Everyone knows that any self-respecting hijacker has explosives strapped to his body.
No, an armed populace is not an effective deterant against this sort of thing. Setting aside some comments about government employees carrying on aircraft (typically law enforcement with considerably more training and experience), the thought of dozens of armed personnel on a pressurized aircraft would make sure that either Greyhound or AmTrak and I became very good friends.
Israel is as close to a 2nd. Amendment supporter’s wet-dream as far a proliferation of small-arms, and it hasn’t deterred suicide bombers one whit.
When a religious fundamentalist is convinced that by dying and taking lots of his enemies with him he’s going straight to paradise, no amount of firearm proliferation amongst the target populace will stop him.
And, as has been already pointed out, those aircraft are private property; there is no law forcing anyone to allow to carry on their property, especially in high-risk environments like pressurized aircraft that routinely fly 20,000+ feet in the air.
k2dave: threads like this are an embarassment to the people here who have fought long and hard to dispel the ignorance and prejudice about guns and gun owners.
Thanks for setting the cause back by a decade with one asinine premise.
Bad guys at the stroke of 8:15, stand up, pull out guns and start blasting everyone on the plane. In a blitzkrieg attack with the element of surprise, your good guys go down in a hail of bullets without being able to draw. Wouldn’t that be a likely scenario if a hijacker thought there were armed people on board?
Can we talk about this another day?
ExTank, I want to have your child. No, really… I will spontaneously change genders, grow a uterus (and milk-producing breasts) just in awe of your overall genius. I will name our love-child “Lil’ Charleton”.
To answer the OP: A big, resounding NO!
And China Guy brings up an excellent point: If the Good Guys[sub]TM[/sub] can carry guns onto a plane, what will stop the Bad Guys[sub]TM[/sub] from doing so? The hijackers in this case used knives.
k2dave and Kalshnikov, can I ask you a quick question. You remember all those “air rage” incidents where a passenger went insane and tried to crash the planes, but were restrained by crew and other passengers, right? Would you be happier if some of those psychos had had guns?
Oh, and what ExTank said.
1st of all bibliophage thank you for reopening this thread as it seems that threads that suggest curtailing our rights to increase safety are not being closed but one that suggests giving people more rights to increase saftey was.
Kalashnikov the 2nd amendment was designed for the people to be able to defend themselves - as you know there is no constitutional right to police protection.
Philosophocles Yes suicide bombers are very hard to stop - even for professionals. There is very little that can be done most of the time if someone is willing to kill himself along with others w/ or w/o the 2nd. This case provides a possible exception since the terrorist had to take over a plane full of passengers and fly it for a while.
ExTank Israel has always struck back harder then it was hit and I believe that has reduced the amount of attacks - but can’t prove it. Also remember that Israel is surrounded by enemies that are sworn to the destruction of the state - that might just have something to do with the high incidents of terrorism.
As for setting ‘pro gun’ forces back 10 years. Let me say that this would not work if we just got rid of anti gun laws. It was a look back in history as to where we possibly went wrong. IMHO Anti gun laws have caused a decay in society to a point that it would take decades to regain. If gun ownership was encouraged since the start of the country - if schools have gun courses so students could learn how to respect and use firearms - events like this (I would say) would never happen. ----Again we have moved too far away for this to work but it could if dont right from the start
China Guy In this case would it matter? Possibly one guy could pull a weapon and kill the terrorist pilot, maybe stray shots would disable the plane. Just maybe it would crash harmlessly in the Adarondacks instead in to the WTC.
Dave Stewart one question - Do you have a problem with threads that suggest taking our rights to increase the security of air travel also?
ITR champion Again I don’t recommend just turning off all anti-gun laws - this is something we have lost over the years and I’m not sure we can get it back. Do you think someone would threaten a flight attendant with a gun if they knew that many passengers were also carrying?
I can’t see where anyone’s implementation of the 2nd Amendment would have prevented this. Had firearms been allowed on the planes, then the terrorists would have had firearms as well.
There is no way to prevent a suicide bomber. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment, except as a possible illustration that our society is not nearly as stable and safe as we like to think it is.
Re: your question to ITR.
Do you honestly think that whether everybody on the plane was armed or not what have made one iota of difference to a SUICIDE bomber? I think by the very definition they don’t give an ounce of f@$%
I would not, in any way, feel any safer knowing that my fellow Americans are armed. Perhaps there can be an argument made for professional armed security on commercial airliners, but I think there is too much potential for abuse.
And listen to what your saying. OK, given that Good Guys have guns, this must mean that the Bad Guys must also have guns. So what if 150 Bad Guys book the majority of the seats on a given flight, and all of them are packing, while of the rest of the passengers, only 25% are armed. Bit outnumbered, eh?
The practicality of the situation is unfeasible. It’s plain irresponsible and stupid, as you have no 100% effective way of screening good guy from bad, or guy who has a little too much to drink on the plane and decides to go Passenger 57 on everyone’s ass.
(whoops- perhaps Passenger 57 wasn’t the best analogy there, but you get the point.)
k2dave, I want to say that I was thinking about this very topic myself. Not everyone thinks you’re a wacko, and if I get tossed into the same pot for saying so I don’t mind.
I also had a similar idea: what about armed security personel on the plane? Like an airport police? In light of this incident I think it is safe to say that airport security is a very national affair. Perhaps the FAA would have its own police now?
As far as everyone else goes: reports have it that these guys hijacked the plane with knives. This stands testament to two things. One, if you want to do something, you will find a way to do it. Two, you can never scan bags enough to avert such behavior. Standard security keeps obvious weapons off planes; we need non-standard security now. Military personel? Regular plainclothes police? I think that this style of attack would certainly be prevented by an armed guard on the plane, whether that be the the every-man with extended second amendment rights, or the ubermensch as an armed guard.
Tasteless? :rolleyes: Yeah, I know that people trying to think of solutions to what is obviously a problem are real jerks.
A dead person cannot commit suicide in any manner. So: yes.
Dude, I think you missed my point. Putting yourself in a suicidal situation, whether you actually get killed or somebody kills you first is, to me, the exact same thing as suicide. So if I strap myself full of explosives, you shoot me, and then the explosives go off, I’m not a suicide bomber?
My question was to explore the mentality of these people, not a question of semantics. The person is ready to risk his life, whether it be because he himself actually drives a plane into a building or is shot by someone else while making a statement. The freak can just blow holes in the cabin until someone takes him out, and will have accomplished his mission. He’s just struck TERROR into the hearts of airline passengers. Have enough of these sick fucks unloading guns in the cabin and nobody’ll be flying anytime soon. So, let’s take a suggestion, and keep our guns at home.
erislover Like I said in my post, I am willing to explore the idea of armed security on airlines, but my knee-jerk reaction makes me uneasy.
erislover-we are saying, now is not the time to use this for political platforms.
ExTank wrote:
Hey … that’s right! There are supposed to be Air Marshalls secretly travelling on some flights, who are trained in anti-terrorist tactics and who carry semi-automatic pistols with them.
Where were the Air Marshalls in these 4 hijackings?!
Sorry, I don’t see that this is really all that politically motivated.
The presence of someone or someones who can avert hijacks is a very realistic and practical need. Period. You want it to be political, be my guest. I fly all the time for my work and let me tell you: I don’t feel very diplomatic about all this. It is a real fear and I seek real solutions.
Airlines are private industries regulated by a federal commission. As such, it is unlikely that extended second amendment rights would apply at all as any private company can indeed violate any number of rights. However, as they are subject to federal regulation, we can certainly regulate some federal officers onto planes. Raise ticket prices for Eris’s sake (would they have to be random price fluctuations? :p), something. But all flights available to the public… hell, all flights of planes of a certain size. Imagine if someone hijacked a FedEx plane carrying dangerous goods (of which flammable liquids are the most common)?
We were lucky in the western hemisphere for a while, but no longer. 'Tain’t politics.
I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I belive in concealed carry also. I don’t ever see any way they will allow guns on airplanes. The possibility of an accidental discharge at altitude overwhelms any potential security benefit.
How about secure cockpits and searching airline employees?
This thread is OBVIOUSLY just a tool for political posturing. The subject line question itself is idiotic, as the 2nd amendment has never been repealed and is still effective, so the answer is of course, NO. If k2dave wanted to start a serious debate that was not politically inflammatory, he would have asked something like “Would armed passangers have prevented the attack on the WTC?” or “If airlines lifted their firearm ban, would all this have happened?”, but a serious debate was obviously not his intent.
The pilot needs communication with the flight attendants and vice versa… as such, any threats made toward the crew and passangers will be told to the captain and used as a means of control anyway, no matter how physically seperated they are.
Airline employees are searched already anyway… I see them go through the scanners just like anyone else.
serack
The interpretation of the second amendment is very shakey and left up to individual states.
There is nothing idiotic about a person seeing a possible solution to a real problem and suggesting it to the crowd to gather their input.
Replies to that effect have also probably been successful: airlines are private, and are under no obligation to respect the second amendment in any way whatsoever. Thus, any interpretation will have no affect on hijacking.
Rather, serious debate is not your intent. Or do you have something to add besides a semantic critique of the OP and its title?
erislover,
You cherry picked off my rhetoric–now deal with the argument: What about the risks of an accidental discharge as opposed to any potential security benefit?
Whenever someone quotes me and leaves out my best argument I tend to suspect they are incapable of beating it.