# 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:** 4

<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 24, 2001, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/61 "2001-09-24T20:49:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > \*\*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?\*\*

_SIGH_

The more weapons there are on the plane, no matter who owns them, the more likely it is that I or some other INNOCENT person will be killed.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*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?\*\*

Have you ever heard of ricochets? Hell, even the guy who wrote that article admitted that a passenger might be accidentally struck by some Lone Ranger wannabe. Frankly, I’d rather die in the crash; a swift, painless death is more likely in a plane crash than by a GSW.

> [@](#):
>
> **Look at what happened in Pennsylvania. Would you rather that the passengers had not managed to overcome the terrorists? Assuming that is what happened.**

This is called “dumb luck.” They were lucky in that they knew what the terrorists wanted to do. Had the passengers on the other flights known and tried to regain control of the plane, some other NYC buildings would have been struck. Thanks for helping me make my point.

> [@](#):
>
> **I really don’t think we should get into an argument about this** [fighting on an airplane] **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.**

Good grief, man! Have you never been on a plane? Have you never seen a movie or a TV show set on an airliner? I’m starting to wonder if you even fly. If you don’t, why are you so concerned about airline safety?

---

<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 25, 2001, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/62 "2001-09-25T12:12:33Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _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.\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein on 9/21_  
> \*\*  
> 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)?  
> \*\*

Telling me how they are “classified” by…whoever it is that classified them…does not answer the first question. On the second, when I said “rate” I meant globally, not just one airline. You have clearly not answered “…and is it increasing or decreasing (by a definition consistent over time)?” To this I now add a third question which is, is there any statistical evidence to suggest that you are more likely to be a victim of violence in the air than on the ground?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*The fact that several advocacy groups state incidents are on the rise can be ignored if you don’t find their assertions compelling. \*\*

Where is the statistical evidence that “incidents” are on the rise?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> **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,**

See my question above.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> **‘Wild West Airlines’ [my term] is defined by Freedom in the OP. Go back and read it if you forgot what we were debating.**

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Freedom on 9/19_  
> \*\*  
> [1] All carry-on baggage and luggage gets X-rayed through a machine where the examiners can’t even see the passengers. Have the x-ray sent to several monitors where different people who are seperated from each other are watching the monitors. Send test luggage through several times an hour and monitor the success rate of each examiner. Pay these people more than minimum wage.  
> [2] Put a door between the pilot and the passengers that is time locked and can only be opened by the pilots after the plane is on the ground.  
> [3] Give the passengers the option to arm themselves with something the airline provides. I’m not thinking about guns, but I’m not sure where I would draw the line. Wooden Billy Clubs seem to be a given in my mind. I could see knives and possibly even tasers. Raise prison sentences for anyone who gets in a fight on the airplane.  
> \*\*

Underlining my own. To which of these proposals do you object, and why?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > 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. \*\*

I have carefully reread the OP, and I did not see this statement.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*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? \*\*

Yes it will. How much of a risk this is is something we have not yet determined, and when we do, we will then have to balance it against the potential _benefit_ of preventing another event like the ones of 9/11.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _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.\*\*

In the first place, if you interpret “similar atrocities” as “exactly the same kinds of atrocities” then you have a point. However, I think if he had meant “exactly the same kinds of atrocities”, then that’s what he would have said. Instead he said “_similar atrocities_”, which _I_ interpret to mean terrorism _on the ground_, which has been known to occur in Isreal.

In the second place, I _thought_, with some justification, that you were referring to the article _I_ linked to, the one in _National Review_. I don’t consider it incumbent upon me to defend an article _you_ introduced into the discussion, although it seems that’s what I just did.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*  
> The more weapons there are on the plane, no matter who owns them, the more likely it is that I or some other INNOCENT person will be killed._\*

And your evidence for this is what, precisely?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > \*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?
> 
> Have you ever heard of ricochets? \*\*

First, a ricochet is only dangerous if the gun is fired. For the purposes of the example, we can assume that the man with the gun is only going to fire it if there is an attempted hijacking. So, if the hijackers are succesful, you are a dead man (we must assume). If the man with the guns manages to shoot and kill them, you have a good chance of living, excepting the off chance that you are hit by a ricochet, which brings me to…

Second, you have apparantly missed the rather involved discussion of frangible ammunition in this thread, which A) Would almost certainly be the only allowable ammunition for persons carrying weapons aboard a plane, if such a thing is ever allowed, and which B) **Do Not Ricochet**.

So again I ask, how is the man with the gun as much a threat to you as the terrorists?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> **Hell, even the guy who wrote that article admitted that a passenger might be accidentally struck by some Lone Ranger wannabe. Frankly, I’d rather die in the crash; a swift, painless death is more likely in a plane crash than by a GSW.**

I don’t know what to make of this. You’d rather die from having a terrorist crashing your plane into the side of a building, taking thousands of people with you, than risk being killed by a ricochet from a gun fired by someone trying to stop these same terrorists? Do I understand you correctly?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **Look at what happened in Pennsylvania. Would you rather that the passengers had not managed to overcome the terrorists? Assuming that is what happened.**
> 
> This is called “dumb luck.” \*\*

Why do you think that?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*They were lucky in that they knew what the terrorists wanted to do. \*\*

What did luck have to do with this?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*Had the passengers on the other flights known and tried to regain control of the plane, some other NYC buildings would have been struck. \*\*

How do you know this?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **I really don’t think we should get into an argument about this** [fighting on an airplane] **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.**
> 
> Good grief, man! Have you never been on a plane? Have you never seen a movie or a TV show set on an airliner? I’m starting to wonder if you even fly. If you don’t, why are you so concerned about airline safety? \*\*

Good grief, man! Do you read through the thread before you reply? As I said several posts ago, [it has already happened](http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp). The only instance of which I am aware in which (armed?) passengers attempted to confront and overcome terrorists who had taken control of the plane, and they succeeded. All your theorizing and protestations of “dumb luck” mean nothing when set against an actual fact.

Also, I find fascinating the implication in your last post that a movie or tv show would be a reliable source of information here.

---

<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 25, 2001, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/63 "2001-09-25T13:36:32Z")

</div>

Frankly **Al** , I’m becoming bored with the discussion. I’ll leave it to the gentle reader with the preternatural patience to wade through this entire thread to make up their own mind.

The air rage data is not perfect, but unfortunately the airlines and employee advocates didn’t unite, form a common definition, and report global numbers. That certainly would have been nice, but it doesn’t invalidate what they _do_ report. I thought I told you that we could ignore assertions that it was on the rise, because it is not as relevant as the fact that it simply exists. Please indulge me as I repeat, for the forth and final time [in bold once more]: \*\* 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.\*\* I find the silence in response to this question very telling.

---

<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 25, 2001, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/64 "2001-09-25T19:59:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > The more weapons there are on the plane, no matter who owns them, the more likely it is that I or some other INNOCENT person will be killed.
> 
> And your evidence for this is what, precisely?\*\*

The laws of probability and common sense. The more weapons there are in a given (and **confined** ) space, the more opportunities there are for something to go wrong.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> For the purposes of the example, we can assume that the man with the gun is only going to fire it if there is an attempted hijacking.\*\*

And why do you dismiss the possibility of an accidental discharge?

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Second, you have apparantly missed the rather involved discussion of frangible ammunition in this thread, which A) Would almost certainly be the only allowable ammunition for persons carrying weapons aboard a plane, if such a thing is ever allowed, and which B) Do Not Ricochet\*\*.

All the discussions concerning frangible ammunition stated they were for handguns only.

I still don’t see where or how someone could keep a rifle stored where a terrorist could not see it and still be easily retrieved when needed.

> [@](#):
>
> **I don’t know what to make of this. You’d rather die from having a terrorist crashing your plane into the side of a building, taking thousands of people with you, than risk being killed by a ricochet from a gun fired by someone trying to stop these same terrorists? Do I understand you correctly?**

When faced with the choice of dying one way or the other, I will pick the swifter, more painless method each and every time.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > \*\*They were lucky in that they knew what the terrorists wanted to do. \*\*
> 
> What did luck have to do with this?\*\*

Good lord. If they had been the first to crash, they would have had no warning because the terrorists apparently went through the standard routine of telling the passengers that if they cooperated, no one would get hurt. Since that worked in the past, the passengers had no reason to rise up in revolt. **Nothing more than blind luck made them the fourth plane to be hijacked. Nothing more than blind luck made their plane leave 40 minutes late.** When the passengers contacted their loved ones by cell phone and Airphone they learned what their hijackers’ true intentions were. I can’t recall now, but I **think** some passenger or passengers on another plane managed to phone home, but they received no warning because no one knew what the terrorists’ true intentions were at that time. One woman called her husband JUST before her plane crashed into the Pentagon. It wasn’t until THAT moment that everyone knew what the terrorists’ intentions were. By then, it was too late to do anything about it.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > \*\*Had the passengers on the other flights known and tried to regain control of the plane, some other NYC buildings would have been struck. \*\*
> 
> How do you know this?\*\*

The flight paths of the aircraft. The first plane to hit the WTC passed south over Manhattan. Had the plane gone down sooner, it sopuld have hit some other building(s). The second plane went over New Jersey, which is heavily populated. Had it gone down there, it would have struck some other building(s). The only possibly good scenario here is for the plane to go down in New York Harbor.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> The only instance of which I am aware in which (armed?) passengers attempted to confront and overcome terrorists who had taken control of the plane, and they succeeded.\*\*

They didn’t succeed; they died. It’s not a success if you get killed.

I have no desire to be a martyr; apparently, you do.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Also, I find fascinating the implication in your last post that a movie or tv show would be a reliable source of information here. \*\*

As far as the layout of the interior of an airliner, yes. Producers try to be accurate in things that are common knowledge. It would ruin the production’s verisimilitude if they did not. People would say, “Hey, I’ve flown and planes don’t look like that inside! This movie is stupid!” if they get details like that wrong.

---

<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 26, 2001, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/65 "2001-09-26T13:09:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*  
> The air rage data is not perfect,_\*

You say “not perfect”. I say so incomplete as to preclude making any decisions based on it.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*but unfortunately the airlines and employee advocates didn’t unite, form a common definition, and report global numbers. \*\*

If they think it is such a problem, why haven’t they?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> **I thought I told you that we could ignore assertions that it was on the rise, because it is not as relevant as the fact that it simply exists.**

Ah yes. ISTR you did. I must have forgoten. My fault.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> **Please indulge me as I repeat, for the forth and final time [in bold once more]: \*\* 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;**_\*

I neither believe nor disbelieve them. I want to see more evidence, as what I _have_ seen is far from satisfactory. That is my response, so you see I am not ignoring them.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> > \*\*
> > 
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > > The more weapons there are on the plane, no matter who owns them, the more likely it is that I or some other INNOCENT person will be killed.
> > 
> > And your evidence for this is what, precisely?\*\*
> 
> The laws of probability and common sense. \*\*

Your statement that your view is supported by “The laws of probability and common sense” does not does not constitute evidence.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> **The more weapons there are in a given (and confined) space, the more opportunities there are for something to go wrong.**

The mere existence of an _opportunity_ to take the life of an innocent person does not mean that that opportunity will be _taken_.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*
> 
> * * *
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Second, you have apparantly missed the rather involved discussion of frangible ammunition in this thread, which A) Would almost certainly be the only allowable ammunition for persons carrying weapons aboard a plane, if such a thing is ever allowed, and which B) Do Not Ricochet\*\*.
> 
> All the discussions concerning frangible ammunition stated they were for handguns only.\*\*

A) I don’t recall this, and even if it is true, then B) Just substitute “handgun” for “shotgun”. I assume you are against both being carried on a plane.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> **I still don’t see where or how someone could keep a rifle stored where a terrorist could not see it and still be easily retrieved when needed.**

Good point. So substitute “handgun”…etc.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **I don’t know what to make of this. You’d rather die from having a terrorist crashing your plane into the side of a building, taking thousands of people with you, than risk being killed by a ricochet from a gun fired by someone trying to stop these same terrorists? Do I understand you correctly?**
> 
> When faced with the choice of dying one way or the other, I will pick the swifter, more painless method each and every time.\*\*

Let me make certain I understand this correctly. Given the choice, you would rather die swiftly and painlessly, and condemn thousands of others to death (some of _those_ deaths being very slow and painful), rather than suffer death by a gunshot wound slower and more painful to an unknown extent? Is this correct?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > > \*\*Had the passengers on the other flights known and tried to regain control of the plane, some other NYC buildings would have been struck. \*\*
> > 
> > How do you know this?
> 
> The flight paths of the aircraft. The first plane to hit the WTC passed south over Manhattan. Had the plane gone down sooner, it sopuld have hit some other building(s). The second plane went over New Jersey, which is heavily populated. Had it gone down there, it would have struck some other building(s). The only possibly good scenario here is for the plane to go down in New York Harbor.\*\*

You haven’t answered my question. How do you _know_ these things? It is probably reasonable to assume that had the passengers overcome the terrorists after they dropped to building altitude, literally seconds before the actual crash, that the results would have been equally catastrophic. Other than that, on what do you base your assumptions?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*
> 
> * * *
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The only instance of which I am aware in which (armed?) passengers attempted to confront and overcome terrorists who had taken control of the plane, and they succeeded.\*\*
> 
> They didn’t succeed; they died. It’s not a success if you get killed.\*\*

I try very hard not to use profanity here, but I simply must make an exception for this: Bullshit! They prevented the plane from hitting its target. That. Is. A. Success.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> **I have no desire to be a martyr; apparently, you do.**

And now I am fighting the urge to use more profanity. I certainly do **not** want to be a martyr, but given a choice I would much rather die the way that the passengers on Flight 93 did. Apparently in similar circumstance **you** would only be concerned with how much **you** might have to suffer.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*\*Also, I find fascinating the implication in your last post that a movie or tv show would be a reliable source of information here. \*\*
> 
> As far as the layout of the interior of an airliner, yes. \*\*

I wasn’t talking about the layout itself, I was talking about whether or not said layout would prevent resistance to hijackers.

---

<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 26, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/66 "2001-09-26T21:00:33Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> > > \*\*
> > > 
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > > > The more weapons there are on the plane, no matter who owns them, the more likely it is that I or some other INNOCENT person will be killed.
> > > 
> > > And your evidence for this is what, precisely?\*\*
> > 
> > The laws of probability and common sense. \*\*
> 
> Your statement that your view is supported by “The laws of probability and common sense” does not does not constitute evidence.\*\*

It’s the best I can do. Call it a reasonable assumption, if you prefer.

> [@](#):
>
> **The mere existence of an _opportunity_ to take the life of an innocent person does not mean that that opportunity will be _taken_.**

But the chances are greater, right? I’m trying to reduce those chances as near to nil as I can.

> [@](#):
>
> **Just substitute “handgun” for “shotgun”. I assume you are against both being carried on a plane.**

Unless it’s carried by a sky marshall trained in using a gun loaded with frangible ammo on an aircraft in flight.

> [@](#):
>
> **Given the choice, you would rather die swiftly and painlessly, and condemn thousands of others to death (some of _those_ deaths being very slow and painful), rather than suffer death by a gunshot wound slower and more painful to an unknown extent? Is this correct?**

I have a very strong instinct to survive, a very strong aversion to suicide. (I wouldn’t be alive today if I didn’t.) Besides, I would not be responsible for those other deaths, it would be the terrorists.

> [@](#):
>
> **How do you _know_ these things?** It is probably reasonable to assume that had the passengers overcome the terrorists after they dropped to building altitude, literally seconds before the actual crash, that the results would have been equally catastrophic. **Other than that, on what do you base your assumptions?**

First you ask me, “How do you know this,” then you ask me, “Why do you assume this?” Make up your mind.

And what’s wrong with making reasonable assumptions?

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > **It’s not a success if you get killed.**
> 
> I try very hard not to use profanity here, but I simply must make an exception for this: Bullshit! They prevented the plane from hitting its target. That. Is. A. Success.\*\*

But they all died. That makes it a failure. A real success would have been preventing the plane from hitting its target AND landing safely.

> [@](#):
>
> And now I am fighting the urge to use more profanity. I certainly do **not** want to be a martyr, but given a choice I would much rather die the way that the passengers on Flight 93 did. Apparently in similar circumstance **you** would only be concerned with how much **you** might have to suffer.

I don’t want to suffer unnecessarily. Suffering when there is no chance of survival is foolish, IMHO.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I wasn’t talking about the layout itself, I was talking about whether or not said layout would prevent resistance to hijackers. \*\*

And from the layout, you should be able to see what can be done against hijackers. Not much, I’m afraid. The narrow aisles make it impossible for more than a few people to mount some kind of attack. There is no place to hide a weapon where one can retrieve it swiftly and secretly to maintain the element of surprise. From the cell phone reports, the terrorists told everyone to go to the back of the plane while the terrorists stayed in the front to gain access to the cockpit AND so they could keep an eye on everyone.

You seem to think the passengers on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are the ones who made it crash. It could very well be (and the data from the flight recorders are inconclusive) that the _terrorists_ made the plane crash, perhaps deciding that killing 45 Americans was the best they could do under the circumstances. I’m sure that bin Laden would say that killing just ONE American would have been a victory because he has said that all Americans, civilian or military, are legitimate targets.

---

<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 27, 2001, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/67 "2001-09-27T05:57:22Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> > > > \*\*
> > > > 
> > > > > [@](#):
> > > > >
> > > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > > > > The more weapons there are on the plane, no matter who owns them, the more likely it is that I or some other INNOCENT person will be killed.
> > > > 
> > > > And your evidence for this is what, precisely?
> > > 
> > > The laws of probability and common sense.
> > 
> > Your statement that your view is supported by “The laws of probability and common sense” does not does not constitute evidence.\*\*
> 
> It’s the best I can do. Call it a reasonable assumption, if you prefer.\*\*

Alright. Why do you consider this assumption reasonable?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **The mere existence of an _opportunity_ to take the life of an innocent person does not mean that that opportunity will be _taken_.**
> 
> But the chances are greater, right?\*\*

Why do you think that?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **Given the choice, you would rather die swiftly and painlessly, and condemn thousands of others to death (some of _those_ deaths being very slow and painful), rather than suffer death by a gunshot wound slower and more painful to an unknown extent? Is this correct?**
> 
> I have a very strong instinct to survive, a very strong aversion to suicide. (I wouldn’t be alive today if I didn’t.) Besides, I would not be responsible for those other deaths, it would be the terrorists.\*\*

I never said or implied that you would be responsible. I also have a strong aversion to suicide, but…you haven’t ansered my question. Faced with certain or near certain death by one of two alternatives, would you rather die swiftly and painlessly, and condemn thousands of others to death (some of _those_ deaths being very slow and painful), rather than suffer death by a gunshot wound slower and more painful to an unknown extent?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> > > **It’s not a success if you get killed.**
> > 
> > I try very hard not to use profanity here, but I simply must make an exception for this: Bullshit! They prevented the plane from hitting its target. That. Is. A. Success.
> 
> But they all died. That makes it a failure. A real success would have been preventing the plane from hitting its target AND landing safely.\*\*

It seems we just disagree on this. Can I take all this to mean that if you had been on that flight, knowing you were going to die no matter what, you would not have fought the terrorists?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > And now I am fighting the urge to use more profanity. I certainly do **not** want to be a martyr, but given a choice I would much rather die the way that the passengers on Flight 93 did. Apparently in similar circumstance **you** would only be concerned with how much **you** might have to suffer.
> 
> I don’t want to suffer unnecessarily. Suffering when there is no chance of survival is foolish, IMHO.\*\*

[Gritting my teeth again] Is it “foolish” when you have a chance to prevent thousands of other deaths??? Please answer this question.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*\*I wasn’t talking about the layout itself, I was talking about whether or not said layout would prevent resistance to hijackers. \*\*
> 
> And from the layout, you should be able to see what can be done against hijackers. \*\*

No I don’t. Why would I make the assumption that just because I have looked at the layout of an airplane, I am an expert?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*Not much, I’m afraid. The narrow aisles make it impossible for more than a few people to mount some kind of attack. \*\*

How do you know this?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*There is no place to hide a weapon where one can retrieve it swiftly and secretly to maintain the element of surprise. \*\*

See my question above.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> **From the cell phone reports, the terrorists told everyone to go to the back of the plane while the terrorists stayed in the front to gain access to the cockpit AND so they could keep an eye on everyone.**

How is this relevent to **future** hijackings, in which the passengers (excepting you I suppose) will be much less likely to co-operate with the hijackers?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*You seem to think the passengers on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are the ones who made it crash. It could very well be (and the data from the flight recorders are inconclusive) that the _terrorists_ made the plane crash, perhaps deciding that killing 45 Americans was the best they could do under the circumstances. I’m sure that bin Laden would say that killing just ONE American would have been a victory because he has said that all Americans, civilian or military, are legitimate targets. \*\*

Yes, but given what happened with the other three aircraft they were obviously trying to do much more than that.

---

<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 27, 2001, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/68 "2001-09-27T14:47:43Z")

</div>

**Al** : You really are classic. It should be clear by now I have no problem with armed pilots or air marshals. I _do_ have a problem with armed **Weird Al’s** , and hope to god they are never allowed on airplanes, rollercoasters, or any machine that rolls, flies, floats, or hops with people on board. I say this as one who takes a moderate stance on gun control in general. For those who missed it, **Al** , in a rare episode of stating exactly what motivates him:

When Waverly stated: “I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, you will not be happy until there is weapon in your hand.”

Al Replies: “You are most certainly correct.”

Armed, trained, professional air marshals are not equal to John Q with delusional Die Hard™ fantasies. Not now, not ever.

---

<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 27, 2001, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/69 "2001-09-27T18:50:45Z")

</div>

**Weird Al** , by asking question after question after question and not trying to answer them yourself, you are, I am afraid, demonstrating that you are nearly incapable of thinking, of reasoning. (Or maybe you’re lazy?) You do a disservice to the name “Albert Einstein.”

I’m starting to think that you don’t really want to debate the issue but that your true motive is to learn about ME, to determine what I believe and why I believe it. We’re here to debate the plausibility of arming airline passengers, not learn one another’s ethical code. (Well, that’s why I’M here; I’m no longer sure about you.)

Besides, President Bush does not want to arm the pilots, so I think it’s **extremely** unlikely he’d agree to allowing the passengers to arm themselves. It’s pointless to debate an issue that has already been decided.

---

<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 29, 2001, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/70 "2001-09-29T12:31:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\ ***Al** : You really are classic. It should be clear by now I have no problem with armed pilots or air marshals. I _do_ have a problem with armed **Weird Al’s** , and hope to god they are never allowed on airplanes, rollercoasters, or any machine that rolls, flies, floats, or hops with people on board. \*\*

Well. As it happens, I am over 21, have no criminal record or history of mental illness, and at least one hundred dollars in my checking account. Hence in…how many states is it now? 36? In 36 or however many states it is, I can, by passing a proficiency test (which I am sure I could do), get a CCW permit and legally carry a concealed weapon. Not to mention that in the state I do happen to live in, I can do this right now _without even getting a permit_.

I can’t carry on an airplane of course, but I don’t know what to make of “any machine that rolls, flies, floats, or hops with people on board”. Frankly, you are sounding a bit hysterical. I assume you have a problem with the fact that I and others like me can have guns. If you can calm yourself down, why don’t you try to tell me why that is, hopefully backing up your assertions with facts and evidence. Or is this just unreasoning fear?

I imagine we should have gone over this before going to the next step of discussing weapons on airplanes.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*I say this as one who takes a moderate stance on gun control in general. For those who missed it, **Al** , in a rare episode of stating exactly what motivates him:
> 
> When Waverly stated: “I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, you will not be happy until there is weapon in your hand.”
> 
> Al Replies: “You are most certainly correct.”\*\*

First off, for the purposes of this thread, “what motivates me” is _preventing more attacks like the ones of 9/11_, and you are not justified in assuming anything else. Second, I fail to see how the fact that I consider myself competent to carry a gun is relevent here, yet you seem to be utterly fascinated by it.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Armed, trained, professional air marshals are not equal to John Q with delusional Die Hard™ fantasies. Not now, not ever. \*\*

This statement is factually correct, but I fail to see how it is relevent.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\ ***Weird Al** , by asking question after question after question \*\*

The reason I ask “question after question after question” is because _you don’t answer them_.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*and not trying to answer them yourself, \*\*

What specific questions have I failed to answer?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*you are, I am afraid, demonstrating that you are nearly incapable of thinking, of reasoning. (Or maybe you’re lazy?) \*\*

So. You can’t argue with me, or answer my questions, so you resort to personal attacks. Can we expect more of this?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*I’m starting to think that you don’t really want to debate the issue but that your true motive is to learn about ME, to determine what I believe and why I believe it. \*\*

Well duh. _Of course_ I want to know why you believe what you believe. That is part of debating.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*We’re here to debate the plausibility of arming airline passengers, not learn one another’s ethical code. \*\*

Well. In this particular case, your “ethical code”, or what I suspect it is, given that you still have not answered my question, is quite relevent to the debate

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*  
> \*\*Besides, President Bush does not want to arm the pilots, so I think it’s **extremely** unlikely he’d agree to allowing the passengers to arm themselves. It’s pointless to debate an issue that has already been decided. \*\*

This just makes me laugh. Did you actually think President Bush was following our argument here, trying to make up his mind, but now that he has, it’s “irrelevent” somehow? We debate things in this forum all the time knowing full well that nothing we say is going to actually affect what happens in the real world. It looks to me like you are looking for an excuse to duck out.

---

<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 29, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/71 "2001-09-29T20:42:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> Well. As it happens, I am over 21, have no criminal record or history of mental illness, and at least one hundred dollars in my checking account.

Keep it in your pants, Bachelor #1. This is not the dating game, I’m straight, and even if I were not, I assure you that I wouldn’t be interested. You can keep your personal information just that. It has no bearing on anything being discussed here, though it does reinforce my opinion that your concealed ‘weapon’ is the highlight of your life.

---

<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 30, 2001, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/72 "2001-09-30T07:29:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> > Well. As it happens, I am over 21, have no criminal record or history of mental illness, and at least one hundred dollars in my checking account.
> 
> Keep it in your pants, Bachelor #1. This is not the dating game, I’m straight, and even if I were not, I assure you that I wouldn’t be interested. You can keep your personal information just that. It has no bearing on anything being discussed here, though it does reinforce my opinion that your concealed ‘weapon’ is the highlight of your life. \*\*

Heh heh. So, it seems as it was with the other guy, it is with you. You cannot put together a coherent argument or answer my questions, so you resort to personal attacks. Though you are just a _little_ bit more creative.

---

<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 30, 2001, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/73 "2001-09-30T13:32:19Z")

</div>

**Al** : No personal attack, just a response to the non sequitur of your bio which you choose to add. As I stated earlier, I’ve become bored with this discussion and was content to see it sink of the bottom of page one and let my previous comments stand should anyone be inclined to look back. Since you keep bringing it to the surface, I will add something relevant.

Who are _you_ to dismiss the statements and data of the airlines with a wave of your magic wand? Let me explain something to you about data. First, United Airlines, UK airlines as reported by the BBC, and Australian airlines all report a problem with in flight violence and report numbers to support the claim. That is 3 independent sources in agreement. 3 sources that have more to gain by under-reporting than blowing a problem out of proportion. You cannot simply ignore them because they do not fit the hypothesis you choose to believe in. You must do one of three things: 1)incorporate the data into your hypothesis, 2) formulate a new hypothesis, or 3) introduce new data you believe should supercede the existing data. Surely if the airlines’ studies are as flawed or incomplete as you state, some independent group has but together an equally or more comprehensive assemblage of data rebuking them. Please cite this source, or provide equally compelling evidence that the airline statements and data are not to be believed. Your ‘I don’t like it, make it go away!’ argument doesn’t float.

---

<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 30, 2001, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/74 "2001-09-30T15:08:42Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\ ***Al** : No personal attack, just a response to the non sequitur of your bio which you choose to add. \*\*

I “chose” to add this in direct response to a statement made by _you_ about _me_. My “bio” consisted of requirements that I fulfill which would enable me to carry a gun legally in a “shall issue” state. Guns are what we are discussing, so I fail to see how this is a non-sequitur.

Whether it was a personal attack or not, it certainly was not anything resembling a coherent argument.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Who are _you_ to dismiss the statements and data of the airlines with a wave of your magic wand? \*\*

What specific “statements and data” have I dismissed, with a “magic wand” or any other method?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Let me explain something to you about data. First, United Airlines, UK airlines as reported by the BBC, and Australian airlines all report a problem with in flight violence and report numbers to support the claim. That is 3 independent sources in agreement. 3 sources that have more to gain by under-reporting than blowing a problem out of proportion. \*\*

I don’t see how that would be, but this is a nit.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*You cannot simply ignore them because they do not fit the hypothesis you choose to believe in. \*\*

I have not and am not ignoring them.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*You must do one of three things: 1)incorporate the data into your hypothesis, 2) formulate a new hypothesis, or 3) introduce new data you believe should supercede the existing data. \*\*

Now I am fascinated. To which “hypothesis” are you referring, exactly?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Surely if the airlines’ studies are as flawed or incomplete as you state, \*\*

This is really getting to be annoying. Where _exactly_ did I state that any study was “flawed”, or incomplete within the scope of what it was studying.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Your ‘I don’t like it, make it go away!’ argument doesn’t float. \*\*

Which is why I have made no such argument. Of course, now that I have said that, you can easily embarass me by simply _providing a cite_ from this thread to show that I have. Such a golden opportunity…why don’t you take it?

---

<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 30, 2001, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/75 "2001-09-30T19:21:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Quotes from **Al** : You say “not perfect”. I say so incomplete as to preclude making any decisions based on it.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally posted by Waverly  
> > but unfortunately the airlines and employee advocates didn’t unite, form a common definition, and report global numbers.
> 
> If they think it is such a problem, why haven’t they?
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally posted by Waverly  
> > Please indulge me as I repeat, for the forth and final time [in bold once more]: 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;
> 
> I neither believe nor disbelieve them. I want to see more evidence, as what I have seen is far from satisfactory. That is my response, so you see I am not ignoring them.

This is the magic wand waving I was referring to. Look carefully, you will see that you use the word ‘incomplete’, though you just got in a huff over my suggestion that you made such a statement. I especially like your recommendation that all airlines on the planet unite and form common definitions before their data is good enough to pass the Weird Al test. The data itself appears, and is quoted on page two of this thread, what browser are you using anyway that you don’t seem to be able to find it. Have you had success in producing a study that refutes the airlines’ data yet? I know you wouldn’t be so arrogant as to dismiss their findings just based on your say so, so please post a link.

Ah yes, you still contend that you don’t have an official stance, and of course we are not allowed to draw conclusions from the fact that you take issue with those that oppose arming passengers. So what are you doing here? Weighing your options? Playing devil’s advocate? Arguing for arguments sake? I’m quite curious, please don’t keep us in suspense.

---

<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:** [October 1, 2001, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/76 "2001-10-01T12:34:54Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Quotes from **Al** : You say “not perfect”. I say so incomplete as to preclude making any decisions based on it.
> > 
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > Originally posted by Waverly  
> > > but unfortunately the airlines and employee advocates didn’t unite, form a common definition, and report global numbers.
> > 
> > If they think it is such a problem, why haven’t they?
> > 
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > Originally posted by Waverly  
> > > Please indulge me as I repeat, for the forth and final time [in bold once more]: 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;
> > 
> > I neither believe nor disbelieve them. I want to see more evidence, as what I have seen is far from satisfactory. That is my response, so you see I am not ignoring them.
> 
> This is the magic wand waving I was referring to. Look carefully, you will see that you use the word ‘incomplete’, though you just got in a huff over my suggestion that you made such a statement. \*\*

I specifically said _“incomplete within the scope of what it was studying”_. I did not question the completeness of the individual studies in regard to _what they were studying_, ie incidents of air rage on one airline (or nation) in one year. The phrase “so incomplete as to preclude making any decisions based on it” refers to the fact that there have not been _enough of_ these studies.

Did you really not get this? The necessity of having to provide these meticulous explanations in the face of your constant misconstuing of my statements is becoming tedious. Further, does your accusation of me “dismissing” your data with “a magic wand” derive from my statement “I want to see more evidence”? I am at a complete loss to see how that amounts to _any_ kind of dismissal, never mind this “with a magic wand” silliness.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*I especially like your recommendation that all airlines on the planet unite and form common definitions before their data is good enough to pass the Weird Al test. \*\*

Where did I recommend this, or create a specific “Weird Al” test? Cite please? Or are you somehow deriving this from my asking of a perfectly legitimate _question_?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*The data itself appears, and is quoted on page two of this thread, what browser are you using anyway that you don’t seem to be able to find it. \*\*

I have seen it and already responded to it, in fact you must know this as you quoted from my response above.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Have you had success in producing a study that refutes the airlines’ data yet? \*\*

I haven’t been trying to. Why should I?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*I know you wouldn’t be so arrogant as to dismiss their findings just based on your say so, so please post a link. \*\*

And now you are accusing me of being “arrogant” in my “dismissal”, without having shown I have done any such thing.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Ah yes, you still contend that you don’t have an official stance, and of course we are not allowed to draw conclusions from the fact that you take issue with those that oppose arming passengers. \*\*

You are “allowed” to draw whatever conclusions you like, just as long as you don’t assume they are correct here.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*So what are you doing here? Weighing your options? \*\*

Duh. Again I say, duh. Of course that is what I am doing. Although characterizing them as “my” options is innacurrate. You should say, “what my options would be if I were in charge”.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Waverly \*  
> \*\*Playing devil’s advocate? \*\*

To some extent, yup. Do you object to this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/77 "2001-10-01T13:03:07Z")

</div>

**Waverly** , I’ve been following this thread for a bit, and I haven’t seen you back up your assertions that air rage is a sudden, unexpected phenomenon. Do you fly much, or at all? I’ve seen air rage, and how it develops, and it’s pretty clear to me, anecdotally speaking, that it’s about to occur, and it’s driven for the most part by the callous and nearly cruel attitude that some flight attendents have towards the people trapped in the flying coffin. I can regale you with anecdotes a-plenty, but to what purpose? It’s not scientific.

And I want the next person who essentially says “It’s physics, stupid” in response to “how does one bullet hole cause explosive decompression” to post their calculations here. I’m an engineer, unlike most of the people asserting that one bullet hole will rip the plane to shreds, decompress the plane explosively, or extrude people through a .357" hole like taffy. Stop saying “explosive decompression” or that the plane will unwrap like a tin can from a couple bullet holes, unless you are actually going to debate structural mechanics about it. Real life is not Hollywood, where many scripts are written by technologically illiterate liberal arts majors who are still mystified by how their ballpoint pen works. And the sooner you come to grips with that the better off you’ll be.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/78 "2001-10-01T13:09:33Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Anthracite \*  
> **I’ve seen air rage, and how it develops, and it’s pretty clear to me, anecdotally speaking, that it’s about to occur, and it’s driven for the most part by the callous and nearly cruel attitude that some flight attendents have towards the people trapped in the flying coffin.**

This is incorrect, the result of a bad C&P. I meant to say “In the cases I have witnessed, it is driven for the most part by a callous and nearly cruel attitude that the airline and the flight attendents had towards the people trapped there.”

Especially on my 13-hour nonstop flight from Kansas City to Dallas. That’s right - 13-hour, nonstop. We were prisoners aboard that flight, and I saw air rage a-plenty. I also saw red-faced flight attendents screaming shrilly that if people did not stop “asking questions” (about when we could have food and water :rolleyes: ) that we would **all** be arrested when we left the plane, and all go to prison. Especially the mother who was crying because she had no more baby formula - that “air rager”, her :rolleyes: . But that’s another thread altogether…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/79 "2001-10-01T13:26:22Z")

</div>

And this is **not** to say that firing bullets into the skin of the plane is not very dangerous - there is a serious risk of destroying avionics, electronics, and hydraulic controls.

---

<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:** [October 1, 2001, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591/80 "2001-10-01T13:35:49Z")

</div>

**Anthracite** : I’m pleased to hear someone had the patience to read the entire thread. Yes, I fly, but haven’t witnessed a case of violent air rage. It wouldn’t really matter though, as it wouldn’t be prudent to draw conclusions from such anecdotal evidence. I agree that there is often going to be an escalation of objectionable behavior. If I used the words ‘sudden’ or ‘unexpected’ I was referring to that point when the frustrated or angry passenger turns physically violent. So while the flight crew may be able to say, “Hey, that guy in E4 is real jerk, and is getting loader all the time,” if he decides to go a step further and hit someone over the head with a bottle, it is my contention that he will do so suddenly enough that the victim will rarely have time to retrieve or produce whatever weapon it is the airline has provided them.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your assertion that “it’s driven for the most part by the callous and nearly cruel attitude that some flight attendents have towards the people trapped in the flying coffin.” I won’t ask for a cite, because I think we can agree that it is irrelevant, but please explain the point. I hear that Aire Coffin is seriously thinking about a name change, do you fly them often?

I agree with your point on decompression. In fact, I attempted to make the correction myself somewhere in this thread, but I’m sure it is burried. There would of course be decompression, but as to whether or not is would be _explosive_ decompression is conjecture.

**Al** : It occurs to me that we aren’t even debating anymore, but engaging in a juvenile game of He Said, She Said. I’d like to propose we desist and until next time, lest people think we are a couple. Agreed?

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

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-solution-archie-bunker-lite/82591.md?page=5)