Good Riddance!

[Researcher]

   Yes, something had to be done and that is how this government does things. Its called reality. You seem to live in a dream world where every average citizen is not only a crack shot but also has the ability to properly judge when to use a firearm. I am not the only one here who thinks allowing guns on planes is an absurd idea.

      Yes, politicians and everyone who watches the news heard of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before 9/11....I mentioned the USS Cole before.I think we learned that we can't sit back and do nothing after that incident and 9/11 happened. Also after Tora  Nora I think we learned not to let other countries in on secret missions, hence the killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan without  telling them.

      Researcher 

[robert angel]

Bad things happen when guns are fired in pressurized jets. When shots miss, a very real possibility obviously, beside a sudden loss of oxygen, they often penetrate the fueselage, windows etc. Chances of crashes are much greater. A couple of pistol equipped air marshalls, preferably equipped with pistols with match grade barrels with green laser sights and shooting 40 or 45 caliber Glaser Safety Slugs (they'll go though a leather jacket and still kill, but rarely penetrate a house's dry wall) might be the right ticket. Costs less than a $1000. Got one right on my bedside night stand----home owner's insurance, I figure....

[Researcher]

Bad things happen when guns are fired in pressurized jets. When shots miss, a very real possibility obviously, beside a sudden loss of oxygen, they often penetrate the fueselage, windows etc. Chances of crashes are much greater. A couple of pistol equipped air marshalls, preferably equipped with pistols with match grade barrels with green laser sights and shooting 40 or 45 caliber Glaser Safety Slugs (they'll go though a leather jacket and still kill, but rarely penetrate a house's dry wall) might be the right ticket. Costs less than a $1000. Got one right on my bedside night stand----home owner's insurance, I figure....

        That is correct Robert. Not to mention allowing weapons on a plane won't deter these Jihadists. One advantage they have is that they are willing to die for their cause. Bring a knife on a plane and they'll have guns, bring a gun on a plane and they will have explosives.You aren't going to win in that situation.

         If you get many people popping off rounds in a plane it would lead to disaster. And throwing in a few that are drinking..... forget it. Alcohol impairs judgement and I have seen plenty of loud drunks on a plane, they don't need guns.

                 Researcher

[no comment]

Most of the insurgents in Iraq were from outside Iraq.

The strategy was to draw combatants to a place outside of the US to fight and kill them there. 

I doubt anyone thought about OBL at all before 9/11.

Bin Laden's terrorist deeds preceded the attacks of September 11, 2001.  He had been a wanted man for about 15 years.

[jm21-2]

   Yes, something had to be done and that is how this government does things. Its called reality.

"something" does not always have to be done, aside from the fact that there are an infinite number of paths which can be taken. You may trust politicians to always do what's right for the citizenry but I certainly never will....

You seem to live in a dream world where every average citizen is not only a crack shot but also has the ability to properly judge when to use a firearm. I am not the only one here who thinks allowing guns on planes is an absurd idea.

If you are worried about the public's lack of education about fighting and guns, which I think you're off on, then give it as training in public high school. Get rid of PE and do self-defense and basic arms training. You don't need to be a crack shot or a champion boxer to defend yourself. And besides, I was mainly talking about melee weapons such as knives.

Yes, politicians and everyone who watches the news heard of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before 9/11....I mentioned the USS Cole before.I think we learned that we can't sit back and do nothing after that incident and 9/11 happened. Also after Tora  Nora I think we learned not to let other countries in on secret missions, hence the killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan without  telling them.

      Researcher

Sure it's a good idea to do something. But the scale was a bit off. For the tiny number that died, compared to the cost....it's like all the money spent to prevent child kidnappings. Judging by the money spent you would think being killed by a terrorist is thousands if not millions of times worse than being killed in an auto accident.

EDIT:

        That is correct Robert. Not to mention allowing weapons on a plane won't deter these Jihadists. One advantage they have is that they are willing to die for their cause. Bring a knife on a plane and they'll have guns, bring a gun on a plane and they will have explosives.You aren't going to win in that situation.

         If you get many people popping off rounds in a plane it would lead to disaster. And throwing in a few that are drinking..... forget it. Alcohol impairs judgement and I have seen plenty of loud drunks on a plane, they don't need guns.

And you think there are no people willing to risk their lives to stop a plane hijacking? Your worldview is awfully pessimistic.

[Researcher]

            Well JM.I would say that I am more of a realistic type person than optimist or pessimist.Your idea of guns on planes is not very popular. Out of many other forums I have read and other people I know of you and Glenn Beck are the only ones for this idea.It just has too many flaws.

            I am assuming that by allowing guns on planes you think that the TEA could be done away with.I am for that idea, but it isn't possible. Someone would still need to make sure those that had guns were lawfully carrying them.Not to mention making sure no one brought a high caliber gun on that would blow a hole in the pressurized cabin.Robert brought that point up but I see you have chosen to ignore him.

           Maybe blowing a hole in the cabin wouldn't crash the plane but a bullet could hit part of the planes control system, like a hydraulic line, causing the pilot not to be able to control it.

           What about international travel? Other countries might not want people bringing guns into their country. Not everyone would agree, England for example.

            And no, I don't have faith in the general public to carry guns, especially travelers.Take a look around you the next time you fly, I mean a good look at the people. Then think about this idea.I wouldn't feel any safer if I knew that any yahoo could carry a loaded gun on a plane.

            What is being done in airports is working.How many planes have been hijacked since
9/11? That's proof positive that not allowing firearms on planes works.

              Researcher

[jm21-2]

            Well JM.I would say that I am more of a realistic type person than optimist or pessimist.Your idea of guns on planes is not very popular. Out of many other forums I have read and other people I know of you and Glenn Beck are the only ones for this idea.It just has too many flaws.

            I am assuming that by allowing guns on planes you think that the TEA could be done away with.I am for that idea, but it isn't possible. Someone would still need to make sure those that had guns were lawfully carrying them.Not to mention making sure no one brought a high caliber gun on that would blow a hole in the pressurized cabin.Robert brought that point up but I see you have chosen to ignore him.

           Maybe blowing a hole in the cabin wouldn't crash the plane but a bullet could hit part of the planes control system, like a hydraulic line, causing the pilot not to be able to control it.

           What about international travel? Other countries might not want people bringing guns into their country. Not everyone would agree, England for example.

            And no, I don't have faith in the general public to carry guns, especially travelers.Take a look around you the next time you fly, I mean a good look at the people. Then think about this idea.I wouldn't feel any safer if I knew that any yahoo could carry a loaded gun on a plane.

            What is being done in airports is working.How many planes have been hijacked since
9/11? That's proof positive that not allowing firearms on planes works.

              Researcher

I didn't mean to ignore Robert's comments, I thought he proved my point in some ways. The average person is a lot more educated on guns, knives, weapons, and self-defense than many might think. I was raised in a pacifist liberal household but my dad is a great shot since his dad was in the military and would use the firing range as daycare. I never held a gun until I was about 18 or so and out of my parent's control. Really easy to shoot a gun. Really easy to kill a person with a knife or any other weapon.


I think Glenn Beck is a joke and would much rather watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. I think you're wrong that I'm off my rocker and suspect that you are older  (40+ years old) and are part of that lost generation.


If you are worried about terrorism, you are worried about them flying a plane into something in America. International flights would thus presumably not be the target. And how many people would train for years at hijacking a plane just to be blown up in mid-air? That's not the goal. They also need a plane that can fly normally....if there's a gunfight and damage that necessitates a drop to lower altitude, they've lost.


I look around the cabin on a flight and see well-adjusted people who are successful enough to afford international travel. Well, mostly I see Chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese people who would never think of having a pistol anyway. And considering I'm more liekly to be struck down by lightning I've never been worried about a flight being hijacked. I do sometimes worry that I'll go nuts on that flight between Seattle and Tokyo on United with that cramped legroom though! Much more of a concern than terrorism.

[Researcher]

        I may be wrong here but I think Robert's point was that since air marshals are the only one's allowed to have weapons they are trained to use them on planes and the type of weapon is such as not to do serious damage to the plane. So, I don't think that proves your point.

       And you completely missed my point about international flights to countries that have gun control. What are you going to do with it when you land in a country that doesn't allow you to have it?Just another flaw that you ignored.

       How do you know how a terrorist will use a plane? If they crash it into a big city or populated area it would still kill people and do considerable damage.

       I don't mind Glenn Beck so much. I disagree with him on that point.It is just plain stupid to allow anyone to carry a gun on a plane.You still need quite a bit of security in airports even if you did allow guns on planes.So it is pointless and probably another flaw that you will choose to ignore.And those odds of being struck by lightening are better than blah blah blah? You can thank airport security for that. I checked TWA's website and it stated that 16 firearms were found at security checkpoints last week alone.Not in a year, in a week. So no matter what you say, those odds you talk about only goes to prove what is being done now works and works well.

      I don't see what my age has to do with anything. Other than I have experienced quite a bit in my life and am probably more in touch with reality than the younger generation. I had some ideas when I was younger that I thought were good but after experiencing life I realized they weren't feasible. They weren't ideas as far out in left field as yours but I get where you are coming from.You have ideas but when someone points out the flaws you simply ignore them.Probably because you haven't realized just what a ridiculous idea you have.

          Researcher

[euforia51]

The average person is a lot more educated on guns, knives, weapons, and self-defense than many might think. I was raised in a pacifist liberal household but my dad is a great shot since his dad was in the military and would use the firing range as daycare. I never held a gun until I was about 18 or so and out of my parent's control. Really easy to shoot a gun. Really easy to kill a person with a knife or any other weapon.

Still on the guns on planes thing, I see. To me, it seems a moot point since it's not going to happen anytime soon ... thank god. My first experience with a pistol was very recently at a firing range with a friend (who also has a concealed weapons permit) who invited me out to shoot. I never liked guns but I jumped on the opportunity to try it and see what it's about. I didn't think it was that damn easy to shoot a gun ... or to do it correctly I should say. Was it easy to pull the trigger? Sure. But that doesn't mean you know about the weapon, you know how to use it, or you're even practiced and trained with it.
Speaking purely from my own experience, I think I'd be a fool to assume I could just go out and buy a gun and suddenly my world just became safe because I shot a few times. I mention my friend having a concealed permit because he had to take a safety class, fill out documentation, and also take a psych test to receive his permit. To me, this seems like the right thing to have to do for ALL legitimate gun owners. IMO, it should be like maintaining a license to drive a car.

[Researcher]

     I think  you are correct Euforia.Its not gonna happen.I believe even if guns were allowed on planes legally, the airlines probably wouldn't allow it. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and do so legally but there are places I can't carry it.Work is one place that firearms are prohibited. I think JM's got the right idea in that there are better ways to handle things but I don't agree with him on this one.

            Researcher

[Researcher]

        A Brooklyn based Hasidic newspaper edited Hillary and another woman out of the iconic photo of Obama and friends watching the raid on OBL. At first the publication said that they couldn't publish photos of women because it could be considered sexually suggestive. Then they claimed they just couldn't publish photos of women.I guess they realized the term"sexually suggestive"  and Hillary Clinton didn't belong in the same sentence!! hahaha!!

                                Edited Photo                                                                   Original Photo



         Researcher

[michaelb]

Shows a severe lack of journalistic integrity. Taints everything they publish as unreliable. Poor showing indeed.