Great news! Over 20 dead in Orlando Night Club!

[Loren Pechtel]

You contradict yourself. You claim that the new cockpit doors have "only caused harm", then point out zero attempts to seize an airplane since the change.

No contradiction here. Zero attempts doesn't mean the doors didn't cause harm. I'm thinking of the Germanwings suicide.

More important than a likely difference in passenger response is the far greater difficulty in getting into the cockpit, no matter how the passengers respond. Terrorist could still crash a plane, if they got into the cockpit, before the passengers knew what was happening. Also, remember that passenger rebellion on flight 93 still resulted in a crash and everyone on the plane dying.

Because they retook the plane rather than keeping them out of the cockpit in the first place.

Plus knowledge of an potential armed air marshal also deters hijackers armed with less than guns.

The number of flights with air marshals is low. Furthermore, the air marshals aren't that well hidden, a hijacker very well might see them as a source of a gun.

Passenger revolt would help minimize harm in a hijacking without guns, but be far less effective if they had guns,

It would still work even with guns, although more would die in the process. Yes, charging a terrorist with a gun comes close to being a suicide mission--but at this point we know that letting them control the plane (as opposed to simply giving orders--note that guy who hijacked the Egyptian plane but didn't try to enter the cockpit. He wasn't stomped on) is suicide anyway. If you charge you give your loved ones on the plane a chance they wouldn't have otherwise.

Regardless, the point is that it was not knives but planes that were the key weapons used in 9/11, and guns would have made their task far easier, prevented the revolt on flight 93, and would make a repeat of 9/11 far more likely. Two unskilled schmucks with AK-47s could mow down an entire plane full of 300 passengers. The passengers path to try and get to the gunmen would be blocked by the first rows of dead passengers killed in seconds. In contrast, 2 ninjas with box cutters couldn't kill more than several people before being overrun. The point is that Trautsi's claim that assault rifles and box cutters are equivalent and thus should be treated as such by the law is absurd.

Two schmucks with AK-47s could kill more passengers but they wouldn't get the plane--and they wouldn't fare very well when the pilots demonstrated where the actual maneuvering limits of a jetliner are. Not to mention passing out from a lack of oxygen.

 

[fast]

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins

I believe I understand the distinction you are trying to make here regarding whether this was an attack against particular individuals (anti-gay hate crime) or against the US (Islamic fan fiction inspired terrorism), but I don't know if this distinction is worth the effort at this point, at least in the sense of the posting past each other cycle that is going on right now.

I'm not understanding why people are trying to fore this as some kind of binary choice, it's obviously both.

ETA: Also, to all those politicians that suddenly have a use for gays, and are sending thoughts and prayers while supporting anti-gay legislation. FUCK YOU!

What choice do they have? For those that absolutely will continue to support anti-gay legislation (and/or oppose pro-gay legislation), there would not only be public outrage exasperated by the liberally-biased media, but chat rooms and forums (where the young is more prolific) will echo the sentiments of their mentors, saying that there are consequences to actions--as a retort to the accusation of free speech not being so free.

In other words, there is great pressure to be full of shit.

 

[ronburgundy]

No contradiction here. Zero attempts doesn't mean the doors didn't cause harm. I'm thinking of the Germanwings suicide.

You said they ONLY have caused harm, and yet the zero attempts to take over a plane is exactly what is predicted by them preventing terrorist from even attempting it, because the doors make it near impossible for it to work again.

More important than a likely difference in passenger response is the far greater difficulty in getting into the cockpit, no matter how the passengers respond. Terrorist could still crash a plane, if they got into the cockpit, before the passengers knew what was happening. Also, remember that passenger rebellion on flight 93 still resulted in a crash and everyone on the plane dying.

Because they retook the plane rather than keeping them out of the cockpit in the first place.

Exactly!! The plane still crashed because they merely fought back but failed to keep them out of the cockpit. Once they get control of the cockpit a crash is extremely likely, and had they been kept out of the cockpits, none of the planes would have crashed. IOW, keeping them out of the cockpit is why it has not been attempted again, b/c they know they can't succeed. Passenger revolt is a distant secondary deterrent that by itself would do little to prevent a crash.

[point taken on air marshalls]

Passenger revolt would help minimize harm in a hijacking without guns, but be far less effective if they had guns,

It would still work even with guns, although more would die in the process. Yes, charging a terrorist with a gun comes close to being a suicide mission--but at this point we know that letting them control the plane (as opposed to simply giving orders--note that guy who hijacked the Egyptian plane but didn't try to enter the cockpit. He wasn't stomped on) is suicide anyway. If you charge you give your loved ones on the plane a chance they wouldn't have otherwise.

I'm not saying they won't try to charge, just that they would all die. They could only charge from one direction down one or two narrow ailes. Assault rifles would allow the highjackers to kill the first rows in seconds, before anyone is aware what's happening, and the aisles would instantly get blocked with dead bodies, preventing any real simultaneous charge.

Regardless, the point is that it was not knives but planes that were the key weapons used in 9/11, and guns would have made their task far easier, prevented the revolt on flight 93, and would make a repeat of 9/11 far more likely. Two unskilled schmucks with AK-47s could mow down an entire plane full of 300 passengers. The passengers path to try and get to the gunmen would be blocked by the first rows of dead passengers killed in seconds. In contrast, 2 ninjas with box cutters couldn't kill more than several people before being overrun. The point is that Trautsi's claim that assault rifles and box cutters are equivalent and thus should be treated as such by the law is absurd.

Two schmucks with AK-47s could kill more passengers but they wouldn't get the plane--and they wouldn't fare very well when the pilots demonstrated where the actual maneuvering limits of a jetliner are. Not to mention passing out from a lack of oxygen.

Pilot maneuvers would only hurt their efforts with knives, but help them with assault rifles. Maneuvers would prevent the passengers from advancing on them, while the hijackers could just spray bullets in the general of the passengers and kill them. Not to mention, they could strap themselves into the flight attendant chairs that face the passengers. As for oxygen, you claim that TSA does nothing of any actual use, so that means hijackers could easily bring their own oxygen masks with them. Plus, if their goal is the just kill all on the plane, they could shoot out the windows and hit the fuel tanks that in the body of most large planes. Bottom line is that, as they almost always do and are designed to do, guns would make the goal of killing many people far far easier and more likely to succeed than any other form of weapon that is not already banned and accepted as banned even by most gun nutters.

 

[RavenSky]

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

When thousands of people are killed by sweet potatoes, we'll be sure to take your demand seriously.

Further, I've never suggested anywhere that ALL guns should be banned, but no civilian anywhere needs a semiautomatic assault weapon. Saint Reagan even agreed that certain types of weapons needed to stay out of the hands of the general public.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Tristan Scott]

Define militia.What was a militia in 1787?What does it mean in 2016?

Back in 1787 a 1 shot musket would be enough to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. But today....it probably really would take a bazooka in order to defend oneself against one of Obama's drones.

The 2nd amendment never was about deer hunting, yet somehow everyone posting this thread....even the NRA goes down this wrong path. The 2nd amendment is about protecting oneself against a tyrannical government, such as a government like nazi germany taking down the Jewish population. Had those Jews been armed liked the typical American in Texas, that tyranny would not have happened 60 years ago.

And that is what the 2nd amendment is about.

I actually don't own any guns. But I surely don't support an assault ban on weapons either.... even if it slows down crazy people from killing other people (which is a good thing). Its not worth trashing the 2nd amendment. I am convinced Killary Terminator is very sick in the head. See this video for the proof here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U Such a person with bad wiring in their head and becoming our next president... it is possible that mental state could start droning people in this country. In which case, I will be very glad my fellow citizens still have some weapons to give her some pause to such effects. The 2nd amendment needs to be left alone.

The Federalist papers (esp. 29 and 46) make it clear that the second amendment was put in place as a deterrent to tyranny, and subsequent court decisions bear that out. They also point out that the second amendment is not about an individual's right to bear arms, but instead the right of the states to form a militia to deter a tyrannical Federal government, which at the time was a concern by many of confederationists.

I agree that the second amendment along with all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights should be left alone. If one is dismantled a precedent would be set to dismantle the others. Having said that, the second amendment does not prevent the regulation of firearms (Presser v. Illinois), and the SCOTUS has ruled that states and even municipal governments can prohibit the sale of firearms. (see New Hampshire v. Sanne and Kellogg v. City of Gary, respectively)

 

[dismal]

The Federalist papers (esp. 29 and 46) make it clear that the second amendment was put in place as a deterrent to tyranny

That's quite a bizarre assertion as they do not address the 2nd Amendment at all. Considering it had yet to be drafted at the time they were written.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Fine, let's ban french fries, cars, and fucking guns then.

[Consenting, adult] Right-wingers should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The Federalist papers (esp. 29 and 46) make it clear that the second amendment was put in place as a deterrent to tyranny

That's quite a bizarre assertion as they do not address the 2nd Amendment at all. Considering it had yet to be drafted at the time they were written.

You do understand the purpose of the Federalist Papers, don't you?

 

[dismal]

That's quite a bizarre assertion as they do not address the 2nd Amendment at all. Considering it had yet to be drafted at the time they were written.

You do understand the purpose of the Federalist Papers, don't you?

Yes. Yes, I do.

You do understand they were written before the 2nd Amendment was drafted, don't you?

 

[laughing dog]

That's quite a bizarre assertion as they do not address the 2nd Amendment at all. Considering it had yet to be drafted at the time they were written.

You do understand the purpose of the Federalist Papers, don't you?

Literally, dismal is correct - the Federalist Papers do not mention the 2nd amendment. However, the papers you mention address the very subject and purpose of the 2nd amendment even though the 2nd amendment did not exist. You will have to explain this to him in great detail if you wish to convince him.

 

[Rhea]

That's quite a bizarre assertion as they do not address the 2nd Amendment at all. Considering it had yet to be drafted at the time they were written.

You do understand the purpose of the Federalist Papers, don't you?

I don't. This seems like a good time for a derail, if you'll indulge me.
What is the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

 

[repoman]

Stop the narrative spinning on all sides!

 

[Tristan Scott]

You do understand the purpose of the Federalist Papers, don't you?

I don't. This seems like a good time for a derail, if you'll indulge me.
What is the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

You're right, rather than derail, I'll PM you.

 

[Tristan Scott]

You do understand the purpose of the Federalist Papers, don't you?

Literally, dismal is correct - the Federalist Papers do not mention the 2nd amendment. However, the papers you mention address the very subject and purpose of the 2nd amendment even though the 2nd amendment did not exist. You will have to explain this to him in great detail if you wish to convince him.

Of course this is correct, but the papers help us understand what the framers of the Constitution had in mind and they are often used by the courts when making constitutional rulings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pilot maneuvers would only hurt their efforts with knives, but help them with assault rifles. Maneuvers would prevent the passengers from advancing on them, while the hijackers could just spray bullets in the general of the passengers and kill them. Not to mention, they could strap themselves into the flight attendant chairs that face the passengers. As for oxygen, you claim that TSA does nothing of any actual use, so that means hijackers could easily bring their own oxygen masks with them. Plus, if their goal is the just kill all on the plane, they could shoot out the windows and hit the fuel tanks that in the body of most large planes. Bottom line is that, as they almost always do and are designed to do, guns would make the goal of killing many people far far easier and more likely to succeed than any other form of weapon that is not already banned and accepted as banned even by most gun nutters.

You don't realize what the planes are capable of--pilots normally go nowhere near the edge of the performance envelope. They aren't going to be doing much while they're being bounced around. If they try to hold on they won't have their hands for their guns. The passengers, however, have their hands free and are likely strapped in in the first place.

Turn off the air and let the cabin bleed down to ambient and the plane can be retaken. A short excursion to those altitudes won't harm most people.

- - - Updated - - -

When thousands of people are killed by sweet potatoes, we'll be sure to take your demand seriously.

Further, I've never suggested anywhere that ALL guns should be banned, but no civilian anywhere needs a semiautomatic assault weapon. Saint Reagan even agreed that certain types of weapons needed to stay out of the hands of the general public.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

"Semi-auto assault weapon" = evil-looking inferior hunting rifle.

 

[RavenSky]

Further, I've never suggested anywhere that ALL guns should be banned, but no civilian anywhere needs a semiautomatic assault weapon. Saint Reagan even agreed that certain types of weapons needed to stay out of the hands of the general public.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

"Semi-auto assault weapon" = evil-looking inferior hunting rifle.

So if its inferior for hunting, what's it good for?

 

[barbos]

So it seems that:

1. The guy was most likely a gay himself.
2. Had an asshole father, which is usual type of muslim father
3. The guy was bi-polar plus most likely other issues with his head

I admit ISIS thing is probably smaller issue than the fact that the guy was a psycho to begin with.
Problem is, certain percent of people are psychos but they don't normally mass murder people. islam/ISIS is just convenient platform for all kind of messed up people to act.

 

[Rhea]

So it seems that:

1. The guy was most likely a gay himself.
2. Had an asshole father, which is usual type of muslim father
3. The guy was bi-polar plus most likely other issues with his head

I admit ISIS thing is probably smaller issue than the fact that the guy was a psycho to begin with.
Problem is, certain percent of people are psychos but they don't normally mass murder people. islam/ISIS is just convenient platform for all kind of messed up people to act.

I'm getting the sense that the whole ISIS part was just a desperate attempt to get his Man-Card reissued and had little to do with any goal of his.

 

[Playball40]

So it seems that:

1. The guy was most likely a gay himself.
2. Had an asshole father, which is usual type of muslim father
3. The guy was bi-polar plus most likely other issues with his head

I admit ISIS thing is probably smaller issue than the fact that the guy was a psycho to begin with.
Problem is, certain percent of people are psychos but they don't normally mass murder people. islam/ISIS is just convenient platform for all kind of messed up people to act.

I'm getting the sense that the whole ISIS part was just a desperate attempt to get his Man-Card reissued and had little to do with any goal of his.

This is what I think too.

 

[RavenSky]

So it seems that:

1. The guy was most likely a gay himself.
2. Had an asshole father, which is usual type of muslim father
3. The guy was bi-polar plus most likely other issues with his head

I admit ISIS thing is probably smaller issue than the fact that the guy was a psycho to begin with.
Problem is, certain percent of people are psychos but they don't normally mass murder people. islam/ISIS is just convenient platform for all kind of messed up people to act.

I'm getting the sense that the whole ISIS part was just a desperate attempt to get his Man-Card reissued and had little to do with any goal of his.

Given that he made no distinction between opposing Islamist groups, I agree with you as well

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk