OK, so you’re on a plane. You have a gun. A terrorist or three stand up, holding knives. No problem.
But they’re also holding little switch devices. They say “we have bombs”. Problem. Are you going to shoot them now, and hope they’re bluffing? Or are you going to lower your gun?
I don’t see how guns could have prevented this. But I do see a lot of instances where guns on planes could lead to other problems - I’ve been on a flight where a passenger got drunk and aggresive. I hate to think what he could have done with a gun.
Most people that own guns know how to use them and take classes in how to use them.
Firearms are kinda expensive, and people tend to care of things that cost more a little better.
Also I would like to point out that to receive a permit for a concealed weapon, you have to take safety lesons in firearms.
There is not much difference as you would think in a air marshall and a citizen. They have maybe one class in firearm safety, if that.
The terrorists did manage to kill everyone on that flight.
I believe someone at the scene said that they would not look for survivors there because the largest things there were the size of a phone book.
The Terrorists killed all aboard the plane. Just because they didn’t fly the plane into a building doesn’t make those peoples deaths any less horrific.
And what is the evidence you speak of, the one cell phone call?
Which was told by someone else, basically hearsay.
Lets see, the terrorists successfully destroyed a million dollar plane, cost the country the loss of its citizens, and the time of those that have to work at recovery efforts. Destroyed families, caused people to fear flying, make people afraid, etc.
The fact is we will not know what happened till they release the contents of the black box on board. And i am pretty sure that the terrorists drove the plane into the ground to prevent it from be taken back.
Having a firearm is one thing, having the training to use it in a crowded environment like an airplane is something else entirely. And noone can train for a team effort with people they’ve never met before.
You’ll have stray rounds, friendly fire, people firing on other civilians whom they assumed were terrorists, bullets destroying cables, hydraulics, you name it. Look at the classical airplane design: Everyone will be firing forwards (hitting the pilots), backwards (probably not hitting anything) or into other passengers. It’s bad, bad tactics.
Look at the sort of training military and police have to go through before anyone lets them attempt to tackle an armed perpetrator in a closed environment. They don’t just focus on getting the perp, loads of time is spent on preventing hitting someone else on the team. Harder than it sounds, I’ve done a little of that sort of training myself. One lesson is: If you want the advantage of more than one firearm, you need leadership, a plan and a team. Noone is going to come out alive if you haven’t been trained to act in concert.
And, as has been posted, the terrorist is always ready to one-up. If you want to counter their surprise, you have to do it with better plans and procedures, not superior firepower. Although it’s always good to have, once the plan is in place.
I think the evidence will show that the passengers attempted to overwhelm the terrorists and may even have taken over the plane but too late to prevent the crash. Eye witnesses said they saw it try to increase altitude, and at one point, the plane was flying upside down.
The terrorists were unsuccessful in that flight, thanks to the passengers, who knew they were doomed anyway, or at least the odds were not good that they would survive, but nil if they didn’t act. The terrorists were unsuccessful because their goal was the destruction of American icons. Destruction of TWC. It is believed they wanted to destroy the White House instead of the Pentagon. American deaths was not really material to them.
Untrue. Only a small number of gun owners take training courses, and only a small number of those even come close to matching the level of training that an Air Marshall does. Most gun owners just buy a gun and tuck it away somewhere, thinking that, when the time comes, they’ll become an Action Hero on the spot.
The terrorists didn’t kill everyone. The crash into the WTC/Pentagon/Ground killed everyone. Stating that “The terrorists did manage to kill everyone” implies that they killed the passengers prior to crashing the plane, which is not the case.
The several cell-phone calls, thank you. From different people on different planes. That all manage to coincide with each other.
Do you have any reason why we should suspect the accuracy of these phone calls? Passengers on planes do carry cell-phones, you know.
Untrue. The people who recieved the phone calls reported their experiences first-hand.
:rolleyes: Do you have any evidence to suggest this?
I haven’t been posting to GD the past week, I’ve been too sick, emotionally and physically. Herewith, my attempt to ease back into it:
This thread has drifted away from the OP, but then it seems to have wound down somewhat, so I will post this here. I have read a very interesting article directly relevent to the OP here: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml
I would be interestde to know what people here think of the various proposals in it. There is much to debate, although as a starting point I think this:
Because you’re a trained pilot and are able to fly and land a commercial jet airliner? Or was this just one of the things you planned on learning on the fly?
This discussion reminds me of something I read about V.P Cheney a month or so ago. Seems he was meeting with a bunch of supporters in Utah (IIRC), and they were complaining because the Secret Service was making them store their licensed, concealed handguns somewhere they considered unsecure from theft. I think the Secret Service took care of their concerns, and the meeting went on sans concealed handguns.
But wait, aren’t concealed handguns possessed by law-abiding, licensed citizens supposed to protect us from loonies? So why doesn’t lifetime NRA member Dick Cheney feel all safe and secure being surrounded by a bunch of private citizens with concealed guns?
Because more guns are not the best answer to every conceivable security problem. That National Review article is utterly insane, Weird_Al.
I think that your example is bad. For example, federal judges won’t allow the Secret Service to carry their firearms in federal courtrooms (at least in this district). So,
I can’t imagine a scenario where the Secret Service allows one of their protected persons to walk into an environment where the Secret Service knows their are weapons they can’t control. I doubt the Secret Service gave Cheney much of a choice. Imagine, these are people trained to jump at the bullets - they tend to be a bit fanatical about safety.
Dunno, Robb. But when I met Justice Breyer earlier this year, it was the U.S. Marshals, not the Secret Service, who provided his security detail, and I bet dollars to dimes they were armed under those jackets. Don’t know who provides courtroom security for your local federal courts, but ISTR armed security of some sort in the federal district courts in Dallas. That probably varies quite a bit across the country and even among judges in the same district, based on actual and perceived threats.
I can’t help thinking of that guy who shit on the food tray.
Wanna arm him? Ex Tank, you just set the pro gun folks’ cause ahead 10 years.
Being aboard a plane is extremely stressful for some people. They do things they wouldn’t normally do.
Peace,
mangeorge
As a rational argument, “X is insane” does not impress me. Nor did your red herring attack on that incident involving Dick Cheney, which I think was dealt with more than adequately by Robb.
Did you actually read the article? If you did, do you wish to offer an actual rebuttal to any of the arguments made?
No, Al, I don’t want to rebut the lunacy of allowing anybody who can get a concealed carry permit to walk on board a commercial jetliner armed to the teeth. Some arguments are just too darn silly to warrant serious discussion.
Once again, I am unimpressed. I am now even more suspicious that you haven’t even read the article. In the first place, there were a number of proposals in it, and I was looking for comments on all of them, not just the one involving CCWs for passengers. And second, there was no proposal in the article for letting such persons be “armed to the teeth”, as you would have it.
Instead of making a coherent argument, you deride a proposal you haven’t even read as “lunacy” and “too darn silly”. Methinks you doth protest too much. Is it possible that you do not make a rebuttal because you have none to offer?