Freeper: If we carried guns on planes, there would be no 9/11!

To: Dan from Michigan
Those on the terror watch lists are barred from flying on an airplane or boarding a cruise ship but they can buy military-style weapons like an AK-47.
That's right, Chad, and if passengers were allowed to travel armed, there'd be no reason to keep terrorists off airplanes or cruise ships either. Surely a brilliant journalist like you didn't miss the fact that the 9/11 hijackings were committed with weapons like box cutters against passengers known to be unarmed.


32 posted on 03/13/2005 1:39:25 PM PST by OhioAttorney
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >


The logic in this post escapes me.

Same shit, different asshole.

if everyone could carry arms on a plane, the terrorists would not have used box cutters.

Any nut could walk on a plane, cruise ship and just start executing people.

Doesn't seem like a well thought out idea to allow guns on planes to me.

Archie was the first Freeper. Archie Bunker was Freeper number zero.

People laughed at Archie many year ago when he said that. Now that they aren't laughing.

Devo was right. We are in state of devolution.

If passengers could carry firearms on board, so could terrorists. :crazy:

Then the highjackers would have just brought those, instead of boxcutters. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me :eyes:

:hi:

but my daughter keeps bringing up stats on our aging and overweight population...

May found Fly Naked - Here's Your Blindfold Airlines instead.

ahem, Miss, may I have a seat doily?

More guns!

Fucking morons.

That was my first thought as well.

decompression.

That's just something we believe as 'true' because we've seen it done so many times in the movies.

The "Mythbusters" took that on in their very first season. Decompression does happen, but not to the degree that anyone is gonna get sucked out or the plane will explode/crash.

Mythbusters, Discovery Channel, Episode 10: Explosive Decompression, Frog Giggin', Rear Axle
Jamie and Adam get trigger-happy trying to shoot down myths regarding firearms. First, they fire a bullet into the shell of an aircraft to find out if a single shot can cause explosive decompression — and total aircraft destruction.

Oddly enough, it was rerun just this past week.

i can watch it over and over

one of the supposedly hijacked jets flew right over the Indian River Nuke plant....had the terrorist truly wanted to harm the 'west' forcing the evacuation of NE US would be more deadly then crashing the twin towers and alot easier too....
the whole fiasco was staged.

it was a good idea...Let cops fly free and in return they are "on duty" and in uniform, no jurisdiction but most people stop when they see a uniformed officer sitting on a plane. Would this have stopped 9/11? Maybe not but it is an idea to ponder.

No department would allow an off-duty officer to fly in uniform with department gear on his/her belt like that.

An idea I have also heard is allowing off-duty officers to fly free, and carry their service weapons, but be in plain clothes---the idea is to serve as an Air Marshall of sorts. This could only happen if the officers were specially trained in use of firearms on board on aircraft for safety reasons. This idea I think is much better than the other.

on a plane.
One stray shot and the whole cabin will get sucked out one of those tiny windows.

weapon.

That would seem to be the most logical idea. Give the "law" enough power to subdue any threats on a plane, but not enough to scare people out of flying or to render a possibly dangerous in-cabin scenario.

The thing about cops is, they represent an Idea of law and order. A person who might cause trouble would be less likely to do so if they spotted a guy in unifrom and even if not armed they still could take a guy down.

No department would ever dream of sending a uniformed officer out in public unarmed. Not in a million years.

In Britain the large majority of police are unarmed. There are specialist fire-arms officers who are ready as a rapid-response when needed, but the typical bobby on the beat does not have a gun.

It strikes me that the typical police officer cannot be very highly trained in the use of fire-arms, and if somebody if going to start shooting I'd rather he/she be damn well trained.

"It strikes you" that the typical officer is not highly trained in firearms? You would be struck wrong in this assumption.

Seriously, that is a very silly and baseless thing to say. Police officers are very well trained, and must qualify to state standards and training...and they must continue their qualifications throughout their careers. All cops have spent countless hours at the range, which is required. Officers are trained in numerous types of weapons as well, from their service weapon to shotguns to MP5s, etc.

I do not see how a standard police officer can be trained in the use of fire-arms to the same degree as a specialist.

Obviously they are trained, but surely you are not suggesting that the typical American patrol-office is trained to the same level as the specialists which stand at the entrance to Parliament with sub-machine guns?

Perhaps it is because this is not a gun-culture, but I just don't get the 'logic' behind more guns=more safety; whether they are in the hands of random by-standers or standard police-officers.

I can assure you that American police officers are very highly trained in firearms. Recruits are dumped out of academies every day for failure to meet qualifications in range training, and any officer who fails subsequent quarterly qualifications cannot be on the street. Each officer is tested in a variety of conditions: night and day shooting, close and distance, standing, squatting, lying down, left hand right hand, etc. Each officer must also be able to take his/her gun apart, clean it, put it back together, etc. It is not something that is taken lightly or glossed over. In other words, any concern that the average police officer is not adequately trained in firearms is baseless.

The fact of the matter is that guns are out there in the hands of criminals so it would be the epitome of folly as well as suicidal to send our officers out unarmed. That option should never even be considered.

But we do send our officers out unarmed without any great problem.

Numerous surveys suggest that they themselves do not wish to be armed.

Not only do we consider it, but we also implement it; with satisfaction on the part of society generally and of the police themselves.

but you are talking about the U.K. and I am talking about the U.S.

If unarmed officers works in the U.K., more power to you. Here, it can't even be considered, ever.

in the hull and the plane would be depressurized and destroyed.

Great idea!

Not every bullet would penetrate the exterior skin.

betting which gun and which bullet would penetrate the shell.

:)

"powder load"

All it takes is one, even a low-powered dum-dum round to crack a window.

is enough to make me take Amtrak

i bet this guy is an amtrak marketing supervisor :D

..deputies would have had guns in that courthouse the other day in Atlanta, Nichols would never have been able to shoot a judge, two deputies and a court reporter. Oh wait, the deputys DID have the guns.
Never mind.

the court reporter too. And the reporter he stole a car from in the parking lot.

And now ministers should be armed - to avoid a madman killing people in church. :crazy:

they should be allowed to carry handguns into school in case Michael jackson stops by

cause I'm a teacher.

Freepers don't know how to think. It's all knee jerk reaction from them. It's sad that there are so many of them.

laughing at how stoopid they can be.

It's their stoopidity that is ruining this country.

I think this idea pounds sand. I have known several men of the more, um, Libertarian persuasion, who have opined to me that if (1) people carried guns on planes, we would be safer; and its attendant corollary, (2) if everyone carried guns who were on that 1980s LIRR railroad car where that pissed-off guy killed and wounded all those people. we would be safer.

How in the HELL is it safer to have a bunch of amateur shootists added to any particular melee??

Jeez, most of them would wind up shooting the flight attendants.

One idiot doesn't speak for everyone. I think even most freepers would have more sense than this, especially those who know anything about guns.

You'd have to be a complete nincompoop to buy this, freeper or not.

there is no freaking way they kept all those passengers subdued with BOX CUTTERS. NO WAY.

We shoot up the place, depressurize the plane and cause it to crash. Yeah, that's a great way to stop hijackers on a suicide mission. It will kill them and everybody else on the plane and whoever happens to be around when it crashes. But this'll top them from carrying out their dastardly plans, all right!! Freepers are so smart!!

But, neither have most 12 year olds who claim to be lawyers.

Why would depressurization of the cabin be so VERY BAD???

Pain and burst ear drums would be rampant, but the über-developed Eustachian tubes of the flight staff (cockpit & cabin) along with the training they'd have to know the situation and how to deal with it... attaining a rapid descent to <14k... well... wouldn't that place them back in a controlling situation/environment?

guns are not good or bad... but since there are those who would use them for bad, we should get rid of them? I don't understand that approach. Am I missing it?

. . . morons with guns kill people.

The guys on the plane were "Civilians", if they had guns, they would have been able to do what they sought to do a lot easier.

...there's be no need for terror alerts or guns at all!

...who can't even shoot straight???
:shrug:
i can just see a bullet transitioning a hydraulic line bringing the entire craft down long before any 'freeper' hero status is determined, or any one of the recent headliners shooting up the friendly skies

guns are not the answer. people with answers are.

Seemed like a simple solution. I heard it in the day or two after 9/11, but never since. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to see why this isn't a solution?

I mean, if the logic is based in preventing a terrorist attack using an airplane, and the lives of those aboard don't matter (100 people strapped with various firearms will leave everyone dead), then why not install a ka-boom! button in the cockpit. If a hijacking occurs, the pilot blows the hatch, the plane disintegrates, and outside of falling debris, nobody on the ground is hurt.

That outta get folks flying the friendly skies.

... wouldn't be surprised if it was picked up

"I am sorry Mr. & Mrs. Johnson-Smith, your four grandchildren died when the drunk pilot 'accidentally' hit the 'ka-boom' button having realized that he didn't have car insurance from GEICO... take solace thouhgh... they were only 6% of the passengers onboard... we're certain that will make it better. Have a nice life."

How could a bullet penetrate the bottom of the plane in order to detonate the bomb that was attached to it? How were they going to stop the device that was guiding the plane into the building?

Retards.

At least one flight attendant a day is attacked usually the result of alcohol use by a traveler. And this moron wants to introduce guns into the situation? Aside from a drunk (fearful usually) with a gun in a pressurized tin can how about the wannabe Wyatt Earp's up there with guns?