Would you feel safer on an airplane if everyone could bring their guns onboard?

[SailaWay]

would pea shooters count or water guns?

 

[Lutherf]

A flight attendant died, and 65 people on board were injured. I wouldn't call that safe.

Unless your standard for safe is not really safe at all.

Wow!! Do you people ever leave your own homes?

25% of the top of the aircraft ripped off and the plane was still able to land safely. The stewardess that died happened to be standing right where the rupture happened. If you call that "unsafe" you have an unrealistic concept of safety.

 

[Excon]

Would you feel safer on an airplane if everyone could bring their guns onboard?

Guns in the possession of humans on planes is crazy.

I bet folks just think a firefight is gonna break out or something. Doh!



:mrgreen:

 

[AFM]

I'm amazed the majority of you would rather you leave your guns at home when flying, it seems you all valve your self preservation

 

[Phys251]

Wow!! Do you people ever leave your own homes?

25% of the top of the aircraft ripped off and the plane was still able to land safely. The stewardess that died happened to be standing right where the rupture happened. If you call that "unsafe" you have an unrealistic concept of safety.

Yo. You said safe landing. I was referring to overall safety. Of course the pilot was fortunate to get what was left of the plane back on the ground.

When literally more than 2/3 of the people on board are injured, including one killed, I would not call that safe. Explosive decompression is a serious event if it happens on board. Loss of cabin pressure is what probably killed Payne Stewart, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's what got Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Hell no .
This is conservative insanity .

There are conservative "no" answers on the issue in this thread.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Everyone?


Those who have a carry permit would be more in line with current legal standards.

Given the environment it would be reasonable to require that only low-penetration frangible rounds be allowed in the cabin. Given the crowding, it would be reasonable to require weapons to be carried with an empty chamber.

Of course it has been established that a few bullet holes will not cause explosive decompression, and that disabling a flight-vital component with a few gunshots is also improbable.


It would certainly make it darn near impossible to pull another 9/11....

It's not decompression that I fear.

There are miles of low voltage wiring, 120 volt wiring, hydraulics, system controls wiring, and and fuel tanks that could leak.

 

[Tigerace117]

That's a common fear but the truth of the matter is that a bullet hole won't be a serious problem for an aircraft.

Here's a picture of Aloha Flight 243 that had a little fuselage issue at 24,000 feet but still landed safely in Maui.

View attachment 67204377

Jesus:shock:

 

[Harshaw]

It doesn't have to be an explosive decompression. There is an unacceptable risk that it might hit something critical.

With the number of redundancy systems built into any plane, the risk is de minimis.

 

[eohrnberger]

No I would not feel safer at all.

I am the biggest 2nd amendment supporter out there.

But................... a Jetliner would be the worst place on earth with a accidental discharge.

Indeed. There are simply places where private firearms need to be under lock and key and unavailable. An airliner is one of the very few.

Most guns can't even be safely fired in a pressurized cabin. An air Marshall will be just fine, thank you.

Don't Air Marshalls use 'frangibles'? Which can stop a person, but can't breech the aircraft fuselage?

 

[eohrnberger]

A flight attendant died, and 65 people on board were injured. I wouldn't call that safe.

You are looking at this wrong. What's amazing is that with such a large section of the fuselage gone missing, the plane continued to fly and land safely.

Everyone strapped in survived. I'll bet the one attendant who didn't, wasn't.

The additional background that I have to offer is that this was a very high number of takeoffs and landings (pressure cycling) air frame (on ground no pressure differential, take off and cruise under pressure, land back to no pressure - lots of these cycles), a statistical outlier from the normal anticipated duty cycle. This plane was a short hop connector between the Hawaii islands so it would have more pressure cycles per day than most other air frames.

Metal fatigue fractures in the supports in that part of the fuselage had formed and then failed, the result is the picture you see. Should have been caught during maintenance inspection but wasn't.

It helps if you have a broader base of information of the particular case.

 

[Goshin]

It's not decompression that I fear.

There are miles of low voltage wiring, 120 volt wiring, hydraulics, system controls wiring, and and fuel tanks that could leak.

Low penetration frangible ammo would largely defuse that issue.

 

[MaggieD]

Indeed. There are simply places where private firearms need to be under lock and key and unavailable. An airliner is one of the very few.


Don't Air Marshalls use 'frangibles'? Which can stop a person, but can't breech the aircraft fuselage?

They probably do. After researching, it seems the biggest danger would be from a massive fuel explosion. Seems depressurizing the cabin at 35,000 feet is rarely catastrophic. And the odds of a number of bullets puncturing the cabin walls and taking out critical instrumentation is quite slim. But larger planes carry thousands of gallons of Fuel in their fuselages.

 

[radcen]

No I would not feel safer at all.

I am the biggest 2nd amendment supporter out there.

But................... a Jetliner would be the worst place on earth with a accidental discharge.

And that's what made me vote "Other". In theory it sounds good, but... bullets piercing a pressurized cabin is not appealing to me.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

There was no " HELL NO " option.

All it takes is one accidental discharge in a pressurized aluminum tube hurtling at 400 miles per hour, 30,00 feet up in the sky to cause quite a lot of hurt.

For any non-believers, the next time you are at an indoor shooting range, take note of all the bullet holes right above your head and on either side of your shooting station.

The general public with guns are quite dangerous, and know almost zero about gun handling and safety.

and you want me to get on a planeload full of them...

I would rather swim with crocodiles wearing a bacon vest.

 

[radcen]

There was no " HELL NO " option.

All it takes is one accidental discharge in a pressurized aluminum tube hurtling at 400 miles per hour, 30,00 feet up in the sky to cause quite a lot of hurt.

For any non-believers, the next time you are at an indoor shooting range, take note of all the bullet holes right above your head and on either side of your shooting station.

The general public with guns are quite dangerous, and know almost zero about gun handling and safety.

and you want me to get on a planeload full of them...

I would rather swim with crocodiles wearing a bacon vest.

I've only been to outdoor ranges, but should I ever go inside I will definitely look for that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow!! Do you people ever leave your own homes?

25% of the top of the aircraft ripped off and the plane was still able to land safely. The stewardess that died happened to be standing right where the rupture happened. If you call that "unsafe" you have an unrealistic concept of safety.

I guess the several passengers who were seriously injured counts as safe?

It is defined by statute as "physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
​

https://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/serious_phys_inj.htm

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm amazed the majority of you would rather you leave your guns at home when flying, it seems you all valve your self preservation

Sorry that you don't get it.

 

[natsb]

There is no proof that firing a gun in a pressurized cabin would cause an airplane to crash. The Myth Busters pretty well disproved this years ago. It makes great Hollywood fare, however.

Loss of Cabin Pressure and Potential Bullet Damage - What if someone shot a gun on an airplane? | HowStuffWorks

Did the Myth Busters test for the bulets being fired through the pilot and copilot's head? Would the crash a plane?

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

 

[Peter King]

yeah, guns in a compact space with loads of opportunity to get explosive decompression and the great opportunity for people to go and take a plane hostage.

Just think, terrorist take the crew hostage and a potential of wannabee John McClane/John J. Rambo's in the back armed to the teeth (potentially). Sorry, but that does not sound like a scenario that I want to be in (or anyone I love).

Also, how many weapons may people take in their hand luggage? Sorry, but that to me is a nightmare situation big time.

And why on earth would airlines approve weapons on their planes? If I were the president of a airline company I would never allow weapons on a plane and as it is a private company/plane/space I do not think I can be forced to allow weapons against my will.

 

[DA60]

Quite frankly, I am more worried about an airliner pilot diving the plane into the ground then I am about hijacking.

They went too far in armoring the doors and not allowing anyone else from outside - including the rest of the airline crew - to gain entry during flight.

I guarantee you eventually some American airline pilot will go psycho and fly a plane into a building or his ex-wive's house or something like that. It is almost inevitable.

 

[radcen]

Quite frankly, I am more worried about an airliner pilot diving the plane into the ground then I am about hijacking.

They went too far in armoring the doors and not allowing anyone else from outside - including the rest of the airline crew - to gain entry during flight.

I guarantee you eventually some American airline pilot will go psycho and fly a plane into a building or his ex-wive's house or something like that. It is almost inevitable.

I'm going to venture a guess and say they probably did that on purpose so that a hijacker cannot force a flight attendant to open the door. Similar to why not everyone has access to a vault in a bank.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Quite frankly, I am more worried about an airliner pilot diving the plane into the ground then I am about hijacking.

They went too far in armoring the doors and not allowing anyone else from outside - including the rest of the airline crew - to gain entry during flight.

I guarantee you eventually some American airline pilot will go psycho and fly a plane into a building or his ex-wive's house or something like that. It is almost inevitable.

You will never find a way to provide 100% safety. To use such an extreme argument is laughable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm going to venture a guess and say they probably did that on purpose so that a hijacker cannot force a flight attendant to open the door. Similar to why not everyone has access to a vault in a bank.

What gets me is now that they cannot get inside the cockpit, I want the restrictions relaxed once again. Go back to pre-911 security measures for the most part.

 

[DA60]

I'm going to venture a guess and say they probably did that on purpose so that a hijacker cannot force a flight attendant to open the door. Similar to why not everyone has access to a vault in a bank.

So what? The pilots are armed? Assuming all the hijackers have is a knife, they are not going to take the plane even if they get the door open.

And besides, they could just as easily torture a child slowly to death outside of the cabin unless the pilots open the door. I would think that is just as likely to get the door open as forcing the stewardess to open the door.