Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:34:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
342 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Chris,
> > Given the fact that even in the Sep. 11 disaster, less people were probably
> > killed than are killed in a "normal" year by use of guns in the US, I tend
> > to prefer NOT to legalize taking firearms into planes.
>
> In 1999, there were 8,718 firearm related homocides in the US. So you're
> probably right. But the broad-picture statistics suggest that as the
> concealed-carry rate increases, the violent crime rate decreases. So I'd
> claim
> that that high number was in part caused by our firearm prohibitions.
> Further,
> whether or not this recent disaster compares to a normal year (I'm not seeing
> what conclusions you can draw from that), it would be highly valuable (at
> least
> to me) to have prevented the 6000+ deaths that resulted from this recent
> terrorism.
Well, I don't want to dive into a firearms discussion here. What I wanted to
oppose is the idea that air travel is safer when firearms are allowed to be
taken into planes by passengers.
> > Maybe a few armed policemen, conservatively clothed, but certainly not the
> > larger public ...
>
> I'm not entirely opposed to sky marshals, but I'd rather the airlines supply
> the guards. That way each consumer could choose to pay or not pay for the
> added security.
And how can people working in skyscrapers be more safe when people decide to
NOT pay for it?
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
