I'm pretty sure that JSC is a gun-free zone.

Not only gun free, but with armed guards that check everyone who enters.

I was in Building 45 (across the parking lot) 15 minutes before it started. However, I left early for a weekend with my in-laws, and found out about an hour and half later.

Anyway, gun-free and armed guards doesn't seem sufficient.

Current reports is a Jacobs contractor (Engineering Directorate).

yes, everything is all right with guns and americans. obviously.

I emailed JSC this morning begging for ISS On-Orbit daily status reports, which I've occasionaly seen posted at SpaceRef and elsewhere. (They're more detailed than the weekly reports. I want to create an archive that can be searched by word, experiment, etc.)

I got a reply back from JSC PAO at 2:02pm CST ("The only ones of which we're aware are the weekly reports.") which as near as I can tell is *after* this started.

yes, everything is all right with guns and americans. obviously.

Two posts to get to an "Anti-American" comment. Sheesh.

kert is obviously the ward of some state that doesn't allow him the right to protect himself and his family. for his sake I hope that trust is well placed.

Leland/Cecil - It all makes perfect sense once you realize that Americans with guns are Evil unless they're saving white people in Western Europe.

so much for the arming the "engineering subset." But, I bet the gunman was probably an English major anyway, so never mind. :-)

"so much for the arming the "engineering subset." But, I bet the gunman was probably an English major anyway, so never mind. :-)"

So much for NOT arming the Engineering Subset. You have it ass backwards.

Hook, line, and sinker, MIke. I wondered how long it would take you.

I thought your argument was that the "engineering subset" has the wherewithal, acumen and (mplied) maturity to handle their weapons responsibly. If Bill Phillips was an engineer (and it seems likely that he was), how does that jibe with your argument?

If Bill Phillips was an engineer (and it seems likely that he was), how does that jibe with your argument?

Andy, you have heard of exceptions to a rule, right? If I say i before e you aren't flummoxed when I add except after c, right? If I say that most Democratic politicians are honest servants of the people who wouldn't dream of committing wire fraud or bribery, you won't call me a liar when an ugly exception turns up, will you?

Sounds like another instance of the now newly defined "Andy is pulling made-up crap out of his ass." fallacy. At least it isn't another poor strawman.

Lots of nut cases may get ideas from the events of this week. I sincerely hope and pray otherwise.

kert, what are you babbling about?

If Bill Phillips was an engineer (and it seems likely that he was), how does that jibe with your argument?

Posted by Andy at April 20, 2007 06:58 PM

Andy...

here is what I dont get about the "lets restrict guns" crowd.

Unless you believe in the tooth fairy restricting guns completly in this day and age is simply not possible...

So your argument collapses on that. IF people want to commit a crime using a firearm they are going to get one.

the only compliance the gun control crowd would get are by definition the people who are not going to commit crimes, because they will follow the law.

Since more people die in traffic accidents a year then in shootings, what is your point?

Robert

Two posts to get to an "Anti-American" comment. Sheesh.

It's the 10th identical thread in a row on this topic, it was bound to happen.

It's the 10th identical thread in a row on this topic, it was bound to happen.

Once again, Adrasteia has a problem counting.

Last 10 topics:
1) This post
2) VT related
3) Celebration of first manned space flight
4) VT related
5) Albeto Gonzales
6) VT related
7) VT related
8) Global Warming
9) Harry Reid being an idiot
10) Theories about the Universe

"here is what I dont get about the "lets restrict guns" crowd.

Unless you believe in the tooth fairy restricting guns completly in this day and age is simply not possible..."

Had you paid attention to what I wrote, you'll note that I never advocated "restricting guns completely."

Mike said: Sounds like another instance of the now newly defined "Andy is pulling made-up crap out of his ass." fallacy. At least it isn't another poor strawman.

Well, Mike, YOU'RE the one who touted the desirability of arming the engineers. Because they were smarter and more responsible and blah blah blah. Remember that?

By the way, how come the gun-nut crowd stays silent when it comes to allowing people to carry on airplanes? Where's the uproar when it comes to this challenge to our God-given right (as Ted Nugent claims... does he think the Constitution was written by God?) to carry weapons?

Could it be that there are places where it is appropriate to prohibit ANYone from carrying weapons?

By the way, how come the gun-nut crowd stays silent when it comes to allowing people to carry on airplanes?

You apparently haven't been paying attention. Many people, including myself, have argued that people authorized to carry other places (CCW permits, retired or off-duty police officers, military) should be able to do so on airplanes. I would certainly feel much safer (and in fact be much safer) if they could.

The sad fact is that I think the comment about the lack of ability for anyone to restrict firearms is true.

When a criminal wants a gun then stealing, buying directly from a gun owner (not from a store), smuggling are all options in order to obtain a firearm. Restricting it legally does not help. Preventing a violent encounter comes when you teach a person how to treat people with respect: Both the people around the person and the person. Most incidents end in the gunman shooting himself. Raising the question why go through the process of shooting other people? I think it all comes down to a lack of respect shown by the person and by other people towards that person. So don't let it get that far. Teach people to cope and defend their right to exist before the person loses the will to live or takes it out on the rest of us.

Secondly, I do not advocate that everyone carry a firearm. I do advocate that those of sound mind who understand how to use a gun and carry a firearm safely be allowed to do so legally. Shooting in a crowded place even to take out a terrorist or a lone gunman who is shooting at other people for no aparent reason is dangerous and anyone who takes gun safety is taught this.
Bullets go through walls. So it is not recomended that a person shoot a terrorist or a lone gunmen unless the person has excellent marksmenship, practices on a regular basis, and has the chance at a clear shot. Yes, I have taken gun safety and practiced shooting firearms. There is more to shooting a gun than pulling the trigger. It is very important that gun training and possession of firearms stay legal because when they do not the sole people (not counting military) able to use a gun will be criminals who may not have ever taken a gun safety course and likely do not care about people. You might say well, what about law enforcement? The truth about law enforcement is that they can not be everywhere all of the time. So being able to protect friends and family becomes necessary in times when police are too far away. The gun control fanatics would, also, likely limit police personel to non-lethal means of trapping criminals similiar to the black clubs, net guns, or tranquilizers provided they could get everyone to agree on these changes and that would leave the criminals better able to gun down ill-equiped law enforcement. This is why am for the legal right to own a firearms and just a small note: I am worse than an English Major. I am an actor. I am sure you can tell.

"You apparently haven't been paying attention. Many people, including myself, have argued that people authorized to carry other places (CCW permits, retired or off-duty police officers, military) should be able to do so on airplanes. I would certainly feel much safer (and in fact be much safer) if they could."

You might, but I wouldn't (either feel or be safer). And fortunately, your rights don't trump mine.

I support arming the pilots of civilian transports. After all, if they want to kill people on board, they could do it without a gun. For centuries, the commander of a vessel was authorized and responsible for protecting the people in his care. It worked for a long time.

And fortunately, your rights don't trump mine.

Mmmm, yes, except for the case (relevant here) that his rights are actually written down in the Constitution, whereas your "rights" are figments of your imagination.

"I support arming the pilots of civilian transports. After all, if they want to kill people on board, they could do it without a gun. For centuries, the commander of a vessel was authorized and responsible for protecting the people in his care. It worked for a long time."

Agreed; My problem with allowing pax CCW on aicraft is someone can kill everyone on board without even shooting a single person, and can do it before anyone else, with gun or without, can do a damn thing about it. A magazine of .45 rounds through the pressure hull likely makes for a Bad Day for everyone. And cops or military personnel are no more immune to psychotic incidents than anyone else.

"Mmmm, yes, except for the case (relevant here) that his rights are actually written down in the Constitution, whereas your "rights" are figments of your imagination."

Hmm, I wonder, then, once again, why no uproar over this blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment? Why are passengers not allowed to "bear arms" on commercial aircraft? Simple question....there must be a simple answer. Perhaps you can supply it?

And please refrain from the usual platitudes: "Well, they SHOULD be allowed to, they have a RIGHT to." What I would like to know is, in your opinion, why are they NOT allowed to? Is the airline lobby somehow more influential than the gun lobby?