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.
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 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.
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:
So…incidents of air rage are going up because they are redefining what air rage means?
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)?
See my questions above.
How do you figure this? And you still haven’t provided the cite I asked for.
Obviously. I believe the author was making the same point. How does this make the article insane?
Why?
I think he was using the “hunting rifle” example as a hypothetical. His actual proposal involved handguns. I certainly am not advocating hunting rifles.
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.
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.
Where did I imply that you implied it? I was simply asking.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
You have made no case to support this assertion.
This is rather open ended. I’d like you to say you’re giving me a million dollars…
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.
Ummmm…because they are asking for different things? I don’t think I really understand the question.
Indeed? How so?
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.
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.
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?
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?”
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.
Exactly, not giving regular passengers would outweigh the “benefits” of doing so.
Yes, and not “empowering” passengers would decrease the likelihood of a shooting happening 99.99%
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.
Explain to me how these two are different:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And this.
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’?”
**
: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?
**
And please point out where I said anything to the contrary.
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.
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.
Try not to base major decisions on assumptions, please.
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.
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 .
: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.
I have done so. I don’t see where you answered my questions.
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.
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.
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…
: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. 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?
Uhhh…yes, this is what we are debating. Simply restating your position does not win you the debate.
I assume you mean “empowered” with guns. How do you know this?
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.
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.
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?
I would tend to agree.
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.
I don’t even know where to begin with this one. What problem, exactly, is solved by my not flying?
I don’t understand the question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
[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.
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.
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.
The fact that it is “beyond you” does not mean that there is no reason for it, that it is “random”.
Once again, I ask you for a cite that rates of “air rage” are increasing, given a consistant definition of same.
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.
Please cite for me, from the article, where he makes that assertion.
You are correct. I should have worded my response differently.
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.
I don’t find that unreasonable at all. However, some of your fellow posters do:
Perhaps you and he can settle this between yourselves.
I never said it was. I am simply open to the idea that it might increase the odds in their favor.
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.
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?
Doc Searls says it, but surely he knows that El Al does not allow civilians to carry weapons aboard aircraft.
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.