Should it be legal to carry guns on planes?

[2952-0-0]

Definitely not as carry-on baggage, but it should be legal to pack guns up as long as all the bullets are taken out and they are approved.

[Cashcow]

Uhh, you mean in the cargo hold? I think it already is legal. Or was. I know I've seen people walking out of the baggage claim with rifles before.

[AkSaber]

Putting guns in checked baggage is legal. Carry-on is a big no-no.

[2952-0-0]

A while back Transport Canada reminded people not to bring toy guns on board because they cause confusion and slow security checks down.

[MaC]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

[Gustaf]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to make the plane crash by shooting through the walls or into the cabin or something?

[John Dibble]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to make the plane crash by shooting through the walls or into the cabin or something?

I think they've actually done studies that prove that is bunk.

[MODU]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to make the plane crash by shooting through the walls or into the cabin or something?

I think they've actually done studies that prove that is bunk.

Yes.  What happens is that there will be cabin pressure loss (as well as hearing of those near the hole due to the sonic wind speed), but it won't crash or break apart in the air.  A pilot can limit the cabin pressure loss by decending to a lower alttitude and slowing down, but the plane would still need to land as soon as it could in order ensure to limit the effects of exposure for those in the cabin. 

Now that is assuming the bullet his the nothing while travelling through the walls.  Since there is limited space on a plane, if the gunman were to fire up or down, they risk hitting electrical wires or fuel lines which would either cause the loss of control of the plane or start a fire in the void space.  If either of those two issues occur, then you can pretty much kiss the plane goodbye.

As far as if the passengers on the airplane had guns, yes, they could have stopped the terrorists . . . assuming the terrorists didn't bring their own guns aboard the plane.  However, I'm not sure if I would want a terrified passenger firing a gun within the cabin in the direction of the cockpit.

[Ebowed]

hell yeah it should be.

[John Dibble]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to make the plane crash by shooting through the walls or into the cabin or something?

I think they've actually done studies that prove that is bunk.

Yes.  What happens is that there will be cabin pressure loss (as well as hearing of those near the hole due to the sonic wind speed), but it won't crash or break apart in the air.  A pilot can limit the cabin pressure loss by decending to a lower alttitude and slowing down, but the plane would still need to land as soon as it could in order ensure to limit the effects of exposure for those in the cabin. 

Now that is assuming the bullet his the nothing while travelling through the walls.  Since there is limited space on a plane, if the gunman were to fire up or down, they risk hitting electrical wires or fuel lines which would either cause the loss of control of the plane or start a fire in the void space.  If either of those two issues occur, then you can pretty much kiss the plane goodbye.

As far as if the passengers on the airplane had guns, yes, they could have stopped the terrorists . . . assuming the terrorists didn't bring their own guns aboard the plane.  However, I'm not sure if I would want a terrified passenger firing a gun within the cabin in the direction of the cockpit.

Good argument to only allow rubber bullets(since they don't pierce, but they do hurt like hell so you could knock a terrorist down with one and physically restrain the guy) if you are going to allow guns on planes.

[Gustaf]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to make the plane crash by shooting through the walls or into the cabin or something?

I think they've actually done studies that prove that is bunk.

Yes.  What happens is that there will be cabin pressure loss (as well as hearing of those near the hole due to the sonic wind speed), but it won't crash or break apart in the air.  A pilot can limit the cabin pressure loss by decending to a lower alttitude and slowing down, but the plane would still need to land as soon as it could in order ensure to limit the effects of exposure for those in the cabin. 

Now that is assuming the bullet his the nothing while travelling through the walls.  Since there is limited space on a plane, if the gunman were to fire up or down, they risk hitting electrical wires or fuel lines which would either cause the loss of control of the plane or start a fire in the void space.  If either of those two issues occur, then you can pretty much kiss the plane goodbye.

As far as if the passengers on the airplane had guns, yes, they could have stopped the terrorists . . . assuming the terrorists didn't bring their own guns aboard the plane.  However, I'm not sure if I would want a terrified passenger firing a gun within the cabin in the direction of the cockpit.

Good argument to only allow rubber bullets(since they don't pierce, but they do hurt like hell so you could knock a terrorist down with one and physically restrain the guy) if you are going to allow guns on planes.

Yeah, that seems a bit more sensible. Actually, I think the decision should probably be left upto the air crew. If they don't want it, you don't get to.

[Cashcow]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Hooray for in-flight gun battles!

[MaC]

hell yeah it should be.  If the passengers on the Sept. 11th flight had guns to shoot the terrorists with, we'd be saved 3000+ lives.  Of course this would be up to the airport's decisions, but it should be legal considering the lives of the passengers is at stake.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to make the plane crash by shooting through the walls or into the cabin or something?

I think they've actually done studies that prove that is bunk.

I love movie fiction, like the movie Goldfinger, where Goldfinger shoots a hole in the window, and it's a tiny window, but he gets pulled through and he's obviously not the most slender guy.  Yet James Bond is standing there and he doesn't fall through.

[Jake]

It has to be ruthlessly controlled. Certainly, pilots and federal officers should have the right along with others who can acquire a license and submit to the standards. Dibble's suggestion of rubber bullets is a good standard.

[Joe Republic]

I was just about to jokingly post that the forum's NRA delegation would soon post that we should be allowed guns as carry-ons.  Looks like I got here too late.....

[phk]

Pilots and Air Hostesses/Hosts should.

[A18]

Yes, obviously. But that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

[Lunar]

Couldn't we just allow non-lethal forms of defense on airplanes?  Things like pepper spray, stun guns, stun batons, baseball bats, etc. all seem like a better solution than gunfire.

[A18]

I like the stun gun idea.

[Cashcow]

Couldn't we just allow non-lethal forms of defense on airplanes?  Things like pepper spray, stun guns, stun batons, baseball bats, etc. all seem like a better solution than gunfire.

What if a bunch of terrorists all decided to book the same flight and carry those weapons?