Rand Paul: We need guns in the cockpit

[jct74]

Rand Paul: We need guns in the cockpit

By TAL KOPAN | 4/10/14 6:54 AM EDT

Sen. Rand Paul says he wants “100 percent” of pilots carrying weapons as it’s the best way to prevent another attack like Sept. 11, 2001.

“The goal of my bill is to have 100 percent of American pilots armed because I think it’s a very cost effective. It’s the most cost effective way of deterring another attack on our planes,” Paul said on Fox News’s “Hannity” on Wednesday night.

The Kentucky Republican says he supports recent calls to allow concealed weapons on military bases in the wake of the recent shooting at Fort Hood, but he is dealing with another concealed carry issue.

“I’m concerned about what is the most cost-effective way of preventing another 9/11: I want all pilots to be armed,” Paul said. “The president has zeroed this out of his budget. He’s advocated for getting rid of the program. And when I talk to pilots — I’m at airports all the time. Pilots come up to me all the time and say it’s too hard to get a permit and to keep up the permit.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/rand-paul-we-needs-guns-in-the-cockpit-105568.html

[tod evans]

Every free citizen should be able to carry firearms.

The only exclusion I would support would be federal agents while acting in official capacity.

[chiefsmurph]

Every free citizen should be able to carry firearms.

The only exclusion I would support would be federal agents while acting in official capacity.

I would agree except its hard for me to imagine a scenario where I would feel comfortable with other passengers bringing a firearm onto a plane.

[tod evans]

I would agree except its hard for me to imagine a scenario where I would feel comfortable with other passengers bringing a firearm onto a plane.

Do you feel "safer" knowing some double-digit fed employee is tasked with your safety?

[FindLiberty]

"All passengers should be allowed to optionally CC whenever flying". That's the only solution IMO.

The right to CC weapons for the entire public should apply everywhere 'cause there are ALWAYS far, FAR more GOOD RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE in this world compared to the number of lone nutcase(s), terrorists or even the swarms of government employees (including a worrisome number of gov employee nutcases) in any given situation / location. i.e., it's a free society, not a tyrannical dictatorship.

Big whoops to Rand's CCx2 idea:

Hard rules forcing exclusive CC for the two drivers behind that locked cockpit door presents a huge risks if ONE of 'em is (or goes) nuts while in flight!

Airplanes do not fly ONLY when BOTH armed pilots agree on positive action(s)*. It only takes ONE surviving pilot to control the flight path of that "missile"!

Rand's CCx2 suggestion won't turn out to be "safe" like an armed military, two-person nuclear warhead missile launch team, where BOTH need their keys and a valid launch code confirmation before the buttons are BOTH pressed simultaneously! If someone goes all "wrong" there at the nuke silo launch panel, ONE nutcase can't launch the ICM alone. (BTW, For reliability those launch codes have ALL been set to 0,0,0,0,0, but that's another story.)


*Maybe the airplanes should be rigged up with multiple location "driver training" controls where it only takes only 1 out of 2 pilots to take off or touch down, but it requires at least 1 pilot (who did not eat the chicken salad sandwich) and all 7 out of 9 "select" volunteer passengers (operating identical flight controls located right at their specially equipped seats in the passenger cabin) to steer and guide the airplane while it's in normal flight and during the first stages of final approach to the airport's automated landing approach system. Cooperation and teamwork would be required in order to land the aircraft safely!

This on-board computer system would be in ultimate control (since the plane already flies by wire now) to decide if a few of the 11 control input signals are too far off specification. If it detects that too many controls are not maintaining a safe flight path and contributing to the pre-programmed flight plan, an internal self-destruct explosive could be automatically activated to safely end the flight before the terrorists could gain any ground (targets).

Even if the two pilots had shot each other, it would only take 7 passenger pilots who were cooperating as if their very lives depended on it, to land the plane safely!

[Danke]

"All passengers should be allowed to optionally CC whenever flying". That's the only solution IMO.

The right to CC weapons for the entire public should apply everywhere 'cause there are ALWAYS far, FAR more GOOD RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE in this world compared to the number of lone nutcase(s), terrorists or even the swarms of government employees (including a worrisome number of gov employee nutcases) in any given situation / location. i.e., it's a free society, not a tyrannical dictatorship.

Big whoops to Rand's CCx2 idea:

Hard rules forcing exclusive CC for the two drivers behind that locked cockpit door presents a huge risks if ONE of 'em is (or goes) nuts while in flight!

Airplanes do not fly ONLY when BOTH armed pilots agree on positive action(s)*. It only takes ONE surviving pilot to control the flight path of that "missile"!

Rand's CCx2 suggestion won't turn out to be "safe" like an armed military, two-person nuclear warhead missile launch team, where BOTH need their keys and a valid launch code confirmation before the buttons are BOTH pressed simultaneously! If someone goes all "wrong" there at the nuke silo launch panel, ONE nutcase can't launch the ICM alone. (BTW, For reliability those launch codes have ALL been set to 0,0,0,0,0, but that's another story.)

I feel dumber now.

[Petar]

I feel dumber now.

Yeah, how exactly do you discharge a firearm safely from within a pressurized fuselage, or am I way off-base?

[phill4paul]

Yeah, how exactly do you discharge a firearm safely from within a pressurized fuselage, or am I way off-base?

Depends on your ammo.

[Danke]

Yeah, how exactly do you discharge a firearm safely from within a pressurized fuselage, or am I way off-base?

No you are not.

You can do a lot of damage by discharging a firearm inside a fuselage.

[gwax23]

"All passengers should be allowed to optionally CC whenever flying". That's the only solution IMO.

The right to CC weapons for the entire public should apply everywhere 'cause there are ALWAYS far, FAR more GOOD RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE in this world compared to the number of lone nutcase(s), terrorists or even the swarms of government employees (including a worrisome number of gov employee nutcases) in any given situation / location. i.e., it's a free society, not a tyrannical dictatorship.

Big whoops to Rand's CCx2 idea:

Hard rules forcing exclusive CC for the two drivers behind that locked cockpit door presents a huge risks if ONE of 'em is (or goes) nuts while in flight!

Airplanes do not fly ONLY when BOTH armed pilots agree on positive action(s)*. It only takes ONE surviving pilot to control the flight path of that "missile"!

Rand's CCx2 suggestion won't turn out to be "safe" like an armed military, two-person nuclear warhead missile launch team, where BOTH need their keys and a valid launch code confirmation before the buttons are BOTH pressed simultaneously! If someone goes all "wrong" there at the nuke silo launch panel, ONE nutcase can't launch the ICM alone. (BTW, For reliability those launch codes have ALL been set to 0,0,0,0,0, but that's another story.)

I think the owners of the plane should have a say in what goes on, on their property.

[squarepusher]

The problem with this, is that several crashes in history have actually be caused by the pilots intentionally, this would just make it easier. The Malaysian MH370 was most likely taken over by Zaharie and crashed into the Indian Ocean on purpose.

[NewRightLibertarian]

How 'brutalist' of him. Liberals on college campuses might not approve, oh no!

[FindLiberty]

The problem with this, is that several crashes in history have actually be caused by the pilots intentionally, this would just make it easier. The Malaysian MH370 was most likely taken over by Zaharie and crashed into the Indian Ocean on purpose.

YES, maybe for MH370. It's the exact conclusion/cause for a couple other crashes that probably did not even involve firearms.

THAT's the problem I was exploring/poking fun at. (and then addressing in my absurd "multi-pilot", 11 user PC flight "team play" software described in the bottom text box - post #5 above)

Danke, what happens when the co-pilot or captain (unknown, new to each other) shoots the other and then takes over those controls mid-flight?
Do you need to keep your guns in your laps at the ready and simply add each other to your eye scanning sequence list?

[jtap]

No you are not.

You can do a lot of damage by discharging a firearm inside a fuselage.

This maybe a good use for these super dangerous pellet guns http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?449229-Pellet%28airsoft%29-guns-are-now-quot-Dangerous-Weapons-quot.

[axiomata]

The correct policy is to let airlines decide so they can compete on safety in addition to comfort , cost and convenience.

[jbauer]

Pilots should be allowed to carry, teachers should be allowed to carry and on and on. There shouldn't be a gun free zone. However, forcing someone to do so shouldn't happen either.

[Brian4Liberty]

The problem with this, is that several crashes in history have actually be caused by the pilots intentionally, this would just make it easier. The Malaysian MH370 was most likely taken over by Zaharie and crashed into the Indian Ocean on purpose.

Logic fail.

The plane crashed. We don't know why (yet).

If, in your manufactured scenario, one of the pilots went crazy and took the plane down, addition of a gun will not make it go down any "easier". If anything, maybe it would allow the "good" pilot to stop the "bad" pilot.

"Oh no, we can't let pilots have guns, that would be like putting all our lives in their hands!" - Capt. Obvious

[Cabal]

Airlines should be free to train and arm their pilots, or provide their own armed security personnel on flights, or allow passengers to carry, or none of the above as they see fit.

[mit26chell]

The problem with this, is that several crashes in history have actually be caused by the pilots intentionally, this would just make it easier. The Malaysian MH370 was most likely taken over by Zaharie and crashed into the Indian Ocean on purpose.

Uhhh. Based on what evidence?

[eleganz]

It doesn't matter, Rand is playing another very smart card. Picking an issue almost everybody can agree with while bolstering his "anti-terrorist" credentials. Let's deter terrorists in anyway possible so that we can be reluctant to go to war.

[Pericles]

Nothing bad has ever happened to me while carrying a 1911A1.

[69360]

I would agree except its hard for me to imagine a scenario where I would feel comfortable with other passengers bringing a firearm onto a plane.

If you gave every passenger a gun when they board, there would be no more hijackings. Archie Bunker figured that out 40 years ago.

I'd be very comfortable knowing the whole plane was armed

[robert68]

Every free citizen should be able to carry firearms.

The only exclusion I would support would be federal agents while acting in official capacity.

The 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to those on the job in the employ of another or those on the property of another.