In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Critic-at-Arms: Guns Hot
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Critic-at-Arms: Guns Hot
by Keith R. Wood c 2002, all rights reserved Published 05. 7. 02 at 21:36 Sierra Time
xxx A petition, seeking to give flight crews the right to defensive weapons in the cockpit, was recently rejected by the Bush Administration. It was signed by hundreds of thousands of commercial flight crew members, who can be assumed to have a pretty good grasp on the issues involved.
I can understand why Sarah Brady is opposed to pilots having guns in the cockpits of airliners -- she is opposed to anyone having any means of self-defense. Fortunately, most of us will outlive her, and she will soon cease to be of any importance to any issue whatsoever. Likewise, Senators Daschle, Clintoon, Schemer and their ilk are also steadfast that the only weapons aboard an airplane be those in the hands of terrorists. They are big proponents of the "cooperate with the attacker, even if it kills you" doctrine.
What I don't understand is why President Bush is opposed to the idea that aircrew be able to defend their lives.
Duhhh-bya's "reasoning" is that this could put a weapon in the hands of a terrorist. Uh, excuse me, Mister President . . ? Can we do the math on this one? The gun would only be useful to a terrorist who got aboard the plane without a weapon. The only way for that terrorist to get the gun would be to take it away from the people in the cockpit . . .who could be expected to use the gun to keep the terrorist out of the cockpit . . .this is like comedian Gallagher's bit about needing collateral to get a loan, and the borrower needs the loan to buy some collateral!
Another absurd argument against arming aircrew is that stray bullets might go back into the cabin and hit passengers. Sure, this is possible, and a passenger might die if shot. Perhaps even a dozen passengers, if there is a lot of missing going on. How is this worse than what happened to FOUR PLANELOADS of passengers last September? And while we're talking about stray shots, consider the Federal agents aboard planes . . .whose stray shots go toward the cockpit. A clumsy defense from the cockpit which kills ten passengers is better than a clumsy defense from the rear of the plane which kills the three people on the flight deck. While I could fly and land an airliner, you can't count on having a passenger like me aboard every plane (any more than you can count on having Federal marshals aboard every plane).
The next stupid thought by the Defenseless Cockpit lobby is that the flight deck crew would be unable to safely handle a gun. What a cheery thought, that the people in charge of all those dozen controls, levers and switches, who literally hold the lives of hundreds in their hands, aren't competent to operate something as simple as a pistol. Something to ponder while you wait by the gate, watching them do their cockpit preflight check before your next night-overwater trip.
Continuing this particular absurdity is the assertion that the crew can't be trusted with something as dangerous as a 1/2-inch bullet weighing 1/3 of a ounce, but can be trusted with a 100-foot metal bird with tons of Jet A in the tanks . . .and you in Seat 22A.
For that matter, most of our flight crews come through military aviation. Not only do they carry pistols in the cockpits of F-16s, but the entire plane is a weapons platform. I think these people have proved their ability to deal with firearms, maintain a cool head and get the projectile to the target (otherwise there would be a lot of people swimming in the oceans around Hawaii, rather than landing at HNL).
I've flown many hours with pilots who were armed. In fact, I think the pilot of my first airplane ride was armed -- he was my dad, the detective, and about the only place I saw him go without a firearm was into the pool (which is more than one of his friends can say, but that's another story). How can anyone claim that they are frightened by armed pilots yet still go into terminals occupied by more machinegun-toting troops than can be found in the Havana airport? If the National Guard can train grocery clerks to such a high level of professionalism, then it shouldn't be difficult to sharpen the skills of any motivated United pilot. Only an idiot would want a terrorist to have the only weapons aboard their next flight.
Sorry, Mister President, but not one of your justifications for keeping flight crews defenseless holds any water. After all, if guns aboard aircraft are such a threat, why do you fly everywhere surrounded by armed men?
Keith R. Wood would take a free upgrade to First Class on his next flight, just to prove that he isn't afraid of stray bullets coming from the cockpit. He would also like to hear back from his readers, at caa@bctv.com or via the Mailbag.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/05/08/critic.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by Keith R. Wood c 2002, all rights reserved Published 05. 7. 02 at 21:36 Sierra Time
xxx A petition, seeking to give flight crews the right to defensive weapons in the cockpit, was recently rejected by the Bush Administration. It was signed by hundreds of thousands of commercial flight crew members, who can be assumed to have a pretty good grasp on the issues involved.
I can understand why Sarah Brady is opposed to pilots having guns in the cockpits of airliners -- she is opposed to anyone having any means of self-defense. Fortunately, most of us will outlive her, and she will soon cease to be of any importance to any issue whatsoever. Likewise, Senators Daschle, Clintoon, Schemer and their ilk are also steadfast that the only weapons aboard an airplane be those in the hands of terrorists. They are big proponents of the "cooperate with the attacker, even if it kills you" doctrine.
What I don't understand is why President Bush is opposed to the idea that aircrew be able to defend their lives.
Duhhh-bya's "reasoning" is that this could put a weapon in the hands of a terrorist. Uh, excuse me, Mister President . . ? Can we do the math on this one? The gun would only be useful to a terrorist who got aboard the plane without a weapon. The only way for that terrorist to get the gun would be to take it away from the people in the cockpit . . .who could be expected to use the gun to keep the terrorist out of the cockpit . . .this is like comedian Gallagher's bit about needing collateral to get a loan, and the borrower needs the loan to buy some collateral!
Another absurd argument against arming aircrew is that stray bullets might go back into the cabin and hit passengers. Sure, this is possible, and a passenger might die if shot. Perhaps even a dozen passengers, if there is a lot of missing going on. How is this worse than what happened to FOUR PLANELOADS of passengers last September? And while we're talking about stray shots, consider the Federal agents aboard planes . . .whose stray shots go toward the cockpit. A clumsy defense from the cockpit which kills ten passengers is better than a clumsy defense from the rear of the plane which kills the three people on the flight deck. While I could fly and land an airliner, you can't count on having a passenger like me aboard every plane (any more than you can count on having Federal marshals aboard every plane).
The next stupid thought by the Defenseless Cockpit lobby is that the flight deck crew would be unable to safely handle a gun. What a cheery thought, that the people in charge of all those dozen controls, levers and switches, who literally hold the lives of hundreds in their hands, aren't competent to operate something as simple as a pistol. Something to ponder while you wait by the gate, watching them do their cockpit preflight check before your next night-overwater trip.
Continuing this particular absurdity is the assertion that the crew can't be trusted with something as dangerous as a 1/2-inch bullet weighing 1/3 of a ounce, but can be trusted with a 100-foot metal bird with tons of Jet A in the tanks . . .and you in Seat 22A.
For that matter, most of our flight crews come through military aviation. Not only do they carry pistols in the cockpits of F-16s, but the entire plane is a weapons platform. I think these people have proved their ability to deal with firearms, maintain a cool head and get the projectile to the target (otherwise there would be a lot of people swimming in the oceans around Hawaii, rather than landing at HNL).
I've flown many hours with pilots who were armed. In fact, I think the pilot of my first airplane ride was armed -- he was my dad, the detective, and about the only place I saw him go without a firearm was into the pool (which is more than one of his friends can say, but that's another story). How can anyone claim that they are frightened by armed pilots yet still go into terminals occupied by more machinegun-toting troops than can be found in the Havana airport? If the National Guard can train grocery clerks to such a high level of professionalism, then it shouldn't be difficult to sharpen the skills of any motivated United pilot. Only an idiot would want a terrorist to have the only weapons aboard their next flight.
Sorry, Mister President, but not one of your justifications for keeping flight crews defenseless holds any water. After all, if guns aboard aircraft are such a threat, why do you fly everywhere surrounded by armed men?
Keith R. Wood would take a free upgrade to First Class on his next flight, just to prove that he isn't afraid of stray bullets coming from the cockpit. He would also like to hear back from his readers, at caa@bctv.com or via the Mailbag.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/05/08/critic.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
PC=BS
And a special thanks to all of the anti-gunners who actually signed the bill allowing pilots to carry.
George saying no, the antis saying yes... Kind of makes you wonder who our "friends" really are.
Happiness is a warm gun