Cockpit guns

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Its plain and simple. Pilots are pilots, not bodyguards nor policemen. Their job is to transport people or cargo from one place to another, just like the casual bus-driver.

The security shall remain at the airport. No guns, no weapons, simple as that. Todays security system are more than capable to stop any gun from being put on board.

And forget about the "Stay in cockpit thing". Pilots are human too, if they hear another person scream for their life if they wont open, many will open the door and hand over any weapons they may have brought. It would be stupid to bring guns in an airplane if we use so many ressources to keep them out. Also, IF the pilot manages to shoot a hi-jacker, what about the rest? Plane hi-jackers rarely work alone, and if they can get small knifes onboard, or use belts or whatever, they can surely take out the pilot with the gun, and then we have an even bigger problem.

Yes, you might say "its better than crashing into a civilian building", but... Not all hi-jackers are "suacide martyr-wannabees", and noone need to get hurt if the crew acts accordenly to the hi-jackers orders.

[Guest]

I feel that I have nothing to add to this discussion since Warin is covering everything that I would say

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Its plain and simple. Pilots are pilots, not bodyguards nor policemen. Their job is to transport people or cargo from one place to another, just like the casual bus-driver.

The security shall remain at the airport. No guns, no weapons, simple as that. Todays security system are more than capable to stop any gun from being put on board.

And forget about the "Stay in cockpit thing". Pilots are human too, if they hear another person scream for their life if they wont open, many will open the door and hand over any weapons they may have brought. It would be stupid to bring guns in an airplane if we use so many ressources to keep them out. Also, IF the pilot manages to shoot a hi-jacker, what about the rest? Plane hi-jackers rarely work alone, and if they can get small knifes onboard, or use belts or whatever, they can surely take out the pilot with the gun, and then we have an even bigger problem.

Yes, you might say "its better than crashing into a civilian building", but... Not all hi-jackers are "suacide martyr-wannabees", and noone need to get hurt if the crew acts accordenly to the hi-jackers orders.<span id='postcolor'>

Yepp, I agree entirely with that too

A funny thing related to Espectros post. I went in Spain in december. In the security I got my nail clipper confiscated because it was considered dangerous. On board the plane we got big metal knifes and forks for the food...

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 13 2002,02:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yepp, I agree entirely with that too

A funny thing related to Espectros post. I went in Spain in december. In the security I got my nail clipper confiscated because it was considered dangerous. On board the plane we got big metal knifes and forks for the food... <span id='postcolor'>

LOL!

Air Canada uses plastic knives and forks now, but still has metal spoons for stirring coffee. I dont know about you, but I could do some nasty stuff with just a spoon

Here is a question for the Europeans:

Who handles security at the airports? Is it private companies, or a government agency? If there is one thing we can learn from Europe, it's proper airport security. they've been dealing with hijackings and terrorists for years.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

Ah yes lets all turn to Socialist Europe for guidance...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 13 2002,02:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who handles security at the airports?  Is it private companies, or a government agency?  If there is one thing we can learn from Europe, it's proper airport security.  they've been dealing with hijackings and terrorists for years.<span id='postcolor'>

Government agencies reinforced by the police and sometimes even the military. Too high security is however not a too good thing either when you feel harassed.

My worst experiences have always been in Austria when they barely stop short of shoving a Steyer Aug up your behind.

Residuum:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah yes lets all turn to Socialist Europe for guidance... <span id='postcolor'>

Well, we don't have airliners crashing into our cities..

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah yes lets all turn to Socialist Europe for guidance...<span id='postcolor'>

Do you have any conception of what a dumbass statement that is?

We North Americans are blessed innocents when it comes to dealing with terrorists and hijackers. This is a scourge that Europe has been dealing with for a decades. And so yes, their security systems and ways of doing things have had that amount of time to mature, wheras ours is still trying to adjust to the concept of tight security.

I have to say that I doubt even Wobble would have said anything that totally off the mark, and he's known for some doozies.

[Guest]

Residuum is still young, Warin and he has a lot to learn about the world

Btw, happy 17th birthday residiuum!

And yes. Europe had it's share of problems with terrorist, during the 70's. It also came as a shock at first, but after a while the governments learned how to handle the situation and the terrorist acts stopped. This was largly due to that a whole generation of terrorists (especially the 'red brigades' were captured and conviniently comitted suicide in prison (by shooting themselves in the back or similar stuff). There were several cases where captured terrorist smashed their own heads agains radiators and stuff... yeah right. The Germans excelled at getting terrorists to whack themselves.

Say what you want about those methods but the terrorist acts stopped...

[Warin 0]

Hey! Happy Birthday indeed!

Oh, I know the 'Age brings wisdom' thing. And I was pretty opinionated when I was 17. Funny part is I was a raving socialist. Now I lean a little farther towards center, but I would likely still be considered a pinko by most of my American neighbours But at the same time, sometimes I get so aggravated when someone spouts off some trite piece of silliness like that, no matter how young or old they are... Know what I mean?

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

"Say what you want about those methods but the terrorist acts stopped... "

I may be 17.. (well in a couple more hours) but its statements like those that scare me. I am a believer in limited government. The logic of "stop it by any means" is very frightening.

Using the same logic I could say lets stop terrorists by eliminating freedom of speech and anyone who says anything suspicious, lock them up.

Do you understand my point? I am not in favor of losing freedom in favor of security. I may be young and opinionated but I don't see anything wrong with that? I know of many adults who share my beliefs. They are the ones who have been alive linger, have seen the government expand and limit freedom more and more, have seen the failures in too big of a government. And as I age I too believe that things will only get worse if we have people who think that the government should "protect" us at all costs.

In my prior statement referring to Socialist Europe I was showing my distain for their governments. I would not want our government to emulate theirs. Living in Germany 2 years I witnessed their airport Security. Not too friendly guys aremd with submachine guns and dogs.

[Warin 0]

'By the people, of the people, for the people'

Isnt that one of the founding precepts of the government of the United States?  Arent those words in the Constitution somewhere as well?

The problem as I see it is that you envision that government is, in and of itself, a bad thing.  And that is a rather deep fallacy.

Government, big or small, is a neccesary adjunct of running these things we call 'countries'.  Most of the most vociferous opponents of government in the United States truly are crackpots (No, I am not calling you a crackpot, Residuum ) that believe some tin foil hat theory that any sort of government control is out to get them.  

For instance, I will have to spend around 200 CDN dollars to get all the neccesary permits and take all the needed courses, in order for me to  legally own a handgun in Canada.  The crackpots here say that is the first step to disarming the populace and turning Canada into some sort of shadowy police state.  Well, I dont believe that at all.  I would rather know that the guy who owns a gun is properly trained in it's handling and care than to let any yahoo wait the appropriate time and get a gun.  

If we lived in a society where the free dissemination of information was tightly controlled, I could see worrying about more regulation.  But the simple fact is that as it gets easier and easier to communicate between each other... both ideas and information... it becomes harder and harder to strip away our rights.  Why do you think China is so restrictive on what people can use the internet for?  So long as we dont give away the right to express our opinions, our governments wont be able to suddenly become as draconian as some people think.

I am not belittling your ideas... just saying that I dont believe it's as bad as you chose to believe

And what would you rather have: Airliners crashing into buildings, or even some whack job killing two people at an airline counter (and he would likely have killed more if he hadnt been at the El Al counter) or armed guards at the airport? And it IS that easy of a choice

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

Do not confuse me with an anarchist.  I fully believe in government.  Government is very nessacary in protecting our rights as citizens, building the infastructure, and protecting the economy.  That is my belief.  I am a believer in personal liberty.  So I guess you could call me a libertarian.  

The government has expanded and infringed (even if it is slightly) on our civil liberties as the nation has matured.  I fear that if we continue to let it expand and eventually oppress that eventually (even if it isnt in my lifetime) that america could once again be under oppression and tyranny reminisent to Nazi Germany or something like 1984 by George Orwell.

I believe that people are inately evil.  The government is made up by people.  When the government has too much power, it is bound to become corrput because people are corrupt.  This can be proven with any monarchy, or communist/fascist country.  I do not want America turning into that.

I believe that in our constution our forfathers gave us the right to bear arms because they wanted to protect American citizens from tyranny.  If the very government we are protecting ourselves from, regulates and limits guns... well you see my point.

Oh and dont trust our communication forver, I forsee internet regulation in the future if people do not stand up against it. Unfortunatley some people actually believe the government should be everyones mother.

I do not have trust in people to have too much power over me.

Some libertarian sites:

www.cato.org

www.libertarian.org

www.lp.org

www.reason.com

www.objectivistcenter.org

[Major Fubar 0]

OK, how about a button in the cockpit to flood the passenger compartment with incapaciting/knockout gas (chloroform)...stupid idea?

[Warin 0]

And there is the fundamentall reason that we will likely never agree:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe that people are inately evil.<span id='postcolor'>

please dont take this as condescending or insulting, but it must be a terrible thing to believe something like that... And it likely means that you will never really be able to trust the vast majority of people.

I firmly believe that so long as people genuinely believe that man is inherantly evil, we really wont ever see peace on a world scale...or an end to things like poverty.

Dont get me wrong, I know that SOME people are truly evil (Hitler, Stalin, et al) but I think that they are the odd men out, if you will. Psychological or genetic abberations that cannot acurately represent the human race as a whole.

But that's just my opinion...and while I may think yours is rather depressing, I will firmly defend your right to have it

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ July 12 2002,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, how about a button in the cockpit to flood the passenger compartment with incapaciting/knockout gas (chloroform)...stupid idea?<span id='postcolor'>

Do you want to be the poor guy who gets knocked out, gets your brain cells killed because some dumb pilot accidently hit the button? I don't.

[billytran 0]

Espectro,

First off, your whole thing about keeping guns off planes ignores the fact that air marshalls have guns. In fact, they let FBI agents, DEA agents, Customs agents, and other federal law enforcement employees carry guns onto a plane. Now, you might think that is okay. After all, these are highly trained professionals, right? Well postal inspectors, museum curators, and Department of Agriculture inspectors can have guns too. So you're point about "guns aren't getting on planes" is invalid.

Right now, pilots are instructed to stay in the cockpit and land as soon as possible. If they had guns they would still be instructed to stay inside the cokpit. So, guns or no guns, a pilot will still have to resist the urge to open the door. That means that a terrorist must break down the door. Now, here's the situation:

You are a passenger on a plane where the pilots don't have guns. Five terrorists armed with box cutters have taken control of the passenger area of the plane. They demand that the pilot open the door or they will start killing people. The pilots do not open the door, so the terrorists start killing people. They kill two stewardesses and the pilots are still keeping the door shut. Three of the hijackers decide to bust down the door. Now, what will your thoughts be:

A. Thank God that those pilots don't have a gun up there.

B. I wish they had something to defend the cockpit with.

What is wrong with a simple two week training program for pilots so that they can know how to defend the cockpit? If you do that, they'll have roughly the same amount of firearms training as an air marshall and will be perfectly capable of defending the cockpit.

Just think of what a deterrent it would be if just 75% of the pilots had guns and the training to defend the cockpit. I'm willing to bet that there would be no more hijackings. The simple threat of having to deal with a gun would stop someone from trying to hijack the plane. It's like concealed carry permits. When you provide people with the means to defend themselves, criminals get scared off.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well postal inspectors, museum curators, and Department of Agriculture inspectors can have guns too. So you're point about "guns aren't getting on planes" is invalid.<span id='postcolor'>

carrying them on planes,wtf do they needd tem for,wouldnt they get put in the baggage hold ??

Like someone pointed out before,after the 9/11,or 11.9 as the dates written most places outside the U.S,i think most ppl would tackle the anyone up to funny shit like that guy with some c4 or something in his shoe also i think i pilot would be a lot more reluctant to open that door even if it meant someone getting killed.

As for airport security theres armedd cops aroundd with glocks and mp5s plus smug customs ppl,the ones that do all the checking of luggage etc.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 13 2002,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I firmly believe that so long as people genuinely believe that man is inherantly evil, we really wont ever see peace on a world scale...or an end to things like poverty.<span id='postcolor'>

World peace is nothing more than a dream. We will never reach it. There will always be neo-nazis who want to kill all blacks/jews/arabs. There will always be Muslim Fundamentalists who want to see the complete destruction of Israel and America. We won't end povery until people stop being lazy. And do you know why people are lazy? Because they know they can depend on hardworking taxpayers and that wonderful income redistribution (Read: SOCIALIST) program of welfare. And things like socialized health care aren't helping either. These things promote laziness.

Big government bureacracies screw things up. Just look at government run social security. Look at how foreign aid gets squandered. If you stop relying on big governments, a lot of problems will disappear.

We can go a lot farther to helping the impoverished if we cut out all government programs and relied on charities.

So, what does this have to do with airline security? It's simple, government screeners are going to suck. Why? Because of the bureacracy. Private companies can provide a better product if you let them. They could have better quality screeners and it wouldn't put a burden on the taxpayer.

[Warin 0]

I doubt they let Air Marshalls carry firearms and work with two weeks of training. The Air Marshalls are highly trained (at least as far as I can see) and would likely be capable of working for almost any civilian law enforcement agency.  Why do you think there are so few of them?  

I think the idea of more air marshalls is a great idea. I think giving pilots guns isnt. Why? Because the training would likely be VERY basic.  And the last thing you want is some half trained pilot going off half cocked. Or worse..imagine if those two drunken pilots in Florida a few weeks back had had guns and gotten into a fight

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 13 2002,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the idea of more air marshalls is a great idea. I think giving pilots guns isnt. Why? Because the training would likely be VERY basic.  And the last thing you want is some half trained pilot going off half cocked. Or worse..imagine if those two drunken pilots in Florida a few weeks back had had guns and gotten into a fight <span id='postcolor'>

Two weeks is enough to know how to defend a cockpit. Air Marshalls need to know a lot more. They have to be able to coordinate their actions, they need the skills to clear the plane of any threat. A pilot would have a very simple responsibility: If a terrorist goes through the door, shoot him. Two weeks is enough to train someone for that, isn't it?

In the case of those drunken pilots, the system worked. The screeners noticed that the men were drunk, and alerted the proper people. There might have been a few problems (it took a while for them to get the pilots off the plane), but that can be fixed with better communication among the screeners.

[Warin 0]

Well, in a way this is a moot point, because unless they have collectively dropped 50 IQ points each, the Senate will squash this bill.

And back to one other point, I honestly cant see it ever happening on anything other than domestic flights. Most countries already think the US is pushy enough, without being told that they have to let American pilots fly firearms into their country

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,03:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you understand my point?  I am not in favor of losing freedom in favor of security.  I may be young and opinionated but I don't see anything wrong with that?  I know of many adults who share my beliefs.  They are the ones who have been alive linger, have seen the government expand and limit freedom more and more, have seen the failures in too big of a government.  And as I age I too believe that things will only get worse if we have people who think that the government should "protect" us at all costs.

In my prior statement referring to Socialist Europe I was showing my distain for their governments.  I would not want our government to emulate theirs.  Living in Germany 2 years I witnessed their airport Security.  Not too friendly guys aremd with submachine guns and dogs.<span id='postcolor'>

That just shows that you have a very naÄf picture of the world. But, that's ok, you are American and therefor that is to be expected. You have no real moder experience of what a real war is like. Your politicians are panicking and their actions go contrary to your classical beliefs on what a society should look like.

That is why we get these moronic suggestions from your side like arming the pilots. Like the WTC attack situation is the typical one. You have no direct experience of being under a military threat. Europe has an experience of 500 years of more or less constant fighting. Romantic notions like 'give me freedom or give me death' are pure bullshit, which you can easily see through the history of the human race. When you are looking at a muzzle of a Soviet made AK-47 you quickly realise that life is everything and freedom and democracy is nothing.

I have not have the time or the will to explain this to you, since you would probably never understand it. You don't have the experience and you have grown up in a society that has lied to you about the absolute benifits of democracy. If you want to learn about the world, go to Kosovo or any other war-torn area and see for yourself how democracy is not relevant at all. People are much rather alive then free.

[ralphwiggum 6]

but when ppl are secured in life, they want freedom. classic human nature.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

I don't believe in arming pilots.

I dont live in Kosovo, I live in America. I want freedom.

I don't give a shit about the people in Kosovo because they aren't Americans. Americans rights are described in the Constitution and its my right to not want them infringed.

Your view of "democracy means nothing you must live" works for war torn Europe, not America. And thats why we're better.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your view of "democracy means nothing you must live" works for war torn Europe, not America.  And thats why we're better.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO. That just shows that you know nothing about the real world. Unfortunately that goes for a lot of your politicians and citizens. Being willing to die for democracy is no better then being willing to die for a religion on nazism or any other theoretical ideology that has very little to do with the real world. Your view of defending democracy at every cost is just as bad as Al-Quedas view of defending Islam at any cost.

Yes, democracy is very nice if you feel that your human needs for security, food..etc are guaranteed. My point is that you have to accept either that you are under no threat and stop bitching and bombing around the world or you can accept that you are under a theret and take the measures required to achieve the safety and stop bitching about loosing your rights. When a robber points a gun at you on the street, you won't be debating your constitutional rights with him.

Welcome to the real world, I can only say.

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When a robber points a gun at you on the street, you won't be debating your constitutional rights with him.

<span id='postcolor'>

Especially not if you happen to be a pilot getting of work and you have a gun