# My Solution --  Archie Bunker Lite

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 19, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591 "2001-09-19T15:03:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/21 "2001-09-20T06:02:09Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> **If this scenario is possible at all, it is possible _now_, regardless of what steps we take to arm passengers. I for one think that the supply of suicide bombers willing and able to go through this kind regimen was quite limited even before the 9/11 attacks, if it existed at all.**

One would have thought the number of suicide bombers willing to take even rudimentary flight lessons and crash airliners into buildings were somewhat limited, if they existed at all, but we’ve had at least four confirmed instances, with a number of “potentials”.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> After the attacks, I presume that security and background checks on candidates for airline pilot training will be sufficient to prevent it.\*\*

One could also presume that the added security measures taken by airport security would prevent another WTC-like attack. The problem is, we can’t really prove one or the other.

What if this were a “one off” kind of attack, and no one really intends to duplicate it in the future? Then both the enhanced airport security or the arming of passengers winds up, in the end, not preventing anything (at least in terms of suicide-hijackings).

If this was _not_ a one-time occurrence, then future hijackers will undoubtedly take appropriate steps to allow them to succeed (or at the very least, increase their odds of success), armed passengers or no. There would certainly be nothing stopping a group of hijackers from simply shooting first, since everyone’s going to die anyway - no need for hostages if you intend to turn the plane into a missile. Night flights would be the ideal time to carry out further attacks, since it would mean a greater likelihood of sleeping passengers, thus fewer gung-ho types to worry about (and yes, this was a possibility before 9/11; however, the terrorists ultimately responsible for the attacks have made their main point by now. They no longer need the camera’s attention before carrying out further acts.), thus easier crowd control - or elimination.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/22 "2001-09-20T06:57:19Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ExTank \*  
> \*\*  
> I am opposed to chemical devices, Mace or oleoresin (pepper spray). It is all-to-readily an area effect weapon, and airplanes aren’t noted for the best air quality to start with.
> 
> The fumes can get into the upholstery and linger for quite a while, possibly causing severe respiratory distress to a great number of people.\*\*

Well, I think this is a valid objection, but (boy I have said this a lot tonight) I don’t think it is necessarily a fatal one. These potential problems need to be weighed against the benefit of potentially preventing another incident like the ones last week. Also, someone mentioned that some of this stuff is a foam, as opposed to an aerosol, which I think wouldn’t affect air quality as much.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ExTank \*  
> \*\*  
> The only possible objection I can think of at this hour is that aircraft are somewhat confined, so that even a small group of terrorists/hijackers, armed even with box knives, could conceivably hold off several attackers _simply because only a limited number of people are physically capable of attacking at a time._
> 
> Especially at choke points like flight attendant stations, galleys and restroom cubicles.\*\*

Again, I don’t think this is a fatal objection, but perhaps someone with specific knowledge of airplane geometry can chime in here.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by ExTank \*  
> \*\*  
> So some form of distance weapon seems to be in order, such as billy clubs or perhaps those 18-inch long Mag-Lites. Spring batons, maybe._\*

Sounds promising to me. Certainly they would be effective against box-cutters, under virtually any scenario you can imagine.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by ExTank \*  
> \*\*  
> But the concept of fighting back against terrorists/hijackers somehow is certainly more appealing to this citizen than sitting quietly and being flown to my destiny against my will._\*

Agreed, in fact I agree so strongly I started [a seperate thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88367) about it.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ExTank \*  
> \*\*  
> But the bottom line is this: given the ingenuity of last week’s attack, _whatever_ we do, some clever terrorist _will_ think of a way to counter, even if it’s bribing the minimum wage baggage loaders to slip a “suitcase” onto a baggage cart at some point past the security checkpoints.
> 
> Or infiltrating sympathetic people onto airport payrolls as baggage handlers. Or of slipping sympathetic people onto airport security, and the terrorists line up at their “moles” security station, so he can look the other way at the carry-on full of knives, guns, grenades or explosives.
> 
> Simpy blowing up the airplane, while not as spectacular as piloting several of them into prominent buildings, will accomplish the same general effect: disruption.
> 
> And no amount of personal armament, regardless of lethality, will prevent the bomb you know nothing about from exploding once the terrorist decides the time is right and activates the detonator.
> 
> We can take steps to prevent that specific type of attack that happened last week; we are far from being able to say with any degree of certainty that we are “safe” from terrorist attacks on, or utilizing, aircraft. \*\*

Perhaps, perhaps not, although I strongly feel that we should _not_ just be fatalistic about this, and resign ourselves to letting the terrorists win. I think it is very important to take concrete steps to prevent whatever terrorist attacks we _can_ anticipate.

Also, some of the specific scenarios you laid out here were addressed in the OP.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*
> 
> One would have thought the number of suicide bombers willing to take even rudimentary flight lessons and crash airliners into buildings were somewhat limited, if they existed at all, but we’ve had at least four confirmed instances, with a number of “potentials”.\*\*

Quite so, but not so far-fetched as your scenario. Remember I said willing and _able_. If we are going to develop a profile of a potential suicide bomber, I am confident that profile would include “ignorant”, “uneducated”, and “low intelligence”. And you are talking about having such people graduate from flight school and getting a job with a major airline, with these limitations _on top of_ the presumed security and background checks.

My WAG is, they had to scrape to get the 4 guys they did (only 3, really, that we’re _certain_ about) to do the 9/11 attacks, and there are no more in the pipeline.

This an issue I meant to start a thread about, but at the moment I have a huge backlog of those.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > After the attacks, I presume that security and background checks on candidates for airline pilot training will be sufficient to prevent it.\*\*
> 
> One could also presume that the added security measures taken by airport security would prevent another WTC-like attack. The problem is, we can’t really prove one or the other.\*\*

We can’t _prove_ it, no, but I think it is as close to a sure thing as we can get in this life that these measures, combined with the factors I mentioned above, will prevent a scenario such as the one you proposed.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*  
> What if this were a “one off” kind of attack, and no one really intends to duplicate it in the future? Then both the enhanced airport security or the arming of passengers winds up, in the end, not preventing anything (at least in terms of suicide-hijackings). \*\*

Well, we can say “what if” all day. The fact is, there is a credible threat, and we need to take steps against it.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*  
> If this was _not_ a one-time occurrence, then future hijackers will undoubtedly take appropriate steps to allow them to succeed (or at the very least, increase their odds of success), armed passengers or no. \*\*

Obviously. This fact should not prevent us from taking action though.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*  
> There would certainly be nothing stopping a group of hijackers from simply shooting first, since everyone’s going to die anyway - no need for hostages if you intend to turn the plane into a missile. \*\*

True. However, as we are not talking about machine guns (at least _I_ am certainly not), but handguns with amounts of ammunition carefully controlled by the airline (I’m thinking maybe 4 rounds), in a worst case scenario, say 4 hijackers each armed with a gun, they could optimally kill 16 passengers.

However: 1-The terrorists don’t know which passengers to target, at least initially. Remember, we are talking about _concealed_ weapons. 2- After the first shot is fired, the passengers in the immediate vicinity will be alerted, and the ones who are armed will be in a position to shoot back. 3-If they use up all their ammo this way, they will then be faced with the problem of penetrating the cockpit against an alerted and (presumably) armed flight crew.

Finally, all this applies only if the weapons we allow are _guns_. Do you have objections to other kinds of weapons, such as clubs or tear gas?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*  
> Night flights would be the ideal time to carry out further attacks, since it would mean a greater likelihood of sleeping passengers, \*\*

Until the first shot is fired. A gunshot would certainly wake _me_ up in a big hurry.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*  
> thus fewer gung-ho types to worry about_\*

I don’t know what you mean by “gung-ho type”, but why do you think such a person would be less likely to be on a night flight, or any other kind of flight, for that matter?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/23 "2001-09-20T07:07:01Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein:_  
> **This is one of the straw man attacks I specifically foresaw in my first post, and boy howdy, it didn’t take long to pop up.**

Do you even know what a [straw man argument](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman) is?

> [@](#):
>
> Let me turn your question around. Do you think _no one_ on an airplane, not even the cockpit crew or security guards like they have right now on El Al, should be armed?

Now _THAT’S_ a straw man.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/24 "2001-09-20T07:37:07Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> > I’m going to call your armed passenger idea “Wild West Airlines.” Perhaps if passengers have a disagreement, they can fight it out at ‘high noon’ in the main isle. Have you forgetten the all too recent reports of rage and temper tantrums on passenger planes? We can’t arm every yahoo and lock them in an aluminum box. \*\*
> 
> Please read the article the link for which I have provided above, and my comments on it.
> 
> Speaking just for myself, I would rather fly “Wild West Airlines” than “Pacifist Airlines”, but I hope we can come to some compromise.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> > Besides that is not the point. IMHO, given the large number of reports of passengers going berserk, weapons are not the answer.
> 
> This is rather simplistic. If the question is, “How can a person who is relatively small and weak defend against an attack by someone who is going ‘berserk’?”, then the answer most certainly _is_ “weapons”.

The logical compromise would be a more extensive air marshal program. It allows for well armed, properly trained personal to be on board the aircraft. The arming of all passengers defies common sense. I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, _you_ will not be happy until there is weapon in _your_ hand. I wonder what Freud would say…

_My_ response is simplistic? :rolleyes: Did you look through the volume of air rage reports? Was that child supposed to be armed? You also ignore the fact that the air-ragers strike first and without warning. I’d prefer that they made some sort of announcement, but they do not. The more lethal the complimentary in flight weapons, the more lethal the outburst. I also do not see how, for example, an armed female flight attendant vs. and armed lunatic is preferable to them both entering the conflict unarmed. If the passenger has an advantage in the latter case, certainly it will be exaggerated in the former.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/25 "2001-09-20T08:03:38Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> **Quite so, but not so far-fetched as your scenario. Remember I said willing and _able_. If we are going to develop a profile of a potential suicide bomber, I am confident that profile would include “ignorant”, “uneducated”, and “low intelligence”. And you are talking about having such people graduate from flight school and getting a job with a major airline, with these limitations _on top of_ the presumed security and background checks.**

“Ignorant”, “uneducated” and “low intelligence” eh? I don’t know about that. I’m an average joe and have no clue how to build bombs, fly airplanes, or elude authorities or even avoid suspicion. And I lack the resources that were available to them. If they were so inept, we should have been able to easily thwart them, yes?

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> My WAG is, they had to scrape to get the 4 guys they did (only 3, really, that we’re _certain_ about) to do the 9/11 attacks, and there are no more in the pipeline.\*\*

Well, there is much rumbling from the FBI regarding the possibility of more incidents on 9/22; if there is any truth to these, then I suspect the pool is probably larger than you might believe.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Well, we can say “what if” all day. The fact is, there is a credible threat, and we need to take steps against it.\*\*

Indeed, we _can_ say “what if” all day. That’s what this thread is all about, since the likelihood of the airlines actually allowing armed passengers on board (aside from the possibility of Air Marshalls) is quite low, I am sure.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Finally, all this applies only if the weapons we allow are _guns_. Do you have objections to other kinds of weapons, such as clubs or tear gas?\*\*

Actually, I have no particular logical objection to guns, clubs, or anything else [on a personal level, I simply don’t trust it to a) work as a deterrent, or b) work effectively. However, that is mere gut feeling, and I have no evidence one way or the other]. I just don’t believe that weapons are the panacea that some folks seem to think they are. Armed passengers _might_ eliminate the threat of an incident _just like_ the 9/11 attacks, but terrorism is a varied pursuit, and I suspect that, when all is said and done, armed passengers would have little effect. As such, I feel the _potential_ for abuse or harm far outweighs any perceived benefit.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Until the first shot is fired. A gunshot would certainly wake _me_ up in a big hurry.\*\*

I have no doubt of that. I am a very light sleeper myself, and would be awake in an instant. But not everyone awakens clear-headed and ready for action. Any would-be hijackers could make good use of the increased delay.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t know what you mean by “gung-ho type”, but why do you think such a person would be less likely to be on a night flight, or any other kind of flight, for that matter? \*\*

By “gung-ho” type, I mean someone who might be more than willing to pull a gun and start shooting without thinking. Given the number of reactionaries we are hearing about in the news already (e.g., attacks on Arabs or Muslims in the U.S.), it is not unreasonable to believe that such people could be a) on board any given flight, and b) armed, given the OP’s scenario.  
And I don’t think such a person would be less likely to be on a night flight - I think night flights would be better targets because crowd control would be easier on account of sleepers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/26 "2001-09-20T08:52:33Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \*  
> **Do you even know what a [straw man argument](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman) is?**

Yes.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Let me turn your question around. Do you think _no one_ on an airplane, not even the cockpit crew or security guards like they have right now on El Al, should be armed?
> 
> Now _THAT’S_ a straw man. \*\*

No, it is a question, although in fairness you seem to have already answered it.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*The logical compromise would be a more extensive air marshal program. It allows for well armed, properly trained personal to be on board the aircraft. \*\*

You may well be right.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*The arming of all passengers defies common sense. \*\*

Why?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, _you_ will not be happy until there is weapon in _your_ hand. \*\*

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…

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> **I wonder what Freud would say…**

As that guy said at the end of that movie, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*_My_ response is simplistic? :rolleyes: Did you look through the volume of air rage reports? \*\*

No, and my WAG is that air rage is actually not at all common, but gets a disproportionate amount of attention. But perhaps you would like to provide a cite and prove me wrong?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Was that child supposed to be armed? \*\*

Yes, yes, won’t someone _please_ think of the children? :rolleyes: indeed.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*You also ignore the fact that the air-ragers strike first and without warning. \*\*

“Without warning”? Really? Cite?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> **The more lethal the complimentary in flight weapons, the more lethal the outburst.**

Only assuming the “air rager” is armed and no one else is. I wonder if people would even be so liable to engage in this sort of thing in the first place if they knew that people around them were armed.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*I also do not see how, for example, an armed female flight attendant vs. and armed lunatic is preferable to them both entering the conflict unarmed. \*\*

Indeed? My take is exactly the opposite. Certainly if _I_ were the flight attendant, I would want a blunt instrument of some kind at least, even if that meant the “air rager” also had one.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> **If they were so inept, we should have been able to easily thwart them, yes?**

In spite of the fact that they were obviously helped by people who were neither stupid _nor_ suicidal, and that they had the element of surprise given that this was the first time anything like this was attempted, I think you are right. I suspect, as many other have pointed out, that airline security has been lax, and American intelligence services have been unable to do their job due to congressional meddling. But that is for another thread.

And remember, in at least one of those flights it is likely they _were_ stopped.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*
> 
> * * *
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > My WAG is, they had to scrape to get the 4 guys they did (only 3, really, that we’re _certain_ about) to do the 9/11 attacks, and there are no more in the pipeline.\*\*
> 
> Well, there is much rumbling from the FBI regarding the possibility of more incidents on 9/22; if there is any truth to these, then I suspect the pool is probably larger than you might believe.\*\*

We’ll see. Of course, I don’t rule out the possibility of _other_ kinds of attacks, just ones by suicidal religious fanatics who know how to fly airplanes.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*
> 
> * * *
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Finally, all this applies only if the weapons we allow are _guns_. Do you have objections to other kinds of weapons, such as clubs or tear gas?\*\*
> 
> Actually, I have no particular logical objection to guns, clubs, or anything else [on a personal level, I simply don’t trust it to a) work as a deterrent, or b) work effectively. However, that is mere gut feeling, and I have no evidence one way or the other]. \*\*

Well, that is what we are here to discuss.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*I just don’t believe that weapons are the panacea that some folks seem to think they are. \*\*

I have never suggested that they are a panacea. However, as we need to do _something_ to respond to this threat, and as no panacea is available to us, we will have to settle for the next best thing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/27 "2001-09-20T11:03:01Z")

</div>

**Al** : So you _don’t_ bother to look through some of the reports of air rage attacks that were provided for you, but you _do_ go on to make wild all guesses [your words], asks for cites as to how common they are, and ask for sites as to whether or not the air ragers gave warning that they were about to attack?

Had you bothered to look, you would have found: “the Air Transport Association, AFA officials say there are approximately 4,000 air rage incidents a year”

Had you bothered to shelve your WAGS for a moment, you would have read, “14 incidences in San Francisco this year alone”

Had you bothered to think it through, you wouldn’t need to ask whether or not a violent outburst comes suddenly, often not giving the victim time to prepare.

If all you intend on doing is repeating your opinion over and over, ignoring facts placed before you, and making repeated ‘wild ass guesses’ when there is evidence available to come to a more informed conclusion, why are you here? Perhaps you have been taking the [handbook](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87747) a bit too literally.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/28 "2001-09-20T12:25:44Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> IMHO, given the large number of reports of passengers going berserk, weapons are not the answer.

Berserk?

I went through your link, and all I could find was anecdeotal stories. While many of the stories were disturbing, they lack context. Do you know of a site that breaks down the numbers based on violent acts and just loud abusive behavior? Then what kind of crime rate does this indicate compared to the number of people who fly each year? Even 4,000 incidents of air rage may be a small number when we see what percentage we are talking about.

How many people died from air rage in the last 20 years, and how many people died from hijacking? Whichever one killed more is the bigger threat and the more likely to occur.

> [@](#):
>
> That being said, I am still unclear on what you mean by “empowering the passengers”; does this or does this not mean giving them weapons, or allowing them to bring their own? If the answer is yes, I would like to know if you would supply/allow weapons to the terrorists as well, for as we know, at the beginning of the flight, they are just law abiding passengers too. Or perhaps you intend to just ask them to identify themselves at the beginning of the flight? Or maybe you would just "know’ them on sight?

Well, at least you are appropriatley named.

You must be completely blinded by fear if you have trouble understanding my OP. Yes this means giving the passengers some sort of weapon. Yes I would hand them out to anyone who wanted one. Yes I would have the airplane supply the weapons.

Who the hell cares if we hand the terrorists a billy club? Did you miss the fact that they tend to bring their own weapons anyway? This is a perfect example of only the law abiding getting disarmed while the criminals do whatever they want.

Empowering the passengers means that we place a certain amount of trust in our fellow citizens. It means that we all accept more of the responsibility that we already have for our own safety. It means coming together as a group for safety instead of breaking us down into isolated and easily controlled robots who are afraid to think and act for ourselves.

Empowering the passengers means that 4 guy with knives can’t control 200 people.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m no insurance agent, but I would also think that insurance premiums for the airlines would go up if the passengers were “empowered.”

First off, I consider the insurance ramifications to be about the last thing I would consider.

Second, how healthy do you think the insurance companies are right now as they are paying for the WTC, who knows how much damage to the city, the Pentagon, 4 airplanes and countless lives?

> [@](#):
>
> It seems to me that arming passengers will, ultimately, do nothing to deter future hijackings.

Would arming passengers make it impossible to crash a jet?

No.

Even you have to admit that spending 15 years preparing for a hijack by going to school and working your way through the ranks is going to make it less likely than it is now.

> [@](#):
>
> Especially at choke points like flight attendant stations, galleys and restroom cubicles.
> 
> So some form of distance weapon seems to be in order, such as billy clubs or perhaps those 18-inch long Mag-Lites. Spring batons, maybe.

Excellent point.

I would even be in favor of having the airlines develop a plan for the passengers to fight back. Have it tucked into the seat backs so that we can read it on the 99.99999999% of the flights we take that nothing happens.

I hate to be planning this hollywood scenario in the back of the plane, but after 9/11, it is hard to say that we don’t need to be ready to defend ourselves. These guys are not going to be attacking hardened military targets. They will be focusing on perceived soft spots. If we don’t rely on ourselves and have confident people prepared to defend ourselves sprinkled throughout the general populance, then we ARE going to get chewed up in this war.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/29 "2001-09-20T12:49:57Z")

</div>

My point here is much greater than just preventing hijacks. I’m against the whole mindset that teaches us not to resist evil because it is dangerous to do so. I’m against the mindset that it is only approporiate for the “authorities” to act against people who seek to do us harm.

On 9/11 these guys used airplanes. We will get hit again, and it probably won’t be on an airplane.

Issueing national ID cards, putting cameras everywhere, throwing up random checkpoints and creating a culture of fear is not the way to win this war. We must come together, we must trust those around us to act. When evil faces us, it must do so with the assumption that everyone within earshot will stop what they are doing and face it. There must be the assumption that people will resist, whether we are talking about an airplane or a back alley.

If people are expected to resist, then we must trust them with the means to protect themselves. It is the only way to preserve our freedoms. We must respond to these attacks by opening up our society and coming together as a people, not by locking our doors, shutting the shades and fearing our neighbors.

[/soapbox]

> [@](#):
>
> The arming of all passengers defies common sense. I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, you will not be happy until there is weapon in your hand. I wonder what Freud would say…

How so? Just because you can type it doesn’t make it so. From my point of view disarming all passengers defies all common sense.

Want an example? Check out 9/11.

4 planes where the passengers lined up like sheep for the slaughter because they had been trained to obey force no matter who wields it. 3 planes intentionally crashed with a great loss of life, many times greater than just those aboard. 1 plane where the people fought back and prevented an even greter loss of life.

We hail the passengers on the fourth plane as heros. Have you even wondered why?

They were absolutley the same as the people in the other 3 planes. When the hijackers took over, they did nothing for 45 minutes but follow directions and do what they were told. Only after they learned that following the hijackers demands was futile, did they rise up and resist.

We honor them as heros for resisting evil, despite the odds.

All 4 planes had the capacity to do the same thing. They didn’t because they have been trained their whole lives to sit down and do as they were told. Don’t make any trouble if someone threatens you. Wait for the authorities, someone else will take care of this problem. People need to start out with the knowledge that they can not follow the hijackers demands.

Why would you ask us to follow the example of the first three planes? We have seen the results of disarming all passengers, and continueing in that veign is the only thing that defies common sense to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/30 "2001-09-20T14:13:13Z")

</div>

**Freedom** , I believe first hand accounts by passengers and flight crew crosses beyond mere anecdote to credible evidence. The fact that arrests were made based on these accounts is a matter of record and objective evidence that these accounts were found to be factual by authorities. It’s not really relevant if the deaths caused by enraged, armed passengers would eclipse those caused by hijacking or not. IMHO, the number _would_ be less, but we don’t gamble with human life that way in the US and must search for other solutions.

Because there _are_ incidents of violence documented on aircraft, it is not just conjecture to say that weapons would escalate the situation. That is why I say that arming passengers defies logic.

There are some things we _can_ agree on: Anything we have been taught about cooperating with hijackers is now bunk, and they must be resisted even if it does mean loss of life. Your supposition that I would propose we do otherwise is a strawman. As long as they are in the hands of professionals [read: air marshals] trained in their use and in hijacking scenarios, there is a place for weapons on an aircraft. Even with the new FAA controls, more should be done to insure the safety of passengers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/31 "2001-09-20T21:49:49Z")

</div>

**Weird\_Al\_Einsten** : on that other thread, you wanted to know why I thought that [article](http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel.shtml) you keep referring to was insane. Here’s a juicy quote:

> [@](#):
>
> in a situation like Tuesday’s hijackings (and we can never again assume that hijackers intend not to hit a building), then even the most inept response by an armed passenger would do no net harm, and might even help. In other words, if **a passenger with a high-powered hunting rifle confronted some hijackers, shot at them and missed, and killed some other passengers, all the passengers are doing (sic) to die soon anyway.**

It makes not the slightest bit of difference to me if I am killed by a terrorist or by someone trying to shoot that terrorist; I am dead either way. The way I see it, the passenger with the rifle is just as much a threat to me as the terrorist(s). And would you or Dave Kopel mind telling me where the passenger is going to conceal a hunting rifle? In the overhead compartment, maybe? How could he possibly get it out when he needed it before the terrorist(s) kills him?

> [@](#):
>
> **If the bullets rip open the airplane frame, and cause a catastrophic decompression, then it is much better for the plane to crash under circumstances in which the hijackers cannot control it, than at the time and place of the hijackers’ choosing.**

Unless it’s over a highly-populated area like Manhattan. If either or both of those planes had come down before hitting the WTC, the loss of life would still have been pretty high. It might have hit a high-rise condominum or apartment complex or some other office complex like the World Financial Center. Many people still would have died.

No, the only way to be safe on a plane now is to do our best to make sure that there are no weapons on board, not more weapons.

**Freedom** , your trust in your fellow man is naive. We are in this mess because we trusted people too much and allowed our security to become lax. **Einstein** cites El Al Airlines because they allow the flight crew to be armed; well, their flight security is also EXTREMELY tight; they won’t let just anyone who can afford a ticket to fly. Perhaps they should change their name to Big Brother Airlines. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/32 "2001-09-20T22:16:06Z")

</div>

Waverly

Your site is just that, a site and not a cite. I don’t doubt your facts, it’s just that they are not in any context, that is what makes them anecdotal.

For example, you could talk about Columbine in a gun debate. There is no doubt that it happened, and that it was horrible, but you couldn’t make a case that what happened there was a normal example of gun use.

You could list each and every time a gun was used in a crime, and give us all the gory details, but that list would lack the context of how likely such an event was to happen.

Your site offers no peer-reviewed study that draws a conclusion we can argue about, it is just a collection of stories. If that counts as a cite for you, then I could just as well throw up my own internet site and post thousands of stories of people where they flew safely. Since both sites are obviuosly biased and have an agenda to push, they are going to be pretty useless in determining what really happens.

> [@](#):
>
> Freedom, your trust in your fellow man is naive.

I feel for you if you don’t trust the average man on the street. They have already suceeded in isolating you. It is much easier to beat us once we are all seperated and broken into untrusting individuals. In this case, you become one of the huddled victims you see in Afghanistan where they have been terrorized into accepting whatever demands are placed upon them.

There is a risk with freedom, and to preserve it a country must be strong and willing to stand up. You have to have faith that when you do step forward, thousands of other will be taking the same step at the same moment,and thet you will never have to walk alone in this fight.

Faith in my fellow man is why I support the Bill of Rights. Nothing is safer and stronger than our collective will to stay free.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dignan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@Dignan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dignan)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/33 "2001-09-20T23:19:15Z")

</div>

**Weird AL** said:

> [@](#):
>
> Do you think no one on an airplane, not even the cockpit crew or security guards like they have right now on El Al, should be armed?

Where did I even imply this? I said I was against _regular passengers_ being “empowered.” Cite me. Are you having problems seeing things?

> [@](#):
>
> This is another valid objection, but again I don’t think it is a fatal one. It likely depends on the weapon. Is there a way that 4 or 5 terrorists armed with razor blades can overcome a hundred people armed with billy clubs? I don’t think all the training in the world would even those odds.

As someone else said, an airliner is pretty compact. All 100 people wouldn’t be able to attack at the same time, and if they got into the cockpit, they could barricade the door and it wouldn’t matter if people had weapons or not.

> [@](#):
>
> This objection is covered in the article I cited. Please read it.

Yep, I read it. Nope, didn’t see where it was covered.

Unless you’re referring to this:

> [@](#):
>
> _from knee-jerk, right-wing article cited by Weird AL_:
> 
> Data from states such as Florida show that people with concealed handgun permits are much, much more law-abiding than the rest of the population.
> 
> Given the vast number of witnesses to any potential crime, and the guarantee that there will be other armed people on the plane who won’t tolerate misconduct, a plane would be an especially unlikely place for a person to expect to get away with misusing a gun.

OK, so because people in Florida with concealed handgun permits are “much more law-abiding” that means that they’re immune to irrational behavior, or fits of anger? And just because there will be a lot of witnesses does not mean that shootings wouldn’t happen either. The article is ridiculous, I would stop using it as a reference if I were you.

> [@](#):
>
> What are the insurance premiums for El Al, which has armed guards on each flight? Do you think the premiums would be higher or lower if they dropped those guards?

I don’t have any figures for El Al. I’m not worried about the premiums being higher, I think it would be worth it. The reason I brought it up, is because higher insurance costs, means higher ticket costs, which would probably lead to a decrease in the amount of people flying.

> [@](#):
>
> Maybe we should, and maybe we shouldn’t, that’s what we are trying to figure out. I really don’t think you have made much of a case for your position though.

What would you like me to say?

> [@](#):
>
> Won’t someone please think of the children?
> 
> Oh yes: :rolleyes:

Why do you keep saying this? Do you think it’s supposed to be funny?

My rolleyes was because I think that it’s irrational paranoia that causes people to think the gubmint is coming after their guns.

And no where did I say anything about banning guns, so stop with your ridiculous box cutter and gym comparison. There are plenty of other debates that go on about that. Let’s not hijack this into one of those gun debates (it’s exactly the kind of paranoia I’m talking about).

> [@](#):
>
> I believe it’s El Al. So you do want some of the people on a plane to have guns? But what if one of those trained commandos gets a case of air rage?

Once again, where did I ever say I didn’t want _anyone_ having a gun? I think that air marshalls would be a much better plan than the absolutely asinine idea of arming _normal_ passengers. And unlike a your average _regular_ passenger, an air marshall or commando is a _trained professional_, being paid by the airline, I seriously doubt air rage would happen.  
How is this knee jerk reaction of arming passengers (with any kind of weapon, lethal or otherwise) any different from people calling for more gun laws after school shootings? It looks like you are behaving the way the people you despise do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/34 "2001-09-21T00:35:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Freedom \*  
> \*\*I feel for you if you don’t trust the average man on the street. They have already suceeded in isolating you. It is much easier to beat us once we are all seperated and broken into untrusting individuals.  
> […]  
> Faith in my fellow man is why I support the Bill of Rights. Nothing is safer and stronger than our collective will to stay free. \*\*

I’m sorry, but isn’t the desire to walk around “packin’ heat” indicative of a distrust of one’s fellow man? If one had the idealistic trust you espouse, one wouldn’t need the guns (or other weapons) in the first place, right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/35 "2001-09-21T01:13:13Z")

</div>

**Freedom** : I’m not sure what you are looking for. The case studies, for lack of a better word, merely serve to show such incidents _do_ happen. IMHO, it’s clear that these incidents are not isolated, but if you need numbers, they are out there. In fact you missed these two, quoted from my earlier post.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> “the Air Transport Association, AFA officials say there are approximately 4,000 air rage incidents a year”
> 
> “14 incidences in San Francisco this year alone”

The BBC put together the following figures for 2000-2001:  
1250 incidents  
595 classified as significant  
63 classified as serious  
28 cases restraints used  
13 cases flight diverted  
The degree of disruption is hard to judge, but surely the cases where restraints had to be used could be classified as violent.

In Australia, 571 incidents were reported by major airlines, of those 30 where classified as violent.

US figures vary by who is reporting them for a number of reasons. Airlines are unwilling to make public the extent of the problem, lesser incidents go unreported, and there is no metric for violence. However, this was reported by [Salon.com](http://www.salon.com/travel/diary/hest/1999/09/07/rage/index1.html):

> [@](#):
>
> United Airlines, to its credit, is one of the few U.S. carriers willing to disclose accurate information. In 1998, America’s largest carrier reported 635 incidents of disruptive behavior by passengers. Of these, 61 were assaults.

I don’t think it’s a fair exercise to work the odds. Certainly you are more likely to be on a flight on which a violent assault takes place than a hijacking, but as I already stated its clear to me hijacking will claim more lives. When violence is involved, you don’t trade on problem for another. You don’t put weapons in peoples hand knowing that X amount of them are going to assault someone… and certainly not until you have researched and exhausted all other options.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/36 "2001-09-21T01:17:52Z")

</div>

Yeah, right. Let’s arm everyone AND serve them booze throughout the flight.

Personally, I prefer to not die because some drunk jackass “just discovered” that he has a weapon on him.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/37 "2001-09-21T01:59:24Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I’m not worried about the premiums being higher, I think it would be worth it.

I happen to agree with you, but get ready for the other shoe to drop on us.

[http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3NDK50VRC&live=true&tagid=FTDO9DHMZJC](http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3NDK50VRC&live=true&tagid=FTDO9DHMZJC)

> [@](#):
>
> Leading British airlines warned they could be forced to ground their aircraft unless the government offered help with covering insurance risks. To keep flights going, ministers are examining emergency measures, including a scheme that would see the government underwriting commercial airlines’ insurance.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m sorry, but isn’t the desire to walk around “packin’ heat” indicative of a distrust of one’s fellow man?

Notice that I have been talking about the average man. We are obviously under attack by an outside influence that we must protect ourselves from.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m not sure what you are looking for.

I’m looking for something like total airline passengers carried in a year compared to total incidents. Then I’m looking to see how many incidents were violent, and how many were just people pissed off because they were trapped on the runway for 2 hours.

> [@](#):
>
> Let’s arm everyone AND serve them booze throughout the flight.

Two things.

First, everyone already has some type of weapon next to them. Whether they have a laptop, a belt with a large buckle, a hot cup of coffee or a closed soda can, there will always be something some idiot can use as a weapon.

Second, I wouldn’t mind if deciding to take a weapon meant that you got free sodas and no alcohol.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/38 "2001-09-21T02:13:49Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Freedom \*  
> **I’m looking for something like total airline passengers carried in a year compared to total incidents. Then I’m looking to see how many incidents were violent, and how many were just people pissed off because they were trapped on the runway for 2 hours.**

That statistic is bound to be misleading. Consider, for a simplistic example, that there are five flights per year, each with 100 passengers. One of these flights has a violent incident. Using your method, that’s only 1 incident per 500 passengers. However, it also represents a disruption of 1 flight in 5. I think total flights per year (which will still be a large number) vs. the number of incidents would be more meaningful (much like **Waverly** ’s statistics, only the total number of flights isn’t mentioned).

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Notice that I have been talking about the average man. We are obviously under attack by an outside influence that we must protect ourselves from.\*\*

But until an attack occurs, everyone is the “average man”…the average man which you wish to arm yourself and fellow passengers against…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/39 "2001-09-21T10:34:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> But until an attack occurs, everyone is the “average man”…the average man which you wish to arm yourself and fellow passengers against…

What’s your point?

My point is that good outnumbers bad by at least 90 to 10. I would rather have a strong centralized government that has highly evolved roles for special situations and co-ordinates the general actions of the average citizens in protecting this country.

Would you rather just hand over all power and responsibility for our country’s safety to the government? You do realize that means they will be drawing from the same pool of people?

I see nothing in government training that makes a person inherently better than the rest of us.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/40 "2001-09-21T11:33:51Z")

</div>

The flights for United during the year (1998) I have the statistics for are:  
86MM passengers  
635 incidents or 7.42ppm  
61 assaults or .71ppm  
0 hijackings [the 2 in 2001 would represent .023ppm]

I’m eager to hear your take on the numbers, **Freedom**. For me, it is enough to show that **both** random violence **and** hijackings are a present danger and need to be addressed. I’d be loath to play into one in an effort to avoid the other, but let us hear your spin.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591.md?page=3)