TexasCHLforum.com

lrb111 wrote:

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".

"Good enough" means just what it sounds like: Able to place enough rounds on a moving target (that is shooting back at you), to neutralize him/them before they do the same to you. In other words, take a "Texas Star" target... have it shoot back at you, and tell me how well you cleared the plates. Surely, you're not suggesting the "average" CHL holder is up to this task.

Autonomic response! Yeah, if we're all out in the big middle of a Gym floor somewhere.. everyone will hit the ground. In the crowded confines of an airliner you're lucky to be able to get into your seat. On the average flight, there would be many people incapable of doing anything but ducking their heads a little, so I consider crossfire a very real concern.

You ask "will I be on your flight"? Probably not, and that is the entire reason that I made that very same point earlier (how many CHL's do think would be on a flight).

Heres a question for you to consider: Lets say 6-8 terrorists (who are not stupid) discover that by obtaining a CHL they can legally carry 2-3 high capacity semi-automatic handguns with them on a flight. Lets also say, that they actually spent a little time training with those weapons. Lets add to the mix that they don't care if they die, in fact, thats what they are there for.......................

You see where this going?

To allow handguns on an airliner is to provide terrorists with tools that allow for an advantage. They could easily arrange to have more armed people on board than there would be CHL'ers.

We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on this subject. IMO, is not wise to always have a firearm with you under all conditions. I know that goes against the grain of some here. But, a firearm is not and can not always be the "answer".

My .0002 on it.

Good point Flint
Heres a question for you to consider: Lets say 6-8 terrorists (who are not stupid) discover that by obtaining a CHL they can legally carry 2-3 high capacity semi-automatic handguns with them on a flight. Lets also say, that they actually spent a little time training with those weapons. Lets add to the mix that they don't care if they die, in fact, thats what they are there for.......................


As hard & long as they trained to do 911, as creative as that attack was, (I never thaought of using a plane for a missle) your "SUPPOSE" would definately happen.

Another one here that so many of us had not thought of.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

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.

So your cane will save you at 7 yards, but you are afraid someone else could not hit the bad guy with a bullet?

Oh, and on the concept of "convincing" terrorists by shooting the leader...Um, no.

You think I meant they wold all give up, no. I meant somthing else is drawing all their attention. In that situation i figure I'm going to die one way or the other.

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.

Their stated goals are to be "Big and Flashy", they don't take over planes to achieve the same net result as bombing a bus.

longtooth wrote:Good point Flint
Heres a question for you to consider: Lets say 6-8 terrorists (who are not stupid) discover that by obtaining a CHL they can legally carry 2-3 high capacity semi-automatic handguns with them on a flight. Lets also say, that they actually spent a little time training with those weapons. Lets add to the mix that they don't care if they die, in fact, thats what they are there for.......................


As hard & long as they trained to do 911, as creative as that attack was, (I never thaought of using a plane for a missle) your "SUPPOSE" would definately happen.

Another one here that so many of us had not thought of.

That is a nightmare senario, and one where there is little chance to change the inevitable...Whether we are armed or not...

flintknapper wrote: We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on this subject. IMO, is not wise to always have a firearm with you under all conditions. I know that goes against the grain of some here. But, a firearm is not and can not always be the "answer".

My .0002 on it.

and,,, all "gun free zones" are always gun free???


One that trades his rights for "safety" will have neither, in due time.

lrb111 wrote: So your cane will save you at 7 yards, but you are afraid someone else could not hit the bad guy with a bullet?...

You asked what "good enough" was with respect to using a gun. So, I gave you an example of what I consider to be "good enough." You decide to make fun of the cane...Fine. Flintknapper gave an even better example of being able to engage a Texas Star while taking return fire. So again, if you can't deliver that kind of accuracy, you aren't "good enough" IMHO. That standard would DQ most CHL holders and a very high percentage of LEOs.

lrb111 wrote: You think I meant they wold all give up, no. I meant somthing else is drawing all their attention. In that situation i figure I'm going to die one way or the other.

You took the position that shooting a BG would get the attention of his partners. I disagree and I base that opinion on the behavior noted by witnesses of past attacks as well as that I've observed on video. Again, martyrdom is a stated goal. Getting killed short of that goal is still an acceptable and even an expected outcome. With the exception of the suicide bomber, they almost never attack in single man elements for that very reason.

lrb111 wrote: Their stated goals are to be "Big and Flashy", they don't take over planes to achieve the same net result as bombing a bus.

Big and Flashy is relative and they know it. Bombing a bus in the middle of Baghdad will barely make the evening news in the US and even then, it's considered just another day of normal business. Same is true for blowing up an airliner in Syria. But if you bomb a bus in Anytown, USA, it will be "Big and Flashy." Even after 9/11 the general public still believes such things are highly unlikely. As such, even an unsuccessful attempt inside the CONUS will get the attention Al Quaeda and others want.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:
You asked what "good enough" was with respect to using a gun. So, I gave you an example of what I consider to be "good enough." You decide to make fun of the cane...Fine. Flintknapper gave an even better example of being able to engage a Texas Star while taking return fire. So again, if you can't deliver that kind of accuracy, you aren't "good enough" IMHO. That standard would DQ most CHL holders and a very high percentage of LEOs.

The links earlier in this thread outlined the requirements for FAMs . Another link mentioned that those guidelines had been relaxed. I can shoot the guidelines.

You might also note in one of the articles it mentioned tha the FAMs use .357 Sig, because they may have to shoot through aseat and another passenger in order to hit the hijacker".

If those are the rules, then arbitrary nicities set in this thread for the sake of debate don't apply. You are setting the bar higher than even the FAMs are required to meet.

The Texas Star hypothisis is a catchy phrase but untrue. The BG is 18 inches wide with over a two foot vertical center of mass. Head shots would be about the same sa a single "Star" but will not run in hte same full arc. In fact on a plane the BG would have quite alimited area of movement.

Let's compare apples to apples. If you can get your cane on him, or hands on him, then i can stick the gun against his skin. That's a fair comparison. imo....

I found this and just couldn't help myself.

If armed citizens were allowed on planes on September 11th:

I love the photo but opposing linear ambushes make me nervous.

sorry they don't seat people in better ambush settings....

lrb111 wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:
You asked what "good enough" was with respect to using a gun. So, I gave you an example of what I consider to be "good enough." You decide to make fun of the cane...Fine. Flintknapper gave an even better example of being able to engage a Texas Star while taking return fire. So again, if you can't deliver that kind of accuracy, you aren't "good enough" IMHO. That standard would DQ most CHL holders and a very high percentage of LEOs.

The links earlier in this thread outlined the requirements for FAMs . Another link mentioned that those guidelines had been relaxed. I can shoot the guidelines.

You might also note in one of the articles it mentioned tha the FAMs use .357 Sig, because they may have to shoot through aseat and another passenger in order to hit the hijacker".

If those are the rules, then arbitrary nicities set in this thread for the sake of debate don't apply. You are setting the bar higher than even the FAMs are required to meet.

The Texas Star hypothisis is a catchy phrase but untrue. The BG is 18 inches wide with over a two foot vertical center of mass. Head shots would be about the same sa a single "Star" but will not run in hte same full arc. In fact on a plane the BG would have quite alimited area of movement.

Let's compare apples to apples. If you can get your cane on him, or hands on him, then i can stick the gun against his skin. That's a fair comparison. imo....

I suppose a BG could be 18 wide depending upon where you measure from.. and his physical characteristics. For comparison though, I'm 6'-5" and 260 lbs., I measure 16 inches from armpit to armpit (chest/torso). If I turn sideways to you... we can reduce that to 12". Vertically, If you apply the 24" measurement you cited, you would have to include all area from just under my chin, to 2 inches below by naval.

You cannot realistically propose that all of that is COM. While I cannot say what reaction a person might have to being shot (anywhere), it remains a patently bad idea to shoot someone around the "edges", and that is what you would be doing if we are to take in your 18"X24" target area.

You don't seem to think that the terrorist's would be able to move much on an airliner, I disagree, but would simply submit that they don't have to.

Have you ever missed a steel plate by hurrying your shot? I know I have. It wasn't moving (up, down, sideways, forward, backward), it certainly wasn't shooting back at me (causing me to move), there was not a single "no shoot" to worry about, and being flanked was the furthest thing from my mind. Still, I manage to miss my fair share.

Also, the "apple comparison" just doesn't pan out IMO. If the BG has no firearm then he is limited in reach. You could to some degree "pick" when you want to engage him (except that he might charge you). If he has a handgun he can engage anyone, at any distance, at anytime (that means you too). It is implausible to expect that you could approach close enough to put your weapon against his skin (not that it would be necessary to be that close).

The gist of it is this: You would in all probability be outnumbered and outgunned if we allow for the carry of handguns on airlines. Also, you may be sure... that the next time an airliner is breached, it will be shot down post haste if it is anywhere near a populated area or a target of any significance.

I'll say it again...FWIW, your handgun is NOT the answer for every situation IMO.

Allow me to say Thank You.. for your viewpoints and participation, I respect everyone's ideas about what might be a prudent response to potential threats aboard our airlines. We may have different feelings about what would be best to do, but it is always good to examine these matters and consider each others input, Thanks again for yours.


Flint.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:...gooberment....

Here's my $.02. I like that word!! With G.C.Montgomery's OK, I'm adding it to my personal dictionary!!!

As far as legal carry on an airliner, I haven't made up my mind....

I would also like to say thank you to everyone who chose a polite debate. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
I learned a lot in this debate as well.

GrillKing wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:...gooberment....

Here's my $.02. I like that word!! With G.C.Montgomery's OK, I'm adding it to my personal dictionary!!!

As far as legal carry on an airliner, I haven't made up my mind....

Me too. Yea buddy.

I can't stand it, all those thumb's behind the slide's I can't help but see that first.