A fine reason to ban weapons

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd feel safer if they were allowed everywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that very much.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
But you site such an emotional story with a strong element of hindsight as your primary source for backing your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also, at least in my own mind, have a logical argument which leads me to the conclusion that it is safer to the general public to have restrictions on the sale, accessability and use of firearms. It's the same argument that I would use to justify age restrictions and competancy tests on driving and on why 5th graders should not be allowed into casinos to gamble. A free society does not mean 'anything goes', if it did, it would soon become unfree.

[ QUOTE ]
If the owner of the plane wants to allow it, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell because the rewards are far outweighed by the risks.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I also, at least in my own mind, have a logical argument which leads me to the conclusion that it is safer to the general public to have restrictions on the sale, accessability and use of firearms. It's the same argument that I would use to justify age restrictions and competancy tests on driving and on why 5th graders should not be allowed into casinos to gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is that argument? That some people might not do what you want, so you want to oppress everyone?

[ QUOTE ]
A free society does not mean 'anything goes', if it did, it would soon become unfree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said *anything* goes? That implies no ramifications for your actions. When I said I was for "no restrictions" I meant in possession, not use.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the owner of the plane wants to allow it, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell because the rewards are far outweighed by the risks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then fly on an airline which doesn't allow passengers to bring weapons on board. Why do you want to force your personal opinion onto everyone else?

Which one do you think has a better chance of being hijacked?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
And what is that argument? That some people might not do what you want, so you want to oppress everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider the rules of the road oppression? It's got nothing to do with making people do what I want and everything to do with young children being in a position where thay can kill other children because they were being, well, just children.

[ QUOTE ]
Who said *anything* goes? That implies no ramifications for your actions. When I said I was for "no restrictions" I meant in possession, not use

[/ QUOTE ]

So in plain english you are OK with anyone aquiring any type of weapon and then relying on them solely to use them sensibly and safely.

[ QUOTE ]
Then fly on an airline which doesn't allow passengers to bring weapons on board. Why do you want to force your personal opinion onto everyone else?

Which one do you think has a better chance of being hijacked?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm ever given the chance (and I'm willing to wager it won't happen in my lifetime) it will be a major consideration in my choice of commerial airliner.

I'll take my chances of being hijacked over being on a plane full of tooled up regular Joes any day of the week.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider the rules of the road oppression? It's got nothing to do with making people do what I want and everything to do with young children being in a position where thay can kill other children because they were being, well, just children.

[/ QUOTE ]

The owner of the road has the right to make up whatever rules of usage that he wants. To say that "nobody can do XYZ on any road, regardless of who owns it" IS oppressive.

[ QUOTE ]
So in plain english you are OK with anyone aquiring any type of weapon and then relying on them solely to use them sensibly and safely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. I've said before that WMDs are not "weapons" in this sense of the word, and that their possession (even (or especially!) by states) is a crime against humanity.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm ever given the chance (and I'm willing to wager it won't happen in my lifetime) it will be a major consideration in my choice of commerial airliner.

I'll take my chances of being hijacked over being on a plane full of tooled up regular Joes any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Choice is great, isn't it? So why advocate the removal of that choice for everyone else?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Awesome. Choice is great, isn't it? So why advocate the removal of that choice for everyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a plane should lose control due to some 'accidental discharging of a firearm' will I have a choice where it should crash?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I only quote this to ask, do you think it would be preferable to allow passengers to carry guns on planes?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Not good enough.

I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun. I also suspect I have lived in a lot more dangerous places than most posters on this forum. I offer three years in Johannesburg as one example.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are tons of stats in the archives of how guns lower crime rate.

[ACPlayer]

OK. Then we are on. Next time I am back in the states, it is a gun course for me.

We can even go 50-50.

Of course considering that you believe it is positive EV for a peacenik like me [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img], perhaps it should be required for all gun owners. I will add your name to the message I send to Hilary. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ACPlayer]

I got it the first time. Does not mean I have to acknowledge it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I also derive considerable benefit from my gun already.

I think you and Gryph should go 50-50 on the NRA course. Can you guys send me the money to my neteller account? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] If some one else wants to pay 50 percent, they too can transfer the funds. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]