Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Interesting comments on Gun Control

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I ran across these comments while browing the web. Interesting how poeple from other countries think about our laws. How do we combat theese beliefs and win them over instead of alienating them? Any thoughts are welcome.

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...e_us_view.html

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    I ran across these comments while browing the web. Interesting how poeple from other countries think about our laws. How do we combat theese beliefs and win them over instead of alienating them? Any thoughts are welcome.

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...e_us_view.html
    What a bunch of friggin' morons......notice that the fact of 2 million+ violent crimes stopped by legally armed citizens was never mentioned.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    Well what do you expect from a society that had their guns taken away from them? They've been cowed into thinking that guns are the problem. There was a comment posted that mentioned the writer did not believe the problems were guns, but instead society (I should mention though, the writer did not seem to be Pro 2A, but at least realized that guns are not the issue, it is the person that wields it to harm others).

  4. #4
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    What comments? All I see is a blind link I'm not sure is safe to follow.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I apoligize for the blind link. Guardian is a popular news blog in the UK. It would have been too much to cut and paste the entire page. Feel free to google the site before clicking on it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    I'm soooo glad to be back home from there...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Are you allowed to be armed in your cockpit?

    I hope that you will add your voice to the movement to arm pilots as well as passengers.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    I started to read the 'comments', if you can call them that, but I had to stop. I was becoming too depressed and angry that I belong to the same species as the ****** bags who wrote in on there. It never ceases to amaze me how much ******** they come up with. Like saying that the U.S. has the highest number of gun related crimes or murders in the world. Come on. Don't give me that ****. And if gun control was so great, why has Australia's and Britain's crime rates gone off the charts since the citizens were disarmed?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I would agree with you arming pilots, with weapons designed not to penetrate the plane. But passengers? Just because of the nature of where you are 30,000 feet in the air with a thin piece of aluminum protecting you from the outside, I don't think it's wise to arm passengers. I wouldn't even wan't a well trained person to shoot ina plane...way too dangerous. There are limits I suppose, and I can always choose to drive somewhere.


  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Planes are actually a lot tougher against bullets than most people realize. What is very damaging to them is explosives. Bullets put small holes in the skin. Small holes are

    a) Easy to plug in flight.

    b) Have a very minimal effect on the structural integrity of the plane as a whole.

    c) Example from WWII, a DC3 was fired upon by a Japanese Zero, which unloaded every round it had into the DC3 from close range. This was a Passenger plane, which then proceded to make it home. ( No armor or anything special )

    d) Small holes in the planes skin, don't instantly depressurize the plane. And anything bigger than the smallest jet (15 people ) probably has sufficient pumping capacity to make up the air loss from even a .45 hole.

    There is the possibility of the bullet actually hitting something critical, but planes have a huge number of redundent systems. Even an engine hit, which is a lot smaller target than most people realize, won't take down an aircraft. Most likely, the engine would still be usable and even if it had to shut down, all passenger aircraft can continue after losing an engine.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    I would agree with you arming pilots, with weapons designed not to penetrate the plane. But passengers? Just because of the nature of where you are 30,000 feet in the air with a thin piece of aluminum protecting you from the outside, I don't think it's wise to arm passengers. I wouldn't even wan't a well trained person to shoot ina plane...way too dangerous. There are limits I suppose, and I can always choose to drive somewhere.
    I'll take my chances. Airplanes are not very vulnerable to pistol bullets, and all that Hollywood stuff about people being sucked out of bulletholes and windows is BS.

    In any case, it should be up to the airline who carries and who doesn't. The airplane is their property, and they should be allowed to arm pilots. If they don't like armed passengers, they should provide a check system to store your sidearms in a locker until you arrive.

    Sadly, the airlines have chosen to hand off their responsibility as business owners to the federal government, both because they don't want to pay for security when they can steal it from the taxpayer, and because they don't want to be the ones who tell you what you can't carry. So they lobbied hard for the current setup after 911, corporatism at work.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    "After the deadliest mass shooting in American history..."

    This guyneeds to do a little research. Obviously he hasn't looked up the sad history of theAmerican settlers vs the natives. A lot of massacres. Virginia Tech was a tragedy yes but not the worst mass shooting. I think the thousands of dead natives would agree to that. A whole village getting butchered at the hands of American soldiers doesn't give methat warm andfuzzy feeling. Maybe he doesn't think they count because thedesire to save bullets meant that bayonets and boot heels were alsoused on the unarmed.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    In my experience speaking with the British, there is also a small but very dedicated group of gun owners/supporters. Unfortunately, they are overwhelmed by anti-gun (or exceedingly apathetic) sh**ple driven by media exaggeration. Basically like this country, but with the balance tipped even more.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    BarryKirk wrote:
    Planes are actually a lot tougher against bullets than most people realize. What is very damaging to them is explosives. Bullets put small holes in the skin. Small holes are

    a) Easy to plug in flight.

    b) Have a very minimal effect on the structural integrity of the plane as a whole.

    c) Example from WWII, a DC3 was fired upon by a Japanese Zero, which unloaded every round it had into the DC3 from close range. This was a Passenger plane, which then proceded to make it home. ( No armor or anything special )

    d) Small holes in the planes skin, don't instantly depressurize the plane. And anything bigger than the smallest jet (15 people ) probably has sufficient pumping capacity to make up the air loss from even a .45 hole.

    There is the possibility of the bullet actually hitting something critical, but planes have a huge number of redundent systems. Even an engine hit, which is a lot smaller target than most people realize, won't take down an aircraft. Most likely, the engine would still be usable and even if it had to shut down, all passenger aircraft can continue after losing an engine.

    Please do not give such nonsense currency.

    The chances of a significant bullet strike from the inside is lower than in air combat and is easily calculated and vanishingly low. It is on the net, YMMV.

    Pressure control in a turbo-whatever airliner is by bypass-air at a relatively constant pressure. Cabin pressure is regulated by a variable orifice in exiting air, that may be a foot in diameter. There is sufficient flow to maintain pressure through many bullet holes.

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Please do not give such nonsense currency.

    The chances of a significant bullet strike from the inside is lower than in air combat and is easily calculated and vanishingly low. It is on the net, YMMV.

    Pressure control in a turbo-whatever airliner is by bypass-air at a relatively constant pressure. Cabin pressure is regulated by a variable orifice in exiting air, that may be a foot in diameter. There is sufficient flow to maintain pressure through many bullet holes.

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
    A foot in diameter is also somewhat misleading. I suspect that the orfice is fully open at Sea Level to prevent pressurizing the cabin well above sea level.

    At altitude, you would probably have that orfice regulated down to a much smaller size.

    The airlines care nothing about the effects on an airliner from a bullet hole. All they care about is fuel efficiency and meeting air replacement regulations.

    Pressurized air is very expensive in fuel usage. So, if the inlet is a fixed size, which actually does make sense, then it would probably be sized to provide enough air for the minimum number of air exchanges needed for that airline, with a little extra margin.

    I seem to remember a mid size jet, about 10-15 years ago had an accident where 8 feet of the top of the fusealage ripped off at about 20,000 to 30,000 feet. Passengers seated under that area could look straight up and see open sky. Basically the jet turned into a convertable. Memory is fuzzy but I think it was about 100 passengers onboard. No deaths. Although a lot soiled underware.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    BarryKirk wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Please do not give such nonsense currency.

    The chances of a significant bullet strike from the inside is lower than in air combat and is easily calculated and vanishingly low. It is on the net, YMMV.

    Pressure control in a turbo-whatever airliner is by bypass-air at a relatively constant pressure. Cabin pressure is regulated by a variable orifice in exiting air, that may be a foot in diameter. There is sufficient flow to maintain pressure through many bullet holes.

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
    A foot in diameter is also somewhat misleading. I suspect that the orfice is fully open at Sea Level to prevent pressurizing the cabin well above sea level.

    At altitude, you would probably have that orfice regulated down to a much smaller size.

    The airlines care nothing about the effects on an airliner from a bullet hole. All they care about is fuel efficiency and meeting air replacement regulations.

    Pressurized air is very expensive in fuel usage. So, if the inlet is a fixed size, which actually does make sense, then it would probably be sized to provide enough air for the minimum number of air exchanges needed for that airline, with a little extra margin.

    I seem to remember a mid size jet, about 10-15 years ago had an accident where 8 feet of the top of the fusealage ripped off at about 20,000 to 30,000 feet. Passengers seated under that area could look straight up and see open sky. Basically the jet turned into a convertable. Memory is fuzzy but I think it was about 100 passengers onboard. No deaths. Although a lot soiled underware.
    'Regulating' is what a variable orifice does. A huge volume volume of air is what by-pass air is and the 'jet' producing reaction thrust. I couldn't calculate the infinitesimal cost of cabin air, perhaps you can. It is not "expensive in fuel usage" or by any other measure.

    I have no earthly idea what Hawaii Air's 737 event has to do with bullet holes in a cabin. It was a fatigue event.

    I don't know what is your area of expertise but you're out of it.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******



  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    What comments? All I see is a blind link I'm not sure is safe to follow.
    ?? It's a link - just click on it. We encourage folks to post links on this board, not a lot of text that nobody knows from where it came from.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post




    The cabin pressure control system continuously monitors the airplane’s ground and flight modes, altitude, climb, cruise, or descent modes as well as the airplane’s holding patterns at various altitudes. It uses this information to allow air to escape continuously from the airplane by further opening or closing the cabin pressure outflow valve in the lower aft fuselage. The outflow valve is constantly being positioned to maintain cabin pressure as close to sea level as practical, without exceeding a cabin to outside pressure differential of 8.60 psi.



    The incident BarryKirk was referring to tragically did involve loss of life. On April 28th, 1988, a B-737 operated by Aloha Airlines left Hilo, Hawaii Island bound for Honolulu, Oahu. When it approached the cruising height of 22,000 feetnear Maui Island, a sudden decompression occurred in the cabin just behind the cockpit. A large part of the cabin structure was lost. Although one cabin attendant was sucked out, the aircraft succeeded in making an emergency landing at the airport in Maui, because fortunately one hydraulic system had survived.



  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    As I said, my memory of the event is somewhat hazy, 20 years ago. The point I was trying to make, is that bullet holes in the fuselage don't kill people or take down airplanes.

    I used an extreme example, of large area of the cabin open to high altitude to show that people survive events like that. In that case, the one death wasn't due to de-pressurization, but rather to having a hole large enough for a person getting sucked out of the cabin.

    I don't think anybody would argue that a person would get sucked through a bullet hole.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    What comments? All I see is a blind link I'm not sure is safe to follow.
    Link works fine for me and comments are all veiwable.
    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...e_us_view.html

    One comment from the link particularly caught my attention:
    "Americans need to learn that guns are not defensive, they are aggresive."

    So my inanimate sidearm, now has living, breathing human traits. I look down at my 1911 with much clearer vision now - while it appears to be resting comfortably on my hip, it is in fact coiled, waiting to strike and take out innocents at the first opportunity - no matter what I think or do.

    People are aggressive or not, defensive when allowed to be and laws will not change that condition. Guns are inanimate objects/tools controlled by people for evil or good - our choice.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    BarryKirk wrote:
    'Regulating' is what a variable orifice does. A huge volume volume of air is what by-pass air is and the 'jet' producing reaction thrust. I couldn't calculate the infinitesimal cost of cabin air, perhaps you can. It is not "expensive in fuel usage" or by any other measure.

    I have no earthly idea what Hawaii Air's 737 event has to do with bullet holes in a cabin. It was a fatigue event.

    I don't know what is your area of expertise but you're out of it.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

    My area of expertise is Electrical Controls Engineer.

    We use a lot of pneumatic controls cylinders which are speed controlled, by an orfice in the exhaust nozzle. Slightly different application then aircraft. I assumed probably incorrectly that some of the principles are the same.

    Yes, a turbofan engine has a huge amount of bypass air, but when you tap into it to make compressed cabin air, that translates into either less thrust or more drag or a combination. This requires extra fuel to be burned to make up for that loss.

    As for the fuel cost, of course that is relative. I know that compressed plant air is very expensive in terms of running up the electrical bill.

    My assumption is that, since it's expensive to make compressed air on the ground, albeit at a higher pressure level but much lower flow rate, than it would be expensive to make it in the air.

    Yes, you regulate on the exhaust, so I made the assumption that the tap from the engine is fixed. How would one size that tap. Sure you could make it really large and open the regulation orfice really wide to maintain pressure, but I don't think the airlines do that. As you said, the cost is tiny, leading me to believe that they don't actually have a very large tap.

    Then why would you have such a large ( 1 foot diameter ) exhaust port. My assumption is that your referring to a large ( say 747 ) jet. Well, during takeoff at sea level, you probably don't wan't the pressure much over 14.7. So, you've got a tiny pressure differential over that exhaust port. Therefore, the exhaust orfice should be sized for that worst case. Again, an assumption on my part.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    What does any of this have to do with the OPs introduction of other peoples views of our thinking. It all seems very off topic/thread to me.

    All very interesting but probably deserves a seperate thread.

    [line]Back to IndianaBoy77's comments - several things come immediately to mind:
    Tell a lie often enough and many people will believe it.
    The one with the most guns (govt) gets to make the rules.

    But think of the children - I am - I want to save them and our country for them!

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    One comment from the link particularly caught my attention:
    "Americans need to learn that guns are not defensive, they are aggresive."

    So my inanimate sidearm, now has living, breathing human traits. I look down at my 1911 with much clearer vision now - while it appears to be resting comfortably on my hip, it is in fact coiled, waiting to strike and take out innocents at the first opportunity - no matter what I think or do.

    People are aggressive or not, defensive when allowed to be and laws will not change that condition. Guns are inanimate objects/tools controlled by people for evil or good - our choice.
    Perhaps "aggressive" should be read as "offensive". "Aggressive" can mean predisposed to being belligerent... or it can also mean simply that it is used to commit the first act of violence in an exchange. Not that it makes the argument much more effective, but it makes a bit more sense. To put it into a little more context, the comment went, "Americans need to learn that guns are not defensive, they are aggresive. By providing people with guns you're allowing them to kill." To paraphrase, people use guns to kill, not to protect. A dead BG is still a person killed by a gun. And I'd have to say that the statement is correct. Nonetheless, it neglects the deterrent effect of OCed and brandished guns, and it declares "self-defense" as illegtimate. More on the latter later.

    Actually, the entire comment is fairly decently written:
    [line]I heard the Virginian "head of defence" (or similar position) on the radio this morning talking about the gun culture in the US... and his point was something along the lines of "well you don't think you're house is going to burn down, but you still take out property insurance". Basically making the point that guns, like house insurance, are a means to an end. A way of backing you up if things go wrong
    For me this really typifies the (majority) American view of gun availablity.. they see guns as a necessity. Something that you need "just in case".. just in case the attacker finds you today... just in case the burglar enters my house while I am sleeping... "just in case" the terrorist arrives tomorrow.
    Having spent 3 years living, workin and studying in the Mid west USA, I even grew accustomed to seeing normal people walking round the local town with a gun holstered by their side. And the signs in bank windows saying "no guns inside the building".
    I say I grew accustomed... well i got used to it, but i never liked it, nor understood that mentality.
    Americans need to learn that guns are not defensive, they are aggresive. By providing people with guns you're allowing them to kill.
    Even after the shocking situation in Virginia.. it does not surprise me that the root cause of the problem.. the gun laws, are not being disputed. The truth is.. in the foreseen future, the gun laws will never change.. america was founded by the way of the gun and they are part of the American way of life. Whether it be for defence, hunting or just shooting up furniture in a disused quarry. People won't question their right "to bear arms".
    My thoughts are with anyone affected by the shootings in Virginia.

    Posted by Mikerystwyth on April 17, 2007 2:09 PM.
    [line]
    There are comments further down the page that allude to the idea that guns transform an otherwise normal person into a killer, but this comment isn't it.

    I'm not prepared to write off non-Americans, even the British, as ignorant regarding gun control. The primary reason is that we embrace the concept of "self-defense" in American culture, whereas it may not exist to the same degree in other cultures. Our nation was founded on self-defense... from defending ourself from tyranny, to the doctrine of self-sufficiency for frontiersmen throughout much of our history. The idea that the "good" people are allowed to kill the "bad" people when provoked by the "bad" people may indeed be unique to American culture. As I touched on before, self-defense killing is still killing, but our culture has been able to rationalize why one form of killing is better than another.

    Just some thoughts...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I just can't wrap my head around the idea that Americans are somehow more self sufficiant (historically) than other nations. I'm very proud of my American heritage but lookinging through history, many nations have a history of armed citizens. Sadly Europe has moved slowly away from their own historical roots. Sadly, in some ways it looks like we are too.
    I agree, it's not time to write them off yet. There are still many people there who support peoples rights (all rights, not just firearms).
    In our country the people have a history of changing other peoples' ways through legislation...ie, forced morality. We like to argue, debate, carry signs and put bumper stickers on our cars that will offend anyone who thinks differently. How can we change this aspect and bring a few of these people into our fold? I'm kinda tired of arguing with my liberal friends...I've tried to show them through my own actions and how I live that firearms are safe for the majority of people to own. Some of them have come around, a little. We still have the old arguments though.
    Here's what I'm getting at...as a Christian, there are many ways for me to share my beleifs. I can either ram them down a strangers throat and tell them they're going to burn in hell, or I can SHOW them the good of Christianity by meeting their needs (food, shelter, etc). When churches do this kind of outreach, they often get in the papers. Merely excercising our right to carry is akin to a christian holding a picket sign...how many minds do you think we actually change? What kind of group or outreach could we form? What activities might we share in as a group to show the rest of town that we are a valuable asset to the community? I think this may be a better approach than all the arguing and statistic throwing.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    ....... The idea that the "good" people are allowed to kill the "bad" people when provoked by the "bad" people may indeed be unique to American culture. As I touched on before, self-defense killing is still killing, but our culture has been able to rationalize why one form of killing is better than another.

    Just some thoughts...
    Semantics is very important in a posting.

    I would never presume to use deadly force when merely "provoked" and do not agree that this is even part of American culture.

    Self defense to prevent serious harm or death is a God given right to all men.
    The resultant outcome of a confrontation (whatever it may be) initiated by the BG is his responsibility, not mine. That is not rationalizing. That is a fact!

    I have not sold our friends in England down the river. I still have hope for them, but I admit not much for the immediate future. Some of my best friends are Brits.

    Yata hey

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •