Atlanta Airport Bans Guns
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
I see no problem with this. An airport is no place for a gun. Seriously - what reaspon would one have anyway? Is no one has weapons there, what do you need a weapon to defend yourself from anyway?
That is why there are so many trained security personnel in the airport. Of course, debating the effectiveness of TSA is a totally different topic.
That is why there are so many trained security personnel in the airport. Of course, debating the effectiveness of TSA is a totally different topic.
Many people, myself included don't really wanna put my safety in anothers hands (I have no choice being in Canada). "Trained" is a word with many definitions. One can not be certain that a "trained" security personnel can react appropriately or really has the training or experience to protect others in a crisis situation.
Give me a couple of people with private firearms that really know how to use them over someone that may or may not have the "right stuff" any day.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, how do the people in the airports know who is law abiding and who isn't?
Well, its like I said in my other post...how are we supposed to know who is law abiding and who isn't? I would tend to agree with what you said....an airport..IMO, way too much risk for a terrorist attack, etc. If someone feels that they need to bring it with them when they go to dinner with the family...fine.
As far as airport security goes...AFAIK, the only armed people in the airports where I live is the State Police.
To play devils advocate for a moment...some may not feel safe putting their lives in the hands of the average Joe either. How do I know whether or not the civilian has gone thru the proper courses, that will cover moving targets, shooting under pressure/stress, etc.?
I'll close by saying what I always say...I'm not anti-gun. If someone wants to own one, I'm fine with that. I would just hope that people who're going to do more with it than just take it to the range, have been trained properly.
Archangel M
Senior Master
9/11 would have had a far different outcome if law abiding people had weapons on those planes.
I think that's way too simplistic a view. Prior to 9/11, our experience said that a hijack script was "take the plane, go somewhere, land, deal for the hostages." While there were plenty of reasons to anticipate something different -- the advice generally given if you found yourself in a hostage situation or hijacking was to go along & not call attention to yourself, while waiting to be rescued. The passengers on Flight 93 only acted when they received word of the other attacks, and realized that the script had changed. I give them every bit of credit for adapting to the new situation, and doing their best to overcome it... but I do think a key factor was that they did receive word of the other attacks, with enough time to act. I think it's also noteworthy that they did not possess guns...
Maybe, maybe not. I think that you are assuming that these people may have had some training. I've always said that I would scrap most gun control law in favor of classes and tests that would check for usage aptitude for whatever weapon a person wanted to own. I have no problem with people who know what they are doing carrying weapons in an airport.
Archangel M
Senior Master
Compared to running into them with a service cart? In that situation an untrained man with a gun i would take over unarmed any day.
Archangel M
Senior Master
Um, I've seen some of these "trained security personnel" get winded using the hand scanner... :lol:
True, as I said, I think that the TSA effectiveness thing is a whole different issue. In my experience also, there are plenty of people there who couldn't get jobs as security guards, so they went to TSA. But then, there are also those who are good at their jobs and know what they are doing. Just like in any job. My biggest point about the guns in airports is that 1) No one else has one either and 2) Where are you really going to be allowed to carry it anyway? You could never get it past the metal detectors, that is nothing new. So basically, this law means that you can't have it at the ticket counters, a few restaurants (although in most airports, the majority of the restaurants are inside the security perimeter), and the baggage claim. The biggest threat that I see there is a few pickpockets - maybe someone trying to take your baggage. But really, what is the target in that area?
Personally, if I was any kind of criminal terrorist, etc...I wouldn't be going after the people buying tickets and picking up their bags. You have the biggest effect either on the plane or inside the security perimeter (where acces to the planes is; baggage loading, maintenance, parking ramp, etc).
While I don't necessarily agree that people need to carry guns everywhere they go, I support their right to do it and would never argue that they shouldn't be allowed.
I really just see this as a "pick your battles" kind of thing. Carrying a gun in an airport isn't that big of a deal, they're not really taking that much away, there really isn't that big of a threat....now, when legislation start to take away the right to carry it into bars and government buildings....now THERE is where we need to step in!
hehehe
Even though I don't carry, I'm with the gun rights people here. It's a slippery slope. What's the next "small" restriction?I really just see this as a "pick your battles" kind of thing. Carrying a gun in an airport isn't that big of a deal, they're not really taking that much away, there really isn't that big of a threat....now, when legislation start to take away the right to carry it into bars and government buildings....now THERE is where we need to step in!
The Supreme Court seemed not to think so. As I read their reading of the Constitution, they seem to think that citizens are entitled to private ownership, but some restrictions are appropriate. With that being said, are there any cases where gun bans ARE appropriate?
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Aren't airports already gun free zones? You certainly can't take one beyond the security checkpoint unless you have a badge to flash.
Archangel M
Senior Master
Ive been told by those who lived at the time that prior to 1961 it wasn't uncommon for people to carry on-board.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HalbrookAirSecurity.html
While I'm kind of playing devils advocate here, I'm not really FOR everybody packing on planes, I think that flight 98 showed that the best defense against another 9/11 style attack is the passengers taking care of business. Stripping everybody of any form of armed defense is not working already, ask anybody involved in airport security. Perhaps a different approach should be considered.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HalbrookAirSecurity.html
While I'm kind of playing devils advocate here, I'm not really FOR everybody packing on planes, I think that flight 98 showed that the best defense against another 9/11 style attack is the passengers taking care of business. Stripping everybody of any form of armed defense is not working already, ask anybody involved in airport security. Perhaps a different approach should be considered.
Hmm...and here are some people who probably shouldn't have guns.
http://www.ofainc.com/newsletters/1998/ofapg5.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/08/london_flight_d.html
http://consumerist.com/337189/unruly-passenger-forces-jetblue-flight-to-make-unscheduled-landing
So, I want the guy, whos sitting next to me, who cant seem to go from point A to point B without a drink, getting upset because the crew refuses him one because he's getting intoxicated, so he pulls out a gun.
I'll also add again...how are we going to know who is law abiding and who isn't?
Similar threads
