Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Although, seperating the pilots from the passengers is the most EFFICIENT way of avoiding conflict.

Layered defense would be the best protection.

1. Barricaded door that is only unlocked while the plane is on the ground. Place a bathroom in the cockpit (in the chair if needed) and keep enough food / water in there to keep the flight crew functioning for the flight.
2. Armed flight martial to keep order in the back.
3. Pilot armed as a final layer of defense on the offhand chance that all the above layers fail.

IMO, the future with air terrorism will be sleeper pilots, pilots loyal to "the cause" that will be regular pilots until activated. Once enough protection is in place for the pilots, nothing will stop them from carrying out their "duty."

 

[MovingTarget]

Meh, I am definitely pro-gun but even I see this as a non-issue. Firearms are impractical in such close quarters at 30k ft. The best defense is an angry mob of passengers. Cheaper, too.

 

[yowolabi]

I like how an editorial is treated as fact, and people don't even read the editorial clearly.

Nowhere is it indicated that pilots who have guns will lose them. There have been absolutely no announcements on that. As a matter of fact if 2 million dollars is going towards monitoring the pilots with guns, the only logical conclusion is that there will still be plenty of pilots with guns that need monitoring.

The closest to evidence they provided is that the process to approve new firearms has "stalled" for a whole freaking WEEK, and people have somehow concluded that must mean it's completely dead and the pilots with guns are going to be stripped.

This is just another in a long list of hypotheticals for the Ragers to foam at the mouth about.


After writing the above post, i did some research on the Times to find out why their journalistic standards are so poor.

It turns out that the Times is an unabashedly conservative newspaper. Color me suprised that they did their best to take a non-event and editorialize it into some sort of scandal. Tony snow is the former editor of their editorial page, just to give you an idea of where they stand.

PS. If you want some interesting reading, read up about the paper's founder, Sun Myung Moon.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, arming Pilots were a half-assed on the cheap solution that acted as an ever-present final line of defense in the case of a hijacking

fixed.

Taking away a pilot's right to carry a gun is fucking dumb. Period.

You gun grabbing assholes really shouldn't leave your homes... really... the big black scary assault pilots are coming to gets you!!!!11

:roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, arming Pilots were a half-assed on the cheap solution that acted as an ever-present final line of defense in the case of a hijacking

fixed.

Taking away a pilot's right to carry a gun is fucking dumb. Period.

You gun grabbing assholes really shouldn't leave your homes... really... the big black scary assault pilots are coming to gets you!!!!11

:roll:

Like I said, hire an Air Marshall. If a Hijacker takes over you need more than a Pilot trained to use Guns. You need someone trained in Tactics. It was a stupid policy.

Does anybody have a Constitutional Right to "Carry"?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, arming Pilots were a half-assed on the cheap solution that acted as an ever-present final line of defense in the case of a hijacking

fixed.

Taking away a pilot's right to carry a gun is fucking dumb. Period.

You gun grabbing assholes really shouldn't leave your homes... really... the big black scary assault pilots are coming to gets you!!!!11

:roll:

Like I said, hire an Air Marshall. If a Hijacker takes over you need more than a Pilot trained to use Guns. You need someone trained in Tactics. It was a stupid policy.

There is not enough funding to hire an adequate number of marshals to cover most flights. The article uses the example of only 3% of all DC-area flights covered by an air marshal. If that number is even smaller elsewhere, as I suspect it is, then your plan to cover flights with marshals would require a ludicrous increase in funding.

And, if you need it spelled out for you, the pilot's gun is not meant for his own protection, or the protection of the passengers. The entire point of armed pilots is to deny the airplane's controls to terrorists who might otherwise attempt to carry out another 9/11.

Does anybody have a Constitutional Right to "Carry"?

That word is not mentioned specifically, no; but, most states in the country have made it so.

Then again, we're talking about Federally certified pilots, not Joe Sixpack...

 

[nbowman]

a little research finds the following: PDF of what happened


tl;dr version:

Obama took $2 million of the FFDO's $25 million budget and reallocated it. This would mean that the FFDO has been reduced to its original FY 2003 operating budget of only $23 million instead of getting the $50 million they wanted.

not great, but not the super secret killing of the whole program that this is being made out to be.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, arming Pilots were a half-assed on the cheap solution that acted as an ever-present final line of defense in the case of a hijacking

fixed.

Taking away a pilot's right to carry a gun is fucking dumb. Period.

You gun grabbing assholes really shouldn't leave your homes... really... the big black scary assault pilots are coming to gets you!!!!11

:roll:

Like I said, hire an Air Marshall. If a Hijacker takes over you need more than a Pilot trained to use Guns. You need someone trained in Tactics. It was a stupid policy.

There is not enough funding to hire an adequate number of marshals to cover most flights. The article uses the example of only 3% of all DC-area flights covered by an air marshal. If that number is even smaller elsewhere, as I suspect it is, then your plan to cover flights with marshals would require a ludicrous increase in funding.

And, if you need it spelled out for you, the pilot's gun is not meant for his own protection, or the protection of the passengers. The entire point of armed pilots is to deny the airplane's controls to terrorists who might otherwise attempt to carry out another 9/11.

Does anybody have a Constitutional Right to "Carry"?

That word is not mentioned specifically, no; but, most states in the country have made it so.

Then again, we're talking about Federally certified pilots, not Joe Sixpack...

Like I said, "on the cheap".

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: cubeless
wow... 3 personal attacks and a baseless assumption... and it took 2 posts to do it... powerful rhetoric there 'yoda...

the truth hurts...huh??

 

[winnar111]

He's forgotten the lessons of 911 in more ways than one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a good thing that no one ever took over an airplane and flew it into a building. They always just blow holes in the fuselage.

 

[rudder]

Well, at least pilots will still have an axe in the cockpit.

 

[kage69]

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?

Well as a gun loving non-terrorist, I don't have a problem with this. I'd rather have Air Marshals handling the guns, and the pilots handling the plane. We have enough lousy pilots out there showing up tipsy from the airport lounge, or accidentally discharging their firearms within the cockpit like what happened awhile ago.

If the steel has to come out in a confined area loaded with people, I'd prefer the law enforcement professional to be the one doing the shooting - NOT the person who should be ensuring the safety of the crew and passengers by staying behind the reinforced door and operating the plane.

I've talked with a few pilots regarding this topic and let's just say I was horrified by my feedback. They all seemed pretty happy and gung ho about the notion of packin, yet couldn't answer basic questions about their sidearms are the ammo they were loaded with. Exactly the person I want attempting modern CQB at 35k feet within a crowd of people!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's smart to end the program.

Why do pilots need guns when about $200 worth of door reinforcements will keep them safe inside the cockpit?

I agree. Besides, what happens if the pilot panics and blows a hole in the cockpit? IMHO, the pilots should not have physical contact with anyone outside the cockpit. They should be fed like dogs and prisoners, via a hole at the base of the door (if necessary).

What happens if he farts and takes the plane off auto-pilot? Oh the possibilities. Which always seem to be the basis of any anti-gun argument. Nothing based in reality, just hypotheticals and appeals to emotion.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's smart to end the program.

Why do pilots need guns when about $200 worth of door reinforcements will keep them safe inside the cockpit?

I agree. Besides, what happens if the pilot panics and blows a hole in the cockpit? IMHO, the pilots should not have physical contact with anyone outside the cockpit. They should be fed like dogs and prisoners, via a hole at the base of the door (if necessary).

Are they not going to be able to take a shit on a 14 hour flight from New York to Tokyo?

I guess the pilots can send the bedpans under that same hole.

And what good is a reinforced door going to do against a demand to open the door? The demand that says either open up the door or all the flight attendents get killed. What would you do as a pilot of a hijacked plane?

Sure on 9/11 the hijackers could have busted through the door. But up until that point the pilot's training would have resulted in the pilots opening the door to talk with the hijackers. If the pilots had guns do you think they could have taken out some guys with box cutters?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
I like how an editorial is treated as fact, and people don't even read the editorial clearly.

Nowhere is it indicated that pilots who have guns will lose them. There have been absolutely no announcements on that. As a matter of fact if 2 million dollars is going towards monitoring the pilots with guns, the only logical conclusion is that there will still be plenty of pilots with guns that need monitoring.

The closest to evidence they provided is that the process to approve new firearms has "stalled" for a whole freaking WEEK, and people have somehow concluded that must mean it's completely dead and the pilots with guns are going to be stripped.

This is just another in a long list of hypotheticals for the Ragers to foam at the mouth about.


After writing the above post, i did some research on the Times to find out why their journalistic standards are so poor.

It turns out that the Times is an unabashedly conservative newspaper. Color me suprised that they did their best to take a non-event and editorialize it into some sort of scandal. Tony snow is the former editor of their editorial page, just to give you an idea of where they stand.

PS. If you want some interesting reading, read up about the paper's founder, Sun Myung Moon.

The bolded is just another example how the hysterical Right twist a fact to feed their daily dose of faux rage.

 

[Vette73]

Not onyl what Red wrote but also...

Pilot's gun discharges on US Airways flight

But seems the program got off to a bang. :roll:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: cubeless
if the bad guy uses $20 worth of explosive

If a bad guy can sneak explosives onto a jet, everyone is dead.

You're using misdirection, why? The gun is relevant to preventing hijackings.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Not onyl what Red wrote but also...

Pilot's gun discharges on US Airways flight

But seems the program got off to a bang. :roll:

Oh wow, so in what 8 years since they allowed pilots to carry a weapon one accidentally discharged resulting in no injury?!?!?!?!? Call the whambulance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: cubeless
if the bad guy uses $20 worth of explosive

If a bad guy can sneak explosives onto a jet, everyone is dead.

You're using misdirection, why? The gun is relevant to preventing hijackings.

The whole premise of this thread seems to be bullshit. The pilots will still be allowed to carry guns

To quote yowolabi
"Nowhere is it indicated that pilots who have guns will lose them. There have been absolutely no announcements on that. As a matter of fact if 2 million dollars is going towards monitoring the pilots with guns, the only logical conclusion is that there will still be plenty of pilots with guns that need monitoring.

The closest to evidence they provided is that the process to approve new firearms has "stalled" for a whole freaking WEEK, and people have somehow concluded that must mean it's completely dead and the pilots with guns are going to be stripped. "

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's smart to end the program.

Why do pilots need guns when about $200 worth of door reinforcements will keep them safe inside the cockpit?

I agree. Besides, what happens if the pilot panics and blows a hole in the cockpit? IMHO, the pilots should not have physical contact with anyone outside the cockpit. They should be fed like dogs and prisoners, via a hole at the base of the door (if necessary).

Are they not going to be able to take a shit on a 14 hour flight from New York to Tokyo?

I guess the pilots can send the bedpans under that same hole.

And what good is a reinforced door going to do against a demand to open the door? The demand that says either open up the door or all the flight attendents get killed. What would you do as a pilot of a hijacked plane?

Sure on 9/11 the hijackers could have busted through the door. But up until that point the pilot's training would have resulted in the pilots opening the door to talk with the hijackers. If the pilots had guns do you think they could have taken out some guys with box cutters?

They can either have their own bathroom or wear adult diapers.

If they threaten the flight attendant with death, do you really think they just want to talk to the pilots? Come on. These are terrorists we're talking about. Hence, if the plane is really important, then the flight attendants need to learn some martial arts.

If the pilots had guns on 9/11, it's very unlikely that they would've used it considering hijackings are so rare on American flights and the fear of Muslim terrorists wanted to fly plane into buildings were never unheard of. So, yes, I believe many mistakes would've been made that same day.

 

[Genx87]

Where do you propose they put this bathroom anyways? These planes were designed decades ago.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm going to tell my Mommy on him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: cubeless
if the bad guy uses $20 worth of explosive

If a bad guy can sneak explosives onto a jet, everyone is dead.

You're using misdirection, why? The gun is relevant to preventing hijackings.

The whole premise of this thread seems to be bullshit. The pilots will still be allowed to carry guns

To quote yowolabi
"Nowhere is it indicated that pilots who have guns will lose them. There have been absolutely no announcements on that. As a matter of fact if 2 million dollars is going towards monitoring the pilots with guns, the only logical conclusion is that there will still be plenty of pilots with guns that need monitoring.

The closest to evidence they provided is that the process to approve new firearms has "stalled" for a whole freaking WEEK, and people have somehow concluded that must mean it's completely dead and the pilots with guns are going to be stripped. "

Killjoy

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Although, seperating the pilots from the passengers is the most EFFICIENT way of avoiding conflict.

Layered defense would be the best protection.

1. Barricaded door that is only unlocked while the plane is on the ground. Place a bathroom in the cockpit (in the chair if needed) and keep enough food / water in there to keep the flight crew functioning for the flight.
2. Armed flight martial to keep order in the back.
3. Pilot armed as a final layer of defense on the offhand chance that all the above layers fail.

IMO, the future with air terrorism will be sleeper pilots, pilots loyal to "the cause" that will be regular pilots until activated. Once enough protection is in place for the pilots, nothing will stop them from carrying out their "duty."

If that were to happen, I think the first thing one of these "sleeper" pilots would do is use the gun to shoot the other pilot.