I'm sure that at some level I am seeking a sympathetic ear, but at the same time I'd just like to make sure that I'm not missing something. Recently, I engaged in someone with an argument over the following statement:
The debate digressed (well maybe debate is a polite way to put it); but I'm just trying to make sure that my points were somewhat grounded in logic and reason. Please note that I had never talked to this person before in my life.
I was willing to conceded a lot of points in the early going, but the fact that I was trying to address this guy's first statement seems to get lost on him pretty quickly, even though I tried to steer the conversation back in that direction. I've enclosed my thoughts on reading the dialogue in brackets [/].
Guy Dude:
BTW, if they'd let people legally carry on planes, they could save billions on airport security.
...
Me:
Carrying loaded guns on planes is a horrible idea.
Guy Dude:
Why? Statistics show states that offer concealed handgun licenses have dramtically lower crime rates. Why wouldn't that concept be true in the sky?
Keep in mind, again statistically, crimes aren't perpetrated by law abiding citizens, nor are they commited by CHL holders.
See, those of us who go to the trouble of getting our license respect the law. We are trained, we have undergone a background check. And we have shown proficiency with our weapon.
[I'm willing to concede that states with CCL have lower crime because it has no affect on the point about airport security. In general, I'm sure this is DEFINITELY open to debate.]
Me:
First, you will then be allowing anyone to bring a loaded gun on the plane, or you will still be trusting some type of airport security to decide if the person carrying the gun can have it on the plane. Second, an airplane full of people means the odds of hitting something in the background (passenger, window, important h/w) is much higher than anywhere else except maybe on a submarine. Third, when was the last time a criminal/terrorist used a gun on a plane? Guns don't seem like they would be very useful against suicide bombers, which seem to be the top security threat.
[The submarine comment...well lets just say some things in here don't react too well to bullets]
Guy Dude:
First, there are already armed air marshals on many flights. Second, only licensed CHL holders would be allowed. Third, what does the terrorist using a gun have to do with it?
Me:
I would hope that air marshals have gone through a lot more training that what is required to get a CHL (closer quarters armed combat, hostage rescue, extensive first aid, etc...). Who gets to search passengers for guns and then make sure they have a right to carry on the plane? You're right back to the point where you will need some type of airport security that checks all the passengers. I'd also be surprised if guns would be that useful against anyone that was willing to blow themselves up, which seems to be the biggest threat on airlines over the last couple of decades.
Guy Dude:
Except of course if you shoot them first. Experience tells us that Muslim extremists announce themselves and their intentions prior to carry out their plans.
[Here is where the assumptions about threats on a plane being Muslim start, notice he jumps in with two comments in a row]
Guy Dude:
BTW you, if I'm on a plane on which there is a Muslim extremist with intentions of crashing and/or blowing up said plane, what is the worst that can happen if I try to keep that from happening by attempting to take out said terrorist with a gun?
Dead is dead. If I know I'm going to die if he flies my plane into a building, can there be a worse outcome if I try to stop it?
Me:
Experience tells us? I think you've had too much 24 and not enough History channel. See Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab. Neither made any kind of announcement. Responsbility might be claimed after the fact, but suicide bombers and the ilk that fund and train them know they are more likely to be successful if they don't make an announcement. The original point I wanted to refute was that you could do away with airport security if everyone was allowed to carry guns onto a plane. Having a gun on a plane is not much deterrence against someone who can now easily get a bomb on board (no security anymore) and is willing to blow themselves up to down the plane.
[several times trying to get back to the point that airport security of some type would still be needed. I think the only thing missing was his explicit belief that current airport security is completely incompetent. If carrying loaded handguns is allowed on a plane, how difficult will it be for anyone with ill intent and lots of cash to get a loaded handgun on a plane?]
Guy Dude:
"24"? "History Channel"? Nice.
Save the juvenile condescension princess.
Yes, experience tells us, as in the 9/11 terrorists. None of them detonated anything on board a plane. They made their intentions known prior to follwing through with their plans and then they saw their plans out to frution, except in the case of flight 93 where passengers saved lives in Washington DC by confronting the terrorists.
BTW, neither of the bombers you mentioned were successful. And the reason they weren't successful is because passengers were proactive. If I think I'm going to die, nothing I can do will make that outcome worse.
I stand by my assertion that if your fate is 99% sealed by a terrorist, trying to stop him with a side arm would cause the outcome to be no more lethal.
[First, if I was a princess I would be living it up somewhere instead of devoting wasted hours arguing with this guy. None of the heroes of flight 93 were armed, if any of them had been allowed to carry a loaded handgun on the plane it's also very likely that the terrorists on flight 93 might have also had weapons]
Me:
One could also state that neither bomber was successful because they could not get a large enough bomb through security. Additionally, unless security is checking everyone's CHL (would you feel comfortably having airport security doing that?) what would stop terrorists from bringing guns on board?
Guy Dude:
I feel comfortable having a plane-full of law abiding citizens carrying their handguns.
You should too.
[This is where I'm thinking that a plane full of law abiding citizens carrying their handguns is something that will never be found; unless a federal law is passed requiring everyone to carry handguns.]
Me:
You're still missing my point, airport security would still be needed.
[c'mon, remember what we were arguing about at the beginning of this?]
Guy Dude:
No, I'm not. But you're missing mine.
Guy Dude:
Why is it that law abiding citizens are the ones who have to be made subject to degrading security measures when all we would have to do is allow on-board carry and profile?
[translation: I'm entitled, and I have a gun, why should I have to go through airport security. Are background checks for concealed carry permits that in depth?]
Me:
yeah, profiling, that'll be fullproof:
http://abcnews.go.com/...
Guy Dude:
Tell you what you, why don't you just sit around and let whomever wished to do you harm do so, all the while wringing your hands wondering who is going to come and bail your ass out of this fix.
You pick one story on which to base your weak-ass assumption.
So far, you've let us know you'd rather sit and have your plane flown into a building rather than doing something about it, plus you're okay with subjecting law abiding citizens to degrading searches and electronic scans in an effort to find Muslim extremists.
I talked to a lady today who sat next to two Muslim men on a flight back from Hawaii. According to her, while all the other passengers were required to stow their carry-on bags, both of these men were allowed to keep leather satchels in their laps the entire flight.
Yeah, profiling is a first step.
[I'm not even going to go to the profiling is racist area. How about, when you profile, you let your enemy know that you have compromised your defenses in some areas, while increasing them in others. Is it completely impossible for AQ to recruit anyone that can get around profiling? Is that an assumption we would like to make?]
Me:
1, 2, 3....classy..
[Sorry, classics are classics]
Guy Dude:
you, your juvenile condescension, though expected, reveals only your typically liberal mentality. You can't imagine defending yourself because you expect others to do that job for you.
The (actually one of) the differences in you and me is that I don't expect anyone to protect me or my family except me. I'm certainly no hero, and I'm no redneck with a rebel flag on my pick-up. I'm just a guy who understands if I am going to survive in this world, I'm going to have look out for myself and my family, and not expect someone to do it for me. Knowing that, and knowing there are people in this world who would seek to do me harm, I have taken steps to better prepare myself to offer myself, and my family some level of protection other weak-kneed, weak-willed, easy targets, such as yourself, don't have.
So, chide me with your narrow-minded elitist self-righteousness. But the bottom line is, if you and I are in the same room when someone decides to open fire, my chances of surviving are better than yours.
Good luck sister. You're going to need it. Because see, you are already a victim. I'm not.
[Room? I thought we were on a plane? Here's where the rails and the car separate IMHO. I'm not exactly sure where I revealed my "typical liberal mentality" I really thought I was playing much more of a Devil's Advocate wrt/the topic. I guess this "sister" would be ducking behind a chair? Or if said terrorist is not armed with a gun perhaps sitting on his face instead of killing him because we might want to know what his friends are up to?]
Me:
ahhh, there's the stereotyping I was looking for...
Guy Dude:
And there's the victim mentality I knew would come out.
You certainly don't disappoint.
Me:
OH go blow it out your ass gasbag
Guy Dude:
HAHAHAHAHA!
Right on queue.
Go weep softly into your pillow princess.
Me:
ooo look at me I got the last word!!!
[Oh!!! Sick Burn!!!]
Keep in mind that I've never talked to this person before. For all he knows I could have a CCL, but just not think it's a good idea to have them on planes. It seems that the comment about 24/History channel combined with my stance against carrying loaded guns on planes makes me a condescending weeping pillow princess. Well, off to find my pillow...