Click on the pistol to display the latest FreeRepublic 'bang_list' posts.
Posted on 09/18/2001 9:44:30 AM PDT by kimber
| September 17, 2001 - There will no doubt be calls for increased safety measures aboard domestic flights including armed federal sky marshals. Why sky marshals? We have used sky marshals in the past with great success. During a flurry of hijackings to Cuba almost three decades ago, sky marshals were implemented and all but ended frequent aircraft hijackings. Over the years, budgets for sky marshals were cut back to the point where none are currently on domestic flights. It is ironic that to save several million dollars over the past twenty years, the price today is hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in one hour. I friend pointed out, and quite correctly, that the success of the sky marshal program centered on the fact that no one knew who the armed sky marshal was. The California Rifle and Pistol Association's advertising campaign slogan of a few years ago in support of concealed carry: "Society is Safer When Criminals Don't Know Who's Armed" has more merit than some in our government will admit. It seems somewhat arrogant that our government would employ the concept of concealed carry by unknown persons aboard a commercial flight for the exclusive purpose of deterring crime. Yet, the very same politicians, e.g. Senators Feinstein, Schumer and others, will point out that citizens left to their own devices will kill each other if they are allowed to be armed. Of course it has been proven that not only are such statements made without data or knowledge, the exact opposite effect has occurred as a result of the landmark studies on firearms in society by Dr. John R. Lott Jr. If the notion that firearms in the hands of citizens creates higher levels of crime, it would stand to reason that guns in the hands of law enforcement, government agents and the military would also increase crime, which we all of course know is not the case. After all, they're 'ordinary citizens' as well. But, as we have seen over the past two decades, politicians increasingly bestow a different set of values upon ordinary citizens working for the government versus ordinary citizens working in the private sector. The reasons for the differentiation is based on three elitist perspectives:
Once again, the argument in favor of concealed carry by citizens will again be proven to be a deterrent, except this time the government will make the case with sky marshals. |
Click on the pistol to display the latest FreeRepublic 'bang_list' posts.
Brazil Parliament Votes To Allow Air Passengers To Carry Light Firearms
From Tomás Mano de Carvalho Alliance
Nacional do Brasil 09.15.01
RIO DE JANEIRO - To avoid that an aircraft is used as bomb against important buildings, the Brazilian parlament decided today to liberate light weapons (calibre less than 0.38) for all passengers over 21 years old.
As 65% of all Brazilians with income more than US$ 2000 always walks equipped with gun, the government finds it safe and guaranteed that sufficient persons will react against any eventual highjackings.
Extra information will be distributed and presented by the air hostess. When they show the safety equipment they will also inform the passengers to prepare eventual shot with precision, always take aim at chest to avoid that bullets perforate the shell of the aircraft.
The president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, wanted to make his veto against the proposal, but was rejected by the astounding majority of 234 against 6 votes.
Can you provide proof to back up this claim?
This article is mostly advocating the return of sky marshalls. It would be preferable to have planclothes personnel who are highly trained and have specialized frangible rounds for this application. For me, it'd be Glaser safety slugs...
I keep my guns loaded with SilverTips - are they comparable to Glasers? Thanks!!!
There are not enough skymarshals to be on every flight. And what about general aviation flights...business jets, etc.
CCW is a deterrent. Time we started using it. I would start with allowing law enforcement personnel and military personel with weapons trainging to take a course and let them carry, followed by citizens who would also take a course on this.
Seriously, I shot IPSC for several years, and we had a continuous parade of cops show up at the matches, thinking they were going to show these "civilians" how to shoot. They usually slunk away after a few weeks as they discovered their abilities ran from mediocre to extremely poor.
I would much rather rely on the skill of a civilian who has worked hard to achieve some skill, than a government employee that has been given a gun and a badge, and now considers himself an expert.
Is It Time for a New "Concealed Carry" Category.........for Air Travel?
There is a lot of good information there about frangible ammunition that would be useful for armed air travel as well a reposted article by Barry Schiff (of "The Proficient Pilot" I and II fame) debunking the "explosive decompression" myth regarding bullet holes in pressurized aircraft.
Personally I think that it would be wiser to allow passengers or crew with concealed carry permits to carry aboard aircraft than to re-introduce the sky marshall program. One argument against sky marshalls is affordability. How long before the cost of a sky marshall program leads to only having SMs on only major routes and larger aircraft. Even a 30 passenger commuter plane could be target of a terrorist wanting to crash into a propane or oil storage facility.
While I agree that better training would be a good idea for ATQ concealed carry, I think that many CCW holders would qualify. Ordinary citizens with CCW have a good record of not shooting innocents and of being more proficient that your average LEO.
Wrong. I'm an aerospace structural engineer and explosive decompression is very possible on a commercial aircraft. At high altitude all it would take would be a bullet blowing out a window. The resulting out-rush of pressurized cabin air could precipitate into catestophic structural failure. I've witnessed tests involving rapid (or explosive) decompression and they're very impressive.
My dear brother and sister FReepers,
At this, of all times in my lifetime, I would like nothing more than to be able to read these threads and reply to them. I have much I would like to say.
BUT, I cannot!
Why?
Because I am trying hard to raise the finances needed to keep FreeRepublic up and running so that we can continue to share valuable information and respond to it.
I beg you, if you have not yet donated to FreeRepublic this quarter, do so now!
I realize you are giving to lots of Relief efforts and I encourage you to do so. But we need to help FR too. Where would we be right now without it?
If you have no money, please come and bump the Fundraiser Thread.
I would really like to reach our goal quickly so that I and the rest of the dedicated FReepers who are working the Fundraiser Threads can participate in what is undeniably the most important time in FreeRepublic's history.
WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR NEWS FROM IF FREEREPUBLIC WASN'T HERE? <--click here
Support FreeRepublic! Support the U.S.A. <--click here
I never said I wasn't an excellant shot, but there are, however, many CCW holders that would fall in this category. In Washington State, for example, there are no skill requirements that need to be demonstrated before obtaining a CCW. Only the customary background check, fingerprinting, and, of course, the obligatory fee. I'm reasonably sure that the lack of any required proficiency is true in many states.
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.