Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Luke T.]

My point is "on hold," as it were, while I check things out in more detail. If anything, I think I am going to do a more detailed graph, if for no other reasont han to get y'all to shut up about it. But I really am curious. Just from my precursory looks at the details, many of the ones labelled as Cuba were domestic US flights (although many of them weren't and many of the ones labelled as USA were international flights). It does look like the period from 1968-1973 has many more hijackings than my graph calculated, but it also shows that the period before 1968 has on the whole fewer hijackings than my graph shows. And again, the period before 1968 is what I've been talking about.

How could we possibly go back to a period of allowing people to carry guns on planes now that the genie is out of the bottle? I believe I've asked this question once already.

There are plenty of criminal ideas that haven't been tried yet. Once it occurs to a criminal to do it, and he succeeds, and it becomes well known, then more will follow. So prior to 1968 hijackings were rare. Then it became widely known how successfuly one could be at the trade, and it took off.

You can't go back to that time prior to 1968, shanek.

I haven't really looked yet at the post-1973 numbers. It takes a really, really long time to go through this since I have to load each record individually and look at the takeoff and departure points.

Was the U.S. Senate source not good enough? I can find more if you like.

One thing I have noticed, though: Many of them say the hijacker was "taken down," and some directly say he was shot and killed. It doesn't say by whom, but it does appear as if guns can be effective against hijackers.

Guns can be effective against hijackers. This is news? Guns can be effective against stubborn locks, too. And they'll do in a pinch if you can't find a can opener anywhere....

 

[Luke T.]

Because that's what the database search turned up. You've just "uncovered" the problem mentioned awhile ago by Lief Roar and acknowledged by me at the time.

But, I guess it's better for you people's ego's to play pile-on...sheesh, grow up! Once a guy's admitted to a problem with statistics he's submitted, what reason other than blatant ego would make you keep at him like y'all are?

I don't buy this. You said, "I see." That's it. But you continued to stand on it.

You made the graph and hour and a half after I had already provided a source which stated "In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully."

You even responded to it, so I know you saw it.

I even made a reference to jokes about hijackings to Cuba because there had been so many in that period.

And yet you chose to ignore all that and make a graph showing one hijacking for 1968 and one for 1969. Positively demented. Blinded, deluded and misled by your own belief system despite 49 "Cubas" on your reference source for 1969.

 

[shanek]

You would have to prove in each case that the hijackers were shot by armed passengers. Not people on the ground.

Unfortunately, that kind of data isn't recorded, at least in this database.

BTW, I just know that while I am doing this, you gun control people are busy gathering statistics on the frequency of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns on planes before 1968? Right? Because after all, you all want to support your contention that if you "toss in the occasion(al) sucidal screwball and your asking for a major spike in plane deaths if you allow for guns on planes," right? Where are all these violent screwballs pre-1968? Where are allt he drunken passengers starting fights and shooting each other?

I'll be waiting on that...but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Luke T.]

shanek, has it occurred to you to check the range of jets prior to 1968?

 

[shanek]

How could we possibly go back to a period of allowing people to carry guns on planes now that the genie is out of the bottle? I believe I've asked this question once already.

And I answered it.

By the way, it's not taking me anywhere near as long as I thought it would to go through this data; probably about four hours total. It is clear to me at this point that your data is cherry-picked, and my impression is that, once you take out those few years that can only be considered an anomoly which was affected very little by gun legislation, that we will see an increase in hijackings after the gun ban.

Besides, hadn't it been "proved" that hijackings could work before? It's not like there were no hijackings prior to 1968. Whatever political or other factors contributed to that surge, I think when I'm done it'll be clear that the gun ban cannot take any credit for lessening the number of hijackings.

 

[shanek]

I don't buy this. You said, "I see." That's it.

That's an acknowledgement! Duh!

But you continued to stand on it.

No, I continued to defend myself against the personal slams levied on me by you and others. Those comments were NOT based on Lief's discovery, and so I had to respond to them as such. They were invalid, and many were downright dishonest. Lief's finding did nothing to change that.

So stop whining. We'll see what happens when the corrected data is graphed.

 

[shanek]

shanek, has it occurred to you to check the range of jets prior to 1968?

What does that matter?

 

[Luke T.]

That's an acknowledgement! Duh!

But you continued to use your graph to support your pre-1968 argument. Just one example.

So stop whining. We'll see what happens when the corrected data is graphed.

I wait with baited breath.

In the meantime, some more history. Let's start with a history of United Airlines.

The next decade saw United solidifying its base as it centralized control of daily operations out of its new operations hub in Denver. Aircraft maintenance also was centralized at a new high-tech, "push-button" facility in San Francisco.
With new fleets of state-of-the-art equipment, including the Douglas DC-6, Convair 340, Boeing 377 Stratocruiser and the Douglas DC-7 transports, United stretched its wings beyond the western boundary of the United States and launched service to Hawaii. United was grooming itself for even bigger things to come.
After leading United through 29 years of growth, President William A. Patterson moved into the chairman's office in 1963. United's new president, George Keck, continued the company's momentum by acquiring second-generation jetliners and seeking United's first trans-Pacific route beyond Hawaii. In late 1968, Keck also formed UAL, Inc., a holding company that would allow United to diversify.

United didn't even start international flights until 1963.

A
history of Eastern Airlines.

In 1954, Eastern and Braniff started an interchange service to Central and South America.

They began Carribean flights in 1942.

A history of Delta Airlines.

1978: The Airline Deregulation Act passes. Delta begins transatlantic service: Atlanta to London. David C. Garrett becomes CEO.

They began Carribean flights in 1961.

 

[Luke T.]

What does that matter?

Who's going to hijack a plane that can't leave the country?

edited to add: Unless they are planning on crashing it.....

 

[CFLarsen]

Unfortunately, that kind of data isn't recorded, at least in this database.

Then how are you going to determine if guns were used on board to prevent a hijacking?

BTW, I just know that while I am doing this, you gun control people are busy gathering statistics on the frequency of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns on planes before 1968? Right? Because after all, you all want to support your contention that if you "toss in the occasion(al) sucidal screwball and your asking for a major spike in plane deaths if you allow for guns on planes," right? Where are all these violent screwballs pre-1968? Where are allt he drunken passengers starting fights and shooting each other?

I'll be waiting on that...but I won't be holding my breath.

I think you should concentrate on that (corrected) graph of yours, before you start imagining what other people do. And stop shifting attention away from your own claim.

 

[Luke T.]

Where are all these violent screwballs pre-1968? Where are allt he drunken passengers starting fights and shooting each other?

Where were all the philandering Presidents?

 

[Luke T.]

Just to be clear, I am not so much worried about passengers with guns except for the reasons I stated in my very first post to this topic.

The first reason being that if passengers can come on with guns, so can hijackers and there is no way to tell the difference between the two.

The second reason is that a shootout at 28,000 feet between a civilian and multiple hijackers or two or more civilians who have never even met and multiple hijackers presents far more hazards than one at the local 7-11. Fuel tanks, hydraulics, control systems, hundreds of innocent bystanders, civilians with guns shooting other civilians with guns, and so on.

 

[Luke T.]

Here's an interesting link to airline flight attendants' web site.

Abusive and/or disruptive passenger behavior on airplanes is on the increase.

AFA received more reports from its members over the last two years than it has in the history of the Union. Statistics from the FAA and airlines support the claim that these incidents are rising. One airline recorded 404 incidents in 1996, nearly double the 226 incidents recorded in 1995. Another reported 836 incidents in 1995, compared to 296 in 1994.

Disruptive behavior cuts across all socio-economic groups: male, female, young, old, first class, business and economy.

Reasons for the increase in unruly passenger behavior are varied.
AFA correlates the increase in incidents with the reduction in per passenger space; anxiety and/or fear of flying which creates a sense of powerlessness; and the disparity between expectations set by marketing programs and the reality of flying.

 

[Thanz]

Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that (judging from the senate link provided by Luke T.) the factor that had the greatest success was the universal screening at the airport:

The Federal Government's major efforts against hijacking began in 1968, but the current system of mandatory, universal screening was implemented in 1972 and 1973, (5) and, as the chart below shows, the number of hijackings then dropped sharply: In 1972 there were 26 domestic hijackings, but in 1973, the year the ACLU spoke, there were two.

It doesn't seem that the 1968/73 divide is about partial banning or not - but it was about making sure the ban was enforced by screening everyone. And it worked - the hijackings dropped considerably.

I tried to find the case they cite through google, but I couldn't get a copy of it. Apparently it summarizes the Feds efforts in this area:

United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)

 

[Luke T.]

Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that (judging from the senate link provided by Luke T.) the factor that had the greatest success was the universal screening at the airport:
It doesn't seem that the 1968/73 divide is about partial banning or not - but it was about making sure the ban was enforced by screening everyone. And it worked - the hijackings dropped considerably.

I tried to find the case they cite through google, but I couldn't get a copy of it. Apparently it summarizes the Feds efforts in this area:

United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)

I can only assume by "mandatory, universal screening" they mean the installation of metal detectors and not just laws on paper. I have been searching for another source to confirm this, but no luck so far. But that is how I came across the flight attendents' web site.

 

[shanek]

Who's going to hijack a plane that can't leave the country?

edited to add: Unless they are planning on crashing it.....

Pretty much all of the ones in the graph I'm making. BTW, one of the ones was a domestic US flight where the hijacker's intended destination was Ireland. Did he really think there'd be enough fuel?

Anyway, your argument from incredulity fallacy has been noted.

 

[shanek]

Then how are you going to determine if guns were used on board to prevent a hijacking?

I'm not. I'm just going to determine whether or not the number of hijackings went down as a result of the gun ban.

I think you should concentrate on that (corrected) graph of yours, before you start imagining what other people do.

Oh? You don't think that's the least bit fair?

And stop shifting attention away from your own claim.

Waaaah. Cry me a river. Threads have multiple claims and multiple arguments. I don't have to postpone commenting on the others just because I'm working on one. Grow up.

Besides, it isn't "my claim." I'm examining the claims of others that the gun ban has caused the number of hijackings to go down.

 

[shanek]

Where were all the philandering Presidents?

No one has made a claim in this thread about philandering Presidents.

 

[shanek]

Just to be clear, I am not so much worried about passengers with guns except for the reasons I stated in my very first post to this topic.

You are, of course, under no obligation to support claims and arguments that you never made. But others here have made that claim, and I think it's only fair that they put the work into supporting theirs as I have into supporting mine.

 

[shanek]

Reasons for the increase in unruly passenger behavior are varied.
AFA correlates the increase in incidents with the reduction in per passenger space; anxiety and/or fear of flying which creates a sense of powerlessness; and the disparity between expectations set by marketing programs and the reality of flying.

Sounds like a Customer Service problem to me. Maybe if the airlines depended more on their customers for profits and less on government bailouts things might be different.