Manhattan Mid-Afternoon

[Sunder]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Normen Nomesco wrote:

> Oh and Im sure having guns on board planes would work out great
> especially considering the increase of people having huge fucking fits
> and having to be held down on planes, yeah, lets arm people on planes.
> Have you ever fucking even been on a plan?  I wouldn't trust most of my fellow
> monkeys with a sharp edge on the free peanuts.

Fuck you and get a clue.  You're assuming that 90% of the population is
irresponsible for itself.  Today, I know for a fact that we are good,
honest, law abiding folk.  No doubt, no ifs, no buts.  I didn't see
looting, I didn't see insanity, I didn't see a single soul that did not
try and help his fellow exodee (if you would allow me the lattitude in
inventing the word.)

In fact, most people are not going to go around killing each other.  Even
if they could.  Most people are going to help each other.

Have you ever thought it out for a second past the media bullshit you'v
been spoon fed about how guns are evil?  They're not evil, they're
tools.  They're equalizers.  They make the smallest pipsqueak equal to the
tallest muscular bad ass out there.   And that in itself is why we need
them.  Two factors: a) 90+% of the population isn't interested in hurting
others.  B) when those that would pop out from under their rocks, they
would be surrounded by those who would put them out of everyone's misery
without the slightest hesitation.
 
> I am sickened that you would make this correlation in an attempt
> to further the banner of gun proliferation.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that
> UM...
> If you could bring a gun on board a plane, the terrorist would have GUNS
> instead of knifes and cardboard cutters.

Yes, and didn't you stop to think for a second that if a single terrorist
had a gun, but he was surrounded by fifty others against him with guns
that he would not survive?  Even if he were suicidal?

Think for a second.  Yes, he could put his gun to the head of a child next
to him, and quite likely suceede in murdering that child.  But he would
not be able to achieve any goals whatsoever.  HE would be shot down
instantly without mercy.

A terrorist's goal is a simple one.  TO force others to his will.  If he
knows he will die and is willing to die, he will do this gladly as we saw
today.  But if he knows that he will die and not achive his goals, if the
price is one terrorist's life for that of an innocent versus eight
terrorists for the price of 20,000, he wouldn't even attempt such a thing.

> Yeah, im sure mr fat and lazy American middle class business man
> with his .38 and his 20 hours on the range will be able to easily take on
> someone who has spent 30 years fighting as a terrorist and being trained
> sine he was 10 years old.  

I'm 100% positive that a single armed terrorist with the best training in
the world would perish within seconds at the hands of 50+ such businessmen
before taking out more than several victims.  To understand this, you must
think as they did.

They suceeded in sacrificing eight of their lives on two planes - or so
the reports say 3-4 ragheads per plan with sharp implements managed to
raze at least three buildings.  I don't know how many died, but they said
that over 10,000 people worked at EACH of those buildings.  I hope most of
them managed to get out.

Back to the point: the bastards did the math just as well.  Eight of their
lives for 20,000 of ours.  If everyone had guns, even if the terrorists
also had guns, 4 guys in a plan of 120 would not have been able to force
the plane to become a bomb.  Simple, cold, math.  You can add, can't you?

> Fighting against some of the best and well equipped
>  formal militaries in the world,  the equivalent of a hyper religious
> navy seal.

Bullshit, they had knives and sharp instruments.  No matter how well
trained a killer is, he is no match for odds like 120 to 4 against.

Yes, I grant you, of those 120, many would have died.  But not thousands.

> I can see it now, 2 blue haired republican nuns with .22 took them on and 
> won and the world was safe.

And why the fuck not.  Guns again are equalizers,  They make the weakest
of us into an equal of the strongest of them.
 
> Yeah, I am sure that having guns on the plane would have saved everyone.

No, not everyone.  But that would have saved 20,000 lives at a cost of
perhaps three or four innocents.
 
> Even on this list, I rarely say it
> your a fucking moron

Look in the mirror.  Learn the math.  Learn the crime statistics of those
cities and states that outright ban guns versus those that don't. Then
perhaps you can remove your socialist gun-paranoid foot from that hole you
utter words with.