Where are the armed pilots?

Hi Tom,
Your point is well taken, but in many ways does little to support an
argument for carrying a weapon. If a drugged-up assailant will not hesitate
to shoot an innocent person even in front of a police officer, what makes
you think the victim would have been in any better position had he had a
gun in his pocket?

I believe there are an inordinate number of variables, and it is difficult
to predict with any accuracy whether, for example, the bicyclist would have
been able to save himself from the robber if he had been carrying a weapon.
Just as the robber clearly didn't hesitate to shoot him dead, I suspect the
victim would have hesitated - whether to retrieve the weapon to defend
himself, or because of his own conscience and sober position.

Furthermore, your example of the Doctor who was able to kill his attacker
only because the attacker's gun misfired could be construed as evidence
that without this bit of luck, the Doctor would be dead instead of the
attacker - .22 pistol or not.

It is not a clear issue, and I still feel slightly safer without a gun in
my home. I would feel safer yet if the gun control laws in my state allowed
anyone but convicted criminals to own and carry concealed weapons, so long
as they were properly registered and properly secured.

Oh, and my point about sleeping with a gun was a bit of a dig at the OP who
indicated that without his wife's objection, he would take his gun to bed
with him...

Tom Pappano wrote in
.com:

Judah wrote:
Tom Pappano wrote in
:


Judah wrote:

snip
From my understanding, most 2-bit muggers are equally as afraid to
take a life as I am, unless faced with a barrel aimed back in their
direction...

Well, these days armed robbers frequently seem to be addicts seeking
quick cash. Drug use tends to affect judgement, so don't assume that
your mugger is standing there pondering the risks vs. benefits of
his actions. Just recently here, a young female robbed a bicyclist
in the middle of the afternoon in the presence of assorted bystanders.
After relieving him of his billfold she immediately shoots him dead.
She did this with a police officer just accross the street. The cop
runs over to arrest her, she draws on him and he shoots and kills her.
Not a lot deep thought processes occuring on her part.
In another recent case, a convenience store clerk was coldly murdered
after compliantly handing over what was in the till. The value of
his life apparently was less than $40. Also near here recently, a
young asshole with some "lingering issues" about his ex-wife murdered a
couple so that he could use their home as a base to stalk his ex.
After nearly killing her son and beating her mother, he goes into
hiding and a huge, costly and drawn out manhunt ensues. He eventually
gets away, and kidnaps an Arkansas doctor and his wife, forcing them
to drive him to Texas. The doctor eventually retrieves a small .22
pistol he kept in his van, and shoots the fugitive, wounding him.
The fugitive flees and is arrested after seeking medical treatment.
A tiny pistol carried by a "regular guy" going about his business
brought this whole mess to a close. The fugitive had tried to
kill the doctor and his wife, but amazingly, a defect prevented
the weapon from discharging. My point in all this? I guess
my point is that these days "fear" (other than fear of being killed
themselves) no longer seems to constrain the actions of many
criminals, and that the life of a victim essentially has a value of
zero.



But to me, going to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow seems
extreme, and quite possibly more dangerous than beneficial...

I think this practice is is reserved for movies and television. Most
people realize this is not a safe thing to do.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

p.s. The City of Depew, OK presented the heroic doctor and his wife a
modest cash reward, and two new *larger calibre* pistols 8-)

Judah wrote:
Hi Tom,
Your point is well taken, but in many ways does little to support an
argument for carrying a weapon. If a drugged-up assailant will not hesitate
to shoot an innocent person even in front of a police officer, what makes
you think the victim would have been in any better position had he had a
gun in his pocket?

I believe there are an inordinate number of variables, and it is difficult
to predict with any accuracy whether, for example, the bicyclist would have
been able to save himself from the robber if he had been carrying a weapon.
Just as the robber clearly didn't hesitate to shoot him dead, I suspect the
victim would have hesitated - whether to retrieve the weapon to defend
himself, or because of his own conscience and sober position.

I mentioned this case more as an example of how insensitive attackers
seem be these days, rather than as a tactical study. 8-) There
are *tons* of stories available that support defensive firearm use.

Lots of info at: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Furthermore, your example of the Doctor who was able to kill his attacker
only because the attacker's gun misfired could be construed as evidence
that without this bit of luck, the Doctor would be dead instead of the
attacker - .22 pistol or not.

The doc shot first, then the fugitive tried to retaliate.
A web search for "Scott Eizember" will pull up several detailed
accounts of the whole story.
Or try this one: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html


It is not a clear issue, and I still feel slightly safer without a gun in
my home. I would feel safer yet if the gun control laws in my state allowed
anyone but convicted criminals to own and carry concealed weapons, so long
as they were properly registered and properly secured.

Tell your legislators you want the laws changed, or consider moving to
Oklahoma- we would be glad to have you! We also have lots of
airports and modestly priced rental airplanes.

Oh, and my point about sleeping with a gun was a bit of a dig at the OP who
indicated that without his wife's objection, he would take his gun to bed
with him...

Thats ok, in the meantime, see if you can find a copy of "What Do
You Do When You Can't Call a Cop?" by Janice Seifert. This is a
great little book by a 5'2" 110 lb deputy who realized men, women
and children could benefit by learning some simple and effective
street fighting skills. Statistically, you fare better when you
resist, armed or not. This book shows you how you can prevail when
outsized, outnumbered, even outgunned.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

Tom Pappano wrote in
y.com:

snip

Thats ok, in the meantime, see if you can find a copy of "What Do
You Do When You Can't Call a Cop?" by Janice Seifert. This is a
great little book by a 5'2" 110 lb deputy who realized men, women
and children could benefit by learning some simple and effective
street fighting skills. Statistically, you fare better when you
resist, armed or not. This book shows you how you can prevail when
outsized, outnumbered, even outgunned.

Thanks for the links and tips, Tom!

Per your advice, I just ordered a copy of this book on Half.com!

With any luck, I won't ever have to actually use the advice in it, but I
suspect I will be glad to have the knowledge anyway.

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message link.net...

Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops. That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

.... and I repeat, why in the world would you call the cops? I'd
really like to know the rationale behind this.

Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In
fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on
the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

Because, like what I hope is the majority of sensible pilots, I actively
participate in AOPA's Airport Watch program. A quick reading of any
material from Airport Watch (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html) will tell
you that we are meant to be looking out for anything that we think is
"suspicious" when we are at the airport.

I could, of course, provide a dictionary definition of "suspicious" as
something that is, "out of the ordinary, especially when percieved to be
dangerous". I could then argue that since I have never seen any armed
pilots at any GA airport, seeing one would qualify as something "out of the
ordinary" in my experience, and that would be enough for me to regard it as
"suspicious".

I could also argue that if it is, as you assert, your right to carry a
weapon at all times, it is also my right to carry a cell phone and to call
the police whenever I feel that such a phone call is warranted.

But I won't make any of those arguments, because I would just get a bunch of
static about doing so. Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
link.net...
Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In
fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on
the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

Because, like what I hope is the majority of sensible pilots, I actively
participate in AOPA's Airport Watch program. A quick reading of any
material from Airport Watch (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html) will tell
you that we are meant to be looking out for anything that we think is
"suspicious" when we are at the airport.

I could, of course, provide a dictionary definition of "suspicious" as
something that is, "out of the ordinary, especially when percieved to be
dangerous". I could then argue that since I have never seen any armed
pilots at any GA airport, seeing one would qualify as something "out of
the
ordinary" in my experience, and that would be enough for me to regard it
as
"suspicious".

I could also argue that if it is, as you assert, your right to carry a
weapon at all times, it is also my right to carry a cell phone and to call
the police whenever I feel that such a phone call is warranted.

But I won't make any of those arguments, because I would just get a bunch
of
static about doing so. Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

The thought of all those armed pilots and sky marshals skulking around
airliners fills me with dread. The US authorities insisting that armed
guards should ride shotgun like on the old wild west stage coaches says it
all.

How long will we have to wait before we have the first aircraft brought down
by friendly fire.

The real answer is to stop planes taking off with terrorists on board not
shoot them when they try and hijack. To me sky marshals is a plan to fail.

Having return home from Florida today, I was appalled to see what the TSA
claims is heightened security.

The TSA at South West Florida Airport seems to be staffed with geriatrics
(seniors) who barely know what day it is let alone the job they are doing.
after a rather perfunctory pass through the security checkpoint that was
it - on to Atlanta and then onto London without another security check.
Pathetic!

Flying Delta, then the thought of some overgrown cowboy with a gun somewhere
in the plane compensating for the pathetic security on the ground was just
plain scary.

The post 911 security measures in the US are still the most hopeless I have
experienced anywhere in the world. Air travel has become a complete shambles
and I don't believe it is any safer now than before 911.

Dave

Dave wrote:

The real answer is to stop planes taking off with terrorists on board not
shoot them when they try and hijack. To me sky marshals is a plan to fail.

But you've no security experience.

Let's look at some examples. Even in so basic a realm as home security,
nobody just puts alarms on windows and doors. They also do motion sensors,
panic buttons, and so on. Why would you think so? After all, the
perimeter security is supposed to stop (or more realistically: detect) an
intruder. So the internal security is a waste of time.

Except: nothing is perfect. Adding internal security to perimiter security
makes security system failure that much less likely, as two subsystems need
to fail before the entire system fails.

Computer security is the same: companies are finally awakening to the fact
that firewalls are necessary but insufficient. As with door and window
alarms, they provide but one layer of security; additional layers (ie. IDSs
on both machines and networks) significantly improve the likelyhood of
detecting/stopping an "incident".

Why should securing an aircraft be different? We don't want just one layer,
as we'd have basically handed a blank check to anyone that can get through
that single layer. Instead, we need multiple layers, up to and including
internal security.

Sky Marshals are not the only possible solution to Internal Security, but
they are one that's worked in the past (in El Al's experience).

Having return home from Florida today, I was appalled to see what the TSA
claims is heightened security.

The TSA at South West Florida Airport seems to be staffed with geriatrics
(seniors) who barely know what day it is let alone the job they are doing.
after a rather perfunctory pass through the security checkpoint that was
it - on to Atlanta and then onto London without another security check.
Pathetic!

Yes, well, you're not the only one with no security experience.

The US administration is treating its citizens like idiots, assuming that
we'd blindly believe that it's "doing what it can". It can "talk security"
all it likes; as long as it's cutting the budget for screeners and other
security personnel, there's no honesty behind those claims.

What really irks, though, is that plenty of people are buying into the
farce.

- Andrew

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message hlink.net...
Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

.... and you're interpeting a legally carried holstered firearm as
"openly displayed weapons being loaded into an airplane"?

Not.

Right below that, it says, "Use your common sense." This is the
biggest part of vigilance.

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

That's because what you're trying to do is not right. It's wrong.
It's bad. It's unsafe. It's not good enough for me, or you, or any
of us.

As a purported handgun owner, you should be aware of the safety and
legal issues involved in carrying and using firearms. Everything
you've said has been a counter-indication of this - you're dangerously
undertrained and underinformed as a responsible firearm owner, and
seem to be adamant about remaining that way.

To this ignorance, you add the arrogance of your enthusiasm for misuse
of finite law enforcement resources, advocating frivolously calling
the police and reporting actions that you KNOW (or should know) are
legal and safe!

Well, what else can I say? Do what's wrong and try to make yourself
feel good about it. Get the armed pilots AND the police annoyed at
you. You can even shake your fists and stomp your feet, and proclaim
that THEY are the real danger, and the real terrorists.

One day, you may need their help. Guess what? They'll help.

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
Again, it's a matter of probabilities. It is very unlikely that I would
accidentally shoot someone. But it is almost infinitely LESS likely that I
will encounter the next Mohammed Atta at a GA airport.

I would have said the same thing two years ago; but now, I'm renting
airplanes one hangar down from where Zacarias Moussaui trained (he flew
at Airman; I'm renting from Fletcher, next door). Small world. (When
the attacks happened, I was a little further up the street, four
buildings instead of one. Still under five hundred yards.)

Or, for that matter,
that I will encounter anyone who is intent on breaking into my car.

About a month ago, the grocery store where I sometimes shop was robbed.
Three hours after I left. I would have been there three hours later
had I remembered the airplane keys.

Yes, the odds are slim. Slim is not, however, zero. And on the off
chance that it *does* happen to me, I'd prefer *those* odds be in my
favor. As heavily as possible.

The
risk of me having a negative result from being armed at the airport is, at
least in my own life, far greater than the chance that I would do anything
good with a firearm when I am there.

That's why I spend time at the range.

By negative result, I don't just mean shooting someone accidentally. Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.

I should hope *not*; if somebody does notice, then you're not doing your
part when it comes to "concealment."

That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
flight line. And for the sake of argument, let's say that I have the legal
right to carry in whatever state I'm in at the time. I still am going to
have to deal with an initially very nervous police officer,

Nah. Cops in states with reasonable CCW know better. Assuming, of
course, that he responds before you depart; given the average law
enforcement response time, I'd bet on you and your bird.

produce identification,

Yup. A CCW card.

explain myself,

The card is explanation enough. Here in .ok.us, they're issued under
the "Oklahoma Self Defense Act." The permit even has the words "self
defense" printed on it. Pretty self-explanatory.

and probably get run through a database

That takes about thirty seconds. 29 and change of which are human delay.

someplace so the cop can verify my story. This is going to take upwards of
45 minutes to an hour to sort out, and I'd rather spend that time flying,
especially if night, weather, or my own physical endurance is closing in.

Way off base. I have friends in this state who've been pulled over (in
this state, you're required to notify the officer that you're carrying
on initial contact), and their traffic stops don't take any longer than
anybody elses. In this case, the cop won't even have to fill out
paperwork. And, again, this assumes that the cop gets there before
you're gone. More than likely, if he does, he's stationed on-field. If
you spend any significant time at the airport (a pilot, hang out at the
field? *never*), you probably know him. Then again, you'd also know
the line guys, and they'd know you.

I simply see more costs than benefits in carrying a loaded firearm past the
fence and onto the flight line. Your mileage may vary, but I can't conceive
on an instance when being my armed at the airport would have had any
benefits at all. But I can recognize any number of instances when there
would have been costs for being so equipped.

I have a .22 revolver in my long-range survival kit (I've been known to
fly to Wyoming, and that's rough country up there); wouldn't help me
much, though, if we encountered trouble (in the form of half a ton of
angry apex predator, or even a ****ed-off moose) immediately upon
(unscheduled) landing.

Further, being armed is a deterrent. It's no great secret that when
states loosen their carry laws, crime drops. Sometimes, it moves to
nearby areas; turns out criminals would rather move to an unarmed-victim
zone. The idea isn't necessarily to shoot a bad guy, it's a deterrent.
In fact, that's the best use of weapons: to deter action that would
require their use. And in the event that the deterrent of "might be
armed" doesn't work, being armed can still be a deterrent to completing
an action. In better than 95% of cases in which a good guy brandishes a
firearm, the bad guy rethinks his plan of action, fast, and decides that
today is not, in fact, a good day to die. And again, if you're
concealing it properly, and carrying safely, there aren't any costs.

As you say, you are armed just about everywhere you go. I don't live my
life that way. I'm not saying that you are wrong for living life the way
you do. Why don't you grant me the same courtesy?

I'm happy to. In fact, I believe that anybody who doesn't want to
carry, absolutely shouldn't; he probably won't be able or willing to
carry through to the extreme conclusion if necessary, and therefore does
present a greater danger to himself and others than if he were unarmed,
just because he's escalating the situation. If you are willing to use
it, though, I don't believe there's anything wrong with carrying it.
Note that I'm not making any claim against you; you're welcome to do as
you please. I'm just trying to clear up a few minor points, and explain
why some people do choose to exercise their prerogative to carry.

--Dave

I find the intersection betweens guns and GA interesting because these two
things have more than a little in common.

Like guns, GA planes can pose risks to innocent bystanders, and people are
killed on the ground every year (thankfully very very rarely) when pilots
lose control of their aircraft and crash in populated areas. Both GA and
shooting communities emphasize personal responsibility, training, and
personal accountability; both have a small but influential minority which
fails to live up to these standards and causes great trouble for the rest of
us.

It is in the US that people enjoy the highest level of access to GA of
anywhere in the world, and we also generally have the most limited
restrictions on gun laws.

I would wager that the sort of people who want to ban or unduly restrict
guns are significantly more likely to take an unfavorable view of GA. There
is a sizable group of people in this country who are not comfortable with
people exercising responsibility over their own actions. To them, guns and
airplanes are tools that should only be accessible to professionals.

Best,
-cwk.

As an amusing side note, in Alaska (where there are effectively no gun
laws), I believe that small passenger-carrying planes are in fact required
to carry at least one firearm for survival purposes!