Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[shanek]

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.

As the graph will show, it dropped from an anomalous level and never reached the low that it was before. The years from 1968-1972 saw an inordinate amount of hijackings worldwide, according to the same source I'm getting the graph details from. I had to go through a LOT of records during those years and comparatively few before and since. Apparently, hijackers in those years were mostly escaped criminals trying to get to countries (like Cuba) that wouldn't extradite them. Apparently, the changes in extradition laws and measures to prevent escape from prison had more to do with the decline than anything else.

 

[shanek]

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.

1973 may well have been the year they implemented that; but it was also the year they banned any and all firearms from the plane (except for authorized government employees).

 

[shanek]

Okay, here it is, the corrected graph.

Except for the anomolous bulge in the middle, which as any reasonable person looking at the graph can see the variance is just way too much to tell us anything about the gun legislation policy one way or the other, it tells a very clear story.

There is very little if any hijackings prior to 1968. In fact, only two years—1961 and 1965—had any hijackings at all, and they had 3 apiece. Compare that to after 1973. Only two years (1973 and 1974) reached the max levels of the pre-1968 decade, and only one year (1976) dropped below it with only 1 hijacking. The average for the post-1973 decade is 7.2 hijackings per year, and as you can see on the graph it just goes up, up, up!

So the idea that the gun ban did anything to prevent hijackings, as we can see on this chart, is clearly laughable. The dramatic drop the gun control people keep pointing to reliex on those statistically anomalous years which cannot in any way be attributable to the availability or otherwise of guns. They cherry-pick their data. When we see the entire picture, from ten years before 1968 and ten years after 1973, we see an obvious and fairly steady growth in the number of hijackings after the gun ban.

Nice try, guys, but the statistics are still with me here.

 

[specious_reasons]

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.

Not likely to fix the problem. The most profitable way for an airline to operate is to cram as many people into the given space as possible. I haven't had a pleasant airline experience since deregulation.

Customers want the cheapest possible flights, but they don't want to be treated like luggage. Unfortunately, the economics of flying doesn't allow for both.

 

[Grammatron]

Not likely to fix the problem. The most profitable way for an airline to operate is to cram as many people into the given space as possible. I haven't had a pleasant airline experience since deregulation.

Customers want the cheapest possible flights, but they don't want to be treated like luggage. Unfortunately, the economics of flying doesn't allow for both.

I'm going to have to disagree on that point. Not all people want the cheapest possible flight. There is such thing as balance between affordability and comfort. That's why everyone doesn't drive Yugo.

 

[shanek]

Not likely to fix the problem. The most profitable way for an airline to operate is to cram as many people into the given space as possible.

Man, you'd be a terrible business owner. You CANNOT make a profit just by thinking of people as cattle. You have to make them comfortable, you have to make them happy. If you cram them in so much that they hate flying, you ain't gonna profit.

Why do you think people pay more for first class?

 

[specious_reasons]

Man, you'd be a terrible business owner. You CANNOT make a profit just by thinking of people as cattle. You have to make them comfortable, you have to make them happy. If you cram them in so much that they hate flying, you ain't gonna profit.

Why do you think people pay more for first class?

Hold on - didn't say that *I* would want to run a business like that. But, when I fly coach, I feel more like cattle than customer. The airlines seem to have been more focused on packing in passengers than in anyone's comfort.

...and the fact is, more people per flight, more revenue, more profit.

Most people who I know that fly first class are people who upgrade using frequent flyer miles. Most frequent flyers are business travellers - the most profitable passengers.

Besides, I don't know about you, but, for instance, to visit my Dad (a trip to the Seattle area from the Chicago area) over Thanksgiving, I had a couple of choices:
- drive 3/4/5 days with 2 young kids in the car.
- fly in a plane.
- take a train (2-3 days?)
- sit on my hiney at home.
There's a hell of a lot of inconvenience I'll put up with to maximize the time with family. Flying has the best cost/time/suffering balance, even if I'm unhappy for 4 hours.

So, what I'm saying is, they have to make flying extremely miserable before they start having customers turn away for that reason.

 

[shanek]

Hold on - didn't say that *I* would want to run a business like that.

Okay, fair enough.

But, when I fly coach, I feel more like cattle than customer. The airlines seem to have been more focused on packing in passengers than in anyone's comfort.

Sure; because if they lose out in profits they can always just go crying to the government for another bailout. But has anyone ever considered that if the government would stop bailing them out every few years, they might actually be forced to improve their service?

...and the fact is, more people per flight, more revenue, more profit.

Not necessarily. There's supply and demand to consider. How many people would be willing to pay extra for a more comfortable flight?

 

[Luke T.]

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

I asked where the philandering Presidents are in response to your question about fistfights on planes in the 60s because neither were likely to be reported in the 60s except under the headline "LBJ's Bigfoot Love Child (Exclusive Photos Inside!)".

Those were the days when a man could drive down the road liquored up on moonshine without a seatbelt and run over a schoolteacher on his way to a negro lynching. As long as he confessed to the accident to the local sheriff in a timely manner around the bonfire cross, he was likely to only get a 50 dollar fine after the Good Old Boy discount. As for it getting reported, Jimmy Olsen was probably inside one of the robes to his left.

Yessir, we had lots of freedoms then. And I understand how some of them have fallen by the wayside. I feel your pain. I honestly do.

Now, I used to abuse my right to act like an idjit or a maniac more than the next guy, but according to the capitalist pigs at Corporate Media HQ, the population explosion has led to the number of idjits and maniacs reaching critical mass and is starting to affect the price of snow tires.

And I really don't feel like living with the possibility of having to blast my way through the skies above the purple mountains majesty on my way to The Amazing Meeting to get my picture taken with Randi.

I hope if I should one day find myself complaining to the African-American female next to me in the voting booth line about how having to wear a seat belt by law is really starting to chafe my neck red and that our civil rights are sliding down the slippery slope to subjugation that she doesn't get mad at me for losing perspective. Cause nothing scares me more than an angry black woman.

So that's what I meant when I asked about philandering Presidents. I let my skull crack open a little bit and that slipped out. I thought it was kinda funny myself.

That's how my brain works. It makes it real hard to decide on things. I was for the war in Iraq, then against it, then for it again. I was against legalizing marijuana, then for it. This stuff keeps happening upstairs and I don't know if that makes me an idjit, a maniac, or a skeptic.

 

[Luke T.]

1973 may well have been the year they implemented that; but it was also the year they banned any and all firearms from the plane (except for authorized government employees).

Exactly! So how can you say banning guns had no effect on hijackings? Do you think the difference in the numbers from 1972 to 1973 is a coincidence? We're supposed to just discount this "anomaly?"

And that was enforced by metal detectors. A hijacker isn't going to care about the law otherwise.

This is an example of outlawing guns and even outlaws don't have guns.

 

[Luke T.]

Okay, here it is, the corrected graph.

Except for the anomolous bulge in the middle, which as any reasonable person looking at the graph can see the variance is just way too much to tell us anything about the gun legislation policy one way or the other, it tells a very clear story.

There is very little if any hijackings prior to 1968. In fact, only two years—1961 and 1965—had any hijackings at all, and they had 3 apiece. Compare that to after 1973. Only two years (1973 and 1974) reached the max levels of the pre-1968 decade, and only one year (1976) dropped below it with only 1 hijacking. The average for the post-1973 decade is 7.2 hijackings per year, and as you can see on the graph it just goes up, up, up!

So the idea that the gun ban did anything to prevent hijackings, as we can see on this chart, is clearly laughable. The dramatic drop the gun control people keep pointing to reliex on those statistically anomalous years which cannot in any way be attributable to the availability or otherwise of guns. They cherry-pick their data. When we see the entire picture, from ten years before 1968 and ten years after 1973, we see an obvious and fairly steady growth in the number of hijackings after the gun ban.

Nice try, guys, but the statistics are still with me here.

Why did you stop at 1983?

Again, the U.S. Senate numbers:

Number of Aircraft Hijackings in the United States, 1970-2000

Year Number
1970 25
1971 25
1972 26
1973 2
1974 3
1975 6
1976 2
1977 5
1978 7
1979 11
1980 21
1981 7
1982 9
1983 17
1984 5
1985 4
1986 2
1987 3
1988 1
1989 1
1990 1
1991 1
1992 0
1993 0
1994 0
1995 0
1996 0
1997 0
1998 0
1999 0
2000 0

As the chart shows, by the end of the 20th Century, airplane hijackings in the United States had shriveled to nil (although the number of airline passengers had tripled since 1970.)

It goes down, down, down. All the way down to zero. Most likely due to improvement in the technology. Bomb sniffing dogs, explosive residue detection kits, etc. (edited to add: And how could I forget X-ray machines!)

1979, 80 and 83 look more like your "anomalies" than anything else.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

From a liberal arts education, where I did learn about statistics, economics, debate, and all sorts of other things that completely elude you here. And those courses were as much a part of my final grade as my art courses. Try again, worm.

Hit a nerve, did I? Obviously, the bits about 'statistical significance' and 'providing your sources' weren't essential to passing the course. I note, with interest, that it was a Prebyterian college you went to. Did you just have to say, "this is true because God wills it" at the end of your papers? It would explain a lot about you.

On a related topic- you didn't provide your data with your latest graph. Your sterling cum laude education at work again.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I guess I was right when I said no one under 30 would get the "I'm hijacking this plane to Cuba" joke....

This is starting to remind me of the White Nationalists saying there was no holocaust.

I remember a Punch cartoon with about ten hijackers in a cockpit aiming guns at the pilot saying "Cork!", "Cuba!", "Chad!", "El Salvador!", etc. Does that count?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

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?

No- because our argument is simply that hijackers can't bring guns onto planes if you don't let 'em. This is support by the fact that guns weren't involved in 9/11. If they could've used guns, they would've- and we wouldn't have had Pennsylvania (though we might have had major reconstruction at the White House or Camp David).

It is YOU who thinks that passenger gun-carry statistics are a good argument for letting passengers carry guns on planes. So YOU have to provide the stats.

While you're on, I'll let you have the 'guns won't solve everything' argument. So we'll just let those passengers on planes with bombs- or passengers who think they're on a plane with a bomb- crash and burn. The right to carry guns on planes is more important than their lives. We must sacrifice some fingers to save the hand, after all.

Now, what happens if a team of hijackers -fully armed- are aboard a plane? What then? Do the armed passengers just take them all out?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Nice try, guys, but the statistics are still with me here.

But where's the data? Oh, you don't need to provide it. Just write 'it is true because it is God's will' at the end. Cum Laude and all that.

 

[Luke T.]

Pop quiz. What airline still in business today has not had a single hijacking since 1968? Why?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

There is very little if any hijackings prior to 1968. In fact, only two years—1961 and 1965—had any hijackings at all, and they had 3 apiece. Compare that to after 1973. Only two years (1973 and 1974) reached the max levels of the pre-1968 decade, and only one year (1976) dropped below it with only 1 hijacking. The average for the post-1973 decade is 7.2 hijackings per year, and as you can see on the graph it just goes up, up, up!

This is simply a dishonest interpretation of the data. Lets look at all the years for which the Senate report linked earlier includes data:

1973 - 2000: 108 in 28 years. Slightly below 4 per annum.
1968 - 1972: 121 in 5 years. Average of 24 per annum. (Assuming only successful hijacks are included for 68 & 69. If attempts are included the numbers go up to 132 at an average of 26)

Shanek's analysis included all of the worst years after the ban (1979, 1980 and 1983) and the comparisons are with pre-1968 figures, not pre-1973 when the ban came in as he himself noted in an earlier post.

Unsurprisingly the five years from before the ban that he ignored (1968 - 1972) contains four of the five highest years ever for hijackings. The best year in that period saw 12 successful hijackings, a level that has only been exceeded twice since 1973.

If we choose an eleven year window after the ban (chosen to maximise the average after the ban) and assume zero hijackings before 1968, the average before is 11 and after 8.2 (based on the Senate figures). Remember this is choosing the worst possible figures for the after period. Even doing that shows a reduction of more than 25%.

Alternatively, we could choose a five year window (to maximise the average before the ban). That would show an average before of 26 and an average after of 3.6.

Ignoring data that disagrees with your argument (1969-72), selecting data after the event to make the results look as good as possible and then claiming it shows something that it blatantly does not. Are you sure you aren't a homeopath/astrologer, Shanek?

 

[shanek]

I asked where the philandering Presidents are in response to your question about fistfights on planes in the 60s because neither were likely to be reported in the 60s except under the headline "LBJ's Bigfoot Love Child (Exclusive Photos Inside!)".

Those were the days when a man could drive down the road liquored up on moonshine without a seatbelt and run over a schoolteacher on his way to a negro lynching. As long as he confessed to the accident to the local sheriff in a timely manner around the bonfire cross, he was likely to only get a 50 dollar fine after the Good Old Boy discount. As for it getting reported, Jimmy Olsen was probably inside one of the robes to his left.

Yessir, we had lots of freedoms then. And I understand how some of them have fallen by the wayside. I feel your pain. I honestly do.

Now, I used to abuse my right to act like an idjit or a maniac more than the next guy, but according to the capitalist pigs at Corporate Media HQ, the population explosion has led to the number of idjits and maniacs reaching critical mass and is starting to affect the price of snow tires.

And I really don't feel like living with the possibility of having to blast my way through the skies above the purple mountains majesty on my way to The Amazing Meeting to get my picture taken with Randi.

Do you have any actual evidence for any of this?

I hope if I should one day find myself complaining to the African-American female next to me in the voting booth line about how having to wear a seat belt by law is really starting to chafe my neck red and that our civil rights are sliding down the slippery slope to subjugation that she doesn't get mad at me for losing perspective. Cause nothing scares me more than an angry black woman.

??? !!!

Oh, man, that's just beyond anything reasonable...

So that's what I meant when I asked about philandering Presidents.

Ah, I get it! Because there were no philandering Presidents (JFK) before 1968, that indicates a change (JFK) in society that indicates (JFK) that it is less in control (JFK) of itself than it used to be (JFK). Makes perfect sense.

(Oh, and by the way: FDR, Eisenhower, Gover Cleveland, Warren G. Harding, James Garfield, Thomas Jefferson,...)

 

[shanek]

Exactly! So how can you say banning guns had no effect on hijackings?

Look at the graph and see.

Do you think the difference in the numbers from 1972 to 1973 is a coincidence? We're supposed to just discount this "anomaly?"

It is CLEARLY an anomoly! There simply is no reasonable way to conclude that that spike had anything to do with gun control legislation one way or the other!

Answer this: To what do you attribute the SPIKE in hijackings from 1967 to 1968? Why do you ignore that? Why do you just focus on 1972 to 1973?

This is an example of outlawing guns and even outlaws don't have guns.

Except for the ones that did...

 

[shanek]

Why did you stop at 1983?

You're just bringing this up NOW??? Why not ask why I started at 1958? Because that is ten years before Congress made carrying a concealed weapon on a plane a felony, and ten years after the total gun ban, as I said initially.

If you go more than ten years, you're more liable to bring in other factors that didn't have anything at all to do with the gun ban. So the further you get away from it, the less likely it is responsible.

1979, 80 and 83 look more like your "anomalies" than anything else.

Then why do they fit a perfect growth curve?