Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
saw this on fark today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117656,00.html

the quote I found interesting:

Jahr said he was not sure how long Hostettler was detained. He said Hostettler is an avid sportsman and has a permit for the handgun, but he was not sure what type of handgun the congressman had and whether it was loaded.
handguns are used for SPORT? really?

isn't the benefit of handguns the fact that they can be hidden and concealed more easily? do you need that for sport??

(I don't own a gun, and I'm not opposed to gun ownership, but I find this statement a bit farfetched. isn't the main target of a handgun PEOPLE?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Sharky said:
Might be the MAIN target, but tons of people hunt with them.
I ask this sincerely; but don't rifles have more precision (for distance shooting) than handguns? its just physics - you can't steady a handgun nearly as well as a longer barreled gun. right?

sport shooting is usually distance shooting, yes?

so I guess I don't get it..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I think the real issue (on this news item) is that the congresscritter has a handgun for self-defense. but it seems more 'acceptable' to claim its for sports use.

a lie? (oops, wrong thread!) ;)
 

·
Reverend Arthur Dimmwit
Joined
·
3,988 Posts
Some people do hunt with handguns. In PA, it is legal to use single-shot or revolvers for hunting most game except (I may be wrong) fowl. Pretty sure that semi-automatics are not legal for hunting unless you are physically disabled (for example missing an arm, etc.). Unlike many, my liberalism extends to gun ownership. Provided that the guns are not used for criminal activities.
However, I think that this article is about OJ. Laws are enforced differently when it comes to the rich and powerful. If this happened to me, I'd be in prison, labelled a terrorist, and denied any right to counsel. This guy gets a walk. F him and our hypocritical policies of law enforcement! :mad: Throw his ass in the clink and let him sweat. Then convict and sentence him. Isn't illegal to just possess a handgun on airport property? I got b!tched at about a little pair of scissors. (They were confiscated.) This nimrod brings a handgun and gets a walk! :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
agreed, its not 'fair and balanced' (heh) when it comes to the priviledged class.

in all of human history, though, hasn't it always been that way? its the way the world works.

its not perfect, but its human nature. the 'big and strong' get their way and the rest of us get to be bossed around by the big-n-strong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
I also agree that it is a double standard when it comes to wealthy, readily-recognized people. But, to play Devil's advocate for a moment, the purpose of the gun restrictions at the airport is to increase safety by reducing the chance that a terrorist or some other deranged idiot can hijack a plane. With a wealthy or well recognized person, like in this case, it is pretty certain he had no ill intent to cause harm and this was a mistake. His reputation is more easily ascertained, so they do the reasonable thing and let him off with a warning. Now if I get caught with a handgun at an airport, they don't know me from Adam and have to keep their suspicions up. How it ought to play out is I would be detained and would most likely go through a bit more hassle to establish that I was not planning to commit a crime. I guess my point is that it is a natural advantage a wealthy, famous person has that they can fairly quickly cite convincing references that will vouch for their good name. I think this is certainly part of what goes on in these cases. Think about it: what are the chances that a U.S. Congressman is actually trying to board a plane with a gun with the intent to commandeer the plane and possibly commit a terrorist act?
 

·
Reverend Arthur Dimmwit
Joined
·
3,988 Posts
Arj said:
Think about it: what are the chances that a U.S. Congressman is actually trying to board a plane with a gun with the intent to commandeer the plane and possibly commit a terrorist act?
The chances are the same as with any other human being. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. Who he is is not an indicator of his potential as a terrorist. The Dalai Lama has the potential to commit a terrorist act. Maybe he has had a bad day and somebody gave him the finger and that was the last straw and he goes postal. Poof! INSTANT TERRORIST. My complaint is that ANYONE dumb enough to bring a gun through airport security DESERVES to be charged with ,at the very least, possession.

Addendum:

Besides, if you think a Congressman has no intent to commit a terrorist act, WHY DON'T WE LET THEM CARRY LOADED GUNS ON PLANES? If a person has no intent to commit a crime with a weapon, then there is no risk or reason to not allow him to possess that weapon. Give him back his gun and let him on the plane. No problema. I'm not worried, are you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
I think the issue here is a singular focus on handguns for sport... You see most hunters typically use a rifle, shotgun, or bow to make the initial attack on a target, but if you are hunting large game and upon closer inspection you realize it wasn't quite a kill shot, the handgun afixed to your thigh comes in real handy at that point. Thus, the handgun is for sport, but not intended to be the primary weapon, however; some odd folks do use handguns as their primary. -=R=-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
RyanTX said:
I think the issue here is a singular focus on handguns for sport... You see most hunters typically use a rifle, shotgun, or bow to make the initial attack on a target, but if you are hunting large game and upon closer inspection you realize it wasn't quite a kill shot, the handgun afixed to your thigh comes in real handy at that point. Thus, the handgun is for sport, but not intended to be the primary weapon, however; some odd folks do use handguns as their primary. -=R=-
that does make some sense. I didn't think of that. thanks for the info!

now, lets explain why it needed to be stored in HIS BRIEFCASE.

I know, I know. its to shoot paper tigers

;)
 

·
Loose female member
Joined
·
4,889 Posts
Maybe he just likes to hunt people for sport.

But as the man said , if this was any of us we would have been locked up faster than ice melting in hell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
Wasn't there a coach for some NFL team found with a handgun in his bag? He only got a fine, then there was the guy who found the gun in his carry on over GA who notified the flight attendent. They took the gun landed on time escorted him to his bags and off airport property gave him back his gun and he went home with no fine or anything. The people who "searched his bag" were fired. All of this has happedn't in the last year or two.

Handgun hunting is legal in Iowa for deer only. I think people used to hunt rabit with them too, but I don't know anyone who does, can't eat them.

I own a handgun for protection. Somebody breaks into my house, my Glock is going to have something to say to them. :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Whatnow said:
I own a handgun for protection. Somebody breaks into my house, my Glock is going to have something to say to them. :thumbup:
unless of course, their glock is bigger...

the guy with the biggest glock usually has the advantage. at least, I've heard that's true in certain 'sports'...

/obvious
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
poohbear said:
Arj said:
Think about it: what are the chances that a U.S. Congressman is actually trying to board a plane with a gun with the intent to commandeer the plane and possibly commit a terrorist act?
The chances are the same as with any other human being.
Not really, actually. Some folks happily advocate that pilots should be able to carry a gun. Or air marshalls. Clearly not everbody agrees that the chances are the same for all people. If I knew you well, I might rank you up there with the saints and, if I had to fly on an airplane with you and you had a gun, might not bat an eye at it. That would be because I was satisfied that you were no threat. That's all my point was, that determining if someone is a threat or not can vary with who they are and how well you know them. Doesn't absolutely rule out that you/they could go postal or something, but everything is a calculated risk.

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. Who he is is not an indicator of his potential as a terrorist. The Dalai Lama has the potential to commit a terrorist act. Maybe he has had a bad day and somebody gave him the finger and that was the last straw and he goes postal. Poof! INSTANT TERRORIST.
In a pure, zero tolerance for a mistake way of thinking you are correct. In the real world we actually have to live in, I disagree. I wouldn't let Osama Bin Laden or any of his known paradise-seeking lunatics on a plane under any circumstance. Who he is is very much an indicator of his potential as a terrorist. As for the rest of the world of people I know nothing about, I take a chance everytine I step on an airplane, regardless of the security efforts.

My complaint is that ANYONE dumb enough to bring a gun through airport security DESERVES to be charged with ,at the very least, possession.
I agree.

Addendum:

Besides, if you think a Congressman has no intent to commit a terrorist act, WHY DON'T WE LET THEM CARRY LOADED GUNS ON PLANES? If a person has no intent to commit a crime with a weapon, then there is no risk or reason to not allow him to possess that weapon. Give him back his gun and let him on the plane. No problema. I'm not worried, are you?
If that were in fact true and all the people that boarded a plane were people we felt confident would not commit a terrorist act or some other criminal act, then there would be no reason to not allow them to carry on board. We don't because it is too impractical to verify passengers with the level of confidence necessary. It is more efficient in terms of time and money to simply ban guns. I think it is an appropriate choice.

But note, the Presidient flies on Air Force One and is accompanied by Secret Service agents, who do carry firearms. But they don't check those at the door before boarding. They have had background checks and cleared all security requirements, so they are allowed to carry guns on the plane, with the President even!

So, yeah, it can matter who you are and how readily you can be verified as a security risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Arj said:
If that were in fact true and all the people that boarded a plane were people we felt confident would not commit a terrorist act or some other criminal act, then there would be no reason to not allow them to carry on board.
there's the argument that says that gun could get 'loose' and in the hands of badguys(tm). its more than who has the guns; its a question of 'no guns on planes, ever, period, by no one.' perhaps even air marshals. just NONE. so none can get loose and in the wrong hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
linux-works said:
Whatnow said:
I own a handgun for protection. Somebody breaks into my house, my Glock is going to have something to say to them. :thumbup:
unless of course, their glock is bigger...

the guy with the biggest glock usually has the advantage. at least, I've heard that's true in certain 'sports'...

/obvious
It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it. :lol: :poke:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
Whatnow said:
Wasn't there a coach for some NFL team found with a handgun in his bag?
Yes, Barry Switzer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
linux-works said:
Arj said:
If that were in fact true and all the people that boarded a plane were people we felt confident would not commit a terrorist act or some other criminal act, then there would be no reason to not allow them to carry on board.
there's the argument that says that gun could get 'loose' and in the hands of badguys(tm). its more than who has the guns; its a question of 'no guns on planes, ever, period, by no one.' perhaps even air marshals. just NONE. so none can get loose and in the wrong hands.
Well, it was a hypothetical argument, wasn't it? IF all the people [read the rest of my original comment, which you quoted], THEN there would be no bad guys to worry about. These same arguments could be used to say our police should not carry guns either. And, yeah, I know there are those who would advocate that.

Just to be clear, because, although I said I was playing Devil's Advocate, I get the feeling you guys think I want the general population to be able to carry guns on planes -- that is not what I'm advocating. My first and main point was that people are not just cogs that are all equal risks to commit terrorist acts. I think there are times when you can make an intelligent assessment about who is a likely risk and who is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,407 Posts
That is crazy, lock his ass up, he is not above the law, nobody is.

Here is a guy who was arrested because he didn't have a permit for his "Silencer" for his gun. Mind you he had a permit for the gun, just not the silencer. Now "Silencers are classified as a separate firearm under federal law," which is fine, but these items were in his checked bagage. Not being carried on the plan with him. And since he didn't have the permit for the silencer? He was arrested...

even though "Unloaded firearms may be transported in checked baggage if they are declared to the airline. And you have a permit for all weapons."

here a congressman tries to carry on a 9MM semi-auto and gets a slap on teh wrist?

-Nick
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top