Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,214
3,202
The strong-and-locked door is good but the best defense would be one or two armed, undercover, Air Marshals on every flight. But that runs into a funny problem of, everyone will excitedly agree that "it's worth anything to be safe", but they'll change their minds when they see the cost to them of the added expense for Air Marshals, so instead we get the security theater of the TSA fondling passengers and confiscating nail clippers.

What if the marshals get paid off, or they go ******* crazy themselves? Or, inevitably, terrorists work out who they are through surveillance etc.

I could go on all day, but you should probably go home and watch con air if you want to know why guns on planes won't help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

2010mini

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2013
4,698
4,806
You might have a different opinion if you or one of your family members (etc.) was in said important federal building. Or perhaps you would purposely neither aim for or away from a building full of people if you were at a burning aircraft's controls... because it's no better either way for just you yourself? It does make a big difference between you being a hero and a villain.

Someone I loved and respected was in the towers.

And yes, people bringing guns to on an aircraft, "just in case" is still a stupid idea.
 

CarlJ

macrumors 604
Feb 23, 2004
6,971
12,133
San Diego, CA, USA
I think the US needs to learn that not every solution involves a gun...
I don't disagree with anything you said - the US interferes far too much with other countries and it comes back to bite us constantly - but none of it seems to have any relation to post, which you quoted. I said undercover Air Marshals on every flight would be the most sure safeguard against terrorist attacks on planes (but no one would want to pay for it), and you replied that we should stop believing we have the right to interfere with other countries. Uh, what?
[doublepost=1455781465][/doublepost]
What if the marshals get paid off, or they go ******* crazy themselves? Or, inevitably, terrorists work out who they are through surveillance etc.

I could go on all day, but you should probably go home and watch con air if you want to know why guns on planes won't help.
  • Air Marshals getting paid off to help in a hijacking is pretty much in movie plot territory.
  • I already am home. Why do you care about my location?
  • I don't care to watch Con Air again.
  • Who said the Air Marshals should be armed with guns? I didn't.
 

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,214
3,202
  • Air Marshals getting paid off to help in a hijacking is pretty much in movie plot territory.
  • I already am home. Why do you care about my location?
  • I don't care to watch Con Air again.
  • Who said the Air Marshals should be armed with guns? I didn't.

go on, this'll be a good one... what were you suggesting they be armed with then, toilet brushes?
 

CarlJ

macrumors 604
Feb 23, 2004
6,971
12,133
San Diego, CA, USA
go on, this'll be a good one... what were you suggesting they be armed with then, toilet brushes?
A Taser and an ASP collapsible baton would be a good start.
Remember, the TSA will have made relatively certain no guns are coming on board.
Why are you looking to have arguments?
 

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,214
3,202
A Taser and an ASP collapsible baton would be a good start.
Remember, the TSA will have made relatively certain no guns are coming on board.
Why are you looking to have arguments?

a single use weapon and another that can be made useless by confined space. so all it takes to overwhelm the two air martials is 3 or 4 terrorists. how about flying 50:50 paying passengers and air martials?
 

CarlJ

macrumors 604
Feb 23, 2004
6,971
12,133
San Diego, CA, USA
a single use weapon and another that can be made useless by confined space. so all it takes to overwhelm the two air martials is 3 or 4 terrorists. how about flying 50:50 paying passengers and air martials?
There are multi-use tasers, and a collapsible baton can be used as a kubotan if space doesn't permit extended use. The overriding point being, a trained officer equipped with the best devices for the situation at hand.
What alternative do you propose? Sedate all the passengers before flight, maybe?
And again, why are you trying so hard to have an argument?
It appears you're convinced guns on a plane are a bad idea - I agree - but since that argument fell by the wayside, you're looking for something else to argue.
 

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,214
3,202
There are multi-use tasers, and a collapsible baton can be used as a kubotan if space doesn't permit extended use.
And again, why are you trying so hard to have an argument?
It appears you're convinced guns on a plane are a bad idea - I agree - but since that argument fell by the wayside, you're looking for something else to argue.

"i don't want to have a discussion anymore because i'm right, end of, stop arguing with me please, please, please... please stop or i'll cry like a little girl, wahhhh, oh no i wet my pants, booo hoo hoooo, you're mean"

i'm unsure as to why you keep trying to shut down discussion in this manner. my reaction may be in the extreme, but i wanted to demonstrate a point, as i hope you'll realise.

anyway, back to the topic at hand...
 

CarlJ

macrumors 604
Feb 23, 2004
6,971
12,133
San Diego, CA, USA
"i don't want to have a discussion anymore because i'm right, end of, stop arguing with me please, please, please... please stop or i'll cry like a little girl, wahhhh, oh no i wet my pants, booo hoo hoooo, you're mean"
How very mature.

I ask why you're trying to argue instead of discuss, you demonstrate your inability to engage in rational discussion. You're not really worth the effort.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,434
12,250
UK
There are multi-use tasers, and a collapsible baton can be used as a kubotan if space doesn't permit extended use. The overriding point being, a trained officer equipped with the best devices for the situation at hand.
What alternative do you propose? Sedate all the passengers before flight, maybe?
And again, why are you trying so hard to have an argument?
It appears you're convinced guns on a plane are a bad idea - I agree - but since that argument fell by the wayside, you're looking for something else to argue.

Rely on the passengers to attack the hijackers as that is unpredictable.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Yes, but at that point the upgrade code is already on the device. Basically what they can do is to load signed code onto a ramdisk on the device and boot the device from that code in DFU mode. This does not require the passcode.
Yes, I have since come to understand that what is asked of Apple is to install a modified firmware not a modified OS.
 

firewood

macrumors G3
Jul 29, 2003
8,106
1,343
Silicon Valley
Rely on the passengers to attack the hijackers as that is unpredictable.

Finally, someone who makes sense. A large unknown number of actively involved citizens randomly shooting up the plane and perhaps even each other would be too likely to also take out the hijackers before they can succeed with any plan to create even more destruction and death. It's far far easier to slaughter a herd of well behaved unarmed sheeple in a contained space, and then proceed with some nefarious evil plan.
 
Last edited:

michaelsviews

macrumors 65816
Sep 25, 2007
1,476
467
New England
So the FBI can't hack into the iPhone and get what they want so we goto a judge and use some ancient law to force apple into doing what they supposedly say they won't do.

What can the FBI do when it comes to computer forensics ? Seems they couldn't help out this "Los Angeles hospital pays ransom to hackers who took over its computer system"
 

JamesPDX

Suspended
Aug 26, 2014
1,056
495
USA
That is not what its about. It is the consequences for the rest of us. Today everything is stored on the phone. Including passwords, intimate pictures, private/confidential documents, it even works as an access to banks and other institutions.
One has to trust that the government won't use any backdoors to exploit this information, however insincere persons, criminals or whoever who wants to harm you or just take advantage of these informations and accesses, will have the same access, because backdoors are available and will be found.

A terrorist will be able to blackmail or pressure you or others with this information and if you are in a weak situation be able to make you do the terror attack. Or imagine when your daughters pictures to her boyfriend suddenly are on every jailbait site in the universe and she commits suicide, just because it was decided that it would make it theoretically easier for FBI to press charges against a criminal. Or if someones steals your identity by using information stored on your device, or simply applies for a huge loan which kills your credit score and transfer the money to his/hers bank on a minor outlying island. We can go on and on...

As well in the future with internet of things and cars. Of which we already have seen the consequences of poor encryption. Imagine a cold blooded murderer being able to control your vehicle (be it a car, boat or plane)...

But that's Profiling! ;)
[doublepost=1455851628][/doublepost]
The best way to stop hijackers is to rely on the passengers to fight back.

The best way to stop hijackers is not letting them on in the first place. After that, you could always set the GTA auto and depressurize the cabin. Choices can be hard.
 

megalaser

macrumors 6502
Nov 17, 2009
345
66
This is about politics, the judge being in California having a grudge against Apple and using this issue to publicly berate and shame Apple and push for a wacky Californian law to ban all encryption.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,547
6,080
US Eastern time zone
This is tough for me. On one hand I want my device to be secure. One the other hand I want to stop terrorists etc.
You want to stop terrorists? Police should have known these people were buying large amount of weapons and ammunition. Gun an ammunition registry, would go long way to prevent these tragedies. Investigations as to why they were buying these weapons, perhaps a visit to their home, would have put them on FBI watch list. Course that would require national gun registry, computerized, with access to all police departments.

Searching everyone's cell phone is far more onerous than targeting suspicious gun and ammunition purchases. After all it is terrorism, so gun owners should be happy to be tracked if they are doing nothing wrong.
[doublepost=1455899869][/doublepost]
Concealed carry permits can be obtained in California as well as SB cityand county. Firearms, when properly licensed and obtained are also legal. A quick search of gun shops shows half a dozen in SB proper. The population hasn't been disarmed there. There are stricter restrictions there though, than say Texas. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying?
With a computerized national gun and ammunition registry available to all police, these San Bernadino terrorists could have been spotted, investigated as to why they were buying so many weapons. Any law biding citizen and gun owner would gladly submit to a few questions by authorities when they purchase weapons or ammo. After all they are helping to fight terrorism. And if they are not doing anything wrong no harm right.
 

lordofthereef

macrumors G5
Nov 29, 2011
13,161
3,720
Boston, MA
s.
With a computerized national gun and ammunition registry available to all police, these San Bernadino terrorists could have been spotted, investigated as to why they were buying so many weapons. Any law biding citizen and gun owner would gladly submit to a few questions by authorities when they purchase weapons or ammo. After all they are helping to fight terrorism. And if they are not doing anything wrong no harm right.
I'm insure on this one. It seems plenty of, presumably law abiding gun owners, fight tooth and nail against any legislation that has anything to do with guns. Look at the opposition against making fun sales and purchases more difficult at gun shows is getting.

I don't disagree that it's a great idea. But I do think that we would see more than a fair share of opposition.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,547
6,080
US Eastern time zone
I'm insure on this one. It seems plenty of, presumably law abiding gun owners, fight tooth and nail against any legislation that has anything to do with guns. Look at the opposition against making fun sales and purchases more difficult at gun shows is getting.

I don't disagree that it's a great idea. But I do think that we would see more than a fair share of opposition.
My very point for making the suggestion. Those that are all set to allow my privacy to be breached all of a sudden won't think terrorism is such a big deal if their guns get tracked.

The San Bernadino terrorist acquired the guns and ammunition legally. I wonder if law enforcement scrutinized such legal purchases could or would it raise concerns. Enough to pay them a visit.
 

MacCubed

macrumors 68000
Apr 26, 2014
1,618
494
Florida
You want to stop terrorists? Police should have known these people were buying large amount of weapons and ammunition. Gun an ammunition registry, would go long way to prevent these tragedies. Investigations as to why they were buying these weapons, perhaps a visit to their home, would have put them on FBI watch list. Course that would require national gun registry, computerized, with access to all police departments.

What about weapons and ammo purchased from the black market? No matter what gun laws are put in place, the black market will always exist
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,547
6,080
US Eastern time zone
What about weapons and ammo purchased from the black market? No matter what gun laws are put in place, the black market will always exist
These guns were bought legally. But the quantity purchased all at once by someone recently from Islamic country along with large quantity of ammunition would have raised eyebrows don't you think.

So you are saying since black market purchases are possible, let's throw up our hands and say oh well. Let's not do anything regarding weapons. How little the 14 lives matter when any check on guns is raised.

Let's start taking actions that will begin to yield results. Nothing is perfect. All those that feel a back door to their data, financial, medical, etc should be available to law enforcement. Let's stop the manufacture and sale of automatic and semi automatic weapons to civilians.

Single shot weapons will allow hunting, target practice, etc. But give a chance to victims of gun violence to try and rush the shooter. Name one case where a herd of dear attacked a hunter and he was saved by using semi auto weapon with high capacity clip.

Name me one instance where a terrorist attack was stopped by civilians retaliating with semi auto weapons. Sure some terrorists will obtain weapons illegally, but currently they don't have to even bother. Just order from Wallmart.

If you trust the government with your private data, why not trust them to regulate firearms in a useful manner. If you want your stash of weapons to protect from government abuses, why is giving up your privacy any less aggregious.

When push comes to shove anyone thinking they will hold off the government because they have a stash of weapons is dillusional. Show me where a showdown with government authorities ended where the civilians with assault weapons prevailed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ

thewap

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2012
555
1,360
Ohhh conspiracy theorist...all shrouded in mystery and intrigue! Let me guess, Santa Clause is real and there's alien pyramids on Mars? Time to put the video game controller down, take off the tinfoil hat, and leave the basement apartment. Some fresh air will do wonders. If not, please seek help.

As opposed to a Fluroidian shrouded in MSM *reality shows* myths, a little less fluoride might help with your perception of *reality*.
 

techwhiz

macrumors 65816
Feb 22, 2010
1,297
1,804
Northern Ca.
These guns were bought legally. But the quantity purchased all at once by someone recently from Islamic country along with large quantity of ammunition would have raised eyebrows don't you think.
It wasn't 20 guns.
It was a smaller number and in Ca. there is a one in thirty day limit on firearm purchases.
If you have a group of people that aren't flagged, each one could buy a gun.
These guns bought by a former roommate were purchased a while ago.
Large amount of ammo? What's large?
I buy 300 rounds at a time and I might have 600-1000 rounds in my gun safe.
If I go to the range I can go through 200-300 rounds in target practice.

So you are saying since black market purchases are possible, let's throw up our hands and say oh well. Let's not do anything regarding weapons. How little the 14 lives matter when any check on guns is raised.

Let's not do nothing, but lets not go nuts either.
Shall we ban cars when someone runs into a crowded sidewalk?
In a free society a nutcase can kill people if they want to and there is nothing you can do.
They could steal a semi and go plowing down the freeway or a crowded pedestrian area.
What law do you pass then?

Let's start taking actions that will begin to yield results. Nothing is perfect. All those that feel a back door to their data, financial, medical, etc should be available to law enforcement. Let's stop the manufacture and sale of automatic and semi automatic weapons to civilians.

First and foremost to buy a fully automatic weapon legally is no easy task.
The ATF wants to have a talk with you. Extra background check, extra money, etc.
There have been no legal automatic weapons involved in any mass homicide.
let's also dispel the notion that you are likely to be killed by someone with a semiautomatic rifle, or any rifle for that matter. From the last available FBI statistics, you are more likely to be beat to death or stabbed than shot with ANY type of long gun.

SCOTUS has already settled the argument.
The right to bear a firearm is an individual right.
Guns available for purchase legally fall into what is in common use and that is both semi-automatic pistols and rifles.
They have been around in common use for more than 100 years. The 1911 .45 Cal is a prime example.

Single shot weapons will allow hunting, target practice, etc. But give a chance to victims of gun violence to try and rush the shooter. Name one case where a herd of dear attacked a hunter and he was saved by using semi auto weapon with high capacity clip.
So why don't we limit free speech like you want to limit the second amendment?
If all amendments are equal, then why is everyone trying to make the 2A second class.
The framer of the constitution didn't know about the internet so why not require a permit for that dangerous and anonymous speech?
They did know about semi-automatic weapons. They existed just not in a form that was small enough to carry.

There is also no such thing as a "high capacity clip". It's a magazine and what is high capacity?

Name me one instance where a terrorist attack was stopped by civilians retaliating with semi auto weapons. Sure some terrorists will obtain weapons illegally, but currently they don't have to even bother. Just order from Wallmart.
There are numerous instances where armed citizens stop a crime or prevent one.
But terrorists like most criminals go after soft targets where they are less likely to meet with resistance, so your presumed argument can be labeled as specious.

If you trust the government with your private data, why not trust them to regulate firearms in a useful manner. If you want your stash of weapons to protect from government abuses, why is giving up your privacy any less aggregious.
You assume, I and others trust the government. I don't. They can't be trusted.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power, absolutely corrupts."
I don't willingly give my data to anyone. I only give my "real" data where legally required.
I don't do Facebook, Twitter, etc. If you don't know the product, you ARE the product.

When push comes to shove anyone thinking they will hold off the government because they have a stash of weapons is dillusional. Show me where a showdown with government authorities ended where the civilians with assault weapons prevailed.
See the Battle of Athens in 1946
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.