And that's WHY we carry them...

[Hermit]

Go to any airport and rightly you will automatically be assumed to be a terrorist carrying a bomb until you are very carefully searched. Even then you are going to be watched closely

Good point. I have wondered why law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry their Shoot & Wastems in their pockets when boarding a plane even if they have the requisite permits. Can't they be deemed permissible until they shoot the pilots, in which case the surviving passengers and/or owners of flying vehicle are always free to take the errant shooter to court, provided they can find any of his remains?

[MrJonno]

Go to any airport and rightly you will automatically be assumed to be a terrorist carrying a bomb until you are very carefully searched. Even then you are going to be watched closely

Good point. I have wondered why law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry their Shoot & Wastems in their pockets when boarding a plane even if they have the requisite permits. Can't they be deemed permissible until they shoot the pilots, in which case the surviving passengers and/or owners of flying vehicle are always free to take the errant shooter to court, provided they can find any of his remains?

Gun nuts have seriously asked to be able to do this, so they can defend themselves from terrorists!!

Guns and aircraft are many ways like ejector seats and aircraft. In theory an ejector seat for every passenger on an aircraft (ignoring the costs) could in very rare circumstances save your life but if anyone uses them incorrectly its going to kill them and everyone on board. That's pretty much how I see guns in society in general, its utterly irrelevant whether I can be trusted with a firearm or not, its whether my neighbour and the other 60 million people can be. I

[NuclMan]

Go to any airport and rightly you will automatically be assumed to be a terrorist carrying a bomb until you are very carefully searched. Even then you are going to be watched closely

Good point. I have wondered why law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry their Shoot & Wastems in their pockets when boarding a plane even if they have the requisite permits. Can't they be deemed permissible until they shoot the pilots, in which case the surviving passengers and/or owners of flying vehicle are always free to take the errant shooter to court, provided they can find any of his remains?

Funny how they're content to trust the authorities when it also benefits them personally.

[Seth]

Just because everyone is capable of doing bad things doesn't mean that everyone will do bad things or that we have to run society based on the paranoid fear that they will do so, thereby creating a horrifically oppressive society where there is no liberty or freedom of any kind at all.

1984 has come and gone. Get over it.

It's a compromise like everything else in life, plenty of times a person is automatically assumed to be a criminal until they proof otherwise. Why do we think we have shop staff most the time its sure not to help the customer its to stop them stealing something.

Go to any airport and rightly you will automatically be assumed to be a terrorist carrying a bomb until you are very carefully searched. Even then you are going to be watched closely

You need to be heavily medicated and kept somewhere safe, so you can't hurt yourself or anyone else.

[Seth]

Go to any airport and rightly you will automatically be assumed to be a terrorist carrying a bomb until you are very carefully searched. Even then you are going to be watched closely

Good point. I have wondered why law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry their Shoot & Wastems in their pockets when boarding a plane even if they have the requisite permits. Can't they be deemed permissible until they shoot the pilots, in which case the surviving passengers and/or owners of flying vehicle are always free to take the errant shooter to court, provided they can find any of his remains?

My theory is that every passenger should be issued a one-shot "liberty pistol" with a single round of frangible, aircraft safe ammo when they board. That way the good guys ALWAYS outnumber the bad guys and are effectively armed.

I used to carry on aircraft. All I had to do was show my badge and ID.

[NuclMan]

Go to any airport and rightly you will automatically be assumed to be a terrorist carrying a bomb until you are very carefully searched. Even then you are going to be watched closely

Good point. I have wondered why law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry their Shoot & Wastems in their pockets when boarding a plane even if they have the requisite permits. Can't they be deemed permissible until they shoot the pilots, in which case the surviving passengers and/or owners of flying vehicle are always free to take the errant shooter to court, provided they can find any of his remains?

My theory is that every passenger should be issued a one-shot "liberty pistol" with a single round of frangible, aircraft safe ammo when they board. That way the good guys ALWAYS outnumber the bad guys and are effectively armed.

I used to carry on aircraft. All I had to do was show my badge and ID.

nice theory there jackass,,, of course it would be easier to let the gubmint (those tyrants) issue shooters (meeting all your idiotic requirements) to everyone, (except for bad guys and lunatics) and stop serving alcohol, than it would to keep all but one firearm off the craft.

[MrJonno]

That way the good guys ALWAYS outnumber the bad guys and are effectively armed.

Don't forget 'law abiding citizens'

[Blind groper]

To Seth, who said : "Citations of events which have occurred are not "anecdotes," they are "observations" which constitute data points in any scientific analysis."

Wrong. They are anecdotes.

Every year, in the USA, there asre roughly 10,000 firearms murders. That is not an anecdote. It is a statistic. Of those, 8,000 are done with hand guns, and 4,000 take the form of two people in a vicious argument, with one getting so angry, he or she pulls out a hand gun and shoots the other (FBI statistic).

Against those 10,000 firearms murders, Seth offers two anecdotes and tries to say that those anecdotes show guns are good.

Seth, we do not disbelieve your anecdotes. An anecdote is just a story, and some stories are true. But two true stories in which a good guy with a gun takes out a bad guy do not outweigh 10,000 firearms murders each and every year, plus another 90,000 non fatal cases each year in which a bullet maims someone.

One in 50 Americans, at some time in his/her life, has a bullet pass through some part of his/her body. Two anecdotes, true or not, do not make these facts untrue.

[piscator]

One in 50 Americans, at some time in his/her life, has a bullet pass through some part of his/her body.

I'd wager an even higher percentage of New Zealanders have had a piece of automobile pass through some part of their body.
You people need to wind your necks in and stop driving and mechanic-ing before you slaughter yourselves like a bunch of illiterate savages.

[laklak]

1 in 50? Really? How you getting that stat, BG? I'd like to see the math.

[piscator]

1 in 50? Really? How you getting that stat, BG? I'd like to see the math.

At least the chi squared tails, huh?

[Blind groper]

To laklak

The math is simple. 100,000 Americans get shot each year (most survive). Average life span is a bit less than 80. Calculate.

[laklak]

Ah, OK then. I'll run a combined statistical analysis of violent crime in Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea then. After all, they're pretty close together. Makes as much sense as looking at gunshot stats across the entirety of the U.S.

Hell, Sydney is closer to Port Moresby then I am to Las Vegas.

[Seth]

To Seth, who said : "Citations of events which have occurred are not "anecdotes," they are "observations" which constitute data points in any scientific analysis."

Wrong. They are anecdotes.

Every year, in the USA, there asre roughly 10,000 firearms murders. That is not an anecdote. It is a statistic.

You keep bumping the number, but anyway it's a statistic aggregated from individual data points, ie: individual incidents where someone was murdered with a firearm. Therefore, individual incidents where someone was NOT killed because they used a handgun defensively are every bit as valid as data points as the murders you refer to.

Of those, 8,000 are done with hand guns, and 4,000 take the form of two people in a vicious argument, with one getting so angry, he or she pulls out a hand gun and shoots the other (FBI statistic).

Against those 10,000 firearms murders, Seth offers two anecdotes and tries to say that those anecdotes show guns are good.

Well, that and the aggregate statistic of defensive gun uses that comes to somewhere between 80,000 (fbi) and 2.5 million (Lott, Kleck et. al.) that is just as valid as your statistic, and even at the lowest estimated number represents lives saved and victims not victimized through the lawful defensive use of firearms at EIGHT TIMES the number of murders you cite.

Thus, for the math impaired, which means you, a minimum of eight times as many people are protected by private firearms than are killed by them, and the ratio is actually much greater if you exclude from your statistic felon-on-felon gang murders which comprise the majority of all firearms murders in the US. (I don't care if felons kill each other, I consider it to be a public service when they do)

The upper number of 2.5 million gives us a 250-to-1 ratio of lives saved and victims protected over criminal homicides.

But neither is of any importance at all because the personal, individual right to be armed for self-defense is not statistically allocated to anyone. It is complete, absolute and plenary for each and every separate individual on earth, and no one has any authority or power to disarm another if it interferes in the slightest with that person's ability to effectively defend themselves against criminal violence, whether the criminal is armed or unarmed.

Seth, we do not disbelieve your anecdotes. An anecdote is just a story, and some stories are true. But two true stories in which a good guy with a gun takes out a bad guy do not outweigh 10,000 firearms murders each and every year, plus another 90,000 non fatal cases each year in which a bullet maims someone.

Two stories out of 2.5 million stories every year. I cite them as I come across them precisely to debunk your false and mendacious argument that guns are not used in self defense to any great extent in the US. They are.

One in 50 Americans, at some time in his/her life, has a bullet pass through some part of his/her body. Two anecdotes, true or not, do not make these facts untrue.

Horseshit claim that is demonstrably not true. Go as 50 people and I bet you don't find even ONE who has been shot, unless you go ask gang bangers and career criminals in prison. You have no understanding of how to use statistics, or data, to draw valid conclusions.

But if I grant arguendo that your bullshit claim is true, it's entirely irrelevant because the fact that YOU get shot one or more times in your lifetime does not diminish in the least degree MY right to be armed for self defense.

It just means you're fucking stupid and a bullet magnet.

[Seth]

1 in 50? Really? How you getting that stat, BG? I'd like to see the math.

There is no math. Just a WAG. That claim is and always has been complete bullshit.