Guns on a plane

[shrugged0106]

Hey, I know that I've read somewhere that the perceived danger from firing a gun on a plane is bunk. I think that it has something to do with using special ammo.

I need to trash a lib hater on this topic. Any good sources that prove Dr. Pauls point?

[DeadheadForPaul]

Stress that it's not for passengers but so that the airline can have a security member on board. The federal government only puts a federal marshall on a small percentage of flights. An airline could put at least 1 person on every flight to protect people

[Kuldebar]

There's low velocity bullets for such situations..but those truthdig folks are flailing around from one thing to another so I don't think points are sticking very well.

September 2, 2003, 9:45 a.m.
P.C. Air Security (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott090203.asp)
When will our pilots be armed? By John R. Lott Jr.


The fears of having guns on planes are exaggerated. As Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, noted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives:

Boeing commercial service history contains cases where guns were fired on board in service airplanes, all of which landed safely. Commercial airplane structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft. A bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization. Aircraft are designed to withstand much larger impacts whether intentional or unintentional. For instance, on 14 occasions Boeing commercial airplanes have survived, and landed, after an in flight bomb blast.

[jonahtrainer]

Hey, I know that I've read somewhere that the perceived danger from firing a gun on a plane is bunk. I think that it has something to do with using special ammo.

I need to trash a lib hater on this topic. Any good sources that prove Dr. Pauls point?

Tell them guns on a plane are better than snakes!

[Gee]

Its irrelevant. Airlines would probably not allow guns on airplanes period, but they'd probably use other weapons which would render box cutters useless. Tasers, for example.

The bottom line is that it is the airline's property, and their decision. Consumers may choose which airline they feel protects them best, and the results would be superior to the enforced monopoly of the TSA.

[AnotherAmerican]

If the airlines are allowed to decide, then your friend will be able to choose whether to fly an armed-pilot airline or an unarmed-pilot airline. Is your friend pro-choice?

[robatsu]

Hey, I know that I've read somewhere that the perceived danger from firing a gun on a plane is bunk.

Well, how about all the combat airplanes that take a lot more damage from flak/missiles than a couple of revolver shots?

It's pretty tough to bring down aircraft with small arms fire. Otherwise, all the low buck insurgencies around the world would be doing it. That's why they all get stingers.

Take it to the bank - your average airliner is a pretty stout machine and it is preposterous that a couple of bullets would knock it out of the air.

[ronpaulitician]

Guns on planes - Yes or no (http://thetravelinsider.com/2004/0206.htm)

What happens if a bullet shoots a hole in the plane

Nothing. Forget what you've seen in the movies! A small hole in the plane won't make any difference to the safety or strength of the plane's structure, and air will bleed out through the hole so slowly that the normal cabin pressurization system will have no problem replenishing the air going through the slow leak.

An airplane can withstand a lot more damage than a few small bullet holes and still fly and land safely, as this Aloha Airlines 737 demonstrated.

The plane's pressurization system can probably cope with 50 or even 100 bullet holes and still maintain a breathable environment without needing the oxygen masks.

What if a bullet shoots out a window

It is possible that a bullet might shatter the toughened clear plastic in the plane's window. But, just like your double glazing at home, there are multiple layers of plastic in the window.

Even if all layers of the window broke, you're still not going to be sucked out the small window like in the movies. Yes, this large hole would probably depressurize the plane - over a period of some minutes - but that is what the overhead oxygen masks are for.

What if a bullet damages a vital control

This is very unlikely, and even if it did occur, most of the truly vital controls on a plane have double or triple redundancy. That means that one of the control systems could fail, and there would still be one or two backup systems to take over and ensure the continued safe operation of the plane.

And, remember - the air marshal is using the special frangible bullets, that won't penetrate through the control conduit anyway.

Ask Captain Lim (http://www.askcaptainlim.com/asairplaneemergencies.htm)

4. Will a gunshot depressurize the airplane cabin?

Hello Capt Lim, Could you please resolve an after dinner discussion on the effects of firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft - assuming that the hull is penetrated?

One point of view is that quite rapid depressurization could occur, depending on the size of the hole, requiring oxygen and descent to 10000ft. The James Bond viewers believe that the aircraft would disintegrate.
The effects of firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft is dependent on the size of hole caused by the bullet. If the hole is clean and of the size of your finger, it would not caused a rapid depressurization.

Let me discuss this scenario in the context of a Boeing 777. (Other pressurized aircraft are almost similar). Inside this aircraft, there are already two existing 'holes' for regulating the cabin pressurization. They are called the outflow valves, one located in the front and the other is at the aft belly. Their function is to modulate and maintain a desired cabin pressure of around 8.5 psi (pounds per square inch), and it varies with the aircraft altitude. This operation is performed automatically.

It is never possible to fully seal the aircraft doors and hence there are very minute spaces where some pressurized air may already be leaking out. They are hardly noticeable. At the same time, the interior of the airplane is always being pressurized and recharged by a constant flow of pneumatic or bleed air from the engines.

If a gunshot creates a clean hole through the skin, it is not going to be disastrous because air will just whistle out of the hole. The outflow valves will automatically response to this sudden loss of air by closing the valves a little to compensate for the air leak.

My estimate is that it would probably take quite sometime to fully depressurize the aircraft cabin. It only takes about less than 5 minutes to carry out an emergency descent from, say 35,000 to 10,000 feet assuming the aircraft is descending at about 5000 feet per minute.

If the size of the hole of the firearm discharge is big then it may depressurize quite rapidly. Think of the aircraft cabin as if it is a balloon. The bigger the hole, the faster the air would leak out. The hole with a size of a finger will not have any major or significant effect on a big commercial aircraft.

What is more worrying is that, a gun shot hitting the electrical cables, hydraulic lines or control cables may cause some headaches, but not altogether critical because the aircraft has many backup systems. Even that, it is quite remote because such vital cables or lines are generally well protected and are securely located away from possible damage.

I doubt this kind of info will convince doubters unless it comes straight from the airline industry itself, but at that point, you may want to turn the tables on them, and ask the doubters to tell you exactly why guns on planes are a bad idea.

[Elwar]

Mythbusters tested it and all the bullet did was put a hole in the wall...no huge explosion, or tearing up of the plane.

[Marshall]

The mythbusters did an episode where they tried to explosively decompress a passenger jet with a 9mm pistol shot. They fired once into the wall and once into a window with negligible effect, debunking to a degree to popular hollywood stance that if you shoot a plane anywhere half of the passengers are going to be sucked out a gaping hole. Probably not the best evidence to use in an argument, but hey, it was a good watch.

[shrugged0106]

awesome stuf from all of you!! TY!!

[dspectre]

If you want another example, more just common sense, think of World War 2. B-17s were hit by flak and survived many times(flak is far more damaging then a tiny hole).

Planes in many different wars have been hit by bullets and made it out ok. Some of the greatest pilots have been hit multiple times and survived.

[Kuldebar]

If you want another example, more just common sense, think of World War 2. B-17s were hit by flak and survived many times(flak is far more damaging then a tiny hole).

Planes in many different wars have been hit by bullets and made it out ok. Some of the greatest pilots have been hit multiple times and survived.

You are correct, but remember that WW2 era planes didn't have pressurized cabins. But, even with pressurized cabins, according to the Boeing expert:


A bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization. Aircraft are designed to withstand much larger impacts whether intentional or unintentional. For instance, on 14 occasions Boeing commercial airplanes have survived, and landed, after an in flight bomb blast.

[mconder]

It's very doubtful a low velocity round from a .45 would even penetrate a plane. It would be cool if MythBusters picked this up and tried it out.

[Bradley in DC]

Isn't that the name of a new movie coming out with Samuel L. Jackson? :D (sorry)

[tmg19103]

B-17's were not pressurized, but it is bunk even with a pressurized jet at 30,000 feet.

Also, I hear some left wing yahoo's decrying RP's 2nd Amendment - 9/11 statement. The talking point is not that RP was saying passengers should be armed (though RP has stated he has no prob with that if the airlines alllowed it, but that is a little radical for many in the general public).

The talking point is that our bloated and inept federal government did not allow the pilots (many if not most of whom are armed forces veterans) to be armed. Israel has armed their pilots for decades, and how many hijackings have they had? That is the talking point.

[Kuldebar]

B-17's were not pressurized, but it is bunk even with a pressurized jet at 30,000 feet.

Also, I hear some left wing yahoo's decrying RP's 2nd Amendment - 9/11 statement. The talking point is not that RP was saying passengers should be armed (though RP has stated he has no prob with that if the airlines alllowed it, but that is a little radical for many in the general public).

The talking point is that our bloated and inept federal government did not allow the pilots (many if not most of whom are armed forces veterans) to be armed. Israel has armed their pilots for decades, and how many hijackings have they had? That is the talking point.


Yeah, I agree. Just like at Google when he visited, Paul stressed that property owners should decide what they will allow or won't allow on their property.

Also, if private banks use armed guards to protect out fiat currency, why not have armed guards or pilots protect their passengers on airplanes?

[angelatc]

If you want another example, more just common sense, think of World War 2. B-17s were hit by flak and survived many times(flak is far more damaging then a tiny hole).

Planes in many different wars have been hit by bullets and made it out ok. Some of the greatest pilots have been hit multiple times and survived.

I'm not a plane person, so don't make (much) fun if me, but don't those planes usually have masks over the pilot's face to keep him from fainting if the plane depressurizes?

[angelatc]

Hey, I know that I've read somewhere that the perceived danger from firing a gun on a plane is bunk. I think that it has something to do with using special ammo.

I need to trash a lib hater on this topic. Any good sources that prove Dr. Pauls point?

I'm over there too, ya know!

[dspectre]

Isn't that the name of a new movie coming out with Samuel L. Jackson? :D (sorry)

I was thinking the same thing :)

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, Dr. Paul's intent on this one didn't come across so well. I hope he clarifies it a bit more soon.

It makes me wonder if ANYONE is reviewing his speeches at all for potential points of confusion like this, before he gives them.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I agree. Just like at Google when he visited, Paul stressed that property owners should decide what they will allow or won't allow on their property.

Thing is, most people aren't going to take the time to go through every single one of his speeches, written and vocal, to look to see if he clarifies himself better someplace else. They will make their determination off of what he said in the speech they heard.

[angelatc]

Yeah, Dr. Paul's intent on this one didn't come across so well. I hope he clarifies it a bit more soon.

It makes me wonder if ANYONE is reviewing his speeches at all for potential points of confusion like this, before he gives them.

I had the same thought about Social Security. If Mitt did indeed bus in the nursing home crowd, then Dr Paul's message should have focused more on properly funding the program and phasing future generations out of it. I was afraid that he was scaring the old folks.

[quickmike]

Even if it were true that a bullet hole through a plane window would depressurize the cabin of a 767, if you were on a plane with terrorists trying to take it over wouldnt you want to at least take the chance that the person with the gun would hit the terrorist with the shot? Or would you rather just give up and let the terrorist crash the plane and guarantee your death? Its a pretty simple choice if you think about it. A no brainer actually.

[DisabledVet]

I don't know if this was answered but the ammunition for airlines is called fragnable ammunition. Basically its velocity and composition is enough to penetrate a human but it disintegrates when it impacts something like the interior skin of the airplane. I fired a bunch of this stuff and it leaves just a powdery mess when your done. This kind of ammo has been around for many years.

[jj111]

Too bad my favorite James Bond movie Goldfinger perpetuates the myth of a bullet bringing down a plane.

[Kuldebar]

Too bad my favorite James Bond movie Goldfinger perpetuates the myth of a bullet bringing down a plane.

Gee, thanks a lot JJ, now we know who to blame, grrrr.

[Will]

While I'm a big supporter in the right to carry (have a concealed permit and carry every day), I wouldn't want a bunch of pistols on a plane. Besides the fact that some people are just plain stupid and irrisponsible, think about it, many people have too much to drink on planes. We definately dont need drunks with guns on planes.

I'm going to assume that Dr. Paul was a bit distressed over the hospitalization of his wife and, maybe he didn't really think that one through very well. Either that or he was trying to appeal to the full-fledged gun-nuts with an idea that he doesn't really believe in.

<shrug>

[Kuldebar]

While I'm a big supporter in the right to carry (have a concealed permit and carry every day), I wouldn't want a bunch of pistols on a plane. Besides the fact that some people are just plain stupid and irrisponsible, think about it, many people have too much to drink on planes. We definately dont need drunks with guns on planes.

I'm going to assume that Dr. Paul was a bit distressed over the hospitalization of his wife and, maybe he didn't really think that one through very well. Either that or he was trying to appeal to the full-fledged gun-nuts with an idea that he doesn't really believe in.

<shrug>

Watch the speech again, don't let the people who are irrationally afraid of guns trick you into thinking he said something he didn't say.

[ronpaulitician]

While I'm a big supporter in the right to carry (have a concealed permit and carry every day), I wouldn't want a bunch of pistols on a plane. Besides the fact that some people are just plain stupid and irrisponsible, think about it, many people have too much to drink on planes. We definately dont need drunks with guns on planes.
Then it would stand to reason that you would be opposed to guns being illegal in bars.

Let's see if anyone can point out to any actual drawbacks of having guns on planes before we dismiss the notion that perhaps airplanes do not require any different gun legislation than our other means of transportation.

[angelatc]

It comes back to rivate property rights. If the owner of the bar or the [lane doesn't want you to bring your gun, then you can't bring it.

[Kuldebar]

Then it would stand to reason that you would be opposed to guns being illegal in bars.

Let's see if anyone can point out to any actual drawbacks of having guns on planes before we dismiss the notion that perhaps airplanes do not require any different gun legislation than our other means of transportation.

Let's not get side tracked.

Property owners have a right to set rules of what takes place on their property. Allowing smoking, for instance.

Don't fall into the trap that results in ignoring the right of property.

If I disarm myself per your rule to visit your property, you also in turn take a certain responsibility to ensure my safety and security.

[ronpaulitician]

Property owners have a right to set rules of what takes place on their property. Allowing smoking, for instance.
Is it the airlines that set the no-guns policy? I thought it was federal regulation.

[Will]

Then it would stand to reason that you would be opposed to guns being illegal in bars.

Let's see if anyone can point out to any actual drawbacks of having guns on planes before we dismiss the notion that perhaps airplanes do not require any different gun legislation than our other means of transportation.


Well, one potentiol reason is that accidental discharge becomes more dangerous on a plane. Even highly trained and disciplined people have been known to have accidents.

lol - I remember a goofy DEA agent about a year ago that shot his foot (litterally) during a classroom discussion in front of a bunch of elementary school kids...

[Will]

Good greif - I'm watching the local news in Miami and just heard a reporter talking about the recent Church shooting. He said "The gunman had THREE handguns including (gasp) a SEMI AUTOMATIC handgun!". What an dork - doesn't he realize that most of the pistols sold today are semi-automatic. I'm guessing that he doesn't even know what it means...

[CodeMonkey]

Is it the airlines that set the no-guns policy? I thought it was federal regulation.

Currently it is federal regulation, but Dr. Paul wants to let the airlines make their own policies.

[Will]

Obviously I meant "potential"....

[Kuldebar]

Is it the airlines that set the no-guns policy? I thought it was federal regulation.

You are right, that's what the outrage is about. The feds interfered and screwed things up royally.

[CodeMonkey]

Well, one potentiol reason is that accidental discharge becomes more dangerous on a plane. Even highly trained and disciplined people have been known to have accidents.

lol - I remember a goofy DEA agent about a year ago that shot his foot (litterally) during a classroom discussion in front of a bunch of elementary school kids...

Why is it more dangerous on a plane? We already debunked the depressurization myth, so what is it? The close proximity of other people? Then we would have to ban guns on buses, in restaurants, clubs, etc. The DEA agent anecdote doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[Kuldebar]

Well, one potentiol reason is that accidental discharge becomes more dangerous on a plane. Even highly trained and disciplined people have been known to have accidents.

lol - I remember a goofy DEA agent about a year ago that shot his foot (litterally) during a classroom discussion in front of a bunch of elementary school kids...

Will, I agree.

I f I ran an air service in a free society. I'd require my passengers to check their weapons at the entry gate so their firearms could be secured for transport.

But, I'd also stipulate that I would be responsible for their security and safety during the voyage on my air service.

[Will]

I think some of you misunderstand my stance on this. I'm very pro right to carry. I simply think that a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Among others things, I believe that Florida's lawprohibiting the carrying weapons in bars (like many states) is sound. Booze and guns don't mix. And we all know that airplains are flying bars.

[Kuldebar]

I think some of you misunderstand my stance on this. I'm very pro right to carry. I simply think that a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Among others things, I believe that Florida's lawprohibiting the carrying weapons in bars (like many states) is sound. Booze and guns don't mix. And we all know that airplains are flying bars.

I feel your pain :p

Read my last post, I think we are on the same wavelength.

[ZandarKoad]

Ah, OR, you could simply not serve BOOZE to the passangers! I'd rather have GUNS and NO BOOZE than BOOZE and NO GUNS. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Again, all of this MUST be decided by the COMPANY PROVIDING THE SERVICE. We've seen how well central planners (in this case the Feds) protect us in the air. I for one would prefer private capatalist competition in this instance (and... just about every other instance too).

[jj111]

Guns on planes is such a debatable subject, it really does not belong in a Ron Paul speech IMHO. Claiming that his policies might have prevented 9/11 again does not seem like a winning argument to me.

There are many good claims one can make politically to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, such as the best defense against invasion from a foreign enemy, but I really think that Ron's two arguments above that he has used in speeches are weak politically and should be discarded for better ones.

[ZandarKoad]

So far in these forums there seems to be little to no debate about guns and planes. Just everyone saying the same thing...

But for a national speech, I think you may have a point. That's why I'm not part of the official campaign. I don't want to worry about that high end political crap. Maybe you should contact the campaign with your suggestion.

[tmg19103]

I think RP was trying to sell the big pro-gun crowd in Iowa, but the message was not clear. Like I said - the point he should have clearly made was that the pilots should have been armed and it is our bloated and inept government that prevented this. That would have been a good point, but it was not clear and got confused with passengers carrying guns. I'm pro-gun and have a concealed carry permit, but I don't think passengers should be armed.

Like I said, though, Israel has armed their pilots for years and they never get hijacked. The other message that did not come across clear was that government beaurocracies are usually inept - and look at how weapons were smuggled on board. the airline screeners need to be private companies that are financially motivated to keep planes safe - not government types who can't stand their job.

[Kuldebar]

Guns on planes is such a debatable subject, it really does not belong in a Ron Paul speech IMHO. Claiming that his policies might have prevented 9/11 again does not seem like a winning argument to me.

There are many good claims one can make politically to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, such as the best defense against invasion from a foreign enemy, but I really think that Ron's two arguments above that he has used in speeches are weak politically and should be discarded for better ones.

Not his policies...the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Anything that undermines this weakens the whole.

[quickmike]

I think some of you misunderstand my stance on this. I'm very pro right to carry. I simply think that a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Among others things, I believe that Florida's lawprohibiting the carrying weapons in bars (like many states) is sound. Booze and guns don't mix. And we all know that airplains are flying bars.

It worked in the old west:D


POW POW POW

[quickmike]

I think RP was trying to sell the big pro-gun crowd in Iowa, but the message was not clear. Like I said - the point he should have clearly made was that the pilots should have been armed and it is our bloated and inept government that prevented this. That would have been a good point, but it was not clear and got confused with passengers carrying guns. I'm pro-gun and have a concealed carry permit, but I don't think passengers should be armed.

Like I said, though, Israel has armed their pilots for years and they never get hijacked. The other message that did not come across clear was that government beaurocracies are usually inept - and look at how weapons were smuggled on board. the airline screeners need to be private companies that are financially motivated to keep planes safe - not government types who can't stand their job.

I think he made that very clear. He said that the airlines were forbidden to protect their passengers and their equipment and that all these problems would be solved if we followed the constitution. Whats not to understand about that statement. Clear as a bell to me. He wants pilots to be able to protect their property.

[angelatc]

Man, back at the original thread, there's just no cure for stupid.

After being out argued on just about every point she tried to make, she resorts to using the fact that George Bush is from Texas, and so is Ron Paul.