https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boxcutters-werent-allowed-pre-9-11/
In what country?
I saw that, but what that link says is that the airline didn't allow it according to policy. The US government actually made it ILLEGAL in November of 2002, along with pepper spray
What you seem to constantly fail to grasp in this particular argument is the simple logic that it’s not about someone’s intend to kill, it’s about the efficiency and amount of deaths such person can cause with a highly potent and convenient weapon like a gun. Sure before guns, people fought themselves with sticks, stones or whatever you were thinking, but all of those pale in comparison to guns. Since you conveniently ignored my last question, I’ll ask you again:
I favor as much protection for school as well, as long as it doesn't disrupt the school environment. and you're right that some people will find ways around it, they always do. Possible restrictions for me aren't about making sure no one ever gets non self defense guns, theyre about letting as few people as possible access them.
Slim. Proper defense training would definitely help in either case. However, I still run a risk of injury, or worse. Pick your poison, I guess?
For all purposes it's the same thing. You couldn't take them onboard. Of course they made a law after they smuggled some on. You have to appease the masses (the same that want gun control). But there's a limit to how far the government will go. They'll make themselves look like they are taking action when nothing really changes.
TSA couldn't do anything at wide-spread scale unless the airline asked them to by policy, and even then policy allows things to slip through the cracks without nearly as much consequence as violating a federal offence would
I don't want to get into any weapon arguments here, so this will likely be my only post, but this made me cringe a bit. Say there are no weapons at all, in a given area, that all you can use are knives to fight and protect with. Even then, if you're a weaker or smaller person than the intruder, you're pretty hardcore screwed. IF there was someone illegally entering my property, I'd rather have an effective way to defend myself and take down the attacker, not charge in with a knife, only to get overpowered and stabbed to death. It's going to take multiple stab wounds to bring a person full of adrenaline down, while a bullet will usually incapacitate. And even if gun vs gun still has a chance of the defender being shot, they still have a very higher chance to keep themselves alive, against a stronger opponent. This is why most people will defend guns to the death.
Here’s where I agree. I disagree that it’s as simple as a “people” problem. That is undermining it - instead I believe that it is the laws and regulations around guns that make them dangerous (like you kind of said - just the people problem part I disagree with)
Dude, that is nothing but an excuse to weasel your way out. I hope that you don’t actually believe that someone has a chance against an AK-15 only with defense training..
If we're assuming no weapons on both sides, with a few self-defense classes you could take down an intruder (even if you're weaker) with a swift kick to the shins and/or groin, or an elbow to the clavicle. Firearms are the "easiest" and a relatively "safe" option for self-defense, but there are certainly other options, and to say that firearms have a greater disposition to be abused would be a gross understatement
It wont disrupt the school. Security is there to do their thing. Students should be taught were to go and what to do when such an event happens.
That reminds me of Sean Hannity saying that he could have stopped the Las Vegas shooter if he were there and if he had his handgun and if the shooter was in the crowd and if the shooter was using a handgun instead of a sniper rifle (etc.)
I don't think people that are planning to kill themselves to take out others really care about federal offence, do you? Airport security isn't perfect. People sneak drugs and stuff on planes all the time. My point is, if someone wants to kill people they'll find a way. Laws only work on people that care about them. Gun control isn't the answer. Only law abiding people would surrender them. Then guns are then left to only criminals and the police (who will wait to take down a suspect until the attack is over, once a hostage is killed they can't interfere). I'd rather have a few gun nut 'muricans around that want to play hero.
In video game land and John Wick, sure. In real life guns often aren't the optimal home defense weapon, because you need to know beforehand something is going down, and you need at least 8-10 feet to get a shot off before someone can close the gap. The confined spaces of your typical home make knives, tasers, and pepperspray more effective. These are also weapons small enough to carry at all times.
Crazy people don't follow the law. Especially ones planning a mass shooting. It's not something they just someday decide to do. It's planned. They will find a gun no matter what. If not legally from a store, illegally from somewhere else. Instead of removing guns from everyone thus making it so that the people who do get guns can just mow people down and not worry about it, I believe they should either arm some teachers, or hire more resource officers. Why do you think school shooters go to a school? I mean part of it is usually personal, but no one in a school can fight back. They're all defenseless. That's just wrong to have a bunch of people in one building and not allowing them to protect themselves.
Plus with guns, a responsible gun owner should (maybe even legally mandatory? not for sure) have a gun safe or vault to store firearms in at home. In the case of an intruder, your gun's not going to be on you, and if you don't keep it locked up you run the risk of someone else in your home either using it against you or themselves (suicide)
@
hitorikuroi:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
BakerMan:
@
BakerMan:
