Why Pilots Should Not be Allowed Firearms on Planes

[kbordson 8]

Well, now that this thread is completely hijacked.

Look again at post 53

Quote

Yes, because it's an historical fact that a firearm's saftey has never, ever failed. Crazy

I'm not claiming that the safety was on. I'm not claiming that the safety was off. I'm not informed and neither are you.

Sadly, some people will always remain ignorant and insist on jumping to conclusions in the absense of evidence.

Tell ya what. I have a handgun right here. How would you feel about letting me load it, point it at your head, and depress the trigger?

I promise I'll have the safety on

Doesn't sound like a "what if" or "hypothetical" comment in that post. "I have a handgun right here. How would you feel....?" And then when the response to that "How would you feel?" was a VERY NEGATIVE response to an inappropriate comment then suddenly there's backpedaling and justification. Crying out: He didn't MEAN it. "just ridiculous. It was OBVIOUSLY a rhetorical device" And who am I to argue against such wise counsel... besides, he "promised" to have the safety on.

edit - Defend all you want. It won't make it right.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Hippocrates

What's the Father of Medicine got to do with this?

And just to quote a point of labrys' which some people seem to willfully ignoring:

Quote

This is an Internet forum, not a range. If those guys really want to suspend disbeleif to the extent that they think they have an actual weapon aimed at them and not a literary one, there's nothing I can do.

Your protestations, warped, would sound better if they weren't quite so shrill.

[n23x 0]

Quote

Defend all you want. It won't make it right.

I would never condone the physical action of pointing a weapon at someone, regardless of the position of the safety. I did not perceive his post as a threat. You did and some others did, while an equal amount did not.

Quote

How would you feel...

Made all the difference, to me. It identified to me that it was a hypothetical proposal. I don't think anybody is backpedaling.

I do think that you got busted on a bullshit statement, and had no legitimate response.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I do think that you got busted on a bullshit statement, and had no legitimate response.

.jim

How so? What bullshit statement? What legitimate response?

As you said, you perceived his comment as hypothetical. I did not... or at least I am respectful and cautious about comments like that.

If you wish to be cavalier with comments like that... feel free. But as I said. Words can become deeds. Maybe you know labrys. I don't. He might be well trained. He might be respectable. But... this is the internet. I have no idea who he really is... and to type comments about taking a gun to someones head and pulling the trigger. Regardless of his "promise" to have the safety on. I consider that to be iffy.

And I still don't see how I'm "busted" on a bullshit statement.

[n23x 0]

Quote

I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire.

Warped gave a guarantee. But a guarantee he wouldn't trust with his hypothetical "life". Therefore, warped's statement was a bullshit statement. He said one thing, but meant another. Bullshit.

Word's can certainly become deeds. I perceived no direct threat to be made, so I'm not being cavalier with "statements like that".

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire.

Warped gave a guarantee. But a guarantee he wouldn't trust with his hypothetical "life". Therefore, warped's statement was a bullshit statement. He said one thing, but meant another. Bullshit.

Word's can certainly become deeds. I perceived no direct threat to be made, so I'm not being cavalier with "statements like that".

.jim

Are you confusing me and warped? Here's a hint. I'm a girl, he's a boy.

Above you quote him in a response to me and comment to me as if I made it. You aslo tell me that I got busted on a bullshit statement.

My whole point on this hijack has been that somethings should NOT be threatened (or if you will "hypothesized"). Comments regarding guns to peoples heads should not be accepted. It's not a joking matter and it's not funny.

Further, I don't believe that the defense of such comments is appropriate. But if you have convinced your self that it's ok, then that's your opinion.

[n23x 0]

I am not confusing the two of you. I understand that warped is the person who made the comment. I understand you are one of the people who complaining about the point that labrys made.

I said:

1.) I did not perceive what labyrs wrote to be a threat.

2.) I believe that the point labrys made was a legitimate point that knocked apart Warped's comment.

3.) I wouldn't condone the physical act of pointing a weapon at someone, or actually threatening them with the act.

Quote

It's not a joking matter and it's not funny.

Do you see me smiling?

Quote

Further, I don't believe that the defense of such comments is appropriate.

I took it one way, you took it another. Apparently it's ok to bitch about the semantics of "accidental vs. negligent", but nothing else. I see.

Enjoying the view off your high horse? (Now I'm laughing.)

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Apparently it's ok to bitch about the semantics of "accidental vs. negligent", but nothing else. I see.

Enjoying the view off your high horse? (Now I'm laughing.)

.jim

It's ok to be discussing the holster and securing device. It's ok to be discussing whether the pilots should or shouldn't be allowed the firearms. It was even ok to be discussing the safety mechanism. I just don't trust someone over the internet making comments about holding guns to someones head.

And... no I do not consider myself to be on a "high horse." I have my standards. If they are different from yours, I'm not changing them just to make you happy.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry, but I must disagree with you.

If you make the statement: "no chance of occurance", which warped did, then labrys argument is legitimate.

To throw a hissy fit about it, and further, change the subject to question his gun-related experience, rather than say, "I don't have 100% confidence in the safety mechanism", is incorrect.

Similar flawed logic might make the statement: How can you, as a doctor, uphold your oath to protect life, and own a weapon to equivalently take life away? But indeed, I won't because it is flawed.

.jim

What was said by labrys was, in my opinion, inappropriate and NOT acceptable. The argument that followed became a drawn out pissing contest about less than relevant matters. But the initial statement about pointing a gun at someones head and pulling the trigger is NOT legitimate and should NOT be tolerated as valid by any respectable opinion - regardless of the prior statements.

And it could even be viewed as a personal threat.


-Not going to take the bait on the personal direction of your flawed logic comment.

Illogical. A gun with a guaranteed reliable safety (as claimed by warped) engaged is no more dangerous than a stick. I think you completely miss the point, which is that 100% reliable safeties do not exist.

As for being a threat, that's just ridiculous. It was OBVIOUSLY a rhetorical device intended to emphasize the absurdity of warped's "guarantee".

You are entitled to your opinion. Respect my right to have mine.He shows no respect to most with whom he does not agree.

edit to add: Knowing something in theory does not guarantee the reality. One should NEVER point a loaded gun and pull the trigger at a target that you do not intend to hit - whether the safety is engaged or NOT.

If someone, even "jokingly", mentioned that they were going to put a loaded gun to my head... I would be very guarded about that statement. Words can become deeds.

You can consider it "ridiculous." But... I would still be cautious.

Some things should not be joked about

You are right on the money here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Hippocrates

What's the Father of Medicine got to do with this?

And just to quote a point of labrys' which some people seem to willfully ignoring:

Quote

This is an Internet forum, not a range. If those guys really want to suspend disbeleif to the extent that they think they have an actual weapon aimed at them and not a literary one, there's nothing I can do.

Your protestations, warped, would sound better if they weren't quite so shrill.

As would yours if not so arrogant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You (and warped and rushmc) can't have it both ways. The safety can't be 100% reliable and less than 100% reliable at the same time.

Show me where I have stated that the safety is 100% reliable. Thanks.

If it's not 100% reliable then warpedskydiver's statement: "I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire" is clearly erroneous and his diatribe is ill founded.

Thanks for making the point.

I didn't make any 'point' - I refuted your bullshit claim that I was saying the safety is 100% reliable. Quit trying to twist the point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DZJ 0]

What exactly am I meant to be protesting?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You (and warped and rushmc) can't have it both ways. The safety can't be 100% reliable and less than 100% reliable at the same time.

Show me where I have stated that the safety is 100% reliable. Thanks.

If it's not 100% reliable then warpedskydiver's statement: "I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire" is clearly erroneous and his diatribe is ill founded.

Thanks for making the point.

I didn't make any 'point' - I refuted your bullshit claim that I was saying the safety is 100% reliable. Quit trying to twist the point.

You made the point very nicely that warped's "guarantee" is bullshit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I see all these people who think that the statement about pointing a gun at my head are forgetting something.

Whether a gun is loaded or not, even if done to illustrate an illogical point, to pint a gun at someone is regarded by all who know such things, as a absolute threat.( I can hit a grapefruit at 600meters)

There is no court of law in this country that would construe pointing a weapon at someone as anything other than a threat against that person.

If I wanted to demonstrate my point I certainly would not allow someone who harbors anmimosity or indifference to my life to point a gun at me and squeeze the trigger.

How do I know what it in someones heart and mind?

How do I know if that person will have an "accident" (liberal interpretation) or if that person would intentionally shoot me with a convenient excuse?


If kallend wanted to prove a point about ballistic trajecory of a bullet, would he allow me to fire at a helium filled balloon suspended three feet over his head, with a rifle from 300yds?

Of course alot of people here may not like me(even though they do not know me) what I have to say, or even what I stand for.

That clouds their own judgement, and speaks for what is truly in their hearts.

I ask you to think about that, of course since I am saying it, it will go without any refection upon it.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

If kallend wanted to prove a point about ballistic trajecory of a bullet, would he allow me to fire at a helium filled balloon suspended three feet over his head, with a rifle from 300yds?

.

You? You have to be kidding. Are you having delusions of William Tell?

Besides your aim, you wouldn't be able to GUARANTEE the exact muzzle velocity, drag coefficient, temperature profile of the atmosphere, exact wind profile at the instant of firing... since as we've seen in this thread, your guarantees are BS. Hence any ballistic calculations would have indeterminate errors in them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>How do I know what it in someones heart and mind?

Fair enough. Would you point a loaded gun at your OWN head and pull the trigger (assuming the safety is separate and engaged?) I assume you know what is in your heart and mind.

[warpedskydiver 0]

How about Lou Palmisano?

William Alexander?

Gary Roberts?

Scott Campos?

John Rich?

But of course you would claim that I could not possibly understand the flight characteristics, environmental conditions, or anything else, for you have proclaimed it.

It is really quite complimentary of your status as an educator to assess the intellect of someone, and their capabilites.

Thanks for lettng me know how intelligent you have deterimined I am.


I stand in awe of your assessment skills.

[warpedskydiver 0]

To prove what I know to be true about the HK USP or the Sig P226?

Not pulling the trigger for there is no safety other than the disconnector.

Yes.

As long as I could determine before hand that the weapon was not tampered with.

I think you still have not endeavored to learn anything about how those two pistols are designed.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

How about Lou Palmisano?

William Alexander?

Gary Roberts?

Scott Campos?

John Rich?

But of course you would claim that I could not possibly understand the flight characteristics, environmental conditions, or anything else, for you have proclaimed it.

It is really quite complimentary of your status as an educator to assess the intellect of someone, and their capabilites.

Thanks for lettng me know how intelligent you have deterimined I am.


I stand in awe of your assessment skills.

I stand in awe of your reading skills. I wrote "guarantee", not "understand".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

If you would like to dispute that the pistols I mention cannot go off without manipulation of teh trigger, feel free to contact the legal deperatments of those companies, and to post that they will fail on an internet website.

I dare you to claim that those pistols are unsafe and that they will fire if the trigger is not touched.

[Lindsey 0]

So many of these threads start off interesting and with promise. Then the funnel comes....a zoo load. People get their feelings hurt, and it continues for pages.

That's all. Carry on. :)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How about Lou Palmisano?

William Alexander?

Gary Roberts?

Scott Campos?

John Rich?

Hey buttmunch......

Hey you could put me on that list....what are you a sexist???

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

How about Lou Palmisano?

William Alexander?

Gary Roberts?

Scott Campos?

John Rich?

Add Jeanne.

Not a butt munch, turn around lady.
Hey buttmunch......

Hey you could put me on that list....what are you a sexist???

[craddock 0]

I have not posted on here in many months but I will jump in to defend labrys.

First off Warped makes a comment "I can guarantee you that if the safety was on, the pistol will not fire" which is ridiculous in itself. Then, not only can he not accept or admit it is ridiculous, but he spins the whole arguement into the merits of the HK's internal safety when he was clearly talking about an external safety in the first Comment. It was initially assumed by many that this firearm was equiped with some sort of External Safety. Having been around several USP's and owning a P226 with no external safety this was never assumed by me. Warped never admited making the wrong assumption and has backpeddled into the internal safety arguemant.

The comment that Labrys made is being way overreacted to. Growing up I heard my dad say many times stuff like "How would you like it if I did that to you" Does not mean he ever intended to, but only to have me think of the reprecussions. "How would you feel if someone did this to you" "how would you like it if ......" Comments like this are made to get someone to think and by no means imply intent.

Labrys said "How would you feel about letting me load it, point it at your head, and depress the trigger?"

There was no intent in this comment. He wanted to know how warped would feel("How would you feel") There was no intent or even suggestion that he would actually point it at his head in the first post that everyone jumped on.
I realize it is no joking matter and understand others point, but you are all taking him out of context. I think his point was made just fine.

Josh

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,991]

> If you would like to dispute that the pistols . . .

I thought you would refuse to answer the question.

To answer for you - of course you would NOT aim a loaded gun at your head and manipulate it (or pull the trigger if there were a separately engaged safety) because you are a smart guy, and you know that mechanical safeties can fail. You can say that such a failure would be accidental, or that it was negligence because the operator did not know enough about the gun to know the safety had failed. At that point it's semantics. We agree (even if you refuse to say so) that safeties can fail.

To get the thread back on track, since mechanical safeties can fail, safe gun owners do not point a loaded weapon at anyone - because of the risk of an accidental firing. They instead point it at (for example) the ground, where an accidental discharge does not pose a serious risk to anyone.

The cockpit of a commercial aircraft in flight is a different story, however. There _is_ no safe place to point the gun when it's loaded. Bad results of an accidental discharge could range from increased pressurization problems to loss of the aircraft. Thus, an extraordinary level of care is indicated when carrying loaded guns in any aircraft - especially the cockpit.

That being said, I think that each airline should make the decision on their own - and should clearly post their decision, so that passengers can make their own decision on whether or not to patronize that airline. Wise airlines will likely require additional precautions when it comes to carriage of guns in addition to the TSA requirements.