Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:50:00 -
[1]
Just when you thought the dangerous and unhealthy obsession with guns in the US couldn't get any worse this happens. A US airways pilot allowed his weapon to be negligently discharged during a flight, fortunately for the crew and passengers the safety of the flight was not compromised and no injuries where inflicted by the stray bullet.
So an apparently "certified" pilot was careless enough to allow the weapon to be discharged and it brings in to question the whole stupid idea of allowing civilian airline pilots to carry weapons, this incident could have very easily resulted in a massive tragedy and it seems pure chance that it didn't. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:50:00 -
[2]
Just when you thought the dangerous and unhealthy obsession with guns in the US couldn't get any worse this happens. A US airways pilot allowed his weapon to be negligently discharged during a flight, fortunately for the crew and passengers the safety of the flight was not compromised and no injuries where inflicted by the stray bullet.
So an apparently "certified" pilot was careless enough to allow the weapon to be discharged and it brings in to question the whole stupid idea of allowing civilian airline pilots to carry weapons, this incident could have very easily resulted in a massive tragedy and it seems pure chance that it didn't. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
pwnedgato
The Black Dawn Gang Mashen T'plak
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:56:00 -
[3]
The alts with politcal agendas seem to be growing more numerous by the day. I wonder is it one troll farming many lulz?
Originally by: Crumplecorn These is a forum for this.
|
pwnedgato
The Black Dawn Gang Mashen T'plak
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:56:00 -
[4]
The alts with politcal agendas seem to be growing more numerous by the day. I wonder is it one troll farming many lulz?
Originally by: Crumplecorn These is a forum for this.
|
Shalia Ripper
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:00:00 -
[5]
If you carry a gun, it has the possibility of happening. Cops have lots of them.
Yawn.
|
Shalia Ripper
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:00:00 -
[6]
If you carry a gun, it has the possibility of happening. Cops have lots of them.
Yawn.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:02:00 -
[7]
Can you say "reaction out of proportion" ? He was an idiot or it was an accident. "Certified pilot" doesn't mean he knows anything else too well... just means he is able to fly the damned plane. Either way, what's the big deal ?
1|2|3|4|5. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:02:00 -
[8]
Can you say "reaction out of proportion" ? He was an idiot or it was an accident. "Certified pilot" doesn't mean he knows anything else too well... just means he is able to fly the damned plane. Either way, what's the big deal ?
1|2|3|4|5. |
Ryan Scouse'UK
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:05:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Ryan Scouse''UK on 26/03/2008 01:05:15 such a bad troll the title makes it sound so much worse then it is -
wow so his gun went off - didnt harm the plane or anyone.. yawn who cares?
I nearly slipped in the rain today - almost.. but I was ok - next.
|
Ryan Scouse'UK
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:05:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ryan Scouse''UK on 26/03/2008 01:05:15 such a bad troll the title makes it sound so much worse then it is -
wow so his gun went off - didnt harm the plane or anyone.. yawn who cares?
I nearly slipped in the rain today - almost.. but I was ok - next.
|
|
Benco97
Exchangable Properties
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:09:00 -
[11]
While I didn't really consider this to be a big thing I think the OP is just trying to say that it couldn't have happened had he not had a gun. Who knows, things happen sometimes, things don't happen sometimes. Good things bad things, who's in control of what? nobody knows.
Originally by: Kirjava This man speaks the truth, when he farts we count the length in seconds and make squillions buying winning lottery tickets.
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:13:00 -
[12]
Edited by: AndrewRyan on 26/03/2008 01:15:54
Originally by: Akita T Can you say "reaction out of proportion" ? He was an idiot or it was an accident. "Certified pilot" doesn't mean he knows anything else too well... just means he is able to fly the damned plane. Either way, what's the big deal ?
He was "certified" to carry the weapon, and its a big deal exactly because he was either a idiot in charge of a huge mass of fast moving metal at 30,000 feet that allowed a gun to fire in the *****pit or he was negligent enough to allow the accident to happen placing lives at risk.
124 passengers and possibly a large number of people on the ground where placed at risk because of the policy of allowing airline pilots to carry weapons, the stray bullet could also of hit and killed or injured a crew member.
Originally by: Ryan Scouse'UK Edited by: Ryan Scouse''UK on 26/03/2008 01:05:15 such a bad troll the title makes it sound so much worse then it is -
wow so his gun went off - didnt harm the plane or anyone.. yawn who cares?
I nearly slipped in the rain today - almost.. but I was ok - next.
It was more luck than skill or judgment that nothing happened this time.
========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:26:00 -
[13]
I presume they're not going to be carrying anything that will hole the fuselage EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Derfel Cadaern
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:38:00 -
[14]
I don't think the OP has ever been to the US. Most Americans neither own nor like guns. Most have never even held one.
------ Tarquin Tarquinius' alt
No evil, no matter how strong, can resist the cuteness of kittens. |
Gneeznow
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:39:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Gneeznow on 26/03/2008 01:38:53
Originally by: SoftRevolution I presume they're not going to be carrying anything that will hole the fuselage
I presume a standard 9mm pistol would probably put a hole in the fuselage unless its a short barrel pistol like a makharov, you can shoot at a cars tyres with a makharov and the bullets richochet all over the place, fun for all the family in the emergency room !
also good sig
|
Fyrewyre
Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SoftRevolution I presume they're not going to be carrying anything that will hole the fuselage
I saw the guys on mythbusters try that with a presurised plane and a gun.
Guess what.
Nothing happened
No explosive decompresion, no one got sucked thrugh the bullet hole. Nothing happened.
I think it should be standard issue for pilots to have sidearms on planes, if it all goes **** up at least you got some backup. -------------------------------------------
"Never let anyone stop you having fun"
Mad Snoz, leeds |
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gneeznow Edited by: Gneeznow on 26/03/2008 01:38:53
Originally by: SoftRevolution I presume they're not going to be carrying anything that will hole the fuselage
I presume a standard 9mm pistol would probably put a hole in the fuselage unless its a short barrel pistol like a makharov, you can shoot at a cars tyres with a makharov and the bullets richochet all over the place, fun for all the family in the emergency room !
also good sig
They may be required to use frangible bullets which disintegrate when they impact a hard surface. Whether it could punch through the airplane skin or break a window I do not know (betting it would shatter a window).
The concept of pilots with guns was a stupid kneejerk reaction post 9/11. There are Air Marshals supposedly on many flights...leave it to them.
It is hard to think of an instance where a pilot having a gun would change things in a hijack situation. Just make it so the doors cannot be kicked in and all is well. Or would people rather the pilot comes storming out of the*****pit guns blazing?
Accidents happen but the pilots are responsible for hundreds of passengers lives. Had that bullet shatter the*****pit window I am willing to bet that would have killed the flight crew outright (at least I cannot imagine surviving a swirling mass of glass laden air moving at 550+ mph). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 01:52:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
They may be required to use frangible bullets which disintegrate when they impact a hard surface. Whether it could punch through the airplane skin or break a window I do not know (betting it would shatter a window).
The concept of pilots with guns was a stupid kneejerk reaction post 9/11. There are Air Marshals supposedly on many flights...leave it to them.
It is hard to think of an instance where a pilot having a gun would change things in a hijack situation. Just make it so the doors cannot be kicked in and all is well. Or would people rather the pilot comes storming out of the*****pit guns blazing?
Accidents happen but the pilots are responsible for hundreds of passengers lives. Had that bullet shatter the*****pit window I am willing to bet that would have killed the flight crew outright (at least I cannot imagine surviving a swirling mass of glass laden air moving at 550+ mph).
Such a bullet could easily damage hydraulics, electrical systems and avionics even if its chances of penetrating a fuselage is reduced and any of those systems being damaged like that could result in a fire or loss of critical systems. The*****pit glass is the main danger as its under a huge amount of force and as you say the shattered glass could have killed the crew or even injured them to the point of being unable to control the aircraft.
About the doors isn't it mandatory that airliner have armoured doors designed to resist forced entry anyway? ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 02:05:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Fyrewyre
Originally by: SoftRevolution I presume they're not going to be carrying anything that will hole the fuselage
I saw the guys on mythbusters try that with a presurised plane and a gun.
Guess what.
Nothing happened
No explosive decompresion, no one got sucked thrugh the bullet hole. Nothing happened.
I think it should be standard issue for pilots to have sidearms on planes, if it all goes **** up at least you got some backup.
I should start watching that. EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Veng3ance
Multiversal Enterprise Inc. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 02:17:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Veng3ance on 26/03/2008 02:17:18 OMG really! We should take all guns owned by pilots away and sell them to 3rd world countries in the middle east! That will solve THAT!
|
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 03:54:00 -
[21]
The worst possible outcome is that someone COULD'VE died... every system on board has a backup or 2, there is a fire control, the ****pit windshield will stop a round from a lower powered handgun, it's designed to stop just about anything. I doubt it was a .45 or a .357 magnum.
My synopsis, OP is a hippie troll that wants some attention. ------------------Sig-------------------------- J. Kerouac said it best in The Vanity of Duluoz:
"Go droppeth a turd."
|
Pooned alot
Cold Steel Inc. Safe And Fun Environment
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 04:23:00 -
[22]
They should just issue everyone a gun at around age 12 or so like they did in the wild west days:
-arguments are brief and only happen once
-people who drive too slow now have repercussions
-"stupid" people will quickly cull themselves out of the gene pool
-everyone suddenly nice to each other
-Divorse rates? Pfft never get that far now
-Juvenile deliquency? <clickclick> "yes sir, im right on that lawn mowing thing dad... sir...thanx"
-Crime? hard to steal a TV with a pistol slug in your arse
-Teen pregnancy? Only if her daddy is legally blind
-Religeon... Guess we'll finally see who's God bestows the most favors
-War? nope wont need it
-Illiteracy? You had better be able to read the operation instructions (or be filed under "stupid" people)
I could go on...and may yet later. But guns theoretically will fix everything
|
Helen Hunts
Red Dragon Mining inc Red Dragon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 04:26:00 -
[23]
Some of the fun bits about those commercial planes...
The *ahem* pilot's cabin (blasted profanity filters) is designed to sustain strikes from rather hefty birds at high speed. (As in full-on strikes from geese while cruising at speed) The 'glass' must not only stay in place, but must be able to see through. There are a few handguns out there that will exceed this force, but not many of the more popular models will quite manage it. Certain ammo types may be better at punching a hole through the glass, but the glass is designed to withstand tremendous impact/damage and not fall apart.
The flight controls of these jets aren't exactly made out of spun-sugar either. Granted that there are a few key points where severe damage could disable a plane, but it would take much more than most handguns could provide in a single shot. (and even then, you'd have to score a direct hit, juuust right)
Frangible rounds: A lovely family of ammo-types that shatter and scatter upon impact with just about anything. Upon breaking up, the round quickly spreads out, losing effectiveness as a deadly force. These frangible rounds are also one of the nastiest things to get shot with, as they do scatter little pieces all through the body, making a fun mess for the medical folks to try to figure out. (Usually in an autopsy)
Quite simply, that little gun ain't gonna kill that plane. It'll do nasty things to a human, but it'll only make extra work for the ground crews who will have to go through and check everything to re-certify the plane. The pilot... well, his primary training is in flying a large multi-ton plane safely. Sadly, the simple weapons safety courses available today don't really qualify one as proficient with firearms.
Still, I'd much rather have people dedicated to keeping the plane and human cargo intact being better armed than those who would rather take the plane down. _______________________________
Mine da rocks, make more ships. Pop da rats, make more rigs. Sell da gear, make more money.
Any Questions? |
Toasted Trucker
Toasted Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 04:38:00 -
[24]
quick folks grab your torches and pitch forks while he is weak! chase it back to its dark cave from which it came!
|
Sephra Star
The Galactic Collective
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 04:39:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Toasted Trucker quick folks grab your torches and pitch forks while he is weak! chase it back to its dark cave from which it came!
Geez; when I read that I thought you were talking about me.
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 05:01:00 -
[26]
Edited by: AndrewRyan on 26/03/2008 05:16:33
Originally by: Helen Hunts
The pilot... well, his primary training is in flying a large multi-ton plane safely. Sadly, the simple weapons safety courses available today don't really qualify one as proficient with firearms.
A civilian should never be allowed to carry a weapon under these circumstances without intensive training both in the handling of the weapon and the usage of the weapon, would any of you like to be on a flight with an armed man who does not have sufficient training in charge of your safety? the minimum training he should have should be of the equivelant level to law enforcement hostage rescue because he is more of a danger to the passengers and the crew than to any terrorist because if he cannot even handle the weapon without accidentally firing out how can he be expected to fight off terrorists without killing or wounding the passengers?
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny The worst possible outcome is that someone COULD'VE died....
Oh well that's ok the only consequence was somebody might have died? are you for real? so its ok to put weapons in the hands of people who obviously should not have them as the only risk is innocent people loosing their life.
My synopsis, more proof of American insanity regarding lethal weapons. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 05:23:00 -
[27]
There is a well trained armed person on every aircraft... he's called an Air Marshall. The gun in the*****pit is in case a hijacker is going to get into the*****pit. the*****pit is armored, the round from a small handgun is not going into the passanger compartment from the*****pit.
Thousands of people die every day, if one person is killed by an accident I can hardly consider that a crisis... maybe 6 years in the infantry has made me an indifferent ass .
And in a twist of your sig.... An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.
------------------Sig-------------------------- J. Kerouac said it best in The Vanity of Duluoz:
"Go droppeth a turd."
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 05:32:00 -
[28]
Edited by: AndrewRyan on 26/03/2008 05:33:37
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny There is a well trained armed person on every aircraft... he's called an Air Marshall. The gun in the*****pit is in case a hijacker is going to get into the*****pit. the*****pit is armored, the round from a small handgun is not going into the passanger compartment from the*****pit.
Thousands of people die every day, if one person is killed by an accident I can hardly consider that a crisis... maybe 6 years in the infantry has made me an indifferent ass .
And in a twist of your sig.... An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.
The Air Marshall is well trained airline pilots are not, the pilot was a buffoon who should not have been in possession of a firearm and its obvious he was a buffoon for allowing it to be fire, a gun doesn't just go off it needs a particular set of circumstances
-it must be loaded -a round must be chambered -the safety catch needs to be off -the trigger needs a decent amount of pressure
So why was the safety catch off? As for people dieing every day yes it happens that does not mean the public should be placed under unnecessary risk. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
illusha
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 05:49:00 -
[29]
Are you British? Take a look at this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=535071&in_page_id=1770
Your people are just as stupid as ours, now stfu. Accidents happen, lets move on
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 05:55:00 -
[30]
Look...the OP need not be some anti-gun hippie to post this.
Arming pilots post 9/11 was an over reaction.
Disarming pilots because of this is likewise an over reaction (considering the millions of flights since they were armed nothing like this has occurred).
Nevertheless the point more is the pilots should NOT be armed in the first place.
9/11 would not have been averted if the pilots had been armed. The hijackers stormed the place the pilot sits so fast they did not even get a chance to radio there was a hijacking. If the pilots did have guns they would only have succeeded in arming the hijackers with pistols instead of box cutters.
Of course box cutters got the job done in those cases but that was because everyone operated under the assumption that hijackers were yahoos who wanted a free trip to Cuba and some publicity and mostly everyone gets to go home after. Nowadays the assumption is if hijackers take the plane you are in a missile and may as well jump the hijackers. However, jumping box cutter toting hijackers is simpler than jumping now pistol wielding hijackers that they got from the pilots (as would have been the case on 9/11).
Additionally, do ANY of you want the pilot to leave the place they sit and run into the cabin and start a Wild West Shoot Em Up in the cabin?
Basically there is no good use for a gun on a plane unless you are the hijacker and if anything pilots with guns gives the bad guys a potential source for a gun on the plane. Far, far better is just keeping the armored door shut and let the hijackers cool their heels. If they start offing passengers I suspect the passengers will try to mob them (happened shortly after 9/11...crazy due rushed the front of the plane and numerous people just dogpiled on the guy).
Oh yeah...turns out frangibles are not used. They were initially but apparently testing found them more a liability than a "safety" measure so they are back to regular bullets it seems. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 05:59:00 -
[31]
Originally by: AndrewRyan The Air Marshall is well trained airline pilots are not, the pilot was a buffoon who should not have been in possession of a firearm and its obvious he was a buffoon for allowing it to be fire, a gun doesn't just go off it needs a particular set of circumstances
Ignoring many idiot journalists (who prefer snappy, attention grabbing prose) the consensus from anyone who knows even a little about guns is the pilot was a major **** up and did it himself cuz he is an idiot. It is practically unheard of for guns to discharge "accidentally". You can drop a properly safed gun on the ground and it won't go off almost ever.
In short, totally the pilot's fault and not an accident. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Daelorn
Dark Cartel Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 06:38:00 -
[32]
What about this....?
|
Wrayeth
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:12:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 26/03/2008 09:12:38
Originally by: AndrewRyan He was "certified" to carry the weapon,
And governments also "certify" people to drive (AKA driver's licenses), yet accidents still happen involving licensed drivers. People also still drive without licenses, some poorly and others quite well.
So what's your point? -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
LUH 3471
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 09:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Daelorn What about this....?
very nice demonstration cant get much better then this
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 10:00:00 -
[35]
i shot a bunch of people once. it was a laugh.
|
Lithalnas
Headcrabs
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:36:00 -
[36]
I have been shooting since i was 9 years old, have yet to have an accidental discharge that wasn't a mechanical failure. (a winchester '97 slamfired on me with a stuck firing pin) I have also yet to shoot anyone else.
And certification only means a couple hours of a training course and 9 rounds on target. I have had hunter safty classes longer than that.
And to those who say that guns are only destructive, i say to you that most gun and hunting equipment companies give large grants to conservation efforts, not to mention the farmers who convert their farms to hunting lodges and turn their fields into private wildlife sanctuaries. -------------
fixed for greater eve content |
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 16:42:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Lithalnas i say to you that most gun and hunting equipment companies give large grants to conservation efforts, not to mention the farmers who convert their farms to hunting lodges and turn their fields into private wildlife sanctuaries.
"Hunting Lodge" balanced with "conservation" and especially "sanctuary" seems an oxymoron to me.
Sure they want to conserve wildlife...so they can shoot them in the head.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 18:49:00 -
[38]
Apparently a pistol bullet can penetrate the skin of an airplane (link is picture of the plane mentioned in the OP with the bullet hole shown).
Apparently the plane was at 8,000 feet coming in for a landing. At that altitude there is no decompression issues (heck, there are towns in the US higher than that). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:02:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Apparently a pistol bullet can penetrate the skin of an airplane (link is picture of the plane mentioned in the OP with the bullet hole shown).
Apparently the plane was at 8,000 feet coming in for a landing. At that altitude there is no decompression issues (heck, there are towns in the US higher than that).
What kind of pistol was it?
Remember, explosive decompression is a myth... in order to get it, mythbusters had to put a shape charge on the side of the plane ------------------Sig-------------------------- J. Kerouac said it best in The Vanity of Duluoz:
"Go droppeth a turd."
|
Crimsonjade
Comanche Nation
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:35:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Lithalnas i say to you that most gun and hunting equipment companies give large grants to conservation efforts, not to mention the farmers who convert their farms to hunting lodges and turn their fields into private wildlife sanctuaries.
"Hunting Lodge" balanced with "conservation" and especially "sanctuary" seems an oxymoron to me.
Sure they want to conserve wildlife...so they can shoot them in the head.
actually hunters pay for 85% of all wildlife preserves in the US. if it wasnt for Hunters several species would have been killed off by people >>>>>100+<<<<<<< years ago.
and hunters dont always use guns anyways. so dont bring hunters into this argument as they have done more good for wildlife in the US then every tree hugging worm in the world.
|
|
Daelorn
Dark Cartel Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:39:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Lithalnas ...I have also yet to shoot anyone else...
You should try it sometime!
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:43:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Apparently a pistol bullet can penetrate the skin of an airplane (link is picture of the plane mentioned in the OP with the bullet hole shown).
Apparently the plane was at 8,000 feet coming in for a landing. At that altitude there is no decompression issues (heck, there are towns in the US higher than that).
What kind of pistol was it?
Remember, explosive decompression is a myth... in order to get it, mythbusters had to put a shape charge on the side of the plane
From the BBC:
Quote: All pilots who qualify from the programme are said to carry the same weapon - a .40-calibre semiautomatic H&K USP - which experts say is extremely unlikely to go off on its own.
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7314668.stm
And yeah, explosive decompression where someone gets sucked through a bullet hole does not happen. Decompression is not even all that bad (not good but survivable). Oxygen masks drop and pilots move to a lower altitude.
But what if he shot out the window? That could kill the flight crew (maybe not in this case at the low altitude and speed). While I agree plane windows are tough I doubt they are bulletproof.
Or perhaps the bullet punctures a fuel tank. TWA 800 blew up because of an electrical fault in a center fuel tank that was empty (that or the US Navy hit it with a missile if you believe tin hatters). Under certain conditions a bullet could cause one to explode.
Then there is a real possibility that the pilot merely manages to take out the co-pilot or flight attendant or passenger.
There really is no need for a gun on a plane short of opening the window and taking pot shots at migrating geese. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:49:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Crimsonjade
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Lithalnas i say to you that most gun and hunting equipment companies give large grants to conservation efforts, not to mention the farmers who convert their farms to hunting lodges and turn their fields into private wildlife sanctuaries.
"Hunting Lodge" balanced with "conservation" and especially "sanctuary" seems an oxymoron to me.
Sure they want to conserve wildlife...so they can shoot them in the head.
actually hunters pay for 85% of all wildlife preserves in the US. if it wasnt for Hunters several species would have been killed off by people >>>>>100+<<<<<<< years ago.
and hunters dont always use guns anyways. so dont bring hunters into this argument as they have done more good for wildlife in the US then every tree hugging worm in the world.
Cite?
I smell a bogus stat here. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 19:59:00 -
[44]
Explosive decompression where people are sucked through a bullet whole is a myth but damage to the fuselage can cause catastrophic failure of the structure, damage like this is not unrealistic.
There was also an incident where a windshield failed on a passenger flight and the pilot was almost sucked out of the aircraft, only the quick reactions of the crew saved his life as they managed to grab his ankles and hold on until the aircraft made an emergency landing. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 21:23:00 -
[45]
ok, a .40 is a little too powerful for use on an airplane, I totally agree... for passenger safety. But little handgun rounds aren't going to blow out the aircraft's controls or anything... too many backup systems. And no way in hell are they going to make a hole big enough for explosive anything. Unless it hits the door release, moves it all the way over, ricochets off the overhead, ricochets off the other side of the cabin, then the floor, then back to the door where it increases to the size and weight of a cannonball and pushes the door off the plane.
Also the plane won't go immediately to 0 pressure, it'll take more than enough time for the flight attendants to get to their stations to their masks, pilots have masks in the*****pit
------------------Sig-------------------------- J. Kerouac said it best in The Vanity of Duluoz: "Go droppeth a turd."
|
Orakkus
m3 Corp Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:11:00 -
[46]
If I remember right, the Pilots Union fought to have this privilege a year or so after 9/11, and so far, its been without incident. To me, that indicates that the vast, vast majority of pilots either a.) Have chosen not to, or b.) Take great care in having a firearm. Many pilots who work for the airlines are ex-Military, so they have gone through a pretty good firearm training program.
As regard the OP's opinion (and it is "opinion") of negligence. First, its CLEAR FROM THE ARTICLE, that the reason for what happened has not been released. Second, NEGLIGENCE is different than ACCIDENT. Though the two are often seen together, they are different words with different meanings. For example, its Negligence if he had the gun loaded and not safed (Neglect is defined as paying little or no attention to a particular situation, to fail to use.. such as in this example, safe firearm techniques). Its merely an accident if while holstering his gun, a piece of nylon hooks the hammer and*****s it, causing it to suddenly discharge when he sits down. It could also be that he was in the process of either re-loading the gun during the flight, unloading the gun during the flight that something as simple as the hammer being a tad too slippery from normal skin oil. It could also be that the hammer did not fully go back into a "non-cocked" position, despite the pilot's visual belief that it was.
Now, you DO have a point regarding your term "civilians", far too often Mr and Mrs. Everyday Joe decide they need a handgun for defense (a handgun is about the worst thing you can have for home defense btw) and go an buy one. They wait their 7 to 10 day waiting period, and whola! They have a brand-new or used small defense gun that they've been told on TV by the media that it will make all those bad people go away (Though, I found this to be oddly somewhat true, as when I moved into my current apartment, quite a few of the dope dealers who lived nearby saw me bring in two rifles, and seemed to be rather willing to leave me the hell alone. Considering that I was trying to not be conspicous about it, I think its rather funny). Somehow they get to feeling its a magic wand that all you need to do is point and pull the trigger. That just leads to stupidity all the way around. A good handgun user need LOTS of hours in practice before he have any skill with a handgun, and even then, it will be pretty much specific to that handgun.
As regards the poster who linked to catastrophic hull failures, as been mentioned already, the first one required that the ENTIRE CARGO DOOR WASN'T SEALED, and the second, was also considered such a freak accident as it wasn't an external based failure, but a failure of window itself. So, neither of these has ANYTHING to do with having a handgun in the*****pit. And yes, there is a freak chance that if a gun goes off, and happens to go through the floor and hit the latch to the cargo door, then there will be a catastrophic failure just like you shown. However, if you think that is a likely possibility, then please, feel free not to fly.
|
EvilWezal
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 22:38:00 -
[47]
-20 points for the Op. for Anti-Gun and general ******ation.
Before I start ranting,let me stat some facts about my self. Im a Deputy Sheriff in Oklahoma. I'm CLEET Certified. I've shot guns since I was about 4 years old. I shoot about 10 hours a month.
/Rant On
Im sure the pilot was messing around with the gun and stupidy it went off. The Pilots have to go thru a gun course so that they can carry. Even if the gun punctured the airplane would not depressurize and kill every one. a simple bullet hole will not bring down a airplane even it damaged controls. they have triple or quad backups for every thing. Also every one is saying there are Air Marshals on every flight? WRONG Air Marshals are on less then 10% of all domestic fligts.
On Americans owning guns. I believe as does many Americans that gun ownership is a fundamental right. Guns make sure that the people will be free. Just ask the Phillipines what happend when there guns were took away. I also understand that many European people believe that Americans just run around shooting each other left and right. Its FAR from the truth. I dont believe that every German is a **** or that every Frenchman is a frog either.
Also a side not, Most Department of Wildlifes in States are ran off Hunting/Fishing licence fees and other fees. Oklahoma's Department of Wildlife is completely ran of fees. The tax payers pay nothing. and I do Hunt/Fish
/Rant OFF
|
Dirtee Girl
Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:03:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Dirtee Girl on 26/03/2008 23:04:33 i love how the americans are branded as a country of gun fondling egomaniacs so openly when so many countries have past and present issues of equal or greater embarrassment/evil . america might have it's flaws but it's like declaring them the winner in the stupidest nation of the year competition which always ends in a photo finish where every nation seems to be tied for the win then america edges them out by a nose hair .
on the specific issue of americans and guns i would humbly suggest that america is the least of your worries and that maybe nations where children are given rpgs and submachine guns instead of books might be a little higher priority target than the U.S. . but i understand that it's been a long wait and youv'e no doubt been in line since 2003 for your turn on the anti america soapbox so please continue ...
p.s. i am not a citizen or resident of the united states . but i am a fan of their pron . ty btw .
*
* |
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:45:00 -
[49]
Its flipping obvious he was negligent by allowing the gun to fire, if you really used guns all your life you would have a certain amount of respect and discipline.
If you don't have that its just more proof of gun madness in the US, just as every post saying "its only a gun wtf?" or "all that could happen is someone got killed I mean really whats the fuss about?"
So thank you for proving my point. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 23:54:00 -
[50]
Nope, an accidental discharge is not negligence...
I had an M249 SAW cook off and the resulting runaway gun was in no part my negligence... it's all a part of the great truth that "**** happens"
------------------Sig-------------------------- J. Kerouac said it best in The Vanity of Duluoz: "Go droppeth a turd."
|
|
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:04:00 -
[51]
Originally by: AndrewRyan Edited by: AndrewRyan on 26/03/2008 01:21:27
Originally by: Akita T Can you say "reaction out of proportion" ? He was an idiot or it was an accident. "Certified pilot" doesn't mean he knows anything else too well... just means he is able to fly the damned plane. Either way, what's the big deal ?
He was "certified" to carry the weapon, and its a big deal exactly because he was either a idiot in charge of a huge mass of fast moving metal at 30,000 feet that allowed a gun to fire in the *****pit or he was negligent enough to allow the accident to happen placing lives at risk.
124 passengers and possibly a large number of people on the ground where placed at risk because of the policy of allowing airline pilots to carry weapons, the stray bullet could also of hit and killed or injured a crew member.
Originally by: Ryan Scouse'UK Edited by: Ryan Scouse''UK on 26/03/2008 01:05:15 such a bad troll the title makes it sound so much worse then it is -
wow so his gun went off - didnt harm the plane or anyone.. yawn who cares?
I nearly slipped in the rain today - almost.. but I was ok - next.
It was more luck than skill or judgment that nothing happened this time.
Originally by: Shalia Ripper If you carry a gun, it has the possibility of happening.
Exactly, why are civilian airline pilots carrying weapons? they have very little chance of preventing terrorism and as this incident proves the policy just places the safety of the passengers at unnesscery risk.
And the plane could have eat a flock of birds though its engines your point? ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
EvilWezal
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:05:00 -
[52]
Originally by: AndrewRyan Its flipping obvious he was negligent by allowing the gun to fire, if you really used guns all your life you would have a certain amount of respect and discipline.
If you don't have that its just more proof of gun madness in the US, just as every post saying "its only a gun wtf?" or "all that could happen is someone got killed I mean really whats the fuss about?"
So thank you for proving my point.
The Article doesnt state that he was playing with the gun or that he pulled the trigger. I seriously dont know what this "Gun Madness" is, please explain. Your more likely to be ran over by a car in America then a killed by a gun by a large margin anyways.
|
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:29:00 -
[53]
Originally by: AndrewRyan Its flipping obvious he was negligent by allowing the gun to fire, if you really used guns all your life you would have a certain amount of respect and discipline.
If you don't have that its just more proof of gun madness in the US, just as every post saying "its only a gun wtf?" or "all that could happen is someone got killed I mean really whats the fuss about?"
So thank you for proving my point.
No matter how safe you are and how much care you take a mechcanical failure can still cause stuff to happen, like you post just below yours a cook off caused by heat.
As they say **** happens... Oh yeah and before you rack me up as a another gun mad yank I am from the UK...
There is a differance between a acidental discahrge and a negligent discharge...You are the one thats assuming its a ND rather than a AD and I be if it turns out to be a ND the pro gun posters would be a lot more scathing about it than you... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Frezik
Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 00:53:00 -
[54]
I highly doubt that a 9mm pistol, especially with hollow points, could go through the*****pit door, the fuselage, or the*****pit window. Nor are they likely to ricochet. That's because hollow points are designed to break apart against heavy objects.
That said, I'll let the Box O' Truth guy be the final judge, if he can somehow haul a 737 fuselage onto his little shooting range.
Quote: brings in to question the whole stupid idea of allowing civilian airline pilots to carry weapons
Most pilots in the US were hired out of the Air Force or Naval Air Corps. In fact, the field is so competitive that it's almost impossible to get a big commercial piloting job without military experience.
Originally by: "Imperator Jora'h" Had that bullet shatter the*****pit window I am willing to bet that would have killed the flight crew outright (at least I cannot imagine surviving a swirling mass of glass laden air moving at 550+ mph).
Take a look at the picture of Aloha Airlines Flight 243. An entire section of the fuselage was torn off. The total death count for this incident was one stewardess who was sucked out when the decompression occurred. Yes, there were many other injuries, but it's amazing how few casualties there were considering that a whole section of the airplane disappeared.
|
Frezik
Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 01:05:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Lithalnas i say to you that most gun and hunting equipment companies give large grants to conservation efforts, not to mention the farmers who convert their farms to hunting lodges and turn their fields into private wildlife sanctuaries.
"Hunting Lodge" balanced with "conservation" and especially "sanctuary" seems an oxymoron to me.
Sure they want to conserve wildlife...so they can shoot them in the head.
Human hunters fill a necessary role in the ecosystem. Wolves in much of the US have been hunted to near extinction because they pose a very real threat to farm cattle. But that also means there's not enough wolves around to eat the deer. Without a predator, deer won't balance their own population against available food sources. You'll see a steady rise is deer numbers for a few decades until almost all the vegetation is gone, followed by a population crash that kills 90% of the deer within a year. This is a well-established problem for herbivore species.
Fortunately, most of the hunters who had previously hunted wolves (or more likely, their great-grandchildren) are just as happy hunting deer instead. As long as the hunting is within well-controlled limits, the population can be kept within an acceptable range.
Thus, with a simple understanding of ecology, it's shown that there is no contradiction between hunting and loving nature.
|
Brea Lafail
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 02:11:00 -
[56]
My great aunt always carries a revolver in her belt. One day it went off while she was baking bread and killed the cat. At least that was her story.
Just thought I'd share that.
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 02:32:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Frezik
Human hunters fill a necessary role in the ecosystem. Wolves in much of the US have been hunted to near extinction because they pose a very real threat to farm cattle. But that also means there's not enough wolves around to eat the deer. Without a predator, deer won't balance their own population against available food sources. You'll see a steady rise is deer numbers for a few decades until almost all the vegetation is gone, followed by a population crash that kills 90% of the deer within a year. This is a well-established problem for herbivore species.
Fortunately, most of the hunters who had previously hunted wolves (or more likely, their great-grandchildren) are just as happy hunting deer instead. As long as the hunting is within well-controlled limits, the population can be kept within an acceptable range.
Thus, with a simple understanding of ecology, it's shown that there is no contradiction between hunting and loving nature.
I'm not going to get into the hunting argument but I would like to point out that any perceived need for man to interfere with the ecosystem through hunting is because of our very interference in the first place.
And no I don't particularly like hunting for hunting's sake either, and no I'm not a hippy I'm just a proud British citizen and glad weapons are restricted and bloodsports are slowly being outlawed as I don't see the need for providing society with the means to kill each other or for the cruelty to animals for entertainment purposes. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 02:45:00 -
[58]
Originally by: AndrewRyan
Originally by: Frezik
Human hunters fill a necessary role in the ecosystem. Wolves in much of the US have been hunted to near extinction because they pose a very real threat to farm cattle. But that also means there's not enough wolves around to eat the deer. Without a predator, deer won't balance their own population against available food sources. You'll see a steady rise is deer numbers for a few decades until almost all the vegetation is gone, followed by a population crash that kills 90% of the deer within a year. This is a well-established problem for herbivore species.
Fortunately, most of the hunters who had previously hunted wolves (or more likely, their great-grandchildren) are just as happy hunting deer instead. As long as the hunting is within well-controlled limits, the population can be kept within an acceptable range.
Thus, with a simple understanding of ecology, it's shown that there is no contradiction between hunting and loving nature.
I'm not going to get into the hunting argument but I would like to point out that any perceived need for man to interfere with the ecosystem through hunting is because of our very interference in the first place.
And no I don't particularly like hunting for hunting's sake either, and no I'm not a hippy I'm just a proud British citizen and glad weapons are restricted and bloodsports are slowly being outlawed as I don't see the need for providing society with the means to kill each other or for the cruelty to animals for entertainment purposes.
Well I am also from the uk and think your type uncritcal bull**** is why its currently going down the ****ter..tell me oh numbnuts why has the uks rate of gun/knife crime stayed steady/slight increase after every sodding hand in and ban? ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:05:00 -
[59]
Originally by: nahtoh Well I am also from the uk and think your type uncritcal bull**** is why its currently going down the ****ter..tell me oh numbnuts why has the uks rate of gun/knife crime stayed steady/slight increase after every sodding hand in and ban?
That's because of a general social breakdown, I wont argue that the gangs of teenage thugs make the streets dangerous in certain areas and that violent crime is constantly increasing but a knife can be obtained from anywhere and imagine how bad the gun crime would be if the thugs and criminals could just walk into a local shop and buy a gun. And not trying to sound to anti American (because I'm not I just they have stupid gun laws and attitudes to them) there are malignant influences from the US its being documented that street gangs are beginning to act like LA style gangsters right down to wearing "colours".
And I think our firearms laws are spot on, we don't have students shooting up their classmates every few months, we don't have thousands of marital quarrels ending up in somebody grabbing a gun and armed robberies where people actually get shot and killed are remarkably infrequent. These things in the US are a everyday occurrence its so common that they are blase about and no longer see the utter waste of the most precious thing we can ever possess. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
EvilWezal
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:33:00 -
[60]
Here's a good BBC Article on increasing violence in Britian while America's rates are falling.
BBC Article
|
|
AndrewRyan
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:40:00 -
[61]
Yes notice how despite violent crime is higher the murder rate is lower? That illustrates my example that although crime still happens its less likely to result in the loss of life.
I would prefer being punched in the eye than shot in the heart. ========================================= A Man chooses, a slave obeys. |
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:55:00 -
[62]
Originally by: AndrewRyan
Originally by: nahtoh Well I am also from the uk and think your type uncritcal bull**** is why its currently going down the ****ter..tell me oh numbnuts why has the uks rate of gun/knife crime stayed steady/slight increase after every sodding hand in and ban?
That's because of a general social breakdown, I wont argue that the gangs of teenage thugs make the streets dangerous in certain areas and that violent crime is constantly increasing but a knife can be obtained from anywhere and imagine how bad the gun crime would be if the thugs and criminals could just walk into a local shop and buy a gun. And not trying to sound to anti American (because I'm not I just they have stupid gun laws and attitudes to them) there are malignant influences from the US its being documented that street gangs are beginning to act like LA style gangsters right down to wearing "colours".
And I think our firearms laws are spot on, we don't have students shooting up their classmates every few months, we don't have thousands of marital quarrels ending up in somebody grabbing a gun and armed robberies where people actually get shot and killed are remarkably infrequent. These things in the US are a everyday occurrence its so common that they are blase about and no longer see the utter waste of the most precious thing we can ever possess.
The thing you are missing is we did not have these incdents before the gun laws were tightened...I guess you missed all of the utter ******** bull**** about where the ilegal guns came from and the preditctions from people that did not have their head up their arse?
That the ban would not have a impact on the lvl of crime carried out with guns? So just what have the Laws you are so proud of actually done? answer is basicly SOD ALL so why do you consider them a success? For them to do a success then they would had to have had a actual concrete mesureable out come, not a feel good unprovble warm feeling of proclaiming they have "done something to prevent something that had not been happening anyway!!!!"
The Problem in the UK and I would take a strong guess in the USA as well is complete lack of something that goes hand in hand with Rights a small thing called Responsibilities, to many fundimentally lazy people that just want the Former and not the Latter. Fuzzy bull**** thinking that just wants to blame other things for what happens with out taking a good look at what they are *not* doing.
Oh and BTW I don't think it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things if you are stabbed/beat/stomped/to death vs shot...apart from the former takes more time. When you start advising people that have lost people to any sort of violent attack "well at lest they where not shoot be happy" dead is dead.
You seem to be the very example of the second part of your sig...
========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
nahtoh
Bull Industries United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 03:56:00 -
[63]
Originally by: AndrewRyan Yes notice how despite violent crime is higher the murder rate is lower? That illustrates my example that although crime still happens its less likely to result in the loss of life.
I would prefer being punched in the eye than shot in the heart.
Logic is not your strong suit is it? ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:01:00 -
[64]
A pistol can not endanger a modern airliner with one shot. Without great skill in aim and technical knowledge, it can't put the plane in danger with the entire clip.
Accidents happen. This is not madness, an atrocity, negligence, or any other sensationalist adjective. FFS, its not even relevant to US gun control laws, given that the lawful possession of a gun on an airplane is the Holy Grail of authorization.
Stop trolling.
|
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:04:00 -
[65]
Too many posts to start quoting without my posts being absurdly lengthy so some observations:
For those who think pilots should carry handguns:
Why? Seriously...why? As noted accidents happen even with people well trained. Just a fact of life. A handgun on a plane is a problem waiting to happen. How many (and I really mean this) people per year are ok to be lost and still say handguns are ok on planes? This is not an anti-gun rant. This is an anti-guns on planes rant. Granted so far zero people have been hurt but the question stands. How many handgun accidents aboard a plane are acceptable?
Now consider how much safer the plane is with the handgun present. First off not all pilots carry. In fact most do not (I read somewhere 5000 American pilots currently do). Explain a situation where the pilot having a handgun will improve things as opposed to them staying behind their armored door and landing the bloody plane as they should. Note that pilots with handguns would not have prevented any of 9/11. More to the point the one plane where passengers tried to take the plane back and crashed may well have ended up instead with one more plane in a building somewhere if the hijackers obtained firearms from the flight crew (which they would have).
-----
As for "accidental discharge" of a weapon most responsible posts from responsible gun owners (people who firmly believe in their right to have firearms) I have seen say that the preferred term is "negligent discharge". In their opinion "accidental" discharge of a firearm is almost unheard of. It has happened but is hugely unlikely. About as unlikely as a handgun bullet dropping a commercial jet. Can we hypothesize a way to do it? Sure. Is it remotely likely? No. While the person who shot the gun may not have meant to their doing so is very nearly always their negligence.
-----
On the topic of hunters paying for wildlife preserves that is a dubious way to "support" the notion of hunting. Paying to maintain the places you get to go kill things? You do not see the hypocrisy there? Paying to preserve things you want to kill?
Why shoot the animal? Why not take its picture? If you like shooting what is wrong with target or skeet shooting? You can hardly call hunting sporting if you kill something at 600 yards that has no clue you are there with a scoped rifle. If you want the thrill of approaching an animal to see how close you can get go ahead and use a laser range finder and a camera to show you got within 50 yards if that is your thing. If you just like the great outdoors go camping.
Killing animals for your survival is fine but I'll wager everyone here who hunts has no need to shoot a deer to eat. Additionally I have eaten hunted venison and frankly farm raised tastes better...considerably better.
Bottom line, and I have discussed this at length with avid hunters, is hunters do it because they like to kill stuff for their personal pleasure. Many think yeah...so what? Animal, who cares? In my world view causing needless pain and suffering for nothing more than personal pleasure is a perversion.
-----
Hunters being necessary to cull herds because hunters killed all their natural predators?
Man...if I have to explain the obvious flaws here there is no hope of dialog. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Orakkus
m3 Corp Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:15:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Orakkus on 27/03/2008 04:47:33
Originally by: AndrewRyan
And I think our firearms laws are spot on, we don't have students shooting up their classmates every few months, we don't have thousands of marital quarrels ending up in somebody grabbing a gun and armed robberies where people actually get shot and killed are remarkably infrequent. These things in the US are a everyday occurrence its so common that they are blase about and no longer see the utter waste of the most precious thing we can ever possess.
Its common because: a.) The US population is 300million+ versus 60mil Population in UK. Higher population, which are mostly jammed into smaller and smaller areas which almost always lack any sort of long term plan for dealing with younger generations.
b.) The US population relies WAY too much on psychologists who are pretty much are 90% quacks. (Psychology makes a lot of money, so it has been at the forefront of finding new "diseases" to cure as well as forwarding the notion that "your kids are broke, this pill will fix them" thought process).
c.) The US has a criminal justice system that fails in every way fathomable. (In general 60 to 84% of all "rehabilitated" criminals will re-offend nation wide)
d.) The US has become a media driven society, which encourages ever outlandish behavior. (Wide spread failure of parental roles, the dramatic feminist push to minimalize the father figure, and general irresponsibility of parents has led children to be more aggressive because they don't know any other way to fit in or to be noticed).
e.) The US still has some significant responsibility issue as a whole that it needs to deal with. (The US has become a high consumption nation, and it has pushed that the children should have more and better than their parents before them. When mixed with problem "d", guns generally get involved).
f.) The actual US country is very big, meaning any federal wide stance, even some state wide stances are generally ineffectual, expensive, and inefficient. (How does this relate? An example, a federal policy to outlaw handguns or guns period while okay by white city-folk, would be terrible for black city-folk who generally cannot rely on police, and white country-folk, whose skills are not necessary in a city, use guns to help their families survive).
g.) An unrealistic viewpoint of the police. This is done by both the civilians and the police themselves. Civilians have this weird viewpoint that if a crime is happening, the police will be there to save them. The fact of the matter is, that NEVER happens, ever. All the police can do is perhaps catch the one who caused the crime, but they are unable. BY THE VERY DEFINITION of their duties AND BY THE VERY DEFINITION of the law, to prevent a crime. Quite a few police on the other hand, have a tendency to view themselves as the "THE LAW" and to be honest, it's actually quite hard to prove that a police officer broke that law, and EVEN IF THEY DID, you will likely find yourself being harrassed by those very officials. And that does not include inept officers who have no reason to be policing even a paper bag.
|
Frezik
Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 04:57:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Hunters being necessary to cull herds because hunters killed all their natural predators?
Man...if I have to explain the obvious flaws here there is no hope of dialog.
It's too late to go back now. The wolves are gone. Not only that, but there is a good reason for them to be gone. Since there are plenty of people who are willing to pay for the privilege (in the form of hunting licenses, guns, travel money, etc.) to do what the wolves are doing, this isn't really a problem.
Consider two plans:
1) Let the wolves come back. Cost of beef rises due to preying on cattle. 2) Keep the wolves at present numbers and let people hunt deer.
In one of these plans, there's a greater chance I'll be attacked by wolves while hiking. In the other, I get cheaper beef and venison. Since you may assume I'm not a vegetarian, guess which one I choose?
As for animal suffering, let's ask the deer if they prefer straight bullet to the head or being gnawed on by wolves. Nature is messy. Deal with it.
|
EvilWezal
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 05:20:00 -
[68]
Quote: On the topic of hunters paying for wildlife preserves that is a dubious way to "support" the notion of hunting. Paying to maintain the places you get to go kill things? You do not see the hypocrisy there? Paying to preserve things you want to kill?
The Wildlife preserves in Oklahoma are not open to hunting or hunting is done on lottery system to cull herds of deer/elk. The money raised by Hunting/Fishing totals some thing like 11 billion per year only on supplies,thats not counting the economic spidering effect on service industries. The DoW here uses that money to raise Endangerd Species and replace those lost in the wild so that we have these animals to enjoy into the future.
As if "Hunting for Fun", well of course its fun....other wise we wouldn't do it. Plus my family and many people I know enjoy wild meats/fish regulary. If the deer herds in Oklahoma are not culled every year, they would die from starvation and natural diseases which is FAR more painful then being shot. FYI, if your a fan of PETA, you seriously need to investigate what they truely are about. They are not helping animals,just pushing a political agenda.
|
|
CCP WeatherMan
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 05:21:00 -
[69]
Please refrain from dicussing politics or religion issues. Let's try to focus on cool and funny stuff around.
WeatherMan Community Representative EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |