Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[Mr Manifesto]

While you're on, I'll let you have the 'guns won't solve everything' argument. So we'll just let those passengers on planes with bombs- or passengers who think they're on a plane with a bomb- crash and burn. The right to carry guns on planes is more important than their lives. We must sacrifice some fingers to save the hand, after all.

Now, what happens if a team of hijackers -fully armed- are aboard a plane? What then? Do the armed passengers just take them all out?

This will mark -at least- the third time you've dodged this question. Are you going for a record? Or is this your little way of admitting that carrying guns on a plane is a stupid idea?

 

[The Fool]

Screw you all.

thank you.....

Personally shane I think its time you left. I'm sure it is possible that every other poster on this forum besides you is stupid, a bigot and a liar....just not very likely eh?

You are pathalogically incapable of varyng your position based on fresh evidence. Once your holy tenets of libertarianism are layed down there is no varying from this position, they must be right, screw the evidence. This is a symptom of cult members, are you sure this Libertarianism stuff is not starting to get to you?

You behave like true believer and a dogmatic fanatic. ...Why whine when you get treated as such?

 

[Tesserat]

Finally found a little time.

This thread has been great. I hope someone (Claus?) saves it for future reference.

BTW, I found an interesting link:

Preventing Crime on Transport

A brilliant post. Shanek had so many questions, and you answered them all.
I think we can interpret his "screw you all" as "I guess it's not enough to just shout the same things ower and over"

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It does warm the cockles of the heart to watch a blow-hard like shanek crash and burn. It should happen more often.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It does warm the cockles of the heart to watch a blow-hard like shanek crash and burn. It should happen more often.

True, but I think that all that has been shown (to everyone but Shanek) is that a large decrease in the number of hijackings coincided with the introduction of compulsory screening. It does not mean that one caused the other as other factors, such as the agreement on the treatment of hijackers, may have been responsible.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Just a quick post (its lunchhour).

shanek:

You ARE a blatant liar! Check the corrected graph. The last year with zero hijackings was 1967, and the only year since then with one hijacking was 1976 (of the years covered in the graph, before any of you gun control nuts try and slough in with your irrelevant attacks). NOTHING has been falsified.

I WAS referring to your corrected graph, bonehead. Its on page 6. It shows 3 hijackings for 1973. According to your own source, there was only 1. You are a liar, plain and simple.

[Irrelevant blathering deleted]

Screw you all.

Screw you too.

You're just going to see what you want to see and no amount of skeptical examination and logic will sway you even a notch.

 

[shanek]

A brilliant post. Shanek had so many questions, and you answered them all.
I think we can interpret his "screw you all" as "I guess it's not enough to just shout the same things ower and over"

No, you can interpret it as me being justifiably fed up with you gun control woo-woos!

I posted a graph that had some bad data (which I think anyone who isn't a complete bigot would admit was an honest mistake). When it was pointed out to me by someone doing a PROPER skeptical examination, I acknowledged it...and still the gun control woo-woos jumped all over me, calling me a liar and everything else. I then spent FOUR HOURS going through the database to compile a graph with the correct figures...and the gun control woo-woos are STILL calling me a liar! DD said, "In this graph, there are 3 hijacks for 1973. According to shanek's own source, there was only one hijack (unsuccesful, BTW) of a plane in the States that year. It appears that shanek is not only cherry-picking data but falsifying as well"—LONG AFTER I had posted a graph with the correct figures!!!

Now, tell me, how am I SUPPOSED to react to crap like that?

 

[shanek]

True, but I think that all that has been shown (to everyone but Shanek) is that a large decrease in the number of hijackings coincided with the introduction of compulsory screening.

I never denied that it coincided with such.

It does not mean that one caused the other as other factors, such as the agreement on the treatment of hijackers, may have been responsible.

Which is the very point I've been trying to make!

Do you people even READ my posts? Or do you just make assumptions about what you THINK I would say and react on that?

 

[shanek]

I WAS referring to your corrected graph, bonehead. Its on page 6. It shows 3 hijackings for 1973. According to your own source, there was only 1. You are a liar, plain and simple.

You have to go through each and every one individually, as I did, because of the problem Leif pointed out. When you do that, you find that there were three, not one. If you'll notice, my original (bad) graph only had one.

 

[Luke T.]

Again, it's this concept that you keep avoiding that I keep trying to drill into your head: FREEDOM. The airlines have the right to restrict guns or smoking or whatever on their flights because it's THEIR PLANE. Why don't you get that?

I was down hard with some kind of bug yesterday, so I'm sorry I missed out on all this.

I guess I'll just wrap up and say that I would happily sacrifice my "freedom" to carry a gun on an airplane for the freedom of being able to travel anywhere I want in the U.S. unharmed, excepting that I am 6 feet tall and airline seats are made for midgets, if you will pardon the non-PC term....

 

[shanek]

I guess I'll just wrap up and say that I would happily sacrifice my "freedom" to carry a gun on an airplane for the freedom of being able to travel anywhere I want in the U.S. unharmed,

Do I really need to quote Ben Franklin at this point?

 

[Luke T.]

Now, you didn't accept that reason when I explained to you about the database lookups from the airline safety site; why should we accept it from you?

Fortunately, Earthborn is smarter than me and reminded me that my mouse has a right button that will tell me the address of individual photos.

Doh!

Guess the flu bug was making me stupid.

Anway, I have fixed the posts that had the photos of lynchingsto just have a link to the photos and a warning of their nature.

 

[shanek]

I guess I'll just wrap up and say that I would happily sacrifice my "freedom" to carry a gun on an airplane for the freedom of being able to travel anywhere I want in the U.S. unharmed,

Oh, one more thing: you aren't sacrificing YOUR freedom; you're sacrificing THE AIRLINES' freedom.

 

[shanek]

Doh!

Guess the flu bug was making me stupid.

That happens. Don't worry about it; I was just ribbing you.

Anway, I have fixed the posts that had the photos of lynchingsto just have a link to the photos and a warning of their nature.

I don't know about the others, but that really wasn't what I was complaining about; I was complaining about your assertion that these actions made the perpetrators widely popular among the people. As I showed by providing more of the historical background behind them, that just wasn't the case.

 

[Luke T.]

Do I really need to quote Ben Franklin at this point?

"People willing to give up freedom for a little safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety."

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I never denied that it coincided with such.

Really? So you agree that "a large decrease in the number of hijackings coincided with the introduction of compulsory screening" and claim you have never denied this? How do you explain this quote then?

"..we see an obvious and fairly steady growth in the number of hijackings after the gun ban."

Do you people even READ my posts? Or do you just make assumptions about what you THINK I would say and react on that?

I read them. Perhaps you should try reading some of your own posts before coming out with nonsensical claims like the one above.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do I really need to quote Ben Franklin at this point?

People, who blindly follow the words of another man, are not free.

 

[Lurker]

Nes to the thread and just read some of the most recent posts. One thing that jumped out at me is people seem to be discussing numbers of skyjackings from year to year. Don't you think we might need to adjust those numbers to account for population and/or number of flights. After all, there are a lot mroe flights now than there were back in the 60's.

Just a statistical thought.

Lurker

 

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:

You have to go through each and every one individually, as I did, because of the problem Leif pointed out. When you do that, you find that there were three, not one. If you'll notice, my original (bad) graph only had one.

Don't you think I checked, liar?



(It's fun posting in shanek-mode. Just use lots of rolleyes and call people liars.)

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

People, who blindly follow the words of another man, are not free.

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." Gandhi May 1940

But he's famous CF, it MUST be true......