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.
Yes, it's a potent weapon (arming pilots)
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Yes, it's a potent weapon
BY TIMOTHY WHEELER
Congress is finally getting serious about airline security. In a nearly 3-to-1 vote last week, the House passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, which would allow qualified commercial airline pilots to use firearms in the cockpit to repel a terrorist threat.
The scenario addressed by the bill is grim but simple. If terrorists make it past ground security measures, overcome the cabin crew and breach the fortified door to the flight deck, the pilot or copilot would be able to stop them.
Aside from the fact that congressional members are frequent fliers acquainted with the weaknesses of airline security, why was the House vote so one-sided? One senses that the nation sees the need for a new level of security based on a rational risk assessment, rather than emotion.
The bill has built-in protections against the most obvious pitfalls. The type of firearm allowed in the cockpit would be specified, as would the type of ammunition. And the bill calls for an analysis of the risks to the aircraft's systems posed by an accidental discharge of an on-board firearm.
As serious as the prospect of a cockpit gunfight is, there is precedent in law-enforcement training for similar sce narios. Hostage-rescue training is one example. Shoot-don't shoot drills, close-quarters combat and weapon retention are core competencies for many specialties of law enforcement. They would likely be part of the pilots' training.
Training would be set to the standards of air marshals and would be tightly controlled. Participating pilots would have to requalify often with their firearms. Many airline pilots have military experience and firearm training. The House bill recognizes that advantage and gives them preference in the trainee-selection process.
The opposition of the gun-control lobby was predictable, and it repeats much of the same old hand-wringing. A Violence Policy Center spokesperson worried that a dropped handgun might fire, or that a terrorist may take away the pilot's gun. These mishaps are unlikely, and practically irrelevant considering the gravity of the threat.
What is less understandable is the resistance of the Bush administration to arming pilots. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the Transportation Security Administration's John McGaw both oppose the idea, preferring to beef up ground security and to increase the number of air marshals. Unfortunately, they have nothing else to offer between these half-measures and an Air Force fighter shooting down a hijacked airliner.
Until now, a zero-tolerance mind-set toward weapons on airliners has shaped both government and corporate airline policy. Like similar strategies for ''weapons'' in schools (e.g. kids pointing their fingers as make-believe guns), this policy has been driven by fear.
But a parallel development over the last 15 years has proven that a zero-tolerance policy toward carrying guns is not only ineffective, it can cause more deaths and injuries. Laws allowing responsible, qualified people to carry self-defense firearms have proven the same benefits over and over again: Gun mishaps among carry-license holders are rare and violent crime goes down. This lesson has diminished opposition to self-defense firearm carry laws.
Similarly, the public seems ready to accept armed pilots as one more layer of security in the vulnerable environment of a passenger jet. We are beginning to understand that armed and qualified good guys provide the most potent weapon available against the threat of deadly force. This is just as true at 30,000 feet as it is on the ground.
Timothy Wheeler is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of The Claremont Institute. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/3714638.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 TIMOTHY WHEELER
Congress is finally getting serious about airline security. In a nearly 3-to-1 vote last week, the House passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, which would allow qualified commercial airline pilots to use firearms in the cockpit to repel a terrorist threat.
The scenario addressed by the bill is grim but simple. If terrorists make it past ground security measures, overcome the cabin crew and breach the fortified door to the flight deck, the pilot or copilot would be able to stop them.
Aside from the fact that congressional members are frequent fliers acquainted with the weaknesses of airline security, why was the House vote so one-sided? One senses that the nation sees the need for a new level of security based on a rational risk assessment, rather than emotion.
The bill has built-in protections against the most obvious pitfalls. The type of firearm allowed in the cockpit would be specified, as would the type of ammunition. And the bill calls for an analysis of the risks to the aircraft's systems posed by an accidental discharge of an on-board firearm.
As serious as the prospect of a cockpit gunfight is, there is precedent in law-enforcement training for similar sce narios. Hostage-rescue training is one example. Shoot-don't shoot drills, close-quarters combat and weapon retention are core competencies for many specialties of law enforcement. They would likely be part of the pilots' training.
Training would be set to the standards of air marshals and would be tightly controlled. Participating pilots would have to requalify often with their firearms. Many airline pilots have military experience and firearm training. The House bill recognizes that advantage and gives them preference in the trainee-selection process.
The opposition of the gun-control lobby was predictable, and it repeats much of the same old hand-wringing. A Violence Policy Center spokesperson worried that a dropped handgun might fire, or that a terrorist may take away the pilot's gun. These mishaps are unlikely, and practically irrelevant considering the gravity of the threat.
What is less understandable is the resistance of the Bush administration to arming pilots. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the Transportation Security Administration's John McGaw both oppose the idea, preferring to beef up ground security and to increase the number of air marshals. Unfortunately, they have nothing else to offer between these half-measures and an Air Force fighter shooting down a hijacked airliner.
Until now, a zero-tolerance mind-set toward weapons on airliners has shaped both government and corporate airline policy. Like similar strategies for ''weapons'' in schools (e.g. kids pointing their fingers as make-believe guns), this policy has been driven by fear.
But a parallel development over the last 15 years has proven that a zero-tolerance policy toward carrying guns is not only ineffective, it can cause more deaths and injuries. Laws allowing responsible, qualified people to carry self-defense firearms have proven the same benefits over and over again: Gun mishaps among carry-license holders are rare and violent crime goes down. This lesson has diminished opposition to self-defense firearm carry laws.
Similarly, the public seems ready to accept armed pilots as one more layer of security in the vulnerable environment of a passenger jet. We are beginning to understand that armed and qualified good guys provide the most potent weapon available against the threat of deadly force. This is just as true at 30,000 feet as it is on the ground.
Timothy Wheeler is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of The Claremont Institute. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/3714638.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
The Bush administration is reconsidering its opposition to letting airline pilots carry guns, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told the House Transportation aviation subcommittee today.
Afterward, spokesman Chet Lunner said Mineta was not responding to congressional pressure to arm pilots, but simply asking the new head of the Transportation Security Administration, retired Coast Guard Adm. James Loy, to review an old policy.
"The secretary expects Admiral Loy, with a new set of eyes, to take a look at everything we're doing," Lunner said.
The Associated Press reported: "Loy's predecessor, John Magaw, announced in May that he would not arm pilots, though he continued to study whether to allow flight crews to carry stun guns. Mineta said Loy will look into arming pilots with guns or non-lethal weapons."
Pilots unions, supported by gun rights groups, want Congress to overrule the TSA. The House earlier this month voted 310-113 to let commercial pilots carry guns.
"We're very happy to hear that Secretary Mineta and Admiral Loy will be taking a fresh view with an open mind on this subject," said John Mazor, a spokesman for Air Line Pilots Association.
A Senate sponsor of legislation to let pilots be armed, Montana Republican Conrad Burns, also praised the announcement.
"Right now, the only armed pilots in America are flying F-16s," Burns said. "Secretary Mineta's comments signal his agency's recognition that American missiles shooting down American planes cannot be our government's answer to hijackings."
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/7/23/160423
"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
from "Terrorism"
by Michael Bragg
You know it really amazes me how easily so many people are scared into submission. Even more than that, I am dumbfounded at how easily the masses are led astray with phantom fears of "nonspecific, uncorroborated but credible" threats of further terrorist attacks on our soil.
Having a day gig in sales requires me to spend a considerable amount of time behind the wheel of my car, and to break the monotony I often listen to the radio. One particular early morning talk show I sometimes listen to is a local station in this area. The hosts of this particular show have the tendency to not only conveniently leave out much data when forming their opinions, but even worse, they sometimes exaggerate, embellish and dare I say outright lie about facts to support their conclusions. It is fun however to call them once in a while (usually after a blatant error) and correct then in their faulty allegations.
One that really burns me up is that of so called "potential" terrorist attacks. After listening to these two men rant for an hour about how scared they were, and how they are willing to give up almost any and all Liberties just to be safe from these ghostly threats, (and even worse hearing their callers agree with them) it's a wonder that I myself was not shaking in my boots and ready to show the soft side of my underbelly to the nearest FBI agent I could find. However, being the logical, reasoning and levelheaded (LOL) person that I am, I have decided to simply assess the situation and really find out exactly where the REAL threats lie. More importantly, I will look at solutions for overcoming the small threats we face that not only facilitate MORE FREEDOM -- NOT LESS, but the success of these solutions depend on that freedom.
SAFE SKIES
After the horrendous attacks of 9-11, I find it very hard to believe another commercial airliner will be commandeered and flown into targets of opportunity. First of all, I believe if one were to fly off its flight plan and be unresponsive to radio communication it will simply be shot down. It does not matter if it were actually hijacked or not. It could be something as simple as navigation or instrument failure or even communication failure, but I firmly believe it will be shot down by our own F-16's. But, for the sake of this example, let's look at the scenario a little closer.
Let's say Abdullah Mohammed al-Azrwi Sheik DaDa and a merry band of his misfits decided to attempt commandeering a given airliner. You are probably only looking at 5 to 8 individuals at the most against 60 to 80 or more passengers and crew aboard the flight. Number one, I find it hard to believe that that many people on the plane will simply sit there and let the plane be taken over. Even after the FAA has violated the 2nd Amendment and disarmed the passengers, it is my strong belief that they WOULD in fact defend themselves and their plane. Moreover, prior to 9-11, if our Imperial Federal Government had performed its duty and set up emergency procedures in the event of an attempted hijacking --a hijacking that they knew was not only a possibility but highly likely, -- there would have been 3000 people who would not have died that day. All they would have had to do was add a little more to their preflight safety instructions. For example: "Passengers, this is your Captain. If one or more persons attempts to commander this flight, you are instructed to apprehend and subdue these perpetrators by any means necessary up to and including death. This means you take off your belt, shoe, pencil or pen, pillow or anything else you can find to use as a weapon to defend this plane. The control of this plane WILL NOT be given to anyone but the pilots who will safely take us to our respective destinations".
Now granted a .45 would be much more effective than a #2 pencil, but we 'aint too likely to be able to pack heat in the air any time soon. Hell, even though it has passed in the House, we are not very likely to see the pilots carry guns as a last line of defense so what do you think OUR chances are?
Note to Bush/Ashcroft regime: I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a locked and loaded F-16 with orders to terminate a flight is LESS dangerous than a pilot with a 9mm or H K Special Ops .45.
The only real danger I see in the sky is either a bomb hidden in baggage, or a land-based shoulder fired missile such as our "Stinger". There are many that believe that the infamous TWA 800 Flight that went down on July 17, 1996 was an act of terror done with these very weapons. I wonder where those Stingers came from? Could it be that we gave them to Islamic extremists years ago? Oh yeah, I forgot.they were "freedom fighters" then. How silly of me.
Solutions for flight safety: I have already mentioned arming the pilots so I will not belabor that point. However, I would be remiss if I did not at least mention letting passengers arm themselves would also greatly reduce the threat of hijacking. But, due to the demonization of firearms by the Misguided Mom types, I do not believe this would ever be a viable solution. I personally would like to see PRIVATE armed flight attendants, hired, trained and equipped by the people whose property we are renting to take us from point A to point B.
BIOTERROR
While Stephen King's "The Stand" has always been one of my favorite works, the doomsday scenario of an infectious virus with a communicability rate of 98% decimating the world is highly unlikely -especially from terrorists. According to The Journal of The American Medical Association, "a global campaign, begun in 1967 under the aegis of the World Health Organization (WHO), succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1977. A WHO expert committee recommended that all laboratories destroy their stocks of variola virus or transfer them to 1 of 2 WHO reference laboratories - the Institute of Virus Preparations in Moscow, Russia, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga. All countries reported compliance." However, "a former deputy director of the Soviet Union's civilian bioweapons program" has stated that "beginning in 1980, the Soviet government embarked on a successful program to produce the smallpox virus in large quantities and adapt it for use in bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles; the program had an industrial capacity capable of producing many tons of smallpox virus annually." Furthermore, Alibek reports that "Russia even now has a research program that seeks to produce more virulent and contagious recombinant strains." It is also feared that "because financial support for laboratories in Russia has sharply declined in recent years, there are increasing concerns that existing expertise and equipment might fall into non-Russian hands." The JAMA also reports on weapons grade anthrax that, "several countries are believed to have offensive biological weapons programs, and some independent terrorist groups have suggested their intent to use biological weapons. Because the possibility of a terrorist attack using bioweapons is especially difficult to predict, detect, or prevent, it is among the most feared terrorism scenarios."
While these two nasty little critters are certainly scary, and the consequences of their release on a large city or populated area are even more frightening, there remains one difficulty anyone attempting to use them has to overcome: the delivery system. From everything I have been able to find, anthrax is very difficult to contract. According to George Jaresko, assistant professor of clinical pharmacy and co-director of the anti-infective research study group at the School of Pharmacy, "despite the publicity on the deaths of postal workers . [and] although anthrax has the potential to be extremely destructive, it is difficult to contract the fatal type of inhalation anthrax. The amount of exposure required to contract the disease is quite high. You would have to inhale roughly 10,000 to 50,000 spores." To be able to disperse large enough amounts of the stuff for people to inhale it, contract inhalation anthrax and die is highly difficult.
However, it is my opinion based on everything I have read and researched that smallpox is one of if not the biggest threats we have. As The Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies at Johns Hopkins University reports "An aerosol release of smallpox virus would disseminate readily given its considerable stability in aerosol form and epidemiological evidence suggesting the infectious dose is very small. Even as few as 50-100 cases would likely generate widespread concern or panic and a need to invoke large-scale, perhaps national emergency control measures."
"Several factors fuel the concern: the disease has historically been feared as one of the most serious of all pestilential diseases; it is physically disfiguring; it bears a 30 percent case-fatality rate; there is no treatment; it is communicable from person to person; and no one in the U.S. has been vaccinated during the past 25 years. Vaccination ceased in this country in 1972, and vaccination immunity acquired before that time has undoubtedly waned."
So, anthrax is not really that big of a deal, but smallpox could be, so what do we do? I like what David Hackworth proposed in his article "A shot in time saves lives" at WND.com. He writes:
Bet on it - Health honcho Tommy Thompson and his whiz kids will screw up a vaccination program faster than you bought Cipro. There are countless layers of government functionaries committed to allowing little, if anything, to be done fast and efficiently. If a kid were drowning in a neighbor's swimming pool, you and I would leap the fence, outrun the dog and dive in - while our government reps would still be debating a procedural vote. No way should we allow these bureaucrats to be responsible for our families' health, especially when the worst-case scenario envisions millions dying before the rapid-spreading epidemic can be brought under control.
What we should do:
Vaccinate first-responders - medics, firemen, police, warriors - ASAP.
Store vaccine in our family doctors' offices immediately. The 300 million smallpox immunizations should be available locally - it's flat nuts for us all to rely on assurances that the red-tape-wrapped Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is capable of getting the vaccine to outbreaks at five or 5,000 places across the nation in time for effective administering.
The CDC should also be ready to announce timely warnings of smallpox so nonimmune citizens can hole up, reducing their exposure. Because when our docs have the vaccine, it should be up to each of us to weigh the health risks of being inoculated - not some Washington types whose track records concerning terrorism at airports, controlling our borders or handling aliens and anthrax since 9-11 have been so bad that a good Army top kick would have inflicted maximum pain on most of these losers.
So, while I do not agree with Hack on many issues, I have to say he is pretty much right on this one. Put the vaccine in the hands of the medical professionals - NOT THE GOVERNMENT. We must be free to CHOOSE to either take the vaccine or not. We cannot rely on the CDC to make the right decisions for us. Simple solutions requiring MORE FREEDOM -- NOT LESS, made painfully difficult by a government hell bent on its own lust for power and control.
Next in the series we will look at the threats of nukes, dirty bombs, foreign invasion and small-scale suicide bombings such as are routine in Israel.
Comment on this article on our Message Board.
Michael Bragg is a member of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina where he has a day gig in sales. He is an lifelong songwriter, musician, wanna-be webmaster or studio engineer in his spare time (which is always uncommon). He proudly serves The Libertarian Party of Forsyth County as Outreach Director and is Co-Founder, Columnist and Webmaster
for Liberty For All - Online Magazine.
He can be reached at patrioticus@triad.rr.com
http://libertyforall.net/2002/archive/july20/removing-terror.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
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
WASHINGTON - Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told a House panel Tuesday that congressional foot-dragging was to blame for long delays in progress on airport baggage and passenger screening. Lawmakers, however, angrily faulted mismanagement at the agency.
"We are facing a real crisis at this juncture," said Mineta, testifying about the situation before the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation.
With the reduced money granted by Congress, the agency would not be able to function as planned, he said. "Is it too late to do something about it? Practically speaking, I think it is," he said.
House Democrats blamed mismanagement and waste at the Transportation Security Administration for problems with recruitment and organization. The agency's original director, John Magaw, resigned last week under fire for poor performance, they pointed out.
'Out to Lunch'
"John Magaw was fired because he was incompetent. People thought he was totally out to lunch, but you stuck with him for far too long. Now you're blaming Congress? This is so partisan. I am so disappointed with your performance here today," Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., told Mineta, a Democrat holdover from the Clinton administration.
"If you would bring forward a plan I believe we could move forward with no problem," DeFazio said.
Federal responsibility for airport security lies with the Transportation Security Administration, created in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The agency is charged with "federalizing" all private airport security employees and activities in an attempt to tighten safety.
Progress has been slower than expected. The deadline for the shift for 429 major U.S. airports is in mid-November. As of Tuesday, Mineta said, only three airports had been federalized.
The agency has hired 3,004 people, only a fraction of the projected 67,000 workers it will need to carry out the job. Of 1,100 baggage screening machines planned, 29 have been installed, according to auditors at the Department of Transportation.
The agency has requested an additional $4.4 billion from Congress to speed operations and make screening deadlines. But citing troubles at the agency, a House committee cut $1 billion from the request.
You Paid $400,000 to Redecorate Big Shots' Offices
Lawmakers Tuesday criticized high TSA salaries and a top-heavy bureaucracy. Costs for redecorating the offices of the new director and his staff topped $400,000, lawmakers said.
"I've heard from screeners themselves. There are supervisors for supervisors for supervisors. We don't need another huge bureaucracy. We need an efficient federal agency," said John Duncan, R-Tenn.
Mineta said that the agency had little hope of making end-of-year screening deadlines with the money allotted to the agency. In addition, an employee cap of 45,000, set by Congress last week, would hamstring the agency, he said.
"Less money with no flexibility means fewer TSA employees, less equipment, longer lines, delay in reducing the hassle factor and/or diminished security at our nation's airports," Mineta said.
The slowdowns at the TSA have become a major point of contention as the House decides on a final Homeland Security bill. The latest House version of the bill extends the baggage screening deadline to Dec. 31, 2003, a move that infuriated Democrats.
Lawmakers said they hoped the agency would turn around under the direction of its new chief, Admiral James Loy, the former commandant of the Coast Guard, who took office this week.
Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
All rights reserved. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/23/170712.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
Copyright c 2002 AP Online
Special Report: America Responds
By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
House Aviation subcommittee Chairman Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., right, talks to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, prior to the committee's hearing on airline security.
WASHINGTON (July 23, 2002 1:06 p.m. EDT) - Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said Tuesday that lawmakers are undermining the department's ability to meet security deadlines later this year.
An anti-terrorism bill agreed to last week by House and Senate negotiators allocates $1 billion less than the $4.4 billion the Transportation Security Administration requested and limits the number of TSA employees to 45,000 rather than the 65,000 needed, he said.
"Less money with no flexibility means fewer TSA employees, less equipment, longer lines, delay in reducing the hassle factor and/or diminished security at our nation's airports," Mineta told the House Transportation aviation subcommittee.
The TSA was created by Congress last fall to improve security in the nation's transportation system, particularly airports and airplanes. But lawmakers have criticized TSA's efforts toward meeting a Nov. 19 deadline for replacing private airport screeners with a federal work force, and a Dec. 31 deadline for inspecting all checked bags for explosives.
Lawmakers cite recent TSA tests that found fake guns, bombs and other weapons got past security screeners almost one-fourth of the time at 32 major airports. And they question some of the security measures taken in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.
"You have 535 members of Congress who are frequent flyers," Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation panel, said last week. "People are not happy when there aren't some commonsense approaches to security. Shaking down 80-year-old ladies, Medal of Honor winners and 5-year-old kids makes no sense."
Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., criticized the TSA for waiting until June to award a contract to begin redesigning airports to accommodate explosive detection equipment.
"That should have been done in January," said Oberstar, the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee. "Why didn't they launch this initiative then? They'd be much further along."
Accompanying Mineta at the subcommittee hearing were Deputy Transportation Secretary Michael Jackson and James Loy, who was tapped last week to replace John Magaw as head of the TSA.
Magaw, former head of the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, resigned under pressure amid criticism he was not responsive enough to lawmakers, airlines and airport officials.
Loy previously served as commandant of the Coast Guard. He was a frequent visitor to Capitol Hill to discuss budgets and policies and is well-regarded by lawmakers.
"I have a great deal of respect for Admiral Loy, having worked closely with him during his service as commandant of the United States Coast Guard," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, who clashed with Magaw over agency funding. "I look forward to continuing this relationship as we work together to make the country's transportation system the safest in the world."
Mica, another Magaw critic, said Loy will be better received on Capitol Hill.
"He's highly respected," the Florida Republican said. "He's dealt with Congress. He's also run a very large agency. Hopefully, he can pick up the pieces of the TSA monster."
http://www.nando.net/politics/story/475297p-3799437c.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