Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[shanek]

Unless you list the flights you used in your little graph, your graph isn't worth the bandwidth its soaking up.

"Waaah waaah waah, blah blah blah, excuse excuse excuse." The claim was that the number of hijackings DROPPED DRAMATICALLY after the handgun ban; a claim that, as my graph shows, just ain't true.

 

[Luke T.]

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

Okay, Shanek, since you accuse others of moving the goal posts, let's take a look at your record so far.

First, you claim a plane had its roof ripped off with no injuries. Totally bogus. I provided evidence you made that claim up.

Later, you provide a quote, separate from another quote from the same article, which reads:

Let me introduce myself. I am an airline Captain for the worlds second largest airline. I have been flying airplanes professionally for twenty one years. I have dealt with engine failures, aircraft system failures, aircraft navigation equipment failures, Air Traffic Control failures and airline management failures. Through it all, nothing has scared me more in aviation than the people I carry in the back of the plane. Why? Because I have had to deal with drug crazed and drunk passengers, air ragers, and people who are just scared. I have learned that all these people are unpredictable and dangerous. (just the opposite of law abiding gun owners).

When I point out "the pilot's story only argues in favor of pilot's being allowed to carry guns on planes. This pilot is in no way supporting passengers carrying guns," you say:

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.

That quote says nothing about decompression or sky marshals. So why did you post it, separate from the other quote, shanek?

Next, I say, "Gee, it doesn't matter that it was because of HIJACKERS that guns were banned and that HIJACKINGS dramatically decreased after the ban? Hello?"

(Notice I said "ban.")

You reply, "Except that hijackings did not dramatically decrease after the ban. They actually increased."

(Notice you also said "ban.")

I then provide a link (a very specific one, too) that states hijackings went down 90 percent after guns were banned.

Suddenly, you move the goal posts and 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."

Ohhhhhhhhhhh... It's restrictions now!

Regardless, the source I provided still makes the same point, as it refers to the period after 1973.

 

[shanek]

I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong,

Oh, no, because that might actually be useful and further the debate!

This is asinine, even by your own standards. NO ONE RUSHED THE HIJACKERS because NO ONE KNEW IT WAS A SUICIDE MISSION.

Right, because they, like everybody else, had been told all along that the best thing is to just let them have what they want. That was a big security hole, and they walked right through it. How do you even PRETEND to think that this somehow rebuts my point instead of supporting it?

It is very relevant, but as I've said, you never bothered to read many responses here, otherwise you would feel very foolish for even saying this.

I have thoroughly read every single response. But like all the others, you just resort to insults because you apparently can't defend your position.

Like? The only ones that come to mind are Eastern and Braniff. Small airlines in regional markets.

How dishonest can you get? Eastern was not a "small airline in a regional market;" they were then what USAir is today. Charlotte was a major hub for them, and they brokered flights all over the country. They were one of the most dominant airline companies in their time.

If the rest of your knowledge is this faulty, then why should anyone believe anything you say?

 

[shanek]

Re: Not that you deserve it, Shanek, but here it is:

So as I said, your ludicrious assertion that there was no bomb mentioned is not only wrong, but common knowledge!

And you base this on telephone calls reconstructed by a grieving widow FROM MEMORY that DON'T EVEN STATE THAT HE BELIEVED THERE ACTUALLY WAS A BOMB ON BOARD? Come on!

 

[shanek]

If there were, for example, five hijackings of 5000 flights in 1968, and 10 hijackings of 50000 flights in 1979, the increase would not be statistically significant. Which you would know, if you studied statistics in any way- possibly as an alternative to listening to the sound of your own voice.

Bull$#!7. Answer straight: Why should the number of hijackings increase with the number of flights?

 

[shanek]

Even the methodology Shanek suggests for accidents indicates a lack of insight - basing it on miles flown is pointless,

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD DO THAT!!! STOP LYING!!!!

As flights increase, the number of potential targets increases. Accessibility to those targets, proximity to terrorist centers and about a billion other factors go into it.

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

 

[Luke T.]

Just to repeat what is stated in the source I gave earlier in this thread:

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.

This obviously contradicts shanek's unsubstantiated graph, which doesn't even have a source attached.

 

[shanek]

Oh dear. One track mind operating. I'm saying that the hijackers were prepared to kill the pilots because they had at least one trained person among their own who could do the job (of hitting the target). And I suspect this was precisely what happened to the two aircraft that hit the WTC - I doubt sincerely that the regular pilots would have done this, even with a knife at their throat.

I agree, Now, this has what to do with what I said? I was responding to YOUR question as to why the flight crashed. I simply responded that the terrorists had taken out the pilots, and so when the passengers took out the terrorists, there was simply no one left who could fly the plane. YOU then jumped all over my case.

This is the second time you've asked a question, I've given you a perfectly straightforward and true answer, and you've taken the opportunity to jump all over my case about it. You've just proven that you're here to personally belittle me as much as you can and not for honest, open debate. this is all about you and your personal bigotry, lashing out at anything and anyone that challenges it.

Why would there NOT be such a headline? "Brave passengers shoot hijackers, save thousands in near collision."

How would anyone KNOW they had saved thousands? That's the thing about preventative defense measures: the results are invisible and incalculable.

You are simply being US-centric again.

We are talking about the effects if US gun legislation...OF COURSE I'M BEING US CENTRIC!!!

Geez... Just any old excuse to ignore the facts, isn't it?

I made no such claim myself.

Others did, and that is what the graph was meant to refute.

In fact, I don't recall commenting on your graphs at all. Check if you like - get back to me if I'm wrong, OK? So I don't speak for all the other gun control advocates at all.

I made no such claim myself.

I didn't see you posting reasons as to why the hijackings increased after 1973 when others were claiming they decreased at the same time. Are you making this up as you go along, or do you only refute data you don't agree with?

 

[shanek]

The list for hijackings in 1969 ( http://aviation-safety.net/database/1969/1969-hij.html ) contains almost 50 hijackings with the location "Cuba." That seemed awfully high, so I examined a couple of those in detail, and one of them was a domestic US flight and the other was an international flight origination in the US. I therefore concluded that the "Location" field in the overview denoted the point where the hijacking ended, and not where it took place.

I see.

So, to answer your last question, you'd have to go into the database and check the departure and arrival airports and count the number of hijackings on either domestic flights within the US or the number of hijackings on flights originating from a US airport.

Unfortunately, the database doesn't let me do lookups based on departure and arrival locations. It would take me a really, really, really long time to go through each and every one individually and see whether or not it was a domestic US flight.

 

[shanek]

And don't forget to make sure the hijackings involve guns

Because you want the results deliberately skewed in your favor, and you want everyone to ignore the fact that guns are deterrents to hijackings regardless of whether or not they're committed with a firearm.

 

[Luke T.]

Yet another source. The U.S. Senate.

Here.

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.

 

[Leif Roar]

"Waaah waaah waah, blah blah blah, excuse excuse excuse." The claim was that the number of hijackings DROPPED DRAMATICALLY after the handgun ban; a claim that, as my graph shows, just ain't true.

Shanek, as I've already explained in detail, your graph is based on erronous data. Thus, it is worthless.

 

[shanek]

You are going to have to do a lot better than provide a generic link to a web site.

A generic link to a website??? THAT'S A WHOLE AIRLINE SAFETY DATABASE!!!!

Please provide a specific link to a specific page that shows planes hijacked in the U.S. went up after the banning of guns on planes.

I had to go through the database year by year and count the hijackings listed in the USA. There isn't one page with that; I had to cull it through the whole site. Your unwillingness to consider that you might be wrong when you said the number of hijackings "decreased dramatically" after the 1973 gun ban has been noted.

 

[Luke T.]

It would take me a really, really, really long time to go through each and every one individually and see whether or not it was a domestic US flight.

Which blows it right out of the water.

 

[shanek]

This obviously contradicts shanek's unsubstantiated graph, which doesn't even have a source attached.

IT DID HAVE A SOURCE ATTACHED!!!! I GAVE YOU A LINK TO THE VERY DATABASE I GOT THE DATA FROM!!!!!

Geez....

 

[Luke T.]

I had to go through the database year by year and count the hijackings listed in the USA. There isn't one page with that; I had to cull it through the whole site. Your unwillingness to consider that you might be wrong when you said the number of hijackings "decreased dramatically" after the 1973 gun ban has been noted.

I have provided two specific sources now, shanek, to show they have indeed decreased dramatically. You have not provided a single one. Would you like some more?

 

[Luke T.]

By the way, shanek, I am not a "gun control advocate." But you are providing excellent fodder for the gun control advocates that may be lurking about by your insistence that passengers should be allowed to carry guns on planes.

Did you know that in the period 1968-1972, there was an attempted hijacking of a domestic U.S. flight every 13.3 days?

Are you sure you want to advocate a return to those days? Not exactly a wise choice of battle for a Libertarian. Might hurt you.

 

[Luke T.]

IT DID HAVE A SOURCE ATTACHED!!!! I GAVE YOU A LINK TO THE VERY DATABASE I GOT THE DATA FROM!!!!!

Geez....

So if I say that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews, I can just give a link to the History Channel web site and let you figure it out from there?

edited to add: By which I mean, The History Channel web site home page.

 

[Tmy]

I was wondering, have any of you ever ridden in a plane? Everyones always mad! And you want them to all have guns!!!

Whats next, guns in prisons? (armed prisoners make for polite prisoners)

Look at the problems they have just by serving alcohol.

 

[Leif Roar]

So if I say that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews, I can just give a link to the History Channel web site and let you figure it out from there?

To come to Shanek's defence here, it wasn't that difficult to find the data he'd been using from the URL he gave.