Guns In America

[Novorobo]

When it comes to people on the ground, the USA is reluctant to impose gun control because this might mean fewer armed civilians who could take down a shooter, or for that matter take down an unarmed criminal.

Yet when it comes to air travel, airports don't give ordinary passengers guns to take back control of the plane from suicidal pilots like the Germanwings pilot, let alone from hijackers. How does the USA reconcile these things?

[Thermodolia]

When it comes to ordinary civilian life, people in the USA are reluctant to impose gun control because this might mean fewer armed civilians who could take down a shooter, or for that matter any unarmed criminal.

Yet when it comes to air travel, airports don't give ordinary passengers guns to take back control of the plane from suicidal pilots like the Germanwings pilot, let alone from hijackers. How does the USA reconcile these things?

Because shoot outs on a airplane 35,000 ft in the air could be deadly for the innocent people on board, let alone the people on the ground

[Galloism]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

[Siburria]

When it comes to ordinary civilian life, people in the USA are reluctant to impose gun control because this might mean fewer armed civilians who could take down a shooter, or for that matter any unarmed criminal.

Yet when it comes to air travel, airports don't give ordinary passengers guns to take back control of the plane from suicidal pilots like the Germanwings pilot, let alone from hijackers. How does the USA reconcile these things?

Guns going off inside a flying plane does not sound fun.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... -plane.htm

[Cymrea]

Also, air marshals.

[Val Halla]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Can't it like rip planes apart or is that just a myth?

[Atomic Utopia]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Hollowpoint rounds could be used to solve the depressurization problem.


That bring said, it would be a serious sucurity risk and thus inadvisable. Instead include a couple of armed guards on every flight to deal with terrorists, etc.

[Thermodolia]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Can't it like rip planes apart or is that just a myth?

Not exactly, but a well placed bullet could bring one down and that's not hard to do during a shootout

[Thermodolia]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Hollowpoint rounds could be used to solve the depressurization problem.


That bring said, it would be a serious sucurity risk and thus inadvisable. Instead include a couple of armed guards on every flight to deal with terrorists, etc.

So basically what we do know ala the Federal Air Marshal Program

[Galloism]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Can't it like rip planes apart or is that just a myth?

That's a myth, unless it somehow forced an underlying structural weakness already present to come to fruition.

Aircraft skins are built in tiny squares that are designed to rip away in the event of weakness in the metal - this allows the pressure to escape without compromising the overall structure.

[The Serbian Empire]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Exactly, the security checkpoints and hazards to the aircraft itself make guns something passengers can't carry on board.

[Galloism]

Can't it like rip planes apart or is that just a myth?

Not exactly, but a well placed bullet could bring one down and that's not hard to do during a shootout

Unless by "well placed" you mean "through the brains of the last pilot on board", I don't see how.

[Pulau Singapura]

Pretty sure nobody wins in that situation, whether good guy or bad guy wins, everybody goes.

[Thermodolia]

Can't it like rip planes apart or is that just a myth?

That's a myth, unless it somehow forced an underlying structural weakness already present to come to fruition.

Aircraft skins are built in tiny squares that are designed to rip away in the event of weakness in the metal - this allows the pressure to escape without compromising the overall structure.

I don't know, one or two bullets into the cockpit controls might do the trick

[Farnhamia]

When it comes to people on the ground, the USA is reluctant to impose gun control because this might mean fewer armed civilians who could take down a shooter, or for that matter take down an unarmed criminal.

Yet when it comes to air travel, airports don't give ordinary passengers guns to take back control of the plane from suicidal pilots like the Germanwings pilot, let alone from hijackers. How does the USA reconcile these things?

Merged with an existing gun thread.

[Thermodolia]

Not exactly, but a well placed bullet could bring one down and that's not hard to do during a shootout

Unless by "well placed" you mean "through the brains of the last pilot on board", I don't see how.

Or spreading the cockpit with bullets, but yes killing the pilots would do it.

[The East Marches]

Unless by "well placed" you mean "through the brains of the last pilot on board", I don't see how.

Or spreading the cockpit with bullets, but yes killing the pilots would do it.

Pilots are allowed to carry guns on airplanes in the U.S. They just have to get a special permit to do so. Its more common than you'd think.

[The East Marches]

Actually you can, I can send you instructions on how to make weapons in various calibers and the ammo at home if you want. Getting black markets is also really fucking easy, like ridiculously so.

I do want to reduce gun violence, but I don't want to restrict peoples rights. I know that makes me kind of an odd one to a lot of people, but I think it's a decent position.

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Countries with more rights than us? I can only assume you don't mean freedom of speech. There is hardly a country in the world that allows both Nazis and Communists to protest openly without fear of reprisal.

Our right to bear arms keeps both the government and big corporations from taking that right away. Would you really trust a politician or a CEO with your right to own land or speak freely? I know I wouldn't.

Even if they don't get a gun, they will do it with a knife. Just ask the Chinese. What is next? "Get a life, bin the knife" That has worked out so well in the UK.

[Thermodolia]

Or spreading the cockpit with bullets, but yes killing the pilots would do it.

Pilots are allowed to carry guns on airplanes in the U.S. They just have to get a special permit to do so. Its more common than you'd think.

I'm not saying it isn't common or uncommon, I know that US pilots are allowed to carry, I'm talking about what would/how can ya take down a plane with a gun.

[The East Marches]

Pilots are allowed to carry guns on airplanes in the U.S. They just have to get a special permit to do so. Its more common than you'd think.

I'm not saying it isn't common or uncommon, I know that US pilots are allowed to carry, I'm talking about what would/how can ya take down a plane with a gun.

I apologize, I did not elaborate on my previous idea that pilots could be the ones to go crazy ala German Wings. My Dad used to be a pilot. The baggage handlers don't get checked. If you were really insistent on causing problems, you could sneak through there and get into the hold of the plane. The baggage hold is pressurized on most big planes. One suicide asshole and a gun. Thats all it takes.

On another note, airport security really really needs to be revamped. Its a joke.

[Big Jim P]

Actually you can, I can send you instructions on how to make weapons in various calibers and the ammo at home if you want. Getting black markets is also really fucking easy, like ridiculously so.

I do want to reduce gun violence, but I don't want to restrict peoples rights. I know that makes me kind of an odd one to a lot of people, but I think it's a decent position.

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Taking away guns is in fact a direct restriction/infringement on a Constitutionally enumerated human right.

Those other nations are not the U.S.

Please feel free to play again.

[Fartsniffage]

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Countries with more rights than us? I can only assume you don't mean freedom of speech. There is hardly a country in the world that allows both Nazis and Communists to protest openly without fear of reprisal.

Our right to bear arms keeps both the government and big corporations from taking that right away. Would you really trust a politician or a CEO with your right to own land or speak freely? I know I wouldn't.

Even if they don't get a gun, they will do it with a knife. Just ask the Chinese. What is next? "Get a life, bin the knife" That has worked out so well in the UK.

It kind has really. This is worth a read if you want to compare the two.

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

[Galloism]

I'm not saying it isn't common or uncommon, I know that US pilots are allowed to carry, I'm talking about what would/how can ya take down a plane with a gun.

I apologize, I did not elaborate on my previous idea that pilots could be the ones to go crazy ala German Wings. My Dad used to be a pilot. The baggage handlers don't get checked. If you were really insistent on causing problems, you could sneak through there and get into the hold of the plane. The baggage hold is pressurized on most big planes. One suicide asshole and a gun. Thats all it takes.

On another note, airport security really really needs to be revamped. Its a joke.

All it takes for what? To shoot a couple holes in the side of the plane and cause a depressurization and a diversion?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Actually you can, I can send you instructions on how to make weapons in various calibers and the ammo at home if you want. Getting black markets is also really fucking easy, like ridiculously so.

I do want to reduce gun violence, but I don't want to restrict peoples rights. I know that makes me kind of an odd one to a lot of people, but I think it's a decent position.

If you wanted to shoot your classmates in school for some reason and you're just a typical average teen. Which option would you take?

1. Get resources and build a gun and bullets
2. Search through the deepweb and buy a gun with money (a decent gun costs around $300 and most websites only take bitcoin or credit, I can't think of many kids with that much bitcoins or a credit card with that high of a limit.)
3. Take your dads gun.

Taking away people guns aren't really restricting rights. There are plenty of nations with more rights than us that has banned guns.

Not sure how I missed this because I was sure I answered, but even though it's been a while I'll reply.

I'd either go with Option 2 (because I already know of a legit dark net arms dealer, it's amazing what you can find by lurking around those places) or just getting a black market gun IRL. Either that or make explosives, if I was aiming for a high kill count that would probably be a better choice.

[Novorobo]

Two reasons:

1) Airports have actual security checkpoints where every person is actually screened prior to boarding.

2) Projectiles capable of piercing the aircraft skin are inherently more hazardous on a pressurized aircraft than not.

Hollowpoint rounds could be used to solve the depressurization problem.


That bring said, it would be a serious sucurity risk and thus inadvisable. Instead include a couple of armed guards on every flight to deal with terrorists, etc.

In other words, a combination of gun control and armed law enforcement. Why isn't the USA enforcing this at ground level?

Stray bullets can hit the side of the aircraft, yes, but they can also hit innocent bystanders on the ground too. Why can't the USA confiscate guns and leave policing to, you know, the police?