Pocket Knives and Planes

On April 25^th, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is scheduled to begin allowing small pocketknives on-board commercial planes. This decision has been met with widespread criticism from a variety of organizations. Thus far, the following people and organizations have spoken out against this decision:

·         Bill Ris, American Airlines Vice President

·         Richard Anderson, Delta Airlines Chief Executive Officer

·         Doug Parker, US Airways Chief Executive Officer

·         Representative Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts)

·         Representative Michael Grimm (R-New York)

·         Flight Attendants Union Coalition

·         Coalition of Airline Pilots Association

·         Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association

To begin with, it is important to clarify exactly what the TSA has proposed. The change would allow knives under the following conditions:

(1)   Blade length must be under 6 cm (2.36”) and under 0.5” thick

(2)   Knives cannot have a locking blade

(3)   Knives cannot have a molded handle

This allowance is intended to streamline security checks at airports. TSA Administrator John Pistole indicated that TSA confiscated on average 47 knives per day.   This move is part of TSA’s risk-based policy approach. Frankly, this approach is one of the most laudable things that the TSA has done. Basing security decisions, fund appropriation and policy on the rational assessment of risk is the industry standard. In TSA’s assessment of risk, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are the top priority.

The question remains, do these knives pose an acceptable level of risk? It is well known that the hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks used box cutters to force their way into the jet cabins and commandeer the plane. On the surface, these box cutters and the knives legal under the proposal are kissing cousins. Surely the risk level is similar? Not quite. For one thing, 6 cm blades afford neither the penetrative capacity nor the range to effectively overcome even the most rudimentary impact weapon or person capable of basic self defense.  Whereas true working knives (including box cutters) need a sturdy locking mechanism, the TSA-approved knives will not have this feature. Knives without a locking mechanism have an extremely limited functional utility. They simply cannot be relied upon for heavy-duty cutting. Moreover, such knives pose an inherent danger to the user when employed in a manner that applies force to the top of the blade (such as combat). Therefore, the combative utility of the approved knives will be practically nil.

Regardless of blade length or locking mechanism, the fears regarding these tiny knives are moot. In the world of post-9/11 airline security, passenger jets are equipped with lockable cabins, armed pilots, or Federal Air Marshals. Ask yourself, what would the effectiveness of these Lilliputian knives be in context? Again, the protective measures put in place by modern airlines render them about as threatening as nail files. I’ll not speak ill about the individuals and organizations that support the rescinding the policy, but…

I’ve been a “knife guy” all of my life. For many folks like myself, pocket knives are an instrumental part of everyday life. The knives allowed under the new TSA policy aren’t likely to be in the next Kill Bill movie. They might, however, peel an apple, trim a string, open a box, or whittle a stick. As with everything in life, unfamiliarity breeds fear. If you haven’t carried a knife in your jeans pocket for fourteen years (or more) like myself, then you might not know what they are all about. If you don’t, you owe it to yourself to get educated and make your decision based on logic and fact. Make the right decision and your next trip to the airport might just a bit faster and more enjoyable.

On Sandy Hook and Gun Control

Not long ago, I purchased two 10-round magazines for my little Ruger 10/22 rifle. The rifle, you likely know, is chambered in .22 LR. It is my go-to gun for squirrel hunting and plinking tin cans. You may or may not know that this little rifle will also accept 25-round magazines. I didn’t elect to purchase the mislabeled ‘high-capacity’ magazines because they aren’t conducive to shooting from the prone position or from what is known as a ‘hasty-sling’. 

Today, I returned both of those magazines to Dick’s Sporting Goods. It wasn’t that I didn’t need them, or that I needed the money. It was because Dick’s has elected to remove all AR-15 rifles from its shelves in response to the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting. By doing this, Dick’s has implicitly stated that these guns are to blame in some way for the shooting—that by their very nature they are complicit in the evils done by those who use firearms to commit violent crime. This supposition is, of course, flawed. Conservatives and firearms enthusiasts say it ad nauseum: things have no innate ethical predisposition.  

Dick’s removal of AR-15’s from their shelves was a corporate decision that will have serious implications for themselves and for American society at large. At a minimum, this choice will cost Dick’s thousands of dollars in lost revenue from the shooting industry. Potentially, Dick’s decision could have a profound effect on the willingness of Congress and the public to support restrictions on ‘high-capacity’ magazines and semi-automatic rifles. If this sounds like exaggeration, consider the case of the 1996 Dunblane School Shooting in the United Kingdom. 

            The Dunblane shooting was conducted by 43-year old man named Thomas Hamilton. Hamilton was a former scout leader and suspected pedophile. After his shop business failed in 1993, he blamed the accusations of pedophilia for his demise. Enraged and at the end of his rope, Hamilton took two Browning Hi-Power pistols (9mm Parabellum) and two Smith & Wesson Model 19 revolvers (.357 Magnum) and murdered 17 people at Dunblane Primary School in central Scotland. The rest, they say, is history. The grieving parents began a petition to ban all handguns, known as the Snowdrop Petition. Later, an official inquiry known as the Cullen Report was conducted. All of this political activism ultimately manifested itself into the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment No. 2) Act of 1997, which completely banned private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom. 

It is easy to scoff at such an occurrence in the United States. After all, we have a pervasive firearms and individualistic culture that was never so entrenched in the United Kingdom. But, history has also shown us that good-intentioned dullards have the ability to write, garner support for, and pass legislation that cripples the fundamental rights of firearms ownership and self-defense. I refer, of course, to the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (more commonly known as the 1994 assault weapons ban). Numerous post-policy studies of the assault weapons ban revealed that it had no positive affect on crime rates. 

Fast forward to today. We now sit on the threshold of a new assault weapons ban. President Obama has tasked Vice-President Joe Biden with finding a solution to violence in schools (and at large). We all know what that solution will be. Biden, an architect of the original assault weapons ban, has stated that he is “absolutely committed” to fighting gun violence and that there is “no reason” why Congress shouldn’t pass another ban. 

With this in mind, we need to make it crystal clear that we as American gun owners and citizens (not serfs, not subjects) will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we have the maximum ability to protect our lives, liberty and property. That means that we require the ability to purchase and use semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15 and AK-47 derivatives. If that means that I never go back into Dick’s Sporting Goods, then so be it. My liberty is worth more than convenience or cost-savings.

For the victims of Sandy Hook, I give my deepest condolences and most sincere prayers. We stand with you, united as a country. We hurt with you. Yet, we also realize that our policies must not be driven by raw emotion—but by the cynical and steadfast logic that ensures the continuance of our way of life.

Yours in Liberty,

Cody

Remembering Frost

Farm house on a December e’en

Not another soul to be seen

Floor-boards creak and foundation moans

The cold slips in and settles in the bones

Oh solitude on a winter night

Too near you are and bring affright

To one who sits without a fire

And thinks on his condition, wholly dire

To be away from kith and kin

And the jubilance of other men

Is to stand among the snow-bank deep

And in the drifts bitterly weep

Yet thoughts of one, across the wind

With the geese come lofting in

Moonlit flights across the night sky

Purge the frost with the chorus high

Honk! Honk! they ring through the numbing air

The gaggle sings without a care

Honk! Honk! they cry from afar

Honk! Honk! And they are no more

Clarion

On a path long forgotten,

even veritably unknown,

an ancient horn besotten

with its bed much now o’ergrown

Eons and epochs betrodden,

yet with time and grass resewn

now unearthed and new-gotten

awaiting its first intone

An oliphant, thought rotten

 (no more a lowly cow-bone)

yields thunder once forgotten

since great Roland did atone.

To --------

--------, thy beauty is to me

   Like those daring curls of Promethean fire,

That boldly raze, with’n the trees,

    The brilliant, blazing-bright, beckoning pyre:

   A living tower felled by desire.

On hiemal nights long wont of boon,

   Thy chestnut locks, thy timeless face,

Thy Dryad airs have stilled my swoon

As the memory that was Caledonia

And the charm that was Rothiemoon.

Lo! In yon fetching valley-vale,

   How picturesque I see thee rest,

 The lark singing sweetly o’er thy breast!  

   Oh, lassie, within my heart do dwell

   And I, be blest!   

[In the fashion of Poe's 'To Helen']