PDA

View Full Version : Sheep on passenger vehicles!


michaelbane
07-14-2006, 12:30 PM
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sheep on passenger vehicles is a deadly situation, says activist.

Philadelphia, July 13, 2006 – The epidemic of sheep riding on planes, trains and buses is so bad that the nation’s passenger transport system is at risk, one civil rights advocate has declared. So he’s become determined to spread the word about the problem.

“Every day, sheep travel on commercial airline flights, trains and buses. Surprisingly enough, the public doesn’t even notice what’s going on,” said Philadelphia resident Michael L. Bane. “Nobody recognizes the danger.”

Bane’s use of the word “sheep” doesn’t refer to actual animals, but to the passengers themselves. He calls them sheep because they just go along with the security procedures, searches and the government bureaucracy established in the wake of September 11th. More importantly, Bane says, they don’t realize that not being allowed to bring weapons onboard actually does more harm than good. Without weapons, Bane says, law-abiding citizens can’t defend themselves and their fellow passengers from criminal and terrorist attacks. “You shouldn’t have to surrender your basic human right of self-defense just because you are traveling,” Bane says. “On September 11th, thousands of sheep became sacrificial lambs while a small group of terrorists got around airport security.”

Bane points out the heroism of the people on United Flight 93 to make his case. “Those passengers took action to stop the terrorists. If they hadn’t, who knows where the hijackers would have crashed the plane? Flight 93 is proof that passengers can stop hijackers. But we need to ask whether they could have done more and saved themselves and the plane by using weapons against the perpetrators.”

To let people know about this issue, Bane has created www.armedpassengers.org. It contains advice on things people can do to promote the cause. At the top of the list is boycotting travel as much as possible, especially by airplane. If people don’t fly, Bane says, the TSA doesn’t get the revenue from the security fee that is added the ticket price. It is this revenue that funds TSA’s operations. The sight also contains links to news articles, including negative pieces about the TSA and air marshals. Bane hopes that reminding people about all the problems will cause them to think twice about whether they should trust the government to provide transportation security in the first place.

This isn’t Bane’s first involvement in political issues. His history of activism includes a run as an independent candidate for judge in traffic court and election to his local civic association board of directors. He has had letters and political cartoons published in Philadelphia area newspapers, and volunteers his time to several nonprofit organizations.

Bane practices what he preaches on his website. His job doesn’t require traveling for business purposes, and plans his vacations as driving trips. He’s even traveled cross-country by himself. While more time consuming and costly, Bane feels it’s worth it as a matter of principle. “I have a good feeling knowing that my money contributes to the local economies I travel through, and not to the government or big companies.”

Bane realizes the controversial nature of what he’s proposing, but says it’s important to get it out there. “People have been so conditioned to accept the conventional wisdom about transportation security,” he said. “It’s understandable that some people will have trouble with this idea. But we need to look at the message we’re sending with our current transportation security policy. We wouldn’t tell the family of a September 11th victim it was better their loved one died in the name of national security and political correctness. That would add insult to injury. So why is it OK to support laws and rules that promote the very same principle? Well, it isn’t OK; it’s just wrong. And in the case of the September 11th victims, it’s dead wrong.”

Contact: Michael L. Bane
armedpassengers@verizon.net

Ladi
07-14-2006, 03:15 PM
Oh sure, let everyone carry weapons, then all those "wolves in sheeps clothing" can really massacre all us "dumb sheep" baa, baa

michaelbane
07-14-2006, 03:30 PM
In the states that allow people to carry concealed weapons, violent crime dropped. That is because criminals were afraid to confront potentially armed victims. Criminals did not respond by arming themselves better than the victims. It's reasonable to assume the same effect would occur with law abiding passengers.

MarkHkg
07-14-2006, 07:39 PM
Michael,
I think we would all appreciate some sources when you quote the relation with crime and concealed carry. A 10 second search on Google revealed this statement from the Brady Campaign:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

(Carrying of concealed weapons = CCW)

"A 1999 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence), using FBI crime statistics, demonstrated that liberalizing CCW laws may have an adverse effect on a state's crime rate. Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period. (Click here to see the study, Concealed Truth.) Clearly, states with stricter CCW laws have found more effective ways to reduce their crime rates than letting more people carry hidden handguns."

michaelbane
07-14-2006, 08:19 PM
John Lott has written several books on the ineffectiveness of gun gontrol. His groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime, documents his academic research on how allowing people to carry concealed weapons reduces crime rates. His website is www.johnrlott.com.

Now let's look at what the Brady Campaign says. In their own report, the best they can do is say that violent crime dropped less in states that have strict gun laws. That means violent crime still dropped. It didn't increase, which is what all the naysayers predicted would happen each time a state liberalized their concealed weapons laws. Now, faced with their predictions being disproven, the best the Brady Bunch can do is change their tune and try to claim that since the drop in crime wasn't larger, it proves that concealed carry isn't effective. That argument simply doesn't hold water.

The data the Brady Campaign used is also suspect, because they only covered 1992-1998. Several states relaxed their concealed carry laws before and after those years.

Here's some more links to online commentaries on why the Brady Campaign isn't credible:

http://guncontrolpolicy.com/commentary/5.html

http://www.gunowners.org/op0433.htm

I would suggest you also research Gary Kleck, Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University He wrote How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?, among other publications. In response, Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.) [/i]

michaelbane
07-14-2006, 11:11 PM
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf