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.

[EarlsflyinCobra]

767, thanks for the answer, I figured she was was speaking the truth, she's one of the ones around here that seems to have a grasp on her job.


Sorry, folks the Meat for President and other comments were placed in the post by a devious co-worker while I was away from the keyboard. I had typed the above response and was going to add a little more when I returned, only to find I had been visited by the prankster.



As a 30+ year LEO I have had first hand knowledge and experince with accidental discharges. As previously stated in another post the defective weapon is a rare cause, it is usually operator error. I had one in my early days as an LEO, scaired the POOP out of me and I got a day off w/o pay. Luckily, all I kilt was some tree branches. Mine was caused by a "HOT DOG" officer leaving the safety off and putting an extra round in the shotgun, then "ME NOT" properly checking the weapon at the start of my shift. Halfway through the shift I was chasing a suspect through the woods, in the rain (yuck), and fell in a 3 foot deep hole. When I hit bottom, since I had my finger on the trigger, and had not checked and found the safety off and the round in the chamber, it went off, clearing a swath of tree branches. The "HOT DOG" also got a day off w/o pay as he had been warned before about this practice. The only upside was the suspect hit the dirt and stayed put....LOL.......I could site several instances I know of that were caused by the dischargee not following directions or IGNORING warnings.

[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.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by EarlsflyinCobra

767, thanks for the answer, I figured she was was speaking the truth, she's one of the ones around here that seems to have a grasp on her job.


Sorry, folks the Meat for President and other comments were placed in the post by a devious co-worker while I was away from the keyboard. I had typed the above response and was going to add a little more when I returned, only to find I had been visited by the prankster.



As a 30+ year LEO I have had first hand knowledge and experince with accidental discharges. As previously stated in another post the defective weapon is a rare cause, it is usually operator error. I had one in my early days as an LEO, scaired the POOP out of me and I got a day off w/o pay. Luckily, all I kilt was some tree branches. Mine was caused by a "HOT DOG" officer leaving the safety off and putting an extra round in the shotgun, then "ME NOT" properly checking the weapon at the start of my shift. Halfway through the shift I was chasing a suspect through the woods, in the rain (yuck), and fell in a 3 foot deep hole. When I hit bottom, since I had my finger on the trigger, and had not checked and found the safety off and the round in the chamber, it went off, clearing a swath of tree branches. The "HOT DOG" also got a day off w/o pay as he had been warned before about this practice. The only upside was the suspect hit the dirt and stayed put....LOL.......I could site several instances I know of that were caused by the dischargee not following directions or IGNORING warnings.

I was wondering when some LE guys would weigh in on this issue.

[427 S/O]

AMF, speaking of banned!, could your limited presents here be the result of same?. After what! 15-20 post and you attack!. Who are you?.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

AMF, speaking of banned!, could your limited presents here be the result of same?. After what! 15-20 post and you attack!. Who are you?.

I didn't attack anyone...personally or otherwise. We were having an adult debate about the issue.

I'm not speaking to just this thread, if you go into several of the other threads, MEAT has gotten into some juvenile (albeit typical these days) arguments in several threads.

Moreover, he JUMPS into this thread and his first post directed at me is contrite.

There's no prerequisite for posts to state your opinion or have an adult debate about things. That's what the lounge is for (on most sites). It's healthy, for people to discuss things, even heatedly. But name calling and just being a general jerk about things isn't stimulating or beneficial....it's just a nuisance.

767 and I can just agree to disagree. I only asked that he explain to me the pieces that I seem to be missing.

[WillB]

Just another example of why revolvers are better than automatics when it comes to self-defense (unless of course 5 shots isn't enough at least 51% of the time).

[427 S/O]

I can't wait for AMF to meet VRM, the rest of us will be LOL..........

[767Jockey]

Originally Posted by AMF

767 and I can just agree to disagree. I only asked that he explain to me the pieces that I seem to be missing.

Let me say this again, VERY SLOWLY this time. Please pay attention. The program we are speaking about is highly classified arm of the Department of Homeland Security. I am not at liberty to discuss the details of how it operates. Most reasonable people understand the reasons why. Obviously, you are not amongst them. I am not at liberty to discuss if I am a member of the program, what training those in the program receive, where the training is given, how long it is, what is involved, how many pilots are participating, what type of equipment is used, what the rules of engagement are, what issues there may or may not be with the equipment used, etc.

Suffice to say, there have been some issues raised with regard to some of the equipment used, the limitations and risks of that equipment and the carry rules, etc. I cannot discuss the specifics of those issues. There have been other accidental discharges in the program, just as there have been in any department of Law Enforcement. This accidental discharge was NOT completely operator related. This one gets press because it was the first in an actual aircraft.

Again, you have awfully strong opinions for a person who knows virtually nothing of the program, the equipment, or the people involved. I will no longer waste my time on this issue with you, as I have no time for people who make purposely provocative blanket statements in a vacuum of knowledge.

The pilots who volunteer for this program are solid people, loyal Americans who donate vast amounts of their own time and money to protect their aircraft and passengers from another tragedy like 9/11. They train on their time off, they pay their way back and forth to training and re-qualification, they pay for their room and board, they re-qualify at specified intervals during the year, all on their own time and money. They display more integrity and commitment to the public good in a day than most people do in a year. You want to hang this guy because in your completely clueless opinion he MAY have made a mistake? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Good bye.

[meat]

Originally Posted by EarlsflyinCobra

As a 30+ year LEO I have had first hand knowledge and experince with accidental discharges. As previously stated in another post the defective weapon is a rare cause, it is usually operator error.

...and here I thought that the phrase "it's not loaded" was the magic phrase that always leads to accidental discharges.

I love going to the gun shows here. I've TWICE seen safety inspectors pull bullets from unloaded weapons.

Your pal,
Meat.

[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.

[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

I didn't attack anyone...personally or otherwise.

Well, THAT'S certainly untrue.

Originally Posted by AMF

Moreover, he JUMPS into this thread and his first post directed at me is contrite.

Contrite? Hardly.

Smart assed? Certainly.

And - as a bonus just for you - I'm going to throw in a big ol' cup o' disrespectful as well from here on out. It's clear that I'm (obviously) smarter, wittier, a snappier dresser, a lightyears better writer, and have a far better grasp of the English language than you do. This observation is based your erroneous belief that I would ever write in a way that could be considered 'contrite' to someone who attacks others - like you've attacked both myself and 767 - without provocation and then flat-out lies about it. Maybe it's your tenuous pinky-grip of English, but the tone of your posts all seem to be angry and confrontational.

Now ... if you want to have an 'adult' conversation as you've alluded to repeatedly, I encourage you to do so ... and to change the tone of your posts as well.

It would be a welcome change from your attack posts.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Jamo]

AMF...been watching you...cool it.

[meat]

Originally Posted by Jamo

AMF...been watching you...cool it.

Wait just a cotton pickin' minute here... I thought I was your special little guy!

Your pal,
Meat.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by meat

Wait just a cotton pickin' minute here... I thought I was your special little guy!

Your pal,
Meat.

ahem...goes without saying, now doesn't it.

[Excaliber]

AMF says,

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?

Thats a ridiculous argument, 'whole lot of other people' do stupid things all the time, and get away with it. That doesn't mean the method, rule, law or what ever is a good one, it just means a whole lot of people 'got lucky' until one day it 'hit the fan'. Then in hind sight we all go, yeah, that was a stupid rule, method, law or what ever, we should modify it.

I have no idea if the rule, method or law in this case is good, bad, ugly or needs modifying. But it sure is possilbe a 'whole lot of pilots' just been 'lucky', until now!

PS
Your Pal,
Ernie


I couldn't resist twisting the knife Meat!

[Ron61]

Darn Meat, here I have been reading this whole thread thinking it was just you adding a new screen name and posting from a different IP so you could have an argument with yourself. Now Jamo had 4 that he has to watch.

Ron

[EarlsflyinCobra]

.....originally posted by Meat
...and here I thought that the phrase "it's not loaded" was the magic phrase that always leads to accidental discharges.

Meat,

Always is a strong word but "it's not loaded" does lead to a "LOT" of accidental discharges.....

There are other things tooo;

Like putting a trigger extender on a weapon and using a clamshell holster for that weapon when the holster comes with a BRIGHT orange sticker WARNING about using trigger extenders....had a buddy on JSO that learned that one first hand, luckily only shot off the end of his thumb, which was sown back;

.................................................. ..................OR


Cleaning your weapon while watching telivision and DRINKING BEER (never a good combo) and dry firing your weapon. Had a guy on the local PD that did that......amazing what a 357 will do to a TV set.

I could go on, but you get the drift......

Now, on the subject of the pilot, yes he messed up, luckily no one was hurt, was it his fault, the guns fault, or a little of both?? We probably won't ever know exactly.....as 767 has said these guys "DONATE" a lot of time and effort to keep their planes safe....the pilot may need some remedial training OR the procedures may need to be changed.....either way it is not a reason to CRUCIFY the Pilot or Disband the program....it is a reason to IMPROVE it!!

[AMF]

They're all excuses. 767 may have some inside track to some information, but nothing has been presented which leads me to believe it was nothing more than operator error and an accidental discharge at the fault of the pilot.

The fact that there have been no other discharges inside an aircraft indicates that unfair or not, other pilots have been able to negotiate the program without serious incident (ala an AD).

I heard this argument in Iraq several times. The fact that soldiers were forced to clear their weapons in clearing barrels before entering the installation or chow halls and various areas actually increased the number of AD's. Now, the majority of those AD's were in clearing barrels (rather than in a crowded chow hall), but nonetheless, the number of AD's increased. Some people argued that forcing the soldiers to load and unload their weapons several times only increased the number of potential discharge opportunities.

This is the same cry me a river, "it's someone else's fault" attitude that most of America has taken. The age of personal responsibility is over. It's always someone else's fault. Some law, some rule, some procedure, some other person....whatever.

The fact is, if you carry a firearm, it's under your care. Period. If you load it, clean it, handle it, etc, then you should be more than familar and trained with all of those things (including shooting).

If you can't do those things, OR you can't negotiate some portion of a bureacratic policy safely, then you have a duty to yourself and everyone else to stand up and say "This is beyond me" and you also have a duty NOT to carry a firearm until either you're more properly trained, OR the program is altered to be more in line with your skills.

You don't just continue carrying a gun (which can kill people, especially in an aircraft) and then blame someone else when YOU discharge it.

I own MANY guns. I'm responsible for them all. If I do something that causes injury to myself or someone else, I, ME, MYSELF, YOURS TRULY, am at fault. If a child gains access to one of my guns and hurts themselves or someone else, I am still responsible.

It's my duty as a gun owner and carrier to operate safely. All these excuses do harm to the overall gun ownership perception in America.

PEOPLE kill other people. Not guns. Not programs. Not bureacracy. PEOPLE.

If the guy had some sort of mitigating circumstance that caused him to discharge, I'm sure that will come out in the end. If he was in a struggle, if someone else bumped into him, whatever.

I have the utmost respect for the pilots who volunteer for this program and have stood up and taken an active interest to protect themselves AND their passengers.

But the very definition of a "profession" in philosophical study indicates an occupation whereby the power and responsibility you wield has equally potent negative consequences in the hands of the "wrong" person as it does benefit in the care of the "right" person. Doctors, lawyers, police officers, soldiers, teachers, pilots.....all have the ability to harm members of society if the responsibility they carry is misused.

If a doctor screws up, he has a medical board to answer to and he is punished. If a police officer screws up, same same. A soldier, a teacher, whatever, both from their professional organizations (and also through litigation).

When a pilot volunteers to carry a gun, they should know that they're carrying an extra set of responsibilities and with it, come consequences for the misuse or misapplication of it, intentional or otherwise.

Carrying a gun is a serious deal. It's unfortunate that all of you are quick to make excuses for this guy. He may be a great guy. He may be the kinda guy I'd like to marry my sister, or go out fishing on my boat. He may be a great pilot. But if he screwed up, he screwed up. He should be reprimanded and punished as an example of what will happen if other people make similar careless mistakes.

If he could not negotiate the infamous "program" without incident, then he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. If there were dozens of other pilots discharging their guns in aircraft, the argument would have some creedence. But it's not the case.