Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Mr Manifesto]

In the interests of fairness, could people wait until the pro-guns-on-planes side have their say first.

The issue is: should the average citizen, with a concealed carry weapon permit, be allowed to take a gun on a plane? It has been suggested that if guns were allowed to be carried on planes by your average citizen with a ccw permit, that the events of 9/11 would have been prevented.

My personal opinion is that this is lunacy. Allowing guns to be carried on planes would open too may avenues of opportunity for those weapons to fall in the hands of hijackers. We also cannot tell if someone might be irresponsible with a weapon at some point in the future, just because that person passed the requirements for a ccw permit. If a gun is going to go off -accidentally or otherwise- I'd prefer it doesn't happen in a plane.

The forum is now open for both sides to present their arguments. May I suggest that polling be allowed 48 hours after this post?

[Iamme]

Mr. Manifesto---Until I hear a better argument; I am for allowing it. You said that the gun could get into the wrong hands, like the hijacker. True. But then there may be 9 or 15 other people on board with guns, to come to the rescue. I would rather chance having guns on a plane, held by sane people, than one gun on a plane held by one insane person.

[crackmonkey]

What sheer idiocy. One shot could cause decompression of the cabin...
The right to bear arms doesn't mean that guns should be allowed absolutely everywhere. If there are any guns in an airplane at all, they should be carried by air marshalls, and have ammo that wouldn't penetrate the fuselage.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What sheer idiocy. One shot could cause decompression of the cabin...
The right to bear arms doesn't mean that guns should be allowed absolutely everywhere. If there are any guns in an airplane at all, they should be carried by air marshalls, and have ammo that wouldn't penetrate the fuselage.

I'd love to agree with you, but apparently that's not the case (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26481) (about decompression).

I'm not jumping down your neck. I just had to point that out in the interests of fairness.

[geni]

Or maybe there is a grain of truth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3039583.stm

There was a case of a pilot being sucked out of a plane window (I think it was a 747) but since this was ten years ago I have not been able to find a link yet.

[Mr Manifesto]

Actually, that was hinted at in my link as well. The issue isn't so much people getting sucked out of planes, as the plane running out of oxygen before pilots, etc, can act.

As seen in geni's article.

And I agree, needless to say, with:

"People with guns and aircraft do not mix."

:D

[Iamme]

Great thread, Mr manifesto!

Crackpotmonkey---Uhhhhh, are you going to tell the gun weilding hijacker also, that it is sheer lunacy for him to shoot?

Geni---The Guiness World Book of Records and possibly the World Almanac lists as a record, that some stewardess was sucked out a plane, at 37,000? (I think) feet...and lived!!!!

[crackmonkey]

Certainly, if I thought it'd do any good. I stand corrected (amusing to see you reference WND, Manifesto). Decompression or no, the idea of playing gunfight at the OK Corral at 40.000 feet is pretty damned silly. There are plenty of other ways to defend against a hijacker besides hosing down the cabin with bullets.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Certainly, if I thought it'd do any good. I stand corrected (amusing to see you reference WND, Manifesto). Decompression or no, the idea of playing gunfight at the OK Corral at 40.000 feet is pretty damned silly. There are plenty of other ways to defend against a hijacker besides hosing down the cabin with bullets.

I'm not familiar with WorldNetDaily. I just googled 'decompression' 'bullet' and something else and used the first site I came across. The 'explosive decompression doesn't exist' info I originally got from Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum about five years ago. Or so.

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, and there are other reasons why gunfights in planes are a bad idea. Such as: the bullets ricocheting all over the place. Cowboys with CCW's waiting for the chance to prove that they are a hero (look no furter than the rantings of Richard G, who thinks no problem can't be solved with a quick-draw).

If guns have to be carried on a plane at all, I'd rather they were specialised weapons, held by specialists only.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Oh, and there are other reasons why gunfights in planes are a bad idea. Such as: the bullets ricocheting all over the place. Cowboys with CCW's waiting for the chance to prove that they are a hero (look no furter than the rantings of Richard G, who thinks no problem can't be solved with a quick-draw).

If guns have to be carried on a plane at all, I'd rather they were specialised weapons, held by specialists only.


I tend to agree about guns on planes but exactly what would the bullets ricochet off of? Plexiglass? Aluminum?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ed



I tend to agree about guns on planes but exactly what would the bullets ricochet off of? Plexiglass? Aluminum?
I think I remember a bullet did ricochet off a belt buckle so the hero could survive in the cowboy movie. (he got the girl in the end too). please don't ask which end, its an old joke....:p

[EdipisReks]

while i am extremely pro gun, i think that guns on planes should only be in the hands of Sky Marshals. i also think that there should be a Sky Marshal on every plane. air lock style doors to the pilots cabin should also be mandatory.

[Luke T.]

I guess hijackers would like to have guns allowed on planes. It sure would make sneaking one on a lot easier than under the current system.

A shootout at 10,000 feet, eh? People with no training on how to take down terrorists without them blowing up the plane first, spraying the passenger cabin. Yeah. Good idea.

Air Marshals. Maybe even pilots. But not Joe Sixpack. Please.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
My personal opinion is that this is lunacy. Allowing guns to be carried on planes would open too may avenues of opportunity for those weapons to fall in the hands of hijackers.

On another thread, I asked you to provide examples of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns from before the gun ban. You ignored me. Are you going to do so here?

[quote]We also cannot tell if someone might be irresponsible with a weapon at some point in the future,[/qutoe]

Well, I can't tell if you're going to be irresponsible with a knife, a car, or anything else in the future. Is that any justification for taking away your rights?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What sheer idiocy. One shot could cause decompression of the cabin...

No, that is sheer idiocy. You've been watching too many movies. There are already holes in the plane much bigger than bullet holes. One tiny hole, or even one fairly big hole, could not cause decompression. Decompression happens when air exits the plane faster than it is being pumped in.

And decompression is rarely dangerous. There was in instance where a plane lost its entire roof and the plane landed safely with no injuries.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean that guns should be allowed absolutely everywhere. If there are any guns in an airplane at all, they should be carried by air marshalls, and have ammo that wouldn't penetrate the fuselage.

Why not let the individual airlines set their own policy? Then you could choose one that prohibits guns, and I could choose one that allows them. Then we both get what we want.

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Decompression or no, the idea of playing gunfight at the OK Corral at 40.000 feet is pretty damned silly.

I agree with this 100%. But what you apparently don't seem to realize is that the gunfight at the OK Corral happened because of gun control rules that went awry. It's the gun control people that want to play OK Corral, not those speaking out in favor of the second amendment.

[shanek]

Okay, my answer was "Yes," with the following qualification:

As the airplane is the property of the airline company, and they are responsible for the safety of the flight, they have the right to set whatever rules they want, including the prohibition of guns. Just as the owner of a building or other piece of property can ban guns or smoking or whatever on their own property, the same is true for the airlines. But the government shouldn't have the first thing to do with it.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, my answer was "Yes," with the following qualification:

As the airplane is the property of the airline company, and they are responsible for the safety of the flight, they have the right to set whatever rules they want, including the prohibition of guns. Just as the owner of a building or other piece of property can ban guns or smoking or whatever on their own property, the same is true for the airlines. But the government shouldn't have the first thing to do with it.

Airplanes fly over property that isn't owned by the airline company, peopled by citizens that might not be customers of that company. Because of that, the decision can't rest with the individual companies, but must be regulated by the government.
The risk is not just to the people in the plane.

[KelvinG]

I think it's insane to somehow think that it's possible to allow only passengers who are law abiding and responsible to carry weapons on a plane. How do we make this determination? How do we weed out persons who might pose a threat to the flight?

Would I feel good about some of the pro-gun advocates on this site carrying a firearm on a plane? Absolutely not. They're inflammatory language and outright threats are downright frightening.

And here's a question. The cartoon that RichardG posted shows vigilant citizens pointing guns at terrorists trying to take over a plane. I notice the terrorists in that cartoon aren't holding guns. But, what would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from having guns as well? Was there anything about them that would have prohibited them from owning guns and taking aboard their flights?

If the good guys can have guns on a flight, then can't the bad guys as well? Or are we naive enough to believe the bad guys can always be weeded out?

[crackmonkey]

Well, if law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons on board, I, as a law-abiding citizen should be able to carry explosives on board as well (assuming that I have the proper permits to carry dynamite and such. Assume I do demolition work). Don't you dare oppress me by interfering with my God-given right to ferry a fuselage-full of explosives wherever the hell I feel like it. Commie.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


On another thread, I asked you to provide examples of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns from before the gun ban. You ignored me. Are you going to do so here?


On another thread I pointed out that you were the one who initiated the argument that passenger misuse of guns were very low when they were allowed on planes; you are the one who has to provide evidence. You ignored me. Are you going to do so here?

Oh- you are. You're the gun creduloid.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by KelvinG

And here's a question. The cartoon that RichardG posted shows vigilant citizens pointing guns at terrorists trying to take over a plane. I notice the terrorists in that cartoon aren't holding guns. But, what would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from having guns as well? Was there anything about them that would have prohibited them from owning guns and taking aboard their flights?

If the good guys can have guns on a flight, then can't the bad guys as well? Or are we naive enough to believe the bad guys can always be weeded out?

Here's the cartoon, for those who are wondering:

http://www.empirearms.com/cartoon_terrorists.jpg

[Yahweh]

Guns on planes?

No.


In all reality, if your intent is to kill as many people as you can, what faster way can it be done than with a gun? Unwarranted vigilantism? Or freak accidents as they happen at times? The realistic pragmatic application of this "guns on planes", I think the risks of allowing guns freely on planes outweigh the benefits.

If guns are to be used, I recommend a system where a few security officials distributed throughout the plane. At least using that method, all guns that belong on the plane are in the right hands.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Airplanes fly over property that isn't owned by the airline company, peopled by citizens that might not be customers of that company.

Now, that's just bogus. You don't own your property all the way up.

Because of that, the decision can't rest with the individual companies, but must be regulated by the government.
The risk is not just to the people in the plane.

That twisted "logic" could be used as an excuse to regulate just about everything.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
On another thread I pointed out that you were the one who initiated the argument that passenger misuse of guns were very low when they were allowed on planes;

And that was a LIE. YOU brought it up; YOU defend YOUR position.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Yahweh
In all reality, if your intent is to kill as many people as you can, what faster way can it be done than with a gun? Unwarranted vigilantism? Or freak accidents as they happen at times? The realistic pragmatic application of this "guns on planes", I think the risks of allowing guns freely on planes outweigh the benefits.

Well, since Mr. Manifesto is weaseling away from answering this question, and since I have always known you to be an honest and reasonable poster here, let me ask you this question and hopefully (finally) get an answer:

Can you provide any examples of passengers (NOT hijackers) misusing guns in the time before the gun ban, which started around 1968 and became complete in 1973? Before then, anyone who wanted to could carry a firearm on a plane. Where are the real-life examples that show your fear is warranted?

[Ed]

Originally posted by The Fool

I think I remember a bullet did ricochet off a belt buckle so the hero could survive in the cowboy movie. (he got the girl in the end too). please don't ask which end, its an old joke....:p

Gotcha:D

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek

Can you provide any examples of passengers (NOT hijackers) misusing guns in the time before the gun ban, which started around 1968 and became complete in 1973? Before then, anyone who wanted to could carry a firearm on a plane. Where are the real-life examples that show your fear is warranted?


This is only a valid question if you can stop hijackers taking guns onto a plane or you can tell in advance who the highjackers were.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


Now, that's just bogus. You don't own your property all the way up.

Which would be fine if we could always count on an airplane staying where it should be. The argument made was clearly that we CAN'T count on that absolutely, and saying otherwise is just obtuse.

That twisted "logic" could be used as an excuse to regulate just about everything.

If by that you mean, "regulating 100-ton things that are loaded with flammable fuel that could be easily caused to drop on our homes," then I don't see how one could debate that. Why can't Libertarians acknowledge the silliness of their extremes? Even Democrats are capable of that.

If you can guarantee that a plane will stay over land the airline owns, then you may have a point. Besides, haven't you ever heard of "air rights"? That's what allowed the railroads to be built under exsisting buildings in Chicago without forcing the rail companies to buy the land. They merely lease the first 20 feet or so, and the buildings above own the land,

[Tmy]

Guns on planes?!? Are you all crazy. I cant even listen to my radio or use the computer, or smoke, on the plane because apparently it will cause the instruments to explode. But its OK to bring guns in?? They wont even let me in wh nail clippers. I guess I need a permit for it.

WHy do air marshalls need guns. Cant they use tazers. Somthing less leathal, less likely to ricochet.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

My personal opinion is that this is lunacy. Allowing guns to be carried on planes would open too may avenues of opportunity for those weapons to fall in the hands of hijackers.

Uh, if guns are allowed, don't you think we could count on the hijackers to bring their own rather than relying on jumping some cowboy as he exited the lavatory?

I'm pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment, but I think any reasonable person would draw the line at the jetway. You can't bring weapons into a courthouse - a government building - and you don't see anyone complaining about that.

It's a reasonable measure, plain and simple. It's equally reasonable to expect someone qualified to carry a gun, however, be it an air marshall or the pilot. There is a long history of life-threatening situations in the air, where there is no 911 to call and no cavalry coming to the rescue. If a passenger makes aggressive moves with a weapon - any weapon, not just a gun - the appropriate officers should have carte blanche to wax the guy if they feel the safety to the aircraft and innocents on the ground are threatened.

[Tony]

I am on the fence with this issue. Honestly, I'd rather see smoking marjiuana on planes legalized. Then, and maybe then, we could bring on the guns.

[crackmonkey]

This kind of crap is why Libertarians will never be more than a loony fringe... Arguing that citizens should be able to carry guns on planes (and again, why not allow explosives as well?) is beyond the realms of common sense.

[shanek]

Originally posted by geni
This is only a valid question if you can stop hijackers taking guns onto a plane or you can tell in advance who the highjackers were.

Why? Most cases of armed hijacking happened after the total gun ban in 1973. The claim is that if we allowed everyone to carry a gun on the plane, then, not that hijackers could get a hold of them (because the argument is made that others could defend the plane against the hijacker), but that passengers who are NOT hijackers will misuse them. I want these people to support that argument. And in each and every thread where I have brought this up, they have waffled and lied and tried to shift the burden on me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
Which would be fine if we could always count on an airplane staying where it should be. The argument made was clearly that we CAN'T count on that absolutely, and saying otherwise is just obtuse.

What does that have to do with your property? If someone drives off the road into your property and does damage, they are liable and responsible for it. Why should it be any different with a plane?

If by that you mean, "regulating 100-ton things that are loaded with flammable fuel that could be easily caused to drop on our homes," then I don't see how one could debate that. Why can't Libertarians acknowledge the silliness of their extremes? Even Democrats are capable of that.

The problem is, you focus on the extremes. But the regulation will enivtably lead to much, much more that is greatly undesirable. That is the way government regulation always works. Look at the stuff the ADA has been used to do, for example. Why would it be any different here?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
It's a reasonable measure, plain and simple.

Then why is it unreasonable to let the individual airlines decide for themselves?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
This kind of crap is why Libertarians will never be more than a loony fringe... Arguing that citizens should be able to carry guns on planes (and again, why not allow explosives as well?) is beyond the realms of common sense.

Why? They were able to do so before the gun bans; can YOU point out the problems with it from that time period?

Why is everyone completely ignoring this point?

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek


Why? They were able to do so before the gun bans; can YOU point out the problems with it from that time period?

Why is everyone completely ignoring this point?

Things have changed a lot since pre gun ban days. The avarage plane is now bigger so you have more people at risk.
Post sept 11 people's behavior has changed. They are going to be a lot more jumpy. In some ways this is a good thing. The shoe bomber would have had quite a good chance of suceeding pre sept 11. But he was disabled by people without guns. If they had had gun do you think everyone shooting at him would have hit the target?

[crackmonkey]

I don't know if passengers were ever allowed to carry guns on planes or not, so... no, I can't point to anything. I'd wager that you couldn't point to any mideatern men hijacking a plane and crashing it into buildings before, either. Merely because it hasn't happened does not mean that there is no risk. Allowing weapons to be brought on board makes it childishly simple for terrorists to terrorize. After all, the terrorists are merely law-abiding immigrants carrying their weapons on board, just like good Americans.
You never addressed my point about explosives; would you prevent me from carrying sticks of dynamite on a plane? Is there any weapon that you would prevent being carried or transported on a plane?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


What does that have to do with your property? If someone drives off the road into your property and does damage, they are liable and responsible for it. Why should it be any different with a plane?

You're joking, right? You think we should drop all the rules regarding passenger safety and count on the airlines - half of which are in BANKRUPTCY, mind you - to do the right thing in civil court?

Why is it different? I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer, except to say that an out-of-control car isn't capable to turning three square blocks into a mini-Dresden.



The problem is, you focus on the extremes. But the regulation will enivtably lead to much, much more that is greatly undesirable. That is the way government regulation always works. Look at the stuff the ADA has been used to do, for example. Why would it be any different here?

The premise of this thread is related to an extreme - the possible consequences of gunplay on an airplane. If you don't want to deal with that - beyond the usual pie-in-the-sky (no pun intended) utopian Libertarian crap, then I suggest you find another thread where "absolute individual rights" don't come across as so freakin' irrational.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


Then why is it unreasonable to let the individual airlines decide for themselves?

I suppose you're casting this in the same light as non-smoking sections in restaurants vs. governement mandates outlawing it. I think that's a tenuous comparison at best, but here goes.

Don't you think the airlines are capable of lobbying for such a measure as freely transporting loaded firearms on their own? I mean, if they thought it was a good idea.

Of course they could, and of course they haven't. Do the math.

[shanek]

Originally posted by geni
Things have changed a lot since pre gun ban days.

Has human nature changed? Has society changed? This is only about 35 years, so you really have no cause to suggest a 180° reversal in human behavior here.

Post sept 11 people's behavior has changed. They are going to be a lot more jumpy.

Evidence?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Merely because it hasn't happened does not mean that there is no risk.

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

Allowing weapons to be brought on board makes it childishly simple for terrorists to terrorize.

That's ridiculous. If anything, it makes it much, much more difficult. Terrorists don't like actually going up against armed opposition.

You never addressed my point about explosives; would you prevent me from carrying sticks of dynamite on a plane?

Again: Up to the airline. I don't imagine any airline agreeing to this, though.

Is there any weapon that you would prevent being carried or transported on a plane?

Me? No; I don't have that right. The airline companies do.

[crackmonkey]

You think I sound like an astrologer because I point out that risks exist that have not yet happened? I'm sure you'd agree that the risk of planes being flown into skyscrapers existed before 9/11... I don't know where you're trying to go with this curious line of argument.
Terrorists would love your idea of airlines having the final say as to what is allowed to be carried on their airlines. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for a few wealthy terror sponsors to purchase a small airline and decide that it is fine for their airplanes to carry a fuselage full of explosives as cargo. It could be that potential passengers would be scared off because of that policy, but so what? There are now legally sanctioned flying bombs circling our skies, waiting for the word to plunge into whatever targets the terrorists choose. Hell, with your scenario, there's no reason to forbid our TerrorAir planes from carrying nuclear devices, is there?
Madness.

[BTox]

There should be guns on airlines but only carried by qualified Marshalls.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek

And decompression is rarely dangerous. There was in instance where a plane lost its entire roof and the plane landed safely with no injuries.



Sorry, shanek, but unless you know of another plane that lost its roof, this claim is bogus.

Source 1. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/ErrantArcs.pdf)

Source 2. (http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2732,23763,00.html)


A week later--on April 28, 1988--the same jet's roof ripped open 24,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, killing one flight attendant and seriously injuring seven passengers and a crew member.

The flight attendant was sucked out of the airplane.

Aside from rapid decompression concerns, airplanes are bristling with flight control systems throughout the entire length of a plane and its wings. Hydraulics. Fuel tanks. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. A bullet penetrating any one of these can cause a plane to go down.

[Luciana]

You must be referring to domestic flights only, right?

Because everywhere I've been to, airports prohibit passengers from carrying guns. How would that be - an American flight arriving in an international aiport, where carrying guns is prohibited? And how would that be, upon boarding a flight?

Should the airport employees allow Americans to enter the plane carrying guns - that is, is an American gun permit recognized by other countries? Aren't rules different? And actually... would some foreign citizens enjoy the idea that Americans are carrying guns, and they're not, because their country doesn't allow it?

Actually, I don't think a foreign national can enter my country without special permission for its gun, acquired previously at an embassy. If that's the case, what would an American do upon arriving here, toss it in the sea?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You think I sound like an astrologer because I point out that risks exist that have not yet happened?

No; you sound like an astrologer because you essentially argued "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Terrorists would love your idea of airlines having the final say as to what is allowed to be carried on their airlines. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for a few wealthy terror sponsors to purchase a small airline and decide that it is fine for their airplanes to carry a fuselage full of explosives as cargo.

And the terrorists would get that kind of funding from were? Dubya's lies notwithstanding, they're pretty much a low budget operation compared to what would be needed to start an airline, load it with fuel, and crash it into buildings. And you people accuse us "gun nuts" of paranoia!

There are now legally sanctioned flying bombs circling our skies, waiting for the word to plunge into whatever targets the terrorists choose.

Oh, get over it! 9/11 was something that could only work once and the terrorists know it. If we had any intelligence at all (in both senses of the word), we'd be infiltrating these organizations trying to figure out what they're going to do next instead of engaging in pathetic fear-mongering and the illusion of safety for the purposes of getting votes and money.

Hell, with your scenario, there's no reason to forbid our TerrorAir planes from carrying nuclear devices, is there?
Madness.

The only "madness" here is you assuming that terrorists could do damage with a nuclear device on a plane that they couldn't do on the ground. Do you even think before you post?

[shanek]

Okay, you fear-mongers, read and learn:

Closing the Cockpit Loophole (https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2476)

by Captain Duane Shaw

Let me introduce myself. I am an airline Captain for the worlds second largest airline. I have been flying airplanes professionally for twenty one years. I have dealt with engine failures, aircraft system failures, aircraft navigation equipment failures, Air Traffic Control failures and airline management failures. Through it all, nothing has scared me more in aviation than the people I carry in the back of the plane. Why? Because I have had to deal with drug crazed and drunk passengers, air ragers, and people who are just scared. I have learned that all these people are unpredictable and dangerous. (just the opposite of law abiding gun owners).

What about Air Marshals? Not the best idea. An Air Marshal in the back of the aircraft can be identified, distracted and overwhelmed, even if armed. [...] Also, there are over eight thousand flight segments per day in the U.S. The cost of putting an Air Marshall on each flight would be prohibitive. Especially when you have two highly qualified professionals in the nerve center (cockpit) of the airplane who can do the job.

Is it dangerous for pilots to carry guns? No. Pilots are some of the most mentally, physically and psychologically tested people on earth. Additionally we are drug and alcohol tested all the time. We are highly educated, have a unique understanding of how mechanical things work, and have eye/hand coordination second to none. We are also required to undergo rigorous recurrent training and checkrides every nine months. (A great place for firearms requal.) There is no safer group of individuals to issue defensive firearms to.

What about shooting in a pressurized cabin? Will the airplane blow up? No. Do not be fooled by movies showing an explosive decompression in the cabin after a gun is fired. The pressurized fuselage of an aircraft already has many holes in it for regulating pressurization and air flow. The aluminum alloy skin of the aircraft is a quarter inch thick and capable of taking direct hits from most handguns without fracture. Even the cabin windows are incredibly thick and strong and capable of taking hits without failure, especially if using a frangible bullet. Even if they did penetrate the fuselage, several additional small holes would not make any difference in the ability to maintain pressure.

But let's not lose the forest for the trees here. Just remember the scenario that would require gunfire in an aircraft. It would be the last line of defense before turning the aircraft over to a terrorist for him to complete his mission - to kill hundreds or thousands of you.

Fights between pilots in the cockpit? Does not happen. In twenty one years of professional flying with five different airlines, I have never been involved in an altercation with another pilot. I have never even heard of this happening. How many police get into arguments, draw their weapons and kill each other while on duty?

Still do not want guns on airplanes eh? In any given week of flying I will carry one to five armed individuals on my aircraft. They are IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, DEA agents, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, state and local law enforcement, and virtually anyone else authorized by the government to carry a weapon. There is no restriction on the size or type of gun they carry.

All I am asking is to not be defenseless. Give me a fighting chance to save my passengers, crew, aircraft and people on the ground from a psycho or terrorist. Lets close this cockpit loophole.

I am hearing over and over on TV and the radio from elected officials how we are going to have to give up freedom and liberties for additional security provided by our government. This is not acceptable. I have a right to defend my family from harm at home. Why can't I have the same right in my aircraft at work? If we adopt a bunker mentality and start voluntarily giving up freedom, then we have already lost. Let me defend my aircraft and cockpit with the best tools available.

[Richard G]

You must be referring to domestic flights only, right?

Absolutely correct. It is impossible to travel abroad with a firearm, most of the world has outlawed them for the unwashed masses. And foreigners are prohibited by law from possesing a firearm in the U.S.

[crackmonkey]

WHere to begin? If I asserted on 9/10 that terrorists could fly planes into buildings, by your 'logic' you'd consider that to be nonsense akin to believing in astrology? Do we have to take this any further?
I'm sure that a reasonably large terrorist outfit could buy a few older planes with no problem. This is a red-herring argument anyway...
9/11 would happen often, if you set the rules. If any passenger (and terrorist) was able to carry whatever arms he decided he needed on board, planes would be dropping out of the skies daily.
Do I think before I post??? Do you think at all? Nothing's more distasteful than a wild-eyed true believer in full rant, rationalizing himself into a corner. While I support the right to own a weapon, you carry this to an absurd extreme, and refust to back down regardless how silly it makes you sound.
Do me a favor - don't ever take my side of an argument, okay?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
You must be referring to domestic flights only, right?

As international flights open up a whole plethora of different issues, yes, I think it's safe to say we're all referring to domestic US flights.

[Iamme]

I agree with letting the airlines decide. It's their planes. It's their possible lawsuits/insurance rate hikes if they choose the wrong option. Or, more profits, after they find out that the other airlines policies resulted in more deaths/accidents.

I think that cartoon above with everyone pointing their pistols at the mideastern hijackers reiterates my position I mentioned earlier. Chances are, there will be many people on board authorized to carry a gun. If something goes awry with either a hijacker getting his hands on a gun (as if he wouldn't have some weapon to begin with?), or a right-to-carry person flipped out...what would happen is the good people would cry out for more right-to-carry people to intervene. The 5,6,10,20,? who are allowed to carry would overwhelm the bad. See again that cartoon.

Too many posters make it sound like nobody could tell a hijacker from a right-to-carry person, getting on board. Um....not everyone can just come on board with a gun you know. Obviously, those who have that right must be carrying documents with picture I.D. or whatever, authorizing them to do so.

Could hijackers get there hands on fake picture I.D.'s? Obviously, before such a right-to-carry law (on planes) could be implemented, you have to have some form of I.D. that can't have za simple photo-transfer done. It'd have to be how we now have uncounterfeitable 2o dollar bills. *IF* they have this perfected, I would feel WAY safer on such a plane, knowing there were possibly lots of authorized carriers of guns. I would take my chances with any riqocheted bullets or decompression. I would NOT want to be on a plane and find out I am at 40,000 feet with no parachute, and with a cabin full of defenseless pasengers with some hijacker who DID manage to smuggle a bomb or gun on board somehow. I do NOT trust the ability of the airlines to positively screen out some rogue pistol. I've watched too many Mission Impossibles, Columbos and McGivers to have peace of mind that absolutely no weapon could be brought on board by some unwanted person.

[Iamme]

Oh...the thing about sky marshals? To me, one sky marshall is not enough for my peace of mind. You guys make it sound like this sky marshall is going to be some John Wayne hero everytime. Ya. What if there are 6 hijackers and the I.D. of the sky marshall is learned. Fe-or-get-it!!!! I would want no less than 3 sky marshalls per plane, otherwise I ain't getting on one. And who is going to pay for these guys? Right-to-carry people would be at no cost to us.

[MoeFaux]

Let's also not forget that D.B.Cooper opened the emergency exit door in flight and jumped off of the plane, while no one else was injured. So one little bullet hole wouldn't make a difference. (though, after DB emergency exit doors all have locks that make it so you are unable to open the door mid-flight)
No one is going to get sucked off an airplane. Now, sucked off IN an airplane, that's a whole 'nother story.


I voted yes.

[Luke T.]

Shanek, you are cracking me up.

First, your link to the pilot's story only argues in favor of pilot's being allowed to carry guns on planes.

Second, you asked someone for example of citizens (NOT HIJACKERS) who abused the privelege of having a gun on a plane before guns were banned. Gee, it doesn't matter that it was because of HIJACKERS that guns were banned and that HIJACKINGS dramatically decreased after the ban? Hello?

(edited to add: If you make a joke about hijacking a plane to Cuba these days, most people under 30 won't get the joke, probably.)

If you allow anyone to carry a gun on board, then any hijacker can, too.

And think about what you are saying when you say this:


Oh, get over it! 9/11 was something that could only work once and the terrorists know it.

And why can that only work once? Because the passengers will kick their sorry butts, that's why. And why will the passengers be able to do that? Because it is much more difficult to get a gun or even a box cutter onto a plane.

Let me know as soon as a hijacker hijacks a plane with a gun again and then we'll talk about arming the passengers.

[Luke T.]

It also cracks me up that the pilot in the aforementioned link also talks about air rage. That is probably why he didn't make the argument in favor of passengers having guns. He says quite plainly that the scariest thing on the plane are passengers.

And this:


I have learned that all these people are unpredictable and dangerous. (just the opposite of law abiding gun owners).

What is he saying here? That somehow, being a gun owner makes you predictable and non-dangerous? Or that all gun owners are law abiding? Or as soon as someone does something with their legally owned gun that isn't legal, they are no longer a law abiding gun owner and are excluded from the argument for some reason? We'll be able to spot these types and keep them from bringing a gun on the plane?

They can't even spot someone who is going to have an attack of air rage before they get on the plane.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
First, your link to the pilot's story only argues in favor of pilot's being allowed to carry guns on planes.

No, it doesn't only do that. It also points out the problems with the "decompression" argument as well as the problems with armed sky marshalls. He also points out how gunplay is the last resort and other things that refute what has been said here.

Second, you asked someone for example of citizens (NOT HIJACKERS) who abused the privelege of having a gun on a plane before guns were banned.

What does that have to do with the article? I can't refute other points as well?

Gee, it doesn't matter that it was because of HIJACKERS that guns were banned and that HIJACKINGS dramatically decreased after the ban? Hello?

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

And why can that only work once?

Because passengers, armed or not, are not just going to sit idly by while people hijack a plane. The passengers on the fourth flight proved that. What's the point?

[Luke T.]

How many planes were hijacked in the 60s and 70s that were stopped by armed passengers, I wonder? How many planes were hijacked because anyone could carry a gun and no one was able to stop the hijacker?

Only a complete idiot would want to bring back those days.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Let's also not forget that D.B.Cooper opened the emergency exit door in flight and jumped off of the plane, while no one else was injured. So one little bullet hole wouldn't make a difference. (though, after DB emergency exit doors all have locks that make it so you are unable to open the door mid-flight)
No one is going to get sucked off an airplane. Now, sucked off IN an airplane, that's a whole 'nother story.


I voted yes.

Er, if I recall correctly, the plane D.B. Cooper leapt from was only flying at around 15,000 feet - enough for a stiff breeze, but not nearly high enough to decompress. If he'd been trying to bail out of a plane cruising at 35,000-40,000 feet (where airliners hit cruising altitude), he would have discovered that he may well have suffocated before he had a chance to pull the cord.

The reason emergency hatches won't open in flight - and this was true before the Cooper stunt - is that internal air pressure prevents even the strongest man from pulling the door in (which they must do before swinging out). The locking feature is moot in this case.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Airplanes fly over property that isn't owned by the airline company, peopled by citizens that might not be customers of that company.


Originally posted by shanek

Now, that's just bogus. You don't own your property all the way up.


You must be very, very, dim if you don't understand the point. If an airplane is damaged badly, it falls out of the sky. Do you understand the point now? Big planes full of fuel are dangerous.




I wrote:
Because of that, the decision can't rest with the individual companies, but must be regulated by the government.
The risk is not just to the people in the plane.



Originally posted by shanek

That twisted "logic" could be used as an excuse to regulate just about everything.


You mean like, people should be allowed to place others at risk without their consent?


How nice, use the modifier twisted, and put logic in quotes, and voila, you don't even have to justify what you say. Hey, guess what, lots of things are regulated. There's laws on how much pesticides farmers can use, horrible stuff like that. And in case you don't realize it, liability isn't really the problem. Prevention is. So what if the airlines can pay for the damage caused by a 737 falling onto a city. I'd rather not have that happen at all. So all your talk about the airline companies taking the responsibility is just you living in a tiny world where airplanes fly, but never fall down.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it doesn't only do that. It also points out the problems with the "decompression" argument as well as the problems with armed sky marshalls. He also points out how gunplay is the last resort and other things that refute what has been said here.

But he clearly doesn't want his passengers armed.

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

You must be living in a different country than me.

Source 3. (http://www.ilstu.edu/~raweish/cjs102/Justice%20American%20Style.pdf)


Formal profiling began in the 1960s with the problem of commercial airline piracy andhijackers taking planes to Cuba. In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully. “Sky marshals�– specially trained U.S. Marshals – were put on planes but hijacking continued. A government task force came up with a profile of potential hijackers. Taking information on known hijackers they developed a picture of a potential pirate. It was hoped that the criminal would be identified before boarding the plane. It did not work and instead all boarding passengers were required to undergo mandatory electronicscreening before they boarded. By 1976 the number of hijackings of U.S. commercial airplanes decreased to 4, a 90 percent decline from those of 1969.

Anyone could carry a gun, and look what happened after they stopped that practice.

[Zep]

If guns were allowed to be carried on planes then intending hijackers would be well aware of this, and would arrange for some other method of ensuring success of their venture - something that a whole platoon of guns would not be able to counter, rendering their presence utterly pointless, possibly even counter-productive.

And a quick question about 9/11, please. Is it my understanding that the hijackers there had more than just box-cutters? Didn't they also have explosives of some sort?

[shanek]

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.

Hey, guess what, lots of things are regulated.

Yes; that doesn't mean that such regulations are justified or accomplish what they are supposed to.

Prevention is. So what if the airlines can pay for the damage caused by a 737 falling onto a city. I'd rather not have that happen at all.

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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But he clearly doesn't want his passengers armed.

That wasn't the point of providing the information, though. Besides, he doesn't say that one way or the other. He did specifically say that gun owners are the opposite of unpredictable and dangerous.

You must be living in a different country than me.

Source 3. (http://www.ilstu.edu/~raweish/cjs102/Justice%20American%20Style.pdf)
Formal profiling began in the 1960s with the problem of commercial airline piracy andhijackers taking planes to Cuba. In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully.

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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
If guns were allowed to be carried on planes then intending hijackers would be well aware of this, and would arrange for some other method of ensuring success of their venture - something that a whole platoon of guns would not be able to counter, rendering their presence utterly pointless, possibly even counter-productive.

Such as? They would need to gain control of the plane somehow, so unless they've perfected some kind of remote control system that means getting into the cockpit and forcing the pilots under duress or taking control of the plane themselves.

And a quick question about 9/11, please. Is it my understanding that the hijackers there had more than just box-cutters? Didn't they also have explosives of some sort?

My understanding is that boxcutters were all they had. They didn't need explosives because the fuel in the plane served that purpose.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


That wasn't the point of providing the information, though. Besides, he doesn't say that one way or the other. He did specifically say that gun owners are the opposite of unpredictable and dangerous.



You provided the link with something for the "fear mongers." The only fear that has been expressed at length in this topic has been the idea of armed passengers.

Speaking of gun owners being the opposite of unpredictable and dangerous, what is the magic quality that excludes a gun owner from being human?

I don't buy for a second that all gun owners are not unpredictable and dangerous. That is an incredibly stupid thing to say.


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.

A complete ban in 1973. Get it yet?

Between 1976 and 9/11/01, shanek, when was a domestic plane hijacked at gunpoint in the U.S.? How many times?

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek
Such as? They would need to gain control of the plane somehow, so unless they've perfected some kind of remote control system that means getting into the cockpit and forcing the pilots under duress or taking control of the plane themselves.

Once you realise that terrorists are not restricted in their thinking by the concepts of having to use violent physical force in order to achieve their aims, you will see that your statement here shows the limits of your thinking. It may be in future that they don't have to enter the cockpit at all, or even gain physical control of the plane themselves, in order to get control of the plane. And therefore there could be MANY ways this can be achieved. Electronic control, sophisticated plastic explosives, use of external threats (blackmail), etc, etc.


My understanding is that boxcutters were all they had. They didn't need explosives because the fuel in the plane served that purpose.

I was thinking of the use of such weapons as a threat to the passengers and crew, not so much as the ultimate means of destruction. So if boxcutters were the only weapon on board, why did the fourth plane crash after the passengers rushed the hijackers in the cabin? Sure, there would have been a lot of blood and fighting and such, but would that actually have crashed the plane? On the other hand, a well-placed small explosive could have done that quite easily... Sorry to go over old ground here, but this aspect has always puzzled me.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


My understanding is that boxcutters were all they had. They didn't need explosives because the fuel in the plane served that purpose.

Actually, according to the communications from passengers aboard United flight 93 indicated that the hijackers had SAID there were explosives aboard, which is obviously why they'd gotten as far as they did with nothing more than box cutters visible.

So shooting the hijackers wouldn't have solved the problem, as they understood it; though there was no bomb, there was a belief there was. Timed explosives don't need a live terrorist.

You've just shot another hole in your argument. But that's better than you shooting a hole in a fuselage at 40,000 feet.

And i'd like to ask you again to address your confidence in airlines' ability to cover liability from damage and deaths on the ground, when half of the airlines are in BANKRUPTCY. Of course, the additional insurance that your loony scheme would require would likely push the other half into bankruptcy as well.

The key thing to pushing an unpopular political philosohpy, Shanek, is pulling back before you plunge headlong into absurdity. This is a textbook example.

[shanek]

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.

Any and all explanations are welcome, but evasion, ignoring the data, and the other forms of table-turning and goalpost-moving exhibited in these threads is not. Deal with the facts, people. They are what they are.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You provided the link with something for the "fear mongers." The only fear that has been expressed at length in this topic has been the idea of armed passengers.

I explained to you precisely what I was doing with the article. Stop whining.

I don't buy for a second that all gun owners are not unpredictable and dangerous. That is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

But you apparently have no problem with the claim that all passengers are unpredictable and dangerous? (Hint: if you actually READ the article, he really didn't make either claim; you interjected the word "all").

A complete ban in 1973. Get it yet?

Between 1976 and 9/11/01, shanek, when was a domestic plane hijacked at gunpoint in the U.S.? How many times?

See the graph. And "at gunpoint" is meaningless, as the events of 9/11 showed. If the passengers aren't armed, and guns aren't necessary, why should a hijacker risk bringing a gun on board when boxcutters will do?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
So if boxcutters were the only weapon on board, why did the fourth plane crash after the passengers rushed the hijackers in the cabin?

Maybe because the hijackers had killed the only people capable of flying the plane?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
So shooting the hijackers wouldn't have solved the problem, as they understood it; though there was no bomb, there was a belief there was.

There was also a belief that they weren't going to slam the airplane into buildings and blow them up. What does any of this have to do with what we're discussing?

And i'd like to ask you again to address your confidence in airlines' ability to cover liability from damage and deaths on the ground, when half of the airlines are in BANKRUPTCY. Of course, the additional insurance that your loony scheme would require would likely push the other half into bankruptcy as well.

The airlines are in bankruptcy because of the hideous costs of all of these government regulations (that so-called "deregulation" of the 1980s was really re-regulation, as is almost always the case when politicians use that term).

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
Any and all explanations are welcome,Okay, here's another explanation: the number of planes flying around and the number of passengers has increased rather dramatically.

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...

If you come up with such a graph, there are a few possibilities:
- When guns on planes were outlawed, there was a dramatic rise in hijackings. This means that guns should be allowed on planes.
- When guns on planes were banned, there was a dramatic decline in hijackings. This means the ban has been effective
- Hijackings have been declining with a steady rate. This could mean that the gun ban had no real effect, but the decline is caused by the fact that there are too few hijackers to keep hijacking up with the growth in aviation.
- Hijackers have been rising with a steady rate. This could mean that the gun ban had no real effect, but the US has become increasing (un?)popular with hijackers.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
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.

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.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


There was also a belief that they weren't going to slam the airplane into buildings and blow them up. What does any of this have to do with what we're discussing?

You're being intellectually dishonest and deliberately obtuse.

You claimed they only used box cutters, and no other weapons (or threat), thereby making it fit neatly into your little dreamworld where armed passengers would have been more than a match for the hijackers. 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?"

Just knock that crap off. You're not fooling anyone with the aloof act.


The airlines are in bankruptcy because of the hideous costs of all of these government regulations (that so-called "deregulation" of the 1980s was really re-regulation, as is almost always the case when politicians use that term).

Example? Funny, I thought it had to do with plummeting bookings and high fuel costs since 9/11. Care to back that up, or is it enough for you to trot out the government boogeyman and expect us to be frightened?

Jeez, Shanek, you're starting to make government look good, now that I'm getting a decent view of your alternative.

[Kilted_Canuck]

Originally posted by shanek
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.

Any and all explanations are welcome, but evasion, ignoring the data, and the other forms of table-turning and goalpost-moving exhibited in these threads is not. Deal with the facts, people. They are what they are.


Shanek, that graph doesn't take into account the political atomosphere in the world. Now, middle-eastern and former soviet terrorist have targeted the US and other western countries. Though Hi-jackings are EXTREMELY rare, they are on the rise. This is because people don't have guns on planes? Nope.


As Luciana said, think about international flights. Even if your 2nd ammendment says you can take guns on a flight (I doubt it would apply), 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.

Besides, have you ever been stuck on a plane for 8 hours for a snow delay or the like? I'd think the officials would consider the result a mass suicide...

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek

Maybe because the hijackers had killed the only people capable of flying the plane? 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?

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

BTW, re the explosives on the flights, I read somewhere off the internet that the 9/11 terrorists actually did have explosives, as liquid bombs in their baggage in the hold, and they were to be fired by remote controls they carried in their hands. Certainly sounded feasible enough and nasty enough as well. And if true, it would certainly put the plane-full-o-guns proponents in a bind! But I admit I can't find any references for this, so it is anecdotal only.

Incidentally, aircraft have been hijacked since the 1920's. 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. In other words, it had a political motivation entirely, nothing at all to do with any gun-controls or gun-bans - post hoc, ergo prompter hoc. And it just became a vogue thing for your up-to-date swingin' 1970's terrorist, man!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zep


BTW, re the explosives on the flights, I read somewhere off the internet that the 9/11 terrorists actually did have explosives, as liquid bombs in their baggage in the hold, and they were to be fired by remote controls they carried in their hands. Certainly sounded feasible enough and nasty enough as well. And if true, it would certainly put the plane-full-o-guns proponents in a bind! But I admit I can't find any references for this, so it is anecdotal only.



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...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
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]

Originally posted by Jocko
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]

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

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

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]

Originally posted by Zep
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]

Originally posted by Jocko
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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by 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.

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 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/1978/780825-0.htm) '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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

"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 (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1282/9_54/85410322/p1/article.jhtml)

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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


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]

Originally posted by Jocko


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



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

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek
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 (http://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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
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.]

Originally posted by shanek
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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Unless you list the flights you used in your little graph, your graph isn't worth the bandwidth its soaking up.

"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.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


I explained to you precisely what I was doing with the article. Stop whining.

Okay, Shanek, since you accuse others of moving the goal posts, let's take a look at your record so far.

First, you claim a plane had its roof ripped off with no injuries. Totally bogus. I provided evidence you made that claim up.

Later, you provide a quote, separate from another quote from the same article, which reads:


Let me introduce myself. I am an airline Captain for the worlds second largest airline. I have been flying airplanes professionally for twenty one years. I have dealt with engine failures, aircraft system failures, aircraft navigation equipment failures, Air Traffic Control failures and airline management failures. Through it all, nothing has scared me more in aviation than the people I carry in the back of the plane. Why? Because I have had to deal with drug crazed and drunk passengers, air ragers, and people who are just scared. I have learned that all these people are unpredictable and dangerous. (just the opposite of law abiding gun owners).

When I point out "the pilot's story only argues in favor of pilot's being allowed to carry guns on planes. This pilot is in no way supporting passengers carrying guns," you say:


No, it doesn't only do that. It also points out the problems with the "decompression" argument as well as the problems with armed sky marshalls. He also points out how gunplay is the last resort and other things that refute what has been said here.

That quote says nothing about decompression or sky marshals. So why did you post it, separate from the other quote, shanek?

Next, I say, "Gee, it doesn't matter that it was because of HIJACKERS that guns were banned and that HIJACKINGS dramatically decreased after the ban? Hello?"

(Notice I said "ban.")

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

(Notice you also said "ban.")

I then provide a link (a very specific one, too) that states hijackings went down 90 percent after guns were banned.

Suddenly, you move the goal posts and say, "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."

Ohhhhhhhhhhh... It's restrictions now!

Regardless, the source I provided still makes the same point, as it refers to the period after 1973.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong,

Oh, no, because that might actually be useful and further the debate! :rolleyes:

This is asinine, even by your own standards. NO ONE RUSHED THE HIJACKERS because NO ONE KNEW IT WAS A SUICIDE MISSION.

Right, because they, like everybody else, had been told all along that the best thing is to just let them have what they want. That was a big security hole, and they walked right through it. How do you even PRETEND to think that this somehow rebuts my point instead of supporting it?

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.

I have thoroughly read every single response. But like all the others, you just resort to insults because you apparently can't defend your position.

Like? The only ones that come to mind are Eastern and Braniff. Small airlines in regional markets.

How dishonest can you get? Eastern was not a "small airline in a regional market;" they were then what USAir is today. Charlotte was a major hub for them, and they brokered flights all over the country. They were one of the most dominant airline companies in their time.

If the rest of your knowledge is this faulty, then why should anyone believe anything you say?

[shanek]

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

And you base this on telephone calls reconstructed by a grieving widow FROM MEMORY that DON'T EVEN STATE THAT HE BELIEVED THERE ACTUALLY WAS A BOMB ON BOARD? Come on!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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.

Bull$#!7. Answer straight: Why should the number of hijackings increase with the number of flights?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
Even the methodology Shanek suggests for accidents indicates a lack of insight - basing it on miles flown is pointless,

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD DO THAT!!! STOP LYING!!!!

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.

Answer straight: Why should more people suddenly decide to hijack a plane who otherwise wouldn't just because there are more flights?

[Luke T.]

Just to repeat what is stated in the source I gave earlier in this thread:


Formal profiling began in the 1960s with the problem of commercial airline piracy andhijackers taking planes to Cuba. In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully.

This obviously contradicts shanek's unsubstantiated graph, which doesn't even have a source attached.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
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.

I agree, Now, this has what to do with what I said? I was responding to YOUR question as to why the flight crashed. I simply responded that the terrorists had taken out the pilots, and so when the passengers took out the terrorists, there was simply no one left who could fly the plane. YOU then jumped all over my case.

This is the second time you've asked a question, I've given you a perfectly straightforward and true answer, and you've taken the opportunity to jump all over my case about it. You've just proven that you're here to personally belittle me as much as you can and not for honest, open debate. this is all about you and your personal bigotry, lashing out at anything and anyone that challenges it.

Why would there NOT be such a headline? "Brave passengers shoot hijackers, save thousands in near collision."

How would anyone KNOW they had saved thousands? That's the thing about preventative defense measures: the results are invisible and incalculable.

You are simply being US-centric again.

We are talking about the effects if US gun legislation...OF COURSE I'M BEING US CENTRIC!!! :rolleyes:

Geez... Just any old excuse to ignore the facts, isn't it?

I made no such claim myself.

Others did, and that is what the graph was meant to refute.

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.

I made no such claim myself.

I didn't see you posting reasons as to why the hijackings increased after 1973 when others were claiming they decreased at the same time. Are you making this up as you go along, or do you only refute data you don't agree with?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
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.

I see.

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.

Unfortunately, the database doesn't let me do lookups based on departure and arrival locations. It would take me a really, really, really long time to go through each and every one individually and see whether or not it was a domestic US flight.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
And don't forget to make sure the hijackings involve guns

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.

[Luke T.]

Yet another source. The U.S. Senate.

Here. (http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/cv110701.htm)
Number of Aircraft Hijackings in the United States, 1970-2000

Year Number
1970 25
1971 25
1972 26
1973 2
1974 3
1975 6
1976 2
1977 5
1978 7
1979 11
1980 21
1981 7
1982 9
1983 17
1984 5
1985 4
1986 2
1987 3
1988 1
1989 1
1990 1
1991 1
1992 0
1993 0
1994 0
1995 0
1996 0
1997 0
1998 0
1999 0
2000 0

As the chart shows, by the end of the 20th Century, airplane hijackings in the United States had shriveled to nil (although the number of airline passengers had tripled since 1970.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


"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.

Shanek, as I've already explained in detail, your graph is based on erronous data. Thus, it is worthless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You are going to have to do a lot better than provide a generic link to a web site.

A generic link to a website??? THAT'S A WHOLE AIRLINE SAFETY DATABASE!!!!

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.

:rolleyes:

I had to go through the database year by year and count the hijackings listed in the USA. There isn't one page with that; I had to cull it through the whole site. 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.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek

It would take me a really, really, really long time to go through each and every one individually and see whether or not it was a domestic US flight.

Which blows it right out of the water.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
This obviously contradicts shanek's unsubstantiated graph, which doesn't even have a source attached.

IT DID HAVE A SOURCE ATTACHED!!!! I GAVE YOU A LINK TO THE VERY DATABASE I GOT THE DATA FROM!!!!! :mad:

Geez....

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


I had to go through the database year by year and count the hijackings listed in the USA. There isn't one page with that; I had to cull it through the whole site. 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.

I have provided two specific sources now, shanek, to show they have indeed decreased dramatically. You have not provided a single one. Would you like some more?

[Luke T.]

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.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


IT DID HAVE A SOURCE ATTACHED!!!! I GAVE YOU A LINK TO THE VERY DATABASE I GOT THE DATA FROM!!!!! :mad:

Geez....

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?

edited to add: By which I mean, The History Channel web site home page.

[Tmy]

I was wondering, have any of you ever ridden in a plane? Everyones always mad! And you want them to all have guns!!!

Whats next, guns in prisons? (armed prisoners make for polite prisoners)

Look at the problems they have just by serving alcohol.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Luke T.


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?

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.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


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]

Originally posted by Luke T.
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]

Originally posted by Luke T.
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]

Originally posted by Tmy
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! :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by shanek

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]

Originally posted by Thanz
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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by 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?

Libertarianism has never been about reality.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


"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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


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]

Originally posted by Luke T.
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]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


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]

Originally posted by Thanz
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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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]

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]

Originally posted by Luke T.
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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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.]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by shanek
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?

Originally posted by shanek
[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?

Originally posted by shanek
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]

Originally posted by shanek


[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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by shanek


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.]

Originally posted by Jocko
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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


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.]

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Originally posted by Suddenly


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]

Originally posted by Luke T.
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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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]

Originally posted by Luke T.
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.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
We dont need charts and stats. Just use a little common sense.

Common sense once told us to burn witches. Common sense once told us that the Earth was the center of the universe. Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Or it may just prove to yourself you are wrong.

If I had thought that, I hardly would have taken two hours to collect the data from the site in the first place, now, would I?

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Libertarianism has never been about reality.

Just because you are ignorant of what libertarianism is doesnt mean it isnt realistic.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


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.

And what were those restrictions you are talking about? You are making a fine argument for why restrictions aren't as good as an all-out ban.

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

I did. Several times. And guess what? Did you notice all those "Cuba" locations in your 1969 link? Something like 22 or more. Guess where the origin was?

Take a look at 1968. Same thing.

Your link only verifies what I have been saying.

Now have you looked at the three sources I provided in this topic? The dead flight attendant, the dramatic drops in hijackings after the gun ban?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
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.

Any and all explanations are welcome, but evasion, ignoring the data, and the other forms of table-turning and goalpost-moving exhibited in these threads is not. Deal with the facts, people. They are what they are.

I just wanted to preserve this nonsense.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And what were those restrictions you are talking about?

1968 was the year Congress made carrying a concealed weapon on an airplane a felony. That's the main one.

And if you can show to me that it is worth my while to take the approx. 12 hours I estimate it will to look at every single hijacking on that site individually to make the new graph, meaning that you will NOT respond with the immaturity and avoiding the facts that you did the last time, then I will do so.

In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can find a source that has the data collated to match what we need here so maybe I won't have to go through all of that.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


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.

If it helps any, I'm anti-gun control and I still think you're nuts for pushing for this kind of extreme insanity. Don't try to lay blame for your nutty premise on the anti-gun crowd; in fact, ludicrous proposals like yours are what give them strength. Can't you see that?

[Luke T.]

Here is the actual data page from shanek's link for hijackings for 1969.

02-JAN-1969 Douglas DC-6 Olympic Airways 0 Egypt H2
02-JAN-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
07-JAN-1969 Douglas DC-4 Avianca 0 Cuba H2
09-JAN-1969 Boeing 727 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
11-JAN-1969 Boeing 727 United Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
11-JAN-1969 Convair CV-990 APSA 0 Cuba H2
13-JAN-1969 Convair CV-880 Delta Air Lines 0 H2
19-JAN-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
19-JAN-1969 Lockheed L-188 Equatoriana 0 H2
24-JAN-1969 Boeing 727 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
28-JAN-1969 DC-8 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
28-JAN-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
31-JAN-1969 DC-8 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
03-FEB-1969 Boeing 727 National Airlines 0 H2
03-FEB-1969 Boeing 727 Eastern Air Lines 0 H2
05-FEB-1969 Douglas DC-4 SAM Colombia 0 Cuba H2
08-FEB-1969 Douglas DC-6 ? 0 H2
10-FEB-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
11-FEB-1969 DC-9 LAV 0 Cuba H2
25-FEB-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
05-MAR-1969 Boeing 727 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
11-MAR-1969 Douglas DC-4 SAM Colombia 1 Colombia H2
15-MAR-1969 Douglas DC-6 Aerovias Condor 0 Cuba H2
17-MAR-1969 DC-9 Delta Air Lines 0 H2
17-MAR-1969 Boeing 727 Faucett 0 Cuba H2
19-MAR-1969 Convair CV-880 Delta Air Lines 0 H2
25-MAR-1969 DC-8 Delta Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
11-APR-1969 Douglas DC-6 ? 0 Cuba H2
13-APR-1969 Boeing 727 Pan Am 0 Cuba H2
14-APR-1969 Douglas DC-4 SAM Colombia 0 Cuba H2
05-MAY-1969 Boeing 727 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
20-MAY-1969 Boeing 737 Avianca 0 Cuba H2
26-MAY-1969 Boeing 727 Northeast Airlines 0 Cuba H2
30-MAY-1969 Convair CV-600 Texas International 0 H2
04-JUN-1969 Douglas DC-3 DTA 0 D.R. Congo H2
17-JUN-1969 Boeing 707 TWA 0 Cuba H2
20-JUN-1969 Douglas DC-3 la Urraca 0 Cuba H2
22-JUN-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
25-JUN-1969 DC-8 United Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
28-JUN-1969 Boeing 727 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
03-JUL-1969 Douglas DC-3 SAETA 0 H2
10-JUL-1969 Douglas DC-4 Avianca 0 Colombia H2
10-JUL-1969 Douglas DC-4 SAM Colombia 0 Colombia H2
26-JUL-1969 DC-9 Continental Airlines 0 Cuba H2
26-JUL-1969 Douglas DC-6 Mexicana 0 Cuba H2
29-JUL-1969 unknown ? 0 H2
31-JUL-1969 Boeing 727 TWA 0 Cuba H2
04-AUG-1969 Douglas DC-4 Avianca 0 Cuba H2
05-AUG-1969 DC-9 Eastern Air Lines 0 H2
11-AUG-1969 Douglas DC-3 Ethiopian Airlines 0 Sudan H2
14-AUG-1969 Boeing 727 Northeast Airlines 0 Cuba H2
16-AUG-1969 Douglas DC-3 SX-BBF? Olympic Airways 0 Albania H2
18-AUG-1969 Antonov 24 Misrair 0 Egypt H2
23-AUG-1969 HS-748 Avianca 0 Cuba H2
29-AUG-1969 Boeing 727 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
29-AUG-1969 Boeing 707 TWA 0 Syria H2
06-SEP-1969 Douglas DC-3 TAME Ecuador 0 H2
06-SEP-1969 Douglas DC-3 TAME Ecuador 1 Colombia H2
07-SEP-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 Cuba H2
10-SEP-1969 DC-8 Eastern Air Lines 0 H2
13-SEP-1969 Douglas DC-3 SAHSA 0 El Salvador H2
13-SEP-1969 Douglas DC-6 Ethiopian Airlines 1 Yemen H2
16-SEP-1969 Vickers Viscount THY 0 Bulgaria H2
24-SEP-1969 Boeing 727 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
08-OCT-1969 Boeing 707 Aerolineas Argentinas 0 Cuba H2
08-OCT-1969 Caravelle Cruzeiro 0 Cuba H2
09-OCT-1969 DC-8 National Airlines 0 Cuba H2
19-OCT-1969 Ilyushin 18 LOT 0 Germany H2
21-OCT-1969 Boeing 720 Pan Am 0 Cuba H2
28-OCT-1969 unknown ? 0 H2
31-OCT-1969 Boeing 707 TWA 0 Italy H2
04-NOV-1969 BAC One-Eleven AN-... Lanica 0 Cayman Isl. H2
04-NOV-1969 Boeing 707 Varig 0 Cuba H2
08-NOV-1969 BAC One-Eleven LV-... Austral Lineas Aéreas 0 Uruguay H2
10-NOV-1969 DC-9 Delta Air Lines 0 USA H2
12-NOV-1969 NAMC YS-11 Cruzeiro 0 H2
12-NOV-1969 Caravelle LAN Chile 0 Chile H2
13-NOV-1969 Douglas DC-4 Avianca 0 Cuba H2
20-NOV-1969 Antonov 24 LOT 0 Austria H2
29-NOV-1969 Boeing 707 Varig 0 Cuba H2
02-DEC-1969 Boeing 707 TWA 0 Cuba H2
11-DEC-1969 NAMC YS-11 HL5208 KAL 0 North Korea H1
11-DEC-1969 NAMC YS-11 KAL 0 North Korea H2
12-DEC-1969 Boeing 707 Ethiopian Airlines 2 H2
19-DEC-1969 Boeing 727 LAN Chile 0 Cuba H2
23-DEC-1969 Curtiss C-46 LACSA 0 Cuba H2
26-DEC-1969 Boeing 727 United Air Lines 0 Cuba H2

You may notice that USA appears only once. By some fantastic coincidence shanek's graph says there was ONLY ONE U.S. hijacking for 1969. Of course, anyone who was alive back then will know that is bald-faced, blatant lying. It is sheer madness.

Now how many times does Cuba appear on this list? Hmmmm.

49 TIMES!!!!!!!

That's because this list is a list of the destination of the hijackers. Not their point of origin.

And what airlines were involved? TWA, Continental, Delta, Eastern, and a handful of foreign airlines. edited to add United Airlines.

Get real, shanek.

[CFLarsen]

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

Good idea. Not good for you, though.

I checked your data. I immediately focused on the 1 hijacking in 1968 you claimed was a "US Hijacking". I found somewhat more different data than you:

In 1968, there were no less than 29 hijackings.

16 of these were with American airline companies.

15 departed from the US.

16 of the hijackings had the US as destination.

Source: Aviation Safety, hijackings, 1968 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/1968/1968-hij.html)

I would really, really like to know how you got to 1 hijackings "in the USA" in 1968.

Like you said, "Any and all explanations are welcome, but evasion, ignoring the data, and the other forms of table-turning and goalpost-moving exhibited in these threads is not. Deal with the facts, people. They are what they are."

(Ah, Luke was there, too....)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luke T.


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.

Precisely. Would you shoot a hijacker who claimed to have a bomb on board? Possibly with a deadman's switch, possibly on a timer?

If you're a passenger, would you not take them at their word?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


1968 was the year Congress made carrying a concealed weapon on an airplane a felony. That's the main one.

And if you can show to me that it is worth my while to take the approx. 12 hours I estimate it will to look at every single hijacking on that site individually to make the new graph, meaning that you will NOT respond with the immaturity and avoiding the facts that you did the last time, then I will do so.

In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can find a source that has the data collated to match what we need here so maybe I won't have to go through all of that.

The only one avoiding facts is you, shanek. You truly believe there was only one hijacking of a U.S. domestic plane in 1968 or 1969? Do you?

That's what your graph says.

Gee. A felony to carry a gun on a plane. And that didn't keep someone from hijacking a plane, did it? Because if you are going to hijack a plane, what the hell difference does it make if you add a felony possession to your list of crimes?

Keep it up. You have almost achieved making me a "gun control advocate."

[Luke T.]

I guess I was right when I said no one under 30 would get the "I'm hijacking this plane to Cuba" joke....

This is starting to remind me of the White Nationalists saying there was no holocaust.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Common sense once told us to burn witches. Common sense once told us that the Earth was the center of the universe. Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without.


HAHAHA! I believe it was the church that told us those things. They're not big on common sense. Doing without common sense is a bad thing. Common sense tells me not to step off cliffs, (well unless Im cliff diving of course! And common sense still has a problem with that.)

[DanishDynamite]

Will this farce never end? (I hope not, it's great entertainment. :) )

Luke:Keep it up. You have almost achieved making me a "gun control advocate."Well, it seems something good can come of this travesty afterall. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You may notice that USA appears only once. By some fantastic coincidence shanek's graph says there was ONLY ONE U.S. hijacking for 1969.

Dude, I've already acknowledged this problem. What's your malfunction?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I would really, really like to know how you got to 1 hijackings "in the USA" in 1968.

Because that's what the database search turned up. You've just "uncovered" the problem mentioned awhile ago by Lief Roar and acknowledged by me at the time.

But, I guess it's better for you people's ego's to play pile-on...sheesh, grow up! Once a guy's admitted to a problem with statistics he's submitted, what reason other than blatant ego would make you keep at him like y'all are?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Gee. A felony to carry a gun on a plane. And that didn't keep someone from hijacking a plane, did it? Because if you are going to hijack a plane, what the hell difference does it make if you add a felony possession to your list of crimes?

Funny; that sounds like the argument I was trying to make. What exactly are you trying to do here?

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Do you still maintain your point, then? Despite that your data was severely flawed (and I'm being nice here)?

If you have abandoned these data, what do you base your point on, then?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you still maintain your point, then? Despite that your data was severely flawed (and I'm being nice here)?

If you have abandoned these data, what do you base your point on, then?

My point is "on hold," as it were, while I check things out in more detail. If anything, I think I am going to do a more detailed graph, if for no other reasont han to get y'all to shut up about it. But I really am curious. Just from my precursory looks at the details, many of the ones labelled as Cuba were domestic US flights (although many of them weren't and many of the ones labelled as USA were international flights). It does look like the period from 1968-1973 has many more hijackings than my graph calculated, but it also shows that the period before 1968 has on the whole fewer hijackings than my graph shows. And again, the period before 1968 is what I've been talking about.

I haven't really looked yet at the post-1973 numbers. It takes a really, really long time to go through this since I have to load each record individually and look at the takeoff and departure points.

One thing I have noticed, though: Many of them say the hijacker was "taken down," and some directly say he was shot and killed. It doesn't say by whom, but it does appear as if guns can be effective against hijackers.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Fine. Do your homework and get back when you are done.

Just be prepared to have your data questioned and scrutinized. You're not doing that well as it is...

Originally posted by shanek
One thing I have noticed, though: Many of them say the hijacker was "taken down," and some directly say he was shot and killed. It doesn't say by whom, but it does appear as if guns can be effective against hijackers.

You would have to prove in each case that the hijackers were shot by armed passengers. Not people on the ground.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


My point is "on hold," as it were, while I check things out in more detail. If anything, I think I am going to do a more detailed graph, if for no other reasont han to get y'all to shut up about it. But I really am curious. Just from my precursory looks at the details, many of the ones labelled as Cuba were domestic US flights (although many of them weren't and many of the ones labelled as USA were international flights). It does look like the period from 1968-1973 has many more hijackings than my graph calculated, but it also shows that the period before 1968 has on the whole fewer hijackings than my graph shows. And again, the period before 1968 is what I've been talking about.

How could we possibly go back to a period of allowing people to carry guns on planes now that the genie is out of the bottle? I believe I've asked this question once already.

There are plenty of criminal ideas that haven't been tried yet. Once it occurs to a criminal to do it, and he succeeds, and it becomes well known, then more will follow. So prior to 1968 hijackings were rare. Then it became widely known how successfuly one could be at the trade, and it took off.

You can't go back to that time prior to 1968, shanek.

I haven't really looked yet at the post-1973 numbers. It takes a really, really long time to go through this since I have to load each record individually and look at the takeoff and departure points.

Was the U.S. Senate source not good enough? I can find more if you like.

One thing I have noticed, though: Many of them say the hijacker was "taken down," and some directly say he was shot and killed. It doesn't say by whom, but it does appear as if guns can be effective against hijackers.

Guns can be effective against hijackers. This is news? Guns can be effective against stubborn locks, too. And they'll do in a pinch if you can't find a can opener anywhere....

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Because that's what the database search turned up. You've just "uncovered" the problem mentioned awhile ago by Lief Roar and acknowledged by me at the time.

But, I guess it's better for you people's ego's to play pile-on...sheesh, grow up! Once a guy's admitted to a problem with statistics he's submitted, what reason other than blatant ego would make you keep at him like y'all are?

I don't buy this. You said, "I see." That's it. But you continued to stand on it.

You made the graph and hour and a half after I had already provided a source which stated "In 1968 18 American planes were hijacked, the next year 40 attempts were made, 33 of them successfully."

You even responded to it, so I know you saw it.

I even made a reference to jokes about hijackings to Cuba because there had been so many in that period.

And yet you chose to ignore all that and make a graph showing one hijacking for 1968 and one for 1969. Positively demented. Blinded, deluded and misled by your own belief system despite 49 "Cubas" on your reference source for 1969.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You would have to prove in each case that the hijackers were shot by armed passengers. Not people on the ground.

Unfortunately, that kind of data isn't recorded, at least in this database.

BTW, I just know that while I am doing this, you gun control people are busy gathering statistics on the frequency of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns on planes before 1968? Right? Because after all, you all want to support your contention that if you "toss in the occasion(al) sucidal screwball and your asking for a major spike in plane deaths if you allow for guns on planes," right? Where are all these violent screwballs pre-1968? Where are allt he drunken passengers starting fights and shooting each other?

I'll be waiting on that...but I won't be holding my breath.

[Luke T.]

shanek, has it occurred to you to check the range of jets prior to 1968? ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
How could we possibly go back to a period of allowing people to carry guns on planes now that the genie is out of the bottle? I believe I've asked this question once already.

And I answered it.

By the way, it's not taking me anywhere near as long as I thought it would to go through this data; probably about four hours total. It is clear to me at this point that your data is cherry-picked, and my impression is that, once you take out those few years that can only be considered an anomoly which was affected very little by gun legislation, that we will see an increase in hijackings after the gun ban.

Besides, hadn't it been "proved" that hijackings could work before? It's not like there were no hijackings prior to 1968. Whatever political or other factors contributed to that surge, I think when I'm done it'll be clear that the gun ban cannot take any credit for lessening the number of hijackings.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't buy this. You said, "I see." That's it.

That's an acknowledgement! Duh!

But you continued to stand on it.

No, I continued to defend myself against the personal slams levied on me by you and others. Those comments were NOT based on Lief's discovery, and so I had to respond to them as such. They were invalid, and many were downright dishonest. Lief's finding did nothing to change that.

So stop whining. We'll see what happens when the corrected data is graphed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
shanek, has it occurred to you to check the range of jets prior to 1968? ;)

What does that matter?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


That's an acknowledgement! Duh!

But you continued to use your graph to support your pre-1968 argument. Just one example.

So stop whining. We'll see what happens when the corrected data is graphed.

I wait with baited breath.

In the meantime, some more history. Let's start with a history of United Airlines. (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9496/)


The next decade saw United solidifying its base as it centralized control of daily operations out of its new operations hub in Denver. Aircraft maintenance also was centralized at a new high-tech, "push-button" facility in San Francisco.
With new fleets of state-of-the-art equipment, including the Douglas DC-6, Convair 340, Boeing 377 Stratocruiser and the Douglas DC-7 transports, United stretched its wings beyond the western boundary of the United States and launched service to Hawaii. United was grooming itself for even bigger things to come.
After leading United through 29 years of growth, President William A. Patterson moved into the chairman's office in 1963. United's new president, George Keck, continued the company's momentum by acquiring second-generation jetliners and seeking United's first trans-Pacific route beyond Hawaii. In late 1968, Keck also formed UAL, Inc., a holding company that would allow United to diversify.

United didn't even start international flights until 1963.

A
history of Eastern Airlines. (http://www.evair.com/ealhistory.htm)


In 1954, Eastern and Braniff started an interchange service to Central and South America.

They began Carribean flights in 1942.

A history of Delta Airlines. (http://www.delta.com/home/press_url/dal_stats_facts/daltimeline/index.jsp)


1978: The Airline Deregulation Act passes. Delta begins transatlantic service: Atlanta to London. David C. Garrett becomes CEO.

They began Carribean flights in 1961.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


What does that matter?

Who's going to hijack a plane that can't leave the country?

edited to add: Unless they are planning on crashing it.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Unfortunately, that kind of data isn't recorded, at least in this database.

Then how are you going to determine if guns were used on board to prevent a hijacking?

Originally posted by shanek
BTW, I just know that while I am doing this, you gun control people are busy gathering statistics on the frequency of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns on planes before 1968? Right? Because after all, you all want to support your contention that if you "toss in the occasion(al) sucidal screwball and your asking for a major spike in plane deaths if you allow for guns on planes," right? Where are all these violent screwballs pre-1968? Where are allt he drunken passengers starting fights and shooting each other?

I'll be waiting on that...but I won't be holding my breath.

I think you should concentrate on that (corrected) graph of yours, before you start imagining what other people do. And stop shifting attention away from your own claim.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Where are all these violent screwballs pre-1968? Where are allt he drunken passengers starting fights and shooting each other?



Where were all the philandering Presidents?

[Luke T.]

Just to be clear, I am not so much worried about passengers with guns except for the reasons I stated in my very first post to this topic.

The first reason being that if passengers can come on with guns, so can hijackers and there is no way to tell the difference between the two.

The second reason is that a shootout at 28,000 feet between a civilian and multiple hijackers or two or more civilians who have never even met and multiple hijackers presents far more hazards than one at the local 7-11. Fuel tanks, hydraulics, control systems, hundreds of innocent bystanders, civilians with guns shooting other civilians with guns, and so on.

[Luke T.]

Here's (http://www.afaairtran.com/air_safety.htm) an interesting link to airline flight attendants' web site.


Abusive and/or disruptive passenger behavior on airplanes is on the increase.

AFA received more reports from its members over the last two years than it has in the history of the Union. Statistics from the FAA and airlines support the claim that these incidents are rising. One airline recorded 404 incidents in 1996, nearly double the 226 incidents recorded in 1995. Another reported 836 incidents in 1995, compared to 296 in 1994.

Disruptive behavior cuts across all socio-economic groups: male, female, young, old, first class, business and economy.

Reasons for the increase in unruly passenger behavior are varied.
AFA correlates the increase in incidents with the reduction in per passenger space; anxiety and/or fear of flying which creates a sense of powerlessness; and the disparity between expectations set by marketing programs and the reality of flying.

[Thanz]

Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that (judging from the senate link provided by Luke T.) the factor that had the greatest success was the universal screening at the airport:The Federal Government's major efforts against hijacking began in 1968, but the current system of mandatory, universal screening was implemented in 1972 and 1973, (5) and, as the chart below shows, the number of hijackings then dropped sharply: In 1972 there were 26 domestic hijackings, but in 1973, the year the ACLU spoke, there were two.
It doesn't seem that the 1968/73 divide is about partial banning or not - but it was about making sure the ban was enforced by screening everyone. And it worked - the hijackings dropped considerably.

I tried to find the case they cite through google, but I couldn't get a copy of it. Apparently it summarizes the Feds efforts in this area:

United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Thanz
Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that (judging from the senate link provided by Luke T.) the factor that had the greatest success was the universal screening at the airport:
It doesn't seem that the 1968/73 divide is about partial banning or not - but it was about making sure the ban was enforced by screening everyone. And it worked - the hijackings dropped considerably.

I tried to find the case they cite through google, but I couldn't get a copy of it. Apparently it summarizes the Feds efforts in this area:

United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)

I can only assume by "mandatory, universal screening" they mean the installation of metal detectors and not just laws on paper. I have been searching for another source to confirm this, but no luck so far. But that is how I came across the flight attendents' web site.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Who's going to hijack a plane that can't leave the country?

edited to add: Unless they are planning on crashing it.....

Pretty much all of the ones in the graph I'm making. BTW, one of the ones was a domestic US flight where the hijacker's intended destination was Ireland. Did he really think there'd be enough fuel?

Anyway, your argument from incredulity fallacy has been noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then how are you going to determine if guns were used on board to prevent a hijacking?

I'm not. I'm just going to determine whether or not the number of hijackings went down as a result of the gun ban.

I think you should concentrate on that (corrected) graph of yours, before you start imagining what other people do.

Oh? You don't think that's the least bit fair?

And stop shifting attention away from your own claim.

Waaaah. Cry me a river. Threads have multiple claims and multiple arguments. I don't have to postpone commenting on the others just because I'm working on one. Grow up.

Besides, it isn't "my claim." I'm examining the claims of others that the gun ban has caused the number of hijackings to go down.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Where were all the philandering Presidents?

No one has made a claim in this thread about philandering Presidents.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Just to be clear, I am not so much worried about passengers with guns except for the reasons I stated in my very first post to this topic.

You are, of course, under no obligation to support claims and arguments that you never made. But others here have made that claim, and I think it's only fair that they put the work into supporting theirs as I have into supporting mine.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Reasons for the increase in unruly passenger behavior are varied.
AFA correlates the increase in incidents with the reduction in per passenger space; anxiety and/or fear of flying which creates a sense of powerlessness; and the disparity between expectations set by marketing programs and the reality of flying.

Sounds like a Customer Service problem to me. Maybe if the airlines depended more on their customers for profits and less on government bailouts things might be different.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
It doesn't seem that the 1968/73 divide is about partial banning or not - but it was about making sure the ban was enforced by screening everyone. And it worked - the hijackings dropped considerably.

As the graph will show, it dropped from an anomalous level and never reached the low that it was before. The years from 1968-1972 saw an inordinate amount of hijackings worldwide, according to the same source I'm getting the graph details from. I had to go through a LOT of records during those years and comparatively few before and since. Apparently, hijackers in those years were mostly escaped criminals trying to get to countries (like Cuba) that wouldn't extradite them. Apparently, the changes in extradition laws and measures to prevent escape from prison had more to do with the decline than anything else.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I can only assume by "mandatory, universal screening" they mean the installation of metal detectors and not just laws on paper. I have been searching for another source to confirm this, but no luck so far. But that is how I came across the flight attendents' web site.

1973 may well have been the year they implemented that; but it was also the year they banned any and all firearms from the plane (except for authorized government employees).

[shanek]

Okay, here it is, the corrected graph.

Except for the anomolous bulge in the middle, which as any reasonable person looking at the graph can see the variance is just way too much to tell us anything about the gun legislation policy one way or the other, it tells a very clear story.

There is very little if any hijackings prior to 1968. In fact, only two years—1961 and 1965—had any hijackings at all, and they had 3 apiece. Compare that to after 1973. Only two years (1973 and 1974) reached the max levels of the pre-1968 decade, and only one year (1976) dropped below it with only 1 hijacking. The average for the post-1973 decade is 7.2 hijackings per year, and as you can see on the graph it just goes up, up, up!

So the idea that the gun ban did anything to prevent hijackings, as we can see on this chart, is clearly laughable. The dramatic drop the gun control people keep pointing to reliex on those statistically anomalous years which cannot in any way be attributable to the availability or otherwise of guns. They cherry-pick their data. When we see the entire picture, from ten years before 1968 and ten years after 1973, we see an obvious and fairly steady growth in the number of hijackings after the gun ban.

Nice try, guys, but the statistics are still with me here.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

Sounds like a Customer Service problem to me. Maybe if the airlines depended more on their customers for profits and less on government bailouts things might be different.

Not likely to fix the problem. The most profitable way for an airline to operate is to cram as many people into the given space as possible. I haven't had a pleasant airline experience since deregulation.

Customers want the cheapest possible flights, but they don't want to be treated like luggage. Unfortunately, the economics of flying doesn't allow for both.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Not likely to fix the problem. The most profitable way for an airline to operate is to cram as many people into the given space as possible. I haven't had a pleasant airline experience since deregulation.

Customers want the cheapest possible flights, but they don't want to be treated like luggage. Unfortunately, the economics of flying doesn't allow for both.

I'm going to have to disagree on that point. Not all people want the cheapest possible flight. There is such thing as balance between affordability and comfort. That's why everyone doesn't drive Yugo.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Not likely to fix the problem. The most profitable way for an airline to operate is to cram as many people into the given space as possible.

Man, you'd be a terrible business owner. You CANNOT make a profit just by thinking of people as cattle. You have to make them comfortable, you have to make them happy. If you cram them in so much that they hate flying, you ain't gonna profit.

Why do you think people pay more for first class?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek


Man, you'd be a terrible business owner. You CANNOT make a profit just by thinking of people as cattle. You have to make them comfortable, you have to make them happy. If you cram them in so much that they hate flying, you ain't gonna profit.

Why do you think people pay more for first class?

Hold on - didn't say that *I* would want to run a business like that. But, when I fly coach, I feel more like cattle than customer. The airlines seem to have been more focused on packing in passengers than in anyone's comfort.

...and the fact is, more people per flight, more revenue, more profit.

Most people who I know that fly first class are people who upgrade using frequent flyer miles. Most frequent flyers are business travellers - the most profitable passengers.

Besides, I don't know about you, but, for instance, to visit my Dad (a trip to the Seattle area from the Chicago area) over Thanksgiving, I had a couple of choices:
- drive 3/4/5 days with 2 young kids in the car.
- fly in a plane.
- take a train (2-3 days?)
- sit on my hiney at home.
There's a hell of a lot of inconvenience I'll put up with to maximize the time with family. Flying has the best cost/time/suffering balance, even if I'm unhappy for 4 hours.

So, what I'm saying is, they have to make flying extremely miserable before they start having customers turn away for that reason.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Hold on - didn't say that *I* would want to run a business like that.

Okay, fair enough.

But, when I fly coach, I feel more like cattle than customer. The airlines seem to have been more focused on packing in passengers than in anyone's comfort.

Sure; because if they lose out in profits they can always just go crying to the government for another bailout. But has anyone ever considered that if the government would stop bailing them out every few years, they might actually be forced to improve their service?

...and the fact is, more people per flight, more revenue, more profit.

Not necessarily. There's supply and demand to consider. How many people would be willing to pay extra for a more comfortable flight?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


No one has made a claim in this thread about philandering Presidents.

I asked where the philandering Presidents are in response to your question about fistfights on planes in the 60s because neither were likely to be reported in the 60s except under the headline "LBJ's Bigfoot Love Child (Exclusive Photos Inside!)".

Those were the days when a man could drive down the road liquored up on moonshine without a seatbelt and run over a schoolteacher on his way to a negro lynching. As long as he confessed to the accident to the local sheriff in a timely manner around the bonfire cross, he was likely to only get a 50 dollar fine after the Good Old Boy discount. As for it getting reported, Jimmy Olsen was probably inside one of the robes to his left.

Yessir, we had lots of freedoms then. And I understand how some of them have fallen by the wayside. I feel your pain. I honestly do.

Now, I used to abuse my right to act like an idjit or a maniac more than the next guy, but according to the capitalist pigs at Corporate Media HQ, the population explosion has led to the number of idjits and maniacs reaching critical mass and is starting to affect the price of snow tires.

And I really don't feel like living with the possibility of having to blast my way through the skies above the purple mountains majesty on my way to The Amazing Meeting to get my picture taken with Randi.

I hope if I should one day find myself complaining to the African-American female next to me in the voting booth line about how having to wear a seat belt by law is really starting to chafe my neck red and that our civil rights are sliding down the slippery slope to subjugation that she doesn't get mad at me for losing perspective. Cause nothing scares me more than an angry black woman.

So that's what I meant when I asked about philandering Presidents. I let my skull crack open a little bit and that slipped out. I thought it was kinda funny myself.

That's how my brain works. It makes it real hard to decide on things. I was for the war in Iraq, then against it, then for it again. I was against legalizing marijuana, then for it. This stuff keeps happening upstairs and I don't know if that makes me an idjit, a maniac, or a skeptic.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


1973 may well have been the year they implemented that; but it was also the year they banned any and all firearms from the plane (except for authorized government employees).

Exactly! So how can you say banning guns had no effect on hijackings? Do you think the difference in the numbers from 1972 to 1973 is a coincidence? We're supposed to just discount this "anomaly?" :eek:

And that was enforced by metal detectors. A hijacker isn't going to care about the law otherwise.

This is an example of outlawing guns and even outlaws don't have guns.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, here it is, the corrected graph.

Except for the anomolous bulge in the middle, which as any reasonable person looking at the graph can see the variance is just way too much to tell us anything about the gun legislation policy one way or the other, it tells a very clear story.

There is very little if any hijackings prior to 1968. In fact, only two years—1961 and 1965—had any hijackings at all, and they had 3 apiece. Compare that to after 1973. Only two years (1973 and 1974) reached the max levels of the pre-1968 decade, and only one year (1976) dropped below it with only 1 hijacking. The average for the post-1973 decade is 7.2 hijackings per year, and as you can see on the graph it just goes up, up, up!

So the idea that the gun ban did anything to prevent hijackings, as we can see on this chart, is clearly laughable. The dramatic drop the gun control people keep pointing to reliex on those statistically anomalous years which cannot in any way be attributable to the availability or otherwise of guns. They cherry-pick their data. When we see the entire picture, from ten years before 1968 and ten years after 1973, we see an obvious and fairly steady growth in the number of hijackings after the gun ban.

Nice try, guys, but the statistics are still with me here.

Why did you stop at 1983?

Again, the U.S. Senate numbers:

Number of Aircraft Hijackings in the United States, 1970-2000

Year Number
1970 25
1971 25
1972 26
1973 2
1974 3
1975 6
1976 2
1977 5
1978 7
1979 11
1980 21
1981 7
1982 9
1983 17
1984 5
1985 4
1986 2
1987 3
1988 1
1989 1
1990 1
1991 1
1992 0
1993 0
1994 0
1995 0
1996 0
1997 0
1998 0
1999 0
2000 0

As the chart shows, by the end of the 20th Century, airplane hijackings in the United States had shriveled to nil (although the number of airline passengers had tripled since 1970.)

It goes down, down, down. All the way down to zero. Most likely due to improvement in the technology. Bomb sniffing dogs, explosive residue detection kits, etc. (edited to add: And how could I forget X-ray machines!)

1979, 80 and 83 look more like your "anomalies" than anything else.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


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.

Hit a nerve, did I? Obviously, the bits about 'statistical significance' and 'providing your sources' weren't essential to passing the course. I note, with interest, that it was a Prebyterian college you went to. Did you just have to say, "this is true because God wills it" at the end of your papers? It would explain a lot about you.

On a related topic- you didn't provide your data with your latest graph. Your sterling cum laude education at work again.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess I was right when I said no one under 30 would get the "I'm hijacking this plane to Cuba" joke....

This is starting to remind me of the White Nationalists saying there was no holocaust.

I remember a Punch cartoon with about ten hijackers in a cockpit aiming guns at the pilot saying "Cork!", "Cuba!", "Chad!", "El Salvador!", etc. Does that count?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Unfortunately, that kind of data isn't recorded, at least in this database.

BTW, I just know that while I am doing this, you gun control people are busy gathering statistics on the frequency of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns on planes before 1968? Right?

No- because our argument is simply that hijackers can't bring guns onto planes if you don't let 'em. This is support by the fact that guns weren't involved in 9/11. If they could've used guns, they would've- and we wouldn't have had Pennsylvania (though we might have had major reconstruction at the White House or Camp David).

It is YOU who thinks that passenger gun-carry statistics are a good argument for letting passengers carry guns on planes. So YOU have to provide the stats.

While you're on, I'll let you have the 'guns won't solve everything' argument. So we'll just let those passengers on planes with bombs- or passengers who think they're on a plane with a bomb- crash and burn. The right to carry guns on planes is more important than their lives. We must sacrifice some fingers to save the hand, after all.

Now, what happens if a team of hijackers -fully armed- are aboard a plane? What then? Do the armed passengers just take them all out?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek

Nice try, guys, but the statistics are still with me here.

But where's the data? Oh, you don't need to provide it. Just write 'it is true because it is God's will' at the end. Cum Laude and all that.

[Luke T.]

Pop quiz. What airline still in business today has not had a single hijacking since 1968? Why?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by shanek
There is very little if any hijackings prior to 1968. In fact, only two years—1961 and 1965—had any hijackings at all, and they had 3 apiece. Compare that to after 1973. Only two years (1973 and 1974) reached the max levels of the pre-1968 decade, and only one year (1976) dropped below it with only 1 hijacking. The average for the post-1973 decade is 7.2 hijackings per year, and as you can see on the graph it just goes up, up, up!


This is simply a dishonest interpretation of the data. Lets look at all the years for which the Senate report linked earlier includes data:

1973 - 2000: 108 in 28 years. Slightly below 4 per annum.
1968 - 1972: 121 in 5 years. Average of 24 per annum. (Assuming only successful hijacks are included for 68 & 69. If attempts are included the numbers go up to 132 at an average of 26)

Shanek's analysis included all of the worst years after the ban (1979, 1980 and 1983) and the comparisons are with pre-1968 figures, not pre-1973 when the ban came in as he himself noted in an earlier post.

Unsurprisingly the five years from before the ban that he ignored (1968 - 1972) contains four of the five highest years ever for hijackings. The best year in that period saw 12 successful hijackings, a level that has only been exceeded twice since 1973.

If we choose an eleven year window after the ban (chosen to maximise the average after the ban) and assume zero hijackings before 1968, the average before is 11 and after 8.2 (based on the Senate figures). Remember this is choosing the worst possible figures for the after period. Even doing that shows a reduction of more than 25%.

Alternatively, we could choose a five year window (to maximise the average before the ban). That would show an average before of 26 and an average after of 3.6.

Ignoring data that disagrees with your argument (1969-72), selecting data after the event to make the results look as good as possible and then claiming it shows something that it blatantly does not. Are you sure you aren't a homeopath/astrologer, Shanek?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I asked where the philandering Presidents are in response to your question about fistfights on planes in the 60s because neither were likely to be reported in the 60s except under the headline "LBJ's Bigfoot Love Child (Exclusive Photos Inside!)".

Those were the days when a man could drive down the road liquored up on moonshine without a seatbelt and run over a schoolteacher on his way to a negro lynching. As long as he confessed to the accident to the local sheriff in a timely manner around the bonfire cross, he was likely to only get a 50 dollar fine after the Good Old Boy discount. As for it getting reported, Jimmy Olsen was probably inside one of the robes to his left.

Yessir, we had lots of freedoms then. And I understand how some of them have fallen by the wayside. I feel your pain. I honestly do.

Now, I used to abuse my right to act like an idjit or a maniac more than the next guy, but according to the capitalist pigs at Corporate Media HQ, the population explosion has led to the number of idjits and maniacs reaching critical mass and is starting to affect the price of snow tires.

And I really don't feel like living with the possibility of having to blast my way through the skies above the purple mountains majesty on my way to The Amazing Meeting to get my picture taken with Randi.

Do you have any actual evidence for any of this?

I hope if I should one day find myself complaining to the African-American female next to me in the voting booth line about how having to wear a seat belt by law is really starting to chafe my neck red and that our civil rights are sliding down the slippery slope to subjugation that she doesn't get mad at me for losing perspective. Cause nothing scares me more than an angry black woman.

??? !!!

Oh, man, that's just beyond anything reasonable...

So that's what I meant when I asked about philandering Presidents.

Ah, I get it! Because there were no philandering Presidents (JFK) before 1968, that indicates a change (JFK) in society that indicates (JFK) that it is less in control (JFK) of itself than it used to be (JFK). Makes perfect sense.

(Oh, and by the way: FDR, Eisenhower, Gover Cleveland, Warren G. Harding, James Garfield, Thomas Jefferson,...)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Exactly! So how can you say banning guns had no effect on hijackings?

Look at the graph and see.

Do you think the difference in the numbers from 1972 to 1973 is a coincidence? We're supposed to just discount this "anomaly?" :eek:

It is CLEARLY an anomoly! There simply is no reasonable way to conclude that that spike had anything to do with gun control legislation one way or the other!

Answer this: To what do you attribute the SPIKE in hijackings from 1967 to 1968? Why do you ignore that? Why do you just focus on 1972 to 1973?

This is an example of outlawing guns and even outlaws don't have guns.

Except for the ones that did...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Why did you stop at 1983?

You're just bringing this up NOW??? Why not ask why I started at 1958? Because that is ten years before Congress made carrying a concealed weapon on a plane a felony, and ten years after the total gun ban, as I said initially.

If you go more than ten years, you're more liable to bring in other factors that didn't have anything at all to do with the gun ban. So the further you get away from it, the less likely it is responsible.

1979, 80 and 83 look more like your "anomalies" than anything else.

Then why do they fit a perfect growth curve?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hit a nerve, did I? Obviously, the bits about 'statistical significance' and 'providing your sources' weren't essential to passing the course. I note, with interest, that it was a Prebyterian college you went to. Did you just have to say, "this is true because God wills it" at the end of your papers? It would explain a lot about you.

More of your bigotry and ad hominems. Although we had religious studies, they were balanced against the world religions and we weren't preached to about any one of them. I had teachers who were Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim, Taoist, and even atheist.

And yes, we did learn about "statistical significance" and citing our sources, and I have done both here. Why don't you talk to others who are ignoring a clear statistical anomaly about "statistical significance"? Just because they agree with you?

On a related topic- you didn't provide your data with your latest graph.

Same data, same site, as I said several times, liar.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


More of your bigotry and ad hominems. Although we had religious studies, they were balanced against the world religions and we weren't preached to about any one of them. I had teachers who were Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim, Taoist, and even atheist.

And yes, we did learn about "statistical significance" and citing our sources, and I have done both here. Why don't you talk to others who are ignoring a clear statistical anomaly about "statistical significance"? Just because they agree with you?

I don't give a toss about the anomoly, and I don't think they really do, either. I think they're more interested in the trend downwards to nil. They've just been side-tracked by your usual debating tactics.


Same data, same site, as I said several times, liar.
I find it hard to believe that you graduated, yet you don't know what I mean when I say that you haven't provided your data. What did you use for 1980, for example? Did you pick instances of hijackings that occurred in the US? Were guns used (or could reasonably have been thought to have been used)? Are they situations that armed passengers could have affected?

Maybe you don't want to provide that info because you realise you can't use the graph to support your case. Don't worry- you can always get a job as Lott's research assistant.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I don't give a toss about the anomoly, and I don't think they really do, either. I think they're more interested in the trend downwards to nil.

Why was there not such a trend for at least ten years after the gun ban? Why did it go up?

What did you use for 1980, for example?

If you go to the site and go to their database, you will see all of the years their database covers listed. If you click on 1980, at the top you will see the different categories, which include Hijackings. Click on Hijackings and you will see all of the hijackings for that year. I clicked on each one individually and counted the ones where both the departure point and the destination were in the US, meaning a US domestic flight.

Maybe you don't want to provide that info

I have provided it several times, liar.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Why was there not such a trend for at least ten years after the gun ban? Why did it go up?

Probably to iron out the kinks in the system. If you knew anything about statistics, you'd know it takes a while for new things to take effect.


If you go to the site and go to their database, you will see all of the years their database covers listed. If you click on 1980, at the top you will see the different categories, which include Hijackings. Click on Hijackings and you will see all of the hijackings for that year. I clicked on each one individually and counted the ones where both the departure point and the destination were in the US, meaning a US domestic flight.



I have provided it several times, liar.

Keep stalling.

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh- better post this again, since you seem to have overlooked it. I'll put it down to the fact that a lot of issues are being discussed at once, and not because you don't like to take on the hard questions:

While you're on, I'll let you have the 'guns won't solve everything' argument. So we'll just let those passengers on planes with bombs- or passengers who think they're on a plane with a bomb- crash and burn. The right to carry guns on planes is more important than their lives. We must sacrifice some fingers to save the hand, after all.

Now, what happens if a team of hijackers -fully armed- are aboard a plane? What then? Do the armed passengers just take them all out?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Do you have any actual evidence for any of this?

For what? Your lack of a sense of humor?

??? !!!

Oh, man, that's just beyond anything reasonable...

Yes. It is certainly unreasonable to figure it would be better for people to be armed on passenger planes and have to defend themselves rather than stick with the current method which is so effective that hijackings are at zero. Even with 9/11, they had to use box cutters.

Ah, I get it! Because there were no philandering Presidents (JFK) before 1968, that indicates a change (JFK) in society that indicates (JFK) that it is less in control (JFK) of itself than it used to be (JFK). Makes perfect sense.

(Oh, and by the way: FDR, Eisenhower, Gover Cleveland, Warren G. Harding, James Garfield, Thomas Jefferson,...)

Yes. They all had mistresses, but weren't impeached or making headlines around the world for it. Except maybe Jefferson. He had a very public sex scandal, I believe.

You missed my point(s).

edited to add points: 1) The world was a different place in the 50s and 60s. A lot different. And so was crime reporting. Not just cheating presidents, but rape, lynching, DUI, and drunken brawls on airplanes.

2) When I look at the big picture, I see that ALL Americans have far, far more rights than they had even 30 years ago. So complaints that our rights are disappearing just don't ring true to me.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

You are faking your data. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time, but not twice in a row.

The huge spike in the period between 1968-1973 is dismissed by you as an "anomaly". In that period, it was discovered that it was fairly easy to bring a gun to hijack a plane - it became "fashionable", if you like.

But you can't just throw away the data like that. That data is the reason why they ban guns altogether. You can't just remove a section of the data because it doesn't fit your idea, and then claim that since it is an "anomaly", we can disregard it, and then, you are right.

That is not merely wrong, it is dishonest. As well as incredibly naive.

As Luke said, the cat's out of the bag. You can not go back in time. You can not have those imaginary rosy glory days of yonder. We learned in those crazy days of frequent hijackings, that guns aboard planes was a bad idea.

The second guns are banned, the number of hijackings plummets. It doesn't just drop, it plummets!

So, your wish to "determine whether or not the number of hijackings went down as a result of the gun ban" would seem to have a very clear answer:

It did. The answer is extremely clear. Let's take it again:

According to your own data, the number of hijackings went down as a result of the gun ban.

You can go on claiming that you are right, of course. But you shouldn't have to argue from clear data, should you? The data is there, not to be argued with, right?

....so why do you?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


You're just bringing this up NOW???

You have a fascinating blind spot. I brought it up on page 3 of this topic. The U.S. Senate numbers. And on page 2 of this topic with my first sources. But you chose to go on and ignore them and say there was only one hijacking in 1968 and 1969.

Why not ask why I started at 1958? Because that is ten years before Congress made carrying a concealed weapon on a plane a felony, and ten years after the total gun ban, as I said initially.

If you go more than ten years, you're more liable to bring in other factors that didn't have anything at all to do with the gun ban. So the further you get away from it, the less likely it is responsible.

I am amazed at your capacity to ignore the way the world was in the 1960s.

I suppose what you are trying to say in an incredibly roundabout way is that because guns were banned and law-abiding citizens obeyed the gun ban, hijackers no longer felt deterred from hijackings and went on a great big binge. And so we should bring back gun-toting passengers and this will eliminate hijackings altogether, despite that between 1984 and 2000, there was a grand total of 18 hijackings in that 17 year period. And a nine year period of no hijackings at all.

Then why do they fit a perfect growth curve?

Because you stopped your graph where it was convenient to you instead of going all the way.

Hijackings didn't occur because people no longer carried guns. Hijackings occurred because the airline industry was growing, the world was changing, and it was a novelty no one had thought of as a tool before. I'm sure that 20 years from now, we will be looking at some new criminal phenomena and someone will think it wasn't committed before now because of some deterring factor, when it simply is a matter of nobody thought of it before until the time was ripe.

Why has the virus problem exploded in the last few years? Computers have been around for, what, 60 years? Edited to add: There certainly wasn't anything to deter people from writing viruses.

[Luke T.]

The answer to my pop quiz question is El Al airlines. Israel's airline. In 1968, they had a hijacking. Afterwards, they immediately installed armored doors on all cockpits and the pilots won't open them even for Monica Lewinsky.

They also carry heavily armed soldiers on their flights, because there is a five year waiting list of virgin-hungry fanatical Middle Easterners who would like the opportunity to take down an Israeli plane.

Passengers are heavily screened, interrogated and subjected to all sorts of humiliation short of a cavity search. No guns!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Yes. They all had mistresses, but weren't impeached or making headlines around the world for it.

Alexander Hamilton was impeached (or was going to be impeached, something like that) for having an affair and trying to cover it up with bribery.

edited to add points: 1) The world was a different place in the 50s and 60s. A lot different.

You haven't shown this at all. And to do so, you'll have to do a lot better than "Where are the philandering Presidents?"

And so was crime reporting. Not just cheating presidents, but rape, lynching, DUI, and drunken brawls on airplanes.

Are you saying these things are okay as long as people don't know about them?

2) When I look at the big picture, I see that ALL Americans have far, far more rights than they had even 30 years ago.

Really? Even with the realization that the government can just take you away without charging you with a crime, letting you have counsel, and detain and interrogate you indefinitely, all they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" or a "person of interest"? And that they will continue to do so even if a Federal judge orders them to do otherwise? Because if they can do that, I really have to wonder how many rights we have anymore.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The huge spike in the period between 1968-1973 is dismissed by you as an "anomaly".

It is obviously an anomaly! No reasonable person could possibly attribute that spike to gun legislation one way or the other! I could easily say that the spike occured after Congress banned concealed weapons on airplanes, which it did—if anything it proves my point! But unlike some other people here, I'm not going to resort to blatant dishonesty to make my point.

In that period, it was discovered that it was fairly easy to bring a gun to hijack a plane

Even though they had been banned?

- it became "fashionable", if you like.

Oh, so hijacking is a fashion? It didn't have anything to do with the rates of prison escapes (a problem fixed in 1973, there's a coincidence for you) or the changes in extradition laws (also 1973, another coincedence) meant that there were a) fewer escaping prisoners and b) fewer options for the prisoners who did escape?

Naaaah...must be those vicious, awful, terrible guns, and how the 1973 gun ban did what the 1968 gun ban apparently failed miserably to do.

The second guns are banned, the number of hijackings plummets. It doesn't just drop, it plummets!

Which in and of itself should make you suspicious of the data. Normally these things take years to normalize.

And why do you ignore the INCREASE in hijackings during the 10-year period after the 1973 gun ban? If it worked so well, why the increase?

No, there is just no reason at all to believe that banning guns had anything to do with the rates of hijackings.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Why has the virus problem exploded in the last few years? Computers have been around for, what, 60 years? Edited to add: There certainly wasn't anything to deter people from writing viruses.

I'm ignoring the rest of your rubbish, but I just have to comment on this one as it is especially egregious.

Viruses are IN NO WAY like hijackings. Hijackings require a physical person (the hijacker) to take possession of a physical resource (like an airplane). Viruses are virtual; they make copies of themselves so there's more than one. Hijackers don't do that. Also, since the resources are virtual, these copies can hop from one to the other as they copy it. The virus writer does not have to touch any of the infected systems ore ven know what they are. If hijackers could spontaneously clone themselves and instantly transport themselves from one plane to another, then this might be a valid comparison. As it is, it is just so far removed from reality as to show how muddled your thinking is in this area.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The answer to my pop quiz question is El Al airlines. Israel's airline. In 1968, they had a hijacking. Afterwards, they immediately installed armored doors on all cockpits and the pilots won't open them even for Monica Lewinsky.

They also carry heavily armed soldiers on their flights, because there is a five year waiting list of virgin-hungry fanatical Middle Easterners who would like the opportunity to take down an Israeli plane.

Passengers are heavily screened, interrogated and subjected to all sorts of humiliation short of a cavity search. No guns!

That is NOT true. Passengers with a permit may carry guns on El Al domestic flights. Amazing how you left that part out...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Alexander Hamilton was impeached (or was going to be impeached, something like that) for having an affair and trying to cover it up with bribery.

I was thinking maybe it was Hamilton after i posted. I remember Hal saying something about it once. :)


You haven't shown this at all. And to do so, you'll have to do a lot better than "Where are the philandering Presidents?"

I haven't shown that things were different back then? You mean you don't know about the way things were then and need someone to explain it to you?

Are you saying these things are okay as long as people don't know about them?

I am saying they occurred and people either didn't know, didn't care, or actually supported them. And, no, none of these things were OK.

Really? Even with the realization that the government can just take you away without charging you with a crime, letting you have counsel, and detain and interrogate you indefinitely, all they have to do is declare you an "enemy combatant" or a "person of interest"? And that they will continue to do so even if a Federal judge orders them to do otherwise? Because if they can do that, I really have to wonder how many rights we have anymore.

If this were the 50s, or even the 60s in Alabama, I could take a black man away for looking at a white woman, hang him from a tree, get my picture taken next to the corpse, and win votes to be mayor.

I don't have the freedom to do that these days. So maybe you are right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I haven't shown that things were different back then?

No, you havent; not enough to show that armed passngers, who were very peaceful, now today are this big danger.

I am saying they occurred and people either didn't know, didn't care, or actually supported them. And, no, none of these things were OK.

Then what's your point? Seems to me the only difference is that there's more information out there than there was, which can only be a good thing!

If this were the 50s, or even the 60s in Alabama, I could take a black man away for looking at a white woman, hang him from a tree, get my picture taken next to the corpse, and win votes to be mayor.

That is a very bigoted and untrue statement. You're turning into EvilYeti.

[Luke T.]

We shall overcome...

(edited due to the concern of a forum member that the attached photos may be too shocking and may violate forum rules. I will attach the URL address instead with a warning that the link leads to graphic photo of a lynching.)

http://www.musarium.com:16080/withoutsanctuary/pics_15.html

[Luke T.]

WE SHALL OVERCOOOOOOME....

http://www.musarium.com:16080/withoutsanctuary/pics_22.html

Warning: link to graphic photo of a lynching

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you havent; not enough to show that armed passngers, who were very peaceful, now today are this big danger.

No one's calling them a danger. It's just been observed that they're not a solution, either. Must you read insult and threat into every response?



That is a very bigoted and untrue statement. You're turning into EvilYeti.

Absolutely correct. It wasn't just in the 50's and 60's. Hell, you could probably get away with that even today. And before anyone tries to convince me how far the south has come, let me say I speak from firsthand experience in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

[Luke T.]

Somedayyyyyy....

http://www.musarium.com:16080/withoutsanctuary/pics_24.html

Warning: link to graphic photo of a lynching.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

I can't argue with someone as blatantly dishonest and wilfully ignorant as you. It's simply a waste of my time.

That you select your data twice to prove your point is one thing. But that you ignore an immediate drop in hijackings the moment guns are gone is only testament of your immense stupidity.

You want to be right. Damn the facts. Damn the arguments.

[Luke T.]

Yeah, even in the 80s in Charleston, I saw some real eye-opening stuff. And don't even get me started on my battles in Mississippi in the late 80s.

Anyway.

I feel like Uncle Sam expects us to always be in our Sunday best dress and deportment, shanek, and will make us so whether we like it or not. I don't like it either.

But you know what? I am better off. I wouldn't dream of going anywhere in a car with my kids without them strapped into a car seat. Unfortunately, there are parents to this day who let their kids run around the back seat unbelted at highway speeds.

Everytime a new law is passed telling me what I can and can't do, I get upset. I still have a resentment about recycling.

I just wish Libertarians and others wouldn't go to such extremes on the issues. I wish they would pick their battles more wisely. The majority is never going to ever want to return to allowing every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry to carry a gun on an airplane.

You are one of many people here responsible for selling me on the idea of legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. I will probably forever disagree with you on legalizing/decriminalizing other drugs.

If you want to talk to someone about having their hands tied over the decades, talk to a cop. We have more civil liberties than ever.

As for the Patriot Act, I have remarked on that in another topic on this forum. I believe it will eventually be repealed when the heat of passion has worn off. The signs have already begun.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you havent; not enough to show that armed passngers, who were very peaceful, now today are this big danger.

I don't think passengers are this big danger, but your pilot in your first link does. ;)

And so do the flight attendants in one of my links.

My belief is that you can't tell the difference between a law abiding gun-toting passenger and a gun-toting hijacker at the ticket counter. So let's take away all their guns and everybody makes it home safely.

Then what's your point? Seems to me the only difference is that there's more information out there than there was, which can only be a good thing!

The lack of information of events in the past forces us to make assumptions. Your assumption being that passengers were more peaceful and deterred hijackers because they had guns. My assumption being they probably were as surly as they are now and there were no hijackings because of the novelty of international airline flying.

That is a very bigoted and untrue statement. You're turning into EvilYeti.

I don't even bother to defend myself against claims I am a bigot any more.

[Luke T.]

I admit I am bigoted against the South. That's because my first two wives were from Alabama and the second wife was possessed by a legion of evil spirits. :D

I can't even stand to hear country music any more.

But that's a personal problem I have to overcome.

I also know that when the KKK was at its peak, Indiana (which is in the North for our non-US friends) led the pack in memberships.

I also know that my home town in Connecticut had zero blacks. On purpose. We actually had to import some from New York and set them up in what was called the ABC (All Black Community) House so they could attend our schools so we got federal funds for our schools.

Now that we are waaaaaayyyyy off track (my fault), I will shut up.

I think we are at an impasse, shanek.

edited to add: The ABC House is still there today.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


It is obviously an anomaly!

Yes, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it. You can only ignore statistical anomalities when you are looking at trends. However, you are interested in the change caused by gun-restrictions aboard airplanes - in other words you're interested in the interface or the point-change .

Furthermore, it is not at all unexpected that you'd find such a spike just prior to the imposement of strict gun-restrictions - these restrictions were imposed because hijackings had become a problem. If hijackings hadn't increased to the level that they'd become a problem there would not have been any incentive to impose the restrictions on guns aboard aircrafts. The question is if the restrictions managed to "break" the anomality, and get the number of hijackings back to a less explosive numbers.

The sudden rise in the number of hijackings at the time can be explained by the political situation of the time, the increased availability of air-fare and of the initial success of the hijackers tempting others to do likewise. In other words, there is a suggested explanation for the rise prior to the restrictions. Unless you have an alternative suggestion to explain the abrupt drop in hijackings it seems prudent to credit this to the imposition of efficent gun-control aboard the planes.

To merely claim that "well, the number of hijackings increased sharply, so why shouldn't it decrease sharply too?" doesn't cut it, as it ignores the reasoning about why the sudden increase occured.

Furthermore, your attempts to imply that hijackings "really increased because of the gun-restrictions" by ignoring the "anomality" that caused the gun-restrictions to be instated in the first place and then point to the fact that hijackings increased from 1973 and onwards to the early 80-ties is ... not very sound. Statistically speaking, you have not even made any attempts at seeing if the rate of increase of highjackings increased in 1973, and you've completly ignored the further growth of air-transport throughout the world and the apperance of international terrorism, both factors wich one would assume affected the increase in hijackings.

[Earthborn]

Luke, please... I don't see how you help your argument with those horrible pictures. And since you attached them nobody can even get to the source to see when they were taken and how relevant they are to your argument. To me they look like they were taken no later than the 1920s (but I may be wrong) so it has little relevance with the time period you speak about.

If you think you need to show them, change them into links to the pages (so we can read the accompanying text!) where you got them.

If you don't, report yourself to a moderator, to let him/her make a decision. Or I will. :(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If you don't, report yourself to a moderator, to let him/her make a decision. Or I will. :(
On what grounds?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Luke, please... I don't see how you help your argument with those horrible pictures. And since you attached them nobody can even get to the source to see when they were taken and how relevant they are to your argument. To me they look like they were taken no later than the 1920s (but I may be wrong) so it has little relevance with the time period you speak about.

If you think you need to show them, change them into links to the pages (so we can read the accompanying text!) where you got them.

If you don't, report yourself to a moderator, to let him/her make a decision. Or I will. :(

He helped his argument quite a bit, I thought. Shanek appears to have made a statement that such things didn't happen.

Luke said: If this were the 50s, or even the 60s in Alabama, I could take a black man away for looking at a white woman, hang him from a tree, get my picture taken next to the corpse, and win votes to be mayor.


And shanek replied: That is a very bigoted and untrue statement. You're turning into EvilYeti.

As far as I am concerned these types of pictures are very valuable to illustrate that when people talk about racial strife they aren't always talking about waiting for a table at Denny's

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Luke, please... I don't see how you help your argument with those horrible pictures. And since you attached them nobody can even get to the source to see when they were taken and how relevant they are to your argument. To me they look like they were taken no later than the 1920s (but I may be wrong) so it has little relevance with the time period you speak about.

If you think you need to show them, change them into links to the pages (so we can read the accompanying text!) where you got them.

If you don't, report yourself to a moderator, to let him/her make a decision. Or I will. :(

I believe they were taken in the 20s, but I don't know for certain.

Part of my comments about lynchings were meant as satire, but that seems to be lost on some people.

The overall point about how our freedoms are quite secure and our civil liberties are ever increasing is still valid.

Feel free to visit the site I got the pictures from at:

http://www.musarium.com:16080/withoutsanctuary/

[Luke T.]

I'm going to give y'all a little peek into Luke T.'s mind again. Without the satire.

When I was a kid, I spent a lot of time in my white suburban neighborhood library. One day, I opened up a Life magazine and there was a picture of a dead black man tied to a tree with barbed wire. He was facing the tree and was leaning backward. That photo scarred me for life with a burning hatred. That was the 1970s. But I believe the photo was taken in the 60s, maybe the 50s.

I wish I could find that photo somewhere. It has to be out there. Billy Joel used it in his "We Didn't Start The Fire" video.

And we all know about the three civil rights workers who were murdered in Mississippi in 1964, right? They made more than one movie about it.

And then there was the lynching of a black man in the 80s in Mobile, Alabama for no other reason than that he was black whereupon Morris Dees sued the Klan and got the mother a 7 million dollar award. The Klan couldn't pay up, and so she got and took possession of their national HQ in Mississippi. POETIC JUSTICE!

Freedom on the move.

[Luke T.]

The caption for the first photo I posted reads:

The lynching of Dick Robinson and a man named Thompson. October 6, 1906, Pritchard Station, Alabama.

Card-mounted gelatin silver print. 7 x 5"

The next one:


Charred corpse of Jesse Washington suspended from utility pole.

May 16, 1916, Robinson, Texas.

Gelatin silver print. Real photo postcard. 5 1/2 x 3 1/2"

The third one:


The lynching of nineteen-year-old Elias Clayton, nineteen-year-old Elmer Jackson, and twenty-year-old Isaac McGhie. June 15, 1920, Duluth, Minnesota.

Gelatin silver print. Real photo postcard. 3 1/2 x 5 1/2 "

Etched (in error) into the negative: "Three Negroes lynched at Duluth, Minn. for rape. Oct, 1919 by mps"