|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
but from memory someone else had box cutters and got in first ...
Decades ago in China I was on a flight and the pre-flight safety check (a
recording in Mandarin, South China dialect, English and French) asked passengers
to deposit firearms, explosives and poisons with the stewardess for the duration
of the flight ...
On your proposed solution I would anticipate more people being shot (purely from
precaution) in a year when getting up to go to the john than would die in
several decades of hijacking ...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
I see you've never lived in NY city. If you want
to know what it's like when almost everyone
has a gun, take a look at the murder stats there.
It's beyond scary, because lots of people in
NY city are nuts. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
Err, have you *seen* what happens to a plane under explosive
decompression (such as when a bullet punctures the skin or
the plexi-type windows)? Granted, it may not then be able to
crash into the Pantagon but I'd be a little peeved if I was a
passenger on that beast :-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 03:46 AM EDT |
To go off topic of this off topic discussion ...
PJ can't reset your password for you? Or is it a problem of authenticating
yourself to her?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Password Reset - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 09:03 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
As a resident of a country (England) where the private ownership of all hand
guns is illegal, and the police on the street are unarmed, I feel a lot safer
than I do when I visit the USA.
Arguments that more people should go around with lethal weapons just seems like
utter insanity to us.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pd
f
The Active Shooter program (developed WITH the NRA) is to
teach citizens how to respond if there is someone actively
targeting folks - which includes getting out of the way,
getting others out of the way, etc (especially if you are
not armed). Not certain the news stories, but it does NOT
appear to be aimed at real CBP or ICE agents - in fact they
are among those to call. Note, though, that both CBP & ICE
have many more non-Agent personnel than agents.
This appears to be another one of those "take a snippet of
info and blow it out of proportion" stories. I'm grateful
to PJ and Mark for reminding us to go back to the actual
source material, and to get all the facts, before
responding.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
In any sort of combat, the attacker takes the initiative, and the defender
reacts. Hold that thought. If people were permitted to carry weapons everywhere
- on the street, in aircraft, and so on - then it would be easy for criminals to
be armed, and neither the public nor the authorities, nor other criminals for
that matter, would know who is a would-be criminal about to launch an attack,
and who isn't. But it seems likely that in a situation where a substantial
fraction of those present (and not just the criminals) is armed, then the
escalation to deadly force would happen much sooner in every incident, and on
balance, more people would get killed.
For aviation, it is far safer to
prohibit firearms than to allow them. Suppose guns were allowed on planes. In
9/11 that fact would likely have worked to the advantage of the terrorists. Two
attackers could have walked up to the cockpit, closed the door, killed the
pilots with guns, and defended the cockpit against any counterattack from other
passengers. The other terrorists would have remained "sleepers" in their seats,
one near the cockpit and the other near the back of the fuselage, ready to shoot
in the back anybody trying to counterattack the terrorist colleagues in the
cockpit. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
(and to put all the disagreements in one place to be answered)
We have a number of examples of high legal gun ownership with low violent crime
rates.
We have a number of examples of low legal gun ownership with high violent crime
rates.
No-one has provided examples of high legal gun ownership and high violent crime
rates.
Conclusion: Common legal gun ownership reduces violent crime.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not so fast - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Not so fast - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- So to sum up: - Authored by: jonathon on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT
- So to sum up: - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- So to sum up: - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 10:34 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
