Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Baldimo,

Quote:

why continue to keep them "gun free zones"?

Because the advantages outweight the costs, that's all.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

There are no advantages to rendering people defenseless.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Only idiots and cowards feel defenseless just because they don't carry a gun.

Banning guns on airplanes brings a significant safety advantage, because bullets fired inside a flying airplane can tear holes in the fuselage and thus endager the safety of everyone on board.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Only idiots and cowards feel defenseless just because they don't carry a gun.

Nonsense. That's like saying only idiots and cowards wear seatbelts in cars. Guns are very useful in defending yourself from an attacker.

Olivier5 wrote:

Banning guns on airplanes brings a significant safety advantage, because bullets fired inside a flying airplane can tear holes in the fuselage and thus endager the safety of everyone on board.

It certainly isn't ideal, but it is generally a lot better than letting terrorists kill everyone on the plane.

1 Reply

A good man without a gun saves store from armed bank robber.
WP

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Banning guns on airplanes brings a significant safety advantage, because bullets fired inside a flying airplane can tear holes in the fuselage and thus endager the safety of everyone on board.

Guns are only banned for carry on planes by civilians. Air Marshals and federal police can also carry on planes. Lets also not forget that some pilots are allowed to have a gun in the cockpit. In all cases, they use special bullets in the guns to limit the damage it would do to the plane if fired in the cabin. They are the "gun free zones" in the air. The only difference between these "gun free zones" and other "gun free zones" is the layer of security and people with guns you have to get by to get to a plane vs entering a school. Even with a LEO on campus, they do not hang around the front entrance like airport security does.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Guns are only banned for carry on planes by civilians.

Sure. Nobody ever said cops shouldn’t carry guns. The topic is precisely about if/what civilians should be allowed to carry.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That's like saying only idiots and cowards wear seatbelts in cars

No, it’s different. Seatbelts rarely kill people by error for one thing. It can happen I guess but guns often kill sons, neighbors, spouses by mistake. Or just a bad bout of anger or depression... But you can’t kill your wife with a seatbelt, not in a bout of anger anyway.

Plus it’s one thing to say X is useful, quite another to say you’re defenseless without it.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But you can’t kill your wife with a seatbelt,

You don't think most men could wrap it around her neck and strangle her, I do.

Not that it is a good idea.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Only idiots and cowards feel defenseless just because they don't carry a gun.

If the police aren't afraid of concealed carriers, why are you?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Sure. Nobody ever said cops shouldn’t carry guns.

Any justification that the police have for carrying guns applies equally well to civilians.

Olivier5 wrote:

The topic is precisely about if/what civilians should be allowed to carry.

The Constitution mandates that civilians must be allowed to carry enough firepower to adequately defend themselves.

The Constitution is correct to do this. Civilians should be allowed to defend themselves when they are attacked.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

No, it’s different. Seatbelts rarely kill people by error for one thing. It can happen I guess but guns often kill sons, neighbors, spouses by mistake. Or just a bad bout of anger or depression... But you can’t kill your wife with a seatbelt, not in a bout of anger anyway.

That has nothing to do with the fact that people carry guns for protection in an emergency, just like people wear seatbelts for protection in an emergency.

Olivier5 wrote:

Plus it’s one thing to say X is useful, quite another to say you’re defenseless without it.

If it is possible for people to defend themselves adequately without guns, that's an argument for taking all the guns away from the police.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Constitution mandates that civilians must be allowed to carry enough firepower to adequately defend themselves

No, it doesn''t. No such mandatre exists ine Constitution. It is avbsolutely silent about carrying guns for self-defense. This is a figment okf the NRA's imagination.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Wrong. The Constitution mandates that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right to keep and bear arms includes the right of ordinary citizens to carry arms that are suitable for self defense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

no.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Wrong. The Constitution does mandate that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And the right to keep and bear arms does include the right of private individuals to have guns for personal self defense.

Liberals just hate freedom and civil rights.

That's why Trump is such a great president. He prevents liberals from violating our civil rights.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

For your information, the cops keep shooting perfectly innocent people because they are afraid they'd be carrying a gun.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Constitution does mandate that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Too bad it's unapplicable.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

it's unapplicable.

That is incorrect. The right of people to have guns for personal self defense very much applies.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And yet, you poor souls can't own anti-aircraft cannons and are banned from carrying guns in airplanes and countless other places...

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know