Firearm discharges on US Airways flight

[fr8tmastr]

Who's to say what someone's reaction would be in a situation like that. Would a gun in the cockpit that day have stopped the people from being killed? This could be debated to our last breath. I don't believe in guns in the cockpit. That won't change. Having a gun in the cockpit sure would'n't have helped those poor flight attendants from getting "gutted" now would it?

I for one appreciate your honesty, you dont make up stats or lie to try and make your point, you just dont like guns.
That being said, by your logic, because several flight attendants would have been killed a couple thousand more people have no chance eitherl?

 

[Travelpro72]

Well accidents happen and I don't need to be taking a wizz in the fwd lav only to get blown off the pot because someone has an "accident" with their pistol. All the terrorist stuff and "human evaluation" stuff aside. I don't like the idea of them and never will. So lets agree to disagree about the guns just as most of America does. ^_^

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Just arm all the passengers. If 4 terrorist happen to get on, they will think again. It'll be like 110 vs 4. Nah scratch that idea, some wife will get upset with her hubby for what he did in Vegas and shoot him.

 

[roabilly]

Just arm all the passengers. If 4 terrorist happen to get on, they will think again. It'll be like 110 vs 4. Nah scratch that idea, some wife will get upset with her hubby for what he did in Vegas and shoot him.

Awl yahh gotta do...

Is feed tha terrorist "Buy On Boards"...

They'll be belly up in no time !

 

[jetmech01890]

just a idea if pilots can have pistols why can"t fight attendants have stun guns just think how well behaved the passengers will be and while we arm them lets give them to gate agents to thin out the unwanted

 

[Travelpro72]

Oh it would make boarding go ooooooh so much smoother.

 

[Dog Wonder]

If I understand correctly.

Posters opposed to guns on planes have a political purpose.

Posters in favor of guns on planes are protecting us from terrorists.

Haven't we had enough bloodshed 'protecting' us from terrorists?

 

[CynicalResAgent]

Travel…

Are yahh familiar with tha terminology…

Deterrence?

In the legal system there are different interpretations of what deterrence means and how it achieves the goal of crime reduction. Deterrence is often contrasted and by some people incorrectly assumed to be the same as retributivism, in which punishment is considered a consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done.

Specific deterrence is suposed to discourage the criminal from future criminal acts by instilling an understanding of the consequences.

Another form of it is incapacitation. This is believed to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. That's when they lock people up not to rehabilitate them but to keep them from commiting a crime again. Basically its the old lock them up and throwing away the key version of deterrence.

I'd say that none of these will stop someone who is so brainwashed that they believe that the horrible act they will commit will get them into paradise. Personally, I think allowing guns in the cockpit was more a measure to make some people feel like we are doing something that will prevent a tradgedy from happening again. Unfortunately in a totally free society we cannot stop such a thing from happeneing again. If you want complete safety then you need to live in a controlled society. Warrantless wire taps, TSA screening and searching old ladies handbags may be a minor inconvenience but we gave up something when we allow that to be a part of our life. If you really want to be 100% safe we'd be living like people were in the Soviet Union (checkpoints on the roads and having to apply to the goverment to fly)

We should only implement measures that will impede the bad guys and in the case of guns in the cockpit I think it was done to give the feeling of saftey without actually making things safer.

 

[roabilly]

In the legal system there are different interpretations of what deterrence means and how it achieves the goal of crime reduction. Deterrence is often contrasted and by some people incorrectly assumed to be the same as retributivism, in which punishment is considered a consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done.

Specific deterrence is suposed to discourage the criminal from future criminal acts by instilling an understanding of the consequences.

Another form of it is incapacitation. This is believed to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. That's when they lock people up not to rehabilitate them but to keep them from commiting a crime again. Basically its the old lock them up and throwing away the key version of deterrence.

I'd say that none of these will stop someone who is so brainwashed that they believe that the horrible act they will commit will get them into paradise. Personally, I think allowing guns in the cockpit was more a measure to make some people feel like we are doing something that will prevent a tradgedy from happening again. Unfortunately in a totally free society we cannot stop such a thing from happeneing again. If you want complete safety then you need to live in a controlled society. Warrantless wire taps, TSA screening and searching old ladies handbags may be a minor inconvenience but we gave up something when we allow that to be a part of our life. If you really want to be 100% safe we'd be living like people were in the Soviet Union (checkpoints on the roads and having to apply to the goverment to fly)

We should only implement measures that will impede the bad guys and in the case of guns in the cockpit I think it was done to give the feeling of saftey without actually making things safer.

Tell the above to tha armed COP...that has to save yer a** frum those that got guns...'n need no reason other than.. "fun" tah use um!

 

[Dog Wonder]

The Suthen cop would understand it as much as you do.

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> Haven't we had enough bloodshed 'protecting' us from terrorists?

But those pesky terrorists still want to turn us into glass.

 

[phlus2]

If I understand correctly.

Posters opposed to guns on planes have a political purpose.

Posters in favor of guns on planes are protecting us from terrorists.

Haven't we had enough bloodshed 'protecting' us from terrorists?

Hmmm - and aren't both of those really political at the end of the day - it all comes down to guns or not guns - so that is the real question. To mask the "guns - yes" argument as "protecting us from terroists" is just plain silly - sounds like Dick Cheney to me.

 

[Travelpro72]

We should only implement measures that will impede the bad guys and in the case of guns in the cockpit I think it was done to give the feeling of saftey without actually making things safer.

EXACTLY! ! !

 

[CynicalResAgent]

Tell the above to tha armed COP...that has to save yer a** frum those that got guns...'n need no reason other than.. "fun" tah use um!

Obviously a there is some reading going on but no comprehending.

I am not saying that guns in the right hand are not necessary. I am saying that I believe the pilots hands are not the hands that generate the most safety. I am saying that an armed pilot is not the deterrant that keeps people so messed up in their beliefs that they think that God will reward them for killing will give a moments thought to an armed pilot. They know they'll die either what ever the outcome is and they are not afraid of it. Look, I am not talking about rational, logical people like you or me. I am talking about total wackos who place no value on their own life much less yours or mine.

Police carry guns and pilots are not police. If we are that afraid that something like 9/11 should happen we should have uniformed armed security in the front of the cabin sitting in jump seats staring at the passengers like they are on a prison bus, better yet. Why don't we all voluntarily submit to being handcuffed to our seats. If we have to use the lav the officer will escort us. All I am saying is that for total security that is how we'd have to live. In my opinion guns in the cockpit is a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and I think it does not really make us safer...... Umm if you want proof well read the article about what happened.

 

[Travelpro72]

Cynical your absolutely right. Like I said before, " I don't need to be blown off the pot in the first class lav or capped while making a cup of coffee in the galley because the safety is off". GET RID OF THEM.