What is wrong with the nanny state?

[Wolseley]

Thus, I’m inferior and incapable of speaking about anything, is that it?

No. But if you have never been in the military, you will never understand military culture, and thus you will not be able to speak about it with any experiential authority.

Sensitive much?

Sometimes. (shrug) We’re all sensitive about one thing or another.

This is what I’m talking about. There is a life outside the military and civilians aren’t idiots.

While I am grateful for your service to our country, I am offended by the superior attitude that many ex-military have towards those of us who, for whatever reason, are unable to serve. I, for one, wanted to join the Air Force but was not allowed to because I am overweight (which I could have fixed) and have SSA (which I could not have fixed).

Maybe we should all get together and instead of squabbling with each other, we should concentrate our energies on defending ourselves against them (by which I mean those who want to destroy us). I wonder, though, if that’s even possible in America today, with the cultural Balkanization we currently live in.

 

[Verisimilitude]

What is wrong with the nanny state is that it effectively castrates the citizens of the nation. You are no longer required to do for yourself, but must rely on the government to do for you. It takes incentive away from the individual and replaces it with obligations to conform to the state.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion – it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,
This insistance upon some form for your answers, particularly when the other party has confessed a lack of knowledge of that form and a lack of explanation on your part borders upon the high brow elitist snobbery that I am sure is not normally a part of your character.

So please explain, in layman terms, what precisely you want.

I want you to articulate the problem that your solution purports to address.

Learning is defined as “a relatively permanent change in behavior not due to maturation.”

One learns to fly an airplane (that’s behavior), but a bird does not learn to build a nest (that’s instinct resulting from maturation.)

So tell us the new behavior (the task) you want, the conditions under which it is to be demonstrated, and the standard that must be met.

And do answer the question…
I have in good faith attempted to answer for what you were after, but apparently am not comprehending what precisely you are after.
However, you seem unwilling or unable to answer simply yes or no questions when they are posed. Hiding behind some “I asked you first…”
I find the response surprising because my three year old does that. Again I am certain this is not normally part of your character…

So…Is it really your position that pilots should have firearms without any idea how to safely use them?

It is my position that “without any idea how to safely use them” is both a fallacy (implying that ex-military, or currently serving reservists don’t have firearms skills) and a misnomer – “any idea” is not measureable.

 

[rtconstant]

I want you to articulate the problem that your solution purports to address.

Well if we’re talking about airline pilots then there really isn’t necessarilly an existing problem as firefights are not common on passenger jets. However, passengers jets are not a place for unskilled gun fire damage to instruments or possible loss of cabin pressure are potential issues.

If we’re talking in general it wouldn’t be a bad idea for people to have a basic knowledge of maintenance, safety precautions while using and storing the weapon in the home. Also if we’re talking about carrying the weapon in public then some education on risks of public use and scenario escalation would be good.

So tell us the new behavior (the task) you want, the conditions under which it is to be demonstrated, and the standard that must be met.

Well, obviously no amount of training can prepare someone for every scenario. Yet on a passenger jet a basic level of marksmanship, gun maintenance, and of course most importantly environmental factors based on location.

It is my position that “without any idea how to safely use them” is both a fallacy (implying that ex-military, or currently serving reservists don’t have firearms skills) and a misnomer – “any idea” is not measureable.

I haven’t seen anyone claim that military personel lack competancy with firearms. I’m also not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand.

If you’re making this statement in reference to the possibility of commercial pilots having military experience then obviously those individuals have had good training and experience with firearms and self defence. Possibly the only thing they may or may not need would be information on enviornmental factors.

However, as of 2001 60% of airline pilots were civilians so they would benefit from exposure and training to firearms.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well if we’re talking about airline pilots then there really isn’t necessarilly an existing problem as firefights are not common on passenger jets. However, passengers jets are not a place for unskilled gun fire damage to instruments or possible loss of cabin pressure are potential issues.

If we’re talking in general it wouldn’t be a bad idea for people to have a basic knowledge of maintenance, safety precautions while using and storing the weapon in the home. Also if we’re talking about carrying the weapon in public then some education on risks of public use and scenario escalation would be good.

A couple of decades ago pilots flying the mail were required to be armed. There was at least one instance of an armed pilot thwarting a hi-jacking. And no training was required.

Well, obviously no amount of training can prepare someone for every scenario. Yet on a passenger jet a basic level of marksmanship, gun maintenance, and of course most importantly environmental factors based on location.

What is a “basic level of marksmanship?”

And how does gun maintenance enter into the equation – are we afraid a pilot might shoot a hi-jacker with a dirty gun?

And just what are the “environmental factors based on location?”

(Please note that many pressurized military aircraft have been shot up at high altitude – the Hollywood-style catestrophic decompression doesn’t happen.)

I haven’t seen anyone claim that military personel lack competancy with firearms. I’m also not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand.

Most commercial pilots get their training in the military. Many remain in the reserves, and even fly military missions from time to time.

If you’re making this statement in reference to the possibility of commercial pilots having military experience then obviously those individuals have had good training and experience with firearms and self defence. Possibly the only thing they may or may not need would be information on enviornmental factors.

How are the environmental factors different on commercial planes.

However, as of 2001 60% of airline pilots were civilians so they would benefit from exposure and training to firearms.

Can someone specify the needed training?

Allow me to point out that some states require training to get a Concealed Handgun License. Others do not. There is no measurable difference in safety between those two categories of states.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It’s extremely difficult to miss a hijacker who is trying to cut your throat or the other pilot’s throat when he is only six inches away. And if hijackers know the pilots are armed, they won’t even waste their time; they won’t want to risk failure on a hard target.

Planes with unarmed pilots are soft targets.

Keep in mind that even on 9/11, at least one of the pilots was retired military.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s extremely difficult to miss a hijacker who is trying to cut your throat or the other pilot’s throat when he is only six inches away. And if hijackers know the pilots are armed, they won’t even waste their time; they won’t want to risk failure on a hard target.

Planes with unarmed pilots are soft targets.

Keep in mind that even on 9/11, at least one of the pilots was retired military.

Bingo!

Studies done on the use of firearms for self defense indicate that most of the time no shots are fired. The possession of a weapon by the intended victim is usually enough to deter the attacker.

 

[rtconstant]

A couple of decades ago pilots flying the mail were required to be armed. There was at least one instance of an armed pilot thwarting a hi-jacking. And no training was required.

Yes and a US Airways pilot shot a hole through his cockpit while stowing his weapon. Obviously a little training was required. I know you think picking up a gun makes you James Bond but on earth it doesn’t always work out that way.

What is a “basic level of marksmanship?”

You know there used to be a bumper sticker that said “Gun control is hitting what you aim at!” Apparently for some even that is to much gun control.

And how does gun maintenance enter into the equation – are we afraid a pilot might shoot a hi-jacker with a dirty gun?

That doesn’t even deserve a responce.

And just what are the “environmental factors based on location?”

Are you serious?

(Please note that many pressurized military aircraft have been shot up at high altitude – the Hollywood-style catestrophic decompression doesn’t happen.)

Wasn’t talking about F-16’s.

Most commercial pilots get their training in the military. Many remain in the reserves, and even fly military missions from time to time.

In the 70’s yes not today.

How are the environmental factors different on commercial planes.

…

Can someone specify the needed training?

Re-read the post without a mind on being difficult for difficult’s sake.

Allow me to point out that some states require training to get a Concealed Handgun License. Others do not. There is no measurable difference in safety between those two categories of states.

These things must take into account many factors. Culture of the state itself, some states may not have training but have better background checks. This is not as simple as have gun = this and don’t have gun = that for either side. Both sides of this debate have tendancy to over simplify their position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes and a US Airways pilot shot a hole through his cockpit while stowing his weapon. Obviously a little training was required. I know you think picking up a gun makes you James Bond but on earth it doesn’t always work out that way.

Ah, yes – the old mind-reading act again.

Don’t you know you’re supposed to wear a turban and gaze into a crystal ball when you pretend to know what someone else thinks?

You know there used to be a bumper sticker that said “Gun control is hitting what you aim at!” Apparently for some even that is to much gun control.

Which is relevant to this discussion, how?

That doesn’t even deserve a responce.

Are you serious?

Wasn’t talking about F-16’s.

It’s the same stratosphere!

In the 70’s yes not today.

What’s changed?

Can someone specify the needed training?

Re-read the post without a mind on being difficult for difficult’s sake.

Given all the blustering that precedes this line, I beg to differ. Some people demand “training” without knowing what training is.

These things must take into account many factors. Culture of the state itself, some states may not have training but have better background checks. This is not as simple as have gun = this and don’t have gun = that for either side. Both sides of this debate have tendancy to over simplify their position.

Despite all this, no one can tell me what problem the training is expected to solve, let alone document that problem.

And of course, no one can tell me what training is required in the normal task-condition-standard format.

So before you accuse me of “over-simplifying,” demonstrate that you are not over-simplifying by demanding training for training’s sake.

 

[Al_Masetti]

When I was being shipped off to SouthEast Asia, they ran me through an Air Force M-16 training course. Pretty neat. Two days. One day firing standing, kneeling and prone. Another day on a full combat course with pop-up targets at all distances. Running. Releasing empty magazines and reloading while “under fire”. They also had us practice throwing grenades “NO JOHN WAYNE STUFF” … they didn’t want us to pull pins with our teeth.] Pretty cool. Somewhat realistic. They gave demos of the heavy machine guns and of the “Bloop tube”. [Pistol training was separate … about an hour plinking at targets. ] Neat.

So I could see a realistic training course for a pilot. He receives a pair of those really cool cowboy boots with an ankle holster and is shown over to a large punching bag hanging from the ceiling. His instructor sits down, draws the pistol from his boot, puts the muzzle against the sand bag and pulls the trigger. The pilot/ weapons-student sits down, pulls out his own pistol, places it against the sand bag and pulls the trigger.

Training over.

He is told to bring it to a gun shop once a month to get it cleaned. Get a receipt for reimbursement.

Ta-da.

A friend of mine actually fought off a home invasion with a dirty old pistol. Worked just fine.]

 

[Brendan]

On a lighter note - the Navy trains terrific pilots also, not just the Air Force. They learn to land on a tiny moving dot in the ocean, at night, in a hurricane, sometimes while their plane is on fire!

I agree they train terrific pilots, but not quite the same type of aircraft that transitions well to the airlines.

Unless, of course, the Navy has started landing C-5’s on carrier decks

 

[Al_Masetti]

I agree they train terrific pilots, but not quite the same type of aircraft that transitions well to the airlines.

Unless, of course, the Navy has started landing C-5’s on carrier decks

Getting off topic, but they actually did land a C-130 on a carrier.

And carrier pilots rarely run planes off the end of the runway. When they land, they LAND!!



[By the way, t\he pilot of AA 77 whose plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon was Chick Burlingame, a retired US Navy carrier pilot. Flew F-4’s; two tours in Vietnam. He probably wished either he or his copilot was carrying a pistol that terrible day.]

 

[vern_humphrey]

When I was being shipped off to SouthEast Asia, they ran me through an Air Force M-16 training course. Pretty neat. Two days. One day firing standing, kneeling and prone. Another day on a full combat course with pop-up targets at all distances. Running. Releasing empty magazines and reloading while “under fire”. They also had us practice throwing grenades “NO JOHN WAYNE STUFF” … they didn’t want us to pull pins with our teeth.] Pretty cool. Somewhat realistic. They gave demos of the heavy machine guns and of the “Bloop tube”. [Pistol training was separate … about an hour plinking at targets. ] Neat.

So I could see a realistic training course for a pilot. He receives a pair of those really cool cowboy boots with an ankle holster and is shown over to a large punching bag hanging from the ceiling. His instructor sits down, draws the pistol from his boot, puts the muzzle against the sand bag and pulls the trigger. The pilot/ weapons-student sits down, pulls out his own pistol, places it against the sand bag and pulls the trigger.

Training over.

He is told to bring it to a gun shop once a month to get it cleaned. Get a receipt for reimbursement.

Ta-da.

A friend of mine actually fought off a home invasion with a dirty old pistol. Worked just fine.]

There you have it – all training that is really needed can be done in a day or less, at very little cost.

It is this pretense that extensive training is needed (without ever being pinned down on what must be trained) which has held up arming pilots for years.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Don’t you know you’re supposed to wear a turban and gaze into a crystal ball when you pretend to know what someone else thinks?

A true telepath requires no tools.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There you have it – all training that is really needed can be done in a day or less, at very little cost.

It is this pretense that extensive training is needed (without ever being pinned down on what must be trained) which has held up arming pilots for years.

This is kind of the difference between “nannystaters” and regular people. Nannystaters are totally mystified by these sorts of things.

Nannystaters are experts in Harry Potter and really believe that what they see in the movies is real. When they see the words “based on fact”, they take it as gospel. “Based on fact”, means that the movie script writers borrowed one word from the book on which the movie was based. But only for the first draft of the movie script.] Real life is also a meeting … “where the action is”. [Actual real words from one of them … I’m not making that up.]

Regular people know that the movies are “reel life”. That magicians don’t really do magic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is kind of the difference between “nannystaters” and regular people. Nannystaters are totally mystified by these sorts of things.

Nannystaters are experts in Harry Potter and really believe that what they see in the movies is real. When they see the words “based on fact”, they take it as gospel. “Based on fact”, means that the movie script writers borrowed one word from the book on which the movie was based. But only for the first draft of the movie script.] Real life is also a meeting … “where the action is”. [Actual real words from one of them … I’m not making that up.]

Regular people know that the movies are “reel life”. That magicians don’t really do magic.

They also know there are no true telepaths.

 

[Wolseley]

They also had us practice throwing grenades “NO JOHN WAYNE STUFF” … they didn’t want us to pull pins with our teeth.]

Wise move.

For the benefit of The Uninitiated Amongst Us, despite what you may have seen in Hollywood movies all your lives, if you try to pull the pin out of a hand grenade with your teeth, the only thing to come out will be your teeth.

Hand grenade pins are like long cotter pins, and while they’re not impossible to dislodge (obviously), you do have to put a finger through the ring and give it a good jerk to pull the pin. You can’t do it with your teeth, unless you straighten the pin out first, and carrying around a grenade with a straightened pin is a decidedly stupid move. Hanging them from your gear by the rings is likewise not too bright, although I’ve seen that done in several movies, too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wise move.

For the benefit of The Uninitiated Amongst Us, despite what you may have seen in Hollywood movies all your lives, if you try to pull the pin out of a hand grenade with your teeth, the only thing to come out will be your teeth.

Hand grenade pins are like long cotter pins, and while they’re not impossible to dislodge (obviously), you do have to put a finger through the ring and give it a good jerk to pull the pin. You can’t do it with your teeth, unless you straighten the pin out first, and carrying around a grenade with a straightened pin is a decidedly stupid move. Hanging them from your gear by the rings is likewise not too bright, although I’ve seen that done in several movies, too.

Remind me to tell you a story about handgrenades some day.

 

[joe_clark]

It depends on what you are talking about, and try not to always paint with a broad brush…one size fits all.

I think no one wants or looks forward to a nanny state, but there are times when there is a need for government oversight. Oversight not supreme command.

For instatance, wonder why when your at the airport the system is sooo deteriorated now, late flights, faulty equipment, your sleeping on the floor? Or how the Savings and Loan robbery in the 1980’s occurred and we the American people bailed them out (we paid through our taxes). or the recent mortgage theft (we’re bailing them out again)? Or remember Enron?? Everying above went south as soon as there was: DEREGULATION!

This is what happens when people feed into the fantasy of "We want government off of our backs, and then it goes too far.

Oh yea and after government is removed by the politicians taking money from people in that industry, it goes to you know where. Industry cannot regulate itself without government oversight. The government is not some evil empire, the government is you and me…the people.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

We already have the nanny state in philadelphia.
The city tells you what you can eat - no trans fats and has forced bakeries to abide by it.
Also - the nannies in the government have pretty much banned smoking in almost all public places. Pretty soon it will be the Bible because it will be looked at as hate speech by the loony left.