Michael Moore is being sued!

[billybob_81067]

LMAO!

Originally posted by Miscue


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

LOL! BURNINATED! Let's everyone go back and read THIS post of Collegeboy's since he always wants people to "go back and reread what he said"

Originally posted by 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.

I do think... I think you are a complete idiot and do a good job of proving so.

[Miscue]

Burninating the countryside!
Burninating the peasants!
Burninating all the people

and the Trogdor comes in the NNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTT TTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

TROOOGDOOOOOOOOOOR!!!!

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
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.

Did you really just revert to the "No, I know what the answer is, but you say it first......Seriously, I know, I'm just not gonna tell" argument.

Simply astounding.

I will agree that cockpit doors need to be reinforced significantly, but I'm a little unclear on the specifics of your second reason.

The goal is to keep the passengers safe, simply locking armed terrorists out of the cockpit isn't exactly accomplishing that goal.

I'm curious to know if and how many pilots you've talked to about this as well. What were their opinions on this subject?

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Miscue
Burninating the countryside!
Burninating the peasants!
Burninating all the people

and the Trogdor comes in the NNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTT TTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

TROOOGDOOOOOOOOOOR!!!!

ROFLMAO

[Miscue]

Originally posted by ShooterJM


Did you really just revert to the "No, I know what the answer is, but you say it first......Seriously, I know, I'm just not gonna tell" argument.

Simply astounding.

That is precisely what he does. He trolls for a response, attacks the response... provides no answers of his own. You can see how I anticipated this with:

Originally posted by Collegeboy
What are the advantages of such a plan?

Originally posted by Miscue

A facilitated alternative to a Louisville Slugger...

Originally posted by Collegeboy
And what are the advantages to that?

Originally posted by Miscue Are you implying that there are none?

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Miscue.

I am asking what are the people's reasons for think that.

Yup... so he can attack what he has trolled for.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley

I need to add something here. I have trained in the martial arts since I was a kid. Job and family have made it impossible to train like I onced did so I'm now horribly out of shape but that is besides the point.

One day four of us were working out when I was in my mid 20s. We were all pretty athletic and were from different styles. Somebody got the idea to use one of the practice knives and see which of us could take it away in a free sparring atmosphere. To make a long story short none of us were able to take the knife away consistently without being gutted and killed. This led us to the conclusion that our training was not really for self defense but for enjoyment as any reasonably idiot with a knife or a bat could kill us despite years of training.

So I have to agree with Shartley on this one and don't see what CBs point with about swords and knives. I certainly would want the gun in ANY situation that I was in danger. As you know I'm not a "gun nut" and do not own any guns but PLEASE don't try to make the argument that I am LESS safe when someone is attacking me because I have a gun in my hand. That is just counter to common sense.

Edited to better explain my point.....

[Restola]

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

Because defending yourself with a gun is by far the safest way. I am still trying to find the stats, which I've seen several places but are lost now.

Some more interesting news:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Crime.htm

[Miscue]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I need to add something here. I have trained in the martial arts since I was a kid. Job and family have made it impossible to train like I onced did so I'm now horribly out of shape but that is besides the point.

One day four of us were working out when I was in my mid 20s. We were all pretty athletic and were from different styles. Somebody got the idea to use one of the practice knives and see which of us could take it away in a free sparring atmosphere. To make a long story short none of us were able to take the knife away consistently without being gutted and killed. This led us to the conclusion that our training was not really for self defense but for enjoyment as any reasonably idiot with a knife or a bat could kill us despite years of training.

So I have to agree with Shatley on this one and don't see what CBs point with about swords and knives....

Yup... I trained on how to disarm someone... almost completely worthless to do so I think. I asked my good Palestinean friend who used to mug people by knife to keep alive (seriously), and he demonstrated to me that he can put a knife to your throat before you even realize it's coming. There is nothing you can do when the blade is on you, he has full control. If someone with half a brain wants to slit your throat, he can.

[Collegeboy]

Wow I mistyped a word, wahoo.

Troll, please, this topic was about something entirely different when it was made into a gun versus anti gun debate by those against Moore.


You have a group of terrorist on a plane. You have a sky marshal on the plane with a gun. What is the sky marshal going to do, take out one maybe two terrorist before he is taking out and the terrorist then take out some innocents. This is not the worst case scenario it is the best case.

The pilots need to be secure, for their job is to fly the plane to safety no matter what is going on in the passenger area.

The question you have to ask yourself is what device or technique you can use that will be able to take out all terrorist, while causing the least amount of innocent lives in return.

I do not know the answer, I have ideas, all systems have there pros and cons. I am trying to get you all to look at the question more then your dislike of me will allow you to do so. It does no good for me to tell you ideas, you have to understand the question, and understand the situation. Until so, you will continue on with your ideas and beliefs in a system that will not work.

I will answer the rest when I get back.

[Miscue]

There is a difference between a response and an answer.

[tony emerson]

How about the knowledge that the pilot has a gun as a deterrent to the terrorist? Would that be a good answer to why an armed pilot?
PS I too wait for an answer to what is better than a armed person/people!

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
To make a long story short none of us were able to take the knife away consistently without being gutted and killed.

Agreed. It took forever in kendo to learn how to correctly block a reasonable attack. People don't realize exactly how much blade specific training you have to go through before you can do that.

First of all you generally don't try to BLOCK a knife strike. A knife is short range weapon, you beat it by staying back and beating the other guy with long range weapons. Besides most training regimes teach to "cut in and cut out", if you try (and even sucessfully block) the initial strike, a good opponent will tip rip your forearm or something.

Anyway, in summary the worst weapon to attack a knife with is another short range weapon. Far better to stay on the other side of the room and chuck chairs at the guy.

[spazzed]

CB, I have come to a conclusion.

You are the sterotypical "brainwashed" college student. A part of the minority that give the rest of us a bad name. I say this not because of your opinions, but because of your...methods of reasoning, presenting, defending & attacking arguments/discussion in which you are involved. For the love of god, pull your head out of your arse & get some fresh air.

So in summation; You Suck. :)

[davidb]

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.

If they were carrying the things for their purely defensive capabilities, they would have been carrying shields instead, don't you think?

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

If you don't know the answers to this question, then you have the right not to carry a gun. Those who do know them have the right to carry them. You have shown that you understand and support these facts, and yet you give the appearance of constantly fighting them.

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)

Oh this is beautiful.. I hate to break it to you, CB, but a .50 cal shot is much more likely than those you mentioned. PISTOLS are available in .50, and although they are very large and very unlikely to be brought on a plane, it's still more likely than that an AK-47 (7.62mm) or an AK-74 (5.45mm) will be snuck on. The only type of weapon with any real likelyhood of being snuck onto a plane are small cutting instruments. Anything larger and they risk blowing the operation before they get in the air. Like you said, it probably won't be just one - do you really think that three or four guys are going to have a chance of each sneaking in a rifle that is going to be just under a meter long at the very least (74 w/ stock folded)? Even if you do think they have a chance, do you think they would take the chance? Fact is, it's going to be pilot/air marshall w/ pistol against terrorists w/ razors.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
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.

Of course they are clear to you, they are your thoughts! I personally can usually infer what you were trying to say, but then I'm usually pretty good at that. I can definitely see where people would have trouble getting your meaning a lot of the time.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
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.

The worst that could happen is that the hole would be big enough that the plane would need to fly lower. Even that wouldn't happen with the right kind of ammo. Why do you keep worrying about this?

Originally posted by Collegeboy
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.

Here's a novel idea CB. How's about you do some answering instead of hiding behind your questions? A gun is, in most minds, the logical choice for security personnel. It should be you giving reasons why we should deviate from that, not the other way around.

You keep talking about how a pilot or marshall with a gun might damage the plain, might make something bad happen.. Then you talk about terrorists coming on the planes in squads, with heavy weapons! Have you forgotten, maybe, what these terrorists are attempting to do? They don't want the pilot to land the plane in Beirut and have political prisoners released while they're up there anymore! They want to use the plane as a weapon. Given that scenario, the pilot, passengers, marshalls, whatever, should use whatever is available to them to STOP the attack, be it guns, tasers, knives, ninja stars, death rays, or sharp sticks!

To be perfectly honest, in my mind, the only ways a terrorist can bring down a plane are bombs, sabotage, and missles. Fortunately, none of these methods allow the plane to be used as a weapon. In the post 9/11 world, if the guy next to you is reaching into his bag and starts to pull a gun, it doesn't matter if he's built like an NFL lineman, you're going to attack him.

You may now proceed to pick out the most insignificant little piece of my post and write a quick reponse to that.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

The question is, however, should being negligent with your firearm be a crime? Are you responsible if you leave the Markov Pistol out that you need to defend your family within easy access to your kid and then he/she takes it to school and shoots some other kid with it? (by either total accident or intentionally doesn't matter) If the answer is "no" then I have to ask whether you believe non gun owners have the right to protect their family by holding gun owners accountable for being responsible with their firearms?

My answer is: it depends.

I feel you must exercise proper care and caution. If they broke into your safe to steal it, then you exercised care. If they took it form under your pillow, you were careless.

If New Jersey can have John's Law and punish you for allowing drunk to drive, by extension, allowing a firearm to be accessible to someone not authorized to use it should be punished.