How Long Will This Be Allowed?

Indeed. If you want to shoot up a baggage claim, you don't need to fly the gun and ammo in with you.

 

Because their customers wish to do so.

Irrelevant.

Not to a determined shooter. It wouldn't stop a single one. That rule would be as effective as "GUN FREE ZONE" and "NO MURDER HERE" signs.

This I can agree with.

 

For the second time, an emotionally based argument, which I am not waging, is not a fallacy because many are... Your argument is a logical non-sequitur, which IS a fallacy. Secondly, my position has more to do with shielding the airlines from liability. Thirdly, again, prior to 9/11 nobody had ever used passenger jets as weapons. In order for your fallacious argument to be valid, you would have to agree that securing cockpits was a "knee jerk emotional reaction" and not sound reason. I would argue that you would be wrong, and you would be.

I am not wasting any more time on you until you provide a sound reason to deliver guns with ammunition to passengers in a gun free zone... As it is it looks like you are just having a knee jerk emotional reaction to someone suggesting a policy concerning ammo, and as you know, those are often fallacious.

 

Well, for hunters, who often use special ammunition in rare calibers, it's pretty important.

 

Fallacy: Appeal to emotion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
To argue that the policy needs to change is a knee-jerk appeal to emotion; it has no bases in reason whatsoever.

In no way is this true.

They have no liability as things stand now.

Boy, will I lose sleep over that.

 

The liability lies with the airport that posts a gun free zone in the baggage claim area. I would sue, and I hope that others with CCWs would sue for not being able to defend myself in an active shooter situation.

Any determined shooter can purchase ammo just as you have suggested. Your suggestion will not stop one determined shooter.

States are working right now as we speak to allow Concealed Carry folks that are injured in a shooting incident to be able to sue.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/ne...usinesses-if-injured-gun-free-zones/94805174/

 

For that matter, he could have a friend meet him in the baggage claim with loaded magazines.

 

Is it your goal to prevent someone from delivering guns with ammunition to passengers in a gun free zone?

 

I don't understand why you cant ship it ahead of you.

 

I think it is a common sense position, but I don't really think of it as a goal. My goal would be to require everyone over 21 entering an airport to carry a gun. It isn't a particularly attainable goal, but that would be better... A lot goes along with that of course...

 

So you come full circle to "nuh uh".

I provided evidence, devoid of emotion... Simply a logical argument. You might be emotional about this issue, I am not. Liability, you will see in short order. Lawsuits will come.

 

I said that allowing open/concealed carry was a better solution, but a less likely one. I dont think you can look in your crystal ball and say at no time will a guy at a gun store detect unusual behavior from someone mentally ill, about to commit mass murder. You might think so, but I remain unconvinced.

 

Your entire argument is based on your knee-jerk reaction, and thus a fallacious appeal to emotion.

 

I could. It would be an inconvenience. It would be more costly. It would prevent me from being armed immediately after leaving the airport, if that was my desire.

It wouldn't stop a single shooting.

 

Repeating yourself doesnt make it true... And you have no argument, nothing.

 

That fact it is true makes it true.

- - - Updated - - -

And thus, there's no demonstrable need for it.

 

Again... I dont think you can look into your crystal ball and say that there is no circumstance in which a guy at a gun shop wouldn't notice something off about a mentally disturbed man about to commit an atrocity buying ammo, and reporting it.

Life is inconvenient sometimes. The airline is under no obligation to provide you this convenience.

 

Have you ever bought ammo from a Walmart? The FBI didn't feel this guy was a danger, what do you expect an underpaid retail clerk to find?

What if the shooter takes your advice and ships his ammo ahead, and after picking it up, he returns to the airport?

No, they aren't, and I've got no obligation to use their service, either.

 

I am appealing to common sense, not emotion. It is nonsensical to provide your customers guns and ammo in a gun free zone... It is illogical. That you fail to recognize this is not my responsibility.

And still you have no argument.

 

The FBI remanded him to police custody for treatment... That really falls on the doc that failed to certify him. What this guy was like has little to do with what another might.

 

Still adds a layer of inconvenience with no added safety. Guns and ammunition have been legally carried in checked luggage since the beginning of airlines. This is the first incident like this I've ever heard of, and I've never heard of any incident where ammunition in the cargo hold caused any problems either. The risks are minuscule.

 

You didn't explain why the shooter can't simply ship their ammo ahead separately from their gun? Doesn't that capability make your whole premise useless?

 

A knee-jerk reaction leading to a proposal that will not stop anyone from shooting up an airport is a fallacious appeal to emotion and devoid of common sense.

 

Ship to who?

Do you know the costs of shipping hazardous materials?

 

I dont think you can look into your crystal ball and say that there is ANY circumstance in which a guy at a gun shop WOULD notice something off about a mentally disturbed man about to commit an atrocity buying ammo, and reporting it.

They don't even need to go to a gun shop..... Walmart sells ammo.

They let this "mentally disturbed" individual check a gun and ammo, then board a plane..... why didn't they catch it? and why would a gun shop catch it if the airline didn't?