Here is the exact editorial comment sent in by R.E. Wisner of Harrisburg, PA.

Gun would have helped
We haven't heard a word from those who would take our guns away from us. Then, we would be as helpless as those unfortunate innoncent law-abiding citizens who died on thoe airliners.

My thoughts are that if just a few of those people had a handgun, it might have prevented one or more of those airliners from its intended target. Granted, a few innocent people might have been killed in the ensuing gunfire, but it could have prevented the greater disaster

HOLY SHIT!!!! Why didn't we all think of that? Guess those terrorists wouldn't be smart enough to bring their own gun, they would probably still bring the box-cutters.

Why the hell would they even print this? How stupid ws R.E. to even write it, let alone send it in?

Scot---------- handgun owner, but they never let me take it on the damned plane...bastards...

 

I suggest you pick up a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. John Lott is a Yale economics professor. He shows that states with liberalized concealed carry laws have lower crime rates. He theorized that because more law abiding citizens are armed, a criminal has a greater chance of encountering an armed victim. It raises the cost of committing a crime, so fewer are committed.

But really, one only has to look at crimes committed by people granted concealed carry Permits. In Florida they have issued more than 180,000 CCW Permits and something like 20 of these people later when on to commit a violent crime.

What should be done is the flight crew should be armed. Nearly all of the pilots are ex-military so they know how to handle a gun.

One of the terrorist had a red box and told the passenger that it was a bomb. How do you screen out red boxes?

 

I am pro-gun but a bullet flying through a plane doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

The whole notion of having guns on the airplanes is idiotic. Even if a sky marshall was aboard, he'd have about two seconds to start shooting people before the terrorists rounded him up, took his gun and used it to complete their hijacking. I can't beleive people actually think that arming people on airplanes is a good idea. Now, if you put a few marshalls on board that are experienced in hand-to-hand combat, then you would have a real chance. No one can take your black belt and use it against you.

 

Actually, as far as hi-jackings go, I think people are not going to sit idly by anymore. The next time something like a hi-jacking happens, you know a lot of the fliers will be rushing the guy to take him down. Doubt you'll need guns on board.

 

What they should do is secure the control deck of the plane by sealing it off.

There should also be a sleeping gas button on the control deck to quiet the passengers/terrorists.

 

A gun on an airplane is not "idiotic." For some time there has existed ballistic technology that will make grievous wounds in people, but will not penetrate the skin of an aircraft.

Furthermore, a firearm has a psychological effect on people that making sounds like Bruce Lee does not.

 

I think it's a moot point. If the poeple on the planes had known what the high jackers had in mind, they would have dealt with them with or without guns...just as is suspected of one of the flights.

 

the sound of my neck snapping sure as hell would deter me from ever moving again in my life...and think if a suicide terrorist is disabled, he can't go and stand by his higher power in the afterlife, he has to live with the knowledge that his plans were fvcked up by getting his ass kicked. IMHO mental/emotional torture is worse than death.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElTianti
[B]A gun on an airplane is not "idiotic."