If we actually allowed the people to ‘keep and bear arms’ and even encouraged it. I have a hard time believing such an act would have been successful if 10%-50% of the (good guys)people in the airplane was armed.
And, how, pray tell, would they be allowed on planes with arms? How did the terrorists get on the planes with arms? What happened to our security system? Perhaps they didn’t have guns, but grenades or something hidden on them, which weren’t picked up by the metal detectors.
Would you like to be standing between the well armed good guy and the well armed bad guy?
Even if the people had a very broadly construed right to keep and bear arms, it is highly unlikely that any airline would provide service to anyone with a gun on them.
Turning this into a gun control thread is a pretty low blow, isn’t it? Political point-scoring right now is pretty sick whatever your affiliation.
I assume you know about the effects gunfire can have in pressurised aircraft, right?
What waterj2 said.
And pally, you don’t know one fucking thing about what occurred on any of the hijacked planes. So what say we hold off on the pro-gun hypotheticals until we know, hmm?
What crusoe and water2j said.
What waterj, crusoe, andros, and stuffinb said.
barbitu8 - if the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ was broadly interpreted so airlines could not deny the people the right.
Swede Hollow if it ment stopping the crash in to the WTC - HELL YES
waterj2 it depends on how the Constitution was interpreted - it is possible that the airlines could not prevent it.
Crusoe I couldn’t help thinking about it and for that matter the fergison LIRR shooting. I didn’t make this post to score political points but it does present an instresting argument.
andros We at the STMB (Straight Dope Message Board) have a forumn for a post like yours - it’s called the pit. Please take it there.
So prevent a plane flying into the WTC, by explosive decompression, yeah , veerrry intersting :rolleyes:.
Wow. Manhattan still smoking and someone wants to turn this into a “debate” about gun rights (or a pro-Missle Defence issue, in other threads). I’m at a loss for words.
Thanks so much for helping a newbie like me out.
Please, allow me to rephrase:
“Given that we don’t know one fucking thing [though admittedly we do know a little more now] about what occurred on the planes, it might be a better idea to discuss this issue after we have some . . . oh, I dunno . . . facts.”
There, hon, is that what I should have said?
Regardless of the Constitution, I’d say that airlines have every right to not allow guns on board. As has been mentioned, a stray bullet rupturing the hull in a pressurized cabin, or breaking a window, or whatever, is not going to be pleasant. For all I know, the compression/decompression itself might trigger something. Throw in some cowboys who wouldn’t think twice before engaging in a shoot-out on a crowded airline, and you’ve got trouble.
The potential for disaster far outweighs any 2nd-Amendment rights claims, as far as I’m concerned.
stuffinb well the idea was to kill the terrorist. A plane would not have explosive decompression from a bullet hole - pressure would drop and so would the O2 masks allowing the passengers to breath at reduced pressure.
Ace_Face I don’t think you should be at a loss for words - it is common to run through ways that some tragic event could have been prevented.
It’s silly to think that the 2nd amendment or the threats to it had ANYTHING to do with today’s tragedy. No one will ever be allowed onto a public airline with a gun on their person. Period. Regardless of how much or little gun control is in the country.
So I would like to hijack this thread slightly, and point out today that there are a number of unsung heroes dead tonight - the people who fought off the terrorists on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. It’s very likely that that plane went down because the crew fought the hijackers to their deaths, rather than allow them to kill hundreds or thousands of people on the ground.
Your White House or State Capital is standing tonight because some very, very brave people stood up to agression in the skies over America this morning. I hope that they are never forgotten in the aftermath of this tragedy.
andros glad to help ;), the fact is I did have some info about one hijacked plane when I posted - (all the passengers were ordered tot he back of the plane)
Mayby premature to use this as an example but it still stands for the LIRR shooting.
Darwin’s Finch If gun ownership was encouraged enough I could see airlines allowing it. The whole attitude towards guns would have to be positive (providing safty and security) instead of negitive (killing).
That is the other argument but I would like to point out that on average right to carry states have lower crime rate then states that makes it very difficult for a person to have a gun.
The second amendment only prevents the government from infringing on a citizen’s right to bear arms. The airlines would still be allowed to ban them, it’s their plane so it’s their party. I guarentee that they would ban guns on all flights if for some reason the federal ban was lifted.
It is not appropriate to turn today’s tragedy into another point of argument in the gun debate, especially not today.
This thread is closed.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
I still think this thread is in very poor taste, all things considered, but I’ve decided to re-open it.
Government employees are allowed to carry on airplanes.
but they’re, like, better than us regular people, right?