ARMED CITIZENS THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISTS

Ordinary, responsible Americans need to be armed, just as Israelis are in the war against terrorism, writes author/researcher John R. Lott Jr., who says that's the only adequate response to the terrorist threat Americans now face.

Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Lott notes the security problems the nation faces and insists that not matter how tight restrictions are, and no matter how many air marshals ride planes, nothing beats having an armed citizenry in the fight against terrorism.

Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000). itemizes the flaws in most of the security measures now in effect or being considered:

Screening at airports, while important, will always be inadequate, he writes, noting that terrorists can always figure find some way around the controls such as bribing airport employees.

Strengthening cockpit doors, he says, is probably a good idea, " but given current airline design it may create dangerous differences in air pressure between the cockpit and cabin. In any case, the door must be opened sometime, to allow pilots to go to the bathroom or get food."

The marshals program is more promising. He cites research by Bill Landes at the University of Chicago that showed that between a third and a half of the drop in airplane hijackings during the 1970s were the probable result of having armed U.S. marshals on planes as well as law enforcement's increased ability to catch and punish hijackers.

Putting merely one air marshal aboard every daily flight in the U.S. would require an army of at least 35,000 officers-a far greater number than total of all those who now work for the FBI, Secret Service and the U.S. Marshal Service combined (17,000). Moreover, he adds that one marshal might not be enough to foil a whole gang of hijackers, of the kind used by Osama bin Laden. Clearly, he says, it will take a long time to deploy enough marshals.

In response to these and other problems, Lott suggests that the 600,000 active state and local law enforcement officers in the U.S. today who are currently forbidden to bring their guns on airplanes should not only be allowed to board planes but even be given discount fares if they fly with their guns. Moreover, since most pilots have also had military experience they should be armed as their union, and NewsMax.com's Chris Ruddy have demanded, exactly as Israel's El Al been doing all along.

Lott dismisses fears of having guns aboard planes, explaining that the special, high-velocity handgun ammunition used on planes packs quite a wallop but is designed not to penetrate the aluminum skin of the plane. Even with regular bullets he notes, the worst-case outcome would simply be to force the plane to fly at a lower altitude, where the air pressure is higher.

But using guns to stop terrorists shouldn't be limited to airplanes, he insists. "We should encourage off-duty police, and responsible citizens, to carry guns in most public places because cops can't be everywhere.

In Israel, for example, Lott explains that about 10% of Jewish adults have permits to carry concealed handguns. Just to match that rate of permit holding, Americans would have to increase the number of permits from 3.5 million to almost 21 million, he wrote.

"Thirty-three states currently have "right-to-carry" laws, which allow the law-abiding to obtain a permit if they are above a certain age and pay a fee. Half of these states require some training. We should encourage more states to pass such laws, and possibly even subsidize firearms training," Lott maintains.

He concludes by noting that the states that do pass concealed handgun laws "experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings - the type of attack most associated with terrorism. "Bill Landes and I found that deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80% after states passed right-to-carry laws."

Lott's idea is a long shot, but it's worth thinking about.

FReecerely Yours,

America needs a gun knowledgeable population if it does not want a draft. Americans should have a wide knowledge of guns just like the frontiersman, because our streets, public transportation, workplace and homes can be the battleground in this war. If this war becomes a war between two civilizations (US vs Muslim), then our mobilized population will be well versed in firearms and that can give us an edge on the battlefield.

I agree with Lott and would probably take this idea even further and would encourage citizens to carrying handguns in the open in their everyday workplaces... whether it's a library, a hospital, a school, etc. However, it is becoming obvious that our government wants us to rely on the government for our security (though the government has proven itself incapable of protecting us).

Which of Lott's ideas are "long shots" and why do you think so. Yours is a too brief condemnation of his scholarship.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

I really agree with having an armed citizenry. I am an engineer. As such, I am trusted to hold a job that has a direct effect on public safety. People could die if I make a bad engineering decision. But I should not be trusted to carry a gun?

This applies to just about everybody. Those of us who have demonstrated that we can conduct ourselves as good citizens, which applies to almost all of us, should be allowed to be armed.

"and responsible citizens, to carry guns in most public places because cops can't be everywhere."

Not everyone is a responsible citizen. There has to be limits!

If you need to practice your aim, click here:

bin Laden's Liquor Store

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.

bump!