Airplanes w/ Guns

[0zzy]

Ron Paul, when talking about gun control, mentions how it could have stopped 9/11 in his speeches. But I think more crime would happen if every citizen had guns onboard on airplanes, unless he was only referring to the pilots and stewardess?

I don't know, that could turn people off. But, he has a point. What do you guys think?

[AnotherAmerican]

Ron Paul, when talking about gun control, mentions how it could have stopped 9/11 in his speeches. But I think more crime would happen if every citizen had guns onboard on airplanes, unless he was only referring to the pilots and stewardess?


The problem with guns on airplanes is that the cabin walls are stuffed with electrical and hydraulic lines that make the airplane work. Bullets flying around the cabin are BAD, and just one hitting the wrong line could bring down the aircraft. Depressurization isn't a picnic either.

The only people I think should have the option of "carrying" on-board an airliner (since you asked), are the pilots. They're almost all ex-military anyway, so they know what they're doing (small-caliber hollow-points, and don't miss). We're already trusting them with our lives in-flight anyway, so what the hey?

Anyway, hijacking is a "done thing." It stopped being viable at around 9:30 AM on 9/11/01. The only thing that ever made hijacking possible was that the standing rule that the crew should cooperate, on the assumption that the plane would land and negotiations would commence. That rule is no longer operative.

[Matt]

Pilots were allowed to carry guns until 1994 and I don't remember there being any incidents. Of course there might be some added risk but I'll bet that there's a much greater chance of the plane crashing than someone getting shot on the plane. This makes it pretty much a non issue. And the risk would be well worth it in the case of a hijacking where the alternative is getting crashed into a building. In any case, Ron Paul's position is that the airlines should set their own weapons policy since they're liable for anything that happens to you and therefore motivated to make the best choices.

[0zzy]

Ya, that's the feeling I get from Ron Paul. However, the airlines would only allow pilots to have guns and not passengers, which would sorta reverse the whole situation. But from what I understand, it was illegal for the pilots to have guns? I think he should make that more clear and not make it sound like he endorses guns on planes. Though it was only one speech I heard him talk about it that made it sound that way.

I still support him and I support pilots having guns on planes :).

[Gee]

Paul would leave it up to the airlines to make their own rules. I doubt any would allow passengers to carry weapons. Imagine it... Each of the major airlines would compete for the easiest and safest security checkpoints. The process would undoubtedly look much different than it is today, and would probably all run much smoother and more transparently.

And I think everyone knows the problem which guns cause on airplanes. However, I don't think its likely pilots would be issued guns with normal rounds. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could devise another weapon, such as tasers.

[ShaneC]

Regarding cabin penetration....What about the "less-than-lethal" ammo?

[BravoSix]

People routinely carry guns on airplanes. Air Marshals as part of their job, any Federal law enforcement agent, and state and local cops on official business with a need to carry.

Cabin penetration is a minimal risk when proper ammunition is used. Depressurization is a myth.

[angelatc]

I don't know, that could turn people off. But, he has a point. What do you guys think?

I think you're right. It does turn people off, and he indeed has a point.

[angelatc]

And I think everyone knows the problem which guns cause on airplanes. However, I don't think its likely pilots would be issued guns with normal rounds. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could devise another weapon, such as tasers.

Aren't a large number of pilots ex-Nevy and Air Force pilots? I think they could be trusted with a guns.

[freelance]

stewardess

??????????????????????

You have got to be kidding! That term died back in the late 60s/early 70s!

[nullvalu]

agreed. Pilots don't just go around randomly attack their passengers... What makes you think they would if they had a gun?

[micahnelson]

You have got to be kidding! That term died back in the late 60s/early 70s!

Yeah, so did sound money. We still throw that one around, lol.

The issue is that safety should be left to the airlines. They want you to feel safe, but at the same time want to minimize hassle getting on planes. Maybe some airline decides that it won't allow carry-ons but will provide free food and drinks? Maybe a competitor will follow the standards we have today. Maybe another airline has loose rules but requires ten years of citizenship and no criminal record for all passengers.

Eventually the system that best reflects the will of the people would emerge.

[freelance]

The issue is that safety should be left to the airlines. They want you to feel safe, but at the same time want to minimize hassle getting on planes. Maybe some airline decides that it won't allow carry-ons but will provide free food and drinks?

In the broad scheme of things, these are not safety issues--not even carry-on luggage. If it fits, what's the big deal? It's always been more of a power trip than anything else.

In a totally free market, what do you do about airlines that cut safety corners? AirTran comes to mind--I can't remember their old name, but they changed it to AirTran after the horrible publicity following their fatal accident.

You can't leave airline safety to the states, and you can't just leave it the free market (faith). So, how do you address the safety issue?

I know about one airline that went private for a period of time. During that time, IF the passengers had known about all the cut corners, the planes would have flown empty. I know this for a fact. When employees called the FAA and had aircraft grounded for legitimate safety issues, they were fired (and subsequently rehired).


Eventually the system that best reflects the will of the people would emerge.

But, how many would die needless deaths in the interim?

[angelatc]

In the broad scheme of things, these are not safety issues--not even carry-on luggage. If it fits, what's the big deal? It's always been more of a power trip than anything else.

In a totally free market, what do you do about airlines that cut safety corners? AirTran comes to mind--I can't remember their old name, but they changed it to AirTran after the horrible publicity following their fatal accident.

You can't leave airline safety to the states, and you can't just leave it the free market (faith). So, how do you address the safety issue?

I know about one airline that went private for a period of time. During that time, IF the passengers had known about all the cut corners, the planes would have flown empty. I know this for a fact. When employees called the FAA and had aircraft grounded for legitimate safety issues, they were fired (and subsequently rehired).

But, how many would die needless deaths in the interim?

I'm perfectly fine leaving it to the Free Market. If the pilot thinks it will stay in the air, then I'm good.

[Kregener]

Come on, the days of extremists taking over planes with plastic knives is O-V-E-R. It was a one-time shot and they know it, even without the Police State histrionics we saw as a result.

And yes, every pilot should have a firearm with sub-sonic, frangible ammo.

The guy is flying an aluminum tube filled with jet fuel at 500 mph. A gun in his hands is the least of your worries.

[freelance]

The guy is flying an aluminum tube filled with jet fuel at 500 mph. A gun in his hands is the least of your worries.

I agree on that part.


If the pilot thinks it will stay in the air, then I'm good.

Looks good on paper, doesn't it?