The Red and Black

Issue date: 9/12/07 Section: Opinions

On the anniversary of Sept. 11, we remember those who died innocently six years ago, attacked by a group of terrorists they had nothing to do with.

The best way to truly honor their lives would be to learn from the tragedy that befell them and amend the flaws that allowed it to happen.

The natural reaction after an event such as 9/11 is to use our power to try to control the situation so it does not happen again.

Most people jump to the conclusion that by taking away the general right to bear arms, the attacks will stop. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.

The hijackers took box- cutters through airport security. On the planes, they overtook defenseless, law-abiding passengers and crew. In the time since 9/11, terrorism scares have led the Transportation Security Administration to ban such items as water, toothpaste and other "dangerous" liquids from carry-on luggage.

Unfortunately, that's not going to stop the resourceful hijacker from attacking with other items. Indeed, I could kill someone with the plastic pen I'm writing with, or even with my hands.

We're never going to be able to stop people from bringing weapons on planes - we're only limiting the power of others to resist them.

In the last GOP presidential debate, candidate Ron Paul proposed a better solution - simply allow the individual airlines to manage security. Try as it might to secure airplanes, the TSA isn't going to do as good a job as the individual airlines because it has less incentive.

Because an airline doesn't want its physical property destroyed - much less its reputation ruined - it is going to protect its planes until it loses money.

What's more, because a private airline will want you to fly with them and not someone else, it will make its security procedures efficient.

On the other hand, because it has no competition, the bureaucracy of the government takes as long as it wants to get you through the gate - averaging around two hours at busy airports.

Perhaps if the companies were allowed to take care of themselves, the crews on Sept. 11 would have been armed, or the passengers would have been able to better resist the hijackers.

The shootings at Virginia Tech teach us the same lessons.

In Jan. 2006, a bill went before the Virginia state legislature to allow handguns on college campuses to licensed students and employees. When it was

defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman applauded the outcome: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative … because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Fifteen months later, a single deranged student armed with assault rifles went on a rampage.

And because the university was a gun-free zone (just like ours), he was able to do it with the confidence that he would meet no armed resistance until the police arrived - two hours and 32 lives later.

I'm no lover of guns. My family never has owned one, and I've never even held one in my hand. I suppose I'll buy one when I'm older, partly for self-defense and partly just to exercise my right.

As someone completely na've to the feel of a gun, however, I wonder how long it's going to take us to realize people must be allowed to defend themselves.

How long until we learn that the more we prohibit weapons in public, the more power mass murderers have over everyone else?

It's a shame to think the World Trade Center needn't have fallen or the Virginia Tech campus shooting needn't have been so severe.

But as long as we continue increasing gun control, we are guaranteeing just that.

- Matt Brandenburgh is a student member of the editorial board.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools