Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Sundog said:
As stated before by shanek, guns are a last resort. As of this moment, I don't see myself using weapons to fight the government at all. However, that does not mean this type scenario will never come up and if it does, I'd like to have a choice with how to deal with the problem.
Chanileslie
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,347
Peach Jr. said:
I was once married to a man who wanted me to learn to shoot and to get a concealed weapons permit, and I had to put my foot down, not because I am against gun ownership, but because I know me - I am not likely to shoot anything, and if I did it probably would miss (no matter how much practice I got in). I got a cell phone instead. Now a cell phone I know how to use, and use well!!
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
For roughly the same reason no one had used a plane as a missle to knock down a skyscraper before 2001. That didn't mean it wasn't plausible, did it? There just wasn't anyone who thought of it or had a reason to take such action.shanek said:
From the site you cite:
There isn't much of a problem assuming that a person isn't trying to bring the plane down. Yes, a spare bullet or three will have no effect. However, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about someone who wants to kill as many people as possible. Not many better places than an enclosed airliner.
So, if he shoots more than three or four windows, start shooting panels, maybe out the wing at the engine.... I'm talking about a person with a specialized weapon, with the advantage of total suprise. I know that one little hole isn't a big deal. I never said people would be sucked out the hole. A person with an specialized weapon is going to have a minimum of three seconds before any one reacts, and likely much more given the panic. Then all these armed passangers shoot back in an enclosed area...
The point is, that if passengers have guns, so do those who which to cause trouble. Firepower is relative, and the person seeking to disrupt will have the advantage of suprise. How is raising the level a destructive force available to the individual going to help anything?
Cleopatra said:
They're trying. Ballot access restrictions and restrictions on challengers running campaigns are stifling the ballot box option, and the loss of jury nullification plus the ability of the government to take people like José Padilla and hold them without charging them with a crime are stifling the second.
Suddenly said:
...Then there still isn't any reason to believe the plane would fare any worse than the one with the bomb or with the roof that flew off.
Like a bomb? That plane landed safely with only three deaths.
Then why did you bring up the whole decompression thing to begin with?
The ironic thing about all this is, I was the one who posted last night (on another, unrelated thread)of almost leaving my then-fiance over his wanting to pursue intensive probation. That job would have required him to carry a gun and be available to pop in on his clients 24/7. I can't believe I've gone from that to even considering using a handgun in such a short time.MoeFaux said:
And I have used a gun before...when I was 12, my grandfather showed me how to use a 12-gauge. One dislocated shoulder later, I haven't touched one since.
I would like to thank all of you who appear to sincerely believe that unrestricted access to guns on planes will mean safer flying. I am currently working on plans for a "free energy" machine and it's a great comfort to know that "there's one born every minute".
How many times must we rehash this topic? When will people go outside their doors and have a long hard look at the reality out there?
Many American citizens do NOT own guns, or maybe a handgun or two. The US military, with the President as command-in-chief, owns lots of guns. Big guns that shoot lots of bullets fast and far. And tanks and howitzers and combat aircraft and naval vessels...
So you can bleat all you like about protecting yourself from "the government" but let's face it, in a fire-fight, YOU WILL LOSE! Big time.
Sundog is right - want to protect your rights? Then VOTE. Funny - it has always seemed to work for the last 200+ years...
Many American citizens do NOT own guns, or maybe a handgun or two. The US military, with the President as command-in-chief, owns lots of guns. Big guns that shoot lots of bullets fast and far. And tanks and howitzers and combat aircraft and naval vessels...
So you can bleat all you like about protecting yourself from "the government" but let's face it, in a fire-fight, YOU WILL LOSE! Big time.
Sundog is right - want to protect your rights? Then VOTE. Funny - it has always seemed to work for the last 200+ years...
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,865
shanek said:
I don't believe it had anything to do with the authorities. Based on previous experience with hijackings, the idea that the hostages' best chance of survival was cooperation was quite natural. Nobody had to be "told" by the government.
Of course, it's a whole new world now. Even with nobody having any guns on the plane, I would like to see somoene try to take the plane without concealing it from the passengers.
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
I wouldn't be too surprised to see this headline:
"Terrorist tries to take over airplane with box cutter.
Passengers give him Sicilian necktie."
OK, I only wish that it was worded that way. But you get the idea.
Taking over an airplane with crude weapons, in order to turn it into a missile is a SPENT nickel since 9/01. From this point on, anytime a hijacker tries to take a plane, the passengers, if American, will instantly go '9/11! 9/11'. If the hijackers aren't packing, they can probably expect to be de-limbed.
"Terrorist tries to take over airplane with box cutter.
Passengers give him Sicilian necktie."
OK, I only wish that it was worded that way. But you get the idea.
Taking over an airplane with crude weapons, in order to turn it into a missile is a SPENT nickel since 9/01. From this point on, anytime a hijacker tries to take a plane, the passengers, if American, will instantly go '9/11! 9/11'. If the hijackers aren't packing, they can probably expect to be de-limbed.
MoeFaux said:
And if guns were allowed on airplanes, it would be ten times as easy to hijack one. All you would have to is get a couple of people with guns on, shoot whoever else can defend themselves, and murder has never been so easy.
That's what I'm afraid of.
Sundog said:
There generally wasn't the need. There were comparitively few hijackings or even attempted hijackings until after the gun ban. But I do have one example of an armed pilot taking out a hijacker. It was on July 6, 1954 when a teenager attempted to comandeer a plane and was shot dead by its pilot, Bill Bonnell:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1087467
See, here's the thing: guns protect invisibly. If pilots or anyone else had had guns on 9/11, a similar situation might have transpired, and it would be seen as a thwarted series of hijackings. Even if their plans had come to light, it's still the case that we wouldn't have had any idea that they would have completely taken out two of the world's tallest buildings and the lives of over 3,000 people. And people would still be calling for gun control to prevent those hijackers from trying to take the plane in the first place.
shanek said:
The increasing security restrictions of the 70's came after a spate of hijackings by armed individuals and groups. I dimly remember there was a fad for hijacking airliners and taking them to Cuba. In other words the aircraft were hijacked even though there was nothing to stop other passengers going on board armed.
Given that there is a very real risk of suicidal terrorists attacking planes with no other intention other than to down the plane, current security precautions such as x-ray screening would continue to be needed in order to ensure that only lethal handguns could be taken on the plane but not bombs/grenades etc.
Ever stop to think that the magazine of a handgun could contain cartidges filled with semtex or similar? Two or three guys with such "guns" and a few minutes work in the toilet and you have a potent little bomb which could blow a hole in the hull. You do know what even a crudely shaped charge can do to thin metal don't you? Care to envisage the consequences? Care to bet 300 or so lives on the hull holding?