Author Topic: another campus shooting this week? (Read 4617 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #270 on:** February 21, 2008, 02:49:18 PM »

trax... you just admitted that armed personnel on planes work.

I think you need to read what you yourself are saying.. you say that the fact is that sky marshals are not on every flight.. that is true but.. no one knows which ones they aren't on.. the deterrent is the concealed part... you are proving my point.

I am glad that you think passengers are so brave. Half a dozen bad guys with ceramic knives would do it.. after they gutted the first few or held a child up with a knife to his/her throat...

but look at what you are saying.. you are saying that unarmed passengers with no training are stopping skyjacking and.. can if one happens.. yet.. sky marshals with handguns or CCW holders with training are useless.

Far too many contradictions for me to even go into... not to mention...

You don't even touch on schools or malls where the advantage of CCW would be tenfold. The situation much better.. more room.. more confusion for the shooter and no possibility of hitting something that would kill everyone.

lazs

Elfie · « **Reply #271 on:** February 21, 2008, 02:49:55 PM »

You aren't even thinking about what I have posted in regards to your comments about Sky Marshals not being what is stopping the hijackers. Those were your words, not mine. I just gave the logical conclusion to your words.

It wasn't until this page of the thread that you have changed what you are saying about Sky Marshals. Previously, you weren't giving them any credit. Now you are saying they aren't the only thing providing deterrent.

Quote

Saying that if the terrorist have knives that thats gonna be enough to hold back the passengers, the 9/11 hijackers had knives and even fake bombs, that wasn't enough to stop the people of flight 93 from attacking them. If your on a hijacked plane is any knife they have gonna make you just sit in your seat and do nothing while they ram it into another building?

I used the term weapons, that covers a wide range of items.

First, there is no guarantee that the next hijacking will be a 9/11 deal. Second, all it takes is for the hijackers to beat the crap out of one person, stab one person, kill one person etc....to put enough fear into the rest of the passengers to ensure they do nothing.

Not all hijackers are willing to die. Prior to 9/11 the majority of hijackings were by folks that were trying to get political prisoners freed, trying to make some sort of political statement etc. Those folks always tried to escape and many succeeded.

Passengers rising up against the hijackers is a very new occurence. Will it happen again? Maybe, but you can bet that any future hijackers will be prepared for it and will have a plan to ensure that it doesn't happen. After all, what good is it to hijack a plane only to let the passengers take it back from you?

*edit* I don't fly, haven't flown on a plane since the '80s so what I would/wouldn't do if a plane was hijacked is irrelevant.

trax1 · « **Reply #272 on:** February 21, 2008, 03:10:30 PM »

What I've been saying since the beginning is that sky marshals are not whats stopping terrorist from trying to hijack American plans, yes I do admit and agree that if a sky marshal was on a flight that was hijack that he would have the best chance of stopping it. But to say that the sky marshal program, and the sky marshal program alone is whats stopping another attempt I can't agree with.

We have over 40,000 flights in the U.S daily, now if it were to be something that would make a terrorist group not even want to attempt a hijacking they would need a large percentage of those flights to have a sky marshal on them. Now I kinda doubt that we a thousands of sky marshals flying on planes here everyday. Now a terrorist group is not gonna be deterred from even attempting a hijacking unless there was a large percentage of those flights having sky marshals on them.

I think whats gonna prevent terrorist from trying another hijacking is a combination of security features that have been put in place since 9/11, and I still think that the passengers are part of that.

Edit: To think that terrorist groups are sitting there thinking to themselves "Man if only they didn't have sky marshals on some flights we could try it again, but now that they have sky marshals on some planes we better not try it again" I really doubt thats happening.

trax1 · « **Reply #273 on:** February 21, 2008, 04:06:14 PM »

One other thing, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that I think armed sky marshals on planes is a bad idea, or that we don't need them, what I'm saying is that sky marshals aren't the only thing stopping terrorist from trying to hijack another U.S airliner. I think it's a combination of things that are stopping them. I mean hell if it was economically feasible I think we should be like El Al and have them on every flight, then if we we had them on ever flight I'd think they would be the reason terrorist wouldn't try to hijack another plane.

Elfie · « **Reply #274 on:** February 21, 2008, 06:19:07 PM »

Quote

We have over 40,000 flights in the U.S daily, now if it were to be something that would make a terrorist group not even want to attempt a hijacking they would need a large percentage of those flights to have a sky marshal on them. Now I kinda doubt that we a thousands of sky marshals flying on planes here everyday.

We don't know how many flights have Sky Marshals and neither do the terrorists, thats the beauty of it.

john9001 · « **Reply #275 on:** February 21, 2008, 06:26:24 PM »

trax, flight 93 crashed and everyone died.

Elfie · « **Reply #276 on:** February 22, 2008, 04:21:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
trax, flight 93 crashed and everyone died.

That's a very valid point.

All those passengers vs 4 or so terrorists and they still all died. Instead of crashing into a building they crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The passengers of flight 93 were successful in the sense that flight 93 didn't get plowed into the White House like the terrorists had planned, yet they were still unsuccessful in saving their own lives.

That leaves us with the shoe bomber as the only time passengers have successfully foiled a bomber/terrorist.

Just to be clear, I define success as not only foiling the bomber/terrorists plans but also surviving to tell the story.

lazs2 · « **Reply #277 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:32:38 AM »

I guess we could quit "feeling" and guessing and just look at facts about CCW.

CCW holders are involved in far less gun crime than the average citizen.

States with CCW permits easy to get show a decline in crime.

Criminals interviewed in jail all say that they fear armed citizens more than they do cops.. for one thing.. cops are easy to spot and.. let's face it.. they have more rules.

It is one thing to say that you "feel" that CCW holders will be dangerous to the rest of us but.. that flies in the face of the facts that they are all around us every day and we don't even know it.. there are millions of people (1.4 in Florida alone) with permits.. not to mention a large group who are carrying without the benifiet of the blessing of their backward states.

In order to say that allowing CCW holders on planes (or schools) will cause a problem you have to give examples of them doing so in the zillions of combined hours that they have been carrying already.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #278 on:** February 24, 2008, 05:36:56 AM »

Well, if there was total freedom with all conceilable firearms...what would the place be like?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #279 on:** February 24, 2008, 06:52:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Well, if there was total freedom with all conceilable firearms...what would the place be like?

The Wild West.

lazs2 · « **Reply #280 on:** February 24, 2008, 10:27:29 AM »

two things... If everyone were allowed to carry concealed... Like in most states right now...

What would happen is that about 10% of the people would take the responsibility and moral courage to.. and then.. not 100% of the time.. that is what would happen.. we have the numbers.

And yes.. it would be more like the wild west.. where the homicide rate was about a 4th of what it is in detroit or DC with their handgun bans and crimes like rape were about... well.. 0%.

In towns that allowed open carry many shootings happened in bars and almost all were ruled as "duels" the participants were willing or it was self defense.

In towns that did not allow open carry.. most carried concealed.. that was when "pocket guns" and "hideout" guns came into their own... there were millions of these small guns sold.

the wild west would be a pleasure compared to today. the crime rate was very low.

lazs