On September 11, 2001, terrorists armed with box cutters flew four hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.
As the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 approaches we are still feeling the repercussions of that day. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost us dearly in “blood and treasure.” On the home front the Patriot Act, “enhanced” TSA screenings, and the “no fly list,” show how we’ve given up many of our liberties for the false promise of security
The tragedy is it didn’t have to be this way. Four handguns, and the will to use to use them, could have kept us from this path.
The problem wasn’t a lack of foreknowledge. The CIA knew that Osama Bin Laden planned to hijack commercial aircraft. The idea of turning aircraft into guided missiles was nothing new. Previous hijackers threatened or planned to fly into a nuclear reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Fed Ex headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee, and even into the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
The concept also shows up in pre-9/11 fiction. Tom Clancy ended his novel “Debt of Honor,” with a hijacked airliner crashing into the Capitol. In “Blackout,” John J. Nance had characters discuss the possibility of two hijacked airliners crashing into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Even NORAD did training exercises that included jets flying into the World Trade Center.
No, the success of the 9/11 attacks was the product of the mindset that, when faced with the threat of violence, it is better to give the attacker what he wants then to “escalate the situation” by resisting.
This was codified in the FAA’s so-called “Common Strategy” policy that required crew members to comply with the hijacker’s demands, land the plane, and wait for rescue by security forces. The problem, of course, is that a policy that requires compliance in the face of violence gives all control to the attacker. For hijackers it lets them do whatever they want with the plane, including crashing it into a building.
What about Armed Air Marshals? The problem with a Air Marshal is that, like a cop, they are “never around when you need them.” Not every plane can have an Air Marshal, but every plane does have a flight crew that is responsible for the safety of the plane and passengers.
What if, instead of a policy of complying with hijackers demands, before 9/11 flight crew had instead been armed and trained to resist hijackers at any cost? A pistol-armed pilot would most likely have prevailed over terrorists armed with box cutters.
History supports this view. In this American Handgunner article Massad Ayoob discusses two hijackings ended by armed pilots with no innocent loss of life. The effectiveness of armed pilots, willing to protect their planes and passengers, is obvious.
The TSA also evidently agrees, as one of the post-9/11 reforms was the institution of the armed Federal Flight Deck Officers program. Even though the program seems designed to make it as difficult as possible for a crewmember to carry a gun, the demand from pilots and flight crew is so strong that there is almost always a long waiting list for the required training.
Passengers have also realized that it’s better to resist then go along with hijackers. This started on 9/11 when passengers on United flight 93 fought back against the hijackers and forced them to crash the plane into an empty field instead of into their target in Washington, D.C. Passengers and flight attendants have also stopped attempts two separate to bomb planes in flight by terrorists with explosives hidden in their shoes and underwear.
It’s clear now the rules have changed and an aircraft hijacking is no longer considered to be just a “free trip to Cuba.” The wisdom of fighting back, no matter what the odds, has been firmly established. The belief that it was better to comply with a hijacker then to resist died on 9/11
The next step is to realize that wisdom of fighting back rather then complying extends beyond the skies as well. The same kind of thinking that required pilots to comply with hijackers also says that if you "give the mugger what he wants" he won't hurt you. This idea is as bankrupt as trusting a hijacker. Whether in the skies, at home, or in public, you are responsible for your own safety.
Let's not forgot the lesson of 9/11. Four handguns in those planes on 9/11 could have saved thousands of lives. One handgun, with you when you need it, can help you save your own life.
****
Note to readers: If you like my work please help me by sharing links on Facebook, Twitter, Stumble Upon, Reddit, web forums and e-mail. You can also subscribe for automatic notifications when I publish new articles. Make sure to check out my Michigan Firearms Examiner column for articles on guns and shooting as well.
Comments