k2dave, you quoted and replied as follows:
Could you explain what the 2nd Amendment is watered down from ? Please include reference to some variety of Consitutional argument or precedent that suggests present restrictions on guns violate the 2nd Amendment. You seem to suggest with your OP that we should all be able to carry guns a la the Old West.
If the hijackers think that the instant that they would announce a hijack they would be shot, then they wouldn’t do any announcing. They would just get up and shoot or stab at everyone in the plane, and cause wnough commotion to hopefully cause a crash.
Look, people:
Regardless of whtever individual take on the 2nd Ad., on gun and gun owners in general, the bottom line to this argument is that terrorists, especially religious fundamentalist, usually aren’t afraid of dying for their cause.
I admit that it’s possible, say again, possible, that a group of armed passengers may have been able to prevent what happened yesterday. Without going into, or devolving to the level of stochastic analysis, let’s just leave it as a “wild card”: potentially beneficial and potentially harmful.
But if we had a society where people were routinely armed, even on aircraft, instead of putting 3-4 people on 4 aircraft, they’d have put a dozen suicide bombers on a dozen aircraft and just blown them up. While in comparison to yesterday that may seem relatively mild, by itself it is a thoroughly horrendous thought.
Terrorist want terror; they will intimidate, assault, beat, torture, maim and kill to achieve their goal, one way or another.
An plane full of armed aircraft would have just diverted these terrorist to seek an alternative mode of attack.
But they still would have attacked sooner or later, to lesser or greater extent.
“Gun Control”, in the classical sense of the term, is generally used to mean “restricting access to guns”. Perhaps this is what K2 is referring to.
Amen, ExTank … that’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to drill into k2’s head yesterday.
I know we’re hurting, and I know we’re grasping at answers in this difficult time. Unfortunately, with an enemy as determined as this, I honestly do not believe this was a preventable tragedy. If we had armed passengers, they’d just have more armed terrorists.
I believe the only valid question in this debate is more along the lines of what eris is trying to argue… mandatory professional armed security on all flights of a certain specification. I do not believe this would have necessarily stopped an attack - I think the terrorists would have found another way of accomplishing their goals. Maybe the WTC would not have been hit. One can speculate to one’s heart’s content. But I think this is the only reasonable question in this debate.
Yeah, probably, SPOOFE. I was just getting tired of him messing with my words.
little bird your condensending tone is getting annoying. I could not see how NRA training is ANY part of gun control - (yes you can control your gun better after the class - but lets not play games here - gun control is restricting access to guns and limiting the number of guns to the people.
NRA training makes the process of obtaining guns easier and also advertizes the possibility that you can own a gun so in that respect it goes against gun control. Talk about twisting words :rolleyes:
Robb I can’t believe you don’t think there are other views on what the 2nd amendment actually means. There are plenty of threads on it right here take your pick: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?query=2nd+amendment&forumchoice=7&booleanand=yes&searchin=all&searchdate=730&searchdateline=&searchuser=&exactname=yes&action=dosearch&getdaily=&pagenum=
I’m sure you can find what you need there.
pulykamell & extank The funny thing is I understand you have a valid point of view & I don’t know if what I am proposing would actually save more lives then it will cost. I believe it would but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. It would seem like you will not even entertain the possibility that I might just have a valid point of view.
btw The ‘point’ you are trying to drill into my head I have answered multiple times.
I would say that armed passengers have a great chance of taking out the 3-5 terrorist on the plane and at least crash land it killing only the people on the plane. If you filled up the plane w/ terrorist they would lose many more people and would take much better coordination (and the possibility that one might reconsider and alert someone). But also I beleive that the event might have never happened if they knew that our passengers are packing. That is the point I am trying to drill into your heads - not as a fact but a realistic possibility.
You mean like the unarmed passengers apparently did on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania?
And what we’re trying to drill into YOUR head is that if you allow The Good Guys to have guns on the plane, there is nothing to prevent The Bad Guys from bringing guns.
You can’t win this debate. You may as well bow out now.
Yes 1 out of 4 planes was able to avoid the crash into some populated building - still apx 10,000 lives were lost in a few hours. Perhaps 2:4, 3:4 or even all planes would have crashed into unpopulated areas if both ‘sides’ were armed. Perhaps one or more would have survived. We couldn’t get much worse then what happened. Perhaps the event would never have happened. - we don’t know
I give you the fact that the bad guys will have guns too. That doesn’t mean that they will ‘win’ - and the fact that the passengers are armed might deter even a suicide bomber as the chance of his mission succeeding is much lower (there would be better uses for these guys - or at least they will need to expend more of them).
As I can’t win neither can you because we simply don’t know - if you say otherwise you are lying. Why am I the only one here who freely states I don’t know?
Mr. Dave, please try not to lose your temper just because people disagree with you. If anyone is acting condescending, it is you.
k2dave, may I suggest your view of hypothetical situations has been colored by too many Hollywood movies…
Let’s just take your situation…let’s assume we live in a society where anyone can carry a weapon (concealed, no less), AND that the airlines don’t mind if you do carry your loaded weapon on the plane.
So we have a hijacking (a hijacking in which the goal is to crash the plane into a target):
[ul]
[li]The hijackers would naturally be carrying guns[/li][li]The hijackers would know for certain that some civilians on the plane would be armed[/li][li]The hijackers would then take whatever means necessary to neutralize that fact. Shoot first, perhaps? Remember, it’s the plane they want, not the passengers[/li][li]Sure, some passengers woould be armed? How many? Only about 50% (rough guess, probably high) of Americans support being able to actually carry a weapon around whenever you feel like (esp. concealed). So, that eliminates at least half the passenger population anyway.[/li][li]So the remaining armed passengers are to overwhelm the hijackers (assuming the hijackers haven’t already just about shot everyone)? The hijackers will have a planned, coordinated attack and strategy.[/li][li]How many of the armed passengers will be actually able to function in such a situation? We’re not talking a day at the range here. Are we to train every single American in combat duty specific to this situation? Will they just start shooting wildly, perhaps taking each other out?[/li][li] etc.[/li][/ul]
Can you see how uncertain this sounds? And I will reiterate my point from several posts above - NONE of the passengers probably knew (esp. the first two planes) that the goal of the hijacking was to crash the plane. I would venture to guess they would have thought that it would land safely and they’d be hostages, like every other hijacking in history (no cite, guess). So why risk the wild shootout, even assuming your scenario?
This OP is not an argument about the 2nd amendment - it’s about the wisdom of allowing regular civilians to be armed on planes. Lots of other people have mentioned all the other accidents that might happen w/ armed people on a regular, non-hijacked flight? The risk is in no way worth it.
You do know those plain clothes Air Marshall’s carry guns don’t you.
I do think that citzens carring guns adds a detterrant to criminals. Ever notice how the states with concealed weapon permits hae lower crime rates than those without?
Just look at the crime rate in california.
I have been raised knowing how to use a gun, along with all of my childhood friends. We all own firearms, and …
have never killed another human.
Back to my original point though, the sky marshall’s carry firearms onto the planes.
I would much rather have a armed guard on each plane rather than all the x ray machines and searches of people.
Just get a dog to sniff each person for bomb materials and have the armed guard.
k2dave - forgive me if i was a little snide in my word choice last time, specifically about drilling a point into your head. you don’t know me, but i am a reasonable human being, as i believe most people on this board are. i have seriously considered your proposition. i have not, as a knee-jerk reaction, said “no way, that’s stupid.” if you look back over the pages, many posters have replied with constructive feedback over why passengers with guns on aircraft are not a good idea. just because i disagree with your proposition does not mean that i did not seriously debate it. if you think we’re all ganging up on you because we automatically think guns are bad, without any critical thinking to back it up, you are sadly mistaken. we are not automatons on this board. and, to be honest, it insults my intelligence to hear you say that we are not interested in a serious debate on this subject. given the pros and cons, in my humble opinion, i think the cons far outweigh the pros. i’ve even gone so far as to say that perhaps armed security on aircraft is a feasible safety option, something i had never considered before this debate. so please, don’t accuse me of not seriously debating this topic.
FBI agents and Air Marshall’s carry guns onto flights all the time.
it was one guy on the phone that told his wife that he and a few passengers were going to try to stop the terrorists, not the crew.
The crew went along with the hijackers.
What made me mad was one woman saying after the fact that she thought her son tried to help, even though he expressed no desire to do so on his phone call.
We do not know they were successful, as a matter of fact i don’t think they were, as the terrorists managed to kill all aboard the plane. Just because they didn’t ccrash into a public building and kill more people does not make them unsuccessful. The terrorists murdered americans on that flight. They killed people with families, people with children.
I know if i was able to take a plane back from terrorists i wouldn’t drive it into the ground, I would try to land the thing.
you don’t here about the car jackings that california has there do you though.
I think a state should only allow someone not to have the ability to defend themselves when they guarantee that the police will protect them, and if the police fail, they pay the estate 1 million dollars.
I don’t think that any state has guaranteed protection to any of its citizens. Until it does it is up to each individual to protect themselves.
Can’t those sky marshall’s semi s and FBI firearms just as likely have an accidental discharge?
Mr. Drew, there is a world of difference between a well-trained Air Marshall and an untrained civilian. I wouldn’t rest my entire argument on such a painfully flimsy hypothesis.
Additionally, Mr. Drew, I would caution you against making such unwarranted comments. BS like “We do not know they were successful, as a matter of fact i don’t think they were, as the terrorists managed to kill all aboard the plane” are unsupported and fly in the face of known evidence. Please think a bit more carefully before posting next time.
that is only in some cases, such as ice cream and drowning.
But when you show that after the introduction of concealed weapons permits and a decreasing in crime, and can compare it to places with no ability to carry firearms, like australia, and they having a higher crime rate after implementing it, it shows causation.
Also you should of waited till you finished your statistics class. 
If to things seem to coincide, but not have a causation relationship, they are both caused by another event.
Such as ice cream and drowning.
The more ice cream tat is sold, the more drowning deaths there are. But since in the summer more people eat ice cream, and more people swim, thus causing more drowning, they are both caused by the event of summer.
Also firearm permits are a statewide occurance, so it is not just those that have lower crime that have firearms, but high crime and lower crime areas. SInce criminals can not receive the permit, it does not perpetuate crime but reduces it as, criminals already carry concealed weapons, illegally.
A criminal does not worry as much about getting caught as he or she does about “does my intended victim have a firearm and will i die for choosing this target.”