Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Luke T.]

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.

I have come to learn that when shanek doesn't give a specific page, there is a reason. And this reason was obviously because he made up his graph without any knowledge if the flights were U.S. domestic-origin flights.

 

[shanek]

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.

As I keep saying I want to return to the pre-1968 days. Why do you keep ignoring that?

 

[shanek]

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?

I gave you a DIRECT LINK to the database site! Lief didn't have any trouble examining the data and pointing out the problems with it.

 

[shanek]

I was wondering, have any of you ever ridden in a plane?

Many, many times.

Everyones always mad!

In my experience everyone is always calm and peaceful and minding their own business.

 

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:

As I keep saying I want to return to the pre-1968 days.

Personally, I've never doubted it.

This thread was hilarious!

 

[Luke T.]

As I keep saying I want to return to the pre-1968 days. Why do you keep ignoring that?

And how would you go about that? The genie is out of the bottle. The wildly successful idea of hijacking planes with guns has taken off. Can't go back.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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.

Be interested to see if Shanek considers he might be wrong given the data provided below. For completeness, there is further info included on that site in the text which is not included in the table:

1930 - 1967 Attempts 9 (Fewer than half successful)
1968 Attempts 16 (12 successful)
1969 Attempts 40 (33 successful)

It is not clear whether the figures in the table (quoted below) refer to attempts or successes.

 

[Thanz]

What I like best about this thread is shanek's insistence that the choice must be left up to the airlines. That way, if I want to fly on a gun-free plane I can choose to and if he wants to fly on a gun-full plane he can choose to.

This ignores a couple of key points. First, there is no way that an airline is going to allow gun on any of their flights. All it takes is one incident with a gun and the airline will be racked with lawsuits and its sales will fall like a plane with no wings.

Second, airline security is done for all airlines at one point. What is to stop someone from buying two plane tickets - one gunful and one gun free - and using the gun full ticket to get through security and then hijack the gun free plane? Or do we need to set up special areas in every airport just so that some people can carry their guns a plane?

 

[Graham]

First, there is no way that an airline is going to allow gun on any of their flights. All it takes is one incident with a gun and the airline will be racked with lawsuits and its sales will fall like a plane with no wings.

Wasn't that the point though?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

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.

You do know you can put a dead-man's switch on a bomb, right? Even I know how to do it, and my knowledge of electricity can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

I don't want to overestimate your intellegence, though. So I'll ask again... You do know you can put a dead-man's switch on a bomb... right?

 

[KelvinG]

What I like best about this thread is shanek's insistence that the choice must be left up to the airlines. That way, if I want to fly on a gun-free plane I can choose to and if he wants to fly on a gun-full plane he can choose to.

This ignores a couple of key points. First, there is no way that an airline is going to allow gun on any of their flights. All it takes is one incident with a gun and the airline will be racked with lawsuits and its sales will fall like a plane with no wings.

Second, airline security is done for all airlines at one point. What is to stop someone from buying two plane tickets - one gunful and one gun free - and using the gun full ticket to get through security and then hijack the gun free plane? Or do we need to set up special areas in every airport just so that some people can carry their guns a plane?

Libertarianism has never been about reality.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

"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.

So... I take it, then, you aren't going to show your data? Boy, I bet you lasted in Uni.

 

[CFLarsen]

You do know you can put a dead-man's switch on a bomb, right? Even I know how to do it, and my knowledge of electricity can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

I don't want to overestimate your intellegence, though. So I'll ask again... You do know you can put a dead-man's switch on a bomb... right?

PamAm 103. A.k.a. Lockerbie.

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

 

[Mr Manifesto]

PamAm 103. A.k.a. Lockerbie.

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

Armed passengers can fix anything.

The Canary Islands airport disaster? Someone could have fired a warning shot, allowing the pilots to manuever out of the way.

The TWA disaster over New York? Someone could have shot the faulty wiring out with a gun.

John Denver's plane crash? He could have shot the mountains down so he wouldn't crash into them.

Nothing, I tell you nothing can't be fixed with a gun.

 

[shanek]

And how would you go about that? The genie is out of the bottle. The wildly successful idea of hijacking planes with guns has taken off. Can't go back.

So has the idea of being able to hijack a plane without the passengers fighting back.

 

[shanek]

Be interested to see if Shanek considers he might be wrong given the data provided below. For completeness, there is further info included on that site in the text which is not included in the table:

1930 - 1967 Attempts 9 (Fewer than half successful)
1968 Attempts 16 (12 successful)
1969 Attempts 40 (33 successful)

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

 

[shanek]

First, there is no way that an airline is going to allow gun on any of their flights.

Then why would you have such a problem with it?

Maybe I won't have the choice of a flight that allows guns. But it's their planes and their right to say that. How is this any kind of a rebuttal?

Second, airline security is done for all airlines at one point.

That doesn't mean that it has to be.

Again, it should be UP TO THE AIRLINES. If it's feasible, then it's feasible. If it's not, then it's not. But the decision would be made by a free people, not an intrusive government.

 

[shanek]

You do know you can put a dead-man's switch on a bomb, right?

[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.

 

[Jocko]

And here's the post-game show.

When Shanke goes to all caps, you know the game is over and his head has imploded, but that's what I've come to expect. He demands proof of my claims, which I provided in spades, demanded more and yet offered none of his own.

For instance, my assertion that armed passengers would likely not have had more success on Flight 93 than they did unarmed.

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.

God bless the Libertarians, for they keep people like Shanek out of my political party.

 

[shanek]

I have come to learn that when shanek doesn't give a specific page, there is a reason.

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.