In wake of the terrorist acts, many have suggested ideas such as arming pilots or placing armed guards upon flights, both which are long overdue given their successful implementation in high-risk areas such as Israel.

However, this idea is in fact a critical proof of principle that many have yet to realize – that guns in the right hands are in fact a legitimate safeguard against individuals that would use force and terror to achieve their ends.

With armed pilots, the premise is obvious: The controlled presence of a gun in a secure area gives the pilot(s) an incredible advantage over the tactics left to would-be attackers in such an area.

But why should we stop this line of reasoning in airports?

For instance, with the growing trend of metal detectors and other security features being placed into schools, these places are becoming their own controlled areas.

Why then do we deny those who are responsible for ensuring order in our schools – principals and other administrators – the basic tactical advantage over would-be attackers? Just as in the case with pilots, a well-trained, armed individual in the right place at the right time can save many lives.

Some would find this example contentious, citing a school shooting is dissimilar to the case of a hijacked plane.

However, while a plane is a completely geographically isolated location, a school may as well be until proper law enforcement authorities arrive – making it virtually synonymous at these critical moments. Further, both are relatively “secure” areas – the presence of weapons is explicitly banned. Finally, there is the argument that a school is a much more spread-out location than a plane – however this is irrelevant if your attacker is controlling a localized area.

All this is a simple extension of a basic principle – the ability to fend off attacks by tyrants (criminals, terrorists, etc) by the measured use of force is a crucial means of securing freedom.

Given the fact box cutters and knives indirectly managed to end over 6,000 lives, perhaps it’s time to realize guns are in fact not the problem, but part of the solution.

Too often has the argument been made that gun ownership is an “unnecessary” freedom – in essence, a luxury. This runs against the architecture of liberty in our nation. We live in a Lockean state – essentially we are governed under the premise that we begin with absolute freedom and restrict such only as it is vitally necessary to maintain the rights of all individuals.

To suggest freedoms are somehow “disposable” or otherwise mitigated by necessity would run counter to this principle; it essentially would begin with the assumption that we have no liberty to begin with, thus the only rights granted are those as seen “necessary” by the state. The Constitution, especially within its explicit checks upon governmental power, negates this idea.

Thus any argument about the right to bear arms and its appropriate context is not one of, “Do people need this right?” but rather, “Under what circumstances is it critical to restrict this in order to protect peoples’ rights?”

While it may seem like semantics, it is an acute distinction – the burden of proof shifts from those who advocate our right to defend ourselves with force to those who would restrict that right. The question becomes one of, “Under what circumstances is it absolutely necessary to restrict the legitimate ownership of firearms?”

There are legitimate circumstances – but these are to be contrasted to the clear benefit that private gun ownership presents to society.

In the book “More Guns, Less Crime,” economist John Lott carried out one of the most comprehensive reviews of FBI crime statistics concerning violent crime and its links to gun laws, gun ownership, and other such factors.

Even after normalizing for conditions such as poverty, population and geography, Lott still manages to show a clear causality between more liberalized carry laws and drops in violent crimes – hence the title.

Arming pilots should be a simple proof of principle in this case – the operating principle being that private citizens are the best line of defense against all forms of tyrants – be they terrorists, dictators, or common criminals.

Now imagine that – well-trained individuals carrying weapons to fend off those who would initiate force or coercion to achieve their ends. It almost reminds me of a quote:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps the founding fathers actually knew what they were talking about on this one.

Steve Skutnik is a senior in physics from Palm Harbor, Fl. Charlton Heston is his president.