As i see it, this is not a typical “guns reduce crime” argument. This appears to be a “guns reduce terrorism” argument. If it is not, please disregard this post.
The central argument for “guns reduce terrorism” seems to be pretty much the same as that of “guns reduce crime”: deterrence. However, that introduces a fairly major flaw, especially in light of the 09/11 attacks. Namely, the terrorists are already prepared to die. Indeed, they plan on doing just that! The fact that they may die in a hail of gunfire as opposed to gloriously in their mission probably doesn’t really matter, especially if they can take someone with them.
While I agree that armed civilians may well deter “normal” criminal activity, I think it is somewhat misguided to believe that terrorist acts fall under this category.
Whoa…the point I was trying to make at him was that complacency (being part of the human condition) had made this attack possible, not passengers. Now people are less complacent.
I tried to tie this in with my own philosophy that every person shares in the responsibility for each others safety, and it appears that more people are now actively taking that stance, and I believe it’s a shame that it took such a disasterous sequence of events for that decision to be made. [sub]Hows that for a run-on?[/sub]
Oh, don’t be so negative. Frame it positively! I advocate enacting bold new legislation to liberate Americans from the fear of crime! How’s that, better?
Okay, I’ll make it simple. Not because I think you’re dumb or anything, but just because I like simple.
Let’s say you’re a hijacker. You got two planes. One is populated with defenseless people who are lucky they can bring their belt buckle on board. The other is populated by armed citizens who are vigilantly on guard for you.
Now, using real logic, you tell me. Which plane will you board?
Hmm, let’s think about it for a moment…No. It’s actually not better. I prefer to deal in what is simple, what is real. “Liberate Americans from the fear of crime” sounds a tad too propagandistic and speculative for my mundane tastes. Let’s talk about overturning a ban on concealed carried weapons.
I like it simple, too. Probably because I am dumb. So perhaps you can help me solve this problem.
I would hijack the defenseless plane. This, in and of itself, does not justify your proposition.
Please disagree with any of the below propositions at your leisure.
The probability that another plane will be hijacked and used as a weapon is small. Increased vigilance and general indignation have made it very unlikely that airplane passenges will take the hijackers’ demands seriously, and increased security by military aircraft have rendered it extremely unlikely that unidentified passenger planes will be able to deviate more than a few milimeters off course.
When the CCW ban is repealed in all 50 states, many more people will purchase guns and carry them. I would, if only because I do not want to be outgunned.
As more firearms are more widely circulated, gun deaths due to accidents and to malice will increase. This is based on my intuition and on my understanding of the general lawlessness of the 19th century frontier. As there has never been a universal lifting of such a ban on firearms, there simply are no data that can either confirm or deny this.
If there is a chance that an individual you are dealing with in an a hostile situation may also be armed, you would be more likely to dispatch him quickly before giving him a chance to draw his weapon.
The knowledge that even random strangers on the street may be carrying weapons will only exacerbate the pall of fear that the incident of 9/11 has already set over us.
Thus, in order to diminish the probability of another attack, which is already rather low, you would invite a host of potentially negative consequences that in our good sense we have avoided through gun control.
So while your strategic defensive argument with reference to the two planes is compelling, there is a fundamental disconnect between it and the consequences of lifting a universal CCW ban.
By all means, please clarify. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but this is reading to me like you have a problem with laws being decided upon democratically and being applied to all people equally, and without bias.
You mocked my statement that it seemed this ‘arm everyone’ solution was the result of “a fear for personal safety that someone believes can’t be alleviated by an extrinsic force”, yet you did not fight my ignorance on the subject. Please enlighten me. Why would the power to take a life make you feel more comfortable on that hypothetical Greyhound than the knowledge that no weapons have been brought on board?
Well, first off, I’d probably bring a few like-minded friends, all of whom are willing to die for the glory of Allah.
Now, suppose we opt for Plane #2. The passengers are armed, which means we are, too. Once at 30,000ft, we all stand up and start gunning down passengers. Some passengers return fire, possibly killing or wounding even more passengers. In the end, we are probably dead, but then, so are a number of passengers, and others wounded. End result? A Bloodbath with wings, terror in the skies. And we go to Paradise. The fact that we didn’t crash the plane means nothing from a purely “terror” aspect. People will fear for their lives if for no other reason than being caught in a potential crossfire. Mission accomplished.
Say we go for Plane #1 instead. The passengers are unarmed, which means we probably are as well (or, at worst, lightly armed). We will, I suspect, have a much more difficult time controlling this crowd, since the potential for death is much lower, therefore the “fear” aspect lower as well. We may kill a couple of of people, but unarmed vs unarmed, numbers have the advantage. We are likely soon overpowered, restrained at best, beaten to death at worst, and have done little to foster our terror campaign. What’s worse, the passengers who fought back are now considered heroes.
Given the options, were I a terrorist, heck, I’d go for the armed plane.
Well, avoid the question if you must, but at least retain its spirit.
Okay, so you’re an honest citizen (just like all those armed citizens on the plane you dismiss). All righty then, now let’s say that you know that both planes will be hijacked. Which one, Mr. Honest Citizen, will you now board. (No cheating or fudging. You must board one. Boy, this is weird… I’m offering the scenarios.)
This argument is simply astounding in its Neanderthal mediocrity. Let me see if I have this straight.
If you board the armed plane, it is like nearing the yellow sun. You become like Superman, able to take out several armed passengers who had their eye on you from the get go. They are all woefully spastic, something like German soldiers in bad movies, unable to hit a target three feet in front of them. And in this scenario, you’re not even a hijacker. You don’t even attempt to commandeer the plane. You simply arise and begin shooting people you know to be armed. The passengers who kill you will thereafter “fear for their lives”.
Mkay…
But in the second instance, it is like nearing kryptonite. You become weak-willed and feeble. In fact, you disarm yourself just to be fair to everyone. The “potential for death” is lower if everyone’s life is in your (the hijacker’s) hands. And the exact same 1 in 30 disadvantage that was unaccounted for in the prior episode is now suddenly brought to bear. And no calibration is made for a frail old lady packing a 38 and a frail old lady using her fist against yours. And these passengers, who overwhelm you with what they’ve learned from Karate Kid are heros who will never again be afraid, unlike the gun toting ones.
Libertarian, 5 guys with pistols can unload about 60 bullets in under 10 seconds against a plane full of people. Those 60 bullets are going to do a hell of a lot of damage. It is ridiculous to believe that in the chaos of that scene your citizens packing heat will react and pick off the attackers without hitting anyone else. Certainly not before the attackers finish up their first clips. Heck, attacker’s #6 and 7 could stand up and unload a clip or two into the crowd, pretending to be shooting at the other guys.
Guys with little makeshift knives can only do so much. What caused the WTC attack to be successful was the procedures that the crew and passengers followed during the hijacking. Two things would have easily foiled that attack, a locked, strong, cockpit door, and passengers willing to stand up to the hijackers. Guns are not necessary to foil these attacks, allowing them on board is asking for trouble.
The deranged dude that recently attacked the cockpit was easily subdued by the passengers and held until landing. If that guy had a pistol, he could’ve killed the pilot or shot up the cockpit before anyone else reacted. I’m not against guns in general, but they are not the cure-all for these problems.
It has been pointed out in numerous discussions vis-a-vis firearms that the number of firearms now in private citizens hands is at an unprecedented high in this country. Yet from the CDC:
[ul]
[li]In 1996 fatal firearm accidents also fell to an all-time annual low, 1,134, a 7% decrease from 1995; a 22% decrease from 1986. Since 1930, fatal firearm accidents have decreased 65%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has more than quadrupled. (Population: Census Bureau; Firearms: BATF) Other fatal accidents: motor vehicles (43,649), falls (14,986), poisoning (9,510), fire (3,741), drowning (3,488), suffocation on ingested object (3,206), and medical mistakes (2,919).[/li][li]1995-1996 Trends From 1995-1996, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents decreased 7% (from 1,225 to 1,134). By comparison, the number of fatal motor vehicle accidents increased slightly (43,363 to 43,649), as did accidental deaths due to falls (13,986 to 14,986), poisoning (9,072 to 9,510), suffocation on ingested object (3,185 to 3,206) and medical misadventures (2,712 to 2,919). Decreasing slightly were accidental deaths due to fires (3,761 to 3,741) and drowning (3,790 to 3,488).[/li][li]Fatal gun accidents as percentages of accidental deaths nationwide Of 94,948 fatal accidents nationwide in 1996: firearms (1%), motor vehicles (46%), falls (16%), poisonings (10%), fires (4%), drownings (4%), chokings on ingested objects (3%), and medical mistakes (3%).[/li][li]Fatal gun accidents as percentages of all deaths nationwide Of 2,314,690 deaths nationwide in 1996, fatal firearm accidents accounted for 0.05%. Other accidents: motor vehicles (2%), falls (0.6%), poisoning (0.4%), fire (0.2%), drowning (0.2%), suffocation on ingested object (0.1%), and medical mistakes (0.1%).[/li][li]Annual fatal gun accident rates[/li]In 1996 the fatal firearm accident rate fell to an all-time low (0.4 per 100,000 pop.), an 88% decrease since 1904. Other rates: motor vehicles (16.5), falls (5.6), poisoning (3.6), fire (1.4), drowning (1.3), suffocation on ingested object (1.2), and medical mistakes (1.1%).
[li]Fatal firearm accidents among children (ages 0 to 14)[/li]Fatal firearm accidents fell to 138 in 1996, an all-time low; motor vehicles (3,015), drowning (966), fires (761), suffocation on ingested object (211), falls (111), poisoning (109) and medical mistakes (94). Since 1975, fatal firearm accidents to children have decreased 75%, 24% since 1995.
[/ul]
[sub]List courtesy of UncleBeer or ExTank, I forget which one[/sub]
I can tell you right off that you haven’t got it straight.
**
It’s fascinating how much you can read into my paragraph. Truly makes for an interesting read, but you seem to be confused with regards to “reality”. First off, the passengers do not have “their eye on [me] from the get go.” If they knewI was a terrorist, they wouldn’t have let me on the plane in the first place. The reality is, they are all nervous and anxious. They are suspicious of everyone, not just me. The reality is, not everyone carrying a gun is endowed with Dirty Harry coolness and confidence. The reality is that if I simply stand up, no one is going to shoot me. That gives me (and my friends) the advantage. I can easily score the first kill, thereby inducing momentary panic and shock. The reality is, when the bullets start flying, not everyone is going to exhibit John Wayne-like heroism and stoicism. There will be cowering, there will be screaming, there will panicing, there will be death. Sure, some passengers will, as I said, fight back after the initial shock. But it will not be the unified effort you seem to think it will be.
You see, I know, indeed, expect that I am going to die. The average passenger didn’t really plan on dying today, and, given the chance, would very much like to not get killed. Again, that works to my advantage.
As for the hijacking, I have no intention of going to Cuba or anywhere else. The hijackings of 09/11 were simply a means to an end: to make a really spectacular show up front, something that would leave no doubt as to how far the terrorists are willing to go. From this point on, hijacking is irrelevant, so long as the necessary terror can be induced. This fact seems to have eluded you. There is zero reason to believe that hijackings will be any part of future terrorist attacks. All that matters now is the terror. And arming folks won’t make that go away.
I am, of course, all ears, as it were, as to how you envision the “armed passengers” scenario playing out.
**
In this scenario, I do not willingly disarm myself. The underlying assumption is that if the passengers are unarmed, security is sufficiently tight to ensure that. As such, I and my cohorts are unlikely to be able to smuggle aboard much in the way of weaponry ourselves. Thus, a relatively level “playing field”. (To contrast with the above scenario, the playing field is still level, but more people are likely to die.) If you like, however, I can always smuggle aboard a home-made bomb strapped to my chest, triggered with a deadman’s switch (I’m a terrorist, I can do that). Will that make you feel better about your scenario?
At any rate, it should be self-evident that if I am unarmed, and the passengers are unarmed, there is less “fear of death” involved for them. Thus, the possibility of a greater unity on the defense is higher, and my odds of accomplishing an actual hijacking (which I would pretty much have to do at this point to further my terror agenda) are subsequently lower. (Of course, If I’ve got the bomb, it won’t matter whether they are armed or not. But we won’t discuss that.)
You see, the main difference is in the armed scenario, lots of people die. People fear death. If that weren’t the case, terrorsists would be out of business. In the second, far fewer people die, thus less fear. The terrorists on 09/11 succeeded precisely because of the surprise element, and for no other reason. If you can maintain the surprise element, you maintain the advantage.
The other statistics in that list have validity. But these are apples and oranges.
What you really want is fatal gun incidents expressed as percentages of (a) deaths of all kinds, and (b) deaths from other than natural causes. While we gun control types wish to reduce gun accidents, we’re aware that they’re a small fraction of gun deaths - unlike automobile accidents, which constitute practically all automobile deaths. And it is gun deaths that we’d like to reduce further (and yes, we’re aware that they’re already going down).