Reflections on Deaths Caused by Gun Control Laws

CNN has some interesting video as well as a .pdf transcript from the flight voice recorder on United Air Lines Flight 93, the plane which crashed in a Pennsylvania field on 9/11. Obviously, this pertains to the ongoing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, where the government just rested its case.

40 brave people died in that crash. Reading the transcript reminded me that this entire incident could have been avoided if the government hadn’t stripped us of our right to self-defense while on an airplane.

From watching the video and reading the transcript, it’s very obvious that the passengers resisted and wished to defend themselves. I’m sure this was the case with the other planes, as well. Had but a few of the passengers been carrying concealed weapons, the entire disaster could have easily been avoided.

Have we, as a country, learned anything from 9/11? Yes, we’ve learned that nail clippers are deadly weapons, not to wear smelly socks in the security line, that we must carry ID with us, Bic lighters are contraband — and to suffer indignity after indignity for trying to get from one place to another.

This isn’t an apology for the bad guys. But we have to remember that there will always be bad guys — and we have the right to defend ourselves from them. I’m still mad that 9/11 happened — and even madder that our elected officials haven’t learned one damned thing from the tragedy.

Until our Second Amendment rights are restored, we will be under the constant threat of airplane hijackings. In exchange for this increased level of danger, we have the privilege of losing more and more of our civil liberties. Why isn’t CNN covering this angle, too?

63 Comments
  1. If concealed carry were allowed on planes, it’s possible the terrorists may have never even tried to take things that route.

    Of course I’m sure there would still be a few airlines that banned it themselves to cater to a more liberal crowd who desired “safety”.

    For the ultimate argument for the right to bear arms on a plane, you should see the upcoming movie “Snakes On a Plane”.

  2. I haven’t heard of the movie, but it sounds like one I may wish to check out.

  3. Well, probably not really, the movie is about the ridiculous concept of a hitman filling a passenger plane with hundreds of snakes to get at his target. The idea of the movie has of course gained popularity on the internet because of how far “out there” it is.

    Of course this is a situation where you would want as many people carrying guns as possible. And such a movie is ironically less ridiculous these days as it would probably be easier to get snakes on a plane than it would for such a character to get, say, a knife.

  4. We will never convince the majority of people in our country (as it is now) of the reasonableness of this plan. But, could we convince them to allow -specific airlines- to not screen for weapons? Would consumers pay more for that (there would be costs with checking weapons at the front desk, and transporting thru the so called “secure zones” to the gate). I don’t know. But I’d like to see a new approach implemented.. just tried. boydk425

  5. I am absolutely positive that if an airline (even international) could advertise

    “For your traveling safety we do not screen for concealed weapons.”

    it would be full to the gills and the safest flight available.

  6. FINALLY! I thought I was the only person in america to believe the 9/11 was actually caused by the disarmament of the passengers because of that thrice-damned FAA rulemaking that allowed preboarding weapons screening. Hell, I said it for the first time on 9/12/2006 and people looked at me like I grew a third head. UNARMED americans had a 1/4 success ratio on 9/11 (success being defined at that time as “not being used as a living missile”), imagine what ARMED americans would have been able to do. It is downright SHAMEFUL that people who allegedly have the RKBA were held hostage by BOXCUTTER KNIVES. One thing though, I can really see the safety issue with projectiles and pressurized planes, so at least requiring education (and possibly frangible bullets) for carrying a gun onboard a plane may be a good thing.

  7. If CCW was allowed on flights, the first armed crime on a plane, even if the dude got shot, would be the end of it.

  8. THere’s no doubt in my mind that had concealed carry been lawful in 2001, the twin towers would still be standing and 3500 Americans and visitors would be alive today. THe only real solution to crime, terrorists on our soil and other criminal indignities suffered by lawful American citizens is our ability to defend the defenseless by what ever means it takes.

  9. Please keep your RKBA arguments rational; they work more effectively that way. The idea that allowing guns on planes would have prevented 9-11 is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. You’re assuming that the terrorists would be unprepared for this; that they wouldn’t bring aboard enough firepower to counter any passenger firepower; and that–most crucial assumption of all–that enough passengers would be psychologically ready to shoot to kill (and that the number of passengers who would interfere because they thought for one reason or another shooting to kill was inappropriate would be low enough to not make a difference) at the appropriate time (and that means before they took control of the plane, after which they could crash it at their own pleasure) to make armed countermeasures work. Real world experience tends to militate against these assumptions.
    More rational would be the argument that crewmembers should have been armed–the assumptions aren’t so important there.

  10. Jeffrey, I guess I’m an idiot, then. I guess my .357 wouldn’t have turned a terrorist into swiss cheese. The way I see it, a contest between a 9MM and a boxcutter isn’t even a contest. I’m guessing that the terrorists would have just had to have enough people and firepower to take out each and every passenger, as they wouldn’t have known who was and wasn’t carrying.

    Darwin would likely suggest those who think that shooting a hijacker is “inappropriate” are less likely to reproduce; I’d agree.

    To quote one of my favorite authors, “An armed society is a polite society.”

  11. I don’t understand this line: “psychologically ready to shoot to kill.”

    One either has a survival instinct or they don’t. When the guns are drawn, there ain’t time to think about making an appointment with the pshrink.

  12. As to the “decompression” issue and bullet holes, I’ve spoken with pilots and aeronautical engineers who say that the only time that was ever an issue was in a James Bond MOVIE; in the real world bullet holes in pressurized planes simply whistle noisily and kick the air handlers into high gear. Besides, I’d rather have a .45 hole in the plane than a 35,000 volt ‘taser’ loosed in the cockpit amongst the instruments. The government’s alternative is to shoot the plane down with an F-16, and that’s a hell of alot worse decompression than even my friends hot .45 Colt reloads!

    Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD
    Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws – http://www.dsgl.org
    “first do no harm” – gun control LAWS lead to far more innocent deaths than ‘easy access’ ever could.

  13. I’m sure your .357 would make a terrorist very holy. But the question to be asked is, would he be able to make you into something just as holy in return? I’m sure he would plan for it. And (turning to your other objection) consider how the constraints you would be operating under would limit you. You would need to realize that it was necessary to shoot, and perform the act of shooting, by the time they got to the cockpit door–because once inside the cockpit door they would have been in ultimate control (that is, able to ensure that the plane crashed in the manner which it actually did). Could you do this? Could your average gunowner, who may not have any sort of training or military background to prepare themselves for such an occurrence, do so? And could you be sure that some person, because they didn’t realize the seriousness of the situation because they weren’t paying attention, or because they were afraid of decompressing, or because they were an idiot, would not interfere?

  14. Dr. J — My automatic instinct would be to find something to plug the hole. I’d guess a glossy magazine would do just fine, or the plastic coated emergency instructions in the seat in front of me would do just fine.

    I’d rather take my chances on that than in almost certain death with no way to defend myself.

  15. The Bush regime has done nothing to increase security of the American people as a whole, using DHS to manipulate the terrorist threat level to maintain their political control.

    Banning butane lighters on airplanes wouldn’t be necessary if DHS could actually prevent terrorists from getting explosives on the plane.

    I don’t actually think that Terrorists had as much to do with the attacks on 9/11 as the Bush regime would like us to believe. Everything they’ve said regarding the War on Terrorism has been a lie, so why should we believe what they say regarding 9/11.

  16. Wasn’t this the “Let’s roll” flight? Where are the voices of the brave souls that took the plane down? Just curious…

  17. JS:

    There are some flaws in your argument. First of all, Mr. Terrorist would not know if I (or any of the other passengers) was carrying in the first place. They’d simply have to kill us all — and very quickly at that, before one of us could draw a weapon.

    Additionally, firing a weapon is not rocket science. While I’d strongly recommend that people train to properly use a weapon, it only takes a few seconds (aside from my wife and her overloaded purse) to draw and fire. It takes me much less time, but I’m very used to carrying a pistol.

    What you propose is simply outlawing my right to fight for my own survival. I’d be more than willing to take the risk. It’s much less risky than putting my life in the hands of the U.S. Government.

  18. The Federal Government plays a numbers game with us. There “might” me an armed Air Marshall on any given flight. So far this may have been a deterrent. The only case of an Air Marshal using his gun in anger so far was not even in an airplane; it was in a jetway when an unfortunate innocent man who had not taken his meds was killed in front of his wife (I am not saying he didn’t precipitate his actions of his own accord, I am only saying he was innocent of trying to hijack or blow up the plane).

    Imagine if there was no Air Marshals. Imagine instead that the plane was full of people who might be carrying their own arms. I would venture that none of them would have chased that man down after he left the plane in order to murder him in the jetway.

    I believe he was killed because the Air Marshal had a mandate to stop “terrorists”. Normal citizens only have a mandate to protect themselves. Threat leaves the plane, threat no longer exists. I’d let the tourists in the lobby deal with him.

  19. Actually, Stephen, as much as I hate to admit it, Jeffrey has some good points here. Mind you, I abhorr gun control laws. And I am NOT advocating them here.

    But statistically speaking, 75% of all people will, in a sudden emergency, simply lock up. Of those remaining, fully one half will act in an irrational manner. This leaves roughly one in ten people in any given emergency to actually act in a sane manner, regardless of wether it’s beneficial or not. (Strangely, of those who lock up, fully half of *those* will follow the lead of someone else — regardless of the action.)

    So in any given emergency with, say, 500 people, you have a goodly chance that some will simply start shooting each other up, and a chance that one or two might get lucky shots off — god forbid they miss in a high-tension environment in close quarters with 0 time to aim — and then you have to factor in something else; in AZ, where CCP is a legality, and if you bear the weapon openly you do not even need (cont’d)

  20. (cont’d)
    you do not even need a permit/license at all if not concealing the weapon. Even with that, a distinct minority even carry weapons. Taking again our example of 500 passengers and adding 5 hijackers — the numbers of individuals likely to be willing/able to act to stop a hijacker — and have good enough aim to successfully *hit* said hijackers reliably — would also have to be determined enough to die in the process. Because at best there’d be 3 such individuals, and none of them — unlike the hijackers — would know of the others. Sure, once they acted, others would carry on the actions of the first (it’s called mob rule). So having guns onboard would make these things more difficult, yes. If the hijackers also carried military surplus ballistic armor under their clothes — noticeable but under this premise not *stoppable* — then the scenario quickly gets far, far worse. Much as I initially reacted well to the concept, in examination it doesn’t pan out well at all.
    (cont’d)

  21. Ian,

    1) Most people who would carry are not the personality types to lock up under pressure. (I have no supporting data, but it seems common sense)

    2) I’d rather take my chances on a shootem up than certain death, as happened in this case.

    3)Just because a majority of people are fools doesn’t give anyone the right to keep me from defending myself.

  22. Inestimably, the best solution would be to require armed civil servants in the cockpit and steward’s quarters (front and back) of all flights, and keep anyone else from being armed except for possibly flight-crew. (I don’t recommend flight crew for the same reason prison guards who walk the hallways of the prisons do so unarmed. Hostages and weapon-takings are *extremely* bad ideas.)

    Again; I truly love the idea. But to expect that all citizens are of sufficient zeal, dedication, and wherewithall to, in an emergency, lay down their own lives for the benefit of *others* — because recall that at the time the planes were taken, no one believed they would be taken to their deaths (and once this conclusion came out *then* the passengers were martyr-iffic) — to expect such a thing, honestly, is asking too much of the human condition.

  23. Not worried about armor. I only have one weapon that I couldn’t make a clean head shot all the way down the aisle in a 757. I use it more for extreme concealment than for firepower, though.

  24. Ian,

    I’m not expecting anything of the human condition except for my personal right to defend myself.

  25. Mr. Gordon, I’m sure you could aim and fire a pistol with a high degree of accuracy withing a few seconds. I could do so, as well, albeit with much much less accuracy. But you are omitting reaction time–that is, the time that bridges the moment you observe a terrorist taking over a plane and the moment that you realize you need to shoot him. That is not necessarily instantaneous. It may in fact take some time before that realization occurs. And even in these days of the Department of Homeland Insecurity, most people don’t expect a terrorist to take over their flight–which will slow down reactions further.

    And it assumes that you are physically in a position where you can observe the terrorists in action and have a clear shot–that you aren’t well away from the cockpit, for instance. In most jets, in fact, you would need to be seated in first class or business class to have any idea of what is going on at the cockpit door.

  26. Stephen — I don’t have data I can quote on the matter, but personal experience leads me to the conclusion that those whom bear arms share only one trait in common; a higher factor of aggression.

    That being said, personal experience also indicates to me that aside from that characteristic, there is no impact on the percentages shown above. Granted, those situations were ones where the use of firearms were not involved, but yes, there was violence in some of them. (I was a witness, not a participant, but for purposes of said statistics, based on reactions, myself and others like me counted).

    Even so, this could at best double the number of willing men. Making the numbers roughly even, with the singular advantage to the terrorists that they are prepared, and organized.

    This tactic would eliminate lone-gunman terrorist hijackings. If, however, instead of 5 terrorists there were 10 on a plane loaded with 750 (which I believe is the occupancy of a boeing 757, or roughly
    (cont’d)

  27. (cont’d)
    roughly the capacity. The statistics get far, far worse.

    And Stephen; I applaud your right and desire to defend yourself.

    And here I will quote Miyamoto Musashi and exit this conversation, as we are in essential agreement with all but the external realities of this conversation; idealogically we agree :).

    Said quote/paraphrase: In personal combat, there are but three resolutions; 1) you kill your opponent. 2) you and your opponent kill each other. 3) your opponent kills you.
    In entering any combat, prepare for death; for of all possible outcomes, in two of three you die.

    I freely grant that an individual as exceptional as yourself, Stephen, would pot-shot at least one, possibly two, before the others reacted. But statistically speaking to be effective, you’d have to get 3-4.

    That’s not happening.

  28. Jeff: I’m sure Stephen only travels 1st-class or Business.

    Somehow, that just seems to fit his digital animus. lol

  29. I usually fly coach — I’m a cheapskate. I prefer booking early on airlines that let you pick your own seats — so I can get the exit row. However, I fly enough to save upgrades for the really long flights. Legroom becomes extremely important on 12 hour or longer trips.

  30. And I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t have the right to defend yourself.

    I’m just explaining why the claim that “9/11 wouldn’t have happened…” is based on some unrealistic assumptions: principally the assumption that enough gunowners would, in essence, have the reaction time and instincts of an Army Ranger, so they could properly respond, is fallacious. Even in the 19th century, when the militia really was the militia,and citizenship, gun ownership, and military experience of some sort where fairly universal (at least among white males), such a claim would have been fallacious. In our times, it’s ludicrous. Most people don’t think of extreme force as the first option in any situation. (Ian’s comments express what I want to say very well.)

  31. Ian — I am aggressive, in defense. I simply choose not to initiate aggression. But I sure as hell will take the bad guy out — or die (and your analogy properly indicates) trying.

  32. I find that aisle seats are the best ones–let you get off the plane before everyone else, and walk up and down the aisle a few times. Also, in the context of this thread, they will let you get the clear shot down the aisle to the cockpit you need, if the first class curtain isn’t closed.

    But perhaps your legs are longer than mine.

  33. You folk raise some great points, we have a long way to go to catch up here in England. we are all diss-armed and therefore at the mercy of Gov., I mean criminals! (sorry slip of the tongue!) Don’t be dumb and sacrifice your right to arms for some state sponsored propaganda. If you want a ‘gun free utopia’ just come and live here where the Gov. rules with an iron fist. (I mean it is full of low lifes that could care less about us and tax us to death)
    Great idea, 9/11 could have been stopped dead. So the real question is, how come we have to submit to the indignity of full body searches just to fly? (because of the possibility of bad folk wishing to make a political statment. looks like the idea failed badly).
    Take care,
    Steve Black
    Article 7 The English Bill of rights. (On which yours is based.) Ours is long dead, but some of us are complaining.

  34. I think we should take the warning from Steve, and realize that they have a lot of work to do to get back to where we in America are, but we are slipping in the direction of England and a lot of you seem to be buying the liberal argument, I carry and I have stopped one threat on my life just by showing my pistol, I would carry on a plane and I would be willing to die to stop even one of the terrorists, and if there were 9 more of me on a 750 passenger plane I think that we have taken the plane back, The last thing a terrorist wants to do is die without completing his mission, Dont let the liberals dictate your irrational fears or they will win

    If you are licensed to carry, carry.
    If not get licensed.
    live in Illinois or Wisconsin MOVE

    or change your liberal fearful government based on your right to carry.

    Until liberals are overwhwelmed they will take our rights one at a time

    IT IS TIME TO FIGHT BACK
    Never be afraid to stop a criminal

  35. “Psychologically prepared to shoot to kill.”

    Generally, if you own a gun you are taught that you must be psychologically willing to shoot to kill. You never carry a gun unless you are psychologically prepared to draw it. You never draw a gun unless you are psychologically prepared to fire it, and you never fire a gun unless you are psychologically prepared to be responsible for a death.

    In today’s world, responsible gun owners are usually very well trained. They shoot on practice ranges a lot keeping themselves completely comfortable with the idea of using a gun.

    There’s something to be said that if passengers were allowed to carry guns, then the terrorists would have used guns too instead of box-cutters, but we aren’t talking about a few heroes on the plane with concealeds, we’re talking more about a well armed citizenry in general, where many people are armed, and a plan of attack on a plane would just not be feasible enough and worth the risk to plan for years and train pilots.

  36. Ack. I make a liar of myself! (I’m back in this one)

    Paul — your points are not lost on me. The arguments I was making, however, are by no means abrogated by your statements. The one real definitive impact, however, of having a well-armed citizenry even on-board a plane is simply that it would reduce all terrorist actions on planes to one of two formats: bombs already on the plane, or a *large* number of organized terrorists.

    My arguments were based on the feasibility of the statement that gun-rights could have changed 9/11. Respectfully, I must insist that the events of that day, should only the right to bear arms be restored and no other alterations made, would have resulted in the same events as already occurred. After all; say five men stand up, and one of them declares he has a kill-switch bomb strapped to him that will take out the plane, if his demands aren’t met to give control of the plane over?

    In this scenario, they would easily have gained control.(cont’d)

  37. (cont’d)

    Today is obviously a different story.

    Now, there are other methods besides gun-possession by which one might defend themselves. Anyone heard of the “30 feet rule”? Don’t mistake me; I am absolutely and vindictively *FOR* the absolute nonrestriction of gun-ownership/possession. But I also insist that arguments made — especially those that must reach the public — must be ones that are rhetorically/logically as sound as possible.

    Again, for the record, I have never owned a gun and never plan to. This hardly leaves me unarmed, however.

    The first, most effective weapon, is the mind.

  38. Allow guns on airplanes??? Have we gone mad??? Everybody knows it’s safer just to let the hijackers get what they want and let the highly-trained professional government agents handle our safety for us. Baa baa baa. Ewe know what I mean?

  39. 30 ft rule, are you speaking of the gnerelazation that if someone is trying to charge you from within 30 feet wou won’t have enough time to draw your weapon and get a good shot off? I generally hear that from people who think swords are really cool, but it doesn’t sound implausible, either, given a relatively athletic assaulter. though trust me, if I’m running at you and you have 30 feet, I’m a dead man. Years of addiction to sugar and carbs had made that a truthitude.

    I don’t think any one is saying the outcome of 9/11 would definitely be different with guns involved, but I believe it might have been different.

  40. Basic question: What’s all this blather about CCW permits? What part of “infringed” don’t you understand? If you accept that the government can license you to carry, you are way down that road the “Brits” have gone.

    Next question: If the passengers had stopped the hijackers, would the Govt. have had to use only the demolition charges to take down the towers and Bldg 7?

    3rd question: how do you identify an “Air Marshall”? (They’re the only young burly guys wearing suits, required by their employers.)

    4th question: Where can a passenger find an effective defensive weapon on an airliner? (Unsnap both ends of your seatbelt from the seat leaving the two ends buckled.)

    Good luck. Like Milton Freidman, (until things improve) I will not fly airlines. I’d rather drive all the way across the country than to put up with the TSA terrorists.

  41. May I first say, that the terroriest would not have guns. Being non US citizens it is against the law.
    Second most of us well atleast me, I can hardly get in to one of those seats without a gun. Now add an inch or two and I’ll never fit.

    Please humor only.

  42. Paul Pace: something similar to that, actually. I was talking to the “truthism” (tautology in many cases) that states that a well-armed knife-fighter in an individual conflict with a man with a gun, so long as both keep their weapons holstered at the onset of violence, will reliably “win” every conflict against an equally well-trained gunman so long as he is within 30 feet.

    The reason for this has to do with the reduction of mental actions necessary to perform the act of violence.

    Knife-fighter: draw/lunge/kill. One action.

    Gunman: Draw, aim, kill. Three actions. An extremely well-trained gunman can make it two; by drawing and aiming in the same action. Pulling the trigger will always be a separate action.

    Studies have shown that within 30 feet, that second action’s neural impulse timing is a sufficient window for a skilled knife-user to reliably kill. Outside of that, the gunman generally wins (less, of course, the knife-fighter is *throwing* his knives.)

  43. Well consider this no guns on passengers=hijacking
    if all passengers are armed and if everyone shoots everyone esle = copilot shoots the last man standing both him and pilot land plane
    no planes hit buildings. I will go with people with guns over not.
    In 1969 my mother showed the duty officer her new gun and papers.
    she had to pay 25$ duty and then put it back in her purse.
    my dad carryed ALL the time (he was a spook) ALL the planes I flew on were not hyjacked .food for thuoght ,have a hempyday.

  44. Jeffrey Smith makes some very unrealistic statements. Regardless to how much firepower the terrorists brought onboard they still couldn’t have kept a close eye on every single passenger aboard. And why would these terrorists have more firepower? Because criminals can run around with fully automatics, but if your a law abiding citizen than you can’t legally own one. It doesn’t make any sense to make laws that prevent innocent people from protecting themselves. Gun control caused 9/11 and caused more crime and deaths during Katrina than there should have been. Nobody ever learns from these experiences. Why are people being so ignorant?

  45. Gun control, per se, did not cause 9-11. The seeds for 9-11 and most social unrest to happen is the basic shift of personal responsibility away from the individual toward the government. Don’t do anything unless it is approved. The basic, insoluable problem, is that government cannot protect everyone all of the time, nor does government want to. Individual cases of callousness by government build, until there is no real support for that government: and that is where real trouble sets in.

    9-11, the London bombings and the debacle in New Orleans point that out. In 9-11, the people trusted and were let down. In London, the people trusted and were let down. In New Orleans, people trusted and were essentially robbed by their own police. It is time and past time that we take a very close look at who we are electing and for what reasons.

  46. This is an old idea. Archie Bunker on “All In The Family” suggested it decades ago – he said .45’s should be loaned to everyone when they boarded a flight. He said there would be no hijackings then, and he is still right today.

  47. Friends: Jeffrey (–character “defect” in the name in my experience) and IanC are gun-grabbers of the “soviet-stripe”. During ANY commie revolution/cultural devolution, the Reds ALWAYS “claim” they’re FOR your rights until they can separate you from friends/weapons/etc. and beat/shoot/knife you into bloody pulp, which they can do, because they consider YOU “sub-human”, sometimes because you are “resisting” glorious revolution. Because I love the Lord, I am instantly willing/ready to sacrifice myself in the 30-ft rule, believing that shooting-THROUGH my holster/whatever will allow myself AND my attacker to be simultaneously killed, one of the 2 of 3 options in combat. However, I go to a better place–my attacker(s) will became Hellfire-stokers. I find with Archie Bunker, loan everybody a sintering-bullet equiped 45 to everyone who wants one. The NTSB is cheifly responsible for 9/11. Airline pilots begged for guns 30 days prior to 9/11, –were denied by a Clinton(Marxist) holdover

  48. I like that, the logic is clear, anyone that wants a 45 give it to them. That makes it far less likely that anyone will attempt anything as outrageous as that.
    Trust me they will never allow this here in Totalitarian Britian.
    The Subjects that are Protestants may also keep and bear Arms for their defence as is allowed by law.
    (That’s english common law)
    Our new Bill of Rights should read something like
    The People may also keep and bear arms,like the criminals gov., Standing Army, police, MI5, MI6, special branch, and our new secret police who swear allegiance to no-one.
    But it doesn’t look very likely looks like we are slaves now, forever begging for allowances.
    Steve Black

  49. I believe it is safe to say that “law enforcement” didn’t fail to remove potential weapons from September 11th terrorists as much as they SUCCESSFULLY romoved weapons from all others and those who enforce laws and obey orders that infringe on the God given right to defend life through arms continue to facilitate future acts of terrorism to this day. If this point gets out enough, the truth can be known: Gun Control is the foundation of Terrorism.

  50. http://dunblaneunburied.co.uk/
    I have found an interesting site here in England, it is run by a dedicated person that attended the scene as a para medic on the day that Dunblane ‘occured’, (‘was arranged’ I believe, but not many people say this) now interesting thing is this brave women only lives up the road from me. I have been talikng to her and I believe that she is on the level. She has been hounded, has had death threats made, and has even, all-but been destroyed economically. She was initialy caught up with the ban hysteria. well she has thought it through and realised what’s really up here. She has also seen supressed documents that explain and prove the cover up. She has been through hell to get this out to us. I know this is an England issue and I know you all have your hands busy over there but she could use a few people just saying ‘hi and thanks’ right now. I have been posting about our secratary of State refusing to allow private defence carry, as ‘Steve’. Thanks all

  51. Quote:”Why isn’t CNN covering this angle, too?”

    C’mon! They’re liberals!!

  52. Guns in plane are already used by Feds. I think its a good idea but if someone would shoot a gun in a plane and misses, that shot could bring the plane down

  53. Erik — do you have any facts (or even anecdotal cases) about planes going down because of a bullet hole in the skin?

  54. fck lbrls!

    [editor: disemvowelled… if you’re going to be all ad hominem and shit, at least be original and/or clever]

  55. The fact of the matter is, you can’t look at gun control in terms of statistics. You have to use logic (I know, scary…most people don’t use this anymore). You have to look at crime as a social issue, and not an issue of access to firearms. Switzerland has fully automatic assault weapons in every home, but a low crime rate. Japan has no guns, but a low crime rate…so…you can’t use statistics. Here’s the logic!
    Do you honestly believe that banning any type of weapon will stop a criminal from obtaining it? Has that worked with drugs? The liberal’s mindset is that laws protect people. I am sorry, but laws mean CRAP. If I had been on that plane, I hope I would have acted so bravely. If I had been on that plane with my Taurus 357 snubnose…I hope I would have made each shot count. Thomas Jefferson said in the Federalist papers that gun control only hurts the law abiding citizens. (cont)

  56. (cont)
    If you pass a gun law, I would be the one not able to obtain the weapon. Obviously someone who doesn’t care to follow the laws by committing a crime isn’t going to care that his or her gun is illegal!
    The same holds true about terrorists. Disarm us, and we will be defenseless against those who care not for the rule of law.

    Another point, though…on 9/11, the weapons they used weren’t illegal. Before 9/11, I ALWAYS had a small knife on me, and yes, it was a “just in case” knife. I don’t agree with the libs, though. I do think that CHL’s would have “saved the day” so to speak, and at least not allowed the planes to hit their targets.
    As to the CRAP about being “psychologically prepared” to take another life. That is a load of horse crap! If you make the choice to carry, you are making the choice to take your life into your own hands, and defend yourself and your loved ones with deadly force. (cont)

  57. (cont)
    Finally…if you aren’t willing to defend your loved ones and family with your life, I don’t think you deserve life. I, as a man, take my role in society to protect my family very seriously and as my first priority. Maybe that’s another problem in society, we’ve made our men so non-masculine. Feminism has allowed us men to shirk our responsibilities of defense and caretaking. If every man took that seriously, we would all be prepared to use deadly force. Of course, the liberals think the government should be the ones to defend us, which explains a lot about liberals….

    Just my $0.02
    -Jon

  58. There has much give and take here that can be summed up as an argument about who would win – the good guys or the bad guys.
    I think we must assume that the good guys are in the great majority (no society could survive if that were not the case).
    That majority is the basis for allowing full rights for full self defense.
    Individual right to arms has got to work, otherwise the moral arguments pro self defense would be beside the point.
    It DOES work because of the numerical superiority of the good element of the population.

    Dave

  59. Armed passengers is not a sloution; then any hijacker would also bring a gun. the answer is to ban muslims from flying with non-muslims, put them on planes that are monitored (by F16’s) and make certain they follow exactly their flightplan. end of all this garbage about pre flight inspections, no carry on’s, etc. And on this same subject: can anyone tell me the number of incidents from the years 1942 till 1945 of any japanese-american perpetrating sabatoge/murder/demolition on u.s. soil?

%d bloggers like this: