Airshows shouldn't exist

drunkenbeagle said:
The majority of the world's population do not use airline travel, yet millions of them have been killed by the pollution spewed by airliners.
Click to expand...

Airlines produce such a tiny amount of pollution that their emissions are largely irrelevant.

At least those people have a choice not to attend airshows.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You keep ignoring that the people who just died did not attend an airshow. Some jackass decided that it was a smart idea to conduct an airshow over a major road.
 
Ladies,

(this isn't a personal jab at seggy, but) 1 person in the ground died as a result of the Colgan crash.

5 died on the ground in New York from AA 587.

I only looked up these two flights. I could look up dozens more.

Your argument of non-participants dying, is invalid.

Life is inherently risky. Keep preaching from your soapbox, the louder you yell the smarter you appear.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Airlines produce such a tiny amount of pollution that their emissions are largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


2% is a pretty big number. As the world eventually moves to cleaner energy sources, it is likely to become an even bigger number.

And 140,000 deaths is more relevant than a dozen. I would say even more so, as the deaths caused by the airline industry are not accidental.

Deaths caused by the firearm, tobacco, alcohol, and energy industries are primarily not from accidents either. Does that make them somehow okay?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
2% is a pretty big number.
Click to expand...

Then you should be incredibly concerned about the 2% chance of a fatality at any given airshow.

And 140,000 deaths is more relevant than a dozen. I would say even more so, as the deaths caused by the airline industry are not accidental.

Deaths caused by the firearm, tobacco, alcohol, and energy industries are primarily not from accidents either. Does that make them somehow okay?
Click to expand...

Energy is a necessity. Transportation is a necessity. Watching aerobatics is not a necessity.

And again, you keep ignoring the fact that nobody is arguing for the complete banning of airshows. Just get them away from populated areas. Why is that so difficult for you?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
And again, you keep ignoring the fact that nobody is arguing for the complete banning of airshows. Just get them away from populated areas. Why is that so difficult for you?
Click to expand...

My point is simply that the risk to bystanders is not substantial. In fact, the risk of death is quite small, particularly compared to the far likelier causes of death. Air pollution being far far far more likely. The military already conducts similar exercises over less-populated areas, yet this still manages to kill bystanders and endanger non-participating aircraft. Why would we expect moving airshows to be any different? The travel of the spectators and performers would introduce additional risk - motor vehicles are very dangerous things.

Also, we tolerate some risk of injury in many types of non-essential entertainment. Amusement parks and roller coasters kill at least 5 people per year in the US, and hospitalized 82,000 kids. We don't ban those. People are killed at sports arenas every year - by hockey pucks, balls, thrown bats, drunken fans and most especially falls from unsafe stadiums. No talk of limiting sporting venues to single stories with Plexiglas walls, which would save countless lives. Motor Racing alone has killed 520 in the last 20 years. Table Tennis kills more people per year than airshows. Think about that for a moment.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
My point is simply that the risk to bystanders is not substantial.
Click to expand...

Your definition of substantial leaves a lot to be desired.

Also, we tolerate some risk of injury in many types of non-essential entertainment. Amusement parks and roller coasters kill at least 5 people per year in the US, and hospitalized 82,000 kids. We don't ban those. People are killed at sports arenas every year - by hockey pucks, balls, thrown bats, drunken fans and most especially falls from unsafe stadiums. No talk of limiting sporting venues to single stories with Plexiglas walls, which would save countless lives. Motor Racing alone has killed 520 in the last 20 years. Table Tennis kills more people per year than airshows. Think about that for a moment.
Click to expand...

Still ignoring the fact that these people were not willing participants in this activity. They were driving by going about their normal business, and an airplane engaged in entertainment activities came out of the sky and killed them.

For the hundredth frickin' time, this is about keeping air shows away from populated areas where people who aren't involved are at risk against their will. I don't care if you want to do an air show in the middle of the desert or off the coast.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your definition of substantial leaves a lot to be desired.



Still ignoring the fact that these people were not willing participants in this activity. They were driving by going about their normal business, and an airplane engaged in entertainment activities came out of the sky and killed them.

For the hundredth frickin' time, this is about keeping air shows away from populated areas where people who aren't involved are at risk against their will. I don't care if you want to do an air show in the middle of the desert or off the coast.
Click to expand...

I have a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness of which includes air shows for me. Stop violating my freedoms and rights. My pursuit of happiness involves air shows and airplanes. Just because an accidental discharge of an aerial loop killed a few people doesn't mean all other air show performers are incompetent or killers.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I have a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness of which includes air shows for me. Stop violating my freedoms and rights. My pursuit of happiness involves air shows and airplanes. Just because an accidental discharge of an aerial loop killed a few people doesn't mean all other air show performers are incompetent or killers.
Click to expand...

That's some mighty twisted logic. You are comparing an activity to a fundamental right.

Using your logic, Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy could have argued that mass murder was a pursuit of happiness for them and the government violated their right to freedom.

See how dumb that line of argument sounds now?
 
Whoa whoa whoever said anything about guns?

And in your example, killing someone else as Bundy did violates the victim's right to life and pursuit of happiness. It is illegal.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Whoa whoa whoever said anything about guns?

And in your example, killing someone else as Bundy did violates the victim's right to life and pursuit of happiness. It is illegal.
Click to expand...

Really? You want to play that game? Unless you're discussing nocturnal emissions, there is only one other activity that the bolded part refers to

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I have a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness of which includes air shows for me. Stop violating my freedoms and rights. My pursuit of happiness involves air shows and airplanes. Just because an accidental discharge of an aerial loop killed a few people doesn't mean all other air show performers are incompetent or killers.
Click to expand...

Plus, I'd say wiping someone out with an airplane, who is just minding their own business, is violating that person's right to life and personal freedom.
 
Plus, I'd say wiping someone out with [any means], who is just minding their own business, is violating that person's right to life and personal freedom.




Anyway, air shows should exist. Just make sure their performance box and flight path vectors do not go over ANY populated areas, houses, or roads. So if one does accidently go down, it doesn't hit any person.
 
Cptnchia said:
Plus, I'd say wiping someone out with an airplane, who is just minding their own business, is violating that person's right to life and personal freedom.
Click to expand...

It wasn't intentional. Period. Your friends John Gacy and Ted Bundy had intent to kill and that's exactly what they did. Your whole argument isn't apples to oranges, it's more apples to goodyear tires. That comparison is absolutely absurd. THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT. Serial killers actions to commit murder, IS NOT! Flying a jet into a crowd of people on accident...IS NOT illegal. Killing for enjoyment or the rush of it, sorta illegal.

Jesus, that might just be the dumbest thing I've read this year. Talk about twisted logic......
 
Last edited:
Nark said:
Ladies,

(this isn't a personal jab at seggy, but) 1 person in the ground died as a result of the Colgan crash.

5 died on the ground in New York from AA 587.

I only looked up these two flights. I could look up dozens more.

Your argument of non-participants dying, is invalid.

Life is inherently risky. Keep preaching from your soapbox, the louder you yell the smarter you appear.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that this one hasn't been brought up yet. It included a road and everything.
image.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top