Michael Moore is being sued!

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Konigballer
I just dont think you need to be lecturing anyone with your "real world" experience because judging from your profile you must be what, 20 or there abouts. That does'nt make you Yoda.

I'm not lecturing anyone w/ my "real world" experience. I pointed out a trend that I had noticed (amongst other things) and was bashed for it. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

To answer your question, I'm 21, and I know full-well that I haven't seen it all, or done it all & furthermore that I am no Yoda (literally & figuratively ). But, last time I checked, you don't know me, you don't know a damn thing about me other than what I've posted & what's in my profile. You don't know a thing about whatever knowledge on the subject at hand, the things I've learned, seen, been through, etc...so yet again my Tennessee friend (hehe), you're the "non-sensical and off topic" one. (Ok, 1 outta 2 isn't that bad..hehe)

[billybob_81067]

originally posted by Collegeboy

Now the whole article is one sided in a way, like I said, will one bullet bring down a plane, probably not, but when will there ever only be one bullet. This is something that it fails to acknowledge. The believers in this purposely look to the best case scenario and do don't plan for the worst.

When will there only be one bullet? When the terrorist on the plane gets taken out with one well placed shot, that's when.

You act as if there was a terrorist on a plane there would be a huge conflict with hundreds of thousands of bullets from a 50 cal machine gun located at the back of the plane trying to hit the terrorist at the front of the plane.

originally posted by Konigballer

I swear, way to many gun owners get so paranoid about people "comin' for their guns", try not to sound to wacked out. Thats why they invented the term "gun nut" in the first place. Your going to go give us tennesseans a bad name, if we dont already have one.

There is major cause to worry about people wanting to come for our guns. It has been ongoing for a long time. Just think of how people reacted here when Smart Parts decided to pull their patent b.s. There is no difference except that "people comin' for our guns" is way more serious...

[Restola]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The article fails to draw a difference between a modern plane being a pressurized plane and its own example of the B 17 not being a pressurized. Which is why it can take a a "hail of bullets and still remain a loft".

This one stayed aloft with a hole about...oh 10,000 times larger than a bullet.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
That's a VERY tricky question.

Should I be liable if I leave a gun on my table and someone steals it and shoots someone? What if I had locked in my gun closet and someone spent 2 hours breaking into it with a drill and then shot someone? Certainly in the second case it can be proven that I did take precautions to keep the gun out of the hands of the wrong person. And in the first case I'd say that while I didn't take precaution the gun is on my property (my home) and anyone stealing it committing a crime against me. Does it matter in those two cases that it was easier to steal from me in the first case?

I would say that no. It doesn't matter. I would say I cannot be held accountable if someone steals a gun from my house without my permission and then shoots someone with it.

However, if my 16 year old son (which I don't have one) took a gun from my desk and shot a classmate I would say then that I am responsible. As the boy's parent, and being that he's a minor, I would say that it was my responsibilty to keep the gun out of his hands and out of the school. But what if my son's freind stole the gun? What then? Then it's a little trickier. If it could be proven that my son was a willing accomplice then I would have to say that I have some responsibility for that crime.

Agreed. You hit on all the major issues that I can think of. It is EXTREMELY tricky because once you start holding gun owners accountable there are a whole host of extenuating circumstances that go against the whole idea of trying to create greater accountability.

Everyone knows that irresponsible gun owners are a threat not only others that may get harmed but also to responsible gun owners as they give them a bad name. One wonders, however, if ANY legislation would help. If risk to ones kid (either through accidental shooting or being put in one jail) is not enough to make a gun owner responsible then probably no legislation could help those morons.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

Again Shartly you portraying me as an antigun person who wants to see all guns taken away. Sadly this is the standard reaction by people against other who question this. My questions are to the point of why would someone chose to arm themselves with a weapon, when it could lead to more harm.

A sword and a knife are both weapons that can be used to block or deflect the oncoming strikes of someone with a knife of sword of their own. A gun can only be used as an offensive weapon (other then the lucky shot hitting the gun). When someone pulls a gun on you, if you go to grab your gun, you are practically dead. If you don't, you have a better chance at surviving.

My question has been, and will always be, why chose a gun over other means of protection?

No, Billy bob, you once again fail to understand a post. I said that the best case scenario is the one bullet fired from an air marshal that hits one terrorist, and the terrorist is killed with out anything else happening. The fact of the matter is that is a very unlikely thing to happen. There will hardly ever be one terrorist, and if one passenger gets up and starts to make a move the terrorist will open fire onto the guy. It will not be a 50 caliber shot, more then likely a 7.2 mm or a 5.62 mm (depending on if it is a 47 of 76)

DavidB, I read my statements and to me they are very self-explanatory. But it seems that I need to dumb them down (not calling anyone dumb), so that others can know what they mean, without putting words in my mouth. Even then I feel I will still have to explain myself.

Restola, anyone knows that a plane with a huge hole in it can remain aloft, hence why cargo planes can open up the back hatch etc... It is that when a hole is opened the palne loses its pressurized air, and if it is big enough, can cause a huge problem inside. If everything is strapped down it is fine, but if not, there is a problem. If the mask deploy in time it is ok, if not, it is a problem. This will happen until the plane can get down lower enough to repressurize the plane.

Now my question is with all the ifs ands and buts that come from using a gun on a plane, why use one, why not use something else.

[tony emerson]

LIKE WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
I have shown you bullets that wont go through hull. As you know if we do nothing then we are still stuck on 9-10 and no if ands or buts about what happened the next day! You have to say some thing other than that wont work I/we have given you options and all you say is NO. Tell us a viable option. please

[spazzed]

And what do you recomment they use instead CB, Sporks? Afterall, by your logic, virtually anything could be harmul to the plane, as well as the passengers, thereby nullifying it's use by the pilots and/or crew.

[Collegeboy]

There are far too many options out there of what can be done, all of which have there own advantages and disadvantages. There are far too many for me to name, and you all know the alternatives.

The question is with the overall ineffectiveness of a gun (even with special bullets) of stopping a group of terrorist, why not use something else.

[tony emerson]

Ok your best one of the many that would be more effective and can only operate by the pilot and wont go through the hull but wont kill any innocent and will the bad people

all things you asked for you must know if you know that guns are so bad.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

The question is with the overall ineffectiveness of a gun (even with special bullets) of stopping a group of terrorist, why not use something else.

Yeah, like assault rifles and bazookas. Those will kill terrorists mo' bettah.

[spazzed]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There are far too many options out there of what can be done, all of which have there own advantages and disadvantages. There are far too many for me to name, and you all know the alternatives.

The question is with the overall ineffectiveness of a gun (even with special bullets) of stopping a group of terrorist, why not use something else.

What we know or don't know, is not the issue at hand. If you can't answer a simple question, provide some apparently common information (according to you) then why should we even consider what you've said?

How do you know that a gun is ineffective against a group of terrorists, specifically when using special ammo designed for it's stopping power, not lethallity? You running a field trial we don't know about?

Again, you ramble on about this (infamous) something else. Please do share w/ the rest of us. Enlighten us if you wish.

[billybob_81067]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

No, Billy bob, you once again fail to understand a post. I said that the best case scenario is the one bullet fired from an air marshal that hits one terrorist, and the terrorist is killed with out anything else happening. The fact of the matter is that is a very unlikely thing to happen. There will hardly ever be one terrorist, and if one passenger gets up and starts to make a move the terrorist will open fire onto the guy. It will not be a 50 caliber shot, more then likely a 7.2 mm or a 5.62 mm (depending on if it is a 47 of 76)

You once again failed to make a post explaining your jargon... When you say, "when will there ever only be one bullet?" How am I supposed to delve into your warped mind to understand the nonsense of what you "mean" by the statement??? Explain yourself as you did in the above quote rather than saying there will never be just one shot. It makes a better case on your part.

I would also like to know what your "tons" of "alternatives" to firearms would be... please indulge us with your greater knowledge of everything on earth... I'm sure it will be fun for me as well as others to bash your posts some more.

Originally posted by Miscue

Yeah, like assault rifles and bazookas. Those will kill terrorists mo' bettah.

Now there's a couple alternatives!!! Now we're accomplishing something. Maybe a bazooka would actually have enough devestation on an aircraft to bring it down unlike a sissy handgun...

[Collegeboy]

I am sorry billybob that I thought you were able to think and comprehend more then you have shown in this thread. I thought it was plain and simple the idea of one bullet being a rarity.

Miscue, just shows your lake of understanding.

What other alternatives are there to guns, if you have to ask this question, it only shows your lack of understanding the problem.

The question is would a gun be effective, the answer is more times then so, it would not be for the reason I said above.

The next question is what other ways can you handle this situation of a group of terrorist on the plane trying to hijack it. First thing is make sure they can not get into the cockpit, second is many things.

I still have hope and faith in you all that you know the answer to this question without me having to tell you of other possible ways. So think about it a bit.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Again Shartly you portraying me as an antigun person who wants to see all guns taken away. Sadly this is the standard reaction by people against other who question this. My questions are to the point of why would someone chose to arm themselves with a weapon, when it could lead to more harm.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
A sword and a knife are both weapons that can be used to block or deflect the oncoming strikes of someone with a knife of sword of their own. A gun can only be used as an offensive weapon (other then the lucky shot hitting the gun). When someone pulls a gun on you, if you go to grab your gun, you are practically dead. If you don't, you have a better chance at surviving.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
My question has been, and will always be, why chose a gun over other means of protection?

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Miscue, just shows your lake of understanding.

My lake of understanding... wow. Not quite a sea... but a lake. That's pretty good still... thank you.