Associated Press: Multiple People Shot Outside Empire State Building

[Vosem]

What if someone in the crowd had a gun? Obviously it's pointless with you guys, I just want to make a note.

[Vosem]

These topics always feature a lot of complaining from both sides about how the other side won't discuss the topic

Ultimately this sort of cultural topic is very difficult to debate, because everybody has very ingrained opinions and also the facts are simple and undisputed.

[Vosem]

What if someone in the crowd had a gun?

Yes the correct response to 911 should have been to let everyone take a machete into a plane.

The correct response to 9/11 was to arm airplane staff; pilots and co-pilots and stewardesses. With guns, not machetes. And teach them to use them.

[Vosem]

What if someone in the crowd had a gun? Obviously it's pointless with you guys, I just want to make a note.

Then the dice are rolled twice, instead of just once.

But...but if someone in the crowd had had a gun, that would have been the Good Guy, wearing the white hat!

I don't understand the reference. But, yes, if someone in the crowd had a gun, they could've defended themselves. From what I read (maybe I misinterpreted this), the shooter was just standing there and firing at people around him. A reasonably good shot (that is, not me) standing reasonably close shouldn't've had a problem.

What if someone in the crowd had a gun?

Yes the correct response to 911 should have been to let everyone take a machete into a plane.

The correct response to 9/11 was to arm airplane staff; pilots and co-pilots and stewardesses. With guns, not machetes. And teach them to use them.

You obviously haven't seen the abysmal hiring standards for pilots and co-pilots particularly on the regional airlines. Those guys and gals are sleep deprived and living on food stamps.  Sure I guess all that cocktail needs is firearms.  And flight attendants?!



Do we give them the gun before or after the beers?

You could make the same argument about police, but we give them guns. Slater was an isolated case, and keep in mind I'm also proposing the companies train their employees on how and in what circumstances to use them. And if we give pilots guns we can stop treating frequent flyers like criminals.

What if someone in the crowd had a gun? Obviously it's pointless with you guys, I just want to make a note.

They probably would have gotten themselves and others killed.... It is not some dopey tourists' job to police the streets.

It is a dopey tourist's job to protect themselves. Police exist but they are not omnipresent and they can't be omnipresent. Grumpy Gramps' signature is also a good example; guns are (obviously) more useful in a one-on-one attempted rape or mugging or animal attack than something like this, but, yes, a competent gun owner in the crowd could've saved lives, and it's delusional not to admit that.

[Vosem]

What if someone in the crowd had a gun?

Yes the correct response to 911 should have been to let everyone take a machete into a plane.

The correct response to 9/11 was to arm airplane staff; pilots and co-pilots and stewardesses. With guns, not machetes. And teach them to use them.

You obviously haven't seen the abysmal hiring standards for pilots and co-pilots particularly on the regional airlines. Those guys and gals are sleep deprived and living on food stamps.  Sure I guess all that cocktail needs is firearms.  And flight attendants?!



Do we give them the gun before or after the beers?

You could make the same argument about police, but we give them guns.

The hiring, internal regulating, promotion, and accountability standards of the NYPD are not the same as those at Continental Express.  Are you kidding?  You can make Captain at Continental Express within MONTHS.  Who comes out of the police academy in New York and makes Captain in months?  So you think US Airways Express has an internal affairs department?

You're literally putting your life in the captain's hands and you don't trust him to have a gun? Also, notice that I'm also proposing pilots are trained to use guns. It's the logical solution, and not letting pilots (who, again, literally have your life in their hands) have guns is an irrational hoplophobia.

Slater was an isolated case, and keep in mind I'm also proposing the companies train their employees on how and in what circumstances to use them.

So if you aren't sliding down the escape slide with two beers in hand you are fine to handle a gun at 30,000 feet?  I dated a flight attendant and I wouldn't want her to have a gun on the ground let alone at 30,000 feet in a pressurized tin can full of people.  That's insane.

No, it's not. Why is it insane? Are pilots and flight attendants somehow specially poor candidates to handle guns?

And if we give pilots guns we can stop treating frequent flyers like criminals.

As mentioned before the training standards at some of the regional airlines have been abysmal.  Let's concentrate on training these people to be pilots and leave the gun slinging to the pros.

The point is to make pilots pros. Do you think people (or police officers, or soldiers, or anybody who can competently use a gun) were born 'pros'? They were trained.

  Besides there are simpler safer solutions.  Bullet proofing and reinforcing the cockpit door makes the chances of another 911 drop to zero.

You could still have somebody confront the passengers with a gun.

  Another solution is bringing our troops home and leaving other countries alone.  Those are too easy solutions that don't involve giving a flight attendant a gun.

And just leave dictators in charge of our energy sources. Gotcha. Giving flight attendants guns is the easy solution, and how you don't realize that is truly bizarre. How are they more or less volatile than police officers on a night shift? Or any US citizen who has a gun and happens to be frustrated?

My personal advice to you would be to buy a gun and get lessons from somewhere. This particular belief would dissipate quickly.

[Vosem]

You're literally putting your life in the captain's hands and you don't trust him to have a gun?

I don't trust them to do surgery on me either.

Accurately firing a gun requires rather less training than surgery. A fair point, though, for once.

Also, notice that I'm also proposing pilots are trained to use guns.

Why don't we concentrate on training them to FLY PLANES first and leave the gun stuff to the experts okay?  We are talking about regional airlines where they are promoting people to CAPTAIN within MONTHS.  That's inadequate training to fly a plane... let alone fly a plane and sling bullets at the same time.

Being able to keep the passengers safe is an integral part of flying the plane, no?

So if you aren't sliding down the escape slide with two beers in hand you are fine to handle a gun at 30,000 feet?  I dated a flight attendant and I wouldn't want her to have a gun on the ground let alone at 30,000 feet in a pressurized tin can full of people.  That's insane.

No, it's not. Why is it insane? Are pilots and flight attendants somehow specially poor candidates to handle guns?

They are as poor as any other person chosen at random to handle a gun at 30,000 feet in a pressurized tin can full of people.

If there is an attempted hijacking, somebody's got to do it. Even when given a gun, pretty much everybody won't go on a murderous rampage. Neither will pilots.

As mentioned before the training standards at some of the regional airlines have been abysmal.  Let's concentrate on training these people to be pilots and leave the gun slinging to the pros.

The point is to make pilots pros. Do you think people (or police officers, or soldiers, or anybody who can competently use a gun) were born 'pros'? They were trained.

99.9% of cops don't' have to fly planes or train to shoot guns in pressurized tin cans at 30,000 feet full of people.  We have failed to train pilots to do their primary job and your suggestion is to train them to do policing even the average policeman doesn't do?!

Somebody's got to do it. That we have failed to adequately train pilots has nothing to do with it -- train them to fly planes and also train them to use a gun. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Reinforce cabin doors, hire air marshals, and train the pilots to fly.  That is a lot safer and will save a lot more lives than giving some dizzy flight attendant a gun.

Having an actual gun on board is the most sure way to prevent hijackings or crimes onboard. Somebody has to have one, and you can't background check every passenger successfully. Again, your belief that no flight attendant could use a gun is hopelessly hoplophobic.

This was from two years ago, almost a DECADE after 911...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

I agree with you that pilots need better and more training to fly planes. Learning to use a gun should be part of that.

Clearly the correct response to events like these is to give everybody assault rifles.

No, but people not knowing how to use guns and not knowing what they can do only makes people less safe, not more.

[Vosem]

Having an actual gun on board is the most sure way to prevent hijackings...

No lock and secure the cockpit door.  Easy.

If the plane is in the air and the hijackers have successfully smuggled weapons onto the aircraft (which, let's face it, is very possible because airport security is s**t)? It's not easy and it requires airplane staff to be able to respond with deadly force.

As mentioned before the training standards at some of the regional airlines have been abysmal.  Let's concentrate on training these people to be pilots and leave the gun slinging to the pros.

The point is to make pilots pros. Do you think people (or police officers, or soldiers, or anybody who can competently use a gun) were born 'pros'? They were trained.

99.9% of cops don't' have to fly planes or train to shoot guns in pressurized tin cans at 30,000 feet full of people.  We have failed to train pilots to do their primary job and your suggestion is to train them to do policing even the average policeman doesn't do?!

Somebody's got to do it.

No.  Lock and secure cockpit doors and have air marshals.  Leave the gun slinging to the pros.

The pilots should be pros. That way everyone (including you, whose boss wants you in Miami) is safer.

This was from two years ago, almost a DECADE after 911...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

I agree with you that pilots need better and more training to fly planes. Learning to use a gun should be part of that.

Mmm... if someone isn't doing their job well the solution is not to give them a gun.  If you reread the articles that have been linked to that is precisely what caused this unfortunate situation.  Poor job performance and guns are a deadly cocktail.  What happened in Colorado?

So obviously we shouldn't let people have guns. In Colorado a crazy person went on a massacre, which wasn't, as I understand, linked to job performance.

Anyways, it doesn't increase our death rate to something significantly above other nations. In fact, the impact is infinitesimal. Whatever it "tells me", I couldn't give a damn.

You should make that a bumper sticker and run for office.

How many 911 have happened in the history of America?  So I guess you think spending hundreds of billions of dollars to go after Bin Laden was a total waste since the chances of any of us being a direct victim of a 911 attack is "infinitesimal?"  Is that what you are saying?

It is infinitesimal, but we should guard against it anyway.

[Vosem]

This is the actual story:

Disgruntled man shoots ex-coworker; police shoot him, and nine bystanders.

Looks like an excellent argument against people going all vigilante justice on shooters. If a cop can't take him down without injuring others, what chance does some amateur have?

If an experienced shooter with a gun were in the crowd...

Obviously amateurs shouldn't just start shooting willy-nilly.

[Vosem]

It seems a certain fifteen year old has been watching Air Force One a little too much.

I'd honestly never even heard of that movie until you mentioned it and looked it up on Wikipedia. My parents are immigrants, and sometimes it shows. Sounds like a good movie.

That said, it's rather common sense that if you are actually being threatened on a plane by someone with a gun, you'd probably prefer that the flight attendant or the pilot can do something about it rather than being helpless.

So obviously we shouldn't let people have guns. In Colorado a crazy person went on a massacre, which wasn't, as I understand, linked to job performance.

The guy was a PhD candidate and as with all PhD candidates he was paid a stipend for his work.  He got poor performance reviews and failed an oral exam.  He was dismissed just prior to going on his rampage.

If someone is performing poorly at their job giving them a gun is not a good idea.

Obviously if anyone performing poorly at their job is given a gun they will go on a murderous rampage. Clearly an indisputable fact.

[Vosem]

This is the actual story:

Disgruntled man shoots ex-coworker; police shoot him, and nine bystanders.

Looks like an excellent argument against people going all vigilante justice on shooters. If a cop can't take him down without injuring others, what chance does some amateur have?

Plenty. This hero put a bullet in the shooter from 150+ yards.

http://www.brownwoodtx.com/news/local/article_851fd04a-db90-11e1-8237-0019bb2963f4.html

Great so this one guy is a good shooter. So?

So, it's quite silly to think that these cops are experts while the people are not.

Lol.  Are you kidding?  Two entirely different situations.  A sparsely populated trailer park vs a crowded New York street?  Police distracting the shooter so the guy can line up a shot?  You did read the part where he initially missed and hit a tree?  That would be a wounded person in NYC.

We've already mentioned that, while, yes an experienced shooter in the crowd could have helped, an experienced shooter would also know when he would most likely not be able to hit the target. This scenario is particularly badly suited to the 'man with a gun' -- though even in NYC, if you are confronted at night, a gun could prove very useful.

Shooters firing at crowds are not particularly common, and armed men in the crowd may not make a difference (or they may, depending on circumstances) -- but certainly a gun would help in a more common event, like an attempted mugging or rape or animal attack. (These are the big three a gun would help you with, and they're all far more common than mass shootings, btw.)

I'm not going back on my previous position, just elaborating on a point I think you missed.