The thought had occurred to me that it could have been worse, by say, letting the terrorists bring guns onto a plane.lowing wrote:
Yes, much better to remain helpless while they fly you into a building.AussieReaper wrote:
Yeah, passengers should be allowed fire arms on an aircraft. hahaha oh wow.
Really? You think it could been worse by the terrorists having a gun? What were they gunna do, kill everyone before they killed everyone?AussieReaper wrote:
The thought had occurred to me that it could have been worse, by say, letting the terrorists bring guns onto a plane.lowing wrote:
Yes, much better to remain helpless while they fly you into a building.AussieReaper wrote:
Yeah, passengers should be allowed fire arms on an aircraft. hahaha oh wow.
You seem to be forgetting that one aircraft was brought down. And had terrorists been allowed guns onto a plane, I'm sure you would've seen more than an attack on Sep 11, where even you would have to admit the terrorists got lucky.lowing wrote:
Really? You think it could been worse by the terrorists having a gun? What were they gunna do, kill everyone before they killed everyone?AussieReaper wrote:
The thought had occurred to me that it could have been worse, by say, letting the terrorists bring guns onto a plane.lowing wrote:
Yes, much better to remain helpless while they fly you into a building.
It all depends on where the bullets land.Narupug wrote:
Um I'm not so sure you wanna go having a shoot out in a moving airplane, you know with the pressurized and packed full of people thing
I am not going to argue that everyone on a plane should be armed. I will say I understand the intended message of that cartoon, and I agree with it.AussieReaper wrote:
You seem to be forgetting that one aircraft was brought down. And had terrorists been allowed guns onto a plane, I'm sure you would've seen more than an attack on Sep 11, where even you would have to admit the terrorists got lucky.lowing wrote:
Really? You think it could been worse by the terrorists having a gun? What were they gunna do, kill everyone before they killed everyone?AussieReaper wrote:
The thought had occurred to me that it could have been worse, by say, letting the terrorists bring guns onto a plane.
Air marshals with guns on a plane makes sense. Arming every john doe in the hope he doesn't shoot into the pilots cabin for example in an attempt to bring down a bad guy does not.
Yeah the windows, though mythbusters tested and it's kinda unlikely for explosive decompression, the fueltanks, and your fellow passengersnickb64 wrote:
It all depends on where the bullets land.Narupug wrote:
Um I'm not so sure you wanna go having a shoot out in a moving airplane, you know with the pressurized and packed full of people thing
http://science.howstuffworks.com/gun-on … /printable
You just don't want to hit windows or fuel tanks basically.
Why? Better yet, what does dictate law?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Logic does not dictate law.
The mob, the majority or whatever you want the call it, does . At least these days it doesFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Why? Better yet, what does dictate law?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Logic does not dictate law.
Fellow passengers(non terrorists) was kind of a DUH statement.Narupug wrote:
Yeah the windows, though mythbusters tested and it's kinda unlikely for explosive decompression, the fueltanks, and your fellow passengersnickb64 wrote:
It all depends on where the bullets land.Narupug wrote:
Um I'm not so sure you wanna go having a shoot out in a moving airplane, you know with the pressurized and packed full of people thing
http://science.howstuffworks.com/gun-on … /printable
You just don't want to hit windows or fuel tanks basically.
money.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why? Better yet, what does dictate law?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Logic does not dictate law.
Sad but true.^^^S3v3N wrote:
money.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why? Better yet, what does dictate law?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Logic does not dictate law.
I need to have my sights adjusted.Parker wrote:
i have great gun control, thank you very much.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-03 00:05:19)
grenade launcher shootin' kinda funny?ATG wrote:
I need to have my sights adjusted.
Why should he? They tell us a lot about his personality and web browsing habits/social network.FatherTed wrote:
Please stop posting stupid cartoons.
HaFlecco wrote:
Why should he? They tell us a lot about his personality and web browsing habits/social network.FatherTed wrote:
Please stop posting stupid cartoons.
History 101.FatherTed wrote:
HaFlecco wrote:
Why should he? They tell us a lot about his personality and web browsing habits/social network.FatherTed wrote:
Please stop posting stupid cartoons.
Ohhhhhhhhh ya mean kinda how making drugs illegal keeps drugs off of the street. Yeah should work just finesome_random_panda wrote:
OF course gun control doesn't work once the guns are already out there. You need to begin with a minimal number of guns in society in order to limit that number and who uses them - if it's commonplace, then one might as well just leave it as it is.
It's also very socially/culturally/public viewpoint related. If the people want guns to be restricted, you won't have a problem doing so.
Drugs are completely unrelated to guns, lowing - for starters, they tend to be made by unregistered organisations that don't exactly have to be held accountable for the sale of their merchandise. I wasn't even arguing that guns should have been made illegal. Or did you post without actually reading in completion?lowing wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhh ya mean kinda how making drugs illegal keeps drugs off of the street. Yeah should work just finesome_random_panda wrote:
OF course gun control doesn't work once the guns are already out there. You need to begin with a minimal number of guns in society in order to limit that number and who uses them - if it's commonplace, then one might as well just leave it as it is.
It's also very socially/culturally/public viewpoint related. If the people want guns to be restricted, you won't have a problem doing so.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-03 05:22:20)
And now they have your gun. And shoot you. And they still have your gun.Mitch wrote:
Your walking down the street and 2 dudes walk up behind you, throw you in the nearest alley and start beating you up and taking your shit.
No I read it, and you said "OF course gun control doesn't work once the guns are already out there." I took this as to mean once you have made guns hard to get then you have better control over who has them and who uses them....Once you make drugs hard to get, you have better control over who has them and who uses them. There is a parallel and it shows that mentality does not work.some_random_panda wrote:
Drugs are completely unrelated to guns, lowing - for starters, they tend to be made by unregistered organisations that don't exactly have to be held accountable for the sale of their merchandise. I wasn't even arguing that guns should have been made illegal. Or did you post without actually reading in completion?lowing wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhh ya mean kinda how making drugs illegal keeps drugs off of the street. Yeah should work just finesome_random_panda wrote:
OF course gun control doesn't work once the guns are already out there. You need to begin with a minimal number of guns in society in order to limit that number and who uses them - if it's commonplace, then one might as well just leave it as it is.
It's also very socially/culturally/public viewpoint related. If the people want guns to be restricted, you won't have a problem doing so.
