That HAS to be it. My editorial last week, "I'm Bored," in which I described a gun violence test where the gun wouldn't cooperate was in error. To recap, I set my gun, a Glock 17, on a table and waited for it to get violent. It wouldn't. I even supplied some hate literature and alcohol, key components in many violent acts, but the damn gun just wouldn't do anything! I obviously own a faulty gun, perhaps one that has Attention Deficit Disorder, Alzheimer's Disease, or some other ailment that stopped the gun from living up to its full potential of violence. Perhaps someone has been dosing it with Prozac or Ritalin when I'm not around. Or maybe it's in love with my old.300 Savage. We all know what love can do to you. What leads me to this observation? Just look at what that gun on board the Delta flight was able to accomplish! Now THAT is a weapon! Consider this Associated Press excerpt from the Washington Post:
"NORFOLK, Va. -- A passenger found a loaded gun in a bathroom sink on a Delta Express flight Monday, forcing the plane to be diverted to Norfolk, authorities said. The gun was found about 10 minutes after Flight 2395 left Islip, N.Y., for Orlando, Fla. The plane landed in Norfolk less than an hour later. "
Wow.
I'm impressed. My gun hasn't been able to get me, or anyone else for that matter, to do anything. It hasn't even TRIED. Yet here is a weapon that "forces" an entire airplane to Norfolk!
At first, I thought it was funny that it took an HOUR for the plane to land, oops, for the pilots to land the plane. Why didn't the plane turn around, OOPS, the pilots turn the plane around and land where they took off?
But after further consideration, I realized the facts: the gun HIJACKED the plane to Norfolk! It took the hour for intense negotiations between the gun, the FAA, and airline representatives to agree to let the gun go to Norfolk in exchange for not killing any passengers. Obviously, a much more talented and experienced gun then the one I used in my test. My gun should be jealous. Or ashamed, at least.
OK, so I'm a little fuzzy on details. Why anyone, even a gun, would WANT to go to Norfolk is beyond me. My guess is the gun was after something better, like maybe Duluth, but had to settle for Norfolk. Someone should have mentioned Spring Break to the gun; with all those drunk teenagers, I'd bet the gun would have insisted on going on to Orlando. What self-respecting gun would pass up the opportunity for a little violence with some drunk, scantily-clad teens? Or perhaps the gun just wanted to get out of Islip, NY. I can buy that. The waiting list to leave must be huge. And how the gun managed to buy a ticket, get past airport security, and board the plane without being challenged isn't quite clear. Perhaps it simply disguised itself as an innocuous smoke detector and convinced an unsuspecting maintenance worker to take it aboard the plane. That would explain why it was hiding in the bathroom; it's where all the smoke detectors hide on planes. Or maybe it disguised itself as a kilo of cocaine. That would get it anywhere on a Delta plane. In any case, a damn "smart gun."
I propose a prolonged FAA investigation into the entire affair. We MUST stop these "smart guns" before they strike again! They're probably plotting against Air Force One as I write. To Arms! Or rather, To Unarms! Underarms? No arms? Whatever.
Then again, perhaps it was an (how should I say it?) intellectually challenged hijacker who got confused on where the pilots sat. Upon entering the bathroom, and seeing no humans present, he panicked at the thought of the toilet flying the plane and gave up, discarding the gun in hopes that maybe it could talk to the toilet. But I must discard this scenario: it requires us to accept that there was a human behind the gun. And we know better, right? Besides, what hijack demands can you make on a crapper? Now, let's take a two paragraph detour to reality. Bear with me, please.
A friend of my wife has somewhat strange, though commonly accepted, ideas about guns. She's completely against them, and refuses to let her daughter watch TV shows where guns are used. I've tried to talk to her about the whole gun issue, but she doesn't want to discuss it. When it's pointed out that guns are inert objects that are useless without a human behind it, she just blanks out and insists that the subject be dropped. She's already made up her mind, or rather has had it made up for her, and she doesn't want to rationally examine the issue.
What's sad is she's not stupid. She works hard to support herself and her daughter, but won't take any time out to explore the issues. I've asked how she feels (it's all based on feelings, not rational thought) about knifes, forks, heavy ladles, boiling water, bats (the non-flying kind), hammers, axes, screwdrivers, garden tools, cars and other implements of destruction, and she challenges me to explain why those objets are dangerous. She recognizes that none of those items are dangerous in themselves; the danger only arises when a human being gets behind them. But her understanding disappears when it comes to guns. To her, they're just dangerous, period.
Enough with reality. Given the talented gun that hijacked the Delta flight, maybe she's correct. Any guesses on whether the plane and the gun were in cahoots? It's clear that the gun WANTED to be violent, but has anyone questioned what the plane might have wanted in all this? Something that should be checked out. Can't trust those inanimate objects. They'll get you every time.
 |
|
|
|
 |
