It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SuperSlovak
This is probably the stupidest thread I've ever seen in all my time here. You probably think it's ok to take guns on the airplane because generally people are responsible right? Well guess what all it takes is one idiot to bring down a plane.
If it means getting to my destination in one piece then I'll go through all the security.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
Imagine his face when he finds out his flight's been delayed for 2 hours.
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
I agree.
They'd also never be able to stop a person from swallowing a pill, that after an hour turned them into an invincible monster capable of eating everyone on the plane, and then turning into a giant spaceship and flying away.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I contend that post 9/11 air travel would be safer with no airport security at all.
Given the shoe and panty bomber events, we see the public will immediately attack the terrorists in question regardless of personal risk.
People know that if they don't act to stop the terrorists, the plane they are on will either be shot down or crashed into the ground. No negotiations will take place.
I also contend that damn near everyone would carry a gun with them when they got on a plane. - obviously a cabin full of armed passengers vs a handful of nut case terrorists is a no-brainer.
Also, the actual risk of death from a terrorist attack is only slightly higher than the risk of being struck dead by lightning.
If they really wanted to make air travel safer, they should simply get rid of the alcohol in passenger terminals and planes, since 99.9% of violence on flights is from belligerent drunks.
This would also ensure people who were armed on the plane would be sober to shoot straight and kill any threats.
Praise Mao.
Deaths over an 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005
www.wired.com...
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302
Electrocution: 5,171
Terrorism: 3147
[edit on 8-1-2010 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by triplescorpio
WHAT IS WITH THE STATISTIC MATH DEBATE LETS GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT BULLETS GO THROUGH PLANES AND PEOPLE WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK ITS SAFER TO HAVE MORE BULLETS ON A PLANE! EVEN A PERSON WITH GOOD INTENTIONS WOULD POTENTIALLY MAKE A BAD SiTUATION REALLY REALLY BAD.
example!: passenger stands up says this is a high jacking when hes really just mental no bomb no gun.As a reaction some yahoo who thinks hes Charles Brawnson shoots at him fearing the worst depressurizes the plane and kills 300 people! way ta go good plan???
also now this thread has turned into a blend from thwarting terrorist activity to accident statistics they have nothting in common?
terrorist dont care if they die so they arent gonna be effected by a person who is armed their just gonna do their thing that much faster if you think logically and werent trying to provide transparent post statistics about lightning strikes how can you possibly think this is a good idea seriously the reason for security is cause people bring weapons bombs knives guns onto planes and do f.cked up sh.t.
Its not about you or THE NWO????? trying to take your rights airpot security is trying to save your life and your conclusion is to increase the risk?????
do me a favor please dont try and save me i dont need to be riddled with bullets over an arguement or scuffle.
WOW i cant even imagine how many innocent people would haver died if the underwear bomber had a gun too his bomb didnt work im sure he would have been more then obliged to shoot two or three flight attendant or the pilot or the plane instead come on dude everything has a place guns dont belong on planes remember number one fire arm statistics are that a gun owner is more likely to harm themselves or family(innocent people in their envirment then to resolve criminal conflict look it up if you love statitics so much.
lightning strikes
okay?????
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I also contend that damn near everyone would carry a gun with them when they got on a plane. - obviously a cabin full of armed passengers vs a handful of nut case terrorists is a no-brainer.
If they really wanted to make air travel safer, they should simply get rid of the alcohol in passenger terminals and planes, since 99.9% of violence on flights is from belligerent drunks.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by alien
I may agree...however, its what happens when the triggers start getting pulled that I'd be more terrified about.
Most gunfights I've seen aren't cool, calm and collected...
...its pretty much just *OMG! ARGH! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM CLICK CLICK CLICK OMG HAVE I BEEN HIT?*
...certainly severely increased the very real risk of a stray bullets striking other passengers, striking walls of the plane...all manner of extremely bad outcomes.
It'd be like Reseviour Dogs at 30,000ft.
yeah it would be
it would be ugly, brutal, and people would die.
BUT - that is not any different than a terrorist successfully taking out a plane. At least this way the passengers have a chance.
The whole "airplane" thing is ridiculous too. If I was a terrorist, I would simply blow up a bus, a train, or walk into a terminal and unload with an automatic rifle.
Why bother jumping through 20 thousand hoops?
If I was a suicide bomber, I would put the bomb in my check in luggage, no chance to stop me there.
This whole business about airport security is ridiculous...