Skip to comments.Rand Paul: We Need Guns In The Cockpit
Posted on 04/10/2014 4:54:59 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Sen. Rand Paul says he wants 100 percent of pilots carrying weapons, as its 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 its a very cost effective, its the most cost effective way of deterring another attack on our planes, Paul said on Fox Newss 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.
Im 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. Hes advocated for getting rid of the program. And when I talk to pilots Im at airports all the time. Pilots come up to me all the time and say its too hard to get a permit and to keep up the permit.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Commercial airline pilots are already flying a weapon far more dangerous than the mother of all liberal fears: the assault rifle. So what’s the problem?
In this instance I agree with him
In most instances I think he’s a horse’s -ss.
Both are happening at the same time.
You know, I’m wondering all this absurd expense and hassle and intrusion we’ve allowed since 9-11 - wouldn’tit have been much much less expensive to simply have armed guard on all flights? Even 2 maybe? Armed with whatever could incapacitate a terrorist without depressurizing the cabin maybe.
I mean I’m all for pilots having guns, but I don’t know if 100% would want to or be competent in its use. We always seem to do the most expensive least effective thing as a country ..the cancer of the bureaucratic state.
ok, but please don’t pretend that would have helped in MH370
The problem is that those pilots are not “trained” government agents, as this government wants only its people armed. A pilot is just another of the sheeple and therefore to be disarmed.
“The problem is that those pilots are not trained government agents, “
Exactly, and the thought of their outgunning a terrorist attack in the cockpit is somewhere between slim and none.
Rand Paul: a legislative priority is we need guns in the cockpit.
I'm wondering where Rand's head is ...
100% is stupid. Not all are qualified or willing. Forcing them to do so is stupid.
After 9/11 they started using armed air marshals on flights, or so I heard at the time. The problem is if Muslims (or old ladies in wheel chairs, since I don’t want to profile) were doing as much planning as they did in the first attack, couldn’t they kill the armed marshal as the first order of business and get his gun? Even though they were pretending to be passengers, it might not have been hard to notice that they never got off the plane. On the other hand, the terrorists had to physically break down the doors to the cockpits, giving the pilots plenty of time to prepare.
I have never heard of ANY pistol that comes close to the difficulty of flying even a Piper Cub—let alone a 777.
Somehow, I think pilots can manage to handle guns—especially revolvers.
Better yet—reverse the seats of the first few rows and seat ‘carrying’ passengers there. Guns up front!
Yes, I know about the marshals, but as I understood it, they were not on every flight. And I hear your argument about the pre planning, and I would say two things to that:
A: nothing is perfect, including this idea, but it’s a damned sight better than what we have now and
B: we were caught with our guard down on 9-11 - that would not be the case afterwards. I think you’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the much better .
with due respect, false analogy IMO
Uh, not compitent to be armed, but compitent to fly your rear around the world at .80 Mach?
Yes,arm all pilots,if not a pistol/side-arm, or even a fully loaded pop-tart.
The best defense the AIRLINES did, was to make RULES about
LOCKING THE DOOR!! and making it STURDY enough that
it is almost impossible to SHOOT thru- or Break down!
So they went to all the trouble and expense to secure the cockpit walls and doors and make it a place where the hijackers can’t get into thus denying them control of the aircraft. So is Senator Paul suggesting that in the event of a hijacking the pilots leave that protected area and shoot it out with the hijackers? What if they lose? The hijackers now have the plane and can do what they want with it. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
Couple of things the pilots can do right now that they don't need any extra gear for or any permission from the nanny state. If/when some rag-head starts trying to break into the cockpit... One, depressurize the cabin. Jamal will be unconscious in a few seconds if he doesn't get his backside back to a seat and a mask. Two, violently maneuver the aircraft. Jamal will be a red stain on the cabin ceiling - the nose of the aircraft is very far away from the pitch center and can experience extreme G forces both positive and negative.
Granted, #1 is not a long term solution but it ends the immediate threat. Some passengers had better man-up and decide it is better to go down fighting that let Jamal have his way. A commercial pilot told me #2, said he and some fellow pilots had decided that a few broken bones on some other passengers was worth it. Said he could knock out anyone outside the cockpit door in about 30 seconds with a few violent pitch maneuvers.
You so so so so so totally missed my point ..I just don’t think 100% of pilots WANT to be competent with guns or carry one. I’m sure they’re all capable of it. And I have no problem with them having guns - the ones that want to carry - I think it’s great idea - but I was simply talking about the 100% rule.
I believe I made this clear in my first post .but I’ll doublecheck.
They were in the mid-late 30's, sitting on aisle seats, looking around a lot and each had a bulge in the upper left suit pocket. Tough looking monkeys and we felt safe on that flight.
I don’t know if our guard is more relaxed now. I took a flight from Dallas to Portland maybe 2 or 3 years after 9/11. The door to the cockpit was wide open for part of the flight. And it seems the only people the TSA are interested in frisk searching are little kids and old ladies.
We need guns in the home and on our hips first.
Why not require EVERYONE ON POST/BASE (except basic trainees) TO OPEN CARRY A SIDEARM AT ALL TIMES WHILE ON POST?
Pilots don’t want to put up with a lot of government nonsense, but we do. At least this is demonstrably beneficial.
Why not K-Bar Knives, Nun Chucks, Brass Knuckles, Tasers,
A couple bullet holes are not going to depressurise an airplane came
Not so sure this would help. First of all, guns would have to be in a lock box, probably also having a trigger lock.
Then the ammunition would have to be stored separately, in another lock box. It would require TWO pilots to turn their lockbox keys at exactly the right moment to open.
Then they would have to check the manual, explaining the correct procedure for loading and firing the weapon.
No offence to pilots, these would be FAA regulations.
Who is "their"?
They should all be trained and if they are not willing they should be fired.
The pilots are responsible for the security inside the airplane during the flight. There is no one else, unless you want to arm the flight attendants.
That's why all passengers that want to carry firearms on the flight should arm them with prefrag ammo like Glaser safety slugs. I imagine the airport gift shops would charge to much for them so passengers would need to plan ahead a little.
I’m no aviation expert by any means, but I have always been under impression that a bullet breaching a cabin at altitude would depressurize the cabin, and/or the cockpit.
But if you are into this kind of thing, I would be interested to know more.
Yep, I think having them rather obvious, and ominous, is the way to go.
Screw confiscating the shampoo and frisking wheelchair bound old ladies and handicapped kids.
If they’re not willing to use lethal force against a lethal threat to their airplane, their passengers and those on the ground they shouldn’t be commercial pilots.
An Aloha Airlines airplane that developed a sunroof in-flight survived; a bullet hole could be patched with a section of a beer can and duct tape and the airplane returned to service until its next scheduled maintenance.
Interesting ..how quickly would the bullet hole have to have the can and tape applied - in the instance of a breach during a scuffle?
You need a very large hole to depressurize a cabin that size.
Pressurization in an airplane is actually negative pressure.
That is, more air is pumped in to create an equal pressure within the cabin than escapes.
An airplane isn’t leak proof before a bullet hole. It actually leaks through several areas such as seams.
Now, if you open a hole the size of a door the pressurization isn’t going to work at all.
Thanks .you have “ejumakated me” some on this issue ...
If an airplane acquired a few bullet-holes in flight, it could probably be safely flown to its scheduled destination (though it would be prudent to land at the earliest reasonable opportunity, to keep the lawyers at bay, if nothing else).
Hmm at what altitude did the plane lose part of the fusilage?
Probably around 20000 ft, as I recall.
That’s a ride those folks will never forget .much as they’d like to.
Look up TSA holster. They forced the pilots to secure the gun with a padlock, thru the trigger guard whil not in the locked cockpit, and wondered why they had holes in the side of planes.
MythBusters did it. IIRC, the masks might drop, but the plane wouldn’t have a huge hole in the side sucking people out.
I disagree. I think we should arm all NON-Muslim pilots.
Just to add a note of humor to that story I remember a stand up comedian of the time talking about being “sucked to oblivion” and how that just might be a good thing(?!)
Up until the 1970’s if a US commercial flight carried US mail with a high dollar value, the US Postal Service handed a holstered, loaded revolver the First Officer of the flight crew... I have been told that by at least 5 old time pilots... The nanny states stopped it after the increase of high jacking’s and RFK being shot.
Some how nobody was maimed or killed! Wow!
How about letting citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment rights period... let the idiots high jacking the plane figure out who is carrying or not.
Just think about that... if we citizens could carry as the founding fathers intended... 9/11 would have never happened, no DHS, No Afghan invasion, No Tomahawk missles to the Sudan interrupting BJ Clinton getting his Lewinski...
And I honestly believe we in the US of A would not have the current police state. Crime would be minimal as would Government in general... maybe
Armed pilots WOULDN'T be needed for local, national and European flights, but south of our borders? Asia and Africa--oh yes.
slim is better than no chance in h....
PS He was also an NRA Master Counselor and a pistol competitor of some skill.