I write this post to you specifically, because you're an individual who's fully capable of rational thought without holding a specific bias. The bias on this subject is legendary and those on the RWNJ portion of the spectrum cannot be swayed from their position where they are legally right to own whatever firearm they wish. Arguing with them is a total and complete waste of time and space as there is no possible intelligence that ever comes from them.

As you are certainly aware, when 19 DB's decided to take the lives of 3000 people on 9/11, they accomplished that task with a set of box cutters. Note that these instruments were not permitted on the aircraft at that time, however the scrutiny of such devices was not the best. The government response was to beef up security at the airport so no box cutters could possibly get by the screening checkpoint. This would be a typical reaction of the government.

The government, it the one tidbit of intelligence that it has, decided to reinforce the cockpit doors, figuring, rightly so, that you cannot hijack an airplane if you can't get into the cockpit.

The DB then decides, since box cutters and guns won't get through the checkpoint, to utilize a bomb in his shoe. This failed due to his stupidity but the government's reactive response is to search the shoes of every single passenger on every aircraft on every single day.

Be assured that the DB will not use a shoe bomb again.

The next thing that the DB will do is to use a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile fired from the ground. This is very easily accomplished and an airliner is a sitting duck for such a weapon. The government's response will probably be to attempt to ban all shoulder fired weapons because they are reactive and they have to do something to placate the population.

It is not difficult to extend this argument to weapons that can be hand carried.

At the present time, in or around NY, it is effectively impossible to own a handgun and carry it outside of your home. This has not made the slightest dent in the gun deaths in NY. Most are caused by illegal handguns.

If I go with your argument to strongly regulate all handguns, the next DB shows up with a rifle (Whoops...........the current DB used a rifle). If you were to attempt to take away all rifles, the next DB shows up with a shotgun. In any case, the unarmed citizens are sitting ducks for a deranged DB who is hell bent on taking the lives of innocent people.

However, if you use the analogy of the airliner:

You cannot take out the aircraft if you cannot get into the cockpit.

I'm not sure what it would take to keep a concerted DB out of a public school. You have seen a perfectly sound system being thwarted by a gun that destroyed the locking capability of the door.

The only solution that I have is a twofold solution that would utilize the locking doors in conjunction with two heavily armed guards that stay in the building at all times.

Note, however, that you have only accomplished the safety of the children while inside the building. They still must arrive and depart from the building, and, as such, are still sitting ducks for a concerted DB with a rifle.

I do realize the emotional response that caused many on here to condemn the specific weapon. However, there is always another weapon that is different from the banned weapon, and/or there is always another method that is different from the current tragedy, and fully preventing another school tragedy inside the classroom will simply result in the DB using an easier target such as a shopping mall or a movie theater.

We have a society that is becoming more violent and random violence has become a fact of life in this country. Banning one or two tools used for that violence won't change that fact.

So instead of even an after the fact reactive attempt to address the problem, we should do nothing of any kind?

As you point out, even a little good came out of the cockpit modifications that made sense.

Id prefer to keep the nations schools from becoming the nations airports if I could, whih unfortunately, is a reactive solution that is the only one that no compromise 2nd amandment folkwill probably agree with.

This country is too saturated wih weapons, as you say even with the complete firearm bans in NYC, there is not much effect due to just how many weapons are kicking around. Is say any legislation concerning firearms would be a 2-4 generations before we saw any difference, but I don't think that mans we should do nothing at all in the meantime.

The reactive reactions to airport incidents at least insure that the same method can't be used again, which is a slight good news to the intense irriation of airline travel. However, these firearm mass murders keep happening with the same dismal chain of facts.

Unhinged guy gains access to parents/friends/stolen weapons and ammunition.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Security establishment in north american society is increasing anyways. I always will remember a policy of being more open by a government department heard at a meeting I attended one day.

Shortly after the glass barriers went up between the public and employees of that dept that interacted with them. This then seemed to spread like wildfire became obvious.I actually used a little humour about it later at a later meeting.

I am not even sure if there was true justification or not. Perhaps the more rational component of society is less than it was or people are more extreme on average when upset. Hard to say. Are thinks really gettting that much worse out there? Or are a few random events just driving things?

I seriously try to not let my age color too many opinions. Yet if nothing else overall it is not a gentler population in my opinion than it was and may be worse moving forward. I think some of those glass barriers where more proactive perhaps than anything. That they have been required for some time now is fairly certain.

I used to think differently, but I do think now that glorification of violence in entertainment has plenty to do with it. Just imagine how many kids have grown up addicted to first person shooter games ad the like, and exclaimed with joy as their character shot someone on their knees.

To the right unhinged individual, coulddefinitely serve as that little voice and plenty of practice seeing other people as things in the way instead of living beings

Question is how do you alter it? I can't see a way other than keeping that stuff out of the hands of your kids till plenty old. For most of us, unlikey it would be anything other than entertainment, but there are plenty of nuts in 300 million people

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Is the answer simply training certain volunteering teachers a brand of combat ,perhaps the access to an Emergency gun case located in several hallways to quickly take care of an intruder .A fire extinguisher is ready for battleing a fire ,this would be a another kind of battle for lives but at least their is an answer to gun fire against the innocent. The security case for the weapon or weapons could be easily concealed and its location known be just the few active members when action is needed.The bullits and clips would be on the active member at all times ,the guns would be just a tool waiting in a case waiting for said clips .

You and your kind are the exact cause of the over-reaction that the government has toward any specific violent incident. Apparently, ensuring that the specific violent incident cannot happen again is satisfactory for you.

This is despite the fact that there are hundreds of possible violent incidents that can occur, and for which the government has failed to address, because they have not happened yet.

"Me and my kind" lol.

I agree with you, but I also am willing to bet that you would be the first one screaming his head off if the same tactic of attack could be used 3 times in a row on an airline. Its easy enough to yell that nohing can be done when you don't have to be the one responsible for dealing with the results of any of this violence.

Anything the government does after the fact is reactive, and they have a fine line to walk between making air travel safe and limiting its utility.

For the record, I'm for modification and tighter national control on gun ownership, specifially tracking owneship, and id love inability to purchase ammuntion without present documentation that its for your gun you actually own.
I'm for no one owning ay dam handguns of any kind. The difference between me and 2nd amendment folk is I still see the value of compromise, and compromised modification of the second amendment is definitely in order.

What I'm not for, Is turning the nations schools into fortresses because we are too cowardly to face the real battle that needs to be fought. When the second amendment was writting, the united states was a fragile weak edifice at the mercy of the world wth less people than in the NY metropolitan area alone these days. Times have changed, there's no frontier, and we aren't all trappers and small holding farmers anymore

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Yes, you and your kind. The kind that demands reactionary response by the government for every single event, after the fact. You never have a plan or make a demand before the event, because you don't have sufficient vision to determine the possible events before they occur.

I already gave you one event that will occur. A shoulder fired missile will be used to take out an airliner. But, you and your kind cannot fathom such a possibility and you make no request of the government to take away such a possibility. You simply react to events in your life.............never be proactive.

You would have bet wrong. The government's effort to restrict weapons on aircraft is relatively good...........but, a bit over the top at the present time. They take way too much effort on people who are clearly not a threat. It's rather humorous to see them vilified in the press for such behavior. Sometimes it has an effect...........most times not.

Note, however, that the screening for weapons was fully in place before 9/11. The people responsible for the task simply didn't do their jobs.



Apparently, you've been clearly unable or unwilling to grasp two important points in the discussion:

1) Banning handguns doesn't reduce violence for a determined individual who wants to kill people. It does have some benefit to the random injuries and deaths that occur because the handgun gets into the hands of a DB or a child. The current incident is unrelated to the latter point.

2) The individual responsible for the current tragedy used a rifle. Are you now in favor of banning all rifles? If not, why not? Your reactive behavior should absolutely put you right out in front with the banner to ban all rifles. Do it........you know you must!!



What battle wold that be? You wish to have a battle to ban all handguns and all rifles and all shotguns? Is that your battle? If so, I wish you good luck with that. If not, you're a GD hypocrite.

It was an ASSAULT semi-automatic riffle which the govertment ban had expired over 10 years ago, not a single shot riffle.

What criteria do you use to classify a weapon as an ASSAULT WEAPON?? Black and scary? Looks like it could be used by the military?? Perhaps a weapon was purchased for use as a DEFENSE WEAPON, or as a SPORTING WEAPON.

The local gun club that I am a member of has teams of members that compete with weapons you would classify as an ASSAULT WEAPON. The truth of the matter is that it's never been used in an assaulting manner, only as a competition firearm.

__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles

Is there a principle hiding behind this point?

needlessly obnoxious, but I guess thats all you can be.

Me and my kind has been pushing for some modification of gun law since things like columbine. At the time, me and my kind said more school shootings would take place, lets do something about the gun laws in place.
Just in case you are unfamiliar with the concept of time, that was before the latest dozen tragedies, including this one.
I think a couple thousand reasonable plans have been proposed well before now, but every single one is apparently too much for those deeply wedded to their perceived 2nd amendment rights.

I think a lack of sufficient vision is demonstrated by someone who stands back and scoffs at any plan of any kind, and does nothing. Im not sure when proactive became the same as do nothing, but apparently for you, its a method that holds merit.

Shoulder fired missles? sure, thats a definite possibility, but as you state, its pretty hard to protect against that, so with your logic, because all methods of attack cannot be protected against, NO methods of attack should be protected against. Well, in the real world, that doesn't work.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Since you selectively quoted a fraction of my previous response to try to support your lame position, you'll get no further argument from me.

Your plan to restrict gun ownership will get minimal traction, if any, and no reduction in random violence committed against unarmed assembled groups will ever occur.

CT already has one of the strictest gun laws in the country, a fact for which you ignore conveniently. It had no effect whatsoever.

There were some excellent ideas presented on this thread by Peter and Dubya...........too bad you didn't read them.

I think you are contradicting your self. You said the cockpit reinforcement was a good idea but your entire posts is about escalation. I have a knife you have a gun, I get a shot gun, you get a rifle, you get a RPG, I get a bomb, you get a nuke .... So in reality the cock pit door was only one more step in an escalation that if I read your post correctly will do no good so why reinforce the door?

I guess I am confused. Do we give up or is there an idea some where here that I missed?

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I have wondered if airport security was designed to just stop stupid simular repeat approaches to the percieved problem. By undetected unstable individuals or groups.

I am not smart and have no wish to do anything of this nature. Generally though if it were my wish to do this type of thing .I do not think it would be hard to accomplish.

Where there is a serious will usually a way can be found in almost anything. The thing I really found disturbing in the 911 incident for my comfort zone was it had too many engineers involved. You would have to be pretty well out to lunch to consider being involved in something like that from a rational perspective.

Airplane security is now basically an intelligence issue. I have no ideal of the cost of doing that to keep commercial planes viable. It is far from nickles and dimes though.