• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

Should Airline Pilots Have The Option to Arm Themselves?


  • Total voters
    23
Well it can be very important to understand the changes that have happened since 9/11. First of all security door that makes it much more difficult to get into the **** pit. Second the attitude of the passenger and flight crew have changed. Before 9/11 the goal of a hijack was not to crash into a building, instead it was about to accomplish political or economical goals, and the passengers and flight crew had a change to survive.

If a plan is hijack today people will believe that they will die either by crashing into a building or by being shot down. Therefor will it be almost impossible for any terrorist to take over a plan, because people will fight back to the last breath and the terrorist will probably not even get to the reinforced security door.
All of this is true.
But, none of it negates the idea that, as a final line of defense, the pilots should be able to effectively project deadly force.
 
If more guns = more crime, why then, as the number of gus more than doubled since then, the current level of gun crime, in raw numbers, is comparable to that of the late 60s?

Precisely because a raw number isn't comparable to a rate. You'd have to consider additional data sets and multiple factors to determine a conclusive answer on ownership rates rather than raw numbers, since it's necessary to consider population increases.
 
Precisely because a raw number isn't comparable to a rate.
If more guns = more crime, then doubling the number of guns should increase crime.

If the number of guns doubles and the number of crimes stays the same, then more guns /=/ more crime.
 
Precisely because a raw number isn't comparable to a rate. You'd have to consider additional data sets and multiple factors to determine a conclusive answer on ownership rates rather than raw numbers, since it's necessary to consider population increases.

Statistics can be manipulated to come out how you want them. Like I said, cooking the books.

You think some pro-gun orgs are publishing slanted stats to support their positions...maybe so. It makes a counterweight to the way antigunners slant the stats their way.

For example, I have my doubts about the "2.5 million defensive uses per year" figure some espouse, seems high. For contrast, as I posted earlier, there were two government studies that said 60,000 and 90,000 defenses uses (of private firearms) annually, most of the time with no shots fired. Since this exceeds the total number of firearm deaths (half of which are suicides) by a factor of 1.5 or 2, to 1, clearly guns are used for lawful self defense far more often than illegal reasons, even taking these much lower figures as given. The truth probably lies somewhere between, since the vast majority of times that no shots are fired, most people probably don't call the police for fear of persecution.

You can :spin: it any way you want, though, crime isn't the chief issue. The chief issue is that it's a Constitutionally protected natural right, just like freedom of speech and religion...the Founders were very clear on that.

G.
 
See above.
Also, I presume this means you also oppose armed air marshalls?

I'm not crazy about the idea, no. Although it's not as asinine as the idea of allowing passengers to carry weapons on board.

Goobieman said:
By the time you steal it, it will be empty...

...IF the pilot decides to use it. And is able to use it.
 
That may have been the case pre-9/11. Not now.

Then the whole subject is a moot point. If they can't get into the cockpit anyway, then there is no need to arm the pilots. Next?
 
I'm not crazy about the idea, no. Although it's not as asinine as the idea of allowing passengers to carry weapons on board.
Air marshalls can't land the plane, right?
Why have them as the only people on the plane with a gun?

IF the pilot decides to use it. And is able to use it.
Why would he NOT?
 
Then the whole subject is a moot point.
Hardly. You never, exer, rely solely on passive defenses or on the idea that the passengers will do something.
 
This policy has been in place for several years, tens of thousands of flights (if not hundreds of thousands), and the only remotely negative consequence I've been able to find is one flight when a pilot's gun discharged accidentally; no one was injured and there was no danger to the aircraft.

It doesn't HURT. It may HELP. The pilots appear to favor it overwhelmingly.

Why would you possibly want to end it?

The only reason I can think of is an irrational fear or dislike of guns. That's it.
 
Air marshalls can't land the plane, right?
Why have them as the only people on the plane with a gun?

You have yet to hear me argue in favor of allowing ANYONE to have a gun on a plane. I'm just saying that I don't have as big of a problem with air marshals or pilots having them as I do with Gomer Pyle being allowed to bring them on the plane just because he has a CCW.

Goobieman said:
Why would he NOT?

Because he's a *****? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.
 
Last edited:
Because he's a *****? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.
We arent talking about average people. We're talking about pilots who have committed to going thru what's necessary to bring a gun on to the flight deck.

Under your argument, above, you must oppose police officers carrying guns.
 
Last edited:
You have yet to hear me argue in favor of allowing ANYONE to have a gun on a plane. I'm just saying that I don't have as big of a problem with air marshals or pilots having them as I do with Gomer Pyle being allowed to bring them on the plane just because he has a CCW.


Because he's a *****? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.

Projecting your own fears of inadequacy again?

Are you going to do as I asked and address rational specific reasons (calling people Gomer Pyle/hicks or assuming they'll be paralyzed with fear doesn't count, it is established that the average gun owner is not the moronic coward you project him to be) why you oppose having guns on planes, reasons that have not already been refuted, or just keep repeating yourself?

When are you going to admit that your real reason is hoplophobia?

G.



Here's a post you apparently want to ignore:


Well, lets look at this rationally. What are the arguments for forbidding law-abiding citizens with CCW/CWP (concealed weapon permits) from carrying on an airplane?

1. Depressurization/other functionality mishap.
This has been proven to be effectively mythical, at least from the cause of handgun bullets. If you're worried about it anyway, we can require low-penetration frangible rounds.

2. CCW gone crazy: the permit holder with the gun goes nuts. This is as much of a myth as depressurization due to handgun bullets. As mentioned before, crime statistics show that permit holders have such a low rate of violent crime it is virtually zero. In the unlikely chance that it did happen, an armed flight crew and maybe one or two other armed passengers would deal with it.

3. Terrorist/etc grabs CCW's gun. Well as I mentioned earlier, concealed carry means hidden. Properly concealed, you'll sit next to a CCW for hours and never realize he is armed in most cases. Without X-ray vision, determining who is armed, if anyone, is iffy.
Even if you did, taking a gun from an "educated CCW" is not at all like taking candy from a baby. Even if someone managed it, there would be the armed flight crew and perhaps other armed passengers to deal with. This is a non-issue.

4.. Crowded conditions
NOW, here is an intresting one. Yes, the conditions are crowded, and the risk to bystanders considerable.
However, let's consider the circumstances under which a rational armed citizen might use that weapon... terrorists, violent looney with a razor slashing people, hijackers...well, then again it is hard to tell the latter pair from the first one since 911. In short, it would be a desperate situation where everyone's lives were already in danger. Consider Flight 93.
The danger could be largely mitigated with good judgement and/or good marksmanship. I know plenty of CCW holders with both.

Now, come to think of it, crowded conditions applies to a lot of places, like malls, stores, restaurants. Do you oppose CCW in such places? Since we've narrowed the reasons to oppose CCW on a plane down to this one issue, the crowded conditions, let's address that issue as it relates to malls, stores, restaurants, buses, etc.



G.
 
Because he's a *****? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.

Assuming that this is true, and the pilot wouldn't use it . . . then what difference does it make if he has it or not? In other words, how is this an argument for not permitting the gun in the first place?

Sorry, there's just NO empirical rational for disarming the pilots.
 
Projecting your own fears of inadequacy again?

Are you going to do as I asked and address rational specific reasons (calling people Gomer Pyle/hicks or assuming they'll be paralyzed with fear doesn't count, it is established that the average gun owner is not the moronic coward you project him to be) why you oppose having guns on planes, reasons that have not already been refuted, or just keep repeating yourself?

I'm not worried about the AVERAGE gun owner. All it takes is one Gomer Pyle.

Goshin said:
When are you going to admit that your real reason is hoplophobia?

I really don't give a **** if you want to play John Wayne in your backyard, just not on an airplane.

Goshin said:
Here's a post you apparently want to ignore:

#1. I never suggested anything remotely like this. It's just a straw man.

#2. Don't worry, I'm not concerned about Gomer going crazy. However, this WOULD make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes themselves. I imagine that it's a lot easier for a hijacker to get a fake permit (or even a real permit) than to sneak the gun onto a plane. So in THAT sense I guess you could say I'm worried about "CCW going crazy."

#3. Again, what if Gomer doesn't conceal it very well? What if Gomer decides to sleep on the plane and isn't watching his gun? All it takes is one idiot.

#4. Since my concern is not primarily with the person who brought the gun onto the plane using it, this is another straw man.


An atmosphere in which there is easy access to guns on planes makes it A LOT more likely that a hijacker gains access to guns on planes, than in an atmosphere in which it is practically impossible to get a gun onto a plane.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that this is true, and the pilot wouldn't use it . . . then what difference does it make if he has it or not?

Because my concern is not with the pilot's use of the weapon, it's with the hijacker's use of the weapon.
 
Because my concern is not with the pilot's use of the weapon, it's with the hijacker's use of the weapon.

What's the hijacker going to do with it that he can't already do once he's stormed the cockpit?
 
Shoot the pilots? Shoot passengers who resist?

They apparently have some other way of doing that (killing or maiming) anyway, else they wouldn't have made it to the cockpit to begin with. You're arguing for leaving the pilots defenseless on the remote chance that the hijackers might then acquire an additional means of hurting someone.

You must not think much of the pilots. (Many, if not most, of them are ex-military, by the way.) If they're so weak or incompetent, why would you trust them to be in charge of 100+ people's lives to begin with?

(To say nothing, of course, of the fact that you must assume any successful hijacking is going to end up with a 100% casualty rate anyway.)
 
Last edited:
They apparently have some other way of doing that (killing or maiming) anyway, else they wouldn't have made it to the cockpit to begin with.

Maintaining order will be a hell of a lot easier for them if they have a shotgun instead of a boxcutter.

Harshaw said:
You're arguing for leaving the pilots defenseless on the remote chance that the hijackers might then acquire an additional means of hurting someone.

I am not. They have a sealed cabin as defense.

Harshaw said:
You must not think much of the pilots. (Many, if not most, of them are ex-military, by the way.) If they're so weak or incompetent, why would you trust them to be in charge of 100+ people's lives to begin with?

Just because I trust trusted my high school busdriver to get me to school without crashing the bus, doesn't mean I'd trust her to perform open heart surgery on me.

Harshaw said:
(To say nothing, of course, of the fact that you must assume any successful hijacking is going to end up with a 100% casualty rate anyway.)

On the contrary, I assume no such thing. In fact, that's the entire point. I am only aware of four hijackings in history that had a 100% casualty rate. If some ****head just wants to take the plane to Cuba, why in the world would you want to risk a firefight on the airplane?
 
Maintaining order will be a hell of a lot easier for them if they have a shotgun instead of a boxcutter.

How are they going to get a "shotgun"? I'm starting to think you're not being very serious here.


I am not. They have a sealed cabin as defense.

Yet, the guns they might have in there are a threat to the safety of the plane because the hijackers might get them. This is what you said.


Just because I trust trusted my high school busdriver to get me to school without crashing the bus, doesn't mean I'd trust her to perform open heart surgery on me.

OK, that's TRULY unserious as an analogy. I hope you understand that.


On the contrary, I assume no such thing. In fact, that's the entire point. I am only aware of four hijackings in history that had a 100% casualty rate. If some ****head just wants to take the plane to Cuba

You would be completely incompetent and irresponsible NOT to make that assumption concerning the hijackers' intent. As such, you want there to be every means possible to keep that from happening. (And when's the last time any hijacker wanted to take a plane to Cuba?)


why in the world would you want to risk a firefight on the airplane?

OK, now it's going to be a "firefight"?

Come on, man. You're much smarter than this post would suggest.
 
.
I am not. They have a sealed cabin as defense.

You were saying earlier in this thread that the hijackers could easily enter the cockpit somehow. Make up your mind; your arguments are circular to the point of irrationality.

Just because I trust trusted my high school busdriver to get me to school without crashing the bus, doesn't mean I'd trust her to perform open heart surgery on me.

Ludicrous beyond description. You equate operating a handgun with tactical effectiveness with open heart surgery? I can teach someone shoot/no-shoot and functional accuracy in a few sessions. Again, the irrationality of your arguments is astounding.



On the contrary, I assume no such thing. In fact, that's the entire point. I am only aware of four hijackings in history that had a 100% casualty rate. If some ****head just wants to take the plane to Cuba, why in the world would you want to risk a firefight on the airplane?

Do you live in the real world? Were you paying attention on 9/11?

Debating you is like debating someone with multiple personality disorder. You use straw facts to make certain ridiculous points, then later you repudiate your previous straw-fact to make a different ridiculous point.

I keep coming back to you having hoplophobia, its the simplest explanation of why your arguments are consistently irrational, and irrationally inconsistent.

G.
 
After thinking about it a bit more, I concluded I was being a dumbass on this thread.

I really don't have a problem with pilots having guns, as long as A) they are properly trained, and B) the guns are secured where no one other than the pilots can get them before/during/after the flight.
 
Statistics can be manipulated to come out how you want them. Like I said, cooking the books.

You think some pro-gun orgs are publishing slanted stats to support their positions...maybe so. It makes a counterweight to the way antigunners slant the stats their way.

This empirical data isn't derived from the claims of either lobby. Both are idiotic extremists. It isn't, however, mere selective incorporation of raw data.

For example, I have my doubts about the "2.5 million defensive uses per year" figure some espouse, seems high. For contrast, as I posted earlier, there were two government studies that said 60,000 and 90,000 defenses uses (of private firearms) annually, most of the time with no shots fired. Since this exceeds the total number of firearm deaths (half of which are suicides) by a factor of 1.5 or 2, to 1, clearly guns are used for lawful self defense far more often than illegal reasons, even taking these much lower figures as given. The truth probably lies somewhere between, since the vast majority of times that no shots are fired, most people probably don't call the police for fear of persecution.

Selective incorporation of raw data cannot function as a means of empirical analysis, again. You'd need to isolate the gun effect from other relevant factors.

You can :spin: it any way you want, though, crime isn't the chief issue. The chief issue is that it's a Constitutionally protected natural right, just like freedom of speech and religion...the Founders were very clear on that.

G.

And of course, there's no place in this thread where I claimed this wasn't the case, but extremists have a tendency to set up strawmen to tear down at their leisure.
 
I am all for gun ownership, the Second Amendment, reduction of infringements, etc... but I can see no reason to arm pilots if Air Marshals are present.

Even absent Air Marshals, there are many more situations in which pilots having guns, would be rendered ineffective and/or detrimental.
 
Back
Top Bottom