I know this is more of a current event, but it seemed to fit best here.
Do guns in the cockpit really sound like a good idea to anyone? I think the piolet should be more worried about oh...FLYING THE DAMN PLANE! When in doubt in this country add guns to it. I think it would be smarter to bulk up the door to the cockpit, like Isreal (that's not how you spell it most likely). I just don't think the idea of the piolet playing Bruce Willis on a plane shooting live rounds at incredible heights is such a hot idea, but hey that's just me.
Well, the sad part is it's an improvement over their original plan, IIRC. Now we get the added bonus of first-class passengers getting accidentally shot. -_- Really, reinforced security doors on the cockpits are a better solution, but then we get terrorists that kick harder.
I have no problem with it. If any asshole thinks that they are going to hijack a plane with anything like a boxcutter, now they will have in the back of their mind that the pilot MIGHT be packing heat.
Also, with a pilot and copilot, one can fly the plane while the other is whacking terrorists.
Rep. Don Young from Alaska said it best when he gently reminded Congress yesterday that the alternative to pilots with guns is having hijacked planes shot down by F-16s. Dos anybody really want though? No, I think not.
If you trust the pilot with your life plying a multi-million dollar tin can through the air, you can trust that pilot with a weapon.
Exactaly, and one of the major points critics of the idea have been raising is "Well what about stray bullets making the plane lose cabin pressure?" First, I believe terrorism expert Larry Johnson has already said on TV that they can give them softer rounds that are lethal and penetrate flesh but will not penetrate steel. Second, I think pilots could a lot more easily deal with a loss in cabin pressure and try to bring the plane down than to be lying on the cabin floor with their throats slit and the plane being directed at a building by Mohammed screaming something about Allah.
Let the bastards have guns, please.
(edited by DMC on 11.7.02 0925)
(edited by DMC on 11.7.02 0927) "You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
What I don't understand is why people say "I would rather they secure the door than give the pilots a gun." as if they are mutually exclusive options. I say DO BOTH! Yes, secure the door. And give the pilots guns. And give the flight attendants tazers. And have random Air Marshalls (why do people who say that there's a chance that a stray bullet will make the plane lose cabin pressure assume that an Air Marshall's bullet couldn't do the same thing? But as DMC pointed out, they make bullets that don't penetrate steel. They are what the air marshalls use, that's what the pilot's would use to)
See, the idea, at least my idea, of having guns is that a pilot would never have to actually use it. You need to have SO MANY deterrents that potential terrorists decide that the chance of success is so low that it's not worth even trying. So a potential terrorist should have to think: I have to get a weapon by airline security first (which still needs improved, IMHO), then if I get by that, I have to take a chance that there's no air marshall on the plane. If I luck up, then I have to get by the flight attendants. If I manage to do that, then I got a figure out a way through the door. If I do manage to get through the door, I have to deal with an armed pilot (and I agree, the pilot's job should be to fly the plane, he should NEVER leave the cockpit. Once trouble starts, his priority is to LAND at the nearest airport. He starts immediately, and that's his only goal. The gun is only used IF someone breaks the door down and gets into the cockpit) With all that in front of a potential terrorist, the chance of pulling off a sucessful hijacking is near nil. Thus, they won't even try that.
We've already seen, a plane can do a hell of lot more damage than a gun. If you trust the pilot to fly hundreds of lifes safely, I wouldn't you trust him with a gun. They are people. So are police, Air Marshalls, military, etc., and we TRUST them with guns. What's the difference? I figure a pilot can be trained as easily as anyone else (probably easier, I say a man who can fly a big jetliner is pretty sharp. And many are ex-military) Besides, even if there was an accidental shooting, that's still a lot better than the thousands of lifes that can be lost through plane hijackings.
Whose to say that the pilots don't just freeze up in the face of danger. Then you have a terrorist with a gun INSTEAD of a razor blade. If you're able to secure the doorway to the cockpit you at least can land the plane safely.
Do you honestly think that a person could hijack another plane with a boxcutter? The people on those planes had no idea it was a suicide mission when the hijacking took place - they most likely thought it was a "take this plane to Cuba!" sort of thing and sat down so no one would get killed.
Wait a minute, they did know what was going on on one of the flights... Hmm, what happened there?
If they *really* secured the cockpit door, there'd be no need to bring a fucking gun onto the plane. (Yeah, that's what they need - crossfire.) And before you give me the official Rush Limbaugh "don't think things through" answer, go try to kick open a bank vault.
"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree." ---George Carlin
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." ---Anon.
Like I said, I'm all for securing the door. I don't think the pilot should ever leave. Hopefully that's enough of a deterrent to prevent a terrorist from even attempting a hijacking. But I don't see why adding one last line of defense, a gun, only for use to defend the cockpit, would hurt anything. (Crossfire? I don't see much chance of any passengers caught in it, unless they are in the cockpit, which they shouldn't be. At that close of range, someone is going to be killed, either the pilot or hijacker, or both. People only miss at close range in movies)
Yes, the cockpit should be secure enough where the gun use should never become an issue. Hopefully never. But there is always a very small chance that something that is human-made to malfunction. Humans are not perfect. I want to terrorist to be thinking "Even if there is 1-1000 chance that I can fight off the passengers and crew in the cabin, and by some miracle I can get the door open, I will still have to deal with an armed pilot when I get through the door. Screw it, it's not worth the trouble." Maybe they all ready will think that with the secure door. But since guns don't cost much, I don't see why it would hurt to add one more deterrent.
(BTW, on that flight you are talking about, every passenger and all the crew died. Not exactly something to brag about.)
BTW, I do think things through. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me short-sighted or stupid. I know, people with other ideas suck. But when you live in nation this large, it tends to happen.
Apparently a few posters here WANT the planes and civilians to be shot down by F-16s. The whole point is to keep America and it's people safe, period. If the terrorist is a shite, and pulls that tactic Eddie Famous mentioned, then not only will they gain absolutely NO political support from idiot nations like France but it leaves them powerless still, as Jaguar mentioned, the pilots will just land the plane someplace secure and wait for the Counter-Terror team to move in.
Originally posted by BoromirMarkApparently a few posters here WANT the planes and civilians to be shot down by F-16s. The whole point is to keep America and it's people safe, period. If the terrorist is a shite, and pulls that tactic Eddie Famous mentioned, then not only will they gain absolutely NO political support from idiot nations like France but it leaves them powerless still, as Jaguar mentioned, the pilots will just land the plane someplace secure and wait for the Counter-Terror team to move in.
In the meantime the passengers are dead, the terrorists off themselves and they still get a high kill count.
Plus, how would arming pilots keep F-16s from downing a plane?
(edited by Eddie Famous on 16.7.02 1707) George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
The thought is that if you arm the pilot, then the terrorists cannot take control of the cockpit and fly it into a building. If the terrorists did manage to take control of the cockpit, then the Air Force would attempt to shoot it down (thus killing the passengers) before allowing it to repeat September 11th. Of course, 9/11 was a one trick pony, and it's pretty much impossible these days to take control of the planes unless you're one of the damn pilots. So I think the whole thing is rather stupid. Terrorists will find a way to make their statements. They always do. The only thing you can do I try to make it harder for them to succeed in killing people. Then only the most dedicated will go through the extreme measures to carry out their plans.
Like smuggle SAMs into the US and just shoot down the damn planes. Or just buy a bunch of fertilizer and blow up a building or two.
"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."
"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."
"Who do you love?"
-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
So what if they demand the pilot's guns. If innocent civilians get killed by the terrorists, but the plane is able to land, so be it. I know it's a shitty deal, but we are living in the reality that many liberals ignored for most of the 1990's. Sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils. But if the pilot has a choice between landing the plane and rolling the dice with the passengers, or between relinquishing control and rolling the dice with say 80,000 at a football game, or the Sears Towers, the pilot has a responsibility to stay in control of that plane.
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardYes, but why don't we just secure the cockpit door - like a bank vault, like I said, and then we don't need to bring a gun on the plane.
Besides, if recent news reports are any indication, the pilots are going to be WAY too drunk to aim.
Because there are some basic maintenence checks that have to be done during flight by the pilot in the cabin. Plus, trips to the lavatory and recieving coffee and water from the flight attendants. So the door can't be shut the entire flight, making it possible to be penetrated and hi-jacked.
The pilots will go through the same training air marshalls recieve, so it's not like just giving them a pistol and putting them on the flights blind.
"You can save the planet, I'll save your seat"- Uncle Kracker, Better Days "Confucious say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day!"- Crank Yankers
Not to sell New Hampshire short, but I heard an interesting fact on CNN tonight that I found pretty interesting. They were discussing the trend of pols skipping states (i.e. Clark and Lieberman in Iowa)