Isn’t there a smart gun that knows its owner? I could have sworn I heard about such things (or have I been watching too much TV?). I seem to recall that the owner (the air marshall in this case) would have to wear some kind of bracelet that “communicates” with the gun but only over a distance of 6 or 12 inches, meaning that if you take out the air marshall, his or her gun is of no use (unless the hijacker uses his box cutter to saw the air marshall’s hand off).
Does this really exist?
I just wanted to mention something about the scenario where the AM reveals himself and gets zapped by the hidden terrorist. Do you think that the AM’s have not thought about this scenario? Keep in mind that AM’s are not rookie cops who were put on a plane, but are in fact nothing less than fully trained commandoes who, when they are not on planes are constantly training under different scenarios. Their methods of operation and their tactics are Top Secret. Why do you suppose that is? Their ground equivalent is Delta Force, and many current AM’s are in fact, members of Delta Force. AM is not an easy job to get or to hold.
As far as the weapons, they shoot very low velocity bullets for the purpose of not penetrating the aircraft. No, they aren’t going to instantly kill a bad guy, but they will disable them.
As far as the “terrible lax in security” that allowed this to happen, has anybody ever brought their shaving kit on carry on? Essentially, that’s all that was used. A couple razor blades and a plastic handle to hold them. A 4 inch nub of a pencil is just as lethal. Without someone to stop them, it can happen.
I’ve applied for an AM job. Although well qualified, I’m nearing the cutoff age so my hopes are not high, but we’ll see 
I find it amusing, the way you seem to feel that a gun is the ultimate evil, turning the bearer into the bane of mankind’s existence (sort of like the One Ring). You seem to think that somebody in possession of a gun becomes invincible when it’s the bad guys:
But when it’s trained federal officers, you say:
WTF? I don’t see the logic in the majority of your posts, but as a rule, when it comes to the topic of guns you make absolutely zero sense. And this is a fine example. Please stop contradicting yourself.
Hello, FBI? You know how Canada has been harboring bin Laden’s guys? Well, look at this…Uh-huh…Yeah, Edmonton…You’re calling the Mounties right now? Thanks! 
Okay, maybe I’ll agree with that, too.
It’s a very simple distinction, Joe. Until the bad guys have revealed themselves, the air marshall doesn’t know who to shoot. If an armed terrorist sees passengers moving up the aisle towards him, there’s no question who to target, is there?
Nothing can provide 100% cirtainty of safty, but just as any city or town is safer with armed cops then without them, so would an airplane be safer with an armed guard then without one.
Another possibility would be to arm the pilots and other cockpit crew. Many are ex-military and would already know how to handle a gun. Those that need training could get it.
Sky marshals or pilots; either way, let them use that special “hurts people, not planes” ammo.
Also, when cops, FBI agents, military personnel, etc. fly, why not let them keep their guns with them? We don’t worry about cops, FBI, and military carrying guns on the ground, why disarm them in the air? The vast majority never use their guns to shoot people over trivial annoyances on the ground, why would being airborne cause any loss of self control and common sence?
For that matter, why not let anyone with a “concealed carry” lisence bring his/her gun along on flights?
Armed passengers – cops, military, or citizens – could be required to have with them only “airplane safe” bullets. Perhaps the airlines could supply such ammo free of charge.
I may be mistaken, but I think law enforcement officers can already carry their weapons on board, at least in some circumstances. Anyone know the details?
However . . .
I have soooooo many objections to this, I barely know where to start. But first and foremost is the simple fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists themselves would have been eligible for concealed carry permits.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I thought they were not US Citizens…? And would they necessarily have passed any of the background checks involved? I’m honestly confused here.
They do exist, but they are not very reliable - they certainly do not meet the reliability demanded by law enforcement officers, where one misfire or error in 10,000 is considered “iffy”. You should see the lengths to which some cops choose their ammunition, comparing and contrasting brands that have the least recorded incidents of misfires - which on a semi-auto means a possibly fatal delay required to clear the chamber and load the next round.
I think they will be more common in the future as technology advances the reliability component, but not right now, IMO.
BTW, I’m curious. Did anyone find serious fault with my economic assumptions in the OP? I’d really like to know if I am too far off-base on an economic issue.
U.S. citizenship is not a requirement for a concealed carry permit. If I may quote myself rebutting that same assertion from Weird_Al:
Other than that, the big requirements for concealed carry permits are typically:[ul][li]~Six months’ residency in the issuing state. Pretty easy.[]No criminal convictions. Nearly all of these guys had clean records, I understand.[]No history of drug or alcohol abuse. In practice, this means no DWI’s or drug convictions. I heard somewhere that one of the hijackers had a couple DWI arrests, but everyone else would pass this with no problem.No history of mental illness. In practice, that means you haven’t been treated for mental illness. These guys were nuts, but they’d have cruised right past that requirement.[/ul][/li]And then we’d have terrorists waved on board with pefectly legal guns. I fail to see how that’s a good idea in any circumstances.
Jesus, minty, I didn’t realize that. Even I, a hardcore 2nd-Amendment supporter, can’t support concealed carry for non-citizens. Thank you for the information.
Sorry, I agree with you on this to a point*, but his argument is specious.
Minty Green, Tell me this: In what way could the events of 9/11 have been worse if the hijackers had had a gun? They accomplished their objectives with knives. So I don’t see how the situation would have been worse if they had guns.
I know, I know…you’re going to say the PA plane could have made it to its objective. But you’re ignoring the facts that a) if they got guns on the plane because concealed carry was allowed on the plane, then there would likely have been armed passengers who could have taken them out without rushing (not to mention the whole Air Marshall plan), and b) guns don’t carry unlimited bullets. If people know they’re going to die regardless, it would take more than a bullet or two to put them out of commission. Especially if they are trained “commandoes” (as Turbo Dog put it).
*The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply only to citizens. It’s not a grant of permissions for citizens to be able to do certain things, it’s a list of things the government is not allowed to do. These rights apply to ANYBODY, citizen or not, American soil or not. If our government is acting, then all the Bill of Rights applies. See the USSC case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez for details.
I know, and understand that, Joe, and I back up your definition. What I am saying is that I personally am uncomfortable with non-citizens being allowed concealed carry. I admit it is at odds with what the likely intent of the Bill of Rights would be, provided one accepts the points I’ve tried to put forward many times in other GC threads. It’s just a personal level of being uncomfortable.
There were what, 30-40 passengers on that plane? Considering:[ul][]that damned few people have CCW permits;[]that a truly miniscule percentage of those people with CCW permits actually carry on even a semi-regular basis;[]that even fewer of those people are going to go through the heightened security requirements that even the most insane gun nut would undoubtedly put on getting a CCW weapon through airport security; and[]that they’re gonna get arrested for illegal possession of a firearm when they reach their non-CCW state destination,[/ul]I think the odds of anyone but the terrorists on that PA plane being armed are negligible. Nay, laughable. And even if one passenger were armed, there’s five terrorists who have guns. Wanna guess who’s gonna win that confrontation?
Gunfight at the OK Fuselage.
Now there’s movie material.
You folks are argueing about something that just ain’t going to happen. There’s no way the authorities are going to allow passengers to carry. I hope not.
Peace,
mangeorge
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by minty green *
**There were what, 30-40 passengers on that plane? Considering:[ul][li]that damned few people have CCW permits;[]that a truly miniscule percentage of those people with CCW permits actually carry on even a semi-regular basis;[]that even fewer of those people are going to go through the heightened security requirements that even the most insane gun nut would undoubtedly put on getting a CCW weapon through airport security; and[]that they’re gonna get arrested for illegal possession of a firearm when they reach their non-CCW state destination,[/ul]I think the odds of anyone but the terrorists on that PA plane being armed are negligible. Nay, laughable. And even if one passenger were armed, there’s five terrorists who have guns. Wanna guess who’s gonna win that confrontation? **[/li][/QUOTE]
Well, unless they have magic Hollywood guns, a few things will probably happen:
Some shots won’t hit anybody.
Most people will take more than one shot to kill.
Those who do will likely be even more determined to stop the attack, especially after the WTC was destroyed.
Eventually, they will run out of bullets. Let’s see…Let’s assume there are 5 guys, each armed with a Glock 17. The only way a person with a concealed carry permit is going to get on a plane with his gun (also assuming this is allowed) is after passing an inspection. Carrying an illegal capacity magazine will probably not pass inspection at gate security, so each gun has a max of 10 rounds before having to reload. That’s 50 bullets. Assuming an 80% hit rate (which is obscenely high for stressful combat shooting but ok for our argument), that leaves 40 bullets making actual hits. The vast majority of those will be non-kill shots, so let’s say for the sake of argument that the average person is incapacitated after 2 hits. So that leaves a max of 20 people unable to fight. That still leaves a lot of people to continue the assault. Let’s say each hijacker carries an extra magazine. That still leaves only 40 disabled.
Anyway, this is actually pretty silly, as is your point that I’m arguing against. Your claim that flights are more dangerous with armed patrols than without is just plain stupid. If your logic holds true, then we should just dispense with police in all of our cities, since they can be overwhelmed and disarmed. It’s fine for you to say “I don’t like guns. I think they are bad,” but when you start trying to piece together logical arguments it just doesn’t work. Because it’s illogical.
First off, I find it amusing, the way you seem to feel that a gun is the ultimate security device, turning the bearer into the bane of terrorists’ existence (sort of like the One Ring). You seem to think that somebody in possession of a gun becomes invincible when it’s the good guys. But when it’s terrorists, they can’t shoot straight and the survivors can easily regain control of the plane.
:rolleyes:
Cite, please? If you read the thread, you’ll find that I’m already on record as stating that armed air marshalls are a good idea, but not the cure-all that you and Al apparently think they are. I am also on record that allowing Joe_Citizen to carry a gun on board merely because he has a ridiculously-easy-to-obtain CCW permit is insanity.
Cite, please?
Whoa, can’t argue with that logic.
Don’t feel too bad about it Anthracite. I was blindsided by the same thing, and I was just as surprised as you were that at least in some states, the bar for getting a CCW permit is legal residency, as opposed to citizenship.
That said, I suspect that it really isn’t as easy for a non citizen to get one as it is for a citizen. But I have no facts on this, I will have to do some digging. One thing I have decided to do is write the author of that article and bring this fact to his attention. I wonder if he will respond.
I find this fascinating, and have a number of questions, foremost among them how the power to wage war fits into this, but i don’t want to hijack this thread.
We can do better than this. On another thread where I was discussing this proposal, I suggested that the policy of the airlines might be to allow carry-on guns (to CCW permit holders) but not ammo. The ammo would be loaned out by the airline itself, would be of the prefragmented type that’s already been discussed, and limited to a reasonably number of rounds, say four.
Furthermore, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that permitting passengers to be armed is the only thing that should be done. There are certain things that law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI, can do. For instance, assuming that CCW permits are as rare as Minty says, if five people with CCW permits getting on the same flight at the same time doesn’t set off some loud alarm bells somewhere, then someone is just asleep at the switch. Especially if these five people fit the profile of potential terrorists, or are known to be associates of each other, or already under surveillance, or any of the above.
Of course this is making the eminently reasonably assumption that CCW permit holders who want to carry guns on their flights would be required to make advanced notice of same, and that persons giving such notice would be subject to some scrutiny.
FWIW, the Air Line Pilots Association wants its members to be trained as law enforcement officers and permitted to carry weapons. I’d like to see further details and some expert study, but I certainly don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with the idea.