Re: Where are the armed pilots?

[Grandpa B.]

Let's see...

1) Yes, I have two permits, and am legal in (at least) 26 states.
2) Yes - but not in major airport terminals (haven't been in one recently)
3) Haven't been flying recently, either - not since getting permits
4) No - see 2&3
5) Not yet; I'm hoping never
6) Kimber 1911 in .45ACP or Hi-Power in 9mm. I'll carry S&W .44mag when over
'bear' country

Jon

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...

<snip>

> Brings up an interesting question....How many of us Gen.Av. pilots bring
our legal concealed
> carry weapons up in the air with us?
> I don't think I have ever seen a discussion of this issue.
> So,
> 1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?
> 2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?
> 3) What do you do with it when you are flying?
> 4) Have you ever had a problem with airport personel who may have caught
sight of the gun?
> 5) Have you ever been in a situation where you were thankful that you
brought it with you?
> 6) What do you usually carry?
<snip>

[Judah]

Are you concerned that one of your passengers will Hijack your GA Aircraft?

I personally don't carry a gun, but I don't object to them.

Nomen Nescio ]> wrote in
:

<snip>

> Brings up an interesting question....How many of us Gen.Av. pilots
> bring our legal concealed carry weapons up in the air with us?
> I don't think I have ever seen a discussion of this issue.

<snip>

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> 1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?

Nope, not in a single one.

> 2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?

Have never seen even the smallest need to even give it the briefest
considertation.

> 3) What do you do with it when you are flying?
> 4) Have you ever had a problem with airport personel who may
> have caught sight of the gun?

Not applicable.

> 5) Have you ever been in a situation where you were thankful
> that you brought it with you?

There have been situations in my life when I have been armed and times when
I wish I had been. But I have to say that these situations could not have
been further removed from General Aviation. In fact, I would say that GA
airports -- even remote GA airports in the darkest hours of the night -- are
probably the safest damn places anywhere in this great nation of ours. I
would probably be at greater risk in my own house late at night than I would
be when pre-flighting an airplane at almost any airport I could think of.
This would be especially true on a night when my wife has opened the latest
invoice from the flying club. (Note to self: get to the mailbox before wife
does).

But in all seriousness, while airports are not totally crime-free, they are
almost invariably lower risk than the area which surrounds them. This is
especially true of violent crime. I would be far more nervous withdrawing
cash from an ATM at any hour of the day than I would be at even an
unattended GA airport. I've never seen even a hint that would suggest any
danger at any airport.

> 6) What do you usually carry?

I own a Sig P-226, locked away and rarely removed from it's holdster. I'm
thinking of selling it. Anyone want to make me an offer? I really don't
need the thing, and I especially don't need it when I go flying.

[C J Campbell]

I have a Washington concealed carry permit, but see little reason to carry a
weapon most of the time unless I am going hunting or doing some recreational
shooting. I find them heavy and awkward to handle. I don't know what other
states would honor the Washington permit.

[Kevin McCue]

1. Nope, not a single one.

2. Only going on a hunting trips in a case.

3. Put it/them in the luggage area.

4. Nope

5. Only on combat missions (.38 or 9mm depending on airframe).

6. Thompson Contender 7-30 Waters.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Newps]

Nomen Nescio wrote:


> Brings up an interesting question....How many of us Gen.Av. pilots bring our legal concealed
> carry weapons up in the air with us?

In Montana you cannot conceal a weapon in your car or plane. They are
an extension of your home and therefore, by definition, you cannot
conceal a gun in a plane. I have a .22 pistol with me in the copilot
seatback to blast the occasional gopher or just to plink around with
when we land in the dirt somewhere. When we go into the backcountry I
will also pack my .41.



> 1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?

Don't need to be here.

> 2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?

At least one gun is always in the plane.

> 3) What do you do with it when you are flying?

It stays in its holster, I just make sure there isn't a round in the
chamber.


> 4) Have you ever had a problem with airport personel who may have caught sight of the gun?

That's funny, this being Montana.


> 5) Have you ever been in a situation where you were thankful that you brought it with you?

I'm thankful every time. I have never needed it though.


> 6) What do you usually carry?

..22, .41 mag or .480 Ruger. Sometimes a shotgun.

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message et>...
> I've never seen even a hint that would suggest any
> danger at any airport.

Until fairly recently, there was never a hint that would suggest any
danger of airplanes deliberately flying into the World Trade Center
and Pentagon.

That happened, and it opened the eyes of MOST pilots to the real
possibility of unknown dangers at the airport. Plus, the DHS has
specifically warned us of threats possibly using GA aircraft in
terrorist operations. Accurate, overstated, or otherwise, I see that
as a "hint."

> I own a Sig P-226 ...

.... then you're the only handgun owner I've ever heard of who seems to
refuse to be vigilant. Please reconsider.

http://www.aopa.org/asn/watchindex.shtml

[Brien K. Meehan]

> "Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
> ...
> > 1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?
> > 2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?

I've heard it said that disclosing that you carry a concealed weapon
means you're not carrying a concealed weapon. Why would anyone want
to disclose that?

[Ron Natalie]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message om...
> > "Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > 1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?
> > > 2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?
>
> I've heard it said that disclosing that you carry a concealed weapon
> means you're not carrying a concealed weapon. Why would anyone want
> to disclose that?

Depends on state law.

[Judah]

Some years ago, very near the place where I went to High School, an
innocent person was shot dead by a stray bullet as she walked down the
street. Perhaps that has provided the hint that innocent people can be
shot dead while they walk down the street. Perhaps, then, it is too risky
to walk down the street.


Oh, wait. It wasn't a terrorist.


Go ahead and live your life in fear.

I prefer freedom.


(Brien K. Meehan) wrote in
om:

> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> et>...
>> I've never seen even a hint that would suggest any danger at any
>> airport.
>
> Until fairly recently, there was never a hint that would suggest any
> danger of airplanes deliberately flying into the World Trade Center
> and Pentagon.
>
> That happened, and it opened the eyes of MOST pilots to the real
> possibility of unknown dangers at the airport. Plus, the DHS has
> specifically warned us of threats possibly using GA aircraft in
> terrorist operations. Accurate, overstated, or otherwise, I see that
> as a "hint."
>
>> I own a Sig P-226 ...
>
> ... then you're the only handgun owner I've ever heard of who seems to
> refuse to be vigilant. Please reconsider.
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asn/watchindex.shtml

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> That happened, and it opened the eyes of MOST pilots to the real
> possibility of unknown dangers at the airport. Plus, the DHS has
> specifically warned us of threats possibly using GA aircraft in
> terrorist operations. Accurate, overstated, or otherwise, I see that
> as a "hint."

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that there really is some danger of
terrorists using GA aircraft for their nefarious ends. I still fail to see
any real benefit in carrying a loaded firearm to the airport. The chances
of me hurting myself or some innocent party with that firearm are vastly,
enormously greater than the chances of me even encountering a terrorist at
the airport. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that I did wind up
at the same airport at the same time as our hypothetical terrorists, how
would I know they were doing anything out of the ordinary? Should I draw
down on anyone who looks like a foreigner? On anyone who is loading
something into a plane? Should I open fire on any cropduster that I see
taxing to to active, especially if the pilot looks like "one of dem
Ay-rabbs"?

The reality is that the terrorist at the GA airport will look more or less
normal. The 19 butt nuggets who killed so many of our countrymen didn't
look in anyway abnormal on the morning of September 11th. Our hypothetical
GA terrorist will do the same thing, and look like just another guy getting
into an airplane.

I make my living as a statistician, so I have a certain fondness for
probabilities. For myself, given the way I live and the way I fly, the
probability of deriving any benefit from a loaded firearm at the airport is
just marginally greater than absolute zero. The chance of that loaded
firearm causing problems for me, due to uncomfortable passengers, nervous
police officers, concerned line personnel, and nosy bystanders is all but
certain over any long period of time. That's not even getting into the very
real risk that said firearm would be used against me, or that an accident
with it would hurt myself or somebody else. Simply stated, the costs
clearly outweigh the very unlikely expected benefit, at least for me.

There may be some people out there who are in a different situation, and who
are much more likely (for some reasons that I can't conceive of) to encouter
a GA terrorist at the airport. For these people, whoever they are, the
benefits may outweigh the costs. But not for me.

> ... then you're the only handgun owner I've ever heard of who seems to
> refuse to be vigilant. Please reconsider.

I am vigilant. I am concerned about my safety, my passengers' safety, and
the safety of my nation. But I simply don't feel that, in my own situation,
being armed while out the airport increases anyone's safety. To the
contrary, I feel that it would make everyone involved marginally (but
significantly) less safe.

[Brian Burger]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

> > That happened, and it opened the eyes of MOST pilots to the real
> > possibility of unknown dangers at the airport. Plus, the DHS has
> > specifically warned us of threats possibly using GA aircraft in
> > terrorist operations. Accurate, overstated, or otherwise, I see that
> > as a "hint."
>
> Let's say (for the sake of argument) that there really is some danger of
> terrorists using GA aircraft for their nefarious ends. I still fail to see
> any real benefit in carrying a loaded firearm to the airport. The chances
> of me hurting myself or some innocent party with that firearm are vastly,
> enormously greater than the chances of me even encountering a terrorist at
> the airport. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that I did wind up
> at the same airport at the same time as our hypothetical terrorists, how
> would I know they were doing anything out of the ordinary? Should I draw
> down on anyone who looks like a foreigner? On anyone who is loading
> something into a plane? Should I open fire on any cropduster that I see
> taxing to to active, especially if the pilot looks like "one of dem
> Ay-rabbs"?
>
> The reality is that the terrorist at the GA airport will look more or less
> normal. The 19 butt nuggets who killed so many of our countrymen didn't
> look in anyway abnormal on the morning of September 11th. Our hypothetical
> GA terrorist will do the same thing, and look like just another guy getting
> into an airplane.
>
> I make my living as a statistician, so I have a certain fondness for
> probabilities. For myself, given the way I live and the way I fly, the
> probability of deriving any benefit from a loaded firearm at the airport is
> just marginally greater than absolute zero. The chance of that loaded
> firearm causing problems for me, due to uncomfortable passengers, nervous
> police officers, concerned line personnel, and nosy bystanders is all but
> certain over any long period of time. That's not even getting into the very
> real risk that said firearm would be used against me, or that an accident
> with it would hurt myself or somebody else. Simply stated, the costs
> clearly outweigh the very unlikely expected benefit, at least for me.
>
> There may be some people out there who are in a different situation, and who
> are much more likely (for some reasons that I can't conceive of) to encouter
> a GA terrorist at the airport. For these people, whoever they are, the
> benefits may outweigh the costs. But not for me.
>
> > ... then you're the only handgun owner I've ever heard of who seems to
> > refuse to be vigilant. Please reconsider.
>
> I am vigilant. I am concerned about my safety, my passengers' safety, and
> the safety of my nation. But I simply don't feel that, in my own situation,
> being armed while out the airport increases anyone's safety. To the
> contrary, I feel that it would make everyone involved marginally (but
> significantly) less safe.

For real vigilance-enhancement, carry a cell phone! If you're terribly
paranoid, make it one of those global sat phones so it works even in the
most Dog-forsaken backwoods strip. 911 works most places; the suitably
paranoid can make looking up local emergency numbers part of their
flight planning...

Bonuses include not scaring random linemen or passengers, no chance of
accidentially shooting same, and of course you can bring a cellphone into
nations with actual gun-control laws without trouble. Canada Customs
doesn't like handguns; they won't blink at a cellphone.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

[Newps]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

>>"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
>>
>>>1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?
>>>2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?
>
>
> I've heard it said that disclosing that you carry a concealed weapon
> means you're not carrying a concealed weapon. Why would anyone want
> to disclose that?

Not correct.

[Michelle P]

Nomen,
I only carry a firearm when required to do so. Then it will be my 7mm
Remington Magnum rifle. It makes a good survival weapon.
Michelle

Nomen Nescio wrote:

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting article:
>http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031211-085721-8712r.htm
>
> " On Aug. 26, the TSA gleefully reported that far fewer airline pilots have volunteered for the armed pilot
>program than pilot groups estimated might volunteer. Currently, only a few thousand pilots have
>volunteered for the program out of about 100,000 that are eligible. The large majority of Americans who
>support arming airline pilots might rightfully ask: Where are the volunteers? The answer to the question
>is really quite simple."
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seems that the TSA has been quite successful in keeping ATP's from arming themselves.
>And at the same time the Sky Marshall program is switching over from the 9mm round to the
>more powerful .357 Sig round because it's better at dropping a terrorist when fired through
>a hostage.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brings up an interesting question....How many of us Gen.Av. pilots bring our legal concealed
>carry weapons up in the air with us?
>I don't think I have ever seen a discussion of this issue.
>So,
>1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?
>2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?
>3) What do you do with it when you are flying?
>4) Have you ever had a problem with airport personel who may have caught sight of the gun?
>5) Have you ever been in a situation where you were thankful that you brought it with you?
>6) What do you usually carry?
>
>To break the ice, I'll start........
>1) Yes, 35 states. including Vermont (no license required)
>2) Small airports.....almost always.....loaded and holstered
> Larger airports (served by airlines) sometimes carried, sometimes in flight bag, on rare
>occasion I leave it home.
>3) Flight bag if carried on belt, wear it if carried in shoulder holster.
>4) Don't think anyone ever saw it.
>5) Every lonely, dark, airport. Especially when preflighting.
>6) Sig Sauer 239, .40 cal., tritium night sights
>
>Anyone else want to weigh in on this subject??
>
>
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> I have to say that I am surprised at the number of people
> who feel that they are careful enough to take to the air and
> yet don't think they could carry a gun without accidentally
> shooting someone.

Again, it's a matter of probabilities. It is very unlikely that I would
accidentally shoot someone. But it is almost infinitely LESS likely that I
will encounter the next Mohammed Atta at a GA airport. Or, for that matter,
that I will encounter anyone who is intent on breaking into my car. The
risk of me having a negative result from being armed at the airport is, at
least in my own life, far greater than the chance that I would do anything
good with a firearm when I am there.

By negative result, I don't just mean shooting someone accidentally. Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops. That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
flight line. And for the sake of argument, let's say that I have the legal
right to carry in whatever state I'm in at the time. I still am going to
have to deal with an initially very nervous police officer, produce
identification, explain myself, and probably get run through a database
someplace so the cop can verify my story. This is going to take upwards of
45 minutes to an hour to sort out, and I'd rather spend that time flying,
especially if night, weather, or my own physical endurance is closing in.

I simply see more costs than benefits in carrying a loaded firearm past the
fence and onto the flight line. Your mileage may vary, but I can't conceive
on an instance when being my armed at the airport would have had any
benefits at all. But I can recognize any number of instances when there
would have been costs for being so equipped.

As you say, you are armed just about everywhere you go. I don't live my
life that way. I'm not saying that you are wrong for living life the way
you do. Why don't you grant me the same courtesy?

[Michelle P]

Nomen,
In Canada literally anywhere outside of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto,
Montreal, and Quebec. In the USA only in Alaska if I remember correctly.
The 9mm Glock stays in the Night stand unless I am heading to the pistol
range.

Cats: Three; one indoor, one indoor/outdoor, one outdoor.

Michelle


Nomen Nescio wrote:

>From: Michelle P >
>
>
>
>>Nomen,
>>I only carry a firearm when required to do so. Then it will be my 7mm
>>Remington Magnum rifle. It makes a good survival weapon.
>>Michelle
>>
>>
>
>Under what conditions are you required to carry a 7mm Remington Magnum rifle?
>Yea, I'll bet it makes a good survival weapon.
>I noticed the mail address...........how many cats?
>
>
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Nomen,
> I only carry a firearm when required to do so. Then it will be my 7mm
> Remington Magnum rifle. It makes a good survival weapon.
> Michelle

Hope you don't have to survive by shooting rabbits or squirrels. :~)

[Michelle P]

Tom,
No, It is usually for bears, Polar bears if necessary, elk, deer. If I
ever had to shoot a rabbit or squirrel I would have to aim and hit the
head. It would be for protection and I would hope not to be stuck out
long enough to have to shoot and eat an animal. I would rather shoot
them with my camera.
Michelle

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>"Michelle P" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
>>Nomen,
>>I only carry a firearm when required to do so. Then it will be my 7mm
>>Remington Magnum rifle. It makes a good survival weapon.
>>Michelle
>>
>>
>
>Hope you don't have to survive by shooting rabbits or squirrels. :~)
>
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Newps]

Nomen Nescio wrote:


>>.22, .41 mag or .480 Ruger. Sometimes a shotgun.
>>
>
> What the hell is a .480 Ruger?

Damn near .50 cal, that's what. And with the 2X scope pretty heavy too.

[John Harlow]

> To clarify, I carry a gun everywhere.

What are you so afraid of, Nomen?

[Richard Hertz]

What a sad way to live - basing decisions on probabilities of things
happening. Is that how you make all your decisions?
Also, how do you know the probability that someone is going to do something
in your presence that could be countered with a handgun? What statistics
are you using for that? I would like to see those. I would expect that
someone who is in the statistics business (as you claim) and who seems to
know something about handgun ownership, would know that there are a large
number of unreported crime due to deterrence by handguns.

For me, any probability that I can use a gun in my defense (or anyone
else's) is enough to deal with any "inconvenience" of being questioned by
others/police.

Thankfully you are wise enough to have acknowledge that other people have
the right to defend themselves. It is a shame that the control freaks in
government can't understand this as well.

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > I have to say that I am surprised at the number of people
> > who feel that they are careful enough to take to the air and
> > yet don't think they could carry a gun without accidentally
> > shooting someone.
>
> Again, it's a matter of probabilities. It is very unlikely that I would
> accidentally shoot someone. But it is almost infinitely LESS likely that
I
> will encounter the next Mohammed Atta at a GA airport. Or, for that
matter,
> that I will encounter anyone who is intent on breaking into my car. The
> risk of me having a negative result from being armed at the airport is, at
> least in my own life, far greater than the chance that I would do anything
> good with a firearm when I am there.
>
> By negative result, I don't just mean shooting someone accidentally.
Let's
> say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
> let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
That's
> certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
> flight line. And for the sake of argument, let's say that I have the
legal
> right to carry in whatever state I'm in at the time. I still am going to
> have to deal with an initially very nervous police officer, produce
> identification, explain myself, and probably get run through a database
> someplace so the cop can verify my story. This is going to take upwards
of
> 45 minutes to an hour to sort out, and I'd rather spend that time flying,
> especially if night, weather, or my own physical endurance is closing in.
>
> I simply see more costs than benefits in carrying a loaded firearm past
the
> fence and onto the flight line. Your mileage may vary, but I can't
conceive
> on an instance when being my armed at the airport would have had any
> benefits at all. But I can recognize any number of instances when there
> would have been costs for being so equipped.
>
> As you say, you are armed just about everywhere you go. I don't live my
> life that way. I'm not saying that you are wrong for living life the way
> you do. Why don't you grant me the same courtesy?
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:UgjGb.642095$Tr4.1649643@attbi_s03...
>

>
> Damn near .50 cal, that's what. And with the 2X scope pretty heavy too.
>
They used them for hunting buffalo...up close.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Judah > wrote in message >...
> Some years ago, very near the place where I went to High School, an
> innocent person was shot dead by a stray bullet as she walked down the
> street.

That's horrible. I'm very sorry to hear that.

> Perhaps that has provided the hint that innocent people can be
> shot dead while they walk down the street.

That's true. It's always been true.

> Perhaps, then, it is too risky to walk down the street.

That's absurd. Only an idiot would draw (or suggest) that as a
logical conclusion.

> Oh, wait. It wasn't a terrorist.

What wasn't a terrorist? The source of the bullet, or the intended
target?

Who was it, then?

I'm not asking this lightly. Bullets don't come out of nowhere as
uncaused, random events (as your story seems to suggest). Someone
somewhere pulled the trigger of a gun. Presumably, there was criminal
activity involved, either intentional or negligent.

So, maybe it wasn't a terrorist, but it was some other flavor of
criminal. Who? Is this incident documented somewhere? I'd like to
read more about it.

> Go ahead and live your life in fear.

Uh, no, thanks, I'll just continue to be free and happy as I have
been.

> I prefer freedom.

Based on this post, I have to wonder if you know what that means.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message news:UgjGb.642095$Tr4.1649643@attbi_s03...
>
>
>>Damn near .50 cal, that's what. And with the 2X scope pretty heavy too.
>>
>
> They used them for hunting buffalo...up close.

Not the .480. It's a new design in the last few years. The bullets
aren't heavy enough to kill a buffalo, the only ones available
commercially are 325 grain, at least the last time I checked. I'm sure
more are on the way. Best you could do is fill him with holes and have
him bleed to death. On soft tissue animals like deer and humans though
it would make a hole you sould stick an arm thru.

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...

> > I've heard it said that disclosing that you carry a concealed weapon
> > means you're not carrying a concealed weapon. Why would anyone want
> > to disclose that?
>
> Depends on state law.

Umm, no, that's not what I mean. I guess I wasn't clear.

The value of concealing a handgun is a tactical advantage over
opponents. If an adversary doesn't know you have a gun, he may be
completely unable to defend against it, or so surprised that he fails
to defend in a timely manner.

If Ron is carrying a concealed handgun, and he goes around telling
everyone that he's carrying a concealed handgun, the "concealed"
status is compromised. Anyone who may have chosen Ron as a victim can
now make a well informed tactical assessment. This may be a deterrent
for attacks against Ron, but anyone chosing to go ahead will be
prepared to fire first and not be surprised.

That being the scenario, I postulate that this discussion won't
produce a large number of people indicating "I have a concealed
handgun, and I carry it at these times..." because those people would
lose the benefit they seek in carrying a concealed handgun - it's
self-defeating.

[Ron Natalie]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message om...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
>
> > > I've heard it said that disclosing that you carry a concealed weapon
> > > means you're not carrying a concealed weapon. Why would anyone want
> > > to disclose that?
> >
> > Depends on state law.
>
> Umm, no, that's not what I mean. I guess I wasn't clear.
>
> The value of concealing a handgun is

The major reason many people get concealed weapons permits here is
that the "open carry" policy is a little arcane. Even those who walk
around with the gun on their hips typically have the permit.

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message et>...

> Let's say (for the sake of argument) that there really is some danger of
> terrorists using GA aircraft for their nefarious ends. I still fail to see
> any real benefit in carrying a loaded firearm to the airport. The chances
> of me hurting myself or some innocent party with that firearm are vastly,
> enormously greater than the chances of me even encountering a terrorist at
> the airport. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that I did wind up
> at the same airport at the same time as our hypothetical terrorists, how
> would I know they were doing anything out of the ordinary? Should I draw
> down on anyone who looks like a foreigner? On anyone who is loading
> something into a plane? Should I open fire on any cropduster that I see
> taxing to to active, especially if the pilot looks like "one of dem
> Ay-rabbs"?

Presumably, these questions are intentionally dim-witted and racist,
intended to be ironic. But, it's worth mentioning that most states'
CCW programs require a certain amount of training, including topics
like safe transport of weapons, and when it's legal and appropriate to
use deadly force.

> I am vigilant. I am concerned about my safety, my passengers' safety, and
> the safety of my nation. But I simply don't feel that, in my own situation,
> being armed while out the airport increases anyone's safety. To the
> contrary, I feel that it would make everyone involved marginally (but
> significantly) less safe.

I goaded you a bit on this, and I apologize, but you were saying, in
effect, "I don't see any danger, I can't imagine any danger, so there
is no danger and certainly no need to do anything about it."

I'm trying to make it clear that there is certainly danger, and
vigilance is warranted. And if leaving your Sig at home in its
holdster enhances safety in your situation, then I wholeheartedly
support your decision.

[Tom Pappano]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brings up an interesting question....How many of us Gen.Av. pilots bring our legal concealed
> carry weapons up in the air with us?
> I don't think I have ever seen a discussion of this issue.
> So,
> 1) Are you licensed for concealed weapon carry and in how many states?
Yes, 18 states currently.

> 2) Do you carry your gun at the airport (often, rarely, etc.)?
Always with me unless, I must go somewhere that concealed carry
is prohibited. Prohibited areas pretty much are "properties
owned, rented or leased by city, county or federal governments for

the purpose of "doing business" with the public". Property for
the parking or use of vehicles is exempt. So for example, a
"city" operated FBO's building would be a prohibited area, but
not the ramp, runways, etc., or other "private" facilities or
businesses.

> 3) What do you do with it when you are flying?
Its always "on" me, except as in 2 above.

> 4) Have you ever had a problem with airport personel who may have caught sight of the gun?
In my state, the weapon must be concealed, so I've had no problems.

> 5) Have you ever been in a situation where you were thankful that you brought it with you?
Always glad to have it. On four occasions so far, "quite
thankful"
to have it, and on one occasion, "Really F***ing Thankful" to
have had it. The utility of firearm ownership and possession
does not need to be proven to me!

> 6) What do you usually carry?
Star Model 43 (an "utterly reliable" and accurate all steel
single action compact 9mm) with Cor-Bon 115gr JHP.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

You know, just like fuel, airspeed, gps, money, insurance,
"Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> What a sad way to live - basing decisions on probabilities of things
> happening. Is that how you make all your decisions?

It probably is somewhat sad, but I simply can't get away from doing it.
It's like when I was a teenager, and I worked at a lifeguard at a local
swimming club. To this day, everytime I see some kid running, I have to
stifle the urge to yell "Walk!" at them. In my work, I've gotten so used to
calculating the probabilities of all kinds of arcane bull****, and it's
carried over to my whole life. There are times when it is downright silly,
but it's just the way I do things.

That being said, most of us do something similar even if we don't recognize
it. Take doing a thorough preflight, for example. Even the best preflight
won't make it 100% certain that your flight will end safely. We do it
because it boosts the odds that we will complete the flight safely. In
essence, we are simply trying to change the probabilities in our favor.

> Also, how do you know the probability that someone is going to do
something
> in your presence that could be countered with a handgun? What statistics
> are you using for that? I would like to see those. I would expect that
> someone who is in the statistics business (as you claim) and who seems to
> know something about handgun ownership, would know that there are a large
> number of unreported crime due to deterrence by handguns.

Actually, a better data reference from this would not be those things which
can't be measured (deterred offenses), but Gary Kleck's survey work on the
number of time that handguns are used for self defense every year. It's
really impressive work. Clearly there are benefits to having access to a
firearm. And as I think I said earlier, I do keep a firearm at home and, if
my life required me to travel in or through areas where I did not feel safe,
I would apply for a concealed permit. My life, as it stands right now,
doesn't put me into these kinds of situations, and so I chose to leave the
gun at home.

The key point of this thread, however, is not about handgun carrying
generally, but having a gun on your person at a GA airport. Again, I can't
pretend to have flown to every GA airport in the world. Maybe there are
airports out there where I would want to be armed. But I have yet to
encounter one where I personally have felt even the slightest bit unsafe.

> Thankfully you are wise enough to have acknowledge that other people have
> the right to defend themselves. It is a shame that the control freaks in
> government can't understand this as well.

I do acknowledge your right to defend yourself, and I recognize that doing
so would be rather difficult without access to a firearm. If I felt that I
personally faced a measurable risk of using a firearm to anyone's benefit, I
would do as you have done. I just haven't encountered anything at any
airport that would lead me to feel this way. There are certainly
neighborhoods where I would want to be armed, but -- at least in my
experience so far -- none of them have been GA airports.

[Teacherjh]

> What a sad way to live - basing decisions on probabilities of things
> happening....

What else would you use? Ignoring (well calculated) probabilities means making
decisions based on a whim and a prayer. Luck is good to have, but not to count
on.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message et>...

> Let's
> say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
> let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops. That's
> certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
> flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

[Ron Lee]

Michelle P > wrote:

>Nomen,
>In Canada literally anywhere outside of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto,
>Montreal, and Quebec. In the USA only in Alaska if I remember correctly.
>The 9mm Glock stays in the Night stand unless I am heading to the pistol
>range.
>
>Cats: Three; one indoor, one indoor/outdoor, one outdoor.
>
>Michelle

Awww, a woman who packs heat. Probably married too.

Ron Lee

[Judah]

(Brien K. Meehan) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...

<snip>

>> Perhaps that has provided the hint that innocent people can be shot
>> dead while they walk down the street.
>
> That's true. It's always been true.
>
>> Perhaps, then, it is too risky to walk down the street.
>
> That's absurd. Only an idiot would draw (or suggest) that as a
> logical conclusion.

Of course it's absurd. That's my point. It is no more or less absurd than
the OP who drew the conclusion that it is too risky to fly on an airplane
without an armed pilot, due to the hint that was provided on 9/11.

<snip>

> So, maybe it wasn't a terrorist, but it was some other flavor of
> criminal. Who? Is this incident documented somewhere? I'd like to
> read more about it.


Here's one. It's not the same story that I alluded to in my earlier post,
but the point is the same. The OP would probably draw the following
conclusion: It's not safe to eat in restaurants because you might be shot
by a mobster if you don't like the entertainment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/24/mobster.restaurant.reut/index.ht
ml

>> Go ahead and live your life in fear.
>
> Uh, no, thanks, I'll just continue to be free and happy as I have
> been.

I know of many people today who are living in fear because of the recent
incidents. They listen to these wonderful stories that the media tells, and
believe it's Armageddon and their life is in imminent danger. They run
around in a panic telling everyone to stay out of their local Town Hall
building because it could be a terrorist target. They think that the entire
world, terrorists, mobsters, and all, revolve around them.

They live in a delusional, self-serving, state of constant panic, fearing
the one and only thing in life that is guaranteed - Death.

>> I prefer freedom.
>
> Based on this post, I have to wonder if you know what that means.


I believe you either read my post out of context, or you misread it
altogether. Perhaps this approach is more direct and will better clarify my
opinion.

Not that my opinion is so important in the overall scheme of things...

[Brien K. Meehan]

Judah > wrote in message >...

> Of course it's absurd. That's my point. It is no more or less absurd than
> the OP who drew the conclusion that it is too risky to fly on an airplane
> without an armed pilot, due to the hint that was provided on 9/11.

That compares apples and oranges. These analogies make no sense.

> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/24/mobster.restaurant.reut/index.ht
> ml

One interesting thing about this incident is that it took place in New
York City, where only the criminals are allowed to have guns.

> I believe you either read my post out of context, or you misread it
> altogether. Perhaps this approach is more direct and will better clarify my
> opinion.

I think I read it just fine, but you're offering badly twisted logic
as a basis for equating vigilance with paranoia or cowardice. In real
life, it doesn't work that way.

> Not that my opinion is so important in the overall scheme of things...

I'm glad that you're sharing it. :-)

[Michelle P]

Ron,

No I am not married, but you had better not enter my bedroom without
permission ;-) I have a 95+% kill rate at the range. I hit where I aim.

Michelle

Ron Lee wrote:

>Michelle P > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Nomen,
>>In Canada literally anywhere outside of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto,
>>Montreal, and Quebec. In the USA only in Alaska if I remember correctly.
>>The 9mm Glock stays in the Night stand unless I am heading to the pistol
>>range.
>>
>>Cats: Three; one indoor, one indoor/outdoor, one outdoor.
>>
>>Michelle
>>
>>
>
>Awww, a woman who packs heat. Probably married too.
>
>Ron Lee
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
wrote:

> Ron,
>
> No I am not married, but you had better not enter my bedroom without
> permission ;-) I have a 95+% kill rate at the range. I hit where I aim.
>
> Michelle

hmmm, I'm afraid to ask how you know that rate...

--
Bob Noel

[Newps]

>>What a sad way to live - basing decisions on probabilities of things
>>happening....

That's how you make 99% of your decisions.

[Ron Lee]

>> Ron,
>>
>> No I am not married, but you had better not enter my bedroom without
>> permission ;-) I have a 95+% kill rate at the range. I hit where I aim.
>>
>> Michelle
>
>hmmm, I'm afraid to ask how you know that rate...

Does not matter. I will stay out of Canada just to be on the safe
side. :)

Ron Lee

[Tom Sixkiller]

They're hard to field dress when you shoot them with a camera. :~)


"Michelle P" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Tom,
> No, It is usually for bears, Polar bears if necessary, elk, deer. If I
> ever had to shoot a rabbit or squirrel I would have to aim and hit the
> head. It would be for protection and I would hope not to be stuck out
> long enough to have to shoot and eat an animal. I would rather shoot
> them with my camera.
> Michelle
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >"Michelle P" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> >
> >>Nomen,
> >>I only carry a firearm when required to do so. Then it will be my 7mm
> >>Remington Magnum rifle. It makes a good survival weapon.
> >>Michelle
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hope you don't have to survive by shooting rabbits or squirrels. :~)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
news:UgjGb.642095$Tr4.1649643@attbi_s03...
> >
>
> >
> > Damn near .50 cal, that's what. And with the 2X scope pretty heavy too.
> >
> They used them for hunting buffalo...up close.

...and personal!!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > To clarify, I carry a gun everywhere.
>
> What are you so afraid of, Nomen?
>
People like you?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:OLIGb.479703$275.1378510@attbi_s53...
>
>
>
>
> >>What a sad way to live - basing decisions on probabilities of things
> >>happening....
>
> That's how you make 99% of your decisions.

The other 1% is based on hindsight.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
om...
> Judah > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Of course it's absurd. That's my point. It is no more or less absurd
than
> > the OP who drew the conclusion that it is too risky to fly on an
airplane
> > without an armed pilot, due to the hint that was provided on 9/11.
>
> That compares apples and oranges. These analogies make no sense.
>
> >
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/24/mobster.restaurant.reut/index.ht
> > ml
>
> One interesting thing about this incident is that it took place in New
> York City, where only the criminals are allowed to have guns.

And NYC is the location of the fire bomb that killed 47 in the night club.

[Judah]

Nomen Nescio ]> wrote in
:

> It seems that some people got the impression that I was talking about
> carrying a weapon to just the airport specifically for anti-terrorist
> defense.
> To clarify, I carry a gun everywhere. Well, actually......my wife
> makes me put it on the night table before
> bed, and contrary to what some people think.......I don't shower with
> it.
> I was more asking if people who could legally carry will leave it
> behind when they go to the airport and
> if they don't leave it behind, what do they do with it.
> I have to say that I am surprised at the number of people who feel
> that they are careful enough to take
> to the air and yet don't think they could carry a gun without
> accidentally shooting someone.
> Some VERY interesting responses.
>

I have to say that I don't fault you for your feeling the need to carry a
weapon. Personally, I support the right to bear arms, and I have wielded
weapons in the past. But for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is the fact that I have children at home, I prefer not to own a handgun
myself.

To your point about being a pilot who is afraid to bear the
responsibility of a firearm, it seems to me that owning a firearm is a
much bigger responsibility than flying an airplane. Most mistakes one
would make in a Cessna are recoverable, while most mistakes one would
make with a firearm would likely result in bodily harm (not necessarily
one's own).

I am surprised that you would minimize the responsibility of owning a
handgun by comparing it to that of piloting a plane. As I am sure you
know, the responsibility of operating and owning a handgun does not end
when you put the gun on your nighttable at night. Your weapon can get
misplaced, lost, stolen, or removed from a gun safe (or nightstand) by a
curious, intelligent, determined pre-teen who wants to show off dad's gun
to his best buddy. For me, that is unthinkable, and the risk is not worth
it. On the other hand, if someone happens to steal the plane that I
rented yesterday to fly to a business trip, I will be concerned and
annoyed, but it's not really even my problem. And if I owned a plane, it
would be unlikely that my children would even be able to get the plane
started even if they could get to the plane for a joyride.

Furthermore, I am somewhat surprised that you would seem to mock someone
like myself who is simply not interested in partaking of the consequences
of drawing a weapon on someone, and possibly taking life from another
person, accidentally or intentionally. Or worse yet, of allowing myself
to be responsible, even if unintentionally, for one of my children taking
a life, quite possibly his or her own.


On an interesting aside, it would seem to me that someone who carries a
gun everywhere he goes, even to bed, is quite possbily a fanatic
extremist. Perhaps not to the same degree as someone who would commit
suicide and/or murder for the sake of his beliefs... But then again, if
you draw your weapon on someone, you are either about to commit one or
the other...

Who am I to judge? Like I said, I support the right to bear arms. I think
violent crime would be reduced substantially if the people who committed
the crimes had the fear of return fire ringing in their ears. But I
prefer not to be barrel-to-barrel with a 2-bit mugger, and I prefer not
to have to worry if I might have left a bullets in the chamber before I
went to bed.

The consequences are much milder if I forget to close my flight plan.

[Michelle P]

Ron,
I live in the US. See Jay's Rouge website under P for a picture of me
and my airplane.

Michelle

Ron Lee wrote:

>>>Ron,
>>>
>>>No I am not married, but you had better not enter my bedroom without
>>>permission ;-) I have a 95+% kill rate at the range. I hit where I aim.
>>>
>>>Michelle
>>>
>>>
>>hmmm, I'm afraid to ask how you know that rate...
>>
>>
>
>Does not matter. I will stay out of Canada just to be on the safe
>side. :)
>
>Ron Lee
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Tom Pappano]

Judah wrote:
> Nomen Nescio ]> wrote in
> :
>
>
>>It seems that some people got the impression that I was talking about
>>carrying a weapon to just the airport specifically for anti-terrorist
>>defense.
>> To clarify, I carry a gun everywhere. Well, actually......my wife
>> makes me put it on the night table before
>>bed, and contrary to what some people think.......I don't shower with
>>it.
>> I was more asking if people who could legally carry will leave it
>> behind when they go to the airport and
>>if they don't leave it behind, what do they do with it.
>> I have to say that I am surprised at the number of people who feel
>> that they are careful enough to take
>>to the air and yet don't think they could carry a gun without
>>accidentally shooting someone.
>> Some VERY interesting responses.
>>
>
>
> I have to say that I don't fault you for your feeling the need to carry a
> weapon. Personally, I support the right to bear arms, and I have wielded
> weapons in the past. But for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
> is the fact that I have children at home, I prefer not to own a handgun
> myself.
>
> To your point about being a pilot who is afraid to bear the
> responsibility of a firearm, it seems to me that owning a firearm is a
> much bigger responsibility than flying an airplane. Most mistakes one
> would make in a Cessna are recoverable, while most mistakes one would
> make with a firearm would likely result in bodily harm (not necessarily
> one's own).
>
> I am surprised that you would minimize the responsibility of owning a
> handgun by comparing it to that of piloting a plane. As I am sure you
> know, the responsibility of operating and owning a handgun does not end
> when you put the gun on your nighttable at night. Your weapon can get
> misplaced, lost, stolen, or removed from a gun safe (or nightstand) by a
> curious, intelligent, determined pre-teen who wants to show off dad's gun
> to his best buddy. For me, that is unthinkable, and the risk is not worth
> it. On the other hand, if someone happens to steal the plane that I
> rented yesterday to fly to a business trip, I will be concerned and
> annoyed, but it's not really even my problem. And if I owned a plane, it
> would be unlikely that my children would even be able to get the plane
> started even if they could get to the plane for a joyride.
>
> Furthermore, I am somewhat surprised that you would seem to mock someone
> like myself who is simply not interested in partaking of the consequences
> of drawing a weapon on someone, and possibly taking life from another
> person, accidentally or intentionally. Or worse yet, of allowing myself
> to be responsible, even if unintentionally, for one of my children taking
> a life, quite possibly his or her own.
>
>
> On an interesting aside, it would seem to me that someone who carries a
> gun everywhere he goes, even to bed, is quite possbily a fanatic
> extremist. Perhaps not to the same degree as someone who would commit
> suicide and/or murder for the sake of his beliefs... But then again, if
> you draw your weapon on someone, you are either about to commit one or
> the other...

You are generally not allowed to draw a weapon on someone unless you
are in fear for your life or the life of someone else, or fear suffering
some grievous bodily harm. In this situation, if one uses that weapon
to protect his/her own life, or the lives of family members, and the
use of that weapon results in the criminal losing his/her life, are
you *actually* suggesting that a *murder* has then been committed
against that criminal? Do you really mean to say this?

>
> Who am I to judge? Like I said, I support the right to bear arms. I think
> violent crime would be reduced substantially if the people who committed
> the crimes had the fear of return fire ringing in their ears. But I
> prefer not to be barrel-to-barrel with a 2-bit mugger, and I prefer not
> to have to worry if I might have left a bullets in the chamber before I
> went to bed.
>
> The consequences are much milder if I forget to close my flight plan.

The consequences are mild for *you* because you may be safe and warm
somewhere. The search and rescue pilots are the ones who may face
serious consequences should they have a problem in flight looking
for *you* due to your thoughtless failure to close your plan.

The carrying of deadly weapons surely is not a practice for everyone
just like being a pilot is not for everyone. There actually are
many similarities between the two, and carelessness with either
can result in injury or death. Successful self defense requires
a "mind set" that you and your family are more valuable
than the "2-bit mugger". If you prefer that your mugger be the
only one with a weapon, you probably are wise to stay away from
owning or carrying firearms.

You may do whatever makes you feel good, it's fine with me,
but most people who include firearms in their security strategies
are no more "fanatic extremists" than those who look inside
their tanks to see if fuel is actually in them before taking off.
Like so many things in flying, its simply another way of
stacking the odds in your favor. I don't know what state you
live in, but it is quite likely you, your wife and your kids
are enjoying a lower probability of being killed because of
all those "fanatic extremists" that lawfully carry concealed
weapons.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

[Judah]

Tom Pappano > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
<snip>

> You are generally not allowed to draw a weapon on someone unless you
> are in fear for your life or the life of someone else, or fear
> suffering some grievous bodily harm. In this situation, if one uses
> that weapon to protect his/her own life, or the lives of family
> members, and the use of that weapon results in the criminal losing
> his/her life, are you *actually* suggesting that a *murder* has then
> been committed against that criminal? Do you really mean to say this?

Taking a life is taking a life. Whatever justification you make for it, it
is still taking something away from someone else that you cannot give back.

That said, I agree that if someone was about to take my life or the life of
someone in my family, I would want a method to protect myself, and that
could involve murder. But quite honestly, I am certain that after
committing that murder in self-defense, I would have to deal with many
consequences, including emotional ones. The biggest question in my mind
would have been to wonder if there were some other way to have protected
myself without taking the life of the other person.

>> The consequences are much milder if I forget to close my flight plan.
>
> The consequences are mild for *you* because you may be safe and warm
> somewhere. The search and rescue pilots are the ones who may face
> serious consequences should they have a problem in flight looking
> for *you* due to your thoughtless failure to close your plan.

Actually, the one time I did forget to close my flight plan, I got a call
in my car about 15 minutes later from the FBO where I rent the plane that
they got a call to check on my arrival and reminding me to close my flight
plan in the future. Through some stroke of incredible fortunate, no Civil
Air Patrol pilots were killed in that phone transaction.

> The carrying of deadly weapons surely is not a practice for everyone
> just like being a pilot is not for everyone. There actually are
> many similarities between the two, and carelessness with either
> can result in injury or death. Successful self defense requires
> a "mind set" that you and your family are more valuable
> than the "2-bit mugger". If you prefer that your mugger be the
> only one with a weapon, you probably are wise to stay away from
> owning or carrying firearms.

From my understanding, most 2-bit muggers are equally as afraid to take a
life as I am, unless faced with a barrel aimed back in their direction...

> You may do whatever makes you feel good, it's fine with me,
> but most people who include firearms in their security strategies
> are no more "fanatic extremists" than those who look inside
> their tanks to see if fuel is actually in them before taking off.
> Like so many things in flying, its simply another way of
> stacking the odds in your favor. I don't know what state you
> live in, but it is quite likely you, your wife and your kids
> are enjoying a lower probability of being killed because of
> all those "fanatic extremists" that lawfully carry concealed
> weapons.

I don't agree. One who includes firearms in their security strategy is
probably as reasonable as one who examines the fuel level in his gas tanks
before every flight. But to me, going to sleep with a loaded gun under your
pillow seems extreme, and quite possibly more dangerous than beneficial...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Nomen Nescio ]> writes:

> In 1975 a friend from high school was working the night shift,
> alone, in a convenience store. Around ten at night a guy walks in,
> pulls a .45 auto and demands money. Not being the "hero" type, my
> friend gives him all the money in the register. He was then forced
> into the back room of the store where the a**hole killed him with a
> single shot to the back of the head. The cops caught the a**hole
> within a couple of days and he confessed. When asked why he murdered
> the guy, he responded "Uh, I dunno, I just felt like shootin' him".
> This, BTW, is not a violent town. We have had 3 murders in 30 years,
> here, including my friend. I refuse to EVER be in a position where
> someone will get me to comply with their whim of "Uh, I dunno, I
> just felt like shootin' him". I will shoot anyone who wants to stick
> a gun in my face, I will shoot until they are no longer a threat,
> and I will feel no moral, religious, or personal guilt about doing
> so.

The key rule here is "Don't go to the secondary crime scene". That's
where the body is usually found.

>>But to me, going to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow seems
>>extreme, and quite possibly more dangerous than beneficial...
>
> I have never known anyone who was stupid enough to sleep with a
> loaded gun under their pillow!

Me neither. Mine are in push-button lockboxes fastened to the wall by
the head of my bead.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Tom Pappano]

Judah wrote:
> Tom Pappano > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Judah wrote:
>
> <snip>
> From my understanding, most 2-bit muggers are equally as afraid to take a
> life as I am, unless faced with a barrel aimed back in their direction...

Well, these days armed robbers frequently seem to be addicts seeking
quick cash. Drug use tends to affect judgement, so don't assume that
your mugger is standing there pondering the risks vs. benefits of
his actions. Just recently here, a young female robbed a bicyclist
in the middle of the afternoon in the presence of assorted bystanders.
After relieving him of his billfold she immediately shoots him dead.
She did this with a police officer just accross the street. The cop
runs over to arrest her, she draws on him and he shoots and kills her.
Not a lot deep thought processes occuring on her part.
In another recent case, a convenience store clerk was coldly murdered
after compliantly handing over what was in the till. The value of
his life apparently was less than $40. Also near here recently, a young
asshole with some "lingering issues" about his ex-wife murdered a
couple so that he could use their home as a base to stalk his ex.
After nearly killing her son and beating her mother, he goes into
hiding and a huge, costly and drawn out manhunt ensues. He eventually
gets away, and kidnaps an Arkansas doctor and his wife, forcing them
to drive him to Texas. The doctor eventually retrieves a small .22
pistol he kept in his van, and shoots the fugitive, wounding him.
The fugitive flees and is arrested after seeking medical treatment.
A tiny pistol carried by a "regular guy" going about his business
brought this whole mess to a close. The fugitive had tried to
kill the doctor and his wife, but amazingly, a defect prevented
the weapon from discharging. My point in all this? I guess
my point is that these days "fear" (other than fear of being killed
themselves) no longer seems to constrain the actions of many
criminals, and that the life of a victim essentially has a value of
zero.

>
>
> But to me, going to sleep with a loaded gun under your
> pillow seems extreme, and quite possibly more dangerous than beneficial...

I think this practice is is reserved for movies and television. Most
people realize this is not a safe thing to do.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

p.s. The City of Depew, OK presented the heroic doctor and his wife a
modest cash reward, and two new *larger calibre* pistols 8-)

[Judah]

Hi Nomen,
I too appreciate your ability to debate this topic in a reasonable manner
(although admittedly, I think it has evolved off-topic from the r.a.p
group. :) )

I am fairly uneducated when it comes to handguns, so it is good to know
that your weapon is safe from accidental discharge when the safeties are
engaged. I also agree that it would probably be useful for both me and my
family to learn about guns to be safer.

I don't believe there is a clear right or wrong answer here. There is no
way to really predict what will happen in a situation as you have
described. You're absolutely right - it is possible that I would be in a
better position with a gun than without one, and that the a**hole on the
other side of the table will shoot me for kicks even if I am unarmed. It's
also possible that in that type of situation, if the guy is waving his gun
in my face, by the time I pull my gun out, he's already got a couple of
shots off into my face - especially if my weapon is stored unloaded and
with locks and safeties engaged...

There are also probably tactics that can be employed to stack the odds in
your favor in either scenario... I wouldn't want to second-guess your
friend's unfortunate situation, but it seems to me there are also stories
of workers who pulled guns out from behind the counters and were shot
before they could defend themselves anyway. And there are stories of clerks
who were able to distract the assalant and either run away or even disarm
the attacker, without having a weapon of their own...

The reality is, I don't think anyone can ever guarantee that they won't
ever lose a battle (ie: succumb to someone else's whim). Even Sun Tzu says
that there are times to run away.

So while I believe this discussion has definitely steered me to some degree
toward the possibility of someday owning a firearm, and the likelihood of
someday soon learning more about them, I also do not feel that it is a
panacea that will prevent me and my family from being victims of a violent
crime.

I also apologize for the comment about sleeping with a gun under your
pillow - it was a bit of a dig in response to your comment about taking
your gun to bed if your wife did not object... I am glad that we both agree
it would be extremely unsafe.



Nomen Nescio ]> wrote in
:

> From: Judah >
>
> From my understanding, most 2-bit muggers are equally as afraid to take
> a life as I am, unless faced with a barrel aimed back in their
> direction...
>
> Maybe most, but not all!
> In 1975 a friend from high school was working the night shift, alone,
> in a convenience store. Around ten at night a guy walks in, pulls a .45
> auto and demands money. Not being the "hero" type, my friend gives him
> all the money in the register. He was then forced into the back room of
> the store where the a**hole killed him with a single shot to the back
> of the head.
> The cops caught the a**hole within a couple of days and he confessed.
> When asked
> why he murdered the guy, he responded "Uh, I dunno, I just felt like
> shootin' him".
> This, BTW, is not a violent town. We have had 3 murders in 30 years,
> here, including
> my friend.
> I refuse to EVER be in a position where someone will get me to comply
> with their whim of "Uh, I dunno, I just felt like shootin' him". I will
> shoot anyone who wants to stick a gun in my face, I will shoot until
> they are no longer a threat, and I will feel no moral, religious, or
> personal guilt about doing so.
>
>>But to me, going to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow seems
>>extreme, and quite possibly more dangerous than beneficial...
>
> I have never known anyone who was stupid enough to sleep with a loaded
> gun under their pillow!
>
>
>

[Judah]

Hi Tom,
Your point is well taken, but in many ways does little to support an
argument for carrying a weapon. If a drugged-up assailant will not hesitate
to shoot an innocent person even in front of a police officer, what makes
you think the victim would have been in any better position had he had a
gun in his pocket?

I believe there are an inordinate number of variables, and it is difficult
to predict with any accuracy whether, for example, the bicyclist would have
been able to save himself from the robber if he had been carrying a weapon.
Just as the robber clearly didn't hesitate to shoot him dead, I suspect the
victim would have hesitated - whether to retrieve the weapon to defend
himself, or because of his own conscience and sober position.

Furthermore, your example of the Doctor who was able to kill his attacker
only because the attacker's gun misfired could be construed as evidence
that without this bit of luck, the Doctor would be dead instead of the
attacker - .22 pistol or not.

It is not a clear issue, and I still feel slightly safer without a gun in
my home. I would feel safer yet if the gun control laws in my state allowed
anyone but convicted criminals to own and carry concealed weapons, so long
as they were properly registered and properly secured.

Oh, and my point about sleeping with a gun was a bit of a dig at the OP who
indicated that without his wife's objection, he would take his gun to bed
with him...

Tom Pappano > wrote in
.com:

> Judah wrote:
>> Tom Pappano > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Judah wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> From my understanding, most 2-bit muggers are equally as afraid to
>> take a life as I am, unless faced with a barrel aimed back in their
>> direction...
>
> Well, these days armed robbers frequently seem to be addicts seeking
> quick cash. Drug use tends to affect judgement, so don't assume that
> your mugger is standing there pondering the risks vs. benefits of
> his actions. Just recently here, a young female robbed a bicyclist
> in the middle of the afternoon in the presence of assorted bystanders.
> After relieving him of his billfold she immediately shoots him dead.
> She did this with a police officer just accross the street. The cop
> runs over to arrest her, she draws on him and he shoots and kills her.
> Not a lot deep thought processes occuring on her part.
> In another recent case, a convenience store clerk was coldly murdered
> after compliantly handing over what was in the till. The value of
> his life apparently was less than $40. Also near here recently, a
> young asshole with some "lingering issues" about his ex-wife murdered a
> couple so that he could use their home as a base to stalk his ex.
> After nearly killing her son and beating her mother, he goes into
> hiding and a huge, costly and drawn out manhunt ensues. He eventually
> gets away, and kidnaps an Arkansas doctor and his wife, forcing them
> to drive him to Texas. The doctor eventually retrieves a small .22
> pistol he kept in his van, and shoots the fugitive, wounding him.
> The fugitive flees and is arrested after seeking medical treatment.
> A tiny pistol carried by a "regular guy" going about his business
> brought this whole mess to a close. The fugitive had tried to
> kill the doctor and his wife, but amazingly, a defect prevented
> the weapon from discharging. My point in all this? I guess
> my point is that these days "fear" (other than fear of being killed
> themselves) no longer seems to constrain the actions of many
> criminals, and that the life of a victim essentially has a value of
> zero.
>
>>
>>
>> But to me, going to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow seems
>> extreme, and quite possibly more dangerous than beneficial...
>
> I think this practice is is reserved for movies and television. Most
> people realize this is not a safe thing to do.
>
> Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA
>
> p.s. The City of Depew, OK presented the heroic doctor and his wife a
> modest cash reward, and two new *larger calibre* pistols 8-)
>

[Tom Pappano]

Judah wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> Your point is well taken, but in many ways does little to support an
> argument for carrying a weapon. If a drugged-up assailant will not hesitate
> to shoot an innocent person even in front of a police officer, what makes
> you think the victim would have been in any better position had he had a
> gun in his pocket?
>
> I believe there are an inordinate number of variables, and it is difficult
> to predict with any accuracy whether, for example, the bicyclist would have
> been able to save himself from the robber if he had been carrying a weapon.
> Just as the robber clearly didn't hesitate to shoot him dead, I suspect the
> victim would have hesitated - whether to retrieve the weapon to defend
> himself, or because of his own conscience and sober position.

I mentioned this case more as an example of how insensitive attackers
seem be these days, rather than as a tactical study. 8-) There
are *tons* of stories available that support defensive firearm use.

Lots of info at: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

> Furthermore, your example of the Doctor who was able to kill his attacker
> only because the attacker's gun misfired could be construed as evidence
> that without this bit of luck, the Doctor would be dead instead of the
> attacker - .22 pistol or not.

The doc shot first, then the fugitive tried to retaliate.
A web search for "Scott Eizember" will pull up several detailed
accounts of the whole story.
Or try this one: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html

>
> It is not a clear issue, and I still feel slightly safer without a gun in
> my home. I would feel safer yet if the gun control laws in my state allowed
> anyone but convicted criminals to own and carry concealed weapons, so long
> as they were properly registered and properly secured.

Tell your legislators you want the laws changed, or consider moving to
Oklahoma- we would be glad to have you! We also have lots of
airports and modestly priced rental airplanes.

> Oh, and my point about sleeping with a gun was a bit of a dig at the OP who
> indicated that without his wife's objection, he would take his gun to bed
> with him...
>
Thats ok, in the meantime, see if you can find a copy of "What Do
You Do When You Can't Call a Cop?" by Janice Seifert. This is a
great little book by a 5'2" 110 lb deputy who realized men, women
and children could benefit by learning some simple and effective
street fighting skills. Statistically, you fare better when you
resist, armed or not. This book shows you how you can prevail when
outsized, outnumbered, even outgunned.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

[Judah]

Tom Pappano > wrote in
y.com:

<snip>

> Thats ok, in the meantime, see if you can find a copy of "What Do
> You Do When You Can't Call a Cop?" by Janice Seifert. This is a
> great little book by a 5'2" 110 lb deputy who realized men, women
> and children could benefit by learning some simple and effective
> street fighting skills. Statistically, you fare better when you
> resist, armed or not. This book shows you how you can prevail when
> outsized, outnumbered, even outgunned.

Thanks for the links and tips, Tom!

Per your advice, I just ordered a copy of this book on Half.com!

With any luck, I won't ever have to actually use the advice in it, but I
suspect I will be glad to have the knowledge anyway.

[Brien K. Meehan]

> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message et>...
>
> > Let's
> > say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
> > let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops. That's
> > certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
> > flight line.
>
> Why in the world would you call the cops?

.... and I repeat, why in the world would you call the cops? I'd
really like to know the rationale behind this.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> > > Let's
> > > say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In
fact,
> > > let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
That's
> > > certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on
the
> > > flight line.
> >
> > Why in the world would you call the cops?

Because, like what I hope is the majority of sensible pilots, I actively
participate in AOPA's Airport Watch program. A quick reading of any
material from Airport Watch (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html) will tell
you that we are meant to be looking out for anything that we think is
"suspicious" when we are at the airport.

I could, of course, provide a dictionary definition of "suspicious" as
something that is, "out of the ordinary, especially when percieved to be
dangerous". I could then argue that since I have never seen any armed
pilots at any GA airport, seeing one would qualify as something "out of the
ordinary" in my experience, and that would be enough for me to regard it as
"suspicious".

I could also argue that if it is, as you assert, your right to carry a
weapon at all times, it is also my right to carry a cell phone and to call
the police whenever I feel that such a phone call is warranted.

But I won't make any of those arguments, because I would just get a bunch of
static about doing so. Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

[Dave]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > > > Let's
> > > > say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In
> fact,
> > > > let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
> That's
> > > > certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on
> the
> > > > flight line.
> > >
> > > Why in the world would you call the cops?
>
> Because, like what I hope is the majority of sensible pilots, I actively
> participate in AOPA's Airport Watch program. A quick reading of any
> material from Airport Watch (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html) will tell
> you that we are meant to be looking out for anything that we think is
> "suspicious" when we are at the airport.
>
> I could, of course, provide a dictionary definition of "suspicious" as
> something that is, "out of the ordinary, especially when percieved to be
> dangerous". I could then argue that since I have never seen any armed
> pilots at any GA airport, seeing one would qualify as something "out of
the
> ordinary" in my experience, and that would be enough for me to regard it
as
> "suspicious".
>
> I could also argue that if it is, as you assert, your right to carry a
> weapon at all times, it is also my right to carry a cell phone and to call
> the police whenever I feel that such a phone call is warranted.
>
> But I won't make any of those arguments, because I would just get a bunch
of
> static about doing so. Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
> items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
> (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
> or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
> into an airplane."
>
> Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
> what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

The thought of all those armed pilots and sky marshals skulking around
airliners fills me with dread. The US authorities insisting that armed
guards should ride shotgun like on the old wild west stage coaches says it
all.

How long will we have to wait before we have the first aircraft brought down
by friendly fire.

The real answer is to stop planes taking off with terrorists on board not
shoot them when they try and hijack. To me sky marshals is a plan to fail.

Having return home from Florida today, I was appalled to see what the TSA
claims is heightened security.

The TSA at South West Florida Airport seems to be staffed with geriatrics
(seniors) who barely know what day it is let alone the job they are doing.
after a rather perfunctory pass through the security checkpoint that was
it - on to Atlanta and then onto London without another security check.
Pathetic!

Flying Delta, then the thought of some overgrown cowboy with a gun somewhere
in the plane compensating for the pathetic security on the ground was just
plain scary.

The post 911 security measures in the US are still the most hopeless I have
experienced anywhere in the world. Air travel has become a complete shambles
and I don't believe it is any safer now than before 911.

Dave

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave wrote:

> The real answer is to stop planes taking off with terrorists on board not
> shoot them when they try and hijack. To me sky marshals is a plan to fail.

But you've no security experience.

Let's look at some examples. Even in so basic a realm as home security,
nobody just puts alarms on windows and doors. They also do motion sensors,
panic buttons, and so on. Why would you think so? After all, the
perimeter security is supposed to stop (or more realistically: detect) an
intruder. So the internal security is a waste of time.

Except: nothing is perfect. Adding internal security to perimiter security
makes security system failure that much less likely, as two subsystems need
to fail before the entire system fails.

Computer security is the same: companies are finally awakening to the fact
that firewalls are necessary but insufficient. As with door and window
alarms, they provide but one layer of security; additional layers (ie. IDSs
on both machines and networks) significantly improve the likelyhood of
detecting/stopping an "incident".

Why should securing an aircraft be different? We don't want just one layer,
as we'd have basically handed a blank check to anyone that can get through
that single layer. Instead, we need multiple layers, up to and including
internal security.

Sky Marshals are not the only possible solution to Internal Security, but
they are one that's worked in the past (in El Al's experience).

> Having return home from Florida today, I was appalled to see what the TSA
> claims is heightened security.
>
> The TSA at South West Florida Airport seems to be staffed with geriatrics
> (seniors) who barely know what day it is let alone the job they are doing.
> after a rather perfunctory pass through the security checkpoint that was
> it - on to Atlanta and then onto London without another security check.
> Pathetic!

Yes, well, you're not the only one with no security experience.

The US administration is treating its citizens like idiots, assuming that
we'd blindly believe that it's "doing what it can". It can "talk security"
all it likes; as long as it's cutting the budget for screeners and other
security personnel, there's no honesty behind those claims.

What really irks, though, is that plenty of people are buying into the
farce.

- Andrew

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message . net>...
> Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
> items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
> (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
> or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
> into an airplane."

.... and you're interpeting a legally carried holstered firearm as
"openly displayed weapons being loaded into an airplane"?

Not.

Right below that, it says, "Use your common sense." This is the
biggest part of vigilance.

> Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
> what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

That's because what you're trying to do is not right. It's wrong.
It's bad. It's unsafe. It's not good enough for me, or you, or any
of us.

As a purported handgun owner, you should be aware of the safety and
legal issues involved in carrying and using firearms. Everything
you've said has been a counter-indication of this - you're dangerously
undertrained and underinformed as a responsible firearm owner, and
seem to be adamant about remaining that way.

To this ignorance, you add the arrogance of your enthusiasm for misuse
of finite law enforcement resources, advocating frivolously calling
the police and reporting actions that you KNOW (or should know) are
legal and safe!

Well, what else can I say? Do what's wrong and try to make yourself
feel good about it. Get the armed pilots AND the police annoyed at
you. You can even shake your fists and stomp your feet, and proclaim
that THEY are the real danger, and the real terrorists.

One day, you may need their help. Guess what? They'll help.

[Dave Buckles]

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> Again, it's a matter of probabilities. It is very unlikely that I would
> accidentally shoot someone. But it is almost infinitely LESS likely that I
> will encounter the next Mohammed Atta at a GA airport.

I would have said the same thing two years ago; but now, I'm renting
airplanes one hangar down from where Zacarias Moussaui trained (he flew
at Airman; I'm renting from Fletcher, next door). Small world. (When
the attacks happened, I was a little further up the street, four
buildings instead of one. Still under five hundred yards.)

> Or, for that matter,
> that I will encounter anyone who is intent on breaking into my car.

About a month ago, the grocery store where I sometimes shop was robbed.
Three hours after I left. I would have been there three hours later
had I remembered the airplane keys.

Yes, the odds are slim. Slim is not, however, zero. And on the off
chance that it *does* happen to me, I'd prefer *those* odds be in my
favor. As heavily as possible.

> The
> risk of me having a negative result from being armed at the airport is, at
> least in my own life, far greater than the chance that I would do anything
> good with a firearm when I am there.

That's why I spend time at the range.

> By negative result, I don't just mean shooting someone accidentally. Let's
> say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
> let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.

I should hope *not*; if somebody does notice, then you're not doing your
part when it comes to "concealment."

> That's
> certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
> flight line. And for the sake of argument, let's say that I have the legal
> right to carry in whatever state I'm in at the time. I still am going to
> have to deal with an initially very nervous police officer,

Nah. Cops in states with reasonable CCW know better. Assuming, of
course, that he responds before you depart; given the average law
enforcement response time, I'd bet on you and your bird.

> produce identification,

Yup. A CCW card.

> explain myself,

The card is explanation enough. Here in .ok.us, they're issued under
the "Oklahoma Self Defense Act." The permit even has the words "self
defense" printed on it. Pretty self-explanatory.

> and probably get run through a database

That takes about thirty seconds. 29 and change of which are human delay.

> someplace so the cop can verify my story. This is going to take upwards of
> 45 minutes to an hour to sort out, and I'd rather spend that time flying,
> especially if night, weather, or my own physical endurance is closing in.

Way off base. I have friends in this state who've been pulled over (in
this state, you're required to notify the officer that you're carrying
on initial contact), and their traffic stops don't take any longer than
anybody elses. In this case, the cop won't even have to fill out
paperwork. And, again, this assumes that the cop gets there before
you're gone. More than likely, if he does, he's stationed on-field. If
you spend any significant time at the airport (a pilot, hang out at the
field? *never*), you probably know him. Then again, you'd also know
the line guys, and they'd know you.

> I simply see more costs than benefits in carrying a loaded firearm past the
> fence and onto the flight line. Your mileage may vary, but I can't conceive
> on an instance when being my armed at the airport would have had any
> benefits at all. But I can recognize any number of instances when there
> would have been costs for being so equipped.

I have a .22 revolver in my long-range survival kit (I've been known to
fly to Wyoming, and that's rough country up there); wouldn't help me
much, though, if we encountered trouble (in the form of half a ton of
angry apex predator, or even a ****ed-off moose) immediately upon
(unscheduled) landing.

Further, being armed is a deterrent. It's no great secret that when
states loosen their carry laws, crime drops. Sometimes, it moves to
nearby areas; turns out criminals would rather move to an unarmed-victim
zone. The idea isn't necessarily to shoot a bad guy, it's a deterrent.
In fact, that's the best use of weapons: to deter action that would
require their use. And in the event that the deterrent of "might be
armed" doesn't work, being armed can still be a deterrent to completing
an action. In better than 95% of cases in which a good guy brandishes a
firearm, the bad guy rethinks his plan of action, fast, and decides that
today is not, in fact, a good day to die. And again, if you're
concealing it properly, and carrying safely, there aren't any costs.

> As you say, you are armed just about everywhere you go. I don't live my
> life that way. I'm not saying that you are wrong for living life the way
> you do. Why don't you grant me the same courtesy?

I'm happy to. In fact, I believe that anybody who doesn't want to
carry, absolutely shouldn't; he probably won't be able or willing to
carry through to the extreme conclusion if necessary, and therefore does
present a greater danger to himself and others than if he were unarmed,
just because he's escalating the situation. If you are willing to use
it, though, I don't believe there's anything wrong with carrying it.
Note that I'm not making any claim against you; you're welcome to do as
you please. I'm just trying to clear up a few minor points, and explain
why some people do choose to exercise their prerogative to carry.

--Dave

[Colin Kingsbury]

I find the intersection betweens guns and GA interesting because these two
things have more than a little in common.

Like guns, GA planes can pose risks to innocent bystanders, and people are
killed on the ground every year (thankfully very very rarely) when pilots
lose control of their aircraft and crash in populated areas. Both GA and
shooting communities emphasize personal responsibility, training, and
personal accountability; both have a small but influential minority which
fails to live up to these standards and causes great trouble for the rest of
us.

It is in the US that people enjoy the highest level of access to GA of
anywhere in the world, and we also generally have the most limited
restrictions on gun laws.

I would wager that the sort of people who want to ban or unduly restrict
guns are significantly more likely to take an unfavorable view of GA. There
is a sizable group of people in this country who are not comfortable with
people exercising responsibility over their own actions. To them, guns and
airplanes are tools that should only be accessible to professionals.

Best,
-cwk.

As an amusing side note, in Alaska (where there are effectively no gun
laws), I believe that small passenger-carrying planes are in fact required
to carry at least one firearm for survival purposes!

[StellaStar]

> 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing the
>family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three. The
>four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound terminal
>cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication.
>

Please don't start another gun thread in piloting. This guy Lott has a long
history of writing juiced-up stories backing gun use. The point of this
particular anecdote in the story is, of course, not that some kid lives in a
neighborhood of thugs, it's that the little gun-toting punk was born when his
mother was 72, according to the ages.
Call the Raelians!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: (StellaStar)\
>
> >> 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing
the
> >>family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three.
The
> >>four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound
terminal
> >>cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication.
> >>
> >
> >Please don't start another gun thread in piloting. This guy Lott has a
long
> >history of writing juiced-up stories backing gun use. The point of this
> >particular anecdote in the story is, of course, not that some kid lives
in a
> >neighborhood of thugs, it's that the little gun-toting punk was born when
his
> >mother was 72, according to the ages.
>
> I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about, then I
realized you got the
> 72 by subtracting the kid's age (13 years old) from the mother's weight
(85 POUNDS)!
> I've been accused of being too negative towards some people here, so this
time I will
> practice self censorship and delete a few lines that I just wrote
regarding my opinion
> of your level of intelligence.
>
> >Call the Raelians!
>
> (God, please give me the strength to pass up a few choice comments on
this, also)
>

Think maybe Stella has been too influenced with the media and the public
indoctrination (certainly not an _education_ system based on this particular
boner) system?

[G.R. Patterson III]

StellaStar wrote:
>
> > 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing the
> >family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three. The
> >four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound terminal
> >cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication.
>
> The point of this
> particular anecdote in the story is, of course, not that some kid lives in a
> neighborhood of thugs, it's that the little gun-toting punk was born when his
> mother was 72, according to the ages.

Try again. The mother weighs 85 pounds. Her age is not mentioned.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[StellaStar]

>Think maybe Stella has been too influenced with the media and the public
>indoctrination (certainly not an _education_ system based on this particular
>boner) system?

Yup, it was a careless goof on my part. Good thing you never read or hear news
and didn't go to school. That must make you smarter, though I don't like
everything you've written and that's a pretty good record for a newbie. It's
hate at first sight, sixderringer.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
> >Think maybe Stella has been too influenced with the media and the public
> >indoctrination (certainly not an _education_ system based on this
particular
> >boner) system?
>
> Yup, it was a careless goof on my part. Good thing you never read or hear
news
> and didn't go to school. That must make you smarter, though I don't like
> everything you've written and that's a pretty good record for a newbie.
It's
> hate at first sight, sixderringer.

Keep shooting your mouth off Stella. Your "education" is really apparent.
And just how much "tenure" do you have...as if that means dick?

What you seem to like is that which conforms to your adolescent/preconceived
notions. Wow!! How impressive!

As a "Newbie", I've been involved in that subject for forty years...so who's
the newbie?

Here's a dollar -- buy a clue!