An interesting discussion over at pistol-forum.com ensued when someone floated the idea of a special super-duper grade of CCW permit that would allow passengers to tote on airlines, trusting on the expense of the training and the stringent qualification requirements to weed out the idiots.
The opinions, as such on the internets are wont to do, split into as many camps as there were posters, ranging from "Shall Not Be Infringed!" to "I'm pretty sure I don't want to be packed into a flying cattle car with Cletus coonfingering his Hi-Point at FL320."
I definitely agree that there are few more challenging environments to deploy a pistol than a narrow metal tube packed with screaming, moving no-shoots, and with a better-than-even chance that your backstop is going to be the instrument panel and the two meat stick actuators sitting in front of it. There's a reason that Federal Air Marshals have the strictest quals in the gun-toting business and that FFDOs aren't trusted to take the gun out of the cockpit...
On the other hand, it was within my lifetime (albeit just barely so) that Cletus could legally order hisself a pistol in the mail and then carry it onto an airplane with no more difficulty than carrying it past the "No Guns Allowed" sign at the local shopping mall, and I don't think shootouts in Coach Class were notably common events, so there's a reasonable counterargument that GCA '68 and the TSA security probulators are preventing gun battles over the window seat in much the same way they're preventing elephants from dancing on the drink cart.
Is the "blood in the aisles/shootouts over the in-flight magazine" argument really just the same as the "blood in the streets/shootouts over a parking spot" argument? I mean, I've seen some real idiots shooting and CCWing guns and yet, at the end of the day, surprisingly little carnage results from it.
In my bloodier-minded moments, the only "If it saves one life!" argument that really sways me is when the "one life" in question is mine. It may be callous to phrase it this way, but society accepts a lot of collateral damage with the sale of things like cars and booze and swimming pools, but gets all clenched up over firearms...
I'm of mixed mind on this. Don't Marshals carry frangible ammo that won't penetrate the tin tube, thus preventing depressurization at high altitudes?
ReplyDeleteOf course, I guess if you're in a situation where you have to shoot...that may be the least of your worries.
Depressurization by bullet is really a non-event. Falls into the "meh, big deal category. It is non explosive contrary to popular belief and in fact most airplanes would just leak a bit and wouldn't even depressurize at all. If it did, it would be slow enough that the pilot could easily descend in time to avoid the need for oxygen masks at all. Of all the things to wprry about in an in flight shootout, depressurization is not one of them.
DeleteIndeed, MythBusters long ago covered that.
DeleteA lot of someone's opinion about the advisability of airplane carry is whether that someone views most other people as unintelligent, poorly educated (as in, not Ivy League), socially awkward (as in, doesn't want to respect his betters, and authority), and otherwise "not like me".
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is a bit foolish to argue over fantasies. The spirit of Frances Oldham Kelsey says it will never happen.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's fine by me. Experience tells us that any flying troublemaker will get United 93d P.D.Q.
And from a larger political perspective,
ReplyDelete"I've seen some real idiots shooting and CCWing guns and yet, at the end of the day, surprisingly little carnage results from it."
And that carnage is pretty much local news.
But if it happens on an airplane...
El Al Airlines contacts select frequent flyers with military or police backgrounds and asks them if they're interested in a free lunch and quicky training course. If they say yes, they learn when (and when not) to use the 20 gage single shot pistol that will always be holstered under their seat when they fly Israeli Airlines.
ReplyDeleteNot a bad compromise, getting stable business folks with Mil/Cop backgrounds as unofficial air marshals for the cost of a free lunch and a safety update every few months, and I bet Omar and the boys would be really upset having 8 or 11 big bore pistols pointing at them from as many different directions.
Given the greater incidence of aircraft hi-jacking by the islamist types over the incidence of gun fights over who got what aisle seat before the FAA/TSA Probulation Act, I would be far happier with every licensed carry permit holder being issued a box of frangible ammo in their choice of caliber at the gate and then being given a quick intro with the Captain, First Officer and the other armed passengers before boarding the plane. Seats would be adjusted to put these folks in aisle seats around the aircraft in a balanced arrangement.
ReplyDelete911 alone has a higher body count than any of the other scenarios of a bad shoot could present. I'd rather the passengers have better than a fighting chance than having to go down with their carry on as an improvised weapon.
LCB, I don't know if frangible ammo will or won't penetrate the skin of the airliner (I'd bet it would to some extent), but the issue of decompression is WAY overblown.
ReplyDeleteThe fuselage is NOT airtight... there's plenty of leakage as it is. The bleed air from the engines keep things pressurized at altitude. Even if an airliner suffers catastrophic decompresson, it's not necessarily fatal to the bird. An Aloha Airlines 737 (flight 243) became a convertible at cruising altitude some years ago and the only fatality was an attendant who was swept out of the cabin. Even the people sitting with a view of the sky were fine. Punching a few bullet holes in the skin won't affect a thing unless they pass through hydraulic lines, important computers, or the couple people up in the office at the pointy end.
I'm also conflicted about guns on planes. I know I would be fine; I also know there's plenty of people who are just generally unsafe anyway. The bigger issue would be that those coach seats are hard enough to get into anyway, the extra girth of a pistol wouldn't help the room issue any.
If it just saves 3000 lives:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html
Chris,
ReplyDelete"A lot of someone's opinion about the advisability of airplane carry is whether that someone views most other people as unintelligent, poorly educated (as in, not Ivy League), socially awkward (as in, doesn't want to respect his betters, and authority), and otherwise "not like me"."
Don't get to many gun shows, then?
The comment on the "spirit of Frances Oldham Kelsey", a pharmacologist with the U.S. F.D.A. who identified the morning sickness drug Thalidomide as a source of limb bud related deformities outside the U.S., is interesting. Despite the identified hazards, Thalidomide still has usefulness, but is not appropriate for the pregnant or those who may become pregnant.
ReplyDeleteMany over-generalize and have trouble differentiating the possible and the probable. If there is a possibility for an error, that does not indicate that all will make that error. Trusting no one's judgement can be taking to extremes, especially when some other's judgement can be extremely beneficial to you.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalidomide/HQ01507
(And when I am Goddess-Empress, it will be up to the owner of the plane as to what kind of conduct is allowed on it...)
ReplyDeleteThe "taking" should be "taken".
ReplyDeleteAs you said, it should be up to the airline to determine the type and extent of security on their flights.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the current system is a lot about control in general and little about security. Why else would Scandinavian grandmas in wheel chairs get equal attention to those who more accurately fit the description of previous hijacker, bombers, etc?
The idea is sound. Take those who are already trained, provide them with appropriate tools and instructions regarding the special situation, and one more deterrent is added. Sort of like the photos that can be found of the Israeli teachers carrying an M1 Carbine or M4 over their shoulder on the playground.
The solution directly addresses the threat and ends the ability of that threat to be used for political points. THAT is the reason no definite, quiet, and unobtrusive solution will be pursued.
Thanks to Raving Prophet for posting that. It is right on, most aircraft leak like sieves.
ReplyDeleteFormer aircraft engineer.
Terry
Fla.
The danger posed by the average CCW holder, if we teased out the statistics, would probably be less than the danger posed by mechanical failure of the sort that brings down planes.
ReplyDeleteSince when did a big bank account and being able to hit a target equate to being smart?
ReplyDeleteBenC,
ReplyDeleteGo ask him.
FOR THE PAST FORTY OR SO YEARS THE ISRAELIS HAVE NOT HAD ANY SERIOUS INCIDENT INVOLVING THEIR AIRCRAFT OR VESSELS
ReplyDeleteTHEY EMPLOY PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING HAMBURGER FLIPPERS NEED NOT APPLY
IDF MOSSAD SHIN BET BORDER POLICE LOCAL POLICE PRIVATE SECURITY (WHO WERE RETIRED FROM THE SERVICES)
THEY COORDINATE INTEL ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS GENERALLY ARE NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT AS TO THE MISSION
DO NOT PLAY SILLY LITTLE GAMES OR
HARASS THE PASSENGERS THEY OBSERVE
AND QUESTION PASSENGERS SCREEN OUT
PASSENGERS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER QUESTIONING AND SEARCHING AND SEARCH EACH ITEM OF BAGGAGE OR
PACKAGE TO BE BROUGHT ON BOARD THE AIRCRAFT
THE AIRCREW (IDF RESERVISTS) ARE ARMED AND TRAINED IN THEIR USE
SECURITY AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED ARE IN THE AIRCRAFT TERMINALS CARGO HANDLING AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES
THE BAD GUYS KNOW WITH CERTAINTY
THAT SHOULD THEY MOLEST ANY AIRCRAFT OR VESSEL THEY WILL BE RECEIVING VISITORS WITH ACCOUNTS TO SETTLE (UNLESS RESTRAINED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS SEARCH FOR A PEACE PARTNER)
I WOULD SUGGEST THE ISRAELI MODEL WORKS WE SHOULD ADOPT IT AND REPLACE TSA AND HOMELAND SECURITY
SAVE OURSELVES VAST AMOUNTS OF TAX
DOLLARS AND HEADACHES
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR
JEFFERSON SAID THE PEOPLE GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE
My benchmark question for scenarios like this: Are you willing to act in the common defense in the absence of a firearm?
ReplyDeleteI use in the common defense not because I think it has any damn thing to do with your right to carry, but because it pierces the bubble of the hero fantasy. Would you act knowing there's a fair chance you're not going to survive to "hear the lamentations of their women?"
I've spent a fair bit of time flitting about the globe in a can of compressed air, large chunks of it beginning and/or ending in the ME, so I've had the opportunity to reflect on what I might do. I'm comfortable (as much as I can be) that I would act as needed, armed or not. And while a firearm might be nice, it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice in that environment. And since the possibility of being armed is the noted pipedream, I've settled my mind to the use of other means.
Beyond that, like Tam, I decline to pay for fondling when other choices exist.
Two asides:
Any number of military pilots going back to WWI (say, WWII bomber pilots) would be bemused to know how susceptible to pistol rounds modern aircraft are...
I'm not fond of the appeal to authority regarding LEO training. The notion that they are thus better qualified to make sound judgments than the CCW population is demonstrably not true given the incident rates of the two groups...
Thanks, and apologies for being wordy,
JSG
FAMs do not carry frangible ammo as of the last I knew. A former co-worker is now a FAM, and the last I spoke to him, they carried 125gr. GDHPs in .357Sig.
ReplyDeleteThe Raving Prophet is on the money.
ReplyDelete(And when I am Goddess-Empress, it will be up to the owner of the plane as to what kind of conduct is allowed on it...)
ReplyDeleteI look forward to flying Suprynowicz Air.
(I was going to post an apolgy to Vin for butchering his name, and then I thought "Hey.! I can just Google him!" and whaddaya know? I spelled it right!)
I don't find staghounds' assertion that terrorists would get "Flight 93d" all that reassuring, as it is my understanding that everyone on Flight 93 died.
ReplyDeleteShooting a terrorist on airplane while risky, might at least result in a body count something less than "everyone."
I drove an airport shuttle for 2 1/2 years. I carried several Israeli pilots and security personnell to hotels around SeaTac airport. They all pointed out that Israeli security looks for terrorists, not weapons. And that almost every American carries a lethal weapon on his/her person at all times. It is a ball point pen. Hold it in your hand with the point outward between the middle and ring finger. One jab deep into the evildoer's eye is invariably fatal.
ReplyDeleteYou could empty every round of ammo an Air Marshall carries through the skin of a modern airliner, and the pressure leak would be at worst "barely noticeable".
ReplyDeleteNow, if you managed to completely shatter a separate port window with each and every round (and, apparently, you'd be using magic rounds to cleanly punch those windows out on a regular basis), that would likely reduce pressure enough to constitute a minor hazard to the paying guests. . . until they got their masks on. The drivers, on the other hand, would be masked up and heading for breathable altitude with plenty of time to spare for anyone in reasonable health to make through without long term effect.
My concern has always been the risk, however slight, that one of the meatbag flight computers up front eats a miss. On the other hand, you could station a kid right out of boot camp with Tommy gun and a C-drum at parade rest at the flight deck door, and his misses won't endanger the aircraft worth a damn. Little hard on the upholstery and the paying meatbag cushions in front of it.
Geodkyt: There's two other computers doing the same job, so the chance of taking out all three is pretty low.
ReplyDeleteI refer scoffers of the dangers of explosive decompression to the fine, but dated documentary "Goldfinger."
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I think that one film is what sticks in everyone's head when they head about guns on planes. The Hawaiian Air flight, that actually happened, doesn't even register.
That and the fact that there are no critical flight systems, communication, navigation, or even hydro-mechanical components that are penetrable by a handgun round inside the cattle area.
ReplyDeleteI should also note that the pilots door is bullet resistant.
Literally, one that door closes not shooter is going to bring down the plane / kill the pilot.
GUNSHOT HOLES WILL NOT CAUSE DECOMP
ReplyDeleteGUNSHOT HOLES WILL NOT CAUSE DECOMP
GUNSHOT HOLES WILL NOT CAUSE DECOMP
GUNSHOT HOLES WILL NOT CAUSE DECOMP
GUNSHOT HOLES WILL NOT CAUSE DECOMP
GUNSHOT HOLES WILL NOT CAUSE DECOMP
Physics are fun M'kay
When this conversation comes up I always hark back to Archie Bunker's suggestion to stop hijackings; issue every passenger a .38 when they get on the plane and take it back when they get off. They did it for laughs but it would be a viable idea... Maybe load with nylon bullets ala John Ross - Unintended Consequences. I think if you turn the revolvers into nukes it becomes mutually assured destruction.
ReplyDeleteEd Foster -- I don't want the flight controls fouled by either a flailing casualty or having a dead man's foot blocking the pedals, especially at low altitude.
ReplyDeleteEven at cruise altitude, a flailing driver is an issue -- despite Boeing proving several decades ago that you can roll an airliner, I do not believe a 767 or Airbus is stressed for a snap roll. . .
So keeping bullets out of ANY of teh drivers is still important -- far more important than keeping them out of the cargo or fuselage.
I realize the flight deck hatch is armored these days, but is the bulkhead as well? And to what level of resistance? Are there any gaps in coverage?
OK, Geo. We'll just let them take the plane then. That is almost certainly safer. ;)
ReplyDeleteYeah, because the options are obviously limited to:
ReplyDeleteZero weapons control.
or
Give the planes to the terrorists, gift wrapped.
Obviously, other options such as --
1. Lock the damned door and allow ANY of the flight deck crew to be armed without requiring they blow thousands of dollars of their own money and jumping through a dozen tight hoops first.
2. Let CCW citizens carry, but lock the damned door and ensure both the door AND the bulkhead the door is in will both stop any reasonably likely handgun round.
3. Lock the damned door and station 1 openly armed guard - who DOESN'T need to be Jack freakin' Bauer because he's shooting AWAY from the pilots (thus, NOT endangering the aircraft, no matter how shitty a shot he may be) - at the door facing aft.
-- are right out of the question, eh?
BTW, if the cockpit door is locked the entire time the aircraft is off the ground, the flight deck crew are armed with just about any decent defensive pistol and load, AND the door and bulkhead will resist any likely pistol round (for the Hell of it, let's say a hot .357 load with FMJ bullets), then it really doesn't matter about handguns in the payload.
The odds of finding an armed crewmember are vanishingly small. That program was deliberately designed to exclude almost everyone from qualifying. When nuke weapons qualified weekend warriors are denied, the thing is a joke.
ReplyDeleteOn top of which, the designated holster is so dangerous a design, that I've read that some have stopped carrying because of it. At least one aircraft had a round exit the cockpit due to this.
Will -- see my point #1.
ReplyDeleteYes, the armed flight deck officer program is broken. They aren't an inherent risk -- after all, if the driver wants the plane to go down, he doesn't need a gun, so adding a gun on the flight deck behind a locked door doesn't make the aircraft less safe. . .
Frankly, I'm not worried about letting guys with airline pilot tickets carry any damned handgun they wish, with any round they like, with not training other than, "1. This is how you transport a gun through the security zones without getting tased by Officer Pedobear; 2. You do not EVER surrender your firearm FOR ANY REASON, no matter WHO is being threatened while the aircraft is aloft or flyable," and no special equipment requirements other than, "One of these boxes/locking holsters/etc., of the NIJ list to secure the pistol from the TSA checkpoint until the door gets locked."
The worst shot on the planet, aremed with a .454 Casull and SWC solids, firing from the flight deck towards the door, CANNOT make things worse than a terrorist trying to get in and take over the aircraft.
"And that's fine by me. Experience tells us that any flying troublemaker will get United 93d P.D.Q."
ReplyDeleteIIRC, United flight 93 didn't end so well for the passengers. Certainly, it couldn't have ended any worse if one or two of the passengers had been carrying.
Tam said:
ReplyDelete". . . someone floated the idea of a special super-duper grade of CCW permit that would allow passengers to tote on airlines . . ."
Totally off-topic, but the first thing that popped into my mind was 10,000 18 to 19 year-old Flight Officers stuffed into B-17s on a thousand-plane raid over Germany, and every one of those 18 to 19 year olds was carrying a service pistol of some sort or other, and most had access to a 50 caliber mg (or two).
Attitudes sure have changed.
BSR