RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Arming pilots,being necessary for the security ofafree state(11 posts)

Arming pilots,being necessary for the security ofafree state128
May 22, 2002 5:07 AM
the right of the people to defend their nation, is being infringed.

Just a thought, not attempting any overblown rhetoric, and this just struck me as this issue unfolds, so sort of brainstorming and I'm relatively green on the airplane safety issue. We often frame the debate as guns against an oppressive central gov't but here it's against a clear threat (maniacs attacking pilots), and the fed is inhibiting self-defense in this limited circumstance? That sounds outrageous and one click away from an argument of repression and negligence.

All the well made points on this board regarding personal v.group gun rights, paranoid chicken-little militia hobgoblins and defense against gov't v. individual bad guys aside. All very clever fun stuff, but largely distractors. But am I missing something or is this arming of pilots question not the custom made context for the practical application of the 2nd and all it's features?? And why is it not being invoked in the debate? And where is the NRA and the paranoid fringe and Ted Nugent and the intelligensia and the whole vocal power of the stae of Texas?? Why don't they speak up? Usually just one little ripple of gun regulation snaps these groups into apoplexy and lobbying mode, but here is THE moment and...silence?? What am I missing? Really? Is this not the time and place to regulate a little citizen army for security purposes? Maybe the Framers had a repressive central Gov't in mind, but the perrenial beauty of that document arises in that the provision can be applied to this (unforseen) security threat.

I am hard pressed to believe that by 9/12 we didn't have pilots trained (well regulaterd militia)and armed and large home grown hot blooded servicemen on aeroplanes, with big mean rifles in plain view. And I am damn sure I would bum rush any sh*t stood up and acted stupid. That's what we're left with; it's up to us. The politicians will talk while we fight, just like those souls who went down in PA on 9/11.

In this context(as in most)I believe the Fed. Gov't must yield to the right of the people if the reps fail to do the will of the people; the pilots may be regulated well (state v. fed issue I know), but the pilots should be armed. Do you think we could at least let them have a stick or a slingshot!! How about a pair of toe-nail clippers or tweezers!? That'll keep psycho religio-politco extremists at bay.... (overcome by a carpenters knife...just embarassing)

Sketchy thoughts I know, but catch what I'm saying? Thanks for listening Seattle....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53068-2002May21.html

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=crowley051702
re: Arming pilots,being necessary for the security ofafree stateweiwentg
May 22, 2002 5:27 AM
my dad's a pilot (not for a US airline, though). he thinks that non-lethal weapons would be better; less chance that you blow a hole in the fuselage or critical equipment.
orDougSloan
May 22, 2002 5:41 AM
There might be a fear of the guns getting into the hands of bad people on the plane, too. No guns, no shootings. Oh, no, what am I saying? :-)

Archie Bunker had the perfect solution for hijackings. When boarding, you hand a loaded gun to every single passenger as they get on. Who the heck would try anything with hundreds of armed people on board?

Doug
As irrational as the Archie Bunker Anti-Hijacking Method is128
May 22, 2002 5:55 AM
that is PREcicesly my gut instinct. They should be giving ME a weapon when I board the plane. Of course the plane attack is largely off the agressor's 'to do' list, so we're a bit behind the curve.

Hey by the way, I understand you live in N.CA? Do you get radio station KGO am810 out of SF? A talk show host, and one of my favorite loud mouthed Libertarians, Gene Burns is (I believe) broadcasting from there, ever listen to this guy? (as I'm sure you have enough sense to tune out anybody named Rush). Burns was in the Boston area for a number of years and relocated.
radio, etc.DougSloan
May 22, 2002 6:30 AM
When I'm in the car, I listen to talk radio all the time. Not sure I remember hearing that guy, though.

Yes, I do listen to Rush when I get the chance. I don't always agree with him, but I enjoy hearing what he has to say. (e.g., I hate tobacco, but that's another issue -- and a difficult one for this libertarian.)

While we are on the gun subject again, let's imagine something (an airplane is a microcosm of the world, no?) -- a world with no guns whatsoever -- just like on most airplanes now.

Does that mean there will be no crime? Look what happened on those three airplanes 9/11. No guns, yet thousands of people killed. With no guns available, the criminals resorted to other weapons, knives and/or brute force. So, we ban guns everywhere on the entire planet, including armies and police forces. Guess what? Then those with other weapons, with more numbers, or with brute force (i.e., bigger guys) will dominate the rest. China could over run the U.S. in a matter of days. A 300 pound muscle man will overpower 5 cops at once, not to mention we wimpy cyclists.

The gun is an equalizer, to an extent. It removes many of the inherent advantages some would-be criminals have over the weaker or out-numbered.

At least on airplanes, though, non-lethal and non-destructive alternatives should be thoroughly examimed first. Also, guns with devices that can only be fired by the right person would be good, too. Maybe it's time to think outside the box for solutions.

We ban guns, then we'll have to ban bows and arrows, then knives, then what, sticks and stones?

Doug
Let's think about this scenarioPaulCL
May 22, 2002 11:41 AM
Hand every passenger a gun.
Everyone is armed. Everyone is 'safe'.
The last person on the plane is Peter Buck from REM

No-one is safe.

Personally, I say to arm the pilots, the "last line of defense" with tasers. At least no box-cutter-armed terrorist would be able to take over the plane.
if you are a terrorist thoughColnagoFE
May 22, 2002 7:59 AM
why would you care if they were all armed? you are prepared to die anyway. so what if you get shot as you detonate a bomb that takes em all down--guns and all.
well, that's differentDougSloan
May 22, 2002 8:26 AM
Obviously if someone sneaks a bomb on and detonates it before anyone knows what he's doing, or with some sort of dead man switch, there is nothing that can be done with any other weapon. That's a different situation. You might as well ask what would they do if the plane were targeted by a surface to air missle.
re: One bullet through the fuselage ...jrm
May 22, 2002 6:33 AM
Well kill everyone too. As the pressurized cabin blows apart from the apmospherical pressuire of the altitude...

So, you could kill everyone on the plane and potentually on the ground or whatever you crash into by accident, out of anger, by killing self, or having some crazy take your gun. Hum sounds like a sound policy to me.

Scarier still is the rash of public figures clarifying that terrorist activity against the US is evident, and that nuclear, chemical and biological weapon proliferation is on the rise. Sounds like someones trying, for a 2nd time, to form some public policy in support of an increase in defense spending or to gain support for a unilateral offensive against iraq. Im assuming.. but it has potential.
I'd rather have a plainclothes marshallColnagoFE
May 22, 2002 7:57 AM
someone who is trained on how to use a gun in an emergency situation like a plainclotches marshall rather than a pilot who may or may not know how to use a gun--especially in a plane where the consequences of shooting a hole in the side of the plane are a bit more dire--seems like a better solution to me.
I've never handled a handgun so the "Archie Bunker" ...OutWest
May 22, 2002 9:38 PM
approach wouldn't work for me, I'd probably shoot my foot off or something. You know what really gets me though? Terrorism. What is the purpose? Revenge, get a message out, what?
When it started it was "making a political statement" now its a bloodbath to make somebody feel like they have meted out their own concept of justice. I would like to say that if we dealt with the problems in the world perhaps terrorism would become redundant. I suppose thats not going to happen as long as there are fanatics out there that don't care about rectifying injustice. They just want payback.
I came across a show last night that started out with the obscenity of an airliner flying into one of the Towers. I couldn't grasp the twisted mind that could conceive a reason for that action. I acknowledge that I am a typical pampered, overfed, naive North American but still...WHY?
Where am I going with this? I suppose I am heading to the conclusion that an action like 9/11 and the threat of future, comparable actions means that the United States has to prepare for more insane acts of terrorism upon its soil and citizenry. While there are issues between our countries (when aren't there?) I certainly I hope my government (Canada) can be a true friend and help. We are ALL facing a lunatic fringe, heck a lunatic wave, that doesn't recognize humanity, compassion or reason, without which we are animals. I don't know the answers. Tough times ahead, stand tall Americans and may the free world stand with you!