USN_Hokie wrote:
Don't waste your breath. Logic left the building a long time ago.
You're the anti-gun gun owner right?
I'm the gun owner that is pro-"more gun control", yes.
No you said you supported government confiscation and would turn your gun(s) in. So, if by "pro more gun control" you mean pro-no more guns, I (and most people) would consider that anti-gun.[/quote]
If the gov't confiscated hand guns. I'd do it for its fair market value. I've always said I love my beretta shotgun. These aren't the things that keep me up at night.
[quote="ElbertoHokie]
If the gov't confiscated hand guns. I'd do it for its fair market value. I've always said I love my beretta shotgun. These aren't the things that keep me up at night.[/quote]
USN_Hokie wrote:
Don't waste your breath. Logic left the building a long time ago.
You're the anti-gun gun owner right?
I'm the gun owner that is pro-"more gun control", yes.
No you said you supported government confiscation and would turn your gun(s) in. So, if by "pro more gun control" you mean pro-no more guns, I (and most people) would consider that anti-gun.
If the gov't confiscated hand guns. I'd do it for its fair market value. I've always said I love my beretta shotgun. These aren't the things that keep me up at night.[/quote]
I don't remember those caveats before, but ok. So, you'd say you're an anti-handgun, handgun owner? What is the "market value" for a prohibited handgun outside of a black market?
nolanvt wrote:I look forward to the portion of this thread later on where people say that we should be allowed to carry on planes.
Why not? I look forward to your answer / rationale.
Because it is a danger to all on the plane. And at 36,000 feet there aren't a lot of options.
So you think Air Marshals are a danger?
I know that air marshals are trained with how to deal with various scenarios on a plane full of people at 36,000 feet. 99% of those with CCPs aren't and therefore are less likely to be able to handle the situation appropriately and without endangering others.
I've gone through several military and Blackwater classes while active duty, as well as civilian courses. I led VBSS teams carrying an M9 and a Mk18 to search vessels suspected of violating trade embargoes in the Persian Gulf. I probably shoot 3-4k rnds a year (wish I had time to do more). I carry a gun wherever I can. I've held high level security clearances, pay my bills, and have never even received a parking ticket, let alone a moving violation. So, don't presume that Corporal Gump with the Radford PD is more special than me and endowed with some gifts which allow him the privilege of defending himself while I should be relegated to praying with my family in the back of a plane before it's used as a weapon to kill a thousand people because you're scared I'll wing grandma.
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
That's already been addressed. 9/11 showed that removing weapons just leaves more victims or 3 hour waits as TSA tries to find everything that could be a weapon. We wouldn't need TSA checking for 4 ounces of shampoo and the like if we had weapons on the planes or they used profiling instead of treating everyone as the same, pretending there are no trends to pick up on. Use the Israeli model plus allowing pocket knives, checked guns, etc on the flight.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
The medical aid argument is a red herring. Using that rationale, hypothetically a man in the middle of Alaska 500 miles from the closest human being can be denied his right of self defense using the same argument. We should never negotiate or waiver with the gun-banners in any way. They come claiming it's irrational to not negotiate with them because compromise is good. In trade, compromise is good. But in this case, the model is really more like them being thieves demanding to compromise and let them in the living room of the house, instead of all of the house. And of course once in the living room, they then move on to demanding compromising on taking the dinning room instead of the whole house. They end up with everything and the idea of compromise is an illusion since they show up every day with the same demands, demanding that we compromise again by giving them a little of what they want. Instead we should have a 0 give policy, not letting them anywhere near the house since they have no legitimate claim to be their in the first place and they're demanding we give while they don't give a thing.
I'm waiting for this to be the next claim, that the airport mall area will turn into a gun swap meet.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
The use of force in the scenario which was outlined as justification for not allowing guns on planes does occur, you just don't hear about it:
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
What? The whole point of getting on the Subway is to go somewhere. If you're really getting at subways need stations then airplanes have the same constraint on airports. Hijackings were prominent because we paid them off and it was lucrative crime. That's another time when society re-learned to not negotiate with them or you'll just get more such crimes. Don't pay them off and there's no repeaters. Or when a hijacker gets whacked by an armed citizen then they double and triple think the crime. We also couldn't track hijackers as easily then. They could demand to fly the plane to Mexico and pull a D.B. Cooper by jumping out mid flight. We'll find them with modern technology.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
The use of force in the scenario which was outlined as justification for not allowing guns on planes does occur, you just don't hear about it:
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
The # of hijackings was much higher in the '60s and early '70s, before guns were restricted/banned, and decreased even more after 9/11. The point still stands that plane hijackings are extremely rare today.
Your other statements have nothing to do with planes or plane hijackings, not sure what your point is. What works on a plane might not work on a subway, and vice versa.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
The use of force in the scenario which was outlined as justification for not allowing guns on planes does occur, you just don't hear about it:
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
The # of hijackings was much higher in the '60s and early '70s, before guns were restricted/banned, and decreased even more after 9/11. The point still stands that plane hijackings are extremely rare today.
Your other statements have nothing to do with planes or plane hijackings, not sure what your point is. What works on a plane might not work on a subway, and vice versa.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
I think USN's point is there are lots of guns on subways and somehow they are not shot up daily. I agree with your point they do not go anywhere, hell in charlotte they go 3 miles and cost taxpayers 800 billion dollars. so I say ban subways
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
I think USN's point is there are lots of guns on subways and somehow they are not shot up daily. I agree with your point they do not go anywhere, hell in charlotte they go 3 miles and cost taxpayers 800 billion dollars. so I say ban subways
Where are these subways with lots of guns on them?
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
I think USN's point is there are lots of guns on subways and somehow they are not shot up daily. I agree with your point they do not go anywhere, hell in charlotte they go 3 miles and cost taxpayers 800 billion dollars. so I say ban subways
Where are these subways with lots of guns on them?
All of them, you weenies just never realize it. And that's the whole point, the guns are concealed and you never know how many are in your close proximity.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
I think USN's point is there are lots of guns on subways and somehow they are not shot up daily. I agree with your point they do not go anywhere, hell in charlotte they go 3 miles and cost taxpayers 800 billion dollars. so I say ban subways
Where are these subways with lots of guns on them?
All of them, you weenies just never realize it. And that's the whole point, the guns are concealed and you never know how many are in your close proximity.
Got it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
HokieFanDC wrote:
So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?
He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.
Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.
It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
The use of force in the scenario which was outlined as justification for not allowing guns on planes does occur, you just don't hear about it:
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
The # of hijackings was much higher in the '60s and early '70s, before guns were restricted/banned, and decreased even more after 9/11. The point still stands that plane hijackings are extremely rare today.
Your other statements have nothing to do with planes or plane hijackings, not sure what your point is. What works on a plane might not work on a subway, and vice versa.
On #2, I'm not an expert, which is why I said it "might not work".
And you're still ignoring the point I specifically made, that hijackings are extremely rare today, so why would anyone feel the need to change the current rules or regulations. Care to address the point I was making, at all, or do you agree with it.
On #2, I'm not an expert, which is why I said it "might not work".
And you're still ignoring the point I specifically made, that hijackings are extremely rare today, so why would anyone feel the need to change the current rules or regulations. Care to address the point I was making, at all, or do you agree with it.
already covered boss, try and keep up. You're mistakenly attributing lower hijackings on the lack of guns when 1) we no longer payoff hijackers and 2) can track them once they flee, another deterrence. It just doesn't pay and more to the liberty point, I can't freely transport my weapons or use them for self defense because you have a case of the scardy cats. Your anxiety around weapons is your issue.
On #2, I'm not an expert, which is why I said it "might not work".
And you're still ignoring the point I specifically made, that hijackings are extremely rare today, so why would anyone feel the need to change the current rules or regulations. Care to address the point I was making, at all, or do you agree with it.
already covered boss, try and keep up. You're mistakenly attributing lower hijackings on the lack of guns when 1) we no longer payoff hijackers and 2) can track them once they flee, another deterrence. It just doesn't pay and more to the liberty point, I can't freely transport my weapons or use them for self defense because you have a case of the scardy cats. Your anxiety around weapons is your issue.
You arent addressing my point either, boss. Hijackings are extremely rare, why would you want to change anything? And most hijackings at the height were done to get to other countries, like Cuba, not for ransom. You guys are the ones who seem scared of a non-existent situation. And I dont have any anxiety around weapons, you boob. I dont care who has a gun, but i also don't need a gun on my person to feel safe. If someone feels that need, I'm generally all for it. But, there is no need for it on a plane, at all. Why would anyone want to change something that's working fine.
Last edited by HokieFanDC on Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
On #2, I'm not an expert, which is why I said it "might not work".
And you're still ignoring the point I specifically made, that hijackings are extremely rare today, so why would anyone feel the need to change the current rules or regulations. Care to address the point I was making, at all, or do you agree with it.
already covered boss, try and keep up. You're mistakenly attributing lower hijackings on the lack of guns when 1) we no longer payoff hijackers and 2) can track them once they flee, another deterrence. It just doesn't pay and more to the liberty point, I can't freely transport my weapons or use them for self defense because you have a case of the scardy cats. Your anxiety around weapons is your issue.
You arent addressing my point either, boss. Hijackings are extremely rare, why would you want to change anything? You guys are the ones who seem scared of a non-existent situation. And I dont have any anxiety around weapons, you boob. I dont care who has a gun, but i also don't need a gun on my person to feel safe. If someone feels that need, I'm generally all for it. But, there is no need for it on a plane, at all. Why would anyone want to change something that's working fine.
I addressed it boob, you're making an irrational causation and ignoring the revalent facts that have changed over time.
HokieFanDC wrote:
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
The # of hijackings was much higher in the '60s and early '70s, before guns were restricted/banned, and decreased even more after 9/11. The point still stands that plane hijackings are extremely rare today.
Your other statements have nothing to do with planes or plane hijackings, not sure what your point is. What works on a plane might not work on a subway, and vice versa.
HokieFanDC wrote:
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
The # of hijackings was much higher in the '60s and early '70s, before guns were restricted/banned, and decreased even more after 9/11. The point still stands that plane hijackings are extremely rare today.
Your other statements have nothing to do with planes or plane hijackings, not sure what your point is. What works on a plane might not work on a subway, and vice versa.
The worst decade was by far the 70's, when handguns were already forbidden. So the facts support the exact opposite point you're trying to make.
Nice try.
The height of the # of hijackings came in the late '60s and early '70s (not an entire decade which skews the numbers, but of course you knew that). Guns were banned in the early '70s. Hijackings decreased but there were still a lot. So, in the late '70s, metal detection devices were mandated, not just hand checks. And after 2001, more screening was put in place, resulting in further decreases in hijackings.
And if you want to discuss the point I made (that hijackings are extremely rare), you can simply use your own methodology and see that in the last decade (excluding 2016 since it's not over), and see that in the last decade, there have been 26 hijackings, the lowest ever. Again, can you answer the question? Do you want to change the current regulations and rules, and if so, why?
USN_Hokie wrote:
As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.
The # of hijackings was much higher in the '60s and early '70s, before guns were restricted/banned, and decreased even more after 9/11. The point still stands that plane hijackings are extremely rare today.
Your other statements have nothing to do with planes or plane hijackings, not sure what your point is. What works on a plane might not work on a subway, and vice versa.
The worst decade was by far the 70's, when handguns were already forbidden. So the facts support the exact opposite point you're trying to make.
Nice try.
The height of the # of hijackings came in the late '60s and early '70s (not an entire decade which skews the numbers, but of course you knew that). Guns were banned in the early '70s. Hijackings decreased but there were still a lot. So, in the late '70s, metal detection devices were mandated, not just hand checks. And after 2001, more screening was put in place, resulting in further decreases in hijackings.
And if you want to discuss the point I made (that hijackings are extremely rare), you can simply use your own methodology and see that in the last decade (excluding 2016 since it's not over), and see that in the last decade, there have been 26 hijackings, the lowest ever. Again, can you answer the question? Do you want to change the current regulations and rules, and if so, why?
You have a link for guns being banned in the 70's? I thought it was the mid-late 60's.
USN_Hokie wrote:
2. Please tell me in your expert opinion why what works on a train will not work on a plane, and your credentials.
[/url]
On #2, I'm not an expert, which is why I said it "might not work".
So your point was worthless, yet you threw it out there anyways?
HokieFanDC wrote:And you're still ignoring the point I specifically made, that hijackings are extremely rare today, so why would anyone feel the need to change the current rules or regulations. Care to address the point I was making, at all, or do you agree with it.
No, you're looking at this backwards. You need to explain why the state has a compelling interest to restrict my civil right. So I'll ask you: What is the compelling interest served? The statistics don't support your argument.
