Open Carry and CHL -- was: Re: For the Gun Goofballs...a tribute to Charleton Heston
Herb Martin
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A956E83...@216.196.97.136...
> Civic Virtue <gw...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:3nfu1419lkcbmdo0u...@4ax.com:
>
> We don't get that. Apparently folks around here are so used to seeing
> guns that they don't really care what you carry unless you are in a
> conversation with one of the employees and the subject comes up.
>
>> Few retailers actually have a sign posted;
>
> That's true. Of course, some of those signs say "No Gun Allowed" and some
> of those signs say "Leave it Holstered".
In Texas CHL holders can carry in all but a very limited number of
public places unless a SPECIFIC SIGN (30.06, pronounced "30
ought 6" like the rifle caliber) with specific words, sizes, colors/
contrast, down to the placement of puntuation and spelling (or
unless individually informed.)
Practically no place posts those egregious signs since it is a kiss
of death for MOST businesses.
>> If you don't believe me, find the manager of any retail store, tell
>> him or her that you have a gun, and see how long they let you stay.
>
> I carry openly in many of the stores around here including WalMart when I
> go there from time to time.
In VA (and other OC states) it is common for the OpenCarry folks to MEET
at WalMart which has no corporate policy against lawful carry.
Sometimes and individual manage will get excited but that is part of the
point:
Make this the NORMAL occurance that it used to be.
And afterwards the manager (and the police) usually are told, "They are
legal;
leave them alone; don't worry about it."
The open carry folks are practically NEVER the ones who are the problem.
At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw away
the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a tip off.
Wayne
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:481fb593$1$30512$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I haven't heard of a holster requirement before. Personally, I like to CCW
in a holster that covers the trigger completely, because my carry guns are
DAO. Wonder if that has anything to do with the GA law.
RD (The Sandman)
I have had a few police officers I know say essentially the same thing.
A major difference between good guys and bad guys is that if the gun is
in a holster, the odds are that it is a good guy. Bad guys, as you
mentioned above try to ditch the gun but ditching a holster while on the
run is a tad more difficult.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
Herb Martin
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9e_Tj.39440$Bb3.34208@trnddc01...
I was thinking of GA (see above) where this is including in the law
according
to one of the reciprocity sites.
Herb Martin
>>>> If you don't believe me, find the manager of any retail store, tell
>>>> him or her that you have a gun, and see how long they let you stay.
>>>
>>> I carry openly in many of the stores around here including WalMart
>>> when I go there from time to time.
>>
>> In VA (and other OC states) it is common for the OpenCarry folks to
>> MEET at WalMart which has no corporate policy against lawful carry.
>>
>> Sometimes and individual manage will get excited but that is part of
>> the point:
>>
>> Make this the NORMAL occurance that it used to be.
>>
>> And afterwards the manager (and the police) usually are told, "They
>> are legal;
>> leave them alone; don't worry about it."
>>
>> The open carry folks are practically NEVER the ones who are the
>> problem.
>>
>> At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
>> I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw
>> away the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a
>> tip off.
>
> I have had a few police officers I know say essentially the same thing.
> A major difference between good guys and bad guys is that if the gun is
> in a holster, the odds are that it is a good guy. Bad guys, as you
> mentioned above try to ditch the gun but ditching a holster while on the
> run is a tad more difficult.
My favorite holster is a clip on though. <grin>
Paul J. Adam
<ne...@learnquick.com> writes
>At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
>I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw away
>the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a tip off.
Quite a while ago, I read an American piece about how to pick your
holster for quick disposal... the idea apparently being to shoot someone
and be able to jettison firearm and all associated paraphernalia before
talking to the police. (So shoulder and belt-slide holsters were bad,
paddle holsters excellent)
The notion that actually, you shot someone in lawful self-defence and a
jury of your peers would agree with you and you were prepared to defend
your use of deadly force, seemed utterly alien to the writer: better by
far to shoot someone, throw a loaded firearm and any spare ammunition
away for whoever was lucky enough to find it, and then whine that nasty
liberals made too much about random unsolved gun crimes.
But then when a US shooter's magazine - I bought it for a very good
article on the care and feeding of a Glock handgun, which I then owned -
carries a letter to the editor _boasting_ about a "defensive gun use"
where, after a convivial evening's drinking with friends, the author saw
a "gaggle of disorderly teens" walking towards him. For the crime of
walking on the same pavement as him, they got a Walther PP pointed at
them and a demand to know what they wanted: because they ran away, they
were _obviously_ criminals bent on mayhem. The notion that "what they
wanted" was to walk to their destination without being threatened by
armed alcoholics, seemed utterly implausible. (Quick question - if one
of them had been legally carrying and had shot him, who's the legit cit
and who's the goblin?)
The author of that letter - and presumably the editor of the magazine -
were convinced of his righteousness. I'm open to the belief that when a
drunken stranger shoves a gun in my face, my hasty retreat is prudent
regard for my own safety, rather than proof of pre-planned violent
intent towards him.
I'm sure there are lots of valid DGUs. I liked blowing large,
tightly-grouped holes in paper targets and would do so again if money
and law allowed. If I lived in the US and could satisfy the appropriate
laws I'd go back to shooting, and would (cautiously) consider carrying a
weapon if there seemed to be a need. But that doesn't mean the US has
perfected its answer to this particular argument.
And holsters were dirt cheap even in the UK (when I had a S&W 4506 a
very serviceable Uncle Mike's holster cost a third the price of a spare
magazine: as for Glocks, their own-brand holster was stupidly cheap,
terribly simple, rather ugly and worked really well). If you really
think you need a firearm available for immediate use, a holster is noise
compared to the personal cost of "I grabbed for the handgun I'd stuck in
the waistband of my trousers, but it slipped down into my underpants
when I grabbed for it, and while I was trying to disentangle it the
mugger hit me in the head with a seven-pound club hammer..." If you're
carrying a weapon as a defensive tool, you want it out of the way,
secured, and immediately, reliably available. The solution to that, for
most handguns, is called "a holster"... while I can understand
reluctance to be dictated to, it makes sense in the same way as
seatbelts or crash helmets.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
RD (The Sandman)
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Yeah, but even a paddle holster isn't easy while running through
backyards and avoiding the neighbor's pitbulls. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:HFy7rVj8...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
> In message <481fb593$1$30512$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, Herb Martin
> <ne...@learnquick.com> writes
>>At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
>>I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw
>>away the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a
>>tip off.
>
> Quite a while ago, I read an American piece about how to pick your
> holster for quick disposal... the idea apparently being to shoot
> someone and be able to jettison firearm and all associated
> paraphernalia before talking to the police. (So shoulder and
> belt-slide holsters were bad, paddle holsters excellent)
Not one that is intended to be secure. It has that reverse hook that
loves to grab the belt when you are trying to remove it.
Herb Martin
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HFy7rVj8...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <481fb593$1$30512$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, Herb Martin
> <ne...@learnquick.com> writes
>>At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
>>I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw
>>away
>>the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a tip off.
>
> Quite a while ago, I read an American piece about how to pick your holster
> for quick disposal... the idea apparently being to shoot someone and be
> able to jettison firearm and all associated paraphernalia before talking
> to the police. (So shoulder and belt-slide holsters were bad, paddle
> holsters excellent)
You can find some idiot recommending most anything -- just look around
UseNet for copious confirmation.
Sheldon
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:481fb593$1$30512$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
into a liquor store carrying a rifle, which is an open and legal carry. The
clerks freaked out and called the cops, but he just made his purchase and
walked out. He later came in and apologized, claiming the rifle was very
valuable, and he didn't want to leave it in the car/truck.
We got a ways to go, even in Colorado.
Billzz
news:PvidnTJVNP56tbzV...@comcast.com...
Reminds me of the time, when I was a newly minted second lieutenant (1959)
that I carried a Colt .45 M1911 and flew across the United States, all the
way to Korea, and return. And nobody said anything.
A couple of years ago we had a chili contest in this small town, in the
Sierra Nevada, and one of the locals came out with a Colt .45 revolver
(Peacemaker) strapped to his hip and they all allowed as to how he was
"grandfathered" and that was the way he always was, and there was no trouble
with that.
Herb Martin
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:PvidnTJVNP56tbzV...@comcast.com...
>
> news:481fb593$1$30512$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> In VA (and other OC states) it is common for the OpenCarry folks to MEET
>> at WalMart which has no corporate policy against lawful carry.
>>
>> Sometimes and individual manage will get excited but that is part of the
>> point:
>>
>> Make this the NORMAL occurance that it used to be.
>>
>> And afterwards the manager (and the police) usually are told, "They are
>> legal;
>> leave them alone; don't worry about it."
>>
>> The open carry folks are practically NEVER the ones who are the problem.
>>
>> At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
>> I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw
>> away
>> the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a tip off.
>>
>>
> Interesting post.
Thank you.
Since you enjoyed it I would highly commend OpenCarry.com to you,
especially the Forum for your state (CO):
> We got a ways to go, even in Colorado.
Check out your state forum and the general interest forums as well.
Zomby...@cox.net
wrote:
Mine is simply a belt that has an extra inside loop. Very effective
in carrying 1911 style weapons.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli
SaPeIsMa
<Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rs5324ppf0f8mmrhr...@4ax.com...
>
> Mine is simply a belt that has an extra inside loop. Very effective
> in carrying 1911 style weapons.
>
That sounds interesting,
Do you have a URL for the maker ?
I'm looking to carry a CZ 100
http://www.cz-usa.com/product_detail.php?id=44
when I not carrying a Keltec
Zomby...@cox.net
A couple of points.
First in the so-called "drunk" story, that is what is known as
"brandishing" a firearm in most States, and that along with carrying
while intoxicated will get you locked up faster then the so-called
"unruly teens".
Secondly, most fully trained, compliant with the law(s) CCW holders
have no requirement to worry about "disposing" of any of their
equipment -- to include holster & spare ammunition.
Lastly, it is un attributed & unsubstantiated "Stories" such as these
that shed a bad light on most properly trained & legally compliant CCW
Holders.
The American Rifleman has real stories in every issued culled from
real news reports around the nation of CCW Holders either preventing a
crime, intervening in a crime in progress, or even come to a LEO's aid
during a "losing" confrontation with a so-called Suspect. While I am
quite sure there are "illegal" actions of CCW Holders, but the stories
of them are quite rare as opposed to the aforementioned legal use of a
CCW or weapon for self-defense or the defense of others.
BTW -- Your "drunk" story sound quite similar to a real life event
that happened a couple of years back in the Hampton Roads area of
Virginia when two DEA Agents who had both been drinking & carrying (a
major no-no for VA CCW Holders) got into a gunfight with each other in
a bar parking lot, each not knowing the other was a fellow LEO. About
two years ago a Uniformed Patrolman shot to death an undercover Cop in
Norfolk VA. Press made a major stink about it since the Uniformed
Officer was White, and the Undercover Black. Once the whole story
came out the Uniformed Officer was found not to be in the wrong, it
was actually the Undercover Officer who was not wearing the "Color of
the Day" and outside his quadrant -- still the flap caused the White
Officer to loose his job over some bullshit policy/procedural issue as
he was still in his probationary period.
Zomby...@cox.net
While I have no intention of ever needing to jettison anything because
I will be in the "Right" when & if I am forced to use deadly force,
but I guess the best retention device would be the belt clips that
actually attached to the weapon itself, usually on the grip or a
replacement type grip.
Zomby...@cox.net
wrote:
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:HFy7rVj8...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <481fb593$1$30512$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, Herb Martin
>> <ne...@learnquick.com> writes
>>>At least one state (Georgia) requires a HOLSTER for concealed carry.
>>>I think the theory is (mostly) that criminals want to be able to throw
>>>away
>>>the firearm but to still be wearing a HOLSTER is pretty much a tip off.
>>
>> Quite a while ago, I read an American piece about how to pick your holster
>> for quick disposal... the idea apparently being to shoot someone and be
>> able to jettison firearm and all associated paraphernalia before talking
>> to the police. (So shoulder and belt-slide holsters were bad, paddle
>> holsters excellent)
>
>You can find some idiot recommending most anything -- just look around
>UseNet for copious confirmation.
>
Ain't that the freakin truth. Usenet is actually living proof that
common sense just ain't all that common.
>> The notion that actually, you shot someone in lawful self-defence and a
>> jury of your peers would agree with you and you were prepared to defend
>> your use of deadly force, seemed utterly alien to the writer: better by
>
>
>
Zomby...@cox.net
Brings me to wonder if the "Freakees" were native to Colorado or
transplants out of one of the Fascist Police States -- Hi Jersey how
ya doin?
Zomby...@cox.net
<billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
>Reminds me of the time, when I was a newly minted second lieutenant (1959)
>that I carried a Colt .45 M1911 and flew across the United States, all the
>way to Korea, and return. And nobody said anything.
>
Flew Commercial many a time during Desert Shield/Storm with both an
M-16 & M-9. Off course that was pre-9/11 which has become an excuse
to treat everyone as criminals -- except of course criminals since
that would be "profiling".
>
Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11. Look what
just a couple of guys who weren't Sheeple were able to accomplish on
one place -- now imagine what could/might have happened on the others
if the majority of our male population hadn't been neutered by
Political Correctness.
Hertz Donut
<Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Reminds me of the time, when I was a newly minted second lieutenant (1959)
>>that I carried a Colt .45 M1911 and flew across the United States, all the
>>way to Korea, and return. And nobody said anything.
>>
> Flew Commercial many a time during Desert Shield/Storm with both an
> M-16 & M-9.
Neither of which is loaded, and you were flying on a chartered aircraft, as
we all were when returning from the Gulf via charter...
Off course that was pre-9/11 which has become an excuse
> to treat everyone as criminals -- except of course criminals since
> that would be "profiling".
So you are more in favor of personal convenience than you are in favor of
better security?
>>
> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged inside
a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie). If the round
did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical lines
causig problems. Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the
plane than there are terrorists. In addition, unless you could get them to
line up and wait their turn, you are unlikely be able toshoot all five
before you are overpowered by one of them.
I have two weapons that I have had CC for many years. I am not waiting with
baited breath to do something foolish like discharge a weapon on a plane
full of innocent people.
Honu
Herb Martin
"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>
> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
> inside
> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
> If the round
> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical lines
> causig problems.
Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
Military aircraft CIRCA WWII regularly flew with all sorts of CANNON
damage, and small arms aren't going to do that.
> Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the
> plane than there are terrorists.
Right, and if passengers -- say JUST CHL holders -- were armed then
no terrorist could have murdered them.
Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
Hertz Donut
>
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>
>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>> inside
>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>
> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>
>> If the round
>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>> lines
>> causig problems.
>
> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
system. Try and keep up...
>
> Military aircraft CIRCA WWII regularly flew with all sorts of CANNON
> damage, and small arms aren't going to do that.
We're not talking about WWII aircraft...we are talking about chartered
civilian aircraft...try and keep up!
>
>> Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the
>> plane than there are terrorists.
>
> Right, and if passengers -- say JUST CHL holders -- were armed then
> no terrorist could have murdered them.
Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do you
ever think before you post?
I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in favor
of Wild West mentality.
>
> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the cross
fire? How many would die if the plane de-pressurized? What if one of the
rounds went through the pilots' head?
You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
Honu
Herb Martin
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
> ever think before you post?
> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
> favor of Wild West mentality.
Why would 30-40 people do that? You have invented this strawman along
with the other of "Wild West Mentality" propaganda (in the bad sense.)
BTW, We'ed still be about 3000 PEOPLE ahead.
>>
>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>
> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the cross
> fire? How many would die if the plane de-pressurized? What if one of the
> rounds went through the pilots' head?
Probably none.
How about we have a TRAINING course and everyone who is law-abiding
and takes that course can carry?
What's your problem then?
> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
No, "irresponsible use" is your (other) strawman.
"Anyone who doesn't carry a gun is a damn fool. Anyone who is
quick to use it is a bigger fool."
(Dean Martin's character in the movie "5 Card Draw")
Hertz Donut
>
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:_M2dnaVXi_YnDL_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do you
>> ever think before you post?
>
>> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
>> favor of Wild West mentality.
>
> Why would 30-40 people do that? You have invented this strawman along
> with the other of "Wild West Mentality" propaganda (in the bad sense.)
>
> BTW, We'ed still be about 3000 PEOPLE ahead.
*YOU* are the one who envisioned a plane full or people carrying
guns...guess you have a short tem memory problem.
>
>>>
>>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>>
>> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the cross
>> fire? How many would die if the plane de-pressurized? What if one of
>> the rounds went through the pilots' head?
>
> Probably none.
WOW! You really are ignorant!
>
> How about we have a TRAINING course and everyone who is law-abiding
> and takes that course can carry?
I have to attend such training to continue to keep my license.
Try and keep up!
>
> What's your problem then?
>
>> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
>> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
>
> No, "irresponsible use" is your (other) strawman.
Again...you are the one who raised the scenario of a plane full of armed
civilians opening fire on a group of terrorists on an airliner in flight. I
suspect you must be severely brain damaged.
>
> "Anyone who doesn't carry a gun is a damn fool. Anyone who is
> quick to use it is a bigger fool."
> (Dean Martin's character in the movie "5 Card Draw")
You are the one who advocated shooting onboard an airliner in flight!
Honu
Herb Martin
>>>
>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>> you ever think before you post?
>>
>>> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
>>> favor of Wild West mentality.
>>
>> with the other of "Wild West Mentality" propaganda (in the bad sense.)
>>
>> BTW, We'ed still be about 3000 PEOPLE ahead.
>
> *YOU* are the one who envisioned a plane full or people carrying
> guns...guess you have a short tem memory problem.
Nope -- that plane "full of people carrying guns" is ALSO YOUR
INVENTION.
YOU made it up. Your feed the strawman.
Generally CHL's are about 1-3% or 2-9 on an average plane.
There is ZERO reason to believe that this would cause any problems.
It never caused problems in the DECADES it was legal.
Scout
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>
>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>> inside
>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>
>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>
>>> If the round
>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>> lines
>>> causig problems.
>>
>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>
> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
> system. Try and keep up...
Actually, there isn't. All flight systems are double redundant and
independent. However, I'm willing to allow you to show me examples of such
crashes.
Herb Martin
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QdzUj.20075$Fv.12767@trnddc03...
He cannot even show examples of such incidents EXCEPT where no one
was hurt, no harm was done, and only one PILOT (or so) was involved.
SaPeIsMa
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>
>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>> inside
>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>
>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>
>>> If the round
>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>> lines
>>> causig problems.
>>
>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>
> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
> system. Try and keep up...
>
Really ?
Do cite something for the last 10 years
That way, you'll demonstrate that YOU can keep up
>>
>> Military aircraft CIRCA WWII regularly flew with all sorts of CANNON
>> damage, and small arms aren't going to do that.
>
> We're not talking about WWII aircraft...we are talking about chartered
> civilian aircraft...try and keep up!
>
MODERN Civilian aicraft have MORE redudancy built-in than WWII military
aircraft
Maybe you need to make that effort at keeping up
>>
>>> Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the
>>> plane than there are terrorists.
>>
>> Right, and if passengers -- say JUST CHL holders -- were armed then
>> no terrorist could have murdered them.
>
> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do you
> ever think before you post?
>
Well it's a nice fantasy for the paranoid but how close would it be to
reality
Consider that typically less than 2% of the population chooses to be armed
On an aircraft with less than 100 passengers, you'd be lucky to have one
armed passenger
Nothing near your UNREALISTIC "30 or 40" fantasy
> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
> favor of Wild West mentality.
The only one suffering from a "Wild West mentality" here is you
>>
>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>
> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the cross
> fire?
That's assuming that people would be shot from crossfire
> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
A bunch of bullets would not de-pressurize the plane.
That's an issue that's been beaten to death on this group since you
showed up
> What if one of the rounds went through the pilots' head?
>
1) The crew is behind a bullet-prrof barrier
And if the pilot dies, there is someone called a co-pilot who is
just as qualified to fly the plane
> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
>
Too bad you're stupid enough to set up a false equation that states
"the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it irresponsibly"
Where do you dig up such stupid shit
Oh wait, don't bother answering that one, it's obvious
But it's funny that, since so many states have gone and changed their carry
laws, the Chicken Littles have gone around screaming about "Wild West
mentality" and "blood in the streets", and "fender-benders escalating into
OK Corrals", just like you are doing now
DID NOT HAPPEN
So why are you trying that stupid Chicken Little argument here ?
SaPeIsMa
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> news:48229a45$0$31731$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:_M2dnaVXi_YnDL_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do
>>> you ever think before you post?
>>
>>> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
>>> favor of Wild West mentality.
>>
>> Why would 30-40 people do that? You have invented this strawman along
>> with the other of "Wild West Mentality" propaganda (in the bad sense.)
>>
>> BTW, We'ed still be about 3000 PEOPLE ahead.
>
> *YOU* are the one who envisioned a plane full or people carrying
> guns...guess you have a short tem memory problem.
>
More like you're stupid enough to project YOUR fantasy on others
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>>>
>>> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the
>>> cross fire? How many would die if the plane de-pressurized? What if
>>> one of the rounds went through the pilots' head?
>>
>> Probably none.
>
> WOW! You really are ignorant!
>
Again, this subject has been demonstrated to be COMPLETELY BOGUS on this
group and others
Educate yourself, dummy
>>
>> How about we have a TRAINING course and everyone who is law-abiding
>> and takes that course can carry?
>
> I have to attend such training to continue to keep my license.
>
> Try and keep up!
>
Oh shit, so you must be one of those idiots who
"equate the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
irresponsibly."
Better turn in your permit and get rid of your guns, jackass
>
>>
>> What's your problem then?
>>
>>> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
>>> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
>>
>> No, "irresponsible use" is your (other) strawman.
>
> Again...you are the one who raised the scenario of a plane full of armed
> civilians opening fire on a group of terrorists on an airliner in flight.
> I suspect you must be severely brain damaged.
>
Actually NOT
That was YOUR Chicken Little strawman
>
>>
>> "Anyone who doesn't carry a gun is a damn fool. Anyone who is
>> quick to use it is a bigger fool."
>> (Dean Martin's character in the movie "5 Card Draw")
>
> You are the one who advocated shooting onboard an airliner in flight!
>
Far better to be used as a human bomb
You're a MORON
Richard Casady
wrote:
>(Dean Martin's character in the movie "5 Card Draw")
Are you perhaps thinking of the movie 'five card stud'?
Casady
Richard Casady
<som...@outthere.com> wrote:
> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
> What if one of the >rounds went through the pilots' head?
The possibility is one of the reasons there are at least two of them.
Pilots die on duty from time to time.
Casady
Herb Martin
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4823fd4e....@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
Yes, sorry: STUD. Not draw. They even played one or
two hands (sort of).
Thanks.
Only a damn fool doesn't carry a gun. Only a bigger fool is quick to use
it.
Peter Skelton
(Richard Casady) wrote:
>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>
>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>
The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
structural or mechanical sense.
>> What if one of the >rounds went through the pilots' head?
>
>The possibility is one of the reasons there are at least two of them.
>Pilots die on duty from time to time.
>
>Casady
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
wrote:
>
>"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4823fd4e....@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 01:14:37 -0500, "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>(Dean Martin's character in the movie "5 Card Draw")
>>
>> Are you perhaps thinking of the movie 'five card stud'?
>
>Yes, sorry: STUD. Not draw. They even played one or
>two hands (sort of).
Five stud was the game in " Cincinnati Kid ",.[McQueen, I think.]
Casady
David Phillips
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>
>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>
>The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>structural or mechanical sense.
The Discovery Channel show 'Mythbusters' tested this pretty
extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
They then tried shooting through the window, wondering if that would
cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
material.
Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
aircraft.
Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
aircraft.
Richard Casady
>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>
>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>
>The size of the lines is limited.
True. There _is_ room for a good sized duct. There is also no reason
the lines have to be low pressure: you can expand the air once it's
inside the fuselage.
I seem to recall that they design the equipment to be able to easily
handle a missing window.
>Still, you'd want more than one
>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>structural or mechanical sense.
Bullet holes are not very big. 9mm holes .[reaches for the 'calculator
that takes no prisoners', the HP 48.]
would need about thirty to add up to a square inch. 4000+ of them to a
square foot.
Casady
Paul J. Adam
<david.p...@sas.com> writes
>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>aircraft.
>
>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>aircraft.
It's been done - at least one airliner lost a large chunk of roof (and
at least one occupant) to structural failure, but made it back for a
successful landing without further casualties.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal"
>>>> CCW Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>
>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is
>>> discharged inside
>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>
>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to
>> remove/restore that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>
>>> If the round
>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>> lines
>>> causig problems.
>>
>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low
>> probability affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is
>> redundant.
>
> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line
> or system. Try and keep up...
Not really on commercial ACs unless one is talking about loss of a tail
assembly.
>> Military aircraft CIRCA WWII regularly flew with all sorts of CANNON
>> damage, and small arms aren't going to do that.
>
> We're not talking about WWII aircraft...we are talking about chartered
> civilian aircraft...try and keep up!
No, you are talking about commercial ACs not chartered ones.
>>> Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the
>>> plane than there are terrorists.
>>
>> Right, and if passengers -- say JUST CHL holders -- were armed then
>> no terrorist could have murdered them.
>
> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do
> you ever think before you post?
With the average CCW population in any state being only about 2 - 4%, how
would you happen to find 30 or 40 of them on the same plane? A charter
for the NRA?
> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
> favor of Wild West mentality.
Nor am I. I am in favor of being able to defend myself. You do realize
that the alternative to letting a hijacked AC continue on to be a bomb is
an F16 firing a Sidewinder up its ass. That will kill everyone board.
>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>
> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the
> cross fire?
What cross fire? There would be at most 2 or 3 people on the AC that
would be armed and could defend the AC. Possibly the pilot, an air
marshall and a passenger.
How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
How many died on Aloha Airlines when it lost 26 feet of the cabin skin?
One. A stewardess who was in the aisle serving drinks. That is a lot more
damage than a 9mm loaded with frangible ammo.
> What if
> one of the rounds went through the pilots' head?
One of the reasons why there are more than one qualified pilot in the
cabin. What happens if he eats spoiled fish on the flight?
> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
Carrying a weapon responsibly is a good thing. Attempting to hijack an
AC is a bad thing.
--
RD (The Sandman)
War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
That's called a "Bahama" or "Mexican" style grip, although the "mexican
holster" is simply a gun shoved into the top of one's pants.
RD (The Sandman)
>>>
>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>
> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
> inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
Right, which means that really nothing will happen. It is Hollywood that
insists that the slightest bullet hole in a fuselage will result in
disintigration of the entire airframe. It is similar to their scene of
9mm round lifting someone over a desk and out of a window 30 stories up.
If
> the round did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or
> electical lines causig problems.
Possibly, but on commercial ACs those are redundant.
> Plus, there are significantly more
> innocent people on the plane than there are terrorists.
So?? No one is claiming that you shoot everybody.
In addition,
> unless you could get them to line up and wait their turn, you are
> unlikely be able toshoot all five before you are overpowered by one of
> them.
If there are five.
> I have two weapons that I have had CC for many years. I am not
> waiting with baited breath to do something foolish like discharge a
> weapon on a plane full of innocent people.
Nor are any of us. Don't be a moron.
RD (The Sandman)
> In message <367624p7pmeth84qa...@4ax.com>, David Phillips
> <david.p...@sas.com> writes
>>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>>aircraft.
>>
>>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>>aircraft.
>
> It's been done - at least one airliner lost a large chunk of roof (and
> at least one occupant) to structural failure, but made it back for a
> successful landing without further casualties.
>
Aloha Airlines.....one stewardess.
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/index.htm
Richard Casady
<david.p...@sas.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>
>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>
>>The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>structural or mechanical sense.
>
>The Discovery Channel show 'Mythbusters' tested this pretty
>extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
>airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
I did the math and there are thirty 9mm holes per square inch.
>They then tried shooting through the window, wondering if that would
>cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
>since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
>material.
They make eyeglasses, that will stop some bullets, from the stuff.
>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>aircraft.
>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>aircraft.
An airliner landed safely after losing hundreds of square feet of the
fuselage skin. Top half over a sizable length.
Casady
Peter Skelton
(Richard Casady) wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>
>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>
>>The size of the lines is limited.
>
>True. There _is_ room for a good sized duct. There is also no reason
>the lines have to be low pressure: you can expand the air once it's
>inside the fuselage.
>
>I seem to recall that they design the equipment to be able to easily
>handle a missing window.
>
They are designed to handle the loss of an emergency exit but
that doesn't mean they can maintain full pressure throughout the
cabin with a door gone, only that the air coming in is equal to
that leaving
>
>>Still, you'd want more than one
>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>structural or mechanical sense.
>
>Bullet holes are not very big. 9mm holes .[reaches for the 'calculator
>that takes no prisoners', the HP 48.]
>would need about thirty to add up to a square inch. 4000+ of them to a
>square foot.
>
one assumes that the holes might be close together.
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
wrote:
>They are designed to handle the loss of an emergency exit but
>that doesn't mean they can maintain full pressure throughout the
>cabin with a door gone, only that
>the air coming in is equal to that leaving
This is true no matter what the size of the supply or size of the
hole. It is going to reach equilibrium at some pressure although
you might end up with a cabin altitude ten feet below actual altitude
with a good sized hole, [bigger than an emergency exit.]
It isn't handled unless the cabin pressure drops only a little bit. It
starts out with a cabin altitude of 8000 ft or so, and the pressure
can't drop all that much or the situation just hasn't been handled.
Casady
Peter Skelton
(Richard Casady) wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:21:28 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>They are designed to handle the loss of an emergency exit but
>>that doesn't mean they can maintain full pressure throughout the
>>cabin with a door gone, only that
>
>>the air coming in is equal to that leaving
>
>This is true no matter what the size of the supply or size of the
>hole. It is going to reach equilibrium at some pressure although
>you might end up with a cabin altitude ten feet below actual altitude
>with a good sized hole, [bigger than an emergency exit.]
>
I see you flunked second year fluid mechanics
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 20:44:09 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:21:28 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>They are designed to handle the loss of an emergency exit but
>>>that doesn't mean they can maintain full pressure throughout the
>>>cabin with a door gone, only that
>>
>>>the air coming in is equal to that leaving
>>
>>This is true no matter what the size of the supply or size of the
>>hole. It is going to reach equilibrium at some pressure although
>>you might end up with a cabin altitude ten feet below actual altitude
>>with a good sized hole, [bigger than an emergency exit.]
>>
>I see you flunked second year fluid mechanics
How do you figure? Do you have anything to say that pertains to the
subject? Or do you just do cheap ad hominem.
Casady
Hertz Donut
>
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:8PidnRZU98MiA7_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>> news:48229a45$0$31731$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_M2dnaVXi_YnDL_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do
>>>> you ever think before you post?
>>>
>>>> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
>>>> favor of Wild West mentality.
>>>
>>> Why would 30-40 people do that? You have invented this strawman along
>>> with the other of "Wild West Mentality" propaganda (in the bad sense.)
>>>
>>> BTW, We'ed still be about 3000 PEOPLE ahead.
>>
>> *YOU* are the one who envisioned a plane full or people carrying
>> guns...guess you have a short tem memory problem.
>
> Nope -- that plane "full of people carrying guns" is ALSO YOUR
> INVENTION.
>
Can you *READ" Your words...
"Can you imagine a plane fullof people with CHL"....
> YOU made it up. Your feed the strawman.
They are your words. Are you really that stupid/
>
> Generally CHL's are about 1-3% or 2-9 on an average plane.
Citation? I just flew from DFW to HNL, on a 767. Between Homeland
Security, Secret Service, FBI, and three or four others like myself (private
citizen), there were at least 30 people on the plane with weapons.
>
> There is ZERO reason to believe that this would cause any problems.
And it won't, because they are smart enough not to discharge the weapon on a
pressurized aircraft at altitude.
>
> It never caused problems in the DECADES it was legal.
Again, because those that carry weapons are smart enough to know that you do
not fire them aboard an aircraft in flight.
Honu
Hertz Donut
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QdzUj.20075$Fv.12767@trnddc03...
>
Also, you fail to consider a round penetrating a fuel tank (loss of fuel
andability to pressurize that system), or one hitting the turbine or
compressor in the engine (catastrophic destruction of engine with resultant
ejection of parts). A single round can indeed bring down the most modern of
aircraft.
Honu
Hertz Donut
I guess you really *CANNOT* read...
Honu
Herb Martin
"David Phillips" <david.p...@sas.com> wrote in message
news:367624p7pmeth84qa...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>>>
>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>
>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>
>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>structural or mechanical sense.
>
> extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
> airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
>
> cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
> since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
> material.
>
> dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
> moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
> the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
> aircraft.
>
> Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
> the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
> aircraft.
I think it was an Aloha Airlines (something to/from Hawaii anyway)
which had a structural failure (unrelated to firearms) which ripped
out an interesting section of skin near the (forward?) galley, larger
than the normal exits IIRC. Only serious harm were those sucked
out through this larger than person size hole.
Plane landed fine.
Hertz Donut
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:teCdnWlBZeyibb_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@cpinternet...
767 in Japan....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight 800,
bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I. and crashed
into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that would happen if a
round penetrated the fuel tank)
the DC-10 that crashed in Idaho (not all died on that one)...there are
others.
Try and keep up.....
Care to keep blabbering?
Honu
Hertz Donut
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
You must be one of those idiots that can't read. I am the one arguing
against using weapons on aircraft in flight. The idiot I was responding to
is the one that envisions planes full of people carrying weapons and
re-enacitng the shoot-out at the OK corral...
Honu
Hertz Donut
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9871E2...@216.196.97.136...
Now you are going to tell me what type of aircraft *I* was talking about?
When we returned from the gulf after a year in Iraq, we flew on chartered
*CIVILIAN* *COMMERCIAL* airlines. The plane that I flew on was an American
Airlines Boeing 767. It was one of their standard aircraft.
You certainly have a lot of gaul assuming that you can tell me what *I* am
talking about.
No why don't you find a shred of decency within yourself (if any still
exists), and simply STFU.
Honu
Hertz Donut
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>
>>>>
>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>
>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>> inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>
> Right, which means that really nothing will happen. It is Hollywood that
> insists that the slightest bullet hole in a fuselage will result in
> disintigration of the entire airframe. It is similar to their scene of
> 9mm round lifting someone over a desk and out of a window 30 stories up.
>
Suppose the round penetrated the main fuel compartment...(hint: fuel
pressure cannot be maintaned if the main tank is compromised)...or hits the
fan or compressor on an engine causing a catastrophic failure of the engine
which spews metal all through the aircraft/
You think it's okay to fire weapons in a pressurized aircraft in flight? I
hope I never have to share a plane with you!
Honu
RD (The Sandman)
The thread was mainly about commercial AC. You are the only one who
mentioned charter.
> When we returned from the gulf after a year in Iraq, we flew on
> chartered *CIVILIAN* *COMMERCIAL* airlines. The plane that I flew on
> was an American Airlines Boeing 767. It was one of their standard
> aircraft.
>
> You certainly have a lot of gaul assuming that you can tell me what
> *I* am talking about.
At least I can spell "gall". ;)
> No why don't you find a shred of decency within yourself (if any still
> exists), and simply STFU.
Trouble handling the truth I see. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:482e48de....@news.east.earthlink.net:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:37:51 -0400, David Phillips
> <david.p...@sas.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>>>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>>
>>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize
an
>>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>>
>>>The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
>>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>>structural or mechanical sense.
>>
>>The Discovery Channel show 'Mythbusters' tested this pretty
>>extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
>>airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
>
> I did the math and there are thirty 9mm holes per square inch.
At about a third of an inch apiece (9mm versus 25.4 mm per inch) it seems
it would be more like 9 (3 X 3). That's not intended to be a pun. ;)
>>They then tried shooting through the window, wondering if that would
>>cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
>>since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
>>material.
>
> They make eyeglasses, that will stop some bullets, from the stuff.
Yeah, but the frames leave relatively serious wounds and break noses. ;)
>>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>>aircraft.
>
>>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>>aircraft.
>
> An airliner landed safely after losing hundreds of square feet of the
> fuselage skin. Top half over a sizable length.
Aloha Airlines.
RD (The Sandman)
>> Generally CHL's are about 1-3% or 2-9 on an average plane.
>
> Citation? I just flew from DFW to HNL, on a 767. Between Homeland
> Security, Secret Service, FBI, and three or four others like myself
> (private citizen), there were at least 30 people on the plane with
> weapons.
>
>>
>> There is ZERO reason to believe that this would cause any problems.
>
> And it won't, because they are smart enough not to discharge the
> weapon on a pressurized aircraft at altitude.
>
>>
>> It never caused problems in the DECADES it was legal.
>
> Again, because those that carry weapons are smart enough to know that
> you do not fire them aboard an aircraft in flight.
Must be why Air Marshalls carry them and now so do some pilots. Why are
they lugging them around if they are too smart to fire them aboard an AC
in flight? Must they wait for it land somewhere on the 80th floor?
RD (The Sandman)
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Those??? It was one stewardess serving in the aisle who was swept
through the debris when it left. Two other stewardesses in the same area
but a few rows away were slightly injured from debris, one of whom
continued to help passengers until the plane landed.
> Plane landed fine.
Yes, it did. Too bad you weren't as accurate with the rest of the tale.
RD (The Sandman)
"About 12 minutes after takeoff, as the aircraft reached cruising
altitude over Sagami Bay, the rear pressure bulkhead failed. The
resulting decompression tore the vertical stabilizer from the aircraft
and severed all four of the aircraft's hydraulic systems."
What single line or system was that that caused the crash? It wiped out
all *four* of the ACs hydraulic systems. Think that will happen with a
9mm round of frangible ammo?
> July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight
> 800, bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I.
> and crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that
> would happen if a round penetrated the fuel tank)
A round piercing the tank probably would not cause a catastrophic
explosion like a short circuit did.
> the DC-10 that crashed in Idaho (not all died on that one)...there are
> others.
And which one was that.......??? You're not referring to Continental
Flight 1713 are you?
> Try and keep up.....
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A987359...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal"
>>>> CCW Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>
>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is
>>> discharged inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a
>>> hollywood movie).
>>
>> Right, which means that really nothing will happen. It is Hollywood
>> that insists that the slightest bullet hole in a fuselage will result
>> in disintigration of the entire airframe. It is similar to their
>> scene of 9mm round lifting someone over a desk and out of a window 30
>> stories up.
>>
>
> Suppose the round penetrated the main fuel compartment...(hint: fuel
> pressure cannot be maintaned if the main tank is compromised)...or
> hits the fan or compressor on an engine causing a catastrophic failure
> of the engine which spews metal all through the aircraft/
Just how do you figure a 9mm frangible round will even get near that tank
or an engine? You do know what a frangible round is, don't you?
> You think it's okay to fire weapons in a pressurized aircraft in
> flight? I hope I never have to share a plane with you!
I feel the same way but for a different reason...... ;)
Peter Skelton
(Richard Casady) wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 16:54:04 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 20:44:09 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:21:28 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>They are designed to handle the loss of an emergency exit but
>>>>that doesn't mean they can maintain full pressure throughout the
>>>>cabin with a door gone, only that
>>>
>>>>the air coming in is equal to that leaving
>>>
>>>This is true no matter what the size of the supply or size of the
>>>hole. It is going to reach equilibrium at some pressure although
>>>you might end up with a cabin altitude ten feet below actual altitude
>>>with a good sized hole, [bigger than an emergency exit.]
>>>
>>I see you flunked second year fluid mechanics
>
>How do you figure? Do you have anything to say that pertains to the
>subject? Or do you just do cheap ad hominem.
>
OFCS, the requirement is that the pressure in the vicinity of the
outlets stays correct, that the lower pressure does not back up
the ducting. Your first sentence was simple nonsense. What
followed followed from it. A single course in fluies should have
prevented such an obvious error.
Peter Skelton
Magus
Air Marshalls/Pilots...frangible ammunition...
Herb Martin
>
>
>
> You must be one of those idiots that can't read. I am the one arguing
> against using weapons on aircraft in flight. The idiot I was responding
> to is the one that envisions planes full of people carrying weapons and
> re-enacitng the shoot-out at the OK corral...
YOU made up (invented, lied, prevaricated) that "plane FULL".
No one except YOU suggested a plane FULL.
Richard Casady
wrote:
Handwaving.
The flow into the cabin will be equal to the flow out the hole unless
air is being created or destroyed. Which do you think it is?
I said nothing about the pressure other than that there would be some.
Casady
Hertz Donut
The fact that the plane landed "fine" was a credit to the pilot and crew.
There were some severe injuries.
The skins of newer planes are designed to be "rip-stop", to prevent metal
fatigue from causing such massive cracks...but there are plenty of older
planes that don't have that.
The Aloha flight had many "cycles", take off-pressurize-land; because the
interisland flights are so short.
If you knew how many planes there are flying with "legal" stress fractures
in the fuselage, you'd be very worried.
Honu
Hertz Donut
The rear pressure bulkhead failed. The plane had experience a "tail strike"
on a previous take-off...the pilot rotated the aircraft too high during
takeoff, adn the tip of the tail hit the ground. A single bulkhead failure
caused the plane to crash.....try and keep up....
It wiped out
> all *four* of the ACs hydraulic systems. Think that will happen with a
> 9mm round of frangible ammo?
if the same bulkhead were to fail because of a depressurization, most
certainly!
>
>> July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight
>> 800, bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I.
>> and crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that
>> would happen if a round penetrated the fuel tank)
>
> A round piercing the tank probably would not cause a catastrophic
> explosion like a short circuit did.
So you are going to play the idiot card?
*ANY* objectpenetrating a fuel tank on an aircraft in flight is a serious
problem. In addition to causing problems keeping it pressureized, it allows
fuel vapors to escape. Remember the Concorde crash that ended the career of
the jet? It occured because a piece of metal from another aircraft was
lying on the runway and was kicked up by the concorde during takeoff. It
hit the fuel tank, sending pressure waves through the fuel, causing it to
rupture the tank...and the rest is history. There was a very informative
episode about it on "Seconds from Disaster"...suggest you watch it sometime.
Honu
Hertz Donut
It *WAS* a fucking civilian aircraft, assholer.
It was an American Airlines 767, chartered by the military to bring us back.
It was the same aircraft still used today, I am sure, to fly their normal
route. The *only* difference that day was that the plane was chartered just
to bring us back. The plane was *NOT* modified in any way. It was *NOT* a
special aircraft. It was one of AA's regular fleet aircraft used to fly us
back to the U.S.
You really are quite stupid!
Honu
It was July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight
800, bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I. and
crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard
>
Hertz Donut
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
> news:M6udndqNK-PU477V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A987359...@216.196.97.136...
>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
>>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal"
>>>>> CCW Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is
>>>> discharged inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a
>>>> hollywood movie).
>>>
>>> Right, which means that really nothing will happen. It is Hollywood
>>> that insists that the slightest bullet hole in a fuselage will result
>>> in disintigration of the entire airframe. It is similar to their
>>> scene of 9mm round lifting someone over a desk and out of a window 30
>>> stories up.
>>>
>>
>> Suppose the round penetrated the main fuel compartment...(hint: fuel
>> pressure cannot be maintaned if the main tank is compromised)...or
>> hits the fan or compressor on an engine causing a catastrophic failure
>> of the engine which spews metal all through the aircraft/
>
> Just how do you figure a 9mm frangible round will even get near that tank
Just how do you expect to get anywhere when you keep getting more and more
ignorant with each post?
Do you know what an asshole is? If not, simply look in the mirror...
Honu
Hertz Donut
These people are trained to *NOT* fire the weapon in flight unless
absolutely necessary.
You miss the point completely...Just because a person has a gun on a flight,
does not mean that he should use it at the first sign of trouble. Next,
you'll be advocating that someone who forgets to fasten their seat belt
should be shot...
Honu
Scout
let's see. improper repair resulting in damage to FOUR systems.
"When the bulkhead gave way, it ruptured the lines of all four hydraulic
systems. With the aircraft's control surfaces disabled, the aircraft became
uncontrollable. "
Doesn't support your assertion.
> the DC-10 that crashed in Idaho (not all died on that one)...there are
> others.
Opps, sorry, multiple system failures again.
Looks like you are falling behind there.
Scout
Sorry, but a bulkhead isn't a system. It's structural, and improperly
repaired at that. Hardly equivilant to the proposed situtation.
> It wiped out
>> all *four* of the ACs hydraulic systems. Think that will happen with a
>> 9mm round of frangible ammo?
>
> if the same bulkhead were to fail because of a depressurization, most
> certainly!
Sorry, but depressurization would actually reduce the load and stress on the
bulkhead reducing the probability of a failure, but let's not allow facts in
interfer with a good delusional fantasy.
>>> July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight
>>> 800, bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I.
>>> and crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that
>>> would happen if a round penetrated the fuel tank)
>>
>> A round piercing the tank probably would not cause a catastrophic
>> explosion like a short circuit did.
>
> So you are going to play the idiot card?
> *ANY* objectpenetrating a fuel tank on an aircraft in flight is a serious
> problem.
Except that it would be all but impossible for a round to penetrate into the
fuel tank, and even more unlikely to cause critical failure of the aircraft.
Na, you are barking up the golden BB tree here.
Scout
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:483263cc....@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:21:28 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>They are designed to handle the loss of an emergency exit but
>>that doesn't mean they can maintain full pressure throughout the
>>cabin with a door gone, only that
>
>>the air coming in is equal to that leaving
>
> This is true no matter what the size of the supply or size of the
> hole. It is going to reach equilibrium at some pressure although
> you might end up with a cabin altitude ten feet below actual altitude
> with a good sized hole, [bigger than an emergency exit.]
Actually, they can not allow the cabin pressure to drop to 40,000 feet
equivilant for any foreseeable failure even momentarily. and can not exceed
that of 25,000 feet for more than 2 minutes. FAA regulations.
> It isn't handled unless the cabin pressure drops only a little bit. It
> starts out with a cabin altitude of 8000 ft or so, and the pressure
> can't drop all that much or the situation just hasn't been handled.
Well it can drop quite a bit, but can't exceed 40,000 feet even momentarily,
and can't exceed 25,000 feet for more than 2 minutes.
Scout
"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:M6udndqNK-PU477V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A987359...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>
>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>> inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>
>> Right, which means that really nothing will happen. It is Hollywood that
>> insists that the slightest bullet hole in a fuselage will result in
>> disintigration of the entire airframe. It is similar to their scene of
>> 9mm round lifting someone over a desk and out of a window 30 stories up.
>>
>
> Suppose the round penetrated the main fuel compartment...
Assuming that the bullet can manage to pentrate the floor (a rather solid
structure of a pair of thick aluminum sheets seperated by an aluminum
honeycomb). Then through any and all luggage, cargo, etc, then thourgh the
floor of the cargo area, and finally hitting the belly tank.
Golden BB anyone?
>(hint: fuel pressure cannot be maintaned if the main tank is
>compromised)...
No problem, simply switch to an alternative tank.
>or hits the fan or compressor on an engine causing a catastrophic failure
>of the engine which spews metal all through the aircraft/
Planes have suffered such failures of engines before and will again, and
rarely do they cause the lose of the aircraft.
> You think it's okay to fire weapons in a pressurized aircraft in flight?
Only in an emergency. Of course if you would prefer getting a couple of
sidewinders fired into the aircarft killing everyone............
> I hope I never have to share a plane with you!
I would. Better than watching the F16 lining up for his run on his mission
to shoot you down.
Wonder how much damage a hail of 20mm slugs and/or a couple of sindwinders
would do.
Personally several 9mm sounds a lot less likely to cause you to crash.
Particularly when you consider the F16 isn't going to stop until you do.
Scout
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:QdzUj.20075$Fv.12767@trnddc03...
>>
>>>
>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>>>> inside
>>>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>>>
>>>> remove/restore
>>>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>>>
>>>>> If the round
>>>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>>>> lines
>>>>> causig problems.
>>>>
>>>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>>>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>>>
>>> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
>>> system. Try and keep up...
>>
>> independent. However, I'm willing to allow you to show me examples of
>> such crashes.
>>
Of course, any system is subject to failure, even failure of multiple
systems, but is it likely? Is it likely to occur in conjunction with a
terrorist incident? How unlikely a set of odds do you think are relevent?
> Also, you fail to consider a round penetrating a fuel tank (loss of fuel
> andability to pressurize that system),
switch to another tank.
>or one hitting the turbine or compressor in the engine (catastrophic
>destruction of engine with resultant ejection of parts).
Engine failure is a regularly practiced emergency drill.
> A single round can indeed bring down the most modern of aircraft.
Only if it's the Golden BB, otherwise you could have holes all over the
place and still not impact the aircraft significantly.
Zomby...@cox.net
<david.p...@sas.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>
>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>
>>The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>structural or mechanical sense.
>
>The Discovery Channel show 'Mythbusters' tested this pretty
>extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
>airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
>
>They then tried shooting through the window, wondering if that would
>cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
>since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
>material.
>
>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>aircraft.
>
>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>aircraft.
>
Didn't a Commercial Airliner lose a rather large chunk sucking out a
Stewardess, but still made a safe landing -- In Hawaii I think.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli
Zomby...@cox.net
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <367624p7pmeth84qa...@4ax.com>, David Phillips
><david.p...@sas.com> writes
>>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>>aircraft.
>>
>>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>>aircraft.
>
>It's been done - at least one airliner lost a large chunk of roof (and
>at least one occupant) to structural failure, but made it back for a
>successful landing without further casualties.
>
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=04281988®=N73711&airline=Aloha+Airlines
The aircraft suffered an explosive decompression and lost
approximately 1/3 of its roof while cruising at FL190. Pre-existing
fatigue cracks in the fuselage from numerous takeoffs and landings.
One flight attendant was ejected from the aircraft, which landed
safely at OGG.
Scout
"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:l4-dneBdOoqTAL7V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A98A01E...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
>> news:grqdncmvKtbh5L7V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>>
>>>> Generally CHL's are about 1-3% or 2-9 on an average plane.
>>>
>>> Citation? I just flew from DFW to HNL, on a 767. Between Homeland
>>> Security, Secret Service, FBI, and three or four others like myself
>>> (private citizen), there were at least 30 people on the plane with
>>> weapons.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is ZERO reason to believe that this would cause any problems.
>>>
>>> And it won't, because they are smart enough not to discharge the
>>> weapon on a pressurized aircraft at altitude.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It never caused problems in the DECADES it was legal.
>>>
>>> Again, because those that carry weapons are smart enough to know that
>>> you do not fire them aboard an aircraft in flight.
>>
>> Must be why Air Marshalls carry them and now so do some pilots. Why are
>> they lugging them around if they are too smart to fire them aboard an AC
>> in flight? Must they wait for it land somewhere on the 80th floor?
>
>
> These people are trained to *NOT* fire the weapon in flight unless
> absolutely necessary.
So are CCWs. So what's your point?
> You miss the point completely...Just because a person has a gun on a
> flight, does not mean that he should use it at the first sign of trouble.
Who said anyone should?
> Next, you'll be advocating that someone who forgets to fasten their seat
> belt should be shot...
I'm sure you will try to stick that strawman to someone just as you have the
ones above.
Zomby...@cox.net
Casady) wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:37:51 -0400, David Phillips
><david.p...@sas.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>>>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>>
>>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>>
>>>The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
>>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>>structural or mechanical sense.
>>
>>The Discovery Channel show 'Mythbusters' tested this pretty
>>extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
>>airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
>
>I did the math and there are thirty 9mm holes per square inch.
>
>>They then tried shooting through the window, wondering if that would
>>cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
>>since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
>>material.
>
>They make eyeglasses, that will stop some bullets, from the stuff.
>
>>Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>>dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>>moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>>the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>>aircraft.
>
>>Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>>the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>>aircraft.
>
>An airliner landed safely after losing hundreds of square feet of the
>fuselage skin. Top half over a sizable length.
>
Accident report says 1/3 of its roof.
Zomby...@cox.net
wrote:
>
>"David Phillips" <david.p...@sas.com> wrote in message
>news:367624p7pmeth84qa...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:10:52 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>>>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>>>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>>>>
>>>>It would take hundreds or thousands of bullet holes to depressurize an
>>>>airliner. The cabin air is tapped off the compressor section of the
>>>>engines. There is no shortage of compressed air, to say the least.
>>>>
>>>The size of the lines is limited. Still, you'd want more than one
>>>clip to depressurize and a lot of firepower to depressurize so
>>>fast that the O2 masks wouldn't help. The depressurization
>>>process is unlikely to damage the pplane in any significant
>>>structural or mechanical sense.
>>
>> The Discovery Channel show 'Mythbusters' tested this pretty
>> extensively. They shot a 9mm through the skin of a pressurized
>> airliner hull. No perceptible effect.
>>
>> They then tried shooting through the window, wondering if that would
>> cause the entire window to fail. It did not; not surprisingly to me,
>> since the windows are probably some sort of polycarbonate type
>> material.
>>
>> Finally, since it's a basic premise of the show that Buster the test
>> dummy is going to get hurt in something like this, they used a
>> moderate amount of explosives to blow a several square foot hole in
>> the hull. An unsecured Buster did then go flying out the side of the
>> aircraft.
>>
>> Even then, there is a non-zero probability that a very large hole in
>> the side of an airliner would NOT prevent the pilots from landing the
>> aircraft.
>
>I think it was an Aloha Airlines (something to/from Hawaii anyway)
>which had a structural failure (unrelated to firearms) which ripped
>out an interesting section of skin near the (forward?) galley, larger
>than the normal exits IIRC. Only serious harm were those sucked
>out through this larger than person size hole.
>
>Plane landed fine.
>
It was 1/3 of its roof line according to the report, and only one
person got sucked out. I guess that sort of sucked for her though.
1/3 is an awful of roof.
Richard Casady
<som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
>You think it's okay to fire weapons in a pressurized aircraft in flight? I
>hope I never have to share a plane with you!
The right ammo will cause a devasting wound without going all the way
through a human body. Ranges would be short and you wouldn't have to
miss if you have a modicum of skill. Bullets are not magic. You see
lots of dents where a bullet couldn't make it through a stop sign,
although the usual 9 mm would.
There is ammo available that won't go through airliner skin, but is
still deadly. That's what they call frangible ammo. [Frangible,
meaning easily fragmented, is usually the kiss of death for a hunting
bullet].
Casady
Jim Alder
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote...
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote...
>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote...
>>
>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>
>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>> inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>
>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>
>>> If the round
>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>> lines causig problems.
>>
>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>
> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
> system. Try and keep up...
Catch me up, why don't you? How would crashing the plane be worse than 3000
people being killed when they were deliberately crashed into the World Trade
Center?
>> Military aircraft CIRCA WWII regularly flew with all sorts of CANNON
>> damage, and small arms aren't going to do that.
>
> We're not talking about WWII aircraft...we are talking about chartered
> civilian aircraft...try and keep up!
Which are considerably larger than the military aircraft he was talking
about, hence the same amount of damage would be less on a larger plane.
>>> Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the plane than
>>> there are terrorists.
>>
>> Right, and if passengers -- say JUST CHL holders -- were armed then no
>> terrorist could have murdered them.
>
> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do you
> ever think before you post?
That would be a good question to ask you. If a small group of terrorists
armed with blades tried to take over the plane, why would 30 or 40 people
start shooting at them all at once? CCL holders are not idiots, as much as
you'd like to believe that.
> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in favor
> of Wild West mentality.
You have to stop going to the movies and telling yourself it's real. The
"wild west" was a lot more peaceful than a night in Washington DC.
>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>
> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the cross
> fire? How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
Your scenario is ridiculous. CCL holders would not start blasting in all
directions like the fools you wish they were.
> What if one of the rounds went through the pilots' head?
The pilot would die. The copilot would land the plane.
> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
No, YOU think the desire to carry a weapon equals the intention to use it
irresponsibly. You're mistaken.
--
"Life isn't about waiting for the storm
to pass... it's about learning to dance
in the rain."
SaPeIsMa
>
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:teCdnWlBZeyibb_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@cpinternet...
>>
>>>
>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>>>> inside
>>>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to
>>>> remove/restore
>>>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>>>
>>>>> If the round
>>>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>>>> lines
>>>>> causig problems.
>>>>
>>>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>>>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>>>
>>> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
>>> system. Try and keep up...
>>>
>>
>> Do cite something for the last 10 years
>> That way, you'll demonstrate that YOU can keep up
>>
>
> 767 in Japan....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
>
> bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I. and
> crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that would
> happen if a round penetrated the fuel tank)
>
> others.
>
>
>
>
> Care to keep blabbering?
>
LOL
1) What caused the explosion ?
2) A round penetrating a fuel cell would not forcibly cause an explosion
Why don't you go out to buy some clues before you post again
Jim Alder
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:QdzUj.20075$Fv.12767@trnddc03...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:_M2dnaVXi_YnDL_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>>>> inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
>>>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>>>
>>>>> If the round
>>>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>>>> lines causig problems.
>>>>
>>>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>>>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>>>
>>> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
>>> system. Try and keep up...
>>
>> Actually, there isn't. All flight systems are double redundant and
>> independent. However, I'm willing to allow you to show me examples of such
>> crashes.
>>
> There are crashes that occur because the redundancy didn'w work as well.
> Also, you fail to consider a round penetrating a fuel tank (loss of fuel
> andability to pressurize that system), or one hitting the turbine or
> compressor in the engine (catastrophic destruction of engine with resultant
> ejection of parts). A single round can indeed bring down the most modern of
> aircraft.
And this million to one fantasy of yours would be worse than the plane
crashing into the World Trade Center and killing thousands? How?
SaPeIsMa
So now you've switched from a line to a bulkhead
Are you stupid enough to claim that a bulkhead would fail because a
bullent went through it ?
Wait a sec
You are stupid enough to make such a silly claim
>
>
> It wiped out
>> all *four* of the ACs hydraulic systems. Think that will happen with a
>> 9mm round of frangible ammo?
>
> if the same bulkhead were to fail because of a depressurization, most
> certainly!
>
LOL
Talk about reaching desperately to support the unsupportable
>
>>
>>> July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight
>>> 800, bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I.
>>> and crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that
>>> would happen if a round penetrated the fuel tank)
>>
>> A round piercing the tank probably would not cause a catastrophic
>> explosion like a short circuit did.
>
> So you are going to play the idiot card?
> *ANY* objectpenetrating a fuel tank on an aircraft in flight is a serious
> problem.
NOPE
At best it would cause a leak
That's why aircraft have MULTIPLE and SEPARATE fuel cells
It's called REDUDANCY
> In addition to causing problems keeping it pressureized, it allows fuel
> vapors to escape. Remember the Concorde crash that ended the career of
> the jet? It occured because a piece of metal from another aircraft was
> lying on the runway and was kicked up by the concorde during takeoff. It
> hit the fuel tank, sending pressure waves through the fuel, causing it to
> rupture the tank...and the rest is history. There was a very informative
> episode about it on "Seconds from Disaster"...suggest you watch it
> sometime.
>
Still reaching
SaPeIsMa
>
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:_M2dnaVXi_YnDL_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>> you ever think before you post?
>>>>
>>>>> favor of Wild West mentality.
>>>>
>>>> with the other of "Wild West Mentality" propaganda (in the bad sense.)
>>>>
>>>> BTW, We'ed still be about 3000 PEOPLE ahead.
>>>
>>> *YOU* are the one who envisioned a plane full or people carrying
>>> guns...guess you have a short tem memory problem.
>>>
>>
>> More like you're stupid enough to project YOUR fantasy on others
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the
>>>>
>>>
>>> WOW! You really are ignorant!
>>>
>>
>> Again, this subject has been demonstrated to be COMPLETELY BOGUS on this
>> group and others
>> Educate yourself, dummy
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> How about we have a TRAINING course and everyone who is law-abiding
>>>> and takes that course can carry?
>>>
>>> I have to attend such training to continue to keep my license.
>>>
>>> Try and keep up!
>>>
>>
>> Oh shit, so you must be one of those idiots who
>> "equate the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
>> irresponsibly."
>
>
> You must be one of those idiots that can't read. I am the one arguing
> against using weapons on aircraft in flight. The idiot I was responding
> to is the one that envisions planes full of people carrying weapons and
> re-enacitng the shoot-out at the OK corral...
>
>
And pulling out nonsense from your ass to argue it
Since you're using nonsense to argue nonsense
It only leaves you with nonsense
You're also lying since YOU were the one who brought up the "Wild West
Mentality" AND the 30-40 people shooting on a airliner
YOUR WORDS:
"Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner?
Do you ever think before you post?"
Clearly you do NOT think much before or even after you post
Jim Alder
>
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:teCdnWlBZeyibb_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@cpinternet...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:_M2dnaVXi_YnDL_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:P_Wdnfu0P8PsEb_V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>>>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>>>> inside a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to remove/restore
>>>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>>>
>>>>> If the round
>>>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>>>> lines causig problems.
>>>>
>>>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low probability
>>>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>>>
>>> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line or
>>> system. Try and keep up...
>>>
>>
>> Really ?
>> Do cite something for the last 10 years
>> That way, you'll demonstrate that YOU can keep up
>>
>
> 767 in Japan....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
The aircraft was involved in a tailstrike incident at Osaka International
Airport on June 2, 1978, which damaged the aircraft's rear pressure bulkhead.
The subsequent repair performed by Boeing was flawed. When the bulkhead gave
way, it ruptured the lines of all four hydraulic systems.
> July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight 800,
> bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I. and crashed
> into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that would happen if a
> round penetrated the fuel tank)
Now you're being laughably stupid. A bullet would not ignite the fuel any
more than it would ignite a car's fuel tank when Steven Seagal shoots a car.
You REALLY have to stop using your moviegoing experiences as forensic
precedent.
> the DC-10 that crashed in Idaho (not all died on that one)...there are
> others.
There would need to be.
> Try and keep up.....
You need to stop saying that. You are not even close to making your point.
> Care to keep blabbering?
There really isn't much point. You aren't listening.
SaPeIsMa
"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:l4-dneBdOoqTAL7V...@hawaiiantel.net...
YAWN
Talk about spewing strawman arguments every time you post
Why don't you take a break and go buy yourself a reality clue ?
And save yourself the trouble of proving yourself an idiot over and over
again
SaPeIsMa
>>
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:QdzUj.20075$Fv.12767@trnddc03...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:48228fda$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>>>>>>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal"
>>>>>>> CCW
>>>>>>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged
>>>>>> inside
>>>>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to
>>>>> remove/restore
>>>>> that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the round
>>>>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical
>>>>>> lines
>>>>>> causig problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low
>>>>> probability
>>>>> affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is redundant.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single line
>>>> or system. Try and keep up...
>>>
>>> independent. However, I'm willing to allow you to show me examples of
>>> such crashes.
>>
>> was hurt, no harm was done, and only one PILOT (or so) was involved.
> \
>
> I guess you really *CANNOT* read...
>
Too bad you're just guessing again
But you seem to specialize in that
SaPeIsMa
> Also, you fail to consider a round penetrating a fuel tank (loss of fuel
> andability to pressurize that system), or one hitting the turbine or
> compressor in the engine (catastrophic destruction of engine with
> resultant ejection of parts). A single round can indeed bring down the
> most modern of aircraft.
>
1) There are MULTIPLE fuel tanks on a commercial plane
2) The fuel tanks and line operate INDEPENDENTLY of EACH OTHER
The failure of one does NOT affect the failure of the other
3) Pilots and Marshall carry frangible ammo SPECIFICALLY to PREVENT
penetration
You can't seem to stop spouting nonsense and strawman arguments
Why is that ?
Jim Alder
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote...
>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote...
>>>> "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal"
>>>>>>> CCW Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is
>>>>>> discharged inside
>>>>>> a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, almost certainly NOT MUCH, as in the pilot trying to
>>>>> remove/restore that STUPID TSA LOCK on his firearm.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the round
>>>>>> did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or
>>>>>> electical lines causig problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost certainly not. First, hitting a line would be a low
>>>>> probability affair, and almost everything on commercial craft is
>>>>> redundant.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yet there are still crashes because of the loss of a single
>>>> line or system. Try and keep up...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really ?
>>> Do cite something for the last 10 years
>>> That way, you'll demonstrate that YOU can keep up
>>>
>>
>> 767 in Japan....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
>
> "About 12 minutes after takeoff, as the aircraft reached cruising
> altitude over Sagami Bay, the rear pressure bulkhead failed. The
> resulting decompression tore the vertical stabilizer from the aircraft
> and severed all four of the aircraft's hydraulic systems."
>
> What single line or system was that that caused the crash? It wiped out
> all *four* of the ACs hydraulic systems. Think that will happen with a
> 9mm round of frangible ammo?
Still, if one of the "30 or 40" CCL holders was carrying a .454 Casull and
leaned out a window and fired directly at the tail section for some reason....
>> July 17, off coast of Long Island, N.Y.: TWA Boeing 747-100, Flight
>> 800, bound for Paris from N.Y., exploded over waters of eastern L.I.
>> and crashed into Atlantic Ocean, killing all 230 aboard. (same that
>> would happen if a round penetrated the fuel tank)
>
> A round piercing the tank probably would not cause a catastrophic
> explosion like a short circuit did.
Of course, if one of the "30 or 40" CCL holders happened to fill his gun
with tracers....
>> the DC-10 that crashed in Idaho (not all died on that one)...there are
>> others.
>
> And which one was that.......??? You're not referring to Continental
> Flight 1713 are you?
Could be. He seems to be choosing plane crashes at random. None of them
seem to fit his criteria of being 'brought down by a single severed line'.
None are even close, in fact.
Richard Casady
An f-16 carries about 1000 rounds of 20mm. The Gatling gun fires at a
rate of 100 rounds/second. The average pilot could hit an airliner
with nearly all of them, if there is anything left to shoot at for
that long. They would likely use the gun, much cheaper than missiles.
And more fun.
A few rounds into each engine might accomplish the mission and allow
the pilot to attempt to glide to a landing. The passengers might then
have some chance. Airliners have a shallow glide angle, twice as good
as a light plane. It figures. After all, drag must be low for them to
fly as fast as they do.
I think the hijackers would make sure everyone died, actually.
Casady
Richard Casady
<som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
><Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:nfn42417a7ub34gk7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Billzz"
>> <billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Reminds me of the time, when I was a newly minted second lieutenant (1959)
>>>that I carried a Colt .45 M1911 and flew across the United States, all the
>>>way to Korea, and return. And nobody said anything.
>>>
>> Flew Commercial many a time during Desert Shield/Storm with both an
>> M-16 & M-9.
>
>Neither of which is loaded, and you were flying on a chartered aircraft, as
>we all were when returning from the Gulf via charter...
>
>
>Off course that was pre-9/11 which has become an excuse
>> to treat everyone as criminals -- except of course criminals since
>> that would be "profiling".
>
>So you are more in favor of personal convenience than you are in favor of
>better security?
>
>
>
>>>
>> Imagine what might/could have happened had there been one "legal" CCW
>> Holder carrying on any of the doomed Aircraft during 9/11.
>
>Wow...have you considered what would happen if a weapon is discharged inside
>a pressurized aircraft (hint: it's not a hollywood movie). If the round
>did not penetrate the fuselage, it could hit hydraulic or electical lines
>causig problems. Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the
>plane than there are terrorists. In addition, unless you could get them to
>line up and wait their turn, you are unlikely be able to shoot all five
>before you are overpowered by one of them.
Some people have been capable of hitting five targets in two seconds.
Or the same target five times in one second. Paul Adam at this NG
might be that good, or close. Certainly good enough to sort out five
thugs who lack guns. Be nice to have them between his gun and the
pilot's.
And if you hit an innocent, too bad. Better than losing everyone.
>I have two weapons that I have had CC for many years.
> I am not waiting with baited breath to do something foolish like discharge a weapon on a plane
>full of innocent people.
They pilot may well be carrying a gun. Gun control is hitting the
target, not the bystanders or the airplane.
> Look what
>> just a couple of guys who weren't Sheeple were able to accomplish on
>> one place -- now imagine what could/might have happened on the others
>> if the majority of our male population hadn't been neutered by
>> Political Correctness.
Political correctness is the belief that you can pick up a turd by the
clean end.
Casady
Richard Casady
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> A single round can indeed bring down the most modern of aircraft.
>
>Only if it's the Golden BB, otherwise you could have holes all over the
>place and still not impact the aircraft significantly.
In Viet Nam they would transport armed ready to go soldiers, by air.
They let them keep the rifles as they won't down the plane if someone
gets careless. They had a duffle bag and they collected all the
grenades. One slip with one of those and things could get serious real
quick.
Casady
Richard Casady
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:01:01 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net
>(Richard Casady) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:37:50 -1000, "Hertz Donut"
>><som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>>
>The depressurization process is unlikely to damage the plane in any significant
>structural or mechanical sense.
Maybe. It has caused a major crash. When the lower cargo compartment
lost pressure quickly, the air in the passenger section shoved the
floor downward, screwing up the controls.
Casady
Herb Martin
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A98E04FFCB31...@216.196.97.142...
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote:
>
> Catch me up, why don't you? How would crashing the plane be worse than
> 3000
> people being killed when they were deliberately crashed into the World
> Trade
> Center?
Just to catch everyone up: There was significant time on 9/11 where it
was possible that 25,000 people would die in the World Trade center.
The buildings were not extremely full that day, and many/most actually
evacutated.
Had both buildings evacuated sooner then it would not have been (quite)
as bad. Had either evacucated significantly slower it would have been
MUCH worse.
>>> Military aircraft CIRCA WWII regularly flew with all sorts of CANNON
>>> damage, and small arms aren't going to do that.
>>
>> We're not talking about WWII aircraft...we are talking about chartered
>> civilian aircraft...try and keep up!
>
> Which are considerably larger than the military aircraft he was talking
> about, hence the same amount of damage would be less on a larger plane.
>
>>>> Plus, there are significantly more innocent people on the plane than
>>>> there are terrorists.
>>>
>>> Right, and if passengers -- say JUST CHL holders -- were armed then no
>>> terrorist could have murdered them.
>>
>> Can you imagine if 30 or 40 people started firing on an airliner? Do you
>> ever think before you post?
>
> That would be a good question to ask you. If a small group of
> terrorists
> armed with blades tried to take over the plane, why would 30 or 40 people
> start shooting at them all at once? CCL holders are not idiots, as much as
> you'd like to believe that.
>
>> I am fully in favor of CC/CHL and our right ot bear arms. I am not in
>> favor
>> of Wild West mentality.
>
> You have to stop going to the movies and telling yourself it's real.
> The
> "wild west" was a lot more peaceful than a night in Washington DC.
>
>>> Gee, that's a GOOD THING, right?
>>
>> No, it would be a very bad thing! How many people would die in the cross
>> fire? How many would die if the plane de-pressurized?
>
> Your scenario is ridiculous. CCL holders would not start blasting in all
> directions like the fools you wish they were.
>
>> What if one of the rounds went through the pilots' head?
>
> The pilot would die. The copilot would land the plane.
>
>> You think the right to carry a weapon equals the right to use it
>> irresponsibly...and that is a very *BAD* thing...
>
> No, YOU think the desire to carry a weapon equals the intention to use
> it
> irresponsibly. You're mistaken.
Hertz Donut
Acutually, it would be very easy. There is not much between the passenger
compartment and the fuel tank.
and even more unlikely to cause critical failure of the aircraft.
>
Any loss of structural integrity of the main fuel tank is critical. Without
the ability to keep the main fuel tank pressurized, the First Officer cannot
control ballasting of the fuel between tanks....not to mention the fact that
fuel would be lost through the defect...and also not mentioning the obvious
fire hazard from the vapors that woudl result. Does the crashof the
Concorde in France not reing a bell? That plane crashed and burned due to a
hole in the main fuel tank.
Flight 800 was caused by a spark in the main tank...
> Na, you are barking up the golden BB tree here.
And you are chasing your own tail...
Honu
Hertz Donut
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
No...you are the one doing that.
> Are you stupid enough to claim that a bulkhead would fail because a
> bullent went through it ?
Yes, it most certainly could. The damage that caused the bulkhead failure
on the JAL plane was not even visible to the human eye.
> Wait a sec
> You are stupid enough to make such a silly claim
It was not me that made the claim. It was the various agencies
investigating the crash...
I know it's hard for you, as you are not used to dealing with such things as
truth and facts and logic....but try and keep up anyway!
Honu
Hertz Donut
>
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:l4-dneBdOoqTAL7V...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A98A01E...@216.196.97.136...
>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in
>>> news:grqdncmvKtbh5L7V...@hawaiiantel.net:
>>>
>>>>> Generally CHL's are about 1-3% or 2-9 on an average plane.
>>>>
>>>> Citation? I just flew from DFW to HNL, on a 767. Between Homeland
>>>> Security, Secret Service, FBI, and three or four others like myself
>>>> (private citizen), there were at least 30 people on the plane with
>>>> weapons.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is ZERO reason to believe that this would cause any problems.
>>>>
>>>> And it won't, because they are smart enough not to discharge the
>>>> weapon on a pressurized aircraft at altitude.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It never caused problems in the DECADES it was legal.
>>>>
>>>> Again, because those that carry weapons are smart enough to know that
>>>> you do not fire them aboard an aircraft in flight.
>>>
>>> Must be why Air Marshalls carry them and now so do some pilots. Why are
>>> they lugging them around if they are too smart to fire them aboard an AC
>>> in flight? Must they wait for it land somewhere on the 80th floor?
>>
>>
>> These people are trained to *NOT* fire the weapon in flight unless
>> absolutely necessary.
>
> So are CCWs. So what's your point?
I have no idea what you are rambling on about...
Honu
Hertz Donut
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Why on Earth would I want to do that? You do such a wonderful job of proving
yourself an idiot that I could not compete with you...
Honu
Hertz Donut
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:483cb658....@news.east.earthlink.net...
Wow...you watch way too many movies.
Honu