Remember that pilot who's pistol discharged...

[AMF]

Originally Posted by 767Jockey

You have no clue as to the weapon involved, more importantly the holster, the locking mechanism, and it's predication for accidental firing due to it's horrendous design. As I said previously, you know nothing of the situation. You're pretty darned judgmental for a guy that has zero knowledge of the situation. I'm done with this - go ahead, have your say. I'm done. I think the others on here know who knows what's going on in this very unique situation and who hasn't a clue.

1) Why don't you enlighten us all on this crazy situation you keep writing about.

2) The gun isn't "special" at all. first because it has to be approved by the department of Homeland defense (that way in the event of a conflict/incident, other defense agents can pick it up and use it during contingent situations).

3) It's his gun. He picked the damned thing. If he didn't, he should have been carrying/using it in the first place. If he did, he has no excuses, it's his gun.

4) There are a WHOLE LOT of other pilots who've seemed to be able to negotiate this unfair system for a long time. What's their deal? Are they just smarter? More responsible?

I guess you'll say they're just lucky

It's attitudes like yours that give us dumb laws that punish all the people who are doing the right thing. If an idiot can't handle a firearm responsibly, he shouldn't handle it at all. No need to come up with MORE regulations and more stupid stuff. Locking mechanisms, and holsters, and loading and unloading and ammo....NONE of those things are valid excuses for unintentionally discharging your firearm.

5) Did he register any complaints about this unfair setup? I could even stomach your argument if he had complained that it was unsafe and he wasn't able to do it safely (still at which point it was his DUTY to either seek more training or not continue handling the gun)

[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

2) The gun isn't "special" at all. first because it has to be approved by the department of Homeland defense (that way in the event of a conflict/incident, other defense agents can pick it up and use it during contingent situations).

3) It's his gun. He picked the damned thing. If he didn't, he should have been carrying/using it in the first place. If he did, he has no excuses, it's his gun.

I'm not necessarily sure that either of those statements are true. From what I remember about the program - years ago - the weapon was initially a S&W .40, and was changed to a H&K USP40 through the TSA.

Originally Posted by AMF

4) There are a WHOLE LOT of other pilots who've seemed to be able to negotiate this unfair system for a long time. What's their deal? Are they just smarter? More responsible?

If this is the FFDO program, its not just 'pilots' who who are members of the program.

Originally Posted by AMF

It's attitudes like yours that give us dumb laws that punish all the people who are doing the right thing.

Actually, it's attitudes like YOURS that get 'dumb laws' passed. The people in charge point at YOU and ask the non-gun public "is that the kind of person you want carrying a weapon?" And the answer is always "no."

Your pal,
Meat.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by meat

I'm not necessarily sure that either of those statements are true. From what I remember about the program - years ago - the weapon was initially a S&W .40, and was changed to a H&K USP40 through the TSA.


If this is the FFDO program, its not just 'pilots' who who are members of the program.


Actually, it's attitudes like YOURS that get 'dumb laws' passed. The people in charge point at YOU and ask the non-gun public "is that the kind of person you want carrying a weapon?" And the answer is always "no."

Your pal,
Meat.

Meat, go **** in some other thread. I've seen your posts elsewhere and your time is probably limited. You find your kind on every board and it's just a matter of time before you get banned.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

1) The TSA isn't the authority. Go get a clue. The Department of Homeland Defense is the authority on what firearms are authorized and what aren't. They don't just choose a particular carry weapon. They publish a set of guidelines that law enforcement agencies are required to abide by. Most noteably was the requirement that all service pistols must be DA only. You can carry a Glock 45 or a H&K (as long as the H&K is the newer DA only...aka "police") version or you can carry a sig or a smith or whatever. You can carry a revolver, you can carry any gun that meets the guidelines of the Homeland Defense requirements. This goes for all agents under that umbrella, FBI, ATF, TSA, Border Patrol, whatever. It's usually the various agencies that get contracts in accordance with the guidelines that determine what pistol they will "issue." A lot of agencies will allow the officer/individual to carry/use their own personal preference, but they must pay for it. Some don't.

It really doesn't matter. As I said earlier, if the firearm wasn't something he chose or something he was comforable carrying, then he had a DUTY to not endanger himself and everyone else around him by carrying it. There's no excuse in "well, it's not my first choice of gun, and that's why I was unsafe and fired it inside the aircraft." If he didn't like the gun, then don't carry it. Simple as that.

2) Your point about it not being just pilots is dumb. It only proves my point further, that there are a LOT of other people carrying firearms on aircraft that have managed NOT to discharge their firearms. That only makes this guy more of an outlier. Furthermore, you can best bet your ass that if law enforcement agent discharges his weapon accidentally, on an aircraft or otherwise, there are stiff penalties, both stipulated and unwritten that he/she will face as a result. This pilot should be punished, if nothing more than to be made an example to all other pilots....."carry safely or don't carry at all."

Again, go crap in another thread. I've seen you trash several. The adults are talking here.

[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

Meat, go **** in some other thread. I've seen your posts elsewhere and your time is probably limited. You find your kind on every board and it's just a matter of time before you get banned.

Maybe so. But - and this is a fairly salient 'but' - you're neither the moderator nor the site owner.

I've been a member of this site since it first came up back in 1999. So, while my time may be limited, I've been a member here for - what? - nine years?

Originally Posted by AMF

You have no idea what you're talking about.

That would be an incorrect statement. I always know what I'm talking about. Some may not agree with me, but that's a completely different subject.

Originally Posted by AMF

1) The TSA isn't the authority.

I never said they were. You've leaped (incorrectly) to an erroneous conclusion and misunderstood what I wrote.

The rest of your paragraph I'm not responding to; if you start off wrong, going the wrong direction, chances are you're not going to end up writing anything relevant.

Originally Posted by AMF

It really doesn't matter.

Again, I believe you've made an incorrect statement. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't have attacked me and then rambled around on some Stephen King-like side story that has nothing to do with anything.

Originally Posted by AMF

2) Your point about it not being just pilots is dumb.

No, my point has a bearing on - and is connected to - the conversation. I fail to see where anything you've written has been anything other than an attack on me.

And not a very good one, either.

Originally Posted by AMF

The adults are talking here.

There are certainly adults conversing here. You're not one of them.

Your pal,
Meat.