In Memory of Flight 93

[rswartsell]

While it is unlikely that armed Americans could have prevented the totality of the 9/11 disaster, a few heroic American citizens foiled the intent of the flight 93 terrorists 7 years ago today in the hills of southwestern Pennsylvania.

In their honor a civilized discussion (please) of the right to keep and bear arms in the age of terrorism, what responsibility (if any) armed citizens have in the face of an organized terrorist threat.

Do the current air travel restrictions make sense regarding firearms? What would you change?

Blessed be the LORD my strength,
which teacheth my hands to war,
and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 144

 

[kludge]

Mindset > Training > Gear.

Godspeed to those who had the courage to do what most people could not.

God bless their families.

 

[1911 guy]

Ditto to Kludge.

What you've got in your hands (guns, knives, etc.) is secondary to what you've got in your head and heart. The decision and will to fight hard trumps even hijacked airplanes.

 

[bogie]

Well, the next time, and you know there will be a next time, they won't be using improvised cruise missiles.

And I bet that if it involves something other than a bomb, it'll happen in a state that is restrictive to concealed carry.

 

[Zedo]

Allowing CCW on commerical airlines is not going to "solve problems."

I don't want Joe Suburbia on a commercial flight to have a firearm in the middle of a hijacking. Too many variables, not enough training.

 

[boostedxt]

I would like to say a special thing for Mr James Trentini. I wa sa student at Burlington HS where he taught. He and his Wife perished on Flight 11.

RIP..

Joe

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Flight 93- The Flight That Fought Back

Amazing heroism, RIP.

 

[Fisherman_48768]

We did not have any problems with air travel until the 68 gun control act stopped us from air travel with a firearm. If you will remember, at least for those old enough, there wasn't a hijacking to Cuban until the first law went into effect prohibiting a person from carrying on board an aircraft. It seems that the more laws that were passed just escalated the amount of hijackings until 9/ll when virtually all civil rights were suspended.
Now you can't take a firearm on a train, boat (ferry), bus, subway etc.. I have to ask which of these mass transit methods presents the greatest and easiest target for the next attack?
Letting my imagination wander here: Why has OPEC driven the price of oil so high, forcing the civilized world to look for alternate means of mass travel ? Do you feel like sheep/cattle being rounded up and herded for slaughter? End of rant my meds are working now.

 

[Jeff White]

In their honor a civilized discussion (please) of the right to keep and bear arms in the age of terrorism, what responsibility (if any) armed citizens have in the face of an organized terrorist threat.

Ground rules for this discussion

Armed citizens have no duty to act in the face of an organized terrorist threat. If you wish to be in a position where you have a duty to act, PM me and I will put you in contact with my son who is currently on recruiting duty, or check with your local police department, it is currently estimated that the nation currently needs 90,000 police officers.

If a private citizen chooses to act or not to act is an intensely personal decision that can only be made by that person at the time he or she is faced with making that decision. That person should take all kinds of things into consideration, such as what they understand the situation to be from their perspective, what it could be besides what it appears to be, if acting may increase the danger to others, what they are armed with and lastly but most importantly, their own honest assessment of their abilities.

1. This thread won't deteriorate into a moral discussion of why you should act.

2. No member will insinuate that anyone who says they wouldn't act is a coward, sheep or not the man the other member is.

3. http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/ is the place to have the inevitable discussion of personal values and morality that these threads always degenerate into.

Have fun.

Jeff

 

[rswartsell]

OK Jeff,

I have taken a moment to ponder your post. First let me state that I can see your point. Also I would like to make it clear that chest beating and inferring ANYTHING negative about ANYONE was the furthest thing from my mind.

Regarding duty to act, your point is well taken and I hope you noted the "(if any)". Reviewing the posts so far I must assume your experience with similar topics in the past as the motivation for your current post. I defer to that experience, and should you find it appropriate to lock or even delete this thread you will not get an argument from me, my intent to honor with memory has been served.

I do hope the tone of your first paragraph isn't intentionally sarcastic. If so please be aware that I accepted a duty from 1975-1979 and am now a bit too long of tooth to tempt a PD or recruiter. BTW thank your son for me for his service (and I will in turn offer your thanks to mine, and the 2 other family members serving or having served in the current conflict).

I am fully confident that you don't mean to discourage that honorable memory of those who did choose to act, and that they enjoy your admiration as well as ours.

Regards

 

[Jeff White]

I have taken a moment to ponder your post. First let me state that I can see your point. Also I would like to make it clear that chest beating and inferring ANYTHING negative about ANYONE was the furthest thing from my mind.

I never once thought that it was on your mind. However, from past experience with that topic, it is on the mind of other members and I don't think it is properly honoring the heroes of Flight 93 or the FDNY, NYPD or any of the military members who died at the Pentagon or any sacrifice anyone has made in the GWOT, by turning the thread into a 150 post argument over who would be a hero and who wouldn't.

Jeff

 

[rswartsell]

TY

 

[scrat]

RIP for all that paid dearly. For those that survived to live another day.

Thank you we will not forget

 

[GEM]

I wish to discuss the issue of armed passengers with some logic. A plane is a touch of a special circumstance as compared to the mall.

Each plane had a team of hijackers armed with small knives. If we allowed carry on the plane, with some planning - the group of 5 to 6 could get licenses and have gone on the plane with something like Glocks and a couple of hi-cap mags.

The five to six easily could get first class tickets or walk up to the front and take position there. Some could be in the back of the plane as hidden backup.

How many CCW types would there be on the plane?

Flight 93 was successfully (in a sense) recaptured and diverted as the passengers acted against little knives. The plane might not have been taken if folks acted immediately instead of being initially cooperative or in shock.

For discussion - instead of having a large armed group on a plane ready to act with rehersals and hidden back up (who shoots you when you get up to face the forward thread) - might it be better to have armed and barricaded pilots and a better chance to go hand to hand with lightly armed terrorists?

Keeping the terrorists out of the cockpit is crucial. An armed air marshall who could engage lightly armed terrorists seems a good thing. As you may or may not know armor piercing handgun bullets for 9mm and up do exist and could probably penetrate current doors to the cockpit.

I know it is the mantra that a brave person could have intervened. Yes, on one of the 9/11 planes that might have saved the day. But does carry on a plane more probabilistically allow a group to armed themselves with such planning in a manner that would overwhelm the small number (if any) armed citizen on the plane.

I expect to be flamed for not being lock step into 'guns always good' but after running through a few mock terrorists drills on both sides, I want to think deeply about such unintended consequences in special circumstances as the confined area of planes in flight.

 

[Walkalong]

They are heros to me, and many other Americans as well. You can't go out looking to be a hero. Average people get caught in a bad situation and one or two do heroic things, but they never meant to be a hero, it just worked out that way.

 

[Hardware]

By every measure you'd care to apply the passengers on flight 93 were not up to the task. But like it or not, the ball had landed in their hands. Once they knew other planes had been crashed as weapons they had to know palpably that their lives and the lives of strangers on the ground, were in their hands. The only people they could turn to was each other.

Their actions turned around 9/11. They succeeded in stopping the terrorists from striking another building and almost certainly taking more lives. The fact that they sacrificed their own lives to do so adds poignancy and underlines the cost of freedom. Their actions put them in the same category as the patriots at Concord and Lexington in my mind.

Could the right to carry concealed have changed the outcome? Possibly. Statistically speaking maybe 1 person would have been carrying. Given flight 93's point of origin, it is probably closer to zero. If they had known earlier that the hijackers were crashing the planes they may have been able to prevent the hijackers from entering the cockpit. Certainly there would have been casualties. But 8 to 1 odds still makes for an impressive dogpile on top of the hijackers.

There are too many variables to know what a concealed carry weapon on the plane would have accomplished. I do believe it would have changed the outcome, if only in forcing the terrorists to crash the plane earlier.

God Bless the passengers and crew of Flight 93. You will always live on in my memories.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm with GEM. Allowing CCW on the aircraft would have permitted the hijackers to be armed with more formidable weapons then small knives and box cutters.

The hijackers probably would have been the only armed people on the aircraft.

Jeff

 

[Tommygunn]

I'm with GEM. Allowing CCW on the aircraft would have permitted the hijackers to be armed with more formidable weapons then small knives and box cutters.

Do we allow foreigners to CCW on American soil now? Hadn't they even overstayed their visas?
I remember one was even stopped by the police and then let go.....
I can see "becoming a victim of our own success" -- by which I mean, we allow CCW, then if there is some positive effect.... the need for it becomes less, and we start to become complacent and go back to the pre-existing condition.
Possibly the terrorists would have adapted to a change in scenario since they obviously did some planning to take into account the scenario they had to deal with at the time.
I don't see a perfect solution.
I also see it likely that if we allow CCW on a plane, possibly the terrorists would simply choose other targets where they'd believe people would be more likely unarmed.
Plus, we know a lot of these terrorists are willing to do kamikaze attacks. There it doesn't matter if the victims are armed since explosive vests don't care if you're CCW'ing.

The hijackers probably would have been the only armed people on the aircraft.

Maybe ... but they were the only armed people on the planes as it was ......

 

[Jeff White]

Do we allow foreigners to CCW on American soil now? Hadn't they even overstayed their visas?

Do you really think a terrorist organization with Al-Queda's resources would have any trouble getting CCW permits? Some states require no background check, others require a cursory one. A document as easy to get as a CCW permit wouldn't be hard to come by at all.

I can see "becoming a victim of our own success" -- by which I mean, we allow CCW, then if there is some positive effect....

What Flight 93 did was give us a success. It alerted the flying public and there have been no successful attempts since. Look at what has happened since 9-11. Anyone who even thinks about starting a disturbance in flight usually finishes the flight with several passengers sitting on his chest in the aisle. Taking an airliner to turn it into a poor man's cruise missile has already gotten into the too hard box.

I also see it likely that if we allow CCW on a plane, possibly the terrorists would simply choose other targets where they'd believe people would be more likely unarmed.

Again, I rather doubt that dedicated terrorists like the ones who executed 9-11 take armed citizens into consideration at all. The chances of them encountering one who is capable of stopping their take over are pretty slim. You would be looking at facing one person with an unknown skill level vs. a team who have trained together and probably are combat veterans. I don't see them taking that threat seriously.

Plus, we know a lot of these terrorists are willing to do kamikaze attacks. There it doesn't matter if the victims are armed since explosive vests don't care if you're CCW'ing.

I don't see them expending the resources to operate here for an operation that kills a couple hundred people on an airliner. It's not a good payoff for them.

The kind of suicide bomb attacks that currently happen in the Middle East are carried out by disaffected people, often women who are shamed and brainwashed into blowing themselves and the target up. These kinds of bombers are reluctant and must be under control of their handlers till the last minute. An airliner isn't a good target for that because if you send bomber on the aircraft alone, you stand a very good chance the mission won't be carried out and if you send the handlers with the bomber, then you lose some highly skilled people for a small payoff.

Jeff

 

[sailortoo]

"Let's Roll" could be a rallying cry for all who want to confront terrorists - so simple, yet so powerful. I see the single most powerful weapon available to the passengers on flight 93 was the cell phone, and their ability to learn what was taking place (Three hijacked planes crashed into important buildings). The "normal" hijacking up to that point, was a demand for money or a flight to a foreign country. What was taking place on 9-11-2001 was a whole new ball game, and no one was prepared for the results. The knowledge that they were in a unique situation, with no real way out of it, no doubt left the passengers with a "do something, anything, and do it now" attitude. That knowledge, in itself, gave the ultimate reason to "Let's Roll", to take action with the best weapons available. Truly the "first shots fired" in our war against the terrorists. Patriots in the finest sense!
sailortoo

 

[COMPNOR]

Do we allow foreigners to CCW on American soil now? Hadn't they even overstayed their visas?

If you're allowed to CCW on a plane, what kind of security checks are you going to have? As there is at least one state that doesn't require a permit for concealed carry(correct?) are you going to be searching each and every person for a gun and then if they have one see if they're legally allowed to carry it?

Regardless of whether or not they could forge permits, I don't think they'd have any trouble getting concealed guns aboard if CCW were allowed.

 

[Kragax]

My most humble thanks to the passengers on Flight 93. I will never forget thier courage and sacrifice. The showed the American Sprit. I am a gun lover like any here but the thought of an untrained shooter armed with conventional
ammo in a pressurized plane makes me nervous. I wouldn't want my fat ass sucked out one of those little windows.

 

[Terminus]

Kragax,

While I'll agree with you that an untrained ccw holder on an airplane responding to a terrorist act with spray and pray is a nightmare, your point about specialized ammo and pressurized fuselages has been thoroughly debunked. Explosive decompression just ain't gonna happen until the holes in the airplane are measured by the square yard. It's a Hollyweird myth.

The actions taken by the passengers of Flight 93 should inspire and humble us all. I can only pray that I have their courage if the worst ever comes to pass.

 

[Tommygunn]

Do we allow foreigners to CCW on American soil now? Hadn't they even overstayed their visas?

Do you really think a terrorist organization with Al-Queda's resources would have any trouble getting CCW permits? Some states require no background check, others require a cursory one. A document as easy to get as a CCW permit wouldn't be hard to come by at all.

Mainly I think they probably wouldn't bother with guns or ccws. If they needed to obtain guns they would do so from a black market source as needed for the particular assignment, without giving a rat's bum about CCWs because they more likely would be using longarms in that particular case, IMHO.
One of these terrorists had let his drivers license expire. They also took flight lessons, telling the instructors they didn't care about take offs/landings -- which was a REALLY HUGE RED FLAG FOR THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS,, but apparantly not for the F.B.I.
These terrorists are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier -- the assinine bureaucracy of the F.B.I. is what did us in.
By pointing out that they'd overstayed their visas, allowed licenses to expire, I was attempting to point out that our government is not doing its proper diligence.
In so far as actually obtaining a CCW, my state is very "cursory," but the name is still run through NICS.

The fact is that CCW or not, the idea we're going to "disarm" an enemy as ruthless as Al-Qaeda, when they use case cutters and are willing to die in their own attack, is a pipe dream.
If you can't disarm your enemies, the best you can do is ARM your own people.

"When you disarm your subjects, you show that you either fear them, or do not trust them, and either will cause them to despise you ...there has never been a case where a new prince comes to power and disarms his subjects; indeed, when a new prince comes to power and finds his people already disarmed, he promptly arms them; and in arming his people, he makes those arms his own." ~~Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.

I don't see them expending the resources to operate here for an operation that kills a couple hundred people on an airliner. It's not a good payoff for them.

The kind of suicide bomb attacks that currently happen in the Middle East are carried out by disaffected people, often women who are shamed and brainwashed into blowing themselves and the target up. These kinds of bombers are reluctant and must be under control of their handlers till the last minute. An airliner isn't a good target for that because if you send bomber on the aircraft alone, you stand a very good chance the mission won't be carried out and if you send the handlers with the bomber, then you lose some highly skilled people for a small payoff.

Jeff

Sigh

The 9/11/01 attacks were "kamikaze" attacks. The soldiers the enemy sent immolated themselves right along with the rest. The return was 2,974 of us dead, 19 of them dead, and not to mention billions of dollars in damge to us. A pretty good return.
I don't know if I did a poor job of explaining myself in the above post ... or not ...(I guess I did) but I was refering to something that already happened. I don't know if you would even get a explosive belt on an airplane, but there are plenty of places you could, or use firearms or other more conventional explosives where people gather in numbers.
I don't even believe the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were highly trained. After all, they DID allow their papers to expire ... they DID try to gain flight training using methods they should have known were suspicious. These guys aren't Mensa members. They are thugs. Highly motivated many times, and sometimes with more than their fair share of luck.

 

[rswartsell]

Regarding firearms restrictions and air travel, I agree with GEM and Jeff. A reason for the thread start (secondary one), is a discussion of whether or not allowing carry aboard the flight would have played into the BGs hands making the heroic effort harder or impossible.

I also strongly feel in line with Hardwares statement-

"Their actions put them in the same category as the patriots at Concord and Lexington in my mind."

and I am grateful for their actions.