• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

In light of this Miami plane shooting... why do we need guns on planes?

BeauJangles

BeauJangles

Lifer
Honestly, does this strike anyone else as a bad idea? Case in point with this shooting, the guy didn't have a bomb yet he wound up dead because we have armed men flying in our planes. I understand the desire to protect against another sept 11th, but why do we need to do it with guns?

With all of our technology today why not deploy some sort of odorless gas that would render everyone in the plane (except for the pilots) unconscious? Sure this isn't beyond the realm of our technological capabilities and it would certainly give us a much safer option if terrorists do hijack a plane at 20,000 feet. Do we really want a lone-ranger kind of guy with a gun shooting bullets in a cabin, with innocent people around at 20k feet? Seriously, this sounds like a really bad idea.

On the ground, this shouldn't be an issue. If the guy runs off the plane, airport security should be able to handle him, not armed federal air martials.

I applaud our government's efforts to protect the skies, I just don't think putting more guns on planes is a good idea when we can have much more effective options for neutralizing threats on a plane.


Thoughts?
 
Honestly, does this strike anyone else as a bad idea? Case in point with this shooting, the guy didn't have a bomb yet he wound up dead because we have armed men flying in our planes. I understand the desire to protect against another sept 11th, but why do we need to do it with guns?
Click to expand...
Um, because the guy went charging towards the front of the plane, screaming that he had a bomb...in this case, the man unfortunately had a bipolar condition and was off his meds...but what if he did have a bomb? Highly trained air marshals, who have the highest marksmenship standards of all federal agencies, can assure a one shot, one kill solution to such threats.

On the ground, this shouldn't be an issue. If the guy runs off the plane, airport security should be able to handle him, not armed federal air martials.
Click to expand...
Even when he dismounted the plane, they still thought he had a bomb...what if he made a dash for a fuel tanker, or worse the terminal...how exactly are unarmed airport security going to stop him short of tackling him. Again, you have to work from the assumption that the guy does indeed have a bomb.

when we can have much more effective options for neutralizing threats on a plane.
Click to expand...
Would be interested to hear what these more effective options...I know of nothing more effective then a well targeted bullet.

It is a tragedy that this man is dead...but he had a condition, and should have been on his medication...that, or perhaps his wife could have allerted the crew to the man's condition in the event of an outburst.

 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Honestly, does this strike anyone else as a bad idea? Case in point with this shooting, the guy didn't have a bomb yet he wound up dead because we have armed men flying in our planes. I understand the desire to protect against another sept 11th, but why do we need to do it with guns?
Click to expand...
Um, because the guy went charging towards the front of the plane, screaming that he had a bomb...in this case, the man unfortunately had a bipolar condition and was off his meds...but what if he did have a bomb? Highly trained air marshals, who have the highest marksmenship standards of all federal agencies, can assure a one shot, one kill solution to such threats.

On the ground, this shouldn't be an issue. If the guy runs off the plane, airport security should be able to handle him, not armed federal air martials.
Click to expand...
Even when he dismounted the plane, they still thought he had a bomb...what if he made a dash for a fuel tanker, or worse the terminal...how exactly are unarmed airport security going to stop him short of tackling him.

when we can have much more effective options for neutralizing threats on a plane.
Click to expand...
Would be interested to hear what these more effective options...I know of nothing more effective then a well targeted bullet.
Click to expand...


/agree
 
Projectile weapon in a pressurized hull with windows just scares me. Gunplay in the air is just not smart. No matter how good a shot you are, there is just too many ways to screw up. I do like that sleeping gas idea, just knock everyone out, no need for stewart service at all 🙂
 
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I applaud our government's efforts to protect the skies, I just don't think putting more guns on planes is a good idea when we can have much more effective options for neutralizing threats on a plane.
Click to expand...
Like what exactly? Phasers?
 
Rendering people unconcsious sounds like a recipe for disaster.
What happens if people are alergic to the substance? What happens if it somehow renders the pilots unconcious? What if it doesnt work at all? And what if terrorists end up using it to take over a plane?

I think having armed marshals is good idea. I feel a lot safer with them on board than some clunky gas method.
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Projectile weapon in a pressurized hull with windows just scares me. Gunplay in the air is just not smart. No matter how good a shot you are, there is just too many ways to screw up. I do like that sleeping gas idea, just knock everyone out, no need for stewart service at all 🙂
Click to expand...

The plane wont explode like they do in the movies. The hull of the airplane is not airtight and breaths throughout the flight. If the movies were true then why at locations where the plane breaths doesnt it explode?

 
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Honestly, does this strike anyone else as a bad idea? Case in point with this shooting, the guy didn't have a bomb yet he wound up dead because we have armed men flying in our planes. I understand the desire to protect against another sept 11th, but why do we need to do it with guns?

With all of our technology today why not deploy some sort of odorless gas that would render everyone in the plane (except for the pilots) unconscious? Sure this isn't beyond the realm of our technological capabilities and it would certainly give us a much safer option if terrorists do hijack a plane at 20,000 feet. Do we really want a lone-ranger kind of guy with a gun shooting bullets in a cabin, with innocent people around at 20k feet? Seriously, this sounds like a really bad idea.

On the ground, this shouldn't be an issue. If the guy runs off the plane, airport security should be able to handle him, not armed federal air martials.

I applaud our government's efforts to protect the skies, I just don't think putting more guns on planes is a good idea when we can have much more effective options for neutralizing threats on a plane.


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Everyone saw how well the whole gas thing worked when the Russians tried it at that theater a couple of years ago. I guess it didn't kill everyone, which is generally better then the usual Russian success rate. Problem with gas is the there is a fine line between asleep, and dead and its different for each person.

 
Firearms on planes is a bad idea.

Pilots are in the cockpit. It's now secured throughout the flight so there's no repeat of 9/11.

A guy with a bomb . . . that announces . . . "I have a bomb" . . . probably doesn't have a bomb. The only people that will act in such a manner are people without bombs and people that watch too many spy/action movies where the bad guy spends an hour talking about every nuance of his plan instead of shooting the hero in the head.

 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Firearms on planes is a bad idea.

Pilots are in the cockpit. It's now secured throughout the flight so there's no repeat of 9/11.

A guy with a bomb . . . that announces . . . "I have a bomb" . . . probably doesn't have a bomb. The only people that will act in such a manner are people without bombs and people that watch too many spy/action movies where the bad guy spends an hour talking about every nuance of his plan instead of shooting the hero in the head.
Click to expand...

Probably or for sure?
I dont think we can take a lax attitude anymore when it comes to this crap. Even if they dont have a bomb and just take hostages while not being able to get into the cockpit(which btw unless they retrofitted every plane with 3/4th inch steel I dont think they are as safe as you think), air marshals will be able to down these guys before they run ramapant within the plane.

Even if they dont get into the cockpit they can still destroy enough of the plane to eventually bring it down.
 
A guy with a bomb . . . that announces . . . "I have a bomb" . . . probably doesn't have a bomb.
Click to expand...
You can't say that with any level of certainty...probably is not good enough...if someone says they have a bomb, then guess what...under those circumstances, I will trust them unconditionally, and then want them dead as quickly as possible.
 
Who would you rather be

The guy who said.. "He is ok.. people who have bombs don't announce it" and then he detonates it and kills 70 people

or

The man who shot him as soon as his dumb ass spoke up and said he had a bomb and saved the lives of 69 people
 
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Honestly, does this strike anyone else as a bad idea? Case in point with this shooting, the guy didn't have a bomb yet he wound up dead because we have armed men flying in our planes. I understand the desire to protect against another sept 11th, but why do we need to do it with guns?

With all of our technology today why not deploy some sort of odorless gas that would render everyone in the plane (except for the pilots) unconscious? Sure this isn't beyond the realm of our technological capabilities and it would certainly give us a much safer option if terrorists do hijack a plane at 20,000 feet. Do we really want a lone-ranger kind of guy with a gun shooting bullets in a cabin, with innocent people around at 20k feet? Seriously, this sounds like a really bad idea.

On the ground, this shouldn't be an issue. If the guy runs off the plane, airport security should be able to handle him, not armed federal air martials.

I applaud our government's efforts to protect the skies, I just don't think putting more guns on planes is a good idea when we can have much more effective options for neutralizing threats on a plane.


Thoughts?
Click to expand...


How else would you neutralize a threat like that? Unless there is a neurotoxin that shuts down all motor functions immediately, bullets are the best option.

 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Projectile weapon in a pressurized hull with windows just scares me. Gunplay in the air is just not smart. No matter how good a shot you are, there is just too many ways to screw up. I do like that sleeping gas idea, just knock everyone out, no need for stewart service at all 🙂
Click to expand...

Nothing will happen - check mthobusters, they've done the test. The plane will depresurize, but it won't tear apart or anything.
 
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sdifox
Projectile weapon in a pressurized hull with windows just scares me. Gunplay in the air is just not smart. No matter how good a shot you are, there is just too many ways to screw up. I do like that sleeping gas idea, just knock everyone out, no need for stewart service at all 🙂
Click to expand...

Nothing will happen - check mthobusters, they've done the test. The plane will depresurize, but it won't tear apart or anything.
Click to expand...

Why, oh why do people look to movies to tell how the real world works? Do they not realize movies are "entertainment"?

 
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sdifox
Projectile weapon in a pressurized hull with windows just scares me. Gunplay in the air is just not smart. No matter how good a shot you are, there is just too many ways to screw up. I do like that sleeping gas idea, just knock everyone out, no need for stewart service at all 🙂
Click to expand...

Nothing will happen - check mthobusters, they've done the test. The plane will depresurize, but it won't tear apart or anything.
Click to expand...

Ammo has come a long way in teh last couple of years. Frangible bullets are designed to disintegrate when they make contact with anything harder than themselves. Since flesh is not harder than the bullet it still has the ability to penetrate a live target. But when the round makes contact with a wall inside a plane (or the outer skin of the plane) it turns to dust.

Air Marshalls use this type of ammo.
 
Sometimes I think people watch waaaay to much TV. I watched katie Couric ask over and over why they couldnt just shoot him to disable him. I mean it wouldnt make a lot of sense to shoot a guy in the leg if he had a bomb. If it were even possible. I think these people have never fired a weapon and have no idea what it would be like to shoot a moving target in an immensely stressful situation.

Although if it were me I could have shot the guy in the side of his neck using the old cowboy vulcan Spock pinch thing and just knocked the guy out. :roll:
 
Two air marshals on board.. A man running down the isle screaming he has a bomb and then defies orders and reaches inside a bag.


If he had not been shot I would say we were wasting a lot of money on these air marshals and to sell their seat to a tourist.
 
Doesn?t seem much different from telling a cop you have a gun and then reaching under your shirt. Don?t be a fvcktard and you wont get shot.
 
With all of our technology today why not deploy some sort of odorless gas that would render everyone in the plane (except for the pilots) unconscious?
Click to expand...

Okay, someone's been watching just a little bit too much of Hollywood's finest productions, and considers it within the realm of possibility......

Even if we did have such a magical gas, that would render everyone almost instantaneously unconcious, with little to no side effects (does anyone remember the hostage situation in the Russian theater a couple years ago????), let me ask you this......

If you were one of the future terrorists, wouldn't you, at the first sign of unexplained sleepiness (either your own or someone else's), realize that you were about to be knocked out by some miracle sleeping gas, and detonate your bomb?? I sure would.

Better yet, how is this magical sleeping gas supposed to work if, say, the terrorists wear gas masks??? 😕

Bottom line.....in this day and age of wonderful people that are more than willing to die for their religious beliefs, and more than happy to take as many "non believers" with them as is humanly possible, the only choice is to take them out before they take us out, without prejudice or sympathy. It's them or us, and I vote for us.
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Projectile weapon in a pressurized hull with windows just scares me. Gunplay in the air is just not smart. No matter how good a shot you are, there is just too many ways to screw up. I do like that sleeping gas idea, just knock everyone out, no need for stewart service at all 🙂
Click to expand...


Ever watch Myth Busters? They found that a few bullet holes in a plane will cause decompression at most. Nothing is going to happen unless a huge hole is torn in the plane.

Sleeping gas? Isn't that what the Russians used in the theater to subdue the hostage takers a few years back? How many people died from the gas alone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top