Ok, then: - Have you thought about how much administrative effort it would be to carry out "background checks"? - Have you thought about the fact that even with "background checks", you can never know everything about the reliability of a person? What if they change their mind? What if they have an undetected mental illness or they have depressions or they are put under duress or under the influence of drugs? - Have you thought about the fact that guns can pass hands on board so that "background checks" can be circumvented? - Did you consider that guns could be stolen on board and used against the crew and other passengers? - Did you consider that use of guns could potentially cause planes to lose pressure and make them crash just for that reason alone? - You are aware that McVeigh, the Unabomber, etc., etc. WERE/ARE American citizens? I really dislike an attitude where, as a starting point, giving more guns to more people in more situations is seen as a solution. IMHO, what is worthy of discussion is another point we both raised, the bullet-proof and shielded cabin. Other problem with that: Once a terrorist gets in there, there is no way at all to overpower him anymore. Again, I do not mean to offend you personally, but the IDEA is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID (I am not saying you are, I have had many stupid ideas in my life and obviously I don't think I am stupid (I am cocky after all )). (Sigh)
The only perfect solution is no air travel. In my follow-up to outlaw's criticism I think I covered some of these contingencies that you cite. I never said to pass out guns like peanuts. I'm not talking about the kind of background check that gets you a handgun. Obviously it would have to be more substantial and often under review. Just the knowledge that there very well might be brave and trained armed passengers on board would make a man with a home-made knife less brazen. It is intimidating. I knew when I wrote it that the cabin pressure was a big problem-- how big a problem EXACTLY I don't know. If they are willing to arm the pilots then it must be in some way a problem that is not fatal. Nothing was more fatal than September 11, 2001. I have suggested a very tight scrutiny that is not renewable. This would be a privilege and not a right. Certainly it would cost money to administer. The cost of flying will have to go up. Who won't pay more for a higher standard of safety from here on? Of course, things could go wrong. Perfection will never arrive. We can just strive to come as close as possible.
Does anyone really think the next attack is going to use the same method as the last? NO WAY! The airport security is going to be so tight it would be a waste of time for them to try to supercede it. There are PLENTY of other ways to injury 1000's of people at a time. I would all but guarantee, nothing else happens using a commercial flight. Think how easy it was for a couple of punks to go in and shoot up a school, imagine if one of these suicide bombers walks into to one? How about with NAFTA how easy it is for trucks to get across the border, A semi parked next to Enron Field full of explosives could cause a lot of damage. What about renting a smaller plane at a private airport and filling it full of tnt and slamming into the stands of DKR during the UT A&M game….. I hope we don’t use ALL of our energy to safeguard airline travel and neglect to prepare for other types of attacks.
Richman, you're right it does sound crazy. Lets just require all passengers to carry guns. In rural Georgia and a few other places have passed laws like that. Similarly some argued that Colombine losses would have been lessened if teachers and students had had weapons to fire back at the two deranged boys who opened fire.
glynch: me thinks (knows) you're being facetious. Yeah, that would be great if everyone carried a gun everywhere... just like the wild west! Hey, I'm not even a gun owner. I've never even fired a gun, but I'm glad that police carry guns. So we need to extend the reach of our gun-toting protectors... big deal. I guess we deserve it for letting this madman go for the last decade or so. Remember the gunman in Killeen (?) who crashed his truck through the Luby's and opened fire, killing numerous people? Some years ago, there was a similar type occurrence in Israel only the mad gunman got a bullet in the head from at least one of the gun-toting Israelis quickly ending the debacle. If you were one of those saved by such action, you'd be whistleing a different tune I bet.
My Suggestion which is Financially feasible as well as will limit the events of the last few days in which terrorists found new weapons. Scenario #1 Place a bulletproof door to the cockpit area. So irregardless of what happens, the Pilot cannot be affected. With this in mind innocents may be trapped with terrorists but there can be automatic hijacker locks that don't even allow pilots to open the door if someone else's life is threatened to make them open the door. Probably not financially feasible Scenario #2 Scenario 1 but the captain has control of a mechanism that releases a gas into the cabin that knocks everyone out. Nighty nite passengers and terrorists and they can dream their way all the way to jail. Comments??
I agree with Ty_Webb. I also see no harm with having a trained, armed guard on an airplane. This would be preferable to adding more inconveniences to the flying process. Anyone could crack at any given time, anywhere in the country...we trust pilots with a much more dangerous weapon than we would be trusting these guards with.
Khan, I like both your suggestions, but what happens if the pilots accidently trigger the gas, and they get knocked out too? DaDakota
No, the guard has as much chance of snapping as the pilot does. He has a less dangerous weapon however.
Great idea in theory, but the problem is that 'non-lethal' type protections, actualy turn out to be lethal in a number of instances. Small children, for instance, may inhale too much of the gas, or people with heart conditions may suffer heart failure. I like the bulletproof/automatic lock idea, because even though terrorists may get the pilots to fly somewhere by threatening flight attendants, the pilots will still have final control, preventing something like what happened on the 11th. As for the gun thing - cabins are pressurized. A bullet piercing a hole in the plane would result in sudden depressurization, creating an effect similar to the 'bends' with rapidly expanding nitrogen in the blood. Not as great an effect, perhaps, put still there. Also, the thin air would cause problems for people unable to get to an oxygen mask. I believe that small caliber guns, like a .22 are considered much less of a risk to puncture the cabin, but a risk nonetheless. Perhaps a shotgun with very fine shot? (it would distribute the force over a greater area, lessening the threat of a puncture).
Otto: Thanks for the intelligence. How quickly would people be affected by de-pressurization from a bullethole or five? How far and how quickly could the pilot descend so as to be safe again? How about tranquilizer guns instead of bullets. If it works on gorillas, it should work on guerillas...
Richrocket, The idea of someone official carrying a weapon, be that a gun, stun gun, etc onto a plane is remotely feasible, but for civilians who have passed a background test to carry them is preposterous. Remember - Aldrich Ames passed the the toughest of background checks. The idea of gun toting civilians trying to overpower terrorists on an aircraft is frightening. Preventing Tuesday's attacks was probably preventable within the existing framework of airport/aircraft security - its just that people became complacent and lax. All that will be done is a) Airport security will be tougher b) Access to cockpit will be eliminated Personnally, I would like to see cabin baggage restricted to a single handbag/briefcase size for each person. Apart from dramatically improving board times, it will make it easier to search at checkpoints. One more think, slightly off topic - I read somewhere that two of the terrorists rented a car in Boston, drove to Portland, Maine and boarded a flight back to Boston, beofre boarding the plane that they ultimately hijacked. Why would they do this? My thinking is that security in Portland was less stringent, and once they got through the metal detector/checks in Portland, they wouldn't have to again at Logan.
There are background checks and then there are background checks just as there are spies and there are terrorists. Aldrich participated in fairly solitary activities. Terrorists do not.
