Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Sep 2001 04:19:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
360 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Chris,
> Chris:
> > Horst:
> > > 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.
Well, this is a specific instance of the general assertion "public activity
X (in which strangers are thrown together and have to get along) is safer if
some small fraction of the public is armed (and further, if the baddies
aren't quite sure WHO it is that is armed)".
And I've debated that at some length in the past. I'm satisfied of the truth
of that assertion in the general case and see nothing (other than requiring
that special ammunition which doesn't pierce fuselages be used) special
about this special case that would refute it for this special case. So I'm
pretty darn satisfied that allowing armed passengers is a good idea. Better,
in fact, than the suggestion of air marshals.
You can either let that assertion stand, or you'll just have to dive into
the firearms discussion again. :-) The relative wisdom of concealed carry
hasn't changed because of 9/11. At least, not changed in the "it's less
wise" direction anyway.
> > 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?
If the airlines, in the general case, are held liable for their negligence.
I would submit that the NY/NH Port Authority (the owners of the WTC) ought
to submit a bill to United and American for the replacement cost of the WTC,
as one can clearly argue quite effectively that it was airline negligence
that lost them the lease payments they were going to get.
If strict liability is in place, airlines will require that passengers pay
for it or not carry them.
What we have now is a huge dodge of liability by the airlines because they
"might go bankrupt" and they are "too big to fail".
Fooey.
They OUGHT to go bankrupt, they have massively mismanaged things. That's the
appropriate punishment for the stockholders of a mismanaged company, loss of
the entire value of the stock.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
