OP
OP
rswartsell
Member
GEM, I do want to know what "probabilistically" means, that's a new one on me.
In Memory of Flight 93
- Thread starter rswartsell
- Start date
- Status
Well, this is weird - when I try to go to page 2, it cycles back to page 1.
Anyway, what I meant was 'likely'.
If gun carrying was allowed, terrorists might easily find a way to get a significant armed group on the plane. Homegrown terrorists are not unknown nowadays. If Tim McVeigh and friends had wanted to and plane carry was allowed, they might have pulled off a gun armed plane seizure. They would easily pass most background checks.
Thus, I felt it is more likely that a well planned group of terrorists is more likely to have more guns, training and/or planning than the number of CHLs or CCW types on the plane. Even if you had a large number of armed citizens (like when we all go out to dinner after a class) - a large gun fight in the cabin (no, the plane won't blow up) is not preferrable to a H2H with small blades if the cabin is secure.
I think planes are special circumstance and not dealt with by cliches.
Anyway, what I meant was 'likely'.
If gun carrying was allowed, terrorists might easily find a way to get a significant armed group on the plane. Homegrown terrorists are not unknown nowadays. If Tim McVeigh and friends had wanted to and plane carry was allowed, they might have pulled off a gun armed plane seizure. They would easily pass most background checks.
Thus, I felt it is more likely that a well planned group of terrorists is more likely to have more guns, training and/or planning than the number of CHLs or CCW types on the plane. Even if you had a large number of armed citizens (like when we all go out to dinner after a class) - a large gun fight in the cabin (no, the plane won't blow up) is not preferrable to a H2H with small blades if the cabin is secure.
I think planes are special circumstance and not dealt with by cliches.
jaholder1971
Member
Sorry Jeff, but I call BS.
All I can say is read Jeffery Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" and tell us if it doesn't apply to terrorism.
OP
OP
rswartsell
Member
GEM, that's pretty much what I thought you meant and I must agree. Didn't mean to sound like a SA or grammar nazi.
I support efforts to make our forums have some grammatical and literary style as compared to those who post with no paragraphs, capital letters or use 'U' or 'r' as shorthand.
As far as the issue of responsibility to act - that's a great philosophical conundrum of should we act altruistically? Is there really altruism in which the act doesn't have some reward value for yourself and if not yourself, others you care about.
These debates usually end up in cliches without understanding the processes involved.
As far as the issue of responsibility to act - that's a great philosophical conundrum of should we act altruistically? Is there really altruism in which the act doesn't have some reward value for yourself and if not yourself, others you care about.
These debates usually end up in cliches without understanding the processes involved.
Those folks on flight 93 should have been awarded the equivalent of a CMH . They served the call of duty , without training, at a moments notice they stepped up and took action. Not much different than throwing ones body on a grenade. As far as I am concerned, they should have a plot at Arlington National Cemetery.
sailortoo
Member
Tokugawa - I do not know what is an appropriate honor for persons that give their all - even though in a forced situation - but National Honor recognition is needed, and I believe that the site is now built (building?) for that reason. The first three planes hijacked, apparently, did not have awareness of the type of hijacking taking place, therefore did not have the incentive to take the "Flight 93" type of action. I still hold that the information learned during the hijacking, via outside information with a cell phone, was the key to taking action, not the presence or lack of a particular weapon. The drink cart, and whatever came to hand was sufficient to accomplish the deed, even though the end result was total loss of life. All seems so clear in hind sight, but in a confused, and definitely unexpected and never before used hijacking scenario, it was information that set off the passenger actions.
sailortoo
sailortoo
Mrs. Armoredman
Member
Those folks on flight 93 should have been awarded the equivalent of a CMH . They served the call of duty , without training, at a moments notice they stepped up and took action. Not much different than throwing ones body on a grenade. As far as I am concerned, they should have a plot at Arlington National Cemetery.
I agree. Those brave souls should be honored with pride and respect. They had no idea what was going to happen and they died so the terrorists would not take out anyone else. My thoughts and prayers go out to the famlies of those who sacrificed thier lives for thier beloved country.
I agree. Those brave souls should be honored with pride and respect. They had no idea what was going to happen and they died so the terrorists would not take out anyone else. My thoughts and prayers go out to the famlies of those who sacrificed thier lives for thier beloved country.
With all due respect to Gem, Jeff and rswartsell, let's actually look at your "logic".
The government says they know what is best for us. They say you can't carry on a plane. Then they don't provide security for their disarmed citizens. They don't provide secure facilities. THIS ALREADY HAPPENED ON 9/11.
They prevented citizens from carrying in 1968 in order to prevent hijackings. Then the Lockerbie bombing happened and they started scanning for bombs in stowed and carry on luggage. Then 9/11 happened and they really cracked down on anything carry on. Then Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane with his shoe bomb. Let's not forget, as time goes by without an incident security is only going to become more lax. "Special reports" by newshounds trying to make headlines about what they were able to smuggle past airport security notwithstanding, it is human nature to ease off. It takes dedicated staff, well motivated by leadership keeping their eyes on the prize and not making exceptions for VIPs to keep a facility safe. You are NEVER going to achieve that with a bureaucracy with 8 dollar an hour rank and file.
The current air marshal system is a joke. Just as it was during the Nixon administration. It was security theater. They went out and recruited good shooters, then the bureaucrats stepped all over them. By dribs and drabs they quit or moved on to better positions and their slots were never filled. Their budget was cut, cut, cut because it wasn't in use and by 9/11 the bureaucracy existed, but nobody was in the field. Never mind that there were never enough air marshals, even at their peak to staff more than 2 percent of commercial flights (again, during the Nixon administration)
Unless you can put an air marshal on every commercial flight originating or coming to the US, it is just an act put on to appease the ignorant masses.
That's the reality. That's the actual logic. Do any of you naysayers have a solution, short of giving the mandate back to the people? Your system failed catastrophically on 9/11. You are proposing that we continue to do the same thing and hope it works. Under your system I'm not going to be flying or working in target buildings. Yes, I have strong feelings on this subject. On 9/11 my employer was on the 71st floor of 1 World Trade Center. (Only by the grace of God (and a tardiness problem) did we not have any casualties.)
The government says they know what is best for us. They say you can't carry on a plane. Then they don't provide security for their disarmed citizens. They don't provide secure facilities. THIS ALREADY HAPPENED ON 9/11.
They prevented citizens from carrying in 1968 in order to prevent hijackings. Then the Lockerbie bombing happened and they started scanning for bombs in stowed and carry on luggage. Then 9/11 happened and they really cracked down on anything carry on. Then Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane with his shoe bomb. Let's not forget, as time goes by without an incident security is only going to become more lax. "Special reports" by newshounds trying to make headlines about what they were able to smuggle past airport security notwithstanding, it is human nature to ease off. It takes dedicated staff, well motivated by leadership keeping their eyes on the prize and not making exceptions for VIPs to keep a facility safe. You are NEVER going to achieve that with a bureaucracy with 8 dollar an hour rank and file.
The current air marshal system is a joke. Just as it was during the Nixon administration. It was security theater. They went out and recruited good shooters, then the bureaucrats stepped all over them. By dribs and drabs they quit or moved on to better positions and their slots were never filled. Their budget was cut, cut, cut because it wasn't in use and by 9/11 the bureaucracy existed, but nobody was in the field. Never mind that there were never enough air marshals, even at their peak to staff more than 2 percent of commercial flights (again, during the Nixon administration)
Unless you can put an air marshal on every commercial flight originating or coming to the US, it is just an act put on to appease the ignorant masses.
That's the reality. That's the actual logic. Do any of you naysayers have a solution, short of giving the mandate back to the people? Your system failed catastrophically on 9/11. You are proposing that we continue to do the same thing and hope it works. Under your system I'm not going to be flying or working in target buildings. Yes, I have strong feelings on this subject. On 9/11 my employer was on the 71st floor of 1 World Trade Center. (Only by the grace of God (and a tardiness problem) did we not have any casualties.)
With all due respect, your post did not deal in any sense with the actuality of the action situation we discussed. You talk of mandates and anger without reference to the problem.
I respect that you feel grief but you offer little that is specific to whether armed civilians on a plane would be useful given the risks we laid out.
You offered no solution, just a polemic. That is not useful in any sense.
I respect that you feel grief but you offer little that is specific to whether armed civilians on a plane would be useful given the risks we laid out.
You offered no solution, just a polemic. That is not useful in any sense.
And all you offer is to use the same efforts that have already failed. If you cannot offer a workable solution, at least allow the people the opportunity to save themselves.
The second amendment doesn't say "Except for altitudes of 30,000 feet."
The second amendment doesn't say "Except for altitudes of 30,000 feet."
Jeff
I feel like all citizens have a duty to act. Armed or not. There is much that can be done on many levels before during and after any terrorist threat/attack.
Before hand: Armed or not every member of society should be aware of their surroundings and be observant. New neighbor? Say hi don’t be nosey but be friendly get to know them. Look for things that don’t seem right…….a group of people walk into the food court together in the middle of summer wearing winter coats ect. Be proactive Plan.
During: Be calm and orderly(easier said than done some times) Protect your self as best as you can, if able help others. If oprotunity occurs fight back.
After: Help those in need any way you can. See the above. Let loved ones know you are alright.
We have a DUTY to each other as citizens of a great nation. Part of which is being civil to each other. Another part is Protect each other and our selves. In by doing that alone we are all Heroes. There is much to be done with out being directly involved.
Thanks for making my point again, I'm sorry to say.
The issue is of practicality and tactics - not spouting the 2nd Amend. as an answer to a specific problem.
Read my analysis again. Coment on the specifics if you want to contribute. I think the plane is a special case. No right is absolute - before you say so - go publish kiddy porn. Shout a false cry of fire in a theatre.
Even if the government lifted the carry ban - do you think the private carriers would permit it? That unleashes the entire property rights argument.
Failure is interesting - there was a total ban on sharp instruments put in place. Has there been a sharp instrument hijacking since? A sharp instrument attack wouldn't work now because folks will get off their butts.
A freeing of carrying on planes (a special case) can easily allow a large group of armed trained individuals the methodology to squash the individual armed citizen and breach the door to the cockpit.
This isn't a random shooter in the mall. Maybe one passenger could take down one nut. Taking down a squad would be very difficult. They would plan for such. I would prefer to try bopping a guy with a blade with my laptop as compared to standing against with a J frame against 8 individuals with hicaps semis who are in front AND in back of me.
Now one might sputter that why should one carry at all. Can't a large squad attack the mall and I just have a J frame - true. But the mall isn't at 30,000 feet - I might get out of Dodge if I choose.
Also, the mall will not be taken over and made into a missile that might have killed 50,000 people except for time of day.
Last, as far as not wanting responses against terrorists - my daughter missed being blown up in Europe by terrorists by the luck of the train schedule and was in the WTC a month before the attack - I have no use for them or not being able to defend yourself. However, I choose to think through the process for the best conclusion.
The issue is of practicality and tactics - not spouting the 2nd Amend. as an answer to a specific problem.
Read my analysis again. Coment on the specifics if you want to contribute. I think the plane is a special case. No right is absolute - before you say so - go publish kiddy porn. Shout a false cry of fire in a theatre.
Even if the government lifted the carry ban - do you think the private carriers would permit it? That unleashes the entire property rights argument.
Failure is interesting - there was a total ban on sharp instruments put in place. Has there been a sharp instrument hijacking since? A sharp instrument attack wouldn't work now because folks will get off their butts.
A freeing of carrying on planes (a special case) can easily allow a large group of armed trained individuals the methodology to squash the individual armed citizen and breach the door to the cockpit.
This isn't a random shooter in the mall. Maybe one passenger could take down one nut. Taking down a squad would be very difficult. They would plan for such. I would prefer to try bopping a guy with a blade with my laptop as compared to standing against with a J frame against 8 individuals with hicaps semis who are in front AND in back of me.
Now one might sputter that why should one carry at all. Can't a large squad attack the mall and I just have a J frame - true. But the mall isn't at 30,000 feet - I might get out of Dodge if I choose.
Also, the mall will not be taken over and made into a missile that might have killed 50,000 people except for time of day.
Last, as far as not wanting responses against terrorists - my daughter missed being blown up in Europe by terrorists by the luck of the train schedule and was in the WTC a month before the attack - I have no use for them or not being able to defend yourself. However, I choose to think through the process for the best conclusion.
Tommygunn
Member
GEM said:
WRONG. ALL rights are absolute within the existential ends they're intended to serve. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is punishable because it would cause panic and peope could be injured in the mass attempt to exit. If there IS a fire, it would then be appropriate to warn people.
And publishing "kiddy porn" is damaging to children -- aside from being a rather sanctimonious platitude aimed at disarming your critics.
While allowing airline passengers to CCW is unlikely to be a "perfect solution," there is in fact, NO PERFECT SOLUTION. There never has been, and there never will be.
Things might go sideways in a situation where a citizen returns fire in a crises situation. It might also go sideways when the police, or FBI, or U.S. Marshals are involved, as well. The imperfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good.
There have been enough pablum excuses proffered by Big Government for circumscribing the inalienable rights of Americans already. This is a bandwagon we need to sdtop dead in its tracks while we still have rights.
Another rant that beggars the actual discussion. Rights may be existential (debatable point as rights are social constructs based on culture and evolutionry mental biases) but quickly we see they are limited if their application causes damage. That is the point about kiddy porn - which you missed. The existential base is about free expression but it wasn't long ago that simple depictions of sexuality were seen as dangerous and banned. That changed. Slavery did exist in the US - what we thought were rights did not extend to all. Rights are not the laws of physics.
One might argue that you have the existential right to carry a gun near an MRI but it will drag you into it. Thus, the sign says NO GUNS by the MRI.
The 'existential' right to carry is thus limited by an application of that leads to more danger than right might mitigate. Is the right a suicide pack?
It is my opinion (others might agree) that allowing carry on a plane is a special circumstance that increases danger to so many others that it should limited in this case.
Printing in red big letters doesn't make your case as to operative principles. Nor did you compadre's cliches.
Want to speak to the actual issue - beyond the rant?
One might argue that you have the existential right to carry a gun near an MRI but it will drag you into it. Thus, the sign says NO GUNS by the MRI.
The 'existential' right to carry is thus limited by an application of that leads to more danger than right might mitigate. Is the right a suicide pack?
It is my opinion (others might agree) that allowing carry on a plane is a special circumstance that increases danger to so many others that it should limited in this case.
Printing in red big letters doesn't make your case as to operative principles. Nor did you compadre's cliches.
Want to speak to the actual issue - beyond the rant?
Tommygunn
Member
I missed nothing about kiddie porn, or that it may be banned any more than I missed that one may be brought to court for yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
I don't like to get snarky, but you need better reading comprehension skills. There is nothing in any right that allows one to do malicious damage to others, or neglectfull damage.
You have entirely missed the point of my post.
The MRI example you mention is just another one were there is the possibility of damage, and foreseeable.
If you could limit the right to keep and bear arms because it "might" cause injury, then it could be permanently expunged, since there is always some possibility something could go wrong.
Someone "could" use a gun to defend himself in a justifiable condition -- and accidentally kill the wrong person.
Sorry big red letter bother you.
My case has been made, irregardless of font size or colour.
You just don't read well .....
I don't like to get snarky, but you need better reading comprehension skills. There is nothing in any right that allows one to do malicious damage to others, or neglectfull damage.
You have entirely missed the point of my post.
The MRI example you mention is just another one were there is the possibility of damage, and foreseeable.
If you could limit the right to keep and bear arms because it "might" cause injury, then it could be permanently expunged, since there is always some possibility something could go wrong.
Someone "could" use a gun to defend himself in a justifiable condition -- and accidentally kill the wrong person.
Sorry big red letter bother you.
My case has been made, irregardless of font size or colour.
You just don't read well .....
Gem, the flaw here is you are attacking today's problem with yesterday's solution. You state that any hijacker now has to respond to all passengers, not just the aircrew. The larger picture is that ground authorities have to consider the whole plane a weapon.
Another point is the cabin door. Why allow the cabin access to the flight deck at all? Is it impossible to redesign aircraft with a command deck cut off from interior access? Would it destroy profitability for airliners to have an exterior access door to the command deck, a small john in a corner and no door to the passenger compartment? Before you even argue about aircrew incapacitation, let me point out that never in the history of civil aviation has all the flight crew been incapacitated in a salvageable in-flight incident. Catastrophic examples exist, yes, but the plane would have been lost with our without an additional pilot.
Today's reality is that any hijacker, no matter how armed must be resisted or the passengers and crew risk death in a fireball. Either on the ground in an impact or in the air when the authorities have to sacrifice hundreds of people in the air to save thousands on the ground.
Now, your "squad" of martyrs armed with glocks seizes the cabin of an airliner with no cabin access to the flight deck. They get on the plane's intercom and demand the pilots do what? Crash into a building? Hardly. Do it or we'll kill the pretty stewardess. Like the impact wouldn't kill her already. More than likely the flight crew diverts to a nearby airfield, and exits the plane while allowing the authorities to deal with the now static hostage situation.
I have heard that the British SAS consider all hostages dead when the begin a rescue entry. Any that survive are a bonus. That's the cold, hard logic we face today.
Another point is the cabin door. Why allow the cabin access to the flight deck at all? Is it impossible to redesign aircraft with a command deck cut off from interior access? Would it destroy profitability for airliners to have an exterior access door to the command deck, a small john in a corner and no door to the passenger compartment? Before you even argue about aircrew incapacitation, let me point out that never in the history of civil aviation has all the flight crew been incapacitated in a salvageable in-flight incident. Catastrophic examples exist, yes, but the plane would have been lost with our without an additional pilot.
Today's reality is that any hijacker, no matter how armed must be resisted or the passengers and crew risk death in a fireball. Either on the ground in an impact or in the air when the authorities have to sacrifice hundreds of people in the air to save thousands on the ground.
Now, your "squad" of martyrs armed with glocks seizes the cabin of an airliner with no cabin access to the flight deck. They get on the plane's intercom and demand the pilots do what? Crash into a building? Hardly. Do it or we'll kill the pretty stewardess. Like the impact wouldn't kill her already. More than likely the flight crew diverts to a nearby airfield, and exits the plane while allowing the authorities to deal with the now static hostage situation.
I have heard that the British SAS consider all hostages dead when the begin a rescue entry. Any that survive are a bonus. That's the cold, hard logic we face today.
So uh, what exactly does that have to do with should passengers be allowed to concealed carry on a plane?
Tommygunn
Member
We have, you just don't understand it.
We're going to have to agree to disagree I guess.
That could be read into your posts too. You ignore opposing points and dismiss them with a sanctimonious label.
We're going to have to agree to disagree I guess.
GEM said:
That could be read into your posts too. You ignore opposing points and dismiss them with a sanctimonious label.
Back to flight 93
Hi Everyone, I think that the reason the white house or the halls of congress aren't a crater like the world trade center is due to 2 curses of modern life. First that no flight leaves on time and the second is that people can't stop yakking on their cell phones.
I was at the memorial last month and an earlier poster nailed it. The passengers knew what was happening because their flight was late and the were talking to others on their phones.They realized that an old truth had come back that there are worse things than dying and one of those things was not trying to stop the mass murder of your fellow citizens.
What seems impressive to me is that they self organized and even had a vote on what to do. The whole thing is an example of what a de centralized self autonomous group can do. What a citizen can do. That is the heart to me of what CCW is about. You don't sit and wait for an "expert" or "the government' to protect you. You take the responsibility on yourself.
I don't think that a lone CCW holder could have changed the outcome. But a flight or a nation of people who act and believe as CCW holders can make a huge difference.
pete
Hi Everyone, I think that the reason the white house or the halls of congress aren't a crater like the world trade center is due to 2 curses of modern life. First that no flight leaves on time and the second is that people can't stop yakking on their cell phones.
I was at the memorial last month and an earlier poster nailed it. The passengers knew what was happening because their flight was late and the were talking to others on their phones.They realized that an old truth had come back that there are worse things than dying and one of those things was not trying to stop the mass murder of your fellow citizens.
What seems impressive to me is that they self organized and even had a vote on what to do. The whole thing is an example of what a de centralized self autonomous group can do. What a citizen can do. That is the heart to me of what CCW is about. You don't sit and wait for an "expert" or "the government' to protect you. You take the responsibility on yourself.
I don't think that a lone CCW holder could have changed the outcome. But a flight or a nation of people who act and believe as CCW holders can make a huge difference.
pete
Everyone thinks that the 93 folks were brave.
What we are talking about is the specifics of allowing CCW on planes and not the attitudinal issue.
Let me ask you this if you are a trained shooter. Put yourself in the mind of the terrorist. They do plan for years and train.
Could you plan such that you negate one or two CHL types?
If you had a significant number of folks towards the cockpit - having taken over the plane with hicap semiauto pistols - could you have maintaining control of 93 against the actions of the unarmed passengers? If you had significant unknown armed backup towards the back of the plane - having planned for resistance, could you have negated the charge? Get up and start running down an aisle with rapid gun fire from your front and rear. A CHL might get off a shot or two. Is it better that there is NO gunfire?
Another gun based idea. The squad of terrorists move towards the front (backup in the rear). There you sit with your J frame - open fire on the simple movement? Then, they drag two folks up and the stewardess to stand in the aisle as a human shield. J frame away!
If the folks on any of the planes had mounted an immediate unarmed resistance to the cockpit takeover, they might have stopped it but as mentioned before that wasn't in the cards in those days. It is now with nonfirearms incidents.
However, I would like someone to discuss whether or not the risk ratio of letting significant numbers of armed people on a plane who may plan and train to take over or crash as compared to having no one with firearms (except pilots and LEOs) is better.
The ideology is great but to me, no one with the ideological position has spoke to the specifics. That causes my negative view of those posts.
Folks move to angry polemics if their immediate aggressive solution is not accepted as righteous. I'm sorry, I want to think this one through.
Again, the plane is a special circumstance which I think goes better with passenger firearms controlled.
The reason is that if the plane is taken, you have more of a societal risk. If you lose the gun fight in church as a CHL or mall or school, you probably don't risk 150 to 50,000 folks.
If you allow the gun fight in the plane and lose, you do allow such tremendous losses. Not worth it to me.
What we are talking about is the specifics of allowing CCW on planes and not the attitudinal issue.
Let me ask you this if you are a trained shooter. Put yourself in the mind of the terrorist. They do plan for years and train.
Could you plan such that you negate one or two CHL types?
If you had a significant number of folks towards the cockpit - having taken over the plane with hicap semiauto pistols - could you have maintaining control of 93 against the actions of the unarmed passengers? If you had significant unknown armed backup towards the back of the plane - having planned for resistance, could you have negated the charge? Get up and start running down an aisle with rapid gun fire from your front and rear. A CHL might get off a shot or two. Is it better that there is NO gunfire?
Another gun based idea. The squad of terrorists move towards the front (backup in the rear). There you sit with your J frame - open fire on the simple movement? Then, they drag two folks up and the stewardess to stand in the aisle as a human shield. J frame away!
If the folks on any of the planes had mounted an immediate unarmed resistance to the cockpit takeover, they might have stopped it but as mentioned before that wasn't in the cards in those days. It is now with nonfirearms incidents.
However, I would like someone to discuss whether or not the risk ratio of letting significant numbers of armed people on a plane who may plan and train to take over or crash as compared to having no one with firearms (except pilots and LEOs) is better.
The ideology is great but to me, no one with the ideological position has spoke to the specifics. That causes my negative view of those posts.
Folks move to angry polemics if their immediate aggressive solution is not accepted as righteous. I'm sorry, I want to think this one through.
Again, the plane is a special circumstance which I think goes better with passenger firearms controlled.
The reason is that if the plane is taken, you have more of a societal risk. If you lose the gun fight in church as a CHL or mall or school, you probably don't risk 150 to 50,000 folks.
If you allow the gun fight in the plane and lose, you do allow such tremendous losses. Not worth it to me.
Tommygunn
Member
GEM
The one big problem I have with your idea is that terrorists typically go after "soft targets."
If there had been armed CCWers on the 9/11 flights the most likely outcome is that the terrorists would have chosen some other method. The 9/11 flights were "soft targets."
Prior to 1968 it was possible to carry guns on planes. In fact when airflight was in its infancy it was really fairly common. IIRC if the flight carried mail, in fact, it was required that the pilot(s) have access to guns atleast.
A great many things can be postulated theoretically though. If it were more common practice to carry arms, then you might make an equivelent argument about people in a mall. Such a scenario might be very similar to the airplane situation ... one might even have some "sleeper" terrorists who don't reveal themselves at first so that any covert security assets are revealed first.
Ideology is not everything ... but you have to start somewhere. Too many people start from the point of disarming everyone and the result is that the criminals and thugs obtain dominance, for "in the land of the blind, the man with one eye will be king."
Certainly a gun battle in a plane might be lost. Even if there's one or two marshals on the plane the same could result. IIRC someone once mentioned that the S.A.S. considers everyone in a plane hijacking dead and anyone who does survive to be a plus at the end.
That's certainly one way to do it I guess.
No one can gaurantee that we're going to win every fight, no matter the situation. I simply maintain that
disarming people is not the palative that the liberals think it is. If it was we wouldn't see DC turning into the "murder capitol" of the country because guns are banned.
The terorists on 9/11 were not terribly bright, they were terribly lucky. We were terribly unlucky.
If several things had gone right for us instead of the terrorists 9/11 would not have happened. They're not ten feet tall.
And how do you establish a "risk ratio" without atleast more specifics? A moot example would be good.
First, if there's a "hostage" then this has gone snafu already. If you're goal is to save the plane, not the hostage, you kill the terrorist.
PERIOD.
Maybe he kills the hostage(s). Maybe not.
Now, if you're an actor in a TV show being filmed, then you don't shoot the BG. You put the gun down and smooth talk the situation through until it's resolved in your favor. I hate it when that happens.
Do you open fire on the simple movement?
Do you know what the movement means? Is it a terrorist take over or someone going to the john?
You see, with these kinds of theoreticals one gets to question the assumptions involved.
I am not sitting here thinking that anyone with a gun is immediatly going to be able to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat and everything will be A-OK peachy. It certainly may not.
But we know one thing -- disarming people is not the correct ... "ideology" from which to begin. We already know what happens then.
The one big problem I have with your idea is that terrorists typically go after "soft targets."
If there had been armed CCWers on the 9/11 flights the most likely outcome is that the terrorists would have chosen some other method. The 9/11 flights were "soft targets."
Prior to 1968 it was possible to carry guns on planes. In fact when airflight was in its infancy it was really fairly common. IIRC if the flight carried mail, in fact, it was required that the pilot(s) have access to guns atleast.
A great many things can be postulated theoretically though. If it were more common practice to carry arms, then you might make an equivelent argument about people in a mall. Such a scenario might be very similar to the airplane situation ... one might even have some "sleeper" terrorists who don't reveal themselves at first so that any covert security assets are revealed first.
Ideology is not everything ... but you have to start somewhere. Too many people start from the point of disarming everyone and the result is that the criminals and thugs obtain dominance, for "in the land of the blind, the man with one eye will be king."
Certainly a gun battle in a plane might be lost. Even if there's one or two marshals on the plane the same could result. IIRC someone once mentioned that the S.A.S. considers everyone in a plane hijacking dead and anyone who does survive to be a plus at the end.
That's certainly one way to do it I guess.
No one can gaurantee that we're going to win every fight, no matter the situation. I simply maintain that
disarming people is not the palative that the liberals think it is. If it was we wouldn't see DC turning into the "murder capitol" of the country because guns are banned.
The terorists on 9/11 were not terribly bright, they were terribly lucky. We were terribly unlucky.
If several things had gone right for us instead of the terrorists 9/11 would not have happened. They're not ten feet tall.
And how do you establish a "risk ratio" without atleast more specifics? A moot example would be good.
First, if there's a "hostage" then this has gone snafu already. If you're goal is to save the plane, not the hostage, you kill the terrorist.
PERIOD.
Maybe he kills the hostage(s). Maybe not.
Now, if you're an actor in a TV show being filmed, then you don't shoot the BG. You put the gun down and smooth talk the situation through until it's resolved in your favor. I hate it when that happens.
Do you open fire on the simple movement?
Do you know what the movement means? Is it a terrorist take over or someone going to the john?
You see, with these kinds of theoreticals one gets to question the assumptions involved.
I am not sitting here thinking that anyone with a gun is immediatly going to be able to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat and everything will be A-OK peachy. It certainly may not.
But we know one thing -- disarming people is not the correct ... "ideology" from which to begin. We already know what happens then.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked