Who else thinks this is a load of bull?

[TopHatTim]

Ok, lets get this out of the way, i didnt know what thread to put this in, the news one or this 1. Now on to the rant.
I was watching the news this morning and the story about the holocaust museum shooting was on. Now at one point they said "These museum gaurds carry guns, not even airline security does that." So i thought to myself, why would this mueseum be more important then airline safety. Turns out its because people could commit hate crimes at the museum. I thought "Wow, so your telling me that America is more worried about people being offended then it is about avioding another 9/11" I think that not only airline security should cary guns, but the pilots should too! Hell museum guards can but pilots can't to protect uor country!? What are your opinions?

This my friends is lack of research.

1. ever fire off a gun in a pressurised cabin?

2. bullets go straight through the side of the plane really.

3. of course they DID use paper bullets but they switched to tasers and batons.

4. if someone got hold of that ONE pistol. they have the plane. (appearently i pilot really thinks a man will shoot the only 2 people who know how to fly that mother fucker and drop 30 thousand feet to hard hard ground)

5. sky marshals are always on board a plane you just dont realise who they are. (i agree uniformed security should be aboard)

What is the relevance of your first 2 points?
I agree about the air mashals, most flights do have at least 1 marshal, who does carry a gun. Usually he sits near the front of the plane so the pilots cant be taken hostage.

About the topic: Does this really matter? We've established that both cases require guns, and both positions (to the best of my knowledge) are armed with guns. So whats the point?

you obviously misread the whole points thing i stated. They DONT carry guns becuase if a bullet exits the plane at 30 thousand feet the pressure in the cabbin lowers and theres a lack of air on the plane.
they switched to tazers and collapsable batons.
they used to use paper bullets but if shot in the chest it has a 100% mortality rate.
they bounce around on the inside of the ribcage.
i dont think guns at all should be allowed on a plane.
historical museums make sense...theres millions apon millions of dollars of atrifacts in there.
rather then maybe your safe on a plane with a gun...but what if that bullet re-exits and hits someone in the face? what if they dont use paper bullets and pop a hole in the side of the plane? (do realise this 30 thousand feet problem and the lack of oxygen)

so my first 2 points did make sense and went along with the topic.

 

[danosaurus]

Ok, lets get this out of the way, i didnt know what thread to put this in, the news one or this 1. Now on to the rant.
I was watching the news this morning and the story about the holocaust museum shooting was on. Now at one point they said "These museum gaurds carry guns, not even airline security does that." So i thought to myself, why would this mueseum be more important then airline safety. Turns out its because people could commit hate crimes at the museum. I thought "Wow, so your telling me that America is more worried about people being offended then it is about avioding another 9/11" I think that not only airline security should cary guns, but the pilots should too! Hell museum guards can but pilots can't to protect uor country!? What are your opinions?

Guns on a plane is never a good idea, I think the move towards Tasers is a wise one.

Pilots should blatantly not be allowed guns, if a pilot's involved in a firefight they're likely to;
A) Not be as well trained or as combat-competent as the people attacking them.
B) Not as willing to pull the trigger of a firearm.
C) Ever tried piloting a 160 tonne aircraft, maintaining your survival in a firefight AND trying not to pierce the cabin with a stray bullet?

Worst case scenario - you end up with dead pilots, a few hundred innocent hostages//victims and crazy guy with a gun giving the orders (assuming the plane hasn't already plummeted into the Pacific).

Besides - I'm pretty sure there are certain officers employed to deal with situations of this nature anyway.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

Lets face it:
Who's more likely to provoke a riot: Thousands upon Thousands who's family members died during the holocaust, or around 20-30 people that died during 9/11 aboard the plane? (Both were extremely Tragic)
And aren't there Air Marshalls on Airlines now?

you know over 3000 people died in 9/11.

and the holocuast has like a 30 million death toll or something like that (correct if wrong)

Notice my post. I said Aboard the Plane.
Many died in 9/11, I lost an Uncle.

I am terribly sorry to hear that, you have my condolences. As does anyone else on this thread who lost a relative/family member/friend in that or any other attack.

Back on topic, allowing the pilots to carry tasers isn't a bad idea. They don't require much training to use, are very effective, and no risk of puncturing the cabin.

 

[Hazy]

Lets face it:
Who's more likely to provoke a riot: Thousands upon Thousands who's family members died during the holocaust, or around 20-30 people that died during 9/11 aboard the plane? (Both were extremely Tragic)
And aren't there Air Marshalls on Airlines now?

you know over 3000 people died in 9/11.

and the holocuast has like a 30 million death toll or something like that (correct if wrong)

Notice my post. I said Aboard the Plane.
Many died in 9/11, I lost an Uncle.

I am terribly sorry to hear that, you have my condolences. As does anyone else on this thread who lost a relative/family member/friend in that or any other attack.

Back on topic, allowing the pilots to carry tasers isn't a bad idea. They don't require much training to use, are very effective, and no risk of puncturing the cabin.

Thanks, That means alot.

 

[Slacker2000]

Guns for everyone!!! no, but seriously. that's just a little out of hand. *America's view, I would rather be hurt physically than mentally... Sometime I get the feeling that most of this country is full of retards... Blame the OLD PEOPLE!

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Ok, lets get this out of the way, i didnt know what thread to put this in, the news one or this 1. Now on to the rant.
I was watching the news this morning and the story about the holocaust museum shooting was on. Now at one point they said "These museum gaurds carry guns, not even airline security does that." So i thought to myself, why would this mueseum be more important then airline safety. Turns out its because people could commit hate crimes at the museum. I thought "Wow, so your telling me that America is more worried about people being offended then it is about avioding another 9/11" I think that not only airline security should cary guns, but the pilots should too! Hell museum guards can but pilots can't to protect uor country!? What are your opinions?

This my friends is lack of research.

1. ever fire off a gun in a pressurised cabin?

2. bullets go straight through the side of the plane really.

3. of course they DID use paper bullets but they switched to tasers and batons.

4. if someone got hold of that ONE pistol. they have the plane. (appearently i pilot really thinks a man will shoot the only 2 people who know how to fly that mother fucker and drop 30 thousand feet to hard hard ground)

5. sky marshals are always on board a plane you just dont realise who they are. (i agree uniformed security should be aboard)

What is the relevance of your first 2 points?
I agree about the air mashals, most flights do have at least 1 marshal, who does carry a gun. Usually he sits near the front of the plane so the pilots cant be taken hostage.

About the topic: Does this really matter? We've established that both cases require guns, and both positions (to the best of my knowledge) are armed with guns. So whats the point?

you obviously misread the whole points thing i stated. They DONT carry guns becuase if a bullet exits the plane at 30 thousand feet the pressure in the cabbin lowers and theres a lack of air on the plane.
they switched to tazers and collapsable batons.
they used to use paper bullets but if shot in the chest it has a 100% mortality rate.
they bounce around on the inside of the ribcage.
i dont think guns at all should be allowed on a plane.
historical museums make sense...theres millions apon millions of dollars of atrifacts in there.
rather then maybe your safe on a plane with a gun...but what if that bullet re-exits and hits someone in the face? what if they dont use paper bullets and pop a hole in the side of the plane? (do realise this 30 thousand feet problem and the lack of oxygen)

so my first 2 points did make sense and went along with the topic.

Just quickly about the oxygen "problem".
Yes, at 30 thousand feet, there is going to be a lack of oxygen. So how do you think they make the cabin pressurised? That's actually a secondary task for the massive engines connected to the plane.
Apart from using the air around them to propel the aircraft forwards, they also pump air into the cabin, hence pressurising the cabin.

When a bullet-sized hole in the side of the plane somehow gets there by some less-than-accurate fool, the plane is not (I repeat, not) going to undergo explosive decompression, or even lose enough oxygen to become a problem.
Even if you shoot more than a few bullets into the cabin (Admittedly I'm not sure exactly how many, but my point remains valid), masks will drop once a lack of pressure is noticed by the aircrafts system.

And after the first shot, all that the pilots need to do is lose a bit of Altitude and they're fine anyway.

So, depressurisation isn't actually a major problem. I think the main problem with guns on a plane is kinda the threat to human lives...

 

[hopeneverdies]

It would be well and good to remember tragedy if we learned from it, but as Hiroshima/Nagasaki American fuck-ups have proven, we don't learn shit.

I don't think you realized had we not done that, we would have lead a land invasion onto Japanese costing millions more lives for both sides, instead of dropping the bombs and causing Tojo to surrender. Yes they were devestating from a numerical, monetary, and moral standpoint, trust me, I've read multiple survivor accounts of the detonation and the events afterward. Could we have ended the war with less civilian deaths? Probably, but what better option was there? The people believed their emperor to be a god, we were trying to prove he wasn't.

 

[Insanum]

Ok, lets get this out of the way, i didnt know what thread to put this in, the news one or this 1. Now on to the rant.
I was watching the news this morning and the story about the holocaust museum shooting was on. Now at one point they said "These museum gaurds carry guns, not even airline security does that." So i thought to myself, why would this mueseum be more important then airline safety. Turns out its because people could commit hate crimes at the museum. I thought "Wow, so your telling me that America is more worried about people being offended then it is about avioding another 9/11" I think that not only airline security should cary guns, but the pilots should too! Hell museum guards can but pilots can't to protect uor country!? What are your opinions?

This my friends is lack of research.

1. ever fire off a gun in a pressurised cabin?

2. bullets go straight through the side of the plane really.

3. of course they DID use paper bullets but they switched to tasers and batons.

4. if someone got hold of that ONE pistol. they have the plane. (appearently i pilot really thinks a man will shoot the only 2 people who know how to fly that mother fucker and drop 30 thousand feet to hard hard ground)

5. sky marshals are always on board a plane you just dont realise who they are. (i agree uniformed security should be aboard)

What is the relevance of your first 2 points?
I agree about the air mashals, most flights do have at least 1 marshal, who does carry a gun. Usually he sits near the front of the plane so the pilots cant be taken hostage.

About the topic: Does this really matter? We've established that both cases require guns, and both positions (to the best of my knowledge) are armed with guns. So whats the point?

Explosive decompression is a valid concern whenever the sealed container of an aircraft is ruptured at altitude. so is the richoc...Bounce (cant spell!) of a bullet too. Collateral damage is intollerable if avoidable.

Artifacts & money can be replaced. Lives cannot. If you look at the price of a single aircraft, and the price of an artifact...Yeah...