Michael Moore is being sued!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Wow I mistyped a word, wahoo.

It's wohoo!

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.

When was the last El Al flight hijacked? Oh yeah that's right, never. They have armed airmarshalls and suprise suprise, their flights actually make it to the ground. Terrorists armed with boxcutters can't stand up to a Glock.

[nippinout]

Collegeboy's opinion < USAF General/engineers/Army's knowledge and experience.

Collegeboy, the 747s people fly around in are in a state of leaking all the time if you read the article. A few holes isn't going to rip apart the fuselage.

I would like to feel fuzzy knowing that the cockpit is locked and secure. If any terrorist douchebag can make it past that, it would be nice to know that the pilot is going to kill any mf'er that puts his face in the doorway. The pilot's job is to get himself, crew, passengers, and plane from point A to point B safely. Karate and fuzzy feelings won't help much in landing a plane with a terrorist aboard.

[Konigballer]

Is it just me or does Collegeboy's conversation style, "no, I know what the answer is, but you say it first", just like talking to the Oracle in the Matrix?

[spazzed]

haha..truetrue..but the big difference is the Oracle actually knows what she's talking about

[Albinonewt]

My wife wants to go out to dinner now, so I'll talk more later. But, being a gun nut like I am, and being that my wife works the state police CB you can trust me when I say ammo exists that can disable or kill a human but wouldn't penetrate a plane's hull. It's called short stop ammunition. And it is real and it does work.

And my other quick point for now. People are saying why carry a gun when you could carry a knife, or maybe learn self defense, or whatever. My answer is simple. When I'm dealing with my ability to defend my life I want the best solution. I don't deal with knives because guns are better. SHould I ever have to defend my life I don't want to come in second place.

And as I've said, I've seen the movie. You refuse to believe me and I don't know why, but I have.

And You've been proven wrong, on more occassions then I can count, but you never want to admit it. Can you say blind obedience to zealotry?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
My wife wants to go out to dinner now, so I'll talk more later.

Doesn't she understand the importance of arguing online and how it should take precedence over "real" day to day stuff?

And as I've said, I've seen the movie. You refuse to believe me and I don't know why, but I have.

And You've been proven wrong, on more occassions then I can count, but you never want to admit it. Can you say blind obedience to zealotry?

Here I agree with CB, however. This was originally about Michael Moore and not about planes, bullets, etc. Many of the things you have posted makes it sound like you haven't even seen the movie. For example claiming that the background check was not shown in the bank scene. It clearly WAS shown in the movie. Blind obedience to zealotry can work both ways. Can you not admit that Moore did bring up some good discussion points.

For example the whole part with Parker (South Park) was totally very interesting. High school is not like outside life and things do change. Isn't that as important lesson to give to youth? That had nothing to do with guns.

[pito189]

Originally posted by Lopy-slopy


It doesn't matter if cars kill more people. Car are a big part of our society and a very useful part. gun only kill and maim, skeet and target practise is just practise for killing and maiming. It doesn't matter wither the "child" who dies is 18 or 21. it's still a person who died. If guns were gone from america, their would be no gun deaths, and that would mean ALOT less people would die. I know that would never happen, but you can always cut down on the number of people who have them.

If you take away guns, people will still find things to kill people with. I have a hard time agreeing with anything you say.

[Rebel46_99]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

High school is not like outside life and things do change. Isn't that as important lesson to give to youth?

And the very same thing can be said about college life. But, according to CB, that's not the case. Being in college somehow gives you an all-seeing, all-knowing perspective that those of us who live and work, and CB hates this term, in the "real" world, don't seem to have.

DW

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not the one who has made a judgment on a film without ever seeing it and continue to push my ideas of it over people who have seen it and has constantly told you it is different.

Nor am I. I've seen it. I sat through every terrifying horrible moment of it. It caused physical pain to watch it, but I did.

As for you calling me close-minded, again prove me wrong and I will admit it, but you first have to prove me wrong.

No, you clearly wouldn't, because in your mind you are infallible.

Quote Collegeboy
_______________________________

I think some of you need to go back and reread my post. I didn't say that guns would turn people into killing machines. I didn't say guns automatically lead to death. etc.........

I said that when a person is in a state of mind that he will beat you up if you bump into you (Should be him), what do you think that same person would do if he was carrying a gun.

....

You said If we all owned guns imagine how fast we'd all die. And then you said that instead of punching each other all shoot each other instead. And that is the same as saying that everyone that touches a gun is a psycho, and it's blantantly untrue. Take for instance the knife and the baseball bat. Both are legal, and both can be carried nearly everywhere. Yet we still punch each other rather then knifing and beating each other with bats. Just because I'm willing to punch someone over something doesn't mean I'm willing to shoot them. But you eqaute the two acts as if they're the same in people's minds, and that's not true. (Maybe for some rare people, but they're insane and thus under my plan would be inelgible for a gun).

And I purposely used a stupid low level occurrence incident to show how even the small things can result into innocents being killed.

You purposly used a stupid low level occurence so we can all see that you have no concept of how anything works at all, not even the little things.


If they make a bullet that will take down a hijacker, but will not puncture the shell of the plane of puncture into the cockpit, that will not fire unless it is being used by the person intended to use it. Then I am for it. But then that goes from being a gun to being a nonlethal option which I have never said I am against. But it need not be the pilots job, his job is to fly the plane, and he has all his hands busy dong that.

I"m already spoken about the ammo, but now let me talk about arming pilots. It is true, that a pilot has better things to do then fighting hijackers, like flying the plane. But, in the case of the hijacking the pilot's ability to fly the plane can be severely jeopardized. The plan is his responsibility and he should be equipped with the tools to maintain his control of the plane. Do I want the pilots to be in John Woo styled gun fights for 20 minutes in their plan at 30,000 feat? No, of course not. But I also don't want control of the plane to be taken from the pilot, which is why arming them is a good idea.

You all have this romanticized view of the gun as the great equalizer, as this instrument that put in the hands of an average Joe will prevent crime, will prevent murder, etc.... But the reality of the matter is it is not that.

Oh yeah? Show me something that says armed societies don't act as a preventive measure against crime. You seem to think we advocate the average person running around fighting crime, which is not the case. I advocate allowing people to defend themselves with the best option available, in this case guns. And I also support the deterrent affect that has on crime.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]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.

Because the harm it will lead is in almost all cases that of a person trying to kill me. I carry guns so that in the unlikely situation I am placed in a threatening situation I can defend myself. What would you do CB? Tell the person that his gun is dangereous and he could hurt someone?

An excellent example is one time in Baltimore I was mugged at gun point with a friend of mine. The mugger had his gun in my back and asked for my wallet. I took it out of my pocket and dropped it on the ground. When he went for it I put my GLock 40 in his neck and asked him kindly to put down his gun and lie down. I then called the police and they picked him up. Why did I do it? Because I feared for my life and that of my friends. I didn't know if the wallet would be enough to placate him (and I still don't know) so I pulled my gun on him. Would I have shot him? Sure, if he didn't cooperate. But he did cooperate, because he knew that he wasn't the only one that could apply deadly force, and I clearly had the drop on him.

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.

So what are you saying? That if I want to defend myself I should use the same weapon the attacker has? That in addition to my gun I should carry a knife, baseball bat, club, monkey wrench, tire iron, and anything else that a person might attack me with? Yes, a sword can be used to parry, but that's part of the combat. The whole reason we upgraded to guns from swords is to avoid that!

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

Because the gun is the best availble defense. What's better then a gun? A knife? A taser? What? When they invent something that I am more comfortable with then a gun then I'll use it. But until then I shoot people that threaten myself or my wife.

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)

I don't get what you're talking about at all. You're saying that we shouldn't allow guns on planes, even for air marshals, in case the plane is taken over by a band of terrorists with automatic weapons we don't want a shoot out? Am I reading that right?

That's so stupid it hurts my brain.

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.

Nice CB. "I'm not saying you're all dumn, just that you're not as smart as me"


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.

So what you're saying is, typically it will be ok if a plane has a small hole in it. But, in order to avoid the small fraction of a chance that a plane is hijacked, then thwarted, and then crashed because of an in flight gunfight with terrorists that somehow managed to get a swuad of armed commandoes on board and then somehow managed to puncture the plane enough to cause a problem you'd rather all jijackings were successful?

Brilliant CB, just freakin' brilliant.

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.

Because the gun use has ifs, ands, or buts. ANd the terrorists having control of the plane just has a lot of dead people as a possible result. That's why. Are guns on planes a 100% solution, even in the hands of a trained person? No. But, it's a whole lot better then the alternative, thousands dead because 5 guys had box cutters...

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]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.

Well, pick one. If there's so many then pick ONE.

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.

Well, if one gun won't do it then why not have lots of guns?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]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.

Why is one bullet a rarity? IN the case of a gun gith in mid air with a half dozen terrorists with automatic weapons it would be. However, besides Wesley Snipes movies name how many times that happens? Every once in a while maybe, but why abandon a method that works against most common threats simply because it wouldn't work against the greatest threat?

Miscue, just shows your lake of understanding.

I think Miscue understands just fine.

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

Ok, fine. I don't understand the problem. Only you do. Care to explain it to me?

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.

And what was that again? ALl your nonsense is starting to bleed together.

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.

Ok, step one. Stop bad guys. Step two victory.

Sure, and how do we do this all wise and powerful poobah?

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.

Give up on your faith and just explain it to us. You mystery solution eveades me.

[Miscue]

Blast from the past...

<img src="http://www.automags.org/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=763082">

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
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.

Well, yeah, if the terrorists all have guns. But they typically don't. If its five guys that plan to use knves and barricade themselves in the cockpit until they crash the plane then the marshal with the gun is in a very good posistion.

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.

Sure, and they've upgraded the cockpit doors. But you situation always deals with 5 guys with machine guns, which probably lessens the affect of the door.

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 don't know, telepathy?

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.

Four posts ago the answer was so obvious we were all dumb for not knowing it, and now there isn't an answer?

/me disappointed

[1stdeadeye]

What is the definition of crazy?

It is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results!

Why argue with CB? He will not change. Why bother anymore?

Time for the "IGNORE" feature!