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

[Jack Burton]

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.

Good thoughts but for several items...

1) Being mugged does not risk the life of 200 other people. The actions I take to defend myself are not necessarily the same actions I would take when other people's lives are also on the line.

2) There is a major difference between taking an action with a mugger where you have a opportunity to survive and win. The actual scenario on the plane was set up by the hijackers so that the passengers thought that any action would lead to the utter destruction of the plane. They also knew that they were most likely going to come out safely at the end.

3) What was so overwhelmingly necessary other than you don't like being "Hungry, humiliated, tired, or beaten?" that would cause you to sacrifice those 200 innocent lives? Is your pride that important to you?

4) If you shoot a hijacker at noon at 35,000 feet everyone in the plane dies when the bomb goes off. If you shoot the very same hijacker at 3:00 PM when the plane is on the ground, a few people die from the bomb going off. What is so important that you can't wait those three, or four, or five hours for the plane to get onto the ground?

 

[Hammerhead]

The problem is, you can't expect them to follow a plan. You can't expect them to do what's been done in the past. You don't know what their plans are, but why the hell would you allow them to complete them, whatever they are? That's the complacent feeling that went out the window on Flt 93. They found out that the S had HTF and sacrificed themselves in order to save others.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." And yes, I've been of the mindset for many years, even pre-9/11, that you shouldn't just roll over and obey when people are attempting to do bad things.

Yes, you should pick exactly when you should fight back. Why allow the hijackers to land the plane? Why allow hijackers to remain in control? Why should a plane full of 40, or 200 be afraid of a few? Bomb or no bomb, boxcutters or guns, are we really so afraid for ourselves that we'll willingly allow bad things to happen in the off chance that we get out "hungry, humiliated, tired or beaten" at the worst?

Those guys don't play by any rules. They never have. That's the basic tenet of terrorism, to do something so unexpected, so outside the norm that it causes mass destruction and violent murder. So why play by the "rules?" The "rules" don't exist.

 

[Jack Burton]

Yes, you should pick exactly when you should fight back. Why allow the hijackers to land the plane? Why allow hijackers to remain in control? Why should a plane full of 40, or 200 be afraid of a few? Bomb or no bomb, boxcutters or guns, are we really so afraid for ourselves that we'll willingly allow bad things to happen in the off chance that we get out "hungry, humiliated, tired or beaten" at the worst?

bomb or no bomb, eh.

Remind me never to stand next to you at a gas station in case of a broken pump/gas spill. "Gas or no gas, I'll just fire up my cigarette lighter so I can see better."

 

[printcraft]

To risk being redundant:

The rules, if they are any, have changed.
They won't be landing the planes on the tarmac making demands.
You are already dead if you don't act.
You might have a slim chance if you do act.

The hijackoffers on 9-11 told the people they were being hijacked
and were returning to the airport, so sit back and be quiet.
Had they known they were going to be dead in a few minutes I believe they would have acted.

I believe an armed air marshal could have made a difference.

This forum does not normally tolerate redundancy on this forum.

 

[roscott]

Good thoughts but for several items...

1) Being mugged does not risk the life of 200 other people. The actions I take to defend myself are not necessarily the same actions I would take when other people's lives are also on the line.
Agreed. But the principles remain the same. We should not be willing to compromise on right and wrong. If we staunchly refused to compromise, our attitude would quickly become known to our enemies.

2) There is a major difference between taking an action with a mugger where you have a opportunity to survive and win. The actual scenario on the plane was set up by the hijackers so that the passengers thought that any action would lead to the utter destruction of the plane. They also knew that they were most likely going to come out safely at the end.
They certainly did not know that, because it wasn't true. They ended up dead. The only way to fight such unyeilding fanaticism is to be utterly unyeilding in similar manner. (I'm not, of course, referring to policies, but to a violent response to a violent attack.)

3) What was so overwhelmingly necessary other than you don't like being "Hungry, humiliated, tired, or beaten?" that would cause you to sacrifice those 200 innocent lives? Is your pride that important to you?
My pride? Absolutely not. My principles? Are worth sacrificing for, but I'm not going to fling us all to death on that regard. Of course I still use reason.

4) If you shoot a hijacker at noon at 35,000 feet everyone in the plane dies when the bomb goes off. If you shoot the very same hijacker at 3:00 PM when the plane is on the ground, a few people die from the bomb going off. What is so important that you can't wait those three, or four, or five hours for the plane to get onto the ground?

Now you are simply responding to the arguement of others, rather than my arguement. I suggested a different MENTAL attitude that refused to comply. That doesn't mean I'm gonna jump up and start blasting right away. It simply means a refusal to comply.

The passengers on the plane immidiately became hostages when the terrorists took over. The problem with trying to meet demands is that it will perpetuate the situation; others will also attempt to take hostages and make demands. If, however, our response is continually a complete refusal of demands, evil people will stop taking hostages, because they will realize the futility of it. This seems harsh in the immediate implementation, but in the long run it will save others from being taken hostage and probably killed, and it will protect our nation, and us, as a whole.

Jack, I'm not trying to argue that if someone had a gun they should have jumped up and started shooting. I'm trying to show that our overall policy should always be a refusal to reason with evil. Refuse to comply. If you try to give them what they want, you will only breed more...

 

[Hammerhead]

bomb or no bomb, eh.

Remind me never to stand next to you at a gas station in case of a broken pump/gas spill. "Gas or no gas, I'll just fire up my cigarette lighter so I can see better."

Two completely different and non comparable situations.

 

[jedi]

No, prior to that day., hijackers always landed the planes and made demands. Had I been armed, I would have never made a move until the plane was on the ground, if the situation looked hopeless. Now that we know these guys are willing to crash planes, I think it makes a difference.

Yes & No. They WERE willing to crash planes but that will NOT be their MO the next time. The crashing planes has already won them 2 victories.

1) [The short term] was the bring down several bldgs, cause mass panic and deaths that the US had not seen in generations.

2) [Long term] Is that the US (as a whole) lost a lot of freedom, airports are under "security", the .gov is "terrorist this, terrorist that", etc.

We might have killed Bin Laden but in the end he is the one that has won! We are no safer than before and yet we are weaker and with less freedoms.

The next attack won't be with a plane. They have shown they can do that already. The next attack will be in a different way and again one that will leave the "so called experts" saying "uh..we did not think of that".

The .gov alone CAN NOT stop this type of attack it takes the population as a whole to do it. But alas the population of the US (majority) would rather be .

 

[Bill of Rights]

Jack,

You asked upthread, "What's wrong with waiting three hours?"

Do you have some way of knowing it will be three hours, or two, or seven, or if at all, the plane will again be on the ground, on its wheels? I don't.

In reading your thoughts, with which I do not completely disagree, I am reminded of something I read several years ago, from Mrs. Kathy Jackson. Ms. Jackson, in case you don't know, is the author and webmistress of Cornered Cat dot com.

The page in particular of which I'm reminded is here: Cornered Cat - Personal Boundaries

As she specifies, the boundaries she describes are hers. No one else has to share them. From my perspective, however, I don't see any fault in them. In particular, her first, that no one will have her cooperation in taking her somewhere at gunpoint, coupled with her reasoning, does not address the "200 other people" point of your scenario, but it does draw that line in the sand. Are you, by sitting passively and allowing them to do what they wish, not doing exactly counter to the first three of those four boundaries?

Again, no sarcasm. This is a serious inquiry. I'm asking both before and after 9/11, BTW, as well as with and without the intact 2A.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jack Burton]

But the principles remain the same. We should not be willing to compromise on right and wrong. If we staunchly refused to compromise, our attitude would quickly become known to our enemies.

Agreed... but waiting for a tactical advantage is not compromise. Some here don't see that distinction.

They certainly did not know that, because it wasn't true. They ended up dead. The only way to fight such unyeilding fanaticism is to be utterly unyeilding in similar manner. (I'm not, of course, referring to policies, but to a violent response to a violent attack.)

People can quite reasonable know a false bit of information. And they did know that hijackings prior to this ended with the plane on the ground with the large majority of passengers unharmed. The concept that these hijackers changed the game was unknown to the first three flights.

My pride? Absolutely not. My principles? Are worth sacrificing for, but I'm not going to fling us all to death on that regard. Of course I still use reason.

Reason is my middle name. And reason tells me that under the circumstances of 9/11 and what we knew then, the best action is to sit on my butt until the plane has landed even if I had a gun in my waistband.

Now you are simply responding to the arguement of others, rather than my arguement. I suggested a different MENTAL attitude that refused to comply. That doesn't mean I'm gonna jump up and start blasting right away. It simply means a refusal to comply.

The passengers on the plane immidiately became hostages when the terrorists took over. The problem with trying to meet demands is that it will perpetuate the situation; others will also attempt to take hostages and make demands. If, however, our response is continually a complete refusal of demands, evil people will stop taking hostages, because they will realize the futility of it. This seems harsh in the immediate implementation, but in the long run it will save others from being taken hostage and probably killed, and it will protect our nation, and us, as a whole.

Jack, I'm not trying to argue that if someone had a gun they should have jumped up and started shooting. I'm trying to show that our overall policy should always be a refusal to reason with evil. Refuse to comply. If you try to give them what they want, you will only breed more...

I agree... successful hijackings, bank robberiers, muggings or whatever lead to more whatever. But when 200 lives, including mine, are at stake I demand more than a knee-jerk reaction from the people who think they know the answers. If I had not posted the essay first and only asked the question I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the posters at many gun boards would state they'd be jumping up and shooting the terrorists willy nilly without regard to any other concern.

It's a question of strategy vs. tactics. And while the strategy of reducing the whatevers to the minimum number is good, the tactics should not maximize the number of innocent lives lost.

 

[Jack Burton]

Two completely different and non comparable situations.

Well, then, perhaps you can explain your "bomb or no bomb" statement more clearly.

 

[Hammerhead]

9/11 hijackers said "we've got a bomb, we'll use it" when they didn't have one. You've repeatedly mentioned that 200 other people are going to get blown out of the sky because one or two or a few people decide to rise up against hijackers who claim they have a bomb and will detonate it.

Bomb or no bomb, I'm not going to allow anyone to do very bad things without resisting. They're going to have to kill me or incapacitate me.

Dying would suck. 40 or 50 or 200 people dying would suck worse. 3000+ sucks so much more.

 

[Jack Burton]

Jack,

You asked upthread, "What's wrong with waiting three hours?"

Do you have some way of knowing it will be three hours, or two, or seven, or if at all, the plane will again be on the ground, on its wheels? I don't.

In reading your thoughts, with which I do not completely disagree, I am reminded of something I read several years ago, from Mrs. Kathy Jackson. Ms. Jackson, in case you don't know, is the author and webmistress of Cornered Cat dot com.

The page in particular of which I'm reminded is here: Cornered Cat - Personal Boundaries

As she specifies, the boundaries she describes are hers. No one else has to share them. From my perspective, however, I don't see any fault in them. In particular, her first, that no one will have her cooperation in taking her somewhere at gunpoint, coupled with her reasoning, does not address the "200 other people" point of your scenario, but it does draw that line in the sand. Are you, by sitting passively and allowing them to do what they wish, not doing exactly counter to the first three of those four boundaries?

Again, no sarcasm. This is a serious inquiry. I'm asking both before and after 9/11, BTW, as well as with and without the intact 2A.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill... a large part of the thinking is predicated upon knowing that almost all (not all) planes that were previously hijacked did land safely with almost all the passengers alive and intact. Some took a few hours, others took longer. Planes only have so much gas before they must land.

In any self defense situation you have to play the odds to maximize the chance of survival. If you are carrying in a convenience store and a thug robs it with a gun, do you pull your gun when he is staring directly at you, or do you wait until his head is turned and he is distracted away from you. There are those here on the board that will apparently claim that if you don't pull it immediately, regardless of other circumstances, then you are just a coward.

Kathy has good reasoning and I find no fault in her boundaries. They are pretty much what I taught the kids. But what works for one person may not work for a crowd. Especially with the threat of instant death for all.

An example. Kathy is out with her two children, age six and ten. She is accosted by three thugs with guns who tell her, "get in the car, come with us quietly and we'll let your kids go. We have no need for them. Make any problems and we'll kill you and your two kids."

Not so easy of a choice to "fight back" now. Sometimes the choice is not between a good choice and a bad choice. Sometimes it is between an absolutely horrible choice and an even worse one. Many people are just not prepared for that concept.

 

[Jack Burton]

9/11 hijackers said "we've got a bomb, we'll use it" when they didn't have one. You've repeatedly mentioned that 200 other people are going to get blown out of the sky because one or two or a few people decide to rise up against hijackers who claim they have a bomb and will detonate it.

Bomb or no bomb, I'm not going to allow anyone to do very bad things without resisting. They're going to have to kill me or incapacitate me.

Dying would suck. 40 or 50 or 200 people dying would suck worse. 3000+ sucks so much more.

Remind me never to stand next to you at a gas station in case of a broken pump/gas spill. "Gas or no gas, I'll just fire up my cigarette lighter so I can see better."

 

[Hammerhead]

Again with the two totally separate and incomparable situations.

 

[Jack Burton]

Again with the two totally separate and incomparable situations.

yeah, explain that to the 200 sucky, dead people your actions helped to fall 35,000 feet from the sky.

 

[Hammerhead]

Your comparison isn't the same. You're saying that I'd be irresponsible and dangerous by standing next to you and lighting a cigarette lighter to get light during a fuel spill.

This is in no way compared to fighting back in a violent and dangerous situation where your life is on the line, along with others.

You're comparing apples to snare drums.

 

[lovemachine]

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?

Yes, I'll still take the shot if I had the chance. The ONLY thing that matters to me in this world is my family. Nobody else.

So if ANYONE tries to harm my wife, that person will never see the light of day.

You may think I'm a cold hearted SOB, and that's fine. If I'm on a plane with my wife, MY job is to protect her. Nobody else is my concern. Just my best friend.

BUT if I did have the chance to take the 2nd guy out, I would die trying.

 

[Jack Burton]

BUT if I did have the chance to take the 2nd guy out, I would die trying.

I hear you and undoubtedly would feel the same way... I don't know if I would act the same way. But one never knows.

Unfortunately, there was also a third, fourth and fifth guy.

 

[Jack Burton]

Your comparison isn't the same. You're saying that I'd be irresponsible and dangerous by standing next to you and lighting a cigarette lighter to get light during a fuel spill.

This is in no way compared to fighting back in a violent and dangerous situation where your life is on the line, along with others.

You're comparing apples to snare drums.

Exactly. I am stating for the record that you are irresponsible and dangerous for not bothering to take important considerations into account which would lead to the killing of 200 innocent folk.

You're the one who posted "bomb or no bomb."

 

[lovemachine]

I don't understand. Bomb or no bomb, you would just sit there and wait and do nothing?
Just see what happens?