Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Jocko]

Let's also not forget that D.B.Cooper opened the emergency exit door in flight and jumped off of the plane, while no one else was injured. So one little bullet hole wouldn't make a difference. (though, after DB emergency exit doors all have locks that make it so you are unable to open the door mid-flight)
No one is going to get sucked off an airplane. Now, sucked off IN an airplane, that's a whole 'nother story.


I voted yes.

Er, if I recall correctly, the plane D.B. Cooper leapt from was only flying at around 15,000 feet - enough for a stiff breeze, but not nearly high enough to decompress. If he'd been trying to bail out of a plane cruising at 35,000-40,000 feet (where airliners hit cruising altitude), he would have discovered that he may well have suffocated before he had a chance to pull the cord.

The reason emergency hatches won't open in flight - and this was true before the Cooper stunt - is that internal air pressure prevents even the strongest man from pulling the door in (which they must do before swinging out). The locking feature is moot in this case.

 

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Airplanes fly over property that isn't owned by the airline company, peopled by citizens that might not be customers of that company.

Now, that's just bogus. You don't own your property all the way up.

You must be very, very, dim if you don't understand the point. If an airplane is damaged badly, it falls out of the sky. Do you understand the point now? Big planes full of fuel are dangerous.




I wrote:
Because of that, the decision can't rest with the individual companies, but must be regulated by the government.
The risk is not just to the people in the plane.

That twisted "logic" could be used as an excuse to regulate just about everything.

You mean like, people should be allowed to place others at risk without their consent?


How nice, use the modifier twisted, and put logic in quotes, and voila, you don't even have to justify what you say. Hey, guess what, lots of things are regulated. There's laws on how much pesticides farmers can use, horrible stuff like that. And in case you don't realize it, liability isn't really the problem. Prevention is. So what if the airlines can pay for the damage caused by a 737 falling onto a city. I'd rather not have that happen at all. So all your talk about the airline companies taking the responsibility is just you living in a tiny world where airplanes fly, but never fall down.

 

[Luke T.]

No, it doesn't only do that. It also points out the problems with the "decompression" argument as well as the problems with armed sky marshalls. He also points out how gunplay is the last resort and other things that refute what has been said here.

But he clearly doesn't want his passengers armed.

Except that hijackings did not dramatically decrease after the ban. They actually increased.

You must be living in a different country than me.

Source 3.

Formal profiling began in the 1960s with the problem of commercial airline piracy andhijackers taking planes to Cuba. In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully. “Sky marshals”– specially trained U.S. Marshals – were put on planes but hijacking continued. A government task force came up with a profile of potential hijackers. Taking information on known hijackers they developed a picture of a potential pirate. It was hoped that the criminal would be identified before boarding the plane. It did not work and instead all boarding passengers were required to undergo mandatory electronicscreening before they boarded. By 1976 the number of hijackings of U.S. commercial airplanes decreased to 4, a 90 percent decline from those of 1969.

Anyone could carry a gun, and look what happened after they stopped that practice.

 

[Zep]

If guns were allowed to be carried on planes then intending hijackers would be well aware of this, and would arrange for some other method of ensuring success of their venture - something that a whole platoon of guns would not be able to counter, rendering their presence utterly pointless, possibly even counter-productive.

And a quick question about 9/11, please. Is it my understanding that the hijackers there had more than just box-cutters? Didn't they also have explosives of some sort?

 

[shanek]

You mean like, people should be allowed to place others at risk without their consent?

No, I mean that your definition of "risk" is completely out of touch with reality. You are punishing people who would not be responsible in such an event.

Hey, guess what, lots of things are regulated.

Yes; that doesn't mean that such regulations are justified or accomplish what they are supposed to.

Prevention is. So what if the airlines can pay for the damage caused by a 737 falling onto a city. I'd rather not have that happen at all.

What you completely fail to realize is that liability is prevention. Especially in this case, where just the cost of replacing one perfectly good plane can have a serious effect on the bottom line, let alone compensation for the victims.

 

[shanek]

But he clearly doesn't want his passengers armed.

That wasn't the point of providing the information, though. Besides, he doesn't say that one way or the other. He did specifically say that gun owners are the opposite of unpredictable and dangerous.

You must be living in a different country than me.

Source 3.

Formal profiling began in the 1960s with the problem of commercial airline piracy andhijackers taking planes to Cuba. In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully.

I must be, because in this country (the US), 1968 was the year the gun restrictions started, as I said. It wasn't a complete ban until 1973, but the restrictions started in 1968.

 

[shanek]

If guns were allowed to be carried on planes then intending hijackers would be well aware of this, and would arrange for some other method of ensuring success of their venture - something that a whole platoon of guns would not be able to counter, rendering their presence utterly pointless, possibly even counter-productive.

Such as? They would need to gain control of the plane somehow, so unless they've perfected some kind of remote control system that means getting into the cockpit and forcing the pilots under duress or taking control of the plane themselves.

And a quick question about 9/11, please. Is it my understanding that the hijackers there had more than just box-cutters? Didn't they also have explosives of some sort?

My understanding is that boxcutters were all they had. They didn't need explosives because the fuel in the plane served that purpose.

 

[Luke T.]

That wasn't the point of providing the information, though. Besides, he doesn't say that one way or the other. He did specifically say that gun owners are the opposite of unpredictable and dangerous.

You provided the link with something for the "fear mongers." The only fear that has been expressed at length in this topic has been the idea of armed passengers.

Speaking of gun owners being the opposite of unpredictable and dangerous, what is the magic quality that excludes a gun owner from being human?

I don't buy for a second that all gun owners are not unpredictable and dangerous. That is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I must be, because in this country (the US), 1968 was the year the gun restrictions started, as I said. It wasn't a complete ban until 1973, but the restrictions started in 1968.

A complete ban in 1973. Get it yet?

Between 1976 and 9/11/01, shanek, when was a domestic plane hijacked at gunpoint in the U.S.? How many times?

 

[Zep]

Such as? They would need to gain control of the plane somehow, so unless they've perfected some kind of remote control system that means getting into the cockpit and forcing the pilots under duress or taking control of the plane themselves.

Once you realise that terrorists are not restricted in their thinking by the concepts of having to use violent physical force in order to achieve their aims, you will see that your statement here shows the limits of your thinking. It may be in future that they don't have to enter the cockpit at all, or even gain physical control of the plane themselves, in order to get control of the plane. And therefore there could be MANY ways this can be achieved. Electronic control, sophisticated plastic explosives, use of external threats (blackmail), etc, etc.


My understanding is that boxcutters were all they had. They didn't need explosives because the fuel in the plane served that purpose.

I was thinking of the use of such weapons as a threat to the passengers and crew, not so much as the ultimate means of destruction. So if boxcutters were the only weapon on board, why did the fourth plane crash after the passengers rushed the hijackers in the cabin? Sure, there would have been a lot of blood and fighting and such, but would that actually have crashed the plane? On the other hand, a well-placed small explosive could have done that quite easily... Sorry to go over old ground here, but this aspect has always puzzled me.

 

[Jocko]

My understanding is that boxcutters were all they had. They didn't need explosives because the fuel in the plane served that purpose.

Actually, according to the communications from passengers aboard United flight 93 indicated that the hijackers had SAID there were explosives aboard, which is obviously why they'd gotten as far as they did with nothing more than box cutters visible.

So shooting the hijackers wouldn't have solved the problem, as they understood it; though there was no bomb, there was a belief there was. Timed explosives don't need a live terrorist.

You've just shot another hole in your argument. But that's better than you shooting a hole in a fuselage at 40,000 feet.

And i'd like to ask you again to address your confidence in airlines' ability to cover liability from damage and deaths on the ground, when half of the airlines are in BANKRUPTCY. Of course, the additional insurance that your loony scheme would require would likely push the other half into bankruptcy as well.

The key thing to pushing an unpopular political philosohpy, Shanek, is pulling back before you plunge headlong into absurdity. This is a textbook example.

 

[shanek]

Okay, I'm going to ignore all of the illogic and desperate tactics of the gun control people here and annoy them with more facts.

I've just compiled a graph, based on data from the Aviation Safety Network's Aviation Safety Database (http://aviation-safety.net/) for the number of hijackings of US planes per year. To see what effect the gun control legislation had, to keep it equal, I graphed ten years before any gun legislation (1958-1968), when anyone could carry a gun, the period of gun legislation (1968-1973), and the ten years after the total gun ban (1973-1983). I think the graph tells a very clear picture. The number of hijackings of US planes most definitely went up in the 10 years after the gun ban, compared to the 10 years before any gun restrictions at all.

Any and all explanations are welcome, but evasion, ignoring the data, and the other forms of table-turning and goalpost-moving exhibited in these threads is not. Deal with the facts, people. They are what they are.

 

[shanek]

You provided the link with something for the "fear mongers." The only fear that has been expressed at length in this topic has been the idea of armed passengers.

I explained to you precisely what I was doing with the article. Stop whining.

I don't buy for a second that all gun owners are not unpredictable and dangerous. That is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

But you apparently have no problem with the claim that all passengers are unpredictable and dangerous? (Hint: if you actually READ the article, he really didn't make either claim; you interjected the word "all").

A complete ban in 1973. Get it yet?

Between 1976 and 9/11/01, shanek, when was a domestic plane hijacked at gunpoint in the U.S.? How many times?

See the graph. And "at gunpoint" is meaningless, as the events of 9/11 showed. If the passengers aren't armed, and guns aren't necessary, why should a hijacker risk bringing a gun on board when boxcutters will do?

 

[shanek]

So if boxcutters were the only weapon on board, why did the fourth plane crash after the passengers rushed the hijackers in the cabin?

Maybe because the hijackers had killed the only people capable of flying the plane?

 

[shanek]

So shooting the hijackers wouldn't have solved the problem, as they understood it; though there was no bomb, there was a belief there was.

There was also a belief that they weren't going to slam the airplane into buildings and blow them up. What does any of this have to do with what we're discussing?

And i'd like to ask you again to address your confidence in airlines' ability to cover liability from damage and deaths on the ground, when half of the airlines are in BANKRUPTCY. Of course, the additional insurance that your loony scheme would require would likely push the other half into bankruptcy as well.

The airlines are in bankruptcy because of the hideous costs of all of these government regulations (that so-called "deregulation" of the 1980s was really re-regulation, as is almost always the case when politicians use that term).

 

[Earthborn]

Any and all explanations are welcome,

Okay, here's another explanation: the number of planes flying around and the number of passengers has increased rather dramatically.

Can you make a nice graph like that that shows:
- The percentage of flights hijacked
- The percentage of hijackings compared with number of passengers
- The percentage of planes hijacked
- The percentage of hijackings to flown distance

Or any other graph of your own choosing that factors in the growth of aviation in general...

If you come up with such a graph, there are a few possibilities:
- When guns on planes were outlawed, there was a dramatic rise in hijackings. This means that guns should be allowed on planes.
- When guns on planes were banned, there was a dramatic decline in hijackings. This means the ban has been effective
- Hijackings have been declining with a steady rate. This could mean that the gun ban had no real effect, but the decline is caused by the fact that there are too few hijackers to keep hijacking up with the growth in aviation.
- Hijackers have been rising with a steady rate. This could mean that the gun ban had no real effect, but the US has become increasing (un?)popular with hijackers.

 

[Leif Roar]

Okay, I'm going to ignore all of the illogic and desperate tactics of the gun control people here and annoy them with more facts.

I've just compiled a graph, based on data from the Aviation Safety Network's Aviation Safety Database (http://aviation-safety.net/) for the number of hijackings of US planes per year.

Shanek, you've made a mistake when compiling this. The data from the ASNAS database is indexed with the "location" field as the place the hijacking ended, not the place the hijacking took place. For the year 1969, for instance, there's only one "USA" entry - but several of the "Cuba" entries occured on domestic US flights.

 

[Jocko]

There was also a belief that they weren't going to slam the airplane into buildings and blow them up. What does any of this have to do with what we're discussing?

You're being intellectually dishonest and deliberately obtuse.

You claimed they only used box cutters, and no other weapons (or threat), thereby making it fit neatly into your little dreamworld where armed passengers would have been more than a match for the hijackers. But as with so many of your points, it's patently untrue - and once you're called on it, you ask "what's the point?"

Just knock that crap off. You're not fooling anyone with the aloof act.

The airlines are in bankruptcy because of the hideous costs of all of these government regulations (that so-called "deregulation" of the 1980s was really re-regulation, as is almost always the case when politicians use that term).

Example? Funny, I thought it had to do with plummeting bookings and high fuel costs since 9/11. Care to back that up, or is it enough for you to trot out the government boogeyman and expect us to be frightened?

Jeez, Shanek, you're starting to make government look good, now that I'm getting a decent view of your alternative.

 

[Kilted_Canuck]

Okay, I'm going to ignore all of the illogic and desperate tactics of the gun control people here and annoy them with more facts.

I've just compiled a graph, based on data from the Aviation Safety Network's Aviation Safety Database (http://aviation-safety.net/) for the number of hijackings of US planes per year. To see what effect the gun control legislation had, to keep it equal, I graphed ten years before any gun legislation (1958-1968), when anyone could carry a gun, the period of gun legislation (1968-1973), and the ten years after the total gun ban (1973-1983). I think the graph tells a very clear picture. The number of hijackings of US planes most definitely went up in the 10 years after the gun ban, compared to the 10 years before any gun restrictions at all.

Any and all explanations are welcome, but evasion, ignoring the data, and the other forms of table-turning and goalpost-moving exhibited in these threads is not. Deal with the facts, people. They are what they are.

Shanek, that graph doesn't take into account the political atomosphere in the world. Now, middle-eastern and former soviet terrorist have targeted the US and other western countries. Though Hi-jackings are EXTREMELY rare, they are on the rise. This is because people don't have guns on planes? Nope.


As Luciana said, think about international flights. Even if your 2nd ammendment says you can take guns on a flight (I doubt it would apply), that doesn't mean that every other country in the world would agree with you. There's no way an international flight would be allowed to land in any other country if it had firearms on board. No freaking way.

Besides, have you ever been stuck on a plane for 8 hours for a snow delay or the like? I'd think the officials would consider the result a mass suicide...

 

[Zep]

Maybe because the hijackers had killed the only people capable of flying the plane?

Didn't the hijackers all go to flying school in Florida so THEY could fly the plane instead of the pilots? Or have at least one "flight-trained" hijacker per flight?

Shane, I feel you need to think your pronouncements through a bit more...

BTW, re the explosives on the flights, I read somewhere off the internet that the 9/11 terrorists actually did have explosives, as liquid bombs in their baggage in the hold, and they were to be fired by remote controls they carried in their hands. Certainly sounded feasible enough and nasty enough as well. And if true, it would certainly put the plane-full-o-guns proponents in a bind! But I admit I can't find any references for this, so it is anecdotal only.

Incidentally, aircraft have been hijacked since the 1920's. The increase in the hijacking rate in the 1970's was far more likely due to the rise of Middle Eastern and other extremisms, and the sophisticated technology that became available to terrorists about that time. In other words, it had a political motivation entirely, nothing at all to do with any gun-controls or gun-bans - post hoc, ergo prompter hoc. And it just became a vogue thing for your up-to-date swingin' 1970's terrorist, man!

 

[Jocko]

BTW, re the explosives on the flights, I read somewhere off the internet that the 9/11 terrorists actually did have explosives, as liquid bombs in their baggage in the hold, and they were to be fired by remote controls they carried in their hands. Certainly sounded feasible enough and nasty enough as well. And if true, it would certainly put the plane-full-o-guns proponents in a bind! But I admit I can't find any references for this, so it is anecdotal only.

Exactly. Either real or just a convincing threat, explosives trump firearms. Now if only Shanek would stop dismissing his own points as irrelevant as they're knocked down...