I have not tried to talk to you about flying, rather about the issues in become a combat handgunner who happens to flying a plane. But using your own words you reduce yourself to taking shots at me.
How, exactly, did I take shots at you? I refuted several statements that you've made re: arming pilots. If you took that as a shot, I apologize. Heck, I've even made the statement that I respect your mos. Marine snipers are among the best in the world, and if you are one, I commend you. One of my favorite books of all time is "Marine Sniper" about Carlos Hathcock. Talk about a man dedicated to his work.......
This is an important issue that hits very close to home for me and a lot of other pilots.
I put this as simple as I could, I could tell everyone that a 230 grain .45 caliber bullet has a muzzle velocity of 835fps at the muzzle and 830fps at 50yards, but it starts to get dizzying.
Moot point.
Needless to say you are under the impression that each armed person can keep their cool and control the weapon during an unknown stress situation involving humans not equipment, I have issue with that.
I am under the impression that I absolutely can keep my cool in this exact situation. The rest can be weeded out with training. Besides, what do you suggest we do short of arming pilots with firearms? All of your attempts at argument try to prove that we shouldn't be armed, but in EVERY scenario you come up with, we're better off armed than not.
You are one voice and actually the only voice I have seen debating the merit of this exercise.
Which exercise are you referring to? This thread alone has over 5 pages........... I've seen names other than mine and yours on here.......
I have some pretty realistic life experience in CQB and know first hand the dangers of engaging in a gun fight in close quarters.
As have I, and you know what? I STILL believe that I'd fare better in a close quarters fight with trained terrorists armed than not........I will surely die unarmed. With a firearm, I have a chance.
Take your glock and glasers and go shoot a car door, if you think it is safe you sit on the other side and at 15yards I'll shoot it...
No thanks. Whether they will penetrate a door from 15 yards is immaterial to this argument. They are the least likely to penetrate hard surfaces of any factory ammunition, that's why the sky marshalls use them. As I've said many times before, any damage that a pistol round can do to the aircraft is so small compared to the damage that occurs when said aircraft hits something hard. Why is this so hard for folks to comprehend?
seen a .45 go through a Honda Civic from the trunk exiting the front fender, at much farther.
I can guarantee that it wasn't a Glaser that penetrated that many layers of steel. The plastic case shatters on impact and any remaining energy in the lead shot is spent rather rapidly.
theyare teflon coated for a reason, to penetrate the leather jacket of a person and it expands when it hits the correct tissue density ie: the body.
Glasers aren't teflon coated at all. They have a frangible plastic bullet case filled with compressed lead shot. The plastic breaks upon hitting something hard. I've seen demos where they were fired at car windows from about 5 feet away (oblique angles to nearly 90 degrees) and they didn't penetrate.
The only real defense is a uncertain offense, if they don't know what to expect at any given time they cannot prepare for it.
I agree totally. Too bad we're so predictable!
You seriously don't understand the resolve and experience of the people your fighting.
Actually, I do. That's why I want the option to be armed. When all of the other measures fail, for the exact reasons cited by you, I'd like a last ditch means of possibly saving the aircraft. Right now, when that cockpit door comes crashing down, there is nothing at all we can do, except hope that the future new hire in the f-teen gets the aircraft before anyone on the ground is killed. If the bad guys get in the cockpit, everyone on board will die.
I have seen written alittle too much here the worry about a missile up the tailpipe, if it gets to that point isn't it too late anyway?
Yes. That's why we'd like something between the missile and the TSA employees searching for tweezers.
And if your spending money cannot these planes be equiped to be flown from the ground? (Albeit expensive, but possible?)
How in the world can anyone think that this is an acceptable alternative to arming pilots? There are SOOOOOO many things wrong with the idea that it's not even worth considering......
Defense works in perimeters, you have to have several layers, each insures the next is that much safer, the answers happen before anyone reaches the plane. That means, people who care about their job, devices in place to detect and prevent, training to identify red flags, alot more can be accomplished off the plane rather than on the plane.
But, when all of these layers fail, due to the diligence and perserverence of the hijackers, and they ARE on the plane, the last layer should be an armed pilot.
Anyway, I think it is a combination more than a single sided solution.
I absolutely agree 100%. Firearms are part of the overall solution. Better intel, immigration control, scanning all bags for explosives, real biometric ID cards for airline personel, close the ground ops loophole, better cockpit doors, better security training for flight deck and cabin crews (The common strategy.....please......) and finally, and armed flight deck. As you have stated, and I agreed with. These people will find every weakness in the system, and exploit it. This is the entire reason for arming pilots. When all of the initial layers fail, there is one more, likely effective layer, prior to the missile strike.
But I am just a former, and not really sure what I am saying, so what do I know...
I didn't say it........ I am sure that you are great and proficient at what you do/did. It doesn't make you an expert on this issue. Nor am I for that matter, BUT I do spend many hours a month in the cockpit of an airliner AND have 17 years of hands on experience with all manner of firearms and 8 years of experience cqb training with the local pd.
I am still waitiing for a reasonable, well thought out alternative to arming pilots.
Maybe you should come over to Sniper's Hide we only have some of the highest trained people around the world there talking about the issues of putting rounds on target.
I don't preach about which I know little. Your site sounds interesting, and I might peruse it due to my interest in firearms. How long range rifle shooting relates to aircraft security, I can't figure out.