Gun Laws and Control - Page 2 - Political Forum

Shiva_TD · 04-24-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldstone69

How would universal gun ownership have stopped 9/11 ?

One American packing a .357 could have stopped the hijacking of the plane in about 2 seconds.

Little-Acorn · 04-24-2008, 05:22 PM

If laws allowed all responsible adults to carry freely, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And so in any large crowd, the chances are pretty good that a few people would have a gun.

And some madman who was considering a mass shooting, plane hijacking, etc., would know that. And he would know that the chances of a bullet coming from some unknown direction or direaction, stopping his little escapade before he could roll up the high body-count he wanted, were quite good.

So instead of shooting thirty people, he might shoot two or three before he got suddenly dead or incapacitated. And the hijacker might get only 1/10 of the way to the World Trade Center before the same thing happened to him.

Or better yet, the would-be murderer might take stock of the situation, realize his little adventure was too unlikely to "succeed", and decide to take up another line of work entirely... in which case no one would be injured or killed at all. And without a shot being fired.

The most important effect of universal carry by responsible adults, is DETERRENCE.

The next most important, is that someone who starts shooting anyway, even the madmen who intend to kill themselves too, won't kill very many before he is stopped... as opposed to VT-type killings that could go on literally for hours.

If CCW were universally permitted, most people still wouldn't bother carrying. But a few would - and the bad guys would never know which one(s) they were. A pretty high deterrent effect.

colourislast · 04-24-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldstone69

I can think of one or two ...

Well assuming the pilots were not taken by surprise (possible) they confront the Hijackers who were prepared to die for their cause and start shooting in the cockpit at several thousand feet the plane would still crash ....could a Pilot pull the trigger in those circumstances ? ...remember this attack was out of the blue, no warning they would not have known the hijackers awful intentions.
Having a secure door to the cockpit seems the better option.

If a Pilot has a nervous breakdown (Unlikely but possible) not great to start with having a gun to hand may be rather problematic .

The firearm must be ready to use at extremely short notice ....do accidents ever happen when handling firearms ? + 30,000 feet

The reason the pilots opened the door for the Hijackers in the first place was because the hijackers were torturing the flight attendants right outside the cockpit door. Real torture, not water boarding. The pilots had no real choice.

There are subsonic rounds used in weapons for such situations. They will kill or disable a person, but not penetrate the plane. That is what real gun control is all about. Aim, not restriction.

There are so many redundant systems on a plane, especially the vital functions; it would take more firepower than a handgun to kill the plane.

colourislast · 04-24-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

One American packing a .357 could have stopped the hijacking of the plane in about 2 seconds.

This is one of the reasons they bought multiple tickets for those flights. To ensure fewer people were going to be on the flights. Reducing the possibility of a passenger bringing one on board by reducing the number of people on the plane.

Little-Acorn · 04-24-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colourislast

This is one of the reasons they bought multiple tickets for those flights. To ensure fewer people were going to be on the flights. Reducing the possibility of a passenger bringing one on board by reducing the number of people on the plane.

That's the first I've heard about the hijackers buying multiple tickets on the flights. Even if they did, I doubt that was their reason, since EVERYBODY was forbidden to bring guns on planes, even in Sept. 2001 (except cops).

Maybe they just wanted fewer bodies to worry about while they did their piloting thing. Somewhat understandable, maybe their main targets were on the ground, not the people in the planes.

But there were still a number of people on each plane... and the ones on United 93 thwarted the mission, even though they were completely unarmed. If concealed carry were universally permitted as I said, instead of law-abiding people being deliberately disarmed while criminals weren't, there's a pretty good chance none of those planes would have hit any buildings, and might even have landed intact. Instead of the catastrophe that did happen.

Concealed carry by responsible adults, is by far the best way to deter crimes, especially grave crimes like mass shootings and hijackings. For the reasons I gave. Most people would still not bother carrying, but a few would. And the criminals would never know which ones they are, until they found out the hard way. This would be enough to make many criminals choose a different line of work, and stop or slow down the ones who didn't.

Kazikli Bey · 04-25-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

No gun control law will prevent someone who wants a gun from getting one. The law will simply make it more expensive, as black market channel will be used.

As law abiding citizens are not likely to buy a gun illegally, and because of the laws making obtaining a weapon difficult, they are inherently less likely to be armed.

So while all the criminals have guns, most of the citizens do not. As the best home defense is to have a shotgun in your bedroom, citizens are more subject to being victimized.

Stricter gun control laws will not prevent the criminals, and people that we really worry about having guns from owning them. Just as cocaine is easy to obtain on the black market, so are firearms.

Here's something beautiful then, why not make it illegal to carry a gun (unless there is a valid reason, like going to the shooting range or hunting) without having a permit that allows you to do so? (and the permit must be carried at all times and list the guns that one owns). This way, if a person is carrying an unregistered and illegally acquired gun, they can be charged, arrested and the illegal can be gun confiscated.

cosmictap · 04-25-2008, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldstone69

The terrorists planned for the situation they faced if the pilots were armed they would have come a packing pre 9/11 security was not good on US domestic flights ....

And it's not good now. FAA Red Teams still have about a 90% success rate in getting prohibited items onto aircraft.

cosmictap · 04-25-2008, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

No gun control law will prevent someone who wants a gun from getting one. The law will simply make it more expensive, as black market channel will be used.

As law abiding citizens are not likely to buy a gun illegally, and because of the laws making obtaining a weapon difficult, they are inherently less likely to be armed.

So while all the criminals have guns, most of the citizens do not. As the best home defense is to have a shotgun in your bedroom, citizens are more subject to being victimized.

Stricter gun control laws will not prevent the criminals, and people that we really worry about having guns from owning them. Just as cocaine is easy to obtain on the black market, so are firearms.

I totally agree with you.

All this polyannish talk about "permits" and "tests" and "making it illegal" is just silly - as if that will change a thing for those people we should be most afraid of.

All it can do is prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning weapons.

Caltex · 04-25-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

Here's something beautiful then, why not make it illegal to carry a gun (unless there is a valid reason, like going to the shooting range or hunting) without having a permit that allows you to do so? (and the permit must be carried at all times and list the guns that one owns). This way, if a person is carrying an unregistered and illegally acquired gun, they can be charged, arrested and the illegal can be gun confiscated.

What are you going to do, random searches of innocent people on the street?

You don't know someone has a gun until they pull it out, and in a criminal case, until they've already shot the person.

Kazikli Bey · 04-25-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

What are you going to do, random searches of innocent people on the street?

You don't know someone has a gun until they pull it out, and in a criminal case, until they've already shot the person.

Well, i'm quite sure local cops and cops in the gang violence department will be able to tell who are gang members, i'm quite sure random searches of them might just help somewhere along the lines.