Questions from a Ron Paul newbie.

[escapinggreatly]

Okay, so, I'm quite the political junkie. Spend way too much of my time online, write a blog, work in DC, all that good stuff. And I've been a self-described libertarian for years. However, the more I look into Ron, the more I find little things that befuddle me.

For instance, he apparently frequently mentions returning to a gold standard, and even sometimes is reported to say that he wants to get rid of paper money. I've tried to figure out the details behind exactly how he wants to accomplish this, but so far have come up empty. I'm assuming that he doesn't want us carrying knapsacks full of gold coins around whilst we ride in carriages and prepare for fox hunts - so what does he have in mind?

Also, Ron apparently advocated allowing passengers to carry guns aboard airplanes in his recent Iowa speech. Maybe it's the movie-watcher in me, but I'm about 99% sure that shooting a gun in an airplane is a virtual guarantee to blast a big hole in the fuselage, causing the entire plane to decompress in seconds and, in all likelihood, tear apart. I love the Constitution, and I love Ron's belief in it, but the laws of physics trump the laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?

Thanks in advance, this looks like quite the informative place.

[Mister Grieves]

1. He means paper money actually backed by gold or something of great value other than military might.

2. You've seen too many movies.

[johnrocks]

If I had the choice of carring a handgun on board a plane and at least having a chance;even with a decompression issue;versus the certainty of death by being at the hands of terrorists then I will gladly take my chances with the guns! As far as currency, we used to be under a gold standard which backs our currency, I have some old money that shows the difference somewhere in my chest drawers.

[jpa]

1) Give me 1 minute to search up his views on monetary system. The gold standard does not mean you carry coins, it means your dollars are backed by gold (in fort knox, etc). He does not want to go to a gold standard exactly like before. He wants to legalize competeting currencies backed by hard assests, so the market can choose what currency is best for them. This means in practice removing the taxes from the purchase of gold, silver, and platinum.


http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=9
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=677
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=698


2) He refered to allowing pilots & airlines to carry arms and protect their property and passengers. Just an FYI, but a plane can fly with a bullet hole in it. Those air masks drop down and the plane makes an emergency landing if the cabin loses pressure.

[Razmear]

He advocated allowing the crew to be armed, not the passengers, however he did not express his point clearly enough in that speech.
And no, we won't be using only gold and silver, the paper money would be backed by gold and silver as it was about 40 years ago.

eb

[Ron Paul Fan]

Regarding the guns on planes, I don't think he's talking about passengers carrying guns and getting into shootouts. He's talking about pilots to defend the cockpit. People might be less willing to do a highjacking if they know the pilot has a gun. He'd leave all of these decisions up to the airlines of course and not the FAA, TSA, or whichever government body currently does it for them.

[JPFromTally]

1. He means abolishing a fiat system. If you want to see the damage a runaway system of currency can do please do some research on Argentina and its economy in the last twenty years. This is more along the lines of what he's talking about - not carrying around gold coins.

2. When he talks about guns on planes he means the pilots. Think about it, had the pilots (who I believe were mostly ex-military) been allowed to be armed, do you think hijackers with box cutters?!?!? could have taken over those airplanes?

But as a matter of fact, if you do some research most people were allowed to carry guns on airplanes until about the sixties.

[dseisner]

He does advocate going back to a gold standard. However, he never says we should get rid of something entirely, overnight (well, maybe the IRS). He advocates reintroducing hard currency, gold and silver and assigning a certain weight of each to equal a dollar. Just because we have hard money currency, doesn't mean you can't have banks, electronic transactions, and checks. It just means there's something of value (but not too precious or rare) backing the numbers on the screen. This means we can't create money out of thin air (like the fed does) which would essentially end inflation, which RP calls, "the tax that nobody talks about that is destroying our middle class." Inflation and borrowing have brought us to the brink of an economic crisis, therefor reinstituting sound economic principles is key. So even if he can't win the battle for gold and silver currency, we can still have it backing our paper...what a concept!

Studies have shown that firing a gun in an airplane would not make it crash. I believe he advocates one person on an airline to carry one, not for everybody AND not for just US marshalls that are on very few flights.

[NoxTwilight]

Everyone so far as answered your questions pretty well. There is a great deal of information online that should dot the i's and cross the t's for you. See the list of sites at the bottom of the forum. Those are a great place to start.

Welcome to the forum and I have run across your site a few times, off Digg I think and have enjoyed reading it. Great title by the way :D

[isufferfromronpaulfever]

I am by absolutely no means an expert in any of the 2 fields but I belive that:

1) The source of what we call money could be backed by commodities, public stakes in businesses, gold, anything I guess that is either necessary, crucial or coveted in life.

2) Their must be some low caliber form of weapon that could be used to avoid the situation you propopsed.

As I stated, I'm no expert and it's quite possible I could be off base. Just my 2 cents in trying to provide reasonable explanations.

[constituent]

yea, and since we've got all that gold in ft. knox we should be made in the shade...

right???

[jpa]

yea, and since we've got all that gold in ft. knox we should be made in the shade...

right???

There has been no public audit or accounting of the gold in fort knox since the Fed (a private group with no oversight) has taken it over. No one in government knows how much gold is in Fort Knox.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[escapinggreatly]

Welcome to the forum and I have run across your site a few times, off Digg I think and have enjoyed reading it. Great title by the way :D

Wow, awesome, gracias. I really appreciate. Obviously, it's still in its infancy, so if you like it, please, share with your friends, family, coworkers, acquaintances, high school reunion, homeless guys who hit you up for change.... you know, all that. Every little bit helps.

In regards to the questions, y'all have been very helpful, most of what you said I kind of figured was what Paul actually meant. Part of the reason I asked is specifically because I had heard that his exact words went against what I thought he meant - for example, I'd heard that he said that he wants to "get rid of paper money." I was hoping he didn't mean that literally.

As far as the guns, though, I've seen several sources that report Ron saying that the Second Amendment should still be heeded on airplanes, and that he did indeed mean passengers can carry guns. Obviously everyone's natural instinct would be to assume that he merely meant the pilots, but I'm curious - has anyone been around him while he's been asked about this? Has he specifically addressed the pilot/passenger issue, or is it all speculation?

[jb4ronpaul]

1) the idea is that if the money is backed by something physical, the government cannot just print and inflate money at its own will. That is an invisible tax that eats away at the value of every dollar you earn.

2) the idea is that the property owner, in this case the airline, will do a better job being responsible for the security of it's customers on the airplane. Most likely that means the airline would give the pilots arms and train them for emergencies. Most likely the airlines would still not allow passengers to bring on guns, they have that right to make that decision since it is their property. But they should have the right to allow the pilots to be armed so they can protect their customers. It makes no sense of the government to disarm the pilots, and try to stick a policeman on every plane. What a waste. I also believe the existing air marshals use guns with bullets that would not pose any risk, see no reason why the pilots could not do the same.

[Kuldebar]

The reality of gun fire on airplanes has been scientifically addressed before and by a Boeing engineer's testimony before Congress.


Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, noted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives:

Boeing commercial service history contains cases where guns were fired on board in service airplanes, all of which landed safely. Commercial airplane structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft. A bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization. Aircraft are designed to withstand much larger impacts whether intentional or unintentional. For instance, on 14 occasions Boeing commercial airplanes have survived, and landed, after an in flight bomb blast. source (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/comment-lott090203.asp)


The fears of guns on airplanes are exaggerated. The article also says, "Unlike police who have to come into physical contact with criminals while arresting them, pilots will use guns to keep attackers as far away as possible." And this all assumes the hijackers can gain access to the cockpit. A whole plane full of people being held captive and passive by a few thugs with box cutters is a problem.

We find it entirely acceptable to have armored truck drivers with side arms to guard a truck load of fiat currency, but people balk at the idea of having an airline hire a guard or arm one of its employees in order to protect their customers.

Only in America, where people are scared to do the right thing and continue to pay a hellish price for it.

[slantedview]

"For instance, he apparently frequently mentions returning to a gold standard, and even sometimes is reported to say that he wants to get rid of paper money. I've tried to figure out the details behind exactly how he wants to accomplish this, but so far have come up empty. I'm assuming that he doesn't want us carrying knapsacks full of gold coins around whilst we ride in carriages and prepare for fox hunts - so what does he have in mind?"

The gold standard doesn't mean you carry gold coins we can still have paper currency. Of course we had a gold standard until the early 70s and obvoiusly we didn't carry around gold coins before then.

The idea of the gold standard is that our paper dollars and all the electronic money in our system should actually be backed by something - that thing being gold (picture piles of gold bars locked up in Fort Knox). The idea behind backing our currency with gold mean that our currency is actually worth something. Otherwise the government could just print (loan out) as much money as they want, without there actually being any basis to it. Having our currency based on some limited hard asset such as gold gives the currency real value. Anyways, since doing away with the gold standard, our currency is increasingly backed by nothing as there is no rule requiring newly created money to be backed by anything. So the Federal Reserve can print as much money as they want, resulting in inflation (which we have) and a devaluation of the dollar (which we also have).

Ron Paul supports the idea of going back on the gold standard as a way of stabilizing our currency and giving it real value. Being that a gold standard might be impossible to get back on though, Ron Paul is also open to tying our currency to silver, crude, or some other hard commodity. Anything that is real and tangible with real value with work.

[rg123]

as far a weapons shot can be calibrated to an amount that it doesnt go through metal but yet can harm people. Rubber bullets are an option as well and are used worldwide on protesters.

[Man from La Mancha]

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4646/sept11c540zm5.jpg

[angelatc]

laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?

Thanks in advance, this looks like quite the informative place.

Is The Daily WTF your blog? That's my new favorite. I feel like you're a celebrity!

[jblosser]

People need to stop kneejerking with "of course he didn't mean passengers should be armed". Show me where in the Constitution it says that the Federal government has authority to tell private industries if they can or can't allow guns on their property.

Even if we grant that a single bb fired on a plane will cause it to immediately explode ala the Simpsons, that's the airline's business, not the fed's. Of course, the actual physical reality is a lot more complicated than that, which is only all the more reason to let private industry figure it out based on reality instead of letting the movie-watching public grant the fed a kneejerk position. They can forbid it or allow it as their customers and physics demands.

If you want more info, you have the Congressional testimony above. Also google "frangible ammunition".

[slantedview]

Another related topic is the monetary system itself, which Ron Paul understands, unlike any other politician.

Most monetary experts and economists agree that on the current path, our monetary system WILL collapse, it's just a matter of when. Right now our entire monetary system is based on debt. That's how new money is introduced, as debt. People, companies, institutions and even our own government is stuck in a rat wheel taking out debt upon debt, often to pay off the interest of old debt. This neverending need for more debt is why our nation's money supply is increasing exponentially. When the time finally comes that it's no longer possible to take on enough new debt to pay off interest on old debt, the entire monetary system will collapse. It's only a matter of when.

Again, Ron Paul is an expert on our economy and monetary system. He understands these complex issues and is our best chance of enacting the tough love fixes that will prevent the impending disaster.

I should reiterate again, I know this sounds like doom and gloom stuff, but that's just the way it is. It's not disputed at all by economists, and it's not disputed by average people simply because the monetary system isn't commonly understood or discussed. Ron Paul can change this.

[TexMac]

Okay, so, I'm quite the political junkie. Spend way too much of my time online, write a blog, work in DC, all that good stuff. And I've been a self-described libertarian for years. However, the more I look into Ron, the more I find little things that befuddle me.

For instance, he apparently frequently mentions returning to a gold standard, and even sometimes is reported to say that he wants to get rid of paper money. I've tried to figure out the details behind exactly how he wants to accomplish this, but so far have come up empty. I'm assuming that he doesn't want us carrying knapsacks full of gold coins around whilst we ride in carriages and prepare for fox hunts - so what does he have in mind?

Also, Ron apparently advocated allowing passengers to carry guns aboard airplanes in his recent Iowa speech. Maybe it's the movie-watcher in me, but I'm about 99% sure that shooting a gun in an airplane is a virtual guarantee to blast a big hole in the fuselage, causing the entire plane to decompress in seconds and, in all likelihood, tear apart. I love the Constitution, and I love Ron's belief in it, but the laws of physics trump the laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?

Thanks in advance, this looks like quite the informative place.


I love your blog!

[Spirit of '76]

As far as the guns, though, I've seen several sources that report Ron saying that the Second Amendment should still be heeded on airplanes, and that he did indeed mean passengers can carry guns. Obviously everyone's natural instinct would be to assume that he merely meant the pilots, but I'm curious - has anyone been around him while he's been asked about this? Has he specifically addressed the pilot/passenger issue, or is it all speculation?

Actually, I believe he actually introduced legislation in Congress on this issue, and that it did not mandate that passengers be allowed to carry firearms on board airplanes, but simply stated that the federal government would not be allowed to prevent the airlines from arming their pilots.

[0zzy]

Omg so many people misinterpreted his guns on plane stance.

Was it really that confusing when he meant the pilots should be able to hold guns on board?

[Spike]

1. He's never said he wants to get rid of paper money, I think you misunderstood him on this point which is so important. I think economic justice and monetary is the most important issue, after the Iraq war. There is a good documentary on how banks currently operate. Its called Money as Debt.

http://stage6.divx.com/Zambucas-Mix-Channel/video/1223084/Money-as-Debt

2. I had some difficultly accepting this argument at first but after while I came around to it. I remember a number of conservative radio hosts that I listened to always said "give pilots guns on board" and things like "If adminstrators at schools had guns school shootings would be less likely" and I couldn't accept that logic, until I heard it from Ron Paul's mouth and heard his rationale for it.

[Kuldebar]

Just as freedom of speech doesn't mean someone has a right to stand on your front lawn and protest, the same goes for the right to bear arms on private property.

Property owners, in a free society, have a right to establish their own rules of conduct of what is permissible on their property as long as it doesn't involve murder, theft or fraud.

[jblosser]

Omg so many people misinterpreted his guns on plane stance.

Was it really that confusing when he meant the pilots should be able to hold guns on board?

It doesn't matter. Even if he's only in recorded history talked about letting airlines arm pilots if they want, of course the same thing applies to passengers.

Do you really think Ron Paul is going to say it's ok for the fed govt to tell private airlines what they can and can't let their passengers do? Where in the Constitution does it allow that?

[quickmike]

Also, Ron apparently advocated allowing passengers to carry guns aboard airplanes in his recent Iowa speech. Maybe it's the movie-watcher in me, but I'm about 99% sure that shooting a gun in an airplane is a virtual guarantee to blast a big hole in the fuselage, causing the entire plane to decompress in seconds and, in all likelihood, tear apart. I love the Constitution, and I love Ron's belief in it, but the laws of physics trump the laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?
.

Let me ask you something. If you were on a 767 and a terrorist pulled out a knife and stuck it to a young ladies throat and demaded the pilot fly somewhere or he will kill the woman, would you A: guarantee the death of everyone on the plane and possibly many more when he smashes the plane into a building with thousands of people on it? Or, would you choose B: Having a chance to take him out before any of this can happen?


Why have people become such pussies when it comes to their safety and personal protection? More worried about the off chance that the bullet might hit a window and lose cabin pressure than they are about a crazed fundementalist going ape shit with a shiv hacking people up if they dont listen to him.

Freedom is about your constitutional right to at least have the chance to protect yourself from someone who wants to do harm to you and others. Its not a guarantee that you will be all cushy in a plastic bubble where nothing can possibly go wrong.................. but it sure as hell beats the alternative.

If you were on one of those planes would you shoot, or would you just sit there like a baby-bitch hoping that he found it in the kindness of his heart to change his mind about the whole thing?

[Kuldebar]

It doesn't matter. Even if he's only in recorded history talked about letting airlines arm pilots if they want, of course the same thing applies to passengers.

Do you really think Ron Paul is going to say it's ok for the fed govt to tell private airlines what they can and can't let their passengers do? Where in the Constitution does it allow that?

In a free society, some airlines might allow passengers to carry firearms on board, but I doubt very many would do so. Not because of some irrational fear of guns, but because as a property owner, I am responsible for your safety and security, if I were to allow people who do not work for me to bring on weapons I will not have control of the situation.

If I did allow weapons, I would have the customer sign a waiver stating that I am not responsible for gun related damages or injuries...you might decide not to do business with me.

See where I am going with this?

[ksuguy]

Exactly, the issue of whether or not people can bring guns on the plane should be decided by the individual airlines, not the federal government. If someone wants to start an airline where people are able to carry a gun, they should be able to.

Of course, I doubt that any of our current airlines would do such a thing. Some of them might allow the pilots and/or crew to carry though.

Finally we have not always had a prohibition against guns on planes. Up through the early 1960's, it was perfectly legal for people to carry a gun on a plane. I know that seems shocking, but it is true.

[klamath]

Not really the main issue but a plane will not instantly explosively decompress if a bullet goes through the skin. The maximum pressure isn't even near 14psi (sea level atmospheric pressure.) and this is not enough to to even expand a bullet hole. This myth is so well ingrained that the mythbusters did a segment on this. The only way they could get a dummy to partly suck out a window was to blow the window out with plastic explosives. Even in the Hollywood scenes with explosive decompression it is a joke when they have decompression going on for many seconds.

[danda]

Also, Ron apparently advocated allowing passengers to carry guns aboard airplanes in his recent Iowa speech. Maybe it's the movie-watcher in me, but I'm about 99% sure that shooting a gun in an airplane is a virtual guarantee to blast a big hole in the fuselage, causing the entire plane to decompress in seconds and, in all likelihood, tear apart. I love the Constitution, and I love Ron's belief in it, but the laws of physics trump the laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?

Actually, the mythbusters quite conclusively showed that shooting a hole in an airplane's skin (or window) does NOT cause explosive decompression.

FWIW.

[escapinggreatly]

Is The Daily WTF your blog? That's my new favorite. I feel like you're a celebrity!

lol, yes it is, and thank you very much. Like I said before, it's just starting up, and I could use any and all support I can get. If you like it, please share.


Let me ask you something. If you were on a 767 and a terrorist pulled out a knife and stuck it to a young ladies throat and demaded the pilot fly somewhere or he will kill the woman, would you A: guarantee the death of everyone on the plane and possibly many more when he smashes the plane into a building with thousands of people on it? Or, would you choose B: Having a chance to take him out before any of this can happen?

Unfortunately, it's impossible to make political decisions by focusing on specific situations, not only is it always possible to counter one situation with another situation, but it's physically impossible to cover every possible situation with rules and laws. Can't be done. And as much as I want personal freedom, as much as I support libertarianism, I can say with a whole lot of confidence that I believe my chances of death would go up if passengers were allowed to bring guns onto a plane, not down.

Many of the fine people on this board seem to have plenty of evidence supporting the notion that Ron was talking about pilots, which is good. I'll take your word for it. That sounds a lot more reasonable to me.

As for the monetary system, yes, I know about the previous gold standard and how a gold standard system generally works. I wanted to find out specifically if Ron had actually said that he wanted to do away with paper money itself, which, apparently, he has not. Also good. Seems like it'd cause more problems than it would solve, unless he'd want to go to an entirely electronic system, which I don't think is feasible quite yet.

That said, does anyone have a brief synopsis of exactly how the United States would go about reverting to a gold standard, and what it would do to the economy and everyday life? I'm trying to avoid dense economic theory about the subject, I really doubt I could handle that much. Just a few generalities.

[escapinggreatly]

Actually, the mythbusters quite conclusively showed that shooting a hole in an airplane's skin (or window) does NOT cause explosive decompression.

FWIW.

Actually, that's very good to know. Thanks.

Sure is cool in the movies, though. ;)

[jblosser]

In a free society, some airlines might allow passengers to carry firearms on board, but I doubt very many would do so. Not because of some irrational fear of guns, but because as a property owner, I am responsible for your safety and security, if I were to allow people who do not work for me to bring on weapons I will not have control of the situation.

If I did allow weapons, I would have the customer sign a waiver stating that I am not responsible for gun related damages or injuries...you might decide not to do business with me.

See where I am going with this?

Which is exactly the way it should be. The market will determine which approach actually keeps people safer.

[jblosser]

And as much as I want personal freedom, as much as I support libertarianism, I can say with a whole lot of confidence that I believe my chances of death would go up if passengers were allowed to bring guns onto a plane, not down.

You can believe what you want but you will have a hard time finding any place in history where people have been commonly armed and it had the effect of reducing safety, all other things being equal.

Regardless, it's not something the Constitution allows, and like everything else, if people want the law to be that way they need to change the law instead of breaking it to suit their own beliefs and agendas.

HTH & HAND.

[jpa]

That said, does anyone have a brief synopsis of exactly how the United States would go about reverting to a gold standard, and what it would do to the economy and everyday life? I'm trying to avoid dense economic theory about the subject, I really doubt I could handle that much. Just a few generalities.

paper money is a term used to mean currency backed by nothing (also called fiat money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency). Hard money is the opposite, currency backed by hard assests.

The effects of going to a gold standard (might be wrong, I am no expert):
Low to no inflation. The dollar is worth 4 cents compared to what was worth in 1913 when we went on the Fed Reserve system. No more corporate bailouts from the fed when banks make bad decisions (last week, the fed pumped $120 billion into the economy to offset the subprime loans mess). No more bubbles or man-made business cycles (alternating bull & bear markets caused by the Fed tinkering).
Some potential "downsides" are possibly less debt & credit in the economy (reducing the amount of investment overall, but also reduce the size of a crash)

[Spirit of '76]

That said, does anyone have a brief synopsis of exactly how the United States would go about reverting to a gold standard, and what it would do to the economy and everyday life? I'm trying to avoid dense economic theory about the subject, I really doubt I could handle that much. Just a few generalities.


I realize that this is precisely not what you just asked for, but if you're interested in Ron Paul's thoughts on the subject of monetary policy, I highly recommend you read his books on the subject. Some of them are available for free in pdf format here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/books.php

You'll find that Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf) is an easy and informative read. It's more a pamphlet than a book, really.

[Highmesa]

That said, does anyone have a brief synopsis of exactly how the United States would go about reverting to a gold standard, and what it would do to the economy and everyday life? I'm trying to avoid dense economic theory about the subject, I really doubt I could handle that much. Just a few generalities.

I think all the posts here (unless I missed it) have ignored one very BIG point that Ron has made about the monetary system and reverting to hard money.

It does not have to come only from the federal government. Ron has talked about legalizing private currencies (i.e. removing the negative tax implications of holding gold/silver/platinum/etc.). These currencies already exist (e-gold, pecunix, loom-gold, etc.) but as the dollar is inflated you have a taxable event, which is a pain in the ass. Plus, the feds keep threatening to shut these currencies down, claiming they are depository for scammers (as if regular banks and their credit cards aren't).

In a free currency market people can choose where they want to store their value. If the fedral government cannot compete by being viewed as a solid store of value, people will move their wealth elsewhere. This in effect forces the feds to be resposible with the national currency.

Truthfully, I think that eventually national currencies should go the way of the dinosaur. Eliminate the tax implications, and I can digitally pay all my bills and buy groceries from an debit card out of my hard asset account. This is on our doorstep, but governments DO NOT want this to happen as the power gets transfered from the state to the people.

[escapinggreatly]

You can believe what you want but you will have a hard time finding any place in history where people have been commonly armed and it had the effect of reducing safety, all other things being equal.

Regardless, it's not something the Constitution allows, and like everything else, if people want the law to be that way they need to change the law instead of breaking it to suit their own beliefs and agendas.

HTH & HAND.

Historically, you're quite correct. However, historically, passenger aircraft are a tiny hiccup. So, I look at the math of the specific airplane situation:

Only violence that guns will prevent on aircraft: Hijacking (both terrorist and non)
Violence that could possibly happen for a variety of reasons if thirty people on the plane are armed: Quite a lot.

(As an aside, if you're going to argue with me that people won't let anything get to the point at which there would be gunfire on the plane, I would simply respond with your own suggestion to look at history - if you were to look at random moments in history in which complete strangers were put into some sort of containment for several hours, and a good chunk of those strangers were armed, how long would it take for violence to break out? If this situation repeated itself thousands of times a day, how often would violence break out? History does indeed repeat itself, and history says that humans + guns = violence. Only a matter of time.)

So if we can agree that guns would prevent death rates on flights in which a hijack would be thwarted, but would increase death rates on flights in which no such hijacking was going to happen, the math is pretty simple - is the number of flights that would have been hijacked greater than the number of flights that would have been fine, but violence broke out for a different reason? Given how few flights have ever been hijacked, I think it's safe for me to say that the latter's number would be much higher.

[Kuldebar]

The big thing to remember about getting back to a sound monetary system is that Paul would not be abolishing the Federal Reserve or it's currency as a first step. He would simply "legalize" what the Constitution says about gold and silver based currency, in effect this would then be competing with the fed's money, people could decide which money they preferred. The competing currencies would both be legal method of payment and exchange.

The market would decide.

Paul is convinced the Federal Reserve would wither away and upheaval trauma could be minimized.

[Kuldebar]

Regarding guns in public while traveling, I found this quote in a book I purchased a number of years back:


Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a highwayman or other such predator. This does not appear to have shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the most part there were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility to look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels.

It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.

Quote is from A Nation of Cowards by Jeff Snyder:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/b0/b8/7954124128a0194afd8c9010._AA240_.L.jpg

[escapinggreatly]

Snyder makes some good points. Still, can't extend them to agreeing with those who have said passengers carrying guns onto airplanes would ultimately be a good idea.

Interesting about Paul's strategy, though. Would we have new paper currency to represent the gold and silver standards?

[Matt]

Historically, you're quite correct. However, historically, passenger aircraft are a tiny hiccup. So, I look at the math of the specific airplane situation:

Only violence that guns will prevent on aircraft: Hijacking (both terrorist and non)
Violence that could possibly happen for a variety of reasons if thirty people on the plane are armed: Quite a lot.

(As an aside, if you're going to argue with me that people won't let anything get to the point at which there would be gunfire on the plane, I would simply respond with your own suggestion to look at history - if you were to look at random moments in history in which complete strangers were put into some sort of containment for several hours, and a good chunk of those strangers were armed, how long would it take for violence to break out? If this situation repeated itself thousands of times a day, how often would violence break out? History does indeed repeat itself, and history says that humans + guns = violence. Only a matter of time.)

So if we can agree that guns would prevent death rates on flights in which a hijack would be thwarted, but would increase death rates on flights in which no such hijacking was going to happen, the math is pretty simple - is the number of flights that would have been hijacked greater than the number of flights that would have been fine, but violence broke out for a different reason? Given how few flights have ever been hijacked, I think it's safe for me to say that the latter's number would be much higher.

I don't think it's a matter of us agreeing or not. Ron Paul's position is simply that Airlines should be able to set their own weapons policies since it's their property and they are (should be) liable for anything that happens to you. This means that they are motivated by self interest to make the best choices and are able to respond to the needs of different situations better than a government with a blanket policy.

Pilots were allowed by most airlines to carry guns until 1994 when the federal government prohibited them from doing it. I believe he is referring to this directly when he said respect for the second amendment could have prevented 9/11. It was government that disarmed pilots not the airlines since allowing them to be armed is obviously a sensible policy. Airlines probably wouldn't let passengers carry guns but the point is that it's not the government's business.

Also, planes won't depressurize from a few bullet holes. They're not airtight in the first place; they're pressurized by air compressors that have extra capacity built in to deal with additional leaks. Even if the leaks exceeded the capacity of the pumps the depressurization would be gradual. It would take something like a door falling off to be dangerous.

[Kuldebar]

Snyder makes some good points. Still, can't extend them to agreeing with those who have said passengers carrying guns onto airplanes would ultimately be a good idea.

Well, I think property owners would decide in a free society, there wouldn't be a one size fits all solution forced on everyone. Customers would ultimately vote with their money. Remember, there were always places that required people to disarm, but normally with the assurance that the host would be responsible for their protection. Honor truly had real and practical meaning in those days. I have always considered the truth of the statement about how an armed society is a polite society.



Interesting about Paul's strategy, though. Would we have new paper currency to represent the gold and silver standards?

Yes, the worthless paper money we have today is a pale shadow of what used to be a gold or silver certificate based system.

Instead of just Federal Reserve Notes from the current fiat system, you'd have the choice of certificates that were backed by gold, silver or possibly some other commodity. The Constitution explicitly says gold and silver of course. I'd venture a guess that platinum would be a good one to add to the list at some future date.

[LibertyEagle]

What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=92

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf

[Tn...Andy]

You'd be amazed at the damage an aircraft can take and still fly.

Remember the Aloaha Airlines 737 that lost a big chunk of the top of the fuselage at 24,000 feet, and still landed ?

Blew one unbelted flight attendant to her death, and injured 8 passengers from debris.

Somebody must have been carrying a REAL pistol there, huh ?

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan/18/image2/localnews1.jpg

[Tn...Andy]

Snyder makes some good points. Still, can't extend them to agreeing with those who have said passengers carrying guns onto airplanes would ultimately be a good idea.


Then you don't believe that you are responsible for your own self defense ? You would put that on some one else ? Why would you believe that ?





Interesting about Paul's strategy, though. Would we have new paper currency to represent the gold and silver standards?


Yes....of course. A 'federal reserve note' is simply an unconstitutional form of legal tender. CONGRESS has the power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof"....Congress did NOT have the power to give that power to a collection of private banks known as the "federal reserve"....which is no more "federal" than Federal Express.

Gold coin and silver coin would circulate along with paper money denominated in gold and silver units, and FULLY redeemable in physical gold or silver AT ANY TIME at the US Treasury.....the same would apply for electronic digits. A DOLLAR would return to being whatever amount of gold or silver Congress said it was.....as it their authority under the Constitution.

THESE ARE NOT 'DOLLARS' anymore than if I took a piece of green paper and a magic marker and wrote "one hundred dollars" on it.

http://www.digistash.com/data/026a39ae63343c68b5223a95f3e17616/2571_p69042.jpeg



THIS was close to a dollar, since you could redeem it for silver at the US Treasury....until Congress proved, yet again, that white men really DO speak with forked tongues in 1967.

http://www.digistash.com/data/026a39ae63343c68b5223a95f3e17616/5728_p80607.jpeg

[4Horsemen]

Okay, so, I'm quite the political junkie. Spend way too much of my time online, write a blog, work in DC, all that good stuff. And I've been a self-described libertarian for years. However, the more I look into Ron, the more I find little things that befuddle me.

For instance, he apparently frequently mentions returning to a gold standard, and even sometimes is reported to say that he wants to get rid of paper money. I've tried to figure out the details behind exactly how he wants to accomplish this, but so far have come up empty. I'm assuming that he doesn't want us carrying knapsacks full of gold coins around whilst we ride in carriages and prepare for fox hunts - so what does he have in mind?

Also, Ron apparently advocated allowing passengers to carry guns aboard airplanes in his recent Iowa speech. Maybe it's the movie-watcher in me, but I'm about 99% sure that shooting a gun in an airplane is a virtual guarantee to blast a big hole in the fuselage, causing the entire plane to decompress in seconds and, in all likelihood, tear apart. I love the Constitution, and I love Ron's belief in it, but the laws of physics trump the laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?

Thanks in advance, this looks like quite the informative place.

Check this video out about the FED, IRS with Ron Paul interviews. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1117&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[escapinggreatly]

Then you don't believe that you are responsible for your own self defense ? You would put that on some one else ? Why would you believe that ?

I already explained. It's a question of math. I believe that my odds of dying would go up if everyone was suddenly allowed to bring guns onto a plane, not down.

I understand everything about what money used to be worth according to Congress - what I'm wondering is if Paul has actually stated anything about how he would go about re-instating the gold standard. Would we have a process like Europe did with the Euro, where the debt dollar would be phased out over a certain span of time to be replaced by a commodity-backed dollar? Would he simply introduce a commodity-backed dollar and let the two currencies fight it out? Would we try to force Congress to set new commodity values for current dollars?

[Kuldebar]

I already explained. It's a question of math. I believe that my odds of dying would go up if everyone was suddenly allowed to bring guns onto a plane, not down.

I understand everything about what money used to be worth according to Congress - what I'm wondering is if Paul has actually stated anything about how he would go about re-instating the gold standard. Would we have a process like Europe did with the Euro, where the debt dollar would be phased out over a certain span of time to be replaced by a commodity-backed dollar? Would he simply introduce a commodity-backed dollar and let the two currencies fight it out? Would we try to force Congress to set new commodity values for current dollars?


The two competing currencies would be sorted out by market demand. The value of the commodity based currency would have to set at first and there's various ways that could be accomplished.

The Euro isn't sound money, I'm sure a transition was used to convert to the Euro, but that's about where any possible comparison would stop.

"The introduction of the euro consists simply of introducing another "managed" paper currency. Whether it will go up or down against other currencies will continue to depend on how it and the other ones are managed. Given that neither the way in which both currencies are "managed" nor the respective tax regimes are likely to change in the near future, there is little reason why the current situation should not prevail for some time to come." -Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/story/852)


The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective (http://mises.org:88/Paul-Partee)
View this debate on the Gold Standard, featuring Congressman Ron Paul and Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. This debate took place at the 1983 Capital Hill Gold Standard Conference in Washington, DC, which was hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute

[jblosser]

As others have noted, the primary point here is still that it's the airlines' business to decide their own weapons policy, not the government's. If they want to be afraid of guns they can still forbid them, at least then they can be held accountable by the market for providing for their passengers safety. But regardless...


Historically, you're quite correct. However, historically, passenger aircraft are a tiny hiccup. So, I look at the math of the specific airplane situation:

Only violence that guns will prevent on aircraft: Hijacking (both terrorist and non)
Violence that could possibly happen for a variety of reasons if thirty people on the plane are armed: Quite a lot.

What you call "math" I call "the same made-up argument that's been used over and over again where people have pushed for the legal right to defend themselves".


(As an aside, if you're going to argue with me that people won't let anything get to the point at which there would be gunfire on the plane, I would simply respond with your own suggestion to look at history - if you were to look at random moments in history in which complete strangers were put into some sort of containment for several hours, and a good chunk of those strangers were armed, how long would it take for violence to break out? If this situation repeated itself thousands of times a day, how often would violence break out? History does indeed repeat itself, and history says that humans + guns = violence. Only a matter of time.)


This is in particular the exact same argument that was used against Florida legalizing concealed carry with respect to the effect of guns in cars. Replace hijacking with carjacking and crowded spaces with road rage. But this is completely not what happened after their CHL law passed; having a gun in one's possession does not turn one into a violence-thirsty maniac looking for a gun fight, even on Florida highways.


So if we can agree that guns would prevent death rates on flights in which a hijack would be thwarted, but would increase death rates on flights in which no such hijacking was going to happen,

"We" absolutely can't agree to that, because there's no data to back it up. People in an armed society do not break out into random gunfights over perceived slights, except in the movies. Even if you may have a very small percentage around with a tendency to sociopathy, the presence of other armed responsible people makes the problem self-limiting. And I don't mean the good guys just kill off the bad guys, I mean the only people that will start randomly shooting in an environment where they will immediately themselves be stopped with force are people that are so far gone they would tend toward that level of illegal behavior with or without a gun.


the math is pretty simple - is the number of flights that would have been hijacked greater than the number of flights that would have been fine, but violence broke out for a different reason? Given how few flights have ever been hijacked, I think it's safe for me to say that the latter's number would be much higher.

Again, this "math" is made up, and is exactly the same as what was claimed during Florida's CHL legalization. Last time I checked there have still been 0 cases of legal firearms being used illegally on Florida highways. 0 is smaller than the number of carjackings. Crowded planes are not magically different from road rage-filled highways. There is no data-backed reason to believe armed passengers on planes would behave any differently either.

[jblosser]

I already explained. It's a question of math. I believe that my odds of dying would go up if everyone was suddenly allowed to bring guns onto a plane, not down.

Math is not based on "belief", and you don't get to claim fiat objectivity in your argument by using the m word without some real data behind it. "Planes are small" is not data. "Hijackings are rare" is data, but "therefore gun accidents would be more than hijackings" is not, it is a non sequiter. 0 gun accidents is a real possibility that has been observed in other environments.

What you mean to say is "it is a question of fear" or "it is a question of assumption" or "it is a question of superstition". These are all accurate statements, but without data, "math" is not.

[CodeMonkey]

As far as the guns, though, I've seen several sources that report Ron saying that the Second Amendment should still be heeded on airplanes, and that he did indeed mean passengers can carry guns. Obviously everyone's natural instinct would be to assume that he merely meant the pilots, but I'm curious - has anyone been around him while he's been asked about this? Has he specifically addressed the pilot/passenger issue, or is it all speculation?

He actually promotes allowing the airlines to make their own rules, whether they want to ban guns completely, or allow passengers, flight attendants, or even passengers to pack some heat. He talks about this in the Google interview.

[escapinggreatly]

The Euro isn't sound money, I'm sure a transition was used to convert to the Euro, but that's about where any possible comparison would stop.

That's what I was referring to. Has Paul actually explained how he would go about the transition?


Again, this "math" is made up, and is exactly the same as what was claimed during Florida's CHL legalization. Last time I checked there have still been 0 cases of legal firearms being used illegally on Florida highways. 0 is smaller than the number of carjackings. Crowded planes are not magically different from road rage-filled highways. There is no data-backed reason to believe armed passengers on planes would behave any differently either.

One hole in your argument - nowhere have I said anything about peoples' behavior changing, although it has been proven in psychological experiment after psychological experiment that the presence of guns does, in fact, make people more aggressive. However, you can throw that out the window, for all I care. I'm not arguing that behavior would change - I'm arguing that flying 30,000 above the ground in an aluminum tube is a special situation that should have special rules.


Math is not based on "belief", and you don't get to claim fiat objectivity in your argument by using the m word without some real data behind it. "Planes are small" is not data. "Hijackings are rare" is data, but "therefore gun accidents would be more than hijackings" is not, it is a non sequiter. 0 gun accidents is a real possibility that has been observed in other environments.

What you mean to say is "it is a question of fear" or "it is a question of assumption" or "it is a question of superstition". These are all accurate statements, but without data, "math" is not.

I believe you misunderstand my use of the word "math" here. I mean it in much the same way that the Drake Equation is used when talking about whether or not there is other intelligent life in the universe. There are variables, and no one knows the exact numbers for those variables. My equation comes down to this:

(My odds of dying due to a hijacking) < (My odds of dying due to anything else that could happen with passengers carrying guns)

Again, it's impossible to know those numbers for certain. You could very well flip the sign in the middle around, if you truly believe that there is that little danger involved in allowing anyone to carry a gun onto a plane. Personally, I don't.

[escapinggreatly]

He actually promotes allowing the airlines to make their own rules, whether they want to ban guns completely, or allow passengers, flight attendants, or even passengers to pack some heat. He talks about this in the Google interview.

See, that seems fine to me, because I can't imagine any airline allowing passengers to carry guns - if only because of the multitude of ways they could wind up getting sued. However, if Packin' Heat Airways ever did start flying, I'd just stay off it.

[slantedview]

That said, does anyone have a brief synopsis of exactly how the United States would go about reverting to a gold standard, and what it would do to the economy and everyday life? I'm trying to avoid dense economic theory about the subject, I really doubt I could handle that much. Just a few generalities.

If we went back on a gold standard (or a silver standard, or some other commodity), in theory, the governments ability to create excess amounts of money out of thin air would go away, and inflation would go away as well.

Needless to say, a world without inflation is a world we all want to live in.

You might be interested in reading some of Ron Paul's "Texas straight talk" articles. He's been writing them weekly for years, and they go in depth (answering most of your questions) on every issue Paul is concerned with.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

Here are a few related to money:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst010107.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst120406.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst071006.htm

[Tn...Andy]

See, that seems fine to me, because I can't imagine any airline allowing passengers to carry guns - if only because of the multitude of ways they could wind up getting sued. However, if Packin' Heat Airways ever did start flying, I'd just stay off it.


It would be the ONLY one I would fly. At least then, I'd KNOW the passengers, including me, were probably armed.

As it is now, I have no real assurance, despite the best efforts of some high school dropout running "security" scans, that a weapon is not onboard, snuck in via a food cart or by the cleaning crew ( which AREN'T subject to much of the security passengers go thru ).

See....."Gun Free" zones ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE WILLING TO OBEY THE RULES.

WHY is it some folks never ever seem to get that concept? It seems so simple.

Bad people figure out ways to do bad things.

Laws do not apply to OUTLAWS.

And no amount of government weenies can EVER protect you 100% of the time. THIS is one of the major reasons we have the 2nd amendment.....and even if we didn't, it is a NATURAL RIGHT of mine for you not to take from me my life.

If the airlines elect, as a business NOT to permit weapons, then I as an individual, will do exactly what I do now.....vote with my wallet and don't fly. If I can't drive there, I don't go.

But the GOVT has no right to be in this one way or the other.

You clearly DON'T understand the role of government as defined in the US Constitution. This campaign will be good for you.

[qednick]

I seem to recall an episode of "Mythbusters" where they proved that firing a 9mm bullet in an airplane (from the inside through the window/fuselage) wouldn't blow a big hole in it.

[Kuldebar]

I seem to recall an episode of "Mythbusters" where they proved that firing a 9mm bullet in an airplane (from the inside through the window/fuselage) wouldn't blow a big hole in it.

Exciting TV but unnecessary as there's already been Boeing engineer testimony before Congress about the exaggerated fear.


Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, noted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives:

Boeing commercial service history contains cases where guns were fired on board in service airplanes, all of which landed safely. Commercial airplane structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft. A bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization. Aircraft are designed to withstand much larger impacts whether intentional or unintentional. For instance, on 14 occasions Boeing commercial airplanes have survived, and landed, after an in flight bomb blast. source (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/comment-lott090203.asp)

[jpa]

Historically, you're quite correct. However, historically, passenger aircraft are a tiny hiccup. So, I look at the math of the specific airplane situation:

Only violence that guns will prevent on aircraft: Hijacking (both terrorist and non)
Violence that could possibly happen for a variety of reasons if thirty people on the plane are armed: Quite a lot.

(As an aside, if you're going to argue with me that people won't let anything get to the point at which there would be gunfire on the plane, I would simply respond with your own suggestion to look at history - if you were to look at random moments in history in which complete strangers were put into some sort of containment for several hours, and a good chunk of those strangers were armed, how long would it take for violence to break out? If this situation repeated itself thousands of times a day, how often would violence break out? History does indeed repeat itself, and history says that humans + guns = violence. Only a matter of time.)

So if we can agree that guns would prevent death rates on flights in which a hijack would be thwarted, but would increase death rates on flights in which no such hijacking was going to happen, the math is pretty simple - is the number of flights that would have been hijacked greater than the number of flights that would have been fine, but violence broke out for a different reason? Given how few flights have ever been hijacked, I think it's safe for me to say that the latter's number would be much higher.

If your theory was true, we would see a lot more physical violence on airplanes. Do you have stats on violence on airplane? When was the last time you heard of such a thing.

Another problem with your logic is you think it is a small step to go from physical violence to killing someone. There are lots of things I could get in a brawl about; I would only use my firearm in self defense. Anyone who owns a guns knows the consequences of using it.

[Bradley in DC]

Also, Ron apparently advocated allowing passengers to carry guns aboard airplanes in his recent Iowa speech. Maybe it's the movie-watcher in me, but I'm about 99% sure that shooting a gun in an airplane is a virtual guarantee to blast a big hole in the fuselage, causing the entire plane to decompress in seconds and, in all likelihood, tear apart. I love the Constitution, and I love Ron's belief in it, but the laws of physics trump the laws of any nation. Is there some sort of explanation for this?

Thanks in advance, this looks like quite the informative place.

As with any analysis, check your premise. In this case, both of your premises are wrong.

Dr. Paul says explicitly and repeatedly that he DOES NOT want to GO BACK to any past gold standard but to move forward to a new system that incorporates all of the advances we've made but still eliminate the ability of a central bank to create credit artificially by monetizing debt and causing inflation. "Stop printing money" is a euphemism for this artificial credit creation. If they can put ones and zeros on a magnetic strip on the back of a plastic card, we're all good.

Regarding the Second Amendment and 9/11, there is a lot more background than he was able to get into during his short speech. Most commercial pilots are former military who are trained with guns. For a very long time, many commercial pilots (the private sector agents are, of course, the heros) carried a gun with them in the cockpit (I believe in a locked box, not the Al Gore Social Security kind) when flying in order to protect themselves, and by extension their passengers and the rest of us from 9/11 type highjackings. Historically recently, the FAA (yes, the government bureaucrats are always the villians) prohibited pilots or anyone else from carrying a gun on a plane (I believe this was a labor union concession). Dr. Paul has introduced legislation several times to override this abritrary and unsafe FAA rule. And, no, you've watched too many bad movies about airplane crashes regarding decompression from a bullet.

[jpa]

One hole in your argument - nowhere have I said anything about peoples' behavior changing, although it has been proven in psychological experiment after psychological experiment that the presence of guns does, in fact, make people more aggressive. However, you can throw that out the window, for all I care. I'm not arguing that behavior would change - I'm arguing that flying 30,000 above the ground in an aluminum tube is a special situation that should have special rules.



Can you reference those studies? I am interested in reading the opposing point of view. It seems to be counter intuitive. I know I would be a lot less belligerent if everyone in the room was armed.

[escapinggreatly]

You clearly DON'T understand the role of government as defined in the US Constitution. This campaign will be good for you.

I believe, my friend, that I may just have a much better grasp on human nature, sociology, and the federal government than you may think. In fact, it was stated earlier in the thread that Paul merely wants to give the choice to airlines - which is fine. I was against the concept of the Second Amendment being enforced to the point at which the airlines would have to allow passengers to carry their weapons with them. That, I believe, would also go against the role of the government, not to mention my own personal sense of security.

[escapinggreatly]

If your theory was true, we would see a lot more physical violence on airplanes. Do you have stats on violence on airplane? When was the last time you heard of such a thing.

Another problem with your logic is you think it is a small step to go from physical violence to killing someone. There are lots of things I could get in a brawl about; I would only use my firearm in self defense. Anyone who owns a guns knows the consequences of using it.

Not necessarily. You seem to think that I envision brawls in which both sides pull out their guns and open fire on each other. That's not it at all - I worry far more about the same sort of escalating situations that cause guns to be pulled in real life. For example, it's a relatively common occurrence for someone to get into a heated argument with the flight staff of the airplane. Sometimes the person is banned from the airline. Sometimes the flight has to turn around. Sometimes it even makes an unexpected stop to get rid of the person. I don't have the stats in front of me and really don't feel like digging through search results at the moment, but I believe I heard that this happens several hundred times a year in the US alone (you can feel free to refute me with links if you can find the numbers, these are merely pulled from a year-old memory).

Now, let's suppose that some of those passengers were armed. Hell, let's set the number pretty low - just 10%. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on one of those planes when that heated argument breaks out.

Then you throw in the extremely high profile of plane crashes, and you get the occasional Virginia Tech-like disaster.

Then the possibility of a well-trained group wearing Kevlar onto the plane and planning to hijack it through force, because, after all, they've got bulletproof vests.

I could come up with situations all day, but it all simply comes back to my original point. I'm simply trying to work out the odds. And I have to say, while you make good theoretical arguments, I just keep looking at the numbers and feeling better without guns on aircraft. Before 9/11, how many hijackings of American passenger aircraft had happened in the previous decade? I honestly don't know off the top of my head, but I'm assuming the number is less than five. If that's true, that means that there have been less than nine hijackings since 1991. That makes the odds of my death happening due to my plane being hijacked so astronomically small that I probably can't come up with a small enough fraction to describe it. You honestly think that the prevention of that tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny chance outweighs the danger of being five miles above the ground in a complex flying machine with 200 strangers that may or may not be armed? Are you honestly telling me that that scenario wouldn't even result in just one crash per year? Just one? Because that would be higher than the hijack rate.

[escapinggreatly]

Can you reference those studies? I am interested in reading the opposing point of view. It seems to be counter intuitive. I know I would be a lot less belligerent if everyone in the room was armed.

Well, just to clarify, it wasn't a study about aggression "when everyone in the room was armed." There has been a study about peoples' aggression levels when sitting next to a gun as opposed to various nonviolent objects, and the aggression levels were markedly raised. The same was true about debates about a series of random subjects that were held in a room with an unarmed gun. And there are literally hundreds of studies about the rates of violence in homes with a gun versus homes without one. Those, obviously, are heavily debated and scrutinized - it could be argued that families that feel the need to buy a gun live in more dangerous neighborhoods, or are more predisposed to violence in the first place, or that much more non-gun violence goes unreported, etc. - but it's enough to cause most psychologists to agree that there is, at the very least, a strong connection.

I'll try to find the specific studies about the aggression levels of people when a gun was in the room. They came from a psych course I took a few years back, but I think I remember a couple names.