Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MORE GUNS, LESS TERRORISM? (guns on planes)
NY POST ^ | January 11, 2004 | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Posted on 01/11/2004 9:51:50 AM PST by Liz

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:18:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

As John R. Lott Jr. notes ("Getting Air Security Right," Opinion, Jan. 6), it makes no sense to say an F-16 can shoot down a passenger jet, but we can't allow armed pilots because it is too dangerous.

As commander of a potential missile, loaded with explosive fuel, a commercial pilot is already in charge of a lethal weapon. By inserting ourselves inside said missile, we've already put our lives into his hands. And we're worried about a gun in the cockpit? Some 70% of pilots have served in the military and are quite familiar with the use of firearms.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; armedmarshals; armedpilots; bang; banglist; johnlott

1 posted on 01/11/2004 9:51:50 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liz
Eric, call a cop, call an abulance and call Dominos. Guess who gets there first?
2 posted on 01/11/2004 10:05:31 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Are we there yet?
3 posted on 01/11/2004 10:06:21 AM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Yeah, and while you are landing and waiting for the police, hope that the pilot doesn't land in the middle of a building somewhere.
4 posted on 01/11/2004 10:30:30 AM PST by LaraCroft (If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, does the stupid get stupider?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Sounds like Erik is one of those cowards who wants others to do the fighting for him.
5 posted on 01/11/2004 10:34:12 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Good night Chesty, wherever you may be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
If pilots are allowed to carry guns on board and there's a disturbance in the cabin, my fear is that a crew member might be tempted to open the cockpit door in an attempt to manage the disturbance.

Or he might be tempted to sit tight and ventilate whoever breaks down the door. At that range, and through so narrow a passage, you're not going to miss some dude with a boxcutter in his hand and the jihad in his eye.

The presence of a firearm in the cockpit does nothing to make the plane safer. At the first sign of trouble, the plane should land as soon as possible and let the authorities deal with the situation on the ground.

Not safer? If the cockpit is breached and siezed, then the plane is going to land as soon as possible, right into the side of a skyscraper, and the authorities will have to deal with the situation on the ground.

Either that, or the authorities will decide they'd rather handle the problem in the air, and send an F-16 to turn that hijacked passenger plane into a fiery ball of scattered wreckage before it can reach it's target.

In either case, the situation cannot be made worse by guns, and can clearly be made better.

6 posted on 01/11/2004 10:34:52 AM PST by Steel Wolf (- Access Denied - Enter Security Override - Override Confirmed - Tagline is now Armed -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Eric's mentality is that of a three year old. "Gee Daddy, just make the boogey-man go away."
7 posted on 01/11/2004 10:38:29 AM PST by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Maybe we ought to train and arm all the flight attendants.
"Coffee, tea, or Glock?"

SM
8 posted on 01/11/2004 11:09:35 AM PST by Senormechanico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senormechanico
What? No AK47's on-board?
9 posted on 01/11/2004 12:02:34 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Heheh.....good one.
10 posted on 01/11/2004 12:04:30 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
I think they ought to ban fire-extinguishers on commerical aircraft. The flight crew are not fire-fighters, and the presence of a fire-extinguisher just distracts them from their real job -- flying the plane. If a fire breaks out onboard the aircraft, all they have to do is go to the closest airport and land -- this should only take 15 minutes or so. Then they can evacuate the aircraft and let the authorities deal with the fire. I'm sure the fire will wait the minimum 20 minutes it would take to land and evacuate the aircraft. /sarcasm
11 posted on 01/11/2004 12:05:58 PM PST by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Liz
At the first sign of trouble, the plane should land as soon as possible and let the authorities deal with the situation on the ground. Eric Schwarz Queens

Sorry junior, but that's what exactly happened on 9/11.

12 posted on 01/11/2004 12:11:40 PM PST by SKI NOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Liz said: "If pilots are allowed to carry guns on board and there's a disturbance in the cabin, my fear is that a crew member might be tempted to open the cockpit door in an attempt to manage the disturbance. "

Of all the professions with which you are familiar, why are you concerned that commercial aircraft pilots will fail to follow procedures which are decided ahead of time are in the best interests of their passengers? Why not be concerned that they might ignore tower instructions and choose to land on a runway of their choice instead of the one assigned? Why not be concerned that they might choose to fly above the safe altitude for the plane despite instructions from the manufacturer?

Are you projecting your own "feelings" that you would be unable to maintain cockpit discipline and that you would jeopardize thousands of people on the ground by leaving your duty station?

A lack of personal discipline seems to be an indicator of anti-gun "feelings". What makes you "feel" that an un-armed pilot will not leave his duty station to "manage a disturbance" in the cabin? Do you think that pilots are cowards who would only be emboldened to take action if they are armed?

Do you "feel" that you would fail to assist in a cabin disturbance simply because you lack a firearm. Have we learned nothing from Flight 93? If terrorists threaten us, then we must fight them and kill them.

13 posted on 01/11/2004 12:22:49 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Sorry, Liz.

I mis-attributed the letter of "Eric Schwarz Queens" to you. My mistake.

14 posted on 01/11/2004 12:29:05 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Eric is worse than a coward, 'cause Eric won't let others protect either themselves or him.

As socialists always want a disarmed populace so that they can enforce their socialist mechanisms on a helpless populace, it is safe to say that Eric is, based on his arguement, a socialist.

15 posted on 01/11/2004 12:42:17 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Would you please remove posts 13, 14, and this one?

Thanks.

16 posted on 01/11/2004 1:40:09 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liz
At the first sign of trouble, the plane should land as soon as possible

LOL! They should ask for a "timeout" while they turn the plane around and fly to the nearest landing strip.

and let the authorities deal with the situation on the ground.

What does he mean by "authorities"? Is his Mistress going to take them with her strap-on after the landing?

In a Free society, "We the People" are the "authorities".

17 posted on 01/11/2004 1:43:14 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The article quotes a letter writer who said: "If pilots are allowed to carry guns on board and there's a disturbance in the cabin, my fear is that a crew member might be tempted to open the cockpit door in an attempt to manage the disturbance. "

Of all the professions with which he is familiar, why is he concerned that commercial aircraft pilots will fail to follow procedures which are decided ahead of time are in the best interests of their passengers? Why is he not concerned that they might ignore tower instructions and choose to land on a runway of their choice instead of the one assigned? Why is he not concerned that they might choose to fly above the safe altitude for the plane despite instructions from the manufacturer?

Is he projecting his own "feelings" that he would be unable to maintain cockpit discipline and that he would jeopardize thousands of people on the ground by leaving his duty station?

A lack of personal discipline seems to be an indicator of anti-gun "feelings". What makes him "feel" that an UN-ARMED pilot will not leave his duty station to "manage a disturbance" in the cabin? Does he think that pilots are cowards who would only be emboldened to take action if they are armed?

Does he "feel" that he would fail to assist in a cabin disturbance simply because he lacks a firearm. Have we learned nothing from Flight 93? If terrorists threaten us, then we must fight them and kill them.

18 posted on 01/11/2004 1:49:48 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Guns in the cockpit certainly couldn't have made 9/11 worse.

An understatement if I ever heard one.

It would have been much better if the passengers had been given a chance and all been armed. Guns against boxcutters! The boxcutters' purpose was to slit a few throats and accelerate the terror.

The statement to the effect that at first sign of trouble the plane should be landed is ludicrous.

19 posted on 01/11/2004 1:49:53 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
What was the problem, pray tell William, with #13?
20 posted on 01/11/2004 1:50:55 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman; Liz
JesseHousman asks: "What was the problem, pray tell William, with #13?"

Justifiably unappreciated mis-attribution.

The line of asterisks in the posted article caused me to mistakenly read the content after the asterisks as if they were comments of the poster. They are not. They are the second of two "letters to the editor".

21 posted on 01/11/2004 1:57:21 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Unfortunately, I thought the same thing.

Too bad Liz didn't add a comment or two to her posting.

Unfortunately, she cleared up all the confusion with her subsequent comments.

22 posted on 01/11/2004 2:06:40 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Unfortunately, I thought the same thing.

Too bad Liz didn't add a comment or two to her posting.

She cleared up all the confusion with her subsequent comments.

23 posted on 01/11/2004 2:07:16 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman
Hiccup.
24 posted on 01/11/2004 2:07:36 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman
...my fear is that a crew member might be tempted to open the cockpit door in an attempt to manage the disturbance.

Fear is not to be used in deciding how to defend against terrorist scum.

However, it is the writer's fear that firearm owners have been right all along that causes such opposition to a logical course of action.

25 posted on 01/11/2004 2:15:26 PM PST by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Schwarz is a fool and, likely, a coward.
He presents no evidence that firearms in the cockpit will make the flight MORE dangerous and there is a good reason to believe that that they might make the flight safer. Therefore pilots should be armed.

I like the idea of arming the flight attendents too, if just with stunguns and collapsable batons. Might need to evaluate the flight attendants, though.
26 posted on 01/11/2004 2:21:46 PM PST by Little Ray (Why settle for a Lesser Evil? Cthuhlu for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
WE ARE WINNING!!!!!

For years, conservatives have said "have faith in the people".

For years, conservatives have supported small gov't and more citizen involvement.

For years, conservatives have said that the true solution to so many of our problems is not more gov't, but an informed, active public.

It is coming true today.

Flight 93. The citizens fight back.

The Shoe Bomber. Restrained by citizens.

Sadaam Hussein -- intel from Iraqis.

It is the people that will win this war on terror. We will stop the next attack---if we get involved and not allow ourselves to be complacent and weak.

Guns in the cockpit --- HELL YES!

Guns everywhere! Let's get the reciprocity bill passed ASAP so citizens can be armed and stop the next attack.
27 posted on 01/11/2004 2:23:05 PM PST by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"my fear is that a crew member might be tempted to open the cockpit door in an attempt to manage the disturbance.

Legislation and public policy should be based on truth, not irrational fear, which is at the root of far more evil than guns could possibly ever be.

28 posted on 01/11/2004 2:39:00 PM PST by Imal (Truth is a balm to the righteous, and a poison to the wicked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
What advice would Mr. Schwarz have for a pilot when the plane is attacked half-way across the Atlantic Ocean?
29 posted on 01/11/2004 3:46:05 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi; *bang_list

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe; Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

30 posted on 01/11/2004 6:52:08 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (DON'T BLAME ME! I Voted for McClintock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"Have we learned nothing from Flight 93? If terrorists threaten us, then we must fight them and kill them."

Yes indeed! And you'd better be quick about it, else the U.S Government will have their F16 kill all of you.

31 posted on 01/11/2004 7:05:32 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
""There is no more pathetic example of a man, no more worthless waste of masculinity, than a man who will not protect himself and those weaker than he. Only fools, cowards, criminals and terrorists are afraid of good men with guns."

Search4Truth 01/04/2004

32 posted on 01/11/2004 7:07:23 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
Very good analogy!
33 posted on 01/12/2004 6:54:58 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson