Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Luke T.]

I don't know about the others, but that really wasn't what I was complaining about; I was complaining about your assertion that these actions made the perpetrators widely popular among the people. As I showed by providing more of the historical background behind them, that just wasn't the case.

I took down the photos so that there would be no question of impropriety.

As for the reasons I posted them and even mentioning lynchings, I was attempting to bring some perspective on the issue of freedom in America.

The statements I made about winning votes by posing with corpses was meant to be sarcastic and satirical. I assumed this was self-evident. I still stand by the spirit of my intent, which was to say that our nation has come a long, long way on civil liberties and personal freedoms. In a very positive direction. Yet we still have a long way to go.

Although Wallace had already been elected Governor when he stood on the schoolhouse steps in 1963, he was elected for another three terms afterwards. And he even felt popular enough to run for President. His racial position changed with the popular opinions of the time. A real politician.

My son lives in Alabama. He lives with my first wife's mother most of the time since the schools are better in that town. And she won't allow him to bring home a black friend from school.

This kind of crap bothers me way more than not being allowed to carry a gun on an airplane. While there is racism everywhere, living in the South for five years revealed a rather naked face of racism to me I have not seen elsewhere. But I also met many a Southerner who was embarassed by all of it.

Despite how I might sound, I am actually very optimistic and believe time is on our side. Otherwise, I would have to agree with the White Nationalists (and George Wallace) that we would all be better off living separately.

I wish I knew how Ben Franklin would have felt about mass air transportation and guns and hijackings in the modern world. I don't think any of us could really know for sure.

There is nothing to stop a person from placing their gun in their luggage is there?

I think even Franklin would see there is no wisdom in a shootout at 28,000 feet. And there is no way of knowing if he would agree that the potential existence of pistol packing passenger serves as a deterrent to a madman or madmen.

I'm sure there is a quote by somebody a lot better known and a lot smarter than me about the difference between freedom and abusing the right to be a fool to counter Ben, but I will instead say that I see carrying a gun on a plane not so much a freedom or a right but as a privilege.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I was complaining about your assertion that these actions made the perpetrators widely popular among the people. As I showed by providing more of the historical background behind them, that just wasn't the case.

It didn't seem to do this guy much harm...

 

[Leif Roar]

Which is why we can't attribute the 1968 rise to the gun restrictions. Likewise, a LOT changed in 1973; I've already mentioned several things that ALL of the gun control people on this thread have ignored. Neither the rise nor the drop can be attributed to gun legislation. IT IS AN ANOMALY.

[irrelevant blathering deleted]

You have no basis for claiming that the drop in hijackings can not be, wholly or in part, attributed to the implementation of efficent gun restrictions aboard airplanes.

From Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. A report to the United States Congress, chapter 7.3 (found at http://www.ncjrs.org/works/ )

Landes (1978) attempted to determine the effectiveness of sky marshals and passenger screening. He used a time series analysis of 64 quarter years and 143 incidents. He also controlled for hijacking of aircraft originating from foreign airports to remove world-wide trends in skyjacking and attempted to remove the effects of the Cuba treaty. He provides evidence for an 82 percent decline in U.S. hijacking due to the combined effects of the Cuba treaty, sky marshals, and passenger screening. He then estimated the contribution of the three policies: screening was the cause of a decline of 45 percent, sky marshals created a 28 percent decline, and the remainder (9 percent) was probably attributed to the Cuba treaty.

Two other studies, using annual data for different time periods and weaker evaluation designs, also found large declines in aircraft hijacking in the United States following passenger baggage screening (Wilkinson 1977; Easteal and Wilson 1991). These studies did not attempt to estimate the effects of different hijacking programs.

Now, I have not read Landes' study, nor would I be qualified to comment on his methodology if I had, but I have no doubt that his methodology is superior to your own. Can you give me one reason solid, well-reasoned argument to why I should not accept these numbers at face value, but should rather accept your blanket and completely unsupported claim that "Neither the rise nor the drop can be attributed to gun legislation."

(Edited as I happened to press "Submit" while I had barely begun writing the message. Sorry for any confusion.)

 

[Earthborn]

"People willing to give up freedom for a little safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety."

Actually this is what the man actually said: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. ".

Here is a nice column where someone explains how s/he thinks how we should understand the quotation.

 

[Luke T.]

Actually this is what the man actually said: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. ".

Here is a nice column where someone explains how s/he thinks how we should understand the quotation.

Hee hee. That's funny. The quote I got was from a 2nd Amendment, pry from my dead, cold fingers web site.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2180

 

[Luke T.]

At least Charleton Heston got it right.

http://www.varmintal.com/heston4.htm

Our mission is to remain, as our Vice-President said, a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment even if it has no other friend on this planet. We cannot, we must not let tragedy lay waste to the most rare, and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin said that.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Nes to the thread and just read some of the most recent posts. One thing that jumped out at me is people seem to be discussing numbers of skyjackings from year to year. Don't you think we might need to adjust those numbers to account for population and/or number of flights. After all, there are a lot mroe flights now than there were back in the 60's.

Just a statistical thought.

Lurker

No, shanek is cum laude in Computer Pictures at St Andrews. He knows more about statistical significance than you do. Never tell him how to do his job.

Oh... shanek? You've forgotten:

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?

 

[Lurker]

No, shanek is cum laude in Computer Pictures at St Andrews. He knows more about statistical significance than you do. Never tell him how to do his job.

Will keep that in mind. My point was that if skyjackings have gone down somewhat since they enacted gun enforcement on planes then when you factor in that the population is larger and there are more flights then it clearly did an even better[/] job than we have initially discussed here.

Lurker

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Will keep that in mind. My point was that if skyjackings have gone down somewhat since they enacted gun enforcement on planes then when you factor in that the population is larger and there are more flights then it clearly did an even better[/] job than we have initially discussed here.

Lurker

That's been pointed out already. IIRC, shanek instantly ignored the argument and pointed to a single year with a really low incidence of hijackings during the period which passengers were allowed to carry guns on planes. Which completely, and irrefutably proved his case.

That's further evidence of shanek's knowledge of statistical significance, btw.

You can also see people, especially Luke T and CF Larsen, trying to introduce shanek to the concept of trends. Although shanek insists that statistics were an essential component to his bachelor of Colouring In Between The Lines On 'Puters, trends do not seem to have been an essential component of that essential component.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, I beg your pardon. When the issue of statistical signifcance was raised, shanek replied:

Answer straight: Why should more people suddenly decide to hijack a plane who otherwise wouldn't just because there are more flights?

It's all on page three.

 

[Ladewig]

One of the problems is very apparent in the cartoon on the first page. When armed citizens stand in a circle around a few perps, then there is a good chance that the citizens will unintentionally kill or injure each other. And that's under ideal conditions. Add alcohol, bad lighting, a room which can tilt, shake, or drop without warning, and the fact that hijackers don't always dress as caricatures of Arab people and there is a good chance that innocent people (strapped in chairs while sitting shoulder to shoulder) will be shot.

Air marshals are required to stay awake, alert, and sober throughout the flight. They are trained to handle a wide variety of situations while always being aware of the innocent people around them. If CCP holders are willing to go through a few hundred hours of additional training, then I'd consider letting them on the plane.

If you have flown in the past year, you may have noticed that if the pilot comes out of the cockpit, he first alerts the crew who then barricade the ailse before the cockpit door is opened.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can also see people, especially Luke T and CF Larsen, trying to introduce shanek to the concept of trends. Although shanek insists that statistics were an essential component to his bachelor of Colouring In Between The Lines On 'Puters, trends do not seem to have been an essential component of that essential component.

Which is kinda interesting, because although I do not have the academic degree to prove it (be it ever so American), I have also made it my career to put pixels on a screen.

So, why this difference? Could it be that I am not particularly infatuated with a political agenda?

Things that make you go "Hmmm...".....

 

[shanek]

How do you explain this quote then?

"..we see an obvious and fairly steady growth in the number of hijackings after the gun ban."

I explain it by the simple fact that it's the truth. Look at the graph. I explained it more than suffifiently. I don't think me not reading my posts is the problem here.

 

[shanek]

Nes to the thread and just read some of the most recent posts. One thing that jumped out at me is people seem to be discussing numbers of skyjackings from year to year. Don't you think we might need to adjust those numbers to account for population and/or number of flights. After all, there are a lot mroe flights now than there were back in the 60's.

Just a statistical thought.

I've already made several points as to why that would likely be invalid here, points that no one here has refuted (or even acknowledged). There's just no reason to believe that hijackings would rise with either the number of flights or the number of people who are on them.

 

[Jocko]

I've already made several points as to why that would likely be invalid here, points that no one here has refuted (or even acknowledged). There's just no reason to believe that hijackings would rise with either the number of flights or the number of people who are on them.

I addressed it about five pages ago, but you ignored it. If you care, then go find it - but I know you won't. I'm just enjoying the sideshow this thread has become.

 

[shanek]

The statements I made about winning votes by posing with corpses was meant to be sarcastic and satirical. I assumed this was self-evident. I still stand by the spirit of my intent, which was to say that our nation has come a long, long way on civil liberties and personal freedoms. In a very positive direction.

I agree with this 100%.

Although Wallace had already been elected Governor when he stood on the schoolhouse steps in 1963, he was elected for another three terms afterwards.

After he already had the popularity that incumbency brings. It's an amazing effect that when someone gets elected they can do pretty much whatever they want and their loyal followers will still fall in line. Look at Dubya, for example.

And he even felt popular enough to run for President.

And he was wrong.

His racial position changed with the popular opinions of the time. A real politician.

No argument there.

I wish I knew how Ben Franklin would have felt about mass air transportation and guns and hijackings in the modern world. I don't think any of us could really know for sure.

If you think about it, it's really not unlike the sea voyages in that a fairly large amount of people were in a confined area on a transportation vehicle. And they were very clear how they felt about it there. Why should it be otherwise with aircraft?

There is nothing to stop a person from placing their gun in their luggage is there?

And there wasn't on a ship, either. Okay, the guns were a little bigger then, but the concept still stands.

I'm sure there is a quote by somebody a lot better known and a lot smarter than me about the difference between freedom and abusing the right to be a fool to counter Ben, but I will instead say that I see carrying a gun on a plane not so much a freedom or a right but as a privilege.

I would agree with this only insofar as it's not your plane. The decision, as I've been saying all along, should rest with the property owners. And since many people have said that they wouldn't allow guns if we did it that way (while trying to make that appear as some kind of rebuttal, although for the life of me I can't see how it is), it's very troublesome to hear people going on and on about "shootouts at 20,000 feet"—either my proposal would end up with more guns on planes or it wouldn't! Make up your mind, people!

THIS is exactly why I knew I was an idiot for getting involved in another gun thread. This is how they all seem to go.

 

[The Fool]

I've already made several points as to why that would likely be invalid here, points that no one here has refuted (or even acknowledged). There's just no reason to believe that hijackings would rise with either the number of flights or the number of people who are on them.

That is very true.... The number of hijackings depends on the number of hijackers, not the number of planes available....However, the sheer world population increase since the 60's means there are more people every year and more potential hijackers. So I would not be surprised to see a gradual increase in the absolute number of hijackings over time.

 

[shanek]

It didn't seem to do this guy much harm...

Read the chronology. If that's the best you can do, then I can only declare victory here.

 

[shanek]

You have no basis for claiming that the drop in hijackings can not be, wholly or in part, attributed to the implementation of efficent gun restrictions aboard airplanes.

That is not my claim. My claim is that the gun control people have no basis for claiming that the drop in hijackings is due to the 1973 gun ban.

He then estimated the contribution of the three policies: screening was the cause of a decline of 45 percent, sky marshals created a 28 percent decline, and the remainder (9 percent) was probably attributed to the Cuba treaty.

Problem: Sky marshalls were introduced with the 1968 ban, not the 1973 ban. So this is more evidence that the surge and subsequent plummeting of the hijacking rates is anomalous.

 

[shanek]

That's been pointed out already. IIRC, shanek instantly ignored the argument

This is another of your filty lies. I made the points I reiterated to him above several times and you know it. And you wonder why I'm ignoring your worthless posts!