Skip to main content

My previous diary entry "The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures (video)" while popular as far as lambasting TSA abuse went, also advocated allowing guns on planes. This part was not so well received as the comments reflect. Let me elaborate on the subject.

I advocated "allowing selected passengers to carry guns on planes as a way to enhance security". This does not mean that everyone can bring any gun on board. The airlines, not the government, would regulate who can carry what. Not many passengers would opt to carry. Some gun owners may not have the right kinds of guns and therefore not qualify. Many lack training in using guns on a plane. The idea is not an armed mob but a few select people on the plane being armed.

The airlines should also be allowed to have their own armed security on board to replace the sky marshals. This security could be both uniformed and plainclothes. Of course, pilots that want to carry should be allowed to.

Given this kind of unknowable threat to any terrorist action, civilian guns on planes would be a great deterrent making an actual terrorist incident, and therefore, a shoot out unlikely.

Originally posted to The International Libertarian on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 04:29 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Terrible Idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ezekial 23 20

    :: Unnessasry risk with no benfit. Are you seriously suggesting we increase the risk of human injuries and sudden depressurization of aircraft.
    :: We are supposed to trust a cost cutting industry that teeters on bankruptcy to vet people carrying deadly weapons?
    :: We are supposed to trust people who jump at the chance to bring deadly weapons aboard public transporation?

    FAIL.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:04:46 AM PST

    •  Did you even read my diary? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tnproud2b
      Your comment is nothing but straw men & paranoia.

      The major issue you seem to have is this irrational fear of guns & the people that carry them. I go to many libertarian events where people carry & I feel much safer with my colleagues armed. BTW, nobody has been shot or even threatened by the armed libertarians.  

      •  Two mindsets (0+ / 0-)
        Those who feel more comfortable when the people who they are surrounded by are not carrying arms, and those who only feel comfortable when knowing almost everyone around them is carrying a loaded weapon and prepared to use it as they see fit.
      •  What Strawmen? (0+ / 0-)

        Do you know the definition of that therm?

        These are real questions you seem unable to answer.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 03:13:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What KoNko wrote in italics: (0+ / 0-)
          :: Unnessasry risk with no benfit. Are you seriously suggesting we increase the risk of human injuries and sudden depressurization of aircraft.

          More injuries how? By making terrorism in the air more dangerous for terrorists we reduce the risk of passenger injury. It's called deterrent.

          Depressurization is avoided by using small caliber, low velocity soft rounds.

          :: We are supposed to trust a cost cutting industry that teeters on bankruptcy to vet people carrying deadly weapons?

          One reason the airlines are suffering is that people are repulsed by the TSA's methods & not flying. Rational, respectful security would bring more fliers back.

          :: We are supposed to trust people who jump at the chance to bring deadly weapons aboard public transporation?

          Yes, they will protect us. Guns don't make people crazed killers, left wing mythology not withstanding.

          BTW, public transportation is a govt owned bus or train, airplanes are privately owned.

          •  More guns (0+ / 0-)

            Makes more opportunity for one to be shot and more opportunity for disasterous consequences.

            If you suspend the retoric and assumptions that gus would only hit bad guys and nothing else, reason suggests this is a bad idea.

            And reason dictates arms and other weapons not be brought aboard. That is the law for a reason.

            It has nothing to do with public or private ownership. That does not stop bullets depressurizing cabins or innocent bystanders being shot.

            And it is public transport because the public uses it.

            You are living in fantasy land.

            End of discussion.

            Yes, they will protect us. Guns don't make people crazed killers, left wing mythology not withstanding.

            No, crazed killers don't kill people, bullets do, even bullets shot by sane people intending to do good. Even when illogical people believe otherwise.

            And BTW, how do you suggest airlines get insurance when they allow people bring weapons aboard?

            What about my Daughter's future?

            by koNko on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 12:44:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Be consistent (0+ / 0-)

              If you want no guns on planes then lets see you post that the air marshals service be eliminated. Your argument otherwise is that civilian guns are bad but govt guns are somehow good.

              "And BTW, how do you suggest airlines get insurance when they allow people bring weapons aboard?"

              Airlines could buy insurance just like they do now. Not everyone is an irrational gun hater like you.

              SLAM DUNK END OF DISCUSSION, CHUMP LOL

              •  I'm very confortable with Zero guns on planes (0+ / 0-)

                That is the ideal case.

                I don't have to diary it because I just said it and that is enough.

                But if you want to diary it you are welcome to.

                Airlines could buy insurance just like they do now. Not everyone is an irrational gun hater like you.

                SLAM DUNK END OF DISCUSSION, CHUMP LOL

                Who would they buy the insurance from, the NRA?  XD

                No points. No slam dunk. FAIL. Read it an weep, Sucker.

                What about my Daughter's future?

                by koNko on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:06:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  That's just a ridiculous point of view. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abe57, Ezekial 23 20

    The reason we don't let guns on airplanes is that even their optimal use poses exactly the same risk to the aircraft and its passengers than any potential criminal act.  We have eliminated the possibility of controlled flight into a target on the ground by reinforcing the cabin doors, so the only remaining terror or generically criminal threat is to the aircraft and its passengers.  That's not a sufficient risk to justify countermeasures that are just as dangerous as what they're trying to prevent.

    "George Washington said I was beautiful"--Sarah Palin on Barbara Bush, as imagined by Mark Sumner

    by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:22:04 AM PST

    •  Short version (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abe57

      Get those m***** f*****' guns off my m***** f*****' plane!

      "George Washington said I was beautiful"--Sarah Palin on Barbara Bush, as imagined by Mark Sumner

      by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:23:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just curious (0+ / 0-)
      Why do you think my countermeasures are so dangerous?

      Let me bounce this off of you. Are there any studies that show that disarmed passengers are safer than armed ones?

      •  Lemme do one quick. (0+ / 0-)

        Yup, my test results show unarmed passengers are far less likely to cause damage to the plane hull and infrastructure.

        They were completely unable to pierce the hull of the plane other than by opening actual doors and unable to put holes in the inner infrastructure while damaging any of the enormous number of wiring runs in a modern large aircraft.

        The problem is not passengers shooting bad guys, the problem is missing, or bullets so powerful they go through the bad guy and into walls, windows, or floors.

  •  Archie Bunker on Gun Control (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abe57

    illegal, n. A term used by descendants of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

    by ricardomath on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 05:31:17 AM PST

  •  I would suggest you go dig up a video of (0+ / 0-)

    a modern jet being built.  That thin inner hull that surrounds the passengers has many many miles of necessary wiring run between it and the outer shell of the craft.  Any weapon discharge piercing the inner hull could do massive amounts of damage to the electronics of the craft, leading to a far greater likelihood of a crash.

  •  well, no. People just can't be trusted not (0+ / 0-)

    to leave firearms lying around, for example.  

    And who is going to have the power of life or death over 200 closely packed individuals with no ability to escape or fight back?  What kind of training will that person get?  

    I just do not see this being anything close to a reasonable solution.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:56:18 PM PST

    •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)
      what kind of gun owners you know that "leave firearms lying around". The ones I know aren't like that.

      "And who is going to have the power of life or death over 200 closely packed individuals with no ability to escape or fight back?"

      Having the ability to fight back is why I want to allow some guns on planes.

      •  I don't see how one can realistic talk about (0+ / 0-)

        opening fire on an aircraft without placing the lives of other passengers in grave danger.  

        Look, the TSA is rotten to the core, and it's latest search policies are quite openly criminal.

        But let's not get carried away.

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 06:01:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would you then advocate (0+ / 0-)
          no air marshals? They're armed:
          Gun Nuts at 30,000 Feet?
          http://www.fff.org/...

          I keep emphasizing that there is a deterrent effect from arming passengers & people replying to me keep ignoring that, why? The idea is not to have the shoot out but prevent it.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site