Posted on 10/04/2001 6:14:50 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
Criminals use knives to hijack planes--
let's ban handguns!
By Robert A. Waters 10.04.01
It was as predictable as Ted Kennedy's bouts with the bottle and Barney Frank's bouts with his latest live-in lover.
As soon as the World Trade Center towers went down in flames and the Pentagon went up in smoke, the anti-gunners began looking for ways to link the crimes to guns. But since the skyjackers used knives to subdue the crews and passengers of the doomed planes, they knew it would be a hard sell.
Those of us who believe in gun rights, however, figured they'd find a way. Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe didn't disappoint.
The real problem, according to Oliphant, is the evil gun show.
These shows are the "ideal shopping mall for criminals in general and terrorists in particular." It doesn't matter that none of the knives used by the skyjackers were bought at gun shows--instead, they were almost certainly purchased at hardware stores. It doesn't matter that none of the uniforms they used to infiltrate the cockpits were bought at gun shows (there is evidence that they may have been stolen from foreign and domestic airports). In fact, there seems to be nothing to link the criminals who murdered thousands of innocent people to guns or gun shows.
But that's just an inconvenient detail.
According to Oliphant, people who oppose closing the so-called gun show "loopholes" are, like Attorney General John Ashcroft, "fanatics." (Note that the terrorists are also fanatics.)
Meanwhile, the Air Line Pilots Association has demanded that pilots be allowed to carry guns on airplanes. Union spokesman John Mazor explained that the strategy before September 11 had been to "accomodate, negotiate, and do not escalate. But that was before. The cockpit has to be defended at all costs."
The howls of rage from shocked gun-banners quickly muffled the call to arm pilots. According to anti-gun activists, bullets shot from a gun inside an airplane will blast through walls and windows, thereby decompressing the plane and causing it to crash. Captain Duane Woerth, union president, addressed that issue. The bullets supplied to the pilots would "basically come apart on first impact," he said. "They're very destructive to human tissue but it's very unlkely they would do serious damage to the fuselage."
A bevy of police officers quickly weighed in as well. Allow us to carry our weapons aboard, they said, and we won't hesitate to use them if confronted by skyjackers. Again, safety seemed to be secondary to the antis, who quickly squelched that idea, too.
Carrying guns on airplanes is nothing new. Armed sky marshals successfully ended a wave of skyjackings in the 1970s. But after the perceived threat vanished, so did the marshals. David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, estimated that now only a couple dozen remain. President Bush, lukewarm on arming pilots and on letting cops carry guns on airplanes, enthusiastically embraced the "air marshal" approach, the one deterrent sure to cost milions of taxpayer dollars.
So on the one hand you have anti-gunners calling for more restrictions on guns to foil future skyjackers (who rarely use guns). On the other hand, the pilot's union is demanding that their members be allowed to carry firearms so they'll have a fighting chance to save themselves and their passengers.
What's the general public to think?
They would do well to remember that the biggest massacre of innocent civilians was caused not by guns but by criminals using boxcutter knives. That the largest school massacre in history was caused by someone using dynamite (Andrew Kehoe, Bath, Michigan, on May 18, 1927), not guns. That even more recently, a Greyhound bus carrying more than thirty passengers was wrecked by a man carrying a knife--at least six people were killed in the ensuing crash after the man attacked the driver.
And they might do well to remember that guns save many more lives than they take.
But those who oppose guns will continue to ignore the facts. In their rush to incrementally restrict law-abiding citizens' access to self-protection, they will continue to try to close the fantasy gun show loophole. (In fact, buyers and sellers at gun shows are bound by the same laws as everyone else).
Shame on those who would try to use the tragedy of September 11 to further their anti-gun agenda.
Let me repeat, guns weren't used by the terrorists.
It was knives.
So when are we gonna close that hardware store loophole?
As a caveat, how many times have you heard of people with CCW permits going ballistic? Another: How many times have you heard of people getting irate and going ballistic at a gun-show?
I share your concern about any 'Joe' armed and untrained on a plane, but then that should worry the terriorist as well. Of course, these guys don't care about the outcome, so whatever happens is going to be messy and some innocents may be involved. With suicidal terriorists, about the best you can hope for is the least loss of life when taking them down.
The threat of such keeps down public mass murderers in places where firearms are freely carried. Even suiciders tend to want to actually accomplish something.
not to mention ripping a damn hole in the side of the plane or the fuselauge.
Minor consideration. Planes leak anyway. The biggest problem is the fogging up as the air pressure changes causing the passengers to freak out. No, the biggest problem is missing and hitting the pilot and/or controls. A couple of hours of training can solve that problem.
What if the baseball bat, and the police are ten miles away...straight down.
And you are probably aware that those that have CCWs must have a cleaner background and have undergone a full FBI background check and police don't?
I feel safer knowing a cop can be an ex-felon and a citizen with a CCW can't have any felony arrests.
And a sky marshall with three days training and a federal pension is going to save us all.
Sometimes head in sand is best.
snooker
Actually they were talking about 36 weeks.
Gee...you sound just like Sarah Brady talking about concealed carry in general.
What are you afraid of? "Explosive depressurization?" That's a crock, and that objection has been refuted many times on this site alone, several times by me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.