USN_Hokie wrote:
How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?
Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.
No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.
That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.
"Safe(ty)" is the wrong/incomplete criterion. If safety were the only concern, putting everyone in maximum security prisons (a very safe place) would be the answer. Replace safe with liberty/freedom in your above rhetorical. How much freedom do you feel as you take off your shoes and watch screeners ogle your wife and kids naked between having orders barked at you buy a JC drop out?
Now, ask yourself how safe you feel on a train. How much freedom do you have traveling on a train (where guns are allowed)? I acknowledge that the two are not perfectly analogous, but they're close enough to make my point.
Getting from one place to the other is the main concern. I don't take off my shoes, and no one ogles my wife or kids naked. Getting through airport security takes about is pretty painless, with wife, 2 kids, and a car seat in tow.
I feel safe on a train. And on a subway. And on a bus. And on a plane.
They are all working pretty well right now, no need to change.
When something changes on one of them, then things will adjust, just like they did after 9/11. Of all the things that changed after 9/11, the airport security measured were some of the lesser invasive procedures. Too much at first, but they adjusted over time.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
These gun nuts are mentally ill. Prayers.
Are you capable of posting something constructive....or maybe something that's unconstructive, but a little funny?
Or, are you an angry liberal quadriplegic who's only able to type out short sentences using a wand and his mouth (think Larry Flint, but with a less well thought of occupation. )
USN_Hokie wrote:
How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?
Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.
No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.
That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.
"Safe(ty)" is the wrong/incomplete criterion. If safety were the only concern, putting everyone in maximum security prisons (a very safe place) would be the answer. Replace safe with liberty/freedom in your above rhetorical. How much freedom do you feel as you take off your shoes and watch screeners ogle your wife and kids naked between having orders barked at you buy a JC drop out?
Now, ask yourself how safe you feel on a train. How much freedom do you have traveling on a train (where guns are allowed)? I acknowledge that the two are not perfectly analogous, but they're close enough to make my point.
Getting from one place to the other is the main concern. I don't take off my shoes, and no one ogles my wife or kids naked. Getting through airport security takes about is pretty painless, with wife, 2 kids, and a car seat in tow.
I feel safe on a train. And on a subway. And on a bus. And on a plane.
They are all working pretty well right now, no need to change.
When something changes on one of them, then things will adjust, just like they did after 9/11. Of all the things that changed after 9/11, the airport security measured were some of the lesser invasive procedures. Too much at first, but they adjusted over time.
You can't seriously argue that you have as much freedom to travel via plane as you do any other method.
USN_Hokie wrote:
No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.
That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.
"Safe(ty)" is the wrong/incomplete criterion. If safety were the only concern, putting everyone in maximum security prisons (a very safe place) would be the answer. Replace safe with liberty/freedom in your above rhetorical. How much freedom do you feel as you take off your shoes and watch screeners ogle your wife and kids naked between having orders barked at you buy a JC drop out?
Now, ask yourself how safe you feel on a train. How much freedom do you have traveling on a train (where guns are allowed)? I acknowledge that the two are not perfectly analogous, but they're close enough to make my point.
Getting from one place to the other is the main concern. I don't take off my shoes, and no one ogles my wife or kids naked. Getting through airport security takes about is pretty painless, with wife, 2 kids, and a car seat in tow.
I feel safe on a train. And on a subway. And on a bus. And on a plane.
They are all working pretty well right now, no need to change.
When something changes on one of them, then things will adjust, just like they did after 9/11. Of all the things that changed after 9/11, the airport security measured were some of the lesser invasive procedures. Too much at first, but they adjusted over time.
You can't seriously argue that you have as much freedom to travel via plane as you do any other method.
No, was I supposed to talk about that? It is much easier to get on a train, bus, subway, than a plane. But, we haven't had a history of those being hijacked. If that starts happening, I'm pretty sure changes will be made by the companies, the gov, or both. Just like after the hijackings in the '60s, and 9/11.
I get your point, and understand why you don't like it. But, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. That's my opinion, you have yours.
USN_Hokie wrote:
No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.
That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.
"Safe(ty)" is the wrong/incomplete criterion. If safety were the only concern, putting everyone in maximum security prisons (a very safe place) would be the answer. Replace safe with liberty/freedom in your above rhetorical. How much freedom do you feel as you take off your shoes and watch screeners ogle your wife and kids naked between having orders barked at you buy a JC drop out?
Now, ask yourself how safe you feel on a train. How much freedom do you have traveling on a train (where guns are allowed)? I acknowledge that the two are not perfectly analogous, but they're close enough to make my point.
Getting from one place to the other is the main concern. I don't take off my shoes, and no one ogles my wife or kids naked. Getting through airport security takes about is pretty painless, with wife, 2 kids, and a car seat in tow.
I feel safe on a train. And on a subway. And on a bus. And on a plane.
They are all working pretty well right now, no need to change.
When something changes on one of them, then things will adjust, just like they did after 9/11. Of all the things that changed after 9/11, the airport security measured were some of the lesser invasive procedures. Too much at first, but they adjusted over time.
You can't seriously argue that you have as much freedom to travel via plane as you do any other method.
No, was I supposed to talk about that? It is much easier to get on a train, bus, subway, than a plane. But, we haven't had a history of those being hijacked. If that starts happening, I'm pretty sure changes will be made by the companies, the gov, or both. Just like after the hijackings in the '60s, and 9/11.
I get your point, and understand why you don't like it. But, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. That's my opinion, you have yours.
Far more trains, buses, and subways have been the target of terrorists than planes.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.
"Safe(ty)" is the wrong/incomplete criterion. If safety were the only concern, putting everyone in maximum security prisons (a very safe place) would be the answer. Replace safe with liberty/freedom in your above rhetorical. How much freedom do you feel as you take off your shoes and watch screeners ogle your wife and kids naked between having orders barked at you buy a JC drop out?
Now, ask yourself how safe you feel on a train. How much freedom do you have traveling on a train (where guns are allowed)? I acknowledge that the two are not perfectly analogous, but they're close enough to make my point.
Getting from one place to the other is the main concern. I don't take off my shoes, and no one ogles my wife or kids naked. Getting through airport security takes about is pretty painless, with wife, 2 kids, and a car seat in tow.
I feel safe on a train. And on a subway. And on a bus. And on a plane.
They are all working pretty well right now, no need to change.
When something changes on one of them, then things will adjust, just like they did after 9/11. Of all the things that changed after 9/11, the airport security measured were some of the lesser invasive procedures. Too much at first, but they adjusted over time.
You can't seriously argue that you have as much freedom to travel via plane as you do any other method.
No, was I supposed to talk about that? It is much easier to get on a train, bus, subway, than a plane. But, we haven't had a history of those being hijacked. If that starts happening, I'm pretty sure changes will be made by the companies, the gov, or both. Just like after the hijackings in the '60s, and 9/11.
I get your point, and understand why you don't like it. But, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. That's my opinion, you have yours.
Far more trains, buses, and subways have been the target of terrorists than planes.
Circular reasoning too. It only takes so long because of his gun confiscation process. Used to be no different than getting on a train except longer walks. Or go by private jet which is the shiznet. I'd park right by the tarmac and give my bags to the attendant, with a cooler of barbecue riding with me.
HokieFanDC wrote:
I get your point, and understand why you don't like it. But, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. That's my opinion, you have yours.
Sure, my opinion is that it's not the role of the government to violate someone's civil rights without a damn good reason. Your opinion is that civil rights are secondary to efficient central state planning.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
These gun nuts are mentally ill. Prayers.
Are you capable of posting something constructive....or maybe something that's unconstructive, but a little funny?
Or, are you an angry liberal quadriplegic who's only able to type out short sentences using a wand and his mouth (think Larry Flint, but with a less well thought of occupation. )
I hope you get the help you need.
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.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
These gun nuts are mentally ill. Prayers.
Are you capable of posting something constructive....or maybe something that's unconstructive, but a little funny?
Or, are you an angry liberal quadriplegic who's only able to type out short sentences using a wand and his mouth (think Larry Flint, but with a less well thought of occupation. )
HokieFanDC wrote:
I get your point, and understand why you don't like it. But, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you do. That's my opinion, you have yours.
Sure, my opinion is that it's not the role of the government to violate someone's civil rights without a damn good reason. Your opinion is that civil rights are secondary to efficient central state planning.
)
