New Terror Plot

Putting guns on planes is just about the worst idea ever, unless there is an absolute guarantee that the bullets used cannot penetrate the plane's fuselage.

My main criterium, though, would be whether or not something is actually a weapon. If it can be used as such, that's too bad, but like Ricky said we can't go about banning every little thing we think may be used as a weapon. A terrorist could always just pull a thread from his shirt and strangle someone with it.

 

Not really - the worst that would happen is cabin decompression which would mean having to lose altitude quickly, but it is not that serious (as in non-life-threatening).

 

Objects are not capable of possessing intent. Humans are however it isn't easy to determine what a person's intent is. I think it is rather simplistic to believe that weapons are weapons and tools are tools without overlap.
A hammer is a tool that makes an excellent weapon, ditto for a hatchet or pocket knife. I don't approve of banning weapons or tools except in unusual and specific cases such as where hundreds of people are confined together in a very vulnerable situation such as encountered in air travel.
To merely say they will find a way is no reason to make it dead easy. Determined terrorists might "find a way" or they might fail (as with the "shoe bomber") but a single unhinged loner could hijack or bring down an airliner full of innocent people if he brings a tool/weapon aboard.

 

I wouldn't like to see guns in the hands of cabin crew since this effectively does most of the work of the terrorist for them, it gets the gun onto the plane, all they need to do now is get ahold of it and in the close confines of an aircraft that needn't be too difficult, especially if you are considering the kind of mentality intent on martyrdom to begin with. Sky Marshals are a different matter entirely, since their sole duty is to protect the aircraft, passengers and crew and they are specifically trained for that task.

I agree with Grieg on the issue of banning tools except in specific cases and that this seems to me to be one instance where it is advisable or even necessary.

Clothes, clearly are necessary for most people's individual dignity and whilst someone could concievably strangle another passenger or crew member with a shoe lace, it's not likely to happen before the attacker is overpowered by other passengers unless the plane is quieter than any other flight I've ever been on.

Scissors on the other hand could easily be used to kill in an instant, and many wounds will likely prove fatal before any would be rescuers can get involved. I would also wonder why anyone could not manage even the longest haul flight without a pair of scissors. Would they be concerned of the need for an emergency haircut mid-flight? Perhaps a disaster that could be averted if only the pilot could be given an instant manicure?

It's simply a case of evaluating the risk of what is being carried, and the potential negative effects of the item not being brought into the cabin. I would being seriously concerned about anyone who felt that they could not complete their journey without having instant access at all times to something like scissors, a hammer or a knife. Why would you need them?

Terrorists might find a way regardless, but why make things easier for them by providing them with one?

 

Okay, you're not wrong, almost conviced ; almost because i still think that scissors are one of the best way to wound someone easily and rapidly...So they would maybe be right to ban it...?

 

Admitedly I do agree with the 'no sharp things' rule - partly because as you say sharp things are very easily used as weapons, and partly because I really cannot think of a good reason why anybody would want (let alone need) a sharp thing on an airliner.

 

Face it, the only way anyone's going to be truly safe is when you can't bring ANYTHING aboard a plane at all! Hell, an accomplished person can kill you with a pen.

 

A woman when properly trained can kill you with just a look!


:lol:

 

Most women I know don't need training...

It is a point though that with proper training you don't need weapons, but then weapons do give that extra intimidation factor that enable a few people to control a hundred or more. I can't see a guy standing up and shouting 'I'm taking over the plane! I know karate, so back off!'

 

Just because you don't need them doesn't mean they should be banned from a plane...

I'd emphasize the ability of anyone with a little bit of courage to stand up to a guy with a Stanley knife or a pair of scissors and get away with it. Of course, in order for this self-confidence/self-reliance thing to work out, real and purpose-built weapons should still be banned from aircraft.

 

I must admit I still find this puzzling inasmuch as I assure you that I could kill you as quickly with a pair of scissors as with a knife. More to the point, a few determined men with scissors can, with a proper demonstration, such as brutally killing one or two people , intimidate an entire planeload of ordinary citizens into docility. Of course if there are natural leaders present who are willing to organize some folks it might not work.
As the hijackers of flight 93 discovered.

 

yes...i rest easy knowing that when i board a plane ,i and all other male passengers will be armed with only our bare hands....that way a few arabs with box cutters or sharpened wooden stakes can easily defend the the flight deck after they kill the pilots...also ,it makes me feel secure to see ap security select old lady school teachers and backpackers from finland for extra careful scrutiny before allowing them to board ,but lets bypass the young middle eastern looking men ,,,we dont want to appear raciest or something......