What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by wix.com
1042 Comments
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -79/+363Holy *****, what a load of conspiracy theory. The article is twisted mix of un-sourced lies, false theories and retarded conclusions. Exactly what is expected from Washtimes of course.
- sharkd, on 03/18/2009, -16/+253As someone who's actually been paid to develop and evaluate strategies and tactics on how to counter terrorism, let me give you my thoughts on the Federal Flight Deck Officer program: incompetently dangerous security theater.
In the event that hijacker(s) were to take control of an aircraft cabin, an armed flight deck member is the worst possible solution. The best strategy is for the flight crew to remain in the cockpit, behind the locked, armored door. Sure, the bad guys could blow up the plane -- and that would be awful, but it's a lot less awful than opening the door and presenting them with the possibility of gaining control of the aircraft and piloting it into a mass casualty target.
Let's review what happened during the last four hijackings in which the attackers were able to gain access to the cockpit: AA11 - crashed WTC1, UA175 - crashed WTC2, AA77 - crashed Pentagon and UA93 - crashed rural Pennsylvania.
The Israelis don't arm their flight deck crews -- they stick them behind an armored vestibule, with two armored doors that cannot be opened at the same time -- a measure which we recommended in the wake of September 11, but the domestic air carriers balked at over the fact that it would have required removing 1-2 rows of seats.
This "article" is more Sun Myung Moon-bat *****. - bradharrelson, on 03/18/2009, -13/+239Did I miss something? The article just says some training funds are going to be redirected for supervisory roles.
- inactive, on 03/17/2009, -220/+431A new batch of people to freak out over this? I guess none of you remember when this law was overturned, because not ONE airline pilot had requested to carry a gun, in over 40 years?
The 9/11 truthers said it was a big conspiracy, that guns were taken away before 9/11. No one noticed that not ONE SINGLE PILOT had requested to carry a gun in the cockpit, making the "law" silly. They put the law back in place, only because of hte 9/11 frenzy.
Congratulations. You have now joined 9/11 truthers, in your need to scream "B HUSSEIN!!!!!" without having a clue. Must be nice, to finally realize you are as nutty as a truther. - xsanctom, on 03/18/2009, -94/+286So much ignorance in these comments.
What the ***** at people who say it's a bad idea, if you think a pilot with a gun will prevent a terrorist attack from people who aren't afraid to die you're kidding yourself.
So many scared Americans in this here.. - amy31415, on 03/18/2009, -64/+228Who wants to bet that there are plenty of armed individuals on Airforce One?
- aeramil, on 03/18/2009, -17/+162"The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
leads to.. --->
"This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency."
... What? How does the Obama administration diverting some money to hire more staff in another area equal unnecessary harassment of pilots and anti-gun laws?
I don't understand this article at all, absolutely no facts anywhere to back up all this obama anti-pilot gun rant? What a ridiculously terrible piece of journalism. - diggduggjoe, on 03/18/2009, -27/+153Pilots are locked away as it is. The only reason a gun would be drawn would be terrorists crashing through the door. In that situation, I would be very happy, if the pilots were armed.
Many pilots are ex-military and I am quite sure they are capable of handling a firearm.
You claim to be a non-extremist, but you appear to fear guns. Any sane person would like to know the cockpit was secure. - sonnybobiche, on 03/18/2009, -19/+133@JDoorjam: Scared ***** pilot? You know 99% of pilots came from the military, right? They're not children, or the average digger.
- GoodOlClint, on 03/17/2009, -31/+139FTA: "Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out."
Applications being intentionally stalled is not at all the same as nobody applying. - TastyWheat, on 03/18/2009, -22/+112I can think of four examples where it would've helped.
- uhammer, on 03/18/2009, -22/+112I don't understand why we think a level headed person (a pilot) with training is going to freak out and give his gun up to a terrorist. This is simply a tool to use in an emergency by a trained and qualified person. Because it goes bang people freak out unnecessarily.
- Smaulz, on 03/18/2009, -9/+95You didn't catch that episode of Mythbusters?
- sonnybobiche, on 03/18/2009, -4/+84@Elliuotatar: If your pilot is suicidal, the gun is the least of your worries.
- Ajajadude, on 03/18/2009, -19/+96Who wants to be there are plenty of armed individuals wherever the President is?
- omanhallen, on 03/18/2009, -6/+74I don't see how having the gun taken away(despite how unlikely it is) could make the situation any worse. Do you think 9/11 would have been worse if the attackers had used guns?
On the other hand, what if any of those pilots had been carrying? - pintomp3, on 03/18/2009, -81/+148What better place to fire a gun than a pressurized cabin?
- christoast, on 03/18/2009, -25/+90I say we give every stewardess a shot gun.
- georgemason01, on 03/18/2009, -3/+66Sensationalized headline + gun control debate on digg = quality e-drama. Don't ruin our fun.
- theanticrust1, on 03/18/2009, -47/+109How often are guns forcibly removed from people? This isn't the movies.
- JDoorjam, on 03/18/2009, -30/+90I'd rather have the pilot calmly sitting behind a three-inch reinforced door, concerned only about safely landing the plane, then wondering whether it's more moral to bust out and start putting bullets in people or try to get the plane on the ground. We're safer with the pilots of planes concerned solely with piloting planes.
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -10/+66@JDoorjam
I'm pretty sure landing a plane and being responsible for the lives of all passengers takes more balls and skill than aiming and pulling the trigger of a gun at a hostile individual. Point being that with the proper training pilots are capable of defending themselves successfully. - OffensivePrick, on 03/18/2009, -7/+62Up until 9/11, weren't most incidents on planes either hijackings where the pilot was allowed to land it somewhere and the passengers were politically ransomed, or bombings where a gun would do no good anyway? Guns may not have made much sense until the concept of a 9/11-style attack surfaced. This program is voluntary, yet the article says there are 12,000 pilots who've chosen to enter it.
The argument that no pilots leading up to the 1980's had requested to carry a gun for a while seems unrelated to the present situation... - diggduggjoe, on 03/18/2009, -20/+75Very simple, guns were allowed post 9-11, and the number of terror attempts dropped due to the increase airport security. I think the guns in the cockpit are great. It is the last defense. When a plane can cause as much damage as the ones on 9-11 did, we must defend every plane to the utmost.
When the Sears Tower is collapsing, what solace will come from knowing every passenger was safe from a pilot's sidearm? - Octanum, on 03/18/2009, -10/+62Well, in all fairness, if the pilot opens the door without knowing the plane is being hijacked and terrorists get in the cockpit, he'd probably have a better chance of defending the plane with a gun then his fists. Just because they're not afraid to die, it doesn't mean they won't...
- makkura, on 03/18/2009, -61/+111Wait. How are less guns on airplanes a bad thing?
- Gyre23, on 03/18/2009, -3/+52Nope, you didn't miss anything. Gold star for you for reading comprehension.
- chronic442, on 03/18/2009, -27/+71Yah you're right, I'd much rather be defenseless against someone that's not afraid to die.
- Ajajadude, on 03/18/2009, -39/+82What's "crazy" is the assumption people have that guns are like a magical shield that keep anyone from ***** with you. Is that going to keep a group of hijackers from using the passengers to get the pilots to open the door to the cockpit?
Of course, if any hijacker has a mind to start slitting the throats of passengers to get to the pilot, all the pilot has to do is announce he has a gun and the hijackers will give up!
Whatever. The thought of a pilot NOT having a gun doesn't make me feel less secure. If you feel less secure on a plane because of this, I suggest using private transportation. - CommandoJoe, on 03/18/2009, -9/+50It's called a deterrent... When the bad guys know the pilot is packing heat, they are much less likely to try something.
Here in Israel there are a lot of armed private security at many store entrances, malls, banks, etc - In addition there is an armed military presence all over as well. Not many things happen because of that - and the few times that something does happen, that perpetrator gets taken out real quick... - Rsulliv1, on 03/18/2009, -21/+61I'd rather the pilot focus on flying the plane. If there needs to be a gun on board, let it be a federal agent.
- Abatrour, on 03/18/2009, -15/+54Hi, I'm the government. I'm here to protect you.. now give me your gun.
- Digger1123, on 03/18/2009, -3/+42Depressurization of the cabin will not result in a crash.
- Abatrour, on 03/18/2009, -12/+50I would feel safer knowing that someone with good intentions would be able to protect us from the bad people on an airplane.
Gun laws only disarm the people who obey the law. Terrorists arn't going to obey a no gun law.........
Do you think a terrorist with a gun would have a chance on a plane full of citizens with guns? - aeramil, on 03/18/2009, -0/+38Just did some more research on this..
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb0682f.pd ...
^ Here is the bill in question. All it does is go through and clarify a list of requirements that the pilots must meet in order to gain the ability to carry guns onboard.
I know I wouldn't be extremely happy if I knew that my pilot, who has a gun on him, has a criminal record.
As I said before, shoddy piece of biased "journalism". - inactive, on 03/18/2009, -8/+46@doorjam your attempt to sensationalize the idea of a pilot going bitch and handing over the gun is only further proving the point that he is capable of having.
You don't fly (and land) big metal objects without having some balls. Secondly, these aren't Red Baron's flying bi-wing prop planes. They're always one button away from being able to walk away from the controls if necessary. - diggduggjoe, on 03/18/2009, -3/+41I would say B.
Do you actually believe that a pilot would need to kill the co-pilot to do suicide by plane? There are many ways a pilot could so effectively screw over a flight, that regardless of the existence of a co-pilot that tin-can will be turned into a plow.
Let's see, He could do a maneuver which physically damages the plane. He dumps all the fuel. He waits until a critical moment and kills the engines leaving no time to restart.
The most likely mode of suicide would be a headshot back at the hotel.
I had no idea the fear of guns made people so irrational. Pilots with guns are a minimal risk compared to the ever present threat of terrorism. I would love to see a real foreign policy change to reduce that terror risk, but for now I will welcome guns in the cockpit. - drunkinbda, on 03/18/2009, -1/+38jeebus people... enough with the conspiracy thoughts. Do a bit more research before getting up in arms. This is 1 article. Its an Editorial. I cant find anything else about this except links to this digg page, and different blogs who've used and quoted this editorial (one being called gunnuts.com).
Theres not a whole lot of info on this, and seems that it could easily be some rumour that an anti-obama editor could have just "hyped up". Need something more substantial then an editorial to really start getting pissed off - Womenhunt2, on 03/17/2009, -165/+202I am so disappointed in hearing this. Even people who don't like guns surely would like their pilot to have one in the case of a terrorist. What is going on here? Helloooo?? I think we have gone a little far with the anti-gun issues here!
- rpgmakr, on 03/18/2009, -4/+40My only problem with this is that Obama said that he wasn't coming after people's guns. He is coming after them in a shadowy way, he hasn't said that is part of his policy or whatever so is more scary. I don't own a gun myself but he said he wasn't an anti-guns guy.
- chriszma666, on 03/18/2009, -33/+69At least someone on here has an ounce of intelligence.
- Shirt, on 03/18/2009, -4/+40One shot hitting the back of the plane isn't going to bring the whole goddamn thing down.
I can understand both of these positions, but I barely even understand what you're saying. This A or B mentality is seriously flawed. - Lavarock, on 03/18/2009, -8/+44It's not a FAKE gun you idiot, it shoots ***** BULLETS and when those bullets hit you, you ***** die wether you're scared of it or not. What the *****?
- Shirt, on 03/18/2009, -5/+40No, but there are a few instances where it might have helped the pilot to be able to defend himself.
I'm not really defending or denouncing this, but your logic is flawed as well. Because of a lack of quantitative data on the subject, nobody can really come to an intelligent solution. This topic depends ENTIRELY on person-to-person perspective. - ceredron, on 03/18/2009, -6/+39this man knows exactly what he's talking about.
And also, who he's talking about. Sun Myung Moon needs help. - Ajajadude, on 03/18/2009, -41/+73What's the pilot going to do when a hijacker has a knife to the throat of a kid? Come out guns blazing? Let the would-be hijackers kill everyone? Short of some Hollywood movie scene, a pilot is never going to be confronted by "terrorists" while he or she is flying a commercial airliner.
- chronic442, on 03/18/2009, -9/+39Never mind that most pilots are ex military....
- vtnerd, on 03/18/2009, -17/+47The pilot is going to fly the plane and not give in to their demands.
The pilot having a gun only becomes an issue if the door is knocked down and the pilot needs to act in order to keep the terrorists from taking over the plane. With the door knocked down, it's much better that the pilot has the gun than not, don't you think? We've already seen what happens when the pilots are unarmed. - vtnerd, on 03/18/2009, -6/+35If they want to die, why not let the pilots fulfill that wish?
The gun would only be used if the re-enforced door were knocked down. At that point, with no gun, the plane is a missile that can be used to kill thousands of people.
At least with an armed pilot, there's a chance that the narrow door into the cockpit will funnel the terrorists and become a chokepoint for the pilot to shoot at as they try to take over the plane. - geesamba, on 03/18/2009, -6/+35Dugg you up. I was going to post the same thing. They pressurized a cabin and shot out one of the windows with a glock via remote control. No crazy movie-like repercussions. Just a nice little bullet hole.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1057 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is