Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

[crackmonkey]

Well, if law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons on board, I, as a law-abiding citizen should be able to carry explosives on board as well (assuming that I have the proper permits to carry dynamite and such. Assume I do demolition work). Don't you dare oppress me by interfering with my God-given right to ferry a fuselage-full of explosives wherever the hell I feel like it. Commie.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Re: Re: Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

On another thread, I asked you to provide examples of passenger (NOT hijacker) misuse of guns from before the gun ban. You ignored me. Are you going to do so here?

On another thread I pointed out that you were the one who initiated the argument that passenger misuse of guns were very low when they were allowed on planes; you are the one who has to provide evidence. You ignored me. Are you going to do so here?

Oh- you are. You're the gun creduloid.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

And here's a question. The cartoon that RichardG posted shows vigilant citizens pointing guns at terrorists trying to take over a plane. I notice the terrorists in that cartoon aren't holding guns. But, what would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from having guns as well? Was there anything about them that would have prohibited them from owning guns and taking aboard their flights?

If the good guys can have guns on a flight, then can't the bad guys as well? Or are we naive enough to believe the bad guys can always be weeded out?

Here's the cartoon, for those who are wondering:

 

[Yahweh]

Guns on planes?

No.


In all reality, if your intent is to kill as many people as you can, what faster way can it be done than with a gun? Unwarranted vigilantism? Or freak accidents as they happen at times? The realistic pragmatic application of this "guns on planes", I think the risks of allowing guns freely on planes outweigh the benefits.

If guns are to be used, I recommend a system where a few security officials distributed throughout the plane. At least using that method, all guns that belong on the plane are in the right hands.

 

[shanek]

Airplanes fly over property that isn't owned by the airline company, peopled by citizens that might not be customers of that company.

Now, that's just bogus. You don't own your property all the way up.

Because of that, the decision can't rest with the individual companies, but must be regulated by the government.
The risk is not just to the people in the plane.

That twisted "logic" could be used as an excuse to regulate just about everything.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

On another thread I pointed out that you were the one who initiated the argument that passenger misuse of guns were very low when they were allowed on planes;

And that was a LIE. YOU brought it up; YOU defend YOUR position.

 

[shanek]

In all reality, if your intent is to kill as many people as you can, what faster way can it be done than with a gun? Unwarranted vigilantism? Or freak accidents as they happen at times? The realistic pragmatic application of this "guns on planes", I think the risks of allowing guns freely on planes outweigh the benefits.

Well, since Mr. Manifesto is weaseling away from answering this question, and since I have always known you to be an honest and reasonable poster here, let me ask you this question and hopefully (finally) get an answer:

Can you provide any examples of passengers (NOT hijackers) misusing guns in the time before the gun ban, which started around 1968 and became complete in 1973? Before then, anyone who wanted to could carry a firearm on a plane. Where are the real-life examples that show your fear is warranted?

 

[Ed]

I think I remember a bullet did ricochet off a belt buckle so the hero could survive in the cowboy movie. (he got the girl in the end too). please don't ask which end, its an old joke....

Gotcha

 

[geni]

Can you provide any examples of passengers (NOT hijackers) misusing guns in the time before the gun ban, which started around 1968 and became complete in 1973? Before then, anyone who wanted to could carry a firearm on a plane. Where are the real-life examples that show your fear is warranted?

This is only a valid question if you can stop hijackers taking guns onto a plane or you can tell in advance who the highjackers were.

 

[Jocko]

Now, that's just bogus. You don't own your property all the way up.

Which would be fine if we could always count on an airplane staying where it should be. The argument made was clearly that we CAN'T count on that absolutely, and saying otherwise is just obtuse.

That twisted "logic" could be used as an excuse to regulate just about everything.

If by that you mean, "regulating 100-ton things that are loaded with flammable fuel that could be easily caused to drop on our homes," then I don't see how one could debate that. Why can't Libertarians acknowledge the silliness of their extremes? Even Democrats are capable of that.

If you can guarantee that a plane will stay over land the airline owns, then you may have a point. Besides, haven't you ever heard of "air rights"? That's what allowed the railroads to be built under exsisting buildings in Chicago without forcing the rail companies to buy the land. They merely lease the first 20 feet or so, and the buildings above own the land,

 

[Tmy]

Guns on planes?!? Are you all crazy. I cant even listen to my radio or use the computer, or smoke, on the plane because apparently it will cause the instruments to explode. But its OK to bring guns in?? They wont even let me in wh nail clippers. I guess I need a permit for it.

WHy do air marshalls need guns. Cant they use tazers. Somthing less leathal, less likely to ricochet.

 

[Jocko]

My personal opinion is that this is lunacy. Allowing guns to be carried on planes would open too may avenues of opportunity for those weapons to fall in the hands of hijackers.

Uh, if guns are allowed, don't you think we could count on the hijackers to bring their own rather than relying on jumping some cowboy as he exited the lavatory?

I'm pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment, but I think any reasonable person would draw the line at the jetway. You can't bring weapons into a courthouse - a government building - and you don't see anyone complaining about that.

It's a reasonable measure, plain and simple. It's equally reasonable to expect someone qualified to carry a gun, however, be it an air marshall or the pilot. There is a long history of life-threatening situations in the air, where there is no 911 to call and no cavalry coming to the rescue. If a passenger makes aggressive moves with a weapon - any weapon, not just a gun - the appropriate officers should have carte blanche to wax the guy if they feel the safety to the aircraft and innocents on the ground are threatened.

 

[Tony]

I am on the fence with this issue. Honestly, I'd rather see smoking marjiuana on planes legalized. Then, and maybe then, we could bring on the guns.

 

[crackmonkey]

This kind of crap is why Libertarians will never be more than a loony fringe... Arguing that citizens should be able to carry guns on planes (and again, why not allow explosives as well?) is beyond the realms of common sense.

 

[shanek]

This is only a valid question if you can stop hijackers taking guns onto a plane or you can tell in advance who the highjackers were.

Why? Most cases of armed hijacking happened after the total gun ban in 1973. The claim is that if we allowed everyone to carry a gun on the plane, then, not that hijackers could get a hold of them (because the argument is made that others could defend the plane against the hijacker), but that passengers who are NOT hijackers will misuse them. I want these people to support that argument. And in each and every thread where I have brought this up, they have waffled and lied and tried to shift the burden on me.

 

[shanek]

Which would be fine if we could always count on an airplane staying where it should be. The argument made was clearly that we CAN'T count on that absolutely, and saying otherwise is just obtuse.

What does that have to do with your property? If someone drives off the road into your property and does damage, they are liable and responsible for it. Why should it be any different with a plane?

If by that you mean, "regulating 100-ton things that are loaded with flammable fuel that could be easily caused to drop on our homes," then I don't see how one could debate that. Why can't Libertarians acknowledge the silliness of their extremes? Even Democrats are capable of that.

The problem is, you focus on the extremes. But the regulation will enivtably lead to much, much more that is greatly undesirable. That is the way government regulation always works. Look at the stuff the ADA has been used to do, for example. Why would it be any different here?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Should Guns be Allowed on Planes?

It's a reasonable measure, plain and simple.

Then why is it unreasonable to let the individual airlines decide for themselves?

 

[shanek]

This kind of crap is why Libertarians will never be more than a loony fringe... Arguing that citizens should be able to carry guns on planes (and again, why not allow explosives as well?) is beyond the realms of common sense.

Why? They were able to do so before the gun bans; can YOU point out the problems with it from that time period?

Why is everyone completely ignoring this point?

 

[geni]

Why? They were able to do so before the gun bans; can YOU point out the problems with it from that time period?

Why is everyone completely ignoring this point?

Things have changed a lot since pre gun ban days. The avarage plane is now bigger so you have more people at risk.
Post sept 11 people's behavior has changed. They are going to be a lot more jumpy. In some ways this is a good thing. The shoe bomber would have had quite a good chance of suceeding pre sept 11. But he was disabled by people without guns. If they had had gun do you think everyone shooting at him would have hit the target?

 

[crackmonkey]

I don't know if passengers were ever allowed to carry guns on planes or not, so... no, I can't point to anything. I'd wager that you couldn't point to any mideatern men hijacking a plane and crashing it into buildings before, either. Merely because it hasn't happened does not mean that there is no risk. Allowing weapons to be brought on board makes it childishly simple for terrorists to terrorize. After all, the terrorists are merely law-abiding immigrants carrying their weapons on board, just like good Americans.
You never addressed my point about explosives; would you prevent me from carrying sticks of dynamite on a plane? Is there any weapon that you would prevent being carried or transported on a plane?