Gun Control is ridiculous

[CFLarsen]

I said there were 72,000 people (not sky marshals) authorized to carry guns on planes. But anyway, I got that number wrong. It's 73,000.

I didn't say you did. I asked you where you got that number from.

from the WSJ editorial page:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=95001374

Let's take a look at reality, shall we?

You may only transport firearms, ammunition and firearm parts in your checked baggage. Firearms, ammunition and firearm parts are prohibited from carry-on baggage.

There are certain limited exceptions for law enforcement officers who may fly armed by meeting the requirements of Title 49 CFR § 1544.219. Law enforcement officers should read our policies on traveling with guns.
Source: TSA

Do you understand this? They can bring a gun on an airplane, but not in the cabin.

As for law enforcement officers:

Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed

We would like to remind federal officers and agents, whether on official or non-official travel, and state and local officers and agents on official travel not to transport prohibited items, which are not necessary for the performance of their official duties, through security checkpoints or onboard aircraft while traveling armed. Regulations surrounding prohibited carry-on items and associated security checkpoint procedures are covered in the training material. Particular attention should be given to the prohibition against carrying hazardous materials, such as pepper spray or mace, in carry-on bags. For more information read our prohibited items section.
Source: TSA

That's the difference between you and me, Harry. I check.

 

[CFLarsen]

Define "black".

Eddie Murphy. Chris Rock.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I didn't say you did. I asked you where you got that number from.




Let's take a look at reality, shall we?



Do you understand this? They can bring a gun on an airplane, but not in the cabin.

As for law enforcement officers:



That's the difference between you and me, Harry. I check.

The source I quoted said there were 73,000 authorized to carry. To counter this you present the information page from the TSA that's for the average traveler looking to transport firearms on a plane?

Then your second source tells law enforcement what not to carry while traveling armed.

What's the point of your checking if you're not going to make sense of the information?

 

[Thanz]

We don't know how "far more likely" it is. Your numbers are based on speculation. E.g., you have no hard figures on how many air marshals there are.

Apparently, there are 73,000 federal employees allowed to carry firearms on planes. I think that my estimate 5 per day is not out of line. Do you think my estimate is too high?

Further, what in your response to seeing the man with a gun is not based on speculation? The only information that you have about the man is that he has a gun. Now, through the miracle of internet message boards, you also have the following information:

• There are 73,000 federal employees allowed to have a gun on a plane
• there is a procedure in place for allowing guns on a plane, which involves letting the flight crew know who has a gun legitimately on the plane
• Flight crews have more training than you do regarding potential hijacking or other therrorist activities on planes
• there has not been a hijacking of a plane with a gun in at least the past 10 years
• in that 10 years, undoubtedly some of the 73,000 people who are allowed to have guns on planes have flown with guns without incident

Now that you have all of this additional information, which is the more rational response to seeing an individual on a plane with a gun:

1. Attacking immediately with a view to killing the man;

or

2. Letting a member of the flight crew know of your observations in a discrete manner?

After 9-11, we cannot rely on there being enough time to contact the crew.

This is your position. It is what you are arguing for. It is not a premise. The premise of this situation is this: You see a guy with a gun on a plane. The question is then: what should you do? Your answer: attack and kill the guy. Based on? well, hysteria and paranoia, basically. Like this "no time" argument.

It took a few moments for the 9-11 hijackers to gain control of the planes.

And how do you know that?

You are therefore changing the premise of the scenario.

You clearly don't know what a premise is.

You clearly didn't use "Danish" in a positive way. Therefore, it is xenophobic.

No, it wasn't. But if it upsets you so much, I'll try not to refer to you as "Danish", despite the fact that it is descriptively accurate and not in any way offensive. If only to get rid of one other thing for you to focus on instead of the actual issues.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Eddie Murphy. Chris Rock.

Those are two examples of your choosing. Define black.

 

[CFLarsen]

The source I quoted said there were 73,000 authorized to carry. To counter this you present the information page from the TSA that's for the average traveler looking to transport firearms on a plane?

Then your second source tells law enforcement what not to carry while traveling armed.

What's the point of your checking if you're not going to make sense of the information?

I can only show you the evidence. I can't make you accept it.

Apparently, there are 73,000 federal employees allowed to carry firearms on planes. I think that my estimate 5 per day is not out of line. Do you think my estimate is too high?

I have no idea. What do you base your estimate on?

Further, what in your response to seeing the man with a gun is not based on speculation? The only information that you have about the man is that he has a gun. Now, through the miracle of internet message boards, you also have the following information:

You argue your case. I'll argue mine.

This is your position. It is what you are arguing for. It is not a premise. The premise of this situation is this: You see a guy with a gun on a plane. The question is then: what should you do? Your answer: attack and kill the guy. Based on? well, hysteria and paranoia, basically. Like this "no time" argument.

You can call it what you like, Thanz. Risking another 9-11 is simply not viable.

And how do you know that?

From the phone calls onboard and the communication between planes and control.

If you are not aware of this, you have no business participating in this discussion.

You clearly don't know what a premise is.

Fascinating spin. You now dismiss my premise by calling it something else.

Sorry, but that's even more desperate.

No, it wasn't. But if it upsets you so much, I'll try not to refer to you as "Danish", despite the fact that it is descriptively accurate and not in any way offensive. If only to get rid of one other thing for you to focus on instead of the actual issues.

You meant it to be offensive. But I'm pleased to see that you won't use xenophobic terms in the future.

Those are two examples of your choosing. Define black.

Do you deny that these are black, and that they use the n-word in a positive way?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Do you deny that these are black, and that they use the n-word in a positive way?

I'll gladly answer when you answer my question first. Define black.

 

[Ranb]

I'm saying that Kleck & Lott's numbers are more incredulous than Mack's UFO abduction numbers. Mack's respondents imagined what had happened. Kleck & Lott's respondents imagined what would have happened.

I think we agree that anyone who says a UFO abducted them has imagined the whole episode.

However, when a person says they used a firearm to defend themselves, just because there is no corpse for the police to pick up, or a gunshot wound to mend, that does not mean they didn't defend themselves.

While an overactive imagination can be responsible for some firearm uses (deadly or not), I'm sure that many people who claimed to use them for defense in a non-lethal manner did not imagine the whole thing.

To make a long story short, there are more people who have legitimately used firearms for defense than those who have been abducted by aliens. This makes your above claim wrong.

Ranb

 

[shanek]

However, when a person says they used a firearm to defend themselves, just because there is no corpse for the police to pick up, or a gunshot wound to mend, that does not mean they didn't defend themselves.

And therefore, there's no police report to file, as no actual crime has taken place. So the only way to find out the info is to do what Kleck did.

BTW, I notice in your quote that Claus is continuing his "Kleck & Lott's numbers" lie. Lott had nothing to do with Kleck's data, and Kleck has been extremely critical of Lott to say the least. Claus knows this, but instead of saying "Kleck's numbers" like any honest person should, he includes Lott, hoping that the stains on Lott's character will somehow transfer over to Kleck.

Honest question: does anyone wonder why I have him on "ignore"?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll gladly answer when you answer my question first. Define black.

Since you challenge my examples, I can only deduct that you do not think that Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock are black.

Mmmmmmmkay.....

I think we agree that anyone who says a UFO abducted them has imagined the whole episode.

However, when a person says they used a firearm to defend themselves, just because there is no corpse for the police to pick up, or a gunshot wound to mend, that does not mean they didn't defend themselves.

While an overactive imagination can be responsible for some firearm uses (deadly or not), I'm sure that many people who claimed to use them for defense in a non-lethal manner did not imagine the whole thing.

To make a long story short, there are more people who have legitimately used firearms for defense than those who have been abducted by aliens. This makes your above claim wrong.

If we go with Kleck & Lott's numbers, we face a mountain of not only wounded, but also corpses, that never show up in the statistics.

Go check the numbers yourself: Just over 2 million DGUs? Check the percentage of actual bodily harm from DGUs.

Then, check the actual statistics of dead and wounded.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

And therefore, there's no police report to file, as no actual crime has taken place. So the only way to find out the info is to do what Kleck did.

BTW, I notice in your quote that Claus is continuing his "Kleck & Lott's numbers" lie. Lott had nothing to do with Kleck's data,

I didn't claim that it did.

and Kleck has been extremely critical of Lott to say the least. Claus knows this, but instead of saying "Kleck's numbers" like any honest person should, he includes Lott, hoping that the stains on Lott's character will somehow transfer over to Kleck.

Honest question: does anyone wonder why I have him on "ignore"?

If you want to ignore me, ignore me. If you want to address my posts, address my posts. But stop debating by proxy. It is not only dishonest, it is cowardly: You can respond to me, but I can't respond to you.

You want to pontificate. Not debate.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Since you challenge my examples, I can only deduct that you do not think that Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock are black.

I'm just asking for you to define black. You must be able to since you categorize Chris Rock as black. So what criteria are you using to classify him as black?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm just asking for you to define black. You must be able to since you categorize Chris Rock as black. So what criteria are you using to classify him as black?

If you think Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy are not black, then nobody is black.

So, let's go with that.

Are you white?

 

[Thanz]

I have no idea. What do you base your estimate on?

Some extremely conservative assumptions:

• That of the 73,000, federal employees who can carry firearms on a plane at least 25 are actual Sky marshalls whose job it is to fly armed
• That of those 25 whose job it is to fly armed, at least 20% are actually doing that on any given day
• That on days when that is not true, one or more of the 72,975 other federal employees who can carry a gun onto a plane will be doing so

As you can see, 5 per day is an incredibly conservative estimate. It is an estimate that of the 73000 who can do it, on any given day .00684% are doing it.

Do you still maintain that it is not far more likely that the person on a plane with a gun has it there legitimately?

You argue your case. I'll argue mine.

Please answer my questions which you snipped out:

Now that you have all of this additional information, which is the more rational response to seeing an individual on a plane with a gun:

1. Attacking immediately with a view to killing the man;

or

2. Letting a member of the flight crew know of your observations in a discrete manner?

You can call it what you like, Thanz. Risking another 9-11 is simply not viable.

How is telling a crew member risking another 9/11? And how does your proposed action prevent one? That is what you haven't backed up at all.

Fascinating spin. You now dismiss my premise by calling it something else.

Sorry, but that's even more desperate.

I see your premise as this (and it has always been this): You see a man on a plane with a gun. That is it. That is the premise, the situation, the set up. What am I missing here?

Following from that premise, we ask: what do you do about it?

Your answer: quick murder by whatever means necessary.

My answer: tell a crew member.

I think my answer is more supported by evidence and rational thinking.

You meant it to be offensive.

I meant it to be funny.

But I'm pleased to see that you won't use xenophobic terms in the future.

I haven't used any yet, so I don't know why I'd start now.

 

[HarryKeogh]

If you think Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy are not black, then nobody is black.

So, let's go with that.

Are you white?

So are you basing it on skin-color? What's the cut-off shade for being black or not? Or are all stand-up comedians black? Is Sinbad, a stand-up comic, black?Please, what criteria are you using?

 

[CFLarsen]

Some extremely conservative assumptions:

Assumptions.

Thank you for calling.

How is telling a crew member risking another 9/11? And how does your proposed action prevent one? That is what you haven't backed up at all.

There is no time. You would know that, had you any knowledge of 9-11 at all.

I meant it to be funny.

You're not. Xenophobes are never funny.

I haven't used any yet, so I don't know why I'd start now.

That's a lie. You used a xenophobic slur.

So are you basing it on skin-color? What's the cut-off shade for being black or not? Or are all stand-up comedians black? Is Sinbad, a stand-up comic, black?Please, what criteria are you using?

Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy use the n-word in a positive way. Whatever color they are.

Do you acknowledge that they do?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy use the n-word in a positive way. Whatever color they are.

Whatever color they are? You said they were black. I'm just asking what criteria are you using when you classify them as black.

You called them black so I'm just asking you something that's been posed by more than a few people here...

Define "black".

What makes Chris Rock black? If you don't know why use the term?

 

[CFLarsen]

Whatever color they are? You said they were black. I'm just asking what criteria are you using when you classify them as black.

You called them black so I'm just asking you something that's been posed by more than a few people here...

What makes Chris Rock black? If you don't know why use the term?

Try to read what I say. I am questioning the boundaries of race definitions.

Is Tiger Woods black? Hard to say. Is Chris Rock? If he isn't, then nobody is. Fine with me.

Do you acknowledge that Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy use the n-word in a positive way? Regardless of what they are?

 

[Thanz]

Assumptions.

Yes, assumptions. Based on facts. Do you find any of them unreasonable?

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the person on the plane with the gun is some sort of 9/11 style hijacker. I have given lots of reasons why that assumption is not reasonable. Why won't you even address the substance of mine?

Now, answer the questions you keep avoiding:

Do you still maintain that it is not far more likely that the person on a plane with a gun has it there legitimately?

Which is the more rational response to seeing an individual on a plane with a gun:

1. Attacking immediately with a view to killing the man;

or

2. Letting a member of the flight crew know of your observations in a discrete manner?

There is no time. You would know that, had you any knowledge of 9-11 at all.

You are assuming that an attack is imminent once you see the gun. On what do you base this assumption?

That's a lie. You used a xenophobic slur.

You heard it here first folks. From a native of Denmark: Danish is a xenophobic slur. Watch what you say.

You also missed this bit from my previous post. You have claimed that I have changed your premise. Please explain where this is wrong:

I see your premise as this (and it has always been this): You see a man on a plane with a gun. That is it. That is the premise, the situation, the set up. What am I missing here?

Following from that premise, we ask: what do you do about it?

Your answer: quick murder by whatever means necessary.

My answer: tell a crew member.

I think my answer is more supported by evidence and rational thinking.

 

[CFLarsen]

You heard it here first folks. From a native of Denmark: Danish is a xenophobic slur. Watch what you say.

Wow. You are really desperate to distance yourself from that one, aren't you?

You used it as a xenophobic slur. Don't blame me for that.

 

[Brickroad]

Something I've been wondering for a very long time, Claus.

Say you did see a man with a gun on a flight, and you killed him. It was then revealed the man was an air marshal who was carrying the gun legally.

What does that make you?