In many airports, guns are OK outside security

Joe , the structure of your second question clearly indicates your personal anti-weapon bias and reinforces yet again the impression that the media in general is anti-weapon. The U.S. Supreme Court recently re-affirmed that the second amendment of the Constitution does indeed grant individuals the right to carry a weapon for self-defense. 

Please note my use of the term anti-weapon and not the term anti-gun. The reason I use of the term anti-weapon is because of the example we are currently witnessing in the United Kingdom and Australia. The outlawing of firearms has simply changed the weapon that the evil intentioned individual uses. They can't get a firearm so they have had to switch to knives. Now a homeowner can't have a firearm to defend their homes and loved ones. Remember, you can't blame a weapon for a murder or assault any more than you can blame your computer for misspelling a word. Personally I believe that a handgun is an equalizer that allows my grandmother the freedom of fear from a troubled inner city youth or similar mentally unbalanced individual. As a travel editor surely you are aware of the rise in violent crime in the UK over the past few years. How can this be so with handguns, rifles and even shotguns outlawed?

We should also note that an individual who has a concealed carry permit has undergone training regarding the legal and acceptable use of that weapon, had to pass a backround check, and had to pass tests that demonstrate their knowledge and skills. As a part of this training a licensed individual knows that the first thing you would do in a situation such as that elaborated upon by your Israeli security expert is to lay your weapon down upon the command of a uniformed or identified peace officer. There is a high probability that by the time an officer arrives on the scene the shooting is over. The thought that "bullets would be flying everywhere" is ludicrous.

In closing, if people would focus their energy and imagination on removing the underlying causes of violence in our society the issue of how to defend yourself and loved ones would not be an issue. I find it personally very frustrating that the human race is so greedy, and incapable of understanding the nature of our existence that we can't seem to follow an ancient and very simple rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

No laws need to be changed. I go to the airport to meet friends that have a couple hour lay over all the time. I am a permitted pistol carrier. If I should happen to have my gun with me (most of the time) I certainly don't want to leave it in my vehicle in the parking lot. I wish our elected officials would stop limiting where properly licensed individuals can carry their guns. Pretty soon we'll be like Washington DC and have an out of control amount of gun violence on all our city streets.

To suggest that having the metal detectors at the entrance to the terminal instead of at the commencement of the security zone will make flying safer is ludicrous on its face.  I've been carrying a concealed weapon inside airports for forty years, and until the new restrictions were put in place, I carried on the airplane as well.  Nobody was ever put in harm's way because I am not a criminal. The paucity of incidents of gun violence in airport terminals confirms what any sensible person could have told you. People with guns at airports are just law abiding citizens exercising their right to bear arms. The gangbangers responsible for 95% of the gun violence are not found at airports.

Another silly question by another silly journalist....

As a citizen with a license to carry a concealed weapon, I have been educated on the use and the laws pertaining to carrying it. I have been investigated, photographed, fingerprinted, and finally licensed to have the privilege to do so.

Mr. Myxter, your concerns are unfounded, for once instead of impeding my ability to protect my family........please insist that the current laws be enforced. Instead of fearing what you do not understand, take a marksmanship course and learn to appreciate the various shooting sports.

Hmm, let's see....who do you fear the most, A slightly overweight middle aged guy who has earned the right to legally gone carry a weapon or the fellow who wants to take away your right?  

I fear you.

Rafi Ron can't tell who the bad guy is? Well, if you'd let law abiding citizens carry their properly licensed weapons, the bad guy would be the one lying on the ground with all the holes in him. Self defense isn't a privilege, its a right.

Hey, terrorists are good, law-abiding people. If a law says guns are not allowed outside of airports, then you can rest assured that terrorists will not carry guns outside of airports.  LOL

 sums it up for me.  I fear a day when we will have metal detectors on our doors, to ensure we don't carry guns outside our homes, if we are allowed to keep guns at all.

Nor do gang bangers buy legal guns!! so why would another law make any difference to them!!??!! I have had a carry permit for 35 years and have yet to shoot some one let alone hijack a plane!!! I do feel that rules need to be changed! we need to be able to carry where ever we are with one states permit honored by all, just as a drivers license is!! we also need to Be allowed to carry on the planes as well....just think about it if U were a terrorist are U going to try to hijack a plane if U have the odds that over half of the other passengers might be armed???? I thin knot!!!!!only IDIOTS believe more guns make things dangerous more guns make for a politer, gentler and safer society!!!!

I wanted to make a point here,  but found that others already made the point - probably better than I could.  Maybe there's still hope.

What do people have to fear from people legally carrying a firearm?  Seriously, none.  They have passed state and federal background checks, have no history of domestic violence or drug use, and have been proven time and time again to be some of the most law abiding citizens in the country.  Besides, name one law that ever stopped a criminal (including terrorists) from possessing weapons where they weren't allowed to.  I bet you can't.  If the criminals have guns, then the only way to ensure the protection of the innocents is to make sure the good guys have guns too.

there should be- 0- restrictions on firearms ...

2nd amendment and well if ya can fight for your country and use firearms responibly,no question.

as to the loony toons out there,it will all straighten out.

most countries around the world have -0-gun laws and the crime rates are pretty sad!!

as in limited to warring parties

I'm a gun owner.  I oppose laws which allow/promote the proliferation of handguns in public areas (Please, spare me the arguments; I've heard them all)

Regarding the airport issue, I see no value in extending the gun-free zone imposed by the TSA. Where do you draw the line - at the front door? in the parking garage? makes little difference in my mind.  Most of the state & Local restriction regarding malls, stadiums etc reflect places with concentrations of people, but that type of policy is hard to defend if you allow handguns throughout other public areas.

IN response to TRUTH

The same thing as if I were to show my gun!! somebody gonna call a cop!!! The term concealed carry means just that!!!! keep it concealed!!!!

While I agree with the stated opinions that criminals do not honor gun laws and that concealed carry license holders are not a security threat, I believe many of you are missing the point of the idea of restricting guns at airports.

It's presumed that the same method used to detect a gun carried by a CCW-licensed person would be used to detect a gun carried by a terrorist or psychopath. It's not a question of whether a criminal would think, "Ha ha, screw the law." That scenario is in effect already.

Active (stop and search) or passive (metal detector) detection would be just as effective in mitigating risk as it is at the current security threshold. And keeping guns out of the terminal building would certainly reduce (not eliminate) the potential for violence there.

So why not do this, and why hasn't it already been done? Probably for simple pragmatic reasons. Can you imagine if every single peron visiting an airport had to pass through a rigorous inspection, like that encountered at existing security checkpoints? That is just not a practical solution. The same risk exists at bus terminals and train depots, and the best we can do (right now) is random search of a very few patrons.

There is a visceral reaction to any unanswered risk--"That's just not right; we have to fix that!" But the truth is, we can't fix every risk. I may have a heart attack in the middle of writing this. I might die in a car crash on the way home from work today (let's hope not). I want to catch the bad guys as much as the next guy, but I'm not willing to give up every freedom I have in order to do it.

The law-abiding guy who pulls out his gun and shoots the madman at the El Al desk may himself be shot by security. That would be tragic. But he will be making the decision to act or not of his own free will. And maybe he will save countless others; maybe not. We will never know until it happens.

Anything that increases public safety is a good thing, so long as it is reasonable and practical. (1) Citizens who are not otherwise lawfully allowed to carry guns are already breaking the law if they do so. (2) Putting metal detectors at the front door of every terminal is not a workable solution. That is why we don't have them now. (3) Legitimate CCW-licensed gun carriers are not a significant risk. So no, we don't need to change the law.

Stop reacting and start thinking.

By the way, I think it is completely reasonable for the writer to ask this question. The whole reason for blogging is to spur discussion and get reaction. Any good professor knows you can pose a hypothetical without taking a position.

In response to TRUTH

I fail to see your point!!....I don't think folks go around and shoot people just because they be muslim...I admit there is a very small number of idiots out there in ALL walks of life whether they be Christian or Muslim or Buddhist!!! or REDNECK....hell I'm a REDNECK HILLBILLY and I aint shot anyone yet!!!!!!!!

Truthhurts,

Good point.  You can tell by looking at the guy pictured in the article that he's a "good ol boy" who's on the side of law and order.  But if he was showing his "38 snubby" from behind a Muslim garment instead of a windbreaker, there would be a whole different reaction, no matter how many permits he showed.

yes people with legal carry permits should be allowed to carry their firearms.

What is wrong is that Law Enforcement Officers cannot carry their guns on board.  

Way to go George Mc...I agree with you, but StoneCold is probably right.  Like my ole Mamma use to say, "when you wressle with a pig, YOU get dirty and the pig ENJOYS it."  I don't mean to call names, but like StoneCold says, "they aren't listening!"

In the story it is stated that Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, was surprised to learn that airports have been allowing weapons for years, and warned that Congress could move to ban the practice.  Tell me how many times there have been shootings in airports?  You won't find many at all.  Rep. Thompson was unaware of this issue because it is a non-issue.  I have a concealed handgun license in Texas for protection of me, my family and my property.  I should not have that right taken away just because I take my wife to the airport to drop her off for her flight. 

It seems to me that all American citizens should be required to remain at home unless they have a government approved reason to be roaming about the community. All new gun purchases should be outlawed and all existing firearms in the hands of bloodthirsty citizens should be confiscated and destroyed. Carrying a firearm in a public venue has no place in American society...and under the administration of President Obama, these changes shall come to pass.

Wow.  I find it interesting that in asking this question so many people feel that it is an attack on their right to defend their families at home.  Nor is this the question an attack on the right to bear arms.  It is a question about whether it makes sense to carry guns to an airport where efforts are being made to reduce the likelihood of terrorism.  Also, I fail to understand how being able to defend one's family at  home translates to an airport.  If in fact, a person carrying a gun is there to meet with family members (picking them up or dropping them off), what is the purpose of carrying a gun.  Is the airport that your arriving or leaving from so dangerous that you need to defend yourself?  If the airport is that dangerous, then why in the world would you have your family fly in or leave from that airport?  Seems silly. 

By the way, I agree that the majority of gun owners are responsible and have no intent on harming anyone.  As for what truthhurtdidn'tit is trying to say is that being muslim especially after 9-11, he/she is looked upon with more anxiety ... and if someone who legally has a gun is anxious as well because of 9-11, there is a fear of getting shot.  Afterall, when emotions are running high, even well mannered, law-abiding citizens can over-react.

I know some people will claim that this is pure hysteria, but is it?  If law abiding citizens always reacted rationally, then we (Americans) would not have incarcerated our fellow Americans during WWII just because they had Japanese heritage.  I forget the exact year, but in the 80's, law-abiding citizens angry over job losses blamed foreign car makers for their troubles resulting in burned Japanese cars, and fellow Asian americans getting hurt in Detroit, what about the riots in L.A. over Rodney King incident... 

Some people would believe that maybe these things would not have happened if everyone had guns (legally and trained citizens).  No one will really know, but I certainly believe when mob mentally takes over... good judgement gets lost ... and situations could have easily gotten even more out of hand as not.

Guns are tools which like most tools can harm if wielded as a weapon. WE do not license chain saws or knives and there is a good reason. It is the enculturation of violence which destroys families and society. We are in far more danger from the desensitization to violence against others that is enculturated from addiction to violence enhancing drugs, violent video games, family violence which passes on to the next generation unless healed, and the emotional violence of bullying in schools than from law-abiding, mature citizens who choose to carry weapons.

In fact I shall feel much safer at any airport in which others like myself :responsible non-criminal gun owners are armed. BTW I am a peaceloving progressive female muslim. And i have been attacked and stabbed by a young drug addict.

i wish no harm to anyone, just good things for us all and healing and peace for this planet and wounded world. You must be strong and wise to be truly gentle and ensure safety of self and others. A gun is one form of defensive strength, and a tool. When it is abused it is lethal. Let us stop creating a culture that ensures and enables its abuse in criminality.

The weapon is on top of my shoulders.  Everything else is just a tool.  I can defend myself with a womans high heeled shoe, a pen, or a pop can in the tied off sleeve of a dress shirt. So banning any particular weapon is a waste of time and energy.

Freedom is being stolen; without it, we are slaves.  Give me the freedom to arm myself, and give terrorists the freedom to board planes.  I will kill them.  And if that means another plane goes down, maybe the one I am on, that is the price of freedom.  Life is not safe, and cannot be made safe, so don't bother trying.

How about this?  Make everyone fly naked, with guns...