Keep the friendly skies free of guns (XXX PUKE ALERT)

The Commercial Appeal ^ | 9/8/02 | unsigned

[GailA]

Editorial 9/08: Keep the friendly skies free of guns

September 8, 2002

A LOPSIDED Senate majority favors the idea, but there is still time to reconsider arming airline pilots - a move that would give some Americans a false sense of security and give others second thoughts about flying.

Ideological arguments, fueled by lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association, clearly prevailed last week when the Senate voted 87-6 to allow more than 85,000 passenger and cargo airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.

The proposal essentially would force airlines to allow pilots to carry guns if they wished to do so, but only after they underwent appropriate training.

Rules against the practice were in place long before 1987, when pilots were first required to pass through metal detectors. Prior to that time, pilots who felt more secure with a firearm had to secretly pack guns in their flight bags.

Because of the suicidal nature of last September's terrorist hijackings, pilots say they can no longer depend on their wits to get them through a hijacking incident. They need a weapon.

One of the dangers in accepting this approach is that it could lead to complaisance in much more important areas.

The emphasis now should be on the fortification of cockpit doors and the installation of security enhancing equipment, such as video cameras that would permit occupants of the cockpit to see what is going on immediately to the rear.

Another problem is, simply, the introduction of guns into the environment.

Allowing pilots to carry guns tells would-be hijackers where a weapon can be obtained in-flight. And police annals are filled with accounts of officers killed with their own weapons or bystanders shot with guns wrestled away from overpowered officers.

The assailant in an airplane doesn't have to be a hijacker. As every police officer knows, a drunk or deranged person represents a serious threat if he or she manages to snatch a sidearm from its holster.

Carrying a gun gives pilots one more thing to worry about and protect. It is a distracting presence that could interfere with the operation of a large, sophisticated piece of machinery and endanger lives.

But the idea has now been approved by the House and Senate, in both cases in the form of an amendment to bills that would create a Department of Homeland Security, and in both cases by significant, veto-proof margins.

There are differences in the two versions of the Homeland Security bill that are not likely to be resolved for weeks, however, and that leaves time to consider the ramifications of arming pilots.

Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), arguing for the bill, cited the 1994 incident in which FedEx pilot Auburn Calloway, riding as a "jump-seat" passenger, attacked the crew of a FedEx DC10 with a hammer after takeoff in Memphis.

Would the Calloway attack have had a better resolution if one or more of the pilots had been carrying a sidearm when Calloway launched his surprise attack in the cockpit? Or would things have turned out worse?

Arming pilots would come with an expensive training program - apparently to be borne by taxpayers, as the Senate bill specifies that neither the airlines nor the pilots can be charged for the training or equipment.

The Transportation Security Administration and the airlines have registered their opposition to the move. TSA director John Magaw has been more open to the idea of pilots and crew members carrying nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns or collapsible metal batons.

The idea of arming pilots with guns is considered "ill-advised" by Frederick W. Smith, chair man and chief executive officer of FedEx Corp., who joined Northwest Airlines CEO Richard Anderson and 19 other airline executives who outlined their concerns in a letter to senators last week.

As a spokesman for the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants put it, before that organization reversed its position on the issue: "A gun locked up behind a reinforced door does nothing to protect people in the cabin."

[Lazamataz]

Memphis, Tennesee has a newspaper that is alarmingly leftist in its positions.....

........ who'da thunkit.

[Puppage]

Carrying a gun gives pilots one more thing to worry about and protect. It is a distracting presence that could interfere with the operation of a large, sophisticated piece of machinery and endanger lives.

Then, if this is true....will someone PLEASE tell me why there are Fire Extinquishers in the cockpit? Because if they're too busy fying a plane, and can't use a gun to thwart a hijacker at the same time..surely they don't have the ability to fly a plane & put out a fire either. So, WHY ARE THERE FIRE EXTINQUISHERS IN THE COCKPIT?

[Joe Bonforte]

Anybody opposing guns in the cockpit for such nonsense reasons fails to understand one of the most important axioms of violence, and that's this:

The more uncertain a potential aggressor is of being successful, the less likely it is that they will commit aggression.

This explains everything from why CCW laws deter crime to why alliances deter wars. It's a simple fact of human nature to avoid doing things in which (1) you are putting your entire existence at risk, and (2) there are factors beyond your control that dramatically increase the risk of failure of achieving your goal. The main purpose of arming pilots is to put more uncertainly factors into play that are beyond the control of a highjacker.

Only an utterly incompetent highjacker would ever plan to take over a plane by stealing a pilot's gun. He doesn't know (1) whether the pilot even has one, (2) where it's kept, (3) whether other armed pilots will shoot him as soon as he gets it, etc. etc.

A highjacker may be completely prepared to sacrifice his life kamikaze style, but not for nothing! He wants to go out in a blaze of glory, not as another armed defense statistic.

Anyone who claims the danger is increased by armed pilots is failing to take any of this into account, and is obviously unqualified to judge risk in the real world.

[Leisler]

"Carrying a gun gives pilots one more thing to worry about and protect. It is a distracting presence that could interfere with the operation of a large, sophisticated piece of machinery and endanger lives. "

Well, now that I have heard from Mr. Limpwrist Milquetoast (Expert-at-Large), I agree.
All Marine Corps fighter pilots, Army Blackhawk pilots, Air Force Pilots please turn in your sidearms. Yes, I know you have been carrying them for nearly 100 years without incident. That you have been doing this through the flack of Nazi Germany, or dive-bombing Imperial Japanese aircraft carriers in the middle of the shark infested Pacific. Surly, while dodging telephone pole size, homing missiles over North Vietnam , Thud pilots must of said it would be easy if it wasn't for that pistol; But a liberal/leftist has spoken and that outweighs practical experiences. < sarcasm very not off >

[RogueIsland]

Wow. This sounds like someone who pees himself at the sight of a firearm. Sad.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Not only is it lazy reporting but it implies that police officers would be safer without firearms...even the average idiotic liberal wouldn't agree with this.

[MainFrame65]

To the editor, Commercial Appeal:

In the decades that I have read - and occasionally, commented upon - editorial opinion in this newspaper, I cannot recall a more perverse and wrongheaded opinion than your Sunday lead, "Keep the friendly skies free of guns". Other than the few general facts presented, plus the quotations and their attributions, you are wrong in every particular, in every recommendation, and in every conclusion you draw. You, not your opponents, rely on emotion and ideology for your arguments. Congress would not have acted as it did without overwhelming public support for the policy, and the NRA, while supportive,
had little to do with it.

The opponents quoted - every one of them, including Fred Smith - have a parochial interest in keeping pilots disarmed. As a former pilot, Mr. Smith ought to be ashamed of himself. He and the rest of the airline executives just don't want to surrender any of their authority, even to save their airplanes and crew.

Remember the twisted reason for the hijackings - to take control of the plane in order to transform it into a missile raining death on the ground. The crew MUST win any battle for the cockpit, and reinforced doors might delay, but cannot prevent penetration. The armed cockpit crew is the last possible line of defense short of an F16, a solution beyond all hope. And as for distraction, being dead certainly interferes with concentrating on flight protocols.

Every commercial flight has at least a pilot and a copilot, and may include a navigator. An equal level of coverage from air marshals would require more of them than the FBI has agents, each one on the federal payroll, occupying an unbought seat, and carrying a gun IN THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. Would they try to protect the passengers? Probably, but that would mark them as a weapon source. And how safe are the passengers after that? Armed federal, state, and local officers fly all the time, IN THE CABIN. Pilot's guns would ALWAYS be in the cockpit. New guns in the wrong place? Idiotic.

Much has been said about so-called nonlethal weapons. These are unreliable, defeatable by various means, and actually dangerous in a cockpit full of sensitive electronic equipment. But they might be appropriate for the cabin crew, where their capture would not give advantage to a hijacker.

Finally, some ridiculous numbers have been advanced for the cost of the program. Pilots already know the aircraft and flight procedures. Most of the pilots are current or former military, and are already adept with firearms. Since they would NOT leave the cockpit, little additional training would be required. Even for the neophyte, the number quoted is several times a realistic amount.

You seem to believe that because an editorial is opinion, you are free to say anything, no matter how poorly conceived. But you really owe your readers reasoned argument, not emotional claptrap selectively culled from your ideological soulmates. That is a serious abdication of responsibility.

[muir_redwoods]

Ummm, Hello? This is an article about some Americans exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment. In this instance the Americans in question are responding to a documented and proven threat. Their exercise of their rights has the side benefit of protecting others.

And for the record, when I'm armed, there is one LESS thing for me to worry about.

[spqrzilla9]

In fact, I read both the American Rifleman and the NRA website. I also get the ALPA newsletters. Now the issue is which are doing the reporting and which are doing the lobbying. The ALPA has been doing a lot of lobbying.

[GailA]

The commie appeal is VERY LEFTIST...anti-gun, pro-income tax, anti-GOP unless it's jumping jim or mcnasty.

[Shooter 2.5]

I don't doubt that ALPA, pilots, attendents, NRA, SAF, SAS, Citizen's Committee, GOA and all the rest are doing what they can to arm the pilots.

[dighton]

Good one.

[MainFrame65]

GailA - thanks for your efficient coverage of Tennessee newspapers. You don't miss much of importance (none at all that I could testify to!)

Yesterday the CA did publish most of the letter (post #27) that I included in this thread, along with a number of other very critical letters about their puerile editorial. They left out the paragraph about Fred Smith, the local business hero who founded Federal Express, but surprisingly did include the opening and closing paragraphs, which were highly critical of the paper itself. Not much, but be we slipped in a few words for the opposition.