Guns.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Have the plane's sky marshals shoot him with guns.

But hasn't Claus already killed the sky marshall?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In order to keep you from looking like a silly biggot I will add to your post:

Also there is an even MORE significant, media led, anti gun religion.

Oh brother.

You'd be amazed how many idiots actually believe that.

 

[Crossbow]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16055&highlight=Plane

Think "Sky Marshalls"? Think that guns on a plane is a good idea?

Sorry, I don't have time for that. I don't have time to even contemplate the possibility of him being a "good guy". It takes less than 5 minutes to fly from any NY airport to WTC, and I do not have time to check with authorities to see if the guy with the gun is a "good guy" or not.

I'll kill the f*cker. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

What will you do?

Sorry to be a bore, but "CFLarsen" has made some his gun intentions very clear.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Believe?

please

 

[CFLarsen]

FWIW, this thread has already gotten derailed. The issue was, should guns be outlawed, not should gun-waving, grenade-toting, neurotoxin-vial gumming, terrorists dressed as old ladies wearing lead-lined shawls on airplanes be shot with guns.

That should be a different thread.

And yet, four minutes after, you post this:

Well, wasn't it you who said some time ago that if you saw a guy on a plane with a gun, you'd kill him?

 

[Mephisto]

ok...

Here it appears as if you were sort or sarcastic in this post.

Soooooo were you just taking a dig at someone's post?

No, I wasn't being sarcastic - guns are like any other tool, you don't leave them around for children or idiots to use. You wouldn't leave a reciprocating saw laying around plugged in if you have a child in the house, would you? Same thing with a loaded gun.

My guns are locked up in a gun-safe, I have burglar alarms and triggar locks on all my guns. I've never hurt anyone, I don't have a police record, I'm a disabled veteran and an ex-sharpshooter, I'm a law-abiding citizen and unlike Cheney, I've never shot anyone in the face. Is there any reason why I shouldn't own a gun/s?

 

[BPSCG]

You wouldn't leave a reciprocating saw laying around plugged in if you have a child in the house, would you?

Oh, ****...

Gotta run home real quick. Talk with you guys later.

 

[joe1347]

If you're a Democrat (in America) and have even the slightest interest is recapturing the White House, Senate, and/or Congress - or are a Foreign National sick (or scared) of the Republicans being in charge. Then should forget about even mentioning Gun control in America - let alone debating it. Otherwise, you must be prepared to accept minority party status for Democrats.

Whether guns prevent crime, cause accidents, cause more crime, etc. is completely irrelevant - because as soon as you start a debate on any form of gun control (a.k.a., gun grabbing in the USA) - the Republicans will stomp all over you. Just ask Al Gore about gun control and the 2000 elections. Bill Clinton likely did more harm to the Democratic Party with the 10 round capacity limit (for semi-auto magazines) than any of his "moral transgressions". Sorry, but that's just the way it is in America. I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't tried to be more pro-gun in America - or at least pro-hunting.

 

[BPSCG]

And yet, four minutes after, you post this:

So shoot me.

Hmmm, bad choice of words...

 

[Lothian]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic - guns are like any other tool, you don't leave them around for children or idiots to use. You wouldn't leave a reciprocating saw laying around plugged in if you have a child in the house, would you? Same thing with a loaded gun.

My guns are locked up in a gun-safe, I have burglar alarms and triggar locks on all my guns. I've never hurt anyone, I don't have a police record, I'm a disabled veteran and an ex-sharpshooter, I'm a law-abiding citizen and unlike Cheney, I've never shot anyone in the face. Is there any reason why I shouldn't own a gun/s?

Hell no, With a record like that I would trust you with 50 kilos of semtex. Is there any reason I shouldn’t trust you with 50 kilos of semtex ?

 

[BPSCG]

Otherwise, you must be prepared to accept minority party status for Democrats.

Interesting. The gun nuts are the majority in the US? You should take that up with Cain, who wrote:

... there is a significant, intensely vocal minority who will have a conniption fit...

You guys need to get on the same page.

 

[Mephisto]

Oh, ****...

Gotta run home real quick. Talk with you guys later.

*LOL*

 

[Manny]

If you're a Democrat (in America) and have even the slightest interest is recapturing the White House, Senate, and/or Congress - or are a Foreign National sick (or scared) of the Republicans being in charge. Then should forget about even mentioning Gun control in America - let alone debating it. Otherwise, you must be prepared to accept minority party status for Democrats.

Actually, I think the Democrats could do better than that if they had the mind to -- they could seize the initiative from Republicans who are currently boxed into a pro-gun position no matter what. All they have to do is concede that it is an issue for the states and localities to decide. The could stand up in a place like Wyoming and say something like, "Look, those New Yorkers don't understand you like I do. But let's show some sympathy for those folks. I tell you what, if I lived in New York I'd want gun control too! (laughter) So let New York control guns in New York and let Wyoming allow guns in Wyoming (applause)." That would even free them to take federal action against "dirty gun runners who make us all look bad" and the like.

But they won't. Howard Dean tried, and no one bit. They're too intent on preventing the zero or so deaths caused each year by .50 cals.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hell no, With a record like that I would trust you with 50 kilos of semtex. Is there any reason I shouldn’t trust you with 50 kilos of semtex ?

Because those who commit crimes start out as law abiding citizens?

 

[Mephisto]

Hell no, With a record like that I would trust you with 50 kilos of semtex. Is there any reason I shouldn’t trust you with 50 kilos of semtex ?

Why would I need explosives to target shoot? I'm such a pacifist I don't even hunt. You're also assuming that because I favor private ownership of firearms that I don't believe there should be gun control laws. I certainly don't side with anyone who complains that they can't buy over two guns a month - they're either criminals, gangmembers or kooky survivalists guarding their stack of Ramen noodles.

I equally don't side with anyone who wishes to curtail a sport I enjoy. I'll wager there are more serious bicycle accidents in the U.S. than there are hunting accidents (Cheney not included), yet no one is trying to outlaw bikes.

 

[Mephisto]

If you're a Democrat (in America) and have even the slightest interest is recapturing the White House, Senate, and/or Congress - or are a Foreign National sick (or scared) of the Republicans being in charge. Then should forget about even mentioning Gun control in America - let alone debating it. Otherwise, you must be prepared to accept minority party status for Democrats.

It's a real shame that Democrats have painted themselves into this corner, as I know a good many liberal gun owners. You're right that many Conservatives would jump on you for suggesting gun control laws, but I just remind them that "Read My Lips" Daddy Bush raised taxes AND drew limits on magazine capacity and manufacturer's country of origin.

 

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

Don’t worry, if you watch the shootouts in movies, you’ll know that it’s only the baddies that get killed, instantly, and from great distances, whereas the goodies, although they get shot multiple times nearly always just get wounded and live to fight another day, or else they at least survive long enough to say goodbye and spurt out a couple of lines central to the plot.

As good, wholesome law abiding sceptics this is the proof we need to show that Guns are OK, unless of course, you’re a bad, bad man then guns are definitely not too healthy for you.

Sources : J. Wayne, J.Rambo, T.J Hooker, C Eastwood.

it's true

 

[Curnir]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic - guns are like any other tool, you don't leave them around for children or idiots to use. You wouldn't leave a reciprocating saw laying around plugged in if you have a child in the house, would you? Same thing with a loaded gun.

My guns are locked up in a gun-safe, I have burglar alarms and triggar locks on all my guns. I've never hurt anyone, I don't have a police record, I'm a disabled veteran and an ex-sharpshooter, I'm a law-abiding citizen and unlike Cheney, I've never shot anyone in the face. Is there any reason why I shouldn't own a gun/s?

You know how to use a gun, you can store your guns safely, and unless the military has been very lax you are quite skilled in weapon maintenance. And you are a law-abiding citizen.

I see no reason what-so-ever why you should not be allowed to own a/many gun/guns.

 

[Lothian]

Why would I need explosives to target shoot? I'm such a pacifist I don't even hunt.

Why do you need your own gun at home ?

You're also assuming that because I favor private ownership of firearms that I don't believe there should be gun control laws. I certainly don't side with anyone who complains that they can't buy over two guns a month - they're either criminals, gangmembers or kooky survivalists guarding their stack of Ramen noodles.

I think everyone favours some sort of gun control.

I equally don't side with anyone who wishes to curtail a sport I enjoy. I'll wager there are more serious bicycle accidents in the U.S. than there are hunting accidents (Cheney not included), yet no one is trying to outlaw bikes.

I could be wrong here but I suspect that most people in favour of tighter gun controls do so for reasons other than hunting accidents.

 

[Bikewer]

I've been in law enforcement for 30+ years, and also an active shooter, reloader, etc.
I have rather ambivalent feelings on the issue, and have listened to the arguments on both sides at some length.

I believe that a right to self-defense is intrinsic, and people should be able to protect themselves or their property from criminals. Like it or not, in the US we have a society with a crime level sufficiently high that anyone might concievably become a "victim" at any time.
That being said, the actual chance that one will be attacked or assaulted to the extent that you would need a firearm to defend yourself is extremely low in most areas. Way back in the 60s, when I subscribed to the NRA's organ, the American Rifleman, they would publish each month a list of incidents (with newspaper references) wherin "armed citizens" defended themselves from criminal attacks. Maybe 20 or so a month.
Read without other reference, perhaps inflammatory. But 20-30 incidents a month, in the entire country? More danger from tripping in your bathtub.

Of course, the extreme view of the pro-gun side is that weapons in the hands of citizens are necessary as a bulwark against "tyranny". They point to our Minuteman forefathers and "citizen soldiers" who would keep any potential tyrant at bay. These folks think that everyday citizens should be able to obtain any weapon available to the police and military, "just in case".

Not a view I, or most folks, would agree with, but no government is completely stable in the long run. Even if it is, local conflagrations in the form of riots and disasters can cause a breakdown of civil authority, and those caught in the middle might well need protection.

America definitely has a "gun culture", and even the suggestion of an outright ban on private firearm ownership provokes deep outrage and cries of facist takeover. "The first thing Hitler did was take all the guns". (Even though Hitler issued military weapons to citizens as the Allies closed in.)

The recent spate of widely-discussed "concealed carry" laws in various states (including my own) has raised a lot of discussion as well. In general, states that have these laws have found that there is very little impact either way. The citizenry does not devolve into a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth cowboys eager to shoot anyone in sight, and crime rates are apparently unaffected.
Most folks with a new CCW permit carry the thing religiously for a couple of months, then discover that toting a gun is a pain in the ass, and increasingly leave it at home or in the glove box.

One thing I would like to see is a mandatory safety/gunhandling course as a prerequisite for purchase. Back when I was with the local county PD, I sold permits-to-purchase (no CCW back then) handguns. More than a few folks came in to buy permits for guns that were obviously a poor choice for what they wanted, and who were devoid of any knowledge of the weapon they wanted. One elderly couple wanted a .25 automatic, because "it was little".
I tried to steer them away from this choice, but that's what they wanted.
The dealer told me later that the couple had him load the weapon, rack a round into the chamber, apply the safety, and put it back in the box. Neither of the new owners touched it. The guy carried the weapon to the car in the box as if it might explode at any minute. An accident waiting to happen.

So, after rambling, I support certain "abridgments" on the right to own firearms. Criminals and mentally ill folks-no guns. Citizens-make 'em take a safety and legal responsibility course. Concealed carry-most of the state laws spell out training requirements and legal qualifications pretty well.
We need to have some sort of state-to-state uniformity of law, so that we don't get the situation where people can buy dozens of handguns in an "easy" state, and sell them at inflated prices in a "hard" state.

Finally, many states have passed laws requiring additional, mandatory sentences for crimes involving a weapon. The problem is with "armed criminal action" statutes is that they become a bargaining chip. "Plead guilty to the robbery and we'll drop the ACA charge."
The NRA does reccomend enforcement of existing laws....