No trained or truly determined ones, yet. We have data on that, too.

A couple of years ago I was on an indoor range with several HK weapons, and the person in lane next to me was shooting a USP Compact .40. He couldn't hit the broad side of a B10 target, let alone come close to his point of aim. Much of his shooting missed the target completely. We spoke, and he explained that there was something wrong with his handgun.

I shot it at his request. It cycled and grouped just fine, as one would expect from that handgun. I thought he was a real novice, never having fired a handgun, perhaps just bought it and was trying to teach himself to shoot. It wasn't until we talked for a little while that he said he was an airline pilot, a FFDO. I was amazed. We shot for a while, and I let him try several other weapons. He shocked himself when he was able to get tight groups with a HK USC...because its easy to shoot. We began working with trigger control, front sight use, breathing, and moving the target in.

He was really, really bad at all ranges, but delighted to learn that he could do better. And he did. My concern was the poor standard with which he was shooting at the outset, yet fully comfortable carrying in his capacity as a FFDO. I've no doubt that he's doing much better now, and hopefully was inspired to see a little more training.

 

I assume then that you have removed the "feel good" locks and alarms on your house and car since you have no data on how many burglaries it has prevented?

 

I would have agreed with that statement a week ago.

But when crowds of Londoners stand around and watch two men hack a soldier to death, my faith in crowds dealing effectively with terrorists is shaken.

 

Different dynamic. That one crazy guy doesn't threaten everyone on the street at once, terrible as his act is.

 

Some of them, yes. Such as my bike rack, it has "feel good" locks on it that are easily defeated in about 10 seconds. Anyone who leaves bikes in a rack unattended (without having a line of sight) is an idiot. If it's actually going to have an effect, then sure, I'll use it. If it's not even going to slow someone down or the odds are so infinitesimal that it's just not realistic, then it's not worth it. I also don't keep my wallet in my car or anything of value, yet I know plenty of people that will go out on a run or a ride and do just that. Anyone who does that is an idiot.

I realize you honestly buy into this "last line of defense" bit, thinking that if there's even a .0000001% chance, we need to all get guns. Things changed when we realized airplanes could be used as weapons and not just means to get someplace or get something. Once that was realized, we took extensive security measures to prevent this from happening again. Everyone keeps saying "a trained attacker", but like what? Like the shoe bomber? (subdued by passengers), like you see in unrealistic action movies? Like we saw before there was airport security when they'd get on with 20 automatic weapons? It just seems that some people think they are living in a Kurt Russel movie and they are the last line of defense.

Realize that if you open that cockpit door, you just made the whole cockpit vulnerable. Should you risk losing control of the aircraft to save a couple people? I know of plenty situations where people should be armed, but this doesn't seem to be one of them, and at the most, it's just incredibly wasteful for the federal government to fund it. If it makes you feel all better to know you could expose the cockpit to takeover while you are firing off a few rounds, do it on your own money.

So how about parachutes? Do we need to start carrying parachutes because there is a small chance of in-flight breakup or control loss? It's happened plenty of times in a variety of ways. Some with ample opportunity to save more than a few people. If you're going to fund guns, you HAVE to fund parachutes!

 

How many parachutes attacked crews and crew members in the past few years?

09/11 seems too easily forgotten. I got sick to death of hearing lemmings who couldn't even count the stars on the flag mumble the same mantra "gawd bluss amurika" over and over, just to be one of the crowd. I'm a lot more disgusted, however, at those who forget, and who say "it could never happen again." Sure it could, and its for that reason and every other that we ought not ever give it the chance.

When did an airline crew effectively don a parachute and leave the aircraft?

A terrorist on an airliner is a federal, national concern. It's a major security issue. A pilot jumping out of a crippled aircraft in flight, assuming such were possible in a transport category airbus or boeing, is not.

It's a ridiculous comparison.

A pilot with a handgun is performing a designated function under a federal program to counter a national threat. He should be federally funded. He's already volunteering his time. Providing the weapon and the training on the federal nickel makes perfect sense.

 

Lets see,

American Airlines 232 attacked everyone, and they could have been evacuated in flight with parachutes.

Alaska Air flight 261 attacked everyone, and they could have save at least some people by jumping out with parachutes.

Bunch of eastern airliners crashing in IMC that could have just had their passengers jump to safety.

UPS Airline Flight 6 attacked all on board, bet they wish they had some parachutes.

Oh, to be sure, I'm not just talking about pilots having parachutes, I'm talking about EVERYONE. Why not? It's their safety right?

The list could go on and on for days really. Is it ridiculous? Absolutely, but it's no more ridiculous than thinking government funding for guns in the cockpit is going to be any more useful. Heck, if you had everyone wearing parachutes you'd probably have more people here today than if everyone had guns on board. But again, it's ridiculous. How many flight crews could we save if we just had ejection seats up front? Why not throw some money there too? There's no reason you shouldn't be there waving the flag and making the case for parachutes. Heck, there's still a good change a "better shot" is going to win. FFDOs are never going to be trained operators, so that kind of throws out "what if it's a trained attacker" argument out of the water. If you're fantasy and imagination are such that you think the attackers are going to be like neo from the matrix, no amount of FFDO training is going to be enough. But hey, at lease with parachutes they could open the doors and jump to safety regardless of what the airplane does, right?

It's not that "it will never happen again", although I'd submit that it's likely to happen again in a way we were unable to foresee, but I digress. The appropriate measures in place are what's needed. Security at the airport. Flight attendant training. The appropriate briefings, etc. I'd rather have 20 people tackle some guy that was trying to detonate a bomb or pull a gun rather than hope a one-on-one showdown with a pilot trying to wrench himself out of a seat and in the opposite direction through a tiny door. Again, if you think that is realistically going to stop anything better, then I've got a load of parachutes to sell you.

I'm not against guns in the cockpit. If you want to bring your gun or parachute, go right ahead. I'm not going to complain, just don't try to make the taxpayers foot the bill for the ridiculousness.

 

Excusing the utterly ridiculousness of all this, how do you propose anyone would have exited the aircraft, let alone deployed a canopy? What's the fastest you've ever exited an aircraft in flight? What provision exists for jump doors? Not realistic.

Putting two rounds center mass and one in the head, very realistic. No aircraft modifications needed.

Fund the handguns.

No, which is why it's a ridiculous concept. It's not that hard to put a bullet where one intends, if one does one's part. That much is possible, and reason enough to arm a pilot.

It doesn't take Neo to be effective, just someone with a little training and a lot of determination.

Everyone laughed about boxcutters years ago. I was ridiculed for saying that a 3" blade is more than enough...the 09/11 attackers found that it was more than adequate.

Even the most determined attacker passing through a cockpit door isn't going far with two rounds in the chest and one in the head. Neither is the one behind him. The 09/11 attackers didn't have to face an armed cockpit crew.

No worries. 20 people can still take their best shot outside the cockpit.

Nobody is shooting through the cockpit door, but when it's breached, a crew member with a firearm is most definitely in order.

An eighty million dollar airplane, one hundred twenty five lives in the balance, a crew that's paid chickenfeed, national security at stake, but you don't want anyone to foot the bill for arming the crew? Why not take away the autopilot and eliminate alternate gear extension procedures? Why not take away all the backups and redundancy, and if the crew wants it, make them pay?

Stupid idea. Fund the handguns.

 

Yes they have and will continue to do so ,the days of sitting as a captive audience are over.
Another line of defense would be to arm the stewardesses .

 

Using your argument, the government needs to stop funding everything, including your paycheck.