Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god! A stun gun on a plane! A stun gun! On a plane! Terrorists. Terrorists could use a stun gun on a plane to take control of the plane and fly it into a building. Another 911. Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god! Of course, people aren’t stupid anymore. There’s no such thing as a hijack anymore. Passengers wouldn’t stay in their seats like good little sheep anymore. They’d attack! Yes. They’d attack the terrorist or terrorists. Even if they had a stun gun. Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god! A stun gun on a plane! A stun gun! On a plane! Wait. I know. Let’s ban them. Yes! Let’s ban stun guns. What are stun guns? It says here in the Washington Post that . . .
Stun guns marketed for personal protection or shaped like cellphones are readily available online. There are also larger sizes, often shaped like pistols, that are increasingly being used by police departments across the country. Some organizations strongly oppose them, fearful they can be abused without clear guidelines.
The device, which usually works by firing wired barbs that stick into a person’s body and deliver a powerful and immobilizing shock, are governed by restrictions in many states, including New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Ban them everywhere! A federal ban on stun guns. Never mind that it’s illegal to take a stun gun on a plane now. We need to stop producing them just in case. Don’t we?
Security expert Bruce Schneier said items sometimes slip through security, and it’s unlikely the breach was intentional. He said the media’s reporting on each item that makes it through security, despite the large percentage of the items that are detected and confiscated on a daily basis, is what alarms the public.
“The big picture is, airports are safe, this is all security theater,” he said. “Airport security doesn’t have to be perfect to be good enough; perfect is too expensive.”
Others worry how a weapon banned or restricted in many states could make it onto a plane when restrictions have been tightened to that more innocuous items are banned.
Greg Comcowich, a spokesman for the FBI’s Boston office, declined to comment on the investigation.
“We understand the public is interested in this case, but we are not releasing any information at this time,” he said.
What? What information aren’t they releasing? Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god! Something must be done!