“For all the hoops travelers jump through to get onto an airplane, the public areas remain a threat to airport security,” a miamiherald.com’s editorial opines. “On Friday, police said shooting suspect Esteban Santiago retrieved his luggage from baggage claim. Inside was a gun. Santiago allegedly went into a rest room, then emerged armed and shooting. The gun was in a checked bag as per aviation rules. But innocent people were vulnerable anyway. The danger came from inside the terminal this time, but a gunman could have charged in from outdoors. Security experts call this a ‘soft spot.'”
Are you following this? The Herald is saying that even though this attack came from within baggage claim something must be done about attacks that could come from outside baggage claim. Yes something must be done!
Closing that gaping hole seems to be a no-brainer. But nationwide, it’s been the subject of debate between those who would screen everyone coming through the entrances and aviation-industry opponents who cite sky-high costs and inconvenience. Still, these shooting incidents spawn new security measures. This latest should not be any different.
No mention of the possibility of allowing lawful carriers to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in airports both as a deterrent and an efficient response? Nope. But we can console ourselves with this anti-gun boilerplate . . .
Guns are a problem. Hundreds killed in mass shootings have not persuaded a recalcitrant Congress, a majority cowed by its patron, the National Rifle Association, to take common-sense action on who can buy a weapon and who cannot. And if 20 slaughtered first-graders in Connecticut weren’t persuasive enough, then five innocent victims in Fort Lauderdale likely won’t do the trick, either. That, too, is a tragedy.
The real tragedy: the Herald and those who support its civilian disarmament campaign can’t see that taking away citizens’ ability to effectively defend themselves makes them effectively defenseless.