Four handguns could have changed the world on 9/11

Do they now have armed non-uniform police or air marshals on all flights?
Not that many people would know they were there.
I'd hope there are, or at least had a tazer.
 
A lack of weaponry on planes had nothing to do with the success of the 9/11 terrorists.

They didn't exploit a physical security weakness or overwhelm defenses. They exploited a mindset.

Prior to 9/11, the reaction to a hijacking was scripted, drilled, accepted: cooperate with the hijackers and don't get anyone on the plane killed. It was assumed -- as this had been the course of almost every hijacking in history -- that hijackers would direct the plane somewhere and then negotiate for what they wanted.

Had that long-standing assumption not been the cornerstone of "hijackee" behavior then everything would have been different...as is obvious from the fate of Flight 93, where the passengers overwhelmed the terrorists as soon as it was understood it was a suicide mission.

There is of course no such assumption now. (Which is why it's completely inane for airport security to be seizing, for instance, little pocket knives or children's scissors. But that's another topic.)
Click to expand...

Everything stated above is 100% correct. I flew for business before 9/11 and continued to do so after. In general life I have tried to maintain condition yellow and remain aware of my surroundings. Pre 9/11, knowing what I did of hijackings, I would have simply followed instructions and let the scenario play out until released. That is how it almost always went and resisting would likely cause more casualties, not fewer.

Post 9/11 I am fully committed to killing anyone who tries to take the airplane with my bare hands and any tool at my disposal. What is more there are many other individuals on every flight with the same mindset. To stop another 9/11 does not require armed passengers. It requires the mindset passengers currently have.

I am not in the least bit worried about a hijacking when I fly. As soon as someone tries to take the plane they will be beaten to a pulp. No airplane I am on will be crashed by a hijacker. My concern is a bomb and it is for that which needs to be screened.

Frankly speaking the cries from some to allow CCW on aircraft does nothing but marginalize the pro gun side. General CCW will NEVER be allowed. Get over it. 90% of the public think it is nuts and pushing for it will only loose us ground in the debate.

Mindset is far more effective at stopping a future 9/11 scenario than any handgun.
 
The myth of RD, rapid decompression, from a bullet hole is grossly overblown. A stray bullet might hit a wire but even severing a wire isn't going to bring an airliner down. In no way can it penetrate far enough to hit a hydraulic line or fuel line/tank since they are deep in the belly of the plane. As a retired Air Force pilot and a long-serving airline pilot, I can say, unequivocally, that this has been investigated and guns are safe. Blow out a window? I doubt it. If you saw how thick cocpit windows are you wouldn't worry about. Cabin windows? Double pane! Even if a bullet hit one, either accidently or on purpose, you might have a blow out but more likely you would just have a window with a hole in it and a slow depressurization.
Click to expand...

Really? No way? Personally, I don't believe in the phrase "no way".

Here are a couple examples of what a bird can do to a jet's windshield. Based on this, I'm guessing a bullet would have no trouble penetrating.

157375.jpg


bird-strike-corporate-jet-0904-1a.jpg


Double panel windows in the passenger compartment .... You seriously don't think a bullet can penetrate two panels (actually it's usually three panels) of acrylic?

Fuel tanks .... If you had said that the FAA passed a new regulation in 2004 ordering reductions in the flammability of gases that float in the void above Jet A fuel in airliner tanks by the utilization of an OBIGGS, I would have been inclined to believe you.

So, while my own research suggests that the likelihood of a bullet-spark-induced fuel vapor explosion is less than I originally thought I still question whether or not handguns are the right solution. I don't buy the circular reasoning that pilots and air marshals carry handguns so they must be the right solution.

Edit: In all fairness, I should mention that I have some very specific training in the use of firearms (or not) on board commercial airliners.
 
Mud, its clear you have little understanding of aircraft. The odds of a stray b ullet striking a wire or hydraulic line are so small, I'll gladly side with the firearm to protect those onboard. As far as depreasurization, no. Way off.
 
Four handguns may have done something. But, four groups of Americans also could have, regardless of weapons.
Click to expand...

Couldn't be put any better.

4 handguns could have certainly changed a lot of things but so could many other things. First and foremost, the airline policy to cooperate with hijackers was the keystone to the whole operation. Locked, sturdy cabin doors could have also prevented it as well.

There are just too many other factors to say that 4 guns could have changed the outcome.
 
With a degree in Aerospace Engineerig I can clearly state there is a huge difference between a 3# bird hitting a canopy at 500kts and a bullet making a small exit hole.
 
I disagree....

1. None of the hijackers had guns.

2. Crews and passengers had been trained to comply with a hijacker.

3. Crews and passengers are now trained to fight a hijacker.

For me, this is case closed.
 
Mud, its clear you have little understanding of aircraft. The odds of a stray b ullet striking a wire or hydraulic line are so small, I'll gladly side with the firearm to protect those onboard. As far as depreasurization, no. Way off.
Click to expand...

My understanding, based upon some recent research and some 20+ year-old training, seems to be greater than yours. You didn't even mention OBIGGS when the subject of igniting fuel fumes came up. As a seasoned pilot, I would think that would have been the first thing mentioned when talking about sparks from a bullet igniting fuel fumes - not, "Oh, a bullet will never reach the fuel tanks in the belly of the plane." Additionally, you suggested that the windows in the passenger section of commercial airliners were "dual pane" when, in point of fact, most of them are triple pane.

Musketeer, I never suggested that a bird hitting a plane's windows was the same as a bullet hitting a plane's windows. Obviously, it is not. However, a bird is a larger, softer mass than a bullet and, even when combined with the speed of an oncoming plane, has nowhere near the velocity of a bullet.

My premise was that if a bird could penetrate a jet's wind screen a bullet might also penetrate - that Bellasogno's "no way" comment was reckless in its nature; to suggest that there was no way that a bullet could penetrate the windows of a plane was foolhardy at best.

As far as DP from broken windows goes, I have enough training to recognize that it doesn't happen like often shown in movies but also enough training to know that DP of the cabin has risks ... risks that may be unneccesary if defensive items, other than firearms, were to be used in defense against hijackers.

Bellasogno, why do you feel so strongly that firearms are the best defensive weapon aboard an airplane?

Let's leave the plane out of the situation for a moment. Let's say you're in a similarly-shaped, similarly-crowded area, with zero possibility of electro-mechanical damage and its associated risk. Let's say it's a fairly well-lit shipping container filled with 100 people. Are you 100% confident that you can shoot a handful of those people without hitting any innocent bystanders?

Perhaps a Taser or OC spray would be as effective with less risk?
 
250 people packed in a sardine can is not where the weekend Rambo should be carrying. Flying all the time has shown me plenty of examples of normal people wigging out. The moron who overreacts on a plane is likely to put a round into another passenger far more so than a terrorist. The people density is very different on an airplane than even a NYC street and rational people have more than once turned into idiots in front of me when travelling.

The risk of a carrier being unbalanced traveling is only a small factor. The greater risk is the carrier overreacting to the drunken or unbalanced morons I am used to seeing in the air.

I do not like having to disarm but the battle on a plane is nor going to be a gunfight anyway in the post 9/11 world.
 
I had assumed the OP was referring to the FFDO program, and not to passengers carrying on an airliner.

I'm in favor of FFDOs. I am NOT in favor of armed passengers. The previous posts in the thread hit the major reasons why, for both issues.
 
Mindset is far more effective at stopping a future 9/11 scenario than any handgun.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the problem is this - since that event, no one is being taught, or enlightened. The 'mindset' is that currently every person who gets on an airplane is assumed to be a terrorist until proven otherwise. Instead of passengers taking a course on terrorism, it's do this, don't do that or you don't fly. TSA / government assumes that control is everything and education is nothing.

However, a 9/11 of the past most assuredly could have been deterred or highly discouraged if the terrorists knew that some fraction of the crew, or passengers - whether they be off-duty police, rednecks, military, executives, gun geeks, etc. were packing heat. Tell me I'm wrong.
 
+1 chris b ... since 9/11, I'm guessing that box cutters wouldn't work anymore ... passengers given an opportunity to overpower such poorly armed opponents would not hesitate, I believe, to do so. I think it's unlikely that such an event could happen again, but I am sure that our enemies are looking for other ways to hurt us.
 
However, a 9/11 of the past most assuredly could have been deterred or highly discouraged if the terrorists knew that some fraction of the crew, or passengers - whether they be off-duty police, rednecks, military, executives, gun geeks, etc. were packing heat. Tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Allowing civilian carry on an airplane means that it's open to any U.S. Citizien. There would be nothing to stop a terrorist organization from recruiting a few naturalized or homegrown citizens and having them aquire CCWs. Best case scenario for them is that no one on the plane is armed, worst case is a shoot out inside a crowded passenger jet at high altitude. I don't believe allowing any CCW holder to bring their weapon on the plane is the right solution.
 
Perhaps a Taser or OC spray would be as effective with less risk?
Click to expand...
Let's avoid deploying OC spray on airplanes, please. haha

They exploited a mindset.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

Somebody armed with decent close-quarters firearms training and preferably some combat experience would have almost certainly been able to change the course of events. But I also believe that the same individual without a firearm would have had nearly the same ability. Action vs. inaction was the core problem.

If it was me (and I'm no Rambo type, but I can handle my business), any shots fired would have been just outside or at contact distance. Gut shots, as it were. Low probability of a miss, and any penetrating fragments would not have enough energy to severely injure other passengers or damage the aircraft. Let's remember that once the attack is underway, hijackers are likely to stay in the galley areas and in the isles, not in the seating areas that would direct bullets to the windows, fuel tanks, or other sensitive areas. Not to mention, aircraft have several redundant systems, so if a fuel or hydraulic line were hit, it would not be catastrophic in and of itself. [/fantasy]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top