# My Solution -- Archie Bunker Lite **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**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, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/41 "2001-09-21T11:54:39Z")
Waverly My take is that we have an incomplete picture. That is why I talked about a peer reviewed study. There are issues here that neither of us have even considered. Right off the bat, you need to include all airlines. I think it is important to look at total flights and how they were effected by air rage and terrorism, AND total passengers and how they were effected by air rage and terrorism. Now that terrorists are flying the planes into populated areas and crashing them, I’m not sure how you include the victims on the ground. I’m also not sure how you would want to define total flights/total passengers. Are we talking domestic only? International? All flights anywhere in the world by major US airlines? Why take a snapshot picture of just one year? If you want to see if something is representative of what is really going on, then you need to look at years of data and see what the trend is. You can’t look at a one years data of California earthquake activity and correctly conclude that they are not at risk of periodic large earthquakes. I admit that I don’t know the scope of the problem. That is my point. There is no information out there[sub]that I’m aware of[/sub] that helps us pinpoint and quantify the problem. You are the one running around claiming that you have “data” and “cites” that “prove” what you are talking about. Could you link me to the site where you got the Untied numbers? I would be interested in surfing around it to see what other info is available. ---
**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, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/42 "2001-09-21T13:21:17Z")
Freedom: Asking for a peer reviewed study does not automatically indicate that you know what you are talking about. The United numbers are just that, no hypothesis was formed, no experiment carried out, just compiled data. It is not a study to be reviewed nor experiment to be duplicated. Data which came from the [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) article I already linked, since you asked. Try to understand me this time: I am not arguing the extent of either problem, I merely state that both exist. From there it is my opinion that it is not wise to worsen acts of random violence by arming all passengers. If your whole thesis hinges on the belief that air rage has not been shown to exist, then nitpick away; but I humbly submit that if you must resort to this, your position has no merit. I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth as well: I supplied data and cited the sources, but I **never** contended that I had **proved** anything. Furthermore, it is you who submitted the wild west solution. If peer reviewed studies carry so much weight with you, perhaps you could provide just one suggesting that arming passengers is worthy of consideration. ---
**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 21, 2001, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/43 "2001-09-21T13:35:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **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?** I missed your link. My fault. Going through it now, I see that it is a collection of links to other articles, virtually all of which appear to be anecdotal, no statistical studies. I did find this in one of the articles though: > [@](#): > > Figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph in Australia earlier this month revealed a total of 571 air rage incidents reported by Australia’s major airlines. > > Previous figures, which included only actual violence, were as low as 30. So…incidents of air rage are going up because they are redefining what air rage means? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **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”** A) By what definition of “air rage”? B) What is the _rate_ of air rage incidents, by flights, and is it increasing or decreasing (by a definition consistent over time)? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **Had you bothered to shelve your WAGS for a moment, you would have read, “14 incidences in San Francisco this year alone”** See my questions above. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **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.** How do you figure this? And you still haven’t provided the cite I asked for. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\ ***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. \*\* Obviously. I believe the author was making the same point. How does this make the article insane? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*The way I see it, the passenger with the rifle is just as much a threat to me as the terrorist(s). \*\* Why? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > **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?** I think he was using the “hunting rifle” example as a hypothetical. His actual proposal involved handguns. _I_ certainly am not advocating hunting rifles. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **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.\*\* Yes, “if”, then it “might” have. But the _odds_ are that the plane will not hit a heavily populated area. Look at what happened in Pennsylvania. Would you rather that the passengers had not managed to overcome the terrorists? Assuming that is what happened. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > **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.** I would think that depends on how good our best is. It obviously wasn’t good enough before 9/11. Whether it will be now is something we can debate, but I do recall at least one incident after the attacks in which airport personnel intentionally breached airport security with blades, to test it. I will dig up the cite if you want it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\ ***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?\*\* Where did I imply that you implied it? I was simply asking. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*I said I was against _regular passengers_ being “empowered.” \*\* This question is the logical follow up to the first: How and where exactly do you draw the line between security personnel and “regular passengers”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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.\*\* I really don’t think we should get into an argument about this until we have more facts, hopefully provided by someone who knows something about airplane layouts, or better yet, by someone with actual combat experience in closed environments. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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? \*\* The appropriate response to this is :rolleyes:. No one is saying that anyone is “immune” from anything. In fact given the right circumstances, _anyone_ might indulge in “fits of anger”. Cops for example. It has been known to happen. But we still give them guns, because _the benefits outweigh the costs_ of not doing so. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*And just because there will be a lot of witnesses does not mean that shootings wouldn’t happen either. \*\* Oy. Once again, no one is saying that shootings “wouldn’t happen” _ever_ in front of witnesses, just that the presence of witnesses _decreases the likelyhood_ of such things. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*The article is ridiculous, \*\* You have made no case to support this assertion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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?\*\* This is rather open ended. I’d _like_ you to say you’re giving me a million dollars… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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.\*\* You “seriously doubt” it? So I assume then that you think it is not _impossible_. Given this, do you really want to take the risk? Like I said earlier, even cops are known to get angry sometimes and misuse their weapons. Imagine the horrific consequenced if a trained commando did this on an airplane. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > **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?** Ummmm…because they are asking for different things? I don’t think I really understand the question. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*It looks like you are behaving the way the people you despise do. \*\* Indeed? How so? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*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. \*\* Yeah, right. Let’s all sink to the level of this post. I am not even going to bother pointing out the logical flaws here. ---
**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, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/44 "2001-09-21T14:10:12Z")
Al: Most of the questions you ask of me have been gone over in discussions with Freedom. Please read back. The one point that I haven’t, and won’t, bother to expand on is common sense: that there is rarely an announcement prior to an assault that violence is about to be used. If you really believe otherwise, that is fine by me, but I’d personally consider it an indicator of your adeptness at logical thought. Dissecting opposing posts sentence by sentence is occasionally useful, and certainly adds length, but provides little opportunity for you to advance your own stance. Several people have pointed out problems with the idea of arming all passengers, and all I have seen is attempts to refute these statements and precious little effort has been put into supporting Wild West Airlines. ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/45 "2001-09-21T14:31:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > Yeah, right. Let’s all sink to the level of this post. I am not even going to bother pointing out the logical flaws here. In other words, you can’t. First: My point is that arming passengers on the plane and then serving them alcohol through the flight is dangerous. Look at the scenes created when unarmed passengers have gotten drunk and out of control on the flights. I obviously was not addressing the issue of armed sky marshalls because, presumably, the sky marshall will be on duty and thus not permitted to imbibe during the flight. Got any more foolish comments or was this your quota for the thread? ---
**Author:** ![Dignan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@Dignan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dignan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/46 "2001-09-21T15:53:56Z")
**by Weird AL** : > [@](#): > > Where did I imply that you implied it? I was simply asking. It looked like a loaded question to me. > [@](#): > > This question is the logical follow up to the first: How and where exactly do you draw the line between security personnel and “regular passengers”? Is it really that hard, Al? A regular passenger would be just that, a regular passenger. You need more explanation? Yeah, it figures, a _regular passenger_ would be someone taking a flight as a means of travel for a vacation or business trip. Security personnel would be a trained professional. Do you think El Al considers their commandos to be “regular passengers?” > [@](#): > > I really don’t think we should get into an argument about this until we have more facts, hopefully provided by someone who knows something about airplane layouts, or better yet, by someone with actual combat experience in closed environments. Yeah, let’s not argue about something that will end up showing that you were wrong. Have you ever been in a commercial airliner? OK, then you probably have a good idea of the layout, right? Is there anyway that all of the “empowered” passengers could attack terrorists all at the same time? No, there isn’t. > [@](#): > > But we still give them guns, because \*the benefits outweigh the costs of not doing so. \* Exactly, not giving _regular passengers_ would outweigh the “benefits” of doing so. > [@](#): > > Oy. Once again, no one is saying that shootings “wouldn’t happen” ever in front of witnesses, just that the presence of witnesses decreases the likelyhood of such things. Yes, and not “empowering” passengers would decrease the likelihood of a shooting happening 99.99% > [@](#): > > You “seriously doubt” it? So I assume then that you think it is not impossible. Given this, do you really want to take the risk? Like I said earlier, even cops are known to get angry sometimes and misuse their weapons. Imagine the horrific consequenced if a trained commando did this on an airplane. The chances of a trained commando, employed by the airline, getting air rage are not as high as a normal passenger that is “empowered” are. I would think that you’d be experiencing some cognitive dissonance here. A trained commando is human, so they would be susceptible to bad behavior just like anyone else. But as you said about the witnesses reducing chances of a shooting, being a commando wouldn’t eliminate the chances of air rage altogether, but would decrease them signficantly. > [@](#): > > Ummmm…because they are asking for different things? I don’t think I really understand the question. > [@](#): > > Indeed? How so? Explain to me how these two are different: 1. A kid breaks into a locked cabinet, and steals his dad’s gun. He takes the gun to school and shoots some of his classmates. A number of innocent people that weren’t aware of what was happening die in the shooting. After the usual media coverage, there’s a knee-jerk reaction, and people start calling for more gun laws. Now while all this is going on, everyone forgets about the responsible gun owners, the “good” kids that go to school and do their homework, etc. because of this incident at one of thousands of schools. 1. A band of terrorists hijack several planes, and crash them into various national landmarks. A number of innocent people, just going about their daily lives, die in the attacks. The media covers the issue, and all the breaking news. While this is going on, there is a knee-jerk reaction, and people start saying we should “empower” airline passengers. You are forgetting about the millions of flights that went exactly how they were supposed to, no “empowering” of passengers required. One incident out of millions of safe air line trips, and you are screaming about how we aren’t safe and need to be empowered. Take a step back, and look at this objectively, Al. I think that armed commandos is a very real and plausible way to deter terrorist attacks. At the very least put them on transcontinental flights. Training the air line crews in self defense techniques is another possibility. But face it, “empowering” passengers, especially “empowering” them by giving them any kind of fire arm, is no more than a conservative wet dream. If you’re so scared, the answer is simple, don’t fly. Your problem is solved. ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/47 "2001-09-21T17:06:56Z")
Yo, weird. Explain to us plebians exactly why you don’t consider the possibility of explosive decompression as great a hazard as a hijacker. ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/48 "2001-09-21T20:52:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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 (which the rest of your post had nothing to do with) is this and nothing more: Your position appears to be that we, as airline passengers, need only to “trust” that our fellow passengers (aside from any potential hijackers, of course) do not mean to do one or more of us harm, assuming that we now have access to weapons onboard. **jab1** pointed out that this is a rather naive position. I feel that way as well: such an argument is naive, at best. By arming the flight passengers, you claim they can now defend themselves against potential hijackers. However, the possibility exists that non-hijacker passengers will use their new-found weaponry to cause further mayhem than they might otherwise have been able to. You say that we should simply “trust” our fellow man (“I feel for you if you don’t trust the average man on the street.”) not to do us harm, yet at the same time advocate arming us in case someone chooses to do us harm! Frankly, the logic of that position eludes me. Consider this: air rage is not likely to go away, and is far more likely to occur than a hijacking (one need only compare the number of hijackings in the past ten years to the number of air rage incidents to see this). Now, consider this: which is easier to defend against: multiple attackers armed with handguns or better, or multiple attackers armed with knives or worse? If air rage occurs, it is much easier to deal with the individual or individuals if they are unarmed or lightly armed than if they are armed (even _if_ others are armed as well). Similarly, if someone is going to hijack an aircraft, it would be much easier to deal with them if they are lightly armed than if they are heavily armed. And if they go so far as to introduce the possibility of a bomb, then armed passengers will make little, if any, difference (if everyone is going to die anyway, it ultimately matters not whether the passengers are armed or unarmed - in such a case, they need only try to minimize the casualties on the ground). My position is simply that increasing the arms race between attacker and defender onboard an aircraft is _not_ going to solve anything, and, more likely, will make things worse. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/49 "2001-09-22T00:44:14Z")
[Aviation experts say passengers should adopt new aggressive stance By SHARON COHEN The Associated Press 9/21/01 5:48 PM]([http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory\_ssf.cgi?a0817\_BC\_Attacks-TakingCharge&&news&newsflash-national](http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0817_BC_Attacks-TakingCharge&&news&newsflash-national)) > [@](#): > > “Everybody on the plane was applauding,” said Rockel, a medical transcriptionist traveling from Denver to Washington, D.C., Sept. 15 on United’s Flight 564. “People had tears coming down their faces. \*\*It was as if we had a choice here, that if something were to happen we’re not completely powerless.” \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\*“We’re using the term `aggressively defend the airplane,”’ Mazor said. \*\* > > “The danger is we don’t want passengers to suddenly be forming posses every time somebody speaks with a foreign accent,” he added. “There has to be some way of channeling this and making sure it’s not unleashed except in cases of dire emergency.” > > …snip… > > \*\* > “We can’t limit ourselves to situations that used to work,” he said. \*\* Obviously there needs to be some thought, planning and education involved before you expect people to be responsible for themselves again, but it looks like my position isn’t so far flung. If you want people to defend the aircraft, then you need to arm them. > [@](#): > > You say that we should simply “trust” our fellow man (“I feel for you if you don’t trust the average man on the street.”) not to do us harm, yet at the same time advocate arming us in case someone chooses to do us harm! Frankly, the logic of that position eludes me. I’ve explained it once, and you weren’t able to grasp the concept, so I’ll type v-e-r-y----s-l-o-w-l-y now for you. **We are under attack from an outside source.** > [@](#): > > My position is simply that increasing the arms race between attacker and defender onboard an aircraft is not going to solve anything, and, more likely, will make things worse. Are you French? If you are ever on a plane that gets hijacked, please curl up in a ball and tuck yourself under your seat so that you don’t get in the way of the rest of the passengers trying save the plane. The mere recognition of not trying to get in an arms race with hijackers is insulting. You don’t lay down and die just so that the guy trying to kill you doesn’t have to work for it. > [@](#): > > Explain to us plebians exactly why you don’t consider the possibility of explosive decompression as great a hazard as a hijacker. I’m not all that sure that a bunch of bullet holes in a plane would cause it to decrompress explosively. (Did I use that term properly?:)) I could see a window getting shot out causing some major trouble, but what really happens if a whole window gets knocked out in one shot? I assume the plane reaches an equilibrium pretty quick. The bottom line, is that even losing half the passengers in a fight against terrorists is preferable to getting the entire plane flown into a building. We celebrate the people on flight 96, and ALL of them died. > [@](#): > > Exactly, not giving regular passengers would outweigh the “benefits” of doing so. Depending on whether or not you were talking about firearms or non-projectile weapons, then I would say this point is 100% up in the air right now. > [@](#): > > Explain to me how these two are different: There is such a basic difference between your two scenarios that I am surprised you can’t see it. With your school shooting example, your solution is to take away freedoms from the people. With the airline example, the solution is to return more freedoms to the people. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/50 "2001-09-22T01:52:40Z")
> [@](#): > > If you’re so scared, the answer is simple, don’t fly. Your problem is solved. I have flown maybe twice in my life. Even if I never fly again, my problem is most certainly not solved. When the plane hit the Pentagon, I was about 13000 feet away in an office building in downtown DC. For what it’s worth, the [Airline Pilots Association](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wisn/20010918/lo/909039_1.html) is encouraging passengers to fight back also. > [@](#): > > The Airline Pilots Association said Tuesday that they encourage passengers to fight back against hijackers. Pilots are also being told to act aggressively – it’s not the way things were handled before. ---
**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 22, 2001, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/51 "2001-09-22T02:16:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > **If you want people to defend the aircraft, then you need to arm them.** I don’t recall the passengers of UA Flight 93 being armed. And yet, they fought back. “Defending the aircraft” was probably a moot point if the hijackers did, indeed, have a bomb. They could only attempt to limit further casualties, and that they did. **While unarmed**. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You say that we should simply “trust” our fellow man (“I feel for you if you don’t trust the average man on the street.”) not to do us harm, yet at the same time advocate arming us in case someone chooses to do us harm! Frankly, the logic of that position eludes me. > > I’ve explained it once, and you weren’t able to grasp the concept, so I’ll type v-e-r-y----s-l-o-w-l-y now for you. > > **We are under attack from an outside source.** And I will likewise explain this v-e-r-y—s-l-o-w-l-y: **The “outside source” is indistinguishable from “we” or “us” until they strike.** They have jobs. They obtain certifications and licenses. They rent cars. They fly as passengers. Read [this](http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/inv.fbi.gym/index.html). And [this](http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/inv.hijackers.lives/index.html). Since we _can’t tell_ “them” from “us”, you are advocating arming passengers against their fellow passengers. Implicit in such a policy is a distrust of the “average man.” “Is he one of ‘them,’ or one of ‘us’?” \*\* > [@](#): > > Are you French? If you are ever on a plane that gets hijacked, please curl up in a ball and tuck yourself under your seat so that you don’t get in the way of the rest of the passengers trying save the plane.\*\* :rolleyes: Way to engage in rational discourse there, bub. **Please** point out where I’ve said, even once, that the passengers should not fight back. **Please** provide _any_ evidence that, even in light of the 9/11 attacks, an **armed** response is the **only** response. **Please** provide _any_ evidence that arming everyone on a plane will somehow magically make it **safer** to fly, **especially** in light of the well-known, well-documented phenomenon of “air rage”. Because, you see, hijackings are fairly rare. So, for all those flights were a hijacking does _not_ occur, but an air rage incident _does_, the presence of arms _increases_ the danger, both for the rager and the rest of the passengers. And **please** explain how in the worst-case, no-win, situation for the passengers (i.e., for whatever reason they will all die anyway), it makes even the **slightest** difference whether they are armed or not when they decide to rush the hijackers? \*\* > [@](#): > > You don’t lay down and die just so that the guy trying to kill you doesn’t have to work for it.\*\* And **please** point out where I said anything to the contrary. ---
**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 22, 2001, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/52 "2001-09-22T03:59:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Explain to us plebians exactly why you don’t consider the possibility of explosive decompression as great a hazard as a hijacker. > > I’m not all that sure that a bunch of bullet holes in a plane would cause it to decrompress explosively. (Did I use that term properly?:)) You used the term correctly. One bullet hole will cause explosive decompression. You see, the cabin is what’s known as a pressurized space. The pressure inside the cabin is GREATER than the pressure outside the cabin. ANY rupture, of ANY size, in the cabin’s hull will cause explosive decompression at high altitude. > [@](#): > > I could see a window getting shot out causing some major trouble, but what really happens if a whole window gets knocked out in one shot? Remember the airplane from Hawaii that lost a good portion of its hull? It took a bit of time for the cabin pressure to equalize with the outside pressure (relative lack thereof). And a few folks got sucked out of the airplane. > [@](#): > > I assume the plane reaches an equilibrium pretty quick. Try not to base major decisions on assumptions, please. > [@](#): > > The bottom line, is that even losing half the passengers in a fight against terrorists is preferable to getting the entire plane flown into a building. We celebrate the people on flight 96, and ALL of them died. That’s laudable when it’s terrorists against whom the passengers are fighting. My point earlier in this thread is that I don’t want to be on the death flight when some jackass gets himself drunk in the air (and since the pressure in the cabin’s less than the pressure on the ground, it takes less booze to get just as drunk) and then imagines someone else on the plane is a terrorist. Do you really want to become a martyr to “the cause” because some drunk got pissed that his toast is burned or something else just as silly? Arming the passengers is just fucking stupid. Training and arming the flight crew is a different story. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/53 "2001-09-22T11:55:36Z")
So to disappoint you, but just because “Monty says so” doesn’t convice me that the cabin would be unlivable after just one or two bullet holes. Which is sort of a moot point anyway for me, since all I want to give the passengers is billy clubs. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/54 "2001-09-22T13:05:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > \*\*So to disappoint you, but just because “Monty says so” doesn’t convice me that the cabin would be unlivable after just one or two bullet holes. > > Which is sort of a moot point anyway for me, since all I want to give the passengers is billy clubs. \*\* There would most certainly be _rapid decompression_, this is a simple matter of physics. As to whether or not it would be explosive would depend on many factors, but it _is_ a possibility. I am still waiting to hear the rationale behind escalating the random violence already present on aircraft in order to institute this unproven solution. At least acknowledge it and state that you are willing to accept some ‘collateral damage’ in an effort to institute your policy, but don’t ignore it. Have you been able to find any studies suggesting that armed passengers are good passengers? That’s OK, don’t waste your time, there are none. Take heart though, you are not alone: [http://doc.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$1023](http://doc.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader%241023) . > [@](#): > > indeed, it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe. > > …the Israelis, who have a long history of preventing similar atrocities by encouraging their civilians to carry concealed weapons… :rolleyes::rolleyes: Yeah, that is what the extensive search and security procedures are for, to make sure everyone is armed. I apologize, Freedom. You are indeed more sensible than this guy, I don’t mean to lump you two together. I just needed to share the article. ---
**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 23, 2001, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/55 "2001-09-23T13:24:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **Al: Most of the questions you ask of me have been gone over in discussions with Freedom. Please read back.** I have done so. I don’t see where you answered my questions. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*The one point that I haven’t, and won’t, bother to expand on is common sense: that there is rarely an announcement prior to an assault that violence is about to be used. \*\* Common sense tells _me_ that, if a man is sitting in an airline seat quietly tapping on the keys of his laptop at 07:20:35 AM, he is not going to be running up and down the aisle screaming and waving a broken beer bottle in the flight attendant’s face at 07:20:40. There is a _build-up_ to incidents like this, over the course of a few minutes at least. This is so simple and obvious that frankly, I am having trouble believing I have to point it out to you. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\ ***by Weird AL** : > > > [@](#): > > > > Where did I imply that you implied it? I was simply asking. > > It looked like a loaded question to me.\*\* A loaded question contains a hidden assumption. For example, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” assumes that you are in fact beating your wife. There was no such assumption in my question. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > This question is the logical follow up to the first: How and where exactly do you draw the line between security personnel and “regular passengers”? > > Is it really that hard, Al? A regular passenger would be just that, a regular passenger. You need more explanation? Yeah, it figures, a _regular passenger_ would be someone taking a flight as a means of travel for a vacation or business trip. Security personnel would be a trained professional. Do you think El Al considers their commandos to be “regular passengers?”\*\* My response to this is an idea about which I have long wanted to start a seperate thread. And I will, once I go through the five hundred other ideas I have jotted down on various bits of paper… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I really don’t think we should get into an argument about this until we have more facts, hopefully provided by someone who knows something about airplane layouts, or better yet, by someone with actual combat experience in closed environments. > > Yeah, let’s not argue about something that will end up showing that you were wrong. Have you ever been in a commercial airliner? OK, then you probably have a good idea of the layout, right? Is there anyway that all of the “empowered” passengers could attack terrorists all at the same time? No, there isn’t.\*\* :rolleyes: Is that so? Yes, I guess my scheme to stave off an argument I am clearly bound to lose by asking that we get some _facts_ from people who _have experience_ has failed. Can’t get one past you, no sir. Ok, turning off sarcasm mode. You assert that “empowered” passengers would be unable to gang up on the terrorists. In fact by all appearances [it has already happened](http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp). What they were armed with, if anything, we can only conjecture of course. But, I have provided a cite to support my argument. How about you try doing the same? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > But we still give them guns, because \*the benefits outweigh the costs of not doing so. \* > > Exactly, not giving _regular passengers_ would outweigh the “benefits” of doing so.\*\* Uhhh…yes, this is what we are _debating_. Simply restating your position does not win you the debate. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Oy. Once again, no one is saying that shootings “wouldn’t happen” ever in front of witnesses, just that the presence of witnesses decreases the likelyhood of such things. > > Yes, and not “empowering” passengers would decrease the likelihood of a shooting happening 99.99%\*\* I assume you mean “empowered” with guns. How do you know this? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > You “seriously doubt” it? So I assume then that you think it is not impossible. Given this, do you really want to take the risk? Like I said earlier, even cops are known to get angry sometimes and misuse their weapons. Imagine the horrific consequenced if a trained commando did this on an airplane. > > The chances of a trained commando, employed by the airline, getting air rage are not as high as a normal passenger that is “empowered” are. I would think that you’d be experiencing some cognitive dissonance here. A trained commando is human, so they would be susceptible to bad behavior just like anyone else. But as you said about the witnesses reducing chances of a shooting, being a commando wouldn’t eliminate the chances of air rage altogether, but would decrease them signficantly.\*\* So you think the risk is there, but that it is small enough to be an acceptable risk. Apparently, you think that if, let’s say, American citizens with state CCW permits were similarly allowed to carry guns, the risk would be much higher. Is this a fair assumption? If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case? Also, I may have missed it, but I don’t believe you have addressed the idea of permitting some or all of the passengers to have some weapon other than a firearm. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Ummmm…because they are asking for different things? I don’t think I really understand the question. > > > [@](#): > > > > Indeed? How so? > > Explain to me how these two are different: > > 1. A kid breaks into a locked cabinet, and steals his dad’s gun. He takes the gun to school and shoots some of his classmates. A number of innocent people that weren’t aware of what was happening die in the shooting. After the usual media coverage, there’s a knee-jerk reaction, and people start calling for more gun laws. > > Now while all this is going on, everyone forgets about the responsible gun owners, the “good” kids that go to school and do their homework, etc. because of this incident at one of thousands of schools. > > 1. A band of terrorists hijack several planes, and crash them into various national landmarks. A number of innocent people, just going about their daily lives, die in the attacks. The media covers the issue, and all the breaking news. While this is going on, there is a knee-jerk reaction, and people start saying we should “empower” airline passengers.\*\* Now _this_ is a classic example of a loaded question, as per my definition above. The hidden assumption here is that the reactions of people calling for more gun laws in the first example, and _me_ in the second, are in any way comparable, calling them both “knee jerk”, and saying that I am “screaming”, for good measure. First, I personally find this offensive, and I would appreciate a cite on what, exactly, I have “screamed” for in this thread. Second, if you read over my posts carefully, you will see that I _have never actually advocated “empowering” passengers in any way_. I have simply posted a link to an article making that suggestion, and asked for comments, and then taken issue with some of the objections to the proposal. FTR, I _don’t know_ if “empowering” the passengers would be a good idea, but I am open to it, and I certainly have not heard any (pardon the pun) killer objections to it. Finally, you said “Explain to me how these two are different:” The hell I will. If you think those two things are comparable, then the burden of proof is on _you_ to show how they are, in fact, comparable. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that they are not, simply because you have asserted that they are. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > **You are forgetting about the millions of flights that went exactly how they were supposed to, no “empowering” of passengers required. One incident out of millions of safe air line trips, and you are screaming about how we aren’t safe and need to be empowered.** Again with the “screaming”. Again I ask for a cite. What, precisely, have I “screamed” for? And is your comment that “millions of flights…went exactly how they were supposed to…” meant to imply that we shouldn’t do anything in response to the 9/11 attacks? If not, then…well, what we _should_ do is what we are debating, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*I think that armed commandos is a very real and plausible way to deter terrorist attacks. At the very least put them on transcontinental flights. Training the air line crews in self defense techniques is another possibility. \*\* I would tend to agree. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > **But face it, “empowering” passengers, especially “empowering” them by giving them any kind of fire arm, is no more than a conservative wet dream.** Yes, you can assert that as often as you like, but as this is Great Debates you really ought to think of maybe providing some _evidence_ of your assertion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*If you’re so scared, the answer is simple, don’t fly. Your problem is solved. \*\* I don’t even know where to begin with this one. What problem, exactly, is solved by my not flying? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Yo, weird. Explain to us plebians exactly why you don’t consider the possibility of explosive decompression as great a hazard as a hijacker. \*\* I don’t understand the question. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > > **If you want people to defend the aircraft, then you need to arm them.** > > I don’t recall the passengers of UA Flight 93 being armed. And yet, they fought back. \*\* This is pure speculation. Remember it was _legal_ to carry a four inch blade on an airplane prior to 9/11. People have been known to carry knives for non-terror-related reasons, like, oh I don’t know, self defense. On what basis do you assume that _only_ the terrorists had knives on that flight? In fact, if we are going to speculate, _I_ would speculate that the one of the reasons that the terrorists failed on Flight 93, having succeeded on the other three, was that on _this_ flight, some of the _passengers_ had knives as well. This is just speculation of course, but it is just as valid as your speculation that they were completely unarmed. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\* > I am still waiting to hear the rationale behind escalating the random violence already present on aircraft \*\* And I am still waiting to learn exactly what “random violence” is, on airplanes or anyplace else for that matter. Is there a guy sitting in coach right now rolling a set of dice saying, “If it comes up snake eyes I’m gonna go stuff these peanuts down the flight attendant’s throat. Otherwise, I’m gonna go back to reading my John Grisham novel”? Also, I am waiting to hear what idea suggested in this thread would “escalate” the “random violence”, and how and why it would do that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **in order to institute this unproven solution.** No solution is “proven” until it is tried. It would seem that the best _analogy_ though would be the experience on the ground of states converting to “shall issue” CCW permits. It was also asserted quite stridently by gun control advocates that this would “escalate the random violence already present”. It didn’t happen, and there was much more “random violence” already on the ground. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*[http://doc.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$1023](http://doc.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader%241023) . > > > [@](#): > > > > indeed, it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe. > > > > …the Israelis, who have a long history of preventing similar atrocities by encouraging their civilians to carry concealed weapons… > > :rolleyes::rolleyes: Yeah, that is what the extensive search and security procedures are for, to make sure everyone is armed. > \*\* I find it interesting that your response to the idea that CCW prevents terrorism is a pair of “rolleyes” smilies, and a bit of sarcasm. Once again, this is Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2001, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/56 "2001-09-23T15:35:39Z")
**Al** : Another huge puddle of text, and still you have done nothing but complain and nitpick about the posts of others. Are you ever going to produce some support for Wild West Airlines? I’ll take your word for it when you say you haven’t seen where Freedom and I have already covered the ground in question. Nevertheless, we did, and a person can only answer the same questions so many times before becoming terribly bored. Your example of how violence escalates is humorous, but is not what I was talking about. Whatever indication a passenger may give that he is loosing self control, if he intends on attacking a flight attendant, he will do so without waiting patiently for him or her to produce their FAA approved Passenger-be-good Stick™. Unless of course, you give the flight attendant leave to bop the passenger on the head based on suspicion before the passenger becomes unruly. I’ve been on several flight where I would have liked to have seen this happen. So, you don’t find the instances of violence reported by the airlines themselves to be credible? **This** is the random violence we are referring to, and you claimed to have read through the links, so you should have seen examples of the type of violence. It’s really beyond me _why_ these people fly off the handle. The relevant point is that they do. As I said to Freedom: **The airlines themselves and the AFA both state they have an air rage problem, if your thesis depends on disbelieving or ignoring them please just come right out and say it; but once again, if you must use this crutch, IMHO your stance has zero merit.** Maybe you could explain to us how arming passengers is **not** going to escalate any existing violence. And if you plan to make assumptions about the defender having some sort of supernatural ‘quick draw’ ability with their own complimentary weapon, please don’t. BTW, my sarcasm was because the author of the article either lied or intentionally misunderstood the El Al air marshal program. Obviously they do not arm their passengers in the manner that he assumes. I’m guessing you quite enjoyed the article I found for you. You’re welcome. Unfortunately I believe the humor in it has alluded you. ---
**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 23, 2001, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/57 "2001-09-23T18:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > > > **If you want people to defend the aircraft, then you need to arm them.** > > > > I don’t recall the passengers of UA Flight 93 being armed. And yet, they fought back. \*\* > > This is pure speculation. Remember it was _legal_ to carry a four inch blade on an airplane prior to 9/11. People have been known to carry knives for non-terror-related reasons, like, oh I don’t know, self defense. On what basis do you assume that _only_ the terrorists had knives on that flight? > > In fact, if we are going to speculate, _I_ would speculate that the one of the reasons that the terrorists failed on Flight 93, having succeeded on the other three, was that on _this_ flight, some of the _passengers_ had knives as well. This is just speculation of course, but it is just as valid as your speculation that they were completely unarmed.\*\* So…which part, exactly, is speculation? The part where I said, “ **I don’t recall** the passengers being armed”, or the part where I said, “they fought back”? **I don’t recall** making any speculations. However, since [they have retrieved the black box from UA Flight 93](http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp), I do not think it is an _unreasonable_ assumption that the passengers _were_ unarmed, based on the known facts. If you find the supposition that several **unarmed** passengers made the attempt to overtake the hijackers unreasonable, please state your reasons. If you do not find it unreasonable, then surely you must admit that **arming** passengers is in no way a preqrequisite for preventing a tragedy similar to that of 9/11. ---
**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 23, 2001, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/58 "2001-09-23T20:11:19Z")
Ah, so it is a reading inability problem. You will notice, upon rereading, that I did not say unlivable. ---
**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 24, 2001, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/59 "2001-09-24T10:26:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\ ***Al** : Another huge puddle of text, \*\* I am so sorry I don’t meet your editorial standards for brevity. Please let me know what they are so that I can better conform to them in the future :rolleyes:. Oh yes, and the entire “puddle” was not directed at you. If I posted a seperate response to each poster, I imagine you’d then complain about that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **and still you have done nothing but complain and nitpick about the posts of others.** You characterize my arguments as “complain and nitpick”. I could stoop to your level and characterize _your_ arguments in terms you most definitely would not find flattering, but I will not. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*Are you ever going to produce some support for Wild West Airlines? \*\* In the first place, you would have to explain in detail what the policy of “Wild West Airlines” is. Do they hand out guns to everyone as they board, or is it just the Air Marshalls? Or something in between, like, say, CCW permit holders that are American citizens? In the second place, I am forced to resort to quoting myself: “…if you read over my posts carefully, you will see that I _have never actually advocated “empowering” passengers in any way_. I have simply posted a link to an article making that suggestion, and asked for comments, and then taken issue with some of the objections to the proposal. FTR, I _don’t know_ if “empowering” the passengers would be a good idea, but I am open to it, and I certainly have not heard any (pardon the pun) killer objections to it.” That was in my last “puddle”. Perhaps you missed it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **I’ll take your word for it when you say you haven’t seen where Freedom and I have already covered the ground in question. Nevertheless, we did, and a person can only answer the same questions so many times before becoming terribly bored.** Ok. I am now telling you to your face (metaphorically speaking) that you _have not at all_ answered my questions. Now that I have made this bald faced assertion, you have an easy opportunity to embarass me simply by citing where you have in fact done so. Why don’t you take this opportunity? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **Your example of how violence escalates is humorous, but is not what I was talking about. Whatever indication a passenger may give that he is loosing self control, if he intends on attacking a flight attendant, he will do so without waiting patiently for him or her to produce their FAA approved Passenger-be-good Stick™.** [Gritting my teeth] I. Never. Said. They. Would. _You_ asserted that air rage incidents occur “without warning”. I said, and still maintain, that this is nonsense, as per my hypothetical above. _Of course_ by “warning” I do not mean that our incipient air rager will flag down the stewardess and politely inform her that about 45 minutes into the flight he is going to hit the kid kicking the back of his seat over the head with his meal tray, and then go take a crap on the drinks cart. What I meant, and what ought to be obvious to you, is that there will be an indicative pattern of behavior engaged in by the “rager” _prior_ to becoming violent. Like, say, telling that kid in the seat behind him in a loud voice that if he doesn’t stop kicking the damned seat he’s gonna involuntarily join the “mile high club” with a sharpened bathroom plunger. You get the idea. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **So, you don’t find the instances of violence reported by the airlines themselves to be credible?** I didn’t say that. But an “instance” is just that. I am looking for _statistics_. _Rates_ of violence. Also, I cited from one of those articles that “air rage” has lately been redefined to include things _other_ than violence. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\ ***This** is the random violence we are referring to, and you claimed to have read through the links, so you should have seen examples of the type of violence. \*\* Sigh. This is why I write such long posts. There’s so much to respond to. First, I am still looking for an explanation of what “random” violence is. The guy in my example, for instance, got violent in response to the seat kicking, not because he rolled some dice. Second, I made no such claim, I mostly just read the link titles, and I got the impression that all the evidence about increasing rates of “air rage” is anecdotal, or due to a redefinition of the phrase. If you know different, please show me a cite. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > **It’s really beyond me _why_ these people fly off the handle.** The fact that it is “beyond you” does not mean that there is no reason for it, that it is “random”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*The relevant point is that they do. As I said to Freedom: The airlines themselves and the AFA both state they have an air rage problem, if your thesis depends on disbelieving or ignoring them please just come right out and say it; \*\* Once again, I ask you for a cite that rates of “air rage” are increasing, given a consistant definition of same. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*Maybe you could explain to us how arming passengers is **not** going to escalate any existing violence. \*\* Heh. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to me. As John McLaughlin would say, " **WRONG!** If you think that violence would “escalate”, _you_ explain to _me_ why that would happen. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*BTW, my sarcasm was because the author of the article either lied or intentionally misunderstood the El Al air marshal program. Obviously they do not arm their passengers in the manner that he assumes. \*\* Please cite for me, from the article, where he makes that assertion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > > \*\* > > > I don’t recall the passengers of UA Flight 93 being armed. And yet, they fought back. \*\* > > > > This is pure speculation. > > \ > > \*\* > > So…which part, exactly, is speculation? The part where I said, “ **I don’t recall** the passengers being armed”, or the part where I said, “they fought back”? **I don’t recall** making any speculations.\*\* You are correct. I should have worded my response differently. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\*However, since [they have retrieved the black box from UA Flight 93](http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp), I do not think it is an _unreasonable_ assumption that the passengers _were_ unarmed, based on the known facts. \*\* I read the same article. I saw nothing in it that I thought could be construed as the basis for an assumption either way. Also, I you will forgive my indulging in a bit of paranoia about media bias, I honestly wonder how eager they would be to _report_ that the passengers were armed. They might, after all, justify their failure to do so on the basis of some of the same arguments made right here, that as a rule arming passengers against terrorists is a bad idea, and that they don’t want to irresponsibly encourage future passengers to try to be “vigilantes”, even if it did work in this particular instance. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > **If you find the supposition that several unarmed passengers made the attempt to overtake the hijackers unreasonable, please state your reasons.** I _don’t_ find that unreasonable at all. However, some of your fellow posters do: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dignan_ > \*\*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. > \*\* Perhaps you and he can settle this between yourselves. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\*If you do not find it unreasonable, then surely you must admit that **arming** passengers is in no way a preqrequisite for preventing a tragedy similar to that of 9/11. \*\* I never said it was. I am simply _open_ to the idea that it might _increase the odds_ in their favor. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2001, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/60 "2001-09-24T13:51:38Z")
> [@](#): > > _Posted by Weird Al on **9/24** :_ I am looking for statistics. Rates of violence. > [@](#): > > _Compiled and posted by Waverly on **9/20** :_ 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. > > 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] Not only statistics, but a sampling of 3 countries and a distinction is made between mere disruption and violence or assault. I apologize for sarcastically classifying your responses as ‘puddles’, but surely you can see the frustration it presents when you ask questions that have been answered. The fact that several advocacy groups state incidents are on the rise can be ignored if you don’t find their assertions compelling. Whether it is on the increase or not, the fact is that violence exists. So let me ask my question, which neither **Al** nor **Freedom** have answered yet, a third time: \*\* The airlines themselves and the AFA both state they have an air rage problem, if your thesis depends on disbelieving or ignoring them please just come right out and say it; but once again, if you must use this crutch, IMHO your stance has zero merit.\*\* ‘Wild West Airlines’ [my term] is defined by Freedom in the OP. Go back and read it if you forgot what we were debating. > [@](#): > > Heh. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to me. As John McLaughlin would say, "WRONG! If you think that violence would “escalate”, you explain to me why that would happen. OK, it seems common sense, but I’ll explain it if you promise to answer my question. You see, the very reason for arming passengers [as per the OP] is the knowledge that in general an armed combatant can do more damage than an unarmed one. If the weapon is used on a hijacker, you will agree with this assertion. Now if an air rager uses this weapon on the crew or a fellow passenger, will not potential damage be greater in this case as well? If not, then why are these magical weapons capable of harming hijackers but not innocents? > [@](#): > > _Al asks on **9/24** :_ Please cite for me, from the article, where he makes that assertion. > [@](#): > > _From the article linked on **9/22** :_ Israelis, who have a long history of preventing similar atrocities by encouraging their civilians to carry concealed weapons and to shoot back at criminals and terrorists. Doc Searls says it, but surely he knows that El Al does not allow civilians to carry weapons aboard aircraft. > [@](#): > > - Stephen Gale, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania:\* No one gets on an El Al flight unless they’re absolutely sure they’re not carrying anything that could be used as a weapon. They will strip search you, give you an enema. They won’t allow passage if they have any feeling that you represent some risk…It might take six hours to board the plane, but you will be checked out as thoroughly as possible. Stick with us here, not only did you have the information you asked for before you even asked, it should be obvious that the statement was intentionally misleading. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591.md?page=4)