Or at least the pilots? if somebody wanted to hijack a plane, they could just shoot them. Disarming us is not going to make us safer, it will make us more vulnerable to attacks.
2007-07-19 05:43:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
If we lived in the Wild West like in the movies, and everyone wore two six shooters on their belts, would there be less violence in the world? Somehow I doubt it.
The reason the hijackings on 9/11 worked was that they were an entirely new tactic. Prior to 9/11, the protocol was to remain calm and not fight the hijackers, the idea being that eventually they would release their hostages. But the 9/11 hijackers were not hostage-takers, and did not have any demands, which made them different from anything we had experienced before. Had people realized what they were up to, they would have fought back, armed or not, because the alternative was certain death anyway. The proof of that is the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. That happened because that plane was delayed so the passengers understood what was happening to them. So in answer to your question, I do not think arms would have made the difference. What would have made a difference was awareness of what the hijackers were up to. Now that there is awareness, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to duplicate what the hijackers did on 9/11.
There is also a practical problem with your suggestion. If someone is allowed to carry a gun on a plane, that allows for the possibility that a hijacker could overcome that person and then he would have the gun. This is the reason that prison guards who work among the prison population do not carry weapons. Because the prisoners would then attack the guard and then they would have the weapon. So in my opinion it is safer for all of us if there are no guns on airplanes.
2007-07-19 06:29:16 · answer #1 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that there should be armed guards on planes, disguised as regular tourists. They can carry very light weight firearms that are loaded with ammunition called Glaser Safety Slugs, they are available in almost any caliber and will not penetrate walls or seats thereby reducing the risk of innocents being harmed and the plane being compromised.
It is my belief that if that were done on all aircraft we could make the airways safe again. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. If a gun were left in the middle of the street or sidewalk, it wouldn't hurt a soul, however if a person picks it up and pulls the trigger, someone will be hurt. The incidence of privately owned firearms ( legally owned) being used in assaults are less that 1/10th of a percent. The guns used in street crime are all stolen. You can not purchase a firearm with a criminal record, if you are an alien, or for someone other than yourself. That is the law and people that are criminals don't abide by the law. It's that simple.
If you don't want a firearm in your house and don't think anyone else should either, put a sign on the front and back of your home that states, in big bold letters " THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME" then wait and see how long it takes for you to be a victim of an invasion.
This is not rocket science. If everyone that was not a criminal, were allowed to and taught to use firearms safely and correctly, the violence would virtually come to a standstill. The criminals wouldn't know who was a danger to them and who wasn't. I have personally stopped individuals from comitting rape, robbery and murder. Yes, I had a permit to carry a weapon in my state. Something I can no longer do because of a man who sits in the Attourney General's seat. I have never done anything wrong or illegal but I can not get another because I don't have a need. How stupid is that? I am not a police officer nor have I been one, I worked with LE as an instructor so I know firearms very well.
2007-07-19 13:14:18 · answer #2 · answered by ricrossfireclub 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That could have made the terrorists bear arms too. I am for armed sky marshals because really that is the only thing you would have needed to avert 9/11 or go back to the old rule allow up to a 4 inch blade to be brought on. Just remember this knowing what we know today about terrorism do you really think it would be easy for 10 guys to try and hijack a plane with 100 or more people.
2007-07-19 12:48:56 · answer #3 · answered by Drake 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can see a few problems here. If all Americans were armed on domestic flights what would stop a terrorist flying in from an international destination? Since guns are rightfully illegal in the UK no-one on a plane bound to the USA from the UK would carry a gun.
I've found very few people who like the idea of an air Marshall on a plane, although most Americans seem to support it. BA, Virgin, etc went to court after 9/11 to stop them being forced to have air Marshall's on the planes, unfortunately they lost so any plane heading over American airspace must carry one.
All I can see that would happen is a massive gun battle with lots of people killed, there are way to bring a plane down and it isn't very hard at high altitude. Your right the planes probably wouldn't have made it to the twin towers but I doubt they would have landed safe either.
2007-07-19 13:02:45 · answer #4 · answered by clint_slicker 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would have made 9/11 a shootout, and most likely cost the lives of everyone on all 4 planes, instead of all those people on the ground.
It also would have been easy for Al Qaeda to put those 19 hijackers on 19 different planes with guns, instead of just 4 with box cutters....
...it would also imply a sort of 'old west' society in which many people go about armed most of the time... (Which is scary, but not actually that deadly, if you consider the statistics, oddly enough).
2007-07-19 12:54:18 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it would be horrible if the passengers of a plane were all 'packing heat' (too much danger of unruly kids being shot) but the sky marshalls and pilots need to be armed, pilots can now be armed.
the heroes of flight 93 took control and will live in history and our hearts. i am sure that if the others on the 3 planes had time to realize what was happening and react they would have done the same and history would have been different.
2007-07-19 13:14:37 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only people on an airplane that should be allowed to have a gun should been and air marshall or something. People shouldn't be allowed to have guns on an airplane because people are ignorant. People would be getting shot over petty arguments or fights they might have with other passengers. This is wuite possibly one of the dumbest ideas for somone to come up with. Your probably democratic though aren't you?
2007-07-19 14:34:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with your rhetoric, but the we also need to keep in mind that discharged bullets in an a small and compressed cabin is probably not a good idea.
Basically, only the pilots and air marshals should wield guns on planes.
2007-07-19 12:47:21 · answer #8 · answered by Treebeard 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The way I see it, that way the hi-jackers would be the ones asking "am I gonna get shot"? Rather than us, innocents wondering that. Also, a round or two throught the fuselage will not compromise the structural integity of the plane. In addition, I'd rather get hit by "friendly fire" (from a fellow passenger) than have the hi-jacker" win and kill us all.
2007-07-19 12:50:28 · answer #9 · answered by George 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a passenger were able to prove that he had a high level of proficiency with, say, a handgun, and went through a screening process to establish their mental stability, then "maybe". Otherwise, you might have shots fired, missing their targets, and injuring innocent people.
2007-07-19 13:29:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋