Call me a “brainwashed NRA gun nut” if you want, but I don’t think anyone would even remotely consider hijacking a plane if they knew every other person on the plane was packing heat. Just the fact that any one person could decompress the plane would give everyone a different attitude. “Extra peanuts?” “Naw thanks, I’m fine!”
But until then I would attack the hijackers if I could under one condition: that if the pilots are dead, I get to land the plane. That’s my favorite “hero” fantasy and besides I’m really good at MS FlightSim.
Your plan, Mr. Carroll, is fine. Until some garden variety plane loony (I have sat next to a few myself) decides that it would be fun to shoot at the windows. I’d prefer my nutcases on isolated pressurized compartments unarmed, thankyouverymuch.
By the way, I thought I should clarify. My form of passifism allows for everything short of deadly force. We can hang 'em by their thumbs, as long as we don’t take their lives.
Not only would I respond with deadly force in that scenario (if my courage did not fail me and I’m 80-90% sure it wouldn’t; not 95-99% sure, to be honest, but OK 80+), there are far less dire ones I would respond similarly to.
If I were ever to be mugged, or my residence broken into I would make every PRACTICAL attempt to slay the offender. My reasoning is thus; 1)If a person threatens great or lethal force then it is reasonable for one to assume that said person is willing to use such methods to achieve their goals. 2)If such a person were to survive an encounter, their victim unwilling to reciprocate with crippling or lethal force, they could reasonably be assumed to use such tactics again. 3)If they do, and great harm is visited upon another, because I was squeamish about killing, then I would personally feel some responsability for the harm done their latter victim(s).
I should point out that this is a personal code that I do not hold others to. I would never recomend that anyone resist an armed assailant unless they had reason to beleive that compliance would be even more dangerous than resistance. I would fear the shame of inaction in the face of such circumstances more than mortal injury as a result of my . . . rather spirited self-defense. Again, this is highly situational and if there is no reasonable expectation of success then one should comply (unless you feel certain you would be slain anyway).
In defense of those on the doomed flights, I have never even heard of a case of airplane-as-terror-weapon and even if they were told of their fate, they may not have beleived it.
I have to say I don’t want any guns on the airplane - not even in the hands (pocket, shoe, whatever) of the air marshall. Despite the very nice demonstration of putting on your oxygen mask and all at the beginning of the flight, you will be a freeze-dried critter before you help the person next to you put on theirs.
Violent decompression of the cabin above about 5,000 feet (taking into account the aggravating effects of airspeed) is not what is portrayed in the movies; it’s what happened to the golfer (Payne Stewart?) - you are disabled so fast that you barely can remember to put on the mask. You lose oxygen thru your pores and whatever moisture you had in your body is gone very quickly.
Having said that, we need to make it OK to defend yourself. Guns or none. Laws like the ones in NY state that assume the defender committed a felony when the attacker is killed or maimed need to be modified for airplanes, homes and tunnels. How many times have we read about perps trying to sue their victims for injuries? Once is one too many!
I wouldn’t relish trying to attack a hijacker from coach airline seats. My knees nearly touch the seat in front of me and I think I have to stoop to not hit the lockers overhead. It would probably be a miracle if I made it to the end of my row.
Is it permitted to take golf balls on a plane now.
Imagine:
Hijacker: “stay in your seats, we have control of the plane” Passengers: “Fore!”
(Hijacker is pelted with several dozen golf balls, thrown with force; two strong men subdue him as he nurses his battered face)
There are fungible “air marshall” rounds that don’t stand a chance at blowing a hole through the side of the cabin.
And even if they did, hypothetically, it’s easy to handle. The cabin is overpressurized - air is constantly leaking through the rivets - and so another, small leak would make little difference. Explosive decompression is hollywood.
Well, I don’t consider myself a particularly brave man either. It is possible I might do the same thing, though I hope not. I notice however that you ducked the question of whether or not the moral obligation exists, whether or not you fulfill it.
People, please. We are already discussing this very subject on two other threads, this one, and this one. No need to let it take over a third.
What if the only way you could prevent the hijacking were by killing them? Surely such a scenario is theoretically possible.
I suppose there are degrees of pacifism. I know that some people really do choose that philosophy after careful consideration (as distasteful as that may be to me personally) and would imagine a spectrum of pacifism something like this:
NEVER do another harm.
NEVER take another’s life.
Never take another’s life except in defense of others.
etc.
I have a more pragmatic attitude. Thief breaks into home, thief could possibly slip on kitchen linoleum, thief could sue me, homeowner’s insurance could go up . . . well, now I HAVE to kill him sigh.
What if the pilot had the ability to release sleeping gas or some such into the cabin? That would subdue the hijackers peacefully, no?
Bear with me, I’m painting in broad strokes here. I’m saying the pilot should have ultimate control over the aircraft and its occupants… a lock on the cockpit door would be a good start, sleeping gas for the rear cabin would be good too.
Are you serious? I “ducked” the question? I freely confessed I’d be a blubbering coward, and still you want to find some angle from which to dis me?
:rolleyes:
[sub]I “ducked” the question…give me a goddamn break already…[/sub]
Well Acco40 the sleeping gas idea is good.
My sister wondered why the Flight Attendants don’t use pepper spray. (Do they sell non pressurized sprays?..They might use them if you don’t like the in flight snack…“Little pepper on your salad?”)
Anyway, my idea is this:: FLY NAKED.
Aside from knowing that we are now going to mess up anyone who messes with us, basic martial arts and self defense training, and of course, flying naked, what else can we do to protect ourselves?
First, planes used in skydiving routinely go to 13000 feet and throw a door wide open (and skydiving occurs on jumbo jets every year in Illinois). Never seen any of the effects of losing oxygen through the porous and moisture, etc.
I have been in an altitude chamber to 30000 feet. I’ll admit that somewhere around 18-20k feet I become pretty much non-functional (but still conscience). However, with an oxygen mask, you are quite clear headed and comfortable at 30k feet. Again, didn’t notice anything weird with my pores, etc.
Also, the air in a jet aircraft is circulated at a pretty high rate. That means they are letting are out all the time with large compressors keeping the pressure up. (I believe the take the air off of one of the engine compressors) Putting a hole in the cabin the size of a bullet probably wouldn’t even be noticeable except by the noise.
I still don’t think it is a great idea to have a lot of people on the plane carrying firearms though.
The hijackers could easily defeat this with a gas mask or other breathing apparatus.
If you shoot a hole in the cabin and depressurize, the hijackers simply don portable oxygen tanks.
If you shoot them with tazers, they simply put on a heavy coat.
If you shoot them with mace, again it is defeated by the gas masks the terrorists don beforehand.
If you turn out the lights, they turn on their flashlights.
Etc, etc.
As mentioned before, any future hijack attempts will need to contend with an angry mob. Sleeping gas or depressurization or something similar would just make it easier for the terrorist to subdue the mob.
I’m very unsure about the idea that arming everybody makes any situation intrinsically safer (I understand the theory), but there have been whole threads about that one.
Those guys in the Pennsylvania crash has the advantage of knowledge. Cell phones were the one little detail the terrorists overlooked. Because once the passengers knew with certainty that they were going to die it freed them to push their fear aside and take the proverbial bullet in the gut for the greater good.
We all have the advantage of knowledge now. Future terrorists haven’t a chance in hades of pulling off another stunt like that again…especially with something as relatively innocuous as a razor knife. In fact, potential “regular” hijackers are undoubtedly rethinking their strategy because by rewriting the “don’t resist and you’ll be safe” rule, the terrorists practically ensured that the passengers probably WILL resist.
I did not mean to “dis” you. Remember, I said that I might well do the same thing as you in the same situation…there is really no way to know ahead of time.
I am simply asking if you think a moral obligation exists, whether or not we fulfill it.