"You touch my junk and I'll have you arrested"

[Calabrio]

I have seen you have never gotten the 'ssss' boarding pass Cal (often they are green - try to avoid the green ones) it makes the pat downs and scan pale by comparison...

Is that because you associate with terrorists?

It is also illegal to turn off the smoke detectors in the plane - it doesn't stop people.

Actually, it does. You're simply saying it hasn't stopped EVERY person from trying.

But, is that your standard.
We will only do things with 100% effectiveness.

Clearly, that's not possible.
Yet despite this, you still would prefer to transfer greater liberty and wealth to the federal government to unsuccessfully pursue these challenges.

No I am not Cal, what I am saying is that their are lots of types of people in the world - and if I am in a very closed environment, with a whole lot of strangers, and it is stressful to begin with, I really don't want to add firearms to the mix.

What about on the bus?
In the subway?
At the theater?
In the mall?
At a Denny's at 3 in the morning?

If I am in a bar with a drunk who start to get angry because the bartender has cut him off, I can leave before the bullets start to fly - I can not on a plane.

Again, the guy carrying a firearm in the bar and drunk is in a compound violation of the law.

But more importantly, your presumption that people will just start opening fire when irked is condescending an insulting. You again frame society in a way that dictates that those in government must protect us all from ourselves.
Do you know the crime statistics for legal, responsible fire arm owners?

According to one article from the LA Times, "More Permits, Less Crime" from 1996, in Florida there were 315,000 CCW holders in the state. There were only FIVE incidence of gun crime from that figure. This means that CCW holders were 840 times LESS LIKELY to commit a gun crime than the random citizen.

They would have gotten permits - they aren't hard to forge. I guess the TSA could run a computer check on all the permits if it came to that - but they don't run a check to see if your driver's license is forged or not - they just glance at it...

You just throw everything against the wall and hope some silly point will stick.
However, using your logic and the ease in which you can make a fake ID, we shouldn't check those either?

But what you're really doing is simply pointing out the PROBLEMS WITH THE CONVENTIONAL SECURITY currently in place, not addressing a problem associated with allowing responsible citizens to defend them self.

No one has even implied that allowing citizens to carry was the ONLY thing that was necessary, just something that should be allowed. The terminal and baggage security absolutely needs to be improved.

So verifying identify would be part of that process.

That didn't happen during the 'current' system - 9/11 would have had to been carried out differently by the terrorists today - the box cutters probably wouldn't get through, they would have had a different plan.

Yeah, they'd possibly ship something and store it in the cargo.
Or they'd have an airport worker hide something on the plane while on the tarmac.
Or maybe they'd hide a biological or chemical agent inside their arse...
None of those things would be caught by the current system either.

But, the point you've really made is, NOTHING IS 100% effective.
And in that case, I'd rather have more freedom, less invasion, and greater responsibility for my security.

And I am saying flying isn't a right - it is a privilege. If you want to avoid flying you can.

This isn't the discussion we're having.
Bad ineffective, burdensome, policy isn't a responsibility of citizenship either.

If the airlines wanted you to jump up and down on one foot and sing Yankee Doodle Dandy before you boarded, they could, and you could get on the bus instead.

Yeah, but the airline isn't asking me to do that.
The government employees in TSA uniforms are.
And they are acting on policy dictated by Big Sis in Washington, D.C.

If the airline wants to let Fossten fly with a hangun, THEY CAN'T.
If the airline wants to let the flight crew carry weapons, they can't make that decision.
If the airline wants to bypass the TSA and hire private security firms, they can't.

The rest of your effort is simply a rehashing of the same thing so there's no point in responding to it again.

 

[cammerfe]

Requirements

So, KS - has Michigan added a course to their requirements, they used to be just no legal/insanity problems, get a permit state. So, how about Mississippi - they used to be an "apply and receive" sort of state.

Well, let's see. Got my first CCW in '62, and had to provide a reason why I wanted it. Then along about '74, had to write a formal letter, again providing circumstances.

But since '04 or so, it's been necessary to take an approved class. Including range time, it took 20 hours plus, and I expended 250 rounds. That's somewhat in excess of requirements, but I got a Kahr PM9 as a back-up to my usual-carry Kimber Ultra CDP II and I wanted to shoot it in.

I think it's only necessary to go to school every evening for a week, including range time, and shoot an acceptable score. And then go through an interview with the local gun board. (I already had one Gunsite course and several years of bowling pin and run-'n'-shoot competitions under my belt.)

Crimson Trace laser sights are beneficial in a hostage situation.

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

All this scanning and groping won't tell if someone has a butt full of explosives, drugs or even poop for that matter.

 

[foxpaws]

That's not exactly an uncommon name. Who are you talking about?
Ahamd Ajed? The one who was convicted in the 1993 Bombing?

First of all, he wasn't on any of the flights nor was he involved in the 2001 attack, so what is your point? Are you deliberately trying to misdirect?

But more importantly, no one has said that we shouldn't have airport security. A man who may meet the description of Ahmad SHOULD be stopped before boarding a plane and placed on a no-fly list.

It was just a made-up name cal - a 'generic muslim sounding name'...

Here's the cute part of every foxpaws "Debate" where she ceases to even address the fundamental issue and just muddies the water up.

So, in your scenario-
a U.S. citizen and terrorist has boarded the plane.
All of the ground security has given him a past. He has no terrorist affiliations or suspicious travel. He has a legal firearm and the right to carry it so he's allowed to board the plane.

His only intention is to.... stand up and shoot someone.
Why does he have to do that on an airplane?
Regardless, we'll continue with your attempt at a strawman.

He stands up and draws his firearm. He then begins to recite what his demands are....somewhere in the middle of it, a guy three rows back with a .38 snub nose shoots him in the gut, severing his spine with a hollow point bullet. He collapses to the ground, while bleeding out, unable to move, though still conscious, the :q:q:q:q in his shredded intestines leak into all of the open wounds inside his torso. He dies 12 hours later.

No one sheds a tear for him.

So, the terrorists (remember in 9/11 they were 'plural' on the plane) have guns - get a couple of hostages - heck that screaming kid in 22B is a perfect choice - along with that sweet grandma in 14A - they back up towards the cockpit and wait - in the meantime they start popping off people they have profiled on the plane who look like they might be carrying guns (terrorist are perfectly capable of figuring out who is most likely to have CCWs and kill those people first).

But let's try the even more absurd strawman you're presenting-
He stands up and forgets that terrorism is usually political in nature, forgets to explain why he's doing what he's doing or what his purpose is and he just shoots the poor bastard sitting next to him.
And then, someone shoots him.

No one boarded the cockpit.
No one crashed into a building.
A violent crime took place on an airplane, a tragedy, but contained.

But Cal - I don't think you understand - guns aren't always the solution to problems - and in this case - probably not. You are adding yet another form of violence into an already volatile situation. Why? Would most people feel safer if they knew 20 people on that plane - people they don't know at all - were carrying concealed weapons. No. 20 people might feel better - but 200 people aren't going to be comforted by that fact, and probably - are going to be far more edgy, when that sweet grandma in 14A screams out "He's got a gun" when she notices the guy next to her has a shoulder holster when he reaches over her to get his briefcase out of the overhead bin and then the trigger happy 'wanna be hero' in 28C tries to take him out, but, in all the commotion that immediately ensues he is bumped by the 300lb guy in 28B who leaps up and ends up shooting the kid's mom in 22A blowing her head off and her brains fall all over her 6 year old boy sitting in 22B.

Needless tragedy...

Once again - plane travel is a really stressful thing for a lot of people (want to know why those guys are sitting at the airport bar getting drunk - it isn't because they like paying $10 for a drink). Adding guns isn't a great solution to the problem.

Explain to me how your FEAR is any different than a lunatic walking onto a bus, a subway train, or the mall?

You know - if they start putting scanners in the entrances to buses, or subways, or whatever - so be it... they do in courtrooms right now, they do in some schools. However, the situations are different on planes. They really are Cal, you might want to try to compare a Mall and a Plane - but the dynamics are quite different.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, let's see. Got my first CCW in '62, and had to provide a reason why I wanted it. Then along about '74, had to write a formal letter, again providing circumstances.

But since '04 or so, it's been necessary to take an approved class. Including range time, it took 20 hours plus, and I expended 250 rounds. That's somewhat in excess of requirements, but I got a Kahr PM9 as a back-up to my usual-carry Kimber Ultra CDP II and I wanted to shoot it in.

I think it's only necessary to go to school every evening for a week, including range time, and shoot an acceptable score. And then go through an interview with the local gun board. (I already had one Gunsite course and several years of bowling pin and run-'n'-shoot competitions under my belt.)

Crimson Trace laser sights are beneficial in a hostage situation.

KS

Sorry KS - I apparently was working with pre-'04 knowledge...

How about Mississippi though - are they still apply and wait - I don't think you need much there...

Needless to say - if someone really wants to go that route - they can... Heck, the 9/11 terrorists took flying lessons - sort of if there is a will - there will be a way. And getting guns onto a plane sounds like a wonderful opportunity for terrorists. Because, although there may be other passengers on that plane with guns - there might not be, and even if there are - terrorists are completely capable of profiling who those passengers probably are - and they will take them out first...

Profiling - works both ways...

 

[foxpaws]

Is that because you associate with terrorists?


Actually, it does. You're simply saying it hasn't stopped EVERY person from trying.

But, is that your standard.
We will only do things with 100% effectiveness.

Clearly, that's not possible.
Yet despite this, you still would prefer to transfer greater liberty and wealth to the federal government to unsuccessfully pursue these challenges.

Cal - you are making this about something it isn't - this is about common sense - do you really want lots of people in planes with weapons? I don't - it is scary enough traveling now - I don't need Wyatt Earp sitting next to me, armed. It is bad enough when Wyatt Earp is sitting next to me neutered...

Again, the guy carrying a firearm in the bar and drunk is in a compound violation of the law.

But, once again - laws don't stop people from doing stupid things. However - I believe he can carry in a bar in 3 or 4 states, and that number is increasing because the Supreme Court upheld that particular law...

But more importantly, your presumption that people will just start opening fire when irked is condescending an insulting. You again frame society in a way that dictates that those in government must protect us all from ourselves.
Do you know the crime statistics for legal, responsible fire arm owners?

It is small - the stats for responsible fire arm owners. And do you know how many people have to take drugs to get on a plane - have to have a drink just to board. Being on a plane is different Cal - just like being in a court room is different. Situations change - laws accommodate.

According to one article from the LA Times, "More Permits, Less Crime" from 1996, in Florida there were 315,000 CCW holders in the state. There were only FIVE incidence of gun crime from that figure. This means that CCW holders were 840 times LESS LIKELY to commit a gun crime than the random citizen.

I would love to see that updated - 14 years ago - a lot has changed - CCW permits are up by tons - I would imagine that because of that the stats have changed - got something from this generation Cal?

But what you're really doing is simply pointing out the PROBLEMS WITH THE CONVENTIONAL SECURITY currently in place, not addressing a problem associated with allowing responsible citizens to defend them self.

No one has even implied that allowing citizens to carry was the ONLY thing that was necessary, just something that should be allowed. The terminal and baggage security absolutely needs to be improved.

So verifying identify would be part of that process.

I don't really see what you are going for here Cal... sorry....

Yeah, they'd possibly ship something and store it in the cargo.
Or they'd have an airport worker hide something on the plane while on the tarmac.
Or maybe they'd hide a biological or chemical agent inside their arse...
None of those things would be caught by the current system either.

But, the point you've really made is, NOTHING IS 100% effective.
And in that case, I'd rather have more freedom, less invasion, and greater responsibility for my security.

And I would rather you not on a plane - how difficult is that to understand Cal. Nothing is 100% effective - but, let's look at real stats, number of planes dropping out of the sky since 9/11 in the USA - zero.

I don't think suddenly mixing guns and planes is going to work.

This isn't the discussion we're having.
Bad ineffective, burdensome, policy isn't a responsibility of citizenship either.

Because it isn't a right - it is a privilege. Flying can be whatever they want it to be Cal. You can't get around this little blip in the radar - they could make us all wear fluffy bathrobes and bunny slippers.

You want to fly private - go ahead - you won't be scanned at all. You go out to the hanger - get on the plane and arrive in your destination, just as you would in a commercial flight - you want to be armed to the teeth - you can.

That is your right - the right to choose an alternative. Those alternatives haven't been removed.

Yeah, but the airline isn't asking me to do that.
The government employees in TSA uniforms are.
And they are acting on policy dictated by Big Sis in Washington, D.C.

If the airline wants to let Fossten fly with a hangun, THEY CAN'T.
If the airline wants to let the flight crew carry weapons, they can't make that decision.
If the airline wants to bypass the TSA and hire private security firms, they can't.

Yes, private planes will allow Foss to carry whatever he wants - he can charter one at any time. However, dealing with a public venue - in airports that are built with public dollars, on planes that are licensed to carry commercial - the government can dictate what happens. I get on a public road, I am required to act a certain way. I go out to the race track - I get to act a whole different way.

 

[fossten]

in 9/11 they were 'plural' on the plane) have guns - get a couple of hostages

Wrong. The 'hostages' would kill the terrorists before they 'got' them.

- heck that screaming kid in 22B is a perfect choice - along with that sweet grandma in 14A - they back up towards the cockpit and wait - in the meantime they start popping off people they have profiled on the plane who look like they might be carrying guns (terrorist are perfectly capable of figuring out who is most likely to have CCWs and kill those people first).

What kind of plane are you on, that you think a terrorist can take out all the CCW people? Is this a Fisher Price Plane, with only 6 seats? Wow, so terrorists are Wild Bill Hickok now? Your hyperbole is reaching aurora heights.

Basically, you're just ignoring Cal's points and blathering on and on with your wild, unsubstantiated imaginary predictions. Nice Alinsky tactic, by the way.

But Cal - I don't think you understand - guns aren't always the solution to problems - and in this case - probably not. You are adding yet another form of violence into an already volatile situation.

What volatile situation? You've been bleating this nonsense for 2 pages now, and yet you haven't offered one single shred of evidence that this 'volatility' even exists. Care to elaborate, give several examples, preferably some we can read on reputable news sites? Or maybe you're just being a drama queen, and hyperbolizing somebody calling someone else a poopy head.

The fact is that when more people carry guns, crime goes down. Why don't you start punishing crime instead of the innocent.

Why? Would most people feel safer if they knew 20 people on that plane - people they don't know at all - were carrying concealed weapons. No. 20 people might feel better - but 200 people aren't going to be comforted by that fact, and probably - are going to be far more edgy, when that sweet grandma in 14A screams out "He's got a gun" when she notices the guy next to her has a shoulder holster when he reaches over her to get his briefcase out of the overhead bin and then the trigger happy 'wanna be hero' in 28C tries to take him out, but, in all the commotion that immediately ensues he is bumped by the 300lb guy in 28B who leaps up and ends up shooting the kid's mom in 22A blowing her head off and her brains fall all over her 6 year old boy sitting in 22B.
Needless tragedy...

You should write lefty movies. Your 'blood in the streets' meme is a failure.

Once again - plane travel is a really stressful thing for a lot of people (want to know why those guys are sitting at the airport bar getting drunk - it isn't because they like paying $10 for a drink). Adding guns isn't a great solution to the problem.

Why don't you whine some more, fox...if you don't like flying, (to borrow your own phrase) don't fly.

You know - if they start putting scanners in the entrances to buses, or subways, or whatever - so be it... they do in courtrooms right now, they do in some schools. However, the situations are different on planes. They really are Cal, you might want to try to compare a Mall and a Plane - but the dynamics are quite different.

Yes. Push that statist meme. We serfs must submit to you, our betters.

You can't crash a school into a building.

Ah, screw it.

The hell with our Constitutional rights - LONG LIVE THE STATE!

 

[fossten]

Cal - you are making this about something it isn't - this is about common sense - do you really want lots of people in planes with weapons? I don't - it is scary enough traveling now - I don't need Wyatt Earp sitting next to me, armed. It is bad enough when Wyatt Earp is sitting next to me neutered...



But, once again - laws don't stop people from doing stupid things. However - I believe he can carry in a bar in 3 or 4 states, and that number is increasing because the Supreme Court upheld that particular law...



It is small - the stats for responsible fire arm owners. And do you know how many people have to take drugs to get on a plane - have to have a drink just to board. Being on a plane is different Cal - just like being in a court room is different. Situations change - laws accommodate.



I would love to see that updated - 14 years ago - a lot has changed - CCW permits are up by tons - I would imagine that because of that the stats have changed - got something from this generation Cal?



I don't really see what you are going for here Cal... sorry....



And I would rather you not on a plane - how difficult is that to understand Cal. Nothing is 100% effective - but, let's look at real stats, number of planes dropping out of the sky since 9/11 in the USA - zero.

I don't think suddenly mixing guns and planes is going to work.



Because it isn't a right - it is a privilege. Flying can be whatever they want it to be Cal. You can't get around this little blip in the radar - they could make us all wear fluffy bathrobes and bunny slippers.

You want to fly private - go ahead - you won't be scanned at all. You go out to the hanger - get on the plane and arrive in your destination, just as you would in a commercial flight - you want to be armed to the teeth - you can.

That is your right - the right to choose an alternative. Those alternatives haven't been removed.



Yes, private planes will allow Foss to carry whatever he wants - he can charter one at any time. However, dealing with a public venue - in airports that are built with public dollars, on planes that are licensed to carry commercial - the government can dictate what happens. I get on a public road, I am required to act a certain way. I go out to the race track - I get to act a whole different way.

Spoken like a true Dhimmi.

Funny how you demand stats from Cal while at the same time throwing around wild scenarios that have no evidence to back them up whatsoever.

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nothing in there about traveling either by plane or by road.

 

[foxpaws]

Oh wait foss - sitting on that plane isn't a right - it is a privilege. How about getting around that. The airlines want to land and take-off at government controlled places, called public airports, so they have to comply with government regulations.

Once again - drive on a public road - you play by their rules - fly the friendly skies - play by their rules.

I like flying - however, I am a realist - I fly a lot, and there are many crazy things that happen when you get a bunch of humans trapped in a small cylindrical shaped object at 35,000 feet. Flying isn't 'life as usual'. Placing a lot of guns in a plane, isn't a solution - it is compounding a problem. Giving guns to anyone who enters a courtroom isn't a solution - it is a problem. There are extraordinary circumstances at play in both instances.

And when you are in a public place, like an airport, you are changing the playing field - the forth changes a lot then... You aren't allowed to carry a gun into the Capitol building...

 

[fossten]

Oh wait foss - sitting on that plane isn't a right - it is a privilege. How about getting around that. The airlines want to land and take-off at government controlled places, called public airports, so they have to comply with government regulations.

Once again - drive on a public road - you play by their rules - fly the friendly skies - play by their rules.

I like flying - however, I am a realist - I fly a lot, and there are many crazy things that happen when you get a bunch of humans trapped in a small cylindrical shaped object at 35,000 feet. Flying isn't 'life as usual'. Placing a lot of guns in a plane, isn't a solution - it is compounding a problem. Giving guns to anyone who enters a courtroom isn't a solution - it is a problem. There are extraordinary circumstances at play in both instances.

And when you are in a public place, like an airport, you are changing the playing field - the forth changes a lot then... You aren't allowed to carry a gun into the Capitol building...

How about getting around what? The 4th Amendment? Yeah, you and your moon-gazing fellow dictators are doing a great job of that. Government regulations do not get to override our rights. Of course, you seem to be blithely unconcerned about rights of Americans being violated, including small children being touched in inappropriate ways, despite the FACT that the TSA has NEVER caught ONE terrorist. I can't decide what's sicker, you wanting to take away our right to protect ourselves, or you wanting to support the policy that sexually assaults children. I've known people like you, who burn to control other people's lives, and are secretly afraid that they will one day get what they deserve.

So, you'd prefer that nobody fly? Congratulations, your police state policies ensure that the terrorists win.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence of 'blood in the airports.' Until you furnish some, save the sermon for idiot dhimmis like yourself.

 

[Calabrio]

It was just a made-up name cal - a 'generic muslim sounding name'...

Are you calling all Muslim's terrorist?

So, the terrorists (remember in 9/11 they were 'plural' on the plane) have guns - get a couple of hostages - heck that screaming kid in 22B is a perfect choice - along with that sweet grandma in 14A - they back up towards the cockpit and wait - in the meantime they start popping off people they have profiled on the plane who look like they might be carrying guns (terrorist are perfectly capable of figuring out who is most likely to have CCWs and kill those people first).

Great example.
Because, as I remember it, when the people were all totally unarmed, they were overtaken with a bunch of crappy little box cutters. Somepeople had their throats cut. The rest died horribly violent deaths when the plane either crashed into a field or a building. After strking the buildings, thousands more people died, the economy was undermined, and the confidence of the county was shaken.

My goodness, what would have happened if a hostage has been shot???

But Cal - I don't think you understand - guns aren't always the solution to problems - and in this case - probably not.

And here's another one of your problems. You're not interested in "solutions." You are merely reacting.
I'm interested in creating a situation where individuals have the right and ability to protect themselves.

Does that result in a utopia?
No. But I'm wise enough to realize that such a condition doesn't exist on Earth.

You are adding yet another form of violence into an already volatile situation.

Again, everyday you walk into stores, restaurants, trains, buses, and other public and private places along side people concealing firearms without incident. If a plane anymore stressful than a subway car or a bus?

Would most people feel safer if they knew 20 people on that plane - people they don't know at all - were carrying concealed weapons. No. 20 people might feel better - but 200 people aren't going to be comforted by that fact

That's not a relevant question.
The reality is that they would most likely BE safer.
The social conditioning and influence from the anti-gun movement is of little significance.

We need to move from a culture of increasing dependency to one of Independence and self-reliance in this country. This is merely one example of that.

and probably -

And inevitably you go on to recite more anti-gun bullcrap imagery designed to scare people, perpetuating the idea that gun owners really want nothing more than the opportunity to shoot someone and increased handgun ownership simply leads us into a world reminiscent of a Wild West shooting gallery.

THAT IS A LIE.
YOUR SCENARIO IS A LIE.

Needless tragedy...

God forbid someone on that plane had a gun.
Someone might have been hit in the crossfire!

But, this is about more than just terrorism.
It's about the principle of it. The right of a person to be able to defend themselves.

Maybe a company will decide against it.
Maybe they will design a policy to accommodate.
Perhaps, as Frogman mentioned, there would be restrictions on it.
But the idea of rejecting out of hand based upon your nonsensical, utopian, big government fear mongering is offensive. All of you arguments are based purely in dishonest fear and presuming that we, the public, are too stupid, reckless, and dangerous to be responsible for our own protection. That a ruling class MUST protect us and direct us.
I passionately reject that world view.

 

[fossten]

Foxpaws doesn't realize that in a free society both evil and good can exist, but in a tyranny only evil exists.

She's not interested in solutions, Cal, only in muddying the water.

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws doesn't realize that in a free society both evil and good can exist, but in a tyranny only evil exists.

She's not interested in solutions, Cal, only in muddying the water.

If we just expand the government, turn over all of our personal liberty and power to it, then those elite people in government and in the universities, will finally be able to shape the perfect utopia... this time.

This time, they'll get it right.
They've never done it right before, but this time they know what to do...
They are are the one's we've been waiting for.

 

[ford nut]

People have a hard enough time driving with guns.

By PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune

Last update: November 22, 2010 - 2:04 PM

A 24-year-old motorist in St. Cloud pointed a gun at another driver who had three children with him, leading to an arrest in what police are calling a case of road rage.

click for full story

I guess we could call it sky rage huh?

 

[fossten]

People have a hard enough time driving with guns.




click for full story

I guess we could call it sky rage huh?

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, but I'm pretty sure if a person had ill intent and walked on a plane and saw 50+ people with Glocks strapped on, they'd think twice about starting some sht. Of course, if it's a terrorist with blazing speed and 12 pistols fully loaded and Wild Bill Hickok skills, I guess he could whiff everybody on the plane before they drew on him.

 

[ford nut]

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, but I'm pretty sure if a person had ill intent and walked on a plane and saw 50+ people with Glocks strapped on, they'd think twice about starting some sht. Of course, if it's a terrorist with blazing speed and 12 pistols fully loaded and Wild Bill Hickok skills, I guess he could whiff everybody on the plane before they drew on him.

The point is... out of the 50 it only takes one idiot.
One idiot was caught today on MN roads.
The link fails to note if the idiot had a Permit to Carry.

 

[foxpaws]

My goodness, what would have happened if a hostage has been shot???

What happens when the terrorists have guns -

Cal, in your false scenario there are brave, loyal citizens ready to shoot them on sight - on every plane. They will be willing to sacrifice women and children by shooting through them to down a terrorist.

Really - you have watched way too many Steven Segal movies.

The answer to protecting the skies, planes, buildings that planes fly into isn't putting guns in the hands of everyone on the plane and hope the good guys win.

You are dealing with irrational suicidal terrorists - not normal people.

And here's another one of your problems. You're not interested in "solutions." You are merely reacting.
I'm interested in creating a situation where individuals have the right and ability to protect themselves.

Does that result in a utopia?
No. But I'm wise enough to realize that such a condition doesn't exist on Earth.

And I also realize utopia on earth isn't even remotely possible.

But, I also know that there are situations where adding weapons to the mix is a bad idea. Just like being drunk with a weapon - being in a plane with a weapon isn't going to solve anything. What is it going to solve - that you might shoot the terrorist before he shoots someone else - because he will now have a gun as well.

Multiple weapons on a plane by both sides isn't going to solve anything Cal.

We need to move from a culture of increasing dependency to one of Independence and self-reliance in this country. This is merely one example of that.


And inevitably you go on to recite more anti-gun bullcrap imagery designed to scare people, perpetuating the idea that gun owners really want nothing more than the opportunity to shoot someone and increased handgun ownership simply leads us into a world reminiscent of a Wild West shooting gallery.

THAT IS A LIE.
YOUR SCENARIO IS A LIE.

I am all for the 2nd amendment Cal - I own guns - I also know that I have certain rights that go with that ownership. Being allowed to carry them into a courtroom, into a grade school, into the White House are not rights that follow my gun ownership.

If I want to do certain things - I put aside the gun. If I want to get on a plane - the 2nd amendment doesn't follow me into that situation.

My freedom of speech does not allow me to yell fire in that airplane either.

God forbid someone on that plane had a gun.
Someone might have been hit in the crossfire!

But, this is about more than just terrorism.
It's about the principle of it. The right of a person to be able to defend themselves.

And the terrorists would have had guns as well Cal - the outcome could have very well been exactly the same, in fact, probably would have.

You have the right to defend yourself in your home. Do you have the right to pull a weapon in a courtroom? And what are the unintended consequences of that action.

Maybe a company will decide against it.
Maybe they will design a policy to accommodate.
Perhaps, as Frogman mentioned, there would be restrictions on it.
But the idea of rejecting out of hand based upon your nonsensical, utopian, big government fear mongering is offensive. All of you arguments are based purely in dishonest fear and presuming that we, the public, are too stupid, reckless, and dangerous to be responsible for our own protection. That a ruling class MUST protect us and direct us.
I passionately reject that world view.

So cal - you haven't a clue about this...

I don't reject this 'out of hand'. I reject this on the fact that giving terrorists guns on a plane isn't a swell idea. Even if there are citizens on that plane who may or may not be armed. Even if those same citizens are willing to shoot through their own wife and children to kill a terrorist.

Because I can guarantee you that there will be terrorists on a plane who will be armed if we allow guns on planes. I can in no way guarantee you that there will be someone on that plane who will be able to do what is necessary to take out that terrorist.

I would rather remove the guns from this situation than deal with the consequences. You have a certainty... guns in the hands of terrorists on a plane. However, you also have a big question - will there be an armed citizen on the plane who will take them out?

 

[Calabrio]

What happens when the terrorists have guns -

Are we going to go around this circle again.
If the security at the terminal is effective, they won't get on the plane at all.
And if they do, then they are outgunned or will be faced with real resistance.

Cal, in your false scenario there are brave, loyal citizens ready to shoot them on sight - on every plane. They will be willing to sacrifice women and children by shooting through them to down a terrorist.

You're quite busy with the rhetoric here.
In my America, there are brave and loyal men and women who are ready to take decisive action in order to protect the lives of those around them and on the ground.

Really - you have watched way too many Steven Segal movies

Perhaps the problem is that you spend too much time with utopian, self-proclaimed, self-aggrandizing effete intellectuals who hate this country, it's culture, and the don't understand or like the people who inhabit it.

The answer to protecting the skies, planes, buildings that planes fall into isn't putting guns in the hands of citizens and then putting them into planes.

Again, you're busy trying to theoretically persuade someone with an emotional appeal without regard to the truth. I didn't say that allowing responsible Americans to carry firearms on their person was "the answer." I simply said it's something, among a list of other things, that should be done. And it should be permitted for both practical AND principled reasons.

Merely having armed citizens isn't the "silver bullet" to this problem.
There is no such thing. There is no absolute protection. It's impossible.

You are dealing with irrational suicidal terrorists - not normal people.

To some degree, we can argue this.
We can certainly consider their motivation to be "irrational," but they aren't acting irrationally. The attacks have been orchestrated, funded, and designed to elicit a political or social response. Irrational acts usually don't meet that description.

They are also undertaken with the expectation that they will succeed. This is not irrational either. This is calculated. And when we increase security in one public way, their strategy and tactics change accordingly.

I highly doubt that anyone is going to try to hijack a plane and crash it into a building again. That is not likely to work.

So providing adequate disincentives in place (the incentive isn't whether they live or die, but whether they succeed in their mission) will result in a rational response.

But, I also know that there are situations where adding weapons to the mix is a bad idea. Just like being drunk with a weapon - being in a plane with a weapon isn't going to solve anything.

Being drunk with a weapon is illegal.
Having a weapon on a place in benign.
Doing something reckless with the weapon on a plane is illegal.
And the likelihood of it happening is no different than if you were on a train, bus, or restaurant. Merely letting the person next to you know that you have a gun can lead to being arrested for brandishing when you land or detained by the air marshal.

What is it going to solve - that you might shoot the terrorist before he shoots someone else - because he will now have a gun as well.

Your helpless logic applies to EVERY situation, not just an airline.
What if someone breaks into your home? What are you going to do, shoot him? Because if all handguns were illegal, maybe he'd only have a screwdriver, but since guns are available, he may well be armed.

AGAIN- if terminal security does their job, a 'terrorist' won't be able to get on the plane anyway, armed or unarmed.

To continue this game of hypotheticals,
what happens if the terrorist has a gun hidden for him by another terrorist who's employed cleaning the airplanes? Now ONLY the bad guy has a gun.
And there have been reports of contraband being found on airlines like this.
What's your solution there?

Multiple weapons on a plane by both sides isn't going to solve anything Cal.

It's not meant to "solve" anything, it's only one piece of a security overhaul.
It is an additional step towards personal security that is both practical and principles.

I am all for the 2nd amendment Cal - I own guns - I also know that I have certain rights that go with that ownership. Being allowed to carry them into a courtroom, into a grade school, into the White House are not rights that follow my gun ownership.

This isn't on topic.
We're not talking about whether you should carry firearms into specific federal buildings or school buildings.
It's off topic and really unrelated.

This isn't a debate about whether air carriers should be able to limit who can carry a firearm in THEIR planes. It's about whether we SHOULD be allowed to do it. And it shouldn't necessarily be made illegal by the federal government through the TSA.

And the terrorists would have had guns as well Cal - the outcome could have very well been exactly the same, in fact, probably would have.

You keep going back to this moronic point.
This is the same idiotic logic that compels fools to seek "handgun bans" as well, or unilateral disarmament.

And, no, the outcome of 9/11 would have been entirely different
1- had the terminal security been effective.
2- had INS done their jobs
3- had the passengers be armed.

Even if there had been a raging gunfight on the various planes and people were caught in the crossfire. That would have meant maybe a dozen innocent people were killed or injured, not over 3000.

You have the right to defend yourself in your home. Do you have the right to pull a weapon in a courtroom? And what are the unintended consequences of that action.

Again, this is not the topic being discussed.
You're deliberately trying to broaden and change the subject while you desperate try to find an angle that can't be refuted.

So cal - you haven't a clue about this...

I absolute do.

I don't reject this 'out of hand'. I reject this on the fact that giving terrorists guns on a plane isn't a swell idea.

So allowing citizens to carry their protection weapons in public has now been re-framed by you as "allowing terrorists to carry guns on a plane."

Even if there are citizens on that plane who may or may not be armed. Even if those same citizens are willing to shoot through their own wife and children to kill a terrorist.

So, in order to defend yourself on a plane, you absolutely must fire your weapon so that it first goes through an innocent child before possibly striking a child?

It's amazing how transparently you spin these things.
These discussions are never about truth or understanding, it's simply about you advancing a political point by any means necessary. Regardless the truth.

Because I can guarantee you that there will be terrorists on a plane who will be armed if we allow guns on planes. I can in no way guarantee you that there will be someone on that plane who will be able to do what is necessary to take out that terrorist.

Of course that's a foolish conclusion to draw.
If the inevitable outcome of a hijacking was that you'd be shot, why would any organization invest the energy and resources to attempt it. They would simply look for another method. We've seen this pattern played out already.

Again, you're never one to let reality or truth get in the way of your attempts to persuade though.

I would rather remove the guns from this situation than deal with the consequences. You have a certainty... guns in the hands of terrorists on a plane. However, you also have a big question - will there be an armed citizen on the plane who will take them out?

As stated before, this is the same moronic, utopian logic that also dictates that we remove handguns from the citizens to prevent criminals from getting them and eliminate violent crime.

It doesn't work.

 

[Calabrio]

People have a hard enough time driving with guns.

People have a hard time driving.
Would you have the same indignation or shock had the guy simple decided to drive his car at full speed through a farmers market. Fact is, that car is far more dangerous than a gun.

Life is dangerous.
There is risk everywhere.
We accept that.
We can't isolate ourselves from all risk.

But we do have a responsibility to vigilantly defend ourselves from threats on the occasions they present themselves. However you don't deny people of their liberty because you fear the action of one kook who's probably wielding an illegal weapon anyway.

 

[foxpaws]

Are we going to go around this circle again.
If the security at the terminal is effective, they won't get on the plane at all.
And if they do, then they are outgunned or will be faced with real resistance.

Why won't they - they will have CCW permits... they will Cal - real or forged... they will have them.

You're quite busy with the rhetoric here.
In my America, there are brave and loyal men and women who are ready to take decisive action in order to protect the lives of those around them and on the ground.

And in my America as well. But you expect me to gamble allowing everyone on the plane who wants to have a gun, on the fact that maybe one of them might be that hero? We know there will be terrorists on the plane at some point with weapons - will the two actually coincide - the hero and the terrorist? It did with one out of 4 planes on 9/11 - those odds aren't all that good Cal.

Again, you're busy trying to theoretically persuade someone with an emotional appeal without regard to the truth. I didn't say that allowing responsible Americans to carry firearms on their person was "the answer." I simply said it's something, among a list of other things, that should be done. And it should be permitted for both practical AND principled reasons.

Merely having armed citizens isn't the "silver bullet" to this problem.
There is no such thing. There is no absolute protection. It's impossible.

No there isn't a silver bullet - but there is common sense. And practical common sense says that terrorists will have guns and will be on planes.

So what is the principle reason - that I should arm myself on the plane as well, just in case I need to be that hero - I am no hero cal. I couldn't shoot through my daughter, no matter what. I would have a difficult time shooting though any innocent person. In fact, I probably couldn't. So I have to hope that the guy sitting next to me has that 'hero' gene? Because, once again Cal, if we allow guns on planes - we have given terrorists the opportunity to also have guns on planes.

To some degree, we can argue this.
We can certainly consider their motivation to be "irrational," but they aren't acting irrationally. The attacks have been orchestrated, funded, and designed to elicit a political or social response. Irrational acts usually don't meet that description.

They are also undertaken with the expectation that they will succeed. This is not irrational either. This is calculated. And when we increase security in one public way, their strategy and tactics change accordingly.

I highly doubt that anyone is going to try to hijack a plane and crash it into a building again. That is not likely to work.

So providing adequate disincentives in place (the incentive isn't whether they live or die, but whether they succeed in their mission) will result in a rational response.

However Cal, when you allow them to have weapons on planes again, the dynamics change all over again. They will calculate their possibility of running into an American hero - then they will calculate the possibility of that hero actually being able to carry out a good defense, they will calculate the ways they can overcome that defense. And then, they will act. In the end, irrationally, because if they are successful they will die, or even if they aren't successful, the chances in an armed conflict on board a plane, they will still die.

Your helpless logic applies to EVERY situation, not just an airline.
What if someone breaks into your home? What are you going to do, shoot him? Because if all handguns were illegal, maybe he'd only have a screwdriver, but since guns are available, he may well be armed.

AGAIN- if terminal security does their job, a 'terrorist' won't be able to get on the plane anyway, armed or unarmed.

If people are allowed on the plane with weapons - terrorists will get guns on the plane. Period.

I am not advocating to make any guns illegal - where did you get the whole 'if handguns are illegal' bit Cal - trying to paint me as someone who is against the 2nd?

To continue this game of hypotheticals,
what happens if the terrorist has a gun hidden for him by another terrorist who's employed cleaning the airplanes? Now ONLY the bad guy has a gun.
And there have been reports of contraband being found on airlines like this.
What's your solution there?

It's not meant to "solve" anything, it's only one piece of a security overhaul.
It is an additional step towards personal security that is both practical and principles.

But it won't solve anything Cal - it will only open up new avenues for terrorists to get weapons on planes, far more easily.

This isn't on topic.
We're not talking about whether you should carry firearms into specific federal buildings or school buildings.
It's off topic and really unrelated.

This is about whether you should Cal. Should you carry weapons onto a plane. You will be carrying it through a very public building - funded by taxes, protected very specifically by the government with armed personnel in the building, and then....

This isn't a debate about whether air carriers should be able to limit who can carry a firearm in THEIR planes. It's about whether we SHOULD be allowed to do it. And it shouldn't necessarily be made illegal by the federal government through the TSA.

But their planes are regulated by the feds - in many ways - safety, where they can fly - their routes, etc. You aren't allowed to carry diseased goats on planes either - perhaps we should allow that.

You keep going back to this moronic point.
This is the same idiotic logic that compels fools to seek "handgun bans" as well, or unilateral disarmament.

Once again, don't paint me that way cal - it won't work. I think being the biggest nuclear threat on the planet is a pretty cool thing (perhaps not so economically viable over the long term - but that is another discussion). I won't give up my handguns until you pull them from my cold, rigamortis'ed fingers.

And, no, the outcome of 9/11 would have been entirely different
1- had the terminal security been effective.
2- had INS done their jobs
3- had the passengers be armed.

So, cal - once the 2nd one is solved, I'll feel just great about letting people being armed on planes. Oh, wait - certainly there aren't US citizens that would want to take out America... naw....

That is unrealistic cal - that is why you can't allow guns on planes - that is what is moronic.

Even if there had been a raging gunfight on the various planes and people were caught in the crossfire. That would have meant maybe a dozen innocent people were killed or injured, not over 3000.

You don't know that Cal - they certainly were able to do it with box cutters - and no one on 3 of the planes were willing to go against a box cutter, do you think that on those planes was someone thinking - gosh - if only I had a gun I would be able to take these guys out. Of course - now 'these guys' would be armed as well - so with basically equal odds again - would anyone take action.

There might not have been any 'hero's' on those other 3 planes Cal -

So allowing citizens to carry their protection weapons in public has now been re-framed by you as "allowing terrorists to carry guns on a plane."

Because, for some weird reason you think that won't happen - it will Cal. If you allow guns on a plane - able to pass through security - there will be terrorists who will take advantage of that.

So, in order to defend yourself on a plane, you absolutely must fire your weapon so that it first goes through an innocent child before possibly striking a child?

It's amazing how transparently you spin these things.
These discussions are never about truth or understanding, it's simply about you advancing a political point by any means necessary. Regardless the truth.

No - I am not - the terrorists wish to succeed - the best way to do that is to hold someone in front of them that will give them the greatest percentage of success. They aren't stupid - they are calculating, albeit irrational in their death wishes, but smart enough, or prepared enough to know that would be their best hope of success.

This isn't a political point. This is a common sense point - allowing guns on a plane isn't just full of common sense cal. Having the opportunity for terrorists to have guns on a plane is just downright stupid.

Of course that's a foolish conclusion to draw.
If the inevitable outcome of a hijacking was that you'd be shot, why would any organization invest the energy and resources to attempt it. They would simply look for another method. We've seen this pattern played out already.

Again, you're never one to let reality or truth get in the way of your attempts to persuade though.

It is foolish to conclude that if we allow guns on planes - eventually we are going to have armed terrorists on a plane? That is reality Cal - you are the one that seems to think that somehow a knight in shiny armor will be on that same plane, brandish his polished Colt 45, and all will be just peachy keen. Live in this fairy tale for a long time Cal - it seems to have clouded your sense of reality - maybe you have just watched one too many of Ronnie's westerns. Real life states that if you allow guns on planes - eventually you are allowing terrorists with guns on planes.

As stated before, this is the same moronic, utopian logic that also dictates that we remove handguns from the citizens to prevent criminals from getting them and eliminate violent crime.

It doesn't work.

And once again Cal - I have no interest in removing guns from citizens, I would like to keep armed terrorists out of planes. I don't want to remove guns from citizens in court - however I would like to make sure gangbangers aren't armed when they enter the court room.

 

[04SCTLS]

Several times a year passengers are arrested for bad behaviour after landing.
Sometimes a plane lands just to remove a troublemaker.
Unruly and/or drunken passengers are not an uncommon occurence.
If passengers were allowed to carry guns these occurences could easily turn fatal.
Other than marshals and maybe pilots, no one is going to be able to carry guns onto planes anytime soon.
Not gonna happen, terrorists notwithstanding.
Nevertheless it is fun watching you guys and gal argue a hypothetical of if guns were allowed...

 

[Calabrio]

Why won't they - they will have CCW permits... they will Cal - real or forged... they will have them.

Again, you demonstrate that you can't discuss anything in good faith.
I've never said that airline security should be limited to allowing passengers to carry their legal weapons on board. In fact I've explicitly said that it's only small part of the reform that is needed.

In your strawman security scenario, I presume luggage isn't going to be checked, freight won't be inspected or x-rayed, and people getting on board won't be interviewed or have their name cross referenced with intelligence agency compiled "no-file" lists.

However, in mine, they are.
And the most important part of airline security is making sure terrorists don't ever board the plane, or get their instruments of destruction loaded either. Frankly, once they do gain access, there is no possible outcome.

I'm really not interested in untwisting your lies right now and you've started off your response with a whopper of one, so for the time being, I'm going no further. You've again been exposed as someone unwilling to have a discussion in good faith.

 

[shagdrum]

It's seems, after her long hiatus, foxpaws is back and doubling down on the deceit.

 

[fossten]

And there goes foxpaws with her scorched-earth, throw-stuff-up-against-the-wall, argumentum ad nauseum strategy. The only unique thing is the sheer volume of nonsense we're seeing. It's breathtaking.

But you expect me to gamble allowing everyone on the plane who wants to have a gun, on the fact that maybe one of them might be that hero?

"Allow?" Nice choice of words, fox.

And no, we expect someone like YOU to SUBMIT like a good little DHIMMI.

 

[fossten]

Uh Oh: Popular Mechanics weighs in

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview
Security and Terrorism Expert Bruce Schneier: TSA Scans "Won't Catch Anybody"

Since 9/11, cryptology expert and security consultant Bruce Schneier has been one of the most pointed critics of the government's anti-terrorism security programs. In his 2003 book "Beyond Fear," he coined the phrase "security theater" to refer to measures which are undertaken not because they will be effective at thwarting attacks, but because the agencies carrying them out need to appear to be doing something useful. We spoke to Schneier about the recent controversy involving the Transport Security Agency's use of invasive scanners and full-body pat-downs.

By Jeff Wise

TSA

What is really being seen by these machines?

Bruce Schneier: In theory, it sees stuff that isn't part of the body. So if you've got a stapler in your pocket, it will show up. The thought is that it will see stuff that a metal detector won't detect, like a ceramic knife. But this doesn't seem to be borne out by reality.

The machines have shown up in the wake of the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a plane with chemicals stored in his briefs. Would this technology have stopped him?

The guys who make the machines have said, "We wouldn't have caught that."

So what kind of attack will this prevent, that otherwise might be successful?

There are two kinds of hijackers. There's the lone nutcase, like someone who will bring a gun onto a plane because, dammit, they're going to take the whole plane down with them. Any pre-9-11 airport security would catch a person like that.

The second kind is the well-planned, well-financed Al Qaeda-like plot. And nothing can be done to stop someone like that.

Has there been a case since 9/11 of an attempted hijacker being thwarted by airport security?

None that we've heard of. The TSA will say, "Oh, we're not allowed to talk about successes." That's actually bullsh*t. They talk about successes all the time. If they did catch someone, especially during the Bush years, you could be damned sure we'd know about it. And the fact that we didn't means that there weren't any. Because the threat was imaginary. It's not much of a threat. As excess deaths go, it's just way down in the noise. More than 40,000 people die each year in car crashes. It's 9/11 every month. The threat is really overblown.

Do you think there's been an over-reaction, on the part of the government and the press, to the underwear bomber?

That case was really instructive. Nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. It was a success! And it was pre 9-11 security that made it a success. Because we screen for superficial guns and bombs, he had to resort to a syringe and 90 minutes in the bathroom with a bomb that didn't work. This is what success looks like. Stop bellyaching!

What's the motive behind introducing this new level of security?

It's politics. You have to be seen as doing something, even if nothing is the smart thing to do. You can't be seen as doing nothing.

Does it surprise you that at last, after several escalations in the TSA's level of intrusiveness, the public seems to have finally rebelled?

Back in 2005, when this full-body scanner technology was first being proposed, I wrote that I thought this would be the straw that broke the camel's back, because it would unite conservatives and liberals. Nobody wants their daughter groped or shown naked.

Is privacy being violated, in your estimation?

You go get groped and you tell me.

Have you had a pat-down?

Yes, actually, just a couple of days ago.

Is this security theater?

100 percent. It won't catch anybody.





Jeff Wise is the author of Extreme Fear: The Science of Your Mind in Danger. For a daily does of fear, and how it pertains to our everyday life, go to Wise's blog, here.