Read the article, Wierd Al.
The only proposal I read, finally, about 3/4 of the way through, was that passengers (after meeting certain criteria) be allowed to fly while armed.
Two things jumped out at me;
What’s to prevent terrorists from meeting these criteria. After all, at least one of the WTC terrorists had a pilot’s license. Cool, now we encourage them to bring guns, not just knives.
And the part about armed passengers “not tolerating misconduct”. I sure don’t like the sound of that.
The entire article was a rehash of the same old arguements for arming our populace. Nothing new.
What’s next, “No passenger plane will be allowed to fly without a minimum of ( )% armed passengers”?
I can see why noboby want’s to reply to your cite.
It’s insane.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m not going to comment.
I’m not going to comment.
I’m not going to comment.
[sub]Shit.[/sub]
I’m not going to leverage my political hobby horse with the bodies of 5,000+ American citizens.
Open another thread and leave the WTC/Pentagon out of it, and I’ll debate it.
But not here; not like this.
How well did you read it? First, there were other ideas presented in the article. Do I need to drag in quotes? Second, the main “criteria” proposed by the author was that such passengers have a valid state issued CCW permit. What would have prevented the terrorists of 9/11 from meeting this “criteria” is the fact that they were not American citizens.
Of course potential terrorists who are American citizens and have clean criminal records could potentially get CCWs, and that is a valid objection, but on balance I don’t think it is a fatal one. The risk of this happening needs to be balanced against the potential benefit of preventing another attack.
Neither do I. I wouldn’t want to see some guy swaggering around with a gun telling a drunk businessman yelling at the stewardess to sit back down. Well…probably I wouldn’t. Maybe depending on the circumstances…
But I would rather see that than have my plane crashed into the side of a building in the name of Allah.
Anyway, arguments about potential “vigilante justice” were used by gun control advocates to argue against groundside CCWs, and they have been proven wrong, and I have no reason to believe they won’t be again.
And another crude straw man. I am poised to give up on this thread entirely. This fighting ignorance business is harder than I thought…
ExTank, I understand how you feel. But I do think it is important to discuss how to make sure that something like what happened on 9/11 never happens again. And the possiblity exists that this will include ideas that we were advocating, as political positions, prior to the attack. I don’t see how we can avoid it.
I also linked to the article in this thread, and asked for comments. Perhaps you would be more comfortable commenting there.
Weird AL -
Frankly, this scares me…
As I was reading the article I thought to myself, this makes sense - armed marshals, yes, armed stewards and stewardesses, ok - but then, armed citizens? No. Never.
Why? Because it could possibly put a gun in the hands of an “American” terrorist (e.g., McVeigh) on board a plane. How can you not call this a “fatal” objection? Just one instance and we’re talking about the possibility of another terrible act of violence. Do you want to take that chance? Yes, perhaps the chances are slim (I really don’t want to debate this point), but just one time is enough. Are there no other options?
As has been said many times here, I think passengers will look at hijackers much differently now. I hope so. I hope people will have the courage to rush the hijackers, to take a stand - what I believe (and hope) happened on the plane that crashed in Penn. Never again will passengers sit back, believing that if we give them what they want, we’ll be okay. I know, I horrible way to learn the lesson, but hopefully it WILL help prevent this from happening again.
I also hope we institute a policy of armed marshalls - I know, we don’t have the resources to put one on every plane (though, really, I don’t know why not). But if some planes have them, and we don’t know which, then perhaps terrorists will be somewhat dissuaded.
Also, Al, I think the reason some dopers reacted angrily (“insane”, etc.) is not because of ignorance, but because the idea of sitting on a plane with armed citizens strikes an emotional response. You can understand, I’m sure - how do you feel when people come at you with the “ban all guns” argument?
Finally, I know the article argues against delaying America’s mobility, and thus giving in to the force of terror; but really, even before this horror wasn’t American air travel a bit lax? I lived in Europe for several years and when you compare the security and safety methods, I’m afraid we fall short by quite a bit. And compared to El Al, well, if you’ve ever flown on an Israeli Airline, you’d know. It’s not just the air marshalls.
Still, these are interesting ideas to be explored - perhaps you’d get a better response (and sincere debate - thus truly battling ignorance) if you started with the idea of armed marshalls and employees. Just one idiot’s opinion.
Al, I’ve always been rabidly pro-gun. Hell, I’ve had a Pit thread devoted to me because of the zealotry with which I pursue the issue.
So hopefully you’ll take my comments into greater account when I say: Armed airplane passengers are a BAD IDEA[sub]TM[/sub].
Why?
Because, in normal situations - sitting at home, walking down the street, driving the car - a responsible person with a gun is no threat. In the correct environment, in which it is common for people to be packing heat, the random looney who chooses to do harm with a gun is, more or less, neutralized by the ease of which he can be countered. As such, the threat of a random nutcase opening fire is minimized because the advantages of probably being the only armed person in sight is reduced.
Not so in an airplane, which is a much more fragile environment. A broken window can cause mayhem, or an errant bullet can pierce some hydraulics systems, causing the entire plane to crash. A simple surprise attack by three or four people can cause the deaths of dozens. So many more things can go wrong on an airplane that you just don’t have to deal with on Terra Firma.
But most importantly, you’re forgetting one thing: An armed citizen, no matter how well-trained or responsible, is no match for a police SWAT team. Down on the ground, if a gunman managed to take a bank or a store hostage, demanding money, they can always respond to the threat with highly-trained individuals. Such a response - excluding Executive Decision - is not possible aboard a plane.
As with all things, we must balance the costs and benefits. Normally, I would say that widespreaded concealed carry would ultimately be beneficial… but the factors aboard an airplane are very different, and far more complicated.
Not necessarily. Our hypothetical Timothy McVeigh, armed with a handgun and, let’s say, four rounds of that special ammunition issued to him by the airline, has to get past the other passengers who are similarly armed (and remember, these are concealed weapons, so he doesn’t know which passengers), and then past the sky marshalls (if they are present), and the sealed and armored cockpit door and the flight crew which is also presumably armed. Not to mention, learn to fly first, as the terrorists of 9/11 did. Also not to mention, McVeigh himself was not suicidal, at least not in the way the 9/11 terrorists were…after all, he wasn’t actually in the building when the bomb went off.
Further not to mention, that if the weapons with which the passengers are armed are not guns, but clubs or something, the already extremely difficult job of our hypothetical McVeigh, overcoming the other armed passengers, and a flight crew and perhaps sky marshalls who do have guns, becomes impossible.
I honestly think this particular scenario is so unlikely that we can safely ignore it.
I agree. And as I said in another post, if I were in such a situation, I would want to be armed at least with a club or a blunt instrument of some kind, even if that meant the hijackers had the same weapon. There would still be more of me than them.
I agree. As to resources, it is really a matter of cost efficiency. The added expense of putting sky marshalls on all flights may push the cost of air travel higher than people can afford. Although I understand that El Al does it, but perhaps they are subsidized.
Perhaps. However, I think that 1-I am more careful to control my emotional response and 2-An initial emotional response to a proposal like my own does not justify a response along the lines of “That’s just insane” in a forum called “Great Debates”. We have a forum called “The BBQ Pit” for that stuff.
I suspect you are right, although all I have really heard to support it are anecdotes, not scientific studies.
From what I have seen, I do not think you are an idiot. I should know, as I have seen more of my share of the genuine article during my time on this board, and for that matter long before that.
Really? My own understanding has been that people with CCWs virtually never do that sort of thing anyway. Also, I assumed that there would be other armed individuals in the airplane.
My understanding from the article I cited was that the ammunition referred to would greatly reduce, if not eliminate, this risk. Was I incorrect about this?
It seems to me this is equally true outside of an airplane. In fact I am afraid that it may well happen as part of this “second wave” supposedly scheduled for 9/22. I hope not though.
Yes, but remember we are not talking about people who want to rob a bank or take hostages. We are talking about suicide bombers who want to use the plane as a weapon of mass destruction. This sort of thing has to be stopped. Arming the passengers certainly might cause problems, but if by doing so we can prevent another attack like the one on 9/11, the benefit may outweigh the cost.
I don’t deny that, but I still think it is possible that arming the passengers in some way may be beneficial on balance. You haven’t addressed the issue of arming them with something other than guns. What do you think about those proposals?
Insanity is one thing. Falsehoods are another:
In fact, there is no requirement of American citizenship for a concealed handgun permit, at least in the following states: Texas, Louisisana, Florida, Utah, Nevada, . . . aw hell, I quit. American citizenship is not a requirement anywhere, as far as I can tell.
So your hijackers are now armed with perfectly legal handguns, and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania is now a pile of flaming wreckage at the White House. Way to go, Al!
I am not opposed to the 2nd ammendment. Nor do I want to take guns away from responsible owners. I’m nervous about, but not strongly opposed to, concealed weapons for those who think they have a need for them and can qualify for a permit. I’d rather not be in a bar, at a concert, or any other such environment where there are armed people. The kinds of places where fights are likely.
I like the idea that if I see a guy toting a gun, he’s probably a bad guy and I can tell a cop. (It is usually a man.)
I like the idea of at least one highly trained, armed air marshal on all appropiate passenger flights. Highly trained meaning a person who can determine when to, or not to, use a weapon. And well trained in hand-to hand fighting. Someone who knows what an adrenaline rush is and how to deal with it.
I need to think some more about the idea of an armed crew.
But to leave these heavy responsibilities to a well meaning citizen is, imo, insane
Peace,
mangeorge
Never what? Never carry a concealed weapon? While I doubt that they strap the damn thing to their body 24/7, I think “never” is too strong a word. Nevertheless, it has long been contended that the deterrent on a criminal’s part isn’t “these people are actually carrying a weapon”, but “these people might be carrying a weapon”. That’s why concealed weapons are so (relatively) important… the criminal doesn’t know who’s a threat and who isn’t.
Never said it wouldn’t reduce the risk. But the risk is still there, the risk is ALWAYS there… and the risk is rendered completely void if someone happened to carry a different/stronger type of ammo aboard. Someone like, say, a terrorist.
Outside an airplane, people can… y’know… run away. Inside an airplane, they… y’know… can’t.
True, but terrorists don’t hijack banks to crash them into buildings. This is just another example of how you are not grasping the differences between being on the ground and being on an airplane.
I think it would be an excellent idea to allow passengers to have longbows and polearms on an airplane.
I’m not the only one who had no idea what the hell a polearm is.
Look’s good to me. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Ahhh, you have caught me in an error of fact. Although I am quite surprised to hear it, it seems at least some states indeed set the bar at legal residence, as opposed to citizenship. That said though, I quote from one of your own cites, the Louisiana one:
Underlining mine. You were wrong on at least one of those.
However, it seems that non-US citizens can get CCW permits. Does this mean that A) persons such as the 9/11 terrorists could have gotten them, and B) By derivation, the article was in fact insane, as you said? I would think it depends on how easy it is for a non-citizen to get such a permit. It is something I will have to research more.
Though I suspect the author knows more about the subject than either of us. I would write to him directly if I thought there were any chance of him answering.
I agree with the above statements. In answer to your question, “that sort of thing” refers to your earlier statement “random nutcase opening fire”.
True, and a good point. Can airport security prevent this? Also, a person who took the risk of smuggling such ammo aboard is someone who has a plan, not someone who is going to indulge in a random act of air rage. Unless his plan is to simply destroy the plane and kill the passengers using the gun, something that could more easily (and non-suicidally) be accomplished with a bomb smuggled aboard in the checked luggage, I don’t see how the more powerful ammo is going to help.
True. The fact that someone might be killed due to an inability to run away from a person with a CCW firing a gun on a plane is a risk. The fact that someone might be killed by a person with a CCW firing a gun not on a plane is also a risk.
My understanding is that the second risk I mentioned is very, very small, and that this has been documented. The implication I draw from this is that the first risk I mentioned, assuming CCW permit holders were allowed to carry on planes, would also be very small. The risk is real of course, but I feel it must be weighed against the potential benefit of possibly preventing another attack like the ones of 9/11.
But Al, it uses the word “citizen” generically, and it makes no reference whatsoever to national citizenship. Louisiana, like every other state that issues CCW permits, only makes provisions for state residency. In fact, it would quite likely be unconstitutional for a state to deny CCW permits on the basis of citizenship, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish. If you have authority that “citizen” in the Louisiana statute means “U.S. citizen,” please present it.