Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arming The Free: Let Airline Pilots And Passengers Terrorize Thugs
Investor's Business Daily | October 11, 2001 | John R. Lott, Jr.

Posted on 10/11/2001 11:47:59 AM PDT by Washingtonian

Investor's Business Daily

October 11, 2001

SECTION: A; Pg. 16

LENGTH: 714 words

HEADLINE: Arming The Free: Let Airline Pilots And Passengers Terrorize Thugs

BYLINE: By JOHN R. LOTT JR. , Investor's Daily

BODY:

Osama bin Laden gleefully proclaimed on Sunday that Americans are afraid and will remain so until they meet his demands.

Indeed, even after pairing back schedules and cutting fares, U.S. airlines are flying with 50% of their seats empty. After a knife attack last week on a Greyhound bus that is still not linked to terrorism, bus companies are suffering, and asking Congress for a billion-dollar bailout.

How we deal with this fear will determine our economic direction. Placing armed U.S. marshals on planes will help, as it has helped in the past.

But there is reason to doubt that this is enough to protect even planes, let alone buses and all the other possible vulnerable targets.

Yet, even Bush's promise of one marshal on every plane dramatically increases the size of federal law enforcement. To cover the 35,000 to 40,000 daily flights in the U.S. before Sept. 11, more officers will be needed than the 17,000-plus now working for the FBI, Secret Service, and the U.S. marshals' programs combined.

Assuming that we would need about one marshal for every two working pilots implies more than 50,000 marshals.

The attack on Sept. 11 changed many rules for American hijackings. During the 1970's, hijackers trying to get to Cuba typically were operating alone. But bin Laden put five hijackers on each of three planes, and four on another.

Plainclothes marshals have an advantage over terrorists, since the latter don't know which passengers are armed.

Staggered Attacks

But having only one marshal per plane creates the potential for hijackers to reveal themselves in stages. After the marshal reveals himself, hijackers who had remained hidden as passengers could then attack.

One solution is for other people to carry guns. Off-duty and retired federal law enforcement, police, and military frequently travel for pleasure, or work for the airlines.

Al Marchand, age 44, a steward on United Airlines 175, the second plane that crashed into the World Trade Center, retired last year after a 21-year career as a highly decorated police officer. Among his awards were a combat cross, officer of the year and three exceptional duty awards. He also served in the U.S. Army.

Pilots on all four flights that crashed were also former military men. Why couldn't we trust someone like Marchand with a gun?

There are about 600,000 recently active state and local law enforcement officers in the U.S. today, and many travel on vacation. Discount fares could encourage them to fly with their guns.

Bush's proposal to strengthen cockpit doors is helpful, but it doesn't eliminate the need to arm pilots. Doors can be blown open. Terrorists can breach security and obtain the key or code used to open the door. Israel's El Al airline both secures doors and arms pilots, for a reason.

The Greyhound incident also illustrates the general importance of having armed people protect us. Off-duty police officers couldn't legally carry concealed loaded guns on that bus because officers are forbidden from carrying guns across state lines. Just last year, in a 372-to-53 vote, the House of Representatives passed an amendment allowing off-duty police to carry their guns with them wherever they travel in the country, but it failed to get through the Senate.

Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., is reintroducing the legislation this week.

Another option to guard against terrorist attacks is to encourage more citizens to buy guns. If Americans carried concealed handguns at the same rate as Israelis, over 21 million would have permits.

A few years ago, after a wave of terror attacks, Israel's national Police Chief Yaacov Terner called on all concealed handgun permit holders to carry firearms at all times. Israelis realize that the police simply can't be there all the time to protect people when terrorists attack.

Despite considerable scholarly research that passive behavior is dangerous, docility is becoming ingrained in our culture. The Federal Aviation Agency even forbids pilots to carry nail clippers.

Disarming the law-abiding and not the criminals just increases the likelihood of terror.

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

LOAD-DATE: October 11, 2001


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/11/2001 11:47:59 AM PDT by Washingtonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
A few years ago, after a wave of terror attacks, Israel's national Police Chief Yaacov Terner called on all concealed handgun permit holders to carry firearms at all times. Israelis realize that the police simply can't be there all the time to protect people when terrorists attack.

Hopefully, our politicians will realize this.

2 posted on 10/11/2001 12:06:31 PM PDT by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list, sirgawain, Washingtonian, all
Full-auto BANG!

'nuff said.

3 posted on 10/11/2001 12:08:41 PM PDT by DCBryan1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Hopefully, our politicians will realize this.

Won't happen. Those with a D- after their name would have to admit that their "common sense" gun laws aren't so common sense anymore, prompting the populace to wonder what else they've grossly miscalculated (like immigration policy).

4 posted on 10/11/2001 12:12:58 PM PDT by randog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
Off-duty police officers couldn't legally carry concealed loaded guns on that bus because officers are forbidden from carrying guns across state lines.

Still wondering out loud why our Constitutional right to carry a gun stops at the state line. No doubt we have all been scrutinized to our dental records by the FBI to ensure that we can be sanctioned by a state to exercise our rights, so what's the big deal. The game has changed radically, and so should the rules. If I can drive a car anywhere in the U.S. with a license issued by a single state (a state granted privilege, not a right, that requires far less scrutiny), then why can't I do likewise with my personal handgun? I don't see my right to free speech encumbered, yet my right to self protection is. Another thought: if one is trained in the capability of killing someone using some martial art, should they not be similarly prohibited from crossing state lines? What is the difference?

5 posted on 10/11/2001 12:19:23 PM PDT by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian;bang_list;all
Now that John Lott has said it maybe the Freepers who have denigrated this proposal will finally listen to reason. maybe they will see their fears of explosive decompression are fallacies that are based upon the movie Goldfinger. It is time for a sane and reasoned approach based upon facts and Constitutional principles. Let every american be armed. The bad guys will be so outgunned they will not succeed in anything they try and may well be detered from trying in the first place. There are easier ways to commit suicide for its own sake. Suicide attacks only make sense when they have a chance of success.

Stay well - stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown

6 posted on 10/11/2001 12:23:54 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
Forget guns except for carefully vetted experts. Maybe for off-duty patrolmen. Certainly for pilots. Too much of a potential for bloodshed if everyone carries.

My solution is to give everyone weighing more than 150 pounds and under 60 years of age the option of carrying a good-sized billy club. Couple this with a no alcohol policy on planes. The probability of a billy club being misapplied (i.e. shooting a bystander or depressurizing a cabin) is much lower than that of a gun. But 50 or 100 passengers armed with clubs would be more than a match for a few razor-wielding nuts. This presumes, of course, that screening of luggage and security for baggage and food handlers is effective enough to preclude smuggled firearms.

7 posted on 10/11/2001 12:29:15 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
To clarify my remark above -- they apply to trains, planes, and buses. More general CCW is fine with me for walking around!
8 posted on 10/11/2001 12:36:49 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
On September 11, the baggage checks failed, the metal detectors failed, the x-ray machines failed, and the intel failed. The last line of defense, and the only thing that did stop any of the terrorists were the passengers on flight 93. Go with what works.
9 posted on 10/11/2001 12:37:14 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
This presumes, of course, that screening of luggage and security for baggage and food handlers is effective enough to preclude smuggled firearms.

Then your arguement has been blown out of the water. You can never guarantee that firearms aren't smuggled on board.

If the Air Marshal gets taken out, the terrorist now have his gun. What good is you billy club now? Better to let people who wished to be armed do it.

10 posted on 10/11/2001 12:40:33 PM PDT by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
"Disarming the law-abiding and not the criminals just increases the likelihood of terror."

I think that is what sticks in my craw about the moronic efforts at "airport security". It is the assumption that ALL Americans are the "enemy", and must be "cleared" by some $7.00 an hour welfare-to-work idiot (who may in fact not even speak English, or be an American citizen!)

If you try to "focus" on everyone, you are in fact "focussing" on no-one!

Last week I got on a plane, and had to be searched and wanded like a prison inmate leaving the metal-working shop. (Actually, this was done by an officer who has known me for years- and KNOWS I am not a threat to this country in any way. But the "procedures" are inflexible).

This is going to ruin the airline industry- and the real threat is probably baggage-handlers, catering people, and other poorly-screened folks who have unlimited access to airplanes.

11 posted on 10/11/2001 12:46:05 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
"Still wondering out loud why our Constitutional right to carry a gun stops at the state line"

Great point! I once had to use my pistol in another State to repel a couple of motel-room burglars- but, since I was carrying it ILEGALLY according to that State's laws, I was not able to report the incident to the local police. Hell, they would have just arrested ME, confiscated my (expensive) Colt, and done nothing about the real criminals anyway.

True story, by the way. Be careful in motels- they tend to be built on cheap land, on the outskirts of cities- exactly where you find the losers and jailbirds. And a motel room key is the easiest thing in the world to get.

12 posted on 10/11/2001 12:52:10 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
I wonder how many people are at the Marksman or Sharpshooter level in IDPA?

I'd let them carry ANYWHERE.

13 posted on 10/11/2001 1:01:57 PM PDT by George Smiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
On September 11, the baggage checks failed, the metal detectors failed, the x-ray machines failed, and the intel failed. The last line of defense, and the only thing that did stop any of the terrorists were the passengers on flight 93. Go with what works.

I agree. Law enforcement isn't going to defend or protect us. Security can fail. Anything can happen.

I'm getting a VERY uncomfortable feeling about how this new security is shaping up. Let's see if I have this right. The Pilots will have weapons. The Sky Marshalls are going to have weapons. The bad guys are going ot have weapons. Even the stews are going to have mace or a tazer.

And the people who are actually PAYING for that flight are supposed to sit there and get slaughtered like sheep!

What's wrong with this picture?

I think Brazil has the right idea. Arm all passengers with light weapons, so EVERYONE has a weapon. A .22 may not be much of a weapon, but enough of them aimed at the same target will take someone down as effectively as a 45 will.

I resent that the government that I work so hard to maintain doesn't think that I can be trusted with a weapon! It takes all of the power of the (Nanny) State to protect me because without such help, I'm helpless. Think of how much more effective those people on flight 93 would have been if they'd had weapons available, instead of having to innovate boiling water weapons on the spur of the moment.

They need weapons and so do the rest of the travelling public. I'll tell these airlines something for free tho. Unless they have SOME way for people to defend themselves, people are NOT going to fly. WHy should we? The penny-pinchers in the airlines obviously put profit over the safety of their passengers, now they have neither security or passengers. Their own fault I'd say.

I'll put myself up against any stinking arab/muslim in the world. I don't need the govt to help protect me and mine! If I die in the process, I can think of few other causes than America to die for: America and OUR American Dream!

14 posted on 10/11/2001 1:03:18 PM PDT by America's Resolve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
Hold on. I've got my Free Speech permit here, somewhere....
15 posted on 10/11/2001 1:26:43 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve
It all boils down to this: Does government trust its citizens?

Before you answer, consider: Government, formerlly, WAS citizens. Now it is Us versus Them.

Will government ever trust its citizens enough to let them board aircraft with guns? I say "When you-know-where freezes over".

16 posted on 10/11/2001 1:27:36 PM PDT by Jerrybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve
BUMP!
17 posted on 10/11/2001 1:27:49 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
Having flown on the Arco charter a few times, any terrorist would be dead in short order if they even thought they could get away with anything on that route;wish the rest of the country was like that. Personally I liked the old 'C' wing where you could board armed for years; never was a problem there! America, we need to arm up!!!

PS Thanks for keeping the oil flowing!

18 posted on 10/11/2001 2:38:46 PM PDT by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
Well, ARCO is out of business up here- BP and Phillips run the field now. But you are absolutely correct that a few hijackers would be nothing but bloody shreds of flesh if they tried to take over the Slope Charter! (Especially on the early morning flight, when people are not in the best of moods- and at 190 pounds and 6' tall, I am probably the smallest male on the plane!). Actually, some of the FEMALES are bigger than me!
19 posted on 10/11/2001 2:49:22 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Every American? Or military, law enforcement; active and retired?
20 posted on 10/11/2001 2:53:59 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
FMJ Bump
21 posted on 10/11/2001 2:54:00 PM PDT by bmoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
The point of Concealed permits only being valid in certain states is definitely one that needs to be taken care of. Instead of all the talk of a national ID card there needs be talk of a national concealed weapons permit card.
22 posted on 10/11/2001 2:57:27 PM PDT by seabass1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: seabass1
What is the objection to this? Do you know? The argument? I have never heard it.
23 posted on 10/11/2001 3:06:36 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: seabass1
Texas shares ccw's with several states..other than N.M and Arkansas, I do not know which though.
24 posted on 10/11/2001 3:08:05 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
Check "THE BLUE PRESS" (Dillon's reloading catalog)- they had a pretty comprehensive article on this about 6 months ago.
25 posted on 10/11/2001 4:07:41 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Too much of a potential for bloodshed if everyone carries. As opposed to Sept. 11, 2001 where none of the passengers carried. Actually legally carrying civilians have less negligent or injustified shootings than police officers. So statistically your argument makes no sense.
26 posted on 10/11/2001 4:34:22 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun
Every American who currently qualifies for a CCW in any state. I will concede to special restrictions on qualification and ammunition but I believe that dealing with this type of problem is one of the reasons that the Second Amendment exists. Further, I refer you to the letters of marque provisions in the Constitution. IMHO we will need close to 200,00 sky marshalls to provide adequate airline safety. Lott talks of 50,000 and he points out the need for multiple sky marshalls becuas merely holding a couple of terrorists in reserve on a flight would trump one sky marshall.

the alternative will be more Boeing cruise missles with passengers aboard.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

27 posted on 10/11/2001 4:42:33 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
I've never owned a gun and have little-to-no intention of obtaining one, at least in the near future, but I would feel very comfortable knowing that on any plane that I might board, not only the sky marshals but some of the passengers may be armed. Hijackings would simply cease after the news got out - and possibly a few would-be hijackers were shot. Works for me.
28 posted on 10/11/2001 4:51:16 PM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
My Blue Press arrived today and the article "A Nation Of Cowards" is expanded into a book that they're selling for $14.95.
29 posted on 10/11/2001 7:06:54 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
Jim

I would not presume to question your personal decision regrading firearms but I ask that you reconsider. Responsible thoughful citizens owning firearms is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty. Shooting is fun besides. If you have children then I would submit that teaching the safe and proper handling of firearms is one of the best things you can do for them.

I thank you for your thoughtful response and I wish you all the best.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay alert - Yorktown

30 posted on 10/12/2001 6:26:58 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Washingtonian
Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
October 11, 2001

Congratulations!

Earlier today, the Senate, via a unanimous consent vote, adopted the Bob Smith (R-NH)/Frank Murkowski (R-AK) amendment to allow airline pilots to carry firearms. The amendment was also cosponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Conrad Burns (R-MT).

The bill now goes to the House. After that, it will probably go to a House-Senate conference to work out the details.

This is an enormous victory for GOA members who lobbied relentlessly to sway reluctant senators.

BUT THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER!

Next week, the House will take up its version of the Aviation Security Bill. A number of congressmen are considering offering amendments to arm pilots, but they must first secure the approval of the House leadership and the House Rules Committee in order to offer any amendment.

ACTION: Please contact House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Leader Dick Armey, and House Republican Whip Tom DeLay and demand that they allow the House to vote on the armed pilots amendment in connection with the Aviation Security Bill.

Contact Info:
Rep. Dennis Hastert
E-mail: dhastert@mail.house.gov
Phone: 202-225-2976
Fax: 202-225-0697

Rep. Dick Armey
No Public E-mail
Phone: 202-225-7772
Fax: 202-226-8100

Rep. Tom DeLay
No Public E-mail
Phone: 202-225-5951
Fax: 202-225-5241

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Representative __________:

When the Aviation Security Act comes before the House, I hope you will use your leadership position to allow amendments to the bill that would let pilots be armed.

There are plenty of aviation engineers who agree that bullet holes will not cause a massive depressurization in a plane. If depressurization was truly a concern, then why are we even considering putting air marshals on planes? Their bullets will be no different from the ones being used by the pilots. But more to the point, there is no way we can get an air marshal on all 35,000 daily flights.

So the only way to deter these terrorists is to make sure that our last line of defense -- the pilots -- can protect the plane. Reinforcing the cockpit doors is also a good idea, but it's not a panacea. Are we to assume that on a long trip the door will NEVER be opened? That pilots will NEVER take a bathroom break? That there is no one among the flight crew who will ever have the keys or security codes to open the door?

Reinforcing the cockpit doors can help. But the only way to stop terrorism on board aircraft is to let these villains know in advance that, if they ever try to invade the cockpit, they'll be sorry.

Please support language that will allow pilots to be armed, and thus, will enable them to protect the lives of their crewmembers and passengers.

Thank you.

31 posted on 10/12/2001 8:38:20 AM PDT by FirstFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FirstFreedom
As an ex-military expert marksman, commercial pilot; I can only say Bravo!
32 posted on 10/13/2001 9:06:01 PM PDT by AmericanDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson