U.S. Gov't. position: We The People are EXPENDABLE

I do not understand why you feel that having a handgun on your person forms a forcefield that makes you impervious to harm.
Click to expand...

He's not. What he is saying is that with a gun, the people would have at least a fighting chance. Without one, they are most likely to meet the same fate as the four (my apologies in my earlier post forgetting that there were four) planes and passengers of 9/11.

That is what WE don't understand, why won't you at least give the people a fighting chance.

Wayne
 
Sendec

apparently those of us willing to be unarmed for a brief, logical period of time are fearful, but those who insist on being armed no matter how unlikely the threat are not.
Click to expand...

Put down the Brady play book! ;)

Then why should people, who have a slight chance, but a chance to be a vicim, carry concealed guns throughout their daily lives.

The chances of being a victim are thin but it could happen. Would you take away this means, concealed carry, from the people?

Wayne
 
I do not understand why you feel that having a handgun on your person forms a forcefield that makes you impervious to harm. This is a nonsequitur.
Click to expand...
If it's a nonsequitur it's yours, Handy...You said it; I certainly didn't. I simply said that I don't spend my time wringing my hands over the thought of people with guns.

Guns provide the ability to meet force with force. But some situations cannot be solved or prevented by escalating force, despite you're "fear" rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Ummmmm, how else would you stop a suicide bomber? Offer him a mint? Talk about his childhood? Wait for the proper authorities with the Uber-Secret training?


BTW, can you direct me to your information about how invulnerable planes are to bullets? Source, please.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement that I do so, Handy. Because I made no claim in this regard. You did. I now repeat the challenge to your proclamation of handguns taking down jetliners:
The ability of HANDGUN Tracer rounds to take out a commercial jet on approach?....fascinating. Kinda forces me to ask the operative question:
"Source Please?"

Back it up or dismiss yourself from the debate.
Rich
 
Handy,

Just wondering. What are your thoughts, solutions, using the 9/11 scenerio, on how the outcome could have been different?

We tried it "your" way and it didn't work. Why not try it our way?

Wayne
 
Uh, they did have a fighting chance, took it, and aborted a strike on Washington. Its unfortunate that they all died, but the odds that a random, untrained group of armed civilians would have done any better are incalculable.

Guns dont mean squat. A coward with a gun on that flight would have accomplished nothing. Its the people who count.
 
Any number of martial arts, aikido for example, teach that using direct force against direct force, is a losing proposition. If your only tool is a hammer, you know the rest......

Sometimes offering them a mint is just the ticket. It gives the snipers time to dial in.
 
Sendec,

Uh, they did have a fighting chance, took it, and aborted a strike on Washington.
Click to expand...

And if they could have had something more, like a gun, maybe they could have taken out the terrorist, saved the pilot/co-pilot from death, and then landed?

Wayne
 
Guns dont mean squat. A coward with a gun on that flight would have accomplished nothing. Its the people who count.
Click to expand...

Not sure who that was directed to :confused: . The FAM if one was aboard or are you saying that civilians with guns would have done nothing?

Wayne
 
Ladies and gents, how do you feel about this: "Our" government is so in love with its power and control over We The People that it would rather blow a hijacked airliner full of American citizens out of the sky than to allow us to fly armed and have a fighting chance against hijackers.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to restrict the lawful carrying of a handgun from a plane, anymore than anywhere else. Are airplanes vulnerable to bullets? Sure. Otherwise that F16 wouldn't be able to shoot it down. Is an airplane extremely vulnerable to handgun bullets fired from inside the cabin? Probably not nearly as vulnerable as we have been taught to belive by the movies. Otherwise why would the Federal Air Marshalls be allowed to carry them?

If anyone is allowed to carry a pistol on an airplane (Federal Marshalls and some LEOs), then everyone who has a legal right to carry should also be allowed to carry on an airplane.
 
sendec said:
Interesting take - apparently those of us willing to be unarmed for a brief, logical period of time are fearful, but those who insist on being armed no matter how unlikely the threat are not. If you arent fearful, why be armed? Talk about logic....
Click to expand...
I never said I'm unconcerned about your gun, "only if I also have one". Never even said I always carry one.

I simply said, in an armed society, I couldn't care less if you have a gun or not. But you immediately wring your hands over the possibility thst there may be one under my coat. See the difference between us? Thanks for the case in point.
Rich
 
butch50,

The weapons systems on the F-16 consist of 50 caliber rounds being fired at an extremly high rate. Most military aircraft rely on the missle systems to take out their prey, with the cannons being used in close combat or as a way to clear the path home.

It takes MULTIPLE rounds from these cannons, unless a vital part is hit, to bring down the aircraft, transports included.

As most have noticed, both Handy and Sendec have decided not to answer my questions or even to show what I've posted in inaccurate. Their main argument is that civilians just shouldn't be allowed to carry on an aircraft, but they only have emotional replies of "we just can't trust anyone" and "it wouldn't have helped" without really mulling the concept in their minds and thinking about it.

They will defend their thoughts, as we will ours. Yet the terrorist will just work harder to do more damage.

Wayne
 
I dont care whats under you coat unless I have reasonable suspicion. Whether or not you carry is your business, but what you do with it is everyone's, especially when it has the potential to adversly impact more than just you. Needs of the many and all that........

Just curious, have their been ANY cases of a mass transit vehicle being "saved" by an armed civilian? How about with a knife, I know the knife guys think they should carry on board so they can do whatever.........
 
USP

Ask a clear, concise question and I'll answer it. I've already stated my solution to what is a largely illusory problem.
 
I am willing to fly unarmed because I am not afraid of anything on board. History has shown that the odds of me needing to kill somebody on board a plane just dont exist.
Click to expand...


This strikes me as a wholly ignorant statement.

"Just don't exist" means "zero probability/possibility." You're saying there would never ever be a chance of you having to kill someone on board a plane.

Just like when you take the SAT, you're supposed to be very wary of answers that state "always" or "never."

What if you had been on the flight on 9/11/01 that crashed in Pennsylvania after occupants heeded the "Let's Roll!" call, and overtook their hijackers.

Oh, I suppose they might have used some judo chop-sockey and just incapacitated their hijackers. :rolleyes: No need for killing such human scum, right?

I think that your statement evidences not just historical ignorance, but a serious lack of imagination as well.

-blackmind

-blackmind
 
The weapons systems on the F-16 consist of 50 caliber rounds being fired at an extremly high rate. Most military aircraft rely on the missle systems to take out their prey, with the cannons being used in close combat or as a way to clear the path home. It takes MULTIPLE rounds from these cannons, unless a vital part is hit, to bring down the aircraft, transports included.
Click to expand...

I meant the fighter plane to be in contrast to the pistol. Large weapons platform firing from the outside vs pistol from the inside. Sorry that I did not make that clearer. If it takes an F16 to reliably shoot down an airplane, where did all this fear of a pistol in the cabin come from?

Their main argument is that civilians just shouldn't be allowed to carry on an aircraft, but they only have emotional replies of "we just can't trust anyone" and "it wouldn't have helped" without really mulling the concept in their minds and thinking about it.
Click to expand...

Wayne, my response to why we should be able to carry on airplanes is simply that I trust myself more than I trust anyone else, especially strangers, and I want to have a pistol available just in case I might need one to protect myself and possibly others. Why would I trust a Federal Marshall more than myself? When and if it comes to self defense, I want to be responsible for myself, I don't want to turn that over to anyone else. I realize that the odds are pretty slim that I won't need one, but the odds are pretty slim that I will win the lottery, yet I buy a ticket every now and then.....

Why, on the other hand, should I believe that my fellow legally armed citizens are prone to committ mayhem?
 
Richard Reid was stopped and held without the use of a firearm.

Any number of air-rage incidents have been resolved successfully with the apprehension and control of the aggressor without the use of firearms.
 
Because that FAM trains and qualifies monthly and is grounded if he cannot qualify. He has training and most importantly a plan. What do you have besides a gun an good intentions?
 
Because that FAM trains and qualifies monthly and is grounded if he cannot qualify. He has training and most importantly a plan. What do you have besides a gun an good intentions?
Click to expand...

I have the right to defend myself, and if armed I have the means. Just because joemarshall has a gun, and trains and qualifies periodically doesn't mean that he is going be effective when he needs to be. Good Lord, how many govt employees have you known in your life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top