Comments on: Gunning for Votes http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Mon, 28 May 2012 03:58:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Bones_708 http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/comment-page-1/#comment-94919 Bones_708 Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:01:18 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/14501/gunning-for-votes/#comment-94919 talan shooting out a window will not down a jet. If we deal with reality and fact then we would be much better off. First holing a jet or shooting out a window will not cause a jet to crash, decompress, ect. Second no handgun ammunition that any law enforcement officers use is designed to penetrate multiple layers of metal. At the optimum the ammo is designed to penetrate 6-10 inches in a human body and stay there. The same characteristics that help law enforcement ammo do that greatly decrease the potential for over penetration like you mention. Pre-fragmented ammunition, such as Glaser safety slugs, expand upon impact and will usually fail to penetrate even wood doors. This kind of ammo also tends to have greater stopping power. At the same time, errant rounds are less likely to puncture surrounding walls (or airplane hulls). So while having armed air marshals or security may be arguable, so far none of the issues you mention has much if anything to do with reality and fact. Why don't you just say "I don't like it" and leave it at that. That would at least be honest. talan shooting out a window will not down a jet. If we deal with reality and fact then we would be much better off. First holing a jet or shooting out a window will not cause a jet to crash, decompress, ect. Second no handgun ammunition that any law enforcement officers use is designed to penetrate multiple layers of metal. At the optimum the ammo is designed to penetrate 6-10 inches in a human body and stay there. The same characteristics that help law enforcement ammo do that greatly decrease the potential for over penetration like you mention. Pre-fragmented ammunition, such as Glaser safety slugs, expand upon impact and will usually fail to penetrate even wood doors. This kind of ammo also tends to have greater stopping power. At the same time, errant rounds are less likely to puncture surrounding walls (or airplane hulls). So while having armed air marshals or security may be arguable, so far none of the issues you mention has much if anything to do with reality and fact. Why don’t you just say “I don’t like it” and leave it at that. That would at least be honest.

]]> By: talan123 http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/comment-page-1/#comment-94879 talan123 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:37:12 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/14501/gunning-for-votes/#comment-94879 What? Look, guns in planes make no sense. Even if you have a trained federal marshal, he is still firing a small piece of metal going several hundred miles per hour that is designed to penetrate multiple layers of metal. Being in a confined space, at 35,000 feet up in the air that is pressurized to 8,000 feet is just disaster waiting to happen. If the federal marshal misses and hits the windows, you can kiss the plane good bye. Guns are not the solution to every problem. Just because you have a knee jerk adverse reaction to a lack of firearms doesn't mean that they will solve this particular problem. What?

Look, guns in planes make no sense. Even if you have a trained federal marshal, he is still firing a small piece of metal going several hundred miles per hour that is designed to penetrate multiple layers of metal. Being in a confined space, at 35,000 feet up in the air that is pressurized to 8,000 feet is just disaster waiting to happen. If the federal marshal misses and hits the windows, you can kiss the plane good bye.

Guns are not the solution to every problem. Just because you have a knee jerk adverse reaction to a lack of firearms doesn’t mean that they will solve this particular problem.

]]> By: Bones_708 http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/comment-page-1/#comment-94856 Bones_708 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:16:55 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/14501/gunning-for-votes/#comment-94856 Lets see plane crashing into buildings killing thousands or guns on planes...... I can live with guns. Really your last statement just shows how little thought you put into it. You may have a knee jerk adverse reaction to firearms but they will not just go away. Lets see plane crashing into buildings killing thousands or guns on planes…… I can live with guns. Really your last statement just shows how little thought you put into it. You may have a knee jerk adverse reaction to firearms but they will not just go away.

]]> By: talan123 http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/comment-page-1/#comment-94847 talan123 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:02:12 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/14501/gunning-for-votes/#comment-94847 I'm pretty much against anybody having guns in airplanes. Doesn't matter who has the gun, the danger of the gun in the airplane will always out weigh the potential benefits. I’m pretty much against anybody having guns in airplanes.

Doesn’t matter who has the gun, the danger of the gun in the airplane will always out weigh the potential benefits.

]]> By: Bones_708 http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/comment-page-1/#comment-94846 Bones_708 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:32:17 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/14501/gunning-for-votes/#comment-94846 talan, I think Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, and I question some seemingly racist (perhaps just calling them questionable would be more accurate?) stances/comments but your comment has almost nothing at all to do with what Paul's statement was referring to. He was referring to the 1994 law that forbid airlines from having armed personnel on airplanes, including pilots, security, ect. Are you against having air marshals also? talan, I think Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, and I question some seemingly racist (perhaps just calling them questionable would be more accurate?) stances/comments but your comment has almost nothing at all to do with what Paul’s statement was referring to. He was referring to the 1994 law that forbid airlines from having armed personnel on airplanes, including pilots, security, ect. Are you against having air marshals also?

]]> By: talan123 http://themoderatevoice.com/14501/gunning-for-votes/comment-page-1/#comment-94839 talan123 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:43:00 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/14501/gunning-for-votes/#comment-94839 Yeah, because that's what will save people's lives; More guns in confined areas with no possible escape route. I love Ron Paul's foreign policy but his domestic policies leave me thinking that he has more than a few screws loose. Yeah, because that’s what will save people’s lives; More guns in confined areas with no possible escape route. I love Ron Paul’s foreign policy but his domestic policies leave me thinking that he has more than a few screws loose.

]]>