Allowing Airline Passengers to be Armed - Good Idea or Bad Idea?

[BuddyRey]

I was just having one of those chatty lunches with my family; the kind where no subject is out of bounds. They were talking about these two most recent attempted hijackings aboard aircraft. I proffered the idea that, perhaps, the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with airline security, that protecting passengers should be the prerogative of the airlines themselves, and that it would even be a sensible idea to allow airline pilots and/or passengers to be armed. They looked at me like I had purple mushrooms in my ears and an arrow sticking out of my forehead.

Immediately, they came back with, "that's a bad idea, because a bullet could puncture the plane, mess up the air pressure, and kill everybody." And though I highly doubted at the time that any civilian ammunition would be capable of piercing the hull of a modern-day commercial aircraft, I didn't exactly have any figures or facts to debunk this claim either.

[MelissaWV]

I was just having one of those chatty lunches with my family; the kind where no subject is out of bounds. They were talking about these two most recent attempted hijackings aboard aircraft, and I proffered the idea that, perhaps, the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with airline security, that protecting passengers should be the prerogative of the airlines themselves, and even that it would be a sensible idea to allow airline pilots and/or passengers to be armed. They looked at me like I had purple mushrooms in my ears and an arrow sticking out of my forehead.

Immediately, they came back with, "that's a bad idea, because a bullet could puncture the plane, mess up the air pressure, and kill everybody." And though I highly doubted at the time that any civilian ammunition would be capable of piercing the hull of a modern-day commercial aircraft, I didn't exactly have any figures or facts to debunk this claim either.

Regarding the actual "puncturing" of an airliner, MythBusters covered that issue once upon a time.

I don't think it's wise to have armed passengers, personally. I do believe it should be up to the airlines to agree or disagree with me, not the Federal Government. If I know a particular airline is going to allow regular passengers on board with guns/ammo, I probably wouldn't fly that one. It's a personal choice. I do believe that certain trained persons should be allowed to have weapons onboard, and I wouldn't mind the crew having access to weapons as emergency items. I mean, seriously, right now they're training flight attendants to throw coffee at hijackers, but police officers are tasing people for being "unruly." Something's screwy about the priorities there.

[RSLudlum]

If that is their concen, then why not allow the airlines' security to use tasers and other defensive weapons on their planes?

[BuddyRey]

Bump!

[Danke]

... and that it would even be a sensible idea to allow airline pilots and/or passengers to be armed. They looked at me like I had purple mushrooms in my ears and an arrow sticking out of my forehead.

.

Many pilots do fly armed. And there are FAMs (Federal Air Marshals).

[ItsTime]

I would protect my own plane thank you. I would not need my passengers and/or the government to do it for me.

[crushingstep7]

I think that's something the airline needs to decide for themselves.

[BuddyRey]

I think that's something the airline needs to decide for themselves.

Sure, I agree. I'm only asking if it's true that civilian ammunition could pierce the walls of an aircraft. Does anyone know?

[MelissaWV]

A bullet can cause explosive decompression in an airplane: busted

The pressure is not high enough and the hole is too small. Explosive decompression only occurred when a hole the size of a window was made with explosives. Even then, the rush of air could not suck Buster completely out of the hole. Lastly, there are proven instances of explosive decompression where the plane was still able to maintain control and land.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode10

REVISITED: Explosive decompression can occur when a bullet is fired through the fuselage of a pressurized airplane (From Episode 10)

re-busted

The Build Team tested the effect of air rushing past an open bullet hole, and surmised that the extra internal pressure caused by this would still not be enough to cause an explosive decompression.


http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38

[Icymudpuppy]

Sure, I agree. I'm only asking if it's true that civilian ammunition could pierce the walls of an aircraft. Does anyone know?

Civilian Ammo, or Handgun ammo?

Normal full metal jacketed rounds even fired through a .44 Magnum would not penetrate the thick walls of a pressurized airliner cabin.

Armor piercing tungsten sabots from the same caliber probably would.

Even if they did, it would not cause a catastrophic failure. The small puncture would cause the pressure to bleed out slowly, much like a small nail in your tire doesn't cause a blowout, just a slow flat. A few strips of duct-tape over the hole would probably be sufficient to hold the pressure until a safe altitude not requiring pressurization could be reached.

Myth busters has done shows about this. One where they tested the bullet resistance of Pressurized airline hulls, and one where they fired .30-06 rounds through a scuba tank to see if it would explode like in the movie JAWS. The tank just acted like a water bottle rocket. That's at 3000 psi in a 50lb scuba tank. The pressure difference at 30,000 ft is not even close to that of a scuba tank, and the scuba tank did not explode.
www.mythbustersresults.com/special8

[Danke]

Firing a gun inside an aircraft can do all kinds of damage, and kill the pilots.

[axiomata]

I'd prefer to fly on planes without firearmed passengers, but don't mind armed pilots, air marshals, or stewardesses (hawt ). Either way, it should be up to the airlines.

[RedLightning]

Should be up to the airline companies.

[Texan4Life]

Firing a gun inside an aircraft can do all kinds of damage, and kill the pilots.

this was debunked by Boing... I wish I could find the article....

[CCTelander]

Sure, I agree. I'm only asking if it's true that civilian ammunition could pierce the walls of an aircraft. Does anyone know?

Frangible ammunition solves most all of the problems associated with using firearms in enclosed spaces like on an aircraft, including the problem of overpenetration.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm

[Reason]

I would be concerned that some neocon jackass might up and blow away any suspicious looking middle eastern guy he saw.

[Bman]

I would be concerned that some neocon jackass might up and blow away any suspicious looking middle eastern guy he saw.

LOL. What makes you think they would stop there.

In agreement with the it's the airlines call.

[Southron]

Armed passengers and/or pilots could have prevented 9/11.

Let the airlines decide. I doubt they would let passengers bring firearms though. More than likely they will continue to beg for gubmint aid in security.

[Danke]

Armed passengers and/or pilots could have prevented 9/11.

Let the airlines decide. I doubt they would let passengers bring firearms though. More than likely they will continue to beg for gubmint aid in security.

If it were up to the airlines, we would not have armed pilots.

[Danke]

Frangible ammunition solves most all of the problems associated with using firearms in enclosed spaces like on an aircraft, including the problem of overpenetration.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm

So?

[Danke]

this was debunked by Boing... I wish I could find the article....

I'd really be interested in how they "debunked" how rounds can't do major damage to the aircraft (electrical, hydraulics, etc) nor kill the pilots.

[MelissaWV]

I'd really be interested in how they "debunked" how rounds can't do major damage to the aircraft (electrical, hydraulics, etc) nor kill the pilots.

I'm fairly sure the poster is referencing the same thing I posted earlier. The rounds fired did not cause explosive decompression as depicted in a lot of movies.

This does not negate, though, the fact that firing guns off in a small space is pretty bad policy. You're likely to put accidental holes in a large number of people before it's all said and done, and if it's a small plane you could theoretically kill the pilots (or damage the instruments; that'd be a bigger concern). Most commercial jets have a pretty sturdy cockpit door nowadays, though, so let's return to the passengers.

If we allowed passengers to be armed without limits, we'd be arming both sides of the standoff. That should be a given. A plane is not a steady, immobile object. There are bumps and swerves and climbs and turns that make keeping your footing a bit tricky at times. People in a heated situation, shooting at one another in a moving plane... that does not sound that ideal to me at all. It will cause damage, but I suppose the "point" is that the damage is better than the plane blowing up. It's a red herring. The vast majority of these airborn standoffs are going to occur in situations where someone is just crazy or acting like an $#@!, without a clear or executable plan. If people just get trigger-happy, it seems like a pretty $#@!ty situation all around.

The airlines should weigh all this, and they should be allowed to set policy, together with making that policy very clear to passengers so they know what they're getting into before they buy their ticket. If someone, for instance, is worried that their out of control brat (aren't they all, on planes?) is going to be seated next to a sleeping open-carry guy, and pull the gun, then that parent can book a flight on another airline altogether.

[CasualApathy]

Personally I wouldn't feel safer if everyone on the plane was armed, I would feel less safe in fact. The idea that there would be a benifit because passengers would be able to take down a potential terrorist is silly because any form of shootout would risk bringing the plane down entirely, plus the confined space would make it very likely that people would be killed in the crossfire. I would feel safer if there were armed guards in the cockpit though.

Besides, how does everyone having guns stop someone from setting off a bomb?

[CasualApathy]

I'd really be interested in how they "debunked" how rounds can't do major damage to the aircraft (electrical, hydraulics, etc) nor kill the pilots.

The mythbusters (discovery channel) actually tested this. They found that a bullet being fired through the window of an aircraft will not cause explosive decompression because the hole created simply isn't big enough. However, during a mid-air shootout i doubt only one bullet will be fired.

[Danke]

The mythbusters (discovery channel) actually tested this. They found that a bullet being fired through the window of an aircraft will not cause explosive decompression because the hole created simply isn't big enough. However, during a mid-air shootout i doubt only one bullet will be fired.

I know. Not what I am addressing. I have known about the damage munitions can do to an aircraft long before the Myth Busters program ever existed.

There are a lot of critical systems that can be disabled by penetration from bullets, including the pilots.

[pcosmar]

Basically,
No one has the right to disarm a free man.

If going armed was as common as a hat, crime and criminal activity would be drastically reduced.

[Danke]

Basically,
No one has the right to disarm a free man.

If going armed was as common as a hat, crime and criminal activity would be drastically reduced.

So I am not allowed to demand anyone who comes on my property to be disarmed?

[pcosmar]

So I am not allowed to demand anyone who comes on my property to be disarmed?

I suppose you are. But you could insult and lose friends.
Are your friends that untrustworthy?

Why would you disarm a friend?

[Danke]

I suppose you are. But you could insult and lose friends.
Are your friends that untrustworthy?

Why would you disarm a friend?

Only friends come on my property?

Have you ever seen most travelers on an aircraft, hardly people I want as my friends!


In fact, I would love to be able to deny most Feds and LEOs their guns during boarding.

[MelissaWV]

I suppose you are. But you could insult and lose friends.
Are your friends that untrustworthy?

Why would you disarm a friend?

Asking that people disarm when they come on your property shouldn't require a long list of reasons, but rather clear disclosure. It's my property. If I think that, perhaps, Danke might get a little too tipsy and start firing his gun around in the air like an idiot, that's my prejudice to claim, but my right to keep a gun out of his hands Perhaps there are kids around and I don't feel like having a bunch of folks with guns in the house is a good idea. Perhaps I personally don't like guns. Perhaps I have an aversion to the letter "g" and "guns" starts with the letter "g" Whatever the reason, even if it's utterly moronic, I should be allowed to have or not have something on my property at my own discretion.

Property also extends to tenants. Perhaps I don't want people renting from me, people I don't really know and can't vouch for, storing and having firearms in the basement apartment I'm renting them. Maybe I don't know whether or not they're smart enough to know how to properly care for their ammo, etc..