The current political climate demands that all mentions of firearms must be demonized. Where I live it is assumed that everyone is armed. This does not make a lot of difference except people tend to be more polite and less confrontational.
fatfred733

it bothers me WAY MORE that they have forgotten where their piece is... these are often people that use them every day like law enforcement officers and such, and maybe they are so comfortable with them, that they are careless. Which is no good around firearms.

OTOH, a person with a lighter and a can of hairspray or carb cleaner could cause a great deal of harm on a plane if they wished...

This is just more theatre of the absurd.

Now, I am not a gun owner, but I'd like to think that if I was, I would always know where my weapons were located. If I forget that I had a gun in my carry on luggage that I took to the airport, I would take responsibility for that. Now, I don't think I should be arrested for it, but I would understand being detained, being questioned, and having a background check run on me. I could also understand having to miss my flight and having to pay a fine. It is an incredibly stupid thing to lose track of a gun like that, and if I did it once, I would be unlikely to do it again. I agree there needs to be consequences for that, and I'd like to think that responsible gun owners would also feel the same way.

What Fayd and SwissArmyD said. Not remembering that you have a firearm on your person or among your belongings is more than forgetfulness -- it's carelessness.

It use to be that you had have the necessary criminal intent, mens rea, to be prosecuted for a crime.

For example, you leave the shopping mall find a car the same make, model and color as your car. You put the key in the door unlock. Put the key in the ignition and start it up and drive away. You later discover it is somebody Else's car. You would not be prosecuted for stealing the car because you did not have the necessary criminal intent.

Similarly, in the referenced cases they should not be prosecuted because there was no criminal intent.

However, it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody had criminal intent, so we increasingly see laws passed that do not require prosecution to prove criminal intent. This is very dangerous trend in our criminal justice system.

It bothers me that someone deemed responsible enough to own guns doesn't know where they are at all times.

You might doubt the invulnerability of airliners to small arms. I invite you to read this crash data site for yourself.

Small arms shooting the airplane haven't brought down an airliner. A look at Wikipedia about the weight of said airliner vs. its cargo might shed some light on why for you.

-----
Ray: who is it that you think should "deem" someone "responsible enough"?

Next time someone argues that only trained law enforcement types are qualified to carry firearms:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/15/prison-guard-drunkenly-shot-finger-in-attempt-to-remove-wedding-ring-police-say/?intcmp=obinsite

Whatever commercially and readily available weapon a terrorist would choose today, they are going to lose.

The 1986 FOPA effectively said that no more fully automatic weapons can come onto the civilian market. (I won't go to the uselessness of the act.) So any fully automatic weapon now costs more than $10K+ plus. Anyone selling one is going to ensure they follow the National Firearms Act of 1934.

So anyone hijacking a plane with a fully automatic weapon is already so far on the other side it wouldn't matter.

Anyone that has fired a full automatic weapon knows that precise targeting does not happen. So if five terrorists were able to get a full automatic weapon on an aircraft and used them in the air they would put holes in the other passengers. They would also penetrate floors, ceilings and walls of the aircraft and probably compromise multiple systems, making the aircraft unmanageable by inexperienced pilots.

Getting an AR-15 or the semi-auto AK4 through even pre9/11 security was not a real chance.

So that brings us back to semi-auto pistols. Glock has a 17 round 9MM magazine that is standard. With a 100 passengers on a plane and five terrorists they would need 95 perfect head shots to take out every objecting passenger. Plus add in the 4-5 flight attendants. In confined quarters, in a defensive position.

I could see SEALS or some special forces similar doing this. Not terrorists.

Or in other words -- There will never be another 9/11.

The TSA and the rest of the government needs to get a clue.

Don't screen for guns, encourage them!

Anyone with a concealed carry permit who carries their weapon on board gets 10% off their ticket price. Then eliminate screening for anything except the grotesquely obvious ("no, ma'am, you cannot carry on your crate of dynamite").

Hijacking problem: solved (if it even exists).

Bombing problem: irrelevant: if it exists, it's in the cargo hold anyway.

TSA problem: eliminated, along with hundreds of millions of hours of wasted passenger time.

"They would also penetrate floors, ceilings and walls of the aircraft and probably compromise multiple systems, making the aircraft unmanageable by inexperienced pilots."

Not sure where you get the "inexperienced pilots" - Patrick Smith has repeatedly scoffed at the idea that just anybody, even a private pilot, can land a heavy successfully, even if it is intact.

I urge you to consider the link above at length. Small-arms fire to the airframe hasn't downed a commercial airliner. If your crew succeeds, they will have shot the cockpit up and killed themselves in the process.

Not sure where you get the "inexperienced pilots" - Patrick Smith has repeatedly scoffed at the idea that just anybody, even a private pilot, can land a heavy successfully, even if it is intact. -- Radwaste at March 21, 2013 2:56 AM

I'm talking about the 9/11 scenario. They kill the passengers, using guns, with predictable misses, which would probably compromise systems. Some of the passengers are also armed. By the time a fire fight is you would have a plane with damage done. Try to land or control it.

"By the time a fire fight is you would have a plane with damage done. Try to land or control it."

Again: small-arms fire to the airframe has not downed a civilian airliner. Check the link.

Several have survived SAM strikes.