Skip to comments.House OKs concealed weapons bill (WY)
Posted on 02/23/2010 4:12:39 AM PST by marktwain
CHEYENNE -- The Wyoming House of Representatives on Monday passed legislation under which a permit would no longer be required to carry a concealed weapon in Wyoming.
If passed, Wyoming would become the third state, after Alaska and Vermont, to allow conceal-carry without a permit.
The bill, House Bill 113, passed 42-15. It now advances to the Senate, where it will be taken up as soon as the end of the week. But although the bill has Senate sponsors, Senate Majority Leader Jim Anderson, R-Glenrock, said the proposal will "probably be received with more scrutiny on the Senate side" than in the House.
Under the bill, anyone who meets the current requirements to obtain a concealed-weapons permit from the state would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon -- except that proof of firearms training would no longer be required.
If the legislation passes, Wyoming would still issue concealed-weapons permits to residents, as such permits are needed for Wyoming residents to carry a concealed weapon in several other states.
(Excerpt) Read more at trib.com ...
If the Feds would have honored our bill of rights, ALL of it, there would never have been a 9-11. The only check for carry on guns would be to make sure your ground issued carry permit was valid and then airport security would check to make sure your weapon was loaded.
Why would it have stopped 9/11? I imagine the terrorists would have had guns also, wouldn’t they? They probably would have just jumped up, killed everyone first, then fly into a building.
Awesome! Way to go WYO!
Four guys against how many?
They would have jumped up and fired twice— before being themselves turned into jihadi-burgers.
Yeah, positioned properly, they could have taken out quite a few, especially if they new who else had weapons and had the element of surprise and a hostage in front of them. I doubt even 25% of the passengers would be armed.
But sort of interesting—
I'll give you 25% carry rate among airline pax on and before 9/11.
Flight 93, 9 out of 38.
Flight 175, 14 out of 56.
Flight 77, 14 out of 58.
Flight 11, 20 out of 81.
Not including crew.
Just to help your argument, let's cut those in half. Now only 1 in 8 are packing.
Thought experiment: assuming that the other passengers don't get suspicious of you as you move from your assigned to your preferred seats, thus retaining the element of surprise, where do you and your three teammates position yourselves so that, when you jump up and either take a hostage or start shooting, none of the 4 to 10 armed passengers can keep you from taking control of the aircraft?
(Remember that the actions of the unarmed on Flight 93 prevented the accomplishment of the terrorists’ mission.)
After 9-11, I don't think a hijacking will succeed on an aircraft with a predominately American passenger roster with or without guns; and in the event our COTUS 2A rights were restored to the extent postulated on this thread, a good deal more than 25% of the pax would be packin’.
How would the terrorists get guns aboard? They didn’t even have drivers licenses let alone concealed carry permits, which do an extensive background.
No, with one CCW aboard, with courage, it would be “Drop the boxcutters or you all die!”
Seats can be picked prior to boarding. Positioning would depend upon the aircraft.
A silencer, at nite when passengers are mostly asleep or less conscious, would allow someone to take out a lot of people before being noticed.
I do not believe that 25% of the people that fly, would be carrying. That would also depend a lot on the flights destination, time of week, time of flight.
Picking seats prior to boarding
Use of silencers
Specified by you in your scenario:
25% carry rate. I lowered that to 12.5%, in your favor.
Specifically unrelated as to facts: The 9/11 hijackings took place in the morning, when everyone is well-rested and most alert, not at nite [sic] when passengers are mostly asleep or less conscious.
I'm done. It was all academic anyway, and it didn't help that you were moving the goalposts all over the place.
I think it may well be that way next time anyway. While I have no present plans to fly, neither do I plan to sit mouselike in such a case. Crap will happen, if I have only my hands with which to bring it.
The basic premise, which appears to hold up to factual scrutiny, is that the hijackers picked airplanes to attack because they would be assured that no one else onboard was armed.
Once this certainty is eliminated the attraction for hijacking airplanes diminishes.
I didn’t realise it was a formal scenario, besides it’s mine so I get to move anything anywhere, don’t I?
Would terrorists submit a formal scenario for review? If they had been allowed to have guns, would everything have taken place as it did? I don’t think so.
Diminishes or increases, luckily we probably won’t ever know.
Just to jump in here...
If you claim that since it’s your game, you get to move the goalposts...
...you’ll soon find that you’re just playing with yourself...
...and that can lead to blindness, hand warts, and moral degradation.
Fun, though, ain’t it?