AZLib:
I see my reputation for vicious polemic precedes me.
Or, at least that would be kind of cool. I don't think my response was all that adversarial, but I think my side of the argument must fear that we are viewed as gung-ho mall-ninjas, as opposed to the side which is more skeptical of the benefits of armed passengers. I should have explained in my last post that I am not prescribing chaos, nor proposing a free-for-all, Wild West, shoot-what-moves solution to hijacking. I am only trying to say that this would not be the worst of all possible outcomes, and that it would be preferable to disarming the passengers.
I think this may be the nut of the argument:
To allow this kind of person [untrained gun-toting passenger] on a plane, when their actions could determine the success of a WMD attack, is misguided, IMO. As Brian said, the qualification standards are stringent. And because the standards are tough, I think that the participation rate would be so small as to doom any armed citizens inflight.
This seems to say that one should only carry on a plane if trained to some floor of competence. That if one's skills are not adequate for the mission, he should leave his weapon at home. I assume this is to prevent a trigger-happy passenger from interfering with the Air Marshalls, or shooting the pilots. The point is well-taken, but I disagree for the following reasons.
a. The death of the pilots is regrettable, but even if the plane crashes, this is preferrable to allowing the terrorists to succeed. If indeed cockpits are being equipped with armored doors, the chances of this are greatly reduced, no?
b. Does every flight come with Air Marshalls? Even if they do, we hear that the marshalls are burdened with certain uniform requirements that make them too easy to identify.
c. Although armed passengers may impede the work of the Air Marshalls, I still prefer to trust an armed citizen to do the right thing. This is what a free society, and the Second Amendment, depend upon. Even though the armed passenger may cause the situation to implode, to devolve into chaos, it is absolutely necessary that the terrorists' goals be denied them. However, it is equally likely that the armed passenger may be the decisive factor in saving the plane.
d. Joe Civilian, 23, a software engineer and gun hobbyist, looks up from his Gameboy to witness a hi-jacking. He quickly but surreptitiously pulls out his new .50 caliber 1911, and...
1. drops two terrorists before they even see him, then kills the next three before dying of his own wounds. There are no Air Marshalls.
2. drops two terrorists before they even see him, but is soon killed. The remaining passengers/Air Marshalls are emboldened to rush the terrorists, and the plane is saved.
3. drops two terrorists before they even see him, but is soon killed. The remaining passengers/Air Marshalls are emboldened to rush the terrorists, and the plane crashes in the ensuing chaos.
4. drops two terrorists before they even see him, but is soon killed. The remaining terrorists are a little rattled, but complete their mission, killing all on board, as well as two thousand people on the ground.
5. shoots a fellow, peace-loving permit holder of South Asian descent (who's gun is also drawn) and then kills a real terrorist.
6. shoots a fellow, peace-loving permit holder of South Asian descent and aims at a terrorist, but hits the old woman sitting in front of him, before he is killed.
7. fires wildly, hitting only a window and the fuselage skin, until his gun jams, and he is shot to death, along with the little girl sitting beside him.
8. mistakenly kills an Air Marshall, and two passengers.
Outcomes 1, 2 and 5 are good, despite the death of the other civilian in 5.
Scenario 3 may be preferrable to the remaining outcomes.
Numbers 4, 6 and 7 result in a draw. The South Asian was just as likely to help or hurt the situation as he was, and the two victims were likely to be killed very soon, anyway. However, he did create a distraction which could have the same result as number two.
Eight is of course very bad.
Keep in mind I have selected an unlikely man of action with an unnecessarily powerful firearm.
Yes, the outcome is unpredictable, but how predictable is any other solution?