Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3): egal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes. I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15. This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

Extremely poor venue. Also, not really helping "his" cause.

I'm sorry, America. But this is absolutely unacceptable. I don't care how much you flame me for it. The attitude to guns there simply frightens me.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 25): I have posted this definition, now will you people admit you were wrong and move on to more important issues, such as why is a crazy person going armed to an airport?

Since you are so into definitions and you are a psychologist it seems, who is obviously using the DMS-V criteria, which ones did you use to diagnose this person as "crazy" (not a term in the DSM)?

Quoting AnsettB727 (Reply 151): I'm sorry, America. But this is absolutely unacceptable. I don't care how much you flame me for it. The attitude to guns there simply frightens me.

Totally agree. Look at some of the reasons people shot and killed (just May 2015)...

My fiancee and I had an argument, so I open-carried my gun to a park and shot four random people.

The bartender put Clamato in my beer when I wanted tomato juice, so I shot him and his dog.

I found suspicious calls on my boyfriend's phone, so I shot him. He was armed at the time too.

Rather than let my ex-wife win custody, I shot my own daughter to death.

Click through to read more ... Keep in mind these were May 2015 killings only. One month of stupid with a gun. You can't stop stupid, but, you can stop guns.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 17): I quoted and linked the dictionary that says the opposite of both your claims. You both are disputing an actual dictionary definition that the media uses because your feelings are getting in the way of logic

Your dictionary definition defines an assault rifle to mean something that may look like an assault rifle, yet does not function like one (i.e. fully automatic capability)

By this definition, if I got a block of wood, cut it, painted it and polished it up to LOOK like an AK47, then that is an assault rifle - even though the only way it could possibly be dangerous is if you clubbed someone over the head with it..

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 144): And stop insulting every gun owner by using some little term to insult us. It's a personal attack on all of us, and if the moderation around here did anything fairly, you would be told to stop.

Why? Because everything you do is based on fantasy of some boogeyman that doesn't exist? It's the same as the people that swear by cayenne-lemon-maple syrup cleanses or various enemas: they're total bunk, and more often than not, they do more harm than good. It's the exact same thing with guns. This silly paranoia that everyone is out to get you and a gun makes you safer when in fact you're far more likely to die violently is the equivalent of a bleach enema. If you're a firearm aficionado-fine. If you think this is what the Constitution meant-fine. If you think you're safer with a firearm--fine. But no matter what, the data don't change the fact that you're bringing a dangerous weapon into your daily life, and your risk goes through the roof.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 144): The NRA doesn't really care about the individuals gun rights, just the rights of companies to sell guns.

That's for sure...

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 155): Why? Because everything you do is based on fantasy of some boogeyman that doesn't exist?

A few months ago a guy tried to barge his way through our door. He only ran away after I put a cocked .45 against his sternum. I never filed a police report. Who knows what he would have done if he had been given the chance, and how many times are crimes similarly averted by a citizen being armed? Nobody knows, because these events normally go unreported.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 134): Oh, so then, using that logic, the airplanes killed people on 9/11, not the terrorists?

Well no, my point is that the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" ignores the whole premise that without a gun many deaths will be avoided. I do agree that some deaths will not be avoided as another weapon will be sought, but the cases will be fewer as we can see with statistics with other countries that has the relative same amount of violent crime but fewer deaths. Do you think there is no correlation between the amount of deaths and the amount of guns available?

I think I would be concerned if I were a citizen or resident in the US having seen local police forces with army equipment on the streets (although this seems to have been curbed for the moment only after this equipment was used against the citizens they are supposed to protect). If you cannot see that this creates a arms race with the organised crime that will only escalate into more fear and paranoia.

I believe you have a right to what is legal under law, but don't be surprised that others will disagree with you. Laws were written by man, they can be unwritten as well. We, as humans, seem to think it was okay to have someone be a slave to you for a long time as well.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 134): Oh, so then, using that logic, the airplanes killed people on 9/11, not the terrorists?

well, guess the cockpit doors can be removed then....why are we making the aircrafts safe, if only people are the problem?

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 158): well, guess the cockpit doors can be removed then....why are we making the aircrafts safe, if only people are the problem?

You can't pick and choose where it's the people and where it's the tool. It's either always the tool or the people.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 156): A few months ago a guy tried to barge his way through our door. He only ran away after I put a cocked .45 against his sternum. I never filed a police report. Who knows what he would have done if he had been given the chance, and how many times are crimes similarly averted by a citizen being armed? Nobody knows, because these events normally go unreported.

Haven't you heard, the anti-gun types would have you arrested for hurting the would-be burglars feelings by pointing a gun at him? They don't care about the facts, only the irrational fear of guns.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 159): It's either always the tool or the people.

and that is exactly my point.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 114): And this is supposed to be what? An achievement? Something to be proud of? An argument against better gun control? Do you realize how pathetic this sounds?

It's supposed to be a grounding. The anti-rights people here are going around suggesting that the streets of every major city in America are littered with the corpses of civilians. And that just isn't true.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 115): Every civilized country agrees that it is the right of the citizen's to react to a constitional crisis (e.g. dictatorship) by force if necessary. In the US, this reasonable principle has been perverted to the "right" to unlimited ownership and carrying of firearms during peace time without any dictatorship looming, which creates a perpertual crisis rather than averting one.

Perverted? It can't be perverted when it was FIRST to codify those rights and lay down those protections. Before the Revolution, a monarch's rule was essentially arbitrary, as mentioned in this quote from Leviathan:

Quote: "I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to his Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou that give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner. This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which we owe under the Immortal God, our peace and defence.

(I give you the authority to do whatever you want as the ruler, in exchange for peace and security)

So is it no surprise that the people who had just led a revolution would say "our speech is most important, but if that fails, we have our guns to revolt again?"

Now, as for perpetual crisis, you're again acting as if anyone walking through a standard American city street could be gunned down randomly as easily as they find a nickel on the ground. That just isn't the case.

Let's be blunt here. This is a forum for aviation enthusiasts. You need to pay to contribute. From that we can infer a couple of things: first, that the people here have some form of disposable income, and second that we're somewhat educated. Add in being a member of the ethnic majority in your jurisdiction, and you're pretty much immune from all but the most newsworthy of violent events, or getting struck by lightning.

The numbers that rack up the US homicide rate are not random murders or even bungled burglaries. Here's what the FBI have to say about it:

Quote: According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.

and about socioeconomic status:

Quote: While there is a correlation between blacks and Hispanics and crime, the data implies a stronger tie between poverty and crime than crime and any racial group, when gender is taken into consideration. The direct correlation between crime and class, when factoring for race alone, is relatively weak. When gender, and familial history are factored, class correlates more strongly with crime than race or ethnicity. Studies indicate that areas with low socioeconomic status may have the greatest correlation of crime with young and adult males, regardless of racial composition, though its effect on females is negligible.

Gang shootings in Chicago and Baltimore bring up the numbers, but don't make life more dangerous for the middle class.

Now, if you have a philosophical argument that a monopoly on defence and force should be held only by the state, I can't argue the philosophies of it with you. I can just say that I deeply disagree, as my life and rights are worth being defended and not left to the grace of anyone else.

And of course it's cultural. It's philosophical. It's societal. It's always the Australian flags, British flags, a few European and Canadian flags arguing how the Americans should be running their domestic policies and denying their citizens natural rights. But the one time I said I wouldn't visit Australia because leaving would necessitate an Orwellian body scan, I was attacked by half a dozen commenters telling me "we don't want you here anyway."

As for an airport? Social contract theory would solve it. "We give you our word to protect you and there are armed guards here, so to enter, you need to relinquish your weapon." No Warren vs. DC allowed.

Hopefully the next person to walk into an airport with a rifle is not Al Queda.

Does that mean that only comments from US posters are allowed?.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 156): Who knows what he would have done if he had been given the chance, and how many times are crimes similarly averted by a citizen being armed? Nobody knows, because these events normally go unreported.

Then it should stand to reason that people are being robbed and violated all over the place in the EU, Australia, and Japan, right? But they're not. And these incidents where a gun supposedly "protects someone" from a robber with conveniently no report, witness, evidence, or record, are far-far-far outweighed by the accidental deaths, the suicides, assaults, and murders that are preventable.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 159): They don't care about the facts, only the irrational fear of guns.

What facts? The irony is off the charts. Guns kill tens of thousands of people every year...but you guys have anecdotal evidence (I once stopped a robber but never filed a police report or ANY record--how convenient!) and an irrational paranoia that everyone is out to get you, and that somehow a gun will make you safer (it increases your risk).

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 158): well, guess the cockpit doors can be removed then....why are we making the aircrafts safe, if only people are the problem?

Quoting opethfan (Reply 161): Gang shootings in Chicago and Baltimore bring up the numbers, but don't make life more dangerous for the middle class.

There are underprivileged groups everywhere where the rate of violence is higher than the general population, and still the overall rate of violence is much higher in the USA. But dumping the problem on "minorities" is incredibly racist, though standard operating procedure for the NRA. And that doesn't take into account the other half of the equation, which *is* wealthier and whiter: suicides.

I've stayed away from this thread, because it has predictably devolved into what they always devolve into. but, I will answer this one statement:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 163): And these incidents where a gun supposedly "protects someone" from a robber with conveniently no report, witness, evidence, or record, are far-far-far outweighed by the accidental deaths, the suicides, assaults, and murders that are preventable.

Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

But, I'm going to agree with "gun skeptics" and say the 2 million number is too high. In fact, I suspect the number is somewhere south of 1 million. Maybe not as far south as 100,000 as suggested here:

Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year.

Maybe, a bit north of here:

Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...ten-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

Even if the number were just 100,000 defensive uses of a firearm; that means that just 100,000 people may not have been victimized. That means that a certain percentage of that 100,000 people were just women that didn't get raped, or home invasions that didn't happen, or a beating that didn't occur, or a kidnapping that didn't happen, or someone wasn't killed.

What's the estimate? 35,000 people killed by guns a year? As I recall the statistics, more than half of those are suicides. How many of those are asshole on asshole killings?

For you to say that the defensive use of a firearm is "far-far-far outweighed by the accidental deaths, the suicides, assaults, and murders that are preventable" is subjective and not supported by the evidence.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 164): Even if the number were just 100,000 defensive uses of a firearm; that means that just 100,000 people may not have been victimized. That means that a certain percentage of that 100,000 people were just women that didn't get raped, or home invasions that didn't happen, or a beating that didn't occur, or a kidnapping that didn't happen, or someone wasn't killed.

so, there must be compelling evidence that people without guns are significantly more likely to become ad victim of a crime than gun owners.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent.

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-...n%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPublic%2BHealth

Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

http://m.injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-shot-and-killed.html#.VXF6xnPenqA

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

So... somehow I don't buy it.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 165): so, there must be compelling evidence that people without guns are significantly more likely to become ad victim of a crime than gun owners.

Not at all. It means that law abiding people with guns have more options than those without when confronted by a violent criminal.

Carrying a gun does not necessarily make you safer. In fact, in many cases, it may make you less safe, depending on your level of competence. Carrying a gun just provides additional options when things go bad. That's it.

[Edited 2015-06-05 05:26:11]

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 166): Not at all. It means that law abiding people with guns have more options than those without when confronted by a violent criminal.

so your argument is "Guns protect 100.000+ people/year from becoming victims, but there is no proof because guns don't have to make you more safe"?
And all that with data indicating that those law abiding citizens make the world less.safe for everyone else?

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 166): Not at all. It means that law abiding people with guns have more options than those without when confronted by a violent criminal.

You can try to reason with the European anti-gunners all you want, but the sooner you realize that they don't care about the argument, other than imposing how they think our country should be ran on us, the sooner you won't even entertain this wack-jobs.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting trex8 (Reply 24): To be fair to 747400ERF he comes from a nation which for 3 decades after WW2 had a standard issue military rifle which only has semi automatic function, having deleted the full auto function from the model they chose, and which pretty much every army in the rest of the world retained if using that rifle.

Because a 7.62mm rifle of that type on full auto meant the first round of the burst had the best chance, the second went high and after that......it's an anti aircraft weapon.
Having fired the SLR back in the 1980's the idea of it on full auto makes me shudder. (Easy to modify it to do so if you don't mind a court martial).
The FAL was only adopted after the US refused to agree to NATO adopting a new, small calibre high velocity round.
Britain would use it in the EM-2, a selective fire, optically sighted bullpup - of the early 1950's!
FAL became SLR as the design of the new calibre had reflected the the belief that a 7.62mm selective fire rifle was a waste of ammo.

But that's all history, this guy at the airport.
I think like many the first thought was 'try doing that if you are anything other than the ethnicity of this berk'.
Second thought, well an ironic observation that how odd it is that he gets a pass when demographically he's of the group that do the most mass shootings.

Will they have to wait for a mass shooting in an airport? Military style, ASSAULT style (same round, same velocity, from the same capacity mag), weapon, the shooter has got stacks of ammo, all those 30 round mags loaded up. 5.56mm is low recoil, a high rate of fire by any standards even on semi-auto.
If it's the all too familiar nut, the disgruntled, the jilted, whatever, will it be a terrorist attack?
If not, why not?
In their crazed minds they have an agenda too.

This sort of extreme interpretation of laws is not so much showing freedom has a price but ultimately just a cost.

You know, all they need to do, to fix this 'problem' is to pass a local law prohibiting the carrying of firearms in an airport. I'm sure there are many municipalities that have done this.

See, when that law is passed, we will all be safe (while, at the airport), because it would be illegal to carry a gun in the unsecured areas of the airport.

Easy, peasy.

Diamondflyer

What is to stop 20 people exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment, and walking into Atlanta Airport in the morning with M16's?.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 154): yet does not function like one (i.e. fully automatic capability)

Does a 3-round burst count as fully automatic?  

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 171): What is to stop 20 people exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment, and walking into Atlanta Airport in the morning with M16's?.

Nothing (other than the fact that you would have to find 30 people that own an M16, not an easy task), that's the beauty of the way we live our lives here in the US. An every man can decide he wants to do something and does it.

I'll say it one more time for the visually impaired. I don't think that open carrying a long arm into an airport is a bright idea. However, I will fight until the end for a persons right to do so.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 171): What is to stop 20 people exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment, and walking into Atlanta Airport in the morning with M16's?

Nothing at all, except that M16's are pretty hard to come by.

Would you feel better if 20 people entered the Atlanta airport carrying handguns?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 172): Does a 3-round burst count as fully automatic?

In the eyes of the BAFTE, yes it counts as an automatic weapon.

Speaking of the law:

You guys do realize that term "assault weapon" is a political term. It was co-opted by anti-gun politicians and media in the late-70's, mid-80's to make some rifles seems scarier than others. The things that make an "assault weapon" are largely cosmetic in nature.

It was a successful commandeering of language. Similar to efforts by the gun-control folks to advance gun-control efforts as "reasonable gun-safety" legislation and regulation.

[Edited 2015-06-05 14:59:48]

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 174): You guys do realize that term "assault weapon" is a political term.

Assault weapon can be anything... even a meat cleaver.
Assault Rifle, is more specific.
So while Assault Rifle can belong to the Assault Weapon category, not all Assault Weapons can be Assault Rifles    And yes, I agree, putting a rifle or assault rifle the term of "assault weapon" is silly politics.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 154): Your dictionary definition defines an assault rifle to mean something that may look like an assault rifle, yet does not function like one (i.e. fully automatic capability) By this definition, if I got a block of wood, cut it, painted it and polished it up to LOOK like an AK47, then that is an assault rifle - even though the only way it could possibly be dangerous is if you clubbed someone over the head with it..

And nobody gives a damn. There have been 50 posts over semantics and it is a waste of time. Whether it is an AR or an AR is 100% irrelevant in this situation. The "everyone look at me" show-off never fired his big toy in the airport, or we would be having a much different discussion.

The issue is perception of a threat and/or intimidation. The Japanese family checking in at ATL and seeing "Rambo" doesn't care about the type of magazine, details of the barrel, caliber, or whether it is semi or full auto. They see an non-uniformed person with a large gun. Even if it was a wood or plastic replica the perception would be the same. People have been shot and killed by police when carrying model guns.

This was an incredibly stupid venue to pull a stunt like this, and this man should be assessed if he is even of a functional mental state to possess a gun.

I actually have a fairly neutral position regarding gun ownership, but when someone has such poor judgement of knowing the right time and place, they aren't mature enough to own a device that can kill from a distance.






LD4

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 176): There have been 50 posts over semantics and it is a waste of time.

Actually, it is important, because words have meaning. The anti-gun types have been twisting the meaning and inventing new meanings for words and phrases in order to further their agenda. Some here are just trying to take the language back.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 176): This was an incredibly stupid venue to pull a stunt like this, and this man should be assessed if he is even of a functional mental state to possess a gun.

I agree with you, except for the mental assessment. He did this for one reason and one alone, and it wasn't to feel safe. He wanted to make the news. He wanted to make the statement. He wants to bring the conversation forward. And, like it or not, he succeeded.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 176): The issue is perception of a threat and/or intimidation.

To tell you the truth, I'm not on the same page as this guy, but maybe the same chapter. I can not control how someone will react to what I say or do. Now, as I stated above, he was out to get a reaction and went about presenting himself in a way that would get a reaction.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 176): People have been shot and killed by police when carrying model guns.

Apparently, that's a risk that he was willing to take.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 175): Assault weapon can be anything... even a meat cleaver.

Not according to the old Assault Weapons Ban, because a meat cleaver does not have at least 2 of the following:
- a pistol grip
- a bayonet lug
- a threaded barrel
- a barrel shroud
- detachable magazine
- folding stock

oh yeah, and a grenade launcher...can't forget that.

As expected, this thread quickly turned into an us-vs-them thread, like any thread involving guns. It will now be locked, as it has strayed far off course and become a party of insults back and forth.