The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - *How do you defend yourself against a terrorist on a plane with a knife?*

Cheapo · September 14, 2001, 10:34 AM

I'm sure that once all the details come out from the various cell phone calls from the planes, we will learn that the decision(s) to resist the hijackers were made after the passengers realized that the plane(s) were to be used as ramming devices against Very Important Targets.

At that point, the boomyou'realldead factor becomes irrelevant. Preventing the greater harm becomes the passengers' goal, and worries about the terrorist pilot grounding the plane not longer matter as well, because that would also both thwart the terrorist's ultimate goal, but also accomplish the passengers' goal.

So, can the passengers voluntarily (or by majority vote or even by coup) sacrifice their collective lives to deny the terrorists their goals. YES!!! Greater love hath no man...

Comes a point when my life doesn't matter much, because I MUST prevent evil from conquering.

After all, how much good does the old-style hijacking do if there are no living passengers left to throw from the plane after it lands in Libya?

If we don't cooperate, the best they can hope for is a big body count. They won't get to broadcast their demands on world TV, and they won't be able to ram any innocent victims, either.

Resistance is futile?? Big fat hairy deal!! Our resistance will muck up THEIR goals too.

BTW, the issues of round penetrating the airframe and compromising control systems has already been addressed. Why do you think the Glaser SAFETY SLUG and other limited-penetration bullets were developed?

Gee whiz, tell the bullet designer what you want the slug to do (from a pure physics standpoint), and they WILL find a way. Stopping power is less scientific because of the biology factor, but we CAN make the perpetrator bleed a lot, hurt a lot, and maybe lose control of any weapons with a CNS shot.

Air marshals were abandoned partly because of the cost. Armed aircrews are a better answer.

_____
what if the sheriff loses it one day and decides to hijack the plane?
_____

Come on, eyeball, we face that threat EVERY DAY in EVERY PLACE where we have armed humans. If you really think that's a valid objection, then you're asking for an absolutely impossible level of security. Anwar Sadat and many other world leaders have been killed by their own security people over the last century, and THAT risk can only be minimized, never eliminated.

Price of freedom, a price that is still paid under tyrrany!

September 14, 2001, 10:34 AM	#33
Cheapo Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 1998 Posts: 986	I'm sure that once all the details come out from the various cell phone calls from the planes, we will learn that the decision(s) to resist the hijackers were made after the passengers realized that the plane(s) were to be used as ramming devices against Very Important Targets. At that point, the boomyou'realldead factor becomes irrelevant. Preventing the greater harm becomes the passengers' goal, and worries about the terrorist pilot grounding the plane not longer matter as well, because that would also both thwart the terrorist's ultimate goal, but also accomplish the passengers' goal. So, can the passengers voluntarily (or by majority vote or even by coup) sacrifice their collective lives to deny the terrorists their goals. YES!!! Greater love hath no man... Comes a point when my life doesn't matter much, because I MUST prevent evil from conquering. After all, how much good does the old-style hijacking do if there are no living passengers left to throw from the plane after it lands in Libya? If we don't cooperate, the best they can hope for is a big body count. They won't get to broadcast their demands on world TV, and they won't be able to ram any innocent victims, either. Resistance is futile?? Big fat hairy deal!! Our resistance will muck up THEIR goals too. BTW, the issues of round penetrating the airframe and compromising control systems has already been addressed. Why do you think the Glaser SAFETY SLUG and other limited-penetration bullets were developed? Gee whiz, tell the bullet designer what you want the slug to do (from a pure physics standpoint), and they WILL find a way. Stopping power is less scientific because of the biology factor, but we CAN make the perpetrator bleed a lot, hurt a lot, and maybe lose control of any weapons with a CNS shot. Air marshals were abandoned partly because of the cost. Armed aircrews are a better answer. _____ what if the sheriff loses it one day and decides to hijack the plane? _____ Come on, eyeball, we face that threat EVERY DAY in EVERY PLACE where we have armed humans. If you really think that's a valid objection, then you're asking for an absolutely impossible level of security. Anwar Sadat and many other world leaders have been killed by their own security people over the last century, and THAT risk can only be minimized, never eliminated. Price of freedom, a price that is still paid under tyrrany! __________________ Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.