Twitter trolling, should it be punishable?

[Kardan]

So you would happily have all the people onboard a flight engage in a gun battle in mid flight? And I can imagine that these situations would be entirely hectic, it wouldn't be out of the question for innocent people to be shot dead in all the carnage. And once again, it's not as simple as 200 people vs 4 terrorists (Worth noting that there were only about 40 people on Flight 93, but I guess we're talking in general terms now), it's 200 people vs 4 terrorists vs 1 plane. You have people misfiring and you'll get the cabin depressurising, and that's not taking into account potentially shooting pilots, cockpit controls, wiring, fuel tanks and engines.

The number of flights where guns *could* have prevented deaths is surely way smaller than the number of flights that would be put into danger because of civilians bringing armed guns onto planes. Surely that's obvious.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Actually you do. Just because a threat is made on the internet doesn't instantly make it a "joke" or something not worthy of notice. Making a stupid, threatening comment on the internet is just as real as making one in real life.

Well yes it does, do you even understand how security and intelligence services work? If the CIA, MI5 or MI6 come across a threat or whatever it may be - they assess the threat and then make a judgement on whether to a) follow it up or leave it & b) how many resources they put in to investigating that person/s.

Intelligence services and the Police do not sit there acting as though every threat carries the same weight.

I'm not sure if you meant to quote me for this bit or made a mistake or what, but I'm confused by how this is relevant to me telling you you used an appeal to ridicule.
As far as I can tell, my point about CCTV in houses and that girl getting arrested had absolutely nothing to do with me saying it was okay for people to be held by the government under terrorism charges for 90 days.

Because i'm showing you just how in a climate of fear the government can force through draconian and terrifying legislation and much of the population - like Kardan - because they've been scared accept it in order to make them 'safe'.

It's classic of all dictatorships and tyrannies.

- - - Updated - - -

So you would happily have all the people onboard a flight engage in a gun battle in mid flight? And I can imagine that these situations would be entirely hectic, it wouldn't be out of the question for innocent people to be shot dead in all the carnage. And once again, it's not as simple as 200 people vs 4 terrorists (Worth noting that there were only about 40 people on Flight 93, but I guess we're talking in general terms now), it's 200 people vs 4 terrorists vs 1 plane. You have people misfiring and you'll get the cabin depressurising, and that's not taking into account potentially shooting pilots, cockpit controls, wiring, fuel tanks and engines.

If the plane is going down either way is that not better than to have it crash into a tower of 2,000 people?

It's glaringly obvious.

The number of flights where guns *could* have prevented deaths is surely way smaller than the number of flights that would be put into danger because of civilians bringing armed guns onto planes. Surely that's obvious.

Then just apply to cabin staff and the Pilots. Simple.

[scottish]

OMGZ YES COS ALL AMERICANS ARE GUN RAVING LOONS. Rightttttttt. :rolleyes:

Can I ask though - would you at least agree with arming the pilots and cabin crew?



You shut your filthy mouth.

Nowhere did I claim all Americans are gun raving loons?

Yes, pilots should be armed not so much cabin crew (maybe trained and know that there's firearms in the cockpit, but certainly not on them/accessible for them without access to the cockpit).

No you shut your mouth you little ****

[Kyle]

why is it that people can't have opinions across a continuum and are being told they must be drastically on one end or the other.
@-:Undertaker:-; if the threat came from a 30 year old muslim man 'down the pub' on twitter rather than a 14 yo girl would you condone an investigation then?

[LiquidLuck.]

I have a question. How many guns have actually been taken on board after all these post 9/11 laws?

Because if pilots have guns, then it makes it so much easier for someone else to get hold of those guns..

About the thread topic itself, she was not ''trolling'', she was harassing.. Due to the fact that she is 14, so a minor, they MAYBE took it a little bit to far, but a good investigation so she can still fear the consequences of her stupidity wouldn't warm anyone.

[Kardan]

Well yes it does, do you even understand how security and intelligence services work? If the CIA, MI5 or MI6 come across a threat or whatever it may be - they assess the threat and then make a judgement on whether to a) follow it up or leave it & b) how many resources they put in to investigating that person/s.

Intelligence services and the Police do not sit there acting as though every threat carries the same weight.



Because i'm showing you just how in a climate of fear the government can force through draconian and terrifying legislation and much of the population - like Kardan - because they've been scared accept it in order to make them 'safe'.

It's classic of all dictatorships and tyrannies.

- - - Updated - - -



If the plane is going down either way is that not better than to have it crash into a tower of 2,000 people?

It's glaringly obvious.



Then just apply to cabin staff and the Pilots. Simple.

I thought we were talking generally now, not about 9/11. We've already established that the flights crashing in a field is better than crashing into their intended targets. But allowing guns on flights may have saved 2,000 people, but it will certainly have opened a new can of worms in the 13 years since. My last comments are not about 9/11, but in a more general situation. If everyone is armed - a gun fight will emerge 30,000 feet into the air - not ideal.

If only the pilot is armed, they will have to leave the cockpit (which means it now has the possibility of being entered) to deal with the threat. In my opinion, guns have no place on a plane. And looking at the last 13 or so years, we've been fine without them. It would cause way more problems than it solves.

[LiquidLuck.]

To be honest, if it hadn't happened on the 9/11, which made the proper security start, then it would have happened in the years since then and at the end of the day we would have found ourselves in the situation that we are today in what relates to security in airports.

[Kardan]

To be honest, if it hadn't happened on the 9/11, which made the proper security start, then it would have happened in the years since then and at the end of the day we would have found ourselves in the situation that we are today in what relates to security in airports.

I totally agree.

[xxMATTGxx]

You really do not want gun battles on a airliner. Once a window has been shot that could easily cause a cabin depressurization.

[e5]

She won't have be imprisoned for 'trolling' but more like al Qaeda threats or w.e. American Airlines pursuing it is tight tho but they might have question her to find it how she knew about it at 14 n could link to summat!!!!