|
Airplanes & Guns: from Angel Shamaya September 19, 2001 |
 |
Posted on 09/20/2001 7:59:54 AM PDT by sendtoscott
|
Airplanes & Guns: from Angel Shamaya September 19, 2001 |
|
Following the dreadful morning when four American commercial airliners were used to murder thousands of people in the span of a couple of hours, there has been much discussion of arming pilots. Many people are also saying that even properly trained citizens should be allowed to carry firearms on planes, as well.
To facilitate the discussions about whether or not to allow guns onto airplanes and who should or should not be allowed to carry them, we need to dispense with at least 12 Myths under which some people appear to be baffled. It's also a good idea to proceed in this conversation based on facts, reason and logic -- setting aside anything else, especially emotional or illogical dismissal of the facts.
We must also assume that anyone who cannot refute the facts reasonably must be unable to do so because the facts stand up under scrutiny -- and dismiss their emotional and illogical assertions as irrelevant.
"On the overall question: 'Is shooting hijackers on aircraft an appropriate thing to do considering the risk of damaging the operational integrity of the aircraft,' the answer is 'Hell Yes.' I've been a licensed aircraft mechanic for over 20 years, and I am the Lead Technician for a Major Airline. I know aircraft. It's pretty tough to down a transport category aircraft with small arms fire. Boeing's 737s, 757s and the rest are very much like bulldozers with wings on them in that regard." -- Dan Todd, Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years, Lead Technician for a Major Airline (more from Dan)
"One or even several bullets puncturing the pressure cabin wall would be hardly noticeable and the aircraft's pressurization control would easily cope with the slight loss of air. The likelihood of a single bullet causing a massive structural failure is so remote as to be insignificant." -- David M., Licensed Aircraft Engineer, (more from David)
| MYTH #2 A citizen or a pilot with a firearm on an airplane might shoot innocent people.
|
1) Many citizens and pilots have fired more rounds of ammunition than most government employees and have demonstrated an expert level of competence beyond that of a large percentage of government employees. 2) Is there some Law of Physics that makes a government employee or hired Sky Marshal on an airplane a better shot than a citizen who can outshoot them on the range? 3) On September 11, 2001, over 5,000 innocent people died due to hijackings. Given that fact, would one or two citizens injured on board but the hijackers subdued have been a worse outcome? 4) From commercial airline pilot, Captain Dennis Jackson:
|
| MYTH #3 If you arm pilots with guns, problems could occur.
|
1) Pilots command technologically-advanced, multi-million dollar aircrafts that take extensive training and testing to operate. Why are we to believe that pilots cannot handle a revolver? 2) Which is more difficult to operate: a multi-million dollar airplane with hundreds of knobs, buttons, gauges, levers and hundreds of moving parts -- or a point and shoot revolver? 3) If we trust pilots not to crash their planes and kill everyone on board, why should we not trust them to prevent terrorists from taking over the plane and killing everyone on board?
|
| MYTH #4 A citizen using a gun on a plane might kill an innocent person. |
1) Over 5,000 innocent people were just killed by terrorist hijackers. If one or two people on the plane had taken friendly fire while the terrorists were dispatched by armed citizens, would that have been worse than losing 5,000 people, both World Trade Center buildings, a wing of the Pentagon, tremendous economic losses both nationally and internationally, and giving a victory to America's enemies? 2) If several people on board are armed, including the pilot, do you honestly believe someone will try to hijack that plane? (If so, please cite the source of the information upon which you base your opinion.) 3) "On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters." -- CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 109, TRUST THE PEOPLE: THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL, by David Kopel |
| MYTH #5 Carrying a firearm on a plane is too much responsibility to give to a citizen. |
1) Government employees and Sky Marshals are citizens, too. What special ability do they have that a properly trained citizen who can outshoot them at the range does not have or cannot develop? 2) Where is it written that a government employee or Sky Marshal is "more responsible" than a citizen? And who wrote it? And what is their motivation for promoting such a belief? |
| MYTH #6 Pilots and citizens are not competent enough to handle a firearm on a plane. |
1) Does that include those who:
2) "Many of the old codgers driving sky buses these days (my age) were flying C130's, fighter jets, high-altitude spy planes, etc. in Viet Nam, and I guarantee they were packing .45's, .38's or even Swedish K's while doing so. What makes them less capable now?" -- Bill Dietrick, Firearms Coalition of Colorado |
| MYTH #7 If you take a firearm onto an airplane, a hijacker could take your gun from you. |
1) If pilots and citizens could not maintain possession of their guns under any circumstances -- even if they had extensive training in weapons retention and military experience in hand to hand combat -- why are we to believe that a Sky Marshal or government employee could maintain possession of his weapon? 2) Could a hijacker take weapons away from 20 armed passengers? 3) "If that were so, perhaps the safest thing we could do would be to let hijackers take guns onto planes, so that good citizens could take those guns away and have them to use against the hijackers. The fact that we wouldn't consider this for a second exposes the intellectual poverty of this argument." -- C.D. Tavares |
| MYTH #8 An armed pilot or armed citizens are no match for crazed, suicidal terrorists. |
1) Please describe how 6 suicidal terrorists could outmatch 20 armed passengers who are committed to living and landing safely. 2) Please explain how 1 or 2 Sky Marshals (or one lone pilot) will outmatch 6 suicidal terrorists in all ways, including strength, agility, physical prowess, dedication to the task at hand and overall ability to handle the situation. 3) "UNARMED citizens on flight 93 showed that they were a match for crazed, suicidal terrorists. Had they been armed, they might have even saved their own lives as well as ours." -- C.D. Tavares
|
| MYTH #9 No amount of training could justify giving a pilot or passengers the right to carry a firearm aboard an airplane. |
1) What kind of training can a Sky Marshal or a government employee get that a citizen or pilot cannot get? 2) What makes a Sky Marshal or a government employee better able to learn than a citizen or a pilot? |
| MYTH #10 A pilot or citizens having guns on airplanes is not safe. |
1) How safe were the passengers on board the planes that were crashed into the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania? 2) Given the fact that there are many thousands of citizens and plenty of pilots who can outshoot most government employees, why is it safer to have a government employee hold the gun? 3) What kind of training can a government employee get that cannot be provided to pilots and passengers? |
| MYTH #11 A lot of innocent people could get hurt or killed if we allow properly trained pilots and/or passengers to carry guns on airplanes. |
A full 747 can hold up to 524 passengers. At least 5,500 people are believed to have died as a result of the hijackings on September 11, 2001. Which number is higher? |
| MYTH #12 "We don't want the plane to depressurize at 30,000-feet because someone thinks they saw a hijacker." -- Representative Greg Walden (quoted here, his website, his email address) |
1) Concealed carry permit holders are among the most lawful people in our society. Anyone who has a valid report of a concealed carry permit holder opening fire "because they thought they saw" a criminal is invited to provide credible information for verification (as opposed to emotion-rich but fact-poor rhetoric). 2) Are we also to believe that a government employee or Sky Marshal would behave differently than a citizen if "they think they see a hijacker?" If so, why? What abilities of discernment have been bestowed upon government employees and Sky Marshals that cannot be bestowed upon citizens and pilots? 3) People who oppose the right to self-defense on the ground ought not even be considered in this discussion, because their anti-gun fairy tales have already been disproved on the ground. Cities where concealed carrying of firearms have been decriminalized are safer than they were before restrictions were lifted. (See More Guns, Less Crime by Professor John Lott.) |
On Depressurization from Dan Todd On the overall question: "Is shooting hijackers on aircraft an appropriate thing to do considering the risk of damaging the operational integrity of the aircraft," the answer is "Hell Yes." I've been a licensed aircraft mechanic for over 20 years, and am the Lead Technician for a Major Airline. I know aircraft. I've been an active shooter for a lot longer than that and I know firearms and ammunition too. So I suppose I'm entitled to an opinion on the matter. By the way, there is special ammunition just for this application. First of all, there already is a "hole" in the aircraft, for regulating the cabin pressure. It's called the outflow valve. It modulates to maintain desired cabin pressure, in response to signals from a cabin pressure controller, which responds to inputs from a selector panel in the cockpit, all automatic when it's all working normally. There's also always pressurized cabin air leaking out past door seals and a few other places. Remember, the airplane is pressurized by a constant flow of compressed air into the cabin from the engines (via the pneumatic systems and the air conditioning systems). If one round, or two or three for that matter pierce the skin, it's not necessarily catastrophic; air will go whistling out the hole, and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the desired cabin pressure. Now if the bullet hits a cabin window, it could I suppose take out pane completely and then there would be a real problem. That would be enough air whooshing out fast enough to cause a complete depressurization, someone could be extruded through the open window frame (it has happened) and some people wouldn't get their masks on fast enough to keep from passing out. Emergency exits cannot be opened at altitude. About 8 psi would be a typical differential pressure at altitude, and the doors are plug doors, meaning that to get one open it has to move inside the airplane first, so it's 8 lbs X too many square inches to be physically possible. On bomber aircraft, the crew compartment is pressurized, the bomb rack and bay area is not. The pilot compartment on fighter aircraft is pressurized. With regard to bullets penetrating aircraft skin, well, the skin isn't made to stop bullets, but putting a small hole in the fuselage isn't necessarily a big deal, hitting a control cable would be undesirable but again, not a for sure disaster. Same with a hydraulic line, same for an electrical cable. In summary, it's pretty tough to down a transport category aircraft with small arms fire. Boeing's 737s, 757s and the rest are very much like bulldozers with wings on them in that regard. Dan Todd, Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years from David M. One or even several bullets puncturing the pressure cabin wall would be hardly noticeable and the aircraft's pressurization control would easily cope with the slight loss of air. The likelihood of a single bullet causing a massive structural failure is so remote as to be insignificant. It is quite possible that gunfire in the cockpit or passenger cabin could cause damage to fuel, hydraulic or electrical lines but again it would have to be unlucky to cause a major problem that could not be survived. Commercial jets pressurization systems are designed to maintain the cabin at a pressure altitude of not exceeding 8 or 9 thousand feet no matter how high the plane is flying, and they do this with a typical differential of maximum 6 to 9 psi. Rapid depressurization is uncommon and systems warn of creeping depressurization because at a cabin altitude of over 15000 feet blackout is likely to occur but by then the oxygen masks will have long before deployed typically at around 10 to 12000 feet pressure altitude. I believe I read somewhere that a Boeing 747 can lose five cabin windows and maintain cabin pressure so I personally would not be worried about a few potentially life saving shots being fired by a sky marshal - what effect that might have on ones hearing is another matter entirely! Regards, David.
Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years
Lead Technician for a Major Airline
Lead Technician for a Major Airline
September 17, 2001
Licensed Aircraft Engineer
September 17, 2001
We have to ask the question seriously: Would we be willing to accept restrictions on the types of firearms we could carry on aircraft, if it meant that concealed carry would be permitted? And if so, would we be willing to accept the verification processes that would be necessitated by such regulations?
I don't have the answer, but it's an interesting area for debate.
Such as one of the perp's fingers.
1) Please describe how 6 suicidal terrorists could outmatch 20 armed passengers who are committed to living and landing safely.The same could be said of 6 suicidal terrorists against 20 passengers armed only with a few pocket knives and their bare hands. The question presupposes that passengers are committed to defense. They're not.
Passengers aren't (or at least weren't last Tuesday) committed to doing anything to defend themselves, each other and the plane. They think that they can sit in their seats, cooperate with the hijackers and wait for "the authorities" to handle the situation and rescue them.
Until that attitude changes, we're doomed.
There was a hard lesson about this last week. It was a lesson about the value of people prepared to defend themselves. It was about the "citizen militia" and how it is sorely needed. But "the authorities" including our leaders and media are not talking about that. They're using the tragedy to give more power to "the authorities" so that "the authorities" will be able to protect us better.
Until there's a cultrual change, and a recognition that we are responsible for our own self defense and the defense of those immediately around us, the terrorists will continue to have a field day.
They weren't because up until then air piracy had not involved the application of aircraft as suicide bombs.
The passengers had a reasonable expectation, given the history of hijackings, that cooperation would lead to their being left unharmed.
The passengers of the flight that crashed in PA apparently learned of the disposition of the earlier two flights and acted acccordingly.
I suspect that any future hijacking attempts (should they occur- God forbid) would be met with similar measures.
"Whole Lotta Folks" showing up at the local retailer of firearms just realized *something*.
I mean *way* in excess of normal traffic.
Strawman.
The NRA you've been looking at must be different from the one I've been looking at.
Quite frankly I see them as tossing half a loaf to our enemies in the hope of not ending up with no bread at all.
My indoor range won't let me shoot .50BMG because they don't want ventilation in excess of that which was intended by the range designer.
L. Neil Smith has protagonists in one of his books boarding an aircraft and getting asked if they had air travel-approved ammunition in their weapons as part of the boarding process.
Frankly I like the 'redneck bar' scenario where, at the door, they ask you if you have any weapons and if you respond negatively they offer to rent you some.
Another scenario would be for there to be Glasers for sale at the ticket counter.
1) Many citizens and pilots have fired more rounds of ammunition than most government employees and have demonstrated an expert level of competence beyond that of a large percentage of government employees.
Note the switch from Sky Marshal to government employee. False comparision.
2) Is there some Law of Physics that makes a government employee or hired Sky Marshal on an airplane a better shot than a citizen who can outshoot them on the range?
There is a lot more involved than shooting here. IMO airplanes represent unique tactical problems that the average CCW holder is not trained to handle. Another poster has suggested a special CCW-ATQ (Air Travel Qualified) permit for those willing to take some tactical training, and I think that's a good idea.
Or better yet, the perp's face...
WE SIMPLY MUST ASK OUR "LEADERS" WHY THEY DID NOT!!
AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT PLAN, ASK THE SURVIVORS OF THE 5,000 FORMER AMERICANS IF THEY WOULD AGAIN TRADE THEIR LOVED ONES TO APPEASE THE OH-SO DELICATE SENSIBILITIES OF SARAH BRADY AND THE MORONS AT HANDGUN CONTROL. ANYBODY ELSE WONDER WHY WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM SINCE 9-11?
As America continues to reel from the catastrophic events of 9/11, we need to rethink a few things:
It’s probably time to train and ARM the cockpit crews of US carriers who agree to the program. Many of the commercial pilots I know are FORMER MILITARY and already have extensive firearms training and experience. Pilots and FOs who do not want the responsibility can be exempted. It was, after all, the folks controlling the aircraft who were the targets on Terrible Tuesday.
During the rash of hijackings of a few decades ago, the feds put armed “AIR MARSHALS” on many flights. While some correctly argued that a fuselage punctured by a bullet at 35,000 feet MIGHT – repeat MIGHT bring the plane down – hijackings fell off.
One thing we know for sure about the four craft hijacked on 9/11: They ALL CAME DOWN and THEY ALL DIED!!
And to those who will inevitably – and stupidly – argue that pilots and FOs just cannot be trusted with the decision about when it’s time to pull a trigger, better tell the up to 400 folks sitting in the back that the guys up front are judgment-impaired!
Personally, I’d prefer to take my chances with a rapid decompression than watch some madman take MY flight into a building or the ground at 500 mph. That was the final experience of 266 fellow humans on 9/11. I KNOW I – like they – won’t survive that!
And pay VERY close attention to the "solutions" being offered by those in government: They are NOT talking about REMOVING the limitations they have ALREADY placed on us as individuals to DEFEND OURSELVES. They are beginning to talk about FURTHER RESTRICTIONS on our liberties and MORE GOVERNMENT! More GOVERNMENT? The same GOVERNMENT that failed so miserably in its obligation to protect citizens that 5,000 of them died like cattle in a slaughterhouse on September 11th? THAT GOVERNMENT?? </font color=red>
It’s again the old, old story: There aren’t TOO many weapons out there. It’s that the touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy PC crowd now sees to it that all too frequently, THE WRONG PEOPLE HAVE THEM!
They weren't because up until then air piracy had not involved the application of aircraft as suicide bombs.That's true.
The passengers had a reasonable expectation, given the history of hijackings, that cooperation would lead to their being left unharmed.That's also true, given the information that was widely available at the time.
However, I made this statement very early after the incident, and another Freeper pointed out several instances where hijackers had crashed planes and/or killed all passengers and crew aboard hijacked planes. Apparently, the media thought it would be irresponsible to report these incidents and scare everybody.
The passengers of the flight that crashed in PA apparently learned of the disposition of the earlier two flights and acted acccordingly.While I acknowledge there were some heroics by the passengers of flight 93, and I really don't want to diminish that. I also have to say that this was definitely a case of "better late than never."
I suspect that any future hijacking attempts (should they occur- God forbid) would be met with similar measures.I hope you are correct in this assessment.
However, I'm worried that the media and the leaders of this country aren't pushing that message. There are things that they could be saying to prepare American's for this war. But they won't because they'd rather take the power and the money and the control that Americans are willing to give up for an empty promise of safety and security.
The cartoon in Myth # 8 in the main article here could just as easily been 3 hijackers with their boxcutters with a passenger behind each holding a pocket knife to the hijackers throat and two other passengers holding each hijacker's arms.
People like to say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well, let me tell you, if that's true, then it's also true that guns don't protect people, people protect people.
The truth is that the American citizen militia had 3 terrible tragedies and one significant loss last week.
The passengers on flight 93 were heroic. However, the fact remains that they outnumbered their hijackers 8 or 9 to 1 and still gave up control of the airplane. It wasn't until after they lost control of the plane that they decided that they had to act to defend their fellow Americans. When they did, they heroically gave up their lives.
The passengers on the other 3 flights did nothing to defend themselves or this country. They outnumbered their hijackers by 12 to 1 or more. Yet they just sat there and did nothing. They are victims, yes, but they are also very poor excuses for members of our citizen militia.
The response so far by the government has been to further restrict airline passengers from having defensive weapons. There's been no mention in any of the stories that airline passengers in the future should resist hijackings. Nobody has pointed out that every able bodied American citizen has a duty to protect this country and it's people. All that's been presented is further restrictions on liberties and more money and powers for "the authorities."
All we've heard is that "the authorities" are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening in the future. Well, that's great, but what happens when they fail and it happens again. More sheep will be slaughtered. And "the authorities" will do even more and we'll be even less free.
We have to break this cycle, and we should try very hard to break it now. We may not get many more chances.
"Whole Lotta Folks" showing up at the local retailer of firearms just realized *something*.That's good news. But having the equipment is only a small part of the solution.I mean *way* in excess of normal traffic.
Having the right attitude is more important.
I'll say it again. Guns don't protect people, people protect people.
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.
