in light of the recent hijackings, would you rather the passengers die or the plane go into the side of a building? in both scenarios, the passengers die.
And what the hell does WTC have to do with handguns? I’m thinking that if every person in the WTC at the time had a gun on him, not one extra life would have been saved.
Don’t get me wrong – I’ve recently moved from pro-gun control to a studied neutrality on the issue. I just find it kind of pathetic that you would use the WTC as an (irrelevant) argument against gun control. Did you like it when gun control types used the (equally irrelevant) Oklahoma City bombing as a reason to enact stricter laws?
How long you been on these boards, Hail Ants? You’ve been around long enough that I shouldn’t have to ask … cite, please? As Weird Al points out, this hasn’t been heavily covered, and the one article he read he deemed to be “reasonably fair”.
As with everything in life, Hail Ants, there are upsides and downsides. Several legitimate downsides have been pointed out already. I’m not saying the downsides would outweigh the upsides (IMO, they probably wouldn’t), but they surely exist.
While it is true that Air Marshalls cannot be on every plane, that doesn’t mean that Air Marshalls could not handle the job - there are lots of places and situations where police have been effectively able to eliminate crime, even though they weren’t stationed at every street corner. Again, I’m not arguing with your position, but I’m asking that you calm down and engage in debate, rather than taking an absolutist position.
BTW, do ya really want to trust a bunch of Air Force veterans with guns?! 
Sua
i like the idea of armed pilots, but the easy answer is a stronger door to the cockpit! if the hijackers cant get to the controls, the pilots can maintain control and use the aircraft to control the situation. violent manuveours, decompression and other means can subdue anyone in the passenger areas. this could disable any would-be hijacker, then, the pilot pops the door and administers caps in thier asses. we all need to wake up and understand that people are going to die in these situations, and its better a few passengers and flight attendants than what we witnessed 9/11.
this has happened on a fed-ex cargo flight, and the pilot turned the aircraft into a flying rock tumbler and the hijacker was eventually subdued after bouncing around the plane and wrestling with the flight eng and co-pilot (all heros, they saved many lives that day)
safty of the lives in the plane, on the ground and the aircraft are the responsibility of the pilot. if they are unprepared or unwilling to accect that responsibility, i suggest they seek other employment.
I would rather die from a gunshot than crashing. Anyway, who on earth would hi-jack a plane (for the WTC purposes) that they knew they were never gonna control??
naughty wicked zoot
Please. You look it up. It’s not an urban legend that the majority of airline pilots have military experience.
No, I have never actually shot a .44 inside a jetliner but I have an understanding of handguns, aircraft and common sense. Shooting a .44 magnum inside an airliner would do one thing. It would put a 3/8" hole in it. Air would leak out rapidly, but not explosively.
Remember the Hawaiian airliner that lost a huge portion of its roof? This happened because of metal fatigue and salt air corrosion, meaning that the entire plane’s airframe was suspect, yet it didn’t disintegrate. It was able to land safely.
And given the redundencies in vital systems (electrical, hydraulic etc.) even if you knew where to aim you couldn’t take down a plane with a handgun that way either.
Um, may I point out that that is the most ridiculous and inane statement I’ve ever heard. You’re saying that because a fighter pilot normally shoots at other planes they wouldn’t know how to, what, shoot at a person?! Are you serious? Don’t you realize that anyone who is a fighter pilot is a career military officer and, like, knows how to shoot a gun for Christ’s sake!
So, out of idle curiosity, why are so many people assuming that every single hijacker in the future will be bent on suicide?
Personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable with waiting to find out first. But, then again, I have never liked being in an airplane.
SuaSponte
But if only one person on each plane had had a handgun over 6,000 people would still be alive right now.
As for cites on the media’s reporting, no, I can’t give dates & times. But I have seen both CNN and MSNBC reporters take this attitude when reporting it. You could certainly say its subtle, but given the seriousness of the issue I think it matters.
if you ask me, if each pilot had a gun on those planes, more people would be dead. the pennsylvania crash was suspected to be due to passengers overtaking the hijackers, correct? if the pilot had a gun, five guys could take it away from him, and then the passengers would be a lot less likely to try to fight back, especially if they didn’t know what the hijackers intended. thus, the hijackers could have reached their intended target, and killed more people.
The issue raised in the OP is that the monolithic entity known as “The Media” is already unanimous in opposing arming pilots, yet no one asked Hail Ants for a cite.
On the day of the attacks, one of my first reactions was, “They should allow pilots to carry guns”.
This would supplement sky marshals, who can’t be everywhere at once. There are usually at least 2 cockpit personnel on board commercial flights, so one can remain at the controls while another confronts the hijackers.
But there should be some training, the guns should be registered, and perhaps they should be ‘smart’ guns so they wouldn’t fire if the hijackers wrested them away.
But these are the kind of things that gun proponents are opposed to. I half-expected to hear someone argue that ordinary passengers should be allowed to carry concealed, unregistered guns aboard airliners to fight off any hijackers who appear. After all, armed skies are friendly skies. :rolleyes:
It’ll be interesting to see how the overall gun debate is affected, what with the emphasis on security on the one hand and the common desire to help fight terrorism on the other. In truth, I’m not opposed to concealed-carry, but the operators of large public venues don’t appear to be sharing that enthusiasm. 'Hey, you can tell I’m a law-abiding citizen ‘cause I said so.’
The erosion of civil liberties in the wake of that attacks is a serious concern. I doubt that Americans’ guns are going to be confiscated from their homes, but registration is sounding more reasonable. The ability of potential terrorists and criminals to move weapons around without leaving a paper trail should appear less attractive given the heightened need for security.
Ok, I give up. Mods please close this.
I’m sorry that I don’t tape every minute of live news so I could capture the reporters comments an upload them to commiepinkoleftistmedia.com being that everyone finds it so hard to believe that CNN or MSNBC reporters would never be biased.
Everyone who is nitpicking every possible scenerio, what if they did this, what if they did that, is missing my point.
The Pilot and co-pilot are a professional flight crew. They are totally responsible for the lives of hundreds of people each and every day. They bear more responsibility in one day than any of us will in our lifetime. The cockpit of a commercial passenger airliner should be a secure environment. And rather than trying to make it a bank vault, which is impractical, the crew should be entrusted with its security.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**So, out of idle curiosity, why are so many people assuming that every single hijacker in the future will be bent on suicide?
This is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the actions of a person endangering the lives of hundreds or thousands. if you ask me, if you risk ONE persons life, you should expect to die (ie, your actions then become suicidal) because this ONE person has the right to defend his life by taking yours.
by extension, if you break into MY HOME, your are (in my eyes) attempting suicide, because i will kill you rather than wait to see if you want to steal my 4 slice toaster or slit my wife’s throat. it seems overly clear to me why folks would assume that hijackers are bent on suicide, as thier action invite death
may not be right, but thats how i see it
sorry! i screwed up that last post!
Monty is the author of the first line-- the rest of that ranting is my own!
sorry for the confusion- i’ll try to learn how to use my toys properly from now on…
Actually, no. Prior to WTC, pilots were directed to cooperate with hijackers; no one foresaw that hijackers would turn the planes into missiles. Even if the pilots were armed, I doubt that any of them would have started shooting when knives were pressed to flight attendants’ necks, especially given the history that, in most prior cases of hijacking, all or most of the crew and passengers survived the experience.
Now, of course, things are different, and arming the pilots may very well be a good idea. But it wouldn’t have changed anything on 9/11.
Sua
If they direct you to land at a US airport, you do it. If they direct you to land in the middle of a skyscraper, you don’t, and let them kill hostages, while calling for help.
Arjuna34
hi! me again!
i want to hear from bona-fide pilots on this. i feel like a giant turd just being “the friend of several pilots”. i havent had the chance to speak to any of them since 9/11 but there has got to be something in thier training about what actions to take. i recall having a discussion with one of my buddies about this, (what to do in a hijack situation) but it was years ago and we were both drinking LOTS of beer! (his answer was something like using the plane as a weapon, violent manouvers, decompression and the like to disable the baddies)
lets here it from the pilots! guns or no? what do you do in these cases? use the plane as your weapon? turn over the stick? help us out please!
Gee, gato; so you’re saying it’s okay to sacrifice 200+ lives because one hijacker is endangering one life. Glad you cleared that up.
a nice NYT blurb on “fuselage-safe” amunition. (my term :), theirs is “frangible”)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_GUNS.html
If a policeman can have his gun taken from him, surely an airline pilot can. Should we not consider this?
Why? Because if we don’t, we are taking the risk that we are handing over a plane to someone intent on crashing it into the side of a building, killing thousands of people. It is a risk we simply cannot take.
I am dumbfounded that I actually have to explain this.
Well, I don’t know either, but I think the answer to your question is, more likely than it actually is.
I need about 2/5 of a second to turn around in my seat. I assume a pilot can do the same.
The entire cockpit crew? At all times? It’s not just one guy up there you know, and the things that typically require their attention are taking off and landing. In addition, I’ve heard that some of these modern planes have this new-fangled thing called an “autopliot”.
:rolleyes: Yes, this is a very likely scenario, given that the crew will be so confident having their guns that they will fail to take the rudimentary precaution of securing the cockpit door.
You haven’t come up with a cite I asked for, showing A) How much training an Air Marshall recieves B) Whether this is “enormous” and C) Whether a pilot would require the same amount of training.
I agree. Having Air Marshalls aboard every flight would be great, if it is feasible. That doesn’t make arming the pilots a bad idea. However, you have failed to answer my question. Assuming there aren’t Air Marshalls on the plane, for whatever reason, how is your scenario worse than the alternative?
Then who is, exactly?
No, but I imagine they are more knowledgeable than either of us.
The vast majority of Air Marshalls have never been in a hijacking. In fact, come to think of it, IIRC no flight with an AM has ever been hijacked. So the pilots have the advantage here.
We don’t know that they have “analysed the tactical problems and decided…objectively”, and we don’t know that they haven’t. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. Have you any reason why I should not?
In the article I cited, the proposal made by the pilot’s union would be to permit pilots to be armed but not require it, and they that receive firearms training prior to being permitted to be armed.
What makes you think this?
:eek: Who is still “thinking pre-WTC attack”??? From this point on, passengers in a hijacked plane do know they are likely to die if they don’t resist the hijackers.
Pilots need to eat, go to the bathroom, and sleep. Is there is room for all this in the cockpit?
What if something happens to the pilots, say a sudden decompression in the cockpit? No one will be able to get in there to help them.
How about as an emergency backup? Given the nature of the threat, it seems reasonable to take multiple precautions against it.
Good lord no! Where did you get this idea?
I find it hard to imagine that one would, seeing as how that same child plus the pilot plus a whole lot more people are going to die if he does. And by the way, what are the passengers doing during all this?
I don’t see how I could do anything else, except perhaps…I don’t know…maybe…shoot the terrorist? That’s a scenario at least as likely as yours. Or how about…take the bullets out, lock the safety on, hand him the gun, let him into the cockpit, and have my co-pilot shoot him? Or how about, tell the passengers over the intercom that the terrorists are going to kill them all unless they do something?
That’s three possiblities I thought of off the top of my head.
Does such a gas exist, that would be feasible to use on an airplane? Honestly, I would really like to know.
I seem to recall they trained, not that they passed, or got licenses. Even if they had I don’t think they would have been eligible to fly a jumbo jet. Not to mention, if there weren’t stringent background and security checks for such pilots before the events of 9/11, I am sure there will be now.
AHEM Waverly: I thank you for your support, and I commend you for having the all too rare ability to do such a thing for someone when you have had strong disagreements with that person elsewhere.
However: You seem to be implying that I have argued in support of arming “all passengers”. If that is the case, I will have to ask for either A) A cite or B) that you please not misrepresent my views in this fashion.
Thank you.
I would think, the pilots send out a mayday signal and land the plane at the closest place they can, and the terrorists and the passengers have it out, with the passengers winning, albeit with some casualties.
All the discussions I have seen are about having guns or other weapons on board the plane. I have not seen anyone mention it this context to which you refer.
I have not seen anyone do that (though it might have happened, I can’t keep up with everything here), except in the very limited context of a (carefully limited) easing of restrictions on weapons carried aboard airplanes, in the hopes that this might prevent further attacks like the ones of 9/11.
Hmmm…do I detect a note of inter-service rivalry here?
I personally don’t want to die at all. But, in a hijacking situation…you would rather die from having the terrorists taking over your plane and deliberately crashing it, taking thousands of other people along with you??? Is this what you are saying?
So…are you saying that if we arm the cockpit crew and/or take other measures that have been suggested here, it will be such a deterrent that hijackers won’t even try anymore? If not, what are you saying?
Because we can’t possibly take the risk of assuming differently. See my response to ticker at the beginning of this post.
I don’t understand this statement at all. You only “find out” for sure when they actually crash the plane, at which point it is too late to do anything.
How do you know this?
Why do you think this?
On airplanes??? Perhaps if you look hard enough you can find a few individuals who feel this way, but then if you look hard enough you can find people who believe in just about anything. I don’t think you are justified in characterizing “gun proponents” in general this way.
There are a lot of things we could do to make life harder for terrorists, that we shouldn’t do. As you said, “The erosion of civil liberties in the wake of that attacks is a serious concern.” And I fail to see how your specific proposal would have made it any more difficult for the 9/11 hijackers to do what they did.
Quite true, and an excellent point. It is hard for me to understand how, given that by getting on the plane you are trusting the flight crew with your life, you would be uncomfortable with them having guns.
One life? One life??? My jaw just dropped when I read that. Did you see the death toll from the WTC attacks? Up to ~7,000 now, is it? That’s how many lives (at least) a hijacker is putting at risk.
Yes, it should be considered. However, I have seen nothing to indicate that the risk of this is anything but very small. You will note that the police are still carrying guns in spite of this risk.
You are correct, you never did state you supported arming all passengers, but you did take issue with those who thought is was a poor idea.
In addition:
When Waverly stated: “I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, you will not be happy until there is weapon in your hand.”
Al Replies: “You are most certainly correct. The problem is that I can’t conceive of a weapons regime that would allow me to have a weapon, but no one else. But I am open to suggestions…“
Either state your position in certain terms or let your comments speak for themselves. Anything else is a dishonest tactic, IMHO.
Sorry for the hijack, carry on folks.