TexasCHLforum.com

This is a great discussion. One request though, for those that are pro-airline carry, please stop accusing those who disagree of being an anti, or any other hint of such sentiment. Obviously we are all pro-carry and pro 2a etc....

gigag04 wrote:This is a great discussion. One request though, for those that are pro-airline carry, please stop accusing those who disagree of being an anti, or any other hint of such sentiment. Obviously we are all pro-carry and pro 2a etc....

Well said. It is okay to disagree, but we need to refrain from attacking each other over our differences.

flintknapper wrote:Let a terrorist have his box cutter, cable, belt with buckle...etc. Give me a good solid cane, and I'll have him crying for his mommy in just a few seconds.

Now that sounds like something worth learning. Conflinct resolution...Flintknapper style I like it.
Jason

The conflict is resolved when the other person is not able to continue the conflict, right?

Well, I've been carrying a Cold Steel "City Stick" on all flights since I acquired one on John Farnam's recommendation. Of course, I instantly develop a limp when I arrive at the airport. The stick works well at resolving conflicts before they start. Something about that big ol' steel ball on the end of it just oozes pain and suffering. Only once did the security folks give me any trouble about it.

When I got loud and suggested they were denying access to a crippled, black man with a cane, they couldn't get me through security fast enough. "Here you go, Sir! Sorry for the inconvenience. Do you need help boarding at all? We're so sorry..." It may be bad to play the "race card" but, in that case...It was WELL worth it. I used it as an opportunity to summon a ride to the gate for some elderly passengers who obviously needed it.

I have to check my arms in my luggage, cause I got some GUNS!!!!


aw, c'mon, that's hilarious!

I remember that story, GC, when it first happened. You referenced Johnny Cochran, or Al Sharpton, or something. I remember chuckling pretty good at that

gigag04 wrote:This is a great discussion. One request though, for those that are pro-airline carry, please stop accusing those who disagree of being an anti, or any other hint of such sentiment. Obviously we are all pro-carry and pro 2a etc....

And let me clarify: I do not believe those who are against airplane carry are anti-carry, anti-CHL, anti-2A, etc.

My point has been that they are unwittingly advancing the same argument used by the antis; it's the same argument that results in carry bans in schools and bars (and many other places, in other states).

Kevin

G.C.Montgomery wrote:Well, I've been carrying a Cold Steel "City Stick" on all flights since I acquired one on John Farnam's recommendation. Of course, I instantly develop a limp when I arrive at the airport. The stick works well at resolving conflicts before they start. Something about that big ol' steel ball on the end of it just oozes pain and suffering. Only once did the security folks give me any trouble about it.

When I got loud and suggested they were denying access to a crippled, black man with a cane, they couldn't get me through security fast enough. "Here you go, Sir! Sorry for the inconvenience. Do you need help boarding at all? We're so sorry..." It may be bad to play the "race card" but, in that case...It was WELL worth it. I used it as an opportunity to summon a ride to the gate for some elderly passengers who obviously needed it.

Thats priceless! I love it.

Perhaps the airlines could offer carry and non carry flights... that way those who are anti 2A and against self defense could all cower totally defenseless on flights protected only by some people searching 85 year old ladies so they don't offend the PC people.

Airlines could offer sheep flights and sheep dog flights... let the customer take his pick... I know which I prefer.

FWIW

Chuck

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

Give me an objective argument to support armed passengers and I'm willing to listen. But as long as it boils down to "my rights are being violated," the discussion will go no where. Fact is, your rights went out the window the moment you set foot onboard an aircraft that is not owned or operated by you, the government or any other public entity to which you pay taxes. You have privileges set forth in the transportation contract you agreed to when you bought that plane ticket and that's it. Having said that, the airline should be considered liable for your protection as you have placed your life in their hands aboard their aircraft.
"

It boils down to this. If the privately owned airlines say I cannot
carry, then so be it , I don't have to buy a ticket. I can always take some
other form of transportation or leave my guns in my luggage or mayby
wear some cable ties and walk with a steel headed cane. Just my opinion.

gigag04 wrote:This is a great discussion. One request though, for those that are pro-airline carry, please stop accusing those who disagree of being an anti, or any other hint of such sentiment. Obviously we are all pro-carry and pro 2a etc....

Declaring it a dead horse issue does not make you right, or winner or whatever. Quit whining and understand you need someone with views more strict than yourself, and others more liberal than yourself.

You are almost total pro-carry, and nearly 2a. When you get to where you can trust your fellow man, maybe you will let someone else cover your back.

Some people want "to go quietly into that good night", some want to chain themselves to their principles and not be moved. I might be the latter.

flintknapper wrote:

lrb111 wrote:

There is no one on this forum more pro self defense than I, but it doesn't make good sense to have firearms present everywhere and under all conditions.

Wll, if the government can't or won't protect you, what are you going to do?
Pray you have equal footing with your cat5 against their box cutters, seat belt extensions. etc?

Would you pull a gun on a plane if you thought there might be 6 or 12 people sitting there with their hands on their pistols?

edit: That was rhetorical. I realize the jihadists are only looking to die, and take as many of us with them as they can. I just want to be able to vote that they go alone.

I understand your frustration, and certainly none of the safeguards implemented today by the airlines are foolproof deterrents. Just the same, by allowing CHL's to carry on-board, you open up the possibility that terrorists would employ that same "legal" means of carry to take control of the plane or its passengers.

You ask a reasonable question: "Would you pull a gun on a plane if you thought there might be 6 or 12 people sitting there with their hands on their pistols?" I would answer..certainly not, but what are chances that even one, let alone 6-12 passengers on any given flight would be CHL holders? Then, of that number...how many would respond. Of the respondents, how many are good enough to neutralize one or more threats under dynamic conditions without shooting other passengers.

This is a straw man argument. Let one person stand and fire on an airplane and the remainder of the passengers are going to the floor.
It's autonomic response.
I don't understand "good enough". Good enough to put a bullet through the right eyeball of the bad guy at 15 yards, or good enough to put a couple center mass, and convince his partners that there plans are amiss.

Logistically, unless you seated all persons with a firearm in the same section... then any response to a threat would result in biggest darn "cross fire" you ever saw.

Didn't you say above:

I would answer..certainly not, but what are chances that even one, let alone 6-12 passengers on any given flight would be CHL holders? Then, of that number...how many would respond. Of the respondents, how many are good enough to neutralize one or more threats under dynamic conditions without shooting other passengers.

So, crossfire isn't a problem...

Several able bodied men can easily overcome box cutters, and cables with empty hands. It takes guts, commitment, and a willingness to be injured...but it is doable.

If you can't one or two armed passenger to act, how are you going to get other passengers to risk anything up close?

Of course they will act, and so will an armed passenger.
The consequences of inaction are no longer an option, at any level.

Let a terrorist have his box cutter, cable, belt with buckle...etc. Give me a good solid cane, and I'll have him crying for his mommy in just a few seconds.

Once again, will you be on my flight?
and fwiw, I don't want him crying for his momma, I want him "stopped, contolled, nuetralized".

Tote 9 wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

Give me an objective argument to support armed passengers and I'm willing to listen. But as long as it boils down to "my rights are being violated," the discussion will go no where. Fact is, your rights went out the window the moment you set foot onboard an aircraft that is not owned or operated by you, the government or any other public entity to which you pay taxes. You have privileges set forth in the transportation contract you agreed to when you bought that plane ticket and that's it. Having said that, the airline should be considered liable for your protection as you have placed your life in their hands aboard their aircraft.
"

It boils down to this. If the privately owned airlines say I cannot
carry, then so be it , I don't have to buy a ticket. I can always take some
other form of transportation or leave my guns in my luggage or mayby
wear some cable ties and walk with a steel headed cane. Just my opinion.

Well, I have to back track a little. KB Craig rightly pointed out that some of the regulations are imposed by the gooberment and that takes the choice away from both us and the airline. But I still don't agree that it's about our "civil rights." No one said you had to use commercial transport to get where you are going. You have the right to use a private means of transportation and generally, no one is there to stop you from carrying a gun within your own vehicle. Of course, you still have to respect the laws of the state in which you are traveling. Having said all that I don't believe the government just up and imposed these rules. IIRC, they did so with some encouragement and lobbying from the transportation industry itself.

KB Craig brought up a point of curiosity though. Does anyone know if FAA style security rules are in place for commercial ground transportation? Are you searched prior to boarding a train or bus? The last time I was aboard either, there were no security checks at all. If that's still the case...there may yet be a commercial option. Of course, you may still be breaking a state law as soon as you leave Texas or any other state that recognizes your CHL. Then what?

This is a really good thread.

Although I still believe that CHLers should be allowed to carry on flights, I appreciate the arguments that some of you put forth.

Your arguments are logical. Logic is great, but I've discovered that life just isn't always logical.

The same argument was made ten years ago that there would be a blood bath if citizens were allowed to carry guns. The argument certainly made sense. BG shoots at me. I shoot back. BG's buddy joins the fun. My mama gets mad & pulls out a shot gun. Before long, its war in the Wal-Mart parking lot. None of us are going down without a fight.

The argument certainly makes sense to me! The problem, however, is that life doesn't always reflect theory.

We're still waiting on the bloodbath predicted when it became legal for a person to obtain a CHL and carry a weapon.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not labeling anyone here anti-2A. You wouldn't frequent this board with discussions on the best way to neutralize your attacker if you were. I appreciate your argument. LT's post, for example, was excellent food for thought. I'm reminded that being armed on an airplane has a whole new set of variables to consider. I appreciate that.
However, I still believe that I should have the right to carry my weapon wherever I can legally travel in the US.

lrb111 wrote: I don't understand "good enough". Good enough to put a bullet through the right eyeball of the bad guy at 15 yards, or good enough to put a couple center mass, and convince his partners that there plans are amiss.

Um, actually, I'd want the former of the two if I can have it. And for the record, most serious training I've done gets into doing the right eye-socket in immediate action drills at up to seven yards. The few FAM's I know personally can match that. Can you? Pulling from the known terrorists' play book...If the BG is wearing a bomb with a switch in his hand, COM doesn't cut it. You need a no reflex, drop 'em like a sack-o-potatoes hit to ther CNS. If you can't deliver that eye-socket or medula oblongata hit on demand, I don't want you shooting anywhere near me if I'm downrange, period.

Oh, and on the concept of "convincing" terrorists by shooting the leader...Um, no. Not gonna work and here's why. It has been shown time and time again that you can mow down an entire flock of these idiots once they get going and the live ones will keep coming just like the Japanese screaming Bonzai!. They call deadmen martyrs. Martyrdom is a primary goal for these people. The other primary goal is to take as many "infidels," meaning us, with them as possible. So, it's OK if they don't get to crash the plane so long as they get to kill you. That's good enough to them.