Ack! Forgot the cite.
Well, I didn’t say anything like that. But law enforcement officers train at combat situation shooting, and are, in general, better shots than people at large. It is also a fact that even with professional shooters, under stressful conditions a large number of shots miss. But at the same time, once five hijackers have begun the act of hijacking, thereby revealing themselves, it is much easier for two or more trained, armed officers (one uniformed, one or more plainclothed as in my plan stated earlier) and 80 passengers to overwhelm five hijackers, even armed with guns. Add to that the fact that people in a hijacking are going to assume that they will die anyway, and will be bolder in acting.
:rolleyes: yourself.
Never scored well in reading comprehension, eh? if you read my posts, you’ll find that I’m on record as stating that there is NO SUCH THING as perfect security. That includes Air Marshalls.
Well, my cite is quite a bit of time spent reading your anti-gun-ownership rants in GD. Maybe I’m wrong, I’ll research it tonight and apologize publicly tomorrow if I can find evidence that you support gun rights. Although I think that the first paragraph in the quoted section immediately above (“ridiculously easy-to-obtain CCW permit”) doesn’t lend credence to the idea.
[aside]Have you ever tried to get a CCW permit? In most states it’s not easy at all, and in NJ where I live it’s damn near impossible.
Sorry, really unclear phrasing. Let me try again:
I fully support your right to dislike guns. But when you start trying to piece together a logical argument supporting the idea that guns are bad and necessarily dangerous, it just doesn’t work. Because the assumptions underlying your argument are inherently illogical.
Better?
Cockpit crew, maybe. But not the cabin crew. They are too busy attending the passengers, and would be easy prey to hilackers. Too vunerable to being grabbed and disarmed.
Aren’t we overreacting?
Is all this any different than mounting 50 cal. machine guns on some private planes, in case one might be able to down a hijacked plane? I know, too slow. But you see what I mean?
Peace,
mangeorge
This would be a good idea, I like it. But it is also not a perfect solution, and IMO, not quite as good as having armed security alone. This is because pilots have other work to do (flying the plane) and cannot dedicate their full attention to flight security, whereas armed security would have only the security of the aircraft to attend to. I do think it would be a fine complement to armed guards/air marshalls/whatever else, however.
Sounds like an interesting discussion. You should start a thread, if you haven’t already.
Again, an interesting and reasonable idea, I think. I do need to qualify my opinion on this, though.
While I am a staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights and firmly opposed to any restriction of gun rights, I don’t think that being banned from carrying a gun on a plane is necessarily an infringement on my rights. I see it as analogous to my setting up rules to be followed in my own home. There is no right to free speech in my home: If I don’t like what you’re saying, I’m completely within my rights to escort you out. If you don’t want guns in your home, I will leave mine at home or in my car.
I don’t think I have a “right” to fly on somebody else’s plane (if it was my OWN plane, it’s a different story). My only confusion is whether airlines and airports fall under the same restrictions as shopping malls. Even though a mall is private property, it’s open as a public forum, and Constitutional rights do apply. i.e. if I have a CCW permit, I cannot be restricted from carrying a gun into a shopping mall. Neither can they restrict free speech. So I’m still somewhat undecided on what I think about this approach.
Keep on researching, Joe. You come on back and let me know when you figure out how I feel about private gun ownership, m’kay?
And keep in mind there’s a crucial difference between supporting private ownership and swallowing every damn fool thing gun rights supporters have ever said. And they say a lot of damn fool things, IMHO.
Heh. I have a list of about 200 things I want to start threads about. Seriously. I will put that one on my list, though…
I completely agree. Someone else started a thread about the 2nd applying on airplanes. I would have posted there saying largely what you did, but someone else beat me to it.
My post was actually concerned with demonstrating that your “worst case scenario” is far fetched even if permit holders are allowed to carry on planes.
Well, I read over about 10 gun threads you have taken part in, and I found one instance of your claiming to own a gun. So I apologize for implying that you think all private ownership of guns should be abolished.
However, I also found many, many posts where you did not ever take a firm stand on either side. It seems all you do is take points made by pro-gun posters and nitpick them, all the while never clearly stating your position. You also take statements out of context, misconstrue (I suspect purposely) very clear language, and are generally hostile and very snide towards the anti-gun-control crowd.
So I will amend my statement to say that you support your OWN gun ownership, but seem to be very strongly against ownership for anybody you don’t know personally.
And why should I “take a firm stand on either side”? It’s the gun nuts and gun control zealots who wish to paint everything in black and white. Out here in the real world, sensible people know that the middle is not excluded every time the discussion turns to guns.
Now I’m off to find the thread a month or two ago where I stated my position quite clearly. Upon reading it, you will, I feel certain, decide to keep me in your “evil” column.
Well heck if I can find it now. Suffice it to say that I support private gun ownership, but with a bunch of reasonable restrictions designed to reduce their availability to criminals and otherwise reduce the death toll attributable to their misuse.
SenorBeef
[Moderator Hat ON]
SenorBeef, Great Debates is not an appropriate forum for direct personal insults. If you feel you absolutely must insult someone, do it in the BBQ Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I’m sorry I don’t have a cite for this. A recent program I saw about air travel & safety (maybe “Investigative Reports - Rage in the Air” on A&E) mentioned the following measures that El Al takes to prevent hijacking:
[ul]
[li] extensive security checks in the airport, as part of the passenger check-in process (e.g., being frisked perhaps multiple times, having baggage thoroughly searched)[/li][li] numerous well-trained security personnel conducting the screening (as opposed to the common US practice of hiring people who may not have a clue what they’re supposed to be looking for)[/li][li] a cockpit door that seals the flight crew off from the main cabin for the duration of the flight[/li][li] the presence of 2-3 undercover armed AM types on every flight[/li][/ul]
There may have been more, but those are the ones that I recall clearly. The cost of these measures was reported as being in the billions-of-dollars range, with the cost being subsidized by the Israeli government.