RTF wrote:
The stats were provided for Maeglin who posited that gun related accidents, etc., would go up as the population, and hence, the number of gun owners (or just guns) would also increase. As far as the total number of gun related deaths, please forgive me if I do not respond until tomorrow with some more data.
Sorry about the double post.
I will always forgive a gun-grabber when the facts are not presented by the Washington Post. 
If you noticed in the post, I attributed the data to UncleBeer or ExTank, who diligently sought the data and posted it from the Center for Disease Control, which is a government organization (unfortunately, quite anti-gun), in a long-ago thread. At this time I do not have the time to pursue the links, but I’m sure that you could verify (or debunk) the data that I presented by visiting the CDC’s website. I was just hoping I could help Lib’s thread out by providing some stat’s from a (supposedly) neutral arena, and not send it into “the gun is serpent/no it’s not” country.
#1: Has the NRA, or any member of Congress, or anyone involved in the current process of beefing up airline security seriously proposed allowing ordinary passengers to bring loaded firearms aboard airliners?
Because that would make for some real entertainment.
#2: The NRA reamains adamantly opposed to gun registration. But it would take a lot more certification than simple registration for someone to qualify as an Air Marshall who would then be allowed to carry a gun onto a plane.
I agree that, in the absence of Federal Air Marshalls, airline pilots should be able to have guns in the cockpit. But there needs to be a high degree of accountability in this and all situations where guns a present.
Yet the very people who are making these kinds of proposals are opposed to even minimal forms of accountability.
Cite? As an NRA member, I have heard from no one in this organization about allowing CCW permit holders on planes in light of the 9/11 horror.
People who carry guns do so because they are afraid of crime. They do it to feel more secure. The laws you propose would tell them that they are correct, that it’s a dangerous world out there and they ought to be scared out of their wits. It’s also the government admitting it can’t protect us and it’s every one for himself. So how would your proposal liberate people from their fear?
If you’re a hijackere willing to die to accomplish your goal, what real difference would it make? You’re gonna die in either plane.
I assumed in my first post that concealed carry would be treated the way it is in most states, but on a nationwide level. That means no guns in banks, bars that serve alcohol, airplanes, etc… For Libertarian to debate the airplane hypo. is admirable–and I think Lib. is doing a good job–but is nontheless, in terms of the actual topic title, a strawman. NOBODY is really proposing concealed carry by average citizens on airplanes. Not the boogie man NRA either. I support pilots carrying, and I would support the flight crew carrying. I also think the flight attendants should have non-lethal weapons like pepper spray (my least favorite option) or stun guns (I think a very good idea).
Now as to the topic at hand, what about some antis getting in here and debating the “50 state rule” and not some hypothetical construct conceived in unreality. We could at least switch the debate to a bus, where rapid decompression at altitude is not an issue.
I choose the armed one. Me and my three accomplices would have much less trouble bringing a Mac 10 onto the plane in which people are allowed to be armed. Once on, we can cut down armed passengers in a hail of gunfire much more quickly than with a boxcutter, and with less risk of being disarmed.
Or alternately, grab a stewardess, and anybody who pulls a gun is immediately shot as they try to draw. On the other plane, by the time I get to somebody, they can have their belt buckle/swiss army knife/whatever drawn and ready.
But they didn’t. Because I’m just another weapon-toting passenger. Hey, why pay attention to the fact that the guy next to you has a gun when we all have guns?
Let’s say Lib’s dream comes true and all fifty states have the same CCW laws. Let’s say Joe Busrider goes up to the bus station, ticket in hand, gun in holster underneath his coat or in his fanny pack or wherever. He gets to the gate and, to his surprise, there is a metal detector and an X-ray machine just like at the airport. He asks a security guard, “What’s all this for?”
“Greyhound’s policy is not to allow any firearms on the coach, sir. It’s explained on the back of your ticket.”
“I’m an American citizen! I can carry a gun wherever the hell I want! I got a permit!”
“Not on a Greyhound coach, sir. It is privately-owned commercial property and the peaceful, honest, law-abiding owners - who are ALSO American citizens - have the right to make any restrictions they wish.”
I don’t really think (as I mentioned in a previous post here) the issue is so much “does concealed carry decrease crime?” I think the issue at hand is “does concealed carry decrease terrorism?” At least, given the thread title, that’s what I am led to believe. And I don’t believe the answer to the latter question is “yes”. I do not believe that the Tennessee bus hijacking, or the Sept. 11 airline hijackings, indicate anything regarding concealed carry laws (whether in one state or all 50), since the motivations (and methods) behind “normal” crime and terrorism are so vastly different. Claims that concealed carry laws make one safer from street crime are arguable; claims that concealed carry laws make one safer from terrorism are, frankly, laughable.
Or, to put it another way: if you wish to argue for the nation-wide reciprocity of concealed-carry laws, using terrorist attacks for your examples are the wrong way to go about it, as is equating such attacks with “crime”.
Let’s say I am a hijacker intent on crashing more planes in the US.
And let’s pretend Libertarian gets the CCW law passed in all states.
So I now know that all internal US flights are chock-full of tooled-up Yanks with itchy trigger fingers.
I guess I just give up and go home, yeah?
Or… I could hop in a taxi and wander down to Heathrow (or Charles De Gaulle, or Frankfurt International) and leap onto a transatlantic flight which I know will not be full of gun-toting Americans. Then I just have to sit tight for 9 hours until the fight approaches its destination, and, well… you know the rest.
Nation-wide CCW laws might (stress might) prevent loonies from using internal flights or even Greyhound buses to cause terror attacks, but (and here’s the thing) I ain’t even in the US. In fact I am 1000s of miles away. But if I am determined I can still make use of any one of the hundreds of weekly transatlantic flights from Europe (or wherever) - the net result will be the same.
So I can’t see how CCW would present that much of a problem for yer average suicide hijacker…
– Quirm
Actually, I believe Greyhound is Canadian-owned. Can’t access that info on their website though…
Would anyone else love to see this scenario enacted as a psychological test?
Ok, RTFirefly I found a link to the CDC’s stats for total gun deaths for the year 1998 here. BTW, the stats are presented via PDF. I think you may be disappointed. As for the OP, I am having second thoughts on liberal carry on planes, as I think the re-installation of the Air Marshal program may be sufficient. However, I do wish that there was a 50 state reciprocity for CCW.
Perhaps, but since they operate in the US, they are subject to US laws and regulations and enjoy American freedoms.. I doubt very much that Lib’s suggested law would make it mandatory for bus companies to permit passengers to arm themselves. That would restrict Greyhound’s liberty to run their business as they see fit. Libertarians do not believe in government restrictions on free enterprise, right?
We believe that coercion should be restricted. In fact, supressed. No matter where. No matter who. No matter why. Period.
So you would not coerce Greyhound into allowing people to carry weapons onto buses? It would be Greyhound’s choice? Since the folks who run Greyhound are not lunatics (AFAIK), they would never allow people to carry weapons on their buses. And since Greyhound is essentially a monopoly, people who want to carry weapons and travel where Greyhound is the only choice (which is most of the country) are just out of luck, right?
And you have yet to explain how allowing people to go around “strapped” liberates them from their fears when it is fear that causes people to arm themselves in the first place.
Then why should all 50 states feel compelled to acknowledge and uphold one-another’s laws (e.g., concealed carry permits), just because of some yahoo on a bus in Tennessee? To state that there is a need implies it’s something they should do, which sounds rather like an attempt at coercion, if not outright advocacy of such.
In fact, I direct you back to your opening statement:
Those two clauses are noncausally related. Mitigating fear ameliorates it.
Let’s say you are afraid of being in your house because you have spiders. So you have your house exterminated due to your fear. When your house has been rid of spiders, you are now no longer afraid of being in there.
They shouldn’t.
Nonsense. See below.
Well, I direct you to the difference between that statement and this one:
“In the wake of the Tennessee bus hijacking yesterday that left six people dead, ** every state should immediately BE REQUIRED TO PASS Vermont-style concealed-carry gun layws** so Americans can defend themselves against terrorists or deranged murderers, the Libertarian Party said today.”
We understand the difference between a suggestion and a demand backed by force.
Gun manufacturers and sales people would disagree with me, along with the NRA and others.
In light of recent attacks on American Muslims, I worry that people would shoot innocent Muslim-Americans if they made what was deemed a suspicious move. I like the idea of Marshalls on the planes, like Elal does. That solution directly focuses on airline security, and hopefully would have few other repercussions.