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

Looks like I need a knife just to cut through the tension here :)
Those fountains of knowledge, the mythbusters guys, tested the explosive decompression myth with handgun rounds, and disproved it. That said, right or wrong, after recent events a complete reversal in restricted items is not going to occur and the best you can hope for is mr marshall. Given what some of you have said about this safety measure, it reminds me of "duck and cover". Back to the original statement - yes, we are all expendable, and I got used to it a long time ago. Sad but true.

Oh and then theres this whole thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/
 
So is your argument, "Give up; don't fight for your freedom; get used to being a sheep to the government like I have?"

That's unacceptable to many of us here.

-blackmind
 
hello blackmind, nice to see you too :)
Before you rewrite my ramblings - No, I got used to the way of thinking. I didnt accept it, and I look after myself better because I know no one else will.
I dont have an answer on guns and planes, or I guess I would be a successful politician. I know you wont be able to carry them on a 747 any time soon though.
I see things and people for what they are, and I feel lucky that I can do that. That is what I got used to.
 
Blackmind,

Huh? I just brought it up because it was along the lines you were talking about. What's wrong with that???? It wasn't a debate point to get all upset about.


Rich,

I don't have a source. I'll bet there hasn't been much testing of just how much damage different kinds of handgun ammo can or cannot due to from the inside of a plane.

Which means that you don't have a source, either. Both of which I'm pointing out for second time, if you're reading.

But you do have more hours than I do. And you know an awful lot about Sean Connery. ;)
 
Handy,

Before I sign off for the night:

I'll bet there hasn't been much testing of just how much damage different kinds of handgun ammo can or cannot due to from the inside of a plane.
Click to expand...

Please, ask your commander or read your military history on aircraft... it's there, just find it and read it.

Wayne
 
Whats next? Are you gonna start carrying on parachutes? You are far, far more likely to be involved in a crash than a skyjacking. And the odds of being in a "mishap" are miniscule.

I do have a simple solution for ya - dont fly. If you cannot live without your pacifier for a couple hours I suggest gassin' up the family truckster and movin' on.

Do any of you actually assess the level of threat you face in varying situations? Of the billions of miles flown and millions of passengers without incident - that doesnt mean anything to you?

God, save me from amateurs. The road to hell........
 
I am not a pilot, not a LEO, never served in the Military. I am a civilian with CCW permission papers.

I do recall a time when pilots were armed, and the use of firearm was used onboard to stop a hijacking. I also recall Many were allowed to Carry onboard such as LEO, Military and various Professionals such as Postal Inspectors.

There was a time when pilots were allowed to be - even heavily suggested they be armed - best I recall International flights to some places and Mail Planes are two such examples. Not only in the US - abroad as well.

I do not recall planes falling out of the sky because firearms were on board, in the cockpit. Nor did the planes fall out of the sky or burst into fireballs, or implode when weapons were discharged onboard.


Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54 http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1087467

It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping teen-ager armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at the Cleveland Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the captain.
Click to expand...

The Last Time Four Planes Were Hijacked in a Day http://www.mitchellbard.com/articles/fourplanes.html

On September 6, 1970, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked three jets (Swissair, TWA and Pan Am ) with more than 400 passengers on flights to New York. A fourth plane, an El Al flight, was also targeted, but Israeli security agents foiled the hijacking in mid-air and killed one of the two terrorists when they tried to storm the cockpit. On the 9th, a British BOAC jet was also hijacked by the PFLP.
Click to expand...

My point being - It never bothered me that firearms were onboard a plane, whether I was flying or not. Never bothered me to see/ know of/ suspect firearms on School campuses, Churches, Buses, anywhere. I figured what is my business is mine and what is yours is yours. Then again I was raised where responsible folks were - well responsible. We did not have 911, we had to be responsible.

Seems to me in the old days when we did not have restrictions and meddling- BGs just did not know who might be packing. Now with all the laws and restrictions be in the skies, or ground level - BGs have a guide to better plan their activities.

I apologize for not having the cites at this computer. I am not sure I have them on my personal one at this time.

I did find the two above doing a fast Teoma search. In yesteryear I looked these up in a Library on Microfiche - So using a Search Engine should be real easy.

This topic of Guns in Planes is not new. What I do feel "odd" about is this "new" attitude about guns being evil - no matter where they are.

Growing up guns were part of the culture. Seems the .gov had not meddled to the point where being a responsible person was a bad thing to be.

Run a search for Mail Planes, Int'l flights, and some events on trains, buses and other conveyances where the use of a firearm stopped an immediate threat.
There are some instances -

Steve.
 
Handy said:
Rich,
I don't have a source.
Click to expand...
Handy, you get high marks from me for fessing up to the attempted "knowledge of experience" trash. Honestly.

My point wasn't to embarrass you on this. Just to point up that sometimes even intelligent people can parrot undocumented "facts" they've heard from the media....without ever questioning the absurdity of the statement. Not saying that's what you've done....but I see it so often, I just can't let it pass.

sendec said:
If you cannot live without your pacifier for a couple hours I suggest gassin' up the family truckster and movin' on.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, yes, it's the Infamous Pop-Psych Gambit. Too often one of the last ditch defenses of a withering anti-gun argument. :D

Fact is, sendec, the statements made in this thread make it pretty clear who has unfounded fears and who doesn't. Terrorists are a fact of recent history. Law Abiding gun owners creating havoc and mahem in our shopping malls, taverns, airports and bus stations are a myth. I fear neither group in an armed society. You fear at least one.

Unfounded fear is the stuff of which Lost Liberties are made. That's your KoolAid to drink.....I don't touch the stuff. ;)
Rich
 
Can't believe this went so long without me noticing it.

Ok, my equally worthless opinion:

Let the air companies and the pilots set the regulations.


One potentially fatal problem I see with allowing CCW'ers on planes. Say that they do get a guy with no background and his buddies to get a CCW. They can now legally carry on the plane. You all are assuming that tehre will be another person with a CCW on the plane. Now, we got three or four hijackers without anyone good being able to match that threat. how does that work?
 
You all are assuming that tehre will be another person with a CCW on the plane. Now, we got three or four hijackers without anyone good being able to match that threat. how does that work?
Click to expand...
Probably would serve as an object lesson to millions that they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and safety....which of course is the simple reality of the world. The anti's would prefer you ignore this simple fact; and the fact that our communities would be a lot safer and more free once people realize that .gov can't really be relied upon to babysit us all.
Rich
 
Rich,

Rich, I don't have a source. I'll bet there hasn't been much testing of just how much damage different kinds of handgun ammo can or cannot due to from the inside of a plane.
Click to expand...
I would thank you to quote in context. My "trash" is your trash, since NEITHER of us have a source. Your rebuttal is as valueless as my assertion, and insulting to boot. Hold yourself to the same standard, or accept other's ideas as coming from people no less experienced or intelligent than yours.


I especially do not appreciate how you attempt to make everyone you disagree with out as anti-gun. It is an especially childish way to have a debate.


Probably would serve as an object lesson to millions
Click to expand...
Wow. That would be worthwhile. What other sort of massacres would serve as valuable life lessons?
 
Rich,

Indeed! The "government" also has NO LEGAL reason to ensure the saftey of anyone. I believe the courts have ruled that the police do not have to answer a 911 call at all (or something like that). That said, the police generally do answer the call, even though it might take them a few mintues or longer. It is up to each person to defend themselves should the need ever arise, the ones that want to take that right away from others DO NOT deserve any form of protection from the evils that may lurk in the shadows... It is one thing if they want to go out into the world with happy thoughts, and a hug forever one, never realizing that there are dangers out there that can indeed kill them, I for one would like to have atleast some form of protection. (e.g. a effective gun, like an AK, AR, Glock, M3) Besides they are fun to shoot also :D
 
handy wrote:
I especially do not appreciate how you attempt to make everyone you disagree with out as anti-gun. It is an especially childish way to have a debate.
Click to expand...


When sendec characterizes those of us who don't like to be without our CCW, even for an airline flight, as users of "pacifiers," he is using one of the staples of the weak anti-gun argument arsenal. I dare say that qualifies as seeming anti-gun.

Childish was saying we can't do without our "pacifiers" in the first place. Where were you to cry foul when that happened?

Honestly, you and sendec really do seem to argue more against the sensibility of CCW than for it. What else are we supposed to think?

And then you go acting like you're all hurt and stuff? Puhlease, handy. :rolleyes:

-blackmind
 
Deterrent.

My position is .gov restricting the ability for folks to be responsible for their own safety now-a-days. To worsen matters - .gov announces these restrictions.

So the person that takes the responsibility upon themselves to train and continue training - is restricted from doing so by .gov.

Take a look at my link above about the pilot using a .380 to stop an immediate threat. You will read "We were required to be armed...Americans bought these .380s for us...".

Deterrent - IMO one does not announce that a conveyance or persons are NOT allowed to be responsible. Instead the deterrent works if the BGs do not know.

One true example that worked many years ago:
In Pulaski County Arkansas, Sheriff Tommy Robinson came up with a Deterrent that put a stop to armed robberies in Convienence Stores.

He used the media to let it be known that Bullet-Proof Cubicles with one-way glass would be put into Convienence Stores. Inside these Cubicles there Might be an officer with a shotgun. Only problem was - one never knew if there was or was not an armed officer in the cubicle.

Well best I recall it did not take but once - maybe twice for a punk to take a chance and come in waving a gun and making demands. "BOOM".

Bad news travels fast via the Bad Guy Network. BG shot in the 7-Eleven...we best find another easier gig.

Then the media "let slip" *ahem* there may or may not be an officer in the liquor store hiding in the cooler...or that Mom & Pop grocery store out in the county...that gas station on that lonely stretch of dark highway...

Sheriff Robinson was known to raise some eyebrows and such...he did stop some holdups and other matters real fast.

Deterrents work - That "not knowing" for sure.

.gov meddling and restricting does not work AEB ( as evidenced by) the BGs getting by with stuff and not being restricted. That is why they call them BGs - they are not wired like law abiding folks, what does a statue or somesuch mean to them? Nothing.
 
Blackmind,

There have been quite a few very emotional statements in this thread, many of which have been aimed at members, not the ideas they bring to the thread.

You in particular are so worked up, you sense challenges where there are none.

My arguments, this evening, are very specific, and about airplanes. If you find them to undermine the philosophy of the armed citizen, how is that my doing?


What I said to Rich is for Rich. He'll either understand and honor what I say, or not. But I doubt he needs your backup.



Sm -

I do not disagree about the deterent force of a well placed weapon. The well placed part is tough, though. Your story about the Sheriff might have been very different if this same place had much open carry, and the Deputies reacted to the wrong sort of armed man. There is no single solution to all security problems.
 
sendec ~

Twice in this thread you've said guns don't count for anything.

I have to ask: when did you start doing unarmed patrol work?

pax
 
Handy, it's difficult to separate the arguments from the personalities sometimes, particularly in this thread, because of the nature of it. As I understand it, sendec is an LEO, and it is not uncommon, in my experience, to find an attitude on the part of LEOs that we "civilians" are not as worthy of carrying guns as they are. Then when comments about "pacifiers" are made, I don't think it's unfair to point out that anti-gunners are the most common users of condemnations of that sort.

Who said I was backing Rich up, or thought that he needed it? I had comments of my own to make, and I sure don't need your approval to make them.


-blackmind
 
Sendec
Flight crews are trained and prepared to deal with just these types of scenarios. Is the average civilian?
Click to expand...
Perhaps many of those average citizens - yes. And about any other scenario that might arise.

If you were to step into a large restaurant, movie theatre (or airplane for that matter), that contains a hundred or two people and did a survey, I'd be surprized if there were not a significant percentage of ex-peace officers, retired peace officers, veteran military counterparts, and other professionals that are as able and experienced as anyone else. Many perhaps much more so than those fresh from current government training schools.
 
On the subject of aircraft and tracers etc; I watched uncontrolled individuals and crowds of people parked off autobahn 5 right at the end of the then two runways coming into Frankfurt airport and Rhein Main air base for the better part of ten years. This during the era when the Red Army Faction and others were doing and threatening all kinds of nasty things in places like Germany.

They would park and walk right up to the fence or stand on the bridge over the highway and gawk, scope and photograph the planes coming in right over their heads - and everything within view on the flightline as well as over at Frankfurt airport. Day and night. This with forests all around, and right on top of a highway with no speed limit running hundreds of miles north and south, and countless exits in any direction.

It is not as though "101 ways to take out airliners" has suddenly landed into the consciousness of terrorism after 9/11, and as Rich has pointed out there are plenty of volatile pickings driving and sitting around cities every day. They have been driving and sitting around untouched for four years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top