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

[45calibre]

i think they would have. i think a gun on the planes would have had a better outcome.

 

[J_Wales]

Well, what would have been the results if there were guns on the planes that day?

As I said, one can debate would haves and should haves to the content of one's heart. All of those would haves and should haves plus $1 might get you a decent cup of coffee.... but not much else.

All we know is what did happen that day when there were no guns on the plane.

Gun free zones are dangerous; and often deadly.

 

[eric001]

First, absolutely great article, Jack! I can't fault your analysis or conclusions at all. I think the most difficult thing to do is to look back at a world-changing event and NOT apply hindsight and all the lessons learned from that hindsight to it so that fingers could be pointed and blame spread.

I also think that armed citizens or officers on those flights would probably not have significantly changed the outcomes, because they would have still been going by the old "rules of the game." Unfortunately, with the plan followed by the terrorists on this fateful day, the "rules" were abruplty changed, and all of the expected outcomes--landing the planes, negotiating for something, mistreating but keeping prisoners alive, et cetera--became null and void in one stroke. By doing the unexpected, breaking a well-established pattern, I think the initial success of this dastardly plan was made GREATLY more likely.

Look back in history... Hitler changed the "rules of the game" for tank warfare, and walked through France and Poland with his armed forces as if their armies weren't even on the field. Those tactics worked wonderfully--until the Russians adapted to them and let the German forces hang themselves out to dry. Now, of course, modern armies would EXPECT such tactics, and they wouldn't work nearly as well as when first used. Lessons learned from applied hindsight rebalance "the game" to make once nearly unstoppable strategies into problematic ones at best.

Though I would have serious trouble with describing the terrorists and their actions on 9/11 as anything but evil, I also have to admit that their plans were very well thought out, their evaluation of likely responses from passengers and flight crews was very accurate (except for flight 93), and their actions were coordinated well to play on the expections of everyone involved.

They accomplished a great deal of harm--ONCE. Would a similar plan work today?? Would those same scenarios today play out the way they did with the pre- 9/11 expectations?? I seriously doubt it. Would armed officers (and citizens) on planes TODAY change the outomes? Almost certainly. Would armed pilots, locked cockpit doors, bullet-resistant doors and walls into the cockpit change the "game" for terrorists? Absolutely.

But would any of these changes have been considered necessary or realistic before 9/11 and all the lessons learned since then?? Obviously not, because they weren't in place.

Again, really well-written article, Jack.

 

[nate1865]

It would have made a difference in the situation purely because it would have created a difference in the situation.

It's like saying "If I change something in a situation, do I change the situation?" Of course it does.

Now, with that said, it doesn't matter anyways. What happened happened. It is important to view history as it is, not to twist for an agenda, or a "what if?!?!?1" situation.

At the end of the day, evil men plotted to kill innocent people and succeeded. Turning it around on policies that may or may not have contributed to its success only takes our eyes off of those culpable and starts infighting.

 

[bassplayrguy]

Good analysis Jack. You know, I only found one fault within the whole thing. The fact that the people on the plane that could have taken action wouldn't be able to fly the plane anyways. Even if they did have firearms and stop the attackers, everyone on the plane would have most likely died. Not only this, but if firearms were allowed on planes, the hi-jackers would have had some also. Lets not forget what the first instinct is when shots are fired... drop to cover. Most people would be frozen had the terrorists started shooting innocent people, and with 5 of them, most people who would stand up to fight back would have been killed before any good could have come of it.

Sure, they may have saved lives by just crashing the plane into a field somewhere, but like you said, noone would have known the plane was going into the Twin Towers. These terrorists are not stupid. They know how to fight. Just because they don't speak a lick of English doesn't mean they don't know how to shoot well. They are raised with a gun in their hands, it's their way of life.

9/11 was a tragedy... I don't feel that anything could have stopped the Muslim extremists from doing what they were set on doing.

^^^ This ^^^^ +1
Very well put.

 

[Jack Burton]

It would have made a difference in the situation purely because it would have created a difference in the situation.

It's like saying "If I change something in a situation, do I change the situation?" Of course it does.

Now, with that said, it doesn't matter anyways. What happened happened. It is important to view history as it is, not to twist for an agenda, or a "what if?!?!?1" situation.

At the end of the day, evil men plotted to kill innocent people and succeeded. Turning it around on policies that may or may not have contributed to its success only takes our eyes off of those culpable and starts infighting.

When you figure out a way to stop human curiosity then get back to us.

It is common amoung firearm enthusiasts to blame the passengers aboard the flights on 9/11 for not doing "something." The essay is a counterbalance to show that, even with the best of ability, doing "something" is not always the best way to act. That applies to many more situations we can find ourselves in than just 9/11.

If we cannot learn from history...

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Just because the hijackers go somewhere and land doesn't mean you're out of the woods...doesn't anyone remember that bunch that murdered the Navy man and threw him out on the tarmac?

I knew Jeff Cooper when I served on the NRA Board and I agree with his philosophy, which is that the only proper response to being attacked is instantaneous, furious counter-attack.

One person with a gun, provided he/she could keep his cool and wait for his moment, could have thwarted the outcome on any one of the flights on 911.

 

[jeremy]

It is common amoung firearm enthusiasts to blame the passengers aboard the flights on 9/11 for not doing "something." The essay is a counterbalance to show that, even with the best of ability, doing "something" is not always the best way to act. That applies to many more situations we can find ourselves in than just 9/11.

If we cannot learn from history...

You could also argue that there are just as many instances to prove that doing nothing is just as wrong...

Those who do not consider their future...

 

[lrahm]

Jack points to many unknowns that I am not disputing. The hijackers could have had many different senarios for different events. Hindsight now is that they only had some boxcutters. The standard procedure at the time was to just go along with the hijacking. Let us all remember the brave and innocent people that died that day and the soldiers that followed.

Thanks Jack.

 

[mike4sigs]

I think we have been doing a pretty good job of remembering them. It is remembering who did it to us that we seem to have problems with. Even making this comment will likely tick off a whole bunch of people.

dont want to high jack this thread or get into any kind of disscussion about this subject with you or anybody else it was just MY way of acknowledging those people

Sorry if i offeneded ANYBODY

 

[Jack Burton]

Just because the hijackers go somewhere and land doesn't mean you're out of the woods...doesn't anyone remember that bunch that murdered the Navy man and threw him out on the tarmac?

I knew Jeff Cooper when I served on the NRA Board and I agree with his philosophy, which is that the only proper response to being attacked is instantaneous, furious counter-attack.

One person with a gun, provided he/she could keep his cool and wait for his moment, could have thwarted the outcome on any one of the flights on 911.

!) Do you really contend that Jeff Cooper had no clue as to when to pick the proper timing for that violence... that he went all in with absolutely no consideration for tactical advantage and considerations? No consideration for the safety of the 200 people surrounding him?

2) Yes... one Navy person was murdered by hijackers... and 200 others walked off the plane alive. Which is exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me and reminding others that the plane was on the tarmac... not 35,000 feet in the air where the hijacking started.

3) Okay... knowing that the hijackers credibly claimed that they had a bomb and since you don't know how that bomb is triggered, or which one had the trigger (perhaps all five had one, or even a dead man switch) then explain to us, in detail and with specifics, what could have been done with a gun to "thwart" the hijacking without risking the plane falling out of the sky and killing 200 innocent people.

 

[Jack Burton]

You could also argue that there are just as many instances to prove that doing nothing is just as wrong...

Those who do not consider their future...

This is true... and far better to argue and hash the "might bes" out well in advance before finding yourself in that position where you have to make the proper decision, eh.

But since we are discussion a specific historical situation with specific parameters, changing the parameters to come up with a "better solution" might be gratifying but it doesn't help work through what was best in that situation.

 

[abraham743]

I remember the day all to well.i took the day off work to take my father to doctor.I watched the second plane hit the tower live on tv. That day changed the way I view life forever. at that point it was immediately apparent what was happening. As a combat experienced vet the feeling of helplessness was overwhelming. my countrymen were being attacked but by who and where can i fight back? these were the immediate questions I had with no answers.I cant imagine what it would have been like to be on one of those planes or be a family member of someone who was. Today is still emotional for me as a former soldier and an American. Lets not lose sight of what today means it forever changed us as individuals and as a country........At least it should have.

 

[beararms1776]

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

With a mindset like that, I don't think so.

 

[Jack Burton]

With a mindset like that, I don't think so.

which mindset is that? Please refer back to the OP before you answer.

 

[nate1865]

It's the hijacker's fault, just like Pearl Harbor is the fault of the Japanese. No need to go on internal witch hunts.

 

[Hammerhead]

!) 3) Okay... knowing that the hijackers credibly claimed that they had a bomb and since you don't know how that bomb is triggered, or which one had the trigger (perhaps all five had one, or even a dead man switch) then explain to us, in detail and with specifics, what could have been done with a gun to "thwart" the hijacking without risking the plane falling out of the sky and killing 200 innocent people.

I think Flt 93 gave us the answer, sort of. If people could have been/could be armed in such a situation, would you really want to attempt a hijacking and risk failure?

Sure, Flt 93 crashed and dozens of people died. Now put that into perspective of four planes, not just one. Ok, so now four times as many people died when four planes crashed. World Trade Center stands, Pentagon isn't damaged. 3000 + other souls aren't wiped from the face of the earth. Would you risk your life, like Flt 93 did to save thousands? Would you, knowing that hijackers in that situation, in the air, are probably not going to land the plane safely, stand up and give them the middle finger whilst you attempt, along with every other armed person on that plane willing to do so, to stop them cold in their tracks?

Let us remove having guns for a moment, are you willing now, knowing what happened and how it all played out, to stand up and fight if a scenario unfolded like that ten years ago? Would you fight till the end, yours, or the plane full of people to keep another massive missile from hitting a building?

I hope I would. This is why this style of attack would not have as much of a chance now. Too many people will see a scenario eerily familiar and be willing to say "eff this, you're not doing it again."

We say time and again on this board that criminals are cowards, not willing to attack a person capable of defending themselves. We carry to be able to stop things like this from happening on an individual basis. Now put forty armed citizens on a plane. I want to see the a-hole who wants to stand up and try to shout "I have a bomb, you are all my pris-" BANG BANG BANG!

His buddies are all going to look at each other and go "I'm not with him."

 

[Destro]

absloutely not, and guns aren't needed now. you show me 5 terrorists who get on an airplane and try to hijack it with box cutters, and i show you 5 dead/wounded terrorists from blows to the head with laptops, meal trays, boot prints (and thats just on a regular flight, i can only imagine their fate if they tried to hijack a southwest flight).

 

[Jack Burton]

Would you, knowing that hijackers in that situation, in the air, are probably not going to land the plane safely, stand up and give them the middle finger whilst you attempt, along with every other armed person on that plane willing to do so, to stop them cold in their tracks?

Good question, but it has nothing to do with the OP. On the day of 9/11 everyone knew that the standard operating procedure of hijackers were to land a plane and then begin negotiations. That is what people "knew."

 

[Destro]

Good question, but it has nothing to do with the OP. On the day of 9/11 everyone knew that the standard operating procedure of hijackers were to land a plane and then begin negotiations. That is what people "knew."

+1, and now we have a different "SOP", as seen with the underwear bomber