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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Where is the statistical evidence that “incidents” are on the rise?
See my question above.
Underlining my own. To which of these proposals do you object, and why?
I have carefully reread the OP, and I did not see this statement.
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.
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.
And your evidence for this is what, precisely?
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?
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?
Why do you think that?
What did luck have to do with this?
How do you know this?
Good grief, man! Do you read through the thread before you reply? As I said several posts ago, it has already happened. 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.
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.
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.
**
And why do you dismiss the possibility of an accidental discharge?
**
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.
When faced with the choice of dying one way or the other, I will pick the swifter, more painless method each and every time.
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.
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.
**
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.
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.
You say “not perfect”. I say so incomplete as to preclude making any decisions based on it.
If they think it is such a problem, why haven’t they?
Ah yes. ISTR you did. I must have forgoten. My fault.
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.
Your statement that your view is supported by “The laws of probability and common sense” does not does not constitute evidence.
The mere existence of an opportunity to take the life of an innocent person does not mean that that opportunity will be taken.
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.
Good point. So substitute “handgun”…etc.
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?
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?
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.
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 wasn’t talking about the layout itself, I was talking about whether or not said layout would prevent resistance to hijackers.
It’s the best I can do. Call it a reasonable assumption, if you prefer.
But the chances are greater, right? I’m trying to reduce those chances as near to nil as I can.
Unless it’s carried by a sky marshall trained in using a gun loaded with frangible ammo on an aircraft in flight.
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.
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?
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.
I don’t want to suffer unnecessarily. Suffering when there is no chance of survival is foolish, IMHO.
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.
Alright. Why do you consider this assumption reasonable?
Why do you think that?
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?
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?
[Gritting my teeth again] Is it “foolish” when you have a chance to prevent thousands of other deaths??? Please answer this question.
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?
How do you know this?
See my question above.
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?
Yes, but given what happened with the other three aircraft they were obviously trying to do much more than that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This statement is factually correct, but I fail to see how it is relevent.
The reason I ask “question after question after question” is because you don’t answer them.
What specific questions have I failed to answer?
So. You can’t argue with me, or answer my questions, so you resort to personal attacks. Can we expect more of this?
Well duh. Of course I want to know why you believe what you believe. That is part of debating.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What specific “statements and data” have I dismissed, with a “magic wand” or any other method?
I don’t see how that would be, but this is a nit.
I have not and am not ignoring them.
Now I am fascinated. To which “hypothesis” are you referring, exactly?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I have seen it and already responded to it, in fact you must know this as you quoted from my response above.
I haven’t been trying to. Why should I?
And now you are accusing me of being “arrogant” in my “dismissal”, without having shown I have done any such thing.
You are “allowed” to draw whatever conclusions you like, just as long as you don’t assume they are correct here.
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”.
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.
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…
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.
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?