View Poll Results: Should Airline Pilots Be ARMED?
Yes
111
34.69%
No
209
65.31%
Voters: 320. This poll is closed
***arm Airline Pilots Now***
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: France
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GUNS & PILOTS
OH DRONE BORE AND WHINGE>>here we go again with the age-old arming pilots debate.
Ok folks,,I understand, and can even in some ways agree with both sides of the arguments, but let me say just this..
Whenever you visit most non-UK airports, many of the ground staff (security, customs, immigration and others) all carry guns...IT's NOT A BIG DEAL !!!
We don't hear horror stories about these people all suddenly going mad with their weapons.
And what about he young troublesome boy at school who always gets into trouble with a mis-spent youth, has no qualifications, isn't particularly bright and can't find a job...he can still apply to join the army as a squaddie.
After a course of drill marching and discipline, one of th efirst things that happens is..they put a high powered guns in his hands and teach him how to kill.
With no disrespect to them, are we going to sit back and accept an argument that airline plots are less professional, less responsible than these people ?
I dare you to make such an accusation in any pilots crew room.
Of COURSE each individual would have to be trained in the various aspects of gun control etc, and would require specific carriage / storage restrictions, and so on....we don't simply give people a gun and say "Get on with it" like they do in the movies.
And it has to be said that for varous reasons of personal assessment, perhaps a few individuals would be deemed unsuitable to carry such a weapon.
One final point ... and just for the record, I have a long history of using firearms (pistols) and also making the ammunition.
I'm not by any means an expert on the subject, but I can promise you that it's easy for ammunition to me made which would flatten (not necessarily kill) a terrorist without damaging any part of the aircraft other than a slight dent if it was to miss., and would not likely kill an innocent passenger at any distance more than point blank.
This guns debate is an important one, but please, lets keep this debate based on reality, and not over-opinionated self-imposed expertise.
This website can be read by anyone, and comments like "I wouldn't fly in an airliner if the pilot had a gun" has as much use as saying "I'll never go on holiday because the airport staff there carry guns"..and such comments are not doing any justice to the vast majority of pilots who work hard at keeping their professionalism to the highest standards.
Ok folks,,I understand, and can even in some ways agree with both sides of the arguments, but let me say just this..
Whenever you visit most non-UK airports, many of the ground staff (security, customs, immigration and others) all carry guns...IT's NOT A BIG DEAL !!!
We don't hear horror stories about these people all suddenly going mad with their weapons.
And what about he young troublesome boy at school who always gets into trouble with a mis-spent youth, has no qualifications, isn't particularly bright and can't find a job...he can still apply to join the army as a squaddie.
After a course of drill marching and discipline, one of th efirst things that happens is..they put a high powered guns in his hands and teach him how to kill.
With no disrespect to them, are we going to sit back and accept an argument that airline plots are less professional, less responsible than these people ?
I dare you to make such an accusation in any pilots crew room.
Of COURSE each individual would have to be trained in the various aspects of gun control etc, and would require specific carriage / storage restrictions, and so on....we don't simply give people a gun and say "Get on with it" like they do in the movies.
And it has to be said that for varous reasons of personal assessment, perhaps a few individuals would be deemed unsuitable to carry such a weapon.
One final point ... and just for the record, I have a long history of using firearms (pistols) and also making the ammunition.
I'm not by any means an expert on the subject, but I can promise you that it's easy for ammunition to me made which would flatten (not necessarily kill) a terrorist without damaging any part of the aircraft other than a slight dent if it was to miss., and would not likely kill an innocent passenger at any distance more than point blank.
This guns debate is an important one, but please, lets keep this debate based on reality, and not over-opinionated self-imposed expertise.
This website can be read by anyone, and comments like "I wouldn't fly in an airliner if the pilot had a gun" has as much use as saying "I'll never go on holiday because the airport staff there carry guns"..and such comments are not doing any justice to the vast majority of pilots who work hard at keeping their professionalism to the highest standards.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: A Travelling Man
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topic back in focus
Well said Celtic Frog, objectivity and common sense, just what is needed to get this topic back into focus before it gets hijacked by the 'anti-guns anywhere' lobby.
Met-Max, I take it that you don't travel much then?
Met-Max, I take it that you don't travel much then?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age old?
Age old debate over arming pilots? As far as I know this debate has only really started just over a year ago!
I think you hit the round with the firing pin when you said "ground staff" Celtic. There is quite a difference between being on the ground and airborne with someone waving a firearm about.
You seem to think that most squaddies are a bit thick and if it wasn't for a course in "drill marching and discipline" they would be off trying to kill us all!! I happen to know a few squaddies and they have all been rather thoughtful people who just happen to enjoy running about in the rain. Do you think we pilots are better and more professional than the foot soldier? As an ex Air Force pilot, I can tell you that I believe no one earns their pay more than the squaddie!! What exactly is your solution?
Barry, you thank Celtic for his objectivity and common sense then demonstate a lack of both
I think you hit the round with the firing pin when you said "ground staff" Celtic. There is quite a difference between being on the ground and airborne with someone waving a firearm about.
You seem to think that most squaddies are a bit thick and if it wasn't for a course in "drill marching and discipline" they would be off trying to kill us all!! I happen to know a few squaddies and they have all been rather thoughtful people who just happen to enjoy running about in the rain. Do you think we pilots are better and more professional than the foot soldier? As an ex Air Force pilot, I can tell you that I believe no one earns their pay more than the squaddie!! What exactly is your solution?
Barry, you thank Celtic for his objectivity and common sense then demonstate a lack of both
before it gets hijacked by the 'anti-guns anywhere' lobby.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: France
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arming pilots
OK saudipc..and my apologies to those squaddies who misunderstood my comments..of course I have a huge amount of respect for squaddies..many of whom I have met and regard as intelligent thoughtful people.
And perhaps without realising it yourself, I reckon you actually agreed with what I was at least trying to say...
The anti-gun campaigners tend to tar all pro-gun supporters with the same brush..something like:
"If you have a gun , you are therefore an irresponsible psychopath..."
And now it feels like people are trying to add :
"...especially if you're at the controls af an airliner"
Squaddies, (great people) customs, security staff, immigration, police, and in some countries, other specific occupations, are authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of preserving life.
Yet airline pilots are often in charge of more lives at any one time (other than train drivers and ships' captains),
Of course here are considerations regarding training, ballistics, circumstances, etc but whichever way the argument swings regarding arming us, in the interests of our industry, please let's not tolerate anyone trying to accuse us of being less capable of being trained, less responsible, less sensible, less thoughtful, less anything, than any other group of people who are authorised to carry weapons to protect lives.
And perhaps without realising it yourself, I reckon you actually agreed with what I was at least trying to say...
The anti-gun campaigners tend to tar all pro-gun supporters with the same brush..something like:
"If you have a gun , you are therefore an irresponsible psychopath..."
And now it feels like people are trying to add :
"...especially if you're at the controls af an airliner"
Squaddies, (great people) customs, security staff, immigration, police, and in some countries, other specific occupations, are authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of preserving life.
Yet airline pilots are often in charge of more lives at any one time (other than train drivers and ships' captains),
Of course here are considerations regarding training, ballistics, circumstances, etc but whichever way the argument swings regarding arming us, in the interests of our industry, please let's not tolerate anyone trying to accuse us of being less capable of being trained, less responsible, less sensible, less thoughtful, less anything, than any other group of people who are authorised to carry weapons to protect lives.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: A Travelling Man
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saudipc-9
Not a good sign when you have to lower yourself to a personal insult and still don't make your point is it?
If you disagree with what I say, fair enough, but at least stay civil and if you can't do that then abstain.
GlueBall - If the people that voted on this forum in any way represented the people who will eventually decide the issue I would agree but I don't think the PPRuNe voters are representative.
If you disagree with what I say, fair enough, but at least stay civil and if you can't do that then abstain.
GlueBall - If the people that voted on this forum in any way represented the people who will eventually decide the issue I would agree but I don't think the PPRuNe voters are representative.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Celtic,
You and I are in agreement, although I think from slightly different view points. Your thoughts that anti-gun campaigners tar and feather the pro-gun lobby with the same brush is probably true. However, I think the same could be said for the reverse.
I am not anti-gun, I just don't think this is the solution that we need. The reason 19 terrorists got onboard and were able to take over those aircraft was because we let them. The security in the US and other countries, was in the past shocking! We have to stop these people well before they get near an aircraft. A firearm onboard treats the symptom, but does not cure the disease. Believe me I don't think we are any less capable of handling a firearm that is not my argument at all. Of course we are able to do so I just think there are better ways of handling the situation than to add more firepower.
Barry, Sorry if I hurt your feelings but if you say something on here which is in poor taste, then expect to be called on the carpet for it. I wasn't trying to insult you nor be uncivil , just making a point.
You and I are in agreement, although I think from slightly different view points. Your thoughts that anti-gun campaigners tar and feather the pro-gun lobby with the same brush is probably true. However, I think the same could be said for the reverse.
I am not anti-gun, I just don't think this is the solution that we need. The reason 19 terrorists got onboard and were able to take over those aircraft was because we let them. The security in the US and other countries, was in the past shocking! We have to stop these people well before they get near an aircraft. A firearm onboard treats the symptom, but does not cure the disease. Believe me I don't think we are any less capable of handling a firearm that is not my argument at all. Of course we are able to do so I just think there are better ways of handling the situation than to add more firepower.
Barry, Sorry if I hurt your feelings but if you say something on here which is in poor taste, then expect to be called on the carpet for it. I wasn't trying to insult you nor be uncivil , just making a point.
Last edited by saudipc-9; 12th Nov 2002 at 18:29.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: France
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns & Pilots
Don't you just love it when we can all kiss and make -up ??And one quick croak before I go...like Barry, I am always aware of these opinion polls as they offer no indication of the personal knowledge each voter has on whatever subject is being voted.
Ok..that's enough for me..I'm off to catch some flies.
see y'all !
"Ribbet"
Ok..that's enough for me..I'm off to catch some flies.
see y'all !
"Ribbet"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EU
Age: 46
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...more guns less crime!"
As seen on many a US bumper. It may be true that the cultural differences may influence the way we think about how firearms are handled in everyday life; but isn't this a typical case of working on the symptoms because the problem is much more difficult to tackle? Lacking sufficient airport security and proper background checks on ground staff, cannot be compensated by establishing a second line of defense in the cockpit.
No western country is as lax with guns as the US, is it that far fetched to somehow link this to homicide rates?
As seen on many a US bumper. It may be true that the cultural differences may influence the way we think about how firearms are handled in everyday life; but isn't this a typical case of working on the symptoms because the problem is much more difficult to tackle? Lacking sufficient airport security and proper background checks on ground staff, cannot be compensated by establishing a second line of defense in the cockpit.
No western country is as lax with guns as the US, is it that far fetched to somehow link this to homicide rates?
Politicians
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply not going to happen. It will create more problems than it solves.
Scenario one.
The bit between the flight crew walking off an aircraft, all carrying guns, and arriving at the armoury. Not too difficult for some airport working n`er do wells to club them over the head and nick their guns. If you believe all airport workers are safe to trust you really are supping too much of the old sauce.
There you go a couple of guns on the wrong side of security. Give them to numb nuts terrorist who is em planing. By the time the knocked out pilots are discovered many aircraft are already in the air, which one is it? Result major terrorist incident caused by arming pilots.
It really is more trouble than it is worth.
As for training pilots to a lesser level than police/military. The Police and military that have firearms and are correctly trained, regularly have accidents, which kill one of their colleagues. Pilots will be no different.
As for the Odds Wino I hereby accept your payment of 100 bucks.
However you won`t have to pay it because pilots on commercial jets will NEVER be armed so it is a moot point really.
Scenario one.
The bit between the flight crew walking off an aircraft, all carrying guns, and arriving at the armoury. Not too difficult for some airport working n`er do wells to club them over the head and nick their guns. If you believe all airport workers are safe to trust you really are supping too much of the old sauce.
There you go a couple of guns on the wrong side of security. Give them to numb nuts terrorist who is em planing. By the time the knocked out pilots are discovered many aircraft are already in the air, which one is it? Result major terrorist incident caused by arming pilots. It really is more trouble than it is worth.
As for training pilots to a lesser level than police/military. The Police and military that have firearms and are correctly trained, regularly have accidents, which kill one of their colleagues. Pilots will be no different.
As for the Odds Wino I hereby accept your payment of 100 bucks.
However you won`t have to pay it because pilots on commercial jets will NEVER be armed so it is a moot point really.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex - Your suggested scenario has no credibility if the weapons are kept secured in a locked container on the flight deck - been done before. There is no need for crews to carry the weapons on their person when not on the aircraft.
Skill At Arms training covering the safe handling of a pistol need not take too long to achieve a satisfactory standard and can be kept up by practice with a disabled unloaded example kept for that purpose. Accuracy takes longer to learn but at such short range, as is likely to be the case in an aircraft, should not present a big problem.
Skill At Arms training covering the safe handling of a pistol need not take too long to achieve a satisfactory standard and can be kept up by practice with a disabled unloaded example kept for that purpose. Accuracy takes longer to learn but at such short range, as is likely to be the case in an aircraft, should not present a big problem.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever guns are discussed it polarises into those who hate them and those who don't. Some seem to have a visceral fear of guns and believe that they have a life of their own, capable of jumping out of a cupboard and shooting them dead. But a gun is only dangerous if it is pointed and the trigger is pulled, so you should fear the shooter, not the gun.
I see reference often to the 30,000 killed by guns in the US, but you should know what that figure represents. Of the 30,000, 10,000 or so are suicides. Woud they still be dead if they had no guns? Probably, so we should look at their reasons for doing what they did rather than the means.
Another 9,000 are those killed by law enforcement officers, so presumably those killings were justified. Or not. A man at a halloween party last year in LA was dressed as a pirate and had a plastic gun. A policeman saw him from the garden outside and fired 14 rounds at him through the glass, 9 rounds went wild but five hit the poor b*gger, in the BACK. The investigation cleared the cop. We should be outraged at that, I think.
1,500 are accidental deaths, tragic of course, but in the scheme of things not so many. 10,000 die in the US every year from errors by medical personnel, but we don't call for stethoscopes to be banned. Another 18,000 die because they have no or inadequate health insurance, but we don't call for universal coverage. Maybe we get upset at the wrong things.
Of the rest of the 30,000, about 60% are due to drug or gang activities, and are generally black on black (in other words, a small part of the population). The insane war on drugs and the politicians refusal to re-think a failed idea is the blame here.
The final few thousand are what you would correctly be afraid of, being killings and murders by civilians. But even that is not what you think, since it includes those (successful) defences against bad guys trying to commit crimes. The civilian record in this regard is better than that of the police, in that their actions are not found to be at fault as often. another one or two million (yes, million!) crimes are estimated to have been prevented by civilians using guns (not necessarily firing them, but letting the criminal know that you have a gun and will use it).
So the 30,000 becomes just a couple of thousand. Still more than the UK, sure, but on a per capita basis not so bad, and maybe those murders would still have happened, even without a gun.
Criminals prey on the weak and defenceless, such as those in "gun free" places like Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Liverpool, London and Sydney. And, yes, airplanes.
I see reference often to the 30,000 killed by guns in the US, but you should know what that figure represents. Of the 30,000, 10,000 or so are suicides. Woud they still be dead if they had no guns? Probably, so we should look at their reasons for doing what they did rather than the means.
Another 9,000 are those killed by law enforcement officers, so presumably those killings were justified. Or not. A man at a halloween party last year in LA was dressed as a pirate and had a plastic gun. A policeman saw him from the garden outside and fired 14 rounds at him through the glass, 9 rounds went wild but five hit the poor b*gger, in the BACK. The investigation cleared the cop. We should be outraged at that, I think.
1,500 are accidental deaths, tragic of course, but in the scheme of things not so many. 10,000 die in the US every year from errors by medical personnel, but we don't call for stethoscopes to be banned. Another 18,000 die because they have no or inadequate health insurance, but we don't call for universal coverage. Maybe we get upset at the wrong things.
Of the rest of the 30,000, about 60% are due to drug or gang activities, and are generally black on black (in other words, a small part of the population). The insane war on drugs and the politicians refusal to re-think a failed idea is the blame here.
The final few thousand are what you would correctly be afraid of, being killings and murders by civilians. But even that is not what you think, since it includes those (successful) defences against bad guys trying to commit crimes. The civilian record in this regard is better than that of the police, in that their actions are not found to be at fault as often. another one or two million (yes, million!) crimes are estimated to have been prevented by civilians using guns (not necessarily firing them, but letting the criminal know that you have a gun and will use it).
So the 30,000 becomes just a couple of thousand. Still more than the UK, sure, but on a per capita basis not so bad, and maybe those murders would still have happened, even without a gun.
Criminals prey on the weak and defenceless, such as those in "gun free" places like Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Liverpool, London and Sydney. And, yes, airplanes.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead,
I think you need to look again at your figures. Your 9000 police related shootings seems abit high. If I read the PDF correctly the figure 270 seems more accurate. only 8730 deaths different from yours!!!
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_15TB18.pdf[/URL]
Reading your post, you seem to be able to dismiss 30'000 deaths a year rather easily.
"" Not so Bad!!!!"" Come on Boofhead if one of those couple of thousand was someone you loved, I think your post would have a different slant to it.
I agree with you ,in part, that it is the person which is responsible for what happens. However, as sad as it is to say, I think that the average Joe on the street is not responsible enough to own a firearm. The public needs to be protected from themselves. That's why they have seatbelt laws and you still see people driving without one. "Duhhh, I might not be able to get out if the car catches fire Duuuh"
I think you need to look again at your figures. Your 9000 police related shootings seems abit high. If I read the PDF correctly the figure 270 seems more accurate. only 8730 deaths different from yours!!!
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_15TB18.pdf[/URL]
Reading your post, you seem to be able to dismiss 30'000 deaths a year rather easily.
So the 30,000 becomes just a couple of thousand. Still more than the UK, sure, but on a per capita basis not so bad
I agree with you ,in part, that it is the person which is responsible for what happens. However, as sad as it is to say, I think that the average Joe on the street is not responsible enough to own a firearm. The public needs to be protected from themselves. That's why they have seatbelt laws and you still see people driving without one. "Duhhh, I might not be able to get out if the car catches fire Duuuh"
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: France
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns & Pilots
Just a quick comment folks before I go to bed...
I can't comment on Boofhead's statistics because I haven't got a clue what they are, but I reckon to compare pilots with guns and soldiers having the occasional accidental fatality, ...let's not forget that soldiers are regularly training in simulated battlefield conditions...trenches, forests, night time, smoke screens, playing good guys / bad guys etc. ..so accidents are an occupational hazard.
Pilots would hopefully NEVER pull the gun out of the holster except to check it / load & unload, and practice in a controlled shooting range under strict safety rules.
And as for an airside airport worker clobbing a pilot over the head and hijacking ...I've never heard of it happening at other airports where other airside staff carry guns.
Besides, if that was beleived to be a potential problem , it only takes a few seconds for the pilots to dismantle their guns before leaving the aircraft..perhaps even locking at least part of it in a specially installed lockable compartment in the aircraft.
I can't comment on Boofhead's statistics because I haven't got a clue what they are, but I reckon to compare pilots with guns and soldiers having the occasional accidental fatality, ...let's not forget that soldiers are regularly training in simulated battlefield conditions...trenches, forests, night time, smoke screens, playing good guys / bad guys etc. ..so accidents are an occupational hazard.
Pilots would hopefully NEVER pull the gun out of the holster except to check it / load & unload, and practice in a controlled shooting range under strict safety rules.
And as for an airside airport worker clobbing a pilot over the head and hijacking ...I've never heard of it happening at other airports where other airside staff carry guns.
Besides, if that was beleived to be a potential problem , it only takes a few seconds for the pilots to dismantle their guns before leaving the aircraft..perhaps even locking at least part of it in a specially installed lockable compartment in the aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks saudipc, I was quoting from tables that have obviously been massaged. Yours look more reliable.
However they still show that the accepted 30,000 gun deaths in the US is not correct, in that you have to look at what those numbers mean. In the CDC figures they claim nearly 11,000 homicides, a far cry from the 30,000. Of course that is still tragic, as is the accident numbers, and I hope I never feel the pain of losing a family member to firearm violence, nor you.
Of the 11,000, you can see from the breakdown that most are committed by a certain group of the population, and this is probably due to drug dealing and gang activity. Solve that problem and the gun violence loses its ability to lead the headlines.
I tried to show that gun haters do not always tell the truth and so I put an error in my own post (about the police shootings) so I am just as bad. I should be whapped alongside my head.
But the conclusion is still valid: Of the gun deaths in the US every year, only about one third are homicides, and according to the FBI only one third of those are murders. The rest are criminals killing other criminals, self defence and so on. For a country of 270 million, around 3000-4000 murders using guns each year is a far cry from the 30,000 you are so often told about, and the rate is not far off those of other industrialised countries. If you are not involved in drugs or gangs, and you take normal precautions for your own safety, you are just as safe in the US, even in the big cities, as you are at home.
So when you vist the US, or fly in a US airplane when the pilot might have a gun, do not despair.
However they still show that the accepted 30,000 gun deaths in the US is not correct, in that you have to look at what those numbers mean. In the CDC figures they claim nearly 11,000 homicides, a far cry from the 30,000. Of course that is still tragic, as is the accident numbers, and I hope I never feel the pain of losing a family member to firearm violence, nor you.
Of the 11,000, you can see from the breakdown that most are committed by a certain group of the population, and this is probably due to drug dealing and gang activity. Solve that problem and the gun violence loses its ability to lead the headlines.
I tried to show that gun haters do not always tell the truth and so I put an error in my own post (about the police shootings) so I am just as bad. I should be whapped alongside my head.
But the conclusion is still valid: Of the gun deaths in the US every year, only about one third are homicides, and according to the FBI only one third of those are murders. The rest are criminals killing other criminals, self defence and so on. For a country of 270 million, around 3000-4000 murders using guns each year is a far cry from the 30,000 you are so often told about, and the rate is not far off those of other industrialised countries. If you are not involved in drugs or gangs, and you take normal precautions for your own safety, you are just as safe in the US, even in the big cities, as you are at home.
So when you vist the US, or fly in a US airplane when the pilot might have a gun, do not despair.
Last edited by boofhead; 17th Nov 2002 at 03:24.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead,
Don't whap yourself outside the head, it will upset your aim
I love going to the States. I even lived in Texas for two years flying T-37's on exchange and my wife is American. Don't get more gun crazy than the" Lone Star State" mind you the beer could use some work.
I felt perfectly safe there, as long as one stayed out of certain neighbourhoods. That goes for any city in the world I should think. If gangs or criminals go about killing each other then I'm all for it. They are doing society a favor and sparing us the time/money to send them to the gas chamber. I know I'm a bit odd in that I support the death penalty but not firearms in general.
My major point, as I have said in other post's, is just that I don't believe that firearms on board are the answer.
Don't dispair I will visit the US and I will proudly fly on a US airplane
Cheers
Ps Anyone read the book "Chicken Hawk"? It's about a Air Cav pilot in Vietnam. There's a classic part in the book when he blows a hole in the instrument panel with a pistol. Had me laughing for hours that part.
Don't whap yourself outside the head, it will upset your aim
I love going to the States. I even lived in Texas for two years flying T-37's on exchange and my wife is American. Don't get more gun crazy than the" Lone Star State" mind you the beer could use some work.
I felt perfectly safe there, as long as one stayed out of certain neighbourhoods. That goes for any city in the world I should think. If gangs or criminals go about killing each other then I'm all for it. They are doing society a favor and sparing us the time/money to send them to the gas chamber. I know I'm a bit odd in that I support the death penalty but not firearms in general.
My major point, as I have said in other post's, is just that I don't believe that firearms on board are the answer.
Don't dispair I will visit the US and I will proudly fly on a US airplane
Cheers
Ps Anyone read the book "Chicken Hawk"? It's about a Air Cav pilot in Vietnam. There's a classic part in the book when he blows a hole in the instrument panel with a pistol. Had me laughing for hours that part.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: France
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's it..I'm off to buy a copy of Chickenhawk !
One point I liked was Boof's comment how gun haters tend to talk rubbish about the subject. Couldn't agree more.
I don't have a problem with people who hate things like boxing, foxhunting, skydiving, motorbikes, guns, etc, but the world is full of the "Let's ban it" brigade who base their point of view on emotion rather than knowledge, and all they achieve is yet another "I'm right & you're wrong" argument, but the problem with this website is that the public can read it , and they believe that such comments are coming from professionals aviators, and that does us no favours ...and that's why, in any forum, when we see opinionated emotions like... " I wouldn't fly with a pilot who does XYZ.." we should stamp that sort of thing out asap.
There..I've said it...back to the swamp.
CROAK
One point I liked was Boof's comment how gun haters tend to talk rubbish about the subject. Couldn't agree more.
I don't have a problem with people who hate things like boxing, foxhunting, skydiving, motorbikes, guns, etc, but the world is full of the "Let's ban it" brigade who base their point of view on emotion rather than knowledge, and all they achieve is yet another "I'm right & you're wrong" argument, but the problem with this website is that the public can read it , and they believe that such comments are coming from professionals aviators, and that does us no favours ...and that's why, in any forum, when we see opinionated emotions like... " I wouldn't fly with a pilot who does XYZ.." we should stamp that sort of thing out asap.
There..I've said it...back to the swamp.
CROAK
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: A Travelling Man
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more Celtic, the 'anti-gun anywhere' group are a strange bunch indeed, subjective to the end, (and very rude if they fail miserably to make their point and have it pointed out to them! ).
).