It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
I understand what you are saying.
I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Skellon
You can honestly listen to him there and say he's a crackpot?
He obviously means security. It's a good idea.. that's why it was employed before they started stripping away liberties.
OP I have to say the way you titled it leaves it open to improper interpretation that may make people think he means anyone.. I would say banning armed agents instead maybe.. your thread though. Anyway, even just security with tasers would be good.edit on 10-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is just getting himself deeper and deeper into that hole. The more he speaks the more idiotic he sounds...and people really want him to be President?
Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is just getting himself deeper and deeper into that hole. The more he speaks the more idiotic he sounds...and people really want him to be President?
Originally posted by doom27
I really don't see whats dumb here? Am i missing something?
The point isn't for people to bring guns on planes, its just to have security. Saying that's a stupid idea is like saying cops shouldn't have guns (well maybe i should find a different example), Its like saying game wardens can't have guns (a little better).
The point would be, have a security officer on the plane. If SHTF security guy will light up whoever. A bullet hole or two won't cause a plane to crash. More than likely the armor is too strong for the bullet to penetrate.
Can someone tell me whats wrong with having armed security on a plane?
Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
I understand what you are saying.
I just cannot grasp the idea of allowing people, in general, to bring guns on planes.
That is not a solution.
So, instead of wondering if the passenger, of Middle Eastern origin is going to pull a gun and hijack the plane for political reasons, you are left wondering if any of the passengers on the plane that have had a bad day are going to hijack the plane?
Not to mention that a ballistic discharge inside a pressurised cabin is somewhat dangerous.
Regards, Skellonedit on 10-7-2011 by Skellon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jessejamesxx
You are grossly misunderstanding the point, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. "People" aren't and wouldn't be allowed to bring guns onto planes. There would most likely already be a gun on the plane, in the cockpit, under a very secure lock and key. Probably safeguarded to the point that if the cockpit door has been opened since takeoff, they wouldn't be able to open it.
Also, I believe Mythbusters did air pressurization test with gunshots, and nothing catastrophic happen. They would have time to land the plane (correct me if you remember the episode better than I do)