Gun Control is ridiculous

[Brickroad]

How do you know he is innocent?

I don't. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. You're sitting on a plane watching me. The only information you get is that I leave my seat, walk over, and kill the man.

From this point there are two scenarios:

1) After the fact, it is revealed that he was a terrorist (guilty). What does that make me, in this case?

2) After the fact, it is revealed that he was an air marshal (innocent). What does that make me?

Step outside yourself and look at the situation as a third party. How do you feel about the killer (me) in each of the above situations?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else.

And that's precisely the point.

After 9-11, it is clear that any weapon onboard a plane is a very, very, very bad idea.

You want to take the risk of anything even remotely like that happening again? Go ahead.

I lived with the stench of burning corpses and a huge pile of rubble in New York for months after. I won't.

 

[Joe Random]

"drumsticks"

These threads are fun ...

 

[Ranb]

Nonsense. There are official stats which are much more reliable than Kleck & Lott.

So tell me then, do you think any claims of UFO abduction are real? Are any of those abduction claims less incredulous than a person claiming he/she uses a firearm for defense?

Remember, you compared firearms defense claims with UFO abduction before ever moving the goal posts by bringing in your Kleck/Lott argument.

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

I see a lot of emotion, but not a lot of evidence nor rationality here.

So, when will guns be compared to nuclear weapons again?

 

[Thanz]

How fast did the hijackers take over the planes?

Would they have been able to do it all if the crew knew they had teh weapons and were prepared?

You missed all of these questions, again:

Do you find any of my assumptions on the number of legitimate guns on planes unreasonable?

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

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?

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. What is supporting your answer?