![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockThis entry has rantish tones. But fucking good ones.
This movie (Manhattan Project) is also a good example of why putting guns in airplane cockpits is .A. .Bad. .Idea.!
People behave weirdly when they are given options of performing extreme violence that they normally wouldn't have. When you hold a gun you are, by definition, infinite number of times more likely kill someone by shooting than when you are not holding a gun. Why? Because beofre you didn't have one, and there was NO chance of shooting anyone. By aquiring a gun you suddenly have two choices: Kill, or don't kill? And two choices where there once was one is a 100% increase.
When people have guns--OR ARMED NUCLEAR WEAPONS--- they act DIFFERENTLY. They entertain ideas they'd never have even imagined before, and they behave in ways that, if asked when not in that situation, they would believe they'd never have even considered doing.
So why, on great mother earth, would anyone think putting handguns in jet airplanes is a smart thing to do? Pilots aren't cops; they're PILOTS. And now, instead of there being NO chance of anyone being shot, there's suddenly a chance that as much as nine people might get shot. More if you have extra clips.
If a hijacker has a knife, four people can jump him and maybe two will die. But not a third of a second later the hijacker will out for the count. If a hijacker has a gun, no one can get close enough to touch him.
And how would a hijacker manage to sneak a gun past all this hyped up security?
Why, he wouldn't have to! There's one waitng for him in the cockpit! He gets in there, and suddenly he's got the only firearm on the vessel. Cause we fucking idiots (the americans & gov't) put it there for him.
...ok... Now, let's play this scenario out a little more. There are short-range guns that can be made in which the bullets shatter on impact, thus making hull breach and explosive decompression (VERY BAD THING) not an issue. And there are guns that can be made that recognize the crease of your hand, like a thumbprint, so only you can fire it. And there are even guns that can be made that detect your pulse before firing, so someone else can't push down your hand to fire when you're dead or K.O.ed. Therefore, they CAN build guns that only a living pilot and no one else can use. Seems good, right? Wrong. YOu're not taking into account the human factor: the pilot.
Now, lets say they re-inforce the doors (good idea) so the hijackers are trapped with the passengers as hostages, but no gun, and the pilot & co-pilot are still safe locked in the cockpit, and thus the plane is still safe. However, outside the reinforced doors, the hijackers begin killing hostages until the cockpit is opened.
Inside the pilot (let's make him male and call him Frank--haha, just saw Donnie Darko), inside the cockpit our good, nice american family guy Frank is looking at the gun in his hands and thnking about the screams of the people dying outside the door. He's thinking, "I have a gun. I can stop this. More people don't have to die."
Frank opens the cockpit door. Frank is killed instantly by a knife in the throat. The hijackers have access to the controls. The co-pilot is killed swiflty too, either by Frank's gun or by the same knife, or even by a snapped neck.
Now, the gun was useless. And because Frank had the option of using a gun, the reinforced doors are useless too, because he opened them up anyway. The hijakcers have the plane.
For 300 people on board and thousands below, the world goes to hell.
That, or the plane is shot down in a field. Nobody on the ground dies, but the hundreds stil alive on board do.
And what would have happened if the same situation ahd occured and Frank had not had a gun?
The cockpit doors would never have been opened. The pilots would have stayed in control, and landed the plane safely and immiediately. A dozen hostages would have died, instead of hundreds or thousands.
That's why there shouldn't be any fucking guns on commercial airliners.
>:{
This movie (Manhattan Project) is also a good example of why putting guns in airplane cockpits is .A. .Bad. .Idea.!
People behave weirdly when they are given options of performing extreme violence that they normally wouldn't have. When you hold a gun you are, by definition, infinite number of times more likely kill someone by shooting than when you are not holding a gun. Why? Because beofre you didn't have one, and there was NO chance of shooting anyone. By aquiring a gun you suddenly have two choices: Kill, or don't kill? And two choices where there once was one is a 100% increase.
When people have guns--OR ARMED NUCLEAR WEAPONS--- they act DIFFERENTLY. They entertain ideas they'd never have even imagined before, and they behave in ways that, if asked when not in that situation, they would believe they'd never have even considered doing.
So why, on great mother earth, would anyone think putting handguns in jet airplanes is a smart thing to do? Pilots aren't cops; they're PILOTS. And now, instead of there being NO chance of anyone being shot, there's suddenly a chance that as much as nine people might get shot. More if you have extra clips.
If a hijacker has a knife, four people can jump him and maybe two will die. But not a third of a second later the hijacker will out for the count. If a hijacker has a gun, no one can get close enough to touch him.
And how would a hijacker manage to sneak a gun past all this hyped up security?
Why, he wouldn't have to! There's one waitng for him in the cockpit! He gets in there, and suddenly he's got the only firearm on the vessel. Cause we fucking idiots (the americans & gov't) put it there for him.
...ok... Now, let's play this scenario out a little more. There are short-range guns that can be made in which the bullets shatter on impact, thus making hull breach and explosive decompression (VERY BAD THING) not an issue. And there are guns that can be made that recognize the crease of your hand, like a thumbprint, so only you can fire it. And there are even guns that can be made that detect your pulse before firing, so someone else can't push down your hand to fire when you're dead or K.O.ed. Therefore, they CAN build guns that only a living pilot and no one else can use. Seems good, right? Wrong. YOu're not taking into account the human factor: the pilot.
Now, lets say they re-inforce the doors (good idea) so the hijackers are trapped with the passengers as hostages, but no gun, and the pilot & co-pilot are still safe locked in the cockpit, and thus the plane is still safe. However, outside the reinforced doors, the hijackers begin killing hostages until the cockpit is opened.
Inside the pilot (let's make him male and call him Frank--haha, just saw Donnie Darko), inside the cockpit our good, nice american family guy Frank is looking at the gun in his hands and thnking about the screams of the people dying outside the door. He's thinking, "I have a gun. I can stop this. More people don't have to die."
Frank opens the cockpit door. Frank is killed instantly by a knife in the throat. The hijackers have access to the controls. The co-pilot is killed swiflty too, either by Frank's gun or by the same knife, or even by a snapped neck.
Now, the gun was useless. And because Frank had the option of using a gun, the reinforced doors are useless too, because he opened them up anyway. The hijakcers have the plane.
For 300 people on board and thousands below, the world goes to hell.
That, or the plane is shot down in a field. Nobody on the ground dies, but the hundreds stil alive on board do.
And what would have happened if the same situation ahd occured and Frank had not had a gun?
The cockpit doors would never have been opened. The pilots would have stayed in control, and landed the plane safely and immiediately. A dozen hostages would have died, instead of hundreds or thousands.
That's why there shouldn't be any fucking guns on commercial airliners.
>:{
