Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[shanek]

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...

I'm not convinced that the number of hijackings would necessarily increase with the number of flights or the number of passengers. Is it your contention that, as these numbers increased, more people just simply decided to hijack a plane where they wouldn't have before? That sounds very unlikely to me.

If we were talking about accidents, for example, you might have a point. It stands to reason that the more flight miles you put in the greater chances of an accident happening. But I just can't see a would-be hijacker using the number of flights or the amount of people who are on them as factors in his decision whether or not to hijack the plane. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[shanek]

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.

How do you know this? Why would they list a US domestic hijacking as occuring in Cuba? If I shouldn't consider the ones with the USA as a location, then what should I consider?

 

[shanek]

You claimed they only used box cutters, and no other weapons (or threat),

Which based on the available reports is true. I never said one word about threats; you made that up.

thereby making it fit neatly into your little dreamworld where armed passengers would have been more than a match for the hijackers.

Even unarmed passengers were more than a match for the hijackers, as the passengers on the fourth plane proved. It's just a shame that they didn't act before they took out the pilots or everyone would have made it home early.

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?"

Because there is no point in saying what they might or might not have thought. They had boxcutters; we know that. You say they claimed to the passengers to have an explosive; I don't know how you know that, since all the passengers are dead and can't confirm it, but even if it is true, you don't know how many believed them. There is NO reason at all for bringing that up, it is irrelevant to the point, and is a distraction from the discussion at hand.

Example? Funny, I thought it had to do with plummeting bookings and high fuel costs since 9/11.

Then perhaps you'd care to explain all the banruptcies, buyouts, and bailouts before 9/11?

[personal insults—which is what these people all seem to resort to—deleted]

 

[shanek]

Shanek, that graph doesn't take into account the political atomosphere in the world.

"Political atmosphere"? Oh, for crying out loud...

What about this "political atmosphere" changed between 1968 and 1973?

Though Hi-jackings are EXTREMELY rare,

As evidenced by the fact that the highest number on the graph is 7.

As Luciana said, think about international flights.

How are they at all relevant, since we're trying to gague a change in American policy only?

Even if your 2nd ammendment says you can take guns on a flight (I doubt it would apply),

Why wouldn't it?

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.

Of course not; which is why I did not consider them. Now you are saying I should? What sense does that make?

 

[shanek]

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?

What, are you saying that after overcoming the hijackers, the passengers should have given them control of the plane back???

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

Perhaps you should do likewise.

BTW, re the explosives on the flights, I read somewhere off the internet

Well, as long as you've got a reliable source...

And if true, it would certainly put the plane-full-o-guns proponents in a bind!

Why? The flights were lost anyway. If armed passengers had overtaken the planes then 3,000 lives and two of the world's tallest buildings would have been saved. The problem is, there's no way there would have been a headline, "Armed passengers prevent World Trade Center attacks and save 3,000 lives." That's the thing about defensive actions: there's no way to really know what was prevented. That's something all of the gun control advocates ignore. 3,000 lives saved, and the gun control people would still be saying how it would have been better without guns.

Incidentally, aircraft have been hijacked since the 1920's.

The ASN database goes back to 1943. They don't record any hijacking of American planes at all until 1953.

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.

Then why, before I posted that graph, were all the gun control people on this thread claiming that the number of hijackings went down after the gun ban? Change your tune much?

 

[shanek]

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...

It wasn't MY point and you know it. Man, the dishonesty of the gun control people is simply mind-boggling...

 

[Tesserat]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tesserat
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.

Ummm.. are you trying to say that the idea of planes falling out of the sky is unrealistic? Or not risky? Where have you been? Go take a look at the New York skyline, and try to remember what we're talking about.

And who are the regulations punishing? And what's this about responsibility? I thought your whole rant was about letting the airlines assume the responibility for what they let aboard their planes. Now all of a sudden, they're not responsible? Haven't you realized how ridiculous your viewpoint is yet?

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.

Liability is not prevention. Liability is at best a deterrent. Do you understand the difference? The liability argument is stupid. Do you want the airlines to pay a lot of insurance so that they can pay off the victims, or invest in security so that there's less victims in the first place. I got the feeling that you're the kind of person who buys fire insurance for his apartment, then thinks that it's OK to light fires in his living room because hey, you've got coverage. Who cares if 20 people die in the fire, your insurance will cover it.
And it's not as if the airlines don't have to pay liability under the current situation. If anything, the insurance costs are going to go way up.

 

[shanek]

Oh, there is one thing I should mention about that graph: I didn't have any way of selecting hijackings that occured only on public passenger flights; this is all total hijackings on all total flights, including private and military flights.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, there is one thing I should mention about that graph: I didn't have any way of selecting hijackings that occured only on public passenger flights; this is all total hijackings on all total flights, including private and military flights.

Hijacked military flights? You're kidding, right?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Unless you list the flights you used in your little graph, your graph isn't worth the bandwidth its soaking up. This 'hijacking,' for example, involved a drop note. Guns would have made no difference in the outcome of this hijacking. Did you use this in your data? You might have, since it originated in the US.

In other words- try again.

 

[Jocko]

Which based on the available reports is true. I never said one word about threats; you made that up.

You are obviously not reading the posts others are wasting their time on for your benefit. I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong, I think it'd be much more fun to make you actually read the responses to find out where and why you're wrong.

But Shanek... you ARE wrong.

Even unarmed passengers were more than a match for the hijackers, as the passengers on the fourth plane proved. It's just a shame that they didn't act before they took out the pilots or everyone would have made it home early.

This is asinine, even by your own standards. NO ONE RUSHED THE HIJACKERS because NO ONE KNEW IT WAS A SUICIDE MISSION. The exception, when passengers on 93 knew what awaited them (a luxury the other 3 flights did not have), only resulted in resistance because they knew they had nothing to lose. Hardly the same thing as claiming they were a "match" for the hijackers.

This may be the single stupidest thing I've ever seen here, honestly.

Because there is no point in saying what they might or might not have thought. They had boxcutters; we know that. You say they claimed to the passengers to have an explosive; I don't know how you know that, since all the passengers are dead and can't confirm it, but even if it is true, you don't know how many believed them. There is NO reason at all for bringing that up, it is irrelevant to the point, and is a distraction from the discussion at hand.

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.

Then perhaps you'd care to explain all the banruptcies, buyouts, and bailouts before 9/11?

Like? The only ones that come to mind are Eastern and Braniff. Small airlines in regional markets. We now have major global carriers in bankruptcy, none of which addresses your unsupported assertion that the airlines are in financial trouble due to this mysterious epidemic of "regulation."

Examples, please, Shanek, otherwise I'll waste no more breath on you. I'm tired of arguing against these phantom premises of yours.

 

[Jocko]

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

"Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It's United Flight 93 -- Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities."

One transcript from a 9/11 caller on Flight 93

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

I gave you some proof, how about returning the favor?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I'm not convinced that the number of hijackings would necessarily increase with the number of flights or the number of passengers. Is it your contention that, as these numbers increased, more people just simply decided to hijack a plane where they wouldn't have before? That sounds very unlikely to me.

If we were talking about accidents, for example, you might have a point. It stands to reason that the more flight miles you put in the greater chances of an accident happening. But I just can't see a would-be hijacker using the number of flights or the amount of people who are on them as factors in his decision whether or not to hijack the plane. It just doesn't make sense.

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.

 

[Jocko]

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.

This galls me to no end, but I totally agree with the guy.

Even the methodology Shanek suggests for accidents indicates a lack of insight - basing it on miles flown is pointless, since most accidents occur during takeoff or landing. It would make more sense to base it, in part, on trips regardless of duration.

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.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

This galls me to no end, but I totally agree with the guy.

Hey, even I can't be wrong all the time.

 

[Zep]

What, are you saying that after overcoming the hijackers, the passengers should have given them control of the plane back???

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.

Well, as long as you've got a reliable source...

I admitted up front I hadn't, but I am also quite prepared to take more reliable input if it appears. It now appears that another poster has given us both some insightful information on exactly this subject...

Why? The flights were lost anyway. If armed passengers had overtaken the planes then 3,000 lives and two of the world's tallest buildings would have been saved. The problem is, there's no way there would have been a headline, "Armed passengers prevent World Trade Center attacks and save 3,000 lives." That's the thing about defensive actions: there's no way to really know what was prevented. That's something all of the gun control advocates ignore. 3,000 lives saved, and the gun control people would still be saying how it would have been better without guns.

Why would there NOT be such a headline? "Brave passengers shoot hijackers, save thousands in near collision." And please don't put words in my mouth - you do NOT know what I ignore, or not. And no-one is saying it would be "better" without guns at all. Again, you are advocating something to gun-control people that they are NOT saying. If I want your lawyer to plead my case then I'll ask him to, OK?

The ASN database goes back to 1943. They don't record any hijacking of American planes at all until 1953.

You are simply being US-centric again. Think outside the box, please. Look to the rest of the world before you make such sweeping statements.

From thena.aena.es/thena_public/files/WP1/Position%20papers/PositionPaperSecurityIssues.pdf:

There is a widely held perception that aviation security has only been required over the last 20-30 years. However, the first hijack was as long ago as 1931 in Peru. Towards the end of the Second World War, it was recognised that civil aviation was becoming attractive as a means of transporting contraband and trafficking. Consequently, the first significant international legislation on aviation security was the coming into force of the Chicago Convention on the 7th December 1944. ... For many years the threat against civil aviation remained largely unchanged, with 68 hijacks being recorded between 1931 and 1967.

Then why, before I posted that graph, were all the gun control people on this thread claiming that the number of hijackings went down after the gun ban? Change your tune much?

I made no such claim myself. 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.

 

[Leif Roar]

How do you know this? Why would they list a US domestic hijacking as occuring in Cuba? If I shouldn't consider the ones with the USA as a location, then what should I consider?

I don't know why they've decided to use the point where the hijacking ended as the location, rather than the point where the hijacking took place or the departure airport, but that's what they did.

As to how I know this, I went to the web-page and checked.

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.

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.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

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.

And don't forget to make sure the hijackings involve guns, and not bombs or nasty notes.

 

[Luke T.]

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.

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

 

[shanek]

Hijacked military flights? You're kidding, right?

I'm not saying they happen; I'm just saying I had no way of excluding those flights from the database lookup.