Replies

I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.

Let's consider an equivalent of the times; sailing ships. Although no one would question the rights of the passengers & members of the crew to own & carry, once aboard they were under the command of the ship's Captain. Firearms were maintained in an armory or locker until Captain's orders (or mutiny conditions) distributed those weapons. At most, senior officers may have carried a pistol to keep sailors, a sometimes unruly lot, to help keep order. With that in mind, ships were frequently armed with crew served weapons, (cannon/weapons of mass destruction) to guard against attack by other ships, supporting a right and practice of keeping a class of weapons now banned as destructive devices.

Although no one would question the rights of the passengers & members of the crew to own & carry, once aboard they were under the command of the ship's Captain.

This was very far from the case with many vessels especially those engaged in commerce on the reular shipping lanes or American costal commerce. Further absolutely every sailor carried a knife that would also be a weapon as could belaying pins (normally used for securing parts or the rigging). Swords and muskets were not normally locked away on many of the ships it very much depended upon the captain and the specific crew. I would suggest the archives in Mytic Seaport contain some very good information on this subject including some Captains logs of the times.

During the first 60 or so years of aviation, passengers were free to pack a revolver in their purse or briefcase along with their notebooks and toothbrush.

I am not aware of any hijackings or passengers going berserk with these pistols. None.

Look at the effect of airplane disarmament on the events of 9-11: the 757s became pure victim zones, where a handful of fanatics with boxcutters were able to take complete control and kill thousands.

Which arms on planes paradigm was more effective at preventing hijacking and mass death?

On 9-11, if you were on one of those planes, would you have preferred to have been on a plane with a dozen screened and tested citizens who were carrying sidearms?

I can see how they could have prevented 9-11, how exactly could they have made the situation worse?

"Gun free zones", whether the zones are schools, churches, businesses or airplanes, invariably do nothing to increase safety, but only turn them into death traps. These "gun free zones" become murder magnets for maniacs bent on mass slaughter.

I have heard of deranged killers rampaging in "gun free" schools and businesses. I have NEVER heard of a shooting rampage at a rifle range or gun show.

Now why do you suppose that might be?