My Solution -- Archie Bunker Lite

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

*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 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.