Freedom but an armed people onboard would have prevented the crashed into the WTC, Pent. I have no doubt of that. The plane might have gone down but not take 1000’s of people w/ it.
pulykamell I would think your uneasiness w/ guns is based on years of anti-gun talk. Remember I’m not saying we can just get rid of gun laws - but it shouldn’t of happened in the 1st place. Now it’s too late and it would take generations to build it up if we wanted to move towards it today.
erislover at least I’m not alone. The sky martial is an option but I think the founding fathers would have wanted the individual to have the right to defend himself against such an act but we all know they didn’t know what a plane or a WTC was.
Guinastasia and others you are the one who mentioned a political platform. I am just exploring the idea not the politics. I think that’s why bibliophage reopened it (I really don’t know why - maybe he will let us know) perhaps at first he had a knee-jerk reaction but after reading it reconsidered. I have explained my point and I am looking at options that would increase our rights while increasing security - If that’s political then so be it - I don’t think so. The validity of the 2nd amendment is of great question (if you don’t believe me just do a search on the board) - going into this would be political and that’s not what I’m doing here. I will no longer address threads that blindly say that this post is politically motivated but if I get enough people saying it I’ll start a thread in the pit for you so you can say how cruel I am using the terrible tradzdgy to advance my political agenda.
erislover suggested trained armed sky martials not passengers. As for accidental discharge:
1 it could kill someone
2 it could depressurize the cabin (not explosive decompression) that’s what the O2 masks are for - you can breath at 20k - 30k ft w/ O2 with no problem
3 It could dammage the plane
4 almost forgot hi opal
5 it could destroy the plane and passengers
6 There is a very very very small chance that the plane would be disabled by accidental discharge and crash into the WTC (well now it’s zero chance).
We have to weight the benefits of such an action against costs. I personally beleive it would be an overall benefit - maybe not though.
I am in my second semester of statistics here in college, and we learned a lot of really interesting stuff. One of my favorites was that just because one thing coincides with another, it doesn’t mean that one caused the other. Like, take the recent studies saying overweight people have been found to watch TV more than skinny people. And everyone’s knee-jerk reaction was, “Oh no! TV causes fat!” But over in my little world I’m thinking, “Um, perhaps the overweight people are spending less time at the gym and more time on the couch, thus spending more time in front of the TV. I bet you’d find that they read more, too!”
So when I hear a statement like k2dave’s, I think, “Hmmmm, perhaps the fact that there are looser gun-control laws in palaces with less violence is because (are you ready to gasp in disbelief?) less people are being killed by guns. And perhaps, just perhaps, the gun laws are tougher in more crime-ridden areas because (another gasp coming up), there’s more chance you’ll get shot there?”
Nothing to “deal with.” I agree that the second amendment doesn’t apply in this case no matter the interpretation. Why we agree is different; I suggest that political rights are existent only in a political context, not for private companies; you suggest that the dangers inherent in transpoting firearms in flight is inherently dangerous. :shrug: Ok. FWIW I agree completely. I can cite IATA regulations for transportation of said effects… IATA is non-government regulations set up by the industry itself, and is often more strict (but never more lenient, obviously) than FAA regs. Got the handbook right over there (points to bookshelf).
IATA doesn’t even want that stuff transported. Explosives in general are almost completely forbidden for air transport. There are very few exceptions. This is when they are secured in packages… never would they allow it on a person.
I think mandated Air Marshalls that are Federal Officers should be on board every flight of a certain size/passenger restriction (ie- more than 10 passengers or the plane is a certain size, etc). One prominent and one plainclothes. Every time. They are to be part of the flight crew, paid for by a federal tax on the ticket price. I would even propose a salary commensurate with the risk involved which I have no facts to estimate so I won’t… but I would.
The cost of such an operations cannot possibly exceed the dollar amount of damage done to the city, none-the-less the amount of health care provided, none-the-less the dollar value the lives lost. I believe the present value of construction of the two larger towers was estimated at $2 billion (adjusted for inflation, of course). Is it economically feasible to have two air marshalls on each flight? It seems like it should be, but I don’t know…
SPOOFE not the passengers becomming ‘Rambos’ but the terrorists must become ‘Rambos’ to overcome such armed passengers. The basic idea is ‘peace through strengh’ and basically the terrorists would think twice before pulling such a stunt and at the very least would need more of their people to pull it off (which would mean less passengers killed as the terrorist would be taking up more seats if the flight is full). With a positive attitude towards guns (as I’ve explaned) this may never have happened. - so maybe a little more delving in in order, no? Little Bird the jury is still out on this one. I believe that places where gun laws were relaxed saw a decrease in crime. I know when the NRA started a gun training program for women in Flordia the incidents of rape went way down. I guess it is still arguable which is the cause and which is the effect.
I agree that the 2nd doesn’t apply but if people think of bearing arms a a good thing (increased security) then it is possible that planes would allow them.
Of course I can’t speak for anyone else, k2dave, but I would be much less likely to fly anywhere if I knew that anyone could be carrying a loaded firearm. If enough people feel the same way, the airlines would undoubtedly continue their ban on weapons.
k2dave, if I owned or ran an airport, I would have even more severe measures in place than exist now. No one, but no one would be allowed inside the door with a gun. Period. And anyone who made even the slightest complaint or protest would be arrested for trespassing and forbidden to fly out of my airport for the rest of his miserable life.
Would the following be more acceptable and/or feasible?
[ul][li]A non-lethal, non-penetrative weapon (such as a taser) stored securely in the cockpit. Only cockpit crew, and perhaps the cabin crew chief, have access to the storage.[/li]All members of the cockpit crew are trained in safe usage of the weapon.[/ul]
In a hypothetical airplane crisis, who’s more likely to become “instant Rambos” – the trained and well-armed terrorists who are anticipating a fight, or the unsuspecting commuters/businessfolks/families who were hoping to kick back and watch the airline movie?
And remember, the terrorists won’t have any qualms about accidentally hitting an unarmed grandma or Junior…
Let me see if I’m understanding what you say: Since we taught women how to use guns, rape has gone down. Yes, yes, I can see where that one is coming from. Ok.
But how does this make any reference to relaxed gun control? As far as I know, teaching people how to use their guns is a part of gun control. Therefore you are arguing against yourself. Hey, a worthy opponent! Have fun!
And, yeah, the cause and effect of gun control on crime is arguable. That was my point!
P.S. What happens when the rapists learn to use their guns?
But k2dave, you make one fundamental error here. The people on the plane probably didn’t know (esp. the two that went into the WTCs) that was going to happen. So, by that token, they would have assumed that it was a “regular” hijacking (i.e., land somewhere safe and use the passengers as hostages). What you’re then saying is that on any hijacking, any passengers who are armed should automatically attempt to overpower/kill the hijackers.
That’s the only way that this could have been “prevented.”
Which leads to the question - is that what we want? Any attempts at hijacking lead to automatic armed response? And as so many other people have mentioned, wouldn’t the hijackers take that into account?
k2dave, here’s a two word argument against your thesis: Air Rage Even if your suggestion managed to “prevent” hijackings, what makes you think having armed passengers won’t be worse than having terrorists?
Also, this thread argues against the idea that “more guns = less crime”.
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.
Did I say there was anything idiotic about that? No, I said the question “Could the 2nd amendment prevented the attack on WTC, Pentigon?” is idiotic because, besides the misspelling and bad grammar, it’s not even debatable. The 2nd amendment exists, and the attack happened, so no, the 2nd amendment did not prevent the attack.
quote:
Rather, serious debate is not your intent. Or do you have something to add besides a semantic critique of the OP and its title?
Hello! A semantic critique was the entire purpose of my post! I was arguing that his wording revealed his inflamatory intent!
Hmm… you think that would be enough? How many shots do those tasers have?
Consider this hijacking had multiple hijackers… I dunno. I think the old gun is the cheapest most effective weapon…
But you know, some details of what would occur to a bullet that missed or completely penetrated its target aren’t pretty either in such a crowded location/flimsy structure (definitely not built to take a bullet). Rubber bullets? Could that subdue an attacker life that?
I admit I don’t know much about tasers… it could be a very viable option.
I’m afraid I know pretty much nothing about tasers, and I’m absolutely sure there are occasions where sheer numbers could overwhelm any weapons. I was just thinking about ways to protect crew and passengers without increasing the chances of accidentally harming them.
Wouldn’t bother me in the slightest either as my life is already in his hands the moment that plane starts moving. He can strap a bomb to his chest for all I care… in order to fly you have to trust pilots implicitly.
As a compromise under todays current condition I would have to say that the cockpit be seperate from the passenger compartment. I don’t think a tazer would be effective against multiple terrorists.
little bird NRA training is gun control?!? here’s a hint the women could get the guns on their own. How can you say that a vollentary course given by a private org be considered control?
And guess what - that part of the great debate arugment. That’s why I didn’t post it in the absolute truths forumn (well one of the reasons)
If you were a rapist would you attempt to rape someone if you were pretty sure she was packing? - you want sex, power whatever you don’t want a murder rap or ti die in the process - I would say you would at least think twice (and most likely spank the monkey or take a cold shower)
Shylock
If this always happened this way do you think there would be as many hijackings as they are? Not that there was that many. But lets say every hijacking lead to everyone’s death on the plane if firearms were permitted - lets even double that number for accidental discharge - would we come anywhere near the estimated 10,000+ in the WTC. I would say that hijacking would prove to be ineffective and sometimes that passengers would win (sometimes even now they win).
xenophon41 I already stated- whos going to threaten a flight attendant with armed passengers aboard?
**The 2nd amendment exists, and the attack happened, so no, the 2nd amendment did not prevent the attack. **
It exists in some watered down version yes but not in a way that it helps that people defend themselves as it was intended IMHO.
**i got a few pilot friends and the ones i know are very serious about thier craft and would do ANYTHING to save the lives of thier passengers.
it wouldn’t bother me to know that the pilot was packing some heat.**
I would personally feel safer - but I know not all of you will. (I to draw the line at the pilet strapping a bomb to his chest)
For the most part you are repeating the same thing over and over and I in responding have been doing the same.
Sigh. k2dave, k2dave, k2dave. I never said training is gun control, I said training people how to use their guns would be a part of gun control. Do NOT put words into my mouth. Also, hey, you sure do know what drives a man to rape, don’t you? It’s not a matter of sex, it’s about violence and control. A rapist doesn’t rape a woman (or a man, child or dog) because he can’t get a date on a Saturday night. He does it because he’s a twisted fuck who needs to feel power over someone weaker than himself. And I think he would have no problem shooting her to get it.
