Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[shanek]

So... I take it, then, you aren't going to show your data?

I have.

Boy, I bet you lasted in Uni.

Graduated cum laude on the National Dean's List.

 

[shanek]

PamAm 103. A.k.a. Lockerbie.

But maybe shanek thinks armed passengers could have prevented that one....

Strawman. That one wasn't even in the US.

 

[shanek]

Armed passengers can fix anything.

Strawman again. No one is claiming this. One thing the gun control people on this thread are clearly demonstrating is their complete unwillingness to debate honestly.

 

[Luke T.]

How does this data show that I might be wrong? It shows a very small amount of hijackings before 1968.

A steadily rising, and then dramatically rising, increase in hijackings prior to the gun ban. Then a steadily decreasing number of hijackings afterwards. You can't understand how this shows you are wrong?

There were a very, very small amount of airplane hijackings before 1900, too, shanek. That's how far back you have to go to get to zero. How much more would you like to shift the goal posts?

 

[CFLarsen]

How does this data show that I might be wrong? It shows a very small amount of hijackings before 1968.

So, why are there now far less hijackings today?

[sigh] Yes, you can. You can get around any defensive security measure you want provided you know enough about it. The point is to make it more difficult to do so.

Which is why we stop bombs and guns and any dangerous item from getting on the plane in the first place.

Why run the risk of having a very dangerous situation at 10,000 feet, when you can avoid it before the plane takes off?

Strawman. That one wasn't even in the US.

Not a strawman. I was pointing out that planes are downed because of bombs. Are you saying that it is impossible for a bomb to be on a plane leaving the US?

Just yes or no, please.

You have become so infatuated with your political ideas that you have become blind to reality. One might refer to a person like that as a dangerous fanatic, completely disregarding any other person's concern. Or evidence, of which there is plenty, while you have provided none.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

[sigh] Yes, you can. You can get around any defensive security measure you want provided you know enough about it. The point is to make it more difficult to do so.

So... How do guns help against bombs? Oh... that's right... they don't. So guns aren't going to be much help against hijackers, now, are they? Can you concede that point?

Really, shanek, your Libertarian buddies aren't going to think any less of you if you say that passengers shouldn't be allowed to carry guns on planes. Heck, some people here might even have a higher opinion of you. C'mon... give sanity a try! You might like it.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Strawman again. No one is claiming this. One thing the gun control people on this thread are clearly demonstrating is their complete unwillingness to debate honestly.

That's a joke, boy!

You'll do anything to get a point, won't you? Sorry, shanek, but the score is still several million to nil. Guess which side you're on.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

How does this data show that I might be wrong? It shows a very small amount of hijackings before 1968.

Remember posting this:

"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."

And this:

"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."

And this:

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

You have already acknowledged that the ban started in 1973. You specifically refer to the impact of the handgun ban (NOT restriction) when you claim that your graph demonstrates it did not lead to a dramatic drop. Looking at the real figures (from the US Senate) shows that the introduction of the handgun ban coincides with a dramatic drop in the number of hijackings.

And you don't think you are wrong?

One other quote which I think is relevant:

"Will you listen to yourself? Don't you realize you're employing the same arguments as astrologers and homeopaths?"

Is ignoring the evidence and refusing to admit you are wrong not exactly the sort of behaviour that would be expected from astrologers and homeopaths?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I have.



Graduated cum laude on the National Dean's List.

In... Computer graphics. Which has nothing to do with statistics. Pity you didn't take the time to learn something useful while you were there.

 

[Luke T.]

Re: And here's the post-game show.

Americans were taught to cooperate with hijackers, based on the higher likelihood of survival. That's why the passengers on the first 3 flights were pliant, not because they had been somehow emasculated bythe evil gummint and their "intrusive" regulations.

He claimed to have no knowledge of the hijackers threatening the passengers with bombs, although every human being who watched TV during the week of 9/11 knew that from the recorded cell calls. I provided evidence to back this up and he dismissed it because he feels the caller didn't express an adequate belief in that threat.

I believe the hijackers stated they had bombs. I don't believe they actually had bombs. But who could tell at the time? That is one reason the passengers were compliant.

 

[Suddenly]

In... Computer graphics. Which has nothing to do with statistics. Pity you didn't take the time to learn something useful while you were there.

Hey man, lay off. Useless college degrees are a tradition in the states. Of course, so is grade inflation. I graduated cum laude with two majors and I don't think I was sober more than 50% of the time. If I'd have paid attention I'm sure I could have made some other latin nonsense, like summa cum laude or magna cum laude. I was just so preoccupied with makkinher cum laude that it didn't seem necessary.

 

[Luke T.]

The reason is because there ISN'T one particular page on that site that has all the data put together. You have to go through it page by page. That task has just been made exponentially harder by Lief's point about their "location" field.

Which I might be willing to do, if all of you hadn't just proven to me that it would be a colossal waste of about a dozen hours of my time.

Or it may just prove to yourself you are wrong.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh... shanek, hate to harp on about this, but... Your data?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Hey man, lay off. Useless college degrees are a tradition in the states. Of course, so is grade inflation. I graduated cum laude with two majors and I don't think I was sober more than 50% of the time. If I'd have paid attention I'm sure I could have made some other latin nonsense, like summa cum laude or magna cum laude. I was just so preoccupied with makkinher cum laude that it didn't seem necessary.

Down here, the trend seems to be to have a degree in Classics with 'honours'... Wierd that... Like it's an honour to have written an essay on the significance of the number of times Prometheus got his liver pecked out by crows. Most of 'em seem to be working for the public service, now. I guess Prometheus gave 'em some preperation of what to expect.

Oh, and shanek... The data? Just in case you thought I'd forgotten.

 

[Tmy]

We dont need charts and stats. Just use a little common sense. The benefit that armed passengers would prevent some hijackings is so remote when compared to the danger of allowing guns into a flying tube thousands of feet above the county.

Hijackers are not concerned for their safety, so there is almost no deterent. Worse yet, now they can all but bypass security with their guns. Toss in the occasion sucidal screwball and your asking for a major spike in plane deaths if you allow for guns on planes.

 

[shanek]

A steadily rising, and then dramatically rising, increase in hijackings prior to the gun ban.

Except that it doesn't. Prior to the first gun restrictions in 1968, which is the period I've been talking about, there were virtually no hijackings.

There were a very, very small amount of airplane hijackings before 1900, too, shanek. That's how far back you have to go to get to zero.

Not according to the site I referenced to you. Why don't you go read it?

 

[shanek]

Why run the risk of having a very dangerous situation at 10,000 feet, when you can avoid it before the plane takes off?

I agree with this; I just disagree that disarming pilots, unformed crewmembers, and passengers with concealed carry permits does anything at all to avoid it.

Remember that there are a lot of Federal, State, and Local employees who can carry guns on planes. And you don't have to be a law enforcement officer; a curator for the Smithsonian can do it. Why they and not others? None of this makes any sense.

This kind of mentality is the reason why a DEA agent was allowed to get on the airplane with his gun but they confiscated his toenail clippers.

Not a strawman. I was pointing out that planes are downed because of bombs.

And no one is saying that guns can prevent this or prevent all forms of hijacking. Therefore, it is a strawman.

Or evidence, of which there is plenty, while you have provided none.

I have provided tons of evidence. People like you just ignore it. And you accuse me of fanaticism? That's rich!

 

[shanek]

So... How do guns help against bombs? Oh... that's right... they don't. So guns aren't going to be much help against hijackers, now, are they? Can you concede that point?

You keep trying to shoehorn this into a black-and-white issue when it just isn't! I've never once said that guns would be effective against all hijackers, yet you continually bring up that strawman even though I have shot it down every time. That can only be willful dishonesty.

 

[shanek]

In... Computer graphics. Which has nothing to do with statistics. Pity you didn't take the time to learn something useful while you were there.

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.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: And here's the post-game show.

I believe the hijackers stated they had bombs. I don't believe they actually had bombs. But who could tell at the time? That is one reason the passengers were compliant.

You don't know that. And in the absence of any obvious trigger or dead man's switch, they may have decided that the risk of the bomb triggering if it even exists might be worth it if it outweighs the risk that they are on a suicide mission. As I said before, at the time, no one had considered a hijacking ending in a suicide mission for the entire plane, and people had been led to believe that the best course of action was to comply. Neither one of those apply now, which is why 9/11 could only happen once.