Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Luke T.]

About Wallace being re-elected for three more terms after the incident blocking blacks' entrance to a white school:

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.

Well, that is what I was saying. One could get votes by being a racist. Wallace was a racist. Wallace was popular. Wallace was re-elected.

Upon my saying he even felt popular enough to run for President:

And he was wrong.

In the eyes of the guy who shot him anyway.

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?

The logistics of hijacking a ship are far more complicated than hijacking an airplane. Time, for one thing.

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!

I don't believe any of the current airlines would allow guns on their planes if such restrictions were lifted. I suppose it is possible an airline would come into existence to cater to the "flying saloon" element, with a separate wing or terminal for boarding. Cigars, hookers, poker and guns. Why not.

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.

I rarely get involved in them myself.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

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!

There's one post in particular you continue to ignore. Why's that, I wonder?

 

[Leif Roar]

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.

I was explicitly responding to your statement "Neither the rise nor the drop can be attributed to gun legislation.", so how you can claim that this was not your claim is beyond me - unless you want to lay this claim at the foot of the orbital mind control lasers or the gremlins living in your keyboard?

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.

Once more you are factually wrong - Sky Marshals were introduced in October 1969, and were at first only half a dozen - the number rising steadily to around 230. (Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/monitor/jan-2002/jan02-1.html. ) Furthermore it is inane to assume that a statistical study of the effect of the various anti-hijacking efforst did not take into account when the various efforts were introduced. It is particularly inane to do so when the description of the study (which I posted but you snipped) explicitly states that the study "used a time series analysis of 64 quarter years and 143 incidents."

That you try to dismiss the numbers from a study so easily (and remember, neither of us has actually read the study) shows once more how incredible biased you are when looking at data; completely ignoring any data that seems to go against your predecided belief, and placing an inordinate amount of weight to any data that appears, however flimsily, to support it. This is the sort of thing why people are so critical of your arguments, Shanek, and continuing with such poor argumentative behaviour does not in any way support your case.

 

[Luke T.]

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.

So the introduction of well-trained, armed men did nothing to deter hijackings? No wonder you want to consider that an anomaly...

 

[shanek]

I was explicitly responding to your statement "Neither the rise nor the drop can be attributed to gun legislation.", so how you can claim that this was not your claim is beyond me

It's the difference between saying that there is not enough supporting evidence for something and saying that there is evidence that disproves it. I am claiming the former, not the latter.

Once more you are factually wrong - Sky Marshals were introduced in October 1969,

Oh, excuuuse me, I was one year off.

The point is, their introduction was before the 1973 gun ban.

Furthermore it is inane to assume that a statistical study of the effect of the various anti-hijacking efforst did not take into account when the various efforts were introduced.

That's not what I'm doing. Without having read the study, it does appear however that he's considering the whole picture, not just what happened in 1973. So the study's findings I think are being misapplied here.

 

[shanek]

So the introduction of well-trained, armed men did nothing to deter hijackings? No wonder you want to consider that an anomaly...

Fact: Hijackings skyrocketed with one gun ban. Fact: They plummeted with another. The only reasonable conclusion is that this experience tells us nothing conclusive about the effectiveness of gun bans on hijackings of that era given the numerous other forces at play in at first creating them and then deterring them.

 

[Leif Roar]

Fact: Hijackings skyrocketed with one gun ban.

I've already corrected you on this, Shanek. The rise in hijackings started well before the 1968 restrictions took effect in October of that year.

 

[Leif Roar]

It's the difference between saying that there is not enough supporting evidence for something and saying that there is evidence that disproves it. I am claiming the former, not the latter.

Maybe you meant the former, but you certainly said the latter.

Oh, excuuuse me, I was one year off.

The point is, their introduction was before the 1973 gun ban.

Actually, since they were introduced in October of 1969, you were closer to two years off. Since we're discussing a five year period from 1968 to 1973, that's a very significant difference.

That's not what I'm doing. Without having read the study, it does appear however that he's considering the whole picture, not just what happened in 1973. So the study's findings I think are being misapplied here.

You originally claimed that "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."

I pointed out the results of Landes' study as it is a study that has taken into account various factors which caused the drop in hijackings, and which furthermore attributed the largest part of the drop to the screening of passengers and baggage introduced at the start of 1973 (the "gun legislation" you were referring to.) How was this to "misapply the study's findings"?

(Edited to change "you meant the former but said the former" to "you meant the former but said the latter." It was the fault of the gremlins living in my keyboard, I swear.)

 

[Luke T.]

Fact: Hijackings skyrocketed with one gun ban. Fact: They plummeted with another. The only reasonable conclusion is that this experience tells us nothing conclusive about the effectiveness of gun bans on hijackings of that era given the numerous other forces at play in at first creating them and then deterring them.

It's quite simple. The first gun ban, by which I assume you mean the one you referred to earlier that made it a felony to carry a gun on a plane, was enough for law-abiding citizens to obey, but certainly was no deterrent to a hijacker. The second gun ban involved the installation of enforcement techniques which were very effective. Metal detectors, and so on. And that is what finally deterred hijackers.

The reasonable conclusion is that the effectiveness of gun bans is dependent on the enforcement of the ban.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for reference.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Another couple of links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3356817.stm

So what happens if another country decides it won't accept flights which have armed guards onboard? Is that the end of flights between them and the US?

 

[Richard G]

Yes.

 

[Troll]

Too many pages in an old thread. I'm an american, and as such, I'm either too lazy or too biased to care depending on whether or not you are AUP or Fool.

I like Israel's stance. If you fly into or over then we have our security guys on board. Armed or not.

Now let's really take all points into consideration. You're really posting about a beef with the aftermath of the whole "9/11" thing. I can't rightfully call you an idiot for your transparent bias because of your wording. So I won't.

I know this to be true and there's not a freaking chance you can argue it.

I could be on all planes that fly into the US and I could exercise logic and sit there watching a crappy movie until someone acted in a way that warrented attention.

Yes I said I could do such a thing. Prove to me that i could not do so with no bias

Now they have warranted my attention. I will act upon it. I can explain why and how immediately, But my money says you cannot defend them as easily

all logical views and logical points of gathering intel from simple observation. so tell me why you would consider my view, and I've trained in terrorism and anti-terrorism both as a terrorist and as an opponet of it, to be incorrect

What is your level of experience?

 

[The Fool]

Too many pages in an old thread. I'm an american, and as such, I'm either too lazy or too biased to care depending on whether or not you are AUP or Fool.

I like Israel's stance. If you fly into or over then we have our security guys on board. Armed or not.

Now let's really take all points into consideration. You're really posting about a beef with the aftermath of the whole "9/11" thing. I can't rightfully call you an idiot for your transparent bias because of your wording. So I won't.

I know this to be true and there's not a freaking chance you can argue it.

I could be on all planes that fly into the US and I could exercise logic and sit there watching a crappy movie until someone acted in a way that warrented attention.

Yes I said I could do such a thing. Prove to me that i could not do so with no bias

Now they have warranted my attention. I will act upon it. I can explain why and how immediately, But my money says you cannot defend them as easily

all logical views and logical points of gathering intel from simple observation. so tell me why you would consider my view, and I've trained in terrorism and anti-terrorism both as a terrorist and as an opponet of it, to be incorrect

What is your level of experience?

Were you drunk when you posted this jibberish? Woooohooooo...a terrorist were you? Lol...tell us about it....

 

[Kopji]

The opinion & concerns of the airline pilot published earlier in the thread made a lot of sense to me. "Arm the pilots" seems the most reasonable solution, but not the one chosen. The cockpit is the last line of defense for control of the airplane, why not allow pilots be armed?

The lengthy debate seems to recognize the link in reasoning that IF an armed marshall makes a flight more safe, allowing concealed weapons by any passsenger with a permit could make it even more safe.

I disagree that either solution makes a flight more safe than an armed pilot.

There does not seem to be any evidence that the presence of an air marshall makes a flight more safe from terrorists. A plausable scenario was offered by the pilot: A fatigued sky marshall could be identified and overpowered, giving a terrorists access to a weapon. If this were to happen EVEN ONCE, it could invalidate the whole air marshall program. Hope they had their wheaties this morning...

The referenced GAO report of Nov 2003 below is good reading. Not all the air marshalls have had their backgrounds cleared yet, and the long hours they are being forced to work is causing widespread complaints and fatigue, low morale, and illness.

GAO Report (Acrobat pdf)

 

[Troll]

Were you drunk when you posted this jibberish? Woooohooooo...a terrorist were you? Lol...tell us about it....

Not drunk, but I did overdo the cough syrup and flu medication. By time I realized i even typed that it was too late to edit or delete.

As for the training, part, I need to clarify. Not trained in any terrorist camp. Played one numerous times during training. Once you know what to look for and how they may act, it's easy to use that info to act as one to assist others in learning.

 

[Troll]

The opinion & concerns of the airline pilot published earlier in the thread made a lot of sense to me. "Arm the pilots" seems the most reasonable solution, but not the one chosen. The cockpit is the last line of defense for control of the airplane, why not allow pilots be armed?

The lengthy debate seems to recognize the link in reasoning that IF an armed marshall makes a flight more safe, allowing concealed weapons by any passsenger with a permit could make it even more safe.

I disagree that either solution makes a flight more safe than an armed pilot.

There does not seem to be any evidence that the presence of an air marshall makes a flight more safe from terrorists. A plausable scenario was offered by the pilot: A fatigued sky marshall could be identified and overpowered, giving a terrorists access to a weapon. If this were to happen EVEN ONCE, it could invalidate the whole air marshall program. Hope they had their wheaties this morning...

The referenced GAO report of Nov 2003 below is good reading. Not all the air marshalls have had their backgrounds cleared yet, and the long hours they are being forced to work is causing widespread complaints and fatigue, low morale, and illness.

GAO Report (Acrobat pdf)

I'm not to keen on arming guys that still seem to have a high level of showing up for work under the influence of alcohol or drugs

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Planes don't kill guns, people kill planes......er wait that's not right

 

[Troll]

Planes don't kill guns, people kill planes......er wait that's not right

People with planes kill gun owners?

 

[shanek]

[I know I'll regret getting back into this circus, but...]

I'm not to keen on arming guys that still seem to have a high level of showing up for work under the influence of alcohol or drugs

But you apparently have no problem with them actually flying the plane????