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

I dont know how you extrapolate "anti-gun on commercial airliner" to "anti gun all over". I believe that there are certain environments where the carriage of personal firearms is imprudent, unwise or tactically unsound, commercial aircraft being one of them. Other examples include:

Inside an MRI facility
Inside the secure perimeter of a correctional facility
Inside a secure mental health facility
Inside of a domestic relations courtroom
Inside the secure perimeter of a power, nuclear or water utility.
During a surgical or dental procedure when anesthetics are in use.

These are areas where I believe that security is best left to the people who have trained and planned for those eventualities, not John and Jane Doe, average citizen.
 
Handy-
I think you missed one of the basics of polite debate. When YOU make an assertion of fact, it is incumbent on YOU to provide source and backup. When I challenge you for that source, I make no assertion to the contrary and therefore owe you no "proof" to the contrary. The entire exchange serves only to confirm your basis for making wild claims. As you admit, you had none. Let it go.

As to painting you anti-gun, you are yet again, quite assumptive and incorrect. I painted the arguments put forth by you and a former(?) LEO here as typical of what I hear from the Brady Camp....and so they are. If you don't like that, revisit the structure and foundation of your argument....don't "shoot" the messenger. ;)

Sendec-
Quick question. If allowed to carry a gun on board an airplane, would you consider yourself "qualified"?
Rich
 
No, I dont think I am qualified. I do not believe that I could pass the FAM qualification course at my present skill level, nor have I trained on aircraft or been through a TRAP course.
 
I painted the arguments put forth by you and a former(?) LEO here as typical of what I hear from the Brady Camp....and so they are.
Click to expand...
The point is that you didn't "paint" them as a direct rebuttal to the logic of the points made. Instead, you attempted to undermine the poster by creating vague associations that are both false, and not directly relevant.


Another tactic you seem to enjoy is very similar. Instead of addressing a scenerio proposed, you belittle it in terms that have nothing to do with the question. I gave what appeared to me to be a simple tactical problem, which you reduced to "Goldfinger", instead of addressing the logic. Again, you seek to undermine the debater, not the logic of argument.
 
Oops

Forgot to mention that I have not taken the "flying while armed" class that the FAA requires all cops to do before they can carry on board. Without this class no LEO, regardless of level or agency, can carry on board.
 
sendec said:
The point is that you didn't "paint" them as a direct rebuttal to the logic of the points made. Instead, you attempted to undermine the poster by creating vague associations that are both false, and not directly relevant.
Click to expand...
No, I stated that Handy's argument was outlandish and demonstrated that he had no source for his claims. I stated that yours was typical "pop-psych". Since we're talking about the basic issue of disarming Americans, it's only logical that it be couched in the context of the ubiquitous Hoplophobe debate.

I personally find it amusing how thin some skins are around here. Despite the documented and direct comments to me, have I yet cried "Ad Hominem Foul"? Of course not. Yet when someone challenges your argument by pointing up paraphrases from the arguments of the Brady Campaign to disarm Other Americans, under Other Circumstances, you demand a 10 yard penalty for personal attack.

If you choose to enter these discussions, Sendec, you're going to have to do better than that.
Rich
 
That was me, not Sendec.


BTW, how is it that you can speak to either of our emotional states? That is at least the third "fear" attribution you have made in this thread to someone you disagree with. Is that conjecture?


An argument is either logical, or not. It does not take on the values of those who first offered it. The Brady campaign may well use the occasional argument that stands well on its own. That does not logically imply that the overall goals of the debater are correct, or that the argument works in all contexts.


My skin is not thin, but I would like to have a discussion with you where both parties take on the topic, rather than belittling or discrediting the debaters. I don't think that is alot to ask.
 
Sendec-
Apologies for attributing Handy's comments to you.

Handy-
Thanks for taking the rap.
BTW, how is it that you can speak to either of our emotional states? That is at least the third "fear" attribution you have made in this thread to someone you disagree with. Is that conjecture?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not gonna let you go down this metaphysical side track. I haven't spoken to your "emotional state". Your stated concerns are "Safety"; mine are "Freedom". All concerns of safety have, as their root, the concern about being "Unsafe"....spell that f-e-a-r. Concerns about Freedom tend to be more about principles, when taken from the context of a Bill of Rights which speaks zip about "safety" and volumes about "freedom".

- Concerns about the dangers of guns under the coats of law abiding citizens: If not born of fear, than what?
- Concerns about trigger happy citizens shooting each other in a mid-air melee. If not born of fear, then what?
- Concerns of armed highjackers shooting pistols with magic ammo into the "wing root" of jetliners. If not born of fear, then what?

You don't get to call for civilian disarmament by force a noble quest, rooted in the desire for a Free Society, Handy. Not on this board or any other. It's rooted in a desire to "control the OTHER guy". There's no principle in that.....only issues of safety and fear.

Back on topic, if you please.
Rich
 
No one is talking about "disarming American citizens". A temporary restriction is not disarming anyone. You can check your guns with your luggage and load up when you land, I do it a couple times a year.

I have yet to hear a practical realistic argument why it is so important for civilians to be armed in flight. Everything seems based on the infinitesimal chance that ssomeone else does something bad with a weapon. You are afraid someone may have a gun, so you want to legalize inflight armament. It just doesnt make sense.

If someone is so frightened of skyjacking when they fly, clearly they need to find some other mode of transport.
 
No one is talking about "disarming American citizens". A temporary restriction is not disarming anyone.
Click to expand...
Compare this to the following hypothetical quote:
"No one is talking about 'disarming American Citizens'. A partial restriction on dangerous Assault Weapons is not disarming anyone." Wonder who might have said something along those lines?

You are afraid someone may have a gun, so you want to legalize inflight armament.
Click to expand...
Once again, I am clearly not the person here who is afraid of Americans with these dangerous guns. That's why I support the unfettered right of ALL Americans to carry.

Do I support guns on planes? For the Fourth time, "Not Necessarily". But I'm at least willing to examine the issue and the historical experience. You, OTOH, have already made up your mind, based on the "It's a dangerous world" argument. Yet you claim that I "just don't make sense"?

Fascinating.
Rich
 
And yet another specious argument:

I have yet to hear a practical realistic argument why it is so important for civilians to be armed in every day life. Everything seems based on the infinitesimal chance that someone else does something bad with a weapon. You are afraid someone may have a gun, so you want to legalize concealed carry for every citizen. It just doesn't make sense.

If someone is so frightened of armed robbery when they shop, clearly they need to find some other mode of shopping.

The paraphrase above is taken straight out of the Brady Handbook.
 
Rich,

You seem to be arguing that because something is a right, there are no justifiable reasons for ever abridging that right.

Yet there are necessary limits on all rights, especially when the exercise of those rights would overshadow another right. Freedom of speech is another right that has some sensible, and necessary restrictions.

An awful lot of people lose the right to bear arms when they get a plane dropped on them.

It is my contention that airplanes have too many potential vulnerabilities for handguns to be an effective defense or deterrent against the terrorist goal: Bring planes down.


So here's what I propose: Allow people to be armed on planes, but not with high energy projectile weapons or aerosols. Allow them all the Tasers, knives, clubs, beanbag guns or whatever else would be adequate for personal defense without affecting the structure of the aircraft.

This meets at least part of the requirement to allow free people arms, but does not do so at the gross risk of life associated with large groups cramped in small compartments aboard a potential ballistic weapon.

Is this a sufficient compromise between 2A and the pursuit of life and liberty? Or is the limitation of even a bazooka on a plane offensive?



Of course, no one has even mentioned that these planes we're discussing are private property. But they are government regulated.
 
You seem to be arguing that because something is a right, there are no justifiable reasons for ever abridging that right.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm arguing that, when something is a God Given Right and you wish to abridge it, you had best be prepared to demonstrate irrefutable evidence and statistics that your measures will accomplish the stated goal. And that goal had best be pretty damned lofty.

So here's what I propose: Allow people to be armed on planes, but not with high energy projectile weapons or aerosols. Allow them all the Tasers, knives, clubs, beanbag guns or whatever else would be adequate for personal defense without affecting the structure of the aircraft.

[snip]

Is this a sufficient compromise between 2A and the pursuit of life and liberty?
Click to expand...
As a compromise, I LIKE it, Handy. I really do. What you propose is to foster the concept that US Citizens must provide for their own personal protection, while moving the focus to other appropriate, and less emotionally tagged, implements of self defense.

Rich
 
For tactical and training purposes I disagree with the concept, but take for example the concept of a "cold" range. Is being required to unload and show clear the same as being disarmed, or does the need for a collective means of reducing risk enable the temporary restriction on carrying a loaded gun?

The need for a firearm on a daily basis, while still slight is statistically way ahead of needing one on an aircraft. You are paraphrasing apples and oranges.
 
Is being required to unload and show clear the same as being disarmed, or does the need for a collective means of reducing risk enable the temporary restriction on carrying a loaded gun?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's pretty good.
 
Is being required to unload and show clear the same as being disarmed, or does the need for a collective means of reducing risk enable the temporary restriction on carrying a loaded gun?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's another case in point. Kindly demonstrate that "cold ranges" are inherently more safe than "hot ones".

Source please.
Rich
 
O come on, now you are just being obtuse. If you cannot deduce that guns bereft of cartridges are less likely to be shot than loaded guns, I cannot help you.

FWIW, I only run hot ranges, but I understand that it is more likely to result in firearms discharges when unintended than a cold range. I have measured the risk of negligent discharge and determined that it is acceptable, and that the benefits of a hot range outweigh the disadvantages. Show me the algebra of cost versus benefit of having armed civilians on commercial aircraft.
 
O come on, now you are just being obtuse. If you cannot deduce that guns bereft of cartridges are less likely to be shot than loaded guns, I cannot help you.

FWIW, I only run hot ranges, but I understand that it is more likely to result in firearms discharges when unintended than a cold range.
Click to expand...
Not being at all obtuse, sendec. Fact is, when you run a cold range, you do three things that are dangerous:
1) You create a mindset that Rule #1 is false. ie: "All guns are NOT always loaded".
2) For those who wish to exercise their right to carry, you encourage reloading to happen in parking lots and car trunks. Ask Clint Smith about his 30 year experience sometime.
3) For those who never holster a weapon without it being loaded (that's lots of us), you create the potential for tragedy sometime later in the day, should they follow your rules and NOT load in the parking lot or car trunk before leaving the range.

I'm not talking about the local private range here. I'm talking about formal training where you have complete control of handling and safety rules while the group is on the range. I'm not saying a hot range is safer. I'm just wondering where you get the stats that it's LESS so?

Show me the algebra of cost versus benefit of having armed civilians on commercial aircraft.
Click to expand...
Show me where I have ever argued that civilians should be armed on planes....or shall I repeat my position now for the FIFTH time?
Rich
 
Maybe he's taking it for granted that you support the position opposite the only people you argue with.

It is not like there haven't been plenty of pro statements on this thread that were complete hogwash, Rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top