allowing guns in cockpits

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:9d642ad3-b78a-4160-
:

On Jan 3, 4:26*am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" wrote:

allowing guns in cockpits

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work
for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.

-Robert

The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look
at
the source).
FB

There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back.

Actually, that law was still in place up until the late fifties at
least.
It was only carried over from rail law. Largely because a lot of the
early mail contracts were extensions of rail contracts.


I
guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
provide our personal security.

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun. The guys who have
opted into carrying have had some special training on accout of this
concern, but the fact is ther are better ways to do this which I'm no
going to discuss here, cowboy bob.


Bertie

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme. I guess a gun isn't useful unless it has a nuclear
warhead on it and can take out an entire battalion of soldiers. Its a
lot like saying anyone who picks up a pen better be ready to rewrite
the works of Shakespeare because anything less is not useful.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.


It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event of an
organised hijacking.


I guess a gun isn't useful unless it has a nuclear
warhead on it and can take out an entire battalion of soldiers. Its a
lot like saying anyone who picks up a pen better be ready to rewrite
the works of Shakespeare because anything less is not useful.


Nce try, but we who have been asked to carry the guns have looked into
this, ya know.

The one guy I know well who is carrying is primarily doing it because he's
hoping for the oportunity to shoot someone.

Nobody carries a gun on my flight deck.



Bertie

On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event of an
organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers?? These guys had box cutters. The only way
they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-

:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
of an

organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers??


Nope.

These guys had box cutters. The only way
they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.


Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.


Bertie

On Jan 9, 10:50*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :





On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-

:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
of an

organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers??

Nope.

*These guys had box cutters. The only way

they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 10:50*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:478cfb6b-e883-407d-a9d7-f
:





On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-

:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood
of a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to
the ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the
event of an

organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes
on 9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers??

Nope.

*These guys had box cutters. The only way

they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an
environment in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

I responded with logic,. You didn;'t read.


Bertie

Robert M. Gary wrote:


Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.


The vast majority of arguments against gun ownership are not
based on logic or reason at all.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

Punked again.

Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just a
troll.

He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough to
get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his typical whiny
insults, leaving you sputtering.

The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again illustrates
just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would wise up, though --
the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is through your replies.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 10:50 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
:





On Jan 9, 10:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-

:

On Jan 9, 6:36 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
of an

organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers??

Nope.

These guys had box cutters. The only way

they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

-Robert