I would have thought first class to be the stupidest place to put them, since the cockpit doors are now reinforced. Far better a random aisle seat in coach, where they will be harder to identify, lost in the masses of average travellers.

Anyway, I am inclined to agree with the gun enthusiasts: Citizens with concealed-carry licenses, military officers and sufficiently trained police (not just an average beat-cop) should get 10% off their tickets if they agree carry their personal weapons on the flight. No need for air marshals.

I like that idea! I have a concealed carry permit and would gladly carry my gun on a plane for a discount. I'm sure plenty of others would too.

Not sure I like the idea of sitting next to someone with a loaded gun. Trained policeman, ok... but as for the others... not so much. Not sure I trust the average traveller to make the call to start a shoot-out.

> Mr. Minerly of the Federal Air Marshal
> Service said he was unfamiliar with the
> incident, and that the agency does not
> comment on specific cases.

First of all, this wasn't a "case". This was attempted misconduct by an agency of the United States Government, not an execution of their responsibilities.

Secondly, if the agency doesn't comment, why allege ignorance of specifics?

I hate the federal government.

"Trained policeman, ok... but as for the others... not so much."

You don't have to be a police officer to be trained. And I've seen more than a few police officers make a bad judgment call with a gun.

A gun on a plane is a bad idea anyway. Crowded conditions, panicky sheeple, pressurized cabin. I'd say numbers, hand-to-hand skills, a few tasers and some zip-ties are more apropo.

OK, time to learn. Sorry to be harsh, here, but I have to smash the idea that a gun is a threat to the airplane itself. Go read the incident reports at the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Center, and you will see with your own eyes that no commercial airliner has ever been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe. Several have survived bombs and even SAM strikes.

Shut up about "the pressurized cabin". You're not traveling in an aerosol can.

Peruse the pages of "Ask the Pilot", by Patrick Smith, over at Salon.com for a LOT more on aircraft security.

You are already traveling in the presence of persons with concealed weapons. Your real choice is whether you want them to be legally, intelligently carried! You're just fooling yourself in a feeble attempt to "feel safe". And in case you haven't noticed, those air marshals, with their guns, are numerous; with the link I have provided, you can come up with the logic on your own: they shoot, bystanders like you die, the airplane carries on with a couple of dents in it (you should also know that pistol rounds can't make it out of the plane along the majority of discharge paths). Your solutions are to not be a bystander, and to push for smarter action by TSA and other agencies. Yes, they have made themselves an impenetrable monolith. Start with your Congressman.

Think about this - don't just emote. Your whole life, you're being told that your defense is up to someone else, by people who also have no legal obligation to do so. You should say, "Wait. What?" and think about that.

I think the absolute last thing we need on airplanes are a bunch of guns in the hands of passengers. Seriously, is that a joke? Citizens with concealed carry licenses allowed - ENCOURAGED, INCENTIVIZED - to bring a gun on a plane? I would never get on a plane again. Just because you're an American citizen who got a concealed-carry license doesn't mean you're competent with a gun, or equipped to make serious decisions about using that weapon in the unique setting of an airplane cabin, or, hell, doesn't guarantee that you're not INSANE and ready to whip that out on the next person who bumps your elbow on the way to the toilet.

BF and I go to the range and shoot on a regular basis, hand guns and rifles. I'm pretty damn good with both. I take having a permit very seriously, in that I make sure I KNOW how to use my guns. I took a class in gun safety, I practice, I know how to clean, handle and store my guns (always locked), and I also know first aid and how to dress gunshot wounds. These things are simple and mostly common sense. I would hope I would never have to use a gun on a plane, but, I would rather HAVE a gun and NOT need it, then NEED a gun and NOT have it.

Where, O where has common sense gone?

The Brady Campaign has done an exemplary job of casting all gun owners as lunatics, just waiting for someone they can shoot.

Which is where we get mmaire from.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't a pistol class a requirement for a CCW in CT?

No, you're not mistaken, Brian, you are quite correct. And in the case of a hunting license, you have to take a separate class for that, a hunter's safety class. I haven't taken that one, but BF has. Even though he prefers hunting with a bow (compound, of course), he took the hunter's class because, on a rare occasion, he'll hunt with a rifle.

There's a strong case to *require* all airline pilots to be armed. It's now optional: pilots can get firearms training, but at most airlines it's at their own expense, and the practice seems to be discouraged by both the government and the airlines.

In the 1930s, all pilots carrying the US Mail---which included substantially all airline pilots---were required to carry guns.

Everyone in America should be reqiured to take basic training of one of the armed forces.

It teach gun saftey along with a whole host of other things that the citizens of this country seem to have forgotten or take for granted.

Good lord, I'm not suggesting that everyone carrying a gun is crazy. I live in the south - I know many people with guns and concealed-carry permits. I'm saying that having a gun in a closed environment packed with people a mile in the air is a bad idea. Even sane people might react badly in a stressful situation. I'm not saying everyone with a gun and a concealed-carry license is mad. I wouldn't say they're all sane and capable, either. i live in the fairly rural south. Conceal-carry is very common. I see plenty of people with handguns that I wouldn't trust with an airsoft. I also know perfectly capable gun owners, but it only takes one idiot, and there are plenty of those on planes.

I just think allowing passengers guns on an airplane would create FAR more problems than it would solve. The circumstances in which one would need a gun are, thankfully, rare. Start bringing guns on a plane, we're going to have incidents. It's a matter of statistics.

And classes? Classes don't necessarily make you capable. Don't improve your judgment in stressful situations. Police and other individuals with extensive gun training can exercise poor judgment with guns.

There are some places where guns and other weapons just don't belong. School campuses and airplanes rank pretty high on my list.

I disagree with mmaire. Airplanes and school campuses rank high on my list of where qualified people ought to be carrying guns.

A concealed carry permit requires you to demonstrate not only competence but also judgement. After all, the entire purpose of concealed carry is defense (of yourself or others), which is by definition a stressful situation.

Search for school shooting "concealed carry" on google, and read some of the thoughts about this. Lots of people think that the prohibiting weapons on university campuses has made campuses less safe - targets for idiots looking to shoot a few dozen bystanders.

"School campuses and airplanes rank pretty high on my list."

That worked so well at Virginia Tech. Or even Fort Hood. When the crisis is now, help is only minutes or hours away. Or maybe like Columbine or that home invasion in CT, they'll wait outside until it's safe to enter.

In the end, the only one you can count on is you. I served with plenty of guys who wouldn't be nominated for exercising the best judgement in all situations. I suvived, unscathed. It turns out that most responsible adults (OK, 18 year olds, most of them - are responsible when they need to be.)

Do we seriously need half a dozen Federal Air Marshals on a single flight? I'd think a couple would be ample, considering the SIG pistols they carry are rather more than a match for some Islamists with improvised weapons. I've seen the FAM pistol qualification course, and the standards are actually fairly high, at least compared to those for other armed government agencies.

Which leads me to the other thing, about supposedly poorly trained gun owners. I work in the gun industry, and it is true that there are many, many gun owners who are "unconsciously incompetent," meaning that they simply don't know what they don't know. On the other hand, I and many other people have attended training that is well beyond that received by all but the most elite government employees. Private shooting academies like Gunsite in Arizona offer this training to everyone who can prove "good guy" status.

People who are uncomfortable around guns always assume that the streets will run red with blood when concealed carry laws are liberalized. Of course it never happens, and I am unconcerned that CCW holders will pull guns at some small provocation. It was pretty damn clear on 9/11 exactly who needed to be shot.

But considering the dismal level of shooting skill I've seen among a great number of concealed carry permit holders, and the crowded environment of an aircraft, I'd be more comfortable around gun carriers with higher skill levels than the average permit holder. The aircraft environment is quite different from self-defense in a dark parking lot or in a bedroom, and the chances of errant shots hitting an innocent are much, much higher in the airplane. Thus, while I'd be fine with permit holders carrying on planes (not that it will ever actually happen), I'd prefer they be graduates of a place like Gunsite or higher-level practical shooting competitors.

The "pressurized cabin blowout due to a tiny bullet hole" thing is a complete myth, by the way. I blame Ian Fleming.

Let me get this straight. You can't take a decent sized bottle of shampoo or a pair of tweezers on a plane because they could be dangerous weapons, but a pistol is OK?

I wonder how the marshalls would react if they saw someone stand up pointing a pistol. Oh, never mind, they're all in First Class.

"There are some places where guns and other weapons just don't belong. School campuses and airplanes rank pretty high on my list."

This is a sure-fire way to identify those who just do not think.

Hey, genius: when you prohibit the law-abiding from bringing a gun somewhere, you guarantee the felon a list of victims.

If you backed the policy of Virginia Tech, for instance, you helped disarm the victims and abetted the shooter.

Nice going!

I agree with Rad.

There's a strong case to *require* all airline pilots to be armed. It's now optional: pilots can get firearms training, but at most airlines it's at their own expense, and the practice seems to be discouraged by both the government and the airlines.

The case for arming pilots isn't as strong as it seems.

First, there is a major practical problem. Almost all international destinations prohibit guns carried by pilots

Beyond that, though, two things would have completely prevented 9/11, and neither involve guns: Intrusion resistant cockpit doors to keep bad guys out, and changing hijack response training.

All passenger airliners have IRCDs. Before 9/11 pilots were trained to accede to hijacker demands in order to save passenger lives. Now, it is all about getting the airplane to the nearest suitable runway and disabling it from the flight deck.

No matter how many passengers are getting killed in back.

Having some pilots armed, and a few sky marshals scattered around (But six on one flight? That's nuts) makes sense because it complicates terrorist planning. Putting them in 1st class also makes sense because it puts the marshals between the terrorists and the flight deck.

Because of IRCDs and changed training, I predict there will never be another successful hijacking of an airliner approved to operate in Western airspace.

Not to mention that attempting to hijack a plane these days is the quickest way to get your ass kicked by 100 strangers.

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-26/us/airplane.struggle_1_flight-crew-flight-attendant-passengers?_s=PM:US

Essentially 9/11 changed the American paradigm -- the old way was to sit still and wait for negotiators when the plane lands. That is no more. Now it is beat the living sh*t out of the bad guy and the authorities can deal with whatever is left when we touch down.

There are days I love the American individualism.

For mmaire: since there is at least one case in which you think other people who are law abiding should not be able to defend themselves effectively, is your own home on the list of places a gun shouldn't be? You might think about that.

For mmaire:

Warren v. District of Columbia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The cops are not responsible for protecting you from an ongoing crime

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

The cops are not responsibel for failing to enforce the law(in this case an active restraining order - resulting in the death of 3 children)

The cops are not there to protect you from crime. They are there to investigate after the fact and punish the criminals. Small cofort if you are the one shot after the cops have showed up but are waiting for it to be safe enough for THEM

The biggest tragedy near the self-defense issue isn't the fact of accidents or crime involving guns - it's the abject surrender of Americans to the idea that since these things happen:
They are inferior persons.
They are incapable of responsible action.
They are likely to kill others.
They are always guilty of something.
They accept the ridiculous idea that because criminals do something, they, the innocent must be shackled.

"A concealed carry permit requires you to demonstrate not only competence but also judgement."

Not in my home county in Pennsylvania. Fill out a form, pay your money, pass the criminal record check = get a CCW permit. Repeat to renew.

I wish getting a CCW license required one to undergo a basic competency test (but not a written test) similar to the skills tests for driving a car or motorcycle.

PA offers "free" (government funded) dirt bike and motorcycle safety courses at the beginner and advanced levels, in which they provide the cycles and helmets. I wish we offered the same for firearms.

*****Anyway, I am inclined to agree with the gun enthusiasts: Citizens with concealed-carry licenses, military officers and sufficiently trained police (not just an average beat-cop) should get 10% off their tickets if they agree carry their personal weapons on the flight. No need for air marshals.*****

I'd go further and say if there were some way to certify the general public such that you knew they understood the responsibility it takes to carry a weapon, let them get the discount as well. And why conceal it? Make them wear it out where everyone can see.

I'm all for Air Marshalls or police officers shooting a terrorist in the head if they get a clear shot... but I really don't want a plane full of gun toting American civilians "protecting" me.

Back in the old west, there was a reason why the Sheriff took away the cowboys guns when they got into town to party at the local saloon because otherwise the assholes in the crowd would use their guns without using their brains first and someone would have to clean up the blood.

Now... the Sheriff is taking away your tweezers and children's scissors so he ain't likley gonna let you pack your .357