Saturday, December 17, 2005

Better Airport Security Through Freedom

Airport security has always worried many people, and there doesn't seem to be a definite solution. Air marshals work well for flights they are on (at least in theory, this luckily hasn't been tested), but you can't put an air marshal on every plane a terrorist could use. And since we have realized that they can also attack buses, trains, and subways, that's just more we need to worry about. Isn't there some better solution, that also could be cheaper.

What better solution than freedom? Increased freedom might not sound like a bright way to stop terrorists, but in fact it is. The freedom I am referring to here is the second amendment. What if citizens were allowed to defend themselves should they need to, instead of praying that a marshal is with them? I am sure that there are many people who would be willing to carry a gun with them on a plane.

Sure, this opens a security hole. What is to stop a terrorist from bringing his gun on the plane? First, there is the logic that one or more other passengers will have a gun, and will be able to stop the terrorist. But if several terrorists get together, then there is a problem. So instead, why not place some minor restrictions on the people allowed to carry guns?

First off, a list of trusted persons could be established. Anyone who owns a handgun could request to become a trusted person. They would have to pass a shooting test to make sure that they would be able to do their job if they need to without harming other passengers. A background check could also be performed to make sure that Jihad Joe isn't applying to become a trusted person right after his mysterious six month visit to Pakistan.

This program probably wouldn't cost that much, at least compared to the cost of air marshals. Air marshals might still be needed on the planes where a trusted person isn't a passenger, but why not take it a step further? Arm the crew. But before we can think about that idea, we must defeat the liberal logic.

First off, why would the crew want to do this? Why not give them a minor raise if they carry a handgun and are proficient with it? The airline doesn't even have to give them the money. It can come from the government. It has to be a lot cheaper to pay a little more to a pilot or a stewardess than to hire an air marshal. This probably works a lot better, especially for the pilot.

If a terrorist wanted to crash a plane into something, he would need to be flying it. If the pilot has a gun, he can shoot the terrorist right as he attempts to enter the cockpit. It would be very hard to miss from that range. And in the case where a passenger does get hit in a shootout, that's still not as bad as the whole plane going down in flames because no one could stop a single terrorist who smuggled a knife or handgun on board.

Better security through freedom. I like the idea of it, but unfortunately the left, the sworn defenders of American liberties, don't like it. I forgot that it's a great right to be able to kill your children because you don't want them, but that it's a horrible thing for a trustworthy citizen to be assigned a gun. And trying to find all the background information about a person is a violation of their freedoms, unless they are buying a gun, of course.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

While freedom of firearms on planes would work, my only concern is how would you address the escalation that the armed passenger or crew would bring. Terrorists wouldn't give up that easily as you have pointed out in other articles, so it's only logical that they would escalate from guns to bombs detonated before the other passengers or crew could could react. These bombs would either destroy the plane completely or rip a big enough hole in the plane to cause rapid cabin depressurization. I understand where your coming from and your solution would work; if only the violence would not escalate because of it.

5/21/2008 06:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home