Gun Rights could have prevented 9-11

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Just a quick question, would they serve alcohol on these flights? Or would the other passengers just shoot the drunk businessman waving his gat? And could that drunk businessman's family sue you? Or could the other passengers sue you for shooting a hole in the plane, because you felt in danger of the drunk busisness man? What if they don't serve drinks on the plane, would they stop having bars in the airports to? Would the money lost from the bar revenue be replaced with increased gun sales, and all of the former employess could work at the factories?




posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I personally think that gun rights is the Libertarian Parties weakest goal and its used more often than other good practices that they support. I personally am not a fanatic of guns after having one put to my head and getting my skull cracked open from being pistol whipped. There was nothing that could have been done if I had one, I would have to disarm the gun from my head before I could have actually used my weapon against him.

Anyway, I digress. The ability of being able to have weapons on board a plane should be left to the TSA. These airlines need to protect their interests and they should be the ones who dictate what control is on board their planes. I personally like how Isreals airline makes security very apparent and I believe that is the best course of action. Arming the people on a plane can be very very dangerous. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Also, on a second note. The assault weapons ban does jack for this country. In Chicago, where I had that gun put to my head, all handguns were illegal but that didnt stop the people who needed them to get them. Just limiting the lay abiding citizens from getting guns won't change the fact that criminals will still find a way to get them.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The idea that bulletholes would cause explosive decompression inside a pressurized plane cabin is an urban legend. For example, a tire with a nail hole in it won't explode, and it's pressurized. Think about what it takes to get a tire to explode for a second -- not pressure escaping, but too much pressure trapped in one place. The same science applies to an airplane cabin. Not only would a bullethole not cause explosive decompression, but more than one bullethole (on the assumption that a gunfight actually broke out) would actually make it less likely for something like that to happen.

I'm undecided on this issue, but I wanted to put the science out there so that everyone's decisions on the issue won't be based on bad information.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
The day you put guns on planes is the day I will never board another plane.

And i'm sure many people will agree with me, this is downright absolute indefensible childish STUPIDITY of the highest calibre.

Do you have ANY idea of the implications of a decision like this? What would happen if someone accidentally misfired a gun on a plane? It'd punch a hole in the side causing a rapid depressurization. Even if it didn't then every other nut on the plane would draw their arms and a gunbattle could erupt on board.

Giving guns to people in an already tense, enclosed atmosphere is utterly moronic. I'm shocked it would even be considered.


Words cannot express how shocked I am that the libertartians would run on this. Then again, your candidates extent of political experience is Vice Presidency of his college dorm. Thank God you people will never make it into power.


I agree with everything you said, its amazing how stupid and ignorant some people can be.

Or are they intelligent by using a just cause to save lives to hijack support for their own agendas?

Who knows?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanical Man
I don't think just anyone should be able to carry a firearm on a civilian airliner.



Of course you wouldn't... People like you think the majority of society needs to be controlled.


You can't call the police when your in the air for protection, sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands...

Firearms or pepper spray could of prevented 9-11, but again, thank the government for thinking us stupid and incompetant...

Which is part of the reason why they think people should be taken care of, because they can't do it on their own...

Look at social security.. Libreals will fight to the death to make sure nobody ever has the option of opting out of that... To me, thats criminal...

If you want your ass getting taken care of, FINE, but don't for one second assume that I should have mine taken care of too...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
A day when guns are allowed on a plane:

Security: Hello mr. Amar Samar , go through the metal detector

*Beep beep beep*

Security: place anything metallic on the table....ah, I see you have a Glock 17, go right ahead sir, enjoy your flight.

Security: Hello Mrs. Anderly, please go through.

*beeep*

Security: Hmm, what do you got here....a toe-nail clipper? I'm sorry ma'am, please step aside, your not allowed potential weaponry on the plane.



No thanks, I rather just have better security then a bunch of loons with guns on my flight.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I think what everyone is forgetting is...

Airline companies aircrafts are not PUBLIC PROPERTY.

If a airline company decides to only allow pilot's and steward(ess)'s to have guns, then ONLY the pilot's and crew can have guns.

Then, because it is a company policy, and the airline company want to keep as many planes in air as possible, THEY WILL ENFORCE THE RULES! Protecting the passengers, and crew.

It shouldn't be so complex as you all are making it.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Thank God you people will never make it into power.


It's a shame you feel that way, and very sad you seem to relish the duopolistic status quo. I can understand your opinions, but they still not always the best policy for freedom.

On another note, you shouldn't be one to speak your beliefs regarding the Libertarians success, the American people will decide, not the British.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Thank God you people will never make it into power.


And thank god you people wont either


That is the Democrats weak point their never ending struggle to control EVERYBODY and their neverending fear that someone might think and act for himself.

I would rather board a plane where EVERYONE was armed instead of one where just the terrorists were.

But that is just me I would rather take care of my self than curl up in a ball crying for the Government to come save me from the bad men


This country is turning into a play pen full of sissies

[edit on 11-9-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

On another note, you shouldn't be one to speak your beliefs regarding the Libertarians success, the American people will decide, not the British.


He is British?

That explains it



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Why don't they just shackle everyone into their seats with leg irons?
Supervised visits to the restroom (only two visits allowed).
No alcohol served whatsoever.
Bodily orifices all checked and all baggage checked before they're allowed on the plane.
Armed pilots with a locked door between them and the passengers. Give all the passengers free mace in case their neighbor turns out to be a terrorist.
You'd be extremely uncomfortable but SAFE.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
As usual, Americans oversimplify and overgeneralize in order to support certain agentas.

But if you actually used your brain...:

you would realize that at least there is a kernel of truth to the post.


Originally posted by masterp
A terrorist is not visible until he stands up, goes to the pilot and threatens him. If a terrorist gets a hostage, not one dares touch him. …....

Someone is certainly over generalizing, for you better hope you’re never taken hostage in that situation with me having a gun…of course I would try to aim to limit the damage to the hostage…but I would not hesitate. If that bothers you try not to be taken hostage.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
Also, on a second note. The assault weapons ban does jack for this country. In Chicago, where I had that gun put to my head, all handguns were illegal but that didnt stop the people who needed them to get them. Just limiting the lay abiding citizens from getting guns won't change the fact that criminals will still find a way to get them.

and you just posted the reason that the LP stance on gun control should be a positive.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by Nerdling
The day you put guns on planes is the day I will never board another plane.
……………..


I agree with everything you said, its amazing how stupid and ignorant some people can be.
…………..

hopefully some day soon you quit flying……the funny thing is that most intellectually honest people who actually study guns soften their stance against them. For example, there was a serial rapist loose in Atlanta…the police made a big deal of training and arming 500 women with handguns…raped dropped by ??20% and still is not back to previous levels. The only half decent deterrent to violent crime, is the possibility in the criminals mind that he just might not make it through the day. no matter how bad his day is going there might be the possibility that it might get a lot worse.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Don't you guys know of any other non-lethal gadgets besides guns which could be used on flights?
I dunno, a stun gun or something?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Every point I was going to make was already made...


Has anyone ever seen the show "Mythbusters" on TLC? They busted the myth that a bullet would bust a hole in the side of a plane. They pressurized a planes cabin, and shot a bullet through the _ Nothing happened but the plane depressurizing.

To echo Beingwatched's words, there is no way that the airlines would ever allow their passengers to carry guns on the plane! The pilots should be able to however. Imagine the suprise of a terrorist if he went to the cockpit and there was a .44 Magnum staring him in the eye!

If any of you nay-sayers actually read the article and not just the headline, it's purpose is to make you think about gun rights. As was said, the airlines would never have this, making the proposal on it's face a moot point. I see this kind of Mike Badnarik's attempt at "A Modest Proposal".



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
The idea that bulletholes would cause explosive decompression inside a pressurized plane cabin is an urban legend.


A bullethole in the side panel may not, but if a window is shot out, more than likely the entire frame would go with it. An airliner, though big, is a fragile peice of machinery. The design of these planes structure must be limited to save weight. They are more actually more fragile than they look.

The person sitting next to the wind would more than likely be sucked out ( when at altitude).

I'm pro-NRA and glad to see the assaults weopons ban expire without renewal, but having guns on civilian flights by unathorized passengers seems like the Libertarians talking a lot of talk without giving any thought about the serious implications it may cause.

There are other non-lethal weopons that could be carried on board without the dangers of a firearm being discharged.

[edit on 11/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Unfortunately not every movie special effects scene is fundamentally sound. The premise that a bullet hole (or a series of bullet holes) is an incorrect one; even small explosions on pressurized aircraft have been sustained without the loss of the aircraft or the passengers being "sucked out".

Discovery Channel's "MythBusters" (note episode 10 description).

Description of episode 10 (I know it's a BLOG but it's a good synopsis).

Addressing the myth of explosive decompression.


Gunfire can still kill passengers and damage flight control systems, but the “instant doom” attributed to explosive decompression is patently false.

The reason 9/11 occurred was up until 9/11/2001 the conventional wisdom was to cooperate with hijackers. The thought of attempting to combat the hijackers was not an ingrained mindset (like it is now), as soon as the Flight 93 passengers were aware of their fate they reacted... heroically. Thus the era of modern hijacking ended... hijacking a plane is now an inconceivable method of terrorism, there is no threat (I don’t care if you have a tactical nuke) that can made to the passengers that could keep them under control (at least in the Western world).



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Given your hypothetical, I would take that shot. Sorry hostage but your dead either way. And you never know, I am a pretty good shot.


It's nice when you talk from your confy house, but reality is different. Shooting an innocent person is very difficult, even for police veterans.

And even if you killed one terrorist, there would be other terrorists that would fire right at you, and without second thoughts.

Then no one would dare make another shot.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join