- This topic has 1 reply, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The recent article promoting the idea of having special flights for passengers who wish to avoid the security procedures doesn’t make sense. We may agree that many of the security procedures are useless and even comical, but permitting gun carriers on a commercial flight is insane. The risk is not only with those who chose to fly on a plane with passengers armed to the teeth. A plane highjacked by gun toting fanatics killed 3000 people on the ground on 9/11/01.
I don’t understand why gun owners think the answer to crazy people and criminals with guns is to arm everyone else. Most people don’t have enough common sense to own a gun. It sure ain’t working here in the States where more people are killed by gun accidents or crimes of passion than bad guys killed by armed citizens or police . It seems it would be easier to go the other way and make a real effort to restrict and tightly control gun ownership from an inept population. That works in England, Japan, Denmark and a host of other countries.
What GUN toting fanatics killed 3000 people?
The hijackers were armed with common box cutter knives.
Alberto
Well, guns are more effective than box cutter knives. I would imagine they could have had an even easier time of it….unless a few of the passengers got into a bloody gun fight over a bag of peanuts before the terrorists could make their move.
1. I don’t recall seeing any articles on this site promoting guns on planes….
2. You might want to check your data on violent, armed crime in the UK.
Violent, armed crime in the UK has EXPLODED since guns were removed from honest, law abiding people.3. Crimes of passion will happen whether someone has a gun or not don’t you think?
3. I do agree that most people don’t have the common sense to own a gun but many people do… Most people don’t have the common sense to drive a car either… Does anyone know how many people die in car accidents compared to how many die because of guns – I would be interested in knowing.
4. Unfortunately most politicians don’t have the common sense to run a country either which is a big reason why many Americans carry. Good luck to them, they are going to need them.
5. And they might point to Charlton Heston and say: “From my cold dead hands.”
Scott Oliver – Founder
WeLoveCostaRica.comHow much easier could it have gotten if those bozos had had guns and not that stupid little box cutter? If they’d blown a hole in the cabin and the plane crashed somewhere between Boston and NYC, would that have been better? My girlfriend who was on American #11 would still be dead. Hell, even a pen can be an instrument of death, poked in the right place with enough force. I’m waiting for the day when the TSA or that other bungling entity Homeland Insecurity decides that we should all fly naked!!! Yeah, that’s the ticket.
1. “As safe as crawling on hands and knees can make you” is an article on this site which presents the suggestion of having flights where passengers can carry their own legal weapons on board.
2. The UK has a .15 per 100,000 population of gun homicides. The US has 3.98 per 100,000. Quite a difference, I’d say. I prefer the U.K.’s odds over the U.S. any day!
3.According to the Cullen Inquiry (1996), homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Additionally, the level of gun ownership world wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
4. Correlating car deaths to gun deaths is a tactic that smokers use when they want to defend their unhealthy habit. It is a false comparison primarily because cars are a necessity in many counties as public transport is nearly non existent. Guns and cigarettes are life style choices people make, not necessities.
5. Armed citizens are no replacement for any government, no matter how inefficient that government might be. My god, are we talking mob rule here?!
6. Charlton Heston was entitled to his misguided opinion. He surely doesn’t speak for me or a lot of other people.
Methinks you might be taking Hal’s article just a little more seriously than it was intended…
Onto the UK and this article sums it up really: “Comparing the US and the UK murder rates” from [ http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/10/comparing-us-and-uk-murder-rates.html ]
For years, anti-gun activists have pointed to the UK as an example of what gun control laws can do. They are being proven right every day; the gun laws do seem to be producing a notable change in the rate of crime, but not in the way the anti-gunners intended.
For years, Britain has had a very low rate of murder. For just as many years, the US has had a much higher rate of murder. Indeed, even now, if you look at the murder rate for the US as a whole (5.5 per 100,000) and the rate for the UK as a whole (1.4 per 100,000), you can see that the UK’s rate is much lower as a whole. However, the total murder rate is far from being the final word.
In the US and in the UK, crime rates (and murder rates) vary wildly from place to place. In the US, the murder rate in Washington, DC is about 80 per 100,000 population; in Arlington, Virginia, just across the half-mile wide Potomac river, it’s 1.6 per 100,000. Does the overall US murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000 tell you anything about whether you would be safe in Arlington, VA or Washington, DC?
The same disparity can be seen in the UK. While the country as a whole has a low rate of murder, there are areas where the murder rate is high. In Glasgow, Scotland, the murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000 (cite). In London, by contrast, it’s 2.1 per 100,000 (cite). In the Manchester metro area, it’s 10 per 100,000. And in the Manchester neighborhoods of Moss Side and Longsight, and in the Manchester suburb of Hulme, the murder rate is a monstrous 140 per 100,000 (cite)– which is considerably worse than Washington, DC, America’s most murderous city.
If you’re thinking that the claims that America’s murder rate is a function of its liberal gun laws are beginning to look fishy, you’re right.
Washington, DC has a UK-like ban on handguns, and it has the highest murder rate in the US, by far. Right across the river, Arlington, Virginia, has a murder rate lower than that in London. Virginia has no handgun ban, and allows any lawful citizen that passes a training course to carry a concealed handgun in public. Now, you tell me– does gun control really reduce crime?
Some people say that the effectiveness of the DC gun ban is thwarted by the easy access to guns in other states (such as Virginia), which can then be imported into DC by criminals. This, of course, begs the question: If this easy access to guns causes gun crime, why doesn’t it affect Arlington and other Virginia cities where such loose laws are in effect?
The idea that gun control can be thwarted by criminals importing guns from another part of the country is obviously bunk. Look at the UK, which passed a comprehensive ban on handguns in 1997. There are no areas of the UK where handguns are available; it is a national ban, the same type that the architects of DC’s high crime rate (the gun banners) want to bring to the whole US. And even with that in mind, the UK’s murder rate is soaring, with some UK cities being considerably more dangerous than many US cities where handguns are legal.
If gun control was going to work anywhere, it would be in the UK. It’s a small island country, with relatively little coastline to protect, and the only international border is a short one between Northern Ireland and Ireland. But even under these ideal circumstances, the UK is suffering a terrible rise in gun crimes (including gun murders), while ours in the US falls (not coincidentally, following the legalization of carrying concealed guns in the majority of US states).
Like in the US, the majority of the murders in the UK are being committed by gang members, mostly against other gang members. This is true whether one speaks of murders with or without guns. The murders are not distributed evenly across either country; they are localized in rather compact “hot spots” which bring up the murder rate for the whole country. And even though the UK has a total handgun ban, its hot spots of murder are just as bad as those in the US, and they are getting worse.
There are a lot of reasons why the US has long had a murder rate that exceeds that in the UK. The easy legal availability of handguns, though, is not among them. If liberal gun laws caused murder, we would expect to see more crime in the US following the passing of laws allowing lawful citizens to carry concealed handguns, but we’re not. Our murder rate is the lowest in 20 years here in the US.
If handgun bans prevented murder, we would expect to see low murder rates in the cities where handguns are banned, like Washington, DC, Chicago, and New York City. We don’t… those three cities have crime rates far above the national average. We’d expect to see high murder rates in states that allow concealed carry and otherwise have loose gun control laws, but we don’t.
If gun bans prevented murder, we would expect the murder rate in the UK to have been trending downward since 1997, if not before then (in the decade preceding the 1997 total ban on handguns, the UK government passed a series of laws and regulations making it harder and harder to get guns). We don’t… we see a country where the rate of murder is increasing, where there are some areas that are more dangerous than America’s most dangerous city, and where criminals have all the guns they need. When we look at the UK, we see a country where the violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than that of the US.
British criminals prove that when criminals want guns, they will get guns. It is folly to think that a piece of paper called “a law” is going to stop criminals from getting anything they want. Our ban on alcohol failed; our ban on drugs failed. Britain’s ban on guns failed, as have the bans on guns in every city in the US where they have been enacted.
How much more will it take for the gun-haters to recognize that crime is a function of people’s choices to disregard laws and harm others, not of the availability of guns? Haven’t the anti-gunners noticed that their laws have failed to reduce crime every single time they were tried, and that expanding self-defense rights has reduced crime? Will they ever?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Lastly, after seeing how incredibly inept government is, how on earth can anyone rely on their government to protect their family?
Getting back to Costa Rica and this is just my opinion, but I don’t personally believe that a Costa Rican police officer earning less than $500 per month will risk much to protect your family ‘if’ he can get to the crime scene fast enough…
On the other hand, if you are facing a violent crime, an honest, law abiding and trained gun carrying citizen will risk everything to avoid a dangerous situation and protect themselves and their families. I see that as being perfectly reasonable and 100% natural.
Scott Oliver – Founder
WeLoveCostaRica.comYou make my point for me, Scott. Restrictive gun laws need to be universally applied to be effective.
The UK saw an increase in immigration. Could that be the reason for the increase in crime?Is is probable that the new gun laws were a response? This begs the question “How much worse would it be without the new restrictions?”
That there are concentrated pockets of crime only proves that people are segregated by economy and fear. Are you suggesting those pockets be abandoned and relegated to their
fates?Every man for himself? That the rest of us arm ourselves and get behind the walls of gated communities?We sink or swim together by co-operating and organizing with the only tool we have; government. An armed citizenry has given up on co-operation.
I wrote the article promoting a choice between “armed” and “unarmed” flights. The idea was somewhat tongue in cheek, considering the fascist atmosphere at airports, and hysterical gun phobias of people like sprite, it is unlikely to be given the consideration it merits. More’s the pity.
There are a number of common threads and fallacies in anti-gun opinion. Sprite shows us a good many of them in one short post.
The first is elitism.
Sprite declares, with the certainty of the righteous, and the unintentional ambiguity that makes English such a delight, “Most people don’t have enough common sense to own a gun.”
He doesn’t mean that owning a gun is sensible. He means most people are too stupid or morally depraved to bear such a weighty responsibility. As so many of his gun fearing allies do, sprite surveys mankind and finds the bulk of it lacks his own good sense and ethical resolve.
The “inept population” can’t be trusted with matters as grave as self defense. Only people on government payrolls, a group famous for its intelligence and rectitude, and morally superior beings like sprite, who know what boobs the rest of us are, have the wit and moral fiber sufficient for weapons possession. The great mass of men can scarcely aspire to their lofty orbit in the intellectual universe.
The second is ignorance.
Sprite’s short comment demonstrates a sweeping ignorance of the events of 9/11, the use of guns in crimes, the increased crime associated with banning guns, the increased safety associated with gun ownership, and the risks involved with guns in general.
Comparing gun ownership with death rates is meaningless. Of course more people will die from gunshots where there are more guns. Murder rates were always lower in the UK than in the US, regardless of how they were committed. Murder rates are lower in Switzerland too, where there is a machine gun in every closet. Murder rates do not correlate with gun ownership in any meaningful way just as the availability of spoons doesn’t correlate with obiesity.
The only significant correlation between gun ownership and crime rates is in favor of widespread gun ownership. In the United States you need only compare crime in totally disarmed cities such as D.C. and New York to that of jurisdictions that allow civilians to defend themselves to see that guns prevent crime. The dramatic decrease in crime in states that have passed “shall issue” concealed carry laws confirms every correlation. Guns are used in preventing more crimes than are committed with them.
I reject the moral utilitarianism that would force an innocent person into defenselessness on the off chance that crime in general might decline. Of course I’m interested in seeing less crime, but I can’t help with that problem if I’m murdered by an armed thug because I couldn’t defend myself.
I’m not suggesting that sprite should defend himself, or that reliance on an underpaid cop to risk his life on sprite’s behalf might be a tad presumptuous, only that he not force me to be quite that helpless and craven. The crime rate isn’t going to go down if I don’t have a gun.
The third of the popular anti-gun fallacies sprite relies on is that the instrument itself, a small internal combustion power tool, somehow mysteriously changes the character of its owner. According to this argument, if there were a pistol on every hip in an airplane, that group of normal, law abiding citizens — accountants, secretaries, truck drivers, little league coaches, soccer moms, and flag saluting Americans — would suddenly become a murderous, blood thirsty mob, blowing each other away over bags of salted nuts.
If there is any notion that is insane, that’s it. Mr. Rogers will not become a cardigan bearing Dr. Hyde simply because he has a pistol in his pocket.
And after all, I never suggested that sprite be forced to fly on one of these “insane” flights. In a free market system he would be welcome to continue enjoying all the security that ritual humiliation and boot licking can provide. He could continue to fly with the helpless and hope they are harmless.
But those of us who are not quite as disdainful of our fellow passengers would have choices as well. If one of them turns out to be a nut with a gun, there would be a lot of sane people with guns to defend me.
From http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=65445§ionid=3510203 here’s a sweet example of how we can trust our government.
Cheney weighs fratricide to sell war on Iran
Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:43:56US Vice President Dick Cheney
Prominent journalist Seymour Hersh exposes details of a plan considered by US Vice President Dick Cheney on how to provoke war with Iran.“There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war [with Iran],” Hersh said recently in reference to the subject of discussion at a meeting held at Cheney’s office.
In a July article published in the New Yorker, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist revealed information about covert US operations carried out in Iran. He did not disclose the content of the talks with Cheney in his article.
In a recent interview with Think Progress, however, Hersh exposed that the meeting witnessed Cheney mulling over a proposal to dress up Navy SEALs as Iranians and shoot them in order to trigger a war with Iran.
“The one (plan) that interested me the most was why don’t we build – we in our shipyard – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy SEALs on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Strait of Hormuz, start a shoot-up,” he revealed in his recent interview.
“Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of – that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation.”
The well-known journalist added that the proposal was ultimately rejected.
“Look, is it high school? Yeah. Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran,” he continued.
Hersh argues that should Washington engineer ‘the right incident’, Americans will ‘support’ going to war with Iran.
Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Myron Hersh first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War.
Don’t you feel safer now?
Nah, I don’t feel the least bit safer. And if you really want to see how intept and desperate our leaders can be, just read “Legacy of Ashes” — a 745 page history of the CIA and every bungling thing they ever did, including unseating Mossadeq and putting the Shah in power. The machinations they went through, including hiring mobs of people to chant pro-shah slogans, is mind-boggling. Nobody would give a damn about Iran if it weren’t for. . . THE OIL!!!!!
Wow Brad and Hal in the same thread….I hear horse’s? lol. Lets all take it easy with this airplane thing as it’s apparently a pretty safe way to get around, you really don’t hear of to many people pulling guns, pens or box cutters relative to the large number of flights everyday. Quite frankly I’m more afraid of a hydraulic breakdown or a bird flying into an engine on take off. I live in Washington Heights, NYC(not exactly the burbs) and really have never felt the need to arm myself, I guess I would consider owning a gun if I lived out in the boondocks. I don’t really get the uber pro gun crowd or the uber anti-gun crowd, you both sound a little wacky to me. Hal I would suggest you ban alcohol on those gun packing flights. It is a bit funny to think that Hal and archie Bunker have the same idea regarding keeping planes safe, remember when he suggested that you hand out guns at the beginning of each flight, then collect them after you have landed 🙂 You can probably find that episode of “All in the Family” on you tube.
Wow…. this one really sparked some interest… guns, oil, CIA, Archie Bunker…
I’m a Brit… living in Canada… intending to retire in CR
I tend to agree with Scott and know that whatever you want in the UK, there will be “someone” who can get it for you. I, personally owned guns in the UK, legally, gave them up when restrictions started to tighten just before I moved to Canada. I own guns here, legally and restrictions are tight on gun ownership here too. Biggest thing here is the “Gun Registry” shambles the Government started to institute, but REALLY messed up. Canada as a whole is “safe”, however Toronto has seen a large increase in gun related crimes… mostly committed by gangs on other gangs. The press dubbed it the “Summer of the Gun”.
As for the CIA… They have to be the biggest reason everyone worldwide distrusts Americans… I’m talking generalizations here and mean no harm personally, so don’t be offended.
ALL the conspiricy thoeries involve the CIA somewhere… they can’t all be wrong… I tend to see a lot of truth in most of them… but that’s another thread somewhere else…
I’ve always felt safe everywhere I’ve been… maybe sometimes from ignorance… maybe from trusting blindly… or just maybe because my Glock was loaded.
Have a great day and remember… sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the hydrant.
Banning alcohol on planes is the best idea yet. How many crazy incidents have there been in the last couple of months where a passenger went berserk, had to be restrained by other crew or passengers, and then had the flight diverted to another destination. I can think of at least 3 of those incidents in the last month — including the guy who went into the bathroom and took off all his clothes then tried to open the back door to the plane. You gotta wonder how many drinks did he have, and what kind of meds was he taking that may have interacted with the alchohol. Or what about the woman on a flight from SFO to NYC who decided to light up a cigarette, and when asked to put it out assaulted the flight attendant and had to be restrained. That flight wound up in Denver where she was arrested. They said she had 3 or 4 drinks. What’s wrong with only ONE drink, or maybe NO drinks? I’m not afraid of terrorists on my fight, but I am afraid of the passenger sitting next to me who may be on who knows what medication who is going to flip out and make a disturbance. These incidents are more and more frequent, and if serving alcohol at $5.00 a pop wasn’t a revenue generating item, they wouldn’t bother doing it. And take a look at the TSA.gov website — they list how many contraband items they confiscate at security checkpoints — people are STILL trying to get on a flight with a gun, knife, and any number of other potentially dangerous items.
Good idea…no alcohol on flights.
I am not humiliated by following regulations which prohibit drinking and driving or the silly restrictions for passengers who board commercial flights. Nor do I consider myself “craven” for deciding to co-operate with a social contract which agrees to let the police enforce laws.If the Libertarians are so fearful of losing their sacred rights to evil governments and losing their lives to a dangerous world filled with armed criminals, they are welcome to take their guns, fears and suspicions as far into the wilderness as they like, away from civilized society. They can take their chaotic, selfish and anarchistic philosophy with them as well. I think they ought to have the right to do that if they do not wish to participate in the usual societal arrangements. They can create their own Dodge City from the 19th century, complete with Boot Hill.
But wherever civilized people congregate, there have to be and there will rules and regs. People misbehave as individuals which results in crime. They also misbehave in groups (governments) which result in wars. Removing guns from individuals is proven to lessen violent crime. Removing armies from government has proven to eliminate wars. I give you Costa Rica as an example of the latter.
Edited on Aug 03, 2008 07:35
Edited on Aug 03, 2008 07:37
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
