Terrorist threat confirms need for private citizen firearms ownership.

[havegunjoe]

Came accross this and thought it was great, mainly because I have been saying the same thing since the 9/11 attacks:

Terrorist threat confirms need for private citizen firearms ownership, says gun law expert

Arlington, VA 22202 July 30 2006

Gun law expert John M. Snyder released the following statement today.

The threat to the lives and property of average citizens posed by ongoing threats from terrorists and terrorist groups demonstrates that people need guns for protection against these threats.

Interestingly, the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on our country by airline-grabbing islamist suicide bombers occurs in just several weeks, September 11, 2006. When reflecting thoughtfully on those attacks, there is at least one among several considerations that comes to mind. If even one American passenger was carrying a loaded handgun aboard one of the aircraft, the attack on at least that one plane could well have turned out much differently than it did. Ditto if there was such an armed citizen on the other aircraft.

Our narrow-minded, politically correct public policies, however, prevent officials from even speculating, at least in public, about the possibility of such a change in attitude. “Citizens, law-abiding citizens carrying guns, let alone loaded guns, on airplanes? How absurd! How ridiculous! How insane!”

How myopic!

So myopic, in fact, that social, political, media, business, professional and ecclesiastic elitists refuse to recognize a salient fact. Scholarly studies demonstrate quite conclusively that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens correlate with significant declines in the rates of violent criminal activity. As the title of one of these published studies proclaims: “More Guns – Less Crime.”

So tragically myopic, really, that it still is almost impossible for airline pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit for self-defense and the defense of crew, passengers, aircraft and even citizens on the ground from hate-filled attacking terrorists. Even though Congress has passed and President George W. Bush more than once has signed legislation to enable at least qualified pilots who volunteer for participation in an armed pilots program, it’s just not happening. That’s because top officials in the Department of Transportation and the Transportation Security Administration have created so many roadblocks to pilot participation that only a small fraction of those who could participate actually do.

The government and industry powers that be regarding airline safety apparently rather would rely exclusively on spending more and more American taxpayer money to create elaborate electronic detection systems and inconvenience seriously law-abiding airline passengers. “Yeah! Spend millions of dollars on equipment and make granny bend down, take off her shoes, open up her make-up case, and take off her hat. But don’t let her carry her several hundred-dollar .38 snub nose revolver in her purse so she can stop a terrorist dead in his or her tracks if necessary! No, no, we’re too civilized for that!”

Too stupid!

We’re facing an international terrorist threat. Even our most knowledgeable intelligence officials acknowledge that terrorists can be expected to attempt a 9-11 style attack or an even worse one, and that government agencies cannot guarantee they can protect the country from such an attack. We, the people, can be the not-so-secret weapons on our own soil in what is looking more and more like a terrorist guerrilla world war against our culture and us.

That not so secret weapon is an armed citizenry. Instead of trying to restrict its use, truly wise elitists, that is, leaders not consumed by politically correct stupidity, would unleash it!


A former associate editor of The American Rifleman, official monthly journal of the National Rifle Association, Snyder is public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, chairman of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc., treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and public information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He is author of the book Gun Saint.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[P95Carry]

So tragically myopic, really, that it still is almost impossible for airline pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit for self-defense and the defense of crew, passengers, aircraft and even citizens on the ground

I've got tired of holding my breath on this one

This guy says what we know Joe - but of course plenty will see it as ''gun nut fever''

[Bud White]

yes more guns less crime i think pilots should be forced to take a class to quailfy

[hsuCowboy98]

This guy says what we know Joe - but of course plenty will see it as ''gun nut fever'

Unfortunately, that is what it will be portrayed as; just like anything pro-gun it seems.

It makes me sick.

[ELCruisr]

You know, pilots and stewardesses recieve tons of training on all kinds of situations already. Imagine if they also recieved an extra month of firearms training and armed intervention of hijack attempts. I know this is dreaming because of the current bevvy of lawyers who would jump on anything involving a firearm but imagine the rep USA based airlines would have if it was well known that the whole darn crew was probably armed and capable. Might even cut down on troublesome passengers!

[ccw9mm]

IMO, in an age of suicide bombings as primary tactic, a pop-gun in the hands of even 100% of civilians in a "target" area would be seen as an irrelevancy by "terrorists" planning any sort of action. With the resources a gov't can bring to bear (investigation, following up of leads, sensors, monitoring of the borders), it's much more sensible for a gov't to focus its resources there, where it has at least some chance of success. Street thugs, on the other hand ... now, that is what confirms the need for an armed civilian population. As police cannot be everywhere, it's the armed civilian that takes "point" when the average random street crime goes down.

[Seabee]

Mythbusters already busted the myth that an airplane would "explode" if a firearm was discharged and penetrated the skin of the plane while in flight. Knowing this, everyone legally able to carry a firearm should be able to on a plane. Could you imagine: "Would you like a soda? Some peanuts? How about some Federal hollow points?"

[F350]

I read some where that a 747 can maintain cabin pressure with several windows completely gone. Every critical control component is triple redundant, only at the control component (ailerons, rudder, elevators etc) are all 3 systems vulnerable, like the plane that crashed in S. Dakota after an engine exploded and took out all redundant systems.

Don't forget the plane in Hawaii that lost a HUGE section of the top fuselage and still landed safely. Modern airliners can fly with considerable damage, technology developed to help military aircraft survive battle damage. 100 pistol rounds won't bring down a modern airliner, unless they take out the engines, pretty hard to do from inside.

[Old Chief]

As Chicken Little said "The sky is falling." End of thought process, There aught to be a law against it.

[soundwave]

I would think that it would make sense for the TSA to start issuing airline carry permits. They technically already do, in a sense. In order for a LEO or the air marshals to carry on a plane, they have to undergo a training class and target proficiency test. They are very strict in target placement and that's basically what the entire proficiency test is.

I would think that it would just be a natural extension of what they already do. They're not going to do it because it would effectively render their air marshal program obsolete, but I think it could be done pretty easily. Then again, air marshals are pissed because the media leaked their "on duty attire" while on a plane (pretty much a full business suit) and that they could become targets because of it. Well, my basic idea is that it's just as stupid as the secret service's 3-piece suit. Change it. ;O)

Cheers.

[Jaltered]

Do you have the original link? I'd like to post it on my blog, but I won't do so without the original source.

Thanks!

[my2cents]

You know - with all of the qualified CCW folks out there, the TSA could issue a weapon or two in each section for the duration of the flight and take them up again at the destination. Pretty inexpensive protection for the airlines. What am I thinking - the New York Times would leak the story and give away the tactical advantage!

[TC-TX]

With the resources a gov't can bring to bear (investigation, following up of leads, sensors, monitoring of the borders), it's much more sensible for a gov't to focus its resources there, where it has at least some chance of success.

HOGWASH!!!

I will take a Trained, legally-armed citizenry over a bloated and ineffective bureaucratic bunch of morons Any Day!!!

I - and many others - accept the responsibility of looking out for Me and Mine MYSELF.

[ccw9mm]

With the resources a gov't can bring to bear (investigation, following up of leads, sensors, monitoring of the borders), it's much more sensible for a gov't to focus its resources there, where it has at least some chance of success.

HOGWASH!!! I will take a Trained, legally-armed citizenry over a bloated and ineffective bureaucratic bunch of morons Any Day!!! I - and many others - accept the responsibility of looking out for Me and Mine MYSELF.

TC-TX: As do I ... for my own, individual defense and protection when it's obviously more-capable, more-efficient and can be turned "on" on the instant, as compared to any gov't resource that's miles away.

Read it again, please. Since individuals cannot arm and defend a border, I said, gov't scale/efficiency is best used there. If you believe you can better-defend a national border than what a gov't can bring to bear, then you're a better (faster, larger, more-omniscient) individual than is possible for one person to be.

But, I acknowledged the flipside, too, which is that individuals are far more efficient and capable in the area of individual defense ('cause they're there and not a few miles away from the event ... at the proverbial "donut shop", some would think). No claims were made that a gov't was a better choice for this, the obvious/righteous area for individuals to take control of their own defenses. This is what you're seemingly up in arms about. Don't see why, since this is exactly what I stated: that the gov't should do what it does best (though, hardly very well); and the individual should be allowed to do what he/she does best (individual defense on-the-instant).

[havegunjoe]

Do you have the original link? I'd like to post it on my blog, but I won't do so without the original source.

Thanks!

I dont' have a link, it was sent to me as is and I copied it over to this thread.