On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:05:03AM -0500, Jim Wildman wrote:
> I would rather see citizens empowered through concealed carry laws,
> protection from frivolous lawsuits surrounding self defense,
> requirements for gun training, etc. The problem is the underlying
> message of all of the legislation is "let us take care of you". The
> police (in most cases) cannot protect you. They can only punish those
> who hurt you (ask the battered ex wives about the effectiveness of
> restraining orders), if they can catch them. The only way to 'protect'
> the people as most pundits seem to want is to move very substantially
> towards a police state.
>
Actually, you're more right than most people imagine about this. Up
until Sept 11, the standard handling for hijacks was to acquiesce.
Passengers were in no way encouraged to interfere. However, the
Pennsylvania crash (and several incidents since) have shown the wisdom
of passenger involvement. Had this new more proactive frame of mind held
on Sept 11, would the twin towers still be standing?
While guns work pretty well, you can kill someone with a rolled up
magazine. That would have prevented the September 11 disasters as well.
It's really a question of alertness and involvement. Americans (and the
rest of the world) have gotten into a "hands off" attitude when it comes
to other people and their activities. They hole up in their houses and
shut the rest of the world out. What their neighbors do-- that's their
business. But what would have happened if all these suspicious and
nervous terrorists in this country had been reported to authorities
prior to Sept 11? What if the hoteliers and pilot-training centers and
stores had been more alert and unwilling to shrug off oddities? It's
unfortunate that it took this disaster to awaken a new level of
vigilance in Americans.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:37:56 EDT