Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilots Carrying Guns!  
User currently offlineAa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Just talked with my good friend/instructor. He is a senior Captain with AA and is a Air Crew Checkman. he just finished his training in New Mexico with Army Delta and Navy Seals and is now packing a SK 40 cal on his hip when he flys. He flys mostly to Europe but also flys to Hawaii. That is good news for all the scared travellers out there. Just thought it was awesome to hear what he had to say about the training. Cheers.

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

I think it's great, I think every commercial airline pilot in the USA should be armed!

User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

I'm also in agreement with having armed pilots on board.

While, of course, Federal Air Marshalls are a better choice for the first line of defense, as nobody knows who they are, the pilots having a gun to defend the cockpit is pretty much the last line of defense.




-NWA742


User currently offlineFlymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7146 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

I thinks it is a good thing the Pilots have guns. I am 100% for it.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4195 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

I'm gonna get a gun rack for my CRJ.  Smile


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineFinnWings From Finland, joined Oct 2003, 640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

You must be kidding guys, right?

Do you really think that gun in the cockpit is solution for anything? We aren't talking about a car now, we are talking about an AIRCRAFT. Do you have EVEN an idea how big damage even one bullet might cause in the cockpit. Same thing with cabin as well...

I wouldn't be on any flight as a passenger or cockpit crew if I know that someone is carrying a weapon there. Period.

By the way, flight crew goes through security check prior the departure, so they can't carry scissors, knives, guns on board. So same items are illegal for flight crew and passengers, therefore pilots can't carry weapons either.

FinnWings


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

Hell I think the passengers should be packing heat too. Finnwings. I could lower my ammo standards to carry blazers in my .45 for the trip to protect the pressure vessel.

Frankly I would feel safer if this announce was being made on the flights

http://www.odoriferous.com/pilots.php



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

As someone who used to train people in the use of handguns, this idea disturbs me enormously.

This isn't Hollywood. Put aside all those images of cops gunning down bad guys at a hundred paces. A handgun is an inaccurate and unpredictable weapon, even at fairly close range, when fired in a high-stress, dynamic situation. Mix that with the cockpit environment and I don't care what "training" you've had - you're more likely to kill your first officer, or even yourself, in the process.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

A handgun is an inaccurate and unpredictable weapon, even at fairly close range, when fired in a high-stress, dynamic situation

Agreed, which is one of the reasons why so many old west gunfights ended in draws with nobody getting hit.

The alchol involved also tended to have an effect to that end too.

But I'll take the pistol. I don't think my scoped 1903A3 would be the appropriate weapon to carry on board either.

I could go with my Mossberg 500 with the 20 inch slug barrel on it, but those 3" Brenneke slugs I carry for bears, would probably do too much damage.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJMChladek From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3116 times:

This isn't new. Apparently the first class of qualified arms carrying pilots has already graduated and are flying the US skies right now according to a recent History Channel show I saw last month (March 2003 is I believe when the first class graduated). They were trained by professional military and law enforcement personnel and I believe were pre-screened ahead of time. So these aren't loose cannons on the other side of the cockpit door but people that have been well trained and fully briefed as to when the need arises to use deadly force. And internationally this isn't new either as El Al has had armed security and I believe armed pilots for years. Of course in El Al's case, all of their pilots are IDF/AF reservists anyway with military firearms training and years of experience to back them.

As for bullets and aircraft, the ammo used is frangible, meaning it will penetrate a person, but will shatter on impact with something harder. So they won't shoot the cabin full of holes. Granted, the bullets could strike any person, but if somebody did penetrate the cockpit door to get at the pilots, then he his going to be more or less the only thing that gets hit by any shots fired from the cockpit as the frangible ammo helps prevent ricochets.

They aren't meant to be the first line of defense, but rather the final option if all else fails. In my case, I do feel safer knowing that there might be a pilot with a gun and the proper training to use it if the need arises. But a lot of other things have to go wrong first before it gets to the point of a pilot having to resort to deadly force to protect the lives of his crew and passengers.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

U guys makes me sick!
Hopefully €U-pilots NEVER EVER carry guns in a closed metaltube!
I thought US was aware that it´s a new millenium. This sounds like some "lone ranger"crap or matiné movie. Guess America gets a civil war if the president stop the right to be armed!
Sad, very sad....

Mike//SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

Ummmm a single bullet will not cause an airplane to explosive decompress. There are huge holes in the airframe that do not give the airplane problems. The biggest one being the outflow valve. Plus all airplanes already leak from other areas like cargo door seals.....A main door seals...etc. I am willing to bet that a bullet hole would not even make a noticible pressure bump. Beside i have seen the results of a window coming out in flight( i was on the ground) and there was no other structural damage other than the window was missing and the nose cowl had a tear in it.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Are the US pilots authorized to have their guns when flying to Europe?

I thought it was illegal, because when they leave the aircraft, they are in countries where it is illegal to carry guns.

Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

It is absolutely amazing how people from these countries that never have any incidents of terrorism or hijackings can sit there and say pilots should not be armed. All of you in this thread who oppose armed pilots come live here for a while, in the real world. Then see how you feel. Every pilot of an American commercial airliner should have a gun. Without a doubt.

User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3039 times:

NIKV69
you say "It is absolutely amazing how people from these countries that never have any incidents of terrorism or hijackings can sit there and say pilots should not be armed."

Are you serious? do you know what you are talking about?
One of the latest was the AF airbus in Algers. The real objective of the terrorists wa the TOur Eiffel, and if you visit Paris today, you will see it is still there. Our police special teams have done a very good job in Marseille.
After those events, did the government authorize guns in cokpit? NO.
Did the pilots request them? NO. They are firmly against.

Everyone has a job. The job of the pilots is to fly. So, I can accept to have marshalls on board an aircraft. But no guns for the pilots.

Had the guns been allowed in the 90s, today, Fedex would probalby have disappeared.
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

NIKV69

All of you in this thread who oppose armed pilots come live here for a while, in the real world.

If the 'real world' is such that guns have to be carried in the United States, then you can keep it, and perhaps some wider travel to more civilised countries might broaden the mind.

Guns and commercial aircraft do not mix. They should not be carried on aircraft at any time!





Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

It is absolutely amazing how people from these countries that never have any incidents of terrorism or hijackings can sit there and say pilots should not be armed. All of you in this thread who oppose armed pilots come live here for a while, in the real world. Then see how you feel. Every pilot of an American commercial airliner should have a gun. Without a doubt.

NIKV69

I think it's you who should live in the real world and look at countries especially in Europe who have decades of experience dealing with terrorism not just 5 minutes. Then you will understand how abhorrent it is for us to have guns brought on to commercial airliners, you may as well gift wrap them and put them straight in to a terrorists hands.



British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineOerk From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

The original poster said the pilot flew mostly to Europe. It would not suprise me if they were being carried on flights to the UK, we have a tendency to make bilateral agreements on counter-terror matters with the USA. If it makes them feel safer, then hey, thats their decision - terrorism is all about fear anyway. They just need to be sure the public at large is going to see it the same way and feel safer too, otherwise it might be counter-productive.

User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK, The fastest way to get people riled up is to talk about firearms or abortion. Thankfully we chose firearms here..I understand it better.

1. The FAA over a year ago authorized with congressional backing qualified, volunteer pilots to carry an FAA/DHS approved and supplied pistol as a means of last ditch cockpit security. The pilot must undergo extensive training by Federal Air Marshals, the same LE officers who now ride on selected flights with firearms to stop terrorists in the act. These pilots who are authorized carry their firearms onboard in a locked case, and keep it in the cockpit. They are only to be used in the case of an attempt at ingress to the cockpit by a terrorist or other criminal who is trying to take over the aircraft. The first thing any pilot will do now is stay behind the bulletproof doors and land the airplane at the nearest field so the aircraft cannot be turned into a large cruise missile. This has been done due to the fact that THE RULES HAVE CHANGED! When the terrorists quit hijacking for fun, profit and free trips to sunny CUba, they arranged it so that no terrorist would ever take over an aircraft from docile, compliant passengers and crew.

2. The firearms use a special typeof ammunition that was designed especially for use inside aircraft. This ammo breaks up the instant it hits something hard. It will do significant damage to flesh, but in most cases will not be able to penetrate the skin of an airplane. Even if it did, explosive decompression is not guaranteed. THe pilots would already be flying their craft to a lower altitude to whichever divert field they were closest to/ATC sent them toward.

3. The idea that a terrorist or criminal can easily take away a firearm from a trained individual is a myth perpetuated by some martial arts cinema and the anit-firearms lobby. If the cockpit door is being knocked down with a fireaxe or something, you may rest assured that the crew inside will be waiting to fire at the terrorists, and the situation is already bad because the terrorists have already been able to subdue the entire passenger load in spite of the fact that people now know that the intent of terrorists is suicide and murder, not profit and hostage taking. So quit prepping yourself for Stockholm Syndrome and ensure you are ready for all possibilities if you get on an airplane, train, or walk through your major city...including self-defence. Even in Sweden, where the Mr. Palme (God rest his soul) was not ready for domestic terror, one must consider all the possibilities if one is to accept responsibility for onesself.

4. Teva, and and others, a permis d'porte armes (please pardon my poor spelling and grammaire) is obtainable for France, how else do bodyguards and the like have the right to carry them? Pilots are by definition highly trained, excellent reflexes and physical condition. Many are former officers in the military with previous firearms training. What exactly is your problem with the idea that their is a well trained, last line of defence, in case the terrorists are not stupid enough to land the plane? The incident in Marseilles, while it went well for the GIGN team that secured the aircraft and rescued the hostages, was only possible because the terrorists had not yet adopted the practice of flying into buildings. This was back in '94 at Marignane, and it followed what was then the standard practice when you have terrorists who may be willing to die, but really aren't planning on it.

Remember, it is different now, and the pros cannot always be there to defend us, and I do not remember agreeing to subordinate my right to defend myself when others cannot.

SO take it easy



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

"Do you really think that gun in the cockpit is solution for anything? We aren't talking about a car now, we are talking about an AIRCRAFT. Do you have EVEN an idea how big damage even one bullet might cause in the cockpit. Same thing with cabin as well..."


If a pilot ever uses his/her gun, its because someone is trying to break into the cockpit, no other reason. At that point, who cares if I damage the airplane with a bullet? The other option is to have a terrorist in control of the aircraft, at which point you are dead anyway.

"I wouldn't be on any flight as a passenger or cockpit crew if I know that someone is carrying a weapon there. Period."


You won't know which flights have armed pilots, just like you don't know which ones have air marshalls. You may have already flown on a flight with armed pilots.

"By the way, flight crew goes through security check prior the departure, so they can't carry scissors, knives, guns on board. So same items are illegal for flight crew and passengers, therefore pilots can't carry weapons either."


Not true. Pilots who have been through the training can carry a gun.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

USA as the real world? No thank you, I wanna live in a civilized world, period!!!
And little Sweden had its share of hijacking so dont say you´ve got patent on hijackings, tuvm! And terrorism, look at England/IRA & Spain/ETA......how many people has been blownup on both sides, I dont support either IRA/ETA thats for sure!

Michael//SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineBMAbound From Sweden, joined Nov 2003, 660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

Ok, handguns are not the solution, according to me. As apparent, we're divided into the US/non-US people on this issue, but hey, we're all different.

Give me a 5 inch steel door to the cockpit and the possibility of releasing some kind of gas in the cabin, that would knock me, 300 fellow passengers and three hijackers out (well, temporary!  Big thumbs up )

Deadly force on the spot is too much of a risk, if a government wants to take the lifes of these scums, then the ground is a better place to do it!

johan



Altitude is Insurance - Get Insured
User currently offlineSpoon04 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

As we see on a daily basis through new reports from the world over, there exists on this planet VERY BAD PEOPLE. And these very bad people have no regard for human life (even their OWN lives). Unfortunately, their preferred choice of weapons reflects the use of commercial passenger aircraft. Every single line of defense available needs to be implemented to thwart any future terrorist actions. Do I have a problem with flight crews possessing firearms in the cockpit? ABSOLUTELY NOT !! Several co-posters above have made semi-disparaging remarks about the civility of the American society vis-a-vis U.S. flight crews carrying firearms. Well my friends, we here in the U.S. are trying our best to PRESERVE our society - whether you like us or not. We didn't initiate the horrific actions of 9/11 - we're just responding to the threat that CONTINUES to exist. The individuals manning the flight deck are professionals who are in charge of multi-million dollar machines, many of whom are ex military officers. These flight crews are also in charge of each life on board their aircraft. They desire (along with myself) EVERY available means to defend themselves along with their passengers. Unfortunately, this is now the NEW REALITY. We have to recognize it, address it and deal with it.

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

D1021:
What´s abortion gotta do with anything on this topic???
"Thankful we choose firearms here"......
Are you for real?



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineOerk From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

Look, I can see the merits in this proposal. If the situation has got so bad in the cabin that hijackers have the freedom of action to start forcing the cockpit door, then the pilot is in a real bad situation.

The way I see it, he had two options prior to the issuing of guns:

a) Hope that the hijackers were not planning on suicide, and that this was a more traditional style hijacking. This is not very likely though, because any terrorist who does not want to die is not going to hijack a plane post-9/11.

b) Knowing the plane is about to become a cruise missile, attempt an immediate controlled crash landing to get the plane out the air.

With the gun onboard, this opens up option C.

c) Attempt to shoot the hijackers as they make their entry. Now, this might sound like an attractive option, but there are a couple of issues. How many hijackers does he have to put down? If the hijackers have had the time and freedom to take down the cockpit door, the pilot can't expect support from the rest of the cabin. What if the terrorists have some way to incapacitate the pilot? Mace? Pepper spray? Anything? Unless they are issuing the pilot with a SWAT gas mask, the pilot is up against the odds in protecting the aircraft from falling into terrorist hands. What about human shields? The horrible list goes on.

Ideally, the resistance of the pilot would encourage the otherwise scared passengers to act against the now distracted hijackers. But we must consider worst case scenarios.

Although option B sounded a little extreme, if a plane is in the situation where the pilot is getting trigger time protecting the cockpit, I would already consider the flight a write-off. Option C is not perfect, I think we all know that. There is a chance it might not work, and the plane becomes a cruise missile, with said pistol now becoming a weapon of the (probably much thinned ranks of) hijackers. There is also the chance it could work and the plane is saved - theres so many variables to consider.

Option B is perhaps the surest option to avoiding the plane becoming a cruise missile, if time ran out on the implementation of the crash landing, it would not take long to contrive a controlled crash. Reagardless, the plane will be a write-off, and casualties on board might well be total. Option C offers the chance of saving the aircraft, but in the wrong circumstances could easily fail.

Some might argue that in a situation where the hijackers had the freedom to try and gain access to the cockpit, the gun is merely distracting the pilots from the inevitable. I don't like this argument, but it could well be true. After all, how many self-preserving humans would honestly choose option B without hesitation?!

Hence, if option B is not considered by the pilots, then I would rather place faith in option C than option A.

I am not an expert on this - by any means... I'm a Brit, and never handled a gun my life - its just what I have come up with sat here in the last 5 minutes. Correct my mistakes as appropriate.

HOWEVER, my real concern with firearms onboard the aircraft is the possibility of hijackers getting access to the cockpit without a struggle. Is the cockpit door never opened throughout the entire flight? I don't think so. I have seen it open for several minutes at a time on transcon USA flights. If the door is opened, then no matter how remote, it is possible that someone could enter. With a weapon in there, it is not inconceivable for the hijackers to gain access to it after dealing with the unprepared pilots. In most cases, the passengers and/or air marshall would have to deal with this situation. Passengers might storm people with knives etc - but storm someone with a gun? Does anyone else agree with me that more people would hesitate in the face of a gun?! I know I would.

Again, just my ramblings and observations. I am completely undecided on this issue.


25 Stefandotde : NIKV69: "All of you in this thread who oppose armed pilots come live here for a while, in the real world. " Sorry, nik but that was a joke, or not? Ho
26 BMAbound : Spoon04, we all agree that there are nutheads out there, but shooting them on the spot is not always feasible, especially in an aircraft. There are ot
27 Oerk : If you ask me, we should get them on the ground and then do what we please. How do you expect to get the aircraft on the ground if hijackers are forci
28 Spoon04 : Johan, I wasn't aware my statements reflected a "U.S. rules thread" - whatever that means. Look, if the aircraft I'm on comes under the direct threat
29 Ulfinator : Stefandotde I will publicly apologize for my last comment as I was upset and responded hastily. However I was highly offended by you "Greetings from C
30 Gman94 : We had the RAF in Germany, terrorists who blew up innocent people. So I don't wanna hear that cr** like: "if 9/11 would have happened in your country.
31 BCAInfoSys : I'm with Gman94.. we didn't start that war, we merely finished it. God bless the men & women of the RAF (and all other allied services) for having the
32 Oerk : I think he was referring to the Red Army Faction terrorist organisation, not the Royal Air Force.
33 BCAInfoSys : OK Oerk, you might be right. But you just never know what kind of crap these radical nutjobs are gonna spout off. I just had to make sure...[Edited 20
34 Gman94 : Stefandotde, Ooops!!!, please except my apologies if you were referring to the Red Army Faction. As a Brit when I hear the RAF mentioned I think of th
35 IAD777 : Firearms are not a realistic solution to solving terrorism and air travel. Even in a worst case scenario i don't think they make sense. It's just seem
36 MD80Nut : As an NRA member and having owned guns most of my life, I don't fear pilots carrying guns. And since I personally know law abiding citizens who preven
37 FinnWings : Not true. Pilots who have been through the training can carry a gun. Yes, but only in the United States. What FAA has approved is only valid in the US
38 Post contains images Copenhagenboy : "He flys mostly to Europe" My God, he could be arrested on landing But to be serious, no way, keep the guns away from our a/c's. Maybe in a very speci
39 Sleepyflyboy : dude!!! what the hell is wrong with some of you people. do they replay too much old us country western's or something in your countries? do you really
40 Iad777 : Stefandotde- You wrote: "Hopefully you are in the "real" world and accept that 9/11 was homemade in the US." While no doubt the united states is guil
41 SSTjumbo : I haven't read the whole thread, so this sub-topic might be closed out by now, but here we go folks, R-U-B-B-E-R bullets. That's right, they do make b
42 Aa757first : Is the cockpit door never opened throughout the entire flight? I don't think so. I have seen it open for several minutes at a time on transcon USA fl
43 NIKV69 : Like I said before and still stand by the statement. If you individuals who live in Sweden etc don't want your pilots armed that is fine. In the USA w
44 Dl021 : To the person who pointed out (Stefandote?) that the RAF committed terror acts there, so you knwo what they are all about.... You never, ever, lost in
45 AFROTC : To all of you guys who think pilots carrying guns is a bit too John Wayne well, I kinda beg to differ and this is because I know a few pilots both air
46 RT514 : In the USA we need to have our pilot's armed, the cockpit doors and anything else While I may not be convinced that armed pilots are necessarily the a
47 Bobs89irocz : *When i get the chance to be the PIC of a commercial Airliner* I would carry a gun on board if given the chance, unless the policy changes before i ge
48 XFSUgimpLB41X : Right now I am more concerned with getting my flying time up so I can qualify for captain next year....once I have the time, I will most certainly go
49 Aa777jr : HE can't be arrested flying into LHR CDG FRA BRU or FCO carring a gun. He is a licensed federal officer carrying the gun now. No one can take it from
50 EMBQA : That is good news for all the scared travellers out there. Actually I'm more scared now. The last time I recall an employee had a gun on board, they u
51 Dbo861 : If you can't trust a pilot enough to carry a gun with him/her, then why should you be able to trust a police officer, military person, or other law en
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilots And Guns posted Mon Apr 8 2002 06:39:33 by Dasheighty
BA Thinking Of Giving Pilots Stun Guns. posted Sat Oct 13 2001 00:12:34 by Singapore_Air
US To Allow Cargo Pilots Guns posted Wed Feb 4 2004 14:39:21 by Maiznblu_757
United Pilots To Be Given Stun Guns posted Thu Nov 15 2001 21:45:28 by Dragon-wings
United Weighing Merits Of Pilots With Stun Guns posted Mon Nov 12 2001 09:05:34 by Ryu2
United Mulls Stun Guns For Pilots (Humor) posted Fri Nov 9 2001 22:57:27 by SFOintern
CNN "quick Vote" Pilots W/guns? posted Tue Sep 25 2001 16:03:09 by Cutlass
Pilots Union Ask Congress To Allow Guns In Cockpit posted Mon Sep 24 2001 22:25:52 by Bobcat
Pilots+guns=?rubber Bullets posted Sun Sep 16 2001 01:08:27 by 174thfwff
Allied Pilots Association: Outraged And Outrageous posted Wed Jan 17 2007 22:39:22 by MaverickM11