Journal fiannaFailMan's Journal: Question for gun advocates 31
Carrying guns is a fundamental right. Right? And guns make people safer. Right? Well if we want our airlines to be safe from terrorist hijackings and suchlike, would you be in favour of allowing passengers to carry guns onto planes? After all, if guns make people safer on the ground, why would it be any different in the air? Discuss.
No, but (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider myself a moderate gun advocate. I've had a concealed carry permit in another state and owned a gun. I moved to Ohio which didn't have permits, and sold the gun when I thought it was a greater risk than benefit in my situation. I believe that concealed carry should be available to responsible non-criminals, but should be regulated with a permit process and background checks. Businesses should have the right to ban guns from their property. Ohio has recently started concealed carry permits, and has done a fairly good job in balancing the issues, and I'm strongly considering getting a permit and a handgun again, although I don't foresee carrying often if at all.
The constitution intended for ordinary citizens to have the right to possess most forms of personal weapons. This generally translates to firearms, but could change if technology advances. Part of this is for personal protection, but part of this is to have the ability to overthrow the government if enough people (a wide majority, not a couple hundred nutballs in Wyoming) believe it has become tyrannical and elections corrupt. To be clear--revolution will not be necessary as long as elections remain fair, and I am NOT advocating violent overthrow of the government. I also believe that one of the necessary steps in establishing a tyrannical government is to remove gun rights.
Concealed carry of guns by responsible people with a permit should be allowed in most situations. The permit process should not be an unreasonable barrier for ordinary people. This potentially makes everyone safer--criminals don't know who's a safe target, or if there is an armed person who will intervene.
There are some situations where none of these reasons apply, and the possession of guns by ordinary people is a greater risk than benefit. Public airplanes are one, jails are another. On an airplane there is basically no way for a criminal to threaten you without being caught, and a much greater chance that random people with guns will cause you trouble.
Only on public property (Score:2)
Re:Guns on planes. (Score:2)
Re:Guns on planes. (Score:2)
Re:Security through lack-of-information (Score:2)
They are also more likely to shoot first and ask questions later if they think you might have a gun. Surprise a burglar in your home in the US? Kiss your ass goodbye. Surprise a burglar in your house in the UK? Give chase and kick seven shades of shit out of him because there's next to no chance that the little shit has a gun.
Re:Security through lack-of-information (Score:1)
This just isn't true. Burglars typically do not shoot first, partly because a burglar who is inexperienced with guns is unlikely to be carrying one into a burglary (most state of the US impose far higher penalties for crimes committed while carrying), and a burglar who is experienced with guns will understand that shooting first is fairly likely to get him killed. If the homeowner has a gun, he'll have the advantage: he knows the 'terrain'
Re:Security through lack-of-information (Score:2)
Is this really true, though? In parts of the US where gun ownership is illegal or so impractical that it might as well be, the criminals still have guns quite frequently.
If the UK has somehow by luck reduced the gun ownership among the criminal element, that's fortunate. Of course, it still does nothing for someone who isn't physically capable
Re:Security through lack-of-information (Score:2)
I have to say that I'm surprised by many of the responses to my question. The gist of what I was saying is that n
Re:Security through lack-of-information (Score:2)
Congratulations. That really proves little, though, except, perhaps that European countries are successful in preventing illegal gun ownership, something not done to well in the US. Now look even farther, at the many countries who have strict gun regulations a
Re:Security through lack-of-information (Score:2)
No, it proves that a culture in which people are less inclined to carry guns is a culture in which armed robberies and Columbine-style school shootings are far less likely to happen.
Which countries would they be?
Yes/No/Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
I do believe, though, that anyone who bans weapons on his private property should thereby be made liable for the personal safety of anyone thereon. That is, feel free to forbid me to carry weapons, but if someone does assault/rob/kill me, I can recover damages from you because you were the one who disarmed me.
As for the specific question of weapons on aeroplanes, I see no reason why they should not be allowed. I for one would feel much safer if the stewardess handed out tire irons, baseball bats, bicycle chains, skivs &c. to the passengers. The really pathetic thing about 11 September is that 3,000 men died and billions of dollars were lost to box cutters. A nation which defeated the British; which put down the Barbary pirates; which contained Mexico; which trounced the Germans twice--this nation was grievously wounded by weapons less frightening than pocket knives. That's sad.
Re:Yes/No/Maybe (Score:2)
I think that might be better described as aided in defeating the Germans twice. If you have any understanding of the first world war, you would realise the contribution of the American armed forces was small. A much greater contribution was the supply of allied nations. As for that America was well paid. Note that America was one of the few countries that came out of WWI in better shape than it went in. There is a well known cartoon of a fat gentleman standing in front of a
Re:Yes/No/Maybe (Score:2)
Yes (Score:1)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
So what is the liklihood that a typical 737 with a gang of hijackers aboard is going to also contain some law-abiding citizens who happen to be carrying guns?
Depends on how many passengers carry guns. One thing to keep in mind when discussing this topic is that it is not, in fact, theoretical. Many, many planes have firearms aboard, in the hands of Air Marshals, FBI agents, other policemen, and even members of the armed forces, in certain circumstances. My younger brother, who is a member of the Utah
I'm confused (Score:2)
Interesting question (Score:2)
1) Terrorists and Hijackers would be pretty much unable to take control of a plane. Passengers would be somewhat safer from them, and outside targets for plane crashes would be MUCH safer.
2) Passengers would be in considerably more danger from each other than they are now. Especially since alcohol is served, and since most people aren't aware of the danger of depressurizing an airliner in flight.
I consider the real world risk from 1 to
Re:Interesting question (Score:2)
Thank you! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to figure this out. Now that brings me to the second part of the question. If the extra danger that comes with widespread gun ownership outweighs any benefit in terms of safety in an unlikely situation in the air, why would it be any different on the ground in society in ge
Re:Interesting question (Score:1)
Re:Interesting question (Score:2)
Re:Interesting question (Score:2)
I'm also leery about the government restricting my rights for whatever reason, even if it's a right I don't currently exercise, and
Yes, if enough people carried. (Score:2)
If there were a significant number of people carrying weapons onto flights, it would certainly be a boon for passenger
Re:Yes, if enough people carried. (Score:2)
Re:Yes, if enough people carried. (Score:2)
So would you feel safer if the 9/11 security measures were lifted and people were allowed to carry knives on planes again? After all, knives don't kill people, people do.
I would feel neither safer nor more endangered, but I'd definitely feel much less annoyed. Anyone who wants to and thinks about it for a while can get a knife on a plane now. Particularly something like a boxcutter, which has a very small, very thin blade. An exacto knife is even smaller. So the security measures effectively annoy us
Excellent Question (Score:2)
It's stated above "Many people don't know the dangers of depressurization".
Thanks to movies, about everybody has this "knowlege". Fortunately, "hard" ammunition only puts little holes in the side of the plane that make an annoying whistle. Nobody gets sucked out the holes. I know this from past conversations with folks who have faced this situation, flying high altitude missions in combat.
Apparently machine guns bullets sound like somebody outside picked up a handfull of gravel and t
Concealed Weapons are a bad idea... but... (Score:2)
You want deterrance, you need your weapon to be clearly visible. Otherwise, you are only defended against criminals who are willing to take a chance that you aren't armed. Since criminals are generally stupid, almost by definition, is that a good plan?
Oh, does the idea of walking throu
Re:Concealed Weapons are a bad idea... but... (Score:2)
Re:Concealed Weapons are a bad idea... but... (Score:2)