are not wearing seatbelt, they will hit ceiling and loose conscienceness.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

"And I think events have prven quite well that private industry just isnt getting the job done, in regards to better security at airports."

And I don't think federal employees would could handle it any better.

Amtrak, US Mail, Social Security, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism... the list can go on.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 12 2002,22:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"And I think events have prven quite well that private industry just isnt getting the job done, in regards to better security at airports."

And I don't think federal employees would could handle it any better.

Amtrak, US Mail, Social Security, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism... the list can go on.<span id='postcolor'>

So some undertrained 20 something screener will do better than an employee trained under a program designed to improve screeners? Dream on

Here in Canada, our airport security is part of Transport Canada. And they are fairly good, and were even before 9/11. When I flew to Toronto in February, they checked my stuff pretty well. They also made me demonstrate that my electronics (discman, camera, PDA, etc) worked.

You wouldnt whine much if they wanted to put federal Air Marshalls on planes...why are you whining that they might want the people making certain that the passengers arent carrying weapons are government employees?

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

I've already explained why. I don't think the government would do a good job at handling it and it just more wasted tax dollars.

[red oct 2]

i think a stun gun would be better. than when stuned there should be a nice hatch on the bottom of the plane and simply drop them out

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 12 2002,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So some undertrained 20 something screener will do better than an employee trained under a program designed to improve screeners?  Dream on <span id='postcolor'>

Oh I just thought of a good analogy. UPS does a better job with mail than the employees trained under a program (the federal US-Postal system which we all pay taxes torwards yet we still have to pay 37 cents for stamps -- and its rapidly increasing) to deliver mail.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,01:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh I just thought of a good analogy.  UPS does a better job with mail than the employees trained under a program (the federal US-Postal system which we all pay taxes torwards yet we still have to pay 37 cents for stamps -- and its rapidly increasing) to deliver mail.<span id='postcolor'>

Hee hee hee.

Have you ever gotten a package from UPS? I refer to them as Unholy Package Squashers

I once had UPS deliver some stainless steel links (for making chainmail) delivered in a carton that was supposedly indestructible. It looked like a herd of elephants had used it to wipe their feet on!

Back to guns in the cockpit...

If a Pilot takes a course on proper gun handling on the order of what a security guard would have to take, and they were equiped with frangible bullets, I cant see a problem. The thing is, I suspect the training course for the pilots would be some 'lite' course and I can see there being all sorts of nightmares