Gun control laws, gets people killed.

[Diuretic]

You just said a "rights" argument won't work here, yet you said the owners of the planes have the right to decide whether or not someone gets on board with a gun on them. So it is a "rights" argument. Unfortunately, the government has decided for the owners, regardless of what they think.

No, the "I should be able to take a gun anywhere I like" argument was flawed. That's what I meant. And that's what I perceived. If the argument was anything other than than then I misread it and I will be corrected.

Some folks need to understand a very basic point. Rights aren't absolute. If someone understands that then it's possible to have a good discussion. If they don't then it's not.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, the owners of planes don't have that right.
The government has already restricted that right, so you have no choice but to fly on a plane that doesn't allow people to carry a defensive weapon.
Well, except for the government sky marshals.

If I owned a plane you could be sure that I wouldn't let anyone carrying a firearm board that plane.

If I owned a plane and I wanted to carry people on that plane for commercial gain then I would adhere to government regulations.

In adhering to government regulations I would ensure that no-one other than those who were authorised to carry a firearm would be permitted on that plane.

 

[alan1]

If I owned a plane you could be sure that I wouldn't let anyone carrying a firearm board that plane.

If I owned a plane and I wanted to carry people on that plane for commercial gain then I would adhere to government regulations.

In adhering to government regulations I would ensure that no-one other than those who were authorised to carry a firearm would be permitted on that plane.

Yeah, well I wasn't really advocating that everybody that boards a commercial airliner be armed, I was just pointing out the the right to do so has already been removed.
If you owned a plane and you wanted to have that rule, hell, it's your plane, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that that decision has already been removed from your options.

 

[Diuretic]

Yeah, well I wasn't really advocating that everybody that boards a commercial airliner be armed, I was just pointing out the the right to do so has already been removed.
If you owned a plane and you wanted to have that rule, hell, it's your plane, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that that decision has already been removed from your options.

Fair enough.

 

[52ndStreet]

52ndStreet


I’m not sure I agree with you because if there was someone armed with a Gun on that flight, It would probably be a evil white person shooting black people because the evil white person thought the black people looked like terrorists. After all the airlines are probably owned by evil white people too. Probably just another way for the evil white people to kill some black people or maybe just the black men so the black women would have to marry white guys or turn into lesbians. Surely you agree?

Your making fun at a situation, were over 2,000 innocent people lost their lives.
Come on, wake up, and stop joking around with childish sarcastic posts.!
Grow up,will you?!

 

[KittenKoder]

Guns + Pressurized Cabins = Death to all inside.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Guns + Pressurized Cabins = Death to all inside.

Not true.

 

[KittenKoder]

Not true.

Well, a spike in the chances of becoming dead, if you prefer to be that accurate. Each gun increases the chances of the plane losing all control, punching more holes in it. The expulsion of air from the holes will push the trajectory of the jet in a manner that will likely cause a loss of control. Push it just right and tailspin results. Tailspin in a jet and ... well ... everyone inside is dead. The number of possible angles for such a result is actually huge.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not a good idea to shoot bullets in a plane. It should be avoided.

Gary Cooper was in High Noon not Twelve o'Clock High

And no, the second film had nothing to do with alcohol or recreational drugs.

 

[LOki]

Catastrophic depressurization.

 

[Lycurgus]

Though I legally carry a firearm everyday and though I have had to use that right to protect myself and others, I don't believe that it is a good idea for a citizen to be placed in a position to defend a plane full of people with a firearm. The damage to the plane is risk enough, but, the close quarters with so many bodies is a bad mix. The airlines need to take steps to properly protect their planes. There are weapons made for in-flight altercations, along with ammo and there is specialized training for it. It is money well spent.

I have had to draw down on people in a busy bar or a busy restaurant setting and though I am well trained and though I use a load which is designed to limit additional casualties, it really changes the situation when you are in a crowed space and when you have the possibility of children as well. It's a bit different from protecting against a car jacking or at the local ATM machine.

Those who are prepared to use a firearm for personal defense anyplace, at anytime, IMO need to be responsible enough to be well trained with the weapon or they need to leave it at home! They need to remember, in many cases if they make the choice to defend, they are also placing others at risk. You assume responsibility for their lives. I won't hesitate to defend or to kill if need be, but, I don't kid myself about the responsibility.

 

[Gunny]

Hey Genius, firing a gun could have killed them just as easy, due to loss of cabin pressure

Hey genius, not flying at a low enough altitude to hit a building.

 

[Gunny]

Guns + Pressurized Cabins = Death to all inside.

Not even close. Too much TV?

 

[Lycurgus]

I have to agree. Too much TV. It's not the best idea to be ripping off rounds inside a pressurized cabin, but, in turn, it doesn't mean bodies get sucked out of a small hole and the plane crashes! lol

 

[FistyTheBadger]

I have to agree. Too much TV. It's not the best idea to be ripping off rounds inside a pressurized cabin, but, in turn, it doesn't mean bodies get sucked out of a small hole and the plane crashes! lol

Bullet holes do not result in catastrophic depressurization, nor do they result in any noticeable depressurization whatsoever, unless you willfully and purposefully unload an obscene number of clips into the walls of the airplane.

 

[Lycurgus]

Bullet holes do not result in catastrophic depressurization, nor do they result in any noticeable depressurization whatsoever, unless you willfully and purposefully unload an obscene number of clips into the walls of the airplane.

Yes, that was the point. However and of course it depends on the load, it could cause damage which could effect the aviation of the plane and I just don't see it as a wise option for the average citizen.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Yes, that was the point. However and of course it depends on the load, it could cause damage which could effect the aviation of the plane and I just don't see it as a wise option for the average citizen.

Pure suppository...I mean supposition.

 

[Bern80]

The dumbest post I have ever seen.

If you could carry a gun on the plane, planes would be hijacked all the time.

yeah, cause you read about so many bus and subway hijackings. You were saying something about dumb posts?

 

[Chris]

yeah, cause you read about so many bus and subway hijackings. You were saying something about dumb posts?

Case in point....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Someone, not properly trained, with a gun on a plane. Great idea.

I am fascinated by your automatic assumption that the person would be not properly trained. I don't recall that particular specification being anywhere in the OP.