Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea is to allow others to defend themselves. So you are saying that people who are armed can't prevent crime?
Chances of far greater of a criminal being armed, and prepared, without regard to others who might get into cross fire. Business and safety decision (same with offices, heck even your State Capitol likely doesn't allow people to carry guns).
So your right to "own" a gun supersedes the right of private property owners to ban guns on their property?
It does not. You are trespassing and violating the law.
You have a right to carry a gun. Unfortunately. They conversely have a right to ban guns from their property.
I am not trespassing if it is a public business. (Unless there's a cake baking somewhere in the process, but that's another thread altogether.)
Property owners have a right to ban firearms. That banning is an internal policy and in carrying a weapon, the only violation on my part is a breaking of their in-house rule and the most they can do is ask me to leave. If they ask me to leave and I do not, then they may call authorities and request that I be arrested. (The authorities must first instruct me to leave the premises as well and if I refuse may arrest me.) Are you with me so far?
In reality, if a situation ever arose where I believed it necessary to unholster my weapon, violation of the property owners' policy (policy, not law) is probably going to be the least of my concerns.
Again, when carrying my gun has never seen the light of day. I go in, conduct my business as usual, and leave. No harm, no foul, no one the wiser, and everyone gets to go home and sleep well.
What's not to like?
The fools who open carry are the problem. While legal (at least in my state), it's never a good idea.
Right. Just as saying putting locks on cockpit doors would stop someone from bringing down a plane.
Of course it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Do you have a point?
I've already made my point. That your point holds no water and you have no proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
That if someone that wants to bring one down they will decide not to just becuase a pilot is armed?
They won't walk on board if they are outgunned. How could the 9/11 hijackers accomplish their goal if they blew the plane up before hitting the towers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Lol....that's the kind of thinking that allows something to happen.
Because you have multiple examples of this right? lol Keep trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Arm pilots, I don't care. It's not going to stop someone intent on bringing one down though.
Of course it will. Show proof that someone has circumvented the system and brought down a plane in America using a missle or explosive. I'm still waiting
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Terrorists are no longer interested in taking one over, just in bringing one down. They have no desire to fly to Cuba.
Hijackers have never been interested in blowing up a plane, just in flying it to their destination. They have no desire to kill themselves. You've incorrectly made it about something it's not.
I've already made my point. That your point holds no water and you have no proof.
Whatever.
Quote:
They won't walk on board if they are outgunned. How could the 9/11 hijackers accomplish their goal if they blew the plane up before hitting the towers?
Would it really have been better to have blown the planes up right over NYC and Boston? Would the message have been any less? They had no idea that the towers would fall, they just wanted to cause as much destruction as possible.
Quote:
Because you have multiple examples of this right? lol Keep trying.
Yes, I've noted them. We never considered box cutters to be a problem. We thought putting locks on doors would make us safe. The next thing will be the next thing we haven't considered. I'm still completely missing any point you may have.
Quote:
Of course it will. Show proof that someone has circumvented the system and brought down a plane in America using a missle or explosive. I'm still waiting
Pilots aren't armed. That there hasn't been anyone willing to bring a plane down isn't because pilots have been armed.
Quote:
Hijackers have never been interested in blowing up a plane, just in flying it to their destination. They have no desire to kill themselves. You've incorrectly made it about something it's not.
What does this have to do with the ability to defend yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Whatever.
Would it really have been better to have blown the planes up right over NYC and Boston? Would the message have been any less? They had no idea that the towers would fall, they just wanted to cause as much destruction as possible.
Yes, I've noted them. We never considered box cutters to be a problem. We thought putting locks on doors would make us safe. The next thing will be the next thing we haven't considered. I'm still completely missing any point you may have.
That's on you then. Allow people to defend themselves. How hard is that to understand?
You went right to terrorist.
Would it have been better if I said ships at sea should be armed to prevent the pirates from taking those ships?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Pilots aren't armed. That there hasn't been anyone willing to bring a plane down isn't because pilots have been armed.
The ability to defend oneself is lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Arming pilots isn't going to stop terrorism.
Who says it would? Again, that's on you. You were the one who went right there, not me. You jumped immediately to terrorist.
You can't stop terrorism unless policy changes. You can't kill all the terrorists but you can kill the reason they want to be terrorists.
What does this have to do with the ability to defend yourself?
I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out. Arm pilots for all I care. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Quote:
That's on you then. Allow people to defend themselves. How hard is that to understand?
You went right to terrorist.
Would it have been better if I said ships at sea should be armed to prevent the pirates from taking those ships?
You are arguing for some unknown reason.
Quote:
The ability to defend oneself is lost.
Arm them, I do not care.
Quote:
Who says it would? Again, that's on you. You were the one who went right there, not me. You jumped immediately to terrorist.
You can't stop terrorism unless policy changes. You can't kill all the terrorists but you can kill the reason they want to be terrorists.
I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out. Arm pilots for all I care. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
You are arguing for some unknown reason.
Arm them, I do not care.
So again, what the hell are you arguing?
sigh ... you made it about terrorism. It's not. The thread, and my posts, are about having the ability to defend oneself. How many times do I have to point that out?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
