allowing guns in cockpits

wrote:
Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
giving a free pass to criminals.
Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
hardly worth the experiment.

And Japan has an almost 100% "confession" rate of people arrested. Do
you know what that is? Might want to do some homework before answering.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
giving a free pass to criminals.
Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
hardly worth the experiment.

And Japan has an almost 100% "confession" rate of people arrested. Do
you know what that is? Might want to do some homework before answering.

It's Jay's and your wet dream, that's what it is...

On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" wrote:

allowing guns in cockpits

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.

-Robert

The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
the source).
FB

On Jan 3, 4:26*am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" wrote:

allowing guns in cockpits

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.

-Robert

The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
the source).
FB

There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back. I
guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
provide our personal security.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:9d642ad3-b78a-4160-
:

On Jan 3, 4:26*am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:32*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:46*pm, "Private" wrote:

allowing guns in cockpits

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work
for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.

-Robert

The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look
at
the source).
FB

There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back.

Actually, that law was still in place up until the late fifties at
least.
It was only carried over from rail law. Largely because a lot of the
early mail contracts were extensions of rail contracts.


I
guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
provide our personal security.

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun. The guys who have
opted into carrying have had some special training on accout of this
concern, but the fact is ther are better ways to do this which I'm no
going to discuss here, cowboy bob.


Bertie

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme. I guess a gun isn't useful unless it has a nuclear
warhead on it and can take out an entire battalion of soldiers. Its a
lot like saying anyone who picks up a pen better be ready to rewrite
the works of Shakespeare because anything less is not useful.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.


It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event of an
organised hijacking.


I guess a gun isn't useful unless it has a nuclear
warhead on it and can take out an entire battalion of soldiers. Its a
lot like saying anyone who picks up a pen better be ready to rewrite
the works of Shakespeare because anything less is not useful.


Nce try, but we who have been asked to carry the guns have looked into
this, ya know.

The one guy I know well who is carrying is primarily doing it because he's
hoping for the oportunity to shoot someone.

Nobody carries a gun on my flight deck.



Bertie

On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-
:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of a
pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event of an
organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers?? These guys had box cutters. The only way
they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 3, 4:26 am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:32 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:46 pm, "Private" wrote:
allowing guns in cockpits
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.
-Robert
The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
the source).
FB

There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back. I
guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
provide our personal security.

The sad part is that our liberal government and society today places
less value on human life than our forefathers placed on the mail.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:yLehj.1416$2n4.31752
@news1.epix.net:

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 3, 4:26 am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:32 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:46 pm, "Private" wrote:
allowing guns in cockpits
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647
It really doesn't make much difference if the airlines they work for
don't allow guns in the cockpit.
-Robert
The airlines have too. This article was not terribly accurate (Look at
the source).
FB

There was a time that pilots were required to carry guns (if there was
mail on board). Someone had the common sense to know that people won't
try to steal the mail if they know that the pilots may shoot back. I
guess we've lost that reason because today we assume everyone is too
stupid to own a gun or buy a car, etc and we look to the gov't to
provide our personal security.

The sad part is that our liberal government and society today places
less value on human life than our forefathers placed on the mail.


Yeah, right.


Bertie