CFLarsen said:
Yes, but even if it can't, what's your point? All it would show is that customers prefer gun-free flight and the federal government wouldn't have to do a thing. If customers don't mind flying on airlines that allow guns, then that's their perogative as well.
But of course High King Claus Larsen of Denmark, of the Left Socialist Party of Denmark, has declared that that should be so of the USA, and so it shall be!
But... but... Shane, that was before TERRORISM existed. You're not a terrorist yourself, are you? Why do you hate our freedoms?!
Sushi said:
Yes? Who would want to fly on a plane filled with people who had guns? In this day and age?
Don't you realize just how unrealistic that is??
Sushi said:
??? I don't understand this juvenile outburst, but I suppose there is a reason for it. Not that I am terribly interested in learning why you made it...
Sushi said:
That is a very good question, actually. I have always wondered why those who claim to defend freedoms seem to be the most willing to surrender them. And are extremely eager to see to it that the freedoms of those who they disagree with disappear...
From a practicalities/safety perspective, the devil is in the details.shanek said:
Pre-911, the degree to which there was concern about terrorists/hijackers on an airplane was miniscule compared to today. Today, if it were permissible, it's entirely possible there really would be numerous armed passengers on a given flight. (I realize you don't see this as a problem, but others of us do.)
Even today, the odds of being killed by a terrorist on an airplane is miniscule. The armed passengers would be a far greater safety risk, imo. Raising these rhetorical(?) questions:
Are the gun-toting passengers required to pass a test or otherwise prove they are able to handle a gun?
Is there a restriction on the types of guns/weapons allowed on-board?
Can the guns be loaded?
Must a safety be set?
Will felons be allowed guns? Mentally ill people?
I don't suppose there is an FAA or other governing agency in this utopia. Everything is private, and it's up to the airlines. Right?
varwoche said:
On what are you basing this?
These questions would be determined by the airline companies. The airplane is, of course, their property, so just as you can make whatever limitations on this for people coming into your home or place of business the airlines could do likewise.
The number of people killed relative to the number of people who have flown over the past N years, where N is any number you care to name.shanek said:
CFLarsen said:
Blind me with your "intellect"? If anything the only blinding you'll do is causing me to rip my eyes out at the sheer stupidity of your posts.
Yes, I know that insulting you makes me sink to your level, but let the record stand that you started it with your hate, lies, and blatant insults.
Why did you challenge my obvious point, and then blatantly side-step when I responded?shanek said:
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
shanek said:
It's like watching a pigeon fly into a window, get up, shake it's head a little, then fly into the damn thing over and over again.
Mr Manifesto said:It's like watching a pigeon fly into a window, get up, shake it's head a little, then fly into the damn thing over and over again.
Amazing the things people will come up with in order to cover the fact that they've just lost an argument.
Before the part you quoted, I said this:shanek said:
Based on common sense, which I realize is weak from a debate standpoint, it is fairly obvious to me that:
1) The odds of my being killed on an airplane are 1 in N where N is a very, very large number
2) If that plane had 50 armed passengers, some of whom could be bad guys, some of whom could be untrained in the use of a firearm, my odds are something worse than 1 in N.
I accept defeat in advance if this is dismissed for lack of evidence.
shanek said:
Nobody, in fact if the pilots were the only ones armed we wouldn't have the problem. On a plane were passengers are allowed guns however, you can't keep guns from terrorists either, and the terrorists would have the huge advantages of being prepared for a gunfight and operating as a team. Unless the terrorist have the spectacularly bad luck of attempting to hijack a plane full of special forces, the passengers would be disorganised, unprepared and most likely panic.
Again nobody, if they could just waltz into the cockpit they wouldn't need more than one terroristshanek said: