Where are the armed pilots?

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message link.net...
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

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
link.net...
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

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.

(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....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...

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....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. :-)

"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....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.

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.

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 -

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message link.net...

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.