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.
Packing Heat In The Friendly Skies
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Packing Heat In The Friendly Skies
By Ron Marr
Published 07. 24. 02 at 21:24 Sierra Time
While I fully realize that the United States Senate has passed numerous pieces of legislation outlawing logic and common sense, you would think that the lessons of September 11th would have shaken at least a few of them from their intellectual lethargy. Apparently such is not the case. When the matter at hand concerns the arming of airline pilots, both the majority of Senators and President George Bush wring hands, gnash teeth and utter the ludicrous mantra of "but somebody could get hurt."
Apparently the Commander in Chief and the slack-jawed Senators have taken to heart the idiotic philosophy of the gun control crowd, their faulty rationale being that firearms ownership is a far worse crime than terrorism. They feel that allowing the law-abiding to protect themselves from those who would cause mayhem and death - not only their own but the potential thousands of others - is a step toward chaos.
I "believe" that. Then again I also believe that Ted Turner is on food stamps and that Al Sharpton NEVER would have engaged in any illegal activities ...no matter what those damned undercover cameras say.
I could sit here and ridicule the proponents of the nanny state who feel it is a heinous thing for the general public to take responsibility for the health and well being of both their families and themselves ...but such would be a waste of ink. Instead, lets take a look at the most common arguments against the arming of pilots, pull out the Winchester 1300 Defender (my personal favorite in nightstand shotguns) and blow the feckless dissension to kingdom come.
First off, consider the words - or lack thereof - provided by the opposing lawmakers. They have given no reason WHY they are against armed pilots except to say that "somebody could get hurt." A passenger might be hit by a stray bullet, they say, a flight attendant could eat lead, a bullet might go through a cockpit wall leading to depressurization and a rapid (but not necessarily uncontrolled) drop in altitude.
Hmmm ...compared to the alternatives, which we have witnessed, these don't seem terribly bad options. A passenger or flight attendant is hit in the attempt to stop a religious fanatic from taking control of a jet, a vessel which we now know is capable of knocking down a skyscraper and killing thousands of people. Such is not a perfect response (not missing your target is the perfect response) but it does seem the most judicious act. I find it odd that the liberal justification for social welfare programs (and also something Mr. Spock told us in a really bad Star Trek movie) is that society must always place the needs of the many above the needs of the few. When it comes to guns and pilots however, this argument is suddenly reversed.
Although we cannot know if this WOULD have happened, I would bet my immortal soul that a couple of pilots, armed with the aforementioned Winchester 1300, could have easily dispatched a few religious fanatics wielding deadly box cutters. Yes, somebody might get hurt by a stray hunk of buckshot. Then again, somebody might get hurt when the boxcutter boys pilot the jet into a crowded stadium, or when an F-14 is forced to drop the commandeered 757 into a cornfield.
Would an armed pilot prevent these events from occurring? Though not a certainty, I can tell you that a 9mm Glock is a far greater deterrent than harsh words and a wagging finger.
Argument two comes from ABC's Cokie Roberts. Though hardly an authority on either firearms or airline safety, Roberts had been widely quoted as saying she didn't want pilots to be armed because planes were the only place she felt safe from guns. This is another illogical comment, and one that implies that Roberts is far more afraid of an inanimate bang-stick than she is of the person pointing it.
Such is simple ignorance, but unfortunately it is the message promoted by a media largely in support of widespread gun control. Listen up folks! Guns are only as dangerous as the people holding them, and gun control laws only afflict the law-abiding. Cokie, and millions like her, think that they will sleep safe in their beds if guns are only carried by authorized, licensed, uniformed personnel. What, do they think all cops have doctorates and sensitivity training? A lot of the ones I know barely finished high school.
So I have to ask dear Cokie and her ilk an infantile question. Next time you go to an airport, take a look around. See that pimply faced Army Private with the M-16 slung over his shoulder? You know, the one who is still fighting acne and suffering angst over being dumped by the cheerleader while he was in boot camp. Can you really say you feel secure with him being armed to the teeth but DON'T feel safe arming an airline pilot of mature age, who is very likely a former military man, whom you trust to take you to 30,000 feet at 400 miles an hour in a $100 million dollar tube of aluminum hooked to gigantic Pratt and Whitney thrusters?
That wasn't my question. My question, if that really is your belief, centers around whether you were born stupid or are just purposefully ignorant.
c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/07/25/edrm072502.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 Ron Marr
Published 07. 24. 02 at 21:24 Sierra Time
While I fully realize that the United States Senate has passed numerous pieces of legislation outlawing logic and common sense, you would think that the lessons of September 11th would have shaken at least a few of them from their intellectual lethargy. Apparently such is not the case. When the matter at hand concerns the arming of airline pilots, both the majority of Senators and President George Bush wring hands, gnash teeth and utter the ludicrous mantra of "but somebody could get hurt."
Apparently the Commander in Chief and the slack-jawed Senators have taken to heart the idiotic philosophy of the gun control crowd, their faulty rationale being that firearms ownership is a far worse crime than terrorism. They feel that allowing the law-abiding to protect themselves from those who would cause mayhem and death - not only their own but the potential thousands of others - is a step toward chaos.
I "believe" that. Then again I also believe that Ted Turner is on food stamps and that Al Sharpton NEVER would have engaged in any illegal activities ...no matter what those damned undercover cameras say.
I could sit here and ridicule the proponents of the nanny state who feel it is a heinous thing for the general public to take responsibility for the health and well being of both their families and themselves ...but such would be a waste of ink. Instead, lets take a look at the most common arguments against the arming of pilots, pull out the Winchester 1300 Defender (my personal favorite in nightstand shotguns) and blow the feckless dissension to kingdom come.
First off, consider the words - or lack thereof - provided by the opposing lawmakers. They have given no reason WHY they are against armed pilots except to say that "somebody could get hurt." A passenger might be hit by a stray bullet, they say, a flight attendant could eat lead, a bullet might go through a cockpit wall leading to depressurization and a rapid (but not necessarily uncontrolled) drop in altitude.
Hmmm ...compared to the alternatives, which we have witnessed, these don't seem terribly bad options. A passenger or flight attendant is hit in the attempt to stop a religious fanatic from taking control of a jet, a vessel which we now know is capable of knocking down a skyscraper and killing thousands of people. Such is not a perfect response (not missing your target is the perfect response) but it does seem the most judicious act. I find it odd that the liberal justification for social welfare programs (and also something Mr. Spock told us in a really bad Star Trek movie) is that society must always place the needs of the many above the needs of the few. When it comes to guns and pilots however, this argument is suddenly reversed.
Although we cannot know if this WOULD have happened, I would bet my immortal soul that a couple of pilots, armed with the aforementioned Winchester 1300, could have easily dispatched a few religious fanatics wielding deadly box cutters. Yes, somebody might get hurt by a stray hunk of buckshot. Then again, somebody might get hurt when the boxcutter boys pilot the jet into a crowded stadium, or when an F-14 is forced to drop the commandeered 757 into a cornfield.
Would an armed pilot prevent these events from occurring? Though not a certainty, I can tell you that a 9mm Glock is a far greater deterrent than harsh words and a wagging finger.
Argument two comes from ABC's Cokie Roberts. Though hardly an authority on either firearms or airline safety, Roberts had been widely quoted as saying she didn't want pilots to be armed because planes were the only place she felt safe from guns. This is another illogical comment, and one that implies that Roberts is far more afraid of an inanimate bang-stick than she is of the person pointing it.
Such is simple ignorance, but unfortunately it is the message promoted by a media largely in support of widespread gun control. Listen up folks! Guns are only as dangerous as the people holding them, and gun control laws only afflict the law-abiding. Cokie, and millions like her, think that they will sleep safe in their beds if guns are only carried by authorized, licensed, uniformed personnel. What, do they think all cops have doctorates and sensitivity training? A lot of the ones I know barely finished high school.
So I have to ask dear Cokie and her ilk an infantile question. Next time you go to an airport, take a look around. See that pimply faced Army Private with the M-16 slung over his shoulder? You know, the one who is still fighting acne and suffering angst over being dumped by the cheerleader while he was in boot camp. Can you really say you feel secure with him being armed to the teeth but DON'T feel safe arming an airline pilot of mature age, who is very likely a former military man, whom you trust to take you to 30,000 feet at 400 miles an hour in a $100 million dollar tube of aluminum hooked to gigantic Pratt and Whitney thrusters?
That wasn't my question. My question, if that really is your belief, centers around whether you were born stupid or are just purposefully ignorant.
c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/07/25/edrm072502.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
By Scot Lehigh, 7/24/2002
EASON SCORED an unexpected victory two weeks ago when the US House broke with the Bush administration and voted, 310 to 113, to arm airline pilots. A second surprise came yesterday, when Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said the Transporation Security Administration, once opposed, was now actively exploring the option of letting pilots have guns in the cockpit.
Will the Senate prove as susceptible to common sense? Although he opposes guns in the cockpit, US Senator Ernest Hollings, who chairs the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, has agreed to hold a hearing on the matter tomorrow.
''It's looking stronger each day,'' says Republican Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who, with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, is leading the charge. The legislation now counts four other Democrats as cosponsors: Montana's Max Baucus, Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, and Georgia's Zell Miller.
Here's another Democrat who supports the idea of arming pilots: John Kerry of Massachusetts. ''I am in favor of it, with proper training and proper protocols for their use,'' says Kerry.
''If a pilot comes to a conclusion that this is the only way to remedy a dangerous situation, it seems to me they ought to have a gun.''
Meanwhile, despite the previous judgment by John Magaw (who resigned suddenly last week as head of the Transportation Security Administration) that pilots shouldn't be armed, Captain Phillip Beall, who chairs the Allied Pilots Association's Committee for Armed Defense of the Cockpit, says he is reliably told that the FBI concluded last fall that after five days of firearms training, pilots would be well prepared to defend the cockpit against hijackers. (The FBI could not provide any information on the matter.)
Certainly in the face of the facts, the arguments against guns in the cockpit fade like a contrail in gusty wind. Two seem rooted in a basic misunderstanding of planes and flying: The worry that an errant bullet piercing the skin of the aircraft would lead to a catastrophic depressurization and the concern that having to defend the cockpit would prove such a distraction that pilots could no longer fly the plane. Actually, experts say, a number of bullet holes in the pressurized envelope of the aircraft would do little to affect the performance of the plane. As for the second concern, it takes only one pilot to operate an aircraft, leaving the other to use his weapon to repel would-be hijackers.
The latter also amounts to a curious confusion of cause and effect. ''If someone gets into the cockpit, that is the real distraction,'' notes Smith. The odds of intruders gaining entry are far less if the pilots can greet them with a lethal dose of lead. (In an emergency, the protocol is that pilots would remain in the cockpit, not roam the aircraft to police matters there.)
Then there's the contention that airborne security is better left to air marshals. Well, consider the experience of American Airlines pilot Darik Day, who flies three flights a day, 15 days a month. ''Since September 11, I have flown with air marshals twice,'' Day reports. Other pilots also report a similarly low incidence of having marshals on their flights.
Several other arguments have yet to give up the ghost. One: The best way to proceed is to keep pilots unarmed but have them land the plane immediately if trouble occurs. Reality check: Even if directly above an airport, a plane at cruise altitude takes 15 minutes to land. Out over the ocean, the nearest airport could be hours away.
But oddest of all is the fear that pilots somehow can't be trusted with weapons.
''We trust the pilots with a $100 million aircraft with 300, 400 people on them,'' Kerry points out. ''If that isn't the ultimate trust, I don't know what is.''
Here's one other extra thing Congress should do: vote funds to spur the development of a smart gun that would fire only for authorized users. That kind of weapon, which experts says could be developed within two years, would eliminate any chance that a cockpit firearm might somehow be wrestled away and used by a hijacker.
But make no mistake, we need the deterrence and protection that would come of arming pilots now. It's time for Senate Democrats to recognize that these are unique circumstances, put aside their instinctive antigun ideology, and let reason be their guide.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@glboe.com. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/205/oped/Good_sense_prevails_on_guns_for_pilots+.shtml
"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 JONATHAN D. SALANT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a key Senate committee reiterated his opposition Thursday to a bill that would allow the nation's airline pilots to carry guns.
Sen. Ernest Hollings, head of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said that instead of guns, pilots should be prohibited from opening cockpit doors in flight.
"The door has got to be fixed - impenetrable - and never opened in flight," said Hollings, D-S.C., at the beginning of Thursday's hearing on airline security. "Once that's fixed, we've solved the problem of an airliner flying into the Empire State Building. We've solved the problem of guns in the cockpit."
But those who favor arming the pilots hope the Transportation Department's decision to reconsider its opposition to the idea will boost its chances in the Senate.
Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said earlier this week that he had asked the incoming head of the Transportation Security Administration, retired Coast Guard Adm. James Loy, to take a new look at the issue. The review follows an overwhelming House vote earlier this month to allow commercial pilots to carry guns.
"What the House did and the statement of Mr. Mineta gives it new energy," Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., a sponsor of the Senate legislation.
Mineta told the Senate committee Thursday that the $3.85 billion for the TSA included in the anti-terrorism spending bill isn't enough to allow the agency to hire all the screeners and buy all of the machines necessary to meet deadlines for improving airline security.
"The amount of money Congress has approved simply will not support the mandate and timetable for aviation security that Congress set last fall," Mineta said. "Congress has given us a strict and inflexible mandate, and insufficient funds to meet it." He said the agency needs an additional $1 billion.
Mineta said that without enough money, he can still meet a Nov. 19 deadline for employing a federal work force to screen passengers and a Dec. 31 deadline for inspecting all checked bags for explosives, but lines will be longer at airports.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the administration would meet the congressional deadlines, but said some lawmakers are having second thoughts.
"There's a growing concern in the Congress, though, about whether or not they were being realistic in originally assigning the deadlines they did, given the resources and the mandates that they've imposed on the administration," Fleischer said.
To date, only six of 429 commercial airports have all of their checkpoints staffed by federal employees: Baltimore; Louisville, Ky.; Mobile, Ala.; Chicopee and Bedford, Mass.; and Kalamazoo, Mich. In addition, some of the checkpoints at New York's Kennedy Airport are staffed by federal screeners.
Despite the continued opposition to arming pilots by Hollings, the committee chairman, Burns said the hearing gives proponents another opportunity to get the bill to the Senate floor.
The Senate bill's chief sponsor, New Hampshire Republican Robert Smith, may not wait. Smith has discussed offering the bill as an amendment to other legislation, such as the bill creating a Homeland Security Department or the measure funding transportation.
Pilots have been visiting senators' offices on Capitol Hill, answering questions and seeking support.
"It's a matter of seeing us face to face and knowing we are on the front lines," said American Airlines Capt. Linda Pauwells, a member of the Allied Pilots Association.
http://kevxml2a.infospace.com/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D7L00JQ00&qcat=usnews&ran=06991&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1
"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
Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., has reportedly snubbed a bid by the widow of the pilot whose jetliner was hijacked and crashed into Tower 2 of the World Trade Center because he disagrees with her support for arming pilots in the cockpit.
Ellen Saracini, whose husband piloted United Airlines Flight 175 on Sept. 11, told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly late Wednesday that she wrote to Hollings requesting to testify before the Science and Transportation Committee, which he chairs.
Saracini's request was seconded by one of Sen. Hollings' colleagues.
"I have a letter right here that was addressed to the senator," Saracini told O'Reilly. "Sen. Bob Smith [also] wrote a letter, asking that I be able to testify and it was denied."
The 9-11 pilot's widow said she was given no explanation as to why Hollings' committee turned down her request, but she told Fox News, "Well, we know that Senator Hollings is against arming pilots. That's very clear and I think he thinks that I have too compelling a voice."
Saracini said she wanted to tell the Science and Transportation Committee that "we need to have armed pilots in the cockpit. The cockpit is now the last line of defense.
"Everyone would be a lot safer," she contended. "And the worst-case scenario is what do we want to wait for - a military jet to fly alongside us and have to shoot us down in case there's a problem?"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/7/25/101402
"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 Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
July 25, 2002
(1st Add: Includes comments from Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Gun Owners of America as well as additional background.)
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The new acting director of the Transportation Security Agency says he is "hesitant" about proposals to train and voluntarily arm commercial airline pilots with deadly weapons to defend against terrorist attacks.
Adm. James Loy, acting Undersecretary for Transportation Security, made the statement to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Thursday morning.
"I need to learn about this and get up the learning curve very quickly," he said of proposals that the TSA screen, train, and arm pilot volunteers to serve as a last line of defense against potential terrorist hijackings. "I can say that on the upshot, I'm hesitant, but I'm also being directed to conduct a review, and I will do that."
Loy said the TSA is currently investigating the potential ramifications of arming pilots and he wants to "be objective" in examining the results of that review.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) says he's looking forward to Loy's answer, but feels there may already have been too much investigation and not enough action.
"I think some of these cases, whenever we start talking about homeland security, have to be based, sometimes, on gut feeling and common sense," he said. "And I think we'd better start making these decisions right away."
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta lamented the potential cost of training, arming, and retraining armed pilots.
"I don't want to be in the position of having armed pilots and then all of the sudden facing a bill of $850-900 million in terms of the start-up costs, the training, getting the weapons for 85,000 pilots, and then doing the $250-$260 million in annual costs to do quarterly recurrent training," Mineta said. "No one, from what I can see, has really talked about the costs."
Burns quickly rebuffed Mineta's cost estimates.
"I would suggest that you stick around ," he said, "because I think you'll find you'll learn we can do it a lot better and a lot cheaper."
Erich Pratt, communications director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), also refutes Mineta's numbers.
"How much training is it going to take to teach somebody to swivel around in his seat, shoot a guy who's breaking down the door five feet away from him, and then swivel back around and continue flying the plane?" he asked.
Based on the figures provided by Mineta, it would cost a minimum of $10,000 to initially arm and train a pilot for the program, and an additional $2,941 a year to re-certify the pilot's training quarterly.
Pratt says Mineta - who has been consistently opposed to arming pilots since before the Sept. 11 attacks, and received an "F-minus" rating from GOA while serving as a member of Congress - is presenting the program in the worst possible light because of his anti-gun bias.
"They're not even talking about re-certifying the air marshals quarterly," Pratt cited as an example, adding that it is also unrealistic to believe that all 85,000 FAA-licensed pilots would volunteer for the program.
But even if the $900 million initial and $260 million annual cost estimates were accurate, Pratt says the program is still viable.
"It would be a bargain compared to the billions of dollars for that whole agency, which primarily focuses on looking for the 'needles in the haystack,' to keep guns and explosives off of planes," he added, "which by the way, has not resulted in any better security for those who are flying because up to 50 percent of firearms and explosives are still getting through when they've conducted tests."
Mineta told the committee that he would consider all of the evidence before advising President Bush on whether or not to veto any legislation mandating that the TSA train and arm pilot volunteers with handguns.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200207\NAT20020725d.html
"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