[HiPower]

I lifted this from the GOA website. Please send to you Senatecritters.

Dear Senator:

Senator Bob Smith has introduced one of the most important bills this Congress. S. 1463 will help drive a stake into the heart of terrorism by virtually guaranteeing that no American airplane will ever be skyjacked again.

S. 1463 will allow pilots to carry guns onto a plane, and thus, allow them to not only protect the lives of their passengers, but the lives of other innocent civilians as well.

I urge you to cosponsor this legislation right away.

At a time when Americans are fearful of flying and the airlines are laying off workers by the thousands; at a time when the economic aftershocks of the September 11 skyjackings are still reverberating on Wall Street; it is high time to ensure the absolute safety of airline passengers.

Please don't believe those fear-mongers who would peddle the Hollywood myth that a bullet hole in a plane's hull can cause catastrophic depressurization or force the aircraft to crash. That is science fiction. Think about all the military planes that, in the midst of battle, have been riddled with dozens of bullets and continued flying -- only to land safely miles away.

As noted by author David Kopel and pilot Captain Petteys: "There is only one known instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame yanked objects across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out into the sky. That was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie was not intended to teach real-life lessons about physics."

Kopel also quotes retired Air Force General James Chambers who points out that "the Air Force has plenty of pressurized planes, such as AWACS, which are able to sustain penetration/damage from bullets from enemy fighter jet machine guns."

It is imperative that America not continue its current policy of making airplanes into gun free zones. America is rejecting this idea. The Air Line Pilots Association supports arming pilots. According to a CNN web poll, 72% of the American public supports arming pilots.

The Smith legislation may be the most important bill you cosponsor this year. Again, I urge you to sign on to S. 1463. Gun Owners of America will keep me abreast as to who is signing on to this bill. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Old Soldier]

Seen,done did it, Yesterday :D
"Terminate all terrorist with extreme prejudice"
Semper Fi
Oooh Rah

[John Henry]

The air crews seem to be very much in favor of it, as I would expect;
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel092601.shtml

The Whitehouse, however, seems to be less than impressed with the idea.

[jim]

I still say, let everyone who can legally carry a firearm or other weapon bring them on any flight. If we can trust a person to carry a pistol in a crowded shopping mall, why wouldn't we trust the same person on an airplane? What is the difference?

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by jim:
<STRONG>I still say, let everyone who can legally carry a firearm or other weapon bring them on any flight. If we can trust a person to carry a pistol in a crowded shopping mall, why wouldn't we trust the same person on an airplane? What is the difference?</STRONG>

i'm not disagreeing with you here, as i personally haven't figured out where i stand on your suggestion.

but the difference between a shopping mall and an airplane?

shopping mall=TONS of places to hide, and doors you can run out of if the opportunity arises.

airplane=no real hiding places, and you're thousands of miles up in the air....so if you try to run out the door, you'll die.

[HiPower]

If you or somebody else onboard doesn't shoot the terrorist, right this very second, then everybody onboard will die!

WyldOne, look at the posts from the last two weeks on keepandbeararms.com about the effect of one or two bullet holes on todays airliners. The bottom line is, it will have NO effect on them at all.

[Patriot.45]

Bush Throws 'Wet Blanket' on Arming Pilots
-- Calls to the White House are needed immediately

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org


(Thursday, September 27, 2001) -- The grassroots groundswell
continues to grow for letting pilots carry arms onto planes in order
to protect the lives of their passengers. But the President seemed
to throw a wet blanket on the idea yesterday when answering
questions from the press:

"There may be better ways to do it than that," Mr. Bush said in
response to questions at the White House about allowing pilots to
carry guns in the cockpit. "But I'm open to any suggestion." [The
New York Times, 9/27/01]


Bush is "Open" to Arming Pilots

Well, President Bush says he's open to suggestions on this subject.
Although today, he outlined several safety proposals in Chicago, and
arming pilots was not one of them.

His comments on this subject are somewhat similar to those made by
FAA Administrator Jane Garvey on Monday. As Fox News carried a live
interview of Garvey speaking at a press conference at JFK airport,
Garvey was asked if she would support arming pilots in the cockpit.
To that, Garvey said,

Well, first of all, that's an idea that probably two weeks ago I
wouldn't have even considered. [Ed. note: That's true. She was
actually opposing the idea two weeks ago.] But I think what
we're seeing, and as I said a little bit earlier, we're
challenging every assumption.... And that's an idea that we're
absolutely willing to look at. And we would work very, very
closely, by the way, with the Pilots Association on that.

So, the President is "open" to the idea; and Administrator Garvey is
"willing to look at" it as well. That means it is time for every
one receiving this alert to contact the White House.

Remind them that guns save lives. Remind them that a pilot who
wants to crash a plane doesn't need a gun to do it -- so it's
foolish to prevent them from having the tools they need to protect
the lives of their passengers.


Bush Wants Federal Air Marshals

The administration is supporting the concept of armed Federal Air
Marshals -- which is fine as a first step. But with 35,000 daily
flights, it would be a monumental (and costly) task to put a marshal
on every plane. Allowing pilots to carry would be a much cheaper
solution.

Of course, gun haters think we'll be better off banning firearms
everywhere we can. They want to turn every aspect of our society
into a gun free zone. But gun free zones have failed wherever
they've been tried. They've failed in Washington, D.C. They've
failed on airplanes. They've failed in our schools. [NOTE: Laws
creating a "Gun Free Zone" around schools have not stopped armed
thugs from shooting them up. The only time that school massacres
were stopped were the times there were adults present who had
firearms.]


ACTION: Please contact President Bush and FAA Administrator Jane
Garvey. See the contact information and the pre-written text below.
Now that Senator Bob Smith and Representative Ron Paul have
introduced bills to arm pilots, it is imperative that the President
not kill this legislation by making veiled veto threats. You can
also use the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your messages.

Urge President Bush and Administrator Garvey to support these
important bills. Tell them that Gun Free Zones -- such as what
airplanes are -- do not work, and that they will not stop bad guys
from carrying weapons. Please remind them that guns save lives, and
that arming pilots is a good first step towards preventing future
skyjackings.

Contact Information for President Bush:

Phone: 202-456-1414
Fax: 202-456-1907
E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov


Contact Information for FAA Administrator Jane Garvey:

Since the FAA is seeking comments, please contact
Administrator Garvey at http://www.faa.gov/apa/tellfaa/tellfaa.htm
via the agency's easy-to-use feedback page.

You can also contact Administrator Jane Garvey at:

Phone: 866-289-9673
Fax: 202-267-5091
E-mail: 9-AWA-TELLFAA@faa.gov

----- Pre-written letters -----

Dear President Bush:

Arming pilots is a good first step towards insuring passenger safety
on airlines. Moreover, it is one that does not infringe on anyone's
liberties -- liberties you have vowed will not be ceded to
terrorists.

Arming pilots is also cost-effective; whether or not placing armed
Sky Marshals on every flight is a viable alternative in our society,
allowing pilots to be armed is. Especially since at least one
superb training facility, Front Sight of Las Vegas, has offered to
train any and all pilots in firearms proficiency for free, with zero
cost to airlines or taxpayers. (As an aside, this high-quality --
and free -- training would be a better choice than sending pilots to
the FBI for expensive, lesser training.)

Honestly, the kinds of attacks our nation has borne could be best
prevented through deterrence. Guns save thousands of lives everyday
on the ground. Why not on planes as well?

Surely, allowing pilots to be armed represents a common-sense
measure to ensure the safety of passengers! If we are to trust
pilots with our lives while aboard, why should we not trust them to
utilize the best tool available to prevent hijackings?

And please, do not listen to gun-haters who spread unfounded fears
about cabin depressurization and crossfires when trained pilots are
carrying guns for self-defense. Notwithstanding the fact that such
issues would apply to Sky Marshals as well, checking with aviation
experts to get facts (rather than fears) will show that
depressurization simply isn't a valid concern, especially when using
frangible ammunition.

Again, please do not stand in the way of Congress enacting sensible
air safety legislation that would permit pilots to arm themselves
for our common defense against terrorism.

Sincerely,


--------------------------

Dear Administrator Garvey:

Arming pilots is a good first step towards insuring passenger safety
on airlines. Moreover, it is one that does not infringe on anyone's
liberties -- liberties this administration has vowed will not be
ceded to terrorists.

Arming pilots is also cost-effective; whether or not placing armed
Sky Marshals on every flight is a viable alternative in our society,
allowing pilots to be armed is. Especially since at least one
superb training facility, Front Sight of Las Vegas, has offered to
train any and all pilots in firearms proficiency for free, with zero
cost to airlines or taxpayers. (As an aside, this high-quality --
and free -- training would be a better choice than sending pilots to
the FBI for expensive, lesser training.)

Honestly, the kinds of attacks our nation has borne could be best
prevented through deterrence. Guns save thousands of lives everyday
on the ground. Why not on planes as well?

Surely, allowing pilots to be armed represents a common-sense
measure to ensure the safety of passengers! If we are to trust
pilots with our lives while aboard, why should we not trust them to
utilize the best tool available to prevent hijackings?

And please, do not listen to gun-haters who spread unfounded fears
about cabin depressurization and crossfires when trained pilots are
carrying guns for self-defense. Notwithstanding the fact that such
issues would apply to Sky Marshals as well, checking with aviation
experts to get facts (rather than fears) will show that
depressurization simply isn't a valid concern, especially when using
frangible ammunition.

Please do not use your office and position to stand in the way of
sensible air safety regulations that would permit pilots to arm
themselves for our common defense against terrorism.

Sincerely,


**************

If you are a pilot, or work in the aerospace industry, please let
GOA know by dropping an e-mail to goamail@gunowners.org at your
convenience.

**************

[WyldOne]

could someone explain bush's logic here? seems to me he has much to lose by opposing this...the first of which, is that gun owners predominately vote republican or republicanish. politicians hate to anger their voters so...what's going on with this dude?

[jsr5]

Well let me play devil's advocate here fo ra minute.
I have been saying amongst freinds and family here in MO fo ra couple of days now that really providing security on airlines is a no brainer. that all you have to do is look around and find a goood working model and copy it.

Look at El AL (sp?) the Isreili Airline it has a flawless record for over 20 years and who could possibly have more enemies among the terrorist states. Now I'm not saying I totally oppose the arming of pilots but, they really have one job function that is crucial flying and landing the plane in question. Therefore the Armoring of the cockpit is the most important issue the double armored doors of isreals Airline is the way to go here totally separate them from the passenger compartment. Providing them with arms may cause a split they may feel obligated if the Air marshal's are somehow neutralized and their passngers are being systematically executed to leave the cockpit and attempt to rescue them on their own, then the cockpit is open and the terrorists can get in and now they have another guided missile. thinkin ghte pilots could exit the narrow gangway with enemies that know exactly where they must come from is poor thinking in my opinion. So if they arent armed they will have only one choice and the terrorists will know it they will land the plane at the first available airfeild and let the negotiation begin.

If you were the pilot and armed wouldn't you be tempted to try to save your passengers. Not to mention making them marshals themselves would actualy obligate tyhem to attempt to help the victims. Better to protect them with doors and leave them as pilots with only one mission. to fly the plane.

Now until they get those doors armored yes arm them to defend the cockpit and themselves.

[WyldOne]

okay i'm still in the process of figuring out what i think on the issue BUT....

i agree that (clearly) the pilot's job should be to fly the plane. i think this means we do two things: cockpit doors, as per jsr's suggestion, AND sky marshalls. we need them both. i think we also need to train the ENTIRE crew on how to handle this situation, and give them the option of arming themselves. this option will do two things: first, as i can definitely personally attest to, not everyone is gonna be cool with being armed and those boundaries must be respected. also, it will confuse any potential hijacker. is the pilot armed on this flight? or is it the flight attendant? who knows?

i worry when people say we should look to countries such as israel. most of the time, this line of reasoning goes all the way to strict racial profiling. which is absolutely disgusting and absurd. i will not stand for it happening in this country. secondly, we're not israel, and personally i don't want to live like israelis. it is true that israel doesn't have this kind of problems on their airplanes, but until sept. 11, NEITHER did we.

if we squash or eradicate civil liberties for any population of citizens in this country, the terrorists have won. and i know none of us here want that.