Would a gun on the planes have made a difference on 9/11?

[jeremy]

+1, and now we have a different "SOP", as seen with the underwear bomber

I am not a big fan of SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) I have found through experience that this Acronym suggests one cannot deviate from the Procedures as Stated in the SOP. I do not completely understand why but it is severally frowned on...

I have also found if you just change one little word Persons perceptions change, insert the word Guideline for Procedure. Now you are almost expected, by the masses, to adjust it by the ever changing Parameters that are life.

YMMV as always...

 

[CSORuger]

I remember the day all to well.i took the day off work to take my father to doctor.I watched the second plane hit the tower live on tv. That day changed the way I view life forever. at that point it was immediately apparent what was happening. As a combat experienced vet the feeling of helplessness was overwhelming. my countrymen were being attacked but by who and where can i fight back? these were the immediate questions I had with no answers.I cant imagine what it would have been like to be on one of those planes or be a family member of someone who was. Today is still emotional for me as a former soldier and an American. Lets not lose sight of what today means it forever changed us as individuals and as a country........At least it should have.

Thank you for this, It is how I also felt, Seeing the second plane comming in I was also off work that day and called my Father-in-law. Was on the phone with him when it hit, I said to him " We are at war"

 

[randyb]

Just my two cents worth but a gun would make no difference unless someone was there willing to use it (flight 93) would come to mind. Remember the gun is a tool, its the hand and will to use it that makes it function.

 

[abraham743]

a

 

[Jack Burton]

Just my two cents worth but a gun would make no difference unless someone was there willing to use it (flight 93) would come to mind. Remember the gun is a tool, its the hand and will to use it that makes it function.

How does the knowledge of "when" to use it fit in?

 

[Coach]

Perhaps some people would prefer to not be humilated, hungry or thirsty or delayed for 72 hours criminals. Playing it safe might sound good statisitcally but in many cases some die even if most don't. I don't want someone to die if action could have prevented it.

The sit back and don't resist mentality had been in place a long time before 9/11 and that is exactly why the first three planes hit their targets. Most people are sheep. People were not in a position to take action (armed) and they were not mentally prepared to do so.

The proper response to crime and terrorism is anger and action. When is it time to start shooting bad guys in the brain stem? When they pull their boxer cutter out. Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the face. Criminals and terrorists need hit in the face right away. 9/11 confirmed that. Pre 9/11 we should have had the same attitude but we did not.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

!) Do you really contend that Jeff Cooper had no clue as to when to pick the proper timing for that violence... that he went all in with absolutely no consideration for tactical advantage and considerations? No consideration for the safety of the 200 people surrounding him?

2) Yes... one Navy person was murdered by hijackers... and 200 others walked off the plane alive. Which is exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me and reminding others that the plane was on the tarmac... not 35,000 feet in the air where the hijacking started.

3) Okay... knowing that the hijackers credibly claimed that they had a bomb and since you don't know how that bomb is triggered, or which one had the trigger (perhaps all five had one, or even a dead man switch) then explain to us, in detail and with specifics, what could have been done with a gun to "thwart" the hijacking without risking the plane falling out of the sky and killing 200 innocent people.

1. Of course he did...Cooper was a superb tactician, which is why my last paragraph refers to picking one's time.

2. How is this relevant?

3. By killing the hijackers...no one utilizes a "dead man" triggering device without notifying everyone in the area of its existence. Otherwise it has no psychological effect.

 

[Jack Burton]

1. Of course he did...Cooper was a superb tactician, which is why my last paragraph refers to picking one's time.

2. How is this relevant?

3. By killing the hijackers...no one utilizes a "dead man" triggering device without notifying everyone in the area of its existence. Otherwise it has no psychological effect.

1) Well, someone posted about Col. Cooper believing "...the only proper response to being attacked is instantaneous, furious counter-attack." That certainly doesn't sound like "picking one's time." Instantaneous pretty much means "instantaneous."

Oh... I am sorry... that was you who posted that about Col. Cooper. My bad. But you seem pretty schizoid about what the good Col. would do, eh. And BTW... Just what would have been the "one's time" to use a firearm during those hijackings of the first three planes.

2) Since you were the one who originally brought up the story of the Navy member who was killed why don't you explain the "relevance." Again, as far as I am concerned you proved my point. The entire plane minus one walked away safely after the plane was on the ground. And that was exactly what the people on 9/11 expected to happen to them.

3) Perhaps they did get informed it was a dead man's switch. Neither of us knows. But we do know that 1) unless the shot is perfectly placed there is going to be suffiicent time to trigger any kind of arming device. 2) There very well could have been five different triggers with five different terrorists 3) no one outside of Hollywood is going to kill five terrorists in such a fashion that one of them can't trigger the bomb.

4) And please explain what the rush is to shoot someone. As far as you, and everyone else on the plane knows you'll be on the ground in a few hours, with negotiations working on freeing the lot of you. Is your pride so great that you have to "do something" to avenge your hurt feelings at the expense of the other 200 people on board?

 

[Jack Burton]

Perhaps some people would prefer to not be humilated, hungry or thirsty or delayed for 72 hours criminals. Playing it safe might sound good statisitcally but in many cases some die even if most don't. I don't want someone to die if action could have prevented it.

The sit back and don't resist mentality had been in place a long time before 9/11 and that is exactly why the first three planes hit their targets. Most people are sheep. People were not in a position to take action (armed) and they were not mentally prepared to do so.

The proper response to crime and terrorism is anger and action. When is it time to start shooting bad guys in the brain stem? When they pull their boxer cutter out. Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the face. Criminals and terrorists need hit in the face right away. 9/11 confirmed that. Pre 9/11 we should have had the same attitude but we did not.

Is your pride so great that you have to "do something" to avenge your hurt feelings at the expense of the other 200 people on board?

I am really fascinated. Do you think the other 200 people on that plane who truly, and with great cause, expect that they would be safe and sound on the ground in a few hours would think you're a "real hero" for getting them blown from the sky because you just couldn't keep your gun in your pocket long enough to know when best to use it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Folks, one thing I've not seen addressed here is that the men on Flight 93 who moved at the codeword, "Let's Roll" did so only after they had the knowledge of what had happened with the other three planes. They were in conversations with others off the planes and had been told what was going on. Without that knowledge, would they have done the same thing? We'll never know. Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is that they DID know and it galvanized them into action and destroyed that as a future tactic.

We all like to think we'd have had the stones to move and act. Some of us know we would have... but it's because of the foreknowledge that we think or know it, not in a situation where it's never been done.

I do agree with Cooper that instantaneous, furious response is the key to stopping an attack. Timing, also, is critical, such as knowing when to give that response. You don't do it with a gun to your head, for example.

This is a good thread with good discussion, guys, let's keep it going!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Coach]

Is your pride so great that you have to "do something" to avenge your hurt feelings at the expense of the other 200 people on board?

I am really fascinated. Do you think the other 200 people on that plane who truly, and with great cause, expect that they would be safe and sound on the ground in a few hours would think you're a "real hero" for getting them blown from the sky because you just couldn't keep your gun in your pocket long enough to know when best to use it.

It is not about being a hero. It is about not be a victim.

You pretend to be the authority about when the best time to use the gun would be. Conventional wisdom is wrong. In such a situation I will do things as I think they should be done at the time. I am not going sit back and wait until my wife or daughter are the ones knifed or shot. How many planes have been blown up by bombs and dead man switches? Where is your conventional wisdom there.

If there is going to be a hijacking or other crime. I prefer to have my pistol with me. Sitting back and waiting until the terrorist runs through their playbook is not the way I hope I would operate.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It is not about being a hero. It is about not be a victim.

You pretend to be the authority about when the best time to use the gun would be. Conventional wisdom is wrong. In such a situation I will do things as I think they should be done at the time. I am not going sit back and wait until my wife or daughter are the ones knifed or shot. How many planes have been blown up by bombs and dead man switches? Where is your conventional wisdom there.

If there is going to be a hijacking or other crime. I prefer to have my pistol with me. Sitting back and waiting until the terrorist runs through their playbook is not the way I hope I would operate.

Coach,
I'm not disagreeing with you. You're making some good points, though on at least one, I'm in need of some clarification: You said that the BGs need hit in the face as soon as the box cutter comes out. Is it when the guy reaches into his pocket, when the cutter clears the pocket, when he raises it to make a gesture, or when he has turned his attention elsewhere?

Here's my thinking:

When he reaches into his pocket, he's just another Joe Passenger.He might be reaching in there for a knife, for a money clip, or for a small package of chewing gum; I have no way of knowing.

When the cutter clears the pocket, I'm not thinking I'm going to have had time to notice and identify it as such. Even if I have, what is the chance that he's removed it for some innocuous reason, whatever that might be (keep in mind, these are pre-9/11 rules)

When he raises it to make some gesture, it's probably at someone's throat. Maybe yours, maybe a flight attendant's, maybe someone dear to you. Do you give him a chance to be distracted away, maybe to think of you as a good little sheep until you can later reveal yourself to be a sheepdog, or do you act and get whoever it is killed before your eyes, just before you yourself go out?

I get the logic of what you're thinking. It sounds to me like what everyone here is saying is that to win a conflict, you can't play by established rules... you have to change them. My question is, when the BGs have already changed the rules once, at what point do you change them again?

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I am not in any way being the least bit sarcastic in this post.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Liberty Sanders]

1) Well, someone posted about Col. Cooper believing "...the only proper response to being attacked is instantaneous, furious counter-attack." That certainly doesn't sound like "picking one's time." Instantaneous pretty much means "instantaneous."

Oh... I am sorry... that was you who posted that about Col. Cooper. My bad. But you seem pretty schizoid about what the good Col. would do, eh. And BTW... Just what would have been the "one's time" to use a firearm during those hijackings of the first three planes.

2) Since you were the one who originally brought up the story of the Navy member who was killed why don't you explain the "relevance." Again, as far as I am concerned you proved my point. The entire plane minus one walked away safely after the plane was on the ground. And that was exactly what the people on 9/11 expected to happen to them.

3) Perhaps they did get informed it was a dead man's switch. Neither of us knows. But we do know that 1) unless the shot is perfectly placed there is going to be suffiicent time to trigger any kind of arming device. 2) There very well could have been five different triggers with five different terrorists 3) no one outside of Hollywood is going to kill five terrorists in such a fashion that one of them can't trigger the bomb.

4) And please explain what the rush is to shoot someone. As far as you, and everyone else on the plane knows you'll be on the ground in a few hours, with negotiations working on freeing the lot of you. Is your pride so great that you have to "do something" to avenge your hurt feelings at the expense of the other 200 people on board?

Jack, save it...I'm immune to being baited.

If your response to a hostage situation is to sit submissively in the hopes that your captors will kill someone else and not you, knock yourself out. That's your choice, but it neither influences or binds me.

I'll find a way to fight, with a gun or without one, and I think many readers here feel the same way.

 

[Hammerhead]

I think we've made several tangents here. I'd like to address them, succinctly if possible.

1) Pre-9/11 the rules are you're not armed, they take over and SHTF. Planes 1 and 2 and 3 go boom and plane 4 learns that they're next. They fight back and end the BGs plan. This is the scenario we know today as the tragedy that took place.

2) Pre-9/11 the rules are you're armed, as are several if not most passengers as the 2A is upheld and we're not required to fly in a victim disarmament zone. Are hijackers really stupid enough to try to take over a plane full of armed people? Unless their plan is just to put a bomb on, have some suicidal dillhole climb on and wait to push a button without warning. That's just minimal damage, unless they do it multiple times. With an operation like that to have any impact, it'd have to be on a large scale all at once, which complicates things. Complications mean foul-ups. Foul-ups lead to being compromised.

Hijacking planes full of armed people, while not impossible, is complicated, messy, and requires almost so much manpower that you might as well buy every seat yourself. Think about it. If you have so many armed people, there's a mathematical situation you have to consider. You buy out half the plane, the other half is still potentially armed and you need every seat filled with your people to try to control or kill the regular passengers. This costs money, and you're trying to gather enough manpower to do this on multiple planes. You buy out the seats and leave them empty, you've still got half the plane that can still take out your five or so guys, and still costs a lot of money on multiple planes. If you buy and fill a majority of seats with your guys, still man power and money. You buy every seat on multiple aircraft, lots of money. It becomes cost prohibitive. Not to mention suspicious.

Options? Smaller planes? Buying or renting still costs money and is suspicious.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure they'd try. Either that, or be stuck with the same crap from '93, a truck bomb in the basement. That didn't have the impact they wanted either. I guess they'll start making bigger and better bombs or go with bio-chem or nukes. That still is an option now. However, you're still looking at acquiring these items and that can be risky.

Sure, you must consider all possibilities. Adding firearms to the mix with people willing to use them reduces their options. (I guess not so succinct with this.)

3) When do you act? Well, just pulling a box cutter on a plane full of gun carriers is unusual, but there are other weapons on board. Attempting to use them on a plane full of gun carriers is risky or downright stupid. But let's say they did. I don't think you pull your gun and shoot a person just holding a box cutter. You pull your gun and shoot the guys now trying to use those box cutters to hurt people/take the plane. A few box cutters vs. an armed citizenry? Absurd, but ok.

How about the scenario that they're packin' heat too. Still, a few guns against unknown others carrying? Only if they're stupid or not playing the odds. I'm leaving mental issue out of it. You'd have to be crazy to try.

I don't think it's an immediate action. A group of guys pulling their firearms might be cause enough to act immediately. If it were boxcutters, a group of guys standing up and starting to hurt people might also be cause for alarm. However, I don't think that immediate action would be required, but rather acting immediately when necessary.

Unfortunately, before 9/11 people probably had the idea that hijackers land planes and demanded crap for hostages. It would have been a whole lot better if people would have realized they didn't have to be complacent. Threat of a bomb or not, go down fighting.

 

[Coach]

Coach,
I'm not disagreeing with you. You're making some good points, though on at least one, I'm in need of some clarification: You said that the BGs need hit in the face as soon as the box cutter comes out. Is it when the guy reaches into his pocket, when the cutter clears the pocket, when he raises it to make a gesture, or when he has turned his attention elsewhere?

Here's my thinking:

When he reaches into his pocket, he's just another Joe Passenger.He might be reaching in there for a knife, for a money clip, or for a small package of chewing gum; I have no way of knowing.

When the cutter clears the pocket, I'm not thinking I'm going to have had time to notice and identify it as such. Even if I have, what is the chance that he's removed it for some innocuous reason, whatever that might be (keep in mind, these are pre-9/11 rules)

When he raises it to make some gesture, it's probably at someone's throat. Maybe yours, maybe a flight attendant's, maybe someone dear to you. Do you give him a chance to be distracted away, maybe to think of you as a good little sheep until you can later reveal yourself to be a sheepdog, or do you act and get whoever it is killed before your eyes, just before you yourself go out?

I get the logic of what you're thinking. It sounds to me like what everyone here is saying is that to win a conflict, you can't play by established rules... you have to change them. My question is, when the BGs have already changed the rules once, at what point do you change them again?

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I am not in any way being the least bit sarcastic in this post.

Blessings,
Bill

Immediately. If you cannot get him shot before he cuts the first throat you do it before he is finished.

 

[Jack Burton]

Jack, save it...I'm immune to being baited.

If your response to a hostage situation is to sit submissively in the hopes that your captors will kill someone else and not you, knock yourself out. That's your choice, but it neither influences or binds me.

I'll find a way to fight, with a gun or without one, and I think many readers here feel the same way.

Please refer to the OP in terms of "some people willfully distort both reality and what I wrote"

I am not "baiting" you... just quoting your own words back to you. If you feel that is baiting then perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future.

And please "fight" as much as you want. But hopefully you'll pick the right timing to do so. Which is the whole point of the essay, eh.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Very tricky question here. Ive got a few ideas Id like to throw out there.

First, if I was able to bring a gun onto the airplane, the terrorists would also have guns. Thats a big negative. Hopefully atleast a few others on the plane would also be armed.

The biggest thing that bugs me is, I dont know if I could bring myself to shoot the terrorists no matter what, UNLESS I knew the pilots were dead. The reason is, if the pilots are alive, and still in control of the plane, then we dont know for sure that we are going to crash. From what others have said, there have been times that terrorists have hijacked commercial airliners and then landed them and made a bunch of financial demands. Ive never personally heard of this but OK. I wouldnt want to shoot if the pilots were alive because it would get ugly fast and I wouldnt want the pilots getting hurt. They are the ones that are going to land the plane!

But then another thing that bugs me is this......Say the pilots are dead, and you had a clear shot on the terrorist....Sure you can shoot him, but whos going to land the damn plane?

Im sure that the people on the flights that hit the towers and the Pentagon and no clue what the terrorists had in mind. They probably never expected them to do any of that, and figured they would land the planes and make demands. The people in the plane over Pennsylvania were, as far as we know, the only ones who had heard about the other terrorist attacks that happened that day. So they knew that these terrorists were on a suicide mission, and that they were definitely going to die if they didnt act, and possible many others would die.

So Id have to say that my best guess is that people in the plane over Shanksville would have definitely benefited from having guns more than anybody else. As far as the other ones, its a tough call. I believe the hijackers would have had their own guns, stood up and started executing people. You have to remember, even if everybody on the plane was armed, it would not have stopped them. They were on a suicide mission and knew they were going to die that day anyways.

 

[Jack Burton]

It is not about being a hero. It is about not be a victim.

Is there a special rush to needing a stop to being a victim that requires sacrificing the life of 200 innocent people. Of course, a dead person is no longer a "victim" so I kind of see your point.

You pretend to be the authority about when the best time to use the gun would be.

See the OP, especially that part that says, "It's amazing how some people willfully distort both reality and what I wrote in order to justify their points of view.:

Conventional wisdom is wrong. In such a situation I will do things as I think they should be done at the time. I am not going sit back and wait until my wife or daughter are the ones knifed or shot.

Family certainly adds a different dynamic. But it is fair to ask, would you willfully allow 200 innocents to die at the hands of Little Mo who has just triggered the bomb detonator after you shoot Big Mo who has just killed, or attempted to kill your wife?

How many planes have been blown up by bombs and dead man switches? Where is your conventional wisdom there.

Thank you for making my point. The passengers cooperated and the planes landed safely.

If there is going to be a hijacking or other crime. I prefer to have my pistol with me. Sitting back and waiting until the terrorist runs through their playbook is not the way I hope I would operate.

I would hope to have a pistol with me also. But would you rather see the 200 other passengers fall from the sky at 35,000 feet by acting too soon?

 

[Jack Burton]

This is a good thread with good discussion, guys, let's keep it going!

The essay is really about taking multiple variables into consideration to make a decision as to when to deploy any type of self defense actions. If we keep the focus on that it makes the thread less nuclear.

 

[roscott]

I'm not going to argue with Jack Burton regarding whether or not guns would have made a difference. As he points out in his OP, the mindset was wrong for someone to immediately react with or without firearms.

I suggest the key that we need to change is our own mindset. He suggests that before 9/11, the odds were in your favor if you simply kept quiet. Chances were, you would walk away whole, if a bit hungry and humiliated.

This strikes me as surprisingly similar to the basic argument that if a thug jumps you on the street, give him what he asks for, and chances are he will leave you alone.

Hungry, humiliated, tired, or beaten? Nothing serious has been lost, right? I disagree. If I submit to their demands, whether the thug, hijacker, or terrorist, I have given up my freedom, and my liberty. I trade my own rights for my "supposed safety."

In my opinion, these rights make up the very foundation of our nation, and I truly value them more than life itself. If we have learned anything from 9/11, it is that we can cannot reason against evil. Yet decades before, Patton said, "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." What will it take for us to learn this lesson?

Imagine, in a hypothetical world, if everytime someone tried to rob someone else, their response was "No, f*** you!" followed by a violent retaliation? I would say Col. Cooper was right. A ferocious counter-attack, and the total absence of any attempt to reason with evil. Soon enough, evil people would begin to get the message, that we will not stand for their malicious doings.

The same principle applies on the larger scale when facing terrorism. Hopefully we have learned, through 9/11, that we must never sit back, and "hope for the best." If we truly value our liberty and freedom as our forefathers did, we should be willing to lay down our lives for our principles. Every time, all the time.