Be honest - You're in a bus full of people. Do you feel safe knowing some have guns?

[mudesi]

I want complete honesty here, even from the gun enthusiasts. Quite frankly, I'd find it hard to believe anyone who says they'd be completely comfortable in the above situation.

You're in a bus full of people. Do you want it to be a bus with people who have hand guns concealed under their clothes, or a bus with not one gun on board? Which situation would you rather have?

I don't want to ever live in a society that has degenerated so much to the point where I have to pack heat in order to feel "safe". How sad and pathetic.

Edit: I should add that you have to be in a bus full of people you don't know. Strangers. Not a club or a gathering of like minded individuals.

[Richard Steele]

1. I've been in ROOMS full of people and knew that several had CCWs.

Yeah, I felt pretty damn safe.

[renie408]

71. Your screenname is Dick Steele. n/t

[Richard Steele]

134. Yes. My name is Richard Steele. What's your point?

[aquart]

2. I live in NYC. I never have to consider that. Thank God!

[krispos42]

5. WTF?

Musta missed the part when all the gangbangers left for the suburbs...

[baldguy]

66. When was the last time you were in NYC?

"Gangbangers" don't ride the bus.

[krispos42]

108. Thanksgiving 2006

Bus to light-rail to plane to bus to subway to Metro-North.

Of course, that trip was immediately after working a 10-hour night shift, so I was still awake mainly by force of will at that point. :-)

But if you want to believe that none of the convicted criminals riding public transport don't carry, go right ahead.

[havocmom]

143. LOL

So, just because there's a law....

:rofl:

Such assumptions and delusions are amusing to me.

[BlueJazz]

3. No

[CBHagman]

4. I would prefer a bus without guns.

The only exception I'd make would be for a law enforcement officer or someone trained to handle a gun professionally.

But as a general rule, no, I wouldn't feel safe if I knew various people in a restaurant, on a bus, in a movie theater, etc., were carrying guns.

[hlthe2b]

17. Ditto..

Yes, if it was law enforcement. No, if it was the general public.... How many people die from accidental rather than intentional gun use, after all. At least with law enforcement, they have (generally) had some training in assessing the situation before pulling the trigger, or conversely have been trained "not to choke" if lethal force is required. I'm sure there are many responsible gun owners, but....

[krispos42]

114. Surprisingly few, actually. 649 in the year 2004

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf on page 77

You might get intentionally shot in error, but that is different from "oops, dropped my gun" or "oops, I thought he was a buck".

[Midlodemocrat]

62. Ditto.

[distantearlywarning]

6. Well, here's another example that I live every weekend.

As a member of a historical recreation society, I regularly spend my Saturdays in a room full of people carrying knives and swords (and yes, occasionally a few pistols). In that world, even young children sometimes carry knives.

Do I feel safe? Perfectly. I've never once worried that one of them would suddenly snap and start stabbing people standing near them.

Hadn't thought about the bus analogy before, but well, on the bus I ride probably half of the passengers ARE carrying guns. I'm not losing sleep over it. I worry a LOT more about the crazy bad bus drivers in this city running over a pedestrian or having an accident and killing all of us poor passengers in rush hour traffic. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/1884060/detail.html

[dysfunctional press]

7. yes.

nt

[patrice]

8. No.

Not just guns on a bus, but the whole culture that evolved into guns on a bus - not safe in any way shape or form.

[Ian David]

9. Two words...

Red Dawn!

"Comrade, that bus full of Americans was an easy target. It is a good thing none of them had guns, yes? They might have scratched the paint on our tank."

:sarcasm:

[michreject]

102. Wolverine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[krispos42]

10. Depends on who has them

As it always does. I want the bad criminal people disarmed and the good people armed if they choose to be.

The only way to insure a bus is "gun free" is by having a metal detector and a security guard on board checking everybody. And I'd hate to live in a place where that was needed in order to make people feel safe.

Otherwise, what ultimately happens is that law-abiding people either can't legally carry, won't carry because "guns are barbaric", or carry illegally. And that the criminal element, as usual, will carry any time they damn well please.

[zanne]

149. Unfortunately, you have very little say in that.

It's a nice dream, but until there are alot fewer guns available to the public, good people will have them and bad people will have them. And occasionally, as we see on the news every night, a good person who is enraged will have one and shoot somebody in the head. It'd be great if we could be sure that the laws provided for only "good" people to have guns, but that's impossible. The only answer is an outright ban on anything other than hunting rifles, then decades of a "War Against Guns" to make our society safer.

[EstimatedProphet]

155. I disagree that that's the only answer

I think the problem is in the idea that people should always be safe. That's simply not possible. Ban guns, and someone who decides to start killing people will pick up a knife. It may not be as easy as a gun, but that won't matter too much to the person who's killed.

[krispos42]

158. I know...

And that's the problem.

It's always the problem. But nearly all murderers are multiple-time-convicted criminals. And our drug laws insure that we'll always have a good supply of multiple-time-convicted criminals.

The "War on Guns" would be yet another boondoggle of taxpayer money to wage a 'war' against something to 'make us safer'. And maybe in fifty years we'll have suceeded in getting the crime and homicide rate back down to where they were when the war started.

And in the meantime, like in the War on Drugs or the War on Terror, we're throwing Constitutional rights in the shredder and paying billions annually for the privilage.

And, of course, if we gave up the "War on Drugs", the improvement in society's safety would increase so much that the "War on Guns" would be preempted.

But that would require a rational approach to the drug problem, and the puritans and lobbyists in Washington are not going to allow that. But if we did, in a generation or two, as we adapted to the change, I think we would be a lot better off.

I say this as a non-drug user, BTW. I'm not advocating this so I can get cheap weed or something.

The thread about the hemp nightgown was vastly informative. Legalizing hemp would most likely drastically weaken a boatload of other industries that donate big-time to DC. You should read it if you get the chance.

[Bigmack]

11. I could give you some flip answer...

... but it's more complicated than that. I have a permit and a 9mm, and I carry it much of the time.

I think my feelings about weapons are a carryover from the Corps... about a thousand years ago. It's a tool... a deadly tool.... but still, only a tool.

If I go biking, I carry it for dogs. Yes, I have drawn and aimed it at two very large Rottweillers, and they came about 10 feet away from my lighting them up. Would I get in trouble if I blew up some dog that attacked me. Dunno. I love dogs, but I don't like bike-related head injuries and broken bones. I've had people threaten me and my wife on the road too. Seems some folks don't like bicycle people, and much of the time the roads we bike aren't heavily traveled.

Most of the time, I keep my wallet and my weapon in the same little fannypack. Separating them and rejoining them takes more planning than I'm capable of sometimes.

I guess if I was on a bus, I'd be OK with people having weapons, as long as I was one of those packing.

Having said all this, sometimes I feel like part of the problem....carrying a weapon around in a supposedly civilized society.

[hlthe2b]

20. As one who has extensive training in dealing with large dogs...

I acknowledge your right to protect yourself, and that there are some very irresponsible dog owners. That, having been said, I have no doubt that I could (5 feet 2 inch female) deal with Rotties coming after me on my bike without hurting them (or killing the little kid who might be close behind when you start "lighting them up." :eyes:

You had my empathy and even some admiration until you started underscoring your wild west attitude towards the neighborhood dogs. Good God!

[AndyTiedye]

35. How?

I have no doubt that I could (5 feet 2 inch female) deal with Rotties coming after me on my bike without hurting them

How?

Seems to me the only option is to be faster than they are (if that is an option), or maybe pepper spray.

[hlthe2b]

39. No, standing one's ground and calm determined assertion...

Your riding by on a bicycle excites these poorly trained dogs (with dunces for owners). They perceive it as prey behavior. You should immediately stop, straighten your torso up (which makes you appear larger and thus more powerful to the dog), and assertively tell them one time loudly, firmly, but not in an excited manner, "NO!" I usually snap my fingers simultaneously towards them. Begin to ride towards them, if necessary, should they not immediately turn tail to go home. Do not turn your back to ride off until they have completely headed for home.

The point is NOT to threaten them, but to stop their instinctive behavior in its tracks... That means abruptly disrupting their 'thinking' pattern. Disrupt their "brain," and it immediately shifts their behavior.

However, if you are fearful, rather than calm, very determined and assertive, they WILL know it and continue to chase or come after you, the prey, in their excitement. The "game" could potentially turn into something more dangerous with the rare dog, if you do NOT appropriately respond. Ironically your pulling out a weapon and pointing, while projecting fear, might just be what triggers that in the rare dog that would attack. If they are in pairs, they perceive themselves as a pack. YOU must immediately become the defacto leader of that pack, which is what the behavior described conveys to them. They become submissive to their pack leader. That, too, is instinctive.

This response is the same that I was trained from childhood to do in the Colorado mountains, had I come upon a bear on a trail. It does work, if you do it correctly. However, most people run (or cycle off) screaming or otherwise expressing fear, anger, excitement. That only exacerbates the instinct to come after the "prey."

While I've never had to test it out with a bear, I do know of people who have and were not attacked. Wild animal trainers also use this technique. I have, however, often done so with aggressive, angry and fearful dogs-- chows, pitbulls, rotties, I have never been bitten. Most veterinarians have had to do so on a more or less regular basis when confronted with fearful, aggressive animals ... Ask yours if they too have not learned this technique. It is called asserting your dominance. Any person, regardless of size can do so if they can develop their ability to remain calm and assertive. Most people, however panic and animals immediately sense and respond to that panic...

Dogs are wonderful beings. But, we the humans are supposed to be smarter than them. That means we have to take a bit of time to understand them and "what makes them tick."

[Xenotime]

43. Many would say your 'technique' has severe behavorial consequences...

...and would be considered inhumane.

[hlthe2b]

68. Rather than shooting them..

Jeebus... Get a clue? :wtf:

[Lyric]

53. It isn't always about prey.

I too have extensive experience training and handling an array of large dogs (including Rottweilers, Golden Retrievers, Saint Bernards, and Boxers) and I think you're giving an irresponsible answer here.

Your advice only works *if* the dog in question is being aggressive because his predator instinct has been aroused by the moving bicycle. If the dog is question is feeling territorial or hormonally aggressive (e.g., an intact male who's roused-up because the bitch down the street is in heat, or a dog who's decided that the entire street is his territory), has been trained to be aggressive, has been abused, or is overly-protective due to having a litter of pups and/or a family nearby, then your advice of standing your ground (especially the "riding toward them if necessary" part) could be seen as a challenge, and escalate the aggression--and that's assuming that the dog is healthy. If it's a sick or injured dog, his behavior can be unpredictable due to pain, fear, or the compromised mental state that some diseases can leave an animal in (like rabies, for example).

I completely agree that much of this behavior can be avoided with spaying/neutering and proper training, but you can't expect someone on a bicycle to be able to basically spot-train an aggressive dog without even knowing for sure what's causing the aggression in the first place. What works to halt one type of aggression can exacerbate another type.

In my experience, the best way to deal with a strange dog that's behaving aggressively is to remain as calm and non-threatening as possible. Do not make direct eye contact, because in "dog language" that is considered a challenge. Speak in a steady voice at a normal volume level in soothing tones. If the dog's aggression persists, back away slowly in a sideways manner. When all else fails--use pepper spray. It's a non-lethal option that doesn't pose a serious threat to other people in the area, it's cheap, and you can carry a small spray can of it on a wrist strap, so it's faster than digging for a handgun in your fanny pack.

[hlthe2b]

70. the OP favors shooting...neighborhood dogs

rather than taking any other steps...


I guess you would agree..:eyes:

[Lyric]

125. Did you actually read what I said?

When all else fails--use pepper spray. It's a non-lethal option that doesn't pose a serious threat to other people in the area, it's cheap, and you can carry a small spray can of it on a wrist strap, so it's faster than digging for a handgun in your fanny pack.

No I do not believe that people should shoot aggressive dogs. I didn't come right out and say so because I was mostly responding to your "advice" rather than the OP. In the quoted text above, I was attempting to focus on how much more inconvenient a firearm is when compared to pepper spray in that situation, because people seem to be more responsive and open to an idea that's based on a practical point rather than an moralistic one. Let me make my opinion clear now, so I can get flamed from the folks on the *other* side of this too.

I think that handguns should be banned in the United States, period. I do not believe that people should shoot aggressive dogs, save in very, very exceptional circumstances, none of which would involve a handgun wielded by a private citizen in a public area.

I do hope that was clear enough for you.

[jhain]

57. how much time do you figure

you would have between a big dog deciding to rip your face off and you getting your face ripped off?
Having been the first on the scene minutes after a very friendly, happy dog -well known to her- attacked a 17 yo girl's face I can tell you- you do not have much time with some animals. This girl was WELL versed in animal behaviors. Between sobs and blood she kept repeating all of that dog's behaviors in the milli seconds before the attack to me. All had seemed normal and fine. There was NO TIME for her to employ any of the tactics you listed.
Humans may be smarter but animals are faster. I hope you always stay safe.
BE CAREFUL.

[hlthe2b]

73. Obviously, if one is caught off guard in ambush...

that is NOT what I am referring to. Standing ground when a dog is approaching is hardly the same as saying one can avoid being attacked from a pouncing wild or truly vicious animal if you are totally unaware. We have joggers and cyclists attacked along the foothills by mountain lions each year as they are running or cycling. If they never see the lion, they do not have a chance....and by their running, they are perfectly simulating the prey that triggers the response. There is no way they could outrun or outcycle them, when they do finally see them. On the other hand, those that have spotted the animal approaching have, in some cases been able to scare them off by standing their ground... Certainly, in such a no-win situation, that is what I would try.

From what you describe, this girl likewise did not have chance to react in ANY way, including shooting, had she had a gun. This is night and day from what I am describing. I have never ever ever said that there were not dogs or other wild animals that attack from a very primal level and were so aggressive that they have to be destroyed.

Your tragic story is, indeed tragic, but rare. I am referring to the all too common case where there are nuisance dogs chasing--dogs that are so starved for exercise that when they get out, their excitement and exhuberance momentarily takes over. That is the type of situation we all deal with--not the rare, but tragic case of the truly vicious animal that attacks with no warning. In the incident you describe, neither what I am suggesting, nor having a gun is going to help, because this girl had no chance to react. TO suggest otherwise, per some of the gun proponents, is to suggest one can prevent being shot in the back by a sniper at a distance, just because you are "packing."

Your posting is NOT AT ALL what I am discussing. (although I think you knew that)

[jhain]

95. I didn't know that at all

you sounded quite sure that a human could 'outwit' an animal and it worried me. I took the time to send you a concerned 'be careful'. Sounds like you will be.

[hlthe2b]

100. People that spend a great deal of time with animals...

learn early on the visual clues animals send. It is not difficult to immediately differentiate between the vicious and life-threatening cues of the totally primal animal, versus the overly excited, out-of control play from the neighborhood dogs. But, these cues are not rocket science and anyone can learn to recognize them--probably already do in fact, instinctively.

The OP suggested a gun as the answer. Even for those who really don't like dogs and thus don't care about killing someone's beloved pet, perhaps the possibility of a bullet ricochet should give them pause. And yes, one COULD inadvertently kill a kid with such RAMBO behavior.

[Irreverend IX]

47. Kill the kid who could be close behind?

That seems unlikely, seeing you'd generally be aiming downward to hit a dog. What inspires this fearmongering?

[hlthe2b]

76. statistics on accidental shootings...

adrenaline does not exactly inspire good action in man or animals, without training...

Now of course, someone riding a bicycle, frantically trying to get away, will have tremendous simultaneous control over a gun--particularly when there are two dogs? :sarcasm:

[Hangingon]

124. I call Bullshit on that one.

[Bigmack]

99. OK... I'll give you the whole story.

My wife and I bike a lot... over 3000 mi per year. In order to bike from our place we often have to pass thru an area that has a lot of roaming, untrained dogs. A lot of them are large....part pitbull or rotweiller. (Why is it that some people who are powerless in our society think that having a large/mean dog makes them more powerful?)

My wife had one bike crash that had her in the hospital and rehab for a month, so we are both very conservative bikers. One of the most dangerous things about dog/bike encounters is that the rider gets knocked off the bike and injured, and I'll do anything to keep that from happening again.

I've "trained" a lot of dogs in the are to leave us alone by using Wasp and Hornet spray. I just lay a trail of that stuff behind the bikes if any dog even looks like he might be interested in following us or acting aggressive. Negative reinforcement. I've got a great Voice of Command, and "Go Home" works pretty well. We never try to outrun them, we always stand and interact. Hell, I even carry treats.... that really screws them up. With this training regime, we go months without any problem. New dogs keep popping up, tho, to replace the ones killed on the road or whatever. And puppies! Nobody ever heard of spay/neuter in that area.

The day in question, two rottweiller crosses came out of nowhere as we were going uphill. They were snarling and circling us... getting closer. My wife was yelling "Go Home", and I was yelling for somebody to come and get their dogs or I was going to kill them, meanwhile getting out the 9mm. They were about 10 feet away, I had the safety off and was going to fire into the ground near one of them when they finally backed off. The next shot was going into body mass... quickly. We walked our bike for a quarter-mile and they flanked us all the way... grumbling.

I love dogs and have had dogs my whole life, but I'm not going to get bit or crash.

On the larger question of carrying guns....I guess the most concise answer I can give is to say that I've never fired a weapon in self defense since Vietnam, but I would if I have to.

[hlthe2b]

104. I appreciate the steps you have taken... wise steps

In fact, it sounds like you have largely been practicing precisely precisely what I was suggesting.

Let me just say that guns have (as you well know) inadvertent consequences. There are alternatives. I'd go with pepperspray. It has been shown to work with bears, after all and is non-lethal. But, I also think that animal control needs to be contacted if you are consistently having difficulties in these areas. If there is no real animal control, have your cycling enthusiast friends join you in lobbying the city/county commissioners, or whoever you have to.

Enjoy the ride (and the pets).

[Bigmack]

110. I was trying to be PC...

... The area we bike thru is a reservation. I'm a friend of the tribe... donor to building funds, etc, but the tribe is totally unable to control the dogs, and the county has no input.

[hlthe2b]

112. ahh, I've worked on a reservation briefly...

Now, I understand the situation.... Wild dogs on the reservation were ubiquitous. No, this won't change overnight, that's for sure.

[Al Federfer]

34. I agree: I feel safer if I'm packing.

Also, we must be realistic about our society; our "civilization" is only a thin veneer. Indeed, it's often only an illusion, kind of like the value of the American dollar. Carrying a weapon is often prudent.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Yeah, but what if....

the Rottweilers have guns too?

[michreject]

51. Can they hold, aim and fire?

Some replies are just idiotic.

[SDuderstadt]

75. No, they can't....

it's called humor. Sheesh.

[michreject]

87. It failed

[SDuderstadt]

98. I was actually responding to this:

"If I go biking, I carry it for dogs. Yes, I have drawn and aimed it at two very large Rottweillers, and they came about 10 feet away from my lighting them up. Would I get in trouble if I blew up some dog that attacked me". There are a lot of other ways to deal with situation rather than killing the dogs. Okay? I plead guilty to one count of not meeting your humor expectations.

[michreject]

101. Nothing personal

I see too many flip replies regarding gun ownership. The most common one is about arming deer against deer hunters so they can shoot back. I fail to see any humor in such remarks.

[krispos42]

117. Bambo?

:-)

[michreject]

141. LOL

Good one.

[alittlelark]

12. I don't want anyone to have a gun

I know that makes me a pariah... but honestly, guns have played a big role in what the hollywood and the media has taught us is 'acceptable'.

I admit, I own a handgun. It is locked in a safe. The ammo is in the safe downstairs (we have kids) It is there in case of a major disaster - earthquake most likely.

I hope never to have to use my training.

[DBoon]

13. In Los Angeles, NO!!

Not even the driver.

Maybe a licensed undercover cop, but that would be it

I do take mass transit sometimes, and the worst crime I have to fear is a pickpocket or a drunk throwing up on me. Not something that requires guns to counter.

Now if I were working alone at a liguor store I would definitely want to have a gun.

[mvccd1000]

52. The worst crime you have to worry about is a pickpocket? Why?

Did they pass a law that no one can commit crimes more serious than that in your general vicinity?

No one knows where a crime may occur ahead of time, or what type of crime it may be. You've got your head in the sand if you honestly believe you can't be the victim of a crime.

(You can certainly minimize the odds by paying attention to where you travel and what kind of surroundings you place yourself in, but you can't prevent a crime from happening simply by believing it won't.)

[alarimer]

14. Not at all

I am not in favor of concealed carry. I believe if you are going to carry a gun, it needs to be in plain view, where all can see (and flee if they want).

[Xenotime]

44. Agreed. concealed carry puts everyone at risk.

with it, you don't have a choice.

[slackmaster]

Xenotime, can you support that statement with statistical evidence?

I don't believe you can.

[ManiacJoe]

15. Not that you would actually know, but yes.

I have no problem with the statistical probability of folks carrying concealed. There is a good chance that on any given day, one of those people is me.

If/when you come up with a way do disarm the Bad Guys, then disarming the Good Guys afterward is not all that bad while unnecessary. Until then, disarming only the Good Guys is unacceptable.

Those who are willing -- and able -- to jump through the hoops to get a concealed weapons permit are the people I prefer to be around.

[Joe Fields]

16. Not just no, but HELL NO I wouldn't feel safe.

[Generic Brad]

18. The same could be said for planes

The presence of armed air marshals does not make me feel safer.

[ManiacJoe]

22. Why is that?

[Generic Brad]

24. I don't have a lot of trust for those in authority over air travel

I'll stay grounded, thank you.

[ManiacJoe]

25. I can understand that regarding the TSA, but

it seems odd when applied generically to the air marshals.

[AndyTiedye]

33. It's Worse on Planes

Shooting a hole in the airplane would be a Bad Thing.

Shooting out what controls the rudder or the flaps would be a Very Bad Thing.

[Xenotime]

45. Shooting a hole in an airplane would not do anything...

From Mythbusters "...inside the plane, they had parked their crash-test dummy, Buster, in a window seat. In the aisle, they rigged up a Glock 9mm to a firing mechanism and pointed it at the hull of the plane. Then, with the plane fully pressurized, they fired the gun remotely.

What happened? Nothing. Sure, the air rushed out, but even styrofoam peanuts they had placed in the aisle didn’t move, much less Buster. They did the test a second time, this time firing through the window right next to Buster. Same result — nothing."

http://gadgetopia.com/post/2606

[Paladin]

80. Is This An Opening For Our DU Gun Enthusiasts.......

....to give us all yet another excruciatingly detailed exchange about what it takes, fireams-wise, to bring a plane down? Clear evidence that some of our gun guys spend WAY too much time researching such things.

Runner-up in the Gungeon stomach-turning dialogues: those threads containing the same sort of detailed speculation on how many more people the D.C. Snipers could have killed if they had only used a Really Cool Sniper Rifle, instead of a wussy caliber like the .223. Hey, I couldn't make up stuff like this.

Which leads up to my response to the question at hand: I'd feel moderately uncomfortable riding on a bus with pistol-packing passengers. But if I knew that among those passengers was one of our very own DU gun obsessives, I'd catch another bus.....

[VP505]

93. Sorry to bust YOUR myth

but a pressurized aircraft at altitude at cruise speed is a whole different animal that one sitting on the tarmac. At altitude the air pressure is much lower on the outside of the aircraft than what one would have on the ground, should the integrity of the aircraft skin be compromised a rapid decompression will occur. The higher pressure on the inside not only will push out the air inside but if the whole is big enough anything near that hole will be pushed out also. Obviously the bigger the hole the faster the decompression and the more sudden and violent it will be. The pilot will immediately dive for a lower altitude. Most people wrongly think that if a large hole develops in the aircraft that people are "sucked" out, actually they are blown out, much like what happens when you shake up a can of soda and then open it. Here is some video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHGBQINW0B0

[Paladin]

103. And, We're OFF!

Always nice when an opponent proves your point for you.......

[Xenotime]

132. The only thing PROVED is that the video is in error.

[Pavulon]

105. Really, So all b-29 and forward US Air Force

aircraft with holes blown in them by anti aircraft were instantly destroyed? A small home can be plugged with an object of the aircraft can descend.

Explosive decompression caused by a large hole, caused by a guy with tatp in his shoes, would cause the instant destruction of an airframe.

[krispos42]

120. They DID pressurize the plane for the test

They pumped the entire fuselage of their test airliner up to 8 psi gauge IIRC, the same pressure difference between the inside and outside of an aircraft at cruising altitude. Then they shot the pistol through the skin.

And it made a hole in the aluminum of about 9mm diameter that looked an awful lot like the holes I've made in steel drums with my .22.

8 psi is nothing. No significant volueme of air will be lost before somebody slap a copy of SkyMall over it to plug the leak.

[Xenotime]

133. Great quote...I'm saving that one.

[Xenotime]

131. Sorry to point out the errors in YOUR video

In the myth, the whole window isn't blown out. This is a bullet hole and the window isn't that large.

If you had actually STUDIED you would know that their test was pressurized to match that of one at crusing altitude.

[benEzra]

150. .355" holes in lexan/aluminum vs. aircraft pressurization systems...

Shooting an aircraft window wouldn't cause the window to shatter or pop out of the frame...it would put a 0.355" hole in the Lexan and plexiglas outer and inner panes, which would result in a whistling noise but which wouldn't even begin to affect cabin pressure. Airplane windows aren't car windows. Likewise, a shot through the fuselage skin would put a .355" hole in the fuselage skin, no more. Pressurized aircraft aren't balloons; they don't "pop" if you make a small hole in one.

An aircraft isn't statically pressurized like a soda can; it's dynamically pressurized using engine bleed air, and most people have no idea how much bypass air the engines can provide. The pressurization system of an airliner probably wouldn't even notice a few bullet holes; a 180-passenger airliner at cruising altitude is already dumping a minimum of 30 cubic feet of cabin air per second through the outflow valve, and the bleed air system and A/C packs are capable of providing a heck of a lot more than that. If you get too many holes, you might start to notice the bleed air getting a little warmer due to higher flow volumes, but that would be a minor consideration compared to whatever incident in the cabin prompted the Air Marshal to shoot in the first place.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1fb752aa5831f3ed862569b200753353/$FILE/AC%2025-22.pdf

Yes, if you suddenly open an 18" by 18" hole in an airplane, you could blow someone out the hole (and depressurize the plane within a few seconds), but the only way you'll get a hole that big is (1) explosives or (2) extreme metal fatigue a la Aloha Airlines flight 243--the latter case involving a 737 that had vastly exceeded its service life, and had a large section of the fuselage separate in flight).

[krispos42]

119. Air Marshals use non-penetrating bullets

These are made of lead birdshot pressed together into a bullet shape and held in some sort of binder. It stays a slug when hitting soft things like people, but disintigrates into a powder when hitting hard things like walls and bulkheads.

While I'm not really enthusiastic about holes in airliners in general, a penetrating bullet would have to actually hit something vital like a wiring bundle or hydraulic line to be a danger, and even then airliners have triple- or quadruple-redundent systems.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

19. NO

I don't know these people, why would I feel safe knowing they had a gun????

[leveymg]

21. Only if the stagecoach is attacked by Apaches.

[hlthe2b]

23. LOL

That just about sums it up, I think...:rofl:

[Joe Fields]

28. I'll second that LOL.....Brilliantly put!!!!

[renie408]

78. Hell, even then you are better off with a rifle. n/t

[Trillo]

26. Yes.

but I'd want more than one to have a gun.

I find law enforcement only carrying to be particularly intimidating, given historical abuses such as CHP officer Craig Peyer.

At the same time, I think that a world in which nobody had guns, law enforcement and military included, while it's particularly hard to imagine how one would get there from here and now, might be a preferable world.

It's definitely not this modern world we're in right now. I like being a realist.

[Flatulo]

36. There used to be no guns... people killed each other with swords...

And before that, sticks.

As long as there are resources to fight over, there will be killing.

[sandnsea]

27. Leave the guns at home

I don't think anybody should carry guns unless there is a very specific threat to their life, like an abusive ex-spouse or something. I do feel better knowing that there is a handgun registry of everybody carrying the guns legally.

[mvccd1000]

54. Which registry is that?

None of my guns are registered with anyone. Many states don't have any sort of registration; mine is one of them.

A couple of states do not even have a permit process for carrying a concealed weapon. (Surely you can pick them out simply by reading of all the shootouts that happen every day there.) :)

[sandnsea]

106. ccw handgun registry

Most states have a process to make it legal to carry a handgun on a bus, which is the subject of this thread, and the gun owner and sometimes the gun, are registered. I think it's hysterical that gun lovers think ccw is great when it generally does the exact thing they hate the most, record gun owners.

[mvccd1000]

111. Not all states with CCW require a permit or a registration.

Some actually follow the constitution and simply allow CCW.

I think most gun owners feel that CCW is a step in the right direction, but certainly not the be-all and end-all.

In my state, the registration shows that I have a permit, but none of my guns are registered or in any way connected to that permit, because we don't have gun registration.

[sandnsea]

118. Consequently the word "most"

in my post. And you are registered, which is exactly what I said. If they want to "grab guns", they know where to start, with the CCW list. I think it's a riot.

[mvccd1000]

121. That's why I said CCW is a step in the right direction.

Obviously, if the constitutional point of owning guns is to prevent tyranny, registering a gun with the government is not the wisest approach.

Still, at least they only know I am licensed to carry one should I so decide. They have no idea what I might own, or where it is, or how many I have.

I don't think it's a riot, I think it's a sad bit of government intrusion, but it's just one of many. I've learned to live with it. :)

[tesla78]

29. Depends on training

Yes, if they are trained and know how to respect guns.

[mvccd1000]

30. Yes, I would feel safe. nt

[aikoaiko]

31. Legally carrying a gun is not about feelings

The problem with your question is that you can't reasonably assure me that there aren't any criminals illegal carrying guns on your bus.

I am more comfortable knowing that they are permitted/licensed individuals with guns on the bus, than only criminals with guns on the bus.

[BlackVelvet04]

32. Depends on where I am

in Virginia I wouldn't give it a thought. If I'm in New York City it might bother me.

[devilgrrl]

38. I was just on the bus in LA and I never thought of the possibility that someone may be armed.

eom

[Beelzebud]

40. No, I wouldn't feel safer at all. Just the opposite, in fact.

[MrSlayer]

41. I'm indifferent.

I don't care that some people have guns on the bus or subway I'm riding. It just doesn't bother me. I don't feel "unsafe", I don't even think about it. I think people have become real cowardly in this country, scared of every little possibility.

[silverojo]

42. Here's the deal

If they're not licensed to carry, I'm nervous. If they ARE licensed to carry, I know they're responsible citizens, and I'm not nervous.

Easy question. Next? :D

[Irreverend IX]

46. Criminals will always be armed.

The thugs and drug dealers who ride the bus will carry concealed weapons no matter what the laws are. Laws only change the behavior of people who are law-abiding, and law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits have an arrest rate many times lower than that of the general public. In Florida, a study showed that CCW holders are arrested less often than police officers themselves. The presence of people like this on a bus would make me feel more, not less, safe.

I would consider a "gun-free" bus safer _only_ if the passengers had to go through the same security checks as airline passengers, with metal detectors and x-ray machines. Otherwise, a gun ban on buses will mean that the only people carrying guns on board are the people you'd least want to.

[cgrindley]

48. yeah, what is it with anti-gun hysterics that makes them blind to reality?

criminals ALWAYS have access to some form of weapon, and they NEVER give a shit about the law. That's what makes them criminals. Making it hard to legally carry only hurts law abiding people.

In my state, it's difficult to get a CCW permit. I would feel infinitely safer knowing that a few people were carrying.

And you're right about CCW permit holders being arrested less often. When I got mine, the chief of police said that from now on, my licence was flagged that I was armed. If they pull me over, they will assume this and take the necessary precautions. I don't speed, tailgate, shake my fist, give people the finger.... I'm totally well behaved. A paragon of law abiding driving. The last thing I want is to be cuffed, face down on the road, at gunpoint for having a broken taillight.

[Perry Logan]

49. An armed citizenry only provides more guns for criminals to steal. And gets more people killed.

And costs us $100 billion a year.

"Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

SUICIDE:
The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States.

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

[mvccd1000]

55. ONLY provides more guns? As in, does not do anything else?

So the 500,000 - 2,000,000 uses of a firearm to prevent a crime every year don't count for anything?

Gotcha.

[renie408]

82. Sorry, I hate people who shout "Link" all the time...but I am going

to have to ask for a link to back that stat up. Why is there such a large descrepancy between the figures? How was this information gathered? WHO gathered it?

[mvccd1000]

97. No problem...

I believe the huge discrepancy comes from a couple of places:

#1) There have been several surveys on the subject, each with different results. Those seem to be the generally accepted high and low numbers. (I'm more inclined to believe the low end myself, but that's still not a number to sneeze at.)

#2) Many of these incidents never get reported. When my dad was collecting the money for the night deposits at his store one night at midnight, someone was waiting outside the door. (Front wall is glass, easy to see through.) Before he turned off the lights, he took his jacket off and turned around like he had forgotten something, making his pistol visible. The loiterer suddenly decided he had better places to be. Did my dad narrowly avoid being robbed (or worse), or was it just someone who wanted to watch how a sandwich shop closes up at night? No one knows, so it was never reported to the police, but he would have answered in the affirmative had he been surveyed. He believes that the sight of his gun saved him from being robbed.

To me, that is the real benefit; most criminals look for crimes of opportunity. If a pistol makes you look like more trouble than you're worth, they'll look elsewhere.

If you google "defensive use handgun year" you'll get hundreds of hits with some of the various statistics. I'm sure most of them are biased in one direction or the other, so it's probably not even worth picking a particular one to post here. Take a look and find one that seems like a reputable source to you.

[Irreverend IX]

122. Meet Gary Kleck.

Kleck has done the most comprehensive studies of defensive gun use ever conducted. He's also a liberal Democrat. His study estimated 2 million defensive gun uses (most of which involve no shots being fired) every year:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Note that even the lowest yearly number cited for defensive gun uses (108,000) is still many times greater than the number of yearly gun homicides (about 15,000).

[Major Hogwash]

64. If gun security checks were as stringent for busses, they would be unarmed criminals.

If you had a choice to ride on a bus where no guns were allowed or on a bus where some people are armed, which would you prefer?

If airports can be gun free, then so can bus stations.
And railroad train stations.
And subway trains.

Metal detectors can be installed in ALL of our public transportation systems to eliminate guns being carried on them.

[mvccd1000]

81. Brilliant plan!

That 45 seconds the bus is allotted at each stop would work perfectly for the bus driver to watch every passenger empty their pockets, remove their belt and shoes, scan the bag of groceries they are carrying, put it all back together and be seated before it's time to roll out.

Oops... wait a minute. You mean the bus is now going to have to stop for 5 minutes, 8 times a mile? So it will take 40 minutes to travel that mile that you can walk in 15 minutes? Well, so much for bus travel.

Next plan?

[renie408]

96. Hey, no worries. You get to keep your gun. And since there is a rumor that the SCOTUS is going

rule that all gun control is unconstitutional, you will be happy to know that in the future, EVERYBODY on the bus will have one. *whew* I know that thought makes me feel better. My idea of a safe society is one armed to the teeth.

[Major Hogwash]

145. Do you board the plane 45 seconds after arriving at the airport? I don't think so.

If you seriously don't see how this plan could be implemented, I won't waste any more of my time talking to you because you obviously have an agenda.

So, I'm not going to say "welcome to DU", either.

Something else you might consider, European countries have already implemented security systems like this. They do not allow passengers to carry firearms on their trains or busses.

Everyone goes through a metal detector and has their baggage examined at the station long before they are even allowed to approach the boarding area.

Honestly, I don't know why people like you waste your time here.

[michreject]

50. I assume that everyone is armed

just as I am. We all get along just fine.

[B Calm]

56. If the bus is full of liberals fighting a government that wants to oppress us,

then yes!

[bread_and_roses]

58. No. And I'd get off the bus.

The denial, in the face of overwhelming evidence that our refusal to get guns off our streets is the major factor in our insane rate of gun violence continues to astonish me after all these years.

[mvccd1000]

59. And the denial of gun-grabbers to acknowledge...

... that law-abiding citizens with guns - and in particular, law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits - are less likely to commit a crime than the population in general continues to astonish me.

Besides, how are you going to "get guns off the street?" There are 300 million of them out there. I wish there were no nuclear weapons, too, but just try to put that genie back in the bottle.

[Major Hogwash]

67. Public transportation systems do not have to allow for individuals to carry firearms.

You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own vehicle, but not on a public transportation system.

I am not allowed to carry a gun where I work - they set the rules for the workplace.
I'm not even allowed to have a gun in my pickup parked in their parking lot.

No guns are allowed on their property at all.
The only ones that have any weapons are a couple of security guards.

[mvccd1000]

69. True, but they do not have to ban them, either.

Besides, concealed means concealed. You (and I) don't know how many of our fellow passengers carry concealed.

[renie408]

94. yeah, out of sight, out of mind.

Just pretend like nobody on the bus has guns since they don't have them taped to their foreheads and you will feel a lot better. Since there is no way anybody in this country will ever give up their gun, that is just about all you CAN do.

[renie408]

86. Yes, you can do whatever you want in your own vehicle.

Like pulling your pistol out of your glove compartment and waving it at the guy who cut you off in the mall parking lot. I saw this about two years ago at Christmastime with my children as we were coming out of the mall. I called security, but the gun waver was already gone. I don't think having a gun in your car is a good idea either.

[krispos42]

136. And this is why people don't want to give up their cars

Security cameras pointing at them all the time. Police randomly frisking them and pawing through their bags. Metal detectors. Drug-sniffing dogs.

[renie408]

85. My neighbor was a law abiding citizen. His gun was stolen out of his gym bag. I am assuming

by a non-law abiding citizen.

Hey, I feel safer.

[bread_and_roses]

126. civilized societies seem to manage it quite well (n/t)

[Squatch]

60. I feel safe knowing *I* have a gun.

[Midlodemocrat]

63. But you know how to use one. What if you were on a bus

full of folks who were armed, but not trained as you are?

I wouldn't mind someone on the bus carrying a gun if they were trained, otherwise, I think it's dangerous.

[Squatch]

65. To legally carry in VA, you have to produce proof of training

which is a good thing, we can both agree.

[renie408]

72. Hey, where did that kid a V-Tech get his training? n/t

[Squatch]

88. I may be wrong, but I do not believe he had a concealed carry permit

[renie408]

91. So you have to have training to carry a concealed weapon, but none to carry

one out in the open? See, that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Seems to me that you should have to have some training to carry something whose sole purpose is to kill or injure. You have to have extensive training here even in little ole SC to get your driver's license. But you can get a gun without any. Great.

[krispos42]

135. You don't have to have any training to buy a gun

Adults can and do learn how to use a gun safely on their own, just like most things people buy. The instruction manuals that come with guns explain how to operate them in considerable detail.

There is a situational difference between carrying concealed and spending a couple of hours at your local range.

[renie408]

153. Adults microwave cans and have them explode. Adults can't identify the VP of the US.

Adults will try to use their hair dryer in the bath tub. Adults can be pretty goddam ignorant. Am I supposed to trust that all adults allowed to buy a gun are going to go to the effort to train themselves properly?


That is, to say the least, NOT a very compelling argument for not requiring some training for the purchase of something whose sole purpose is to kill and injure.

[krispos42]

156. Yes, you are

Just like a whole shitload of other things in this country that you can buy, own, and use without needing a license or training.

http://www.allmax.com/MILT/


It is interesting that your opinions on this matter are similar to standard Republican views on other matters.

[KG]

61. hell, no.

[lonestarnot]

74. Rosa Parks may have had some thoughts on this.

[renie408]

77. No, I wouldn't feel safe. To me, there is a certain arrogance about carrying a gun.

One which says that the gun toter feels as if they are competent to make a decision about who needs to be shot and who doesn't. These are the same people who have most likely NEVER been in a position to have needed to pull out their gun. Carrying a concealed weapon in a crowded area says, "I am competent enough that if I need to pull my weapon, I won't hit an innocent bystander...even though I have never been under that kind of pressure before." Carrying a concealed weapon in MOST areas says to me, "I am too stupid to rely on my intelligence to get me out of trouble, so I carry a gun instead."

The exceptions for me are people who work with money in undesirable locations. I can see those people needing a gun. The guy who walked into the Aldi's the other day and made very sure to adjust his shirt so that everybody could see his HOLSTER (I am assuming he didn't have a working penis, so had to show that SOMETHING connected with him was hard) didn't really need his gun to go grocery shopping in a low crime suburban area. Him having a gun didn't make me feel any safer.

[Fla_Democrat]

79. Yes

But, how would I know. If it is a bus with people who have hand guns concealed under their clothes, then I would not know. Granted, they wouldn't know if I was armed either. :smoke:

[renie408]

83. So, when somebody decided to hijack the bus, like they do, you could all shoot each other.

That makes a lot of sense.

[Fla_Democrat]

89. That has always been a real concern

We have a lot of bus hijacking here. Last one wanted to take it to a non-extradition country. :shrug:
Why, just last week, some one hopped on Tal-tran and wanted to force the bus to drive to the state of intoxication. He heard it was lovely there, especially this time of year. :beer:

[renie408]

92. From Florida. They wanted to get to a non extradition country from Florida on a bus.

It seems to me the quickest way to stop that would have been with a globe.

[Fla_Democrat]

123. Swish

:think:

[flvegan]

84. Safe from whom?

The person with the gun (that I don't know has one) or the person that might have otherwise robbed/beaten me if said person didn't have a gun?

Funny thing, the idea of shots fired on a bus because some loon is attacking another person doesn't make me feel safe. I'd wager that MOST folks are piss poor shots in crisis/chaos. In addition, with the ballistics of today, bullets don't stop/kill, they strike/blow the backside out of the target/keep going until all the energy is lost.

And yes, I have guns, so I'm on neither side of the pro/anti fence.

[spoony]

90. If they're strangers, why would I know they have guns?

Unless they had them out, then of course there would be some cause for concern.

[cgrindley]

107. I've rethought this... why the hell would anyone ride a bus? (nt)

[datasuspect]

109. only if i have one

and am sitting near the rear exit, preferably with a seat in front of me for cover.

would probably want to be near the back, with an emergency exit release on the window nearby.

[Sparkly]

113. My answer: NO.

[WGS]

115. I don't care

....as long as I have mine......

[Vickers]

116. Yes, because I will be armed, also.

FTR, I have Florida concealed weapon permit (signed by Charles Bronson!!!).

:P

[renie408]

130. And you feel confident that if somebody pulls a gun on you

you can shoot them before they shoot you AND not manage to hurt anybody else in the process?

[Vickers]

138. Of course I do.

If I didn't, I wouldn't carry a weapon. Duh!

I imagine I have a LOT more firing range time, and much better training (military and civilian) than the average armed bus passenger.

[GoneOffShore]

127. I'm always uncomfortable around people with concealed carry permits.

They're always a little too eager to let you know they have them.

[Iris]

128. Hell no.

[LanternWaste]

129. I'd rather be on an unarmed bus. No question about it.

I'd rather be on an unarmed bus. No question about it.

As a matter of fact, I make it a point to avoid places where I believe firearms may be present-- I rescind going on camping trips with friends whom I know will be carrying rifles or pistols, I don't go to the homes of people who have implied that they own firearms, etc.

I think that's one of the main reasons I've been the victim of an accidental shooting...

[piedmont]

137. If those armed are not ILLEGALLY armed, I'm comfortable with it.

Of course, if you designate the bus as a "gun-free zone," then the only people armed are law-breakers.

[in_cog_ni_to]

139. Hell NO. n/t

[notadmblnd]

140. How do you know they're not already armed?

I'm not fearful and I don't carry a gun. In fact, I make fun of a cop friend (retired) of mine for never going anywhere without one.

[benEzra]

142. Yes, IF the people carrying are licensed to carry...

If you're going to worry, worry about the people who are carrying illegally. Licensed CHL holders have an even lower arrest and conviction rate for violent crimes than police officers do.

[AZBlue]

144. I'd rather walk 8 miles in July in Arizona than get on that bus!

[mvccd1000]

148. Why?

I mean, I'm from Arizona, and I worked outside as a mechanic for seven years. July weather is no big deal to me, but what on earth would make you so scared that you'd rather walk eight miles?

[TimBean]

146. I was on a bus in Israel

AK 47's and handguns everywhere.

I felt fine.

[moondust]

147. Too many out-of-control nuts at large.

Nobody can predict when somebody is going to snap and open fire.

Answer: Not at all safe in the U.S. but no problem in the civilized countries.

[Javaman]

151. I ride the bus most everyday...

believe me, this is the last thought on my mind.

My first thought is: I hope I don't sit next to 1)someone smelly 2)someone that reeks of cig smoke 3)someone crazy 4)a chatty cathy(I just want peace and quiet) and 5) a gang member.

if you live in a city of measurable size, there is always a chance that some nimrod will have a pistol and want to go all charles bronson.

I have to live my life and can't worry about it.

That's why I bring a book to read.

[slackmaster]

152. Your core question is a false choice

You're in a bus full of people. Do you want it to be a bus with people who have hand guns concealed under their clothes, or a bus with not one gun on board? Which situation would you rather have?

Let me put it this way: The conditions necessary to ensure that nobody on the bus has a gun are inconsistent with my definition of a free society.

People who have met my state's legal requirements for carrying a concealed weapon don't concern me at all.

[renie408]

154. Maybe the key isn't to do away with CCW laws, but to make them the laws for carrying ANY gun

From what I have read here, to carry a concealed weapon, most state's require that someone prove that they are trained, mentally stable and not a criminal.

[DS1]

157. Fuck no

I don't know these people, half of them are morons, so there's a 50/50 chance there's a moron or two with a gun on the bus.