Do Accidents Require Banning Freedom?

This article that I'm copying and pasting here needs to be heard. The cry for increasing restrictions on light airplanes is ludicrous. Accidents happen - why does every accident in aviation produce a public clamor for a loss of freedom. So now we want to ban all light aircraft operating over cities? What does that actually accomplish? Terrorists have all kinds of methods for inflicting harm, why ban just the airplanes?

Again, typical - the politician just uses any public "move" for an opportunity to remove freedom. Why, oh why do they always want to take away freedom?! Do they have no other option? Do they have no solution to any problem except by banning something? I am so sick of it!

So here is that article:

Enough is enough
Mayor Daley's latest rants have sent me
over the edge. He used the accident in New York to once again demand a no-fly
zone over downtown Chicago for general aviation aircraft.
It was expected,
of course. He has an irrational hatred for piston-engine aircraft, as evidenced
by his illogical tirade this week. "They should not jeopardize, through
intentionally or by accident, a single- or two-engine plane flying over our city
[sic]," the Meigs Field destroyer exploded at a press conference. (I don't think
he was including Boeing 737s, 757s, and 767s in his list of twin-engine
aircraft.) "Remember: a single- or two-engine plane can kill as many people as
possible if they want to."
And if it were just Daley, I'd ignore his ravings,
just as the folks in the federal government in charge of security and airspace
But it's not just him. Other politicians (with the spectacular and
notable exception of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) and self-appointed
"experts" are jumping on the tragic accident — repeat, accident — in New York to
sound off again about the "danger" of light aircraft, and how they must be
regulated, restricted, banned.
OK, for all of those ranting about "threats"
from GA aircraft, we'll believe that you're really serious about controlling
"threats" when you call for:
Banning all vans within cities. A small panel
van was used in the first World Trade Center attack. The bomb, which weighed
1,500 pounds, killed six and injured 1,042.
Banning all box trucks from
cities. Timothy McVeigh's rented Ryder truck carried a 5,000-pound bomb that
killed 168 in Oklahoma City.
Banning all semi-trailer trucks. They can carry
bombs weighing more than 50,000 pounds.
Banning newspapers on subways.
That's how the terrorists hid packages of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway
system. They killed 12.
Banning backpacks on all buses and subways. That's
how the terrorists got the bombs into the London subway system. They killed 52.
Banning all cell phones on trains. That's how they detonated the bombs in
backpacks placed on commuter trains in Madrid. They killed 191.
Banning all
small pleasure boats on public waterways. That's how terrorists attacked the USS
Cole, killing 17.
Banning all heavy or bulky clothing in all public places.
That's how suicide bombers hide their murderous charges. Thousands killed.
Number of people killed by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
Number of people injured by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
Property damage from a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
So Mr. Mayor (and Mr. Governor, Ms. Senator, Mr. Congressman, and Mr.
"Expert"), if you're truly serious about "protecting" the public, advocate all
of the bans I've listed above. Using the "logic" you apply to general aviation
aircraft, you're forced to conclude that newspapers, winter coats, cell phones,
backpacks, trucks, and boats all pose much greater risks to the public.
So be
consistent in your logic. If you are dead set on restricting a personal
transportation system that carries more passengers than any single airline,
reaches more American cities than all the airlines combined, provides employment
for 1.3 million American citizens and $160 billion in business "to protect the
public," then restrict or control every other transportation system that the
terrorists have demonstrated they can use to kill.
If you're not willing to
be consistent, then we might think that you're pandering to uninformed public
fears, posturing from the soapbox of demagoguery, screaming security for your
own political ends.

Technorati Tags: , ,

1 comment:

Matthew C. Keegan said...

I couldn't agree more! As a Christian, I also see that the government is always trying to remedy the human condition through various laws, acts, and regulations. Gee, don't accidents happen?!

General aviation is one of the safest modes of transportation around. Leave it to the press to pull something out of whack and our politicians to jump on every accident or incident as one more way to "protect" people from harm.

Good to see another aviation believer! Corporate F/A Dispatch