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

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......
Click to expand...

***SPECIOUS ARGUMENT ALERT!*** ***SPECIOUS ARGUMENT ALERT***


What does aikido have to do with guns and their usefulness or lack of usefulness?

Are you arguing that we don't need guns to fight people with guns? We should use the momentum of the bullets that are flying at us to direct those bullets in harmless directions? :rolleyes:

Otherwise, what in the world is your point?

Force against force is not necessarily, per your dictum, "a losing proposition." There is no basis for you to try to say that this is axiomatically so. Don't SWAT teams use force against force? Don't combat units? Don't fighter aircraft? I think that the utility of force against force has a lot to do with how well your retaliatory force is directed, and whether it is overwhelming or not. It is not doomed to fail just by virtue of being force against force.

For example, a 225 lb. muscular man is not going to have a problem fighting a 168 lb. high school nerd even if he opposes all the force that the high schooler can muster with force of his own. He's gonna mow the kid down... inconveniently destroying your claim.

-blackmind
 
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........
Click to expand...
Of course. And of course, a gun resting in a holster on my hip is as much danger to you and society as a set of car keys dangling in my hand....and about as much your business. But then, I now understand that danger abounds for some.

Just curious, have their been ANY cases of a mass transit vehicle being "saved" by an armed civilian?
Click to expand...
Unknown. I can certainly name you one aborted school shooting by "domestic terrorists" and at least one courthouse shooting where lives were saved by a citizen with a legally carried firearm. Do I win the argument now? ;)

How about with a knife, I know the knife guys think they should carry on board so they can do whatever.
Click to expand...
Can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure that Jeremy Glick and the passengers of United Flight 93 didn't toss the confiscated box cutters over their shoulders.
Rich
 
Sendec, (we seem to be replying at the same time which makes the thread confusing on post #)

Just curious, have their been ANY cases of a mass transit vehicle being "saved" by an armed civilian?
Click to expand...

Just curious, when could armed civilians be armed while on mass transit? If you included trains before the laws changed... none, why, because none of the trains were hijacked but the people were still armed and could.

Because that FAM trains and qualifies monthly and is grounded if he cannot qualify. He has training and most importantly a plan.
Click to expand...

Then why not train passengers that wish to carry the same? And for the record, the training requirements have gone down in order to try to get more FAM's on planes. It didn't work and they are just as few as there was before. And why isn't a FAM assigned to every aircraft? Ever play roulette? Fun game, most of the time you lose. Same with playing that game while in the air whether or not a FAM is on board.

Wayne
 
sendec wrote:
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.
Click to expand...


How convenient of you to specify cases that did not involve people going on a rampage with a smuggled deadly weapon like a knife or a gun.

If Richared Reid was not a wild-eyed incompetent boob, and he had smuggled a P7 on board, would he have been so easily overcome? Without the use of firearms?

You're right, any number of "air-rage" incidents -- NOT "AIR TERRORISM" incidents -- have been resolved successfully without the use of firearms.

When we have a case of a terrorist rising from his seat with a smuggled or planted gun, and starting to shoot passengers until the pilots open the cockpit doors (which they say they will not do), we won't know just how easily such a person is overcome by a cabin full of unarmed sheeple.

Thanks for yet another specious argument.

-blackmind
 
sendec wrote:
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...


Stories abound about people leaving the FAM program in DISGUST at the lowering of standards to let failures pass qualification.

Where have you been?

You're making it seem like they're Jedi-trained warriors.

-blackmind
 
sendec wrote:
How about with a knife, I know the knife guys think they should carry on board so they can do whatever.........
Click to expand...


I never said that the reason I want to be able to still carry a knife on board airliners is because I fancy myself the savior of my flight against an armed terrorist.

I simply believe that knives are useful tools, about the most useful tools mankind has ever developed apart from hammers and fire, and it is STUPID to not have one available to you at just about any time. (Yes, I even have a neck knife on in the shower and at the beach. Call me crazy, but stuff happens.)

There are loads of times when others I know ask me for the use of my knife. Why are they so willing to go about their lives without having this simple-to-obtain-and-carry tool on their person? They know that occasionally they come to need a knife, but they're comfortable having to hope that someone nearby has one?

-blackmind
 
Lotta stuff:

I carried a gun in the helicopter, but never to shoot INSIDE the helicopter.

My solution to 9/11 is the fact that no one is ever going to get away with that again. That's why the take overs were simultaneous.


Whether you agree or not about the what a gun do can to a plane, I'm not seeing how multiple guns changes things. It just increases the pace.

Right now, a terrorist has to go through some daunting hoops to get even a single weapon aboard. The last flight on 9/11 has shown that those weapons become of limited usefulness when the passengers don't believe they're going to be rescued.

What all of you are proposing is replacing that one possible smuggled knife or gun with a guarantee of as many guns as there are terrorists. All they want is to bring down the plane at the right moment by damaging the plane or shooting into the cockpit. Guns provide easier means.

What I'm failing to understand here, is what 100 armed passengers, also shooting towards the cockpit, is going to accomplish that isn't what the terrorists want?


Giving everyone a gun doesn't solve the problem, and it certainly isn't going to be comforting.


The 9/11 attackers used terror and the threat of violence to take control of the plane, because they had inadequate weapons and passengers who feared for their lives. Give everyone a gun, and the only thing that's changed is now the terrorists have the means to take over or destroy the plane with force alone. Six well trained armed men in first class WILL succeed in downing the aircraft. No amount of extra shooting is going to change that, but it might speed things up some.
 
Wish I could say I read all 4 pages of stuff here ... but I'm not going to lie. :rolleyes:

Anyway ...

Get someone on board an aircraft who wants to take it down with a pistol and I guarantee that with very little luck they can make it happen -- especially if they have a couple of buddies to lay down cover fire to all the other armed fliers.

For one thing, just shoot into the cockpit and take down the pilot and copilot. Then empty the rest of your high capacity gun into the controls. Probably do all of this without even breaking in -- and I'm guessing that with a little planning you could figure out a way to get in.

Work with a buddy who is a jihadist/aircraft mechanic and learn the precise places there are weaknesses in the plane. Like with the 747 there is a fuel tank the size of a 2 car garage below the passenger area. Given the type of construction, a few .500 S&W rounds from a Taurus 2" barrell might penetrate this. Probably could think of some way to ignite it, as well. Couldn't say for sure on that specific ... but I'm sure a mechanic could come up with some good ideas of where a few well place bullets placed from within the cabin would do a lot of serious damage.

So ... while I'm all about RKBA, packing a gun is not the answers to every single one of the world's problems. Believe it or not there are times when it is best to rely on security for voerall safety.

If you disagree ... feel free to voice your opinion (and not to fly). I'll even read 'em once in awhile. But unless you can *snicker* *snicker* get the American people and the government to agree that allowing everyone to carry their shotgun onto the airplane makes people safer than trying to keep weapons off, the status quo will be maintained.

My thanks to those in the TSA who work to protect us. Now if y'all could just do as well with those security lines as private security used to do ...
 
Like with the 747 there is a fuel tank the size of a 2 car garage below the passenger area. Given the type of construction, a few .500 S&W rounds from a Taurus 2" barrell might penetrate this.
Click to expand...
Oh, that can't be true. Rich is a pilot, you know. ;)


Rich, given the dire inadequecies in the current system, why do you think we haven't had multiple hijacks in the past three years?
 
Handy,

You mentioned the Helicopter, so I'm assuming you're a helicoper pilot?

If so, maybe you should study up on aircraft.

With the use of the same ammo that is issued to the FAM's (which I CAN'T believe that no one brought up and now I can), it doesn't have the capacity to penatrate the hull of the cockpit.

If this ammo was the only that could be used while on your flight, your reasons why civilians can't carry, is dashed all to heck.

Like I said, study up on fixed wing aircraft, the things you find out, may surprise you.

Wayne
 
handy wrote:
I carried a gun in the helicopter, but never to shoot INSIDE the helicopter.
Click to expand...


Finally, we can bring this around to the argument that part of why we should be allowed to carry guns in airports and on planes is that we are still entitled to the protection we get from our CCW while going to and coming from the airport!

What if we have to drive 35 miles to get to the airport? What if we're going to a state that gives us CCW reciprocity? And we'll be there a week, driving a rental car, staying in a hotel room in a strange city?

No one ever gets robbed/raped in airport parking lots? No one ever could?

So if we can't bring the gun on our person in the airport and on the plane, that complicates having it with us on the trips to and from the airport. If the gun is in checked luggage, one would have to take it out of the luggage inside the airport in order to have its protection as one heads to their car out in long-term parking, for example.

Or assuming that one takes the chance and waits til he's at his car. Now he has to take out the gun and load it there in his car in the parking lot to have it ready for the drive home.


-blackmind
 
Jeez, Wayne, I guess I should have said how much pressurized multiengine time I ALSO had. Oh, wait, I did already.

So what do you want to know about airplanes?


How are you going to mandate a particular ammo and insure no other makes it aboard? This scheme I'm really waiting to hear about. :D
 
Garand Illusion,

Actually, all fuel is in the wings with the exception of the valve that crosses the aircraft to switch the fuel from one wing or the other. There are no fuel tanks in the underbelly, which is used just for cargo. You'd be amazed at how heavy and how much fuel the wings hold.

Look it up on your own ;) .

As to the snide remarks, why don't everyone that carries get checked in and no carry on ammo is allowed. The airlines either provide you with the ammo that you need or you buy it and they inspect it, multiple times, and then you board.

IMHO, this is much better then being felt up by the TSA and if you are allowed to carry your gun, I doubt that you'd have a problem using ammo that they want.

Wayne
 
Blackmind,

You'll see people loading bear guns from their checked luggage in the terminal if you go to Alaska.
 
Handy,

10,000 feet, rear door of a C-130 open, climbing, dropping off a few things of cargo that needed to go out.

Now, I know that is different then 32,000 feet, standard for commericial aircraft at top of flight. Air thin, masks drop down. Get masks, cover terrorist. Plane drops to about 10,000 in less than 30 seconds, air okay, no one sucked out. You can now take off masks.

You're a pilot, you know how fast you can climb, or drop.

As for the ammo, what is the problem with the ammo given to FAM's.. I'm waiting to hear this "woohoo I won" bit of the debate.

Wayne
 
Rich, given the dire inadequecies in the current system, why do you think we haven't had multiple hijacks in the past three years?
Click to expand...
Because terrorists are not stupid. Because they probably don't wish to be terrorized by the TSA any more than I do. But note that they have NOT tried new stuff in Miami or Dallas. They seem to prefer places where citizens can't get in the way.....like Boston, New York, LA and London. Get the point?

But, you really need to read the responses, Handy. I have twice stated that I am NOT necessarily in favor of arming citizens on planes. I simply questioned what you're so afraid of. So far, all I've heard is Goldfinger scenarios and the experience of 300 hours in "pressurized multi engine" aircraft.

Now, I have dutifully answered each of your questions. Kindly answer just ONE of mine, now asked thrice:
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?"

While I respect Garand's hypothesis, I don't think you can use him as a source for your earlier claim:
I'm a military pilot with 300 of my 1900 hours in pressurized, multi engine transport planes.
[snip]
Firing tracer rounds into the wing root in the right part of an approach can drop 400 passengers onto many hundreds of people. This could be done on the whim of any armed passenger, and there would be no time to stop him.
Click to expand...
You were obviously speaking from personal expertise on the matter, being "military" and "1900 hours" and all. Kindly share.
Rich
 
handy wrote:
Blackmind,

You'll see people loading bear guns from their checked luggage in the terminal if you go to Alaska.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I guess that'll cover me for flying in to Atlanta or Raleigh Durham, too, huh? All I needed was your say-so.


Why are you unable or unwilling to directly address questions, comments and issues without using specious logic or strawmen?

What does the fact that people load hunting guns from their checked luggage in Alaska have to do with any metropolitan U.S. city airports?

I've got about 1 millimeter of patience left on my scale before I just get so tired of watching you and sendec dodge and avoid any substantive debate and discussion that I simply watch and laugh but cease trying to enjoin you in meaningful dialogue.

-blackmind
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top