Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I don’t get it.
I dont know if I believe that was real. But if it was, thats the best way to stop terrorists. Forget airport security, just have all flight attendants carry large guns.
…and we’re all lifetime members of the NRA.
J/P=?
Sign of the times! 😀
#1 … It’s okay… the video required that the viewer had a sense of humor… 😉
As a passenger on that flight I must say I felt VERY safe from terrorists!
😀
Man, Saturday is turning out to be funny video day!
Dont laugh. That used to be the reality up until the early 1970’s I believe. Flight crew were allowed to carry firearms on their flights. To bad the policy didnt remain in place. 3000 people might have made it alive through 9/11.
Now that’s my kinda of pilot.
Hmmm… I wonder what kind of “ban-all-weapons” crap does Mr. Fusion have to say today.
It was a joke people, a good joke btw, thanks for sharing it.
Coincidence or fact? The FAA did an odd thing shortly before 9/11.
Right, just fire that .357 and depressurize the plane at 7 miles high. That’ll show ’em. Still, nice “captain” type voice. What a hoot!
I watch a bit on mythbusters where they attempted to shoot a .357 or 9mm (same caliber) through a pressurized cabin to see if it would have the impact that everyone fears. After putting it to the test, they conclusively discovered it wouldn’t cause an explosive effect. However, there were able to pressurize it enough to finally make an explosion; but it was beyond what any plane is use to doing.
Of all the people in the world, Americans should be the ones aware of the effect the “firearms to everyone” policy has on society!
Heck they (you) lived all of 18th and 19th century under it (that policy).
And that’s a country’s favorite all through the 20th and now the 21st century…
#6 do you really think 9/11 would be prevented by “vigilante” John Does??
Or would it come to a stressed out crackpot with a gun on a plane landing it down or being shot by the other passengers every other week just because he panicked?
#12, Matt, Yes, I saw that too. I didn’t mean to imply an explosion, but a hole in the fuselage is still a hole, and one thru a window might be worse. A hole in a hijacker would suit me just fine. Thank goodness I don’t fly commercial anymore!
And let me guess: the in-flight movie is “Terminator 2?”
Directly, it’s criminal and terrorist friendly propaganda. None of the weapons mentioned, when used with normal “personal defense” ammunition, will have much effect on most normal body armor. The .22 mentioned will barely get through heavy clothing….
Penetration of the aircraft fuselage or windows will cause some expensive repairs, but no substantial decompression. (IOW no “explosion”.) If you recall that heavy jet that lost a good part of it’s “roof” on the way to Hawaii a few years ago, there was only one fatality – a flight attendant who wasn’t belted. That wasn’t exactly a .22….
Sorry…. I’m a believer in arming the passengers….
Regards,
Hmmm… I wonder what kind of “ban-all-weapons” crap does Mr. Fusion have to say today.
Comment by Major Jizz — 5/5/2007 @ 2:28 pm
Gee, I wonder what kind of asshole in mouth crap does Major Jizz have to spout today? Obviously nothing relevant.
The article is a joke. The best way though to prevent hijackings is to harden the cabin doors to prevent unauthorized entry. Arming other passengers would just invite panic shootings.
Hardened doors might prevent alcoholics from breaking in. The hijacker could just take people hostage and make the pilot open that door. Panic shootings? Do those happen on coach buses?
Poor politically correct useful idiots 😀
I wonder how many of those at Virginia Tech wished they had a gun in their backpack when the wacko start shooting at them… wanna bet each and every one of them would swap kingdom for a Beretta at that moment?
There is no better security than defending yourself.
Up until last century, when *everyone* could carry a loaded gun in their pocket, no wacko had a chance to shoot more than few people. Its since politically correct whores de-armed the society all those mass-murders are possible.
Im sorry for all the victims at VT, but they weren’t first and certainly not last victims of raging psychopaths, since obviously even if all weapons would become outlawed and illegal – a psycho or a ‘bad guy’ always can buy them on the ‘black market’, no? 😉
There will always be wackos. And some of those will buy handguns either legal or illegally. And a very few of those will actually use them.
Just think that a country of 300 million inhabitants produces a Columbine and a Virginia Tech incident every 3 to 5 years. Now think that all those wackos that wouldn’t go for the hassle of obtaining a illegal gun would obtain it easily… wouldn’t that exponentially increase the chances of mass shootings?
And the occasional shooter? I mean, there’s incidents every day. Imagine all those traffic disputes, what happens when everybody is carrying a gun under the seat? And also what a Police officer would have to be packing to pull you out of the road? Rocket propelled grenades?
I just have this nagging feeling that if you foster an armed society you’ll reap some sour conclusions!
Just look at Brazil. Obtaining a handgun is trivial, and Human life there has no real value.
#19,
Im sorry for all the victims at VT, but they weren’t first and certainly not last victims of raging psychopaths, since obviously even if all weapons would become outlawed and illegal – a psycho or a ‘bad guy’ always can buy them on the ‘black market’, no?
Comment by 888 — 5/6/2007 @ 1:30 am
Not always. First they need to be available on the black market. As you point out though, it is the availability of weapons on the black market, and even retail, that makes firearms so dangerous. Unlike most illegal drugs, firearms usually kill others, not the purchasers.
While we could argue the chicken and egg stuff, “which came first, the assault weapon or the school shooting”, it is too late. There are enough firearms out there that a prohibition would be nearly impossible to enforce. That, however, is no excuse to arm everyone as that would just create another issue of everyone not knowing who is psycho or not with an auto with 50 round magazine in their hands. It also invites police to shoot first and ask questions later which would, of course invite “criminals” to shoot police first before they get the drop.
Personally, I am not against gun ownership. There is no earthly reason though that handguns or assault are required in our society. Their prevalence makes us all less safe, especially from those who do not obey the gun laws currently on the books. Advocating even less gun restrictions will only compound that.
In the airplane? It wouldn’t be the sudden decompression that is the danger. It would be the civilians sitting nearby that would stop the near misses. They would be the losers. Those seats aren’t known as bullet stoppers. And all we need is for some “cowboy” shooting the hostage or a passenger uncomfortable with flying.
#21 ditto
http://tinyurl.com/o7xrt
a classic mp3.. now with graphix
the only way to fly
#20, #21, #22
There always will be psychos and ‘bad guys’.
Normal people don’t go out and shoot anyone for no reason, heck, even if they have a ‘reason’ (from such rtivial reasons as being overwhelmly pissed, to typical temporal insanity/rage as catching wife cheating with a gardener) even then a normal people don’t shoot anyone in 99.999999% of the cases. Unless any of you insist the population of USA are mostly wackos and insane idiots, there is no reason to forbid citizens from carrying a weapon.
Guns don’t kill by itself, its the people who kill other people.
You can outlaw, forbid, or make it as hard as possible to obtain firearms – it does not and it won’t matter; someone who wants kill somebody will always find a way to obtain such weapon, or will simply use something else (after all: for thousands of years people used to kill each other with sharp objects like knives or swords…).
Now the ‘bad guys’.
Obviously they don’t abide by any laws, right?
So, in conclusion, you must agree that any prohibition of firearms is not going to work on neither group of scumbags (psychos nor ‘bad guys’) , thus what is there to achieve with tougher anti-gun legislations? Nothing that could affect criminals, it only affects law-abiding citizens and discourages them from having the most powerful selfdefense weapon at hand when it may be needed (again same example: victims at VT).
Now, Mr.#22, tell me “ditto” again LOL
#25
No, man. It’s the raising of the aggression ability. If you have a dispute with someone and things get violent and physical, you measure the person up and decide if you have a chance to win, or if it’s totally useless and you’re in for a beating. If you introduce firearms you raise the aggression possibility to another level: Even if you are weaker than your opponent you have an advantage, so you overcome any deterrent factor.
Of course, if you know that everybody is carrying a gun, even if you don’t mean to, you look for one too to defend yourself from that potential threat.
Suddenly, any trivial dispute that could be just some harsh words or some punches, has the potential of becoming deadly. If you realize that not everyone, and especially teenagers and young adults, have the serenity and maturity to let go and refrain, you got a problem.
Bottom line is: yes, you can diminish wacko’s threats, but you’ll have a lot more violence from the rest of the world. If some low life assaults a liquor store, chances are that no one gets hurt in most cases. But if he goes in knowing that there’s surely a handgun behind the counter, he goes in shooting first.
888, you can make it easy to get handguns, or make it difficult. It’s been so easy for so long, that what you say is true, sadly. Adding more of them to the mix leads to a single conclusion, which JoaoPT described. The wackos will shoot first, and by then it’s too late. There is no way you can dispute that.
The problem is that you can’t just arm “the good people” and you can’t make guns that won’t work when the handler is drunk or when another solution is better. People shoot guns, and people are often emotional idiots. Arm them anyway? Sure. The entire world laughs at our stupidity on this issue, because the outcomes are so damned obvious and predictable.
Didn’t I read that the armed marshalls on US flights have special low-velocity rounds? The idea is to keep the slug in the plane and minimize unintended casualties.
For most of the mankind history, the right to bear arm was a priviledge of free people. And I dont mean firearms, its been like this since the first civilized countries were erected (ancient China; Egypt; Greece; Rome; medieval Europe; USA).
Throughout her history, up until past-WWII, more people in America had guns in their pockets than it is now. Yet the psycho-shootings didn’t happen, or happened at such small scale (because the psycho was quickly gunned down by another citizen) that we never heard of it.
If only few of those kids at VT had a gun in their backpack, the psycho’s score wouldn’t probably reach even third of what was the outcome. Or, with hint of luck, maybe even none.
I am not for arming everyone and their cats, don’t get me wrong.
All Im saying is that this politically correct bullshit propaganda of past 20-30 years about guns finally is taking its toll – starting from Columbine High… and I’d say there will be more, due to obvious reasons such as influential degenerative elements in US society.
quote:
“Bottom line is: yes, you can diminish wacko’s threats, but you’ll have a lot more violence from the rest of the world. If some low life assaults a liquor store, chances are that no one gets hurt in most cases. But if he goes in knowing that there’s surely a handgun behind the counter, he goes in shooting first.”
The difference now is that the store clerk, without gun behind the counter (real rarity nowadays anyways, at least in non-white urban areas) is left to the mercy of the low-life robbing him. “Please don’t shoot me” is usually their last words. Check the police stats, they often *are* going in and shooting first.
What youre saying is to let the store clerks at the scumbag’s mercy = beg for their life.
What I’m saying is let the clerk have a choice between begging and fighting.
Don’t forget, not all the scumbags are so ‘brave’ to risk their life, so didn’t you think that just the possibility of clerk being armed would drive them away, repel many of them from robbing it?
Those who would still decide to take chances and go in ‘shooting first’ as you say, are most likely the same ones who shoot the unarmed clerks on their way out.