Posted on 10/26/2001 5:06:04 AM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
Passenger Takes Gun Aboard Plane
According to The Washington Post, a Southwest Airlines passenger flying Tuesday from New Orleans to Phoenix opened his briefcase and realized that he had something he shouldn't have had: a loaded gun.Officials said the man alerted the flight crew and he was not charged with a crime. But the incident illustrates that airport security remains unreliable.
Law-enforcement officers can't be everywhere, but an armed, trained citizenry can be. That's why pilots, flight attendants and even trained passengers should be allowed to carry arms on board aircraft if they want to, says Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Robert Levy in "Invitation To Terror: This Plane Is A Gun-Free Zone."
The discussions I've had with people about this issue are absolutely maddening. People are insane if they think that having no guns allowed on board will make for a safer flight.
Invitation to Terror: This Plane is a Gun-Free Zone
by Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
October 9, 2001Imagine that you are a terrorist selecting one of two airlines as your next victim. The first airline boasts in its ads, "Our Planes Are Gun-Free Zones." The second says that "One or More Employees Will Be Armed on Every Flight." Not much question which one you'd fly. Now picture yourself as a safety-conscious passenger. Still not much question, but the choice won't be the same. That's the case in a nutshell for armed sky marshals, and perhaps armed pilots, flight attendants, even selected passengers.
Let's start with sky marshals. That idea seems like a no-brainer. Indeed, it's now being implemented. But the problem is cost. One marshal per daily flight would require 35,000 officers-more than twice the number employed by the FBI, Secret Service, and U.S. Marshals combined. Yes, a marshal might be able to average 3 to 4 flights each day. Then again, most proposals call for more than one marshal per flight. Put it all together and we're talking about roughly 14,000 new employees, salaried at $70,000 and up per year, plus the cost of training. That's well over a billion dollars annually.
What about pilots? "These men and women operate $100 million pieces of equipment. They can sure learn to operate a .38 snub-nose if they want to," said aviation consultant Michael Boyd. The Air Line Pilots Association, with overwhelming support from its members, wants armed pilots in cockpits. "Under the old model of hijackings," said a union spokesman, the "strategy was to accommodate, negotiate and do not escalate. But that was before. The cockpit has to be defended at all costs." An armed pilots program would be strictly voluntary. It would require extensive background screening and psychological testing, as well as classroom and practical training, roughly equivalent to what sky marshals would receive. Sens. Bob Smith (R-NH) and Conrad Burns (R-MT) have taken the first step. Their amendment to the Aviation Security Act, S. 1447, would allow-not require-properly trained commercial pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers to carry firearms.
Armed flight attendants present a different set of problems. Israel's El Al airline-the world's safest-has armed both its pilots and its flight attendants. Still, there is legitimate concern that a flight attendant could easily be overpowered by terrorists to get his or her gun. One solution is to hide the weapon, perhaps keep it under lock. But that wouldn't frustrate a terrorist if he knew that the attendant had access to the weapon. A better solution-although costly and not yet technologically feasible-is to provide attendants with "smart guns," which are programmed so they can be fired only by authorized persons. For now, attendants should be limited to weapons that are temporarily debilitating, but inflict no longer-term injury.
Finally, there's the more radical notion that selected passengers should be armed. Radical or not, the idea deserves to be considered. Risks can be mitigated. First, insist that the passenger have a concealed gun permit and pass a background check. Second, require that he be specifically trained in the use of firearms on an airplane. Third, limit the passenger to a gun and ammunition supplied by the airline. Special bullets are available that are destructive to human tissue but come apart at first impact. That would eliminate, or at least minimize, the likelihood that a bullet could penetrate the fuselage.
Presently in the United States, there are 600,000 active state and local law enforcement officers, who are now forbidden to carry guns on planes. Certified law enforcement personnel, maybe even firefighters and emergency medical technicians, when traveling as ordinary passengers, could register voluntarily and confidentially with the airlines to provide assistance in the event of an emergency. That's the proposal put forward by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in his "Volunteers for Safe Skies Act." Why not expand on that proposal by allowing those persons, if properly trained, to carry concealed guns?
The broader principle is this: On September 11, the United States government failed at the single most important function that it has been entrusted to perform-the protection of American citizens against foreign aggression. If we demand too much from government, it's partly because the need for the state to defend us increases in proportion to our inability to defend ourselves. That's why law-abiding inner city residents, many of whom have been disarmed by gun control, beg for police protection despite the terrible violations of civil liberties that such protection entails-like curfews, anti-loitering laws, and civil asset forfeiture. We must not allow our anti-gun paranoia to push us toward a police state.
Armed civilians can deter crime. Armed civilians can mean safer planes, shopping malls, schools, and other public places. Law-enforcement officers can't be everywhere, but an armed, trained citizenry can be.
This guy is awfully lucky he was flying Southwest.
Arm the pilots and crew; remove possession of guns and bombs.
Although I'm licensed to carry and have faith in proper "training"
of my fellow gun owners, how many will know enough not to
engage in a firefight at that altitude? Blowing out a window can
be as disastrous as puncturing a fuel tank.
I'm eager to see what happens in Brazil. I read that they allow guns on board, but don't know the details of that policy.
Allowing passengers to take firearms aboard, opens the
door for the terrorist to take a firearm aboard as well.
And threatening to pop a fuel tank or window is as good
as taking a bomb aboard. Either can take the aircraft
down quickly, under the right circumstances.
As much as I wince when I say it, the banning of firearms
carried aboard aircraft by passengers should remain. Other
forms of mass transit is another matter.
Let's face it, a passenger is placing their life in the pilot and
crew's hands anyway. They've already relinquished and
submitted. Let the pilot and crew take responsibility, and
let the public demand their safety by flying or not flying
on airlines that provide the safety measures they want to see.
Federally regulate the type of safety required, but keep tax
dollars out of the providing of it. It's private enterprise, going
internationally and interstate. Our Federal government has the
right to regulate that industry.
Hell, just putting out the word that this is the policy would give the would-be terrorists pause.
Although is sounds great, doing so just encourages more
regulation of guns and gun owners. Where would it stop?
Another clinton-like president and administration could require
special training to carry in any surrounding they choose.
Naww, I don't want to see that door opened.
I wouldn't mind seeing the present need for carry permits to
be repealed, since it serves no useful purpose. And I'd prefer
to see no "carry concealed" requirement. Let the guns be seen
if those that carry [me] desire to not hide the fact.
And the regulation of munitions is as good as taking firearms
away totally. Ask the English. I think they're down to 22cal
and light loads at that.
Wherever we allow government control, we allow all government
control. It took me years to see that, but it's a fact of life.
Hell "abundy", even you said that more than once.
Which 5? I'm not familiar with aircraft particulars, so I can't
argue. A quick read of some stats did bring forth a fragment
of insight, however.
The "catastrophic depressurization" usually refers to the loss of
control of the aircraft, not mass deaths or incapacity of passengers
due to it. Once passengers are gone, so is the protection of any armed
passengers or flight crew. It's kind of a no-win scenario.
The pilot needs to be worried about the plane, not taking out a terrorist. Arm special security dudes.
Regarding the munitions, I was speaking in a flight-specific sense. I know that they developed special ammunition that would not penetrate the skin of a plane if it missed its intended target - requiring a passenger to carry those loads while in flight seems reasonable enough to me. I also wouldn't want to fly with someone who just got their permit, burned off a hundred rounds or so and decided he/she was fit to carry on an airplane - they wouldn't know a glazer safety slug from a black talon.
I agree, if you can legally purchase a firearm you should be able to carry it concealed or otherwise without infringement - but that isn't the reality of 2001 and it won't ever be until we scale back government.
When I heard that the phone call from the back of the plane, from
Barbara Olson to her husband Ted contained her words:
"The pilot is standing next to me, is there anything I should tell him?"
I shuddered. What in hell was he doing at the back of the plane
with the passengers?
Prior to 9-11-01, each time a report made it to news, that some
pilot had to intervene in a passenger problem during flight, I cringed.
I agree, the pilot should stay in the cockpit and not be required to
stifle a disturbance. The firearm for the pilot and his crew, is for the
ultimate protection, not for intervention.
Up until 9-11-01, regulations did not permit the carry of firearms, mace,
stun-guns, or other means of self-protection by pilot or crew. The pilot
and flight crew were vulnerable to any disturbance. I think once that's
resolved, the problem will solve itself.
re:
"..Regarding the munitions, I was speaking in a flight-specific sense...."
I realized that, and almost agreed! But once the door is opened for
one specific area, it is opened for all areas. I absolutely do not want
munitions to be regulated. And it's already begun in some areas.
We just have to look across the "pond" to see the future of reckless
abandon of freedom.
(egads... have I become sane? A conservative? Me?)
Thanks.
Physics 101 should be a pre-requisite to posting FR.
Your and my "permit" to carry a side arm openly, concealed, or held in hand is your birth cerificate. YOU can BEG for your RIGHTS, I won't.
Buncha' sheep......spit.
It should be, but we'll let you post anyway.
(and by the way, you spit like hillary)
Sorry, but this thing about Brazil allowing armed passengers was exposed as a hoax almost as soon as it was posted. See the link below:
Mike in MD
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.