Gun Control (v.2)

Weapons on planes are a different issue altogether.

So the anti-freedom people in here don't like the fact that people can have guns? So if a murderer broke into your house and had a gun, would you want a gun? No? Not even to defend yourself?

Guns don't hurt people. People hurt people. A gun by itself couldn't hurt anyone. A tree by istelf couldn't hurt anyone, but if it fell onto a nearby road, it could easily kill a whole family. Should we outlaw trees too? Or how about knives; when used, a knife can kill a person. Let's outlaw knives! But who is to distinguish what a knife is and isn't? Let's just outlaw all sharp objects!

Too much laughing gas can kill a person, that should be outlawed. If someone inject air into a person's bloodstream with a needle, it could easily kill that person. Let's outlaw needles!

What is it about guns that scare people so much? I own a house. Shouldn't I be able to actually own it and do what I want with it? The liberals say, "NO!"

You just don't understand: criminals will get guns no matter what. Most of the criminals in the US have guns illegally anyways; the gun control laws don't apply to them because they ignore them. If we take away from the American people their last line of defense, things could get really ugly really fast.

 

The way I see it, you have both. You've simply given up your right to keep and bear arms.


//looks at old photos of beloved Walther PPK/S .380ACP and Walther KK Match GX-1 .22

//wonders if Fred forgets that this poster only gave up shooting because he couldn't afford it for a time.

//wonders how Fred considers the unalienable right to life alienable, and the alienable right to own a gun unalienable, and concludes Fred is somewhat insular and sheltered; not to mention untravelled.

E_S

 

I don't believe that statement.

That I accidentally brought a knife onto a plane, or that it's stupid to trust incompetent screeners?

At least find statistical information or something, at least keep me on my toes.

You're telling me you've never heard of guns being brought on planes and going undetected by airline security? Doesn't this say something about the effectiveness of airport screeners? And then, of course, there's this. And although this is one of those dreadful opinion pieces, it contains some valuable information worth reading.

IT IS A NON-ISSUE!!!

When 5,000 people are dead, it becomes a pretty big ****ing issue.

First of all, I question whether they really failed to detect your hunting knife, sounds like you're just using a fake scenario as ammunition.

OK, how would you like me to prove it?

But even if they did fail to detect it, what is some joker and a hunting knife going to do to take down a plane in post 9/11?

If they're sitting in first class, only a few feet from the cockpit, they'd have a chance. How successful the terrorist is depends on how well-armed the people on the plane are.

But what's to stop 10 terrorists getting on a plane with their legally owned and concealed weapons and taking over a plane?

A full 747 can hold up to 524 passengers. Please describe how 10 suicidal terrorists could outmatch 524 armed passengers who are committed to living and landing safely.

I'm sure Congress has laughed at this one too.

Yes, they're really dragging their feet on this issue...apparently they believe that more of the same will make a difference...

...wonders how Fred considers the unalienable right to life alienable, and the alienable right to own a gun unalienable...

Find one place where I stated the right to life is "alienable". I believe both the right to life and the right to keep and bear arms are unalienable human rights. Unfortunately, you have elected officials that have effectively destroyed your right to self-defense. Are knives still allowed in Australia, or do you need a concealed-carry license for them too?

 

Fred, the problem with guns on planes is a big one. If someone accidentally shot one of the windows, the pressure or something would make the plane go into a dive.

 

You're telling me you've never heard of guns being brought on planes and going undetected by airline security? Doesn't this say something about the effectiveness of airport screeners? And then, of course, there's this. And although this is one of those dreadful opinion pieces, it contains some valuable information worth reading.

LOL, your posts crack me up. How many passengers do you think go through airport security daily? At least a hundred thousand around the United States I'm sure. So your evidence of incompetent screeners is an article about one person getting through airport security with a weapon in the last 3 years? So what's the chance of a terrorist being that one person that gets through airport security next time? I'd say 1 in 1000 at best.

When 5,000 people are dead, it becomes a pretty big ****ing issue.

But you have to understand that the terrorists succeeded not by incompetent airport security, they were carrying legal weapons. Nobody thought box cutters could be a potential tool to hijack an airplane. Passengers were certainly unaware of what was ahead for them, terrorists crashing planes into a building was the last thought on anyones mind. 9/11 changed how passengers and airport security think. You get terrorists trying the same method and you'll get passengers fighting back before a potential incident and the pilots won't open the cockpit door. The situations caught EVERYBODY by surprise. Even in the morning of 9/11 after the 2 planes hit people still didn't think it was terrorism.

If they're sitting in first class, only a few feet from the cockpit, they'd have a chance. How successful the terrorist is depends on how well-armed the people on the plane are.

Hehe, so a terrorist is going to hope for that good seat right next to the cockpit so he can attack a locked door with a knife? First of all, you're dealing with a completely UNREALISTIC scenario. The terrorists plan goes to hell if security finds the knife, and he's just wasted 700 bucks on a first class ticket. Plus if he did get the knife through he's got to bust down the door, or hope somebody checks on the pilots so he can come up from behind and bust through. But then he's got to deal with the passengers and the co-pilots. No terrorist would EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER plan something so frickin stupid with such a low potential success rate. If he doesn't succeed he goes to jail for a very long time, no one would ever take that risk. It's not plausible in the least.

A full 747 can hold up to 524 passengers. Please describe how 10 suicidal terrorists could outmatch 524 armed passengers who are committed to living and landing safely.

Haha, 524 armed passengers??? You want being armed to be mandatory?!?! I assumed you were arguing for those people that have concealed weapons permits to allow their weapons on the plane, for the sake of having just a little respect for you I hope that's the case. Also by the way, keep in mind the 9/11 planes had no more than 120 passengers. How many passengers you think are going to have a weapon? There is no way you'd have more than 5. Normal people don't live their lives based on fear and paranoia, they realize the potential risks of carrying a weapon. Even if weapons were allowed on planes, very few people would carry one on board. Again, what's to stop 10 terrorists getting concealed weapons permits and boarding a plane to hijack it?

Your arguments are 100% completely illogical.

 

IkritMan - Umm.... I don't believe the pressure would cause the plane to go into a dive at all. I don't see how the actual flight of the plane would be affected at all. Now, there would be a tremendous loss of cabin pressure, with all the passengers getting only very cold, very weak air. The oxygen masks would have to deploy, and the cabin would be very cold. But I can't foresee any more serious consequences -- and of course, the person who shot out the window would have to pay for all the damage he caused, and could possibly have to pay damages to the other passengers besides if they were inconvenienced or harmed.

The ability to have a gun in your car at a gas station seems more dangerous to me than the ability to have a gun in an airplane.

LOL, your posts crack me up. How many passengers do you think go through airport security daily? At least a hundred thousand around the United States I'm sure. So your evidence of incompetent screeners is an article about one person getting through airport security with a weapon in the last 3 years? So what's the chance of a terrorist being that one person that gets through airport security next time? I'd say 1 in 1000 at best.

The truth is, we don't know how many guns get through airport security. If we did, they probably wouldn't be getting through. Sure, there aren't many documented cases, and that may mean we're very safe -- or it may mean the system is very bad. There's just no way to tell.

Normal people don't live their lives based on fear and paranoia, they realize the potential risks of carrying a weapon.

And what are these potential risks, exactly?


I'm not necessarily arguing that guns should be allowed on planes. I'm just arguing that if they're forbidden, it should be by airline corporate policy, rather than by laws that go against the Second Amendment.

Edit: Responding to some more points.

-Paul

 

524 armed passengers... I'm sorry, but that was funny.

The ability to have a gun in your car at a gas station seems more dangerous to me than the ability to have a gun in an airplane.

Having a gun in a confined area thousands of feet in the air is much more dangerous than having a gun at ground level, even amidst flammable material. At least at the gas station, you have the opportunity to run for safety.

And what are these potential risks, exactly?

Are you implying, by your question, that there are no potential risks with carrying a weapon? As someone who is against gun control for the most part and having used several firearms, I know how to use my weapons responsibly and know the risks involved if a weapon is misused. To imply that there is no risk with carrying a weapon is laughable. I know I can trust myself with a gun, but I don't know if I can trust the person sitting next to me to use his or her weapon responsibly.



I agree that guns on planes and gun control in general are different issuses all together. In my opinion, no major airlines will ever allow non-law enforcement passengers to carry guns on flights for the simple reason of liability alone.

 

The truth is, we don't know how many guns get through airport security. If we did, they probably wouldn't be getting through. Sure, there aren't many documented cases, and that may mean we're very safe -- or it may mean the system is very bad. There's just no way to tell.

Well from all the information I've found, there have been tests done right after 9/11, and most of the results were disheartening. Some airports found weapons almost all of the time, while others let 50% go through. I couldn't specifically find any tests of government employees doing the screening, I can only hope they've improved.

But we also don't know the conditions of the tests. I would be very interested to see a private company do a test right now, to see how government employees fair against private companies.

But even if you have a 50/50 chance of getting through airport security, that's still a huge risk for the terrorists. If a weapon is found and they're Arab (no, that's not racist, racial profiling does happen), chances are their whole plan will come crashing down. Bringing box cutters on board was a 100% sure thing since security wasn't looking for it. But I can't imagine 50% of weapons getting through, that's beyond incompetent, that's negligent.

But the risk of having people bring weapons is far greater than any risk of incompetent screeners. They're not even in the same ballpark. Congress knows this, no way would they ever let weapons on board an airplane except in the hands of a Marshall or maybe eventually the pilots.

As far as potential risks of carrying a weapon, you have accidental shootings that happen, gun accidentally going off, at a hospital I worked for a guy almost got shot by security because he carried in a gun even though he had a weapons permit. Just your normal stuff.

 

Fred, the problem with guns on planes is a big one. If someone accidentally shot one of the windows, the pressure or something would make the plane go into a dive.

FACT 1: Pre-fragmented "safety slugs" are designed not to penetrate walls or ricochet from hard surfaces. These bullets are widely available at reasonable prices and are ideal for home defense where you don't want to accidentally shoot a neighbor while defending yourself and your family -- and they are perfect for use on an airplane, by design.

FACT 2: If it's dangerous to risk decompression by the discharge of a firearm on an airplane, how is it less dangerous if the gun is fired by a government employee or a hired Sky Marshal? Has some law of physics been repealed on their behalf?

FACT 3: Even if you put a common handgun bullet through the side of an airplane -- pick your caliber, any of them -- it will not depressurize a cabin measurably. And what small amount of leakage would occur could be plugged with any number of things within reach of your seat, including a small portion of the tiny pillows and baby blankets you are given by flight attendants. But don't take it from me; listen to two Licensed Aircraft Engineers, one of whom is a Lead Technician for a major airline:

"On the overall question: 'Is shooting hijackers on aircraft an appropriate thing to do considering the risk of damaging the operational integrity of the aircraft,' the answer is 'Hell Yes.' I've been a licensed aircraft mechanic for over 20 years, and I am the Lead Technician for a Major Airline. I know aircraft. It's pretty tough to down a transport category aircraft with small arms fire. Boeing's 737s, 757s and the rest are very much like bulldozers with wings on them in that regard." -- Dan Todd, Licensed Aircraft Engineer for 20 years, Lead Technician for a Major Airline

"One or even several bullets puncturing the pressure cabin wall would be hardly noticeable and the aircraft's pressurization control would easily cope with the slight loss of air. The likelihood of a single bullet causing a massive structural failure is so remote as to be insignificant." -- David M., Licensed Aircraft Engineer

EDIT: Since I'm short on time, I'll respond to Cyprusg's paranoid rambling later.

 

Are you implying, by your question, that there are no potential risks with carrying a weapon? As someone who is against gun control for the most part and having used several firearms, I know how to use my weapons responsibly and know the risks involved if a weapon is misused. To imply that there is no risk with carrying a weapon is laughable. I know I can trust myself with a gun, but I don't know if I can trust the person sitting next to me to use his or her weapon responsibly.

But that's hardly a risk in my carrying a weapon, is it?

-Paul

 

I don't believe that statement.

That I accidentally brought a knife onto a plane, or that it's stupid to trust incompetent screeners?

I don't believe you took a hunting knife into a plane and got away with it. You can't prove it I know, but I'm sorry I just don't believe it happened.


The rest of this thread is just hilarious. Guns on planes? Oh, my, God. Next you'll argue we should all walk on with explosives strapped around us because that'll show those dang terrorists won't it?

Good to see the ol' "guns don't kill people" mantra show it's face again too. Keep up the good work, guys.

 

How about you actually bring a little critical thinking into your posting, Uruk, instead of blatantly stupid exagerations and stereotyping.

All you have are meaningless, fearmongering quips, which is all you have to support your weak arguement(s).

Ciou-See the Sig

 

LOL. I've done that. Go back a few pages and look at my posts, I've argued constructively and articulately, but it all falls on deaf ears. I'm responding to slogans now.

I can't understand why you say I am over exaggerating, when people here are promoting allowing guns on planes for the general public. It's the most insane thing I've read in this thread.

And don't tell me I don't have an argument. The dumbest argument here is the "guns don't kill people" argument.

 

Find one place where I stated the right to life is "alienable". I believe both the right to life and the right to keep and bear arms are unalienable human rights.

You placed three other rights above it. It is defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as unalienable. The right to own enough guns to satisfy your urges, however, is not. And 95% of the world doesn't agree with little Fred's utopian marshall system, where everyone carries many guns and enforces the law. Therefore, if we take the view that 95% of the world isn't abnormal, you statements about "normal people bearing arms" is culturally ignorant, historically inept, and without merit.

E_S

 

All you have are meaningless, fearmongering quips, which is all you have to support your weak arguement(s).

I see the American Right is showing us how rewriting the dictionary is essential to futhering it's philistine agenda...

And just to preempt your "arguements" against this remark, I should point out I'm a conservative voter here; I just object to the American form of conservatism which attracts the more base elements of society to it. It's the byproduct of a culture which says, "You have the right to do this" and which trumpets the individual to such a ridiculous level. Individuality is a wonderful thing, but not to the point where people are pushing their individuals rights as paramount, trumping the other 300,000,000 people in line...

You know the funny thing, Uruk? We've got a higher standard of living, on independent and UN reckoning, a more stable political system, greater weather, etc etc, and mostly, they'll never know...



E_S

 

But we do have John Howard...

 

Take your pic, Sil; John Howard or American style bill of rights with guns guns guns?

E_S

 

But if I am not permitted to arm myself in defense, I cannot protect myself from the government if it decides it no longer wishes to hold the right to human life as inalienable. And if the Constitution fails utterly and the government becomes oppressive and corrupt, without arms, there can be no rebellion.

This is, in my opinion, the reason it is essential that we never lose the right to be arms. The founding fathers may have given some thought to personal security and protection. But mostly, they had just recently come out of a Revolutionary War, in which they had won their freedom. And they realized that any government could grow corrupt, and that it was essential that citizens stay armed in the event that it was necessary to fight another revolution.

If you take away guns, I must look to the government to protect me from other people. But if it comes down to it, who'll there be to protect me from the government?

-Paul

 

EDIT: even though this topic has taken a completely different spin from when it first started (apparently it's about guns on planes now) I still want to say what I'm going to say and if you don't like it: sue me...

What I find astonishing is how people can even think they aren't safe if they don't have guns. Their logic more or less is: more guns = safer country.

And that's simply not true. You can hate michael moore all you want, but the facts he presents speak for themselves: in most countries, the number of firearm murders number in the dozens, or hundreds at most... in the US, they number somewhere in the 22 thousands. And THAT is wrong.

Even someone who has no criminal record WHATSOEVER can go nuts. If someone feels threatened, or is full of fear/anger/hate (yes I'm going to apply Star Wars here) then a gun nearby isn't a good thing. People will resort to it much too quickly. And just because most people do not yet have a criminal record, doesn't mean they will never have one. You can NEVER guarantee that people won't use it in the wrong situation.

As for the people who start screaming that as soon as their guns are taken away their country will turn into a communist hive, PUH LEASE. I'm from Holland. We aren't allowed to own guns over here. Is our freedom restricted? Not quite. There are alot of things wrong with Holland, but lack of freedom is NOT one of them. In fact, I'm willing to argue that my country is much more free than the US.

But what am I talking about anyway huh. Some will read what I say and agree, some will not. There are simply too many ass-headed conservatives around who will NEVER in a million years change their opinion, simply becaus they cannot. Yes that's right, they are unable to change their opinion because they aren't flexible enough to do so.

So that's my two cents for the day

 

When you put it like that, E_S I'll take Mr Sheen - though it pains me to say it.



How many goverments have been overthrown by their civilians in the last, say, 100 years? I'm not too great with history sorry!

 

in most countries, the number of firearm murders number in the dozens, or hundreds at most... in the US, they number somewhere in the 22 thousands. And THAT is wrong.

Well naturally countries with lower numbers of firearms will have lower numbers of firearm murders. However when you look at total homicide rate or total crime rate, the picture you'd paint so clearly gets a lot muddier. When you look at crime numbers overall, a clear relationship between gun control legislation and amount of violent crime does not appear to be present, according to anything I've read.

Even someone who has no criminal record WHATSOEVER can go nuts. If someone feels threatened, or is full of fear/anger/hate (yes I'm going to apply Star Wars here) then a gun nearby isn't a good thing. People will resort to it much too quickly.

I read a particularly gruesome news story the other day about a man who got mad and hacked up his girlfriend with a knife from the kitchen. There was no premeditation; it was a crime of passion. Ought we to do away with knives as well? Sometimes people assault others with baseball bats. Time to shut down MLB. If you follow this logic to its natural conclusion, there will be nothing left.

You can NEVER guarantee that people won't use it in the wrong situation.

For that matter, there's no guarantee that I'm not going to use my car to go run over pedestrians, or use the matches I bought the other day to set fire to a gas station. But most things in this world can't be dealt with on the grounds of possibility. In these cases, as with guns, we have to utilize punishment rather than interdictory prevention.

How many goverments have been overthrown by their civilians in the last, say, 100 years? I'm not too great with history sorry!

Certainly not that many in the last two -- the Iraqis just had us do it for them.

-Paul

 

Darth_Paul: These are prefab arguments. Let me elaborate;

Well naturally countries with lower numbers of firearms will have lower numbers of firearm murders. However when you look at total homicide rate or total crime rate, the picture you'd paint so clearly gets a lot muddier. When you look at crime numbers overall, a clear relationship between gun control legislation and amount of violent crime does not appear to be present, according to anything I've read.

True, but to me it seems a way logical conclusion that more firearms available means that an easier way to commit a murder is available. There may not be a CLEAR relationship, but there must certainly be one.

I read a particularly gruesome news story the other day about a man who got mad and hacked up his girlfriend with a knife from the kitchen. There was no premeditation; it was a crime of passion. Ought we to do away with knives as well? Sometimes people assault others with baseball bats. Time to shut down MLB. If you follow this logic to its natural conclusion, there will be nothing left.

You're following a completely different path of logic here. Explain to me one more purpose to firearms besides killing people. Thats right: there are none. Firearms are designed for one sole purpose and that is killing people. That's all their is to it. A knife is designed to cut meat. A butcher uses a knife. A baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball. Baseball players use it. The point here is: these objects have a much wider variety of uses than a gun does. So it would only seem logical to me when a person sees three ways to commit a murder, namely a baseball bat, a knife, and a gun, the person will take a gun. There is a much bigger emotional barrier when you try to knife a person to death than when you're going to shoot someone. Why? Because stabbing someone is much more bloodier, much more personal, and it involves much more suffering. Most of the people who commit murders aren't actualy murderers. They either get too caught up in their hate or whatever, and therefore resort to the gun. Would their only option in that case have been a knife or a bat however, chances that they would NOT have committed that murder increase, simply because the person isn't up to committing a murder in that fashion.


For that matter, there's no guarantee that I'm not going to use my car to go run over pedestrians, or use the matches I bought the other day to set fire to a gas station. But most things in this world can't be dealt with on the grounds of possibility. In these cases, as with guns, we have to utilize punishment rather than interdictory prevention.

I can apply the same argument as the one above to this one. A car and matches are created for a wider variety of purposes than killing and destruction.

 

Explain to me one more purpose to firearms besides killing people. Thats right: there are none. Firearms are designed for one sole purpose and that is killing people. That's all their is to it.

Ever hear of skeet clubs?
or target ranges?
or militaria collector societies?
hunting trips?
cowboy action shooting?
ISRA long range competitions?

Firearms are simply a tool. The intent for its use has to be given to it by a user, just like with any inanimate object.

Demonizing them doesn't really accomplish anything either.

 

Ever hear of skeet clubs?
or target ranges?
or militaria collector societies?
hunting trips?
cowboy action shooting?
ISRA long range competitions?

Firearms are simply a tool. The intent for its use has to be given to it by a user, just like with any inanimate object.

Demonizing them doesn't really accomplish anything either.

Last thing I knew, firearms were designed as an improvement to the bow and arrow. So that soldiers are more effective at killing their foes. Right? Am I wrong? I doubt firearms were there because people were bothered by the lack of skeet clubs or target ranges etc etc. The fact that people found different uses for firearms throughout the years is no argument.

Glorifying firearms doesn't really accomplish anything either.

 

True, but to me it seems a way logical conclusion that more firearms available means that an easier way to commit a murder is available. There may not be a CLEAR relationship, but there must certainly be one.

Eh, maybe. Quite honestly, I think if I step into an alley and blast someone away, I'm much more likely to get caught then if I simply creep up behind him and slit his throat. But maybe I overthink things more than your average murderer. At any rate, for the violent crime rates to come out as even as they seem to and for there to still be a relationship between firearm availability and the violent crime rate, you must be arguing some extremely aggressive tendencies in firearm-free societies. *shrug*

Would their only option in that case have been a knife or a bat however, chances that they would NOT have committed that murder increase, simply because the person isn't up to committing a murder in that fashion.

But see, that's what I'm getting at, the numbers don't agree with you. If this were really the case, then the violent crime numbers in gun-free societies would be markedly lower than those in armed societies. That simply doesn't seem to be the case. I have never seen numbers concerning the rations of crimes of passion to premeditated crimes in armed versus disarmed societies, so I can't address that specifically. But societies don't seem to tend to get more peaceful or commit fewer crimes in the absence of guns.

I can apply the same argument as the one above to this one. A car and matches are created for a wider variety of purposes than killing and destruction.

So do firearms. But Mr44 gets into that quite well, so I'm just going to respond to your responses to him.

Last thing I knew, firearms were designed as an improvement to the bow and arrow. So that soldiers are more effective at killing their foes. Right? Am I wrong?

I don't know if guns were actually originally developed for use in war or in hunting, but they have valid applications in both. Let me reiterate that: All recreational purposes aside, you can use a firearm to hunt animals which you can then consume for food. But, you say, there's a wide variety of meat available in grocery stores now. We don't need to hunt any more. Since arguing that need has nothing to do with it will likely have little effect on you, let me pitch it this way: Venison is not available in most grocery stores, at least where I used to live in West Virginia. If you want it, you have to hunt it yourself. And if not for hunters, the deer population would be horrendously out of control, bringing disease, destruction of crops, and many more traffic injuries as people hit them.

Since you raised the analogy -- would you be more comfortable if we did away with bows and arrows as well? I don't exactly see how you can reasonably be okay with bows and arrows and yet not with guns since, as you pointed out, they have substantially the same purposes and work in almost the same ways.

Sure, guns are an improvement on bows and arrows. They allow hunters to kill their prey more quickly, more easily, and with greater accuracy, so they have a better chance of being able to feed their families. Oh, yes, that was a technological advancement of the worst sort.

The fact that people found different uses for firearms throughout the years is no argument.

So what you're saying is that the valid uses of something are completely irrelevant, only the original intent? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

I believe the earliest known evidence of explosive devices saw chemicals being hurled from huge pots at opposing armies to set them on fire. Not a nice thing to do. So I guess this means that space shuttles and cars, both reliant on explosions to move, are evil weapons of war and must be banished.

Glorifying firearms doesn't really accomplish an