View Poll Results: Should Airline Pilots Have The Option to Arm Themselves?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. As a passenger I like getting to where I'm going.

    33 84.62%
  • No. I've always wanted the chance for a real fast visit to a national landmark

    6 15.38%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 89

Thread: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

  1. #61
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because he's a pussy? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.
    We arent talking about average people. We're talking about pilots who have committed to going thru what's necessary to bring a gun on to the flight deck.

    Under your argument, above, you must oppose police officers carrying guns.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 03-20-09 at 02:58 PM.

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,504

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You have yet to hear me argue in favor of allowing ANYONE to have a gun on a plane. I'm just saying that I don't have as big of a problem with air marshals or pilots having them as I do with Gomer Pyle being allowed to bring them on the plane just because he has a CCW.


    Because he's a pussy? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.
    Projecting your own fears of inadequacy again?

    Are you going to do as I asked and address rational specific reasons (calling people Gomer Pyle/hicks or assuming they'll be paralyzed with fear doesn't count, it is established that the average gun owner is not the moronic coward you project him to be) why you oppose having guns on planes, reasons that have not already been refuted, or just keep repeating yourself?

    When are you going to admit that your real reason is hoplophobia?

    G.



    Here's a post you apparently want to ignore:


    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Well, lets look at this rationally. What are the arguments for forbidding law-abiding citizens with CCW/CWP (concealed weapon permits) from carrying on an airplane?

    1. Depressurization/other functionality mishap.
    This has been proven to be effectively mythical, at least from the cause of handgun bullets. If you're worried about it anyway, we can require low-penetration frangible rounds.

    2. CCW gone crazy: the permit holder with the gun goes nuts. This is as much of a myth as depressurization due to handgun bullets. As mentioned before, crime statistics show that permit holders have such a low rate of violent crime it is virtually zero. In the unlikely chance that it did happen, an armed flight crew and maybe one or two other armed passengers would deal with it.

    3. Terrorist/etc grabs CCW's gun. Well as I mentioned earlier, concealed carry means hidden. Properly concealed, you'll sit next to a CCW for hours and never realize he is armed in most cases. Without X-ray vision, determining who is armed, if anyone, is iffy.
    Even if you did, taking a gun from an "educated CCW" is not at all like taking candy from a baby. Even if someone managed it, there would be the armed flight crew and perhaps other armed passengers to deal with. This is a non-issue.

    4.. Crowded conditions
    NOW, here is an intresting one. Yes, the conditions are crowded, and the risk to bystanders considerable.
    However, let's consider the circumstances under which a rational armed citizen might use that weapon... terrorists, violent looney with a razor slashing people, hijackers...well, then again it is hard to tell the latter pair from the first one since 911. In short, it would be a desperate situation where everyone's lives were already in danger. Consider Flight 93.
    The danger could be largely mitigated with good judgement and/or good marksmanship. I know plenty of CCW holders with both.

    Now, come to think of it, crowded conditions applies to a lot of places, like malls, stores, restaurants. Do you oppose CCW in such places? Since we've narrowed the reasons to oppose CCW on a plane down to this one issue, the crowded conditions, let's address that issue as it relates to malls, stores, restaurants, buses, etc.



    G.

  3. #63
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,972

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because he's a pussy? Or because he thinks he's more likely to survive if he doesn't resist? Or because he can't get to the gun for whatever reason? Or because he sucks at aiming? There are lots of reasons why an average person might be unwilling or unable to kill another human being.
    Assuming that this is true, and the pilot wouldn't use it . . . then what difference does it make if he has it or not? In other words, how is this an argument for not permitting the gun in the first place?

    Sorry, there's just NO empirical rational for disarming the pilots.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  4. #64
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Projecting your own fears of inadequacy again?

    Are you going to do as I asked and address rational specific reasons (calling people Gomer Pyle/hicks or assuming they'll be paralyzed with fear doesn't count, it is established that the average gun owner is not the moronic coward you project him to be) why you oppose having guns on planes, reasons that have not already been refuted, or just keep repeating yourself?
    I'm not worried about the AVERAGE gun owner. All it takes is one Gomer Pyle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin
    When are you going to admit that your real reason is hoplophobia?
    I really don't give a **** if you want to play John Wayne in your backyard, just not on an airplane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin
    Here's a post you apparently want to ignore:
    #1. I never suggested anything remotely like this. It's just a straw man.

    #2. Don't worry, I'm not concerned about Gomer going crazy. However, this WOULD make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes themselves. I imagine that it's a lot easier for a hijacker to get a fake permit (or even a real permit) than to sneak the gun onto a plane. So in THAT sense I guess you could say I'm worried about "CCW going crazy."

    #3. Again, what if Gomer doesn't conceal it very well? What if Gomer decides to sleep on the plane and isn't watching his gun? All it takes is one idiot.

    #4. Since my concern is not primarily with the person who brought the gun onto the plane using it, this is another straw man.


    An atmosphere in which there is easy access to guns on planes makes it A LOT more likely that a hijacker gains access to guns on planes, than in an atmosphere in which it is practically impossible to get a gun onto a plane.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-20-09 at 05:19 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #65
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Assuming that this is true, and the pilot wouldn't use it . . . then what difference does it make if he has it or not?
    Because my concern is not with the pilot's use of the weapon, it's with the hijacker's use of the weapon.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #66
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,972

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because my concern is not with the pilot's use of the weapon, it's with the hijacker's use of the weapon.
    What's the hijacker going to do with it that he can't already do once he's stormed the cockpit?
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  7. #67
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What's the hijacker going to do with it that he can't already do once he's stormed the cockpit?
    Shoot the pilots? Shoot passengers who resist?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #68
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,972

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Shoot the pilots? Shoot passengers who resist?
    They apparently have some other way of doing that (killing or maiming) anyway, else they wouldn't have made it to the cockpit to begin with. You're arguing for leaving the pilots defenseless on the remote chance that the hijackers might then acquire an additional means of hurting someone.

    You must not think much of the pilots. (Many, if not most, of them are ex-military, by the way.) If they're so weak or incompetent, why would you trust them to be in charge of 100+ people's lives to begin with?

    (To say nothing, of course, of the fact that you must assume any successful hijacking is going to end up with a 100% casualty rate anyway.)
    Last edited by Harshaw; 03-20-09 at 05:24 PM.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  9. #69
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    They apparently have some other way of doing that (killing or maiming) anyway, else they wouldn't have made it to the cockpit to begin with.
    Maintaining order will be a hell of a lot easier for them if they have a shotgun instead of a boxcutter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    You're arguing for leaving the pilots defenseless on the remote chance that the hijackers might then acquire an additional means of hurting someone.
    I am not. They have a sealed cabin as defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    You must not think much of the pilots. (Many, if not most, of them are ex-military, by the way.) If they're so weak or incompetent, why would you trust them to be in charge of 100+ people's lives to begin with?
    Just because I trust trusted my high school busdriver to get me to school without crashing the bus, doesn't mean I'd trust her to perform open heart surgery on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    (To say nothing, of course, of the fact that you must assume any successful hijacking is going to end up with a 100% casualty rate anyway.)
    On the contrary, I assume no such thing. In fact, that's the entire point. I am only aware of four hijackings in history that had a 100% casualty rate. If some ****head just wants to take the plane to Cuba, why in the world would you want to risk a firefight on the airplane?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #70
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,972

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Maintaining order will be a hell of a lot easier for them if they have a shotgun instead of a boxcutter.
    How are they going to get a "shotgun"? I'm starting to think you're not being very serious here.


    I am not. They have a sealed cabin as defense.
    Yet, the guns they might have in there are a threat to the safety of the plane because the hijackers might get them. This is what you said.


    Just because I trust trusted my high school busdriver to get me to school without crashing the bus, doesn't mean I'd trust her to perform open heart surgery on me.
    OK, that's TRULY unserious as an analogy. I hope you understand that.


    On the contrary, I assume no such thing. In fact, that's the entire point. I am only aware of four hijackings in history that had a 100% casualty rate. If some ****head just wants to take the plane to Cuba
    You would be completely incompetent and irresponsible NOT to make that assumption concerning the hijackers' intent. As such, you want there to be every means possible to keep that from happening. (And when's the last time any hijacker wanted to take a plane to Cuba?)


    why in the world would you want to risk a firefight on the airplane?
    OK, now it's going to be a "firefight"?

    Come on, man. You're much smarter than this post would suggest.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •