|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
I disagree - the fact that any violent encounter is much
more likely to rapidly escalate to deadly force is actually
a powerful disincentive to initiate such an encounter. A
criminal carrying a gun is far more likely to pull that
weapon on someone he believes unarmed than on someone who is
likely armed themselves.
In your 9/11 scenario - the sleepers are pretty much useless
since they would be outnumbered substantially by similarly
armed citizens, as soon as one announces himself by shooting
someone he becomes a target himself.
As for storming the cockpit - it's an enclosed space, far
easier to defend if everyone has only short-ranged weapons,
blockade the door and knife anyone trying to break through.
If many people have guns on the other hand you don't even
have to break through the door - odds are most of the
stewardesses know the cockpit layout well enough to start
firing shots into the pilot and copilot seats right through
the door/wall. Granted you're liable to take out the
plane's controls that way, but once the attacker's intent
was known that would hardly dissuade them. For that matter
a few shots through the windscreen might be a relatively
safe and effective manner of severely hampering the
hijackers while still leaving some chance of the passengers
regaining control. I imagine a shot fired from near the
floor might well be able to pass through the pilots seat on
it's way out the window, maximizing hijacker damage.
And that of course assumes the hijackers managed to take the
cockpit at all - if the passengers and crew were armed that
might well not have happened - a few folks making a stand
after the first gunshots could well stop things at that
point - all it takes is one good marksman to end a hostage
standoff (or for that matter a bad one, though both the
hostage and shooter are likely to be much less happy with
that scenario)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
Vermont, where ownership of firearms is legal, open carry of same is legal,
concealed carry without a permit is legal, and most everyone owns one or more
guns, would seem to put the lie to that theory.
high gun ownership rate, high carry rate, low violent crime rate, shootouts
basically unknown.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
